• Mikie
    6.7k
    In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:

    EuniceFoote_Illustration_lrg.jpg

    Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

    What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:

    b546cb12-a273-4f7a-90f2-a2eec56fcb98.jpg

    That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

    That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

    So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

    One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

    Turns out there is.

    Over 100 years:

    temp-CO2.png

    And over 800 thousand years:

    graph-co2-temp-nasa.gif?ssl=1

    Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

    The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

    But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

    But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

    So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

    Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

    I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

    In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

    Reveal
    Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few months back.
  • frank
    16k
    Look who's been studying a little climatology. :victory:
  • EugeneW
    1.7k
    In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordinglyXtrix

    You really think the situation improves? Last years saw the highest emission, if I recall correctly. Our only hope is fusion, or solar energy and hydrogen to make the energy portable. Or even better, a drastic reduction of economical activity. Try that telling capitalists though...
  • Mikie
    6.7k
    You really think the situation improves?EugeneW

    I have no idea. I do know that if people resign themselves to defeatism, it's guaranteed nothing will improve.
  • ChatteringMonkey
    1.3k
    In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.Xtrix

    It is the issue of our time, but what should be done about it is not that clear. 'Act accordingly' sounds a bit like the solution automatically follows from the problem.

    Without trying to be exhaustive about it, part of the problem is that energy is life, and fossil fuels are the most dense, convenient energy-source we have, and also the basis on which our entire globalised system is built.

    Anyway, i'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about it, just that exactly what is the real question here.
  • magritte
    555
    And over 800 thousand years:
    graph-co2-temp-nasa.gif?ssl=1
    Xtrix

    I agree with the urgency of the environmentalist argument, but in these illustrations ancient historical data might not represent the same cause and effect relationship as the recent and post-industrial age data. ??

    For ancient data rising global temperatures appear to cause rise in CO2. For the past 150 years or so, cause and effect seem to have reversed so that CO2 is causing rising global temperatures. To see this, one could try to overlap the red and blue charts or just use a ruler to connect corresponding top chart and bottom chart peaks and valleys, it looks to me like the ancient red temperature chart is leading the blue CO2 chart. But I could well be all wrong.
  • jgill
    3.9k
    Nevertheless, if Europe is denied fossil fuel products from Russia, the US must reopen drilling and exploration in order to reach the point of human extinction due to all that CO2 in a reasonable time.

    The clock's ticking.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    What I find puzzling is that our lungs, or more generally our respiratory system, seems to have evolved to operate at even higher concentrations of (something known as functional reserve) than the normal (approx. 0.03% - 0.04%), assuming climatologists are right in that concentrations have increased due to fossil fuels.

    We can smoke, heavily, chain-smoke in fact. The average blood levels are higher in smokers than non-smokers, and we (I'm a chain-smoker) are none the worse than our non-smoking brethren. Did mother nature anticipate global warming, does Gaia know humans in and out?
  • EugeneW
    1.7k


    If you put the blue and red chart on top of each other it's not quite clear what the causal relation is between the temperature and the CO2 levels. But what else can cause temperature change? There seems to be a periodic natural variation. Not sure if it's truly periodic. What's sure, is the short time in which temperature has occurred is specific for modern man age. Like the shape of the increase in time. And it's sure there are two effects. T-rise because of CO2 rise and CO2 rise because of T-rise.
  • magritte
    555


    We tend to think of cause-effect as a simple and direct relation tied together by some unseen underlying commonality. Like when a billiard ball hits another on a smooth surface we have to invent momentum to explain what happens. Climate has many outside environmental causes most of which are complex on their own. Astronomical events like the precession of Earth's axis cause secondary causes, like ice caps, air and ocean currents, vegetation and bacterial life.
  • EugeneW
    1.7k
    Astronomical events like the precession of Earth's axis cause secondary causes, like ice caps, air and ocean currents, vegetation and bacterial life.magritte

    Indeed. The natural processes are complicated. Forks of causation, feed back, chaos, strongly linked and weakly linked processes influencing one another. Its impossible to get the full picture. The atmosphere and surface of the Earth influence one another quite actively. It's no flat surface and its in motion and full of life.

    How would the Earth look if no humans stepped on the stage long ago? They have made quite some impression on nature! Fast and furious. Like that Blitzkrieg.
  • bert1
    2k
    That's a really clear explanation. I don't have the knowledge to know if you've got it right or not, but it's very nicely set out.
  • EugeneW
    1.7k
    More important, what to do about it?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    More important, what to do about it?EugeneW

    Carbon fibre and non-biodegradable plastics to replace steel and aluminium wherever possible, ie cars planes etc.

    Insulate buildings until they are energy neutral. Less steel, glass, concrete, brick, and tile for new build, more wood, plastic, slate, stone, mud, straw, wool, etc.

    Get busy with the obvious power sources, tidal, wind, geothermal and heat pumps for heating, solar, etc.

    Reduce meat consumption and plant trees and peat bogs as appropriate. reduce fertiliser use by rebuilding soil fertility.

    Just slow the fuck down a bit; travel by internet more and aeroplane less. More public transport and bicycles, less cars and private jets. More communal facilities in general - we don't need a washing machine each, we can share.

    Less rocket science, more brain surgery.
  • EugeneW
    1.7k
    we don't need a washing machine each, we can share.unenlightened

    That's my idea too. We can do the same for many things. And indeed, reducing the speed, intensity, of the economic machine. A sober material lifestyle re-establishes contact with our nature.
  • EugeneW
    1.7k
    Less rocket science, more brain surgery.unenlightened

    :lol:
  • jgill
    3.9k
    The world is in too much chaos right now to get anything of substance done about climate change. Best to start adapting. For example, the Colorado river supplies water to about 65 million people downstream. And predictions indicate less and less flow. Arizona is already discussing piping in ocean water and desalinizing it. What will Las Vegas do? Desalinization on a large scale takes lots of energy, and hydroelectric is forecast to diminish.
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    I think major obstacle to finding a solution for climate change is the need for sense of security.

    Every country in the world seeks the sense of security, militarily, economically etc. this results is less effort and space for climate change resolutions.

    For example if China or the US is to limit CO2 emissions it will cost them a lot economically, but both would rather spend these resources on increasing military budget because there are tensions and lack of sense of safety.
  • BC
    13.6k
    Our only hope is fusion, or solar energy and hydrogen to make the energy portable. Or even better, a drastic reduction of economical activity. Try that telling capitalists though...EugeneW

    You are probably right that "a drastic reduction if economic activity" (which pretty much covers everything) is probably the only possible plan that could make a difference. All other plans involve "too much magic".

    It isn't only the capitalists who will resist. A sharp, abrupt reduction in economic activity (including reduced food production) means immediate (rather than delayed) disaster. Reduced economic activity means a severe and prolonged depression--no work, no income, dwindling resources across the board, food shortages and hunger, then starvation. Grim.

    Perhaps we could maintain some food production and distribution by marshaling the populations of nations to raise food. To the Fields! Human hand labor has a lower carbon foot print than your typical John Deere. If that were to work (and we didn't have a revolution sparked by angry office workers required to hoe long rows of beans) we might avoid starvation. But much less grain would be produced. Rice, wheat, corn, millet, and so on can be grown and harvested in smaller fields, but not in the huge quantities now produced.

    Some small-scale manufacturing will be needed too, in all sorts of industries, but nothing like the present.

    This dramatically scaled down economic activity would still leave room for the "reproduction of society", but a simpler poorer society, one more locally centered.

    What are the chances of a peaceful reduction in the economic activity of the world?

    Poor.
  • BC
    13.6k
    What does "Too Much Magic" mean? In William Howard Kunstler's view, ""Magic" is all the high-end technology (that may or may not exist) that somehow manages to replace oil, gas, and coal and produces abundant food, fiber, and building materials WITHOUT also producing a lot of carbon and various other contaminants.

    "Magic" assumes that we can have it all without the CO2, methane, and so on. Somehow we will be able to feed 8 billion people without heavy farm machinery, distribute food across the world without heavy shipping, and house and clothe everyone without using vast raw material and growing megatons of cotton. Somehow there will be dry land and clean water for everyone. Somehow it won't be too hot and humid (the wet bulb temperature) for people to work outside.

    Fossil fuel is vital, critical, and central to the industrialization that produces the world we live in. There are no practical substitutes for fossil fuel. Wind, solar, wave energy, tidal energy, heat pumps, geo-energy, and so on ALL require the existing industrial base. Then there is the feedstock that coal, oil and gas provide. Heat pumps require mines, smelting, factories and electricity, for instance. Ditto for all the rest.

    Are we totally screwed?

    We may be. We will try to carry on, none the less, whatever happens, until...
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Alaska and Siberia are going to become more inhabitable in principle -those parts that are above the flood line. but expect migration from the tropics.

    An Englishman's home is his castle; and everyone else's home is his bailiwick. Unfortunately, this only makes sense when there is only one Englishman. These days, everyone thinks they're the Englishman. This is the problem that has to be solved before we can effectively deal with climate change. It is a psychological problem. The solution to climate change is straight forward, but we are busy keeping out the migrants and fighting wars against the baddies. until that mindset changes, we are indeed screwed so tight the thread is stripped.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    These days, everyone thinks they're the Englishman. This is the problem that has to be solved before we can effectively deal with climate change. It is a psychological problem.unenlightened

    Then we're faced with the preceding problem of how to get that to change.

    At least with climate change itself there's only two solutions (change the atmosphere, or change what we're pumping into it). The trouble with psychological problems is that every man and his dog has a theory about how to fix them (with a suspicious majority involving a return to the morality of the popular youth movements of their respective teenage years - also the time in their lives when they would have felt most solidarity and most confidence in their group identity - but that's just another psychological theory - they really are two a penny).
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    The trouble with psychological problems is that every man and his dog has a theory about how to fix themIsaac

    Every Englishman and his dog has a theory about how to solve everyone else's psychological problems, but no clue at all how to solve their own. I'm always trying to change your mind and keep mine the same. This is the problem.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    Every Englishman and his dog has a theory about how to solve everyone else's psychological problems, but no clue at all how to solve their own. I'm always trying to change your mind and keep mine the same. This is the problem.unenlightened

    You think? There seem to be an awfully large number of self-help books on the shelves... Aren't the avid readers of such beacons of enlightenment as "12 Rules for Life", or "Can't Hurt Me: Master Your Mind and Defy the Odds", or the delightfully titled "Unf*ck Yourself", desperately trying to, to use the technical terminology, 'unf*ck themselves'? These books seem very popular and they don't seem to be about changing other people's minds, but rather the reader changing their own.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    There seem to be an awfully large number of self-help books on the shelves...Isaac

    Yup. All written without exception for the other chap, by people who think to have no further need to unfuck themselves.

    they don't seem to be about changing other people's minds, but rather the reader changing their own.Isaac
    Books written to change the readers' minds are exactly authors' theories about how to change other people's minds. Who has a theory about how to change their own mind? It would be superfluous, would it not?
  • stoicHoneyBadger
    211
    Would you agree that not knowing what is the optimal temperature or what is the optimal co2 level all other speculations are futile. You just took as a dogma that "bad weather is always your fault and the solution to it is adopting global communism by Monday". Again, it's delusional activism, not science. ;)
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    All written without exception for the other chap, by people who think to have no further need to unfuck themselves.unenlightened

    Oh, I see. A minority though, no? I mean the sorts of people who write those books are very much the smaller group compared to the sorts of people who read them. So I'm still not quite seeing how the self-righteousness of the self-help author can be to blame for climate change, there can't be more than a few hundred of them (though I admit sometimes it seems like they're everywhere).

    Books written to change the readers' minds are exactly authors' theories about how to change other people's minds.unenlightened

    Again, seems you're pointing to a minority (the ones who write the books, as opposed to read them - not to mention the conjunction who do both). What is it that links this minority to issues like climate change?

    Who has a theory about how to change their own mind? It would be superfluous, would it not?unenlightened

    Not superfluous so much as already enacted. We have theories about how to change our own minds all the time, we just mostly have them quietly. If I'm expecting my cup to be on the table but see no cup when I look, I have to change my mind about what happened to my cup. I probably wouldn't post it on the internet though.
  • Mikie
    6.7k
    Would you agree that not knowing what is the optimal temperature or what is the optimal co2 level all other speculations are futile.stoicHoneyBadger

    Would I agree with the random musings of an Internet troll with no understanding whatever of climatology? That’s an easy “no.”
  • stoicHoneyBadger
    211
    Would I agree with the random musings of an Internet troll with no understanding whatever of climatology? That’s an easy “no.”Xtrix

    You are welcome to believe whatever religion / cult / ideology you want, just be honest with yourself and don't call it science. ;)
  • Mikie
    6.7k


    It is science. Your own ramblings notwithstanding. Feel free to take your Republican talking points elsewhere.

    “Optimal CO2 level.” :lol:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.