Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The science is clear cut on this. To stop the cause of climate change, which is due to the increase of the surface temperature, stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
It is really that simple. Ed is, as usual, correct, provided you understand that the overwhelming cause of climate change in the last 100 or so years has been humanity putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at increased rates.
The problem, though, is what do you do about it. Humanity has demonstrated, by their actions and agricultural reality, that it is not prepared to stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere immediately, but is willing to reduce the amounts placed there, and that's the rub. How much good comes from how much reduction?
If we stopped using fossil fuel for energy right now, we would consign at least some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people to starvation. I don't know, and haven't attempted to estimate, the number, But I could see it in the billions if the most disastrous assumptions come true. If we do nothing, and natural cooling forces don't intervene, we may doom humanity and several other species to extinction. Finding the right balance is a matter of science, engineering, biology, economics and human will.
At times I feel as if I'm trying to eat a whale, but many people in many disciplines are working on it, and I'm increasingly confident that we will, indeed arrive at a rational solution at some point. I tend to be more fearful of continued warming than many, simply because we're heading into uncharted waters. I don't like the idea of changing the composition of the atmosphere and oceans, because I don't think we really know what will happen, but then I'm sufficiently well-off to prefer the status quo to unknown change.
I personally think it would help if some of those who know the science - or at least know what it says - would take a few lessons in rhetoric and advocacy. Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore aren't the best people to be leading the charge, because the changes that people will put up with won't affect their lifestyles. And relying on force to stifle dissent sounds - to those who haven't made up their minds - like the tactics of someone with a losing argument. Michael Mann has a tendency to sound like that sometimes, and it does not advance the spread of knowledge. It just closes minds that need to open.
John
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
Adding to the geologic perspective, I posted this on another thread but might be more appropriate here...
I agree that it is unlikely that there will be international cooperation that will significantly reduce the rate of GHG emissions. This should not deter us from trying. However, what I strongly disagree with is this notion that of course the climate changes, the climate always changes and has been changing throughout earth history. This is a fundamentally meaningless statement in the context of how modern industrial processes are influencing global climate and impacting the ocean environment. The current rate of carbon release is unprecedented during, at least, the past 66 million years of earth history. In 2014 the rate of carbon release reached ~10 Petagrams of Carbon/yr (a Petagram of carbon (Pg)=Gigaton (Gt)=10^15 grams). Needless to say that's a sh*tload of anthropogenic carbon. The closest geologic analogue is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (aka PETM) during which time the carbon release rate was an order-of-magnitude lower (~ 1.1 Pg C/yr) than the current rate.
Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years
Richard E. Zeebe 1*, Andy Ridgwell 2,3 and James C. Zachos 4
1_School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1000 Pope Road, MSB 629, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA. 2_School ofGeographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK. 3_Department of Earth Sciences, University of California Riverside,900 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92521, USA. 4_Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz,California 95064, USA.*e-mail: zeebe@soest.hawaii.edu
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 21 MARCH 2016 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2681
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
Carbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of 10 Pg C/y in 2014. Geologic analogues from pasttransient climate changes could provide invaluable constraints on the response of the climate system to such perturbations, butonly if the associated carbon release rates can be reliably reconstructed. The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)is known at present to have the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years, but robust estimates of the initialrate and onset duration are hindered by uncertainties in age models. Here we introduce a new method to extract rates ofchange from a sedimentary record based on the relative timing of climate and carbon cycle changes, without the need foran age model. We apply this method to stable carbon and oxygen isotope records from the New Jersey shelf using time-series analysis and carbon cycle–climate modelling. We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETMoccurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr. We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented duringthe past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.
The initial carbon release during the PETM onset thus occurred over at least 4,000 yr. Using estimates of 2,500-4,500 Pg C for the initial carbon release, the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate was therefore 0.6-1.1 Pg C yr. Given currently available palaeorecords, we conclude that the present anthropogenic carbon release rate (10 Pg C yr) is unprecedented during the Cenozoic (past 66 Myr).... Regarding impacts on ecosystems, the present/future rate of climate change and ocean acidification is too fast for many species to adapt, which is likely to result in widespread future extinctions in marine and terrestrial environments that will substantially exceed those at the PETM. Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
The science is clear cut on this. To stop the cause of climate change, which is due to the increase of the surface temperature, stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
It is really that simple.
How does one stop all mammals from farting?
Animal husbandry supposedly causes a third of all Co2 emissions.
Would a third make the difference? Would this mean we get an additional 10,000,000 years of existence?
Life on this planet may only survive until the sun dies in 5 billion years (thanks for the correction Ed) but, are we so egotistical that we believe humans will even be here in 10,000 years?
The greatest threat to humanity is over population. This problem was at the forefront of education in the early 1970's when the number of humans inhabiting this planet was less than half it's current number.
Cutting Co2 emissions is a good idea but, not at the expense of our economic base.
John is correct. Balance is key.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Cutting Co2 emissions is a good idea but, not at the expense of our economic base. There will be no economic base unless emissions are cut to the extent that it prevents a long term catastrophic event. You have to decide which is more important, fiddle while Rome burns, or put down your fiddle and put out the fire.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
Balance is key. Exactly why we're in this situation because the natural balance between GHG sources and sinks is way out of equilibrium. Restoring that balance will come at the expense of the world's oceans, glaciers, arctic regions, coastal areas...
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
There will be no economic base unless emissions are cut to the extent that it prevents a long term catastrophic event. You have to decide which is more important, fiddle while Rome burns, or put down your fiddle and put out the fire.
Cut emissions by robbing the US taxpayer. Obama's philosophy doesn't work for those making less than $200k a year.
Better use of the $500,000,000 Obama is giving away to corrupt governments in the name of the environment would be to subsidize Tesla and make electric transportation affordable.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Eddy conveniently leaves out that Arrhenius hypothesis was refuted by Angstrom early in the twentieth century. He also leaves out that the published sensitivity trend to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 has been steadily declining well below the globalist driven IPCC medium of 3.0 C to anywhere from zero to 1.6 C. Finally Eddy leaves out the most successful atmospheric model of all time; the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Feynman Gravito thermal greenhouse effect which thoroughly explains all planetary atmospheres without consideration to CO2.
I've said it before, I'll say it again-CAGW is the scam of the millenium, pushed by globalists without regard to the life of the masses (you, me, and pretty much everyone you know) and aided and abetted by idiots, enviro extremists, and scientists on the CAGW
gravy train.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
There will be no economic base unless emissions are cut to the extent that it prevents a long term catastrophic event. You have to decide which is more important, fiddle while Rome burns, or put down your fiddle and put out the fire.
Eat now or suffer a little (for the rest of our lives) to (possibly) help those living 100 years from now. Hmm?
|
|
F
climber
away from the ground
|
|
Ricky
climber
Sometimes LA
Apr 1, 2016 - 01:19pm PT
Stainless only, or are galvies OK?
I just sharted myself laughing.
Cmon man, we all know that the requirement for stainless/galvanized nails in an exterior application is a huge global conspiracy by nail manufactures and scientists to make money off of poor siding contractors like Rick. It's obvious that when you look into the magic 8 ball to see the future, untreated nails don't rust and streak. That's a myth made up by Obama. Man.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Eat now or suffer a little (for the rest of our lives) to (possibly) help those living 100 years from now. Hmm? And that, right there, is apathy that prevents any action on this issue.
Feast away EdwardT while the futures of your kids and grandkids grows increasingly bleak. At least you will have spared yourself the prospect of suffering "a little".
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
And that, right there, is apathy that prevents any action on this issue.
Feast away EdwardT while the futures of your kids and grandkids grows increasingly bleak. At least you will have spared yourself the prospect of suffering "a little".
My comment was about the priorities of most of mankind.
But since you want to make it personal, What's your carbon footprint? How's it compare to the global average?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...Arrhenius hypothesis was refuted by Angstrom early in the twentieth century.
not true...
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
EdwardT, my apologies if you were being urbane. It is sometimes hard to tell on threads such as this one.
Curious as to my carbon footprint though. I do what I can but suspect it's probably not as much as I could.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Flying anywhere is the quickest way to eff up your carbon footprint.
Took my grandsons to the natural history museum in Eugene today and saw this -
Makes ya go hmmm....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I'm not trading in my V6 Santa Fe for a bicycle. Miami will have to go sleep with the fishes.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"There are people who say 'we can change the world.'.. Could it be, they are just wrong? That they cannot change the world?"
Both are true. They can't change it, but WE can.
Many just don't want to, and blame their greed on others, saying that because worldwide cooperation is difficult, there is no point in even trying.
The previous big thread had mostly faded even before dying, because climate change is quite accepted now as being caused by humans. Any who claim the contrary only make themselves look foolish. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php So discussion then moves to what policies should be taken to reduce GHGs.
"It will all work itself out. Act now, act later, whatever. That oil is going to get consumed."
The oil is likely more valuable as a feedstock to make higher value products rather than cheap warming fuel. Adding other fossils fuels like coal, there's enough to increase global temperature perhaps 15 F. (but whatever, so what if billions of people suffer?)
The difference between RCP 4.5 and 8.5 is MASSIVE. RCP8.5 is a model of society doing very little to minimize GHGs and the effects are far more disastrous and net costly than RCP4.5 IT's not a case of whatever. Slowing GHGs as much as possible decreases the effects enough to be liveable, and allows much more time (money) to react. In other words, the cost of warming per person might be only 1/10 as much. There is quite a difference between sea level rising 2 feet in 100 years and 10 feet.
Many still think that a RCP4.5 strategy will only cost them. They are absolutely wrong.
http://skepticalscience.com/95-consensus-economists-cut-carbon-pollution.html
and even now we continue to provide huge subsidies to fossil fuels.
Rationalizing that rich people are more relatively immune to costs is not an excuse. That excuse could be used to ruin almost any public good. But it can be evened out on a broad level though general taxation policy.
It's not an all or nothing policy. Lots of possible actions. Most will not be implemented smoothly. No government policies are ever perfect. Again that is not a reason to hide our heads in the sand. Many require worldwide agreements & efforts. A bigger version of agreements such as the ozone layer, nuclear weapons, and the Geneva convention.
The USA took the lead in burning fossil fuels and set the example for others.
Now we just need to continue accelerating efforts to reverse that trend. We have already taken many steps towards decreasing GHGs, so far without too much economic cost. Increasing CAFE requirements, energy standards for lighting, appliances, & homes. California has forced green energy for electricity. Subsidies for hybrids, solar, and electric cars have been very effective in advancing technology and lowering costs. Many less coal plants are being built. Many countries have coped fine with very high petroleum taxes. Now that oil is so cheap, it would be quite painless to add $2 per gallon to USA gas taxes, thru a revenue neutral carbon tax.
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
Splater said:
it would be quite painless to add $2 per gallon to USA gas taxes, thru a revenue neutral carbon tax.
Tell that to the single-mom in my classes struggling to get through freshman comp whose parents still work in the fields picking grapes. That pain would be very real. As The Donald says, believe me.
Here's the rub: Is anyone here willing to stop driving to the crags, flying to Patagonia, the Alps, Katmandu? Seriously?
BAd
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
EdwardT, my apologies if you were being urbane. It is sometimes hard to tell on threads such as this one.
Thanks Fat Dad.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
Raising the gas tax would make driving too expensive for the millions of poorer Americans keeping them off the freeways..Not a bad idea. ..Public transportation on the Eastside is suddenly becoming more popular and a necessity for the working class...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!