Some random thoughts on climate change

[gill77]

You're going to need something other than a youtube video as a citation. Show me a research paper of this 70% claim.

Let me try and understand your stance. You're saying that because there were temperature shifts prior to the industrial revolution, then it's too early/we don't have enough data to claim that this shift is related to co2 levels?

The Youtube discusses the paper. I did not publish it and have no vested interest in the 70%. Just saying that it probably was much higher.

This is hilarious. I will try again.

CO2 affects climate. In our blink of the eye since the industrial revolution, we have probably affected climate. (The use of statistical significance is pretty much standard in science today. If you are looking for absolutes, go visit your priest)

Prior to the industrial revolution, and throughout the entire history of the earth there have been enormous climate swings. Has anyone actually looked at the graphs?

Something caused these massive swings. There are theories, more like opinions. It is probably fair to say that it is unresolved, but it doesn't matter. Most likely the dinosaurs died due to an asteroid hitting the earth. Does not matter why, the dinosaurs are dead, undisputed. Just like the temperatures. Massive swings throughout the earth's timeline.

The fact that we have great measuring capabilities now and can see how emissions have increased CO2 and temperature in this tiny slice of time does not somehow magically make those factors that have been driving the enormous temperature swings over our entire history magically disappear.

It is as if we just started measuring all the meteorological data for the first time and came up with a pretty sound model for predicting the weather. If the location is Miami, you have a history of hurricanes. A rock solid long term history of hurricanes. You don't know when but statistics would put a high probabilty that at some point there will be one.

Problem is, you are smart. You know all about meteorology. You have ten years worth of data. You know exactly what is driving the weather now. "The past does not matter". There are no more hurricanes. Granted there is a chance that there will never be a hurricane in Miami. But odds are you will be wrong, very wrong, devastatingly wrong if you are not prepared.

Most likely Miami will experience a hurricane. Most likely the factors causing those long-term enormous climatic changes will have not gone away because you have new science.

 

[gill77]

Your point about Newton to Einstein is a good one but I’m not sure you completely grasp the parallels between it and man made climate change.

Newton’s theories were basically correct but incomplete. Einstein’s theories effectively contain Newton’s theories as special cases and extend them.

I’ll link Asimov again since he’s got story that drives this point home.

The Relativity of Wrong

TLDR

• Right and Wrong aren’t binary when it comes to theories. Take the shape of the Earth
• Flat Earth was supported by a lot of evidence in daily life but it was wrong
• Spherical Earth is much more accurate but we found it’s technically wrong
• Due to spin the Earth is slightly pear shaped so the Earth is an oblate spheroid is more accurate but still technically wrong
• The Earth is best described as an irregular oblate spheroid
• Just because we kept being “wrong” about the shape doesn’t mean next century we’ll suddenly find out the Earth is a rhombus or pyramid shape
• Successful theories become more “correct” over time

The same thing is happening with climate change. The underlying theories will be improved and extended as time goes on but fundamentally the findings aren’t going to change.

What I’m trying to do here is help you over come your personal incredulity by providing evidence.

The first point isn’t that it’s been warmer in the past, it has. It’s that our cities, farms and ports have been built with the climate we’ve had for the last 150 years in mind. That climate is changing and it’s going to cost us a lot to deal with it.

Second point is that no one is saying what’s happening now is some new force that over rides nature’s control of the climate. What’s new is we can tweak one of the knobs that have controlled the climate in the past.
those knobs are:

• Suns output (no control by us)
• Changes in Earths albedo (amount of sunlight reflected vs absorbed) (some control by us through land use changes and reflective pollution)
• Changes in Earths tilt (no control)
• Changes in Earths orbit (no control)
• Changes in land distribution between Northern and Southern Hemispheres (no control)
• Vulcanism (no control)
• Heat from radioactive decay (no control)
• Changes in atmospheric composition (this is the major control we have through the emissions of gigatons of greenhouse gases like CO2 methane and others)

There’s no invisible magic process that controls the climate. Mass and energy are conserved. Once we account for where all the energy is going we understand what’s going on.

You are going to control the climate? How is that working for you so far?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Just saying that it probably was much higher.

That's an assertion with no citation. You should avoid those as they are an incredibly prevalent vector of false information. Citation or it didn't happen.

In our blink of the eye since the industrial revolution, we have probably affected climate.

I'm glad you agree, honestly.

Has anyone actually looked at the graphs?

Yes, I've looked at lots of information regarding this, potentially more than you (though that's irrelevant). I follow climate closely as I personally believe our current climate 'situation' is an existential crisis.

There are theories, more like opinions.

That's not entirely true. Some are debated considering how long ago some of these were (long for even geological terms) but please bear in mind that debate between theories like this doesn't come down to one camp saying 'it's a mystery!' and one camp saying 'it's co2 dummy!'... it's more like, what percentage of the change was related to atmospheric changes caused by x y and z, and what percentage was caused by external influences a b and c.. one camp thinks it's 60% one, 40% the other, other camp thinks it's 55% one, 45% the other. These aren't as 'hotly debated' as you seem to think, nor are they 'opinions'.... they're theories backed up by data.

The fact that we have great measuring capabilities now and can see how emissions have increased CO2 and temperature in this tiny slice of time does not somehow magically make those factors that have been driving the enormous temperature swings over our entire history magically disappear.

I know of nobody asserting this. Why are you bringing it up? What's your actual statement with this? That because it's happened in the past, what we're experiencing is normal? Regarding the rest, it also seems like you're trying to say that we've had massive swings in the past, so we're going to experience swings in the future, again, I don't think anyone is arguing this with you... the problem is any future temperature changes that occurred 'naturally' (aka part of earth's normal march of time) would have happened over hundreds of thousands/millions of years, as they did in the past. Not over the course of 200-400 years as we're experiencing now.

 

[gill77]

I've looked at more than that. You failed to address the point which I anticipated.

There are many "real ice ages", so find one that has the magnitude of change over a couple of hundred years that matches the current changes known.

Ice Age? You cannot find a point in geologic history that matches the current situation and resulted in a non-event.

You really do match a few trolls of my acquaintance but sometimes it's fun to play along, however consider yourself caught. BTW, if the CO2 concentration ever was what you say, you are alone in knowing that "fact".

No need to use the T word with respect to me, or perhaps you do have the need. None-the-less, I am not about to have someone find a piece of a graph and say you go find one like this. The data I was referencing was over thousands of years. Not all have the same detail.

Adios.

 

[sandorski]

lol

 

[Muse]

IMO I don’t see this problem getting better until there is no more fossil fuels left to be burned. Too much money to be made with oil, coal and natural gas.

Take the trouble to inform yourself rather than spew your wishful thinking. You don't know about the massive moves that have been progressing in green energy? You're really peeing all over yourself here.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Speaking of climate change, it seems every year our winters are milder. Last winter was the closest winter we had in the past decade that resembles what I remember from my childhood though but in general, our winters are milder and we get less snow. This year it's been hovering just around freezing all January. Normally this is our coldest month and we get -30's. Back when I was in high school I remember even getting -50s for like a week strait and the rest would be -30s. We just don't get that kind of cold anymore at least not long lasting. The river is not even frozen right now. I dread the days when our winters are going to be nothing but rain and slush, it's going to be miserable.

The effects of climate change are well noticeable here in just the past 2 decades or so.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Speaking of climate change, it seems every year our winters are milder. Last winter was the closest winter we had in the past decade that resembles what I remember from my childhood though but in general, our winters are milder and we get less snow. This year it's been hovering just around freezing all January. Normally this is our coldest month and we get -30's. Back when I was in high school I remember even getting -50s for like a week strait and the rest would be -30s. We just don't get that kind of cold anymore at least not long lasting. The river is not even frozen right now. I dread the days when our winters are going to be nothing but rain and slush, it's going to be miserable.

The effects of climate change are well noticeable here in just the past 2 decades or so.

My GF has talked about the same thing. She grew up in the area we now live and ~20y ago, the winters were much, much different. We had one solid year last year when it got extremely cold for a few days (-30's wind chill) and otherwise it stayed in the 10's-20's, this year over half our days have been over freezing. Much different from a localized perspective than in the past, and we're expecting that to trend upwards too.

Similarly, she knew almost nobody that had A/C growing up. Now? They get days in the 90's up here during JUL/AUG.

 

[Muse]

Speaking of climate change, it seems every year our winters are milder. Last winter was the closest winter we had in the past decade that resembles what I remember from my childhood though but in general, our winters are milder and we get less snow. This year it's been hovering just around freezing all January. Normally this is our coldest month and we get -30's. Back when I was in high school I remember even getting -50s for like a week strait and the rest would be -30s. We just don't get that kind of cold anymore at least not long lasting. The river is not even frozen right now. I dread the days when our winters are going to be nothing but rain and slush, it's going to be miserable.

The effects of climate change are well noticeable here in just the past 2 decades or so.

Similar effect here. The last few winters have been milder than they ever were the last 50 years... Berkeley, CA. I used to plant my tomatoes about the first day of spring, i.e. Mar. 21. Recent years as much as a month earlier. One year the weather in February was tomato planting weather, WTF. It's been feeling like spring is either here or right around the corner for 70+% of the days the last couple weeks.

 

[gill77]

I know of nobody asserting this. Why are you bringing it up? What's your actual statement with this? That because it's happened in the past, what we're experiencing is normal? Regarding the rest, it also seems like you're trying to say that we've had massive swings in the past, so we're going to experience swings in the future, again, I don't think anyone is arguing this with you... the problem is any future temperature changes that occurred 'naturally' (aka part of earth's normal march of time) would have happened over hundreds of thousands/millions of years, as they did in the past. Not over the course of 200-400 years as we're experiencing now.

I think there are several individuals posting here that contend that we have climate change nailed, "the past doesn't matter".

If you can show your 200-400 data is totally without precedent, the game is yours, but you might find it difficult, for two reasons.

Proving a negative is exceedingly difficult if not impossible. You can say there are no Black Swans, until someone points to one.

There are some enormous temperature swings as late as 15K years ago. Even if we had that fine of data, it is highly unlikely that their would not be something similar.

It is a good point. We are now in something never seen before in the history of all the earth. Proving the point, a bit more problematic.

 

[Muse]

Similarly, she knew almost nobody that had A/C growing up. Now? They get days in the 90's up here during JUL/AUG.

Summers have gotten noticeably warmer here. Around 10 years ago I worked out cooling in my upstairs bedroom, never felt it to be necessary previously. I put in a room A/C (seldom used, though) and a couple of 200mm computer fans in the same window (both on almost all nights at least 1/2 the year).

It used to be tolerable downstairs no matter how hot the weather was here, but there have been at least two events when it was intolerable downstairs too! That NEVER happened here before 2 years ago.

 

[Paratus]

You are going to control the climate? How is that working for you so far?

Well according to this study we’ve managed to delay the next ice age so maybe it’s time to stop?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you can show your 200-400 data is totally without precedent, the game is yours, but you might find it difficult, for two reasons.

I mean, it is without precedent? What are you trying to get at here? There's never been a time the history of this planet post-'rocks smashing into rocks' period where the CO2 levels have risen this fast. The most aggressive period would have been well after early volcanism, when multicellular life first started developing, released gobs of oxygen into the atmosphere, causing a massive extinction event, then followed by a massive explosion of life that evolved to consume oxygen. Even then, you're talking tens to hundreds of millions of years to make dramatic swings in co2 levels. Lets put it into perspective...

At the start the Cambrian explosion (~540M years ago), which lasted about 20M years, co2 levels were at 4500ppm. During the Ordovician Period (just after Cambrian period, started 485M years ago), co2 levels were 4200ppm. This held roughly steady until the Denovian period (~420M years ago), at which point it dropped to 2200ppm. We've now covered 100 million years with about 2300ppm change.

Now the big guns come out, Carboniferous period (~360M years ago), we drop to 800ppm, primarily due to the absorption and subsequent burying of most atmospheric CO2 by trees. We drop steadily from 800ppm to pre-industrial ~250ppm over the next 360 million years.

We're back up to 410, over the course of about 300 years. At our current rate, we're expected to hit 670ppm by 2100. See a problem?

 

[gill77]

Well according to this study we’ve managed to delay the next ice age so maybe it’s time to stop?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

I have to hand it to you for posting that.

It would probably be best to preface this by saying that the general consensus is that ice ages are far worse than warm periods. Freezing in the cold, mile thick glaciers covering vast areas, crop production seriously impaired etc.

If I read it correctly this article states that in part the ice age was averted by carbon emissions at the beginning of the industrial revolution. I doubt that was their reason for burning coal.

So the root of all evil was our savior?

 

[gill77]

I mean, it is without precedent? What are you trying to get at here? There's never been a time the history of this planet post-'rocks smashing into rocks' period where the CO2 levels have risen this fast. The most aggressive period would have been well after early volcanism, when multicellular life first started developing, released gobs of oxygen into the atmosphere, causing a massive extinction event, then followed by a massive explosion of life that evolved to consume oxygen. Even then, you're talking tens to hundreds of millions of years to make dramatic swings in co2 levels. Lets put it into perspective...

At the start the Cambrian explosion (~540M years ago), which lasted about 20M years, co2 levels were at 4500ppm. During the Ordovician Period (just after Cambrian period, started 485M years ago), co2 levels were 4200ppm. This held roughly steady until the Denovian period (~420M years ago), at which point it dropped to 2200ppm. We've now covered 100 million years with about 2300ppm change.

Now the big guns come out, Carboniferous period (~360M years ago), we drop to 800ppm, primarily due to the absorption and subsequent burying of most atmospheric CO2 by trees. We drop steadily from 800ppm to pre-industrial ~250ppm over the next 360 million years.

We're back up to 410, over the course of about 300 years. At our current rate, we're expected to hit 670ppm by 2100. See a problem?

so what did you mean by this?

the problem is any future temperature changes that occurred 'naturally' (aka part of earth's normal march of time) would have happened over hundreds of thousands/millions of years, as they did in the past. Not over the course of 200-400 years as we're experiencing now.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

so what did you mean by this?

the problem is any future temperature changes that occurred 'naturally' (aka part of earth's normal march of time) would have happened over hundreds of thousands/millions of years, as they did in the past. Not over the course of 200-400 years as we're experiencing now.

I thought it was self explanatory, but I'll try to explain what that statement means. I'm assuming (I must since you haven't actually explained your position yet) that you are stating that there's been temperature swings in the past, in order to draw a corollary to our current temperature changes, indicating that it may in fact be natural. If this is not the case, please state as such.

Given that assumption, I was countering it by saying both past, and future 'normal' temperature changes (read: not man-made) happen over millions of years, not 200-400 years, as they are now.

If my assumption regarding your assertion is incorrect, then the rest of the sentence is mostly irrelevant.

 

[sandorski]

I have to hand it to you for posting that.

It would probably be best to preface this by saying that the general consensus is that ice ages are far worse than warm periods. Freezing in the cold, mile thick glaciers covering vast areas, crop production seriously impaired etc.

If I read it correctly this article states that in part the ice age was averted by carbon emissions at the beginning of the industrial revolution. I doubt that was their reason for burning coal.

So the root of all evil was our savior?

The next Ice Age was not going to occur for many thousands of years, so no, not a saviour.,

 

[gill77]

I thought it was self explanatory, but I'll try to explain what that statement means. I'm assuming (I must since you haven't actually explained your position yet) that you are stating that there's been temperature swings in the past, in order to draw a corollary to our current temperature changes, indicating that it may in fact be natural. If this is not the case, please state as such.

Given that assumption, I was countering it by saying both past, and future 'normal' temperature changes (read: not man-made) happen over millions of years, not 200-400 years, as they are now.

If my assumption regarding your assertion is incorrect, then the rest of the sentence is mostly irrelevant.

For me it seems simple. Been constant flow of hurricanes in the past, likely not to go away. I tried, probably crudely, in post #102.

My guess is that most folks get triggered immediately if they hear some view of climate change that is not 130% virtue signalling. What? Climate has always been changing?

Blasphemer, denier, troll! I guess the real inconvenient truth is that it always has been changing, and in ways much more significant than the quiet period we are in now.

It is really not my fault, but the data speaks for itself.

 

[sandorski]

sigh

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

For me it seems simple. Been constant flow of hurricanes in the past, likely not to go away. I tried, probably crudely, in post #102.

My guess is that most folks get triggered immediately if they hear some view of climate change that is not 130% virtue signalling. What? Climate has always been changing?

Blasphemer, denier, troll! I guess the real inconvenient truth is that it always has been changing, and in ways much more significant than the quiet period we are in now.

It is really not my fault, but the data speaks for itself.

You still haven't actually stated your stance. Is your stance that because we've had dramatic swings in the past 6 billion years of our planet's history, that this one is a) normal, and/or b) not a big deal?

Be careful with the word 'significant' there. Yes, we've had larger swings, but not in such a small time frame. Time frames are important. Long time frames gives life time to adapt to the changes. Short ones wipe out life (see Chicxulub impactor, subsequent cooling wiped out 75% of all life basically instantly).

 

[nakedfrog]

For me it seems simple. Been constant flow of hurricanes in the past, likely not to go away. I tried, probably crudely, in post #102.

My guess is that most folks get triggered immediately if they hear some view of climate change that is not 130% virtue signalling. What? Climate has always been changing?

Blasphemer, denier, troll! I guess the real inconvenient truth is that it always has been changing, and in ways much more significant than the quiet period we are in now.

It is really not my fault, but the data speaks for itself.

Did you perceive his point that the RATE of change matters?

 

[gill77]

You still haven't actually stated your stance. Is your stance that because we've had dramatic swings in the past 6 billion years of our planet's history, that this one is a) normal, and/or b) not a big deal?

Be careful with the word 'significant' there. Yes, we've had larger swings, but not in such a small time frame. Time frames are important. Long time frames gives life time to adapt to the changes. Short ones wipe out life (see Chicxulub impactor, subsequent cooling wiped out 75% of all life basically instantly).

A) Normal? It is a swing that is probably due in part to emissions. Is that what you are after?

B) I guess to be a big deal it has to be a big change. If it was a big change in a short time it is likely an extinction event. Not seeing that.

Given that a big deal has to be a big change that almost necessarily show up on those long term graphs. Will it eventually get there? I don't know.

If you really study the graphs, you have to come away with the fact that there are cycles. They cycle up and down and don't go off into never never land. Call it reversion to the mean, seeking an equilibrium or whatever, but the cycles are there.

Given that our worst case scenario would be another ice age, our real fear should be that this spike up in temperature could well set off a correction that would lead us into some serious cooling.

It seems to me that lots of folks have no problem looking a million year chart and thinking that our current situation is not going to just take us to a high point, but would take us clear off the page. It could, be is likely that we will stay within the confines of the cycle.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Similarly, she knew almost nobody that had A/C growing up. Now? They get days in the 90's up here during JUL/AUG.

Same here. A/C in a house was practically unheard of here 20 years ago. Now almost everyone has it since we get pretty serious heat waves in summer now. It's nothing compared to the deep south but it's still very hot for here. Like +30's for a whole week. We never got those when I was a kid. Maybe the odd day of +25 but it did not last a whole week.

 

[gill77]

Did you perceive his point that the RATE of change matters?

I did.

 

[nakedfrog]

I did.

Are you disputing his data about the rate of CO2 increase, then?