3 ms·

> That’s true, but we’ve been cultivating rice for thousands of years. How much rice did we previously cultivate, and how many of those fields were flooded? Ar

by Timon3 4y ago

> That’s true, but we’ve been cultivating rice for thousands of years. How much rice did we previously cultivate, and how many of those fields were flooded? Around 1900 the world population was around 2 billion, so I feel confident in assuming that we've since strongly increased the amount of farms. As such I don't see how this matters. Cultivation is not a boolean state. > The global energy imbalance is simply lag before temperature’s equilibrium, when you turn up the heat in your house it takes longer to heat your fireplace than a wood door. That same effect takes longer on the scale of the earth but it’s an exponential decay. Yes, this is what I've been saying. Increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere by increasing rice production will lead to an increased temperature even after you stop.

Retric 4y ago
> Around 1900 the world population was around 2 billion, so I feel confident in assuming that we've since strongly increased the amount of farms Actually not so much, due to vastly increased agricultural output per acre the tendency is to have less acres under cultivation. https://www.statista.com/statistics/196104/total-area-of-land-in-farms-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/196104/total-area-of-lan... Further agriculture has also reduced quite a bit of methane production by draining swamps etc. So it’s difficult to do direct comparisons even just back in 1900. > Increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere by increasing rice production will lead to an increased temperature even after you stop. That’s true of CO2 across the next few decades but not methane because it breaks down so fast. Assuming net zero CO2 the lag would be in the other direction where it would get colder for several years after you stopped.
- Timon3 4y ago
  > Actually not so much, due to vastly increased agricultural output per acre the tendency is to have less acres under cultivation. Your source shows data for America between 2000 and 2022. Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? > Further agriculture has also reduced quite a bit of methane production by draining swamps etc. So it’s difficult to do direct comparisons even just back in 1900. There is no reason to do so, my argument is not affected by it in any way. > That’s true of CO2 across the next few decades but not methane because it breaks down so fast. No, breakdown time doesn't affect anything, since I'm specifically talking about the time after it broke down. If you understood my comments differently, try re-reading them in that light. > Assuming net zero CO2 the lag would be in the other direction where it would get colder for several years after you stopped. Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it would have been without that period? Why do you think so, and how do you believe this to work from a thermodynamics perspective?
  - Retric 4y ago
    > Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. > Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it would have been without that period? Why do you think so, and how do you believe this to work from a thermodynamics perspective? Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium. Clearly you haven’t understood what I said or the topic at hand and need to do some actual research before you keep spouting more nonsense.
    - jholman 4y ago
      Yikes, you (singular) just got rather uncivil. Such a shame, as you (plural) were doing so well.
      - Retric 4y ago
        I don’t consider someone being disingenuous as being civil in a discussion.
    - Timon3 4y ago
      > The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. "The obvious downward line" is not relevant since it's for a time period that is only starting to affect todays climate. I was previously talking about time periods which would already be affecting the climate today. What if through the use of modern machinery and fertilizer the land use started trending down slightly in the 80s, and rose rapidly before then? We don't know, which is why your statistic is fully irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not interested in simplifying complex systems like historical agriculture to "line goes down now, line must have been going down before". Maybe "do some damn research" that looks at the content in the context of the discussion. > Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium. I really, really think you should try to re-read my previous comments. This doesn't make any sense. Let's play through it with numbers - maybe you'll show me I've been a complete idiot. Let's define a starting point of greenhouse gases and temperature, both start at 0. We are in an equilibrium. Now we increase greenhouse gases to 1, and after some time temperature will also increase to 1 (arbitrary values). Then we decrease greenhouse gases to 0 (previous equilibrium). It will take some time until the temperature goes back to 0. Referring back to the comment I was replying to: where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases? That's my whole argument, it's what I've been writing the whole time. The increased greenhouse gases lead to a higher temperature, which will (until it goes back to equilibrium) be increased compared to if there was no increase in greenhouse gases, and it will stay increased for a while after greenhouse gases are at equilibrium. What exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're taking stabs at whatever sentence you feel is incorrect, but I haven't seen a coherent argument.

by Timon3 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

> Around 1900 the world population was around 2 billion, so I feel confident in assuming that we've since strongly increased the amount of farms Actually not so much, due to vastly increased agricultural output per acre the tendency is to have less acres under cultivation. https://www.statista.com/statistics/196104/total-area-of-land-in-farms-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/196104/total-area-of-lan... Further agriculture has also reduced quite a bit of methane production by draining swamps etc. So it’s difficult to do direct comparisons even just back in 1900. > Increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere by increasing rice production will lead to an increased temperature even after you stop. That’s true of CO2 across the next few decades but not methane because it breaks down so fast. Assuming net zero CO2 the lag would be in the other direction where it would get colder for several years after you stopped.

Timon3 4y ago
> Actually not so much, due to vastly increased agricultural output per acre the tendency is to have less acres under cultivation. Your source shows data for America between 2000 and 2022. Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? > Further agriculture has also reduced quite a bit of methane production by draining swamps etc. So it’s difficult to do direct comparisons even just back in 1900. There is no reason to do so, my argument is not affected by it in any way. > That’s true of CO2 across the next few decades but not methane because it breaks down so fast. No, breakdown time doesn't affect anything, since I'm specifically talking about the time after it broke down. If you understood my comments differently, try re-reading them in that light. > Assuming net zero CO2 the lag would be in the other direction where it would get colder for several years after you stopped. Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it would have been without that period? Why do you think so, and how do you believe this to work from a thermodynamics perspective?
- Retric 4y ago
  > Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. > Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it would have been without that period? Why do you think so, and how do you believe this to work from a thermodynamics perspective? Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium. Clearly you haven’t understood what I said or the topic at hand and need to do some actual research before you keep spouting more nonsense.
  - jholman 4y ago
    Yikes, you (singular) just got rather uncivil. Such a shame, as you (plural) were doing so well.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I don’t consider someone being disingenuous as being civil in a discussion.
  - Timon3 4y ago
    > The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. "The obvious downward line" is not relevant since it's for a time period that is only starting to affect todays climate. I was previously talking about time periods which would already be affecting the climate today. What if through the use of modern machinery and fertilizer the land use started trending down slightly in the 80s, and rose rapidly before then? We don't know, which is why your statistic is fully irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not interested in simplifying complex systems like historical agriculture to "line goes down now, line must have been going down before". Maybe "do some damn research" that looks at the content in the context of the discussion. > Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium. I really, really think you should try to re-read my previous comments. This doesn't make any sense. Let's play through it with numbers - maybe you'll show me I've been a complete idiot. Let's define a starting point of greenhouse gases and temperature, both start at 0. We are in an equilibrium. Now we increase greenhouse gases to 1, and after some time temperature will also increase to 1 (arbitrary values). Then we decrease greenhouse gases to 0 (previous equilibrium). It will take some time until the temperature goes back to 0. Referring back to the comment I was replying to: where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases? That's my whole argument, it's what I've been writing the whole time. The increased greenhouse gases lead to a higher temperature, which will (until it goes back to equilibrium) be increased compared to if there was no increase in greenhouse gases, and it will stay increased for a while after greenhouse gases are at equilibrium. What exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're taking stabs at whatever sentence you feel is incorrect, but I haven't seen a coherent argument.