5 ms·

I’m not a climate scientist and a few degree increase used to seem like a small thing to me. Then I realized that increasing the global temperature average by

by syops 5y ago

I’m not a climate scientist and a few degree increase used to seem like a small thing to me. Then I realized that increasing the global temperature average by a few degrees means putting in a massive amount of more energy into the system and then it clicked for me how much of a big deal this is. This massive increase in energy into the system over a very short period of time means lots of chaotic events will ensue before a new equilibrium is obtained.

madaxe_again 5y ago
It’s interesting that you touch on energy — temperature is a measure of the energy of a system, but most people don’t think of it in those terms. If you consider how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of your living room by 4C (about 840J per m3), and then extrapolate that to the entire planet, it’s a phenomenal amount of energy, incomprehensibly vast. Then, consider that the oceans, with a heat capacity of 4.2MJ per m3 and a vast volume are also warming by entire degrees, and it’s just staggering.
- loopz 5y ago
  Yet, the core is even hotter. So we're mostly talking about the relatively thin crust layer on top. Core and mantle has practically unlimited energy supply as well. The planet is basically alot larger, and contains lots more energy than we normally account for.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - syops 5y ago
    What does the energy of the Earth’s core have to do with climate? Outside of the effects of volcanoes I can’t think of anything.
    - loopz 5y ago
      I just can't imagine why the bigger picture is never interesting. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=...
      - syops 5y ago
        From the first link it appears the effect is based on how the liquid flow of the core affects the orbit of the planet. The energy of the core does not play the same role on climate change as the energy that we’ve input into the system. I don’t think anyone is claiming the bigger picture isn’t interesting. Indeed, I did ask for clarification precisely because I was interested in learning something new.
        loopz 5y ago
        The NASA study seems to be yet another vector to validate human-caused warming of climate. Validation is one thing, but also understanding exactly how and why we're moving away from an equilibrium vs core cycles, and what that may mean, may say something compelling. We're like fleas on the back of a giant elephant, and it might help to reorient to gain clarity. Mind you, I don't bring answers, only unasked questions and some wonder. The other thing is the enormous amount of geothermal energy, trapped beneath our feet. We may require energy, ie. to trap greenhouse gases and as replacement for fossile fuels. https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide-stay-in-the-atmosphere/ https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide...
magicalhippo 5y ago
Another issue I think is that the average hides a lot. Both (1, 2, 8, 9) and (4, 5, 5, 6) have the same average. Now extend that to 365 days, and there's a lot of room for wild events leading to "just" a 1 degree increase in average temperature.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  But then, maybe the average temperature is not the right thing to use in this context. In France, the usual term is "climate warming", not sure about other places. Maybe we should use a term that shows that there's an increase in unusual temperature swings and / or exceptional events. These should be much more intelligible for the average person. 1º increase? Meh, 32º or 33º feel roughly the same. Huge storms that tear the roofs off houses ever other week? Yeah, that might actually be a concern.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    In the US, the term "climate change" has come to be used in favor of "global warming". It probably helped, but the nature of the propaganda and misinformation also shifted to adapt.
    - orwin 5y ago
      I think that the words "climate drift" are more accurate: the climate won't change back on human timescale, we will never have 2021 climate ever again. And with the system inertia (the physical system, i'm not talking about our inaction), unless positive feedback loops are discovered as the drift continue, we will never have 2030 climate again. Even if every emissions stopped tomorrow.
  - wholinator2 5y ago
    I've always thought the term Climate Destabilization would be better. No one cares if it gets warm. Everyone cares if their way of life gets destabilized.
    - 5y ago

by syops 5y ago

madaxe_again 5y ago

It’s interesting that you touch on energy — temperature is a measure of the energy of a system, but most people don’t think of it in those terms. If you consider how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of your living room by 4C (about 840J per m3), and then extrapolate that to the entire planet, it’s a phenomenal amount of energy, incomprehensibly vast. Then, consider that the oceans, with a heat capacity of 4.2MJ per m3 and a vast volume are also warming by entire degrees, and it’s just staggering.

loopz 5y ago
Yet, the core is even hotter. So we're mostly talking about the relatively thin crust layer on top. Core and mantle has practically unlimited energy supply as well. The planet is basically alot larger, and contains lots more energy than we normally account for.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- syops 5y ago
  What does the energy of the Earth’s core have to do with climate? Outside of the effects of volcanoes I can’t think of anything.
  - loopz 5y ago
    I just can't imagine why the bigger picture is never interesting. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=...
    - syops 5y ago
      From the first link it appears the effect is based on how the liquid flow of the core affects the orbit of the planet. The energy of the core does not play the same role on climate change as the energy that we’ve input into the system. I don’t think anyone is claiming the bigger picture isn’t interesting. Indeed, I did ask for clarification precisely because I was interested in learning something new.
      - loopz 5y ago
        The NASA study seems to be yet another vector to validate human-caused warming of climate. Validation is one thing, but also understanding exactly how and why we're moving away from an equilibrium vs core cycles, and what that may mean, may say something compelling. We're like fleas on the back of a giant elephant, and it might help to reorient to gain clarity. Mind you, I don't bring answers, only unasked questions and some wonder. The other thing is the enormous amount of geothermal energy, trapped beneath our feet. We may require energy, ie. to trap greenhouse gases and as replacement for fossile fuels. https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide-stay-in-the-atmosphere/ https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide...

magicalhippo 5y ago

Another issue I think is that the average hides a lot. Both (1, 2, 8, 9) and (4, 5, 5, 6) have the same average. Now extend that to 365 days, and there's a lot of room for wild events leading to "just" a 1 degree increase in average temperature.

vladvasiliu 5y ago
But then, maybe the average temperature is not the right thing to use in this context. In France, the usual term is "climate warming", not sure about other places. Maybe we should use a term that shows that there's an increase in unusual temperature swings and / or exceptional events. These should be much more intelligible for the average person. 1º increase? Meh, 32º or 33º feel roughly the same. Huge storms that tear the roofs off houses ever other week? Yeah, that might actually be a concern.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  In the US, the term "climate change" has come to be used in favor of "global warming". It probably helped, but the nature of the propaganda and misinformation also shifted to adapt.
  - orwin 5y ago
    I think that the words "climate drift" are more accurate: the climate won't change back on human timescale, we will never have 2021 climate ever again. And with the system inertia (the physical system, i'm not talking about our inaction), unless positive feedback loops are discovered as the drift continue, we will never have 2030 climate again. Even if every emissions stopped tomorrow.
- wholinator2 5y ago
  I've always thought the term Climate Destabilization would be better. No one cares if it gets warm. Everyone cares if their way of life gets destabilized.
  - 5y ago