The global population estimates for that time period are around 700 million. Presently, we’re sitting at almost 10 times that number, and in 1750 (the beginning of the Industrial Revolution), it was only a small portion of the total population that was actively spewing out large amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub]. The estimate for for Britain’s population at the time is some 10 million people. It is, of course, utterly impossible for us to drop the levels down to that amount.
The way it looks to me, if we’re going to reverse this, we’ll have to stop almost all CO[sub]2[/sub] production, simply freezing it at levels above those of 1750 won’t be enough. Am I wrong here? And how the heck are we going to do this?
This assumes that climate change occurs if the levels of C02 rise above the levels present in 1750. I don’t think this is true. It is entirely likely that the atmoshere can absorb much more C02 than was produced in 1750 without seeing any climate change. The tipping point is probably much later, though I have no cite for that.
As was previously answered, we don’t need to drop below pre-1750 levels. Also, CO2 is not the only thing we’ve done to poison the planet. Look at the water we drink. Don’t get me started.
We aren’t going to do it anyway. Europe is making some efforts that are noteworthy. America is run by big business and that’s the end of that. Many individuals are doing what they can, although that isn’t going to solve the problem. China isn’t going to listen to anyone and they are rabid ratshit polluters. They are still BUILDING coal plants for chrissake.
The earth will most likely continue even after we poison it and if most of the known life forms vanish due to our idiocy. Evidence points to mass exterminations and global cataclysms in the past, and yet here we are. Hell, maybe something better than humans will come along.
Tuckerfan, according to my readings on this subject, nothing as drastic as you suggested is needed. We want to keep things from getting much warmer and it seems to be believed that we need to reduce current emissions by between 50% and 80% to prevent the severe effects of AGW.
Well, the now-extinct wildlife of 1750 put out CO[sub]2[/sub] & methane too. Anyway, it’s not just how much carbon you oxidize, it’s much you de-oxidize as well. More reforestation could help a lot.
There is a certain amount of temperature rise that is going to happen regardless of what we do - we’ve already experienced some of it, and some will continue to occur even if we stop using all fossil fuels and hold our collective breaths for the next century.
The point is not to stop all future temperature rise - that would not be possible. The point is to keep the temperature rise to a manageable level that we can live with and adapt to (although for some, the word ‘adaptation’ is a dirty word in this situation, it will be necessary in addition to mitigation.) Different people will give you different answers on how high temperature has to go before very bad things happen, but that’s the problem in a nutshell.
If we can get to a point where human carbon emissions are within the range that can be removed from the atmosphere by sequestration and natural processes, then we’ll have relatively little influence on the climate system.
I don’t have a direct response to the OP, but this seemed like an opportune time to put this video out for consideration–and my apologies if this isn’t a new thing; I did try to search to see if it’s been broached but didn’t find anything directly.
At any rate, I think the guy in the video makes an awful lot of sense and I don’t see any flaws in his reasoning. Since the topic relates directly to the OP and has a bearing on what we need to do to interrupt the GW cycle as well as how we approach it I’d like to see reactions and comments from the Teeming Millions–is this guy talking way too much sense or what?
A flaw in his reasoning is that he explicitly says not to take into account the probability that global warming is going to happen. His argument does not change if you replace “global warming” with “asteroid impact” or “alien invasion” or “I Am Legend-style zombie vampire virus”.
It seems to me that the things you’re positing have one thing in common with each other in that they’re all things that we can’t see happening right in front of our noses and therefore don’t have much in common with the issue under discussion, which is AGW. Another difference is that we do actually know many ways to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases, whereas we have no empirical knowledge of how to avoid asteroids, invading aliens or zombie viruses–so from where I sit your examples change the tone and tenor of the analysis fairly considerably.
At this point, is anyone of an intelligence greater than the average cherrystone clam still maintaining that global warming is a myth? Perhaps it’s naive of me to assume that others are holding back from reluctance to spend the money and commit to an unpopular course when perhaps it’s more likely a level of denial unprecedented in history–no mean feat, that.
Well, they do say no one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public.
Are these writings by the same folks who said that the North Pole would be ice free in the summer by [del]2100[/del] [del]2050[/del] 2012?
And how much reforestation will it take and how much land will be needed to do this? According to a BBC science podcast I heard recently, Katrina destroyed or damaged some 300 million trees and the CO[sub]2[/sub] output of that was enough to counteract all the CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbed by trees in the US.
I never saw anyone mention the ice free North Pole by 2012 or even 2050. I have seen beliefs that the North-West passage might open up by 2020 at the rate we are already warming up.
I don’t understand the CO[sub]2[/sub] output of the tree part. It sounds like bad science to me, but then I am not a scientist. Besides, it is actually one of the simpler things we can do, plant more trees and protect more forests.
Global warming is not a myth, but it’s entirely possible it’s caused by the sun, and not us. And yes, my intelligence is slightly higher than a cherry pit and/or a mollusk.
Right, but my point is that he specifically says we should ignore the evidence we see that AGW is happening. He says not to worry about how likely it is that the worst AGW scenario is true; we should act as if it is because it is such a terrible outcome. He’s doing a cost-benefit analysis without the analysis. In fact it reminds me a bit of Pascal’s Wager, with an AGW doomsday instead of God’s existence.
In a real analysis of the situation, you do have to consider the likelihood of the various predicted outcomes. As well, it’s really a continuum, not a choice between “AGW is wrong” and “AGW is a complete doomsday”, or between “we do nothing” and “we spend all our resources”.
I will just note as an aside that I am personally fairly convinced that AGW is real to some degree, although I am not an expert by any means. In my comments above, I am only talking about the particular argument given in the video.
Possible and likely are two different things. Currently AGW is the most accepted theory and that is a different debate. We have had no shortage of threads on it. The Solar theory has been brought up in nearly every one.
Just to add to what What Exit? said, that is an article in the popular press from 10 years ago that doesn’t even have enough to go on to figure out what actual scientific paper it is referring to. In the meantime, the intervening 10 years have not been very kind to the solar hypothesis. (See, for example, here and here [PDF file] with more detail here [PDF file].)
It is also worth noting that, in addition to the problems with getting the right time dependence particularly on the post-1970s warming, the known mechanism by which the sun can change the climate (i.e., the direct change in irradiance) is too weak to account for the size of the effects seen so one has to come up with some amplifier. The effect also has to explain the warming of the troposphere but accompanying cooling of the stratosphere (which simple solar irradiance change wouldn’t predict). Furthermore, one has to explain why the known forcing due to greenhouse gases is not producing significant warming…i.e., one has to posit that the climate is very insensitive to radiative forcings presumably due to negative feedbacks, in contradiction both to climate models and the available empirical evidence from what is understood of past climatic changes such as the glacial - interglacial cycles.
In other words, there are very good reasons why the solar hypothesis hasn’t really gotten anywhere in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
I’ll try to dig up a cite on it, but after this summer’s massive thawing (when the Northwest Passage basically did open up), the current estimates are around 2012 or so.
As for the trees producing CO[sub]2[/sub], they do that when they repair themselves or decay.
