Climate Change/Global Warming: What are your thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CocoIsKing28

Slightly less stupid
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
771
Location
La Villa Strangiato
This thread is meant to allow both sides of the Global Warming debate to provide facts, charts, etc. for their point. If you don't know much about the topic, come here to choose a side.

I'll start by saying I'm an avid fan of the global warming theories. This chart shows CO2 levels versus temperature:
icecore_records.jpg


There are many charts like this one, all on trusted web sites, which show an increase of CO2 levels and, historically, temperature closely related to it. Coincidence? I think not.
 
Inb4 "climate change is a global CIA/pseudoscientist/communist conspiracy to destroy the world's economy/blackmail governments for self-enrichment/terrorise the world back to the stone age"
 
Climate change is real. No, you can't stop it. No, you can't reverse it. Yes, you can slow it down. Yes, you can make it easier to manage for our species. Yes, you can ensure that we do not continue to accelerate the process as extensively as we are doing right now.

Next.
 
And the most important thing of all:

Regarding the science, there are no sides.

The scientific questions are how much, how fast, how ugly.

Yes, there are still a handful of "sceptic" scientists, but their arguments are not in good faith anymore, and have became so weak that the positions "it's not happening/it's not us" cannot be supported anymore on a scientific basis.

The "debate" between the "two sides" is purely political/ideological, and highly localized to the USA and to a lesser extent Australia.
It's no coincidence that those countries are among the least regulated and most carbon intensive economies.
 
Perfect XKCD :clap:

When I was in college (19901-1995) I took several earth science, geology, plant science, climatology, and ecosystems courses. These were all undergrad courses that I enrolled in out of a general interest in the subjects. Independently of these classes I came to a realization that the US economy, as well as most first-world economies, were almost completely reliant on fossil sunlight accumulated over millions of years. The waste products from this energy use constitute an unnatural (anthropogenic) input to the atmosphere-ocean system. We are conducting a MASSIVE experiment with the dynamic chemical balance of our life-support system on the only space capsule we have.

Profoundly dangerous if only due to the unpredictable outcome.

Back then students like me didn't have access to the institutional internet. So I contacted the US Government. They were wonderful - incredibly responsive, prompt, and informative. My roommate and I received hundreds of free publications straight from the various agencies involved with research, supplementing the immense resources of our university's library.

Over time, the models have only gotten better at hind-casting (forecasting in reverse); the paleoclimate data has only become more complete; the ice core resolution has only become more detailed. In short, there is far more known today about the climate system its dynamics than there were when I was attending lectures.

But even back then it was readily apparent that CO2 emissions were a dangerous risk to our climate.

The science has only gotten stronger since then.

Speaking of models:
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/new...-high-side-climate-projections-analysis-finds
“When examining the impact of future increases in heat-trapping gases, we find that the simulations with the best fidelity come from models that produce more warming.”

This is not good news. Observational data is predicted by computer models that show a faster and greater warming in the next 80 years than more conservative predictions.
 
I don't think the problem lays in convince people that yes, the climate is changing. It's more a matter of convincing people that they're going to have to DO something. Cities don't have litter problems because some believe litter "just happens": we know perfectly well that some people just throw their trash anywhere. The problem is getting people to care enough about it, but we're terribly short-sighted.
 
Problem is, "doing something" that's more than just cosmetics implies a rapid and massive restructuring of global economics and society.

Good luck with the "convincing" :mischief:

This not at all like pushing for SO2 scrubbers to reduce acid rain or banning CFCs to stop stratospheric ozone destruction.
 
The problem is that nothing is going to be done to change AGW.

All we can do is hold on to our hats until fossil fuels are exhausted. And then for a couple of hundred years after that, until C02 levels in the atmosphere gradually return to "normal". Possibly.
 
"both sides"

Ugh. god save us from obscurantist false dichotomies.
 
This not at all like pushing for SO2 scrubbers to reduce acid rain or banning CFCs to stop stratospheric ozone destruction.

Why do you say this is "not at all like" the ozone problem?

I think it's quite similar, at least fundamentally. The scale is different, but the premise and possible solutions for action are similar.
 
The problem is that nothing is going to be done to change AGW.

All we can do is hold on to our hats until fossil fuels are exhausted. And then for a couple of hundred years after that, until C02 levels in the atmosphere gradually return to "normal". Possibly.

Try thousands.

Basing from some video I watched before, over the centuries the C02 will dissipate from the atmosphere into the oceans, and C02 in the ocean stays there for much much longer time than it does in the atmosphere.

In any case, I believe there is not much we can do at the moment. It will take the shock of the depletion of fossil fuels for there to be any real change. In the mean time I think we should be focusing on more pressing environmental challenges such as overfishing, biodiversity, habitat destruction etc.
 
It's not actually entirely clear that global warming would reverse, after certain thresholds are passed, due to the threat of melting methane clathrates in areas where permafrost is retreating. Essentially, once a certain level of heating has been obtained, several very dangerous positive feedback loops start to kick in, where ices containing greehouse gases melt, releasing more greenhouse gases which heat the earth more, contributing to further ice melt.

Right now what we must do is focus on greenhouse gas reduction, and climate change mitigation, to minimize the impacts of climate change.

What are these impacts? Well, contrary to common misconception, global warming does not simply mean 'everything is slightly warmer'. Weather, as it does today, will vary: in the future, we expect to see the variation grow wider, with the average temperature rising. What this means is that weather in general will be more erratic, and our atmosphere will have more energy in general. What does this mean for us?

Higher energy atmosphere means more storms, bigger storms, and more extreme weather events. It will also push climate bands away from the equator. The single most significant impact of this will be the northward push of deserts in the northern hemisphere, which will disrupt some of the world's critical food production regions. Another major problem is due to the fact that warming temperatures are at their most extreme around the poles. Here, a vast amount of water is contained in solid form in the ice caps. These caps are melting rapidly, and as they melt, they contribute to a rising sea level. Coupled with the thermal expansion of water (warmer water expands to take up more space), these processes lead to a rise in global sea levels. Given the fact that so much of human civilization is built at sea level, sea level rise is a very expensive, creeping disaster.

Overall, we face a more erratic, unpredictable environment, worse storms, reduced food security due to desertification, the gradual flooding of low-lying countries and coastal cities, and all of the humanitarian disasters that are implicit therein. If we are able to see this coming, then I think it would be horrendously irresponsible to not even try to prevent or mitigate these disasters. Thus, governments need to respond with limitations on the production of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane being three of the most significant human-influenced gases), and need to dedicate themselves to a shift away from fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas and towards renewable energy. Nuclear energy is a potential solution, but whether or not we should embrace nuclear power is opening up an entirely different kettle of worms.

Lifestyles in general will have to change in developed countries, although fortunately for us there are many ways that individuals can act to diminish their individual impact. Here is the first link I got by searching 'reducing your carbon footprint'.

Anyway, I spent the last year working in a subarctic climate change lab, so I think I have a fairly good grip of all of the major points of climate change. I would highly recommend people to do some internet research of their own on this topic, as it really is something that affects us all.

You can educate yourself here! This is a free online series of videos and tutorials that I highly recommend! :) It outlines the major features of climate change. It's super-handy as both a reference and as a learning tool for someone who doesn't know about the science underlying the phenomenon of climate change. It's taught at an introductory level, so it shouldn't be very intimidating even for someone with no knowledge in the area, and if you do run into anything confusing then I'll happily try to answer any questions that arise.

For what can be regarded as the scientific consensus, here is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official website. Warning, it is much more dense, technical, and it is an overview of the field in general.

Looking forward to discussion! :)
 
Global warming is a natural process. Climate is so complex that one influence, man can't have that massive of an effect on the climate. Carbon Dioxide is most definitely not a pollutant, it s a trace gas that is very useful for the cycle of life.
 
Global warming is a natural process.
Natural warming exists. What currently happens isn't natural though.

Climate is so complex that one influence, man can't have that massive of an effect on the climate.
And I would think complex systems are easier to unbalance ...?

Carbon Dioxide is most definitely not a pollutant, it s a trace gas that is very useful for the cycle of life.
Depends on your definition of "pollutant". It certainly doesn't make anyone sick. The greenhouse effect is of course a whole other matter. And holy macaroni, "it's very useful for the cycle of life" is the worst false dichotomy I've heard in a while.

Also, I took a CH post seriously :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom