4 ms·

Y'know - and I'm trying to make this pithy rather than low effort - you sound like a Ptolemaic astronomer going on about epicycles because you can't wrap your m

Y'know - and I'm trying to make this pithy rather than low effort - you sound like a Ptolemaic astronomer going on about epicycles because you can't wrap your mind around heliocentrism. Anthropogenic emissions dominate climate change, and will for the remainder of the athropocene. The jury is in.

chrisco255 6y ago
No they don't. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, which means we will get diminishing returns on warming as time goes on. And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. You are the one lacking heliocentrism. You think the climate revolves around human activity.
- sushshshsh 6y ago
  I for one lie in the "humans cause global warming but I am apathetic about trying to stop it from happening." Regardless of the cause, I think both of you would be doing well to think about how to produce food and energy and breathable air in a warming and ever industrializing world, and how much government intervention is needed (if any).
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Well, I'm not sure what you mean by diminishing returns, because you can't mean it literally. At some point, you get Venus. I can't recall what leads to a lot more CO2 being released, but there's something. Not in the next hundred years, of course.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Venus has 2400 times the atmospheric CO2 concentration of earth. It is 96% CO2. It also has an opaque atmosphere which prevents a lot of solar energy from radiating out on the dark side of the planet (as occurs on cloudless areas of earth at night). There isn't even that much carbon on planet earth. Perhaps the highest the earth has ever had was around 7000 parts per million. Mars atmosphere is also mostly CO2 but it's a frozen waste land. Of course, other factors are at play in deciding the temperature of Venus, Earth, and Mars besides CO2. The greenhouse effect as described involves CO2 as a gas blocking a narrow band of IR solar light from being re-emitted into outer space. This is a probabilistic process, as gas molecules are in constant motion as are photons. As you increase the concentration of CO2, the effect becomes saturated, since the gas is already stacked in three dimensions. So there is less IR energy to absorb that isn't already being captured. Clouds and atmospheric H2O have a much higher impact on climate. These are driven by oceanic patterns (which themselves are caused by geologic and solar forces).
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >Venus has 2400 times the atmospheric CO2 concentration of earth ... >There isn't even that much carbon on planet earth I think there is. I believe it's generally accepted that on the order of 20,000-100,000 times the atmospheric CO2 is found in rocks on Earth. Not even necessarily including the mantle. "The amount of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 is only .00095% of the total carbon on Earth." https://projectvesta.org/wiki/long-term-carbonate-cycle/ https://projectvesta.org/wiki/long-term-carbonate-cycle/ "...the atmosphere, storing 735 gigatons (0.001%) of the world’s carbon as carbon dioxide (CO2)...and 62,000,000 gigatons (99.9%) in sedimentary rocks (e.g., limestone and dolomite)" https://biocyclopedia.com/index/algae/biogeochemical_role_of_algae/algae_and_the_oxygen_carbon_cycles.php https://biocyclopedia.com/index/algae/biogeochemical_role_of... I didn't really think this was obscure.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  > And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. I'm sure NASA or some other credible scientific organization must have reported on this highly intriguing idea. Link?
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Sure, here's a few: Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume "Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 Here's a good talk from NASA JPL last year stating we still have a very poor model for changes in cloud cover over time and the dramatic effect clouds have on climate : https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI The Holocene Asian monsoon: links to solar changes and North Atlantic climate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ Synchronous 500-year oscillations of monsoon climate and human activity in Northeast Asia "This ~500-year cyclicity in the monsoon and thus environmental change triggered the development of prehistoric cultures in Northeast China. The cyclicity is apparently linked to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, against the background of long-term Holocene climatic evolution." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ Impacts of the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula and sea ice "We suggest that the north and tropical Atlantic is important for projections of future climate change in Antarctica, and has the potential to affect the global thermohaline circulation6 and sea-level change3,12." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 Etc, etc...there's probably thousands of studies on the AMO, PDO, NAO, ENSO, etc. On pubmed, Nature, etc. I highly recommend taking a look at some of those.
    - dwaltrip 6y ago
      We are discussing “climate change”, something that has been occurring over the past 200 or so years. Yet the first link your provide in response to my query is discussing cycles with periods of 100,000 years, with no mention of anything related to the modern climate change events (at least, nothing in the abstract). ... What’s the deal? This is a complete non-sequitor.
nostrademons 6y ago
> Anthropogenic emissions dominate climate change, and will for the remainder of the athropocene. That's true by definition, since the anthropocene is defined as the geologic era where humans have had a measurable effect on the geologic record. The anthropocene may or may not actually exist for future species' geologists. One fairly likely scenario I can imagine is that global warming leads to mass migrations, which lead to nuclear war, which lead to the deaths of 90% of the human population and the reversal of anthropogenic climate change. Boom, global warming solved...except that'll be cold comfort (literally) for the 90% of us who are dead. If it happens, it'll probably happen before 2100, which means the anthropocene will last less than 150 years, a blink of an eye in geologic time. Future dino-geologists will observe it as a very thin layer that led to a change in the radiation signature and composition of elements in the earth's crust, as well as a small mass extinction. Come to think of it, that's not all that different from the K-T boundary.

chrisco255 6y ago

No they don't. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, which means we will get diminishing returns on warming as time goes on. And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. You are the one lacking heliocentrism. You think the climate revolves around human activity.

sushshshsh 6y ago
I for one lie in the "humans cause global warming but I am apathetic about trying to stop it from happening." Regardless of the cause, I think both of you would be doing well to think about how to produce food and energy and breathable air in a warming and ever industrializing world, and how much government intervention is needed (if any).
perl4ever 6y ago
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by diminishing returns, because you can't mean it literally. At some point, you get Venus. I can't recall what leads to a lot more CO2 being released, but there's something. Not in the next hundred years, of course.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Venus has 2400 times the atmospheric CO2 concentration of earth. It is 96% CO2. It also has an opaque atmosphere which prevents a lot of solar energy from radiating out on the dark side of the planet (as occurs on cloudless areas of earth at night). There isn't even that much carbon on planet earth. Perhaps the highest the earth has ever had was around 7000 parts per million. Mars atmosphere is also mostly CO2 but it's a frozen waste land. Of course, other factors are at play in deciding the temperature of Venus, Earth, and Mars besides CO2. The greenhouse effect as described involves CO2 as a gas blocking a narrow band of IR solar light from being re-emitted into outer space. This is a probabilistic process, as gas molecules are in constant motion as are photons. As you increase the concentration of CO2, the effect becomes saturated, since the gas is already stacked in three dimensions. So there is less IR energy to absorb that isn't already being captured. Clouds and atmospheric H2O have a much higher impact on climate. These are driven by oceanic patterns (which themselves are caused by geologic and solar forces).
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    >Venus has 2400 times the atmospheric CO2 concentration of earth ... >There isn't even that much carbon on planet earth I think there is. I believe it's generally accepted that on the order of 20,000-100,000 times the atmospheric CO2 is found in rocks on Earth. Not even necessarily including the mantle. "The amount of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 is only .00095% of the total carbon on Earth." https://projectvesta.org/wiki/long-term-carbonate-cycle/ https://projectvesta.org/wiki/long-term-carbonate-cycle/ "...the atmosphere, storing 735 gigatons (0.001%) of the world’s carbon as carbon dioxide (CO2)...and 62,000,000 gigatons (99.9%) in sedimentary rocks (e.g., limestone and dolomite)" https://biocyclopedia.com/index/algae/biogeochemical_role_of_algae/algae_and_the_oxygen_carbon_cycles.php https://biocyclopedia.com/index/algae/biogeochemical_role_of... I didn't really think this was obscure.
dwaltrip 6y ago
> And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. I'm sure NASA or some other credible scientific organization must have reported on this highly intriguing idea. Link?
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Sure, here's a few: Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume "Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 Here's a good talk from NASA JPL last year stating we still have a very poor model for changes in cloud cover over time and the dramatic effect clouds have on climate : https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI The Holocene Asian monsoon: links to solar changes and North Atlantic climate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ Synchronous 500-year oscillations of monsoon climate and human activity in Northeast Asia "This ~500-year cyclicity in the monsoon and thus environmental change triggered the development of prehistoric cultures in Northeast China. The cyclicity is apparently linked to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, against the background of long-term Holocene climatic evolution." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ Impacts of the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula and sea ice "We suggest that the north and tropical Atlantic is important for projections of future climate change in Antarctica, and has the potential to affect the global thermohaline circulation6 and sea-level change3,12." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 Etc, etc...there's probably thousands of studies on the AMO, PDO, NAO, ENSO, etc. On pubmed, Nature, etc. I highly recommend taking a look at some of those.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    We are discussing “climate change”, something that has been occurring over the past 200 or so years. Yet the first link your provide in response to my query is discussing cycles with periods of 100,000 years, with no mention of anything related to the modern climate change events (at least, nothing in the abstract). ... What’s the deal? This is a complete non-sequitor.

nostrademons 6y ago

> Anthropogenic emissions dominate climate change, and will for the remainder of the athropocene. That's true by definition, since the anthropocene is defined as the geologic era where humans have had a measurable effect on the geologic record. The anthropocene may or may not actually exist for future species' geologists. One fairly likely scenario I can imagine is that global warming leads to mass migrations, which lead to nuclear war, which lead to the deaths of 90% of the human population and the reversal of anthropogenic climate change. Boom, global warming solved...except that'll be cold comfort (literally) for the 90% of us who are dead. If it happens, it'll probably happen before 2100, which means the anthropocene will last less than 150 years, a blink of an eye in geologic time. Future dino-geologists will observe it as a very thin layer that led to a change in the radiation signature and composition of elements in the earth's crust, as well as a small mass extinction. Come to think of it, that's not all that different from the K-T boundary.