Some people make a living out of dismissing inconvenient evidence and focusing on confusing rather than clarifying. While others strive to clarify.
Let me introduce another clarifier D. Piepgrass.
Skeptical Science had a recent article by a new team member that goes into CO2 and global warming in some detail, much more clarifying that some of dibble written by local contrarians, or “dismissive” as the case may be.
Posted on 28 March 2018 by www.skepticalscience.com
But before all that, one of the dismissives drew my attention to a climate science paradox:
Scientists agree that the greenhouse effect is approximately logarithmic — which means that as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the effect of extra CO2 decreases.
However, the IPCC projects that if we don't take steps to reduce our emissions, global warming won't just get worse, it will speed up:
After zooming in, the logarithm doesn't make such a big difference: ...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
Points to consider
1. The developing world is developing fast ...
2. Past emissions (CO2 is cumulative) ...
3. Carbon sinks can saturate ...
4. Committed warming ...
In summary:
Although CO2 has less effect at higher CO2 concentrations, this "logarithmic effect" will be overpowered by these 4 factors if we don't switch to clean energy quickly:
Exponential growth of energy use
Past CO2 emissions that nature has not yet absorbed
Carbon sink saturation
Committed warming
What if we manage to stop increasing our emissions? This related article indicates that if emissions hold steady, global warming will still continue upward linearly.
Good news though: the price of solar panels has passed an important milestone. Around the equator where sunlight is strongest, unsubsidized solar power plants have dropped below the price of coal. Hooray for Swanson's law! I also like to point out that a new kind of safe and cheap nuclear reactor will—if the public supports it—begin production in the 2020s. And on a graph of human CO2 emissions you can see emissions have stalled. Is this temporary, like it was in the early 80s and 90s, or are we finally at a turning point? Perhaps, but the IEA forecast still includes new fossil fuel plants in the coming years.
{P.S. Why does CO2 have a logarithmic effect? It's complicated; see Myhre et al. (2008) or Huang & Shahabadi (2014) for technical details.}
Some people make a living out of dismissing inconvenient evidence and focusing on confusing rather than clarifying. While others strive to clarify.
Let me introduce another clarifier D. Piepgrass.
Skeptical Science had a recent article by a new team member that goes into CO2 and global warming in some detail, much more clarifying that some of dibble written by local contrarians, or "dismissive" as the case may be.
Posted on 28 March 2018 by www.skepticalscience.com
But before all that, one of the dismissives drew my attention to a climate science paradox:
Scientists agree that the greenhouse effect is approximately logarithmic — which means that as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the effect of extra CO2 decreases.
However, the IPCC projects that if we don't take steps to reduce our emissions, global warming won't just get worse, it will speed up:
After zooming in, the logarithm doesn't make such a big difference: ...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
points to consider
1. The developing world is developing fast ...
2. Past emissions (CO2 is cumulative) ...
3. Carbon sinks can saturate ...
4. Committed warming ...
In summary:
Although CO2 has less effect at higher CO2 concentrations, this "logarithmic effect" will be overpowered by these 4 factors if we don't switch to clean energy quickly:
Exponential growth of energy use
Past CO2 emissions that nature has not yet absorbed
Carbon sink saturation
Committed warming
What if we manage to stop increasing our emissions? This related article indicates that if emissions hold steady, global warming will still continue upward linearly.
Good news though: the price of solar panels has passed an important milestone. Around the equator where sunlight is strongest, unsubsidized solar power plants have dropped below the price of coal. Hooray for Swanson's law! I also like to point out that a new kind of safe and cheap nuclear reactor will—if the public supports it—begin production in the 2020s. And on a graph of human CO2 emissions you can see emissions have stalled. Is this temporary, like it was in the early 80s and 90s, or are we finally at a turning point? Perhaps, but the IEA forecast still includes new fossil fuel plants in the coming years.
{P.S. Why does CO2 have a logarithmic effect? It's complicated; see Myhre et al. (2008) or Huang & Shahabadi (2014) for technical details.}
Any percentage of steady growth of anything results in an "exponetial function" (which is based on a logarithm)
1% steady growth results in a doubling time every 70 years
2% steady growth results in a doubling time every 35 years
10% steady growth results in a doubling time every 7 years
Fair enough*. Now if only more people were aware of what it means for living in our real world we’d all be much better off
*Heck I been brushing up on a few Dr. Albert A. Bartlett presentation, there’s a bunch on YouTube.
Critical math for dummies :coolsmile: I bet you are familiar with him.
Fair enough*. Now if only more people were aware of what it means for living in our real world we'd all be much better off
*Heck I been brushing up on a few Dr. Albert A. Bartlett presentation, there's a bunch on YouTube.
Critical math for dummies :coolsmile: I bet you are familiar with him.
I have a folder on him........ :-)
The logical elegance of that equation gives a good perspective of theoretical mathematical certainties of increase in complexity at large scales.