What do you think of climate change?

[Ridgerunner]

I do believe in climate change. However, I believe it is largely local (very large “locals”) and largely caused by poor land management. Deserts reflect a lot of heat into the atmosphere. Rich grasslands or forests reflect very little. Desertified land doesn’t hold water and therefore does not cool the atmosphere or the ground.

Immense parts of the earth have been desertified by human activity. In the U.S. there are serious efforts going on to reverse that (except on government land, but that’s another story), but in most of the world there are not.

 

[Theo520]

They are sweltering in heat on the East Coast now.
“…EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 8 PM EDT
SUNDAY…”
from Massachusetts weather bureau.

Ahh, some times it’s weather (when it’s cold),
others its climate change
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PetraG]

I do believe in climate change. However, I believe it is largely local (very large “locals”) and largely caused by poor land management. Deserts reflect a lot of heat into the atmosphere. Rich grasslands or forests reflect very little. Desertified land doesn’t hold water and therefore does not cool the atmosphere or the ground.

Immense parts of the earth have been desertified by human activity. In the U.S. there are serious efforts going on to reverse that (except on government land, but that’s another story), but in most of the world there are not.

Well, and no one ought to dispute that to the extent that global warming is due increasing levels of CO2 in the air, it would be helpful to have more forests to sop it up.

 

[PetraG]

Your maps shows weather, not climate. The climate in Oregon, Washington and Montana, for instance, is leading to the loss of most of our glacial mass; there is evidence this has been going on for about 150 years but the pace has accelerated in the past 50 years.
(Glacier National Park in Montana has lost about 39% of its glaciers since 1966; some have shrunk by a much as 85%.)
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
and here are a few photo examples:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/11/527941678/disappearing-montana-glaciers-a-bellwether-of-melting-to-come

and
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/time-series-glacier-retreat

 

[PetraG]

Here is an example of glacier loss on the northeastern slope of Oregon’s Mt Hood;
see also: http://glaciers.research.pdx.edu/Glaciers-Oregon.html

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Climate Change? Mt. Hood’s Fading Summer Skiing | GearJunkie

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, and no one ought to dispute that to the extent that global warming is due increasing levels of CO2 in the air, it would be helpful to have more forests to sop it up.

There are some who argue that increased CO2 is actually due to desertification of millions upon millions of acres of soil. Trees are not the only plants that sequester CO2. Grass and even dryland shrubs do as well. In addition, there is a lot of CO2 stored in the soil from organic activity, primarily plant sequestration. Remove plants and the CO2 leaches into the atmosphere.

But a lot of other things will do it too. Some dryland mismanagement will cause dead seed stems and old vegetation to decompose in the air, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. On the other hand, adequate vegetation causes net sequestration into the soil.

CO2 in the atmosphere may be a coincidental result (with global warming) due to land mismanagement, not the cause of global warming.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some glaciers are growing, though most aren’t.

Glaciers are not necessarily dependent on temperature. Snowfall is even more important. Warmth can actually cause glacier growth since it can increase snowfall just as it can increase rain.

So we don’t really know for sure why Mt. Hood’s glaciers are shrinking or why Mont Blanc’s glaciers are growing. We only know that both are the case.

 

[phaster]

I really do not understand the opinion that CO2 is responsible for climate change and that the climate is naturally getting warmer are mutually exclusive opinions.

a good basic understanding of physics, chemistry and math is a prerequisite to grasp why the confluence of factors in play,… like long term solar system dynamics and the basic physical properties of a CO2 molecule,… which taken together directly points to the hand of mankind causing climate change,… BUT we know most don’t attend university to formally study climate science

anyway, to answer the question you seem to be asking,… the basic “theory” why CO2 is a GHG is because of physical properties of the molecule

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

This animation is somewhat of a simplification. Molecules are constantly in motion, colliding with other gas molecules and transferring energy from one molecule to another during collisions. In the more-complex, real-world process, a CO2 molecule would most likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule’s motion.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

AND the “confirmation measurement (in the wild)” that CO2 is a GHG,…

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface | Berkeley Lab

sans a good basic math/science education,… people have no fricken scientific clue what is going on AND will endless argue!

 

[PetraG]

Some glaciers are growing, though most aren’t.

I did note that changes in precipitation patterns could also cause glaciers to retreat. The poster had said that the West was getting “weather” while other places are getting “climate change.” We’re definitely seeing a substantial variation in climate.

 

[phaster]

Providing a long list of article citations is pretty useless.

…listed links because the statement was easy to disprove w/ out having to get stuck in a quagmire of details

but FWIW given human nature where people fall back upon gut instinct (i.e. “storytelling”) to make sense of the world around them,… so the other “man made” problem of mismanagement of resources I’ve mentioned,… “money mismanagement” is “fractal” (which is math term I’ve borrowed to describe the fact that the pattern is repeated at all levels)

phaster:

bottom line,… ignoring manmade climate change and off balance sheet debt obligations is an unappreciated knockout “combo” punch risk!!!

Demonstrating that the Earth actually is warming says nothing whatever about what has caused it.

for example: …middle-class americans forced to live in cars (because they don’t know how to manage money)

…at the local level of government sadly we’ll continue to have a homeless problem (because overconfident and irresponsible elected leadership does not know how to manage money,… which has knock on effects)

Todd Gloria - Wikipedia

www.tinyURL.com/ToddGloria

…at the top level of government (i.e. POTUS) we’ll continue to have problems w/ homelessness and climate change (because overconfident and irresponsible elected leadership does not know how to manage money or understand the basic science of CC,… which has knock on effects)

After Donald Trump’s companies declared four bankruptcies, several major banks stopped loaning him money. But Deutsche Bank didn’t.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/725893104/episode-914-trump-and-deutsche-a-long-affair

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

bottom line (connecting the dots to form of a picture of the most likely scenario),… is an unappreciated knockout “combo” punch which is existential threat to humanity!!!

 

[phaster]

PetraG:

Well, and no one ought to dispute that to the extent that global warming is due increasing levels of CO2 in the air, it would be helpful to have more forests to sop it up.

Trees are not the only plants that sequester CO2. Grass and even dryland shrubs do as well. In addition, there is a lot of CO2 stored in the soil from organic activity, primarily plant sequestration.

if you have a globe handy,… pick it up, and notice anything?

point being oceans cover 2/3 of the earths surface,… so oceans are are the major carbon sink (not “grasslands” or “forest” which cover much less than 1/3 of the earths surface because one also has to account for “deserts”)

If Amazonia is the Earth’s green lung, the Ocean is undoubtedly its blue lung. Half of the oxygen we breathe comes from plankton, more specifically from the photosynthetic organisms that produce oxygen, as any land plant would do. Moreover, the impact of the global ocean on the climate system doesn’t end there. These organisms emit a huge amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, but they also consume carbon dioxide, the famous CO2. During the last decades, the ocean has thus slowed the pace of climate change by absorbing nearly 30% of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.

http://oceans.taraexpeditions.org/e...mportant-criterion-in-current-climate-models/

BTW if you want to read up about a total screwup of mankind mismanaging land resources,… check out what the USSR did to an area in one of the soviet republics

World of Change: Shrinking Aral Sea

http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm

The shrinking Aral Sea | Earth | EarthSky

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...pt-revival-dried-up-lake-190714112622839.html

I’ve actually been to the area,… and seen the destruction (i.e. “desertified by human activity”) first hand,… basically the root cause of the problem was water was diverted to grow cotton (which increased the “green” area)

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

BUT the increased “green” area,… had a few costs, like a huge inland sea disappearing,… BUT on the bright side the “green” area has boosted economic activity (yet again,… at a slight cost)

http://www.cottoncampaign.org/uzbekistans-forced-labor-problem.html

 

[PetraG]

a good basic understanding of physics, chemistry and math is a prerequisite to grasp why the confluence of factors in play,… like long term solar system dynamics and the basic physical properties of a CO2 molecule,… which taken together directly points to the hand of mankind causing climate change,… BUT we know most don’t attend university to formally study climate science

anyway, to answer the question you seem to be asking,… the basic “theory” why CO2 is a GHG is because of physical properties of the molecule

I have a PhD in chemistry. I’m conceding that some people do not accept the science or at least not yet–and I know that a theory is not a working hypothesis but a well-established explanation of nature that is supported by a great deal of evidence. I accept the science as being established by a preponderance of evidence. For a system as big as Earth, that is a very high standard. I’m trying to point out why (a) the acidification of the ocean is a good reason to curb CO2 emissions, even if one doesn’t accept its role as a greenhouse gas, (b) Catholics who don’t accept the science may be guilty of bias, but that it is not a matter of heresy and (c) so on and so on.

I’ll add one more thing. In researching those who in science deny the plausibility of the theory that CO2 emissions by humans are increasing the temperature of the planet, I see them as frankly more likely to be the successors of the disingenuous hired guns who tried to discredit the link between cigarette smoking and cancer than the successors of those scientists who have been subject to ridicule for advancing theories that have been slow to gain acceptance by the scientific community. I can’t say that, but if I was told that one side was definitely hoaxing and I had to bet money, the deniers who have science credentials would get my bet. If one wants to talk about the likelihood of a hoax, I have to say that the naysayers bear more resemblance to integrity-challenged contributors to science debates of the 20th century than those who are saying that global warming is linked to greenhouse gases. That’s not to say they are. That’s only to say that if I’m looking at probabilities, they get my vote.

Having said that, I’m not willing to say that anyone is trying to perpetrate a hoax. I just think the deniers are by far the most likely to be wrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are some who argue that increased CO2 is actually due to desertification of millions upon millions of acres of soil. Trees are not the only plants that sequester CO2. Grass and even dryland shrubs do as well. In addition, there is a lot of CO2 stored in the soil from organic activity, primarily plant sequestration. Remove plants and the CO2 leaches into the atmosphere.

Although this happens to some degree, and reversing desertification can only help the situation, what is lacking is a quantitative analysis of that effect compared to other man-made effects. Are there any among your “some who argue…” that have made the case quantitatively, so as to justify shifting the main emphasis away from CO2 from burning fossil fuels and putting that emphasis instead on land management?

 

[Ender]

…listed links because the statement was easy to disprove w/ out having to get stuck in a quagmire of details

You listed random links because you couldn’t find anything particular with which to support your position. What you refer to as “a quagmire of details” is what constitutes actual evidence, of which you apparently have none at all.

 

[Ender]

I accept the science as being established by a preponderance of evidence.

If there is so much evidence supporting the hyp… theory, why has there also been so much deception and dishonesty in supporting and presenting it? Doesn’t that bother you at least a little?

 

[Ridgerunner]

, I see them as frankly more likely to be the successors of the disingenuous hired guns who tried to discredit the link between cigarette smoking and cancer

When the name calling starts, that’s a good time to discount the post entirely.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

I accept the science as being established by a preponderance of evidence.

If there is so much evidence supporting the hyp… theory, why has there also been so much deception and dishonesty in supporting and presenting it? Doesn’t that bother you at least a little?

There hasn’t been “so much deception and dishonesty.” That is a narrative that has been built up by those who do not agree with theory. Instead of simply presenting a scientific counter-argument, they manufacture all sorts of sensational-sounding conspiracies, intrigue, payoffs, corruption, deception, more suitable for the National Enquirer than for the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Ender]

There hasn’t been “so much deception and dishonesty.” That is a narrative that has been built up by those who do not agree with theory.

@PetraG - is this your perception as well?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Never did I say the oceans have no role in sequestering carbon.

There’s “green” and “green”. It does not help with carbon sequestration to plant things like cotton. Cotton is shallow rooted, puts everything into the plant and is typically then killed by spraying with herbicides prior to being picked mechanically. The above-ground part then decomposes by oxidation, adding carbon to the air, followed by outgassing of the carbon in the shallow root system.

More useful in sequestration are deep-rooted grasses or other plants that remain year-round and bury carbon deep within the soil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are there any among your “some who argue…” that have made the case quantitatively, so as to justify shifting the main emphasis away from CO2 from burning fossil fuels and putting that emphasis instead on land management?

There are people who have, mainly those in the agricultural departments of universities. Some have actually measured the sequestration of, say, prairie grasses. It has been awhile since I have read any of their journal articles, but if I have occasion to look any of them up again, I will. I have posted some here on CAF in the past, but I don’t keep a library of such things. Probably should, I guess.