Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[hollodero]

OK, I get it. Open an economics thread and people talk climate change. Open a climate change thread then and people talk Steelers. God knows how disgusting things would get if I opened a Steelers thread.

Each time, the topic gets more depraved, into the darkness of misguided human behaviour. I mean, Steelers. I couldn't bring a single person in my circles to love the Bengals - but I easily could bring everyone to hate the Steelers, and they will tell their kids, it's my biggest legacy. It's so easy to do. Just point to Pig Ben or that overly ridiculous towels... I mean, towels.... they are terrible allright, a terrible terrible fan asset. The colours are awful. The name Steelers is awful. The coaches are awful human beings, the players are awful human beings, even the name Heinz field is awful. Being a Steelers fan is a symptom of overboarding tastelessness. How open some people admit to it is astonishing. If I had a black purulent wart on my body, I would at least keep it hidden instead of willingly show it around for everyone to see. What is wrong with people, really. That's all there is to be said about the Steelers.


Now climate change, anyone?
Let's talk about climate sensitivity! The Boltzmann-Formula! I know while you seemingly all weaseled away from the topic, you really all wondered when I finally talk some formulas, and Boltzmann in particular. I understand that. So finally.

S = c . T^4. Who would have thought. S is (here earth's) radiation power, T is the Temperature (here: on earth). If temperature changes due to changes in radiation - this won't take long - are looked for, one can differentiate that formula (looking for dS/dT), arriving at

dT = 1/4 T/S dS. I checked, it really turns out that way.

Now that radiation change dS is the factor in question, and that's the center of many debates - how does dS (the "radiation power change") and hence the Temperature change dT change when CO2 concentration changes? JustWin, in one of the few substantial responses, did that. Pointing out that this dS is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Hence, a small effect.
Luckily, it is really widely undisputed (even amongst critics) how that dS needs to be factored into.  After a series of overly complicated steps the real consensus is (the way I read it anyhow): Doubling the CO2 concentration directly leads to a temperature rise of about 1 to 1.1°C. 
Hence Baby is somehow right. That isn't much. And concentration only has risen from 280 to about 400 ppm, so we are not even in doubling range. We add 2ppm each year, so well, in 160 years global temperature will probably have risen about 1°C as a direct - direct - result of human CO2 emission.

So why the fuzz? It's the amplifications that cause the fuzz. The indirect effects of CO2 and temperature change, that's what it seems to come down to.  IPCC used to arrive at way higher climate sensitivity, e.g. higher temperature rises, because of additional effects that are caused by a rising temperature (not to forget other greenhouse gasses we release), but not directly by CO2. Like additional water vapor due to a warmer planet (more humidification). Turns out we don't seem to have significant amounts of additional H2O in the atmosphere, a fact that indeed is not part of the public debate, although being a really important one. H2O is a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. That's where I have to agree with the JustWinBabys of this world - the doomsday projections are somehow capped and have gotten less likely. The fact that water vapor is not on a distinct rise supports that.

Then again - Methane is a potent greenhouse gas too, and a lot of it is contained by permafrost. Even tiny temperature changes can cause some permafrost to melt, hence releasing methane and providing a huge amplification. Melting ice surfaces can cause lesser reflection, another amplification. Can anyone seriously factor in these things? Seems like no.

Things that lead me to the assumption: A whole variety of outcomes is probable. Assuming we're on the doomsday branch is not the most likely one. Assuming we simply could adapt to just very slight temperature rises seems equally unlikely. We would take a risk by denying the danger, a risk for habitability on earth, a risk not worth taking.
To me, the wisest thing was already said.

(01-16-2017, 12:35 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Even if we imagine that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is somehow wrong. Oh well, we only ended up with cleaner air, clean energy, independence from other countries, sustainability, clean water.

People can deny climate change, but even those who fanatically do never provided an answer to that: What is so bad about taking measures against climate change? We would be more independent from oil, more independent of arab sheikhs and middle east conflicts, are protected against peak oil, don't need fracking and earthquakes and such, no oil spills and leaking pipelines, we don't cause acidation of the oceans (even if the temperature rise stays moderate, THIS seems to be a huge problem of our rising CO2 level), can create energy sources that are sustainable, a whole bunch of positive effects. We would also create clean jobs and would get rid of hazardous ones (digging for coal is not healthy) - so what's the point in being certain we don't need to change anything and all is just a hoax? What's the point in taking this risk (and if you're sensible, even if you do not believe in climate change there has to be a remaining risk no one can completely dispute)?

Plus, if it were a hoax, cui bono? (Whoever says "scientists" really has no concept about a scientist's earnings, big money is to be made elsewhere in the first place; fame is also not part of the deal for scientists)

Here are some questions, some disputable thoughts, maybe I even got the math or the consequences dead wrong, there would be much to question, discuss or anything.
Which certainly means people will talk about something completely different now, if at all.