Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Exile

And most I bet -- incl. many readers who are not posting -- are probably less interested in belonging to one or another faction, and more interested in the practical effect/impact of the CO2 concentration number and what can/should be done to lower it.

Where did you come up with 300-500 yrs. for it to get back down to 400 ppm again? Somehow I forgot to include anchoring as a controversial topic, so who knows, maybe I missed this one too.

How long atmospheric CO2 remains elevated after we stop emitting depends on a number of things. In simple terms, you can look at the fact that we moved a lot of carbon from fairly inactive pools (buried fossils fuels) into more active pools (cycling between the atmosphere, ocean and biosphere). We have increased the total carbon available to those active pools, so all will remain elevated for some time. It takes a long time for carbon to be moved back into less active pools.

A better discussion can be found here:

My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years [7]. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That’s a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.

However, the long tail is a lot of baby to throw out in the name of bath-time simplicity. Major ice sheets, in particular in Greenland [8], ocean methane clathrate deposits [9], and future evolution of glacial/interglacial cycles [10] might be affected by that long tail. A better shorthand for public discussion might be that CO2 sticks around for hundreds of years, plus 25% that sticks around forever.

How long will global warming last? « RealClimate

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by newhaul

This was posted a couple pages ago but here it is again.
Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs - Scientific American
And yes cape grim is on the chopping block

Cape Grim is not under the chopping block. Where did you get that idea from? Cape Grim station is an intregal part of Australias weather stations run by the BOM. The station will continue to operate.

In any case it's just plain silly to suggest that the BOM would fabricate readings.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Likely because it is actually old news the mauna Loa station reported levels above 400 ppm about 3 years ago.

It's not old news when I posted it it was less than four hours old.

You simply fail to understand the significance of it. Readings have peaked three or four times to 400 as it did in May last year, it was not a measurement of averages, it was a moment in time and quickly receeded. And whilst they were significant, as they were reaching that figure, what is different now is that it is the Cape Grim centre which is considered the cleanest air to measure.

I fail to understand how anyone can suggest 'it's a number, no big deal'. Well, if it's the first time in both modern and anciet history that the number has been this large, then it's pretty clear to any intelligent people that this is a significant milestone.

But enough said from me. I find this thread interesting to watch and to get an insight into some posters, but really it's a bit like politics, a joke and an embarrassment to CF. So, I'll go back to the casual glances

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Hmmm, something as significant as this and no one responded to it. Is it an inconvenience or are people so consumed with scoring points on this thread that it's not even been noticed.

Let me put it that way, Dami's performance was awsome - what a voice, the Austrian girl was quite cute and the Italian singer incredibly hot.

I think it is hard to grasp what this number means.

Please allow me to use Venus as an example for a minute. We can't we see the surface of Venus because her atmosphere is opaque for most wavelengths. Opaque means the atmosphere absorbs all emissions and does not re-emit it. Very simplified: Absorbing em-radiation will change the energy level in an atom by changing the "orbit" (more a cloud than an orbit) of the electron.

Now back to our planet. The following graph shows the blackbody radiation of the sun (~6000K) and the wavelengths our atmosphere is opaque or not completely transparent for incoming radiation. Some parts of this emission gets absorbed other parts are reflected back to space.



Now lets have a look what Earth's blackbody ~spectrum (272K) looks like.



(Still not my own graphs as I do not know how to upload images here)

Let me put it that way: until last year looking down on Earth at 1200nm wavelenths you could still somehow see the surface. At levels over 400ppm all you can see at this wavelength is a blanket of fog all over the surface.

Why is that a problem? Well, if Earth's atmosphere becomes more and more opaque especially in the thermal infrared and far infrared spectrum those wavelengths can not longer escape into space and stay down here with us.

Thats why comment just was: bugger

Btw. This opacity is the reasons IR telescopes are either high up on a mountain like the Keck on Mauna Kea in Hawaii or placed in orbit.

Ok here are the undisputed facts: CO2 is raising, temperatures are raising, astronomer have a harder job looking out of the CO2 fog in the IR band.

Here is the main question discussed very passionately here: Could anthropogenic emissions play a role in this?

We have burned ~1x10^11t of oil in the last 160 years, which contained ~4.187x10^21J of energy and now use 80x10^6 or so barrels per day, every day. Not to mention coal, gas etc.

You tell me whether or not this maybe could have an impact on the atmosphere?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

How long atmospheric CO2 remains elevated after we stop emitting depends on a number of things. In simple terms, you can look at the fact that we moved a lot of carbon from fairly inactive pools (buried fossils fuels) into more active pools (cycling between the atmosphere, ocean and biosphere). We have increased the total carbon available to those active pools, so all will remain elevated for some time. It takes a long time for carbon to be moved back into less active pools.

A better discussion can be found here:

How long will global warming last? « RealClimate

Thanks mr_f. It seems like one of several big variables is the rate of capture and overall capacity of the sinks, most particularly the oceans. Hopefully the newly developing techniques for measuring deep water will provide further insight into this issue. Ultimately if it's determined to be more about the rate of anthropogenic emissions exceeding the rate of absorption of the sinks, then it seems logical that reducing emissions would allow the sinks to "catch up" if you will. Doubtful that the needed reductions to make a significant difference are realistic, however, especially without the participation of the developing world.

As repeatedly stated, our most realistic scenario is learning how to adapt with help from the evolving science. Like it or not, this will realistically entail a lengthy transition period as technology eventually comes up with viable substitutes for fossil fuels. But as the OP's article points out, it's impossible to predict new technologies from where we sit now. In the meantime, fossil fuels underpin all of the world's economies, and are even needed to produce the solar panels & wind turbines required to produce alternative energy. Although I'm sure it pains people so emotionally invested, further politicization of the CC issue won't change these basic realities.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Exile

... As repeatedly stated, our most realistic scenario is learning how to adapt with help from the evolving science. Like it or not, this will realistically entail a lengthy transition period as technology eventually comes up with viable substitutes for fossil fuels. But as the OP's article points out, it's impossible to predict new technologies from where we sit now. [...] Although I'm sure it pains people so emotionally invested, further politicization of the CC issue won't change these basic realities.

If I would be religious I would say: Amen brother!

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

... So, I'll go back to the casual glances

I think I'll join you. I have a deadline creeping up on me and should do something else anyway

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You are correct jack she didnt say climate change in her paper. However I do think that the predicted 60% reduction in solar activity during the 26th cycle. ( The 2030 to 2040 decade) will have a profound effect. ( JMO)

60% reduction in solar energy output would end all life on this planet.

10 years of that might freeze the pacific solid right down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

60% reduction in solar energy output would end all life on this planet.

10 years of that might freeze the pacific solid right down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Nobody ever said 60% reduction in solar energy output. She estimated a 60% reduction in solar activity. Which means things like solar flares, CME's , and sun spots.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ultimately if it's determined to be more about the rate of anthropogenic emissions exceeding the rate of absorption of the sinks, then it seems logical that reducing emissions would allow the sinks to "catch up" if you will.

We hope.

Here are some musings on 400ppm, when that milestone was reached at Mauna Loa last fall.

If we - hypothetically - stopped 95% of our fossil-fuel emissions tomorrow, the shortest estimate I could find for when CO2 concentration might return to pre-industrial levels is 100 to 150 years. Since that won't happen, my initial ballpark of 300 to 500 years is way short. We're talking millenia, realistically, and the remaining question is whether emission reduction comes about because of behaviour change, or catastrophic dieback.

Doubtful that the needed reductions to make a significant difference are realistic, however, especially without the participation of the developing world.

But mostly the intransigence and selfishness of a big part of the developed world.

As repeatedly stated, our most realistic scenario is learning how to adapt with help from the evolving science. Like it or not, this will realistically entail a lengthy transition period as technology eventually comes up with viable substitutes for fossil fuels. But as the OP's article points out, it's impossible to predict new technologies from where we sit now. In the meantime, fossil fuels underpin all of the world's economies, and are even needed to produce the solar panels & wind turbines required to produce alternative energy. Although I'm sure it pains people so emotionally invested, further politicization of the CC issue won't change these basic realities.

... and this is why it's ok for us to do nothing now, yes?

Your kinder, gentler style of AGW denial is certainly more soothing than Delfin's.

[adoxograph]

One more posting in regards 400ppm CO2 in the southern hemisphere and then I have to go back to my work

Don''t kill me for this one but the theoretical warming effect of any additional atmospheric CO2 becomes lower as the overall level of atmospheric CO2 increases as it is a logarithmic relationship. In other words the increase from 200ppm to 400ppm has the same warming effect in terms of incremental temperature as the increase from 400ppm to 800ppm. If you draw a graph of warming against CO2, you will get a curve that is steep to start with, but gradually gets flatter and flatter. It never gets totally flat as it is not asymptotic, but the gradient gets very low.

Lake-Effect, there are a couple of solutions: Reducing anthropogenic carbon output (might be difficult) or Development of technologies creating artificial carbon sinks or recycle atmospheric CO2 (interesting tech but only a long term solution). Reduce human population to a sustainable number (well, this one might be even impossible). Tell everyone they can get rich quick by reducing carbon. Get rich quick schemes never get old and find many followers (See Nigerian Prince scheme). Find a way to justify it is good for the economy and you are right on the money.

But really, now I'm

[SV THIRD DAY]

Wow....
You could have read post #2 in this thread and learned all you needed to know. Think of all the CO2 emissions that could have been saved 312 pages later?

Originally Posted by Canibul

It's a huge scam. A way to pry and manipulate more tax dollars.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

One more posting in regards 400ppm CO2 in the southern hemisphere and then I have to go back to my work

Don''t kill me for this one but the theoretical warming effect of any additional atmospheric CO2 becomes lower as the overall level of atmospheric CO2 increases as it is a logarithmic relationship. In other words the increase from 200ppm to 400ppm has the same warming effect in terms of incremental temperature as the increase from 400ppm to 800ppm. If you draw a graph of warming against CO2, you will get a curve that is steep to start with, but gradually gets flatter and flatter. It never gets totally flat as it is not asymptotic, but the gradient gets very low.

Lake-Effect, there are a couple of solutions: Reducing anthropogenic carbon output (might be difficult) or Development of technologies creating artificial carbon sinks or recycle atmospheric CO2 (interesting tech but only a long term solution). Reduce human population to a sustainable number (well, this one might be even impossible). Tell everyone they can get rich quick by reducing carbon. Get rich quick schemes never get old and find many followers (See Nigerian Prince scheme). Find a way to justify it is good for the economy and you are right on the money.

But really, now I'm

Yes, we discussed that a week and a half ago, here and here, but poor Delfin had a very hard time wrapping his head around the concept.

[Exile]

Here's some more -- wasted CO2 emissions that is.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If we - hypothetically - stopped 95% of our fossil-fuel emissions tomorrow, the shortest estimate I could find for when CO2 concentration might return to pre-industrial levels is 100 to 150 years. Since that won't happen, my initial ballpark of 300 to 500 years is way short. We're talking millenia, realistically, and the remaining question is whether emission reduction comes about because of behaviour change, or catastrophic dieback.

Catastrophic dieback?? WTH is that?? OK, never mind . . . . So we stop 95% of our emissions tomorrow and, best case, it might take 100-150 years to return to pre-industrial levels. But no matter, because 95% is unachievable and so realistically you're estimating at least 1,000 years. I wouldn't know but apparently you feel like you do. Fine, but if you are correct then I cannot think of a stronger argument for getting on with adaptation. Or do you have a realistic alternative?

But mostly the intransigence and selfishness of a big part of the developed world.

Says one of the most prolific true believers on the thread, but also one who refuses to use alternative energy for his own (or parents') home to offset carbon emissions, declines to state how he takes any personal responsibility to advance his "cause," and likens fellow sailors & friends who deviate from his views as those who were and are "deniers" concerning horrific episodes in human history. Way to go, L-E. Almost every one of your fearful & hateful posts pushes honest skeptics into your dreaded "denier" camp, and only serves to confirm what posters like Third Day have been saying all along about your "movement." For a guy who so myopically adheres to one political party's entire line, you don't seem too adept at actual politics. Do you even bother to petition your elected representatives for policies to lower emissions? Or do you merely segregate your bottles, cans and newspapers into separate green bins, drive a reasonably fuel-efficient car, ride your bicycle around, and continuously "signal" your "virtue" on a sailing thread to make yourself feel OK about your "contribution?"

... and this is why it's ok for us to do nothing now, yes?

I knew another one of your Gong Show-level retorts was coming, but you've already used it so many times I was holding out (false) hope. Few issues are all or nothing, even though I know how much you wish them to be so. Tell me exactly what is inconsistent with recognizing the value of lower emissions, while at the same time acknowledging the obvious reality that, should the mainstream science be proven correct, our most rational course of action is adaptation? If you believe this is incorrect, then tell us why and propose an alternative.

You've convinced yourself that nobody's opinion on the science outside the mainstream is valid, and can only be attributable to their politics, religious faith, nationality, personal affiliations, or other influences which you assume are evidence of bad faith. Since none of us "deniers" can obviously be trusted, then kindly tell us what you would do to further decrease your emissions, and what you would be willing to give up in creature comforts, efficiency, and personal finances. And more importantly, what more you believe the rest of us should be doing. All of this whining & sniping without contributing anything positive to the discussion is well overdone at this point.

Your kinder, gentler style of AGW denial is certainly more soothing than Delfin's.

I know how rough it must be to have your safe space challenged, so I guess Delfin should have been more more soothing towards your fragile sensibilities when he debated the science. How insensitive of him, but he is one of those evil "deniers," right? Maybe I can have a "teachable moment" with Delfin to encourage more empathy from him. I mean the validity of climate science is quite insignificant compared to your feelings and emotional needs, after all. Anyone else catching on to Delfin's remark about "pseudo-intellectual narcissism" yet? It's OK to catch on to this, btw, but at the same time continue to think that us "deniers" have the science all wrong. Without all this self-indulgent proselytizing, after all, there likely would be more of us in your camp.

[SailOar]

https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins