[RD] Global Warming/Climate Change:What are your thoughts II?

[stfoskey12]

We had a thread on is a few years ago that got closed, and a moderator said to wait a few weeks before starting a new one. It's now been two and a half years, so hopefully I've waited long enough.
I suppose the recent El Niño causing record warmth is evidence that warming hadn't stopped, but the warmth was presumably going into the oceans.
But I do find it interesting that satellite data is showing atmospheric warming at a slower rate than land temperatures.

Basic graphs courtesy of Wikipedia
Past temperature, CO2, and dust levels

Recent CO2 levels

Recent temperatures, according to NASA

 

[Kaitzilla]

This .gif is being touted as the best way to visualize global temperature change.
http://gizmodo.com/one-of-the-most-...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

[Berzerker]

we're gonna have to move inland, but I've been seeing studies showing the planet is greening

 

[Lexicus]

April of this year was the hottest on record by a very large amount.

 

[W|M]

Droughts are screwing up highly water-reliant countries in South America

 

[Lexicus]

There is going to be creeping drought throughout South Asia which is going to make the current migrant "crisis" look like a walk in the park.

 

[civvver]

This .gif is being touted as the best way to visualize global temperature change.
http://gizmodo.com/one-of-the-most-...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

I thought the issue was a bunch of people disputed the temperature records. I don't really claim to get it but here's an entire article justifying why they do this. But I thought a lot of people had issue with changing the data to fit the model.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a manufactured controversy. Not to say it shouldn't be watched as a source of bias. But the idea of 'add data as you learn more things' isn't controversial in science.

Here's my thinking.
1) Fossil carbon is an amazing way of building wealth. It's also a great way of subsidizing one's consumption.
2) The idea that 'CO2 traps heat' and 'oceans expand as they warm' are not controversial.

So, there are three stages of fossil carbon emission - all three stages benefit the burner, and some of this benefit is in the form of enduring benefit, and some is temporary short-term fun.
1) the emissions go into the buffer, and there's a negligible effect
2) the emissions consume the buffer a bit too fast, and there are ecological changes created
3) the emissions ratchet ecological change to the point where there's widespread problem

In the (3) scenario, the aggregate gets poorer over time. We just shouldn't do it. But (2) is (imo) theft if it's uncompensated. Sure, the planet gets greener with some extra CO2 (if the changes are slow enough). But my yard gets greener if I steal topsoil from your garden.

The emissions that cause the sea levels to rise are theft. It's literally taking a poor person's shoreline in order to get the benefit one gets when burning fuels. And, insofar as that person won't be willingly compensated, we have an onus to either stop the emissions or to forcefully compensate the victim.

Now, this solution has been available for over two decades now. It's still available. But we're steamrolling towards the (3) scenario too. The West has stolen the net buffer available for the planet, which we've earmarked for economic growth. And unless that theft is compensated when we take measures against (3), it's a huge injustice.

 

[classical_hero]

How many years have we've been told that were are near the end and yet when it passes nothing happens? This is starting to sound like those preachers who always proclaim a certain date for the rapture. Yet when nothing happens they just make an excuse, just like those who believe in catastrophic human cause climate change. Far too many predictions/projection, whatever you call them have failed, plus carbon dioxide is what helps with the cycle of life.

 

[Berzerker]

Droughts are screwing up highly water-reliant countries in South America

I was under the impression the Amazon basin creates its own weather and the more it gets deforested the less water is available to fuel the hydro system

 

[Bootstoots]

Well, I sort of study it. By which I mean that my research project is actually computer simulations of aerosols and not climate change directly, but we always include the aerosol effect and aerosol/cloud interactions as a justification on our funding proposals. But uh yeah, needless to say, this is real and we cause it, as astute observers like this guy figured out. Now he thought it would be a good thing, but he was a Swede, so what would you expect?

Equilibrium climate sensitivity really probably is near 3 C/doubling of CO2, as well, and the IPCC physical science report is actually really good and not alarmist at all and everybody should read the summary for policymakers of the physical science report (the real report). Also Al Gore is a politician who annoyingly politicized an issue that should have stayed in the scientific realm, thereby making the whole public acceptance thing worse and turning it into a partisan issue. At least he "raised awareness".

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I sort of study it. By which I mean that my research project is actually computer simulations of aerosols and not climate change directly, but we always include the aerosol effect and aerosol/cloud interactions as a justification on our funding proposals. But uh yeah, needless to say, this is real and we cause it, as astute observers like this guy figured out. Now he thought it would be a good thing, but he was a Swede, so what would you expect?

Equilibrium climate sensitivity really probably is near 3 C/doubling of CO2, as well, and the IPCC physical science report is actually really good and not alarmist at all and everybody should read the summary for policymakers of the physical science report (the real report). Also Al Gore is a politician who annoyingly politicized an issue that should have stayed in the scientific realm, thereby making the whole public acceptance thing worse and turning it into a partisan issue. At least he "raised awareness".

That last bit seems rather ingenuous. You really think the Business Community wouldn't have politicized this on its own when it realized the implications?

 

[Bootstoots]

It already was doing so. It's just that Gore made everything like 3 times worse, not that it wouldn't have happened at all.

One thing to understand is that lighting stored fossil carbon on fire is the root of the Industrial Revolution, and has been done in copious quantities by everyone who has ever industrialized. This is an unavoidable consequence of that. Moving away from fossil fuels as a basis for industrial society is really hard, even though there's a lot of obvious stuff (more solar energy, more efficiency, etc) that we can do now. It's the #1 problem for us to solve in the 21st century, IMO.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, it might be made #2 by nuclear proliferation but as of now you're right.

 

[El_Machinae]

How many years have we've been told that were are near the end and yet when it passes nothing happens?

You might have missed the main thrust of the articles that were being summarized by your news sources.

We're not 'near the end' when it comes to catastrophe. What we're near the end of is avoiding future damages. And we're getting further and further away from how easy applying the brakes will be.

We've crossed the threshold for which certain risks are now actualized. Even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, there would be measurable changes due to our previous emissions. But this doesn't mean we've crossed into some type of safety zone - future risks are even worse.

 

[Berzerker]

its not entirely related but I saw a news blurb blaming more than 60 deaths in Bangladesh on a severe lightning storm

yeeikes!

 

[emzie]

How many years have we've been told that were are near the end and yet when it passes nothing happens? This is starting to sound like those preachers who always proclaim a certain date for the rapture. Yet when nothing happens they just make an excuse, just like those who believe in catastrophic human cause climate change. Far too many predictions/projection, whatever you call them have failed, plus carbon dioxide is what helps with the cycle of life.

Are you willing to accept the premise of deep geological time for the purpose of this thread?

 

[stfoskey12]

How many years have we've been told that were are near the end and yet when it passes nothing happens? This is starting to sound like those preachers who always proclaim a certain date for the rapture. Yet when nothing happens they just make an excuse, just like those who believe in catastrophic human cause climate change. Far too many predictions/projection, whatever you call them have failed, plus carbon dioxide is what helps with the cycle of life.

Well, the most dire consequences rarely play out. Was anyone even predicting global catastrophe at CO2 levels of 400-410 ppm?

Anyway, the lack of exceptionally massive disasters doesn't mean the world isn't still warming or that humans aren't the primary cause. And while the increased CO2 won't necessarily kill anything, it's the change in climate forcing life to adapt that's more of a problem.

Sea level rise can also be an issue since many people live close to sea level. At least that problem will take many decades or centuries to truly become serious.

IPCC sea level rise predictions

 

[onejayhawk]

You might have missed the main thrust of the articles that were being summarized by your news sources.

We're not 'near the end' when it comes to catastrophe. What we're near the end of is avoiding future damages. And we're getting further and further away from how easy applying the brakes will be.

We've crossed the threshold for which certain risks are now actualized. Even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, there would be measurable changes due to our previous emissions. But this doesn't mean we've crossed into some type of safety zone - future risks are even worse.

He has a point. There is very little scientific justification for many of the changes that are being promoted. If you can tie science to the political agenda, say eliminating coal, please do. I have not seen it done.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

How many years have we've been told that were are near the end and yet when it passes nothing happens? This is starting to sound like those preachers who always proclaim a certain date for the rapture. Yet when nothing happens they just make an excuse, just like those who believe in catastrophic human cause climate change. Far too many predictions/projection, whatever you call them have failed, plus carbon dioxide is what helps with the cycle of life.

I dunno 57% of the Great barrier reef is dead and with 92% of it being bleached in the middle of winter. I guess we will panic when the 10 Bil Tourism industry is in the tank, that or this elnino event will soon be over and the reefs can recover,