Why is less than 0.04% CO2 important to climate change?

[spidergoat]

Good point, and it begs the question, why?

There were no humans or large volcanoes.

but at the end of the day, we're talking less than 0.5 C temperature increase

Which is huge, but go on...

and I'd like to see a breakdown on the supposed causes.

You have the internet, don't you? Humans are emitting CO2 in large quantities. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. These levels of CO2 haven't been seen in all of human history. The rate of warming is faster than in all of human history.

I think we'd all prefer what we have now over another ice age.

No, the natural cycle was infinitely preferable to this.

No. I don't like pollution and I don't want it, but in my professional life I've had to mitigate it for a large electric utility where I worked in generation planning and environmental compliance. I understand the trade-offs pretty well, and a carbon tax buys you nothing. Renewables aren't there when you need them, so the only other realistic options (besides coal) are nuclear and natural gas, where nuclear produces NO greenhouse gasses, but who wants it?

Is this your bargaining phase? First you have to accept that there is a problem.

I agree the climate is changing. The real questions are: How much does it matter

It's effecting all life on Earth, so it matters.

how much is caused by CO2

The significant part.

and how much do we really control?

Human activity is completely responsible for increased CO2 levels. There are other sources, but they average out over time.

As an engineer I'm not God to change the forces of nature.

God doesn't exist. People did change the course of the climate, that's as much of a fact as science can say.

On the otherhand I can install scrubbers, change to nuclear power, utilize pump storage, etc. to meet you needs when you turn on the light switch, but it's going to cost you, so don't complain about your rates.

I don't think industrial society has a future, so your adaptation proposals are irrelevant.

 

[billvon]

No. I don't like pollution and I don't want it, but in my professional life I've had to mitigate it for a large electric utility where I worked in generation planning and environmental compliance. I understand the trade-offs pretty well, and a carbon tax buys you nothing. Renewables aren't there when you need them, so the only other realistic options (besides coal) are nuclear and natural gas, where nuclear produces NO greenhouse gasses, but who wants it?

I am fine with it. Unfortunately it's not that reliable or cheap.

I agree the climate is changing. The real questions are: How much does it matter, how much is caused by CO2, and how much do we really control? As an engineer I'm not God to change the forces of nature. On the otherhand I can install scrubbers to reduce SO2 emissions, install selective catalytic reduction to attain NOX goals, change to nuclear power, utilize pump storage, etc. to meet you needs when you turn on the light switch, but it's going to cost you, so don't complain about your rates when we oblige your environmental conscience.

I generate my own power via solar. Not that hard.

 

[Woody1]

Humans are emitting CO2 in large quantities. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. These levels of CO2 haven't been seen in all of human history. The rate of warming is faster than in all of human history.

Indeed. I calculated the CO2 from 7.5 billion humans breathing air as they burn 2400 calories per day. It's a lot more CO2 than you might think, but that wasn't your real point.

Overall the earth's rate (of temperature change) is faster, but the magnitude appears to be small.

No, the natural cycle was infinitely preferable to this.

A lot of people have to go when the earth glaciates. Fortunately we won't be there when that happens.

Is this your bargaining phase? First you have to accept that there is a problem.

The regulations are always a problem to work out. The question is -- what do people really want for their money? I like a pretty environment. I like to catch fish from clean water. The pollution abusers should be dealt with. After that, what do we do?

It's effecting all life on Earth, so it matters.

I think most people agree with that. I live here too, but I hate it when I spend a bunch of money on medical tests just cover the doctor's ass. It's a waste.

I don't think industrial society has a future, so your adaptation proposals are irrelevant.

Are you sure you want to give up all commodities and join the Amish? They renounced the industrial revolution a long time ago. That's what we can expect without the economies of scale (link) that were made possible by industrialization. We've just managed to shift the pollution problem overseas, where we have no authority to regulate it. As far as Americans are concerned -- out of sight means out of mind, right?

 

[origin]

The deniers, zealots and the crazies are coming out of the woodwork. I call it the Trump effect.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because a lot of the subject matter is biased with political polemics.

How is a forum any different? If it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff in articles (written by people), then it's going to apply equally to forum convos (written by people).

The only solution is to educate yourself first, so you can tell the difference.

Unfortunately, this thread is premature - the cart is before the horse. You've already formed a conclusion without even brushing up on the basic facts.

I'm afraid this thread is doomed.

uts on parachute and bails out:

 

[Woody1]

You've already formed a conclusion without even brushing up on the basic facts.

I already agreed that climate change is real. At this stage of the game, I don't necessarily agree with people -- that a 0.4 C change in temperature is a big deal when -- we only recovered 10% of what we lost at the beginning of the ice age. How cold do you want the earth to be anyway? Would you like a glacier in the back yard? I'd kind of like a climate hedge myself, unless there is a compelling reason to live like an Eskimo.

By the way, I suspect that deforestation (link) has played a greater role in climate change compared to CO2. CO2 is good for plants by the way. They love it.

 

[spidergoat]

Overall the rate (of temperature change) is faster, but the magnitude appears to be small.

Obviously small changes in CO2 have a large measurable effect. Is this a difficult concept?

A lot of people have to go when the earth glaciates. Fortunately we won't be there when that happens.

You can't equate a process that takes thousands of years to one that is having dangerous effects year to year.

The regulations are always a problem. The question is -- what do people really want for their money? I like a pretty environment. I like to catch fish from clean water. The abusers should be dealt with. After that, what do we do?

We aren't talking about pollution. CO2 can be perfectly clean, but it will kill your fish anyway. Fish are sensitive to small changes in temperature.

Are you ready to join the Amish? They renounced the industrial revolution a long time ago.

I prefer the hippies, better parties. But basically yes. Industrial economies are inherently unsustainable. Even powered by solar energy. The Democrats are lying to you if they say you can have your cake and eat it too. The Republicans don't even admit the science is true. I believe things will collapse on their own when fossil fuels become less accessible and more expensive. Our economy can't run on anything else.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I don't necessarily agree with people...

Well, you opened this thread by presenting the refractive index of air and C02 as part of your knowledge, so I guess you've come a long way relatively since then. But you've got a long way to go before you should start forming conclusions. And you won't be able to do anything with mere data.

You came here for wisdom on climate change and CO2; why not take it?

Perhaps I'll come back later and see if there's been progreeeeeeeeesssssssss*.
* me falling freely with ripcord in-hand

 

[spidergoat]

How cold do you want the earth to be anyway? Would you like a glacier in the back yard? I'd kind of like a climate hedge myself, unless there is a compelling reason to live like an Eskimo.

That's not a danger. Get real. Grow up.

 

[Woody1]

Well, you opened this thread by presenting the the refractive index of air and C02 as part of your knowledge,

Actually I dismissed refraction index from the beginning. There is no way it could explain global warming.

I won't find the answers I'm looking for here, unfortunately, but I found some pretty good references on my own.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? (link)

"Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true."

Now that's my kind of science reference!

 

[Woody1]

That's not a danger. Get real. Grow up.

Get real and growing you say. So do tell us, Spidergoat, do you still plan to give up commodities and go live like the Amish?

 

[Woody1]

I don't think industrial society has a future, so your adaptation proposals are irrelevant.

The same can be said for bull-dozing trees off of the land and constructing any kind of a building instead of planting replacements.
You're an architect designer. That doesn't sound very promising.

 

[Woody1]

Obviously small changes in CO2 have a large measurable effect. Is this a difficult concept?

"Small" and "large" are relative terms. I can agree that more CO2 increases the temperature to some degree.

You can't equate a process that takes thousands of years to one that is having dangerous effects year to year.

"Dangerous" is also a relative term. We don't know what the risks could be.

We aren't talking about pollution. CO2 can be perfectly clean, but it will kill your fish anyway. Fish are sensitive to small changes in temperature.

My tropical fish were sensitive to chilly temperatures. Whereas in temperate climates, the fish survive temperatures from tepid to near freezing every year. The bottom of a lake is always about 20 degree F different from the top. In theory though, I can agree that warm water affects spawning, etc. It also holds less oxygen. In my environmental experience, the BOD (link) is the worst thing on the fish. It does everything wrong -- it depletes the oxygen, grows algae, increases CO2, and raises water temperature. It comes mainly from sewage.

I prefer the hippies, better parties. But basically yes. Industrial economies are inherently unsustainable. Even powered by solar energy.

Everything is made in China, and that's who we buy from. Industry creates new money, and it shows in China's economy. The service industries are just swapping old money.

The Democrats are lying to you if they say you can have your cake and eat it too. The Republicans don't even admit the science is true. I believe things will collapse on their own when fossil fuels become less accessible and more expensive. Our economy can't run on anything else.

It looks like nuclear will be the only thing left.

 

[spidergoat]

"Small" and "large" are relative terms. I can agree that more CO2 increases the temperature to some degree.

Then you agree with me. Humans emit large amounts of CO2, larger than all natural sources combined.

"Dangerous" is also a relative term. We don't know what the risks could be.

No you don't know because you choose to be ignorant.

My tropical fish were sensitive to chilly temperatures. Fish survive from tepid to near freezing every year in temperate climates.

Stop being stupid. Many species are sensitive to small changes in temperature and salinity.

Everything is made in China, and that's who we buy from. Industry creates new money, and it shows in China's economy. The service industries are just swapping old money.

So what?

 

[spidergoat]

Get real and growing you say. So do tell us, Spidergoat, do you still plan to give up commodities and go live like the Amish?

Fuck no. I won't be doing that until it's necessary. But it would be good to be prepared.

 

[spidergoat]

The same can be said for bull-dozing trees off of the land and constructing any kind of a building instead of planting replacements.
You're an architect designer. That doesn't sound very promising.

I'm not an architect.

 

[Woody1]

Then you agree with me. Humans emit large amounts of CO2, larger than all natural sources combined.

No you don't know because you choose to be ignorant.

No. I choose to observe facts. Computer models can be acceptable when they model the right thing. I don't accept crystal balls.

Stop being stupid. Many species are sensitive to small changes in temperature and salinity.

Eutrophication killed the fish in Lake Erie (link), not CO2 in the air, or air pollution. It would be stupid to say otherwise. Eutrophication does all the bad things with temperature, CO2, O2, etc. You'll know it when you see it -- from the slimy green algae-choaked water and a foul smell -- with dead fish everywhere if any were still swimming. I know several places that suffered from it. It's starting to overload the oceans too.

I was a member of NANFA (link). The USA has 150 darter species, and that is far more than the rest of the world combined. They are super-specialized to small ecosystems. Do you know how they survived glaciation? I kept a nice aquarium with rainbow darters. Here's a pic:

So what?

We owe China. Do you have any ideas on how to pay them back?

 

[Woody1]

I'm not an architect.

So when brick and mortar goes away, you still have a job, right?

 

[spidergoat]

So when brick and mortar goes away, you still have a job, right?

It's not about what we want. Circumstances will dictate what's possible, not technology.

 

[Kristoffer]

It's like creationists (I presume you are not one of those.).

In one of his first posts (back) here he linked a thread he made 10 years ago as Woody. His tag line was something like "Musical creationist", so...