Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean positive feedback loops = instability. (I'm a nerd.)
I used "negative" to describe the developing feedback loops because global warming is not a positive outcome. I understand your point that the feedback loops are accelerating global warming and therefore are "positive" in the sense that they positively increase global temperatures.
Perhaps a better term is "vicious" to describe the feedback loops.
I've heard no politicians discuss the feedback loops, even though they are a great threat to humanity, as we may have triggered natural warming processes that will continue even IF mankind transitions away from fossil fuel consumption. Of course, continued massive carbon dioxide emissions from unchecked fossil fuel consumption surely will accelerate the disastrous activation of these "natural" responses.
At least some members of the media are just beginning to grasp the dangers posed by feedback loops.
<<Feedback loops could push warming further than anticipated, as, for example, thawing permafrost releases gases the frozen ground has trapped for centuries. Up to nearly 1 million additional square miles of permafrost would thaw at 2 degrees of warming.
The risk of activating such a feedback loop is one reason it would be so foolish and irresponsible to breach the 1.5-degree threshold. Extinct species and obliterated ecosystems would be impossible to revive. >>
Another vicious feedback loop that concerns scientists is the lowering of the earth's albedo in the cryosphere (especially polar regions) as ice and snow cover rapidly is being diminished. A lower albedo results in an increased absorption of solar irradiance as sunlight is no longer reflected into space. The following article is an excellent discussion of the albedo effect.
<<This year’s report shows that the Arctic region experienced the second-warmest air temperatures ever recorded; the second-lowest overall sea-ice coverage; lowest recorded winter ice in the Bering Sea...>>
You mean positive feedback loops = instability. (I'm a nerd.) It's pretty much inevitable that there will be significant human tragedy in the next 100 years. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
Current population growth is not sustainable AND I believe that in the near future, our current population is not sustainable. I don't want to be a negative-nancy but, like you, its easy to spot a problem when multiple, independent data suggest one.
This is always in the back of my mind as I read through posts on this website, particularly the ones about people bragging or dreaming about population turnaround in their MSAs or whatever. The next 20 to 50 years is so unpredictable, I don't think its going to matter how many people are in your MSA. What may matter is how well your MSA can self support itself, social safety nets, food banks, housing, sewage treatment, water quality, etc. Things many of us take for granted now, may not be so easy to get in the future. We already see some MSAs struggling to maintain water quality, housing, and food sources in the aftermath of disaster.
Good point. Population growth seems to be a key indicator for many people of the desirability and quality of life of a city. On one hand that certainly makes sense but it's a pretty arbitrary metric. These great migrations (to the north, to the west, to the coasts, to the sunbelt) are often more volatile than not. Much of the Midwest already is struggling on many of the fronts you mentioned, can't imagine how horrible it will be when climate refugees flood the region.
What's super crazy to me is how much population growth, continued development and economic investment sunbelt cities are still seeing. Sure, people follow the jobs. But what about developers and corporations who DO (or should) plan out 20 - 30 years? Why are they still investing in these places? By 2050, the mean temp in Dallas will be 100 degrees with high's easily into the 120's.. You will need the AC running year-round. Yet it's currently the fastest growing MSA... by far! I assume the same is true of Austin and San Antonio. Phoenix will be even worse. Houston and most of southern Florida will not only be hot as hades with worsening hurricanes and flooding, but their water supply will increasingly become undrinkable as well.
These places won't just be "hard living", they'll be unlivable. Yet they continue to boom. Las Vegas too. Just doesn't make any sense to me.
Good point. Population growth seems to be a key indicator for many people of the desirability and quality of life of a city. On one hand that certainly makes sense but it's a pretty arbitrary metric. These great migrations (to the north, to the west, to the coasts, to the sunbelt) are often more volatile than not. Much of the Midwest already is struggling on many of the fronts you mentioned, can't imagine how horrible it will be when climate refugees flood the region.
What's super crazy to me is how much population growth, continued development and economic investment sunbelt cities are still seeing. Sure, people follow the jobs. But what about developers and corporations who DO (or should) plan out 20 - 30 years? Why are they still investing in these places? By 2050, the mean temp in Dallas will be 100 degrees with high's easily into the 120's.. You will need the AC running year-round. Yet it's currently the fastest growing MSA... by far! I assume the same is true of Austin and San Antonio. Phoenix will be even worse. Houston and most of southern Florida will not only be hot as hades with worsening hurricanes and flooding, but their water supply will increasingly become undrinkable as well.
These places won't just be "hard living", they'll be unlivable. Yet they continue to boom. Las Vegas too. Just doesn't make any sense to me.
Some very well run companies actually do have true, 10 year plans. I've worked for 7 different companies and one of them did have a true commitment to a 10 year plan. But sadly, most companies today only have plans that get re-evaluated on a quarterly basis. Business owners (or business unit owners) live quarter to quarter. So until it is evident that they will not hit their numbers next quarter, all is well.
Most companies today are too quick to make changes based on a quarterly spike, positive or negative. That's why R+D budgets can't withstand a simple recession, let alone a deep recession. Climate change, which requires a long term solution, won't get addressed by the capitalist/wall-st solution so many of us blindly think will save us. Climate change = there's no App for that.
I used "negative" to describe the developing feedback loops because global warming is not a positive outcome. I understand your point that the feedback loops are accelerating global warming and therefore are "positive" in the sense that they positively increase global temperatures.
Perhaps a better term is "vicious" to describe the feedback loops.
I've heard no politicians discuss the feedback loops, even though they are a great threat to humanity, as we may have triggered natural warming processes that will continue even IF mankind transitions away from fossil fuel consumption. Of course, continued massive carbon dioxide emissions from unchecked fossil fuel consumption surely will accelerate the disastrous activation of these "natural" responses.
At least some members of the media are just beginning to grasp the dangers posed by feedback loops.
<<Feedback loops could push warming further than anticipated, as, for example, thawing permafrost releases gases the frozen ground has trapped for centuries. Up to nearly 1 million additional square miles of permafrost would thaw at 2 degrees of warming.
The risk of activating such a feedback loop is one reason it would be so foolish and irresponsible to breach the 1.5-degree threshold. Extinct species and obliterated ecosystems would be impossible to revive. >>
Another vicious feedback loop that concerns scientists is the lowering of the earth's albedo in the cryosphere (especially polar regions) as ice and snow cover rapidly is being diminished. A lower albedo results in an increased absorption of solar irradiance as sunlight is no longer reflected into space. The following article is an excellent discussion of the albedo effect.
<<This year’s report shows that the Arctic region experienced the second-warmest air temperatures ever recorded; the second-lowest overall sea-ice coverage; lowest recorded winter ice in the Bering Sea...>>
In any electrical system, like an audio amplifier for example, negative feedback is required to maintain a stable output. The feedback loop is designed to correct the inputs to the amplifier so that the amplifier output behaves as expected (having a certain gain and bandwidth.) If the audio amplifier had positive feedback, it would quickly go unstable and saturate to the point that it is no longer a predictable (linear) system. (You'll hear the high pitch distortion noise on the speakers because somebody needs to turn their microphone off.) The word negative is used to imply a correction to the inputs, similar to what you would tell a young child that threw a baseball through a window: negative feedback - "don't throw the ball through the window or I'll paint your backporch red." You would not give the child positive feedback like: "cool, do it again." Negative describes the feedback, not the output.
But I'm totally being an egghead/nerd at this point.
For climate change, its similar. If we look at the atmosphere as a system, and we're spiking one of the inputs to the system by taking greenhouse gases to extreme highs, is there a negative feedback loop that will correct the problem of global warming? Does not appear to be one that will occur naturally since spiking greenhouse gases causes increase heating of the planet that then increases the release of more greenhouse gases like methane, that's positive feedback and the atmosphere may now go unstable and unpredictable. But this is just a very simple look at the problem. Like any complex system, the earth's atmosphere and weather are a collection of smaller systems that need to be evaluated by themselves and then collectively.
Time to watch 60 minutes - some guy says he has a solution to global warming. (Yeah! - we're saved. not)
In any electrical system, like an audio amplifier for example, negative feedback is required to maintain a stable output. The feedback loop is designed to correct the inputs to the amplifier so that the amplifier output behaves as expected (having a certain gain and bandwidth.) If the audio amplifier had positive feedback, it would quickly go unstable and saturate to the point that it is no longer a predictable (linear) system. (You'll hear the high pitch distortion noise on the speakers because somebody needs to turn their microphone off.) The word negative is used to imply a correction to the inputs, similar to what you would tell a young child that threw a baseball through a window: negative feedback - "don't throw the ball through the window or I'll paint your backporch red." You would not give the child positive feedback like: "cool, do it again." Negative describes the feedback, not the output.
But I'm totally being an egghead/nerd at this point.
For climate change, its similar. If we look at the atmosphere as a system, and we're spiking one of the inputs to the system by taking greenhouse gases to extreme highs, is there a negative feedback loop that will correct the problem of global warming? Does not appear to be one that will occur naturally since spiking greenhouse gases causes increase heating of the planet that then increases the release of more greenhouse gases like methane, that's positive feedback and the atmosphere may now go unstable and unpredictable. But this is just a very simple look at the problem. Like any complex system, the earth's atmosphere and weather are a collection of smaller systems that need to be evaluated by themselves and then collectively.
Time to watch 60 minutes - some guy says he has a solution to global warming. (Yeah! - we're saved. not)
Thanks for the explanation. I won't quibble -- such as arguing that the use of adjectives to describe the global climate system feedback loops don't have to consistent with those used to describe electronic feedback loops -- so in the future I'll use the term "vicious" to describe the feedback loops that accelerate man-made climate change. In economics, a cycle that creates positive outcomes, such as deleveraging a balance sheet, typically is described as "virtuous." Obviously, describing feedback loops that accelerate climate change as "positive" would confuse most persons lacking electrical engineering expertise, such as myself.
Using "vicious" and "virtuous" as adjectives avoids offending "nerds" (your term, not mine) with electrical engineering training. Avoiding the disrespect of engineers is never a bad thing as such individuals tend to be clear-thinking and influential.
BTW, Wikipedia says you're 100 percent correct, but I still believe it's a confusing concept for most Americans.
Some very well run companies actually do have true, 10 year plans. I've worked for 7 different companies and one of them did have a true commitment to a 10 year plan. But sadly, most companies today only have plans that get re-evaluated on a quarterly basis. Business owners (or business unit owners) live quarter to quarter. So until it is evident that they will not hit their numbers next quarter, all is well.
Most companies today are too quick to make changes based on a quarterly spike, positive or negative. That's why R+D budgets can't withstand a simple recession, let alone a deep recession. Climate change, which requires a long term solution, won't get addressed by the capitalist/wall-st solution so many of us blindly think will save us. Climate change = there's no App for that.
The problem also is that many executives likely have believed those who belittle or ignore the climate change scientists, such as Donald Trump and the majority of Republican politicians. Likely, and hopefully, there will be a great political price to be paid when the calamity enabled by this folly becomes well understood.
Some very well run companies actually do have true, 10 year plans. I've worked for 7 different companies and one of them did have a true commitment to a 10 year plan. But sadly, most companies today only have plans that get re-evaluated on a quarterly basis. Business owners (or business unit owners) live quarter to quarter. So until it is evident that they will not hit their numbers next quarter, all is well.
Most companies today are too quick to make changes based on a quarterly spike, positive or negative. That's why R+D budgets can't withstand a simple recession, let alone a deep recession. Climate change, which requires a long term solution, won't get addressed by the capitalist/wall-st solution so many of us blindly think will save us. Climate change = there's no App for that.
Holy crap, isn't that the truth. The entire system hangs by a toenail while the pundits bicker about click-bait and the upper classes walk around wearing bedazzled MAGA hats, drinking pumpkin-spiced lattes, pontificating about a techno-celebrity driven culture.
Holy crap, isn't that the truth. The entire system hangs by a toenail while the pundits bicker about click-bait and the upper classes walk around wearing bedazzled MAGA hats, drinking pumpkin-spiced lattes, pontificating about a techno-celebrity driven culture.
Is this the end?
Hope not. I tend to be fairly optimistic in general. My guess that the next 100 years will give:
1. Mass extinction for many animals is almost assured, we're in the beginning of it right now
2. Many poor humans will suffer, as in die, for lack of food, healthcare, shelter.
^^^ I consider this to be the optimistic outcome
This can be very depressing but I am able to move past it when I think of the greater picture: We're a blip on the earth timeline. The dinosaurs were annihilated ~ 63M years ago by an asteroid and life survived. What we're doing (burning fossil fuels, mass pollution, mass extinction, etc.) at a very high level is just natural because we're natural and what we do is natural. We are part of nature, and as such are by no means assured to survive. At some higher level, there is a negative feedback loop that resets the earth.
We'd like to think that humans could collaborate on a worldwide solution to fix this problem (global warming, mass extinction, etc.) But it may not be in our nature. It may be that the natural way out of this is mass extinction for us. That's the less optimistic outcome.
We're over due for a "minor" reset BTW. Last century, they had: WWI, WWII, and the great depression (accompanied by a major environmental disaster caused by humans - the dust bowl). What will this century bring us? Nuclear war? Mass extinction from unchecked diseases?
Funny to think this discussion started from just talking about the weather.
Hope not. I tend to be fairly optimistic in general. My guess that the next 100 years will give:
1. Mass extinction for many animals is almost assured, we're in the beginning of it right now
2. Many poor humans will suffer, as in die, for lack of food, healthcare, shelter.
^^^ I consider this to be the optimistic outcome
This can be very depressing but I am able to move past it when I think of the greater picture: We're a blip on the earth timeline. The dinosaurs were annihilated ~ 63M years ago by an asteroid and life survived. What we're doing (burning fossil fuels, mass pollution, mass extinction, etc.) at a very high level is just natural because we're natural and what we do is natural. We are part of nature, and as such are by no means assured to survive. At some higher level, there is a negative feedback loop that resets the earth.
We'd like to think that humans could collaborate on a worldwide solution to fix this problem (global warming, mass extinction, etc.) But it may not be in our nature. It may be that the natural way out of this is mass extinction for us. That's the less optimistic outcome.
We're over due for a "minor" reset BTW. Last century, they had: WWI, WWII, and the great depression (accompanied by a major environmental disaster caused by humans - the dust bowl). What will this century bring us? Nuclear war? Mass extinction from unchecked diseases?
Funny to think this discussion started from just talking about the weather.
I get what you're saying on a high level and tend to agree, but the language you're using follows an appeal to nature fallacy. Is nuclear war natural? Are pesticides like Neonicotinoids natural? I guess you could say that since humans are "natural" and we created those things, from compounds found on Earth, they too are "natural". But then "natural" doesn't really have any qualitative meaning.
I digress. Your main point stands. Now to the weather. It's mid afternoon and it's 54 and raining. Tomorrow it will be below freezing and snow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
