Climate Policy

[kandrathe]

Ignorant question: since all we want to know is how an increase in CO2 (without any other major global changes - like earthquakes or what not) affects global temperatures why wouldn't modeling what happened since the industrial revolution be sufficient? Has that ever happened before?

There are no stupid questions. I read recently, "Reality laughs at computer modeling when the underlying science is just hearsay."

My interpretation of the climate system on earth is that it is more like a marble in bowl, than it is like a marble on an upside down bowl. The models have added many positive feedback mechanisms, such as, As temperatures rise, more water evaporates into the atmosphere - the increased water vapor absorbs more heat, amplifying the warming. As ice melts, water and land are exposed which absorb heat more effectively than ice, again amplifying warming. Melting permafrost releases methane and carbon into the atmosphere. Warming oceans become less effective as carbon sinks. But, then again, if it were so fragile what happened all those other times in our history when the levels of CO2, and methane were much higher than they are now?

This is why even with catastrophic atmospheric change (snow ball earth, asteroid impacts, super volcanoes) it still eventually settles back to normal. The edges of the bowl are the feedback mechanisms which increase in response to a change in the normal. For example, I mentioned earlier that plants grow differently in a more CO2 rich environment using less H20, and absorbing more CO2 which they use to build thicker foliage. Eventually, just that change might sequester the man made additions. I think we understand pretty well (maybe) what moves the marble (being climate change) around the bowl, but I don't fully think we understand the nature of the bowl and what forces are out there that work to offset climate change.

In fact, I'd be much more worried about a looming ice age than I am about global warming. It will be very, very inconvenient to have to abandon, or put dikes around our low laying cities, but that is nothing compared to the ravages of a much colder earth. At least we can stay warm and will have plenty to eat. All animals and plants on Earth do much better in a warmer wetter climate than a frozen climate, although there will be some areas that will suffer as well. Although, in my recent exploration of Arizona energy, I was shocked to see how vibrant it's agriculture output was, and most of that through irrigation. If we can do that to a desert, then I have to believe that with abundant energy, nothing is impossible to humanity.

Humans should do better to prevent deforestation and promote a healthy vibrant environment, but I still feel warmer is better than frozen.