I will admit that Climate Change is a topic I have read very little about. I'm curious if any experts on the app can make the case for or against. I'm also curious if there are any topics you admittedly know very little about?
Ugh. Some people on the app know I studied atmospheric science for a while at SUNY, but I really don’t want to make a case for the climate change debate. It’s exhausting, and sometimes it’s like trying to scream in space.
I’m trying to learn more about it myself so I don’t know.
I have (and continue to) research the issues important yo me and America.
Regarding climate change, I learned about the greenhouse effect and the potential for danger to the climate back in 1963-4 when I was in the eighth grade. I went to an average public school, not a science school. It was done science back then, and simple enough for eighth graders to understand.
I’ll give you a basic (but pretty lengthy) rundown on climate change, although I don’t claim to be an expert, I’ve taken one college course and looked into it in my spare time.
I’m going to start with some of the conditions of the climate relevant to climate change. Earth’s climate adjusts towards an equilibrium known as it’s radiative balance (this adjustment takes time if internal or external factors change), which is to say the same amount of energy is trapped as is radiated away (meaning excessive energy from a source like the sun is reflected away). Earth has an albedo, which refers to the whiteness of an object. Whiter objects (or objects with a higher albedo) reflect more solar radiation away from the object, less white objects don’t reflect as much away. Earth also has carbon sinks which store mass amounts of carbon dioxide, such as the oceans, soil, and plants (carbon being trapped in these sinks also takes time).
Next I’m going to introduce two concepts; climate forcing and climate feedbacks. Climate forcing refers to when something initially induces change in the climate, while climate feedback either exacerbate that change (positive climate feedback) or slow it down (negative climate feedback). The current anthropogenic (ie human in origin) climate change is an example of positive climate feedback, as mass amounts of CO2 and other heat trapping substances are released into the atmosphere accelerate warming. There are multiple aspects of climate change now that involve feedback, one of the most prominent of which is in relation to Earth’s ice and albedo. As more heat trapping substances are released into the atmosphere, more of the suns radiative energy is trapped, increasing global average temperatures and making land ice melt. This ice is a substantial contributor to the Earth’s albedo, so melting ice lowers the albedo, makes it so less of the suns radiative energy is being reflected back,
thereby accelerating the general process of warming even further. You may have seen concerning reports about particular temperature increases in the average temperature of the climate, while these specific numbers are rather arbitrary, they reflect very well justified concern over climate feedbacks, to the point where warming accelerates more and more drastically. Already human activity has put such global average temperatures at around 1 degree Celsius higher and at a concentration of carbon at around 400 parts per million (the latter is a mark unprecedented in the last hundreds of thousands of years). What is particularly unprecedented about climate change now is the rate of such change. Human societies are built to thrive in earth’s climate conditions as we have known them, any drastic change in the climate would have a very negative impact on humanity (especially one that is happening at such a rapid rate compared to Earth’s time scale).
Thanks for the detailed responses. That's already more information than I've ever received on the topic. Are these changes in the climate happening alongside industrialization or are they fairly recent (last couple decades)? May be a stupid question
How do your sources account for the early twentieth century warming, (1900-1945)a warming of similar magnitude and rapidity, and duration as the current warming. And a time of many extreme climatic events worldwide. The difference, CO2 was 300ppm during the ETCW. Some ones gonna have to explain that one. Clearly CO2 was not the cause.
I’m going to answer these at the same time cause they tie together pretty well. The overall trend upward in global average temperatures in particular is the case through early 19th and 20th century industrialization for the most part (this was typically the rough starting point, although some newer studies have placed the starting point of the process earlier), although the last few decades have been significantly more prominent (with the vast majority of the hottest El Niño and non El Niño year’s being in the 21st century) not only because of further industrialization, but also what one would expect from the climate feedbacks occurring. Of course increases in global average temperatures are only one part of it, as for the extreme weather events that has also been the overall case for the most part, although as far as I’m aware it’s more of a matter of more extreme rather than more common (such as with stronger hurricanes, we’re not sure it’s inducing more hurricanes).
Now rises in CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not the only thing acting on the climate, that leads us to the early 20th century, where increases in solar activity and decreases in volcanic activity acted as a form of climate forcing that accounted for much of early 20th century warming in particular. This is not the case for the more dramatic rises since the mid 1970s, as solar activity (which has been mostly steady since the 1950s) and other potential climate forces have had minimal impacts on the change in climate. So CO2 was indeed a contributor to early 20th century warming, it just did not play as key of a role as it is doing in warming over the last few decades.
Btw to find CO2/greenhouse gas emissions for a particular time in history you can use the formula I = PAT, where P stands for population, A stands for affluence, and T is technology (which accounts for carbon (or greenhouse gas) intensity and overall energy intensity.
The extreme weather events worldwide of the 1920s & 1930s are indistinguishable and possible more severe than those of the current warming. CO 2 was more than 150 ppm les than today. On % basis CO2 was 2/3 of today’s. Your attempt to glibly explain the ETCW is not persuasive. Particularly since modern observed temps have leveled off for 20 years with the exception of an extreme ElNino spike in 2016.
The hypothesis has lots of ‘splainin’ to do.
Well for starters it’s unclear what extreme weather events you’re referring to, certainly it wouldn’t be the prevalence of coral bleaching, strong hurricanes, forest fires, or melting land ice (and arctic sea ice). The last time I saw someone try to make this point they referred 1930s US temperatures and heat waves while neglecting the world as a whole, I hope that’s not what you have done. While it’s unclear which extreme weather events you considered indistinguishable, it’s not unclear the more recent time period had more extreme weather events overall. The notion that modern observed temperatures has leveled off with the exception of 2016 is simply false, and comes from people who do not know how to draw trend lines through data (along with being an example of data cropping that has honestly been pretty consistent on your part so far).
I don’t know a lot about technology. Just enough to use my iPhone, Kindle and laptop.
Attached is a video of astronauts explaining climate change. I think they are pretty convincing.
Not an expert, but I try to evaluate the information as best as I can.
From the information I have seen, there is a very strong correlation with CO2 released due to human activity and a rise in global average temperature.
There are some theoretical models which show how this can happen and predict potential outcomes. Some of those are robust, some are not. Since we only have 1 earth we cannot run a double blind experiment to rule out other factors. We can only observe and try to rule out other factors based upon comparaisons.
But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Sounds right on.
Find me an 800 year old person and you’ll find your “expert.”
Ah yes, the distant past is a complete mystery and nobody knows anything about it because they weren’t there. Ancient Rome? Pfft. You weren’t there. It never existed for all we know.
I’m pretty certain there are no climate experts on this app. There are people who will tell you they are, though.
The ratio of experts to Dunning-Krugerites on SOH tends to be 0 to a rather high number.
There are many things I know very little about. Naming them all would be tough but one is different religious philosophies.
Yeah that's definitely a weak spot for me. I know the very basics about most religions around the world...if that.
That's about where I am too.
Im an expert.
All of the data shows that there has never been a time when climate was not changing. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. There are many mechanisms that contribute to this. Some of them we know about and even understand a little.
We’re still trying to work out what the perfect temperature & climate the earth ought to be and what we we should be doing to try to achieve that goal.
Please send me all the money you can so we can continue to work on this problem. I’ll keep you updated from time to time, thanks.
This user is currently being ignored
I’m an expert in human nature, starting with my own.🙀
What you mischaracterize as baiting, I call “the stimulation of thought” , which is dependent upon getting over the initial triggered reaction.
You are focused on other stimulations...
That would be more a play on words or a pun.....innuendo is much more subtle.
Universeplan is a denier
What makes you an expert in climate change? A PhD in geology, chemistry or similar? A career as a biologist or climate scientist? Used to work for Sea Shepherd? You watch Fox News? Stay at a holiday inn express last night? Because all you’ve shared so far is disinformation and bs.
Could you be a little less vague about how you feel about this. Nevertheless. I didn’t say I was an expert on climate change.
I did offer some observations about it that I would be very surprised any proof exists that it is untrue.
I did provide expert information about some of the elements of human nature that apply.
I’d just as soon you thanked me for it.
Ahh... perhaps I missed the sarcasm.
“All of the data shows that there has never been a time when climate was not changing. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. There are many mechanisms that contribute to this. Some of them we know about and even understand a little.”
This seems straight forward,factual& direct, not sarcastic.
“We’re still trying to work out what the perfect temperature & climate the earth ought to be and what we we should be doing to try to achieve that goal.”
This seems implicit in the Alarmist view.
“Please send me all the money you can so we can continue to work on this problem. I’ll keep you updated from time to time, thanks.”
This has been their explicit position. Fortunately, they’ve had limited success with funding.
Perhaps I’ve been lying like Trump was when he said 1 in 3 women are sexual abuse victims when illegally coming across the Southern border.
Thanks to the NYT, a former news paper, we found out it was only 31%!