Climate Change News 4

[niceatheist]

The missing energy isn’t missing, it’s in the oceans, which have greater thermal capacity than land. This isn’t a mystery at all.

But the larger point which I want to impress is that increasing GHGs inevitably leads to greater energy being trapped. Whether that energy is thermal (heating up the atmosphere and water) or kinetic, leading to stronger weather effects like tornadoes and hurricanes, it’s really the same thing. Thermodynamics is the cosmic bean counters, add more beans, and they must go somewhere. In this case, adding more energy makes the equalibrium point higher.

It is inevitable. It is how the universe functions, whether you’re talking about a complex system like a planet’s atmosphere, or a simple system like a pot of water on the stove. Energy doesn’t disappear.

So, since we know CO2 has these properties, and we know how thermodynamics works, and we know that the only difference between a simple system and a complex system is the number of variables that are influenced, we are left with the simple fact that emitting CO2 is not a neutral activity, that the scales will balance one way or another. In thermodynamic terms, it is thermal equalibrium. That’s what we’re raising.

 

[niceatheist]

I might add that in any complex system, it can be even worse. Ocean, land and atmosphere are not independent variables. Adding more energy to one component will inevitably influence the others. Climate is a complex system made of interconnected feedback loops. Alter one, and it has a cascade effect on the others. Yes, predicting how those cascades will happen is a tricky business, and that’s basically the job of climatologists and researchers in related fields. And the models will never be 100% correct. But the models don’t need to be, they are models after all. But they are all built on a basic set of facts, that putting more energy into a system must inevitably affect the entire system.

The current models show that the oceans have been doing the heavy lifting. Their capacity to absorb thermal radiation is enormous as compared to land and air. But it is no more infinite than any other component.

 

[ATraveller]

The industries most vulnerable, particularly fossil fuel extraction, are already overall employing a lot less people than they used to, as technology has advanced. This seems more of a false dilemma than anything else.

Tell that to people where I live. In fact, what you’re telling me offers me no comfort considering my employment situation has worsened. Imagine what would happen if some of the more extreme measures are implemented. These new jobs aren’t appearing where I live nor the surrounding area. It’s another form of Western alienation.
I expect that policymakers consider our challenges too. I can’t support the approaches on the table that will leave myself and others unemployed. That’s just not realistic. And honestly, the usual ‘don’t worry, things will work out for everyone’ response from politicians doesn’t cut it. They have no plans for us.

Ought we not give some consideration to future generations and do what we can to pass on a healthy climate, rather than simply mortgaging their futures for the illusion of short term prosperity?

I don’t set policy. As much as I and others are concerned for the environment, the people who do have control over the economy have given us a bad deal and completely forgotten about our welfare. After all, they are charged with the task not us and they have shown don’t care about us. And in any event, Canada contributes a mere 2% of global GHG emissions.

 

[niceatheist]

So you want to pick winners and losers, and have decided people working in the energy industries, despite being a pretty small fraction of the total workforce, deserve to keep their jobs irrespective of all other considerations.

Please note, I’m not condemning these people. But honestly, this is like arguing that buggy whip manufacturers should have been kept going, merely because you know people who work in those factories, and they’re good people that feel alienated. Would the smarter thing be to continue supporting them in making buggy whips, or to find some other means to support them, like finding new industries for their employ?

 

[ATraveller]

So you want to pick winners and losers, and have decided people working in the energy industries, despite being a pretty small fraction of the total workforce, deserve to keep their jobs irrespective of all other considerations.

You believe the energy industry is a marginal portion of our economy. That’s not true. It has ties to many other industries too. Again, that comment highlights exactly what we face. No plans for us. Until someone actually provides a plan for us, it’s unrealistic to see such hesitancy to go away. Offer an actual plan for us, essentially the forgotten, and maybe something will actually be done on this issue.
Note: I didn’t see you added that second paragraph.

or to find some other means to support them, like finding new industries for their employ?

That would be great. Of course, many oil & gas lobbyists would oppose it but the odd thing is, many environmentalists proposing policies neglect to consider the unique challenges we face and they lose some of us because of that.

 

[niceatheist]

And yet here’s the rock and the hard place. Continue as we are and the entire economy will have to start carrying the load of a single industry. At what point does the fossil fuel industry eat more of the economic output than it provides?

That’s why I favor carbon taxes. They attempt , no matter how imprecisely, to build the effects of fossil fuels into the pricing. At that point free market economics takes over, and will inevitably favor alternative energy sources. It’s not about shutting down the oil and gas wells today, but allowing a sort of controlled landing, over decades.

 

[Theo520]

I mean challenging the majority view of climate scientists that the average temperature of the earth will continue to rise and that this rise is caused mostly by human activity, especially the release of greenhouse gasses. The article mocking the crime-vs-temperature research does not address any of that.

That’s far to vague and self serving. The issue is how much the temp is rising not whether man is the primary cause. Just the radiative forcing component of CO2 can account for most of the warming we have actually seen, and there isn’t a dispute on it. The issue is the projected rapid future warming.

 

[Xystus]

Trolling will be ignored.

responding does not equal ignoring, it is the opposite.

 

[MonteRCMS]

appears to have no basis in reality.

Actually, in real life, the atmosphere expands and contracts … when it expands, the atmospheric drag on satellites increases more quickly than expected, slowing the velocity of the satellite, and the satellites’ orbit changes. If not restored, the satellite orbit will decay and the satellite will re-enter and burn up sooner than planned.

Look it up.

That’s why, for example, the Space Station needs periodic re-boosts.

click here google youtube reboosts

But you knew that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I mean challenging the majority view of climate scientists that the average temperature of the earth will continue to rise and that this rise is caused mostly by human activity, especially the release of greenhouse gasses. The article mocking the crime-vs-temperature research does not address any of that.

That’s far to vague and self serving. The issue is how much the temp is rising not whether man is the primary cause. Just the radiative forcing component of CO2 can account for most of the warming we have actually seen, and there isn’t a dispute on it. The issue is the projected rapid future warming.

To make my point about the article I don’t need specificity on what climate theory says. Whatever it is, the article did not come anywhere near it

 

[MonteRCMS]

To make my point about the article I don’t need specificity on what climate theory says. Whatever it is, the article did not come anywhere near it

A bunch of disproven computer models and disreputable hypotheses.

My point is physics, not theory.

 

[Ender]

Why is it necessary to find it ? We can calculate the (name removed by moderator)ut and the output without finding how the heat is distributed.

Why indeed? When it is sufficient simply to posit a theory, why is it necessary to confirm it? If the theory says there must be more heat then not being able to find must be the fault of our measuring systems, not of the theory. The pony’s in there somewhere.

 

[Ender]

The missing energy isn’t missing, it’s in the oceans, which have greater thermal capacity than land. This isn’t a mystery at all.

You say this as if it was a confirmed fact rather than simply another hypothesis.

But the larger point which I want to impress is that increasing GHGs inevitably leads to greater energy being trapped.

If that was the only change then this would probably be true, but the climate is a system, and a change in one area brings about changes elsewhere. Increasing temperatures cause more ocean evaporation, that increases atmospheric moisture leading to increased cloud cover which increases the earth’s albedo reflecting more heat thus lowering the energy being trapped. Reducing the behavior of a system as complex as the climate to that of a pot of water being heated would explain why the theory is so poorly supported by the facts. Clearly the facts are misleading.

Whether that energy is thermal (heating up the atmosphere and water) or kinetic, leading to stronger weather effects like tornadoes and hurricanes, it’s really the same thing.

Yet again we have assertions unsupported by evidence passed off as facts. The claim that hurricanes are either stronger or more numerous is false. The data do not support this claim, which clearly doesn’t keep people from repeating it with the same confidence as a claim the sun will rise in the morning.

 

[Ender]

niceatheist: Ought we not give some consideration to future generations and do what we can to pass on a healthy climate, rather than simply mortgaging their futures for the illusion of short term prosperity?

You’re making the wrong argument here. You’re accepting the claim that the AGW theory is true and therefore niceatheist’s observation is valid. If the theory is false, however, it is his side whose actions will cause the damage. The exact same charge could be made against him: ought we not give some consideration to future generations and do what we can to pass on a healthy economy, rather than simply mortgaging their futures as the cost of fighting a problem that doesn’t exist?

The theory, and the models all support his position. It is only the facts that are stubbornly resistant and unhelpful.

 

[niceatheist]

That expansion is fairly modest

 

[niceatheist]

We have thermodynamics. There is in no getting around it. A pot of water will always boil when the elenent is turned on. Sophistry doesn’t make thermodynamics go away.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Why is it necessary to find it ? We can calculate the (name removed by moderator)ut and the output without finding how the heat is distributed.

Why indeed? When it is sufficient simply to posit a theory, why is it necessary to confirm it? If the theory says there must be more heat then not being able to find must be the fault of our measuring systems, not of the theory. The pony’s in there somewhere.

There are other ways in which the theory has been confirmed.

 

[niceatheist]

There are other ways in which the theory has been confirmed.

Well, we know where the extra heat has gone. It’s gone into the oceans, because we’ve been measuring oceanic temperatures. Further, we know where a lot of carbon has gone, because we’re seeing the shifts in pH balance. These sorts of complaints might have been valid a decade or two ago, and indeed, the debates over how to confirm models is what has fed exactly this kind of data gathering.

At this point we’re really left with “I don’t like what thermodynamics has to say on the subject, so let’s find the points of uncertainty and magnify them into whole-sale falsification.” There really is not a physicist in the last 120 years whose going to go “Well, you see, energy just magically dissipates.”

If you want to debunk climate change (and win a Nobel Prize), it’s not going to be handwaving and muttering about complex systems, because it doesn’t matter how complex the system is. Add energy to a system, and you will alter the system, you will increase the point of thermal equilibrium, and the real trick is figuring out what that actually means in the real world. But the cosmic scales must always be balanced, energy does not just disappear. It is either absorbed or makes work, and if it is absorbed, something’s thermal equilibrium is going to rise. The data indicates that the world’s oceans have been mitigating some of the temperature increases, but that ability is not infinite, nor is it perfect. Plants have taken up some of the slack too, but neither is that infinite or perfect, and what’s more, plants are only temporary repositories. The bulk of plants on this planet are phytoplankton, along with cyanobacteria, in other words the bulk of the biosphere that photosynthesizes. Of course, all these plants and blue-green algae live in the oceans, so on top of their carrying capacity for absorbing CO2, we also have to ask how heating and altering the pH balance of the oceans affect those organisms.

These are some of the complexities, and we have some of the answers. The job of organizations like the IPCC is to take the findings of multiple disciplines; from climatology to atmospheric studies to biology, to find all the variables, the feedback loops, and create a set of models to predict just what is going to happen as CO2 and other GHG concentrations increase. But there is not a single physicist on the planet who is going to accept the notion that increasing GHG concentrations will not inevitably lead to an increase in solar radiation being absorbed by and trapped in the atmosphere and oceans. There is no debate over that simple fact, because over a century of science has confirmed that thermodynamics, in whatever system you care to talk about, simple or complex, one variable or ten thousand variables, governs energy exchange.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have a lot more ambition than I do. It has been my experience that long thoughtful posts like this are simply ignored by the other side.

 

[niceatheist]

Oh I’m aware that every spurious counterpoint that can be brought to bear will be thrown at me. But really, short of producing some phenomenon that sees that energy escape, the strongest argument any skeptic can make is “we don’t know the effects of trapping additional solar energy.” To make a stronger statement than that is to basically deny what we know about thermodynamics, and it’s hard to imagine a more rigorous and confirmed set of physical principles. If the data, both direct and proxy, that has been gathered over the last half century is wrong, it does nothing to disprove the fundemental and underlying physical fact that raising thermal equilibrium will inevitably lead to both increased temperature and excitement in any system.

Every time you put a pot of water on the stove and turn on the element, water will boil. Every time.