Perspective: Climate Change
There seems to be a lot of hype in the media regarding the consequences of Climate Change. Some in the media and in Washington claim that the world will end in as little as 12 years, on the surface this looks a lot like fear-mongering. Pretty sure that's exactly what it is, but what does the science say? Recently (2018-2019) some of the most respected scientists have put conservative estimates out there that we will see what they call 'biological annihilation' over the next decade or so. Some assert that the ship has sailed, others that we can still do something to slow or halt this, but what they are talking about is the Earth's sixth mass extinction event. I've blogged about it before.
The truth is, we have a limited ability to predict what precisely will happen. It ranges from; losing a considerable number of species, in which case other species will assume the vacated niches in the ecosystem, to; losing this considerable number without the niches being back-filled and the subsequent collapse of the ecosystem. Both have consequences, one is dire. The truth may very well lie somewhere in the middle, or perhaps beyond.
The takeaway I think we should possess is that pesticides, herbicides, and other pollutants are killing off life. Climate Change may have something to do with it as well, an exacerbating factor of sorts. All I can say is tread lightly. Then again, we are overdue for a major asteroid impact, in which case our carbon footprint is virtually meaningless. How's that for perspective?
People on the Left are sure that humans are going to destroy the Earth, so they take these theories without a skeptical eye (It's called Confirmation Bias). People on the Right believe those on the Left are always trying to take away their rights so when someone offers up Climate Changes as a Globalist Tool to impede peoples' liberties they accept it without skepticism (again, Confirmation Bias). Being that liberals are concentrated in cities where there are high populations, many cars and traffic congestion, and conservatives tend to live more rural, we might impose different smog (and CO2) standards for different regions. Especially if one considers that the CO2 contributions of cities is far higher than rural low population-density areas. Being that the liberals populate the polluted areas they might step off their lefty high-horse and all move away from fossil fuel-power transport. Who can argue that this wouldn't make a huge impact on America's CO2 emissions? There's some perspective.
I recently was made aware of what exactly the CO2 record really looks like. Going back to prehistoric times on the scale of tens of millions of years the CO2 in the climate (as determined by sea-floor cores) we have learned that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been on a steady decline and that the earth has been cooling off (from over 2000ppm down to recently as low as 180ppm). While it is not my main point here it is also important to note that the primary relationship between temperature and CO2 is that the seas release more CO2 as they warm, this is physics, and records show that CO2 level level increases lag temperature, fact. My main point, however, is that the CO2 content in our atmosphere has been on a steady decline, during our last glaciation it dropped as low as 180ppm. For the last million years or so it has oscillated between 180ppm and 280ppm (roughly). Over the last 800,000 years (last 8 glaciations) the low number of this oscillation has been decreasing. Why is this important? At 150ppm plants begin to die off. If glaciations last for ~80,000 years or more then hitting 150ppm in the midst of one of these is the death of the Earth, and all of us. Would this have happen during our lifetimes? Of course not, but the possibility is there that the next glacial period could have resulted in this low number. It won't likely ever happen now, humans have found that much of the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere is a good, cheap source of energy and have thus inadvertently put a bit of it back into the atmosphere potentially avoiding or at least postponing the death of the Earth.
Will there be another Ice Age (Technically we are in an Ice Age, the question is asking about glacial periods or 'glaciations')? Views vary on this question, climate alarmists might assert that by breaking the 400ppm threshold humans will never again experience another glacial period. Alternately there are some who have demonstrated that CO2 matters far less that the IPCC might have us believe and that Milankovitch cycles and other Solar-forcing cycles are the deterministic factors (Soon, Connolly & Connolly), and that despite the elevated CO2 we will again see a glacial period in a few thousand years or more. If they are correct, perhaps the elevated CO2 resulting from fossil fuel burning will lessen the severity of it.
Why was CO2 dropping? The leading theory on why the CO2 has steadily dropped over the last 100 million years and more is that the sea-crustacean life has continually converted much of it into shell. This is evident not in just the sea floor core samples but also in the non-volcanic rock that covers much of the Earth's land-mass. Some have argued that these crustaceans are balanced by volcanism, which is on a decline as the Earth's core slowly cools, but the evidence doesn't support this theory of 'balance'.
There are some very-reputable scientists that assert that had humans not come along and return some of the sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere that life on Earth may have expired at some time over the next million years.
There have also been a couple of papers published in the last year or so that show the Earth is 'greening' due to higher CO2 concentrations. NASA was the most recent to publish these findings, which makes sense. Growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, physics proves this. Does CO2 play a significant part in warming? Depends on which 'shyentistsh' you ask. Personally I have read much on the subject, I am usually on the fence but as new evidence is uncovered I have changed my view multiple times. Currently I am of the opinion that CO2 adds to the Solar-forced warming a very small, perhaps statistically insignificant portion of the natural warming (perhaps within the statistical noise of measurement error +/-). The various orbital & solar cycles that have historically driven the Earth into glacial periods do not sync very well, they are further out of sync now than they have been for the last couple glacial periods. Some assert that we should be cooling, heading into another glacial period, the last couple inter-glacial periods lasted for 10-15 thousand years and we are about 11 thousand years into this one so based on this their assertion makes sense. The thing is these cycles need to align to begin that slow 80k-year descent and estimations that I was able to find on when this decline should next happen will occur in no less than 10 thousand years (yes some inter-glacial periods can last for 20k-years or more). Even still, the descent into a glacial period is slow, on scales of thousands of years not decades or even centuries. The point is that whether or not we are supposed to start cooling is not settled.
Putting all of this into perspective, what should we do? It is probably wise to be conservative with the amount of CO2 we add to our atmosphere. Actions like limiting coal production to less than 20% of our electric power generation and increasing nuclear (no CO2), adding solar to rooftops but only as a grid-supplement (there are cloudy days my friends) and steering away from wind due to the impact to avian-life and to massive amount of concrete that goes into the bases of wind turbines. Convincing the residents of large cities to transition towards hybrids and EV's and public transportation would be a great move too. Eliminating fossil fuels altogether is simply unrealistic and ignorant. China alone will not peak in CO2 emissions until 2030 at which point they will be contributing to more than what Europe and America contribute now. Leftist politicians are calling for crazy knee-jerk measures on all fronts, eliminating fossil fuels will wreck our economy and put ten million or more people out of work (even according to them)... yeah, that'll show China, Russia, India and others. It'll show them how to tank your economy, but if we lead by example by making sensible reductions this CO2 enrichment of our atmosphere will slow and allow for life to adapt more easily (if it even needs to).
Lastly concerning 'biological annihilation', climate alarmists are linking currently observable extinctions to climate change. Biologists will tell you that the real culprits are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers, however, many are adding climate change to this list as a potential driver. Why would they do that? If the answer isn't obvious, anything that can be linked (even remotely) to climate change receives more funding. While there are massive die-offs of some animal species, CO2 is not to blame. CO2 is greening the Earth which has a bottom-up food chain of which plants are at the bottom. Pretty please. with sugar on top, put that into perspective.
The truth is, we have a limited ability to predict what precisely will happen. It ranges from; losing a considerable number of species, in which case other species will assume the vacated niches in the ecosystem, to; losing this considerable number without the niches being back-filled and the subsequent collapse of the ecosystem. Both have consequences, one is dire. The truth may very well lie somewhere in the middle, or perhaps beyond.
The takeaway I think we should possess is that pesticides, herbicides, and other pollutants are killing off life. Climate Change may have something to do with it as well, an exacerbating factor of sorts. All I can say is tread lightly. Then again, we are overdue for a major asteroid impact, in which case our carbon footprint is virtually meaningless. How's that for perspective?
People on the Left are sure that humans are going to destroy the Earth, so they take these theories without a skeptical eye (It's called Confirmation Bias). People on the Right believe those on the Left are always trying to take away their rights so when someone offers up Climate Changes as a Globalist Tool to impede peoples' liberties they accept it without skepticism (again, Confirmation Bias). Being that liberals are concentrated in cities where there are high populations, many cars and traffic congestion, and conservatives tend to live more rural, we might impose different smog (and CO2) standards for different regions. Especially if one considers that the CO2 contributions of cities is far higher than rural low population-density areas. Being that the liberals populate the polluted areas they might step off their lefty high-horse and all move away from fossil fuel-power transport. Who can argue that this wouldn't make a huge impact on America's CO2 emissions? There's some perspective.
I recently was made aware of what exactly the CO2 record really looks like. Going back to prehistoric times on the scale of tens of millions of years the CO2 in the climate (as determined by sea-floor cores) we have learned that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been on a steady decline and that the earth has been cooling off (from over 2000ppm down to recently as low as 180ppm). While it is not my main point here it is also important to note that the primary relationship between temperature and CO2 is that the seas release more CO2 as they warm, this is physics, and records show that CO2 level level increases lag temperature, fact. My main point, however, is that the CO2 content in our atmosphere has been on a steady decline, during our last glaciation it dropped as low as 180ppm. For the last million years or so it has oscillated between 180ppm and 280ppm (roughly). Over the last 800,000 years (last 8 glaciations) the low number of this oscillation has been decreasing. Why is this important? At 150ppm plants begin to die off. If glaciations last for ~80,000 years or more then hitting 150ppm in the midst of one of these is the death of the Earth, and all of us. Would this have happen during our lifetimes? Of course not, but the possibility is there that the next glacial period could have resulted in this low number. It won't likely ever happen now, humans have found that much of the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere is a good, cheap source of energy and have thus inadvertently put a bit of it back into the atmosphere potentially avoiding or at least postponing the death of the Earth.
Will there be another Ice Age (Technically we are in an Ice Age, the question is asking about glacial periods or 'glaciations')? Views vary on this question, climate alarmists might assert that by breaking the 400ppm threshold humans will never again experience another glacial period. Alternately there are some who have demonstrated that CO2 matters far less that the IPCC might have us believe and that Milankovitch cycles and other Solar-forcing cycles are the deterministic factors (Soon, Connolly & Connolly), and that despite the elevated CO2 we will again see a glacial period in a few thousand years or more. If they are correct, perhaps the elevated CO2 resulting from fossil fuel burning will lessen the severity of it.
Why was CO2 dropping? The leading theory on why the CO2 has steadily dropped over the last 100 million years and more is that the sea-crustacean life has continually converted much of it into shell. This is evident not in just the sea floor core samples but also in the non-volcanic rock that covers much of the Earth's land-mass. Some have argued that these crustaceans are balanced by volcanism, which is on a decline as the Earth's core slowly cools, but the evidence doesn't support this theory of 'balance'.
There are some very-reputable scientists that assert that had humans not come along and return some of the sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere that life on Earth may have expired at some time over the next million years.
There have also been a couple of papers published in the last year or so that show the Earth is 'greening' due to higher CO2 concentrations. NASA was the most recent to publish these findings, which makes sense. Growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, physics proves this. Does CO2 play a significant part in warming? Depends on which 'shyentistsh' you ask. Personally I have read much on the subject, I am usually on the fence but as new evidence is uncovered I have changed my view multiple times. Currently I am of the opinion that CO2 adds to the Solar-forced warming a very small, perhaps statistically insignificant portion of the natural warming (perhaps within the statistical noise of measurement error +/-). The various orbital & solar cycles that have historically driven the Earth into glacial periods do not sync very well, they are further out of sync now than they have been for the last couple glacial periods. Some assert that we should be cooling, heading into another glacial period, the last couple inter-glacial periods lasted for 10-15 thousand years and we are about 11 thousand years into this one so based on this their assertion makes sense. The thing is these cycles need to align to begin that slow 80k-year descent and estimations that I was able to find on when this decline should next happen will occur in no less than 10 thousand years (yes some inter-glacial periods can last for 20k-years or more). Even still, the descent into a glacial period is slow, on scales of thousands of years not decades or even centuries. The point is that whether or not we are supposed to start cooling is not settled.
Putting all of this into perspective, what should we do? It is probably wise to be conservative with the amount of CO2 we add to our atmosphere. Actions like limiting coal production to less than 20% of our electric power generation and increasing nuclear (no CO2), adding solar to rooftops but only as a grid-supplement (there are cloudy days my friends) and steering away from wind due to the impact to avian-life and to massive amount of concrete that goes into the bases of wind turbines. Convincing the residents of large cities to transition towards hybrids and EV's and public transportation would be a great move too. Eliminating fossil fuels altogether is simply unrealistic and ignorant. China alone will not peak in CO2 emissions until 2030 at which point they will be contributing to more than what Europe and America contribute now. Leftist politicians are calling for crazy knee-jerk measures on all fronts, eliminating fossil fuels will wreck our economy and put ten million or more people out of work (even according to them)... yeah, that'll show China, Russia, India and others. It'll show them how to tank your economy, but if we lead by example by making sensible reductions this CO2 enrichment of our atmosphere will slow and allow for life to adapt more easily (if it even needs to).
Lastly concerning 'biological annihilation', climate alarmists are linking currently observable extinctions to climate change. Biologists will tell you that the real culprits are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers, however, many are adding climate change to this list as a potential driver. Why would they do that? If the answer isn't obvious, anything that can be linked (even remotely) to climate change receives more funding. While there are massive die-offs of some animal species, CO2 is not to blame. CO2 is greening the Earth which has a bottom-up food chain of which plants are at the bottom. Pretty please. with sugar on top, put that into perspective.
There are some other factors on this subject that is important to keep in mind. Human activity is a heat engine, it is November 11th 2019 and the weather forecast for the Sacramento are is nigh 70's F, perhaps even as high as 80F in a few spots. We haven't seen rain since mid September, where historically we normally get rain and cooler temps the week before Halloween. We don't expect a change for a week or more. Like I argue above CO2 may play a factor but is not likely a primary driver. Human activity alone generates a lot of heat, or eliminates some natural cooling effects. By removing the natural flora and replacing it with highways, homes, and businesses we will warm those small areas. Even farms do this. Now consider what 20 acres of solar panels does for the natural warming/cooling of that land. I recently traveled across the country, much of our nation is covered by farmland, particularly corn. Roughly 41% of America is farmland (https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-US-land-is-farmland), leaving 59% for homes, cities, businesses, industry, and wildlife. Humans and livestock account for 96% of the mammal Biomass on Earth (https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/)
ReplyDeleteThe point of my comment above is that we (humans) have taken half the acreage for our own use, and that this use has it's own warming effect. We observe species die off and some want to point a finger at CO2, but is far more likely that our growth has reduced habitat, and this is the primary driver. Add our pollution (herbicides, pesticides among them) and we can likely account for most if not all of the species loss. Blaming CO2 just helps get you more funding.
ReplyDeleteThere are some factors that we must admit when it comes to the warming.
ReplyDelete1. We are seeing warming, we only debate the CO2-contribution to this warming
2. CO2 will have a latent impact to warming, meaning that if we somehow froze the CO2 levels at current the full impact of whatever CO2 contributes would not likely level off for acouple centuries or more.
3. CO2 absorbs infra red radiation in a logarithmic manner, if an increase in 100ppm results in a total of 1C of warming, it would take 200ppm to add another 1C of warming. CO2 saturates in this manner well before 1000ppm.
4. The latent effect and saturation make modelling difficult, combined with solar-forcing cycles and oceanic cycles models become less predictable. Critics of this lack of predictability will often argue that half of the warming we have seen since 1850 occurred before 1945, and that there was not much CO2 being put into the atmosphere to account for the warming (inferring solar forcing instead). But remember the logarithmic behavior? We did go from ~280ppm to ~310ppm during that time period, thus that 30ppm increase would have had more impact than would going from 310ppm to 340ppm (1945-1980ish)... still the effect may have some latent characteristics, but even so they cannot say that there wasn't enough CO2 around to matter, they can only argue that CO2 in general doesn't matter as much as people are asserting.
Good video on Solar Physics and the solar component of our climate: https://youtu.be/JyyuouPSNEA
ReplyDeleteWhat I am getting from my layman's research is that we going to likely cool for the next ~33 years or so due to a Grand Solar Minimum, an even that caused the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century. This cooling will be about -0.8C, slightly less than the 17th century minimum (-1.0C). The physicists assert that this has already begun with events like July snow in the Carpathians, and record hail in Mexico. This week there is snow expected at my house on 11/26 and 11/27, which is unseasonably early, we seldom get snow in December, sometimes in January, and usually in February... but very rare in November. We have also seen early snow in the Eastern US, and many record lows in November '19. Such events are said to support the appearance of this Grand Solar Minimum (GSM).
What does that mean for climate change? The Solar Physicists assert that we still need to get our act together on carbon emissions, and that this event will likely buy us some time. It is possible that our higher CO2 might mitigate some of the cooling we'd normally see from this GSM. I predict that the climate change skeptics will point to this cooling as evidence of a climate change hoax. This concerns me a little, because if human-CO2 is warming the globe what will happen if we keep on doing business as usual after the GSM event in the 2050's when the Solar Thermostat goes back up? ...and we are at ~500ppm or more?