I’m not a denier in any sense but there are two viewpoints that have to be balanced here.

Firstly the recognition that the planet goes through cyclical long term temperature changes and secondly that we’re pumping way to much CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution and the carbon footprint has expanded exponentially especially in industrialised nations.

Having said that I’d say climate change is real and that within a short time frame we’ve sped the global warming cycle up a little bit

Having said that I’d say climate change is real and that within a short time frame we’ve sped the global warming cycle up a little bit — simplyG

More than a bit. At an alarming, unprecedented rate.

Yeah, so let’s just forget about it and relax. That’s worked wonders so far.

This is an existential issue. We could use more thinking, not less.

Greenhouse gases act like insulation. So global temperatures start to increase when the insulation effect increases, and will eventually reach a stable temperature for any stable increase. The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. So the assumption that warming will continue due to a steady state of greenhouse gases is very much closer to the truth, than that the planet will stop warming immediately when greenhouse gases stop increasing. — unenlightened

You make a very interesting point. This is the view that most climate scientists believed and they have told the public about this.

However, some climate scientists has started rethinking this issue. See the following NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change

However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.

There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.

That's new. They used to say the lag was a century or more. :up:

That's new. They used to say the lag was a century or more. :up: — frank

Being a cynical old man I wondered if they made this up because they knew that people wouldn't bother fighting global warming if the effects were centuries away. :scream:

Being a cynical old man I wondered if they made this up because they knew that people wouldn't bother fighting global warming if the effects were centuries away. :scream: — Agree to Disagree

I don't know. It's not a good idea to lie to people. Once they find out you lied, they won't believe anything you say.

started rethinking this issue. — Agree to Disagree

No they haven’t.

However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years.

If we stopped. Not if we keep emissions constant. And within a decade or so the RISE in temperature should flatten.

Temperatures would plateau but remain elevated for many centuries. Not hard to understand.

I wondered if they made this up — Agree to Disagree

How ignorant and arrogant a person has to be to think this is astounding.

That's new. They used to say the lag was a century or more. :up: — frank

"Greenhouse gas" isn't a single substance; methane, CO2, CFCs, and other gasses all have varying periods of time before they are broken down. A cubic foot of methane gas lasts about 12 years but absorbs much more heat than the much longer lasting CO2. CFC gas lasts a long time because it is non-reactive. However, it is very good at absorbing heat.

We are not adding a lot of CFCs to the atmosphere, but what we have added lingers a long time.

SO, if we cut methane pollution -- which we can and should do immediately, the benefit would show up relatively quickly -- 10 years. But that would not solve the whole problem.

We were talking about the lag between when the CO2 hits the atmosphere and when the effects kick in. At one time models showed that most of the effects of the CO2 we're putting up now won't be felt until the next century. Agree is saying they've backed that down to decades.

Here is a simple flow diagram showing the Carbon Cycle ignoring Fossil Carbon. I would like to find out what people think of it.

It is meant to be a starting point for discussing the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon. I will post a picture of the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon soon.

started rethinking this issue.
— Agree to Disagree

No they haven’t. — Mikie

Are you saying that the climate scientists at NASA are wrong?

Are you saying that the climate scientists at NASA are wrong? — Agree to Disagree

I don't think she understands what we were talking about.

Are you saying that the climate scientists at NASA are wrong? — Agree to Disagree

I’m saying you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. There’s nothing to “re-think.”

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001

Your original claims were ignorant and bogus - as usual:

The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. — unenlightened

This is the view that most climate scientists believed and they have told the public about this. — Agree to Disagree

Try reading what was said.

Try reading what was said. — Mikie

From your link:

Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

I was not aware that there was previous work saying that "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly".

The quote does indicate that "the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries".

I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today.

I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today. — Agree to Disagree

Right. It is. From your own quote:

Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

This corresponds with what @unenlightened was saying. At least how I read it. So your talk about how climate scientists “changed their thinking” was a red herring, and the quote you provided from NASA only reiterates what was said.

The diversion of talking about CO2 and temperature lag is exactly that: a diversion.

Fine, but heat is heat and you can't identify which degree of heat is from water vapor, CO2, CH4, N20 (nitrous oxide), Perfluorocarbons, hydroflurocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. My point was that it it practically doesn't matter a lot whether the effect of a GH gas kicks in 10 years from today or 200 year from now.

Some people, (not thinking of you) are always looking for an interpretation or 'flaw' or angle that gets us off the hook.

What I want to say to @agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked.

I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today. — Agree to Disagree

Yes. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere now, means that global warming is going to continue for a long time, even if all the human contribution to the GHG content of the atmosphere ceased immediately.

That isn't inconsistent with saying, "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly." A simple relevant curve is an asymptotic approach to a new temperature stability point. Consider the following graph, but with the vertical axis being temperature and the horizontal axis being time:



Suppose all of the excess GHGs in the atmosphere had just been dumped into the atmosphere today. For such a thought experiment we would expect the temperature of the Earth to increase along a similar curve. Most of the increase in temperature will occur relatively quickly, with the asymptotic approach to a new stable temperature going on for a long while after.

Of course the actual picture is more complicated, but does that help in understanding why the two statements under discussion aren't contradictory?

Of course the actual picture is more complicated, but does that help in understanding why the two statements under discussion aren't contradictory? — wonderer1

Yes, that does help. Thank you for the clear explanation.

What I want to say to agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked. — BC

When you say "altogether stopping greenhouse gas production" are you including emissions of biogenic methane?
- there are just under 1 billion cows in the world
- there are over 1 billion sheep in the world
- there are about 1 billion goats in the world (this has increased by more than half in the last four decades)

Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the long-term?

Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the short-term?

Yeah, so let’s just forget about it and relax. That’s worked wonders so far.

This is an existential issue. We could use more thinking, not less.

Well, this problem (like most problems involving humans) isn't an issue of not figuring out what to do, it is a problem of actually doing it.

Well, this problem (like most problems involving humans) isn't an issue of not figuring out what to do, it is a problem of actually doing it. — LuckyR

There's the rub. People don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to really combat the problem. Also,

"While loss and damage was discussed at the Paris climate talks in 2015, progress has been slow. Industrialized countries have been reluctant to commit funding, concerned it could lead to being legally liable for the impacts of climate change. At this year's climate talks, developing countries say it's a crucial part of climate justice."
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054809644/climate-change-cop26-loss-and-damage

Money is the answer to 99% of all questions, including why can't we solve/mitigate climate change?

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right.

So if we stop burning fossil fuels now, and stop increasing livestock now, the climate is going to go on getting warmer, at a gradually slowing rate for a long time, in human lifetime terms. As has been seen on the global temperature graph, the heating effect on land is much greater than that in the oceans. We are also seeing more than one positive feedback effect. First, the melting of sea and land ice darkens and thereby increases the absorption of the sun's radiation. Second, the disruption of ecosystems reduces their ability to absorb CO2. Third, wildfires. Fourth, desertification already in progress from human overexploitation of ecosystems. Fifth, the increasing surface temperature of the sea reduces its ability to absorb CO2.

So far, all the climate models pronounced realistic and likely have under-estimated the effects seen already We have seen in Venus, that extreme, runaway global warming is not impossible to the point of being inimical to life and unsurvivable by humans.

But no worries chaps, carry on eating beef and flying round the world on holiday, all our politicians are very stable geniarses, and will solve the problem before anything bad happens, global oil and global meat are on the case.

Fine, but heat is heat and you can't identify which degree of heat is from water vapor, CO2, CH4, N20 (nitrous oxide), Perfluorocarbons, hydroflurocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. My point was that it it practically doesn't matter a lot whether the effect of a GH gas kicks in 10 years from today or 200 year from now. — BC

True. It's just a point that climate nerds who read a lot about it would be interested in: "hey! they changed that!"

What I want to say to agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked. — BC

He hasn't suggested that we aren't on the hook. People hungry to pile on have shown their disregard for him by continuously trying to pin that on him. It's probably a psychological problem on their parts.

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right. — Benkei

Thank you for saying what we’re all thinking.

killing all cows, goats, and sheep — Agree to Disagree

How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong.

No one is suggesting we “kill all cows.”

Your particular brand of climate denial hasn’t even been very entertaining.

What he had to say was really interesting. He comes from a part of the world where cattle and lamb farming is ultra efficient, but his government is struggling to adhere to Paris climate accords, so they're going to try to reduce meat production.

Meanwhile on the other side of the world, there's no interest at all in the meager Paris accords and meat production is crazy inefficient and floods the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer.

So he feels like idiots are running the world, which is true.

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right.
— Benkei

Thank you for saying what we’re all thinking. — Mikie

So Mikie and Benkei agree with each other. What were you saying about two idiots agreeing? :joke: :joke:

How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong. — Mikie

I have also introduced sheep and goats. They are all ruminants and 3 billion ruminants must produce a hell of a lot of methane. Not to mention the methane from their dung.

What do you want to do about this?