tht said: The conclusions from the tweets would be easier to understand if the plots were shown as delta temperatures versus time across 20 to 30 years. Instead the plots are of daily temperatures across a year and 20 to 30 years of daily temperatures are coplotted. So, I'm not clear what these tweets are trying to say. From what baseline is the tweet referring to? What years is it talking about.
Is it possible for the delta temperature to rise so steeply? Absolutely, especially for localized regions of the planet. Is it possible for the global average temperature to rise steeply, yes. Here is a plot of global average temperatures using instrument data of the recent past:
...
The second tweet seems to making a steady state assumption of the atmosphere heating the oceans in a linear fashion. That's a great assumption over 10, 20, 30 year time frames. Year to year? Their will be dynamic effects. Like the first tweet, it's a nonlinear system wherein the oceans don't absorb heat from the atmosphere in a linear fashion. This is why El Nino years are hot and are the source of these big jumps in global average temperature. So "4sigma" anomalies don't have to follow one for one between ocean temps to air temps.
If that is the case, it kind of messes up all this atmospheric & sun-energy coming vs going calculations. If this warming also releases the CO2, then maybe the levels are rising despite the small amount of additional impact we're having via fossil fuels. (Where this really 'jumps the shark' for me, is they are building carbon-capture plants in Alberta - and advertising it. This really illustrates the scale problem. If a carbon-capture plant can make any meaningful impact, the impact was negligible in the first place. One has to wonder if these people have ever taken a cross continent flight. The concept that 100s of years of all humanity using fossil fuels in accumulation is more believable until one runs into something like this.)
This is what I mean when I'm saying the overall system is much more complex. Kind of like 1000 calories of broccoli doesn't equal 1000 calories of Twinkie. The models are just way too simplistic.
tht said: They are claiming the net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere stems from increased solar insolation increased ocean temperatures, which don't hold as much CO2 when water temperatures are hotter. "The "1950 and afterwards" is doing a lot of work as the solar insolation was at a maximum in the 1950s and have been on a slow decline since then. So what has been driving ocean temperature increases and CO2 increases in the atmosphere since then?
Nice correlation of temperatures and solar irradiance from 1880 to 1950. After 1950, it's diverging. So, solar irradiance has been steady of decreasing over the past 70 years and ocean temperatures should be holding steady to cooling, but ocean temperatures have been increasing ever since. What's causing that?
The above article would say it is coming from changes in the earth's core. Certainly the massive shifts in earth's climate history weren't due to CO2 production.
As a lay person looking at both sides of the debate, this seems like different groups arguing over what inputs are doing what, and which things they are including (or not) in a super-complex system, rather than straight-forward simple physics, as we're being sold.
tht said: In the 70s, there were models that predicted cooling. The reason for that is not that the physics implementation was bad, it was the input assumptions of what will happen in the future that was bad. Some people projected solar irradiance to go down faster while CO2 levels held steady. That would have resulted in cooling. Some people projected particulate pollution to get worse. Pollution in the high atmosphere prevented sunlight from hitting the ground. That would have caused cooling. Then, there were people who modeled the correct CO2 concentrations with time, modeled that pollution would be cleaned up, and their predictions came out like the above.
What if CO2 is following the warming? Well, everyone is free to go measure the gas properties of CO2, N2, O2, various isotopes, develop a physics model with solar irradiance, surface conditions, etc, and run some simulations and compare it to existing data. We have the Earth, Venus, Mars and Titan for the models to be validated against.
My understanding is many of the predictions were based on the fact that we're increasingly becoming overdue for an ice-age based on past earth cycles. But, I suppose the anthropogenic ones would have been based on air pollution or things like that.
re: CO2 following - I guess the point is that if these much bigger things are ultimately causing the warming, CO2 can be following and all the models predicting it going up due to our CO2 contribution will end up looking correct as well. It's just correlation in that case. Yes, those physics are simple. What isn't simple is the entire system.
tht said: Yes, this is why I used the retirement investment analogy. People only live in the here and now and most will not do anything to improve the collective good of society or even themselves if the timescale is long enough. And people don't need to uproot anything. They just need to electrify, be more energy efficient, and buy renewable energy plans. For the vast majority, that little amount is too much.
People feeling duped about this is perhaps an emotional response. It's bereft of any data. It's all feelings, perhaps about something they don't want to do or admit. In a battle between physics and feelings, physics always wins.
I guess we can somewhat agree there. I'm all for renewables over coal, more from the pollution aspect and people not having to mine for it, etc. But, I'd rather see push into nuclear than building zillions of windmills or things like that. I'm also for efficiency, and have worked in the building/construction sector which is horribly inefficient. Or, for example, I was into EVs before Tesla was a company. And, I really dislike actual pollution... so I'm concerned about the diesel plumes as well as the materials in solar panels and batteries.
What I don't like is unrealistic gov't policy that will end up hurting people to force some ultimately unnecessary goal. The problem here isn't so much some of the ideas and directions to move towards, but a push for (IMO, nefarious reasons) unrealistic goals that will hurt a lot of humanity more than they help, and keep much of the world's poor, poor, if not dead. And, ultimately, even if the alarmists are correct, I'm going to put the wellbeing of humans in priority. The earth will be here spinning away for a long time after we're all gone until the sun absorbs it. (That said, I don't believe the alarmists are correct.)
tht said: The conclusions from the tweets would be easier to understand if the plots were shown as delta temperatures versus time across 20 to 30 years. Instead the plots are of daily temperatures across a year and 20 to 30 years of daily temperatures are coplotted. So, I'm not clear what these tweets are trying to say. From what baseline is the tweet referring to? What years is it talking about.
Is it possible for the delta temperature to rise so steeply? Absolutely, especially for localized regions of the planet. Is it possible for the global average temperature to rise steeply, yes. Here is a plot of global average temperatures using instrument data of the recent past: ... The second tweet seems to making a steady state assumption of the atmosphere heating the oceans in a linear fashion. That's a great assumption over 10, 20, 30 year time frames. Year to year? Their will be dynamic effects. Like the first tweet, it's a nonlinear system wherein the oceans don't absorb heat from the atmosphere in a linear fashion. This is why El Nino years are hot and are the source of these big jumps in global average temperature. So "4sigma" anomalies don't have to follow one for one between ocean temps to air temps.
If that is the case, it kind of messes up all this atmospheric & sun-energy coming vs going calculations. If this warming also releases the CO2, then maybe the levels are rising despite the small amount of additional impact we're having via fossil fuels. (Where this really 'jumps the shark' for me, is they are building carbon-capture plants in Alberta - and advertising it. This really illustrates the scale problem. If a carbon-capture plant can make any meaningful impact, the impact was negligible in the first place. One has to wonder if these people have ever taken a cross continent flight. The concept that 100s of years of all humanity using fossil fuels in accumulation is more believable until one runs into something like this.)
This is what I mean when I'm saying the overall system is much more complex. Kind of like 1000 calories of broccoli doesn't equal 1000 calories of Twinkie. The models are just way too simplistic. ...
The above article would say it is coming from changes in the earth's core. Certainly the massive shifts in earth's climate history weren't due to CO2 production.
As a lay person looking at both sides of the debate, this seems like different groups arguing over what inputs are doing what, and which things they are including (or not) in a super-complex system, rather than straight-forward simple physics, as we're being sold.
The same physics still applies. CO2, methane, N2, O2 all have various heat transfer characteristics, all verified experimentally. This kind of stuff, electromagnetic radiation absorption, is modeled down to the molecular level. Any new model of the planet's climate has to include these properties. It doesn't go away because of a new input. So, if there is a new boundary condition - a new input - it still has to use the heat transfer physics of the constituents of the atmosphere, the solar radiation from the sun, albedo of the planet, the heat transfer physics of the oceans, land, and poles, etc.
The linked article forewarns: "Please note as well, the idea that ‘climate heat must be coming from under the ground’ alone is not a theory per se, as the mere notion of proximity bears neither mechanism, definition, parsimony, explanatory predictive power, nor test-ability – all necessary components of hypothesis." The article gives itself an out by claiming that it is making the case for further research which the author seems to be the originator of, but why should anyone continue after reading that?
This "exothermic core thermal of climate change" is definitely model-able. It's a fluid physics problem like modeling the atmosphere. The much-used animation in the article looks like it comes from a numerical simulation. So model it, make some predictions, and look for data to validate or falsify the model. What the article presents is basically nothing. Is there anything there that is actual data?
The lines of reasoning (observations) put forth in the document is weird:
Observation 1 regarding the pandemic not slowing down the "rate" of yearly CO2 growth in early 2020 doesn't look supported by his plots. The plots have some crazy y-axis reference range, which you have to ignore, and I assume the yearly data is plotted consistently. If so, the 2020 data shows there was a pandemic lockdown effect, while the article says there isn't any. 2020 CO2 ppm levels were lower than prior years, and the May peak was flattened out with CO2 ppm rising in the summer over prior years.
Observation 2 regarding that CO2 is rising faster than temperatures. The CO2 rise data is a touch quadratic in the presented plot. The article puts a linear line through 1964 to 2016 global average surface temperature data to show that the trend doesn't match. The 2017 El Nino year wasn't included in the linear fit. Well, no years after 2016 were included in the fit. Not only that, you could fit a quadratic through the temperature data from 1964 to 2022 that would look exactly like the quadratic of the CO2 line, and the fit would basically be just as good as a linear line.
Observation 3 regarding an albedo measurement from CERES. The plot presented shows the modeled albedo trend within the accuracy of the "measurement". One should get better measurements when you see that.
There are lots of "circumstantial" observations, with a lot of them just plain unsupported by the plots shown. Observation 4 regarding sea level change is a nothing burger, article accepts that sea level is rising, and is really a lead-in narrative point for the exothermic core theory. Observation 5 regarding Schumann resonances and magnetic pole movement is another lead-in for the exothermic core idea.
Observation 6 is the core of the proposed exothermic core observation? Not even a hypothesis right now. The proposal is the higher density core material is moving radially outward, increasing the heat of the mantle and transferring more out to the asthenosphere, the lithosphere and oceans. I'm skeptical of this until a numerical model proves otherwise. It's a buoyancy based system where hot lower density fluid will rise, and as fluid in the mantle cools, it's density increases and will sink. A higher density, hotter fluid from the outer core rising? Prove it by modeling the physics, otherwise that violates buoyancy.
Observation 6 is also where the article makes a prediction, maybe. That is, maybe makes a prediction. Over the last 6 years, Earth's rotational velocity is headed towards being faster (shorter days by milliseconds) than some unspecified average in Exhibit 6A2. Are you going to give him a mulligan if the 2023-2024 El Nino years end up being the hottest on record? Exhibit 6A2 is predicting a "cooling period". This is also where "the "warming" from March to May is 50% of delta from the average from 1982-2011" tweet came from. In the web article is SST from 60N to 60S and it says 32%. Guess what, the December of 2015 to February of 2016 was also 50% to 100% of the warming, at the time, over the prior year too.
Note that in Observation 6 that Exhibit 6A2, the article proposes a cooling period, yet just few paragraphs later, the article essentially claims the opposite by saying the warming is too high for climate models and it requires this exothermic core theory.
Observation 7 tries to provide evidence for the exothermic core idea. More mantle heating should have more volcanoes and eruptions. Exhibit 7A shows a plot where the data shows a slow downward trend from 2008, but the "quadratic fit" of the data is incorrect and shows an upward trend. You would have to impose some creative limitations to even get a quadratic to look like that for that data.
I guess I could go on, but will await your response. Once again, model the fluid dynamics problem, get results, make some predictions, get some data to prove or disprove.
re: CO2 following - I guess the point is that if these much bigger things are ultimately causing the warming, CO2 can be following and all the models predicting it going up due to our CO2 contribution will end up looking correct as well. It's just correlation in that case. Yes, those physics are simple. What isn't simple is the entire system.
There isn't any correlation. It's a straight application of physics. From a simple 1D column of atmosphere using equilibrium assumptions to numerical models modeling the entire plant's atmosphere, oceans, land, and solar input, it's all straight applications of physics.
I get what you are saying that you can ignore things that don't matter, that aren't driving parameters for some model or problem set. That happens all the time. CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gasses are the driving constituents in the atmosphere keeping temperatures up and preventing a snowball Earth. The 99% of the atmosphere that is N2 and O2 are basically transparent to infrared radiation, IOW, heat. Solar radiation, like the visible spectrum, heats the surface and that heat is radiated back into space. N2 and O2 don't absorb that heat. CO2, CH4. H2O, larger molecules, do absorb it. If it wasn't for them, the Earth would be about 30° to 40° F colder on average.
CO2 really does play this "outsized" role in the surface temperature of the planet. Even though it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 99% percent that is the atmosphere is basically transparent to infrared radiation (heat). That <1% is not transparent to heat, but absorbs, and therefore is really the dial in the climate of the planet.
If there is some other input, like increased cloudiness due to more water vapor, it has to be added to the pile of physics to implement.
cgWerks said: I guess we can somewhat agree there. I'm all for renewables over coal, more from the pollution aspect and people not having to mine for it, etc. But, I'd rather see push into nuclear than building zillions of windmills or things like that. I'm also for efficiency, and have worked in the building/construction sector which is horribly inefficient. Or, for example, I was into EVs before Tesla was a company. And, I really dislike actual pollution... so I'm concerned about the diesel plumes as well as the materials in solar panels and batteries.
What I don't like is unrealistic gov't policy that will end up hurting people to force some ultimately unnecessary goal. The problem here isn't so much some of the ideas and directions to move towards, but a push for (IMO, nefarious reasons) unrealistic goals that will hurt a lot of humanity more than they help, and keep much of the world's poor, poor, if not dead. And, ultimately, even if the alarmists are correct, I'm going to put the wellbeing of humans in priority. The earth will be here spinning away for a long time after we're all gone until the sun absorbs it. (That said, I don't believe the alarmists are correct.)
Remember, the "alarmists" are putting the well being of humans as the priority. That's why they are alarmists. The physics is telling them the surface of the planet will heat up given the current usage of fossil fuels. Where belief enters is what reaction humanity will have to this heat. The alarmists think hundreds of millions of people will die, hundreds of millions will be displaced. Other people are fine with it, or don't think about, and carry on apace.
Me, I want humanity to be at least a Kardashev Type I+ to II civilization, and literally be able to change the orbits of the planets in 200m years, because the sun will get too hot and the Earth's orbit has to be raised to keep temperatures livable.
You mentioned property around Victoria island. I've been there. Great place to live! There are lot of people that will move there eventually. I live along the Gulf coast. A curious outcome of this mess is that communities along the shore are being gentrified. It's getting too expensive to live. House elevations used to be about 8 ft (height pylons) decades ago. Properties values used to be a lot lower, therefore lower taxes and lower insurance. Today, a property needs to be elevated 18 ft to be insured, a 1000 sq ft property costs about $400k, and insurance costs $20k per year. So about 30k just own it, unless you want to gamble and not get insurance. If you need a loan, the outlay is about 60k just to live there. That sounds like nobody in the middle class and lower can afford it. So, it's being gentrified.
You have to wonder how long it will last. The barrier islands in which these properties are on will deteriorate. The bay side is just going to be swampier. So the rich will just move? They will elevate more? Temperature wise, it will become intolerable eventually over the summer months. Worse than Arizona in the summer. I fully expect entirely enclosed communities eventually. We currently are under a heatwave. 80 °F low and 100 °F high with 105 °F to 115 °F peak heat indices for the 10 day forecast, everyday. I fully expect it to continue all the way through August with maybe a few days of mid 90s, unless rain or hurricane comes through.
Rough way to live, and increased temperatures will likely mean either living in an enclosed building or leaving. The people in equatorial regions? Who knows.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can make the planet a more temperate place to live. We literally can dial it in by controlling CO2 in the atmosphere. It really doesn't cost 99.9% of people anything, but a better environment.
Apple says that 13.7 gigawatts of renewable energy is being used by its suppliers worldwide, which is an increase of nearly 30% in the last year. Over 250 suppliers in 28 countries, representing over 85% of Apple's manufacturing, are reportedly committed to using renewable energy for all Apple production by 2030.
13.7 GW of solar is a really healthy number, and indicative of how huge the supply chain is. Texas' installed utility solar capacity is 20 GW, though it seems oddly positioned with Summer capacity only at 12.6 GW. California utility solar is something like 14 GW, and residential is a huge number, something like 15 GW. The next big thing is battery or storage. Solar+wind+storage will be able to handle >90% of the grid once the capacity gets there. It's a tripling or quadrupling of capacity though.
And, it really is a cost savings for everyone that does it, including Apple. For Apple Park, it has 17 MW of solar on top. With an average insolation of 5 hrs per day, that's 85,000 kWHr per day. At 20¢ per kWHr, that's $17,000 not spent paying the utility per day, and 6.2m dollars per year. And wow, California really has a temperature climate. That's really not a lot of energy usage for building that size.
If you own a house that you plan on being in for more than 10 years, getting solar panels will save you money. Over 20 years, it could be 10k to 20k dollars saved depending on size and energy usage. Home batteries and EV vehicle-to-grid will be the ultimate in being independent from the grid. EV V2G should be a "freebie" eventually. Once that happens, I really have to wonder what will happen to the grid. There will be taxes to pay for it whether you like it or not.
The same physics still applies. CO2, methane, N2, O2 all have various heat transfer characteristics, all verified experimentally. This kind of stuff, electromagnetic radiation absorption, is modeled down to the molecular level. … This "exothermic core thermal of climate change" is definitely model-able. … Observation 4 regarding sea level change is a nothing burger, article accepts that sea level is rising, and is really a lead-in narrative point for the exothermic core theory. … Are you going to give him a mulligan if the 2023-2024 El Nino years end up being the hottest on record? Exhibit 6A2 is predicting a "cooling period". … Note that in Observation 6 that Exhibit 6A2, the article proposes a cooling period, yet just few paragraphs later, the article essentially claims the opposite by saying the warming is too high for climate models and it requires this exothermic core theory.
… I guess I could go on, but will await your response. Once again, model the fluid dynamics problem, get results, make some predictions, get some data to prove or disprove.
Thanks for taking a look at that, and I’ll admit I haven’t spent the time looking into it to the depth it seems you have (to be able to debate particular physics or models).
My take on it, is that this all comes down to what extent we’re having an impact, not whether we are. My understanding of his argument, is that there are short-term changes we’re seeing which aren’t possible if atmosphere is all that is considered, yet on the long-term, we will likely be headed into cooling (I’ve heard other astrophysicists say this, as well).
The reason the exothermic theory is persuasive to me, is that it would be capable of releasing energy stored up over millions of years, if it were true the impacts were too big for the atmosphere to explain.
I get what you are saying that you can ignore things that don't matter, that aren't driving parameters for some model or problem set. That happens all the time. CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gasses are the driving constituents in the atmosphere keeping temperatures up and preventing a snowball Earth. The 99% of the atmosphere that is N2 and O2 are basically transparent to infrared radiation, IOW, heat. Solar radiation, like the visible spectrum, heats the surface and that heat is radiated back into space. N2 and O2 don't absorb that heat. CO2, CH4. H2O, larger molecules, do absorb it. If it wasn't for them, the Earth would be about 30° to 40° F colder on average.
CO2 really does play this "outsized" role in the surface temperature of the planet. Even though it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 99% percent that is the atmosphere is basically transparent to infrared radiation (heat). That <1% is not transparent to heat, but absorbs, and therefore is really the dial in the climate of the planet.
If there is some other input, like increased cloudiness due to more water vapor, it has to be added to the pile of physics to implement.
I understand the ‘outsized’ factor CO2 (or methane, for example) plays in terms of atmosphere % and such. The problem is more what percent of that we’re responsible for. If we’re only responsible for a few percent of that, then it isn’t our fissile fuel burning majorly contributing to the changes.
We’re seeing some temperature change, though not necessarily what most of the models predict. We’re seeing CO2 increase. We can roughly model some of the mechanisms involved. But, I think the point is that there is a lot more complexity that might not be being captured.
Remember, the "alarmists" are putting the well being of humans as the priority. That's why they are alarmists. The physics is telling them the surface of the planet will heat up given the current usage of fossil fuels. Where belief enters is what reaction humanity will have to this heat. The alarmists think hundreds of millions of people will die, hundreds of millions will be displaced. Other people are fine with it, or don't think about, and carry on apace. … You mentioned property around Victoria island. I've been there. Great place to live! There are lot of people that will move there eventually. I live along the Gulf coast. …
It doesn't have to be this way. We can make the planet a more temperate place to live. We literally can dial it in by controlling CO2 in the atmosphere. It really doesn't cost 99.9% of people anything, but a better environment.
Yes, and this is also my concern, but in an opposite manner. The policies to combat warming are also going to lead to a lot of impact, especially on the most vulnerable. That, and some of the proposed (possibly catastrophic) solutions, make it such that it is extremely important we get this right. Millions, even billions, could die either way.
The big red flag for me is how politicized this is, and how much debate isn’t taking place (that should be). I think there is a lot of parallel here with the pandemic response. People with narrow expertise freaked out, and caused a lot more damage in a huge, complex system. I’m concerned about the same here.
Yes, Victoria is really nice, but also quite expensive. If we were willing to live an hour+ or more out in the right places, one could have a small house on the ocean for like $1.3M. (And, that, IMO, is only now due to the economic downturn… I saw nothing like that listed for the last couple years.)
Interesting point on insurance, but I don’t think anyone is alarmed here. That was kind of my point. We’re talking millimeters over centuries. Yes, I suppose eventually over thousands of years, some percent of houses would have to be abandoned (if the trends hold steady), but this isn’t the kind of thing humanity can’t deal with. Like I said, I’ll buy up that property pennies on the dollar. That house won’t be in trouble for many generations (if then).
I suspect a lot of what is going on in Florida, and maybe Texas, too, might have more to do with land sinking or other issues? The sea isn’t rising that quickly. As for weather patters, I suppose they’ll shift, and they always have. The question, again, is how much of that is due to us, and how much would happen anyway (in either direction). There are historical records of wine-growing regions in northern England / Scotland, etc.
13.7 GW of solar is a really healthy number, and indicative of how huge the supply chain is. Texas' installed utility solar capacity is 20 GW, though it seems oddly positioned with Summer capacity only at 12.6 GW. California utility solar is something like 14 GW, and residential is a huge number, something like 15 GW. The next big thing is battery or storage. Solar+wind+storage will be able to handle >90% of the grid once the capacity gets there. It's a tripling or quadrupling of capacity though.
… If you own a house that you plan on being in for more than 10 years, getting solar panels will save you money. Over 20 years, it could be 10k to 20k dollars saved depending on size and energy usage. Home batteries and EV vehicle-to-grid will be the ultimate in being independent from the grid. EV V2G should be a "freebie" eventually. Once that happens, I really have to wonder what will happen to the grid. There will be taxes to pay for it whether you like it or not.
I love the idea of solar. I was interested in it before it became trendy (kind of like EVs… my background is in electronics. I was into this stuff before Tesla was a company). I do wonder about the lifespans and creating other environmental problems due to manufacture/waste. Wind, not so much… more problems and impacts there on scale.
Wave energy could be interesting, but I always worry about unforeseen damages. I suppose there are lots of those damages to fossil fuels too, but maybe it’s the devil I know vs the one I don’t situation for me.
One of the neatest I’ve seen (besides nuclear) are those big utility-scale mirror-farms that melt salt or such. I just thinking doing it in bulk like that has to be better all around, though I like the sovereignty aspect of panels on each roof (but that’s more a selfish, political, view).
The same physics still applies. CO2, methane, N2, O2 all have various heat transfer characteristics, all verified experimentally. This kind of stuff, electromagnetic radiation absorption, is modeled down to the molecular level. … This "exothermic core thermal of climate change" is definitely model-able. … Observation 4 regarding sea level change is a nothing burger, article accepts that sea level is rising, and is really a lead-in narrative point for the exothermic core theory. … Are you going to give him a mulligan if the 2023-2024 El Nino years end up being the hottest on record? Exhibit 6A2 is predicting a "cooling period". … Note that in Observation 6 that Exhibit 6A2, the article proposes a cooling period, yet just few paragraphs later, the article essentially claims the opposite by saying the warming is too high for climate models and it requires this exothermic core theory.
… I guess I could go on, but will await your response. Once again, model the fluid dynamics problem, get results, make some predictions, get some data to prove or disprove.
Thanks for taking a look at that, and I’ll admit I haven’t spent the time looking into it to the depth it seems you have (to be able to debate particular physics or models).
My take on it, is that this all comes down to what extent we’re having an impact, not whether we are. My understanding of his argument, is that there are short-term changes we’re seeing which aren’t possible if atmosphere is all that is considered, yet on the long-term, we will likely be headed into cooling (I’ve heard other astrophysicists say this, as well).
The reason the exothermic theory is persuasive to me, is that it would be capable of releasing energy stored up over millions of years, if it were true the impacts were too big for the atmosphere to explain.
Really, on the face of it, this exothermic core theory doesn't make much sense whatsoever. The average heat flux from the heat at the core of the Earth is about 0.1 W/m2. The heat flux (solar irradiance) from the sun at mean sea level is about 1000 W/m2. That's after the atmosphere has absorbed or blocked 30% of it before it hits the surface. In-space, it's 1300 W/m2.
An iPhone SoC is about 1 cm2. At its mostly max output of 5 W, that's 50,000 W/m2. Uh crazy. Even at idle, it's 5000 W/m2. Luckily, people aren't powering 10,000 iPhone SoCs arranged in a 1 meter square piece of silicon. You need 50 kW to power 50,000 iPhone SoCs! Anyways, just some comparison numbers. I digress.
So, at the surface, the difference in heat flux is 4 orders of magnitudes between the sunlight and the heat from the Earth's core. The average temperature of the ground 50 ft below the surface is about 50 °F. Heat must travel from the hot side to the cold side. So, between 50° N and 50° S latitudes or so, the atmosphere is heating the ground. Moreover, at the polar latitudes, because of the lack of sunlight, the atmosphere cools the ground. At least there, heat is indeed going from the ground to the air, but it is resulting in a colder ground temperatures. Both of those processes are driven by sunlight and air temperature, not the core of the Earth.
He or she is free to model this exothermic core idea and see what a physics model says.
I get what you are saying that you can ignore things that don't matter, that aren't driving parameters for some model or problem set. That happens all the time. CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gasses are the driving constituents in the atmosphere keeping temperatures up and preventing a snowball Earth. The 99% of the atmosphere that is N2 and O2 are basically transparent to infrared radiation, IOW, heat. Solar radiation, like the visible spectrum, heats the surface and that heat is radiated back into space. N2 and O2 don't absorb that heat. CO2, CH4. H2O, larger molecules, do absorb it. If it wasn't for them, the Earth would be about 30° to 40° F colder on average.
CO2 really does play this "outsized" role in the surface temperature of the planet. Even though it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 99% percent that is the atmosphere is basically transparent to infrared radiation (heat). That <1% is not transparent to heat, but absorbs, and therefore is really the dial in the climate of the planet.
If there is some other input, like increased cloudiness due to more water vapor, it has to be added to the pile of physics to implement.
I understand the ‘outsized’ factor CO2 (or methane, for example) plays in terms of atmosphere % and such. The problem is more what percent of that we’re responsible for. If we’re only responsible for a few percent of that, then it isn’t our fissile fuel burning majorly contributing to the changes.
We’re seeing some temperature change, though not necessarily what most of the models predict. We’re seeing CO2 increase. We can roughly model some of the mechanisms involved. But, I think the point is that there is a lot more complexity that might not be being captured.
Once again, humanity is 100% responsible for the global warming. This steady increase in global average temperatures since the 1960s is 100% caused by humanity digging up carbon based materials that were inert under ground, burning it and adding more CO2 into the atmosphere.
There is definitely complexity, but that is like saying a river isn't flowing because we can't predict the eddies in the water. The water is flowing regardless of the turbulent flow in the water. The models have been doing quite well in predicting global average temperature over the last 2 to 3 decades. If you use the CO2 concentrations through time as inputs, the models from 40, 50, to 60 years ago get it mostly right using a 1D column of air.
Remember, the "alarmists" are putting the well being of humans as the priority. That's why they are alarmists. The physics is telling them the surface of the planet will heat up given the current usage of fossil fuels. Where belief enters is what reaction humanity will have to this heat. The alarmists think hundreds of millions of people will die, hundreds of millions will be displaced. Other people are fine with it, or don't think about, and carry on apace. … You mentioned property around Victoria island. I've been there. Great place to live! There are lot of people that will move there eventually. I live along the Gulf coast. …
It doesn't have to be this way. We can make the planet a more temperate place to live. We literally can dial it in by controlling CO2 in the atmosphere. It really doesn't cost 99.9% of people anything, but a better environment.
Yes, and this is also my concern, but in an opposite manner. The policies to combat warming are also going to lead to a lot of impact, especially on the most vulnerable. That, and some of the proposed (possibly catastrophic) solutions, make it such that it is extremely important we get this right. Millions, even billions, could die either way.
The big red flag for me is how politicized this is, and how much debate isn’t taking place (that should be). I think there is a lot of parallel here with the pandemic response. People with narrow expertise freaked out, and caused a lot more damage in a huge, complex system. I’m concerned about the same here.
Yes, Victoria is really nice, but also quite expensive. If we were willing to live an hour+ or more out in the right places, one could have a small house on the ocean for like $1.3M. (And, that, IMO, is only now due to the economic downturn… I saw nothing like that listed for the last couple years.)
Interesting point on insurance, but I don’t think anyone is alarmed here. That was kind of my point. We’re talking millimeters over centuries. Yes, I suppose eventually over thousands of years, some percent of houses would have to be abandoned (if the trends hold steady), but this isn’t the kind of thing humanity can’t deal with. Like I said, I’ll buy up that property pennies on the dollar. That house won’t be in trouble for many generations (if then).
I suspect a lot of what is going on in Florida, and maybe Texas, too, might have more to do with land sinking or other issues? The sea isn’t rising that quickly. As for weather patters, I suppose they’ll shift, and they always have. The question, again, is how much of that is due to us, and how much would happen anyway (in either direction). There are historical records of wine-growing regions in northern England / Scotland, etc.
There are going to be more and more people wanting to move to Victoria and the Alaskan and BC archipelgo along the Pacific coast there, in the not so distant future. Prices will be going up. BC will be deforested with a lot more farms and ranches. Well, are there any native, untouched forests left? New, different kinds of trees will be planted.
Re: insurance going up. That's entirely because too many homes have been flooded multiple times or destroyed by wind. Prior experience with occurrences of homes being flooded or destroyed - the data insurance companies used to set rates and building code - have become unreliable, and continuously unreliable as time goes by.
Some insurance companies gamble on the weather, and they've pretty much lost every time and have gone bankrupt. The insurance companies that stay in business increase prices and set requirements for how homes are built. Both of those are becoming untenable for the middle class along the Gulf coast. Some of it is due to urbanization, but the bulk is really just rain events having more rain than historically and wind events being windier than historically. Just last week a storm cluster moved through and the airport recorded a gust of 97 mph. It wasn't a hurricane or tornado. Just a gust. A hotter atmosphere means more rain, potential for stronger gusts etc.
The sea level rise hasn't played into insurance rates yet. It will. It will be another 30 to 40 years, and there is going to be a kind of continuous cost to addressing it. It'll will probably be played through the economics of insurance for the private sector, but the public sector will have decisions to make. Trillions of dollars in sea walls, road elevation, etc.
The course of action is a transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. There isn't much death there. One set of rich people becomes less rich while another set of rich people become more rich. By reducing our carbon emissions, and it will have to be actively removing carbon emissions and possibly solar radiation management too, humanity is protecting itself from the consequences of heat at the equatorial latitudes. Heat stress does bad things to people. Very very poor decisions will be made when it's always hot.
13.7 GW of solar is a really healthy number, and indicative of how huge the supply chain is. Texas' installed utility solar capacity is 20 GW, though it seems oddly positioned with Summer capacity only at 12.6 GW. California utility solar is something like 14 GW, and residential is a huge number, something like 15 GW. The next big thing is battery or storage. Solar+wind+storage will be able to handle >90% of the grid once the capacity gets there. It's a tripling or quadrupling of capacity though.
… If you own a house that you plan on being in for more than 10 years, getting solar panels will save you money. Over 20 years, it could be 10k to 20k dollars saved depending on size and energy usage. Home batteries and EV vehicle-to-grid will be the ultimate in being independent from the grid. EV V2G should be a "freebie" eventually. Once that happens, I really have to wonder what will happen to the grid. There will be taxes to pay for it whether you like it or not.
I love the idea of solar. I was interested in it before it became trendy (kind of like EVs… my background is in electronics. I was into this stuff before Tesla was a company). I do wonder about the lifespans and creating other environmental problems due to manufacture/waste. Wind, not so much… more problems and impacts there on scale.
Wave energy could be interesting, but I always worry about unforeseen damages. I suppose there are lots of those damages to fossil fuels too, but maybe it’s the devil I know vs the one I don’t situation for me.
One of the neatest I’ve seen (besides nuclear) are those big utility-scale mirror-farms that melt salt or such. I just thinking doing it in bulk like that has to be better all around, though I like the sovereignty aspect of panels on each roof (but that’s more a selfish, political, view).
For wind, solar and lithium batteries, the waste is inert. So buried in the landfill in the short term, while recycling will occur over the long run. They are all riding mass economies of scale and are getting cheaper. That’s a win-win-win. Hard to see other technologies catching up for a long while.
The solar thermal plants are one and done. They won’t have successor generations designed, and aren’t going to happen as it is too expensive. Solar+battery is going to be at 2x cheaper, at least, and there is probably a doubling in both solar PV efficiency and battery density still to go.
If tidal and wave energy can be made economical, great, but offshore wind still has to play out all over the world. Can’t see investment money going to tidal and wave until offshore wind is built out.
And like I said earlier, residential solar plus battery or vehicle-to-grid is a no-brainer. It just needs to be built out. Every house and building should have solar+battery.
Comments
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/
If that is the case, it kind of messes up all this atmospheric & sun-energy coming vs going calculations. If this warming also releases the CO2, then maybe the levels are rising despite the small amount of additional impact we're having via fossil fuels.
(Where this really 'jumps the shark' for me, is they are building carbon-capture plants in Alberta - and advertising it. This really illustrates the scale problem. If a carbon-capture plant can make any meaningful impact, the impact was negligible in the first place. One has to wonder if these people have ever taken a cross continent flight. The concept that 100s of years of all humanity using fossil fuels in accumulation is more believable until one runs into something like this.)
This is what I mean when I'm saying the overall system is much more complex. Kind of like 1000 calories of broccoli doesn't equal 1000 calories of Twinkie. The models are just way too simplistic.
The above article would say it is coming from changes in the earth's core. Certainly the massive shifts in earth's climate history weren't due to CO2 production.
As a lay person looking at both sides of the debate, this seems like different groups arguing over what inputs are doing what, and which things they are including (or not) in a super-complex system, rather than straight-forward simple physics, as we're being sold.
re: CO2 following - I guess the point is that if these much bigger things are ultimately causing the warming, CO2 can be following and all the models predicting it going up due to our CO2 contribution will end up looking correct as well. It's just correlation in that case. Yes, those physics are simple. What isn't simple is the entire system.
I guess we can somewhat agree there. I'm all for renewables over coal, more from the pollution aspect and people not having to mine for it, etc. But, I'd rather see push into nuclear than building zillions of windmills or things like that. I'm also for efficiency, and have worked in the building/construction sector which is horribly inefficient. Or, for example, I was into EVs before Tesla was a company. And, I really dislike actual pollution... so I'm concerned about the diesel plumes as well as the materials in solar panels and batteries.
What I don't like is unrealistic gov't policy that will end up hurting people to force some ultimately unnecessary goal. The problem here isn't so much some of the ideas and directions to move towards, but a push for (IMO, nefarious reasons) unrealistic goals that will hurt a lot of humanity more than they help, and keep much of the world's poor, poor, if not dead. And, ultimately, even if the alarmists are correct, I'm going to put the wellbeing of humans in priority. The earth will be here spinning away for a long time after we're all gone until the sun absorbs it. (That said, I don't believe the alarmists are correct.)
The linked article forewarns: "Please note as well, the idea that ‘climate heat must be coming from under the ground’ alone is not a theory per se, as the mere notion of proximity bears neither mechanism, definition, parsimony, explanatory predictive power, nor test-ability – all necessary components of hypothesis." The article gives itself an out by claiming that it is making the case for further research which the author seems to be the originator of, but why should anyone continue after reading that?
This "exothermic core thermal of climate change" is definitely model-able. It's a fluid physics problem like modeling the atmosphere. The much-used animation in the article looks like it comes from a numerical simulation. So model it, make some predictions, and look for data to validate or falsify the model. What the article presents is basically nothing. Is there anything there that is actual data?
The lines of reasoning (observations) put forth in the document is weird:
Observation 1 regarding the pandemic not slowing down the "rate" of yearly CO2 growth in early 2020 doesn't look supported by his plots. The plots have some crazy y-axis reference range, which you have to ignore, and I assume the yearly data is plotted consistently. If so, the 2020 data shows there was a pandemic lockdown effect, while the article says there isn't any. 2020 CO2 ppm levels were lower than prior years, and the May peak was flattened out with CO2 ppm rising in the summer over prior years.
Observation 2 regarding that CO2 is rising faster than temperatures. The CO2 rise data is a touch quadratic in the presented plot. The article puts a linear line through 1964 to 2016 global average surface temperature data to show that the trend doesn't match. The 2017 El Nino year wasn't included in the linear fit. Well, no years after 2016 were included in the fit. Not only that, you could fit a quadratic through the temperature data from 1964 to 2022 that would look exactly like the quadratic of the CO2 line, and the fit would basically be just as good as a linear line.
Observation 3 regarding an albedo measurement from CERES. The plot presented shows the modeled albedo trend within the accuracy of the "measurement". One should get better measurements when you see that.
There are lots of "circumstantial" observations, with a lot of them just plain unsupported by the plots shown. Observation 4 regarding sea level change is a nothing burger, article accepts that sea level is rising, and is really a lead-in narrative point for the exothermic core theory. Observation 5 regarding Schumann resonances and magnetic pole movement is another lead-in for the exothermic core idea.
Observation 6 is the core of the proposed exothermic core observation? Not even a hypothesis right now. The proposal is the higher density core material is moving radially outward, increasing the heat of the mantle and transferring more out to the asthenosphere, the lithosphere and oceans. I'm skeptical of this until a numerical model proves otherwise. It's a buoyancy based system where hot lower density fluid will rise, and as fluid in the mantle cools, it's density increases and will sink. A higher density, hotter fluid from the outer core rising? Prove it by modeling the physics, otherwise that violates buoyancy.
Observation 6 is also where the article makes a prediction, maybe. That is, maybe makes a prediction. Over the last 6 years, Earth's rotational velocity is headed towards being faster (shorter days by milliseconds) than some unspecified average in Exhibit 6A2. Are you going to give him a mulligan if the 2023-2024 El Nino years end up being the hottest on record? Exhibit 6A2 is predicting a "cooling period". This is also where "the "warming" from March to May is 50% of delta from the average from 1982-2011" tweet came from. In the web article is SST from 60N to 60S and it says 32%. Guess what, the December of 2015 to February of 2016 was also 50% to 100% of the warming, at the time, over the prior year too.
Note that in Observation 6 that Exhibit 6A2, the article proposes a cooling period, yet just few paragraphs later, the article essentially claims the opposite by saying the warming is too high for climate models and it requires this exothermic core theory.
Observation 7 tries to provide evidence for the exothermic core idea. More mantle heating should have more volcanoes and eruptions. Exhibit 7A shows a plot where the data shows a slow downward trend from 2008, but the "quadratic fit" of the data is incorrect and shows an upward trend. You would have to impose some creative limitations to even get a quadratic to look like that for that data.
I guess I could go on, but will await your response. Once again, model the fluid dynamics problem, get results, make some predictions, get some data to prove or disprove.
I get what you are saying that you can ignore things that don't matter, that aren't driving parameters for some model or problem set. That happens all the time. CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gasses are the driving constituents in the atmosphere keeping temperatures up and preventing a snowball Earth. The 99% of the atmosphere that is N2 and O2 are basically transparent to infrared radiation, IOW, heat. Solar radiation, like the visible spectrum, heats the surface and that heat is radiated back into space. N2 and O2 don't absorb that heat. CO2, CH4. H2O, larger molecules, do absorb it. If it wasn't for them, the Earth would be about 30° to 40° F colder on average.
CO2 really does play this "outsized" role in the surface temperature of the planet. Even though it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 99% percent that is the atmosphere is basically transparent to infrared radiation (heat). That <1% is not transparent to heat, but absorbs, and therefore is really the dial in the climate of the planet.
If there is some other input, like increased cloudiness due to more water vapor, it has to be added to the pile of physics to implement.
Remember, the "alarmists" are putting the well being of humans as the priority. That's why they are alarmists. The physics is telling them the surface of the planet will heat up given the current usage of fossil fuels. Where belief enters is what reaction humanity will have to this heat. The alarmists think hundreds of millions of people will die, hundreds of millions will be displaced. Other people are fine with it, or don't think about, and carry on apace.
Me, I want humanity to be at least a Kardashev Type I+ to II civilization, and literally be able to change the orbits of the planets in 200m years, because the sun will get too hot and the Earth's orbit has to be raised to keep temperatures livable.
You mentioned property around Victoria island. I've been there. Great place to live! There are lot of people that will move there eventually. I live along the Gulf coast. A curious outcome of this mess is that communities along the shore are being gentrified. It's getting too expensive to live. House elevations used to be about 8 ft (height pylons) decades ago. Properties values used to be a lot lower, therefore lower taxes and lower insurance. Today, a property needs to be elevated 18 ft to be insured, a 1000 sq ft property costs about $400k, and insurance costs $20k per year. So about 30k just own it, unless you want to gamble and not get insurance. If you need a loan, the outlay is about 60k just to live there. That sounds like nobody in the middle class and lower can afford it. So, it's being gentrified.
You have to wonder how long it will last. The barrier islands in which these properties are on will deteriorate. The bay side is just going to be swampier. So the rich will just move? They will elevate more? Temperature wise, it will become intolerable eventually over the summer months. Worse than Arizona in the summer. I fully expect entirely enclosed communities eventually. We currently are under a heatwave. 80 °F low and 100 °F high with 105 °F to 115 °F peak heat indices for the 10 day forecast, everyday. I fully expect it to continue all the way through August with maybe a few days of mid 90s, unless rain or hurricane comes through.
Rough way to live, and increased temperatures will likely mean either living in an enclosed building or leaving. The people in equatorial regions? Who knows.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can make the planet a more temperate place to live. We literally can dial it in by controlling CO2 in the atmosphere. It really doesn't cost 99.9% of people anything, but a better environment.
And, it really is a cost savings for everyone that does it, including Apple. For Apple Park, it has 17 MW of solar on top. With an average insolation of 5 hrs per day, that's 85,000 kWHr per day. At 20¢ per kWHr, that's $17,000 not spent paying the utility per day, and 6.2m dollars per year. And wow, California really has a temperature climate. That's really not a lot of energy usage for building that size.
If you own a house that you plan on being in for more than 10 years, getting solar panels will save you money. Over 20 years, it could be 10k to 20k dollars saved depending on size and energy usage. Home batteries and EV vehicle-to-grid will be the ultimate in being independent from the grid. EV V2G should be a "freebie" eventually. Once that happens, I really have to wonder what will happen to the grid. There will be taxes to pay for it whether you like it or not.
My take on it, is that this all comes down to what extent we’re having an impact, not whether we are. My understanding of his argument, is that there are short-term changes we’re seeing which aren’t possible if atmosphere is all that is considered, yet on the long-term, we will likely be headed into cooling (I’ve heard other astrophysicists say this, as well).
The reason the exothermic theory is persuasive to me, is that it would be capable of releasing energy stored up over millions of years, if it were true the impacts were too big for the atmosphere to explain.
I understand the ‘outsized’ factor CO2 (or methane, for example) plays in terms of atmosphere % and such. The problem is more what percent of that we’re responsible for. If we’re only responsible for a few percent of that, then it isn’t our fissile fuel burning majorly contributing to the changes.
We’re seeing some temperature change, though not necessarily what most of the models predict. We’re seeing CO2 increase. We can roughly model some of the mechanisms involved. But, I think the point is that there is a lot more complexity that might not be being captured.
Yes, and this is also my concern, but in an opposite manner. The policies to combat warming are also going to lead to a lot of impact, especially on the most vulnerable. That, and some of the proposed (possibly catastrophic) solutions, make it such that it is extremely important we get this right. Millions, even billions, could die either way.
The big red flag for me is how politicized this is, and how much debate isn’t taking place (that should be). I think there is a lot of parallel here with the pandemic response. People with narrow expertise freaked out, and caused a lot more damage in a huge, complex system. I’m concerned about the same here.
Yes, Victoria is really nice, but also quite expensive. If we were willing to live an hour+ or more out in the right places, one could have a small house on the ocean for like $1.3M. (And, that, IMO, is only now due to the economic downturn… I saw nothing like that listed for the last couple years.)
Interesting point on insurance, but I don’t think anyone is alarmed here. That was kind of my point. We’re talking millimeters over centuries. Yes, I suppose eventually over thousands of years, some percent of houses would have to be abandoned (if the trends hold steady), but this isn’t the kind of thing humanity can’t deal with. Like I said, I’ll buy up that property pennies on the dollar. That house won’t be in trouble for many generations (if then).
I suspect a lot of what is going on in Florida, and maybe Texas, too, might have more to do with land sinking or other issues? The sea isn’t rising that quickly. As for weather patters, I suppose they’ll shift, and they always have. The question, again, is how much of that is due to us, and how much would happen anyway (in either direction). There are historical records of wine-growing regions in northern England / Scotland, etc.
I love the idea of solar. I was interested in it before it became trendy (kind of like EVs… my background is in electronics. I was into this stuff before Tesla was a company). I do wonder about the lifespans and creating other environmental problems due to manufacture/waste. Wind, not so much… more problems and impacts there on scale.
Wave energy could be interesting, but I always worry about unforeseen damages. I suppose there are lots of those damages to fossil fuels too, but maybe it’s the devil I know vs the one I don’t situation for me.
One of the neatest I’ve seen (besides nuclear) are those big utility-scale mirror-farms that melt salt or such. I just thinking doing it in bulk like that has to be better all around, though I like the sovereignty aspect of panels on each roof (but that’s more a selfish, political, view).
An iPhone SoC is about 1 cm2. At its mostly max output of 5 W, that's 50,000 W/m2. Uh crazy. Even at idle, it's 5000 W/m2. Luckily, people aren't powering 10,000 iPhone SoCs arranged in a 1 meter square piece of silicon. You need 50 kW to power 50,000 iPhone SoCs! Anyways, just some comparison numbers. I digress.
So, at the surface, the difference in heat flux is 4 orders of magnitudes between the sunlight and the heat from the Earth's core. The average temperature of the ground 50 ft below the surface is about 50 °F. Heat must travel from the hot side to the cold side. So, between 50° N and 50° S latitudes or so, the atmosphere is heating the ground. Moreover, at the polar latitudes, because of the lack of sunlight, the atmosphere cools the ground. At least there, heat is indeed going from the ground to the air, but it is resulting in a colder ground temperatures. Both of those processes are driven by sunlight and air temperature, not the core of the Earth.
He or she is free to model this exothermic core idea and see what a physics model says.
Once again, humanity is 100% responsible for the global warming. This steady increase in global average temperatures since the 1960s is 100% caused by humanity digging up carbon based materials that were inert under ground, burning it and adding more CO2 into the atmosphere.
There is definitely complexity, but that is like saying a river isn't flowing because we can't predict the eddies in the water. The water is flowing regardless of the turbulent flow in the water. The models have been doing quite well in predicting global average temperature over the last 2 to 3 decades. If you use the CO2 concentrations through time as inputs, the models from 40, 50, to 60 years ago get it mostly right using a 1D column of air.
There are going to be more and more people wanting to move to Victoria and the Alaskan and BC archipelgo along the Pacific coast there, in the not so distant future. Prices will be going up. BC will be deforested with a lot more farms and ranches. Well, are there any native, untouched forests left? New, different kinds of trees will be planted.
Re: insurance going up. That's entirely because too many homes have been flooded multiple times or destroyed by wind. Prior experience with occurrences of homes being flooded or destroyed - the data insurance companies used to set rates and building code - have become unreliable, and continuously unreliable as time goes by.
Some insurance companies gamble on the weather, and they've pretty much lost every time and have gone bankrupt. The insurance companies that stay in business increase prices and set requirements for how homes are built. Both of those are becoming untenable for the middle class along the Gulf coast. Some of it is due to urbanization, but the bulk is really just rain events having more rain than historically and wind events being windier than historically. Just last week a storm cluster moved through and the airport recorded a gust of 97 mph. It wasn't a hurricane or tornado. Just a gust. A hotter atmosphere means more rain, potential for stronger gusts etc.
The sea level rise hasn't played into insurance rates yet. It will. It will be another 30 to 40 years, and there is going to be a kind of continuous cost to addressing it. It'll will probably be played through the economics of insurance for the private sector, but the public sector will have decisions to make. Trillions of dollars in sea walls, road elevation, etc.
The course of action is a transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. There isn't much death there. One set of rich people becomes less rich while another set of rich people become more rich. By reducing our carbon emissions, and it will have to be actively removing carbon emissions and possibly solar radiation management too, humanity is protecting itself from the consequences of heat at the equatorial latitudes. Heat stress does bad things to people. Very very poor decisions will be made when it's always hot.