Climate Change Thread

[Beskar]

We haven't had this one for a while, so lets start out simple with a graph of Average Global Temperature throughout History.



I feel it makes the conclusion itself rather evident.

[Legs]

NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
I blame the chinese, its all justr a scam to impede US industry.

[Hooahguy]

^Nice Trump quote.

Also loved the Spinal Tap reference in the OP.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past (check longer timelines). And will be again. Life is resilient and our doomsayers are, in part, trying to stop change when change is inevitable.

This is not to deny the partial (possibly substantial) anthropomorphic character of the current increase vector. But the biggest contributor is CO2 and the biggest source is the billions more humans than have ever existed before along with their desire for electric power and what not. The biggest greenhouse gas is our continuing to exhale -- so how many billions need to be euthanized?

Obviously, you are not suggesting anything so Malthusian/Kevorkianesque, nor do I disagree with measures to curtail emissions. Yet the aggressive track suggested above would involve a world-wide depression of epic proportions and would spark untold wars etc. This means that the aggressive option isn't all the appealing either.

We will have to take measures to adapt for survival in a warmer world -- look forward to Saskatchewan grain farms, larger seawalls, and elites who will still end up with the best beachfront property -- even if it IS the Berkshires.

[Husar]

I like how they use "Before Christ Excelsior" and "Christian Era" for the timeline.

As for stopping emissions now causing issues, so will not stopping them. If the earth warms by about 4°C, large parts become uninhabitable and the people from there will have to go somewhere. Then we will get either far more immigrants than we already have or we will have to mass-murder them to prevent them from coming here...

There is another "small" issue with the warming scenario in that it will become uncontrollable beyond a certain point as the permafrost begins to melt and sets free enormous amounts of stored methane, which is a 17 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, add to that the methane under arctic ice the limited ability of warm water to store CO2, the increase of water in the air, which also has a greenhouse effect...
Surely it may reverse after a few thousand years, but what do we do until then?

I also agree that the number of humans overall is an issue. A lot of people say the planet can sustain even a lot more, but that argument forgets that they all also want to consume more and more... http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

That's right, if all our current humans lived like Americans, we'd need a little over 4 earths to sustain that consumption ressource-wise...
Germany is somewhere close to France in the region of 2.5 earths, but then again I've criticized Europe plenty for taking away other peoples' resources.
And this probably doesn't even account for the use of resources that will end one day.

Keep in mind that oil for example is also a vital ingredient for many medications, then consider that they already found virii below the ice or in the permafrost that weren't around for some 20000 years or so, virii we might be almost helpless against...
Is it really clever to burn such a resource away within a few years just to not have to sit next to strangers on the way to work for example?
https://www.fastcoexist.com/1680136/...s-we-have-left

And to think that a lot of people view a shrinking population as bad because the economy can't grow (and use even more resources...)

[edyzmedieval]

Billions of people existing on this planet - CO2. Fine.

But having a ton of air pollutants. A ton of extra CO2. Not fine.

We either do something about it pretty quickly - adopt greener cars, and improve electric cars such as Teslas (although those pose environmental problems too, just not CO2 - we're not efficient at disposing of millions of big batteries yet), curtail emissions, more filters on polluting factories... and fast. Fine.

We don't do the above. Not fine.

Ok wait, that's not fine either. Not fine ^2. It's going to be horrific actually.

[Husar]

Here's a map for reference:


Source: https://universe-review.ca/F10-multicell18.htm

They also have some scenarios and so on on that site.
Now just imagine what happens if/when all the people from the yellow and brown areas are forced to move to the green areas...the immigration scares of today will seem small in comparison. And that's assuming they will just begin to migrate over time and not try to invade in force...

[Viking]

There is another "small" issue with the warming scenario in that it will become uncontrollable beyond a certain point as the permafrost begins to melt and sets free enormous amounts of stored methane, which is a 17 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, add to that the methane under arctic ice the limited ability of warm water to store CO2, the increase of water in the air, which also has a greenhouse effect...
Surely it may reverse after a few thousand years, but what do we do until then?

Methane is not stable in the atmosphere, and is converted into carbon dioxide in 8-9 years on average (it's also vulnerable to UV radiation, which is why its discovery on Mars is interesting):

In the lower part of the atmosphere, below about 10-12 km (the troposphere), the key cycles are mediated above all by the presence of what are called OH radicals — colloquially known as the atmospheric detergent. All hydrocarbon chemical species that are emitted can be eventually broken down (or oxidized) by these radicals to CO2 and H2O, and methane is no exception. An average molecule of CH4 lasts around eight to nine years before it gets oxidized. This is a long time compared to most atmospheric chemicals but is fast enough so that there can be significant year-to-year variability.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/fe...00409_methane/

Thus, the direct effect of this methane should not last long as it comes from a storage that will deplete.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The biggest greenhouse gas is our continuing to exhale -- so how many billions need to be euthanized?

This isn't true at all, and I distinctly remember you being corrected on it last time.

The physical presence of more humans actually sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon that is exhaled is cycled, not added to the atmosphere as that carbon is taken from the atmosphere to begin with to become the food we eat...

The actions resulting from additional humans living on this planet is the real impact, as our emissions from industry, transportation and agriculture (think cows) are the main drivers of CO2/methane concentrations and thus climate change.

To be honest talking about the economy just highlights the lack of understanding about this issue. It's not about preventing a hotter Earth, its about preventing an Earth from getting hotter much, much faster than the biosphere can withstand. Will the economy keep growing if 40% of the biological diversity on Earth collapses and our seas acidify to the point where the coral reefs are all bleached and unable to support life?

[Greyblades]

agriculture (think cows) are the main drivers of CO2/methane concentrations and thus climate change.

Wait arent cows also part of the cycle that nullifies human co2 production?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wait arent cows also part of the cycle that nullifies human co2 production?

What cycle nullifies human CO2 production?

Cows generate methane, which is more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. The CO2 removed to grow the food for the cows becomes a net negative since it is converted to large amounts of methane.

[Pannonian]

And the Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past (check longer timelines). And will be again. Life is resilient and our doomsayers are, in part, trying to stop change when change is inevitable.

This is not to deny the partial (possibly substantial) anthropomorphic character of the current increase vector. But the biggest contributor is CO2 and the biggest source is the billions more humans than have ever existed before along with their desire for electric power and what not. The biggest greenhouse gas is our continuing to exhale -- so how many billions need to be euthanized?

Obviously, you are not suggesting anything so Malthusian/Kevorkianesque, nor do I disagree with measures to curtail emissions. Yet the aggressive track suggested above would involve a world-wide depression of epic proportions and would spark untold wars etc. This means that the aggressive option isn't all the appealing either.

We will have to take measures to adapt for survival in a warmer world -- look forward to Saskatchewan grain farms, larger seawalls, and elites who will still end up with the best beachfront property -- even if it IS the Berkshires.

A greener world less reliant on oil is good in a number of ways, even if you disagree with the OP's argument. In the longer term, there is the effect of less sustained release of carbon currently locked in fossil fuels. More immediately, it means less reliance on the goodwill of the middle east, where there is none for us. For Europe, it also means less reliance on Russia.

[Kralizec]

This is not to deny the partial (possibly substantial) anthropomorphic character of the current increase vector. But the biggest contributor is CO2 and the biggest source is the billions more humans than have ever existed before along with their desire for electric power and what not. The biggest greenhouse gas is our continuing to exhale -- so how many billions need to be euthanized?

Eh, not really. The stuff we eat, and by extension the CO2 and waste we put out, has been a regular part of the global carbon cycle for millions of years. (cattle is a different issue because they produce methane)
Fossil fuels are essentially carbon materials that have been removed from the global environment for millions, or dozens of millions of years. Sure, Earth was warmer in those days, but the Earth's ecological system nowadays would be in for a shock if all that carbon material is added to the cycle again.

[HopAlongBunny]

The problem is not exactly cows, rather industrial ag.
Cows have been defecating for a long time (just a guess) the difference is concentration and "disposal".
Instead of broadcast over a large area over time, the present system concentrates an enormous volume; even where the matter is spread for soil enrichment, part of that benefit is lost because of the degradation/elimination of recyclers.
It is a breakdown of what I guess you could call the Fecal Cycle :p

https://www.amazon.ca/Origin-Feces-E.../dp/177041116X

[HopAlongBunny]

From waste to water.
Here's a look at how our best heat-sink is doing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ocean-heat-1.3408706

and the Greenland ice sheet:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ot-rebounding/