Climate Change - An Update.

[peter]

I was tempted to call this thread "The Most Imporant Thread You'll Ever Contribute to!" ala 'YouTube' video's on the same subject, but decided that was presumptuous and cheap attention grabbing. Never-the-less the subject is of massive import and further, the responses you guys give [who's collective intellect stands a damn good chance of being correct on the subject and will form the basis of decisions I have to make in the very near future] will help me pull into focus just what I should and should not be doing in respect of this issue.

Last night I saw a recording of Neil deGrasse Tysons 'New Cosmos' episode which deals specifically with the subject of 'Man Induced Climate Change'. He started with a description of Venus as it was some billions of years ago - a veritable 'paradise' in some respects and not dissimilar to earth [minus the life], and then explained how CO2 build up had blanketed the planet such that the suns radiation could not escape and this in turn had transformed the planet into a hellish landscape where the surface temp was hot enough to melt lead and the atmosphere one of virtually pure sulphuric acid. He explained the differences between the 'Carbon Cycles' pertaining on Venus and Earth, and explained how the sea firstly with it's absorbative properties and it's trillions of plancton, began to act as a 'sponge to take up CO2 from volcanic output etc, to the point where a balance was established in which life could further develop.

He got onto the rise in CO2 levels and methane that we have recorded [from trapped air in artic ice etc] that has been seen in the last couple of centuries and particularly since the advent of the burning of fossil fuels, and presented what on the face of it was an absolutely convinceing case that a) climate change is very definitely upon us, and b) that we - mankind - are responsible for the bulk of it. His picture of our predicted future if we do not ALL change our ways - and big time - was dire in the extreem, and he even went so far as to say it could in all possibility already be too late for us to make the necessary changes. The program was stark and depressive - like an anti-smoking advert that lasted for an hour - and of course only a fool would fail to be moved by it's content.

Principally my question is this. DeGrasse Tyson was uncompromising in his laying of the blame fairly and squarely on the shoulders of mankind - and also of the responsibility of each and every one of us to do what we can to halt and if possible reverse the damage we have done. At the end of the program I sat and said to my wife "What can we do?" We decided that perhaps we could stop running our car - we can both walk to work and have shops etc within a mile of where we live. We could stop flying abroad for our holidays, and we could buy locally scourced food with few 'road miles'.

It would be a big change to our lives for sure, but in reallity we can do this stuff if in doing so we are buying a future for our grand-daughter. But is it right? And if so, is it worth it. Will not our small contribution be lost against rising fossil fuel consumption in China and India and Russia. And won't other people continue to do all the stuff that we would sacrifice and thus negate our efforts. And is DeGrasse Tyson himself correct - that there is no really plausable alternative to the 'man-made' theory, and that the curing of our sick planet might, if it can be achieved at all, be down purely to our own willingness to sacrifice the stuff we love doing.

[DoctorGamgee]

I did not see the show, so there are several questions which perhaps you can answer for me:

the first is this: in his comparison to Earth and Venus, did he discuss the fact that the distance from the sun with Venus means that the amount of sunlight energy it receives is exponentially higher than the Earth, and did he discuss the effect that this added energy would have.

Secondly, in his discussion of the Ice Cores, did he only focus on the last two centuries which shows what has happened since fossil fuel has been used, or did he discuss anything that occurred before this to show levels of comparison?

Finally, in response to your question, you have hit the nail upon the head: will our local, self-devised methods of reducing our carbon footprint have any meaningful input, when not everyone is doing it. This IMO, is the crux of his proposal. I have put in lighting that makes it easier on the planet, I grow my own food in my backyard to help ease our footprint (much easier to go into the garden and grab an onion than to drive to the store and buy one sent in from across the nation in an air-conditioned store with bright lights and a large carbon footprint), we drive fuel efficient cars, and make sure that we turn off lights and minimize our own footprint. I am helping, and doing so it is having a positive on the planet. When you ask whether it is making a change is worthwhile in the whole, what you are really asking is whether the government should get involved and go for a global ideal that will be enforced by bureaucracy and lack of choice. I am in favor of the former; I am opposed to the latter. Mostly because I don't want people who don't know me making decisions for me. I would suggest you do what you can, as that is the right thing to do (and as you seem to want to do it and it is your choice, please do what you can). Every little bit helps. What the Dr. was telling you is that the only way to right it is via government overtake (which, if he is correct and it is already too late, then giving them this power seems a huge waste of money and resources) and I have yet to see that accomplish anything other than Orwell's All animals are equal, but Some are More Equal than others as witnessed by the Powerful in the USSR, and even in the USA, where the people are to do one thing, but the folks in congress...not so much so.

I'm sure wiser folks will correct me. But that's OK, as I chose to enter the discussion.

Dr. G

[I'm Murrin]

I think the words you're looking for are "better than nothing".

[peter]

Yes - DeGrasse Tyson said the proximity factor was not significant; in previous times Venus had had a surface temperature quite within the range of allowing water to exist in the liquid state; the killer factor he said was the build up of CO2 with no means of entrapment to reduce it's 'greenhouse effect' on the sun's incoming radient heat.

Yes to the second point also; it was by comparison of CO2 levels in entrapped air over the millenia in which the sucessive layers of the ice cores were formed that yields the data showing the frightening 'spike' of the last few hundred years.

He said that in the case of air in earlier times approximately 3 parts in ten thousand of all CO2 molecules produced might escape into the atmosphere; a rise to six parts would he said, spell 'game over' for mankind and we were well on the way to getting there. He showed that the issue of carbon dioxide release has been knocking around the scientific community since the 1950's, when the first predictions of the dire effects of CO2 emissions were made. The huge losses of the polar ice-shelfs, increased land erosion and decay of the permafrost regions are exacerbating the problems yet further to the point where the bulk of effects from mankinds point of view are not millenia away, but will effect our own grand children and their offspring [re extreme weather, loss of land space to rising sea-levels etc] The legacy we will leave them is a broken world with no hope for the future.

On a diferent film I saw not so long ago [Werner Herzog's The Edge of the World] a disparate group of antartic scientists from all over the world pretty much expressed one single view - that it was indeed 'game over' for us. They seemed to feel that the changes we are already witnessing were sufficient to indicate that the swing in the surface conditions of earth, even if it did stabalise, would be too great for us to survive.

If these guys are correct it seems to have come down to this. Perhaps life on the planet survives the climatic trauma of the next few millenia [the extremophiles have withstood much worse than this in the past] but mankind goes west [at least those who don't get to get into hermetically sealed eco-domes]. Or Perhaps Earth is f****d as a livable habitat [other than as above], but mankind goes on to 'terra-form' his way back out of trouble.

Now I have only got one life and I really have no problem with sacraficing great hunks of what I love to do - but only if the candle is worth the wick. No way do I want to go down that route if Murrins 'better than nothing' is in fact not better than nothing at all. In fact worthless because a] the 'tipping point' has already long gone (as believed by those antartic climatologists) or b] no-one else is going to have the will [either at an international, national or personal level] to match my better than nothing with a better than nothing of their own.

I love this world and I want to see it survive. But if it's a done deal then I have no desire to be the only kid on the block who contributes his pennies to the pot or indeed to miss the one bite at the cherry of life I have been given.

[I'm Murrin]

So, if you can't make it better, you'll make it worse?

[Zarathustra]

Yes to the second point also; it was by comparison of CO2 levels in entrapped air over the millenia in which the sucessive layers of the ice cores were formed that yields the data showing the frightening 'spike' of the last few hundred years.

While he used the ice cores to show a higher than "normal" (whatever that means) level of CO2, what he didn't show or even mention was that the planet has been warming for centuries longer than the industrial revolution and the CO2 spike. We're still recovering from the "Little Ice Age" (1500?).

Clearly, the planet warms and cools independently of man's actions. While we're probably adding to the warming, the planet has been warmer in the past, and during such times life on earth thrived.

He said that in the case of air in earlier times approximately 3 parts in ten thousand of all CO2 molecules produced might escape into the atmosphere; a rise to six parts would he said, spell 'game over' for mankind and we were well on the way to getting there.

I don't remember him saying anything like "game over" for mankind.

... but will effect our own grand children and their offspring [re extreme weather, loss of land space to rising sea-levels etc] The legacy we will leave them is a broken world with no hope for the future.

A broken world? No hope for the future? What do you mean? Mankind survives in every climate and region on earth. Weather isn't going to kill us, no matter how "extreme" it gets. The sea levels rise primarily due to thermal expansion, not melting ice (otherwise, every summer the ocean would be deeper as the northern ice cap recedes and we'd lose land), and this will take many centuries to be noticeable.

A slightly higher temperature might have some pretty drastic effects, but mankind has survived ice ages, which are much worse than global warming. Actually, we're in an interglacial period within an ice age that began 2 million years ago. (That glacial period ended 10,000 years ago, a burst of warmth that also coincides with the rise of civilization.) You want talk about losing land! Just image most of Europe and North America under several miles of ice! Warmth is good.

The only reason we have Antarctic and a Greenland ice sheets is because we're still in a "ice age." The presence of "permanent" ice on earth isn't typical of its history, and there is nothing necessary about it. The earth has done just fine without all that ice, and much worse when the ice expands.

We'll be fine.

On a diferent film I saw not so long ago [Werner Herzog's The Edge of the World] a disparate group of antartic scientists from all over the world pretty much expressed one single view - that it was indeed 'game over' for us. They seemed to feel that the changes we are already witnessing were sufficient to indicate that the swing in the surface conditions of earth, even if it did stabalise, would be too great for us to survive.

This is crazy.

If these guys are correct it seems to have come down to this. Perhaps life on the planet survives the climatic trauma of the next few millenia [the extremophiles have withstood much worse than this in the past] but mankind goes west [at least those who don't get to get into hermetically sealed eco-domes]. Or Perhaps Earth is f****d as a livable habitat [other than as above], but mankind goes on to 'terra-form' his way back out of trouble.

Ain't going to happen. The earth will still be a paradise with slightly higher temperatures ... just as it has in the past.

Now I have only got one life and I really have no problem with sacraficing great hunks of what I love to do - but only if the candle is worth the wick. No way do I want to go down that route if Murrins 'better than nothing' is in fact not better than nothing at all. In fact worthless because a] the 'tipping point' has already long gone (as believed by those antartic climatologists) or b] no-one else is going to have the will [either at an international, national or personal level] to match my better than nothing with a better than nothing of their own.

This is sensible. There is no need to panic or change our lifestyles. There are technological ways to lower the temperature of the earth, things we could do right now if we wanted, that have nothing to do with CO2. If global warming becomes too much of a problem, we could adjust.

In the near future, we'll be using fusion to power our civilization and fossil fuels will be phased out without us sacrificing our quality of life.

[Vraith]

Odd, or unusual, as it may seem I agree with most of what Z said [and similar and related things Hashi has said in related threads] over the long and very long terms concerning the survival of people in particular [highly probable we'll be fine] and life on the planet as a whole [life of other kinds will continue, even if we don't, near certainty, for a billion years at bare minimum, perhaps much longer]

Here is the thing, though:
Unmitigated, in the medium term, the effects of our actions will almost surely cause large numbers of largely preventable deaths, struggles, and damage.

There are many things we can/could, even now, do to limit/moderate ...and they don't have to "cost." Most of them would be highly profitable.

But it won't happen as long as people just pretend nothing is actually happening, and if it IS happening, it just isn't our fault, and if it is our fault it would be just too expensive to act.

Hell, it MIGHT make sense to just say "Ok, things are going to warm up. That's fine." As long as we make smart adaptive/preparatory decisions...on infrastructure investment, for example.

And most, if not all, of the possible actions would have positive [and profitable] effects EVEN IF the climate change turned out to be less damaging than expected.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

My problem with all the "doom and gloom" folks--and the vast majority of people who worry too much about climate change are definitely "doom and gloom" folks--is that they think that we humans are helpless and powerless, that rising sea levels and rising temperatures will give rise to billions of deaths and that those who survive will wander the Wasteland cannibalizing each other. Really?

These days, I don't care if glaciers melt or sea levels rise or green belts move or anything else. People will adapt to the new surroundings--presuming they change significantly at all--or they will die. One guy once asked me "so what about the poor people who live right along the ocean?" to which I replied "when they start moving inland in massive numbers no one will be able to stop them" because they, too, will adapt and survive.

Tyson has been wonderful, highlighting and promoting science education for years, but now he is falling in love with his own celebrity status and he is starting to get too preachy. Hey, Neil, why don't you go tell China to reduce its pollution and emissions and let's see how much progress you make.

Actually, I hope all the ice on Antarctica melts within my lifetime so that I get to find out what is under there. I have this weird idea that humanity had its earliest great civilization there because it is relatively equidistant from Africa, South America, and Australia, and that we spread northward.outward from there. Besides, the Peri Reis map from the late 1400s depicts the coastline of Antarctica as it exists under the ice and notes on the map state that it was copied from older sources....so who had a map of Antarctica without the ice on it?

[DoctorGamgee]

Speaking of updates:

Check this out. A new study by UT-Austin shows Volcanoes gives rise to what is happening on that glacier shelf.

You may or may not get your wish, Hashi. But an interesting thought, nonetheless.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

When one large volcanic eruption can effect a change on global weather in the space of only a few weeks and those changes can last for two years or more, we are reminded that we simply aren't that powerful.

[peter]

Tyson says that CO2 produced from volcanic activity is in some way [not explained] different from that produced by the burning of fossil fuels and that analysis of the elevated atmospheric levels actually demonstrates the mankind versus volcanic contribution - and shows that the mankind element is much greater.

I know it's a big ask, but I get the impression that Z. may be the only person here apart from me who has actually seen this program. Is it possible in this day and age to acess it via the internet or whatever. The program summary to be found on Wikipedia [The World Set Free (Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey)] gives the bare details, but I found the actual program more chilling than this review would lead one to believe [nb I have a propensity for 'dark thinking' through which I cannot but help seeing the world at times - and this alas is one of those times; hence my request for your collective thoughts on the matter, in case my 'through a glass darkly' frame of mind is leading me astray].

I'm not fool enough to expect definative answers to the questions I have posed in this thread, but it seems to me that maybe - maybe - the time to consider our individual responses to this problem may be upon us. The option of denial without actually considering the best advice of those who have made a study in these areas, would no longer seem to be sensible [or indeed the ignoring of the problem as though it were 'nothing to do with me', or the ostrich tactic of head-burying and hoping it will go away]. That leaves me [us] with the [yes] difficult job of trying to see the wood through the trees and coming to a reasoned judgement of what one can usefully contribute to the problems solution, without blowing ones life out of the water to no end.

[DoctorGamgee]

Perhaps there is a difference between CO2 from Volcanoes and Fossil Fuels. I'm an opera singer, not a chemist. But then it begs the question as to why he felt the need to discuss how horrible the effects were on Venus (where man never was so ONLY came naturally) and compare our own higher levels stating that humans are the responsible factor and that our outcome would be akin to the Venusian result layed squarely at the feet of Homo Sapiens.

I am not a Pollyanna, nor am I stating that we should do nothing. But when the sun is where we get our heat from, and solar activity has been reduced (which is beyond the work of mankind) to the point where the spike we saw a decade ago has gone south, yet he dismisses the sun as having a factor (and notice your topic is called Global Warming -- but yet the entirety of the issue is presented by COSMOS as Manmade CO2 -- dismissing any and all issues that are not man-made as negligible) it seems much more a question of activism and less of pure science, I find myself concerned enough to do what I can to lessen my footprint, but understanding that I do not control the fate of the world and thus should act accordingly.

You don't seem to see things as i do, which is perfectly fine by me. But I am trying to understand your perspective, not trying to convince you how to live. Perhaps you are doing the same -- trying to understand what I am saying rather than just responding to it.

Doc

[Vraith]

Tyson says that CO2 produced from volcanic activity is in some way [not explained] different from that produced by the burning of fossil fuels and that analysis of the elevated atmospheric levels actually demonstrates the mankind versus volcanic contribution - and shows that the mankind element is much greater.

It's an isotope ratio that is one method of determining where the CO2 came from...volcanoes or fossil fuels.
Similar to being able to date with Carbon 14 [in that both are carbon isotope ratios].

The CO2 doesn't act differently in heat insulation properties...but it is part of how we know that the rise in concentration is in fact the result of human actions.

[peter]

I have been directed to a site called 'reddit' by a friend of mine at work who tells me that there is a pretty informed audience commenting on virtually every subject to be found. Sometimes 'the wisdom of crowds' is the only way to go forward with problems like these.

www.reddit.com

[Vraith]

I have been directed to a site called 'reddit' by a friend of mine at work who tells me that there is a pretty informed audience commenting on virtually every subject to be found. Sometimes 'the wisdom of crowds' is the only way to go forward with problems like these.

www.reddit.com

I look at their science section fairly regularly...haven't looked at the rest of it.

Speaking of that, the headline of the article linked by Doc above is completely misleading:
The paper does NOT claim that volcanoes are the cause of sheet melting.
Only that the flows underneath might have a bit more effect than the current calculations [which DID take such into account].

The melting by other stuff is measured in tens of meters...from these things in millimeters.

From the lead author:

“The fastest glacial changes are happening where the ocean is warmer,” Schroeder said. “Geothermal heating is not enough by itself to have caused the observed changes.”

In response to those who are using his study to deny climate change, Schroeder confirmed that volcanic activity is not the dominant force of ice loss and rising sea levels.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I am not a Pollyanna, nor am I stating that we should do nothing. But when the sun is where we get our heat from, and solar activity has been reduced (which is beyond the work of mankind) to the point where the spike we saw a decade ago has gone south, yet he dismisses the sun as having a factor (and notice your topic is called Global Warming -- but yet the entirety of the issue is presented by COSMOS as Manmade CO2 -- dismissing any and all issues that are not man-made as negligible) it seems much more a question of activism and less of pure science, I find myself concerned enough to do what I can to lessen my footprint, but understanding that I do not control the fate of the world and thus should act accordingly.

I concur--the vast majority of climate change is always presented with two core elements: 1) human beings are the *only* cause and 2) the changes which are coming are Very Bad Things(tm). Any discussion which does not adhere to these two elements is dismissed as "climate denier" thinking, being in the pocket of Big Oil, or some other negative connotation. It is for this reason that I have long considered "climate change" to be a religion--its believers believe it with the entirety of their being, its believers deny any evidence contrary to what they believe, and if you do not believe as they believe then you are some sort of scientific heathen who should be subjected to the Inquisition in order to correct your thinking.

I won't get into the first element right now; as noted, the typical response to bringing up volcanoes or the Sun is "that the wrong kind of CO2" as if CO2 formed by volcanic processes or by some industrial process are different, which is patently ridiculous. A CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule and behaves the same way regardless of how it got formed. It also doesn't matter if the carbon is 12 or 14 because chemically C(12)O2 and C(14)O2 are the same, with only slight differences: C(14)O2 is heavier so its root mean square is larger thus the molecule has slower motion and in a container of carbon dioxide all the C(14)O2 should "sink" to the bottom, but those are physical processes, not chemical.

The second element is always up for debate, though. *Why* are the typically-broadcasted end results of climate change necessarily bad things? What if the planet is warming up to the point where it *wants* to be, by which I mean going back to the point of equilibrium where it "should" be? What is wrong with deserts and green belts moving, given that they do on their own? Why are people expected to die? Is it because people are too stupid to adapt to their surroundings, that we are simply helpless and will stoically accept our impending death due to starvation or being flooded out of our home in Corpus Christi?

The climate change folks might be able to sway American politicians with prophetic warnings of doom and gloom but such arguments won't sway Chinese politicians, who don't mind flooding out their own cultural past in order to build Three Gorges Dam.

The climate is *supposed* to change. Even if the rate of change accelerates this isn't going to spell the death of the planet, much less the entire human race. Sure, the amounts of deaths which may occur--which *may* occur, because they may not--will be a tragedy but I don't see too many people crying about the staggering numbers of deaths which are already happening due to other causes which really are caused by human activity.

In short, climate change is something about which no one should worry. We have other problems which are more important that need to be solved first.

[Vraith]

as noted, the typical response to bringing up volcanoes or the Sun is "that the wrong kind of CO2" as if CO2 formed by volcanic processes or by some industrial process are different, which is patently ridiculous. A CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule and behaves the same way regardless of how it got formed.[/color]

Really? Did you not read what I wrote? No one I know or ever even HEARD of EVER said "it's the wrong kind of CO2" in the sense that is somehow acts differently in relation to temps...which is why I said that it doesn't. It matters, AFAIK, ONLY in that the ratio of the isotopes can tell you where it came from. It's only a measuring device. There is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about that.

As far as people dying: some part of it will be directly due to change of weather patterns and such. [but that can have good effect for people in other places]
But MOST of it will be because of the nasty things groups of people do to each other whenever the situation changes.

Historically it's boringly repetitive: when SOME people start dying, LOTS of people start killing.
Historically, there has often been little or nothing that could be done about it.
Now, that probably isn't true...we could do things.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Really? Did you not read what I wrote? No one I know or ever even HEARD of EVER said "it's the wrong kind of CO2" in the sense that is somehow acts differently in relation to temps...which is why I said that it doesn't. It matters, AFAIK, ONLY in that the ratio of the isotopes can tell you where it came from. It's only a measuring device. There is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about that.

It wasn't in response to you; rather, peter quoted Dr. Tyson, whose comments seemed to indicate that somehow there is a difference. Yes, I concur that there is probably a difference in the ratios of 12 to 14 whether the process is natural or industrial but I don't think those ratios mean anything if all that matters is "amount of carbon dioxide". The source is irrelevant.

As you say, we do nasty things to each other now so it won't be any different if everyone is wearing shorts and there isn't as much overall land space. Even that won't matter, either, because we aren't using all the land space now, anyway, so it isn't like elbow room is at a premium at this time. Well, at least if you aren't living in a major urban center, that is.

[Orlion]

I have been directed to a site called 'reddit' by a friend of mine at work who tells me that there is a pretty informed audience commenting on virtually every subject to be found. Sometimes 'the wisdom of crowds' is the only way to go forward with problems like these.

www.reddit.com

Really? To tell you the truth, I would never get my information from that site... it's pretty much a step above 4chan. How should one get their information? Why, from their local library of course

Kids and their internets...

[I'm Murrin]

As you say, we do nasty things to each other now so it won't be any different if everyone is wearing shorts and there isn't as much overall land space. Even that won't matter, either, because we aren't using all the land space now, anyway, so it isn't like elbow room is at a premium at this time. Well, at least if you aren't living in a major urban center, that is.

As amusing as you may find it to portray the outcome of global warming as just people wearing shorts and there being a little less space, the reality is that the overall increase in temperatures is likely going to cause increased incidences of major drought and significant food shortages. We're already in a position where it's not certain we produce enough food to support our growing population, and when fresh water supplies are depleted, desertification is accelerated, and lower land areas are underwater those are going to become pressing concerns.