Some random thoughts on climate change

[[DHT]Osiris]

One of the questions I tried to find an answer to a while back was how so little CO2 (in the atmosphere as a whole) could cause such a large increase in energy retention. I found a couple of articles that were well beyond my comprehension, but nothing simplified enough that a dumb old contractor could understand it.

CO2 is amazingly good at holding in heat. But that's not the primary concern, the big concern is all the follow-on effects.

Imagine you had a house with a wood stove with infinite fuel you could never turn off. Imagine you lived in it for 20y, temp was always good because you figured out over the course of a few years, what combination of windows to open when, in order to keep things balanced. Now imagine some asshole keeps adding an inch of cellulose insulation in the attic every month, wrecking your window combinations and making the house feel hot as fuck.

So, we're the asshole in this scenario, the house keeps getting hotter, all our plants are dying, the cat's about to be next, and the dog's looking hungry and irritable.

Now that's JUST the raw heat input. In actual earth, when you raise the temperature of the oceans 2 degrees, you wipe out like half the life there. Include in that is a massive amount of what creates oxygen (from co2) for our planet, which is a Bad Thing as now we have less capacity to remove the above insulation. There's about a thousand additional affects like that one, all of them really bad.

 

[Greenman]

Appreciate the info, but I already know all that part.
What I was specifically looking for a while back was related to CO2 concentrations vs heat gain. Taking the atmosphere as a whole, CO2 mass has increased some twenty thousands of one percent. More than doubled, but still tiny when expressed as a percentage of the whole. I was wondering what the linear relationship is between CO2 concentrations and heat retention expressed as BTU's. I never figured that out as other interactions screw all the numbers up. I don't have the math to make sense of it.
Asking any questions about those relationships triggers a lot of people and they start shouting "denier". That pretty much ends any discussion on the topic. One fellow over in the cesspool was very helpful. I think it was Patrayus? He sent me several very informative links, though none of them had the specific information I was looking for.

 

[sandorski]

Appreciate the info, but I already know all that part.
What I was specifically looking for a while back was related to CO2 concentrations vs heat gain. Taking the atmosphere as a whole, CO2 mass has increased some twenty thousands of one percent. More than doubled, but still tiny when expressed as a percentage of the whole. I was wondering what the linear relationship is between CO2 concentrations and heat retention expressed as BTU's. I never figured that out as other interactions screw all the numbers up. I don't have the math to make sense of it.
Asking any questions about those relationships triggers a lot of people and they start shouting "denier". That pretty much ends any discussion on the topic. One fellow over in the cesspool was very helpful. I think it was Patrayus? He sent me several very informative links, though none of them had the specific information I was looking for.

You're weasely goalposts are what triggers people.

 

[Muse]

I'm actually much more interested in the process than the conclusion, and I've never found a detailed description of the process that I can understand. I found one with enough greek letters in it to give me a headache, and a whole bunch that say "CO2 makes the atmosphere hotter, we're doomed". A layman's translation of the entire subject and the calculations involved would be fascinating, but probably wouldn't sell.
One of the questions I tried to find an answer to a while back was how so little CO2 (in the atmosphere as a whole) could cause such a large increase in energy retention. I found a couple of articles that were well beyond my comprehension, but nothing simplified enough that a dumb old contractor could understand it.

Those 3 books are fascinating reads. The writers are not scientists. They are communicators, adventurers of the spirit. Especially recommend the 6th Extinction, but the other two are not to be missed either.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't have the math to make sense of it.

I think the math is still ill-defined, but there's some very strong predictions regarding CO2 levels and temperature levels. The tricky part is sussing out how much of the temperature rises come from CO2 levels and how much come from 'other stuff'. A great example of 'other stuff' would be melting the ice caps, that's a lot of white being deleted from our surface, and a lot more not-white now absorbing heat energy.

In the end it doesn't much matter. Right now we're on track for a lot of heat gain and very few ways to deal with it. The earth is a shockingly complex system and there's rarely simple answers to ANY question, simple or complex.

Asking any questions about those relationships triggers a lot of people and they start shouting "denier". That pretty much ends any discussion on the topic. One fellow over in the cesspool was very helpful. I think it was Patrayus? He sent me several very informative links, though none of them had the specific information I was looking for.

Sometimes attitude has a lot to do with it. Asking for information is fine, but rebuffing any lack of delivery of specific information you're looking for (which may not actually exist) as an example as to why 'the science isn't settled' is bunk, and going to get called out as such. Not saying you're doing that, but if you're raising heckles, try to be introspective and discover why.

 

[gill77]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[WelshBloke]

I stated that I haven't been able to find an in depth layman's explanation.

Theres in depth or layman's. Pick one.
You cant ask for a simple explanation and then complain that it doesn't cover the details or ask for a comprehensive scientific one and complain that its above your head.
You need to work out what you want to know and then make some effort to understand the answer.

Stop asking people to spoon feed you stuff you dont like.

 

[repoman0]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Wow, past natural temperature swings happened really slowly, thanks for putting that in perspective! Lifeforms would have had thousands of generations to adapt to new conditions. Probably why shifting climates didn't cause mass extinctions over that 150,000 year period but this 2-3+ deg C swing over the course of 100 years (a time period not visible on the scale of this plot) is going to fuck up a lot of life on this planet, not to mention our coastal cities.

Those are some of the thousand words you meant, right?

 

[pmv]

A simple explanation of why my points are inaccurate would have been sufficient. Way to treat people with kindness and respect.

Your post didn't have any "points", just a string of non-sequitor statements.

You posted to an article explaining that the Ozone hole problem has been successfully addressed (the chemistry of it means the time-scales for responses to changes in human behaviour are fairly short). You didn't make any point there, as far as I can see.

Not sure why you are trying to blame climate change on other countries', as if the US hasn't produced any CO2. Weird comment. No idea what your vague 'could it be' is supposed to mean either.

What points were you attempting to make? You apparently forgot to include them in your post.

 

[pmv]

Appreciate the info, but I already know all that part.
What I was specifically looking for a while back was related to CO2 concentrations vs heat gain. Taking the atmosphere as a whole, CO2 mass has increased some twenty thousands of one percent. More than doubled, but still tiny when expressed as a percentage of the whole. I was wondering what the linear relationship is between CO2 concentrations and heat retention expressed as BTU's. I never figured that out as other interactions screw all the numbers up. I don't have the math to make sense of it.
Asking any questions about those relationships triggers a lot of people and they start shouting "denier". That pretty much ends any discussion on the topic. One fellow over in the cesspool was very helpful. I think it was Patrayus? He sent me several very informative links, though none of them had the specific information I was looking for.

The percentage of the atmosphere as a whole that CO2 makes up is not that important. A tiny percentage of cyanide in your blood can have a big effect.

Most of the atmosphere is transparent to out-going radiation, the CO2 makes up a big proportion of the atmosphere that that radiation 'sees'. And for systems in equilibrium a small change can have a big effect.

Way I see it is like a lake with a dam, rather than a greenhouse. The sun's heat is a river feeding the lake, the increase in CO2 is like raising the dam, the water level is the temperature, which will rise till it can get over the higher dam.

 

[pmv]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

I like this graph (which I found from someone's post here in the first place, to be honest)

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

 

[gill77]

Wow, past natural temperature swings happened really slowly, thanks for putting that in perspective! Lifeforms would have had thousands of generations to adapt to new conditions. Probably why shifting climates didn't cause mass extinctions over that 150,000 year period but this 2-3+ deg C swing over the course of 100 years (a time period not visible on the scale of this plot) is going to fuck up a lot of life on this planet, not to mention our coastal cities.

Those are some of the thousand words you meant, right?

My takeaways would be as follows:

The chart pretty much shows the temperatures since homo sapiens have been around. Some would argue it's longer. We have seen some tremendous climate change. Fits with the old saying that the only thing that does not change is change. Doesn't set well with the folks demanding that we magically flat line that graph.

Perhaps also noteworthy is the low point about 15K years ago was the ice age. Folks living in Chicago at the time were under a mile of ice, thinking that if they ever get a warm up, they might think about inventing farming.

Looks like all of recorded history has been in a pretty stable climate, relatively speaking. Before this period something was driving those really giant swings. Odds are those drivers have not gone away and will swamp our measly efforts at some point.

 

[Brainonska511]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

What are you trying to say with your graph covering 150,000 years?

 

[gill77]

What are you trying to say with your graph covering 150,000 years?

Scale is important. Climate is longer term than weather. If you were studying weather and started collecting data on May one, at May 31 you would be concerned about how hot it was going to get.

150K years is about how long we have been around. I'm sure we could look much further back and see even more dramatic swings, but It may not be that useful. What was May like during the ice age?

 

[pmv]

My takeaways would be as follows:

The chart pretty much shows the temperatures since homo sapiens have been around. Some would argue it's longer. We have seen some tremendous climate change. Fits with the old saying that the only thing that does not change is change. Doesn't set well with the folks demanding that we magically flat line that graph.

Perhaps also noteworthy is the low point about 15K years ago was the ice age. Folks living in Chicago at the time were under a mile of ice, thinking that if they ever get a warm up, they might think about inventing farming.

Looks like all of recorded history has been in a pretty stable climate, relatively speaking. Before this period something was driving those really giant swings. Odds are those drivers have not gone away and will swamp our measly efforts at some point.

Not sure what point you are making. There have been large changes over geological time-scales. Those changes are generally down to identified physical processes (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles). The recent change is much more rapid and fits very well with the known physics of CO2, while not fitting with any other explanation. Sure, there will eventually be natural changes - the greatest of them presumably being when the sun swells up to a giant and engulfs the entire planet in it's fiery plasma embrace (we'll probably need some improved air-conditioning tech at that point). But those operate on a much longer time-scale.

 

[Brainonska511]

Scale is important. Climate is longer term than weather. If you were studying weather and started collecting data on May one, at May 31 you would be concerned about how hot it was going to get.

150K years is about how long we have been around. I'm sure we could look much further back and see even more dramatic swings, but It may not be that useful. What was May like during the ice age?

You could have just said you reject the scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change (aka, you subscribe to denialism).

 

[gill77]

Not sure what point you are making. There have been large changes over geological time-scales. Those changes are generally down to identified physical processes (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles). The recent change is much more rapid and fits very well with the known physics of CO2, while not fitting with any other explanation. Sure, there will eventually be natural changes - the greatest of them presumably being when the sun swells up to a giant and engulfs the entire planet in it's fiery plasma embrace (we'll probably need some improved air-conditioning tech at that point). But those operate on a much longer time-scale.

Pretty simple point really. We have seen massive climate change, most of it pre-farming. Something, comets, volcanoes, sun cycles, doesn't really matter. Odds are that they have not gone away and these swings will continue.

I will have to question whether we are seeing changes that are "much more rapid" than we have ever seen before. It would be nice if we could have some measurements during those huge spikes we see on the graph. We have been measuring for a mere blink of an eye.

 

[gill77]

You could have just said you reject the scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change (aka, you subscribe to denialism).

I could have said that, but I did not. You did.

What I am saying is that it is a bit a mute point. It is like complaining (the new past time) that all the motor boats have made the water too choppy. The mother of all tsunamis is coming, at some point.

It's not political, it's not philosophical, all you have to do is look at the chart.

You have three basic choices. Deny the data, accept that change occurs, or argue that the chart will now flat line.

 

[Brainonska511]

I could have said that, but I did not. You did.

What I am saying is that it is a bit a mute point. It is like complaining (the new past time) that all the motor boats have made the water too choppy. The mother of all tsunamis is coming, at some point.

It's not political, it's not philosophical, all you have to do is look at the chart.

You have three basic choices. Deny the data, accept that change occurs, or argue that the chart will now flat line.

I'm not denying the data. You're trying to mislead through inappropriately scaled graphs to reinforce an argument that denialists use. You might not explicitly say you're engaging in denialism, but if it looks and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

[gill77]

I'm not denying the data. You're trying to mislead through inappropriately scaled graphs to reinforce an argument that denialists use. You might not explicitly say you're engaging in denialism, but if it looks and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

If this graph is inappropriately scaled, I would sincerely like to know. Is it the time frame you don't like or something else?

 

[gill77]

I found this pretty shocking. It was surprisingly difficult to find the current CO2 percentage. He mentions it shortly after 5:00.

 

[nakedfrog]

I could have said that, but I did not. You did.

What I am saying is that it is a bit a mute point. It is like complaining (the new past time) that all the motor boats have made the water too choppy. The mother of all tsunamis is coming, at some point.

It's not political, it's not philosophical, all you have to do is look at the chart.

You have three basic choices. Deny the data, accept that change occurs, or argue that the chart will now flat line.

Hm, that seems almost absurdly reductionist. Shame we can't base our decision on more than one chart that doesn't have granular data, right?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Pretty simple point really. We have seen massive climate change, most of it pre-farming. Something, comets, volcanoes, sun cycles, doesn't really matter. Odds are that they have not gone away and these swings will continue.

I will have to question whether we are seeing changes that are "much more rapid" than we have ever seen before. It would be nice if we could have some measurements during those huge spikes we see on the graph. We have been measuring for a mere blink of an eye.

Well, there have been massive climate changes over geologic times (but we haven't been here to actually see them ). And the "somethings" you list are factors that contributed to them, and as you say will continue to contribute to changes in climate. That said, it is worth recognizing that these climate swings aren't generally favorable to our survival as a species. We are best served by a steady, predictable climate. Just because climate change occurs for non-manmade reasons doesn't mean it is good for us.

And the fact that there are many factors that have contributed to climate change in the past does not mean that we cannot be adding a new factor by releasing sequestered carbon back into the environment. It makes a certain amount of sense that releasing that carbon would take us back to the warmer climates enjoyed by the dinosaurs.

Here is a better chart showing the rapid rise in CO2 levels.



https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

I think it makes sense for us as a species to do what we can about the things that we can control to minimize climate change, and CO2 emissions is one of those things.

I also want to bemoan the tendency these days for people to distrust those who have studied and are more knowledgeable in particular area than most of us will ever be. Some cynicism is a good thing, but the populist feeling seems to be that if you cannot explain it to me in language that I understand (i.e. prove it to me) then I am going not believe what you tell me. Quantum physics and many other areas of science are beyond the capability of most people to grasp. Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion - but not all opinions are equally valuable.

 

[gill77]

Hm, that seems almost absurdly reductionist. Shame we can't base our decision on more than one chart that doesn't have granular data, right?

My understanding of reductionism is reducing a complex system to simple causes. I am sure there are complex causes behind the data, I just would not pretend to know them.

If 150K years is too granular , would you care to share a larger scale graph? Odds are the changes will be even more dramatic.

 

[nakedfrog]

My understanding of reductionism is reducing a complex system to simple causes. I am sure there are complex causes behind the data, I just would not pretend to know them.

If 150K years is too granular , would you care to share a larger scale graph? Odds are the changes will be even more dramatic.

That's not my usage of "reductionism", I mean "hey, let's base our entire decision on this one chart instead of lots of data" is absurd.