Study: Climate Models can Predict Life in the Year 2500

So, what if the earth is warming again? Two questions for the infamous “modelers”:

1.      How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion in a warmer climate with continued use of fossil fuels?

2.      How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion without the fossil fuels that were the reason the world populated from 1 to 8 billion in a period of about 200 years?

Why are climate models running way too hot? Could it be, that igoring surface emissivity (or being totally ignorant about it respectively) and overlaps, mainly with clouds, produce a huge error margin? And how smart do you need to be to figure out what is actually obvious? OMG..

https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster

I don’t understand the modesty to just go to 2500. Why not 3000? What is keeping them to dream that far ahead?

Don’t the 13 authors know that most of the people in India died of famine in 1974? Or at least those were the projections.

It sounds more like these people need to write fiction. Disney could use some new ideas

It will be green (Green in niche markets), warm (hospitable with recurring, irregular extremes), and viable (Baby Lives Matter despite people… persons who doth protest too much).

Following the link to the original articel on “The Conversation” I find that at the end of the text:

The climate crisis touches every aspect of life on Earth …On The Conversation, we help make the connections clear. Thanks to our global network of 90,000 experts, we have been able to show people just how intertwined the climate crisis is with the major events shaping the modern world. But to keep going, we need the support of readers.

DONATE NOW

Will de Freitas
Environment + Energy Editor

What experts is he talking about ?

How long before “The Storm Channel” or “The History Channel” adds a show based on this BS to their lineup?
I do remember after “The History Channel” stopped being about history they had a show called something like “Life after Humans”. (It had stuff like (animated) VW-sized saber toothed weasels attacking Bison-sized hamsters in a blizzard.)

In the year 3535 video – we need lyrics just for CC

Are you sure they have not got all their data backwards. I have posted the essay below before but never got a reply or any discussion. Maybe this time?

Earth’s atmosphere generates mechanical work. It raises water to high altitudes powering hydroelectric generators, while wind can blow down trees, raise waves and drive wind turbines. This is powered by thermal energy coming from the sun. The earth’s surface and atmosphere is converting thermal energy from the sun into mechanical energy which is the exact definition of a heat engine. Heat engines are very well understood, the requirements for their operation were first described by Sadi Carnot (1796-1832). 

There are 2 requirements for a heat engine which are relevant to this discussion. Firstly, 100% efficiency of conversion of thermal energy into mechanical energy is impossible. There must not only be a point in the cycle where the working fluid gains thermal energy (the hot junction) but there must also be a point in the cycle where the working fluid loses thermal energy (the cold junction). For example, in a power station the boiler is the hot junction and the cooling towers are the cold junction.

Secondly the hot junction must be at significantly higher pressure than the cold junction. The working fluid heated at the hot junction expands as it moves from the hot to cold junction doing mechanical work in the process. At the cold junction the working fluid loses energy (cools) which means it takes less mechanical energy to recompress it back to the hot junction pressure than was release in the expansion. The mechanical work done is the difference between the thermal energy absorbed at the hot junction and the thermal energy lost at the cold junction.

For the atmosphere, the hot junction is Earth’s surface where the surface, warmed by absorption of solar energy, in turn warms the atmosphere. The cold junction must be at a point of lower pressure and the only possibility is high up in the atmosphere. Since energy is conserved, losing energy means transferring it to somewhere colder (second law of thermodynamics) and for air high up in the atmosphere the only place colder is space. The only available mechanism of heat transfer in that case is by radiation in the thermal infrared (wavelengths between about 4 and 50 microns). Temperatures in our atmosphere preclude significant radiation at other wavelengths (Planks law). But, by definition, any gas capable of radiating in the thermal IR band is a greenhouse gas. That means energy loss to space and thus the existence of a cold junction relies on the presence of greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases there cannot be a cold junction and without a cold junction the heat engine that defines our weather and climate could not function. In practical terms the atmosphere warmed at the surface rises but, having risen, it needs to cool in order to descend again completing the convective loop. If there were no greenhouse gases the air could not cool and thus could not descend again.

The lapse rate in our atmosphere is created and maintained by convection. Without convection it disappears and, with, time the entire atmospheric column would end up at a uniform temperature (a vertically isothermal atmosphere). Without the air movement caused by convection there would be no wind. Water vapour also could not condense because condensation requires losing energy and without greenhouse gases there is no way for it to do so, hence no clouds would form. Without condensation the entire atmosphere would become saturated with respect to water vapour and then net evaporation would also stop. Without convection there would be nothing to raise surface dust and what dust was in the atmosphere would eventually precipitate out so the air would become extremely clear. In short, there would be no weather, no clouds, no wind, no rain no dust.  Without clouds, dust or greenhouse gases (a transparent atmosphere) the average insolation at the surface would be very similar to the insolation in near space averaged over the rotating globe ie: around 340 watts/sqM (not the current 234 watts/sqM). The surface would radiate this back out to space as close to a black body giving a global average temperature of 278K or +5C.

As an aside, it is also worth noting that when the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, heat can be transferred to the atmosphere by convection but when the surface is colder there is a temperature inversion precluding convection and thus only allowing to atmosphere to transfer heat to the surface by conduction which is extremely slow. As a result, the temperature of the atmosphere would be close to the maximum temperature of the surface not the average temperature of the surface.

While the average insolation would be 340 watts/sqM the actual insolation at any point on the surface would vary with latitude, season and time of day. In the tropics, for example, insolation would reach around 1340 watts/sqM at noon and down to of course zero at night. The actual surface temperature would vary as insolation varies, with the degree of change depending on the thermal time constant of the surface. Our own observations of just how fast beach sand or a concrete path or even dry ground heats up on a summer’s day tells us this time constant, at least on land, is very short compared to Earth’s 24 hour day – typically less than 1 hour. Thus, at 1300 watts/sqM noon tropical temperature would be close to 116C while night time temperature would be far below freezing. Away from the tropics it would not be quite as extreme but even at latitude 37, insolation at noon in summer is around 1200 watts/sqM corresponding to 110C, while in winter, insolation at noon is around 620 watts/sqM corresponding to 50C. The situation would be similar to the surface of the moon which reaches 127C during the “day” and minus 173C during the “night”. Although because the lunar day/night is longer than Earth’s (28 days vs 1 day) the result on Earth would not be quite as extreme. 

A practical example much closer to home is a closed car out in the sun. It heats up because convection and evaporation are inhibited (although not entirely suppressed), similar to the situation without the atmospheric heat engine that is our climate. The temperature inside the car can easily and rapidly rise above 70C, which is why there are laws against leaving children in closed cars.

Of course, all this is hypothetical, after all we do have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. So, is the analysis significant? Well, yes it is, because what it shows is that while the presence of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere heats the Earth from +5C to the current 14C (a 9 degree rise); it’s far more major effect is to reduce the high temperature extremes and increase the low temperature extremes. In short to significantly moderate the daily and seasonal temperature excursions, making the climate more equitable. Yet the climate models claim the incremental impact of rising greenhouse gases will have exactly the opposite impact, exacerbating the extremes.  If the incremental impact of a parameter is in the opposite direction to the total impact, it means that at some point there has to be a point of inflection, a point where the action of the parameter reverses. What would cause that for our climate and which side of the point of inflection are we currently at? Why would not the small incremental greenhouse gas impact due to rising CO2 further moderate the extreme temperatures even if it caused a small rise in “average” temperature? And would such a change really be catastrophic or even disadvantageous? Further, if the cumulative total impact of all greenhouse gases is 9C of warming and the impact is logarithmic with concentration, how could a doubling in concentration of one component which is far from the dominant component give rise to incremental warming of 3-4-5 C.