Research into global warming and climate change

This isn't the first climate crisis I've researched. When I was in college, the threat to ozone was a hot topic. When the ozone hole was discovered, there was a consensus that the cause was a class of industrial chemical -- hydrocarbons containing chlorine and fluorine. I studied the scientific papers, and was surprised at how definitive the information was. The science was very clear and solid, so much so that an undergraduate could grasp it.

Luckily there wasn't a strong level of denial and stupidity about the findings. Many countries banded together to verify the science, and act responsibly by figuring out how to greatly decrease the use of the questionable chemicals. It was a case of rational response.

Greater complexity with CO2

In contrast, the questions about global warming have prompted huge levels of disagreement. People who barely know any science are passionate about it, sometimes for and sometimes against. Unlike the earlier climate crisis, the data doesn't seem so clearcut.

There have been fluctuations in climate throughout the history of the planet. The evidence of my lifetime is that my region is warming, and many other regions report the same trend. What is the cause? The growth of cities, change in the atmosphere, pollution - all of those seemed plausible, but that doesn't make them the actual cause.

It wasn't until earlier this year that I made a more determined study of the information. By this time I knew of other possible factors, including complex changes in weather patterns (so complex that I never grasped the mechanics of it). There is fairly solid evidence for a warmer period in the medieval period from about 900 - 1300 AD. It's also known (with good scientific data) that the sun can produce greater or lesser amounts of radiation, and that will affect temperatures on Earth. The amount of solar has been running lower than average, which is lucky for us. Had it been average levels, it probably would have added to the warming trend.

Three important FACTS

The warming trends I've seen in my life show on graphs of worldwide average temps:

Image: nasa.gov

There are questions as to how this data is gathered and massaged. I can't answer anything about that except to say that I'm not wrong about the trends I've seen, so I don't believe the earlier springs are a figment of my imagination or the result of shenanigans by scientists.

A second important data point in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is definitely true, since it would be easy to disprove if it wasn't. No atmospheric sampling has contradicted this finding, so let's accept it as undisputed.

Image: yale.edu

The mechanism of warming is complicated. CO2, water vapor, methane, and other gases are known to trap in heat. We experience this with water vapor (a humid place doesn't cool down at night as readily as a dry locale). Is it also true, as claimed, for CO2 and methane? I think it wouldn't be hard to verify this using standard techniques like mass spectrometry. I'm not a chemist, but this isn't difficult stuff to understand. Different chemical bond absorb and reradiate different wavelengths of light, blah, blah, blah. It's basic, and it's solid.

So, there are three solid points in the argument about global warming.

1. the demonstrated increase in global temps
2. the demonstrated increase in CO2
3. the likely mechanism of CO2 and methane with their known radiation profiles

How to ignore the FACTS

Climate change deniers tend to use these tricks:

1. They ignore that world wide temps are rising. This is a data-based fact.
2. They ignore that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising. This is also a fact.
3. They pretend that climate/CO2 models must be very accurate or all of climate change is nonsense.

However, climate change isn't nonsense because of the facts stated in #1 and #2.
Climate deniers are con men ignoring definite scientific data. However, #1 and #2 don't go away because they are liars.

They refuse to consider how harmful even higher levels of CO2 might be, or the bad effects of higher temperatures. Many won't even touch the biggest risk, which is a surge in CO2 when the permafrost melts. They won't face the very real risks. They won't face that it's not going to be possible to turn off the CO2 like you turn off a faucet. As a scientist, I can't pretend that these risks aren't real. Scientists are used to facing facts, whether we like them or not.

And really, are people unhappy with cleaner energy? Why would we be? I don't get why carbon-free energy wouldn't be a goal and something we do as much as feasible. It makes for a better quality of life.

This is the kind of gobbledegock from climate deniers:

And we're about half way to CO2 doubling since pre-industrial times now and what do we have? -- about .9C of warming, suggesting 1.8C for 2X Co2. But the science also states that CO2 constituters 9-26% of the GH-Effect, so it's only 9-26% of 1.8C in this case. The experts are full of beans. They are hoist on their own claims.

Risks, models, and uncertainty

One issue is now very clear to me based on my research. The carbon cycles on the Earth's surface, its oceans and its atmosphere are extremely complex. They are not thoroughly understood and quantified. We don't know how much CO2 a given body of water will absord, or a given forest. We don't know how much CO2 will be released from boggy lands in the northern latitudes as they warm up. These movements of CO2 are very large, and perhaps seem to dwarf the man-made CO2 pollution.

However, don't forget that CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly rising. If there are other huge point sources of CO2 creation on Earth, we would have found them by now and we could work on plugging them. But there aren't. The man-made pollution seems to be the source. To ignore this would be like ignoring a flat tire as the source of that strange noise when you're driving. Some may choose to ignore a clear source, but I don't because I don't ignore evidence that's right in front of me.

Because of the complexity of CO2 cycles on Earth and the interactions related to temperature, I don't trust that the various models of warming are accurate. However, their level of accuracy is not the biggest concern here. It's really only an excuse to ignore what is important, which is the risk of major changes in climate that can have devastating effects on almost all life on the Earth. The amount of possible damage shouldn't be ignored. It is unwise to do so. It definitely behooves real conservatives to be careful, and consider these risks. Real conservatives...

Extras. More on the medieval warming period with a bias against current concerns about warming. Models aren't accurate, but I've noted why that isn't the most important consideration. Trump buries and denies the report from US scientists... because facts don't matter.

The pause in temperature increases may be because the solar radiation was lower than normal due to a quieter solar cycle in the years 2006-20. Temperature versus solar activity clearly shows that temperature isn't currently correlated with higher solar activity. A more up-to-date graph of the solar cycles. 

CO2 levels for the past 800,000 years.

Update 2024. I looked up the trend since 1950. Here it is: Warming has been about 1degree C. CO2 + 112 ppm. Methane + 750 ppb.

This is not the best graph I've seen of temperature, CO2, and sunspots, but it's the best I can find right now. From a legit source -- an emeritus physics professor.

Image: L David Roper

Update 5/23/24. I found some cool tools for looking at temperature trends. Temperature trends with global, national, regional, city, and tons of other widgets. Fewer options, but focuses on anomalies. 

Update 6/9/2024. Found a link to a site with a large database about climate denial, including who funds it. 

Temperature and glacial trends for the last 500 million years. Yes, I'm also very interested in glacial periods. 

Good article about the carbon cycle. I'm inspired to estimate how much excess CO2 humans are pumping out. My initial calculation: 20 billion metric tons a year excess. This is based on 1ppm = 7.8 billion metric tons. We are currently increasing CO2 at 2.5 ppm each year. That's just the excess that ends up in the atmosphere. The claim that human production is miniscule compared to the throughput of the natural cycle--I have very strong doubts. I think the natural throughput might be only 5 times the human production. Possibly less. 

Here's a German physicist who makes videos to explain science to non-scientists. This is her capsule explanation for how we know human activity is changing the climate. Very clear, and what I tried doing myself. 

Temperature increase is 100% due to manmade greenhouse gases. A full analysis. 

Parking these two links with CO2 vs. temperature graphs. 400K years, 400 million years CO2 vs. glaciation.

Older webpage but so far the best explainer on the rapid climate changes in the recent glacial and interglacial period. The Younger Dryas et al. Good explanation for how living creatures handled changes in CO2 levels during earth's history. 

This graph shows the mean temperature fluctuations for the last 800,000 years. I'm keeping it handy to counter the denialist who claim that it's been much warmer in interglacial periods. No it hasn't-- just a bit warmer than now. 

Sources for energy, answering the question about how much coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, etc. 

Short: The Keystone pipeline and freight transport

Here's an interesting article, particularly if you think about ramifications beyond oil, pollution, and political hot potatoes.

Oil can be (and is) shipped by rail and truck, not just by pipeline. Pipelines can leak and/or explode, as can freight vehicles, such as this deadly one in Canada in 2013. Since I'm in the vicinity of Albany, I regularly hear about the potential dangers of their substantial traffic of oil tanker cars.

But it's not just the dangers from shipping oil in moving vehicles. There's also the issue of other freight being priced out of the market, including farm products.

Is everything connected to everything else? I'm terrified that it's true. Now I'm going to either 1) decompress, or 2) clean up the mess from my head exploding.

 Which derailment is this? Lynchburg, maybe?

Image: markosun.wordpress.com

Difficult decision on Keystone pipeline

The decision of whether or not to allow the construction of the Keystone pipeline will be made soon, I think. A lot of people have an opinion on this pipeline, but I doubt that many have actually sorted through the major issues. I haven't either, because I've found that getting answers on pollution is extremely hard. In other words, you can work very hard and not see any definite increase on your knowledge.

So if I had to decide, what criteria would I use? It's tempting to put my finger on the scale (for the pipeline, as the outcome that angers fewer people), but I'm trying hard to resist that temptation. The biggest reason for the pipeline is the jobs it would provide. With unemployment high and not many new industries developing, this type of project is too rare an opportunity--new development in sector that has a solid future and adds net earnings to the economy. (I assume federal and state governments aren't subsidizing this pipeline, but plan to reap net revenue gains. That better be so.)

On the other side are environmental considerations. The entire project is not doing the earth any favors. Extraction and refinement of this dirty oil will cause a higher level of pollution than many energy sources, even many other carbon energy sources. If this was a question on whether or not to develop this resource, the answer would probably be against development. However, it has already been developed, due to choices made by Canadians, not us. Also, this is not currently the dirtiest oil, so there is the likelihood of net environmental  benefit. We could choose to take the position that we won't participate in such a polluting enterprise--that would be principled stand for those who value the environment far above other considerations.

Since the US doesn't control the development of the tar sands, and since it isn't the dirtiest oil currently being used, the environmental arguments aren't a slam-dunk for me. The US control is only over whether or not to build the pipeline. So we should know what the dangers of the pipeline are, and we should minimize them. However, I'm not completely comfortable with this position. The more people are involved in the carbon energy economy, the less incentive we have to make incremental changes to cleaner energy. I may be making the mistake of valuing political peace, expediency, and jobs over the global environment, and that may very well be shortsighted and cowardly.

Image: northernrockiesrisingtide.wordpress.com

Other sources on environmental impact:

• Oil sands vs. Canadian CO2 promises
• Readable article on relative emissions
• Wikipedia's long article

Last outpost of crazy: Agenda 21 paranoia

Environmentalism (the interest in having and maintaining a healthy natural environment) is one of the biggest successes of 1960's liberals. It has energized many people and found solid support with a large majority. Here in Massachusetts, people are happy about the creation of conservation lands and public parks.

Elsewhere in the US, any environmental initiative, including the creation of bike lanes, is seen as part of the Agenda 21 conspiracy for world domination...

I'm basically speechless about this one. To these paranoids, caring about nice surroundings means that you're a puppet of our new world overlords. I guess you can't do anything to help your community lest you be accused of betraying all-American ideals.

Fall colors on the bike path to enslavement

Photo: alltrails.com