2050 Temperature Spike - It's Human Caused!

This made my day. Sorry I click-baited everyone with this title.

insideclimatenews.org...

At first I thought, "Oh good, another retired NASA scientist is going to falsely attribute a rapid rise the past few years to something".

In an irony of climate change, the scientists said the sudden surge of warming—especially since 2010—is driven mainly by steep reduction of climate-cooling sulfate aerosol particles in the past 10 to 20 years, as new regulations limited emissions from the biggest sources, including the burning of coal and heavy ship fuels.

Holy crap, it makes sense!

See, we need those aerosols to combat global warming! The things we banned for ripping a hole in the ozone (among other things) actually did some volcanic things, who would have guessed?

I'm wondering if you can parallel the reduction in sulfate emissions perfectly with the rise in temperature? Burning coal produces over 40× more sulfur dioxide than it does carbon dioxide. Even in personal units.

Compared with natural gas units, coal-fired units produced over 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, twice as much carbon dioxide and over five times as much nitrogen oxides per unit of electricity, largely because coal contains more sulfur and carbon than natural gas.

So where has sulfur dioxide been? Why has aerosol cooling been overlooked? And what if coal is the counterintuitive reason behind all this data variance showing an incontrovertible sharp rise in temperatures since 2010? Or the missing piece all along?

Maybe it's like that time we killed all the gray wolves and were overrun by deer. Totally something humans would do. Roads to hell and intention.

So next time it's a blistering 95 degree 90% humidity day somewhere out East you can thank emission reduction for the sauna-like conditions being more common.

Save The Earth from global warming, BRING BACK COAL FIRED POWER TODAY! If proven, which intuition says it will be, clean energy contributes to global warming by pivoting nations away from dirty old coal. You want to stop the ice caps melting? Burn coal.

Irony is fun.

My own thoughts:

Earth is a dynamo in and of itself. A complex massive interdependent thing, like a superorgamism, also capable of adaptation. It's adapted to million year long flood volcanism events and the resulting anoxic oceans. The sudden change (reduction) in what it had gotten used to screwed it up more than anything else. I honestly believe this wild climate is a product of a sudden attempt of being mindful of what we do to it.

Late addition:

They falsely attributed the accelerating rise in temperature to Co2 all along. They overlooked the deemphasis on coal since the 70's and failed to correlate the accelerated rate of coal deemphasis to a proportional rise in temperature. They knew they were doing something, sacrificed cooling to go after warming, and unintentionally accelerated it.

a reply to: Degradation33

Now they'll want funding for another 20 year "study" on climate change.

Gotta keep that money train rollin'.

a reply to: DAVID64

I want to use this to start a new conspiracy with lizard people. Where Al Gore is an alien or alien pawn for some Draconian lizard planet that needed to help trick humanity into making Earth more hospitable to lizard people, with the heat rocks and such. They're using the left to literally climatize Earth.

a reply to: Degradation33

LIZZAD PEEPLE !!

** Fallacy Clarification **

Natural gas emits nearly a 1:1 ratio of Co2 and So2 when burned. 117 lbs for every 100 lbs respectively. I used that as a baseline in a comparison for how burning coal puts out way more cooling agents than warming agents. "40x" is around 25% exaggerated.

Also worth noting in addendum is 90% of this 1.1° C of warming has occurred since 1975. All that makes it fall outside negligible range has happened since 1975. Not 1850. Not post industrial as much as post environmentalism.

The majority has occurred since about the time when coal began being substituted for cleaner burning options.

originally posted by: Degradation33
** Fallacy Clarification **

Natural gas emits nearly a 1:1 ratio of Co2 and So2 when burned. 117 lbs for every 100 lbs respectively. I used that as a baseline in a comparison for how burning coal puts out way more cooling agents than warming agents. "40x" is around 25% exaggerated.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

The national standard for pipeline natural gas is no more than .46 grams of total sulfur per cubic meter of natural gas:

www.e-education.psu.edu...

One standard cubic meter of natural gas weighs 680 grams:

www.plinovodi.si...#:~:text=Natural%20gas%20is%20lighter%20than,595%20and%20630% 20°C.

.46 grams divided by 680 grams is about 1 part of Sulfur in 1478 parts natural gas, by weight.

Most of the Sulfur in natural gas is removed at the wellhead and turned into valuable industrial products like elemental Sulfur and Sulfuric acid before the gas is put into the pipeline.

Coal as mined can have up to 5% Sulfur by weight, but Sulfur emissions from coal burning power plants have been regulated for at least 40 years in the US. The total amount of Sulfur emissions released into the air allowed from coal power plants was capped at around 9 million tons in 2010:

www.epa.gov...#:~:text=The%20Acid%20Rain%20Program%20(ARP,rain%2C%20from%20the%20power%20sector.

By contrast, we burn about 550 million tons of coal per year, so the Carbon outweighs the Sulfur by a factor of 60 or so. Most of the Sulfur in coal burning plants is removed by flue gas desulfurization.

Ocean going vessels don't remove the Sulfur from the Heavy Fuel Oil that they burn and the Sulfur content of HFO can be up to 5% by mass, so burning HFO puts a lot more Sulfur into the air than an equivalent entry content of natural gas or coal.

Instead of blaming humans, or industry, or farting cows for climate change, I think we just need to learn to flow with it. It's been happening with or without us for untold millions of years and will continue to do so. Think of all the industries, technology, jobs, careers, and unknown discoveries that will result from dealing with climate change. It's not just a problem, it's opportunities.

originally posted by: Degradation33
This made my day. Sorry I click-baited everyone with this title.

insideclimatenews.org...

At first I thought, "Oh good, another retired NASA scientist is going to falsely attribute a rapid rise the past few years to something".

In an irony of climate change, the scientists said the sudden surge of warming—especially since 2010—is driven mainly by steep reduction of climate-cooling sulfate aerosol particles in the past 10 to 20 years, as new regulations limited emissions from the biggest sources, including the burning of coal and heavy ship fuels.

Holy crap, it makes sense!

See, we need those aerosols to combat global warming! The things we banned for ripping a hole in the ozone (among other things) actually did some volcanic things, who would have guessed?

I'm wondering if you can parallel the reduction in sulfate emissions perfectly with the rise in temperature? Burning coal produces over 40× more sulfur dioxide than it does carbon dioxide. Even in personal units.

Compared with natural gas units, coal-fired units produced over 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, twice as much carbon dioxide and over five times as much nitrogen oxides per unit of electricity, largely because coal contains more sulfur and carbon than natural gas.

So where has sulfur dioxide been? Why has aerosol cooling been overlooked? And what if coal is the counterintuitive reason behind all this data variance showing an incontrovertible sharp rise in temperatures since 2010? Or the missing piece all along?

Maybe it's like that time we killed all the gray wolves and were overrun by deer. Totally something humans would do. Roads to hell and intention.

So next time it's a blistering 95 degree 90% humidity day somewhere out East you can thank emission reduction for the sauna-like conditions being more common.

Save The Earth from global warming, BRING BACK COAL FIRED POWER TODAY! If proven, which intuition says it will be, clean energy contributes to global warming by pivoting nations away from dirty old coal. You want to stop the ice caps melting? Burn coal.

Irony is fun.

My own thoughts:

Earth is a dynamo in and of itself. A complex massive interdependent thing, like a superorgamism, also capable of adaptation. It's adapted to million year long flood volcanism events and the resulting anoxic oceans. The sudden change (reduction) in what it had gotten used to screwed it up more than anything else. I honestly believe this wild climate is a product of a sudden attempt of being mindful of what we do to it.

Late addition:

They falsely attributed the accelerating rise in temperature to Co2 all along. They overlooked the deemphasis on coal since the 70's and failed to correlate the accelerated rate of coal deemphasis to a proportional rise in temperature. They knew they were doing something, sacrificed cooling to go after warming, and unintentionally accelerated it.

We live & we die , end of story .

a reply to: 1947boomer

S#! I rushed to clear up a fallacy and did math wrong. I didn't pay attention to something. One was per KWh and one was GWh. When you confuse those two, and then look at a reference in lbs per million BTU's (and try to convert that and put it in pounds), which further screws it up, it comes out 1 to 1 somehow. I honestly didn't catch the 66:5 ratio of carbon to sulfur in bituminous coal doesn't exactly line up... sigh.

You are correct, it's not even close on natural gas or coal, but I was just trying to use that as a reference for how going after coal (specifically SO2) has removed something preventing warming from the environment.

40+ years of noticeable warming still lines up well with 40+ years of sulfur regulation and moves against coal. I think there's something there. It seems like the act of trying to clean up starting 4 decades or so ago has done more than the emissions they are trying to remove. To an equal (maybe even greater) degree you can line up a 1.1 degree increase with sulfate reduction/repurposing since the 70's, as you can with greenhouse emissions since the "1850's".

As far as the disputed point. Messed up conversions. Honest mistake. I don't think that detracts that SO2 regulation has been an overlooked culprit. And the further move totally away from coal has accelerated it.

Better conversion (done by internet instead):

Per 1 kg of coal = 2.42 kg CO2
Per 1 kg of coal = .1 kg SO2 @ 5.15% S

Once again. Sorry for screwed up conversions.

Still, amend this to say the removal of a much smaller amount of Sulfur was still enough to tip the scales. That way I can defend the overall of this.

There's a missing piece here, not greenhouse, I think it's Sulfur.

Thank god for China. We need to burn more coal and release more co2.

Plant life suffocates at 150 parts per million co2 in the atmosphere. We are up to 400 part per million.

Plant life produces their maximum growth levels at about 1000 parts per million co2.

Lets get it up to 1000 part per million then we will enjoy bountiful plant life.

Faster growing trees and vegetation, crops, etc.

As time goes on Earths atmospheric co2 levels keep dropping lower and lower.

I wont be happy until we have 1000 parts per million atmospheric co2.

The majority of the warming is done in the first 150 parts per million when it comes to greenhouse gas warming.

Low co2 levels = low plant life, colder environment.

How is this unsurprising? Everything the criminal elite whine about are the very problems they create. Their solutions are always to worsen these problems so they can whine about it more later. Whether it's entirely deliberate or not, I've noticed this pattern for some time now.

originally posted by: KnightSeeker
Instead of blaming humans, or industry, or farting cows for climate change, I think we just need to learn to flow with it. It's been happening with or without us for untold millions of years and will continue to do so. Think of all the industries, technology, jobs, careers, and unknown discoveries that will result from dealing with climate change. It's not just a problem, it's opportunities.

But we are sofaking amazing we can totally control all of this. If we just shuffle some money around, and make the unpleasant things happen in different parts of the world, our "global" climate will be controlled by us. yea, we are really that amazing.

a reply to: Degradation33

Global warming is caused by the layers of chemtrails laid down causing a man made cloud layer…. This thin cloud layer has a blanket/greenhouse effect.
It IS NOT caused by normal human living.

Basically, the deep state is causing global warming though it’s weather modification programs and then using the created extreme weather to take away our constitutional rights and bankrupt farmers…. Btw, didn’t I see an article about 5 to 7 years ago in popular science where bill gates was gonna fund these weather modification programs? And now he is one of the largest land owners after buying up all the bankrupted farmers land?

It shouldn’t be rocket science to see what’s going on.

SO2 is also associated with acid rain, unfortunately. The forests were decimated by it when I was young.

Personally I get the feeling that much of the weather issues we see are actually weather modification weapons. It was mentioned once in an interview I saw, only fleetingly. It seems that this is one of the biggest fears govts have. Remember HAARP? Heating up the ionosphere?

a reply to: Missterious

This is a lot of assumption and a lot of drawing parallels.

It's just hard not to, and that's what everyone else is doing anyway.

It was around the time they realized the acid rain had become a problem to Eastern North American forests and started scrubbing the sulfur to prevent acid rain (among other things) that all of a sudden the temperature began rising above negligible range. Beyond expected for a warning period that could be coincidental.

Before the 70's, Catalytic converters, EPA, and political environmentalism, the problems were smog, health problems, and dying trees. Not warming. More regional effects too.

Then we cleaned up the air and it started warming.

Granted LA went from 200+ harmful airs days to 15, but Southern California just experienced its hottest decade in recorded history. So it was pretty much a trade off that was already set decades before Al Gore's "manbearpig" unintentionally made it far worse.

It was too late to stop "screwing up" the climate (which is well accustomed to dealing with obscene amounts of carbon and sulfur) by the time LA was disgusting and trees in Quebec were dying.

* The planet (as a whole) probably responded like it would during a high volcanic activity period, but was unable to deal with additional environmental-conscious meddling after we realized what was happening. Idea being, the more "naturally" we let the coal and petroleum burn the less likely we are to screw up the weather any more than volcanism. Start giving the emissions an unnatural balance of far less cooling ones and some warming ones, and watch it go.



Look at the chart in 25 year increments. I like ones that don't deceptively make CO2 emissions look massively accelerated so it can line up with temperature.



Take a chart like this, cut off the first 10 years, sandwich 0-10 into a single bar of data, and now you can match it with temperature.

Yet, if you overlay that temperature with Sulfur Dioxide emissions the curve downward of Sulfur emissions mirrors the curve up of temperature. They actually line up without deception. And since the entirely of Paris Accords are based on lining up charts, I figured they could at least find two that actually line up.

www.statista.com... (couldn't find chart)

Now you can insert the temperature one:



This doesn't require you to accept the planet hits a "magic threshold" where humans put to much into the air, and all of a sudden the environment goes out of control. The snowball earth trigger in reverse at an absurdly low tipping point, as compared to its snowball counterpart.

It's the missing catalyst for the majority or the heating that has occurred since the 1970's. No magic doom benchmarks needed.

It's as circumstantial as lining up global warming with CO2, but actually reflects climate data more precisely.

Had course not been changed, we'd have traded off heat for smog, health problems, and dying trees. Hell, we might be talking about global cooling had acid rain and smog not become such an acted on political issue.

It's mostly a scam. Like an impatient ADHD kid doing a level 3 model that just keeps making it worse and worse trying to hastily fix a cascade of impulsive mistakes.

a reply to: Degradation33

Dr. Valentina Zharkova already warned of a Grand Solar Minimum starting in 2020, and effects that will be felt starting around 2024. The last one led to a 1.0°C to 1.5°C drop in terrestrial temps which caused lakes and rivers to freeze, long cold winters, and cool summers. It's supposed to last until 2053.

a reply to: LSU2018

I could buy that.

I honestly think the earth naturally started a micro warming trend around 1940, 150 years after the industrial revolution had began. The upward trend was consistent with natural warm period until the 1970s. When it went haywire and started exceeding the natural cycle.

Can you draw parallels with the level of CO2 and temp between 1850 and 1970? Sure. Just keep in mind the cold period between 1880 and 1940 makes it hard to line up consistently. It's like waves and troughs.

They came to erroneous conclusions through bias reading of indirect data and a belief the earth was cooling until the industrial era.

Geology tells us the ice age ended 11k years ago (peaked 20k years ago) and will likely reach its next peak in 80k years. Yet the narrative is we are cooling?

Maybe as part of a microcycle that just ended. But still, no. Logic and interglacial cycle's say there's another 25k years of warming to go If it follows all the other inter periods. Which includes MOST ICE MELTING everything.

Why would an glacial cycle NOT actually cycle?

They interpreted a micro cooling period as part of a longer trend, and extrapolated core sample data of "historic temperature" to match their idea of a long term cooling event. They may plot it as accurate as possible, but missed the possibility of shorter term cycles interspersed in their data, given a false illusion of a longer term cooling trend when actually it was warming all along. And our crappy 200 years of accurate measurements are laughable to draw conclusions from.

I think there are just little ice ages and little thermal maximums that intersperse a larger glacial 100k year cycle that has resonance with every four axial precession cycles. And on and on.

It's also a misunderstanding of statistical variance in up and down cycles by assuming a previous micro cycle will be representative or consistent with the next. Which is like going to ocean and demanding all the waves be the same height.

a reply to: Degradation33

Sulfur dioxide is a pollutant that causes breathing problems as well as forming acid rain.

What Are the Health Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Air Pollution?

Sulfur dioxide causes a range of harmful effects on the lungs, as the EPA's most recent review of the science concluded:

Wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness and other problems, especially during exercise or physical activity.

Continued exposure at high levels increases respiratory symptoms and reduces the ability of the lungs to function.

Short exposures to peak levels of SO2 in the air can make it difficult for people with asthma to breathe when they are active outdoors.

Rapid breathing during exercise helps SO2 reach the lower respiratory tract, as does breathing through the mouth.
Increased risk of hospital admissions or emergency room visits, especially among children, older adults and people with asthma.

Sulfur Dioxide Basics

What are the health effects of SO2?

Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2.

SO2 emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 in the air generally also lead to the formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx). SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution. Small particles may penetrate deeply into the lungs and in sufficient quantity can contribute to health problems.
Learn more about particulate matter

What are the environmental effects of SO2 and other sulfur oxides?

At high concentrations, gaseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth.

SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems.

Visibility

SO2 and other sulfur oxides can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form fine particles that reduce visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.

Deposition of particles can also stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments.

Do people bother doing even a modicum of research on a scientific topic before they create a thread about a matter?

You want a lot of SO2 and SOX in the air? Take a look at China.

I do, however, agree that SO2 production from fossil fuel burning should be included in climate modeling. Another that needs to be included are nitrates from fertilizer. Nitrous oxide, NO2, is a 300 times more potent greenhouse gas than Co2.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I use too much absurdity to make points sometimes.

There's nothing else to do.

This Paris Accord crap, carbon neutrality, save the environment from pollution mantra has made it more significant. The dead trees and wheezing kids were real, but the great effect we had was approached wrong.

I'm not saying coal or sulfur is a savior, I'm just saying we are going to be worse off selectively regulating those emissions. Scrub all the sulfur we can, overlook the nitrates in too small of concentration, and try to continuously reduce CO2. Has it stabilized the environment so far?

While great for clear days, the resulting imbalance that causes may be worse for global warming (and associated weather) specifically.

This argues the warming is the result of our haphazard self-regulation, so kids don't wheeze and trees don't die.

It points out the futility of the short term effort. Honestly the best solution is impact winter, volcanic winter, or nuclear winter. Like a pool needs a chlorine shock every so often, the earth needs an extinction event sometimes.

This is more "Way to go! Your attempts to stop the effects of the perpetual eruption that is utility, industry, and agriculture was so late all you did was throw gasoline on it!"

I don't deny the earth is getting warmer abnormally since around 1970-1980.
I don't deny massive amounts of pollution is being pumped out.

I'm just saying we don't know enough about the total effect to be able to fix it the way we are. And those attempts to regulate it have made it worse.

And that until the realizations of the 70's, the warming trend was not outside variance for the cooling trend (1880-1940) we just came out of. The warming trend was just a micro swing. But smog and pollution, which became a problem, led to the decisions which caused the temperature to spike beyond normal variance.

High variance in yellow.
Median variance is red.



But then again, since when are all waves the same height?

Not saying it's all really a lie, I'm saying consensus has no freaking clue what they are doing, or better yet, way overestimates their ability to fix it and "act before it's too late". It seems like a false urgency in a high pressure sales tactic to peddle the idea everyone can control it. Getting folks on board being "part of the solution"... and then collectively making it worse.

Im arguing It would be a way more polluted planet not experiencing an really abnormal temperature spike had we done nothing about it. What a trade off.

Like I said I'm my OP. I feel the superorgamism that is earth could have handled the dead trees and wheezing kids like a perpetual volcano, where is doesn't quite know what to do with the weird modified quantities of pollutants it now deals with. Sudden spikes (up/down) in quantity lead to sudden spike effects.