Does the controversy surrounding climate change bother you?

if we don't have any kids, climate change is not really a concern.

 

Global climate change could well be responsible for that cooling trend. Average temperature increase does not mean uniform temperature increase in all areas.

 

Me,,, Moose Ken.

We just need to tap into to the methane and use if for power generation... duh.

 

Did you complain to your parents about having kids? I would note that having kid(s) is not overpopulation. Having too many kids is overpopulation. I'm not trying to be antagonistic in anyway, but be careful with the hypocrite label, it often does not pass the mirror test.

 

Well, you just figure out how to trap the methane over hundreds of thousands of sq miles are melting tundra! I'm guessing more will leak than you could possibly try to contain.

Icarus

 

It bothers me that many people see climate change as some type of "liberal conspiracy" and deny the science and scientific predictions. You can't enact any solutions when you have half (in the US anyway) who deny that a problem exists.

 

Saw a show about the topic a little while back and how they are trying to determine an approach... can't remember what it was but I did think of you when it came on. Oh sure, there would be/is lots escaping.

The local U is looking into to tapping our landfill for the methane to power the campus + other homes in the area. Hope it works out.

 

I post my stuff (too much!) here at PC because this group has (or thinks about having) a Prius for some reason. Less fuel bought, less CO2 emitted; doesn't matter to me what drives you here. I am glad you're here.

Is it the best plan for all of us to emit less fossil-CO2 to the atmosphere? How much less? How soon? Who pays for the transition? All these seem to me to be very worthwhile questions.

If we choose to transition from the fossil-C energy industry, which has done so much to advance the human condition over the last 100 years at least, and if we are going to no longer give them a free ride for unaccounted externalities, and if we are no longer to provide generous tax breaks to that industry, I suppose that we'd need to give good reasons. What might they be?

One could look at the medical literature. It was unknown to Dr. John Christy when he testified to congress, but you could know it. It's easy.

One could look at the climate/earth system science literature. Here it gets more complicated, because global measured air T has only risen a degree C (or so) during the last century. There have been decades without any increases during that century. Does that mean that T will not increase in the near future with more CO2? If (somehow) the oceans 'sink' the additional absorbed energy, well, sure. But we don't know about that, and it is the job of the modelers to figure that out, I'd prefer that they had funding to do so. If you want to dry up that funding, I need to ask 'what is it that you are afraid of knowing?'

It takes no effort on to find sites on the internet that say we are all about to die. It takes no effort on to find sites on the internet that say we are all about to benefit greatly from transferring more fossil-C to the atmosphere. The point of the OP here was to ask " which of those ideas is more accurate?"

I don't know, so I cannot tell you. But I can tell you that if you read the papers, it may be that you can get a bit closer to the truth. We have heard the noise from one side saying that limiting fossil CO2 release will kill us all, and from the other side that not limiting fossil CO2 release will kill us all. To be sure, it is a muddle. What to do?

I'd like to send you to Realclimate, or SkS, because those sites refer you to the published literature. But mojo has said that I could not because they lie. He says.

So I can only send you to read what is published in the journals. Most of that is tough sledding but there are review papers; a bit more accessible.

Do you want to know, or not? OP asks, how shall we know? I have no other answer beyond the above. Affinity web sites will tell you, and not require any effort. You trust them, it's your business.

 

Because the case for anthropogenic global warming suffers from several fatal flaws. I'm not going to try to explain everything - just point out one problem.
The entire case for AGW is based on computer models. All of the models use a value for the insulative effect of CO[sub]2[/sub] that was never tested. When lab geeks at MIT actually ran some experiments (remember experiments are a part of science) they found that the actual value was roughly 1/6 that used in the models. When the same models are rerun with the correct value, the total warming from CO2 increases was about 1/10 degree.
There are enough other problems, both scientific and political to require a book to cover.
BTW. The comment that there is no controversy is flat wrong. The controversy exists and is growing.

 

^I think it is patently WRONG to suggest that "the entire case for AGW is based on computer models". You are mixing up cause and effect. One can fault the conclusions that modeling predicts for future change (in anything) but that is only one pice of the puzzle. I will certainly concede thaqt the models may be "wrong" in how much warming is likely to occurs where, but that sort of misses the point.

What you can't argue is that CO2 is a known insulator, and that we have increased concentrations. By a factor of ~3 in ~200 years. What you can't argue is that increases in other GHG has also increased as climate has gotten warmer (from a number of sources including deforestation, melting of permafrost, methane emissions etc.). What you also can't argue is if you add insulation to your attic, and don't put a smaller fire in your furnace ( and the OAT stays constant) your house is going to get colder.

Now you may quibble with the models that say it is going to get X degrees warmer or Y degrees warmer, but only an ignorant person could surmise that the house isn't going to be warmer.

The issue with small rises in global temps is the POTENTIAL for small rises to haves pacts larger then might be suggested, leading to feed back loops. For example, slight rise in temps leads to slightly altered albedo, resulting in earlier melting of sub arctic climes, adding to the total global heat. This in turn leads to further melting, which in turn leads to perma frost starting to melt in greater quantity, leading to further warming (and large releases of methane sequestered in the permafrost, methane being a much better insulator than CO2) which in turn leads to further polar sea Ice melt, with further changes in the albedo etc, etc, etc.

Larger and potentially harder to predict changes might happen in the ocean PH changes as a result of CO2, leading to a slowing of carbon sequestration in sea water. (not to mention the potential release of methane hydrates as sea water warms.

So. Just because the models may in fact not be perfect analogs for future climate temps, does not mean that all the information that went into the model is wrong.

Icarus

 

Hi Jason! welcome to these discussions, and I hope you can look at our earliers.

CO2 absorbs infrared, so it warms the air, and this is amplified by more water vapor in the air. None of that relies upon atmospheric models for the future. You could add to that by providing a reference for the MIT study you mentioned.

Looking far back in the Earth's climate history, the relationship between CO2 and T is strong, but it depends on the accuracy of isotopic proxies. Those can questioned, and in your book you should question them carefully. I would.

Looking a shorter time back, we have a clear record of CO2 increase (no proxies) and measured T increase. This is buttressed by several indirect measures from ecology and continental ice, among others. We have discussed several of them here.

The point is that we are surely going to higher CO2 and it will increase T. The only remaining questions are how much and how fast? Now we get to the atmospheric models that you and I both question. I (perhaps more strongly than you) question them because they now do a poor job of handling heat flux into the oceans. This varies greatly from year to year. I doubt whether they will be useful for decadal or shorter timescales, until they are improved.

So, there it is. We are talking about a lot of things, some of which we can predict accurately, and others we still suck at. Every decade will be warmer than the previous, unless the ocean-heat thing does again what it did twice already during the instrumental-T record. I can't tell you whether it will or it won't!

We are in new territory here, because there have been no such sudden CO2 increases while humans have dominated the Earth and relied upon it for everything. Those models (such as they are) say the +T will be fast. Maybe it will be slower, and allow a few decades to sort out whether doubling CO2 will be on balance a good or a bad thing.

The slow/good thing scenario is much to be hoped for, because there is no effing way that we will not double atmospheric CO2. We are adding wind and solar and Prius and what-not, but not quickly. The big money is still in burning fossil carbon.

If high-latitude soil C holds, and marine methane clathrates hold, and Antarctic ice holds, and Greenland icemelt does not speed up, we can get away with it. If enough rain continues to fall where the crops are grown, we can get away with it.

But if any of those things does not hold, we are in for some difficult decades. And we suck at predicting all of them!

So what is your plan, Jason? Hope for the best? Mine too. But you know what they say -- hope is not a plan.

If it all goes south, then it won't much matter whether "controversy exists and is growing". We'll just have to deal with it.

 

Do hurricane models suffer from several fatal flaws? Answer-Absolutely. We don't have a single model that will tell us the exact track of a hurricane. Is your conclusion that we should ignore hurricanes?

Your implied conclusion that flawed models means we don't have to get serious about addressing a problem until a perfect model is generated is questionable. I'm sure glad that action was taken on Ozone destroying chemical releases prior to every individual agreeing that there were no shortcomings in every model of what would happen.

Most of the controversy is not over models, it's over taking ANY actions to curb CO2 dumping.

 

Icarus (dependably) beat me in, so I will only add that CO2 has been raised from about 280 to 395 parts per million by the 'fossil-C craze'. A 1.4 X increase. We will double it I can say with confidence. Whether we decide to triple it is decades away. We suck at predicting whether high-latitude soils or marine methane clathrates could speed that along, so the IPCC guidance is (perhaps) conservative in re.

Ocean pH is another matter, and as I have been corrected here recently, the 'solubility pump' much predominates over the 'biological pump'. The former looks like quite a reliable ally, all chemistry and physics, like the things we know about the atmosphere. It is fair to consider, however, whether the oceans will continue to supplement our protein at 0.1 or 0.2 pH units lower. I think that many of the experiments that have been published about ocean food chains also suck, because they make sudden pH reductions 'in the lab'.

That we are dreadfully overfishing the oceans (mining for protein) seems like a much more substantial short-term matter. That we are 'right on the line' in terrestrial food production also looks important. Maybe that can be dialed up; we are going to need it for more consumers on the way!

Still hopeful everybody? Me too.

 

I think there is a wrong question in there. Not who pays for the transition, but who pays and how much for NOT transitioning...

 

You are not seeing the big picture (IE: missing the point) of what I stated. THINK of the biggest, most pronounced way to increase co levels. Once you figure it out, you'll get it. We all live in a world where there are finite resources.

DBCassidy

 

LOL, like I had a choice in the matter - NOT!

Did you complain to your parents about having kids? Let me guess, the answer is no. Your statement that having kids is not overpopulation does not hold water. Look at China, India for starters.

DBCassidy

 

You need to help me out here. Are you of the opinion that anyone having any kid anywhere is doing something destructive?

 

^in some fundamental, absolutist way...yes. That doesn't mean we are all going to stop having kids however. Bottom line, if we had 1/3 the world population with the technology and resources we currently have, we would all be able to live high on the hog so to speak with a lot less worry over our potential impact.

I can live just fine in my wilderness island cabin where the nearest neighbor is dozens of Niels away. Any impact I have in the local environment is pretty small. I draw water from the lake, use an out house and waste wood is my primary energy source. Put 500 people in the neighborhood and the impact is quite more significant.

Icarus

 

There is enough food production in the world today to support a 3,000+ calorie daily diet for every last inhabitant. So that is not the problem.

 

Some prominent scientists made up by the onion agree with you
Scientists: 'Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source