The Brutal Logic of Climate Change

Sparhawk wrote:

I don't think there is a climate change that some people would like us to believe. As I think they are only out on our money (so called Cap&Trade instead of just capping).
The climate is changing and it's a natural phenomena. Our influence is not as huge as some will make it look like.
We should change our ways for the better though.

So, we know that there are different isotopes of carbon released by natural activity, and by combustion. The ratio of those isotopes has been changing for the last two centuries, moving significantly towards carbon produced by human activity (ie, anthropogenic CO2). That's strong evidence that the current change is caused by human activity. Further, this hypothesis has yielded predictions that keep coming true.

Besides, if you look at Milankovitch cycles, or the solar influence, we should be *cooling* now. And indeed that signal exists, but is overwhelmed by the warming forcings. So yes, the cycles exist, the scientists know about them, the *scientists* say we *should* be cooling, all other things being equal - and yet we're warming, with strong evidence that most of the warming is down to additional CO2, and very strong evidence that that additional CO2 is primarily caused by human activity. So the natural cycles tell us that we should be seeing the *opposite* of what we are seeing today.

Check out this chart, which shows the massive CO2 increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution. And this article explains that while we've measured natural variability in the carbon isotope ratios at about .03% over the a few thousand years - from interglacial to glacial periods - in the last 150 years, it's varied .15%. That's a five-fold increase compared natural changes, and in only 150 years. That is, the amount of carbon increase in the atmosphere from human sources - unequivocably from human sources - has spiked tremendously since the start of industrialization.

(How do we know this? We study tree rings and analyze the C13/C12 ratios in each ring, giving us a multi-thousand year record of the ratio in the air when the ring was laid down (as the ratio is preserved by the respiration of the tree). We thus know not only that the ratios were lower thousands and even millions of years ago, but we know that when the remnants of those trees are burned (fossil fuels), the ratio that combustion puts in the air will reflect that lower ratio that existed in the atmosphere when that fossil fuel was laid down. And indeed, starting in the 1850's, we see the ratio change *massively* in the atmosphere, as a direct result of burning fossil fuels. And this is also reflected in other data sources - corals and ice cores, for starters, which extend the record back for far longer than tree rings (in the latter case).)

It's hard to argue with carbon isotope measurements... The recent changes are primarily (but not entirely) due to human activity, and have overwhelmed the natural cooling cycle we should be in. If you'd like to (briefly) learn more about carbon sources and sinks, try this article as an introduction.

LarryC wrote:

KingGorilla:

Actually, I think the permanent solution is going to be adaptation. Our species did not evolve to cope with the ability to modify the planet acting as millions; but we presumably have the ability to adapt and change in the millions, to better fit a changing world. It just so happens that our own activity is the one that appears to be influencing the planet recently (though that's not necessarily a foregone conclusion). It stands to reason that what will happen is that climate will change, many species will become extinct, and we will adapt. Or not - then we become extinct and other species evolve to fill the niche.

I would not put it past possibility that we will evolve the ability to organize en masse and act en masse (China is already showing signs that this sort of high-level decisive decision-making can be possible), but I'm not overly optimistic about that.

I am not entirely sure if progression and refinement is necessarilly different from what I propose. Part of our problem is all of the money spent to inhibit progression. If the Greeks had a system of subsidies and lobbys for copper and tin, they would not have moved on to steel weapons. In so many areas of science, technology, aggriculture we have made profit from inferiority.

If and when the earth heats up, the whole in the ozone layer over the north pole will grow larger. And this way it dissipates the heat. That's in short what I've seen explained by a scientist. But I guess there are lots of scientist saying one thing and lots the other.

Sparhawk wrote:

But I guess there are lots of scientists saying one thing and lots a very small number of scientists, mostly non-climatologists, the other.

Fixed for accuracy.

If and when the earth heats up, the whole in the ozone layer over the north pole will grow larger. And this way it dissipates the heat. That's in short what I've seen explained by a scientist. But I guess there are lots of scientist saying one thing and lots the other.

Not only is this true, it's already happening (and has been over the last 20-odd years). That means, of course, that the forcing it's providing is not nearly enough to keep the warming at bay, nor will it be in the future. It's estimated to provide .05-.25 W/M2 of cooling; CO2 alone is about 1.7 to 1.9 W/M2 in the other direction. Here's a useful chart to orient yourself to forcings.

Note that the effect of atmospheric aerosols is many times that of the polar ozone hole. The problem there is that air pollution is dangerous, as well. But we can't count on the polar ozone depletion to protect us, not by a large margin.

Sparhawk, should we take your comment to indicate you don't think that warming is occurring? I'm not aware of any of the major dissenters who still hold that opinion. If you can point one out, that would be interesting.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

But I guess there are lots of scientists saying one thing and lots a very small number of scientists, mostly non-climatologists, the other.

Fixed for accuracy.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that's wrong. The ozone layer is specifically in the stratosphere - yes there is ozone in the troposphere but that contributes to warming, whereas - according to Robear's link - ozone in the stratosphere actually reduces warming. Most of the ozone in the troposphere, as far as I'm aware, is created by human activity.

Once again - Ozone in the stratosphere does not retain heat so I'm dubious as to the effect of the ozone holes getting bigger having any large effect on cooling.

Not a *large* effect, but definitely an effect.

Does it really matter at this point why it's happening? It's obvious there's a problem or not a problem depending on your stand. Yet we're having adverse effects due to changes with the weather and the collective 'we' should move on and try and do something to help out. I'd much rather my tax money go in that direction than in some others.

Sure. It's always good to know whether your flat is the result of a screw on the highway, or a person shooting it out... Your response may be slightly different in the two circumstances.

Robear wrote:

Sure. It's always good to know whether your flat is the result of a screw on the highway, or a person shooting it out... Your response may be slightly different in the two circumstances. :-)

True enough. You're still gonna need a new tire, though.

True, but if it's someone shooting at you, just replacing the tire isn't a very good solution.

Malor wrote:

True, but if it's someone shooting at you, just replacing the tire isn't a very good solution.

But if we put a bullet tax... perhaps even cap the number of bullets produced...

Malor wrote:

True, but if it's someone shooting at you, just replacing the tire isn't a very good solution.

That really should have read _eventually_. Was pointing out that yeah, it'd change a lot short-term, but long term... you still need a new tire, no matter _how_ the hole got there.

Just like here, it changes what we focus on eliminating first, but long term, we really should quit pumping noxious crap into the air we breathe.

More generally, we need to stop externalizing costs, and we need to change capitalism in whatever way it must be changed in order to make that happen. I see no way that this can be construed as optional, anymore.

I few years back I called in to a local radio show in Baltimore to talk to our defacto career senator Ben Cardin. He was yammering unintelligibly about climate change. It was obvious he had an agenda despite any facts, for or against warming. He was just falling in line. One of his statements was to the effect that here in Maryland, specifically in the Chesapeake Bay, global warming was a priority because sea level in the bay was higher than everywhere else. My head almost exploded. So, does global warming evaporate water? Or does it melt the ice caps and such to raise sea level? And why is sea level different in Maryland? Unbelievable.

Well.....I questioned his sources and he accuracy of his claim. He promptly disregarded my question and yammered on about stuff. An elected official, championing a cause, knows nothing about what he is supposedly supporting.

Well, all we have is your reports of his claims, rather than seeing the actual things, but no, sea level is not all the same everywhere at once. The ocean is flattish, but not flat. Currents mean that parts of it are a fair bit higher than others. And the sea levels will rise because ice that's presently sitting on land will melt and slide into the water, just like adding a slush of ice and cold water to a drink.

I didn't see the exchange, obviously, but it's quite possible that he was sufficiently expert in what he was talking about that going back through this really basic stuff would have added nothing to the conversation. There's not enough data yet to tell, but you could be the ignorant one here, not him.

I few years back I called in to a local radio show in Baltimore to talk to our defacto career senator Ben Cardin. He was yammering unintelligibly about climate change. It was obvious he had an agenda despite any facts, for or against warming. He was just falling in line. One of his statements was to the effect that here in Maryland, specifically in the Chesapeake Bay, global warming was a priority because sea level in the bay was higher than everywhere else. My head almost exploded. So, does global warming evaporate water? Or does it melt the ice caps and such to raise sea level? And why is sea level different in Maryland? Unbelievable.

Most of the heat involved in warming actually ends up in the ocean, and of course - basic physics - as you heat water, it expands. And as you note, glaciers and ice melt can contribute as well. Currently, the rate is around a tenth of an inch a year *globally* (1.7mm average), but that varies across the world by a lot more. The reason the Mid-Atlantic is seeing more sea level rise than the rest of the US East Coast (nearly 4mm per year) is that the more northerly Atlantic coast is still rebounding from the retreat of the glaciers, and so that increase in altitude *decreases* the total sea level rise they see. (Hey, at the scales we're talking, it's a factor, around a couple of millimeters a year.) That means that, yes, the Chesapeake Bay is seeing more *measured* sea level rise, relative to the rest of the Atlantic coast and the world. Why is the Atlantic rising more? Because of melting in Greenland and Iceland ice sheets and Arctic ice, conveyed to the US East Coast by the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. That creates regional conditions for sea level rise greater than in other seas. (You may have heard the name of this circulation in relation to sudden climate change, but currently that is not considered likely.)

Make sense? Please feel free to ask more questions.

Robear wrote:

Make sense? Please feel free to ask more questions.

..how are you so smart at this?

I'm not. But I spent three years working at NASA for a group studying climate science (among other things) in the late 80's, when the attention was on the ozone hole (and many of today's detractors were inveighing against the idea that that was real and harmful, in between lobbying against the idea that cigarettes are harmful). So as this stuff heated up, as it were, I began to follow it and read some of the papers, the IPCC reports, and so forth. I get challenged all the time by people who are convinced of every conspiracy theory under the sun, so I ended up finding a bunch of sources on the various claims and reading *them*.

I also spent a few years in college studying ecology, so I'm aware of the basic principles of interconnected systems, physical chemistry, geology and the like. I actually would have enjoyed going into the field, if I'd known what was coming up. It's interesting stuff.

And I know from first-hand experience that researchers are not getting rich off this stuff, they're not lying to us, they're not incompetent, models are flawed in known ways but not massively, and so forth.

Maybe I'm imagining this because I looked and I can't find a single thing backing it up but won't the areas around the equator experience greater sea level rise due to the Earth's spin?

I'm sure I read that was a factor, somewhere...

I think that might be a factor in overall sea level differences, but wouldn't that remain pretty constant throughout the century?

Duoae wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

But I guess there are lots of scientists saying one thing and lots a very small number of scientists, mostly non-climatologists, the other.

Fixed for accuracy.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that's wrong. The ozone layer is specifically in the stratosphere - yes there is ozone in the troposphere but that contributes to warming, whereas - according to Robear's link - ozone in the stratosphere actually reduces warming. Most of the ozone in the troposphere, as far as I'm aware, is created by human activity.

Once again - Ozone in the stratosphere does not retain heat so I'm dubious as to the effect of the ozone holes getting bigger having any large effect on cooling.

I would have to look it up. But that's how things were explained to me, that it is exactly that: A vent for heat. More heat, hole gets larger. Less heat, hole becomes smaller.
What I know (or think to know) I've stated before. If you want me to defend it all, I won't. Not really going to dig into it all the whole. As for me, it is really a messy business to figure out who is for real and who is fraud these days.

Easy. Climate scientists are on the whole not lying to you. They make mistakes, sure. But Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and the Heartland Institute are lying to you. If your main sources for information are "Watt's Up With That" and/or "Junkscience.com", you're being lied to actively and without shame. I'm not sure how else to put it, so there it is. If you would like some actual science from climate scientists to read - ranging from novice-friendly to "write your own model and run it to see" complicated, just ask for some websites.

Again, this chart will show you how strong the effects of the ozone holes are in relation to other forcings. This is not controversial, it's not lying. It's physics. I'm sorry if it does not support the idea that a bigger ozone hole will make things better, but that's what the evidence supports regardless of our wishes, or the opinions of retired weathermen and pro-tobacco shills.

I'll bite. I could go for some novice-friendly climate links.

As an aside, this is why a lot of us really hate Fox News et al. By a couple of people lying publicly, they can mislead a lot of very reasonable people just by nature of how our brain works.

Robear wrote:

I think that might be a factor in overall sea level differences, but wouldn't that remain pretty constant throughout the century?

Yes, but if you're adding more water to the total amount then it stands to reason that the mass of water will bulge most at the equator as well and so you might observe larger sea level rise in those areas.

Sparhawk wrote:

I would have to look it up. But that's how things were explained to me, that it is exactly that: A vent for heat. More heat, hole gets larger. Less heat, hole becomes smaller.
What I know (or think to know) I've stated before. If you want me to defend it all, I won't. Not really going to dig into it all the whole. As for me, it is really a messy business to figure out who is for real and who is fraud these days.

Not really: Read the section on "Ozone Hole and causes"

As explained above, the primary cause of ozone depletion is the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons). In the presence of UV light, these gases dissociate, releasing chlorine atoms, which then go on to catalyze ozone destruction. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs).
These polar stratospheric clouds(PSC) form during winter, in the extreme cold. Polar winters are dark, consisting of 3 months without solar radiation (sunlight). The lack of sunlight contributes to a decrease in temperature and the polar vortex traps and chills air. Temperatures hover around or below −80 °C. These low temperatures form cloud particles. There are three types of PSC clouds — nitric acid trihydrate clouds, slowly cooling water-ice clouds, and rapid cooling water-ice (nacerous) clouds — that provide surfaces for chemical reactions that lead to ozone destruction.

It's not related to your heat theory as it was explained to you at all.

[edit] Just in case you're going to say "well, that's the antarctic hole, not arctic":

same article wrote:

The study analyzed data from the Aura and CALIPSO satellites, and determined that the larger-than-normal ozone loss was due to an unusually long period of cold weather in the Arctic, some 30 days more than typical, which allowed for more ozone-destroying chlorine compounds to be created

Kannon, here are a few.

RealClimate.org was put together to provide information from practicing climate scientists to the public in a way similar to the popular denialist sites, but from the perspective of actual scientists in the field. It updates every week or so, and has an excellent reference wiki based on common arguments against climate change and a large blogroll. Main articles are based on research papers and usually discuss specific aspects of research. It has a great "Start Here" list of sites for the technical side of things (ie, not history.) This is the best starting starting point to learn about climate change and the science behind it.

Another starting point for non-scientists like us is the American Institute of Physics, which hosts Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming. An excellent introduction to the history of the field, which also helps people understand that no, this field was not created in the late 80's so that scientists could get grant money to spend on Porsches and donations to Al Gore. This site lets you start with the history of climate science; sometimes that's a gentler introduction.

Climate Central is a good aggregator of blogs, news and opinion. It was founded by Yale and the 11th Hour Project as a resource for popularizing climate information and related topics. Now a non-profit out of Princeton NJ.

Those should provide you with plenty of information.

Robear wrote:

which also helps people understand that no, this field was not created in the late 80's so that scientists could get grant money to spend on Porsches

Seriously, what self-respecting scientist from the post 90s would want a Porsche?

Malor wrote:

More generally, we need to stop externalizing costs, and we need to change capitalism in whatever way it must be changed in order to make that happen. I see no way that this can be construed as optional, anymore.

Which is something I have never understood. The cost of pollution is placed upon the communities at large and not on the source of it. The more a company pollutes, the more they should have to pay. And that money should go directly to the communities that they affect.

Robear wrote:

Those should provide you with plenty of information.

Neat, thanks.

I wish I had a pocket Robear to assist me with climate change deniers I know. I'd argue with them myself, but I just don't have the scientific knowledge or endurance to do so.