1) Mountains of coal have been turned into CO2 2) CO2 makes it harder for Earth to cool down 3) Are we allowed to make Earth hotter on purpose? The people living on the margins have not agreed to have their habitat, their weather, their lives, disrupted. It is time to stop CO2 emissions, and time to start reversing the damage we have already done.
You say that you can't reverse the damage you have already done,
and you need to do more damage?
Unfortunately, we can't allow that to happen.
Case 1: Juliana vs the US: the kids are complaining.
the court is flummoxed.
Case 2: Mosquito migration sickens thousands in Bangladesh It's not just people who are migrating. Disease is migrating too.
Earth's climate is delicately balanced, for starters. It does not take much, we know now, to change things. The climate has always changed slowly, all by itself, and usually these were large changes, quite beyond the ability of humans to adapt to. It has been, for the most part, very much hotter. Our current pleasant climate is not the norm. This may be the first "climate crisis" that humans have experienced. Luckily, we are causing it ourselves. May our civilization please survive this one to someday have a second one.
Units of time
The farther back in time we go, the less detail we know about the climate, and the more we speak in generalities. For example we know that one day a meteor changed the climate and killed the dinosaurs. But we know when that happened only within a million years.
The usual units of measure for time are the day, the month and the year, which are good for human history, but not for geologic history. The units of measure that are used for Earth's geologic history are billions (3 commas) of years, and millions (two commas) of years, and thousands (one comma) of years.
The age of Earth and the solar system is the only period that needs 3 commas, billions (4.5 billion)
The age of living things (called the phanerozoic) uses 2 commas, millions. The Cambrian explosion was about 500 million years ago.
The phanerozoic, is divided into three parts - the old part, the middle part, the recent part. The old part is the largest, the middle part is smaller, and the recent part is smaller still. The names for the parts are the Paleo(old)zoic, the Meso(middle)zoic, and the Cenozoic. Since the Cenozoic goes up to the present, it is too big to see ourselves, so this recent part is subdivided into parts three(tertiary) and four(quaternary), at about the time of Lucy, which is also at the start of the Ice Ages. The most recent ice sheet retreat starts the current pleasant stable inter-glacial period, which we call "the Holocene". No idea where that word came from.
You can click on this chart to expand it
We have ice cores that go back a million years. Ice cores contain bubbles that are a historical sampling of the atmosphere. We can measure CO2 concentration directly, in the bubbles.
The last ten thousand years, called the Holocene, have been delightful. The stable climate has allowed for the growing and storing of wheat, and for the development of civilization, and for the internet. The ice has retreated to the poles. This period would be called an inter-glacial, except it does not look like the ice will be coming back any time soon.
Climate Change. Might our climate change, change for the worse? There have already been many natural extinction "events", where most life died. The mechanism is thought to be monster volcanic CO2 emissions from the Siberian Traps. The atmosphere and oceans warmed. A warm ocean lost its oxygen, killing sea life, and became over run with thermophilic organism that vented poisonous SO2 into the air, causing a mass extinction. Could mankind wreck the climate?
Well yes. The sun is busy trying to fry us to a crisp, while Earth, like a blueberry pie fresh from the oven, is trying like mad to cool off. Earth would like to get to absolute zero, like its pal Pluto. It is a delicate balance. But man pours great amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 makes it harder for Earth to cool. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the harder it is for Earth to cool, so the hotter Earth becomes.
Climatologists warn us that we humans have been messing with the climate, and we have done that because cheap power has made us richer than kings. (Could we be happy being richer than Barons?) Atmospheric CO2 levels, which for a million years varied between 200 and 300 ppm, are now above 400 and are rising, swiftly.
Two degrees, in context For the last 2000 years, Anno Domini, the Greenland average surface temperature, as best we can tell, has varied one degree up or down.
Climate scientists are creating scenarios that include temperature increases of eight [8] degrees. Brave New World.
We are running an unplanned experiment on the only world we have, betting all the marbles, and the one blue marble we live on, on a course of action that benefits some, but puts at risk everyone and everyone's kids. Plentiful cheap energy is the goose that lays a golden egg, but there is a downside. We have been slowly destabilizing the climate.
You have humans. Luckily, it doesn't last long.
What shall we do? A couple of options.
1) Business As Usual, and
2) Apollo-13.
Business as usual means the First World will off-load the damage and the risk of damage onto everybody else, and we will muddle through.
Apollo-13 means stop all emissions of CO2. Get in the Lunar Lander, and have Mission Control try to calculate a plan within the energy budget that allows us to parachute back to a safe Earth. Thoughts and prayers.
Political action, united political action, seems to be the only hope for avoiding major damage. To others, but to ourselves as well.
Here are some "actions" that are delusional. There is talk about "clean coal" or about "carbon capture" but this is a fantasy, far from ready to be used at scale, even though all IPCC plans assume it. Just think of the numbers: to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, by just 1 ppm, you need to remove 8 billion metric tons of CO2, and we would like to remove 100 ppm. And stash it some place. Here are two good people, from COP21, Paris 2015, talking about that.
All the same, "What shall we do?" 1. Stop burning gasoline(walk) and natural gas(dress warmly.)
2. Stop eating meat! Fix Agriculture. Shut down CAFOs
3. Reduce energy use. Weatherize.
4. Join Extinction Rebellion.
5. Do not pollute the air, water, or soil.
6. Speak up. Tell your kids. Be an extremist. Join the community.
7. Shut down fossil power plants
8. Create serious time-of-day tariffs, to use the market to level demand.
Let's re-enact the American Revolution; live like they lived.
Low carbon.
Spoiler alert.
Q: Why are these men smiling?
A: They don't know. They have been lied to. The "body count" problem.
Grasses v. trees for removing CO2. Skip the first 4 minutes.
Grasses and removing CO2. Another talk
David MacKay, Solutions, by the numbers
More of his thoughts. Note @15:00 - CCS is a fantasy.
Is the Science Settled? Pondering what that means.
The history of CO2? How we came to believe it was CO2.
Carbon Capture 8 billion tonnes of CO2 is 1 ppm. 800 billion tonnes is 100ppm.
The way you hold steady the energy content of any volume in space is to ensure that any energy gained is matched by energy lost. In the context of Earth, and Earth's climate, it means that the sun is busy heating up Earth during the day, and at night, largely, Earth is busy getting rid of all that heat. But this interest with differences in heat is only with differences of heat at the surface of Earth; what happens in the molten core is of no interest. And, as for the surface, the interest is only with air temperature. Air temperature is what gives rise to the Annual Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, and that is the variable that we seem to care about, and track.
In the "climate change" scenario, when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it upsets this balance between energy gained and energy lost, by reducing Earth's ability to cool down. But as Earth gets hotter, its ability to radiate heat away is increased [that's just Stephan-Boltzmann], so that a balance can again be restored, although now at a higher temperature.
But this way of looking at the mechanics of climate change is incomplete. It is true enough that the change in energy is equal to energy gained minus energy lost, for Earth, as a unit of analysis, or for the atmosphere, as a unit of analysis. And it is true enough that when the atmosphere loses heat to outer space, heat is lost from both the atmosphere and from Earth. What is not mentioned is that when the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean, that heat is not lost to Earth. This upsets the equilibrium of Earth, even if the Annual Global Mean Surface Air Temperature does not reflect it.
For the atmosphere over the ocean, the problem with the equilibrium of Earth, as measured by Annual Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, is even clearer. Some solar radiation over the ocean is reflected and not absorbed, so that has no effect on the energy content of the ocean, or of the air, or of Earth. But solar radiation that penetrates into the ocean and is absorbed, loses heat by conduction, not initially by infrared radiation, so that this solar radiation tends to warm the ocean. That warming has been reported, and measured, and that warming causes expansion of water, leading to mild sea level rise. But that is not the point. The point is that the heat is retained, not radiated away into space. It is upsetting the equilibrium of Earth; Earth has gained energy, and this will, at some point, change the Annual Global Mean Surface Air Temperature.
The claim that increases in CO2 levels have a long term pressure on temperature implies that some mechanism exists to delay Earth coming to equilibrium, and this stashing of energy in the ocean, temporarily, might be that mechanism. Also a warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so it may become a CO2 source.
Of course, a warmer ocean melts ice. This is another place Earth can dump energy for a while, because melting ice is a state change, not a temperature change. So the ice caps, and the melting of the ice caps, hide the full warming effect of the increase in CO2.
We do have a way to see delayed effect on air temperature that will be caused by our stashing energy into the ocean as opposed to radiating it into space. That way is during an el Nino event. It becomes harder to dump energy into a warmer ocean, and in that case the Annual Global Mean Surface Air Temperature departs from baseline by an additional 50%. Instead of a .4 degree rise, one sees a .6 degree rise. This allows us to begin to estimate the delayed warming effect of CO2 when the entire ocean, in its normal state, is warmer.
This graphic, while specific, is incorrect. It says heat into Earth equals heat out. Don't we wish this were true. Some of that heat lost is "lost" into the ocean. Not lost from Earth into space, sadly.
=
Tons of CO2 in the atmosphere
The atmosphere "weighs"
[5.2 x 1000**5] metric tons (5.2 quadrillion metric tons)
CO2 is 410 ppm or .410/1000 molecules by count
converting count to weight: (.410/1000) x (44/28.8) = .627/1000
explanation of 44/28 factor. CO2(44) is heavier than N2(28)
[5.2 x 1000**5] x [.627 x 1000**-1] = [3.26 x 1000**4]
410 ppm CO2 = 3.26 trillion metric tons
1 ppm of CO2 is about 8 billion metric tons
6 ppm of CO2 is about 48 billion metric tons
40 billion metric tons is 5 ppm (2019 emissions)
250 ppm of CO2 is about 2.0 trillion metric tons (pre-industrial)
Conversion from tons of Carbon to tons of CO2: (44/12) or 3.66
Conversion from tons of CO2 to tons of Carbon: (12/44) or 0.27
See James Lovelock. He is clearly unaware that man has emitted 2 trillion metric tons in the last 250 years, a blink geologically.
A billion metric tons he calls a gigaton
A trillion metric tons he calls a teraton.
=
CO2 world emissions since 1750: 2,120 billion metric tons
Not all of that ended up in the atmosphere.
It looks like 1.3 trillion metric tons, about 60%, did.
calculation: 1.3 trillion metric tons = 3.3 (410ppm) - 2.0 (250ppm)
I think the claim that CO2 never comes out of the air is too strong a claim.
Could we get the split between fossil CO2 and biologic CO2? Maybe nuclear testing in the air has made that impossible, with the creation of unnatural amounts of C14.
=
Is this true? Or false.
How long CO2 stays in the atmosphere is a crucial issue. The flip side is how fast does it clear?
a Flood requires over 100 trillion metric.tons of water 1. [360 x 1000**2] sq.km is the size of Earth's ocean surface
360 million square kilometers
2. [.3 x 1000**-1] km is one foot in kilometers
3. [360 x 1000**2] sq.km x [.3 x 1000**-1] km
is the volume of a one foot rise in sea level
or [108 x 1000**1] cu.km, 108 thousand cubic kilometers, a Flood
4. [1 x 1000**1] kg
is the weight of a cubic meter of water, a metric ton
5. [1 x 1000**3] kg is the weight of a cubic kilometer of water, a billion metric tons
6. [108 x 1000**1] cu.km x [1 x 1000**3] kg/cu.km
is the weight of a one foot rise in sea level
or [108 x 1000**4] kg, or 100 trillion metric.tons
So a Flood is a melt, from 100 trillion metric.tons up to a quad
Article in USA TODAY, April 2019 here says "Since 1961, the world has lost 10.6 trillion tons of ice and snow, the study reported." Ten trillion tons in 60 years means, if melt continues at that rate (it may increase) that a Flood will happen gradually in ten times that, or 600 years.
The Thwaits glacier in antarctica is currently the hot glacier, but note that the 50 billion metric tons mentioned as the loss in that year is well below the 100 trillion metric tons mark for Flood. The loss this year is reported as 250 billion metric tons, or 2.5 trillion metric tons in 10 years, or 25 trillion in 100 years, or Flood level in 400 years.
But remember that Thwaits is not the only source of melt. Pine Island is a similar glacier, also melting into the Amundsen Sea. Alpine glaciers melt as much. A warmer ocean expands 5% by volume. and there is Greenland.
7. Glacier Retreat The glacier used to be able to push away the ocean. No longer. There is quite a bit of glacier that rests on land, but the land is below the current sea level. This will soon be "ice shelves", and then "icebergs", as the warmer water erodes the bottom level of ice.
8.Advice from Hugh, Cambridge College Lecture Series
9. Why higher global average surface temperature can be so bad
Q1. The globe is not warming A: Does ice melt at 32F?
Alpine glaciers have left locations that are now above 32F.
Q2. There is so little CO2. It couldn't be that. A: Does CO2 block infrared?
What is the history of infrared radiation measurements from space?
Q3: Saturation, adding more does not matter. A: What is the history of infrared radiation measurements from space?
Do those measurements show that it does not matter? MORE
Q5. The climate is always changing The last half of the holocene has been quite stable, hasn't it?
Or, do you mean the weather is always changing?
Q6. It's not mankind Where did we lose you?
CO2 is going up. We are doing that. Correct??
CO2 prevents Earth from cooling off by blocking infrared. Correct?
If additional CO2 means that Earth cannot become cooler by infrared radiation, then the atmosphere is hotter. The next day, the Earth gets hotter again, until the atmosphere reaches a temperature, where, because of its higher temperature, it is able to radiate away as much more heat as the heat blocked by the additional CO2. That temperature becomes the new average global temperature. Correct?
Q7. 97% of scientists agree that the climate changes. So what? No. By 2001 the IPCC managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that none of the government representatives ventured to dissent. It was much more likely than not, the panel announced, that our civilization was headed for severe global warming. MORE
Q8. Climate change is good. By 2010 impacts long predicted were turning up, sooner than many had expected — acidification of the oceans, unprecedented deadly heat waves, record-breaking floods and droughts, heat-related changes in the survival of sensitive species. MORE
Q9. CO2 is plant food. It is plant food that is causing climate change.
Q10. The models are rigged. Retreating alpine glaciers is not a model. It's opening your eyes.
Q11. I don't believe it. But I do believe that the alpine glaciers are melting.
?And the Northwest Passage acoss the Bering Sea?
?And the Great Barrier Reef bleaching?
?And the flooding of streets in Miami Beach?
?And the wildfires in California? Earlier snowmelt has led to hot, dry conditions.
1. How long does CO2 stay in the atmosphere It makes a big difference. If it stays 100 years, then each year 1% of the 400ppm drops out, or 4ppm. If 25 years, that's 16 ppm. 400, 1ppm.
Mona Loa data shows CO2 concentration going up and down seasonally. Surely, in natural seasonal variation, down must be greater than up, since some carbon is "sequestered" in the tree rings.
2. How much of emitted CO2 goes into the Ocean? If it goes in the ocean, it does not go into the atmosphere.
3. How much heat goes into the Ocean? How long does it take for the ocean to get hot enough to reject all attempts to stash heat in the ocean? I suppose when the ocean reaches atmospheric temperature. But the ocean can't change temperatures as fast as the atmosphere can. The atmosphere can drop 20 degrees in the blink of an eye, as you know.
El nino, which is a larger than usual hot patch in the pacific, blocks heat from going into the ocean. If the air can't cool down, it stays hotter. The standard problem.
4. How much energy will the world need in 2030? How many 1G nuclear plants would we need to build each year? Many.
5. Solar radiation to land seems so different from solar radiation to ocean. Different level of re-radiation from ocean, as ocean is cooler than land. Delayed reaction.
6. They say, here, "Without this natural greenhouse effect (but assuming the same albedo, or reflectivity, as today), the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about 60°F colder."
This means, doesn't it, that 300 ppm has a 60°F temperature effect.
7. Simplest solution is to consume less. A good discussion here: [1]
Here is a geologist talking about climate science. He explains how the Milankovitch cycles caused the ice ages. One lesson is how delicately balanced the climate system is, and is affected by what seems like a small change.
The point that is quite surprising is that Earth presents essentially the same size disk to the sun all the time, and the only thing that changes from the viewpoint of the sun, is the location of the pole in that disk. This changes the mix of land and sea presented to the sun, and this small cyclic variation over millennia, is enough (apparently) to cause ice sheets to advance or to retreat, assuming that the CO2 level is low enough to allow Earth to cool, so that average global temperature falls below 32F for "long enough" periods, in enough places.
