Climate Change: Fact and Denial

[Thomas R Morrison]

Apparently there’s an enclave of anthropogenic climate change deniers here at The Paracast, which I usually just politely ignore, but since it’s interfering with the paranormal discussions that I come here to enjoy, I thought we might contain this subject here before it infects any more unrelated threads.

This topic is a prime example of an asymmetric debate, which is why I strive to avoid it. It takes about 30 seconds to object to the science of climate change, and at least a week of writing to fully explain all of the science behind it, which ranges from basic chemistry, to physics, to statistical analyses of paleoclimatological data, to the feedback dynamics of complex equilibrium systems.

I'm not willing to do that again, because I've found that most people who deny climate change are emotionally/psychologically invested in their position for some reason, which makes these arguments totally futile. But I will respond to the latest challenge, because it's an issue that poses an immanent threat to global civilization.

NOBODY has been able to prove that carbon released into the atmosphere from human activity is the reason for global temperature changes...

This statement contains three possible claims and/or implied claims, all of which have to be addressed individually. So here’s how it breaks down:

Claim or Implied Claim #1: CO2 doesn’t raise atmospheric temperature.

CO2 reduces the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which causes the temperature to rise faster, per unit of energy. This is an empirical and indisputable fact. Here are the experimental charts for the heat capacity of nitrogen, oxygen and CO2. Room temperature is roughly 300K:

N2: (1040 J/kg*C) Nitrogen - Specific Heat
O2: (918 J/kg*C) Oxygen Gas - Specific Heat
CO2: (846 J/kg*C) Carbon Dioxide Gas - Specific Heat

And the specific heat capacity of water is also important to this topic, because the oceans absorb a great deal of heat due to their much higher heat capacity. That’s why the melting of the polar ice caps is so alarming: the energy content of the oceans has increased so much that we can actually observe the polar icecaps receding very rapidly:

H20: (4184 J/kg*C) Specific Heat Capacity of Water (Water Properties, USGS Water Science School

A good analysis of how these factors apply to the Earth’s energy dynamics, which determines its temperature, can be found here:

“Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of the Earth’s Climate System,” Schwartz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2007
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Claim or Implied Claim #2: Humans haven’t significantly changed the CO2 levels.

“Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.”
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter | New Scientist

Claim or Implied Claim #3: Human CO2 emissions haven’t significantly changed the global mean temperature.

We’ve seen that CO2 levels in the atmosphere change the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and the Brookhaven study quantified the energy dynamics of climate change in the Earth’s system (and many other studies have reached the same conclusions based on the empirical data). And we’ve seen that 60% of the 35.6 gigatons of human-generated CO2 (in 2012, and rising) is cumulatively contributing to the CO2 content of the atmosphere each year. All that’s left is to check the data, which I provided previously in the form of two graphs:

Graph 1 shows the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last millennium:


Graph 2 shows the historical levels of global mean temperature:


And lo and behold, they match: over the last century, the global temperature has risen sharply as the CO2 levels have risen sharply. That’s called “empirical proof.” The scientific analysis is confirmed by the observational data.

Your chart shows carbon dioxide over time, it does not prove it is the cause of warming.

See “Claim or Implied Claim #1: CO2 doesn’t raise atmospheric temperature.”

I would also draw your attention to the Y axis. Parts per million. You may notice the current level is 100 parts per million above over peaks. That's 100 out of 1,000,0000 or an extra 1 carbon atom in every 10,000 atoms of atmosphere. Change the measurement to parts per 100 and you get a flat line on the chart the change is so small.

100 parts per million of cyanide in the air will kill you in under 1 hour:

“The LC50 for gaseous hydrogen cyanide is 100-300 parts per million. Inhalation of cyanide in this range results in death within 10-60 minutes.”
Environmental & Health Effects | International Cyanide Management Code (ICMI) For The Manufacture, Transport and Use of Cyanide In The Production of Gold(ICMI)

Sure, 100 ppm sounds small. But claiming that it’s insignificant is like saying that a virus can’t hurt you because you can’t even see it. It’s a child-like argument. Do the math; it works out. The 25% increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels has sharply increased the thermal energy content of the air and oceans. It’s not a huge problem…yet. But the levels are now higher than at any time in the history of the existence of the human species, and at the rate of increase we’re seeing now, by the year 2100 we’re going to have 200-300% higher concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere than we’ve had in millions of years, and the inevitable corresponding increase in global mean temperature that’s dictated by the laws of physics.

That should scare the crap out of you. We can’t even estimate the full impact of that on the survival of the human species. In any case, now would be a good time to sell off any beachfront condos you may have, because they’ll probably be underwater by the time your grandchildren are your age.

I refer also to a earlier points about how temperature change has led carbon change in the past. E.g. carbon increase comes after temperature change. This chart does not prove that carbon released by man's activity is a temerature driver or the main temperature driver on earth (see prior ice ages or sun cycles).

This is one of the many PsyOps talking points issued by the Koch brothers and their fake science mills.

Global mean temperature and atmospheric CO2 are positive feedback mechanisms for each other: when something triggers a heat increase (such as a change in ocean currents, or subtle cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbit, or Sun cycles), atmospheric CO2 increases, which further increases the temperature – the result is a steep spike in global temperature. That’s why climatologists are concerned about a “runaway greenhouse effect.”

The Earth is on the closest/warmest edge of the habitable zone of our solar system, and the rate that we’re increasing the CO2 concentration could easily overcome the negative feedback mechanisms (like increased cloud cover) that have historically balanced the temperature cycle of the planet. The thermodynamics of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and corresponding temperature increases is very basic and irrefutable physics, and the fact that they’re in lock-step right now only illustrates that the pre-industrial environmental cycles no longer apply: the steady human-generated cumulative forcing of CO2 into the atmosphere is directly causing a matching spike in the global heat content of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming

Climate scientists who make a living from climate science have a vested interest in ensuring that their conclusion's keep coming back to carbon dioxide from people. It's this assumption that maintains their funding and raison d'etre.

Not really – climate science jobs aren’t contingent on blaming humans for global warming. In fact if any of them could prove that global warming wasn’t being caused by humans, they’d get hired by Exxon at triple their meager academic salary.

The industrial corporations with billions of dollars in PR money are the ones with the real vested interest in muddying the debate and spreading lies and propaganda – and they’re using it too. It’s very much a David and Goliath scenario – in fact the only reason we’re even having this debate here in 2017, is that the oil companies and the Kock brothers and all of the sociopaths in the fossil fuel industry have spent billions on psychological warfare to confuse the public. It’s just like the tobacco companies spending billions for decades to promote arguments against the science of lung cancer and heart disease related to smoking. And it works: they’ve made hundreds of billions in extra profits by foiling the regulatory efforts in the US that most of the Western world has already imposed on them. It’s kind of amazing how many people they have working for them for free, right here online, without even realizing that they’re doing it.

A bit like the CIA needs to keep telling us Russia is still the bogeyman, it keeps their prorgam's and funding in a healthy place.

You’ve got it backwards: the propaganda of climate change denial is actually somewhat similar to the Russia propaganda. Both efforts are profitable to the corporations that now own/control the government, the economy, and the mainstream media. Climate change denial keeps the fossil fuel corporations fat and happy, and pushing for conflict with Russia is what the defense industry wants so they can make a killing, so to speak. And of course the DNC loves the Russia conspiracy narrative because it diverts attention from their own lethal levels of corruption, and the rigged primary, and the WikiLeaks releases that proved that the news media is just a megaphone for the Deep State.

I would recommend you watch the documentary I linked earlier in the thread plenty of charts from respected thinkers that show that this miopic view of it can only be human release carbon is not one that holds up when all the data is considered.

I realize that it’s a complex subject – the global ecosphere is a sophisticated system, and CO2 isn't always the main driver of the global temperature. So it’s easy to cherry-pick data, misrepresent facts, and muddle the irrefutable physical science of heat capacity and thermodynamics. Which apparently is exactly what they did in that faux documentary, as addressed and refuted point by point here:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

I prefer to trust 30 years of scientific study and the weeks I’ve spent reading actual studies of this subject, rather than relying upon a deliberately crafted disinformation movie for my opinions.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

First of all... I'm not a climate change denier. Data shows climate is changing.

Second of all ... I'm not denying carbon is increasing. .. it is.

My point is you or anyone else cannot prove the two are linked.

It would appear you are a man of scientific grounding and if so you must appreciate the concept of the control experiment. E.g. where only the variable under test is changed and all other variables remain consistent. On planet earth we cannot isolate the carbon effect as it is a system with numerous other inputs and variables for example solar energy output.

Without the ability to maintain all other impacting variables you cannot say carbon is the driver. That is unscientific.

In addition to this the volumes of carbon are painfully low. Currently 0.04% (that's 1 percent divided into 25 parts) and this is only an increase from past times of +0.01 percent of total atmosphere.

So to see how much carbon has 'spiked' recently take a measure of atmosphere and divide ithe into 100 parts. Take 1 of these 100 parts and divide it again by 100. This is the amount of extra carbon that is claimed to be the driver of global climate. Ridiculous.

This experiment would prove your point:

Set up an enclosed system with 10,000 grams of atmosphere.

Remove 1 gram of this atmosphere and replace it with carbon dioxide.

(This would represent the carbon increase as per your chart. )

Step back and wait for the heating to occur ... or not

 

[Han]

Think of a Rebreather diving system. If you get the "mix" even slightly wrong the consequences can be fatal.

It might not be the most scientific analogy, but to think of the Earth as a living thing doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

From the little I know about paleontology it is clear that climate change has had devastating consequences for life in the past, and whilst I think it is naive to think we can reverse the damage done, I am convinced that we can worsen it.

So for me it doesn't really matter if man is driving global warming or not, we are doing countless other reckless things anyway, and it is almost impossible to "map" or "predict" the potential consequences.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

First of all... I'm not a climate change denier. Data shows climate is changing.

Second of all ... I'm not denying carbon is increasing. .. it is.

Point taken – I tend to overlook the distinction because “anthropogenic climate change deniers” in 2017 are basically in the same position as the “climate change deniers” of 2007.

My point is you or anyone else cannot prove the two are linked.

You’re wrong – scientific experiments since the 19th Century have already proven the spectral absorption properties of CO2:

“On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction,” John Tyndall, The Royal Society, 1861
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

That research prompted Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius to quantify the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect:

“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1896
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

They called CO2 “carbonic acid” back then. In that paper, Arrhenius calculates that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 2.5-3.0 times the level in 1896 would result in an increase of 8-9deg C in the Arctic, which he raised as an explanation for the thawed icecaps during the Tertiary Age (2.58 million to 66 million years ago). This is striking for two reasons:

1.) His estimate agrees remarkably well with modern estimates (but in fairness, thermodynamics, heat capacity, and long-wave absorption spectra aren’t as tricky as quantum chromodynamics).

2.) Many climatologists expect us to reach that level of CO2 concentration by the year 2100, at which point your beachfront properties will be underwater – exactly as that land was millions of years ago during the Tertiary Age.

It would appear you are a man of scientific grounding and if so you must appreciate the concept of the control experiment. E.g. where only the variable under test is changed and all other variables remain consistent. On planet earth we cannot isolate the carbon effect as it is a system with numerous other inputs and variables for example solar energy output.

Without the ability to maintain all other impacting variables you cannot say carbon is the driver. That is unscientific.

I hate to be blunt, but that’s absurd, and here’s why: We’ve empirically determined (since the 19th Century, and improved since) the absorption/emission spectrum of CO2, so we can isolate its effects directly from atmospheric radiological measurements. And we’ve done this, both on the ground to measure the long-wave/infrared CO2 emissions reaching the earth from the CO2 in the atmosphere, and with space telescopes to precisely measure the frequencies and intensities radiating into space. And by comparing the two readings, we can see exactly how much more energy the Earth is absorbing than it’s emitting (~.58W/m^2), and how much of that energy retention is directly attributable to CO2 because absorption and emission spectra are like a fingerprint on the radiation that we detect.

Look at the emission spectra of the greenhouse gases at the surface of the Earth, in Figure 1 of this 2006 Evans paper “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate”

(Source: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf )

That reading was from 1996, and the CO2 radiance towers over all of the other trace greenhouse gases, dominating the power spectrum with more than four times the Watts/cm^2 of any other greenhouse gas, across the entire infrared range from under 600 to 750 waves/cm.

In addition to this the volumes of carbon are painfully low. Currently 0.04% (that's 1 percent divided into 25 parts) and this is only an increase from past times of +0.01 percent of total atmosphere.

So to see how much carbon has 'spiked' recently take a measure of atmosphere and divide ithe into 100 parts. Take 1 of these 100 parts and divide it again by 100. This is the amount of extra carbon that is claimed to be the driver of global climate. Ridiculous.

No, what’s ridiculous is ignoring the empirical data because you can’t get your head around the disproportionate impact that a trace greenhouse gas can have on atmospheric energy retention. But Svante Arrhenius figured it out in 1896, and he didn’t have the entire edifice of modern scientific knowledge at his fingertips via Google.

Molecular oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to the infrared radiation that the Earth emits after converting the visible and ultraviolet radiation absorbed from the Sun, because they’re simple diatomic molecules. CO2 has an additional degree of freedom because it’s made of three atoms that are free to vibrate – it’s basically a harmonic oscillator that just so happens to resonate at infrared/long-wave frequencies. So it soaks up infrared energy like a sponge, and continually radiates that energy again in all directions.

And even though the CO2 level is only 404ppm, the atmosphere is thick enough that it adds up: every vertical column of the atmosphere holds more than a solid millimeter of carbon dioxide, akin to a plate glass window. It may be transparent to optical wavelengths, but it’s black to the most common wavelength of infrared photons in the atmosphere. That’s why it retains so much thermal energy in the atmosphere: to heat energy, the Earth’s atmosphere is a thin black box made of carbon dioxide.

This experiment would prove your point:

Set up an enclosed system with 10,000 grams of atmosphere.

Remove 1 gram of this atmosphere and replace it with carbon dioxide.

(This would represent the carbon increase as per your chart. )

Step back and wait for the heating to occur ... or not

Jesus. Like I said in the beginning, this was done 150 years ago, and better: they actually very precisely measured the molar heat capacity of CO2 back then, as well as the absorption spectra. I can’t believe that you actually think we haven’t known the experimentally determined specific heat capacity, chemical characteristics, and absorption spectra of common gases, and perfected the kinetic theory of gases, for over a century now. All that stuff is taught in high school now. Professional science has moved on to other things, like making antimatter and performing quantum teleportation experiments.

Think of a Rebreather diving system. If you get the "mix" even slightly wrong the consequences can be fatal.

It might not be the most scientific analogy, but to think of the Earth as a living thing doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

A strong argument can be made describing the human body as an ecosystem. It's perfectly reasonable, based on what we're learned about symbiotic systems in the biosphere, to look at the Earth as a single living system. Who knows, maybe it's even conscious in some sense.

From the little I know about paleontology it is clear that climate change has had devastating consequences for life in the past, and whilst I think it is naive to think we can reverse the damage done, I am convinced that we can worsen it.

So for me it doesn't really matter if man is driving global warming or not, we are doing countless other reckless things anyway, and it is almost impossible to "map" or "predict" the potential consequences.

I was with you on the first part - we're definitely making it worse every day. But that's why it matters - it's something that we're doing, and therefore something that we can do something about. It would be madness to drive off the cliff, just because something else may kill you anyway one day.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

This could go on forever... you still have not got a control experiment where planet earth, it's other amosphere gases, it's oceans, it's animals, it's geo thermic output, it's machinery heat output, it's animal methane output, the suns output and on and on ARE MAINTINED level while you adjust carbon 0.01% and measure heat change.

Until you do, your and climate 'scientist' conclusion that man made carbon release is the driver of heat change is not experiment tested and remains an un scientific conclusion

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

This could go on forever... you still have not got a control experiment where planet earth, it's other amosphere gases, it's oceans, it's animals, it's geo thermic output, it's machinery heat output, it's animal methane output, the suns output and on and on ARE MAINTINED level while you adjust carbon 0.01% and measure heat change.

Until you do, your and climate 'scientist' conclusion that man made carbon release is the driver of heat change is not experiment tested and remains an un scientific conclusion

You have to realize the absurdity of demanding such a blatantly impossible experimental scenario just because the thoroughly proven physics of kinetic gas law and chemical absorption spectroscopy currently eludes you.

Perhaps this will clarify it. In this chart, the red area shows that 70-75% of the high-frequency (optical + UV + HF-infrared) light from the Sun passes right through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the Earth, and the blue area shows that only 15-30% of the low frequency (LF-infrared) light that the Earth reflects upward from its surface is transmitted back into space - this has all been measured directly with instruments. That energy surplus is global warming. If you look closely you can see the key role that CO2 plays in blocking the low-infrared radiation from escaping back into space, which is why the Earth is retaining more energy every day.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

You have to realize the absurdity of demanding such a blatantly impossible experimental scenario just because the thoroughly proven physics of kinetic gas law and chemical absorption spectroscopy currently eludes you.

Perhaps this will clarify it. In this chart, the red area shows that 70-75% of the high-frequency (optical + UV + HF-infrared) light from the Sun passes right through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the Earth, and the blue area shows that only 15-30% of the low frequency (LF-infrared) light that the Earth reflects upward from its surface is transmitted back into space - this has all been measured directly with instruments. That energy surplus is global warming. If you look closely you can see the key role that CO2 plays in blocking the low-infrared radiation from escaping back into space, which is why the Earth is retaining more energy every day.

The point of proposing such an absurd experiment is to highlight the absurdity of the conclusion's of the man made climate change movement when they claim with any accuracy that man made CO2 is affecting global climate in a vastly complex system with consistently changing variable's.

All these spectral absorbtion and other CO2 data points were put into models years ago and pretty much all these models have been wrong at predicting the future. This should tell you that CO2 is not the primary driver of heat on planet earth. I refer you again to the big yellow thing in the sky that is not a consistent output.

Calling out facts on CO2 only serves as evidence for the qualities of CO2, it does not show an understanding of how all of the various temperature influencers to plaet earth are coming together to form a complete picture. Indeed we may not even yet know all of the influencers on earth's temperature, this is a science in relative infancy.

Other areas to explore... heating and cooling of the planet in the past without man made co2... changes in temps of other planets in the solar system (evidence for collective heating cycles)

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Perhaps this will clarify it. In this chart, the red area shows that 70-75% of the high-frequency (optical + UV + HF-infrared) light from the Sun passes right through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the Earth, and the blue area shows that only 15-30% of the low frequency (LF-infrared) light that the Earth reflects upward from its surface is transmitted back into space - this has all been measured directly with instruments. That energy surplus is global warming. If you look closely you can see the key role that CO2 plays in blocking the low-infrared radiation from escaping back into space, which is why the Earth is retaining more energy every da

This may be so but its happening in an extra 1 in 10,000 parts of atmosphere vs previous peaks.

Still 9,999 out of 10,000 parts of atmosphere consistent with conditions previous to human industrialised activity.

Or in other terms the atmosphere is 99.99% the same as it was before human industrialisation.

 

[Han]

I was with you on the first part - we're definitely making it worse every day. But that's why it matters - it's something that we're doing, and therefore something that we can do something about. It would be madness to drive off the cliff, just because something else may kill you anyway one day.

Exactly!

But the point I was clumsily trying to make was that "global warming" and the debate thereof are being used as an excuse for inaction in all sorts of unrelated areas.

People seem to be under the impression that global warming is the only threat we face, and because there is "debate" surrounding the "drivers" etc etc etc they seem to think that applies to all environmental issues.

Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns.........

I see the debate on what is causing global warming as a mass distraction exercise and part of a campaign of ridicule against people concerned for the planet.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Worth a watch it's only 10 mins...

 

[marduk]

First of all... I'm not a climate change denier. Data shows climate is changing.

Second of all ... I'm not denying carbon is increasing. .. it is.

My point is you or anyone else cannot prove the two are linked.

If I didn't know better I'd say you actually have the facts and are serious.

Because that's the most ignorant thing I've seen, even on the internet, in a long time.

If you actually believe that, then inform yourself.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Worth a watch it's only 10 mins...

You do realize that this “news segment” is staged propaganda, right? All of these guys belong to the “Galileo Movement” lobbying group, which fights against carbon emissions regulations on behalf of the fossil fuel industry:
Galileo Movement - SourceWatch

And I wonder if Peter Ridd is still downplaying the crisis of the Great Barrier Reef, now that it’s rapidly dying off:

“Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater. More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef’s most visited areas of color and life.

“We didn’t expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years,” said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature. “In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs — literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead.”

The damage to the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s largest living structures, is part of a global calamity that has been unfolding intermittently for nearly two decades and seems to be intensifying. In the paper, dozens of scientists described the recent disaster as the third worldwide mass bleaching of coral reefs since 1998, but by far the most widespread and damaging.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/science/great-barrier-reef-coral-climate-change-dieoff.html

I’m sorry that I couldn’t explain the compelling empirical science of anthropogenic global warming clearly enough to prompt you to reconsider your position. But you’re failing to understand even the simple graphics that illustrate the science here: for example, the transmission and absorption spectra in the graph above are the actual empirical measurements of the energy being absorbed by the atmosphere *as a whole* - not just the >400ppm that consists of CO2. So those direct measurements are showing us the real effect of that trace amount of greenhouse gas in the air, due to the fact that CO2 is such an incredibly efficient thermal energy absorber.

If you prefer videos to science papers, here’s one that’s very sensible - a 12-minute video from Elon Musk. He makes many excellent points, like the fact that the fossil fuel industry (and the industrial chemical sector in general) is getting a huge invisible subsidy by turning environmental contamination into profit. And he’s right to point out that the transition to renewable energy is inevitable anyway (and far healthier than fossil fuel combustion), so we should do it sooner than later. Germany has already made the transition, and it greatly strengthened their economy – in fact it was Germany’s economic fortitude that propped up the entire EuroZone after Wall Street nuked the global economy in 2007. We could create millions of jobs with a smart renewable energy infrastructure program (and simultaneously stop funneling trillions of dollars to radical militant nations all across the Mideast).

And in addition to profits that industrial energy corporations make by freely pumping unprecedented quantities of industrial CO2 into the air, I’d like to point out that the industrial sector also appears to be the primary causal agent of the global cancer epidemic. Most of us will either die or lose a close loved one to cancer because psychopaths like the Koch brothers and the CEOs of Exxon and BP make billions of dollars pumping millions of tons of carcinogens into our ecosystem every year, a fact which is demonstrated by the comparative rarity of cancer in pre-industrial times:

“The impressive increase in cancer prevalence documented in human populations over the last century is associated with modern man. It is a completely new phenomenon and has no precedents in the history of animals on the Earth (Fig. 3). The high prevalence of cancer contributes to limiting the increase in life expectancy, and seems to be associated with the modern lifestyle. This lifestyle is characterized by living in a completely artificial environment (i.e., a prevalently indoor and metropolitan life in an environment in which we undergo prolonged exposure to environmental carcinogens associated with an increase in carcinogenic pollution). The high prevalence of cancer in vertebrates that share this new lifestyle with us in our almost completely artificial environments (i.e., domestic dogs and birds) seems to confirm this picture.”
Antiquity of cancer

Exactly!

But the point I was clumsily trying to make was that "global warming" and the debate thereof are being used as an excuse for inaction in all sorts of unrelated areas.

People seem to be under the impression that global warming is the only threat we face, and because there is "debate" surrounding the "drivers" etc etc etc they seem to think that applies to all environmental issues.

Yeah when I think about the millions of people who have died prematurely and in horrible agony, because we allow huge corporations to puke carcinogens into the environment 24/7, it makes me crazy. It's like people are so conditioned to exalt corporate profits over all else, that even life itself has become a secondary consideration.

 

[exo_doc]

Thomas R Morrison. Facts are facts, and you are spot on.
There are a certain segment of humans who deny climate change no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what facts are proven.
I do not understand even a modicum how someone could have such massive cognitive dissonance....UNLESS they:
1. Have something to gain by denying,
2. The thought of climate change by humans terrifies them into irrationality,
3. Their comfortable world view is being challenged at a level that is unacceptable,
4. They are just assholes.
5. They want the human race to perish.
Climate denier asshats are the people who laughed at the Wright brothers, Louis Pasteur, Steve Jobs, and Werner von Braun. Luckily that laughter didn't wipe out the human race.
Unfortunately, laughing at anthropomorphic climate change will wipe us out.

You can't argue with a pig. You waste your time and annoy the pig.

We MUST do something about climate change, but we have to do it while fighting ignorance, incompetence, those who are gaining by climate destruction, and those intellectual poser snooty snobs who pretend to be so smart but are terrified of being discovered a MORON.

More power to you, and all of the rest of the climate warriors who HAVE a brain.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Apparently there’s an enclave of anthropogenic climate change deniers here at The Paracast, which I usually just politely ignore, but since it’s interfering with the paranormal discussions that I come here to enjoy, I thought we might contain this subject here before it infects any more unrelated threads.

This topic is a prime example of an asymmetric debate, which is why I strive to avoid it. It takes about 30 seconds to object to the science of climate change, and at least a week of writing to fully explain all of the science behind it, which ranges from basic chemistry, to physics, to statistical analyses of paleoclimatological data, to the feedback dynamics of complex equilibrium systems.

I'm not willing to do that again, because I've found that most people who deny climate change are emotionally/psychologically invested in their position for some reason, which makes these arguments totally futile. But I will respond to the latest challenge, because it's an issue that poses an immanent threat to global civilization.


This statement contains three possible claims and/or implied claims, all of which have to be addressed individually. So here’s how it breaks down:

Claim or Implied Claim #1: CO2 doesn’t raise atmospheric temperature.

CO2 reduces the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which causes the temperature to rise faster, per unit of energy. This is an empirical and indisputable fact. Here are the experimental charts for the heat capacity of nitrogen, oxygen and CO2. Room temperature is roughly 300K:

N2: (1040 J/kg*C) Nitrogen - Specific Heat
O2: (918 J/kg*C) Oxygen Gas - Specific Heat
CO2: (846 J/kg*C) Carbon Dioxide Gas - Specific Heat

And the specific heat capacity of water is also important to this topic, because the oceans absorb a great deal of heat due to their much higher heat capacity. That’s why the melting of the polar ice caps is so alarming: the energy content of the oceans has increased so much that we can actually observe the polar icecaps receding very rapidly:

H20: (4184 J/kg*C) Specific Heat Capacity of Water (Water Properties, USGS Water Science School

A good analysis of how these factors apply to the Earth’s energy dynamics, which determines its temperature, can be found here:

“Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of the Earth’s Climate System,” Schwartz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2007
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Claim or Implied Claim #2: Humans haven’t significantly changed the CO2 levels.

“Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.”
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter | New Scientist

Claim or Implied Claim #3: Human CO2 emissions haven’t significantly changed the global mean temperature.

We’ve seen that CO2 levels in the atmosphere change the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and the Brookhaven study quantified the energy dynamics of climate change in the Earth’s system (and many other studies have reached the same conclusions based on the empirical data). And we’ve seen that 60% of the 35.6 gigatons of human-generated CO2 (in 2012, and rising) is cumulatively contributing to the CO2 content of the atmosphere each year. All that’s left is to check the data, which I provided previously in the form of two graphs:

Graph 1 shows the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last millennium:


Graph 2 shows the historical levels of global mean temperature:


And lo and behold, they match: over the last century, the global temperature has risen sharply as the CO2 levels have risen sharply. That’s called “empirical proof.” The scientific analysis is confirmed by the observational data.


See “Claim or Implied Claim #1: CO2 doesn’t raise atmospheric temperature.”


100 parts per million of cyanide in the air will kill you in under 1 hour:

“The LC50 for gaseous hydrogen cyanide is 100-300 parts per million. Inhalation of cyanide in this range results in death within 10-60 minutes.”
Environmental & Health Effects | International Cyanide Management Code (ICMI) For The Manufacture, Transport and Use of Cyanide In The Production of Gold(ICMI)

Sure, 100 ppm sounds small. But claiming that it’s insignificant is like saying that a virus can’t hurt you because you can’t even see it. It’s a child-like argument. Do the math; it works out. The 25% increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels has sharply increased the thermal energy content of the air and oceans. It’s not a huge problem…yet. But the levels are now higher than at any time in the history of the existence of the human species, and at the rate of increase we’re seeing now, by the year 2100 we’re going to have 200-300% higher concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere than we’ve had in millions of years, and the inevitable corresponding increase in global mean temperature that’s dictated by the laws of physics.

That should scare the crap out of you. We can’t even estimate the full impact of that on the survival of the human species. In any case, now would be a good time to sell off any beachfront condos you may have, because they’ll probably be underwater by the time your grandchildren are your age.


This is one of the many PsyOps talking points issued by the Koch brothers and their fake science mills.

Global mean temperature and atmospheric CO2 are positive feedback mechanisms for each other: when something triggers a heat increase (such as a change in ocean currents, or subtle cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbit, or Sun cycles), atmospheric CO2 increases, which further increases the temperature – the result is a steep spike in global temperature. That’s why climatologists are concerned about a “runaway greenhouse effect.”

The Earth is on the closest/warmest edge of the habitable zone of our solar system, and the rate that we’re increasing the CO2 concentration could easily overcome the negative feedback mechanisms (like increased cloud cover) that have historically balanced the temperature cycle of the planet. The thermodynamics of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and corresponding temperature increases is very basic and irrefutable physics, and the fact that they’re in lock-step right now only illustrates that the pre-industrial environmental cycles no longer apply: the steady human-generated cumulative forcing of CO2 into the atmosphere is directly causing a matching spike in the global heat content of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming


Not really – climate science jobs aren’t contingent on blaming humans for global warming. In fact if any of them could prove that global warming wasn’t being caused by humans, they’d get hired by Exxon at triple their meager academic salary.

The industrial corporations with billions of dollars in PR money are the ones with the real vested interest in muddying the debate and spreading lies and propaganda – and they’re using it too. It’s very much a David and Goliath scenario – in fact the only reason we’re even having this debate here in 2017, is that the oil companies and the Kock brothers and all of the sociopaths in the fossil fuel industry have spent billions on psychological warfare to confuse the public. It’s just like the tobacco companies spending billions for decades to promote arguments against the science of lung cancer and heart disease related to smoking. And it works: they’ve made hundreds of billions in extra profits by foiling the regulatory efforts in the US that most of the Western world has already imposed on them. It’s kind of amazing how many people they have working for them for free, right here online, without even realizing that they’re doing it.


You’ve got it backwards: the propaganda of climate change denial is actually somewhat similar to the Russia propaganda. Both efforts are profitable to the corporations that now own/control the government, the economy, and the mainstream media. Climate change denial keeps the fossil fuel corporations fat and happy, and pushing for conflict with Russia is what the defense industry wants so they can make a killing, so to speak. And of course the DNC loves the Russia conspiracy narrative because it diverts attention from their own lethal levels of corruption, and the rigged primary, and the WikiLeaks releases that proved that the news media is just a megaphone for the Deep State.


I realize that it’s a complex subject – the global ecosphere is a sophisticated system, and CO2 isn't always the main driver of the global temperature. So it’s easy to cherry-pick data, misrepresent facts, and muddle the irrefutable physical science of heat capacity and thermodynamics. Which apparently is exactly what they did in that faux documentary, as addressed and refuted point by point here:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

I prefer to trust 30 years of scientific study and the weeks I’ve spent reading actual studies of this subject, rather than relying upon a deliberately crafted disinformation movie for my opinions.

Again, I must state that you come across as a man of science.

If you are you will be well aware that correlation is not necessarily causation.

E.g. when you put the temp next to the CO2 chart and it shows a correlation it would appear to the the level 1 thinker that this is case closed. However...

I would ask you to consider the relationship between ice cream sales and shark attacks

Ice cream sales increase when shark attacks do. Fact. OMG we must, as a people, come together and slow this cold dairy consumption down or more people will die!

We are of course missing the causality in this scenario which is the sun and the hot weather gets more people eating ice creams and in the sea concurrently, which in turn is increasing opportunities for sharks and humans to meet.

In the past CO2 has increased as the world has heated but it lagged behind the heat increase. Correlation may not be causation and it's another over simplification.

The case is not closed on the science of climate change and there are too many inconsistencies in the 'humans are causing climate change' argument that need more study

 

[marduk]

What a joke.

 

[mike]

Think of a Rebreather diving system. If you get the "mix" even slightly wrong the consequences can be fatal.

It might not be the most scientific analogy, but to think of the Earth as a living thing doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

From the little I know about paleontology it is clear that climate change has had devastating consequences for life in the past, and whilst I think it is naive to think we can reverse the damage done, I am convinced that we can worsen it.

So for me it doesn't really matter if man is driving global warming or not, we are doing countless other reckless things anyway, and it is almost impossible to "map" or "predict" the potential consequences.

Exactly.
Best practice is best. Humanity's exponential growth, is causing environmental damage, damage that's growing exponentially. In a finite system something has to snap eventually.

Australia has only been industrialized for less than 200 years .

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advised that the air quality in Melbourne and Geelong will continue to be poor over the weekend.

The poor air quality is believed to be the result of calm weather conditions combined with a build up of urban pollution as well as wood and heater smoke.The pollution may exacerbate heart and lung conditions and cause coughing and irritated eyes.

Health Warning For Melbourne Residents As Pollution Lingers

Ongoing exposure to air pollution will cut months from the life expectancy of Sydneysiders, a new report says.
Emissions from coal-fired power stations, motor vehicles and wood fire heaters have been identified as the main contributors to the toxic cocktail, which causes an estimated 520 deaths in Sydney every year, based on exposure to 2008 levels, as well as being linked to cardiovascular and asthma hospitalisations.

Sydney's air kills more people than traffic accidents. Last year the NSW road toll was 339.

Sydneysiders choking on the air they breathe

Sydney is predicted to experience poor air quality on Wednesday and NSW Health has warned that the high level of ozone in the atmosphere is likely to affect people with respiratory conditions. Ozone pollution is caused by car exhaust and industrial fumes

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...d/news-story/1f91c2544846ad93a447717c6bc393b2

The cause and effect effect is undeniable. I don't even need to cite horror examples like China or India anymore. its getting so bad that places that were pristine and clean just a few hundred years ago and now toxic places to live.

 

[mike]

The Great Smog of London, or Great Smog of 1952 sometimes called the Big Smoke,[1] was a severe air-pollution event that affected the British capital of London in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants – mostly arising from the use of coal – to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December to Tuesday, 9 December 1952 and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.

It caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrating indoor areas, far more severe than previous smog events experienced in the past, called "pea-soupers". Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died as a direct result of the smog and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, about 12,000.[2]

London had suffered since the 1200s from poor air quality,[3] which worsened in the 1600s,[4][5] but the Great Smog is known to be the worst air-pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[6] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2][4] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956.

The solution ?

The death toll formed an important impetus to modern environmentalism, and it caused a rethinking of air pollution, as the smog had demonstrated its lethal potential. New regulations were implemented, restricting the use of dirty fuels in industry and banning black smoke.

 

[mike]

I'll pre-empt the obvious response. No this doesn't prove CO2 emissions are causing warming.
But it does prove emissions do cause toxic environments that are a threat to human health and must be addressed.

Its worth addressing for that reason alone.

 

[marduk]

The whole climate debate was solved years ago.

Once you put politics and wishful thinking aside, and let math be math.

 

[mike]

She said the finding, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was a wake-up call to the world that plastic pollution was as grave a threat to humanity as climate change.

Plastic debris turning remote South Pacific island into dump

After World War I, improvements in chemical technology led to an explosion in new forms of plastics, with mass production beginning in the 1940s and 1950s

Less than a hundred years and man made plastic is a real problem. Humanity's impact on the biosphere is snowballing with obvious catastrophic consequences looming.

Welcome to Henderson Island, a remote outcrop in the South Pacific Ocean.

It's home to 55 species found nowhere else on Earth and it also has the unenviable title of most polluted place on the planet.

The island, around 5500km east of Auckland, is part of the UK's Pitcairn Island territory and is so isolated it's only visited once or twice a decade for research purposes.

No humans live there, but there are obvious traces of them with a new study showing the island's once pristine beaches have 671 pieces of debris including plastics per square metre.

Henderson Island: One of the most polluted places on Earth