Climate Change Catchment Thread

[Desert Fox]

I think we need to plan for a worst case situation

[CarbShark]

... But my point was that nature makes no difference between "natural" carbon and "unnatural carbon". Whatever the source, any carbon contributes to global warming.

True but irrelevant: The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere today is enormously greater because of human-caused emissions than it would have been without those emissions. And it's the quantity that matters.

Volcanic eruptions can put even more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans can. That's probably what accounted for prehistoric periods of global warming (and they accompanied mass extictions).

Another factor is the increase in wildfires world wide. Trees absorb a lot of CO2, much better than the brush that replaces them after a fire.

Fires in North and South America over the last few years have not only emitted significant carbon but have also impacted the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere.

I have believed for quite some time (since Al Gore was proposing the Paris agreement) that predictions made by scientists about global warming have been overly conservative, and I think in general they still are.

Things are actually significantly worse than you think, and you're the pessimist around here.

[bachfiend]

... But my point was that nature makes no difference between "natural" carbon and "unnatural carbon". Whatever the source, any carbon contributes to global warming.

True but irrelevant: The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere today is enormously greater because of human-caused emissions than it would have been without those emissions. And it's the quantity that matters.

Volcanic eruptions can put even more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans can. That's probably what accounted for prehistoric periods of global warming (and they accompanied mass extictions).

Another factor is the increase in wildfires world wide. Trees absorb a lot of CO2, much better than the brush that replaces them after a fire.

Fires in North and South America over the last few years have not only emitted significant carbon but have also impacted the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere.

I have believed for quite some time (since Al Gore was proposing the Paris agreement) that predictions made by scientists about global warming have been overly conservative, and I think in general they still are.

Things are actually significantly worse than you think, and you're the pessimist around here.

No, that's incorrect - volcanos don't put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans can.  The gases emitted by volcanic eruptions are mainly water vapour and sulphur dioxide (explosive volcanic eruptions are partly due to the boiling of water as the pressure within the lava drops as it reaches the surface, and the sulphur dioxide causes global cooling when it combines with water to form droplets of sulphuric acid in the upper atmosphere reflecting sunlight).

If volcanic eruptions cause global warming, then it's usually due to them igniting fires in plant matter, either in forest fires or coal deposits (as in the end of Permian mass extinction due the mass volcanic eruptions in Siberia) raising atmospheric CO2 levels.

[CarbShark]

Ooops, volcanos do directly emit CO2 via eruptions and indirectly via fires, but not on the scale of human output. Although, theoretically, a massive super volcanic eruption could. But if that happened CO2 in the atmosphere would be the least of our problems.

[bachfiend]

Ooops, volcanos do directly emit CO2 via eruptions and indirectly via fires, but not on the scale of human output. Although, theoretically, a massive super volcanic eruption could. But if that happened CO2 in the atmosphere would be the least of our problems.

Yes, that's right.  If the supervolcano under Yellowstone goes off (and it's overdue), then the global cooling would be catastrophic far surpassing Tambora in 1815 (which led to 'the Year without a Summer'). Not to mention the thick layer of ash blanketing much of American cropland.

[arthwollipot]

I think we need to plan for a worst case situation

Of course. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. It's basic crisis management.

[werecow]

Ooops, volcanos do directly emit CO2 via eruptions and indirectly via fires, but not on the scale of human output. Although, theoretically, a massive super volcanic eruption could. But if that happened CO2 in the atmosphere would be the least of our problems.

Yeah, specifically, the USGS stated (citing data from 2003) that volcanic CO2 emissions were less than 1 percent that of manmade emissions, at 200 million tonnes vs 26.8 billion tonnes that year (the number was 36.8 Gt in 2022).

[arthwollipot]

Ooops, volcanos do directly emit CO2 via eruptions and indirectly via fires, but not on the scale of human output. Although, theoretically, a massive super volcanic eruption could. But if that happened CO2 in the atmosphere would be the least of our problems.

Yeah, specifically, the USGS stated (citing data from 2003) that volcanic CO2 emissions were less than 1 percent that of manmade emissions, at 200 million tonnes vs 26.8 billion tonnes that year (the number was 36.8 Gt in 2022).

That'll all change when the Yellowstone supervolcano goes off, though.

[werecow]

Tangentially relevant and interesting, so will just leave this here:

[RickyDMMont2ya]

I think we need to plan for a worst case situation

Worst case is a planet that is not able to be inhabited by humans. What kind of planning are you proposing for that?

[Desert Fox]

I think we need to plan for a worst case situation

Worst case is a planet that is not able to be inhabited by humans. What kind of planning are you proposing for that?

Okay, fair enough. . . . .I am arguing that I think we need to plan for people not doing anything to fight climate change until it becomes horrible.

[werecow]

I think we need to plan for a worst case situation

Worst case is a planet that is not able to be inhabited by humans. What kind of planning are you proposing for that?

Okay, fair enough. . . . .I am arguing that I think we need to plan for people not doing anything to fight climate change until it becomes horrible.

That would require acknowledging the problem.

[RickyDMMont2ya]

Here is a likely scenario:

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7

I consider SLR likely will not become a critical factor until after civilization has already collapsed. SLR will be an important factor threatening the small number of survivors who make it past 2050.

...

The warming we experience starting in 2024 could very well activate significant methane releases from arctic circle permafrost, or cause the first Blue Ocean Event. Any prolonged decrease in economic activity could drop our aerosol shield even further. If any of those happen we could see 2.0°C by the end of the decade. If all of those happened together it could be 2.5°C or even higher. Nothing can adapt that fast.

...

 Anyone expecting governments to "wake up" once climate impacts become too large to ignore will be sorely surprised to find only gun barrels in the climate plan. Our government does not stand by ready to help, but ready to violently destroy us when we resist. It is entirely possible (I won't say likely, but definitely possible) that 2024 could be the last US presidential election. Emergency powers should make it possible for whoever holds power at that time to maintain control until collapse of governance.

...

This article by Bill Rees is titled Yes, the Climate Crisis May Wipe out Six Billion People: "a climate symposium organized to discuss the implications of a 4C warmer world concluded, "Less than a billion people will survive." Here Schellnhuber is quoted as saying: "At 4C Earth's... carrying capacity estimates are below 1 billion people." His words were echoed by professor Kevin Anderson of the U.K.'s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change: "Only about 10 per cent of the planet's population would survive at 4C. Similarly, in May of this year, Johan Rockström, current director of the Potsdam Institute opined that in a 4C warmer world: "It's difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that."

...

It's notable to look at how some of those estimates are worded. We're not talking about a best guess 1 billion with error margins plus/minus. We're talking about 1 billion on the high end, with the unspoken low end of the estimate range being zero.

Start preparing.

[CarbShark]

The warming we experience starting in 2024 could very well activate significant methane releases from arctic circle permafrost, or cause the first Blue Ocean Event. Any prolonged decrease in economic activity could drop our aerosol shield even further. If any of those happen we could see 2.0°C (3.6f) by the end of the decade. If all of those happened together it could be 2.5°C (4.5f) or even higher. Nothing can adapt that fast.

Any time those numbers are used they should be converted to Fahrenheit.

Most Americans don't know Celsius and to many of them those numbers are meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant proportion thought 2c was less than 2f. And, it's those Americans who we need to reach to get public consensus on Global Warming.

I know scientists and the rest of the world like to look down at Americans for not embracing metrics, and that's fine just about everywhere else.

But Global Warming is too important to not do everything to reach the people we need the most.

1.8 * 2 = 3.6

1.8 * 2.5 = 4.5

[gmalivuk]

I believe you've made this argument before. Are any of these alleged Americans who you think could be reached if only we'd convert temperature changes to Fahrenheit here on this forum?