6 ms·

Global warming means more water in the air. This is both a positive feedback (water is an excellent heat trap) and negative in the form of clouds. White clouds

Global warming means more water in the air. This is both a positive feedback (water is an excellent heat trap) and negative in the form of clouds. White clouds increase the albedo of the planet, rejecting heat. Another negative feedback is the increased intake of CO2 by oceans, through difussion. Also the plankton consumes more CO2. It makes sense, think about it: if the planet didn't have negative feedbacks, absolutely any event would potentially cause a runoff through positive feedback in warmings and throw the climate out of balance. Even something like a vulcanic eruption or forest fire in the middle ages: without the negative feedback, CO2 would cause warming, which causes more water, which causes warming...there must be some serious negative feedback loops, which is why we've almost doubled the warming effect of CO2 with (so far) very small influences on the climate.

raducu 5y ago
Well, everything has negative feedback loops, otherwise the universe would exoerience a second Big Bang, right? But is that statement reasurring in any way? No, because in between the limits of those feedback loops there's enormous potential for devastation and human suffering.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  It's reassuring in the sense that I believe there is a very slim chance of runaway warming based on positive feedback loop. These levels of CO2 are pretty low on a geological scale, increases to 400-800ppm CO2 have not caused a runaway global warming a la Venus ever before. More of the Earh's life as a living planet was spent above 1000 ppm than under. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henning-Haeupler/publication/325078712/figure/fig17/AS:625014961344528@1526026587793/Global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-over-geological-time-600-mya-Aus-from-HIEB.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henning-Haeupler/public... In fact, there was a period in the past when the Earth warmed 10 degree Celsius (18 F) in 10 years, and there was no runaway global warming. There will be warming, there will be positive and negative feedbacks, we don't know for sure how big each will be. The true pity is that we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Between pollution, loss of habitat and rapid warming - we're killing off species like we're a killer meteor...and there's no coming back for the Amazon rain-forest and countless species. Once they're gone they're gone.
  - loopz 5y ago
    About higher CO2 in the past, this is covered in video about top 10 climate change myths, myth #3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      I am not sure what you're trying to tell me here. I am not doubting that CO2 drives some global warming events, which is what the video is debunking. I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while. Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? why not put it side by side with the CO2 graph? The new temp graph is basically the same, just with a higher resolution.
      - loopz 5y ago
        Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago. The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to use very old graphs outdated by the author. CO2 emissions are accellerating over time: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html The runaway effects will be from thresholds being broken, like acification of the ocean, burning of the tundra, deglacification and other events that humanity cannot influence or stop directly. https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-their-ability-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide-and-what-will-be-the-consequences?share=1 https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-thei... https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co... https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cannot-absorb-much-more-co2-4990 https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cann... While we do have negative feedback loops, lately, temperature looks to be accellerating as well: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... Netflix has this documentary that explains further, ie. why biodiversity is needed. David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet - "vision for the future" on 'how to fix' climate change : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc

raducu 5y ago

Well, everything has negative feedback loops, otherwise the universe would exoerience a second Big Bang, right? But is that statement reasurring in any way? No, because in between the limits of those feedback loops there's enormous potential for devastation and human suffering.

flavius29663 5y ago
It's reassuring in the sense that I believe there is a very slim chance of runaway warming based on positive feedback loop. These levels of CO2 are pretty low on a geological scale, increases to 400-800ppm CO2 have not caused a runaway global warming a la Venus ever before. More of the Earh's life as a living planet was spent above 1000 ppm than under. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henning-Haeupler/publication/325078712/figure/fig17/AS:625014961344528@1526026587793/Global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-over-geological-time-600-mya-Aus-from-HIEB.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henning-Haeupler/public... In fact, there was a period in the past when the Earth warmed 10 degree Celsius (18 F) in 10 years, and there was no runaway global warming. There will be warming, there will be positive and negative feedbacks, we don't know for sure how big each will be. The true pity is that we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Between pollution, loss of habitat and rapid warming - we're killing off species like we're a killer meteor...and there's no coming back for the Amazon rain-forest and countless species. Once they're gone they're gone.
- loopz 5y ago
  About higher CO2 in the past, this is covered in video about top 10 climate change myths, myth #3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    I am not sure what you're trying to tell me here. I am not doubting that CO2 drives some global warming events, which is what the video is debunking. I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while. Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? why not put it side by side with the CO2 graph? The new temp graph is basically the same, just with a higher resolution.
    - loopz 5y ago
      Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago. The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to use very old graphs outdated by the author. CO2 emissions are accellerating over time: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html The runaway effects will be from thresholds being broken, like acification of the ocean, burning of the tundra, deglacification and other events that humanity cannot influence or stop directly. https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-their-ability-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide-and-what-will-be-the-consequences?share=1 https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-thei... https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co... https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cannot-absorb-much-more-co2-4990 https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cann... While we do have negative feedback loops, lately, temperature looks to be accellerating as well: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... Netflix has this documentary that explains further, ie. why biodiversity is needed. David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet - "vision for the future" on 'how to fix' climate change : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc