Last time, I expressed extreme disappointment that fossil fuel executives had any role in leading the climate meeting COP28. This is a classic example of putting the the fox in charge of the hen house. The issue is easily summed up:
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
Setting aside economic self-interest and other human foibles, it is clear from the comments that the science is not as clear to everyone as it is to me. That’s fair; I’ve followed this subject for half a lifetime, and it is closely related to my own field.
Stars are fusion reactors surrounded by big balls of gas; understanding how they work was a major triumph of 20th century astrophysics. We understand these things. Planetary atmospheres are also balls of gas; there is some rich physics there but the problem is in many ways simpler when they aren’t acting as the container for a giant fusion reactor. We understand these things. The atmospheres of Venus and Mars come up when teaching Astronomy 101, these planets represent opposite extremes of climate change run amok. From that perspective, Earth is a nice problem to have. We understand these things.
It is easy to get distracted by irrelevant details. No climate model is ever perfect, but that doesn’t mean we don’t understand what’s going on. The issue is basic physics, which has been understood for well over a century. Not only is the physics incredibly clear; so too is the need to take collective action to ameliorate the effects of climate change. The latter has itself been clear since 1990+ at least.
The temperature of a planet is the balance between heating by the sun during the day and re-radiation of that heat at night. The effectiveness of both depend on the properties of the planet. What is the albedo? That is, how much of the incident radiation is reflected into space without heating? Once heated, how efficiently can the heated surface cool by radiating energy to space?
If a planet has no atmosphere, it is a straightforward calculation to find the balance point. If the Earth had no atmosphere, the average temperature would be much colder than it is, about -18 C. Thankfully, we have an atmosphere. There is a natural greenhouse effect – nothing to do with human activity – that makes the actual average temperature more like +15 C. I, for one, am grateful for this. It also means that changing the composition of the atmosphere will change the balance point.
The bulk of Earth’s atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to the incoming optical radiation from the sun that heats the surface. They are also transparent to the outgoing infrared radiation that cools the surface. Despite composing the bulk of the atmosphere, they play basically zero role in the greenhouse effect. As far as climate goes, having only these gases in the atmosphere returns the same answer as the zero atmosphere case.
The natural greenhouse effect is entirely due to trace gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide. I note this because one reasonable-sounding falsehood that gets repeated a lot is that CO2 is a trace gas, so it can’t possibly make a difference. That’s like saying adding a small dash of poison to a beverage isn’t dangerous. Or that it makes no difference to draw a shade over a window. The shade may be much thinner than the glass of the window, but unlike the transparent glass, the shade is opaque. That’s the property greenhouse gases provide, even in trace quantities: they are opaque to the infrared radiation that is trying to cool the surface by escaping to space.
If we looked down on the Earth with eyes that saw in the infrared part of the spectrum where greenhouse gases trap heat, we’d wouldn’t see the surface of the planet. Instead, we’d see a hazy ball: the effective altitude in the atmosphere from which infrared radiation can escape to space. This isn’t a solid surface any more than the edge of a cloud is – to you and me. To the photons seeking escape, it is an effective barrier. Some don’t make it out.
The greenhouse gases are like a fog bank that has to be traversed before the heat carried by the infrared radiation can escape into space. If we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, it makes the fog bank thicker, effectively trapping more heat. At a basic level, the issue is that simple. The science is entirely settled; no one seriously* debates this. It has been known for over a century.
The leading greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere is water vapor. You don’t need a fancy scientific instrument to detect this effect, just your own senses. High humidity leads to hot, sultry nights while low humidity allows rapid cooling. To feel this, visit a humid place like New Orleans and an arid one like the desert of the US west. These places feel very different at night even when their daytime temperatures are similar. The humid place cannot cool effectively because of the greenhouse effect provided by water vapor, and nighttime temperatures can remain unpleasantly high. In the dry desert, the temperature drops like a rock as soon as the sun sets, and it can get rather chilly even if it was baking hot all day long. I’ve personally experienced both conditions many times; the difference is stark and obvious.
The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is a function of temperature, but on bulk it is always less than half a percent. That trace gas is nevertheless 100% of what you care about in the morning weather forecast, as it leads to rain, snow, sleet, hail, cloud cover, and all the other weather phenomena that makes life near the triple point of water interesting. Indeed, clouds increase the albedo of the planet, reflecting some of the incoming solar radiation, so water in the atmosphere prevents some heating as well as helping to retain warmth once heated. This is pretty much in balance, as the limit on how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold means that equilibrium is achieved on a short time scale: too much humidity, and it rains. The sources and sinks of H2O in the atmosphere balance out on short timescales readily perceptible to humans. It’s what we call weather.
The next most important greenhouse gas is CO2. That too has a natural level with sources and sinks. The issue that induces human-caused climate change is the extra CO2 we put in the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, etc. for the energy it provides. This does not balance out on a short timescale, so there is a cumulative effect on the climate, as anticipated in 1912.
Producing energy is a good thing; no one here is advocating that we stop doing this add return to living like cavemen. Heck, even cavemen had an environmental impact: they burned enough wood to blacken many a cave roof. Human activity has always left a mark; the problem today is that there are 8+ billion of us doing a lot more than making campfires. That adds up to a measurable change in the composition of the atmosphere.
The natural pre-industrial level of CO2 was about 277 parts per million (ppm). Here is a graph of the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the past few centuries, extending to back before the onset of the industrial revolution when our collective experiment in atmospheric physics got going. We know how much carbon we’ve burned (that’s economic activity with profits and receipts, we know this number quite well) and we can measure how much CO2 is in the atmosphere directly. They ramp up together.
There is lots that can be said about this plot. Just some basic points: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up as we have burned coal and oil to generate energy. We have measurably changed the composition of the atmosphere we all breathe. The current CO2 content of the atmosphere is 424 ppm, which is much larger than the pre-industrial level of 277 ppm. That by itself ought to give one pause: we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric physics on a global scale. That seems like a bad idea, even if we didn’t understand heat propagation in the atmosphere, which we do.
Not only has the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased as we’ve burned things, it is accumulating. There are natural sinks, which is why the extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than what we’ve added: not all of it sticks around. Much of it has been absorbed by the ocean, which is acidifying as a result. But lots of CO2 persists in the atmosphere: the timescale for it to “rain out” is much longer than for water. It will take many decades and probably centuries to restore anything resembling equilibrium. We aren’t just adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we’re making a long-term investment in having it there. Future generations will have to contend with the consequences of what we’ve already done.
What have we already done? I’ve outlined the basic physics; let’s now check the predictions of one of the earliest forecasts. This is from a 1982 report generated by Exxon scientists:
The study made over forty years ago accurately forecast where we are today. These predictions have repeatedly been corroborated. Some models may miss minor details here and there, but the basic picture is crystal clear. Anyone who tells you otherwise has some fossil fuels to sell.
Enough has been written on this subject; I won’t suggest solutions nor delve into likely impacts. But there is absolutely no doubt that climate change is real and that we caused it. None. That this simple, plain fact is not obvious to everyone at this point is a credit to the power of disinformation and propaganda. The best course forward from here is debatable. Pretending like it isn’t a problem is straight-up reality denial.
+It has become a trope of wingnut politics in the U.S. that scientists only say climate change is real so they can get research grants. That’s ridiculous on many levels. One reason that such grants exist is that right wing politicians asked for more research. This was a delaying tactic employed in the early 1990s by then-president and oil magnate George H. W. Bush.
Fresh off the success of regulatory repair to the ozone hole problem in the late 1980s, it was reasonable to hope that we could start tackling the threat of climate change. This was a much bigger problem encompassing a broader range of human activity, but the basic science is far simpler than the atmospheric chemistry that threatened ozone. Industries that didn’t want to be regulated whined about that as usual, but no one seriously questioned the science. After the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth, appropriate regulatory action was taken, and it worked.
When it came to doing the same thing with the oil industry when an oil baron was president, well, harrumph harrumph, more research was needed. The first Bush was a Republican, but he wasn’t a backwards science-denying goon, so he offered to fund more research. It was an obvious delaying tactic, but the argument in favor of it was to make the case more convincing. So the science community was like, sure, the basic answer is already clear, but there are things that we could understand better, so we’ll do more research if that helps you to also understand the problem. But it hasn’t helped people who don’t want to understand to do so, and never will, because the problem is with them, not with the science. So now, thirty years on from Bush I, the same political party that demanded more research be done now routinely attacks scientists for doing the research they asked scientists to do.
Sorry, not sorry: just because you don’t like the answer science gives doesn’t make it wrong. It is well past time for climate denying snowflakes to stop having emotional meltdowns and grow up already.
*Sometimes it is asserted that the opacity of CO2 is already saturated, so adding more doesn’t matter. Yes on one, no on two. Even at saturation we can still make the fog bank thicker by adding more CO2 – just ask Venus. Indeed, we’re dang lucky that the CO2 bands are already saturated; if not for that, the response of the climate to adding as much CO2 as we have would be much stronger. If these features were not saturated the response would be linear instead of incremental, so the temperature would have already increased by about an extra 7 C, not the mere 1 C we’ve so far** accomplished.
**Just how much we’ve added depends on how you define “before.” Modern studies often seem to adopt the average temperature measured between 1980 and 2000, presumably because the data with which to do so are very good. This gives an increase since then around 1.1 C, which is a remarkable amount of growth in just a few decades: we’ve tipped the climate system out of anything resembling equilibrium hard and fast. Of course, the impact of human activity was already palpable before 1980, so the total change since the industrial revolution is closer to 1.5 C. We’re not quite to that arbitrary threshold yet, but I see no way to avoid blowing past it. Talk of doing so is predicated on giving us a half degree mulligan by defining “average” during a period that is not average. So if you think portrayals of the problem are exaggerated, it is actually already worse than generally depicted.
The Infrared and Electro-Optical Systems Handbook (1993), which is a full revision of The Infrared Handbook (1978), deals with atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation in Chapter 1 of Volume 2. For weak absorption lines (not saturated at their centres) the absorption is proportional to the absorber concentration; for strong non-overlapping absorption lines it scales as the square root of the absorber concentration. This is something that has been known since at least the 1950s (I think it is in The Handbook of Military Infrared Technology (1965) too, which was the predecessor to The Infrared Handbook). Because it was so important to the US military’s work on infrared systems they spent a great deal of money after WW2 in improving models of atmospheric propagation, including both absorption and scattering, which was used later by the climatology researchers.
Yep. Same thing happens in stellar atmospheres, and has been know for at least as long. This is why warming would be much worse already if we were in the linear regime of weak absorption.
This is the story we were told in the early 70’s. I’ve forgotten some of the specifics. But, this was my introduction to global warming:
That co2 reflected infra-red radiation had been known since before 1830. That burning coal and the resulting introduction of co2 could lead to global warming was an idea that had been debated and discounted by a consensus of 19th century scientists. (Which should serve as a warning, concerning Dark Matter)
So, in 1948, when a student discovered a cache of sealed glass tubes buried in the basement at the University of Edinburg, that had been left unused by 19th century scientists, he was reminded of the old co2 controversy and thought they might contain pristine samples of 19th century air. Originally the tubes were sealed after preparation and the air was only evacuated when an experiment was carried out. These had been produced and carried their dates of manufacture dating back to the early 1800’s.
When the air inside these were analyzed they confirmed a measurable, steady increase of atmospheric co2 that began around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Confirmation was then found in air samples from ice cores drilled in Greenland circa 1950, and scientists became creative looking for more confirmation. By the mid 50’s there was a general scientific consensus that atmospheric co2 was rising and would lead to global warming. The pushback by the energy industry began then.
By the late 1980’s the American public were aware of the “controversy”. Few believed it.
“Global warming? Why does it snow in January?”
And atmospheric co2 shows up in other ways. Acidification of fresh water bodies alters their environment. During the 70’s I visited beautiful Northern Ontario lakes totally devoid of life due to rapid acidification. Their biosphere never had the time to evolve. They were downwind of US coal fired plants. And statues and buildings constructed of marble (metamorphosed limestone) have undergone increased weathering because co2 dissolved in rainwater creates a mild carbonic acid that is dissolving them at an increased rate as verified by photographs taken since the 1850’s.
I’ve grown tired of arguing its existence. The people who discount it seem to come in three “flavors”. Smart people who want more definitive proof, while they reap the profits of delay. Religious people who refuse to believe God would allow it. And finally the poorly educated who just don’t trust anyone more educated than they are (I sometimes wonder what effect atmospheric lead poisoning has had on the US population).
The acidification was caused by SO2, not CO2. Both acids are weak, but SO2 (H2SO2 in water) is a bit stronger. The problem is, SO2 can be oxidized to SO2 (H2SO4 in water) which is a very strong acid; CO2 doesn’t do that.
https://www.echemi.com/community/so2-and-co2-s-acidity-pka-comparison_mjart2210212396_736.html
Sorry, it should be ‘H2SO4’ and ‘oxidized to SO3’. Those autocorrectors are trouble…
Yes, science has gotten the science right. Unfortunately the baton is now handed to psychology and engineering.
Stacy mentions albedo. Open water has a lower albedo than ice. Which means that the global warming that has reduced the ice in the high Arctic has lowered the planet’s albedo. Lower albedo leads to warmer water and less ice which in turn lowers albedo…and on and on. This feedback is warming the Arctic faster than the rest of the planet.
And now it’s releasing methane trapped in permafrost from thousands of years of plant decay that wasn’t allowed to escape gradually. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than co2. This, in turn, adds to the greenhouse feedback.
Russia, Canada, the Nordic countries and the US are all reinforcing claims of sovereignty over portions of the Arctic Ocean anticipating an open northern sea shipping route. I’m not confident warming even can be slowed. And I don’t think these governments are either.
And, as far as the fresh water problems that an increasingly confined population will be facing due to rising sea levels….I wish some of the richer countries would invest in Antarctic ice mining operations. As the Antarctic ice calves off it’s going to melt anyway. Why not ship it? Use it as the fresh water it is before it can be added to the oceans. It might mitigate the conflicts that are certain to arise as people are forced to move away from the coasts.
Fossil fuel got its carbon from atmospheric CO2, so all the carbon we are currently digging from the ground was once atmospheric. This suggests two things. First, life on earth is compatible with levels of CO2 much higher than today. Second, in the absence of human activity the earth’s CO2 trajectory would have sloped downwards until all plant life is extinct.
What am I missing? Perhaps some carbon source?
If there is no evidence of linearity in the long term climate records, then conjecturing that the CO2 trajectory would naturally slope downwards to zero doesn’t make much sense.
I don’t want to get into the reliability of proxies for historical CO2 levels. My question pertains to the existence of some sort of CO2 `homeostasis’ feedback mechanism whereby all that fossil fuel carbon, before being buried, did not manifest itself in elevated atmospheric CO2 levels relative to present.
The CO2 level was indeed much higher in the very distant past. It has now reached a level that hasn’t been seen for 14 million years – well before modern humans appeared. So on a geological timescale, you are correct – CO2 has on average been declining, albeit not in a linear fashion. But those timescales are enormous; we have altered the system in a few centuries, with most of the change coming in the last few decades. It’s like smacking a baseball with a bat – it doesn’t really matter what the initial trajectory was once we smack it real hard. We have tipped the system out of equilibrium quite suddenly from a geological perspective.
You’re missing the Geologic cycle of Carbon. Very little of the Earth’s reservoir of C is in the crust, biosphere, and atmosphere. Historically, Increased plant growth and increased foraminifera populations would capture the increasing atmospheric co2. However, deforestation eliminates trees and their long range capture ability. And, add to that, ocean acidification which inhibits the growth of foraminifera and bivalves which use CaCo3 in their shells, and we’ve severely limited the planets ability to biologically sequester C. Additionally corals which also incorporate CaCo3 are being stressed by warmer ocean water, so that limits another potential C sink. Basically, we’re slowly eliminating the planet’s short term ability to self-adjust to the changing chemistry of the environment. The planet will eventually recover. The question is…will we be here to see it?
Could we switch instead to a much more tractable (and interesting) problem described here? 😉 Let’s leave climate prognostication to Dr. H.C. Albert Gore…
https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123519
This is an interesting tension in cosmology related to https://tritonstation.com/2023/02/13/early-galaxy-formation-and-the-hubble-constant-tension/. I’ve expanded more on it in https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03127. Was hoping to say more about it at some point, but there is always lots to do.
Thank you for the arxive link! The coincidence in timing is fascinating!
What are the immediate consequences for the DM and MOND models?
Let’s leave the climate quagmire to the religious of both camps, there’s enough crap coming from both sides of the issue not to take anybody too seriously. Seriously!
But budrap (read below) absolutely nailed the crux of the problem…
Hoping that saying more about early galaxy formation and the Hubble constant tension rises to the top of your long list of things to do! The paper is of course very clearly written, and a blog post could expand on that and perhaps add some implications or even speculations.
“Yes, science has gotten the science right.”
Unfortunately, the scientists haven’t.
If a plumber told you that drip you have in the bathroom will entail him anything from tightening of a screw to ripping out quarter of plumbing how would you feel about their expertise? Ah, plumbing is easy, climate science isn’t, plumber has it easy and should thus know better, right?
Reading Stacy’s post one might get the impression scientists think climatology is easy too. It isn’t and going around telling general populous how ‘we know these things’ isn’t helping. Yes, everything Stacy wrote is true. We do know those things. Or better said, we know them well enough to know which direction the wind blows. But average Joe doesn’t understand how sometimes one just can’t do better than putting assessment better than “screw tightening to demolishing the bathroom” regardless of the level of one’s expertise. Such questions just aren’t part of their daily life. That’s way they are offloading more and more of the responsibility for their lives to other people. “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.”
So on one hand they are listening to, from their perspective, bunch of egg-heads telling them world is going to hell in a hand basket because they want their steaks and V8s and holidays on Maldives while those same egg-heads are vague as that same hell. How the fuck do you expect them to feel? The whole scientific community is dancing around the burning bush, screaming useless because, with apologies to ladies around, nobody has the balls to say anything definite.
“Weather extremes will become more severe and frequent.”
“We are looking at global temperature raise from 2 to 6 degrees C .”
“By the end of the century we may see sea level raise at anything between 2-6 m.”
“Your illness may cause you to die within 2 to 50 years.”
Wait, scratch last one.
You know we don’t have better predictions and understand why not. I do too. They don’t. You can explain and teach them basic thermodynamics of moderately complex chaotic systems all you want, they will get bits here and bits there. It *is* too much. They’ve delegated far less difficult decisions to others, what makes you think this one they will tackle head on by themselves?
Until you address the issue that all those who claim to ‘know these things’ on one hand remain being vague as morning fog on the other, we won’t get anywhere. Appearing unsure makes them unsure. Being unsure gives them mandate to do nothing. Which generals do you think were more successful; those that told their troops there’s 68.2% chance of victory or those that just yelled “To victory!”
I’ve had the actual experience of two different plumbers telling me that a drip from the bathroom will be fixed by tightening a screw and another telling me they needed to rip out the entire bathroom floor and all the plumbing therein. I wanted to believe the former; the latter proved to be correct.
I have intentionally kept this post to the most basic facts. What we can predict from them is fraught, what we do about it more so. But we are making a change to the planet, and it is not subtle. I hope it isn’t as dire as the worst forecasts, but it is well beyond tightening a screw.
To limit my response to one prediction, that of sea level rise: this is driven in large part by thermal expansion. Water has a high heat capacity; it is slow to react to being heated. We’ve already heated it a lot (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content); the response is only starting to ramp up. So that 2-6 m of sea level rise is not conjectural, it is a commitment we’ve already made that will have dire effects on coastal cities worldwide. Before places in Florida are outright flooded, their limestone foundations will suffer from salt water intrusion, and the water supply will gradually become non-potable. This will displace millions just in the U.S., on a timescale of decades not centuries.
I hope that isn’t too vague a forecast for you. However, scientists speak as scientists, which necessarily entails a respect for uncertainties. Speaking politician is a foreign language few learn.
Quite apart from the issue of the increasing global mean temperature which is undeniable is the question of whether the “consensus” climate model is to be trusted. Given the poor record of the two consensus standard models of theoretical physics (cosmology & particle physics-quantum theory) I’m of the opinion that it cannot be trusted and should not be considered the final word on climate issues.
The fundamental problem is with the consensus itself. Science is not a popularity contest, but that is what it has been reduced to in the scientific academy at least with regard to the two standard models and climate science. The models and their underlying axioms and postulates are held inviolable and any discrepancy between the models and actual observations is deeply discounted by the consensus which rallies around the favored model with the irrational fervor of a religious fundamentalist. Anyone who disagrees or objects is some form of foul and venal apostate – a climate denier – as if objections to the consensus model involved denying the existence of the climate itself. That is the sound and fury of unscientific nonsense.
The history of the settled-science claim for climatology tracks exactly with the settled-science claim of the two standard models that arose in tandem circa 1980 when the status of hypothetical entities (dark matter and quarks) was elevated to “fact” without benefit of any factual, empirical evidence. What that commonality suggests is a cultural change in the academy wherein mathematical models took on a centrality to the scientific endeavor that is not scientifically justifiable. It represented the elevation of the philosophical stance of mathematicism, in which math dictates the nature of physical reality, and takes precedence over the direct scientific evidence presented by physical reality itself.
As far as the climate model goes it is not an oracle nor is it a complete and accurate representation of the global climate system – no mathematical model can be a complete and accurate representation of a complex not to mention chaotic system like the climate. The pretense that the model is omniscient about the nature of the climate system and the changes it is currently undergoing is dangerous and not scientifically justified.
Even a casual examination of the recent data shows that while the CO2 has been rising smoothly the temperature rise has been herky-jerky; it does not track the CO2 rise as the oil industry model you present depicts. What that means is that the model doesn’t accurately capture the basic dynamics of the climate system and the observations don’t support the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the current increase. It doesn’t disprove the conjecture either but that is the nature of science – to grapple with uncertainties. When certainty is alleged in the face of uncertainty science is undone.
While I obviously agree that science isn’t a consensus-by-popularity game, some things are more settled than others. Climate change is not as well settled as objects falling when dropped, but considerably more settled than the identity of the dark matter particle. I am saying it is much closer to the former than to the latter.
As for the herky-jerky rise of temperature, you’re looking at air temperature. That’s what we care about in the daily forecast, but it is the least stable of available measures because the atmosphere is the least massive element of the climate system. If one looks at ocean temperatures or that of permafrost (which, in defiance of its name, is no longer permanent), then one sees a much steadier rise. The ramifications of ocean heating are by far the most concerning, as they are the thermostat to which the rest of the climate system responds.
As for the 1982 Exxon model, I repeat that they nailed it. They weren’t trying to predict every herk and jerk, they were doing a basic accounting of how much carbon was where and what the average result would be. This intentionally ignores the herky-jerky nature of short-term air temperatures, which are exactly the kind of details I warned against getting lost in.
It would, of course, be nice to be able to get a detailed model right. I wasn’t going there, because my point is that it doesn’t matter to the basics. It really doesn’t.
That said, the modelers are doing far better than you seem to give them credit for. They all have error bands; observed variations in temperatures have mostly stayed within those bands. The exact response of the El Nino/La Nina cycle remains tricky; we seem to be coming out of a period of that natural oscillation that kept things on the cool side for a few years but now it looks like its gonna be on the warm side for the next few. Guess we’ll find out.
Even I give modelers credit for what they can’t do. It is impossible to foresee certain events, like the timing of pollution controls on freighters or when a volcano goes off. The eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused a period of unexpected cooling; people complained that Hansen’s 1988 model was wrong because of that. Of course, he didn’t know when he published it that a major volcano would go off a few years later. One can go back and add that effect to his model, and it pretty much nails both the herk and the jerk (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/?q=book/export/html/141).
So while you are correct that no model can be a perfect oracle, you are not correct to infer that “What that means is that the model doesn’t accurately capture the basic dynamics of the climate system and the observations don’t support the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the current increase.” I’m sorry, but the model does adequately capture the *basic* dynamics (if not every detail) and the CO2 is *very clearly* the primary driver of the recent increase. Not only is it clear, there is no other viable option on the table. Would you have us believe that the proverbial smoking gun was fired and a bullet hole is seen but that the smoking gun was not actually used to make the observed bullet hole when the bullet was fired and had to go somewhere and there are no other weapons in sight?
Excellent post. Very clear and on point.
I hadn’t realized about nitrogen and oxygen that they play no role. Cool “say, did you know” fact! 😄
Yes, most of the atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen absorption is in the far-UV shortward of 200 nm. There are a few narrow weak oxygen absorption bands in the near infrared.
Thank you for your insights Dr. McGaugh.
A meeting to decide not to use fossil fuels will never work. The whales were saved 100 years ago because petroleum became cheaper than whale oil.
What we need now is cheap, clean, energy, – and lots of it. Otherwise, even if the rich countries (15% of world pop) decide to do something with (say) taxes – it will not change consumption patterns in the other 85% of the planet.
Nuclear is the only source that can scale. 50,000GW is needed.
I think you’re right, but still I think in the minds of people such a meeting accomplishes very much and is therefore very valuable.
Apart from nuclear which I also think a great candidate, also white hydrogen might be more abundant than we know: after France now also in Mali a big natural resource. This was there all the time, but the climate discussion helps people to remember it and its significance.
Right, to stop using most fossil fuels, we must make nuclear cheaper. Let’s spend research money on that. (But it’s a pipe dream, the public is afraid of nuclear any thing.)
To overcome that fear, we need safety measures. A button “shutdown forever” in case of a nearing war would be nice. And to ease public opinions, perhaps build the reactor in a desolate spot, far underground or floating in the sea.
Unfotunately, it doesn’t seem it can scale.
50,000 GW of nuclear power would require 1,350,000 million tons of uranium fuel per year. Total Uranium Oxide production is only 53,000 tons per year, and that doesn’t take into current demand. Total Uranium reserves worldwide amount to just over 6 million tons.