Climate perceptions towards climatic evolution

The accumulation of energy in the air and oceans will set the temperature not how much CO2 we are emitting.

It says a sentence that to become rich man you don’t need a great amount of income, only need to save a cent more than what you waste, and let the time run; needless to say, if you are rich and spend a cent more than you earn sooner or later you’ll become ruined. The two statements everyone can understand and accept as true; however it may difficult to see that a cent of profit could become you a millionaire. This is because our perception of accumulation and time isn’t correct. When he looks in perspective by years and not realize that they are far from all time periods and just getting going; if this involves a sum or a subtraction is applied.

Pole melting an other prove of Globalwarming

Balance. As I said before it isn’t the same as a system is in balance or is stationary. As tightrope as we’re seating on a sofa are at a point where the sum of the forces, in this case gravity makes it scratch and not experience any displacement obviously this balance may be unstable and stable: Who is on the line a simple motion makes a sofa fell while we tear or hot water. Another issue is a steady state. While the balance implies stillness the other is a result of the change. A clear example is the air tubes that hold a ball suspended; the ball is actually falling, but the speed with the air produces a friction that slows proportional to this speed as happens to skydivers in freefall, to equalize the two forces (gravity, friction) but this acceleration continues to fall; as these air tubes breathe air we only need to provide enough flow velocity of the air is equal to the falling ball, the ball is a corridor that ran on a treadmill but does not move site. The temperature of the planet is this ball; Sun introduces an almost constant amount of energy on our planet (that's what we live) that the atmosphere back into space depending on the temperature, clouds, sunshine hours and greenhouse gases, being all these functional elements including dependents.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas more, as is methane (CH4), ammonia (HN3) or the same water (H2O); being water the most dominating of all them because it is the most abundant gas of them, current temperatures allows to move it in various states and their status as universal solvent liquid play a crucial role in climate and biology (look Feedback). Historical variability of our climate on a planet which has done more before of our arrived, proves that greenhouse gases have a dynamic independent of us. Unfortunately, this is something that we tend to forget, becoming this an recursive argument of skeptics and deniers climatologists, while it’s a common misconception of the fighters against climate change: We haven’t generated any new process we just altered a bit some existing process, but this little modification can lead us consequences of global dimension. Yes, only a small alteration, but we are doing it around the world and in a lot of time.

Accumulative or static growth

A process accumulative is a process with memory. When newspapers or TV talk about a growth of 1% per year it seems a poor increase, because we see the less amount getting every year but we forget that 1% is applied on new amount getting with the current added to increase amount; therefore, we haven’t grown in 15 years a 15% but 16% and 170% in one hundred years. Thus, a small accumulation will become devastating because its effects aren’t scalable to not being linear.

Another effect very difficult to scale are the cross-dependencies between variables. Occasionally due to fashion, it appears the word synergy which means that two factors combined have effect greater than the sum of the effects alone. Most of these synergies has been found empirically because their combination will be positive or negative we can’t deduce it a priori. The reason of it is to haven't the summability of its effects; but further studies at posterior show that the combination actives relations between other elements more than the two crossed, the result increases or mitigates their effects. This effect we call feedback. The feedback produced stationary points called attractors in chaos theory, these usually create an effect of false stability because all elements combined create a closed situation within some parameters. We have a problem when one or more of these factors go out threshold because the consequences are completely unpredictable (see Butterfly Effect). When we think with weather stations, normal rainfall and temperatures are into one of these attractors, out here what could happen surely will not like.

People don’t imagine the immense effort needed to model future climate. In this regard many of the predictions being like wrong, not globally, but estimated and values. The blame for this is that all our models are parameterized values in the mid to late twentieth century; values that aren’t valid today. If we look at the following map (Sea level according to average temperature the planet) will observe an alleged sea level depending on the variation of the average temperature of the planet compared to pre-industrial values. This map is not bad but it has many errors. First remember that the pre-industrial era was the end of the Little Age of Ice (s XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX) and therefore the temperatures were lower than normal, argument more used by skeptics. After the ice always melts at zero degrees nor more or less degree, so the temperature doesn’t imply more or less ice undone in any case be the time that will rid the ice who scored level; this level is an extrapolation from patterns of temperature distribution depending on the average temperature of the planet, but as I said patterns these are obsolete and have no idea of what will be at + 2C , to get an idea in Cretaceous the temperature of poles was practically the same as in Ecuador. The climate at + 2C isn’t a state, the time that we stay in this temperature is accumulative and we can achieve + 2C and nothing will happen but it will pass 10 years we can only could survive locked up in caves.

The climate emergency is taking to weather forecasts cooked runs. States need data to make drastic reforms, which involve the dramatic change in the way we live. This is where I think the Paris agreement (COP21) is completely useless. Most of measures that would applied are late, inadequate and shameful periods; to fixe something that doesn’t depend on us as: the temperature; is an insult to our intelligence. Simply I don’t think so ignorant governments, only takes the temperature as euphemism for reducing emissions without the obligation to do it, each will reduce the amount of emissions it deems appropriate to achieve this temperature and if in 20 years they have been sticking.

Variability of Ice on Arctic sea, red is current year 

The climate is our only food producer and its kindness allows us to live; but it seems they prefer the money to eat or walk in streets quietly. Surely they forget that we can’t eat money.