Best products from r/climatechange

>I'm guessing that you could be the author of the attached piece.

Ha! No. I actually haven't finished reading it yet. Too busy lately. This was actually mentioned in a recent Scientific American article.

>I have questions about how much nuclear power could be rolled out in a relevant time frame if the political will to do so could be summoned.

In my opinion, the only way we will see lots of nuclear power is if we see it produced on a factory line the same way 747s are. The economies of scale that come from mass production just can't be denied. This means we are very likely going to have to move away from pressurized water reactors toward small modular reactors.

(I will note that Russia claims their breeder reactor is cost competitive now, but I've been taking Russian claims with a grain of salt lately.)

>(Out of curiousity, who are the power brokers behind nuclear power?)

There really aren't any. Big Oil hates nuclear because they love to produce natural gas. Big Coal hates nuclear because they are direct competitors. Big Green hates nuclear because they aren't good at math and have internalized some really bad information. So nuclear development today is mostly done by small start-ups in the west or government research institutions in China, India, or Russia. India's thorium reactor looks promising. My money is on China simply because they've devoted the most resources to advanced nuclear.

>While it's an intelligently crafted article, it's largely an opinion piece with a highly optimistic bias and spin.

I'll have to finish reading the article to see if I agree.

>His story has no albedo, permafrost, methane hydrates, tropical storms or wars.

You and I have discussed some of these things. I stand by my claim that food supply is the biggest risk from climate change. It has the potential to cause more death than all other effects of climate change combined.

The author does discuss that early in the article, and he makes the same point that I've made in past conversations (with others, not with you). A lot of cropland is being misused for biofuel production. This is, in my opinion, much better done in the ocean. I don't think you've conversed with him, but I have had lengthy conversations with /u/Vailhem (a moderator here and in many other subs) about the oceans:

• being the best source for biofuel.
  
  
• being a great supplementary source for food and/or agricultural feed.
  
  He's a pretty busy guy, but I thought I would mention him here in the event he would like to jump in. (I also recommend some of his other subs, like /r/BioChar and /r/UrbanAgriculture.)
  
  >One source of personal optimism for me is the evolution of battery technology...
  
  I'm watching this as well, particular solid state batteries. I tend to think in terms of Amara's Law, which I'll paraphrase as, "People tend to overestimate a technology in the short term and underestimate it in the long term." I think that batteries are overhyped in terms of development right now, but I do believe that continued development over the coming decades will make EVs become economically viable.
  
  (Related to that, I think that batteries and advanced nuclear power are a match made in heaven. When is the best time to charge an EV, on average? At night. This would level out the daily power curve and nuclear works great 24 hours each day.)
  
  >Would this be public sector $$ or private?
  
  The efforts of which I am aware in the US, UK, and Canada are all private sector startups, though the UK has made a policy decision to favor SMRs going forward. (Probably due in part to the massive cost overrun at Hinckley C.)
  
  In India and China, the money is coming from governments at the moment. The Chinese Academy of Sciences claims they have 400 PhDs working on SMRs at the moment.
  
  >How does the cost compare with untaxed fossil fuels?
  
  Robert Hargraves claims that thorium reactors in particular would be cheaper than coal:
  
  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A3HZTWO/
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
  
  >Does it require a fossil fuel tax to become price competitive?
  
  Maybe. Natural gas is really cheap right now, but I think it's foolhardy to believe that will always be the case. What would help it more is restructuring how we do regulation. There's a reason ThorCon moved to Indonesia to start work on MSRs, and it wasn't the price of fossil fuels. https://clearpath.org/jay-and-richs-take/nuclear-innovation-isnt-welcome-here/
  
  "But before building his first plant to test the idea, Jack faced a choice.
  
  "1. Build in America. It would take 10 years and cost around $500 million, including roughly $100 million in fees to get it approved by the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  
  "2. Build in Asia. Get it approved to build in 4 years. Save millions."
  
  >How many plants?
  
  If you go the SMR route, and using 747s as an example, you could roll a reactor off the factor line every day. That's in just one factory. Each SMR would probably be (and this is a pretty wild guess), in the low hundreds of megawatts of electrical capacity.
  
  >How much money in total?
  
  A number I've heard cited by John Kutsch for a test reactor is $100 million. That's less than 1% of what we've spent on ITER so far.
  
  >Time to implement?
  
  A test reactor could be built in less than five years if the funds were committed. China intends to have a test reactor built in two years.

a reasoned argument:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satelitte era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Human CO2-emissions coincide end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" 1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining to modern warming (up to the early 00ies) is also plausible.

Solar forcing variability of just 0.3% (5 W/m2) would be enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of 0.209 degC per W/m2.
TSI estimates fall into "high variability" or "low variability" categories, and CMIP5 uses a low-variability "Kopp&Lean" or "PMOD" estimate. "High-variability" TSI-estimates like Hoyt&Schatten vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 60-80% of observed warming.
"High-variability" TSI-estimates are supported by

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• correlation with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• better ability to explain MWP/LIA(Fig15) temperature changes.
  
  Solar activity has only been measured for 40 years, is poorly understood and is under-estimated in CMIP5 climate models.
  Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements exist prior to 1980 and because the mechanisms by which solar variability impacts climate are not fully modeled in CMPI5 or even understood (ch1).
  Theories include that UV-radiation(ch4.4), energetic particles or cosmic rays influences climate.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indication that solar forcing is under-estimated. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5. Oscillation models similarly find ECS=0.6.
  
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests and on the many weaknesses of models used.
  
  (Peer-reviewed literature where possible, presumably independently vetted. Known that some authors are outside climate science establishment.)
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  **\Man-made emissions are part of a larger carbon cycle, and simulations of the "coupled earth-system response" to CO2-emissions indicate TCR below 1*

• Transition to a plant-based diet This is the one thing I'll always regret not doing sooner, as it has a HUGE impact on the planet
  and my health just keeps improving instead of deteriorating like when I ate meat.
  
  
• Walk, bike, use public transit, or if you have to carpool.
  
  
• Refuse, reduce, reuse, and try to recycle as a last resourt.
  
  
• Try to buy bulk and plastic free as often as possible - you can reuse tubs and cloth bags instead of plastic.
  
  
• If you have to buy something try to find second hand or refurbished items first - second hand clothes are often better quality than new pieces.
  
  
• Instead of relying on heating and cooling, make sure your home is well insulated with curtains, door socks, multiple window panes if possible, and dress for the temperature - cool light clothes and a fan for summer, or muliple layers, socks/slippers, and warm bedding for winter.
  
  
• Talk to your professors about your concerns and ask if they know of any projects you might be able to participate in. Some colleges have budding sustainability programs and events with opportunities you might never hear of otherwise. I know people who have ended up on amazing new career paths because they talked to a professor gave them some dirrection.
  
  
• Learn what zero-waste options you can add to your daily life- I use a period cup, period pads, a safety razor so now I can recycle my blades instead of adding to landfills, I compost, and try to cook whole foods instead of buying packaged foods, my water bottle goes everywhere with me, and when I know I might eat out I try to remember my little bag of metal cutlery/straws, cloth napkins, and a tub or two per person to bring home leftovers.
  
  
• Keep an open mind and learn everything you can about sustainability so you can have educated discussions with other people, and help spread the importance of personal action.
  
  
• If you can, find pro-science politicians and support the crap out of them!
  
  
• Volunteer and/or do outreach for organizations that help your local environment, support public transport, fight pollution, provide education, etc. Whatever speaks to you. If you don't like the group, move on to another or find out what you might be able to help change for the better. Groups are more powerful and influential than individuals.
  
  
• Take birth control VERY seriously.
  

> The problem is that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor is.

True, but irrelevant. Water vapor content in the atmosphere varies by orders of magnitude on both short time and spatial scales. However, in the global average, it doesn't really, because the balance of precipitation versus evaporation fundamentally constrains the movement of energy in the atmosphere (see Oort and Peixoto, 1992).

On the other hand, CO2 steadily rises.

If you add a sine wave and a line together, you got a sine wave tilted upwards.

> As CO2 levels increase it's ability to trap radiation acutally diminishes substantiallly.

Also true but irrelevant; atmospheric levels of CO2 are nowhere near saturating all the modes of absorption. The many overtones of ro-vibrational modes can go a long way before you should expect the simplest estimates of CO2's radiative forcing to break down.

> Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas and is incredibly poorly modeled, if at all.

Water vapor is modeled by every climate model. It's fundamental. Do you have any citation backing up your assertion that it's "poorly modeled?"

> To answer your question, we don't know and we don't have enough data. Long-term temperature records aren't that reliable, accurate, or global. We've only had satellite records for 35 years and there's been no warming for about half of that record.

Which is why we drive to understand the physics, chemistry, and dynamics of the climate system - to make progress where we're observationally-constrained. We do not have direct evidence of gravitational waves, yet we have the immensely powerful general relativity which predicts them. Until recently, we did not have direct evidence of the Higgs boson, yet we have a powerful and successful Standard Model and related theories which predicted it.

Besides, the existing temperature record unambiguously shows warming. You can do a lot more than just plot global mean temperatures if you wish to understand what caused that warming.

> Man made climate change is a hypothesis which hasn't been proven. There's no smoking gun. The satellite data is showing that there has been no appreciable warming in the last 15-18 years yet we have put 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Internal variability dominates the signal in global temperature on short (less than 30 year) timescales. It's simply wrong to try to extrapolate the tendency in the climate system from such few years of data - particularly when you pin the beginning of that subset of data to a very strong El Nino, which skews any statistical analysis of the trend you might wish to do.

Why don't you use all the satellite data and re-evaluate that paragraph? I can answer for you: because then there is an unambiguous warming trend.

By the way, science doesn't deal in proof. You want /r/mathematics.

> Climate scientists projections have been wildly inaccurate over the years.

Climate scientists have never said that there is high confidence in decadal-scale climate projection. Again - on that timescale, internal variability dominates. So it's a curious benchmark for evaluating the science, kind of like asking a police officer why he failed to put out a house fire.

> The jury is still out for anyone that actually looks at the data. Others buy into it whole-heartedly because that's what they've been taught.

It's not. The science is in - human activity is leading to climate change. What you choose to do with that information is your own prerogative, but don't pretend that reality is something that it isn't.

It's good you are trying to do things as an individual, and should continue. However, it's really like taking a drop of water from the ocean. Pretty much unnoticeable. But it's still important so don't stop. At the very least you become a role model and your activities will create conversation with others.

1. Beyond your individual efforts - join a group. Become an activist. Mobilize. Three of the below are youth based. I'm not sure of CCL has a youth group, but they need to if they don't. Be active in these groups.
   
   https://actionnetwork.org/forms/join-the-xr-youth-network/
   
   https://www.sunrisemovement.org/
   
   https://www.fridaysforfuture.org/
   
   https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
   
   
2. Are your friends concerned? Make them concerned if they aren't. Not a convincing person? Read a book called "Influence" by Paul Cialdini and Google search "Monroes Motivated sequence". At the teen level you can do this, and the skills you will learn from those two items will be invaluable for the rest of your life. Convince your friends. Make them activists. Mobilize. Protest.
   
   https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Business-Essentials-ebook/dp/B002BD2UUC
   
   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LMb65w9nLyo
   
   
   
3. Convince the voting age adults around you, and get your now activist friends to do the same. Afraid they won't listen? Well, after step two you should have skills. You have a better chance of convincing them than other adults even without that great persuasion experience you now have https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-change-their-parents-minds-about-climate-change/
   
   
4. Continue. Recruit more people. Get your recruits to recruit more people. Mobilize. Protest. Repeat. Don't give up. Don't stop. Keep going.

I'm afraid you will have to take that up with John Houghton who describes the process in his book Global Warming.

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Sir-John-Houghton/dp/1107463793

​

You say:

> Because temperatures cool as you go higher in the troposphere

Basic thermodynamics, the net flow of enthalpy is from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. The driver for all heat transfer is the delta T. The troposphere has to be cooler than the surface or all net heat transfer would be in the other direction. But I did not say the troposphere is warmer than the surface. The troposphere warms due to the greenhouse effect. This reduces the delta T which slows down the heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm. The troposphere becomes less cool before the surface warms. I'm surprised anyone participating in this kind of discussion does not get this. I truly recommend the Houghton book.

​

You say:

> ... warming predicted in the troposphere is a consequence of predicted warming of the surface (by almost any cause e.g. GHGs, solar),

Of course we are only speaking of the enhanced greenhouse effect here.

​

Think about it, if what you are saying is true and CO2 gases heat just the surface air, this means the absorption spectrum is saturated at the surface and any CO2 subsequently added to the atmosphere will have no incremental effect.

​

An IR photon emitted from the surface proceeds up the column of air. The net probability of it interacting with a greenhouse molecule is a function of the emission flux and the number of molecules along the emission pathway (not dissimilar from nuclear physics): the longer the pathway, the greater the probability of an interaction. The absorption of IR photons can occur throughout the column of air which is about 18 km high.

​

Now ask yourself what happens to a CO2 molecule that is heated (becomes energized) by an IR photon. Some of the energy is re-radiated away as a IR photon but some of the energy remains in the molecule as latent heat (2nd Law). This heats the molecule which conducts some of the heat to the cooler molecules surrounding it. This warmer pocket of air will convect upwards.

​

So, not only should the troposphere warm due to the radiative heat transfer from greenhouse effect it should also be warmed from below by other gases bringing heat upwards through convective heat transfer resulting from radiative heat transfer. The cumulative effect of this is a warmer less cool troposphere which slows down all other heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm.

​

​

Not a book, but this is the science, from the scientists themselves (sorta, the IPCC is a committee that reviews all of the literature, and provides a meta-level analysis of what everybody has to say). the IPCC provides some of the most current and collectively vetted climate science literature available. Of note is that each publication is free to the public, and provides a Summary for Policymakers at the start of every book. This 20-50 page synthesis is a "for the public" overview of the science, attached to a 1000+ page book of the actual science, and all of the citations and references you could ask for. The version linked above is from the 5th report, the 6th is not yet available.

They recently released another publication, which is a bit more poignant and directed, titled Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, which also comes with a great summary document.


The problem with a traditional "book" on climate change is they are outdated as soon as published. we are learning so fast, its hard to capture that outside of the peer-reviewed literature. A great book I suggest is Reason in a Dark time. It does a great job of tracking the policy and actions/inactions of how we got where we are, and the book is rife with citations for every fact/tidbit he uses to justify his point of view. It is not about science so much as the policy, which I think is very pertinent this day in age.

>Change my mind.

I have no interest in what you beleive.

However some readers may be interested in a couple of obvious points that spring to mind.

First up the source Ruddiman has a ten year more recent eddition

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Earths-Climate-Future-William-Ruddiman/dp/131915400X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FNAJRPPHR87XAHQZCF0X

This will include a lot of work by the likes of Tripati et al 2009 that had significant refinements to Miocene CO2 and temperatures.

Secondly the sources cited predate Royer 2004 (and his more recent works including one about a year ago) that look at Phanerozoic coupling of CO2 and temperature. Its sort of a review piece in rather than new research but it shows the over all trend.

​

>Weathering fluxes are modified over time as changes occur in global temperature, continental size, position and relief, and land plant colonization. This includes incorporating solar radiation, due to the slow stellar evolution of the sun, and the CO2 greenhouse effect in general circulation model (GCM) calculations of global mean surface temperature and river runoff. Volcanic degassing is guided by the abundance of volcanics, seafloor spreading rates, and the carbonate content of subducting oceanic crust.

This is the changing luminosity of our star over time

​

It has increased at about 30%, this increase is non linear so the past couple of hundred million years are given at a heuristic of 1% per 100 million years. That is to say a graph of CO2 over times scales of billions of years, without mapping it against solar output is nonsense.

Another quick aside it mentions Ordovician climate but with sources from about 2007, Young 2010 has significantly updated our understanding of the evolution of CO2 and temperature during this period.

​

In short this appears to be very out of date, missing vital context and a bit of a mish mash of mixed papers trying to push a conclusion.

As always you mileage may vary and all corrections offered in good faith welcomed.

The heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases is basic physics, known for over a century. So to believe that the Earth is warming but it's not our fault, you have to believe that:

1. After 10,000 years of exceptional climate stability, the planet just coincidentally warmed up a lot right after we increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 43%, and
   
   
2. There's some unknown negative feedback which is countering the known warming effect of the greenhouse gases we emitted, and
   
   
3. There's another unknown natural process which is actually doing the warming.
   
   To dig into the case in more detail, the best source I've found is Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. He focuses on physics and geological history, rather than complicated computer models, and works through multiple lines of evidence.
   
   On another tack, a book which is often recommended but I haven't read yet is Merchants of Doubt, which documents how the fossil fuel companies are using the same tactics the tobacco companies used, to get the public to doubt well-established science.

I'm not done reading it but so far this book has been really good: https://www.amazon.ca/Price-Carbon-David-D-Maenz/dp/1775291308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541975737&sr=8-1&keywords=the+price+of+carbon

​

Disclaimer: I know the guy that wrote it which is the reason I bought it in the first place. But still really, it's good.

Recycle your angst as action. I find that working at promoting solutions and critiquing policy and talking truth to power really helps my mental state. If you are not sure how to proceed, get training - https://www.climaterealityproject.org/training space is available in Atlanta and Brisbane. Read, Hal Harvey's book is a bit dry but full of ways we can talk truth to power and have real results. Designing Climate Solutions: A Policy Guide for Low-Carbon Energy
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610919564/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_onzyCbASCN63Q

After a couple of years of taking my actions seriously I have started to see changes happening that I have directly influenced. Working the issues works!

Right! Edible Forest Gardens, Vol. 2 is a great resource for people who would like to do this. Most people in the US can get their hands on a copy through inter-library loan.

I've been working on my own lawn for six years. It's a little slow going, but I can see that in the next 5-8 years I'm going to have quite a bit of food for my family and friends. And, of course, a lot less to mow!

EDIT: link to book

Here are some books by William D Nordhaus who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his writing on the topic ...

https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Global-Commons-Economics-Climate/dp/026253746X/

https://www.amazon.com/Question-Balance-Weighing-Options-Policies/dp/0300137486

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Casino-Uncertainty-Economics-Warming/dp/030021264X

I'm late to the party, but The book's a joke here's the reviews

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Guide-Greatest-Scientific-History-ebook/product-reviews/B07Y6QDLWG/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

There is "Climate models for lawyers" (a 18 page pdf) by Judith Curry. And a book The Climate Modelling Primer. And from that book page, Amazon also suggests several other climate model books.