What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[byke]

But isn't the only way to get 'rid' of heat, is to convert it and evaporation is just moving it, so it's still a 'bad' heat?

 

[Pierre I am]

Warmer air carries more water vapor, the humid areas at the tropics are actually the areas that have the smallest temperature change due to climate change. It's hard to go into all the physical processes but in general the higher latitudes will warm the most.

Water vapor is technically viewed as a constant and it never makes up more than 5% of the atmosphere at a time. It's extremely difficult to prameterize it because of its short life span.

Another thing that is important is the specific heat of water, water takes a tremendous amount of energy in order to hear up slightly. Although it's viewed as a short term ghg gas, in the long term it's technically taking energy out of the atmosphere.

 

[byke]

Right on, thanks guys. I love it when you two post in the enviro-threads. No political rage and able to answer questions.

 

[tzrider]

Only an asshole quotes himself:

How much we influence it determines how much we can do about it.

Replies:

I disagree. There truly is no bearing on how much we cause and how much we can fix it.

The "But it's not us" argument is convenient. Instead of focusing on the issue (climate change), the argument gets shifted to blame. <snip>

Exactly. This.

Does it matter who was in the captain's seat when we hit the iceberg? If so, let's just continue to argue about it instead of bailing water.

This is logical.

My point can't have been conveyed accurately for you guys to have that response. At least two of you seem convinced that climate change is being significantly impacted by human activities. In that respect we may be coming from a different perspective; I would call myself unsure.

But the point is, if we are having a noticeable effect on climate, it stands to reason we could influence it in the other direction too. OTOH, if all the shit we pump into the atmosphere isn't having a noticeable effect, why would we think any remediation efforts would have much impact either?

 

[Terminal_G]

who is to say it is not cyclical?

We do not have much data points in regard to this

Earth has been here for some 4.5 billion years and we truly only have data points for the last several hundred.

so @ 0000000222% data rate meh

not saying I do not see a change in weather... but to directly attribute it.

and I am aware that we can speculate what the weather was like 10000 years ago... when dealing with temperature changes in the single decimal over the course of 10 years... sorry, not seeing them as valid data points because wouldn't that indicate a difference in 10 of degree over the last 1000 years (we don't see this in the last 100)?

I have not read all of the responses - but I agree with this. As old as the earth is climate change is inevitable. Humans, with all of our fancy tech and machinery could hurry it *just a bit,* but we are an eyelash blink in the earth's history.

 

[louemc]

^this guy is obviously a denier of men made global warming. He needs to go to re-education camp.

Can I assume you wanted to say "man made" ?

I hope you also know that Volcanic eruptions (and the greenhouse gas's spewed out) Took us out of a global run away ice age, that had the entire Earth (that includes oceans, and to the equator) covered in ice. After this was discovered, the condition became known as ... Snowball Earth.

 

[nbean16]

Can I assume you wanted to say "man made" ?

I hope you also know that Volcanic eruptions (and the greenhouse gas's spewed out) Took us out of a global run away ice age, that had the entire Earth (that includes oceans, and to the equator) covered in ice. After this was discovered, the condition became known as ... Snowball Earth.

Oh snap!!!

 

[RRR70]

Can I assume you wanted to say "man made" ?

I hope you also know that Volcanic eruptions (and the greenhouse gas's spewed out) Took us out of a global run away ice age, that had the entire Earth (that includes oceans, and to the equator) covered in ice. After this was discovered, the condition became known as ... Snowball Earth.

I'm sure you saw it with your own eyes.

 

[nebulous]

I will believe in anthropomorphic climate change when the following has happened:

1) Past wholesale change in climate, previous to human existence, and the causal mechanisms have been fully explained.

2) When the "MODELS" for climate change match the existential reality.

3) When the measurements are not gamed by folks with an agenda.

4) When the solution is not me giving more of my income to the government.

 

[nebulous]

Oh, one more:

5) When no built-in feedback loop is conceivable. ie Shouldn't high levels of CO2, "plant food" in the atmosphere cause increased plant growth and thus carbon capture ???

 

[n10sive]

Has anyone talked about the effects of deforrestation on global warming yet?

It's struck me for decades now how Brazil's raping of the Amazon could affect our climate. Scientific studies show it to be true now.

oh...and how I miss my aerosol deodorant

 

[byke]

Not recently, nor the tons of aerial pollutants which make their way into the oceans and affect ph. It's just too complex with too many ins and outs and what have you's. Also compounded by manipulation/corruption from both sides. Such a mess.

 

[Brokenlink]

I will believe in anthropomorphic climate change when the following has happened:

1) Past wholesale change in climate, previous to human existence, and the causal mechanisms have been fully explained.

2) When the "MODELS" for climate change match the existential reality.

3) When the measurements are not gamed by folks with an agenda.

4) When the solution is not me giving more of my income to the government.

Oh, one more:

5) When no built-in feedback loop is conceivable. ie Shouldn't high levels of CO2, "plant food" in the atmosphere cause increased plant growth and thus carbon capture ???

I have an idea. Let's take an enclosed space, say your car. Now, it has a perfectly good atmosphere inside and can support you, some plants, and a few spiders (yes, they are there). Now, turn the car on and hook a hose up to your window. What happens?

That anybody can believe that pumping millions of pounds of exhaust, while wholesale cutting down the forests that can help mitigate those exhausts, as well as all the other shit we pump into the environment, isn't having an effect is beyond me.

It's like believing that raw sewage isn't a health hazard. "Hell Ma. I flush it down the toilet. It's gone. Don't bother me none."

 

[byke]

I think the naysayers would say that the hose from the muffler is inaccurate and it's really more like a fart that your body is able to breath up and absorb.

 

[Pierre I am]

I will believe in anthropomorphic climate change when the following has happened:

1) Past wholesale change in climate, previous to human existence, and the causal mechanisms have been fully explained.

2) When the "MODELS" for climate change match the existential reality.

3) When the measurements are not gamed by folks with an agenda.

4) When the solution is not me giving more of my income to the government.

Sure let's compare the average salary of a climate scientist to that of a petroleum engineer / petroleum geologist / CEO of an oil company.


Nobody wants to force the science on you, you either have the Intelligence to deduct your own rational reasoning or you simply shield yourself behind political views.

 

[Pierre I am]

Oh, one more:

5) When no built-in feedback loop is conceivable. ie Shouldn't high levels of CO2, "plant food" in the atmosphere cause increased plant growth and thus carbon capture ???

There are multiple studies that answer this question.

1. Yea co2 improves growth as long as their is sufficient nitrogen, sunlight and water. But with what is currently going we have an increase in co2 and decrease in water( for the most part).

2. Plants do capture carbon but when you decide to burn them you release carbon that the plant has stored, I believe we call it "coal".


Let's also take into account the massive deforestation, extreme droughts and general loss of plant life and we start to see the issue.

 

[CoorsLight]

Only an asshole quotes himself:



Replies:







My point can't have been conveyed accurately for you guys to have that response. At least two of you seem convinced that climate change is being significantly impacted by human activities. In that respect we may be coming from a different perspective; I would call myself unsure.

But the point is, if we are having a noticeable effect on climate, it stands to reason we could influence it in the other direction too. OTOH, if all the shit we pump into the atmosphere isn't having a noticeable effect, why would we think any remediation efforts would have much impact either?

In order for your argument to work, you must assume that that none of man's activities has any effect on climate, and therefore changing human behaviors will not change the rate of climate change. That is totally false. The CO2 component alone debunks that assumption. You can watch Bill Bye's CO2-temperature experiment on youtube if you doubt this. What is up for debate is if man has a net positive or negative impact on radiative forcing.

So then, let's assume that man has no net impact or a negative impact on radiative forcing from our current activities. There are still portions of our positive component of radiative forcing, such as halocarbon, hydrocarbon, and CO2 emissions, that we can reduce to decrease the amount of positive forcing. Also, there are strategies that have been proposed to increase surface albedo, much like a volcanic eruption increases albedo, by inserting aerosols into the stratosphere. There are aloso very attainable strategies to increase albedo over heat islands like cities. There are many proposed strategies, but these have the most traction currently. Decreasing the man-made component will decrease overall forcing, and have a cooling effect relative to how it is right now.

Bottom line is, even if natural causes are driving climate change (which the data do not indicate, but this is a thought experiment) that doesn't mean we have zero options to alter the speed at which it is happening. The data show that we do have that power, just not all the technology yet (at least to maintain our current standard of living at the same time). If one chooses to dismiss the data and subscribe to a fatalistic view instead, well, they are the ones that have to square it with themselves and their children and grandchildren.

 

[CoorsLight]

Good point. Most war is ultimately about natural resources.

 

[n10sive]

Oh, one more:

5) When no built-in feedback loop is conceivable. ie Shouldn't high levels of CO2, "plant food" in the atmosphere cause increased plant growth and thus carbon capture ???

The carbon dioxide factor

There are concerns that the Amazon region could become a net source rather than a sink (storage) of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas emitted mainly from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas - and the major driver for global climate change.

Currently, the Amazon rainforests are still a sink for CO2, despite some 20% of CO2 emissions globally arising from deforestation. However, it is projected that increased temperatures, decreased precipitation and the 'savannization' of the Amazon will cause the region to become a source of CO2, instead of a sink.

source

 

[Eldritch]

My point can't have been conveyed accurately for you guys to have that response. At least two of you seem convinced that climate change is being significantly impacted by human activities. In that respect we may be coming from a different perspective; I would call myself unsure.

But the point is, if we are having a noticeable effect on climate, it stands to reason we could influence it in the other direction too. OTOH, if all the shit we pump into the atmosphere isn't having a noticeable effect, why would we think any remediation efforts would have much impact either?

Why not? That statement in particular suggested a blame free collaborative approach to solving clearly defined real issues with scientifically determined solutions established as effective. That is logical.