A Very Good Demo Of Global Warming's Cause

[stromboli]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/?utm_source=The+Weekly+Pique&utm_campaign=cf7d4cd5ac-Episode+12%3A+Global+Warming&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4627876a86-cf7d4cd5ac-297062977

Show this to your skeptic friends

[Baruch]

Right ... definitely greenhouse gases ... at least in this simplified model ...

But ... human co2 and natural co2 ... how much of each?

And given that the human co2 is the only human controllable part (aside from deforestation) ... what is required is a lot less co2 per person produced times a lot less people.  It is the lot less people part ... that is controversial.  Also we don't have too many people seeking a 50% reduction in standard of living ... which is driven by BTUs consumed per person per year.  For example energy usage for Americans per capita is higher than say France ... because we have a lot larger country to cross, than a country that is smaller than Texas.

[Hydra009]

Show this to your skeptic friends

Pseudoskeptic/denialist friends, to be more precise.

[Hydra009]

Right ... definitely greenhouse gases ... at least in this simplified model ...

But ... human co2 and natural co2 ... how much of each?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

Quite a large change and extremely recent.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is not attributable to natural sources.

And given that the human co2 is the only human controllable part (aside from deforestation) ... what is required is a lot less co2 per person produced times a lot less people.  It is the lot less people part ... that is controversial.  Also we don't have too many people seeking a 50% reduction in standard of living ... which is driven by BTUs consumed per person per year.  For example energy usage for Americans per capita is higher than say France ... because we have a lot larger country to cross, than a country that is smaller than Texas.

This is part of the reason (the other being cost savings) for the huge push towards renewables and nuclear fusion and higher-efficiency devices (CFL bulbs or LEDs, better mpg automobiles, etc).  But yes, there's a lot of ground to cover and it's undoubtedly going to take a while to transition away from fossil fuels.  Meanwhile, a lot of damage has been done and will accumulate until we get our collective act together.  Less people would certainly help, though that's not in the cards anytime soon.  Though, fortunately, the population bulge is expected to recede at around 2050 or so.

[Baruch]

Be an optimist about human population trends if you want.  The four horsemen will take care of that.

Transition off of fossil fuel should have been a Space-race level activity since 1980 ... but President Reagan stopped that at the behest of his oily friends.  Big coal, big oil, big gas ... is politically dominant ... and even get subsidies from the government in their corporate taxes.  If the US wasn't politically bankrupt ... then maybe that social forced march would have happened, and we would be less dependent on foreign petroleum.

Low concentration renewables ... force massive changes, even if we had a much smaller population.  High concentration non-renewables ... had a great advantage, particularly in warfare.

[SGOS]

Nice graphic that breaks down causes of warming (and cooling) and then brings it altogether at the end.  I didn't know about some factors causing cooling.  Obviously, lots of factors work together, which the deniers have latched onto to support their "It's not man" scenario.  Yeah, the earth wobbles, volcanoes belch, and you can actually see the fluctuations they cause.  It kind of makes their case, doesn't it?

But then throw up the graph of industrial green house gasses, which is so out of proportion to any of the other causes, that man's contribution becomes glaring.   One of the things (I think), that obscures the reality from deniers is that it happens over a long time, and can't be observed very well in a single life time, although that may be about to change.   

<sarcasm> "Longer than a single lifetime?  Why that's almost the same as 100,000 years.  Right?  That means that one lifetime doesn't have hardly any effect at all.  How can you add 'very little effects in one lifetime' to many lifetimes, and get a huge effect?  That's like saying many small mutations over millions of years causes apes to turn into people!  It simply can't happen."

[stromboli]

The scenario is complicated by several issues including ocean currents, El Nino events, the mixing of melting fresh water with salt water, salinity and several other factors. It takes a lot of computational power to make anything like a prediction, but climate trends over time are a good indicator of what HAS happened, and that picture is certainly clear. ND Tyson did about as good a job as anyone to explain it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

[SGOS]

The scenario is complicated by several issues including ocean currents, El Nino events, the mixing of melting fresh water with salt water, salinity and several other factors. It takes a lot of computational power to make anything like a prediction, but climate trends over time are a good indicator of what HAS happened, and that picture is certainly clear. ND Tyson did about as good a job as anyone to explain it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

I remember Al Gore explaining how 10,000 years ago in An Inconvenient Truth, how climate changed the direction of the gulf stream and plunged Northern Europe into an ice age.  As I mentioned somewhere else a couple of times, an oceanographer told me that because of the fluidity of water, ocean currents will experience the most change from global warming, and that ends up drastically changing the climate of landmasses.  I also heard a meteorologist on NPR recently say that there isn't enough data on global warming to make specific predictions.  For example, that the drought in California is a result of global warming, but there is enough data to predict that such things will be the result.  He said as the data starts coming in, they will be able to make better predictions.

Unfortunately, this is something the deniers seize, and somehow translate into you can't prove anything, and hence, man is not the problem.

[Draconic Aiur]

So im causing global warming just for driving in a truck?

Not big companies puffing out all the toxins into the air or nuclear shit streaming into places?

Thats some bullshit right there

[Hydra009]

so im causing global warming just for driving in a truck?

In a very minute way, yes.  All of us are.  Even an electric car would contribute because the US electric grid is about 2/3 fossil fuels.

Not big companies puffing out all the toxins into the air or nuclear shit streaming into places?

Industrial plants account for 21% of US greenhouse gas emissions.  But they're trumped by transportation greenhouse gas emissions at 27% of the total.

Nuclear waste is a separate issue, though I suppose it does contribute since nuclear waste is transported to various sites in the US.

[SGOS]

So im causing global warming just for driving in a truck?

Yep, even if you trade in the truck for a Honda Civic Hybrid.

[stromboli]

So im causing global warming just for driving in a truck?

Not big companies puffing out all the toxins into the air or nuclear shit streaming into places?

Thats some bullshit right there

The answer is yes and yes. You might be only adding a miniscule amount of Carbon individually, but times that by millions and you are contributing to a continuing addition of Carbon to the atmosphere. And yes, coal companies and other fossil fuel sources are contributing as well. Gasoline is a big contributor but so is open fires- the fact is that millions of people still use open fires and coal or wood stoves to heat their homes and cook their food. Barbecuing with charcoal adds more. It is cumulative, but only an effort that stops all of the different combined uses of fuels that generate Carbon will be completely effective.

Electric cars ironically only help if they are fueled from a carbon free source- a coal fired power plant charging an electric car is not a net gain. Hydrogen is a good source because it is nearly limitless and has no carbon or nitrate remainder. Solar also. The fact is that solar could virtually eliminate other power plants if developed, along with tide power, wind and so on.

[Baruch]

Correction ... hydrogen is not a freely available energy source ... it has to be generated by separating water into two elements, hydrogen and oxygen.  It is a method of storing energy, an alternative to batteries.

[aitm]

Roughly 80% of the world believes if you pray enough and long enough magic happens. So attempting to convince them that this is real is pretty much like telling them that their prayers don't work….oh wait……..yeah

[stromboli]

Correction ... hydrogen is not a freely available energy source ... it has to be generated by separating water into two elements, hydrogen and oxygen.  It is a method of storing energy, an alternative to batteries.

1. I served aboard ship that routinely made oxygen from sea water. The byproduct was Hydrogen. That is very old technology, circa 1960. Honda is now in the process of establishing Hydrogen fuel stations for a Hydrogen powered car.

2. Honda has a hydrogen powered car
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/fuel-cell-evolution.aspx

whether you want to consider that as "freely available" or not, it is certainly abundant. And Hydrogen in the form of a fuel cell is also old technology; the fuel cell was the issue, solved for the most part by Honda.

Maybe I'm ignorant of the energy methodology of how Hydrogen runs a car, but it has to do with combustion and we aren't combusting gasoline. And it does constitute a clean alternative to fossil fuels.