Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[swansont]

The Earth's climate fluctuates between 2 climate states: Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth

 

 

Because magic?

 

Alternately, if this is purported to be a scientific analysis, you'd have to analyze it, well, scientifically. As opposed to spouting conspiratorial nonsense.

[overtone]

 

What caused all the previous Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth changes?

The most common mechanism seems to have been gradual, million year accumulations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, from such sources as volcanic emissions and rock weathering, abetted and otherwise influenced by orbital changes and solar flux fluctuations.

 

 

 

Global warming means we are heading to Greenhouse Earth state, which will happen regardless of whether there are 7 billion people or 1 solitary person on Earth

Not this time. It's happening far too rapidly, with a different set of causes, and almost enitirely in consequence of human activity multiplied by the huge and growing human population. Wipe out the humans, and it stops happening - at least, as long as we are still on this side of whatever tipping points are buried in the system.

[iNow]

Wipe out the humans, and it stops happening - at least, as long as we are still on this side of whatever tipping points are buried in the system.

... after about a century or two... perhaps even longer.

 

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

[Essay]

... after about a century or two... perhaps even longer.

 

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

That is the way I've understood it to be. They speak about a half life" sometimes, for CO2 in the atmosphere; but it is not a physical constant (like the decay rate of radioactive stuff) or a physical property of the molecule itself. The rate depends on the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, overall. That's why, as we keep screwing up the biogeochemosphere, the estimated rate keeps getting longer and longer ...I think. I was lucky enough to meet with a biogeochemist recently; wow!

 

 

The long-term effects of our emissions might seem far removed. But as Tyrrell says, "It is a little bit scary, if you think about all the concerns we have about radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power. The potential impacts from emitting CO₂ to the atmosphere are even longer than that." But there's still hope for avoiding these long-term effects if technologies that are now on the drawing board can be scaled up affordably. "If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO₂ out of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's possible you could reverse this CO₂ hangover."

 

 

Nature has already developed a way of scrubbing CO2 (inorganic carbon) out of the atmosphere! It is called photosynthesis. The trick is to keep the scrubbed carbon (organic carbon) in the ground, or shunting some of the yearly biomass wastes into the ground ...building new and productive soils ...which we also need to feed growing populations anway.

===

 

But if civilization or most people vanished overnight, then there would be a massive redistribution of carbon; and I'd expect CO2 levels might return to normal, fairly quickly ... or even end up with CO2 levels lower than pre-industrial levels ...due to the large changes to the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, as civilization decayed and was overgrown and reabsorbed. But by "fairly quickly" I still mean many decades or even over a century to "re-stabilize" CO2 ...though it would still continue changing slowly as the biosphere continued evolving. But it would still take longer than that to restore the original conditions of the climate, if at all possible. ...istm.

~

[FX]

I'm late to the debate. Is it still happening?

[swansont]

I'm late to the debate. Is it still happening?

 

The scientific debate about whether AGW is happening is over. The scientific debate is about the details of how much and how bad the effects will be.

[FX]

But, that IS the debate!

[swansont]

But, that IS the debate!

 

It depends on who you talk to. In the US there is still plenty of denial that the earth is warming and/or that it is caused by humans, especially after a snowstorm.

[FX]

So you say the issue is only one of "how much warming will happen, and when?", is that your position?

[swansont]

So you say the issue is only one of "how much warming will happen, and when?", is that your position?

 

Yes, and more importantly, the position of most of the scientists who study this.

[EdEarl]

I've noticed recently that reports of water shortages are more numerous than I have noticed before. Also, I've noticed this year that climate scientists predictions have been getting worse faster than previously, and I'm concerned that they are less bad than the facts. I am concerned that the situation is similar to someone smelling smoke in a crowded theater, and everyone whispers to their mate sitting next to them, "Do you smell smoke, I think I do," but they don't want to cry out, "FIRE," unless there really is a fire.

[overtone]

So you say the issue is only one of "how much warming will happen, and when?", is that your position?

It's the position of every single honest and informed and mentally competent person in the field.

 

Even the small minority of competent scientists who regard the heat trapping from the CO2 boost as no serious matter, take that position because they think the warming will be small, or localized, or generalized and averaged, or slow and easily handled, or more beneficial than harmful, or the like. No informed, competent, and honest person is saying it's not happening - that's crackpot territory.

 

 

 

I've noticed recently that reports of water shortages are more numerous than I have noticed before.

To be fair, that's also a cumulative problem of human population growth and distribution that has long existed and was noticed independently of any CO₂ boost effects. The Great Plains states - what was called the "Great Desert" in some pioneer accounts - have been mining ice age water deposits at an increasing rate since the late 1800s, and the fact that they will begin to run short fairly soon (with symptoms already as the drawdown line approaches) is not a consequence of AGW only. The Colorado River no longer reaches the ocean in some years, not from climate change but oversubscription of its water supply. And so forth. Edited February 19, 2014 by overtone

[Essay]

So you say the issue is only one of "how much warming will happen, and when?", is that your position?

 

...to which

 

Yes, and more importantly, the position of most of the scientists who study this.

 

It is my impression that (barring some "magic bullet" solution) there is an increasingly solid scientific consensus about 'how much & when' changes will occur, for the big picture; and that would be changes far greater than civilization could easily deal with, as well as global changes unprecedented on both evolutionary and geologic scales, and all unfolding within the next few generations or so ...and continuing for many generations and centuries into the future.

 

The only debates about "how much warming will happen, and when" usually also include demands to know "where" those changes will occur; since these are debates among either policy makers, scientists working to improve the models, or casual observers wondering about the future ...or those looking for failures within the general expectations about the relatively short-term effects that have been predicted to occur during the early stages of a global warming event.

 

Maybe that is drawing too much of a distinction between the general agreement and consensus about the greenhouse gas problem, and the specific details about how such an unprecedented global event will unfold across space and time, during the early stages; what do you think?

 

...plus, we shouldn't forget global acidification either.

~

[EdEarl]

 

NOAA.gov

According to NOAA scientists, the globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for January 2014 was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest for January since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 38th consecutive January and 347th consecutive month (almost 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average January global temperature was January 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201401.gif

 

It's hot, and climatologists say it's supposed to be getting hotter much faster.

Edited February 22, 2014 by EdEarl

[Tim the plumber]

 

...to which

 

It is my impression that (barring some "magic bullet" solution) there is an increasingly solid scientific consensus about 'how much & when' changes will occur, for the big picture; and that would be changes far greater than civilization could easily deal with, as well as global changes unprecedented on both evolutionary and geologic scales, and all unfolding within the next few generations or so ...and continuing for many generations and centuries into the future.

I'm not sure which changes you think human civilization will be having difficulty with.

 

Is it the projected worst case scenario of a 1m sea level rise by 2100?

 

Is it the projected worst case scenario of a temperature rise of 3ish (maybe 4.5 maybe.... more likely 1.5 degrees c) by 2100?

 

Is it the projected increase in storms caused by the higher temperatures which have not increased due to the present warmish temperatures?

 

Or something else?

[Arete]

I'm not sure which changes you think human civilization will be having difficulty with.

 

This is a copypasta from another climate change thread where you asked a question along the same lines. Ignoring the predicted and observed changes due to climate change doesn't make them go away:

 

Here's some examples of a significant impact:

1) The largest watershed in California (the San Francisco Bay Delta) is predicted to have 20% less spring thaw runoff by 2090, and the remaining runoff is predicted to be more saline - with significant impacts to the state's environment, agriculture, industry and municipal water supplies.

http://onlinelibrary...014339/abstract

2) Doubling atmospheric CO₂ is predicted to lead to a 10% increase in the average intensity of hurricanes. http://journals.amet...5/BAMS-87-5-617

3) An increase in duration and frequency of severe drought conditions is predicted in Africa, Southern Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Southeast Asia and the Americas. http://onlinelibrary...002/wcc.81/full

4) Significant coral bleaching events are already being observed and predicted to get worse. http://www.sciencema...3/6041/418.full

5) Significant changes is the distributions of infectious disease are already being observed (e.g. malaria at a 40 year high in the US http://www.cdc.gov/features/malaria/) , and expected toincrease. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440905001517

etc.

[Trumptor]

Ok, warning - I'm going to ask a stupid question and am neither a chemist nor a climatologist, just so you all know. When I was in school in the late 70s, early 80s, we were learning about global cooling and it was said that CFCs were a contributing factor. Today, most aerosol bottles say" No CFCs" on them in an effort to combat global cooling, I figure. Why not allow CFCs again if they have the effect of cooling the planet, while the planet is warming. Wouldn't it help combat the effects?

[Essay]

Whether or not CFC's "were a contributing factor" to "global cooling" ...I've never heard about in terms of climate. CFCs were/are a problem ...due to the "Ozone Hole" ...which is still being solved (hence the ban on many CFCs).

===

 

Probably you are confusing the CFC-induced "Ozone Hole" with the discoveries about "global cooling" and ice-age cycles, which all came out about the same time ...back then.

...however I don't think there was any link with the ozone hole and global cooling or global warming, except perhaps as some small additional contribution (but not as a driving factor).

 

The orbital cycles that "drive" any ice-age conditions, along with the heat-driving effect of greenhouse gases (which counteracts and overwhelms any orbital variations), will both affect climate much more strongly than the ozone hole could ever directly affect climate.

 

The ozone hole is mostly about how UV radiation causes extra mutations and cancers in the current population, especially at higher and polar latitudes, than it is about climate.

===

 

I don't think the extra, mutagenic, radiation could ever be balanced with any climate "benefit" either ...and I would also worry more about sterilizing -or otherwise disrupting- the base of the global food chain, in those polar regions where the ozone hole is worst.

 

Besides all that, CFCs are exceedingly potent greenhouse gases, so any "cooling" effect (that might be linked with creating a larger ozone hole), would be overwhelmingly offset by their huge GHG effect.

~

Edited April 16, 2014 by Essay

[Delbert]

The title of is 'Reasons not to worry'. Well, I'm not worried - not worried one tiny little bit.

 

Not worried not because I'm a doubter; in fact to the contrary, as my the view is that it's a manmade problem - a no brainer.

 

My total lack of worry is occasioned by the simple fact that no matter how we argue or whatever the evidence, we won't change - won't change in any significant way. We might stick up a windmill or two, drive a one or two battery cars, but that's all. And if you want evidence of doing nothing, just look at the rush for new fossil fuels - fracking for example. How many new coal power stations are apparently opened on a regular basis? That's why, as far as I can see, it's a pointless discussion.

[swansont]

I don't think it's pointless. In the past, people have been moved to action — in the late 60's - early 70's in the US (and elsewhere) it was pollution, and there was significant action. The EPA was created, clean air and water legislation passed, and pollution was reduced. In the 1980s it was the ozone hole and CFCs, which were banned. A problem was identified and action was taken.

 

The issue here is that too many politicians in positions of influence in the US have zero scientific literacy (good grief, there are Republicans on the House science committee who are frikkin' creationists) and in the pocket of the oil companies

[iNow]

As Delbert's post shows, we have more than just denialism to work through on this subject. Now, we must also address this rampant streak of fatalism that has become so common when discussing climate change. It's really too bad, as just a tiny sprinkle of realism coupled with a bit of optimism would probably get us successfully through this mess we've created for ourselves.

[Phi for All]

The issue here is that too many politicians in positions of influence in the US have zero scientific literacy (good grief, there are Republicans on the House science committee who are frikkin' creationists) and in the pocket of the oil companies

 

And not just oil companies. Heavy hitters like GE are also resisting efforts to replace old gas vacuum tube technology with solid state electronics, not until they've squeezed every last dollar from the incandescent and fluorescent lighting infrastructure (*cough* frikkin' CFLs *cough*). Changing to smarter, more efficient systems that don't add to the climate change problem is being resisted by every industry that has a sizeable stake in an old technology.

[iNow]

The issue here is that too many politicians in positions of influence in the US have zero scientific literacy (good grief, there are Republicans on the House science committee who are frikkin' creationists) and in the pocket of the oil companies

Here's what the congressional war on science looks like:

 

http://io9.com/this-is-what-the-gops-war-on-science-looks-like-1556202056

I've seen some surreal moments in our nation's capitol, but few can compare to watching Republican members of Congress lecture John Holdren last week on the meaning of "science." Here are some highlights.

[Trumptor]

 

And not just oil companies. Heavy hitters like GE are also resisting efforts to replace old gas vacuum tube technology with solid state electronics, not until they've squeezed every last dollar from the incandescent and fluorescent lighting infrastructure (*cough* frikkin' CFLs *cough*). Changing to smarter, more efficient systems that don't add to the climate change problem is being resisted by every industry that has a sizeable stake in an old technology.

 

It's the way the system is set up. Corporations exist to profit the corporate employees, stockholders, etc. If they profit more by prolonging the lifespan of CFLs then that is the policy they will try and support. The CEO of a corporation in this position isn't going to pick any other course of action except the one that will better the company and in turn himself, unless he wants to be replaced by someone else that will.

[Delbert]

In the 1980s it was the ozone hole and CFCs, which were banned. A problem was identified and action was taken.

Well, I think the CFC problem was identified by school children some considerable time before the 1980s. It might have been in the 1980s for the science community, but can recall a TV prog (UK) whereby a school class was investigating things like hair sprays possibly affecting the upper atmosphere about a decade previously. In other words it had to continue and go to a point whereby it was blatantly obvious before anything was done. But unfortunately it seems to me that manmade climate change has a bit to go before it becomes blatantly obvious to the political elite - let alone the populous.

 

Not forgetting that the changes required for the CFC problem probably went almost unnoticed by the populous. But it seems to me the changes that might be required for climate change would be difficult - especially if they think everything seems okay.