Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Raffy.Roma]

Even if you believe that the observable climate change is not caused by humans, do you also reject the idea that our actions can counterbalance those changes to some degree?

That's a good question Robert.

But I would like to point out some facts.

1) In the last years CO2 atmosphere concentration is increasing.
2) CO2 resonates at the frequency of infrared rays produced by the Earth and for this reason prevents heat to go in the space trapping it within the atmosphere.
3) Global warming is increasing.

Considering these 3 facts I think it is very difficult to deny that the climate change is caused by humans.

The above mentioned facts are also confirmed in this video:
Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - YouTube

 

[Zapped]

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS must certainly be a major factor in climate change.
The Icelandic events of 2010 with 250 million m3 of ash must be the equivalent of XX years of human effects
Can anyone speculate on the relative effect compared to the human effect ?
Just wonder ...

 

[DriverOne]

The Icelandic volcano was actually carbon negative, when you account for all the flights that were cancelled during that time. Crazy.

From Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview, "Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes"

Volcanos are actually trivial compared to human effects.

 

[jerry33]

The Icelandic volcano was actually carbon negative, when you account for all the flights that were cancelled during that time. Crazy.

From Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview, "Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes"

Volcanos are actually trivial compared to human effects.

And even if you don't accept the science, what is the harm in acting like the science is correct?

1. Not as much money goes to the OPEC countries.

2. The air becomes cleaner so that there are less medical problems and healthcare costs go down in general.

Sorry, I don't see a downside unless you are an oil company tycoon.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

And even if you don't accept the science, what is the harm in acting like the science is correct?

1. Not as much money goes to the OPEC countries.

2. The air becomes cleaner so that there are less medical problems and healthcare costs go down in general.

Sorry, I don't see a downside unless you are an oil company tycoon.

Agree.

 

[Doug_G]

The Icelandic volcano was actually carbon negative, when you account for all the flights that were cancelled during that time. Crazy.

Truly large explosive eruptions, e.g. Mount Pinatubo, actually cool the Earth for a year or two, by injecting massive amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere.

This has led to a geoengineering proposal where you use technology to create the same effect. Scary to consider, but at least it has the advantage that you can turn it off it it doesn't work out. I'm worried that we may find ourselves doing things like that...

 

[Jeff N]

This is also not just about whether it might be a bit more comfy if added another few degrees of warmth to the planet.

Something missed in the discussion so far is that the climate is changing far more rapidly now than it does during its normal variability. All the ecosystems of plants, insects, birds, and animals that we ultimately depend on for food are having to adapt to changing climate. They can't and don't all adapt at the same pace or manner. Locally inter-dependent ecosystems are being broken apart. Insects are screwed when plants and trees start blossoming earlier than usual. The birds that eat them migrate at the wrong time. Trees that are sensitive to climate zones can't pick up and move when their microclimate changes. Many plants are sensitive to precipitation patterns that will be changing in their area.

These changes are already happening and we are at high risk of a mass extinction due to the rapid climate change (among other reasons).

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Something missed in the discussion so far is that the climate is changing far more rapidly now than it does during its normal variability.

In the above mentioned video:

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - YouTube

it is stated that in the last 35 years there has been an increase in the Earth temperature much bigger than in previous periods.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Something missed in the discussion so far is that the climate is changing far more rapidly now than it does during its normal variability.

In the above mentioned video:

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - YouTube

it is stated that in the last 35 years there has been an increase in the Earth temperature much bigger than in previous periods.

I’m pretty sure I remember reading or seeing a credible source somewhere a couple of years ago that the global average temperature then – through a number of decades or perhaps even the last 100 years – was changing/increasing three times as fast as ever before during the 800.000 year timeframe we have records from through Antarctic ice cores. Unfortunately I’ve lost track of that source. And also unfortunately, I seem to be unable to find it – or something comparable – through Google…

Maybe some of you more knowledgeable on the forum can add a good credible source on how fast the global average temperature has been rising the last 100 years or so, compared to the other fastest increases in global average temperature during that 800.000 year timeframe mentioned above.

 

[richkae]

I don't believe in global warming ( human caused global temperature change ).
We have no way to conduct an experiment: we have no set of control group planets, nor the ability to wait hundreds of years while we pump different chemicals into their atmospheres.
What I do believe is that ( some portion ) of the scientific community has stated that it is possible, even probable.

What do you do with that? You look at the possible outcomes and the impact on our future. The simplest least empathic example: Rising sea levels that displace many millions are bad for the global economy. You roll them all together into probabilities and costs.

Then, you look at how you can mitigate the problem ( if it exists ) and weigh the cost vs. the risk.
Almost every reasonable step to reduce the problem has other measurable benefits that outweigh their long term costs.
So the global warming equation is in all those cases becomes completely moot and not worth arguing about anymore - "fixing" global warming becomes a bonus side effect.

Converting our economy to domestic energy sources has long term benefits that are far greater than the costs. It even has immediate benefits that outweigh the costs.
( then why is it hard? Because those who benefit from the status quo lose while others gain - and they fight. )

When choosing between coal and renewable energy for a domestic energy source - again there is no reason to involve global warming. Straight up normal pollution from coal is scientifically provable to have a huge health cost long before the oceans may rise.
Just look at recent pictures from Beijing.

I want to live in a world where we don't fight wars for oil, and I can breathe clean air. As a bonus, in my world the oceans don't rise.

 

[EchoDelta]

Have you seen the film "The day after tomorrow"?

While it does bring awareness to climate change and the impact of nonlinear effects (and attention to things like ocean currents, salinity, etc) it is as scientific of a movie as "The Core" or "The Labyrinth" -with a better plot and actors than the first, and less muppets and less David Bowie than the second.

While the issues of global warming are real and measurable, the effects are not a joke, and not a game.

 

[Doug_G]

I don't believe in global warming ( human caused global temperature change ).

How about ocean acidification? That's a lot more straightforward to demonstrate as being an impact of CO2 emissions.

Also, this is a matter of science, not faith. IMHO people back up their "beliefs" with evidence.

 

[EchoDelta]

I want to live in a world where we don't fight wars for oil, and I can breathe clean air. As a bonus, in my world the oceans don't rise.

Me too, I think our only difference is that looking at the data about energy balance of the planet I think we're on an agressive timeline to get there, and that there are invisible forks in the road that will make the destination we both want unreachable if we don't make decisions to change direction early enough.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

While the issues of global warming are real and measurable, the effects are not a joke, and not a game.

This is exactly what I meant in the post that originated this thread. That's why I don't think that I had a bashing tone as somebody wrote.

 

[richkae]

How about ocean acidification? That's a lot more straightforward to demonstrate as being an impact of CO2 emissions.

Also, this is a matter of science, not faith. IMHO people back up their "beliefs" with evidence.

I'll choose better words. I do not believe in global warming because it can not be proven. The evidence makes me believe that it is probable.
I do not need proof to decide to take action based on this evidence. In the case of global warming, we only have one planet with which to experiment. In the case of the bullet, I only have one me, and I do not care to experiment.

I was attempting to dance with "belief", "evidence" and "proof". Waiting for proof that something is going to kill you is most likely going to help you die early.

You can calculate risks and costs, and decide what to do. But I'm also saying that I don't think you need to even argue about global warming because most of the good ideas to "solve global warming" are beneficial without the global warming angle.

 

[EchoDelta]

I don't believe in global warming ( human caused global temperature change ).
We have no way to conduct an experiment: we have no set of control group planets, nor the ability to wait hundreds of years while we pump different chemicals into their atmospheres.

Of course, but we do have records of old compositions of the atmosphere and sea CO2 and acidity that can be extracted from ice cores and sedimentary rock analysis; we have fairly accurate information about the sun's energy and evolution, fairly good information about the earth's orbit and axis wobbliness.There is enough consensus we are pushing the system outside regular envelopes.
What we don't have as strong models and theories for, is nonlinearities of melting of ice, whole-earth models of albedo, and information about methane clathrates densities. But you just need to have these accurate models to paint a less-grim or a more-grim picture (how much it will suck, and when, not "if"). Even if the models are demonstrably not perfect, and use different methods, they all give results in the same ballpark.

Think of it as your estimated ranges in your Tesla (ideal and rated etc) - if one shows 45 miles and the other 67 miles; it doesn't matter much if you were planning to drive 100 miles; and it's not rational to say "well the models and estimations don't agree, therefore they are obviously wrong, and I will just drive ahead because I may just make it". Right? The difference is the 'bad scenario' is really bad. We have no flatbed truck we can put the planet or our civilization on.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I'll choose better words. I do not believe in global warming because it can not be proven. The evidence makes me believe that it is probable.
I do not need proof to decide to take action based on this evidence. In the case of global warming, we only have one planet with which to experiment. In the case of the bullet, I only have one me, and I do not care to experiment.

I was attempting to dance with "belief", "evidence" and "proof". Waiting for proof that something is going to kill you is most likely going to help you die early.

You can calculate risks and costs, and decide what to do. But I'm also saying that I don't think you need to even argue about global warming because most of the good ideas to "solve global warming" are beneficial without the global warming angle.

Now I understand your point of view. Even if I don't agree with you I must admit that it's a good point of view which can help very much in the discussion on global warming expecially with reference to people who are skeptical about global warming.
I only would like to suggest you to look at this video (Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - YouTube) presenting in my opinion not only the evidences of global warming but also the evidences that global warming is man-made.

 

[Doug_G]

My approach has always been skepticism. That is, I have been skeptical of both sides of the argument.

The evidence on the "pro" side is not perfect, and probably never will be until it is seriously too late. Obviously you can't do a controlled experiment with two worlds. I not a big fan of extrapolations using computer models in general, not just about global warming. However, the basic science is solid, and the trends in the environment are pretty clear.

Unfortunately for the "anti" side, their arguments are hardly convincing. There have been some rational arguments, to be sure, but no coherent picture. There has also been much obfuscation and spin, which is hugely irresponsible. Some people are putting their short-term gain over the long term effects on everyone on the planet.

Indeed, I am growing increasingly concerned about the feedback effects, which do indeed appear to be kicking in.

Thank you for backing away from the "belief" comment. I don't "believe" in anthropogenic global warming. It just happens to best fit the real world evidence.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Remember, we haven't "proven" the theory of gravity, either. Science really doesn't prove things; it disproves things. Gravity hasn't been disproven, nor evolution. Anthropomorphic climate change has fairly squarely moved into the "can't disprove" it category at this point.

Still, I think the thrust of the conversation above is a heated agreement that active steps can and should be taken to reduce carbon and other emissions. Ten years ago my line was "this is an important problem, but not an urgent one. It took over 100 years to make this mess, and it will take decades to address it." I'm in agreement with Doug_G's point, though, that the feedback effects appear to be amplifying change. The problem is more urgent than I thought.

 

[dflye]

When the defense begins with "well, nearly everyone else isn't going to change, so why should I inconvenience myself to benefit everyone?" it readily shows the self-centered nature of the defense.

Where I can make a change in my use of fossil fuels (directly or indirectly), I'll attempt it, regardless of whether it may or may not have an infinitesimally small percentage effect on climate change; the other benefits not related to climate change have much greater near-term effect, such as improving air and water quality.

Living in NC, the effects of fossil fuel use is readily apparent in the mountains. While we aren't talking about LA or Bejing levels of particulate matter in the air, the coal fired power plants run by the TVA and Duke Energy certainly have a visible and environmental effect on the TN/NC mountains.