Essay

Hard to say. I will not dispute that assessment as I never tried to quantify it. And yet you seem to be quantifying it with solid numbers immediately above. Maybe we have different definitions for "our heating," and where it comes from. "...from soot on ice?" I'm talking about the 'sensible' heat, shown below as the two arrows penetrating into the surface of the planet (168 on left, 324 on right), hence the 1/3 and 2/3 comment about where "our heating" comes from. *probably an out-of-date image, but from a .edu site, so it should be roughly good enough. But soot? How do you think soot contributes to our experience of slightly warmer nighttime temperatures? ~ p.s. By "our heating," I mean our climate's air temperature, as reported by weather stations, rather than some calculation of the total absorbed energy in Joules for the entire biogeosphere.

re: "then what will be ‘seen’ is just simple, chaotic, complex and above all meaningless chemical reactions." It can't be 'simple' and 'complex' at the same time ...even if it is meaningless. Chaotic isn't another synonym complex. and... re: "Despite the high level of complexity, I think there are statistical tricks to generally test whether they respond predictably, without the need to test every single reaction in detail, and without the need for extremely complex unrealistic experiments..." The predictability is associated with (or predictability is a measure of) the 'robustness" of the simple systems, such as "every single reaction in detail," but predictability can't be expected to apply as well to some "high level of complexity," which itself emerges from those simple, robust (or predictably/tightly constrained within certain/predictably measurable parameters or limits), chaotic (but only chaotic within those constraining or 'robust' parameters) details, such as every single chemical reaction. ...in other words: The predictability is more strongly associated with the 'robustness" of the simple systems, such as "every single reaction in detail," but the same predictability can't be expected to apply as well to some "high level of complexity," which itself emerged from those simple yet predictably chaotic details about all the chemical reactions. ~

...yes the incoming solar IR is very short, compared to the outgoing IR. === It is my understanding that (averaged over the day/night & year) about two thirds of our heating comes from the "tropospheric greenhouse gasses" and that the other third comes directly from the sun. So whatever 'blocking' of "the suns longwave to the troposphere" that occurs would be about one-half as significant as the increased tropospheric greenhouse effect, wouldn't you agree? And this is already accounted for in the models, I'm fairly certain; or are you saying that this effect, which "naturally helps to mitigate greenhouse gas warming," is some newly discovered, unaccounted-for effect, which changes everything? ~ p.s. Can you summarize that 20 second (or 20 minute) video, or any main point you want to highlight, since not everyone can easily watch videos. Thanks.

So for instance, do you mean the incoming solar IR, or the "outgoing" IR that gets trapped in the greenhouse? ~

Just a minor technicality (or typo?) from the previous page as I catch up, but you're abbreviation "RE" for "radiative forcing" is normally used for "radiative efficiency" (in Watts per sq. meter per ppb) of a greenhouse gas. Radiative Forcing (RF) is in Watts per sq. meter. ~

Hence the topic: [if] 12 degrees, [then] = half planet abandoned? ...and the explanation about how "... if we get to 4 or 5 degrees, natural feedbacks (like the 'methane bomb') could take us to 12." and the OP question posed: "Could the methane feedbacks take us from 4 or 5 degrees to 12 and then dump our great grandchildren with half the planet being uninhabitable?" ~

"...when their source energy ...remains the same?" Do you mean the sun? === You ask, "Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?" Sure I've wondered "what happens in the upper atmosphere." But after I learned about this effect you mention, in several climate science classes, I’ve assumed it is widely known about within the climatology community, so I don't wonder much about that. Is this your first encounter with the idea that GHGs don’t always act the same? This effect you mention is also one of the “proofs” or ‘lines of evidence’ supporting the AGW theory; since, as predicted, a surface warming with simultaneous cooling in the upper atmosphere (which could not occur due to solar changes, but would occur due to GHG effects) is being observed. === "Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere?" I wonder much more about the stability of our Temperate Zone, down here where its agriculture-supporting weather affects us, as both the Tropical and the Polar Zones expand due to a bit of extra, non-stop, greenhouse heating. === Have you ever wondered about the stability of our climate, or the planetary food chain? ~

^^ ...fixed that, I think. You should read The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains how stable complexity often arises out of a system comprised of simple, robust, chaotic operators ...or words to that effect. I think it would provide you with more language and a better framework for understanding how the parts and processes involved, with which you already seem to be very familiar, contribute to helping define life as something more than random. You might see then that you are both saying 'relatively' the same thing, istm. "He [Capra] compares this shift to the Copernican revolution suggesting that the new perception of reality has profound implications not only for science and philosophy but also for business, politics, health care, education, and everyday life. "The new paradigm may be called a holistic worldview," he writes, "seeing the world as an integrated whole rather than a dissociated collection of parts." --from the link ~

Yes, and I think you’ll enjoy this too. I just caught E. O. Wilson’s interview with Charlie Rose. ...if you can handle the preliminary promotional propaganda.... He is after all, it seems, the Father of Evolutionary Biology as well as Sociobiology ...not just the “the world’s foremost expert on ants!” Wilson discusses a ‘next step’ sort of view, uniting "the Two Cultures," the Sciences and the Humanities; in a way similar to C. P. Snow’s old dream of bridging the chasm between the Sciences & Humanities. === E. O. Wilson also mentions the core of what we need to step forward into “the New Enlightenment,” roughly: 1. Evolutionary Biology (and of course, genetics, epigenetics, genomics, etc.) 2. Brain Science (in particular, and Neuroscience in general) 3. Archaeology (and including “Human Paleontology”) 4. Artificial Intelligence (and Robotics) …he understands the importance of the microbial sphere. …and opines on tribalism, religion, history, and “the Meaning of Human Existence,” the title of his newest book! “Searching for meaning in what Nietzsche once called "the rainbow colors" around the outer edges of knowledge and imagination, Wilson takes his readers on a journey—from our earliest inception to a provocative look at what the future of mankind portends.” –National Book Foundation The last 5 minutes of this 25 minute video are well worthwhile. ~

Without getting into specifics, we can still ask if the likely consequences will be significant ...or even unprecedented. Science has only further confirmed this understanding, over the past few decades, but here is snippet from an Oxford Monograph on Paleoclimatology, Crowley & North [1991], for a geologic perspective. "The CO2 perturbation therefore represents a major climate change, which will occur at a rate comparable to or exceeding any known to have occurred in earth history. The magnitude and duration of the event is significant even on geologic scales. Since there are no completely satisfactory geologic analogs for the warm atmosphere-cold pole combination, the future climate may represent a unique climate realization in earth history." –p. 254 “The magnitude and duration of the event is significant even on geologic scales." === ...without getting specific: How has evolution previously responded to events comparable to this (contributor to the) Sixth Mass Extinction Event? ~

But it's not an off-center mass. It's a process, as you're describing it, where a central mass is oscillating slightly, over time. For the experiment to be more analogous, you'd need to vibrate your (centered) tin of peaches, imperceptibly, at some extremely high frequency. ~istm

By that logic, it should be obvious that a specialist in brain surgery would be "far more" qualified to treat any metabolic disorder you might have. Climatology is a multidisciplinary study, which is why the online courses to get a certificate in climate science are fairly general. Do you actually know of any "degree in climatology" offered by an accredited university? ~

Most of those endangered carbon deposits were formed after the icy poles developed, which is long after those "previous periods of much hotter climatic conditions" that you are thinking about. That's why it is different this time. ~

I think 'significant' means 'most' in this case, especially when you consider how one-sided, and long-term, the anthropogenic forcing is compared with the natural background forcings that only vary around their geological averages over time. "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." -APS (American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review; Workshop Framing Document; Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee1, December 20, 2013) === Also, there is this free, educational, publication from 2011. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13111 "...increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years." -National Research Council, 2011 === Thirty million years of evolution! In terms of climate and ocean acidification... That sounds "significant" to me; it is before the 'temperate zone' (upon which agriculture depends significantly) developed and good agricultural soils evolved. ~

"You change the solar input, and all values change!" To what are you attributing your change in solar input, and by how much? ~

Transcend dichotomies! There is usually at least one perspective where both "sides" can be seen as parts of a greater 'truth' or whole. ~

Density?!? You can rule in or out many possibilities based on its density. Also, check into websites about identifying "meteorwrongs" and meteorites. ~

...and systems also tend towards their highest entropy state. Diffusion is a good example of that, it seems to me. ~

...thanks mucho! I'd not heard about that NATO idea, but it might work about as well as our efforts to similarly transition Haiti back in the 1990s. I think I can find a link to Clinton's apology to Congress for that early attempt at 'globalization' ...not that globalization isn't important. So, is there yet a 'global' economic theory that might work better than the Haiti model? ~?

I'd suggest you're assuming too much, and presuming enough to be bordering on 'cultural' insensitivity. "Of course...?" Really? What products would industrialization make; more arms? Besides, China is already 'helping' Africa by contracting for huge tracts of land to guarantee their own people won't be in danger of any destabilizing famines. Keeping people "fat, dumb, and happy" is an old and workable political strategy. ...nothing ironic here.... ~

...yes, but it ain't right.... But aside from my additional comment above... Shouldn't the question be about if industrialization of Africa would be good for Africa? ~

F'n GD Tablet touchscreen!!! Please erase that -1 rep point! I was trying to quote, but screen shifted. F'n tablet! . . . . So yes, that sounds like what I was trying to say. The concept (that science is) is accurate understanding, achieved via the method (scientific method). ~

Economy is like climate; it's a compilation of many factors, and subject to (or it changes due to) evolving forcers, so it's an emergent phenomenon that can be understood scientifically ...though not predictably, unless one has all complete and relevant information. Economics is a management philosophy (or strategy); so to the extent it is based on complete and accurate science/information, it will be more effective. ~ istm

...and the phrase, "Hmmmmm, that's funny," also comes to mind.

...may also reflect the rapid rise in for-profit "diversionary" programs, which began around 2000.