Looking for respectful opinions about global warming

[rdale]

Does anyone have any links to papers done on what would be the perfect temperature for Earth?

It's misleading to ask what Earth's 'ideal temperature' is. Here's what's really important

 

[Robert Edmonds]

Really interesting stuff here guys. I’d especially like to thank Robert for pointing out things I’ve never even seen being discussed anywhere else. Very informative.
Does anyone have any links to papers done on what would be the perfect temperature for Earth? Would it be a degree or two cooler, warmer, or is it just right where it is now? If the temp could be locked in (not likely), what temperature would benefit mankind the most?
There would be a ton to look into. For instance, warmer temps would increase usable crop lands North, but decrease lands South. Someone else pointed out that some areas are getting drier, while some areas are getting wetter.
That would be a super interesting read if a comprehensive study has been done on that. I wasn’t able to find it myself.

There's not really an ideal temperature. It is what it is. Remove CO2 the Earth would be a very cold place. It's not really the temperature that is the problem, it's the rate of change, and whether that new equilibrium is hospitable to us. Sure plant an animal life can evolve, but at the rate of change that is occuring? Also, do we want to move our cities, sources of agriculture, ect. Yeah, maybe there may be some positive impacts. I went to Italy, a wine region was happy in many ways, they had noticed over 400 years they now have 1-2 weeks longer growing season. The one thing they don't like though is they've noticed the hail frequency has gone up which can damage the plants.

To get a sense of the rate of change the world is used to, vs, what is coming, xkcd is always a good comic that distills information down to a relatable context.

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

FYI, I'm reading up on questions #1, and #2.

 

[Gary Latimer]

When I see things like "Particularly one where it will cost money they don’t have" it sounds more like politics than science to me. I say this because it argues that the only costs people might encounter are if they do something to reduce human contributions to climate change. This viewpoint totally ignores the fact that there are tremendous costs associated with NOT doing something. If you don't believe that, ask anyone who lives in Paradise, California. Or perhaps Miami, Florida, where more and more of the city is getting flooded even when there is NOT a hurricane or tropical storm. Getting back to the science, if you look at the AMS material quoted in Gary Latimer's post above, Point 1 regarding precipitation is VERY consistent with the point that deleterious effects are occurring from climate change - more and worse floods in some parts of the country, more drought and wildfires in others. And both the temperature trends and the consequences are very consistent with what models linking carbon dioxide to climate are saying. Just because there is not a clear effect on, for example, the frequency and severity of tornadoes does not mean that there are not significant and serious effects on other aspects of climate that influence human lives.

Right... but I wrote that statement with the background that the United States, Canada, UK, NZ, Australia, and a handful of other nations MAY invest in programs to help stop/reverse climate change. But.. and this is what I was referring to, OTHER nations, particularly ones where their GDP may only be a fraction of the US or UK/Canada etc., likely will not be as eager to make the changes we need to reverse climate change.

IF countries like China, India, Russia, that cover a large part of the planet's real estate, are either not in a financial position to make the changes, or, simply don't want to make the changes, there is little we can do about it. Sure, we can slap sanctions on them, but so what? That really doesn't solve the problem.

I KNOW we all want to separate out politics from the issue of Climate Change, but the reality is that WORLD politics will determine the success or failure of reversing the warming of the planet. I'm fairly confident the US and many western nations will take steps necessary, regardless of the political climate in the US currently. But big picture, will the rest of the world? I have a lot less confidence in that happening.

BACK TO SCIENCE: IF only a handful of western nations contribute to reversing climate change, does anyone know if that will be enough to save the planet? (That is a real question, not a snarky one)

 

[TJKLECKNER]

I guess the question should't be, "is the earth warming?". The question should be, "what are we going to do about it, and where should we throw all of our cash?" Should we swap out our cars for horses?

 

[rdale]

Absolutely. But we're still at the stage where most of the people in a position to do the most good don't believe that there's an issue.

 

[Todd Lemery]

It's misleading to ask what Earth's 'ideal temperature' is. Here's what's really important

I’m not seeing anything past “Here’s what’s really important “ try again?

 

[Robert Edmonds]

BACK TO SCIENCE: IF only a handful of western nations contribute to reversing climate change, does anyone know if that will be enough to save the planet? (That is a real question, not a snarky one)

What about encouraging the development of technology that produces less greenhouse emissions, that we could show the rest of the world how to use, or heck maybe sell. Battery tech development, maybe a new look at a hydrogen-nuclear economy? Curious how we say the USA is number one, can do anything it sets out to do, but this whoa...

 

[Robert Edmonds]

Answer to #2 question posed to me a day or two ago... No deforestation is not the main driver of AGW. Emissions from deforestation is approximately 6 GtCO2/yr, that only accounts for ~15% of the CO2 change we are seeing.

 

[Jeff Duda]

I’m not seeing anything past “Here’s what’s really important “ try again?

Here is what I see:

 

[John Farley]

Gary Latimer, the US, Canada, UK, and Australia are all among the top 20 countries in total carbon emissions, with the US being the second-highest behind only China. And on a per capita basis, the US, Canada, and Australia are pretty much at the top. So if all of these countries substantially reduced their emissions, it would make a difference. Yes, countries like China, Russia, and India are also high on total emissions (though not so much on a per capita basis), so to sufficiently reduce world emissions levels they will have to get on board, too. That is what made the Paris Agreement so important, because it got virtually every country in the world on board to do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - many different countries with many different economies, situations, and GDP levels - and why it is now so unfortunate that the US has left the agreement. Yes, you can argue this agreement does not do enough to stop the current rate of climate change, but climate-wise we would clearly be better off with it than without it. Another way of putting it might to be say that doing half of what we need to do is not sufficient, but it is better than doing a quarter of what we need to do. If you want to see the top 20 countries in the world in CO2 emissions, you can follow this link:

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions

 

[rdale]

I’m not seeing anything past “Here’s what’s really important “ try again?

Text in red is a URL that you click.

 

[TJKLECKNER]

I thought the Paris Agreement was "non-binding" and most developing countries had a slim chance of being able to comply

 

[Gary Latimer]

Absolutely. But we're still at the stage where most of the people in a position to do the most good don't believe that there's an issue.

I was watching the DNC Presidential Debates last night (7/30/19 Part 1) on CNN, and I forget which candidate it was, but one of the candidates stated that he wants to create all green energy / renewable energy in the US, but he said one other thing that I found interesting:

DEVELOP A C02 EXCHANGER THAT "FILTERS" (???) or "EXCHANGES" C02 EMISSIONS.

I know there are agriculture methods that can do this. But to the actual scientists here: Is this even something that is possible to create and operate "at scale"? I mean if so, then problem solved. Turn on the C02-Exchangers, and there we go! Climate change reversal!

(Sadly, I don't believe for one second this will end up being a solution... for one, such machinery will take some form of energy to operate... so... unless its nuclear, I am not sure a "C02-Exchanger" will actually end up being so "green".)

I am all for it if it works, and doesn't end up killing wildlife in the process (like wind-farms are doing now; unintended consequences all over the place where they are installed). So in that spirit, has anyone seen / read / heard about any promising technologies to reverse any human climate change? (again, serious question)

 

[rdale]

I've heard "DIrect Air Capture" mentioned here and there but I'm going to wildly guess that it's not a viable option (at least soon.) 6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Sky

 

[TJKLECKNER]

Methane capture: One pound of methane traps 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than a pound of carbon dioxide.
Cow Power
Basic Information about Landfill Gas | US EPA