More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

The prevailing consensus is that humans are responsible for nearly 100% of the warming after WWII. From 1900 to 1950 our influence was ramping up from 0% to 100%.

 

Well said, except I think we might be giving the "climate change" crowd too much benefit of the doubt.

The pseudo-science of "climate change" is indeed little more than a government effort to control our lives and to raise gov't revenue by selling carbon (pollution) to the highest bidder. It is fear mongering and "pay to play" at it's worst, and it keeps us from real environmentalism; the simple and tangible goals of striving for cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment.

Those who subscribe to the modern day concept of "climate change", and their phony and impossible to predict predictions, are themselves the greatest threat to our environment and our individual liberties; and they should be treated as such.

 

My question is how can anyone know that for fact unless they can study earth climate cycles for 1000s of years to rule out cycles. I’m not denying that factory car pollution is bad I’m sure it is.

 

AGW does give thought to this. The problem with global warming is two fold. First, our economy is way too dependent on a finite resource. We have an unsustainable economic model right now. The longer we wait to convert from a fossil fuel based economy to one that is not quite so dependent on it the higher our risk of economic depression once peak oil hits. Second, global warming comes at a cost. A 3.0C rise in temperatures will suppress global economic GDP. The United States will be hit particularly hard in this area as we will face a disproportionately large burden compared to other countries. Canada may actually benefit from GW. It's either pay now or pay later. Either way the piper gets his due. Mitigation is cheaper than adaptation so it best to suck it up and deal with the problem now rather than later.

 

What caused the warming from about 250,000 years ago up until WWII?

 

I agree economies are too dependent on fossil fuels but to me its an indictment of the innovation of new power sources. They have yet to make a product that is feasible for the vast majority of the population.

Ok To your second point I’d like to propose a hypothetical question. What if we take all the appropriate measures to combat the warming and it doesn’t stop the warming? We could’ve stifled production and still be in the same boat.

 

Scientists have been studying the climate from 1000s of years ago. It's called paleoclimate. But, we actually don't need to know anything about paleoclimate to know what factors are in play that drive climate change today. Scientists have a huge laundry list of climate forcing agents and mechanisms and they've quantified the impacts of each. However, the smoking gun is the warming troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere. This is literally no other physical process that can explain this observation other than an increase in the greenhouse gas effect. It just so happens that paleoclimate fully supports the idea that there are many climate forcing agents and mechanisms and that it's the net effect of all of them that matters. They all ebb and flow in magnitude. We just happen to live in an era when the GHG effect dominates over the other factors.

 

It's hasn't been warming for 250,000 years ago. We've actually descended into two glacial periods and two interglacial periods in the last 250,000 years. Milankovitch cycles are believe to have played a defining role in catalyzing the glacial/interglacial cycles. CO2 then participated as both a feedback and as a catalyzer itself for further radiative forcing pressures. There big 4 factors that drive the climate are solar radiation, greenhouse gases, aerosols, and albedo. Just considering these 4 factors (which happens to be small subset of factors) one can explain both past and present climate with reasonable skill.

 

What are methodologies in paleo climate that allow them to measure earths atmosphere 1000s of years ago with certainty? I’m sure they can probably guesstimate but with certainty? The climate thing needs a middle ground protect their earth while protecting people’s livelihoods. Your average person realistically isn’t thinking about long term consequences of what they put of Twitter let alone earths atomosphere.

 

Yep. I concede that point. If we spend a lot of money and it has no impact on reducing CO2 concentration growth in the atmosphere then it will have been all for naught. Plus, there's more to economic policies than just mitigating the warming. You have to weigh a lot of different things. For example, is it better to spend the money on fighting cancer or fighting global warming? Is it better to spend the money adaptation or on mitigation? The science on AGW is sound. What we do about it and how we accomplish that are not quite so cut and dry though.

 

The deficit didn't start with Trump. And that massive challenge has been left for kids & grandkids to deal with. But what the hell? Let's spend a few trillion on windmills by borrowing from the Chinese and buying their rare earths to make the magnets needed.

 

Fossil fuels took millions of years to form. We are releasing it orders of magnitude faster than it was originally pulled from the atmosphere. It's being released so fast that even after an increase in biosmass (due to CO2 fertilization) and oceanic uptake nature is only able to scrub out 50% of our emission flux. We emit about 4 ppm/yr. Nature scrubs out about 2 ppm/yr of the excess. This leaves the carbon cycle unbalanced by 2 ppm/yr. That's why it's accumulating.

It's true H2O is the most significant GHG. It's concentration is about 10,000 ppm vs CO2's 400 ppm. However, here is the key difference. H2O only participates in the GHG effect as a feedback or amplifier. It amplifies any temperature change that was catalyzed by something else. H2O cannot catalyze temperature changes on it's own. This is intuitive if not obvious otherwise something as trivial as a hyperactive hurricane would have kick started a runaway GHG effect. But, alas after a countless hurricanes spanning a billion years we never went the way of Venus. CO2, on the hand, participates as both a feedback and as a catalyzer of temperature change itself.

 

Are you giving some thought to the damage you will have on future generations if you drive up the cost of energy to the point where people need to choose heating their dwelling or buying food or medical care which both will be radically more expensive because of energy costs? Are you thinking about the damage you will be doing if you are wrong?

 

There are lot ways scientists know about the composition of the atmosphere and global temperatures from the paleoclimate record. They have ice cores, tree rings, oxygen isotope, hydrogen isotope, carbon isotope, biological, and many other proxies. These definitely don't give us the level of accuracy and what we have from say 1900, but they give scientists a pretty good idea. Using the error margins on these proxy datasets and homogenizing them with the other proxy datasets actually yields a reasonably clear picture of what the Earth was doing over the last 1 billion years. Generally the later in time the better the data though. For example our measurements of the global mean temperature today are accurate to about 0.01C. But, 100,000 years ago the error margin maybe 1.0C or more.

 

Thanks and I appreciate your questions and contribution to the thread.

In terms of the ability of scientists to measure climate, that is something which is constantly evolving. Measuring climate is measuring an amazing volume of data, all the time, and then tracking that data over years or even decades. So yes, they can measure it accurately, but even a 99.7% accurate measurement that is used to project something 50 or 100 years down the road can lead to a completely inaccurate prediction, right? So, they constantly re-evaluate the measurements and their projections and try to learn from historical data as well as the real time data.

They also try to provide a range for their measurements - a margin of error to try and account for the uncertainty of predicting the future.

 

Fair enough.

 

Ok, so I appreciate the question. But you have to ask yourself -what are the differences between a greenhouse and everywhere else? In a greenhouse, you can control every variable - pests, viruses, oxygen content, percipitation, solar intensity, etc. You can not do that everywhere outside of a greenhouse. So, basic example, yes plants do better in a higher CO2 environment, but so do pests and viruses. In the greenhouse, you could limit their impact. In the rest of the world those go out of control.

And then you need to start taking into account the other impacts of increased CO2, i.e. higher temperatures, which means more things like forest fires.

Ok. So I have no idea where you get the notion that burning coal results in a lower amount of GHG, but I would just note that burning coal is associated with a hell of a lot more immediate health problems - soot, ash, etc. - than h2o. We are not trying to "cure" global warming because, as you say, it is necessary to our very existence.

But so is fat. And too much fat is a bad thing, right? Same is true of GHG and Global warming. We dont want to remove excessive amounts of any GHG from the atmosphere, we just need to limit our excessive contribution.

 

So H20 is a more powerful GHG than CO2, but increasing humidity has no effect on climate?
The hurricane example seems so far fetched I can't believe you even mentioned it. Hurricanes are mere pimples on the planet and obviously have occurred since the birth of the oceans. If it were remotely possible that a hurricane could cause runaway GHG events, it would have happened by now. In fact if anything could cause runaway warming, it would have happened by now. The planet has survived eons where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now or are projected to go. No runaway. If anything is obvious it is that there are feedback mechanisms, perhaps not yet understood, that keep climate within ranges where life thrives. And it actually thrives more with a warmer climate than we currently enjoy.

 

You seem far more well versed on this topic then I and I hope I’m not coming across as the congressman* holding a snowball as proof climate change isn’t real. I agree that this topic is very nuanced climate change is happening where we go from here is the question. Common sense solutions that help the environment while ideally not harming the economy is what should be strived for imo. It’s especially tricky giving human nature where people aren’t concerned past their next paycheck.

 

Now that's creative. But theoretical speculation that has never been tested.

What we do know is that glaciers once covered the planet. The evidence of their retreat is scientific observation of evidence, not political speculation. This retreat is estimated to have started when the planet started warming over 2 million years ago. The date is an estimate, but the evidence is quite positive that it was quite a while before the SUV was invented.

Agenda-less science is based on developing a theory based on raw data and testing it by trying to disprove it. The GWA crowd, instead, gathers competing theories made in part of altered data, tests none of them, combine them all into an aggregate theory, and publishes the aggregate theory as gospel.

 

Yes lets keep ignoring the destruction of our oceans chasing after useless climate treaties.

 

I don't think pests & viruses necessarily go out of control in a higher CO2 environment. Unless pests include dandelions. And at this point I think we have hit an internal contradiction. Are we supposed to "control" the climate to help people avoid pests, or to improve our quality of life? If energy is so expensive that I have to compromise on food, healthcare, & a pest control service, is that a win?

I don't know about forest fires. If a higher temp causes more humidity & rain as some claim, maybe there are not more forest fires. But I don't know.

Coal is more carbon, less hydrogen. Gas is more hydrogen less carbon. So burning gas makes a lot of water and some CO2, coal makes a lot of CO2 and some water. H2O is a more powerful GHG. But we agree that soot and ash are less desirable than steam coming out of a power plant. (Have you ever been to Pittsburgh? The old bridge abutments are the color of charcoal and they have pictures from the 20's where you can't see 1/4 of a mile.)

As far as limiting our contribution to GHG, we need to keep it in perspective and do a cost-benefit analysis. But I like the technology and applaud the research. But don't tell me I must drive an electric car and buy a solar array for my roof. I might someday if it makes sense for me. And keep in mind, that nature has a myriad of feedback loops. You driving a '75 Cadillac may be helping to regenerate the rainforest.

 

Here's a news flash, the current under 30 crowd is a complete dumpster fire. "knowledgeable", lololol. What a joke.

 

Correct on H2O being a more potent GHG than CO2. Water vapor mixing ratios (humidity) are increasing because of increasing temperatures. This amplifies the temperature increase, but the amplification is self-limiting and relatively instantaneous. Remember, the key difference is that H2O is only a feedback mechanism. CO2 is both a feedback mechanism and a forcing mechanism. H2O can amplify a temperature change but it cannot cause one on it's own. CO2 actually causes temperature changes.

Exactly my point! It's so obvious that's intuitive. That's proof from the paleoclimate record that H2O is only a feedback mechanism; not a forcing mechanism.

Nobody is suggesting that a Venus-like runaway GHG effect is going to happen. It's actually not possible for it to happen on Earth for various reasons.

Nobody is suggesting that the planet won't survive. Also consider that the Earth was much warmer in the past. It was much warmer with the Sun being much dimmer. How did that happen? CO2 is a huge piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun paradox.

Define "thrives".

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. There really have been two glacial advances and two glacial retreats in the last 250,000 years. Glacial/interglacial cycles typically last from 80k to 120k'ish years. That's not creative. That's a fact.

Yes. Everyone knows this. Scientists figured this out decades ago.

No, the current interglacial period (the holocene) started about 10,000 years ago after the Earth warmed in fits and starts starting around 20,000 years ago. There have been many glacial advances and retreats in the last 2 million years. This is common knowledge. And it's explained pretty well by solar radiation, greenhouse gases, aerosols, and albedo among other factors. Milankovitch cycles provide the biggest modulating factor in dictating the 100,000'ish year period to the glacial/interglacial cycles.

I think you're confused by something, but I'm not sure what yet. Naturally modulated CO2 emissions aren't any different than anthroprogenically modulated CO2 emissions in respect to their radiative forcing. The molecules warm the planet all the same. In other words, SUVs aren't required to make the Earth warm. You just need a source of CO2 molecules. It doesn't matter who or what put them in the atmosphere. They have the exact same effect either way.

If there's something you have a question about feel free to ask it. Hopefully I answer it and help clarify any confusion.