Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

brownsmith89 wrote:

thanks for the clarification.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo

the current amount of co2 in the air is only about 0.04% by volume.

if the amount rises to 0.05% after 40 years, what exactly is the concern? biologically, the co2 wouldn't have much of an adverse effect on the lungs.

i'd like a meteorologist to explain.

A meteorologist is a weather man. You should expect no expertise from him concerning these matters. What you want is a climate scientist.

brownsmith89 wrote:

thanks for the clarification.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo

the current amount of co2 in the air is only about 0.04% by volume.

if the amount rises to 0.05% after 40 years, what exactly is the concern? biologically, the co2 wouldn't have much of an adverse effect on the lungs.

i'd like a meteorologist to explain.

"only about 0.04% by volume."

Why the use of the word, "only"? Is this automatically a small number in your book? What if I told you that the level of cyanide found in a person's body was found to be "only 0.04%"? Would you conclude that it could not possibly be important in determining that person's current state of being?

I'm pretty sure that when folks are talking about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere they are not talking about the impact on one's lungs. So why bring up something so silly? Come to think about it, there isn't much in your post that was not silly.

If you really want to know the expected impacts, read the reports. They are public information.

Wrong Guy Alert wrote: A meteorologist is a weather man. You should expect no expertise from him concerning these matters. What you want is a climate scientist.

actually, i'd like an explanation of what an extra 0.01% of the air being co2 would do within a short period of time. the dynamics of humidity, temperature, pressure, etc.

i'd prefer that over a statistician or climatologist who looks for trends over decades with numerical results.

also, yes, i do believe 0.01% to be small. if you were in a room and the air was pumped with a little extra co2 that increased the percentage to 0.05%, i doubt that you would even notice. you can even breathe into a brown paper bag and still survive.

If in 40 years we're only at 0.05%, it will be because drastic changes were made to slow the burning of fossil fuels. That said, I'll answer your question.Biologically, your lungs won't notice much of a difference. Your lungs won't feel an affect until we get closer to 0.1% and really not until 0.15% will there be any real problems.However, we will run into other problems long before then. This site does a pretty good job of explaining the effects both nationally and globallyhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

brownsmith89 wrote:

thanks for the clarification.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo

the current amount of co2 in the air is only about 0.04% by volume.

if the amount rises to 0.05% after 40 years, what exactly is the concern? biologically, the co2 wouldn't have much of an adverse effect on the lungs.

i'd like a meteorologist to explain.

that website you referred me to seems to be heavily reliant on computer simulations.

is there an actual, physical model in a laboratory that can replicate these conditions?

i know that in a biodome, you can potentially increase temperature and co2 concentrations since it is a controlled setting.

basically, i want to see a demonstration with my eyes, how an extra 0.01% of co2 would affect the hydrologic cycle, for instance.

or maybe a coral in an aquatic tank get exposed to an extra 0.01% of co2.

there seems to be a lot of speculation. also, again, i'd like to hear from a meteorologist's perspective with a concise and specific explanation of the dynamics.

brownsmith89 wrote:

thanks for the clarification.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo

the current amount of co2 in the air is only about 0.04% by volume.

if the amount rises to 0.05% after 40 years, what exactly is the concern? biologically, the co2 wouldn't have much of an adverse effect on the lungs.

i'd like a meteorologist to explain.

It's because the proportion of the atmosphere composed of CO2 is so small that it is possible for emissions to change it. We could not release enough N2 to alter it's concentration appreciably, or 02: they're both too big a volume. But by burning fossil fuels we are releasing gigatons of CO2 each year. That same CO2 took millenia to be taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, so the equilibrium is disrupted and C02 rises. As a fraction of the total atmosphere, CO2 remains a small component, but the fraction of the atmosphere that IS CO2 changes rapidly (the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is now more than double the amount in the early 1800s at the start of the industrial revolution).

This does not matter for your physiology, in terms of how you use the air you breath. It does not even matter much for plant uptake of CO2 by photosynthesis, though it has an effect.

It DOES matter for the balance of electromagnetic energy coming into the earth from the sun, and going back out from the earth to space. Obviously, those two have to be equal for the earth to stay at a constant temperature. CO2 has no effect on the passage of energy in from the sun, because that energy is mostly UV and visible light, with which CO2 does not interact. The outgoing radiation from the earth is primarily heat, which CO2 does interact with strongly. CO2 absorbs outgoing heat from the surface, then reradiates it to space with lower intensity. Because a smaller amount is going out... the earth heats up until outgoing EM again equals incoming EM.

Climate change in a nutshell.

What you're asking for is a physical model of the earth. If you want evidence of what a 0.01% increase will do, look outside. We've had that increase in your life time. We have warmer temperatures, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, ice melting, drought, storms, sea level rise.

brownsmith89 wrote:

that website you referred me to seems to be heavily reliant on computer simulations.

is there an actual, physical model in a laboratory that can replicate these conditions?

i know that in a biodome, you can potentially increase temperature and co2 concentrations since it is a controlled setting.

basically, i want to see a demonstration with my eyes, how an extra 0.01% of co2 would affect the hydrologic cycle, for instance.

or maybe a coral in an aquatic tank get exposed to an extra 0.01% of co2.

there seems to be a lot of speculation. also, again, i'd like to hear from a meteorologist's perspective with a concise and specific explanation of the dynamics.

touche

No Way wrote:

What you're asking for is a physical model of the earth. If you want evidence of what a 0.01% increase will do, look outside. We've had that increase in your life time. We have warmer temperatures, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, ice melting, drought, storms, sea level rise.

brownsmith89 wrote:

that website you referred me to seems to be heavily reliant on computer simulations.

is there an actual, physical model in a laboratory that can replicate these conditions?

Yes. That sort of experiment is more than 200 years old, if what you're asking is: "If I increase the CO2 concentration of a controlled environment and allow sunlight to hit it, does it equilibrate at a higher temperature?"

brownsmith89 wrote:

...also, yes, i do believe 0.01% to be small. if you were in a room and the air was pumped with a little extra co2 that increased the percentage to 0.05%, i doubt that you would even notice. you can even breathe into a brown paper bag and still survive.

And this is relevant how again?

No Way wrote: What you're asking for is a physical model of the earth.

no, i'm not asking for a full model of the earth but a small scale setup that reflects portions of the earth.

No Way wrote: If you want evidence of what a 0.01% increase will do, look outside. We've had that increase in your life time.

i'm sorry, but in my life, i don't commute much outside of a 10-mile radius. over the decades, i honestly can't tell the difference in climate from where i live. it snows in winter. i sweat during the summer.

if i could see a small-scale model somewhere that shows the effects of a slight acidity increase or how the introduction of 0.01% co2 increases heat entrapment, then i'd like to see. if there isn't any current experiment at the moment like this, then that would be understandable. i know it takes money from grants, time, etc. to organize.

definitely overfishing is a concern and runoff of fertilizer into the gulf of mexico from the mississippi river. just some experimental evidence would be nice because many factors can damage a coral reef.

brownsmith89 wrote:

i'm sorry, but in my life, i don't commute much outside of a 10-mile radius. .

well, there's a shock.

But you're better than most. Most climate change skeptics have rarely stepped foot outside their mama's basement.

Instead of percentages - think about parts per million. Most climate scientists think that we need to get to 350 ppm to be in a safe zone - we're currently at 392 ppm.

Here is more info -

http://350.org/about/science

.

Neb wrote:

Instead of percentages - think about parts per million. Most climate scientists think that we need to get to 350 ppm to be in a safe zone - we're currently at 392 ppm.

Here is more info -

http://350.org/about/science

.

350ppm = 0.035%

Neb wrote:

Instead of percentages - think about parts per million. Most climate scientists think that we need to get to 350 ppm to be in a safe zone - we're currently at 392 ppm.

Here is more info -

http://350.org/about/science

.

What level of global CO2 emissions would be necessary to bring the world down to 350 ppm? This seemingly essential bit of data is missing from the link above and from all the links I could find related to it? Global CO2 emissions in 2011 were 33,376 million tonnes. That figure is increasing each year and the US is not contributing to the increase.

From 2002 to 2011...

Ten-year increase in CO2 emissions by country in millions of tons.

China 6,008

USA -189

India 743

Russia 273

Saudi Arabia 167

(Note that data varies depending on source cited.) Source:

fisky wrote:

What level of global CO2 emissions would be necessary to bring the world down to 350 ppm?

Lolz @ the demented anti-science climate burghers.

When it's cold cold, they say stupid things like "you call THIS climate change!".

Isn't the day to day stuff called weather?

but isn't climate change the macro, year to year, decade to decade shifts in weather?

There is also an idea that if we can stop at 450ppm, we can avoid the worst affects while the technology transition occurs to return to 350.

fisky wrote:

Neb wrote:

Instead of percentages - think about parts per million. Most climate scientists think that we need to get to 350 ppm to be in a safe zone - we're currently at 392 ppm.

Here is more info -

http://350.org/about/science

.

What level of global CO2 emissions would be necessary to bring the world down to 350 ppm? This seemingly essential bit of data is missing from the link above and from all the links I could find related to it? Global CO2 emissions in 2011 were 33,376 million tonnes. That figure is increasing each year and the US is not contributing to the increase.

From 2002 to 2011...

Ten-year increase in CO2 emissions by country in millions of tons.

China 6,008

USA -189

India 743

Russia 273

Saudi Arabia 167

(Note that data varies depending on source cited.) Source:

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=

And by safe at 350 ppm, I assume you mean we'll be safely back into the usual wild swings of the Earth's climate. Time for the next safe ice age.