
A Guide to Climate Change - neilkakkar
https://neilkakkar.com/climate-change.html
======
kbutler
Skimmed parts of it.

Read this bit:

"""

    
    
        Right now, we are at net positive emissions. Every year, we add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Even if we reach net zero emissions by 2050, we’ll keep adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere for 30 years. Thus, we’ll keep increasing the rate of heating. Even in 2050, the planet will continue heating up - faster than today, but at net zero, the rate will stabilise.
    
        Imagine a car on a super long path2 that ends in a cliff. We are pushing this car harder and harder, which makes the car keep going faster and faster. We will continue pushing for 30 years, and when we stop, the car will continue going at its current speed. This roughly translates to the car falling off the cliff. It doesn’t matter how long the path is, we will get to the cliff.

"""

This view that a given CO2 level determines a rate of global heating does not
match any scientific view of the greenhouse effect of which I'm aware.

~~~
lutorm
Yeah I got to that, too, and it's not correct. A given CO2 level basically
determines the temperature at which the Earth will be in net radiative
equilibrium between heating and cooling.

The Earth can't simply continue heating up until the oceans boil and the rocks
melt because the CO2 level has gone up a bit. That would only be possible in
the presence of a very strong positive feedback loop that made the Earth
better and better insulated the hotter it got, which would be unlike any other
thermal system we know of.

Edit: there are _some_ positive feedback effects, like water vapor being a
greenhouse gas, that will likely make the end result hotter than that expected
based on the change in CO2 alone, but it will not lead to heating just
continuing indefinitely.

~~~
nootka
Isn't there a bunch of methane trapped in icebergs or something?

I'll be honest, I'm convinced humans have a big hand in climate change, but I
can't seem to determine whether I merely need to lobby my rep for green
legislation or start taking survival classes for an impending collapse of JIT
supply chains and society in general.

~~~
jkettmann
You're right, there is time of methane trapped in permafrost. Those are
melting now and realising the gas.

Lobby for green legislation. We need to influence politics to finally act in a
serious manner. As we accomplished with the ozone hole as mentioned in the
article

[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-
boost-o...](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-
methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/)

------
jkettmann
Thanks fur this article! I like the comparison to the ozone hole problem a
couple of decades ago. People panicked at that time and that resulted in
immediate change. I think we should panic more in this situation as well.

Besides climate change not being a spicy enough story and consequences being
more long-term another important factor in my opinion is that we rely much
more on processes that create CO2 than we were relying on ozone-eating gases.
Lobbies are much bigger and the transition requires much more effort

------
cpr
Whenever random folks post dire climate change articles, I like to point to a
somewhat less random engineer's take on things:

[https://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm](https://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
That seems to be about as accurate and helpful as any random and unknown
layperson's "insight" something they don't understand. Or multi Nobel winner
Linus Pauling's entirely misplaced obsession with vitamins, spawning a multi-
billion dollar but pointless industry.

Why does this random aerospace engineer have any credibility _on climate?_
What peer reviewed research has he _on climate?_ How does knowing something
about aerospace engineering provide insight _on climate?_

~~~
lucb1e
Well I don't like to dismiss someone based on the argument that they didn't
study for it. Hackers of all people know how effective self education can be.
But yeah, in this case, there is nothing that makes him more qualified than
the large number of professionals he's disagreeing with.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
True, but then I'd hope to see something brought to the party a little more
substantive than just shouting at the consensus. Maybe an attempt to show
credibility, or humility if making a case for a previously undiscussed aspect
or link etc.

