Global warming strikes again...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, I mean, I'd say so.

Thanks for answering and not being a

about it.

 

[onejayhawk]

Thanks for answering and not being a about it.

Sorry to be over-strong. Take it as an indication that even those with an interest in unbiased coverage admit to it. See also the New York Times.

J

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sorry to be over-strong. Take it as an indication that even those with an interest in unbiased coverage admit to it. See also the New York Times.

J

No worries I dish out as well.

I wiki-ed, and I think I might have been confused because of the Washington Times which according to wiki has a more conservative slant. But wasn't sure when I asked.

 

[Broken_Erika]

By Republican standards they are probably radical leftist. Well, Trumplican standards anyways...

 

[onejayhawk]

By Republican standards they are probably radical leftist. Well, Trumplican standards anyways...

No. That would be KOS and Politico. NYT and WP are merely mouthpieces for the Democratic party.

In defense of the Post and Times, they will generally print both sides. The Democratic party line will be on the cover and the Republican slant will be on page 6. Still, both sides get covered.

J

 

[Synobun]

 

[onejayhawk]

What if it isn't a big hoax, just not a big deal?

10,000 posts. Woot!

J

 

[Bootstoots]

Exactly. I mean, let's suppose that equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be at the low end - only 2.0 C, not 3.0 as currently expected. It would still mean that substantial adverse climate change would happen, just a little less quickly and becoming a little less extreme than the mid-range projections. So the appropriate course of action would be the same - phase out fossil fuels and replace them with non-FF sources (including nukes and hydro, where possible) as quickly as possible without causing near-term economic damage. And the long-term damage would be less, so that's another plus.

Even if global warming weren't a thing at all, fossil fuel supplies are finite, and people would have to change over to renewables sometime even if they could get away with not doing that for the next few decades.

 

[Lexicus]

Even if global warming weren't a thing at all, fossil fuel supplies are finite, and people would have to change over to renewables sometime even if they could get away with not doing that for the next few decades.

Fossil fuels prematurely kill, like, thousands a year in the US alone.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Delete thread delete OP

 

[Bootstoots]

Fossil fuels prematurely kill, like, thousands a year in the US alone.

Yeah, there's that little problem too. But then of course you can get into epidemiology stuff and a bunch of uncertainties appear about dose-response, and pretty soon the Merchants of Doubt show up to convince everyone that coal ash is harmless.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, there's that little problem too. But then of course you can get into epidemiology stuff and a bunch of uncertainties appear about dose-response, and pretty soon the Merchants of Doubt show up to convince everyone that coal ash is harmless.

Yeah. Funny how that works isn't it. But the Merchants of Doubt never seem to be there when the government's talking itself into invading Iraq or cutting welfare or deregulating finance.

 

[Synobun]

Yeah, there's that little problem too. But then of course you can get into epidemiology stuff and a bunch of uncertainties appear about dose-response, and pretty soon the Merchants of Doubt show up to convince everyone that coal ash is harmless.

Yet you'll never see them eagerly living near where the coal ash and related pollutants get dumped or produced.

Hmm...

 

[FriendlyFire]

What if it isn't a big hoax, just not a big deal?

What if the predictions are on track ?
And we hit 6C in around 100 years ?

When do we as humanity start to take it seriously, when the temp hit +3C, +4C, +5C ?
We might be able to rush some kind of global Apollo style program if we have say 50 years before the crisis point to have a reasonable chance of success. Any later and well might as well pray for some kind of hail Mary miracle science break though

 

[stfoskey12]

What if the predictions are on track ?
And we hit 6C in around 100 years ?

When do we as humanity start to take it seriously, when the temp hit +3C, +4C, +5C ?
We might be able to rush some kind of global Apollo style program if we have say 50 years before the crisis point to have a reasonable chance of success. Any later and well might as well pray for some kind of hail Mary miracle science break though

I sometimes wonder about buying some real estate in Alaska when I have the money and selling it later to profit from global warming. I don't know if that will work, though.

 

[Bootstoots]

What if the predictions are on track ?
And we hit 6C in around 100 years ?

When do we as humanity start to take it seriously, when the temp hit +3C, +4C, +5C ?
We might be able to rush some kind of global Apollo style program if we have say 50 years before the crisis point to have a reasonable chance of success. Any later and well might as well pray for some kind of hail Mary miracle science break though

We probably won't hit 6C in 100 years. The projections billed in the media as "business as usual" often come from RCP 8.5*, which the IPCC uses as a worst-case scenario. It's one where humanity keeps raising its emissions at an exponential rate until around 2200 and eventually end up with 2000 ppm. I don't consider this particularly realistic: if we really set our minds to it and manage to fully not just fracking and tar sands but also methane hydrate mining and "oil shale" (kerogen, not tight oil) along with the whole world's coal reserves, then maybe we could pull this off. But in reality even I am optimistic enough to think that the improving economics of renewables combined with governmental policy around the world will keep us from effing up this badly.

Even in 8.5, though, in 2100 we only hit about 3.7 C relative to today (or 4.6, relative to 1850) although we eventually blow up to >7 C by 2300. In the more realistic RCP4.5 and 6.0 scenarios, we end up at about 1.8 C and about 2.5 C above today at 2100, ending up around 2.2 and 3.3 C from today in 2300. Add 0.9 C to get change from preindustrial. As far as I can tell, we're heading for 3-4.5 C above preindustrial levels by 2300, with about 70% of that coming by 2100 and keeping in mind that we're already at 0.9 C today. But there are huge error bars, of course, because climate science is hard and full of uncertainty.

*RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathway, which are different emissions scenarios the IPCC used in its last report. There are four of them, as follows:

• RCP2.6: Very rapid dial-down of GHG emissions such that we peak out around 450 ppm by mid-century, and then Elon Musk invents a magical carbon sequestration machine that lets us dial CO2 levels down slowly from this point on. Or industrial civilization collapses sometime in the next decade. This scenario should be ignored unless you're into techno-utopianism and/or Mad Max-style apocalypse. But we stay below the politically important but physically unrealistic 2 C goal, which is probably why it was put in there.
• RCP4.5: A realistically optimistic scenario. Renewables are built out rapidly and CO2 emissions decline from mid-century until we stabilize CO2 concentrations at a little under 550 ppm by end-century. We miss 2 degrees from preindustrial but probably level out around 3 in the 22nd century.
• RCP6.0: Another realistic scenario, probably the most realistic of the bunch IMO. CO2 emissions climb for longer than they do in 4.5, but eventually start declining as renewables become more economic and remaining fossil fuel reserves become less attractive. CO2 levels reach 670 ppm by 2100 and eventually level out somewhere between 700-725 ppm by the early 22nd century. We reach about 4 C above preindustrial around 2200..
• RCP8.5: Drill baby drill. People light as much fossilized carbon on fire as they possibly can. Not only do we frack the world dry, but some really unconventional sources show up, like ultra-deepwater sites around the world, Arctic and Antarctic oil, oil shale, methane clathrates, permafrost methane, and every piece of coal we can possibly find, plus not just the tar sands of Alberta but the extra-heavy crude in the Orinoco area in Venezuela. CO2 levels not only reach 940 ppm by 2100 but keep going up and level out around 2000 ppm in the 2200s. I don't expect anything like this to happen, and I don't consider it "business as usual", but it serves its role as a worst-case scenario, with temps reaching >7 C above preindustrial by 2300 or so.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Ironicly 220 PPM is when the feed back loop starts
It takes only a 3-5 year drough to kill off trees which will release its store Co2, If Permafrost in Sibera melting released stored Co2, also the ocean co2 capture is already changing if the trapped methanes is released due to acidity well its pretty much mass extinction time.

Iam just worried that IPPC predictions are too conervative because they must have concensses on scientifice data so they only release the conservative predictions
The problem is that there is a tipping point that the IPPC know exist around 1000 PPM is when the collapse will accelerate out of control.

 

[El_Machinae]

What if it isn't a big hoax, just not a big deal?

1) it's still property theft and an externality
2) this isn't how risk assessment works. Part of the expense is to mitigate the odds of a worst-case scenario. Part of the expense is to compensate the victims of a policy.*
3) we've known since 1992 that we needed to slow emissions
4) Trump is defunding the science, intentionally. the cries of "it's not a settled question" are shown to be crocodile tears.

*"What about the oil field workers?!?" If you didn't want them paying for it, the customers should have. The global carbon buffer isn't owned by oil-field workers. And they've known it since 1992.

 

[Arwon]

4) Trump is defunding the science, intentionally. the cries of "it's not a settled question" are shown to be crocodile tears.

Not just defunding, he's burning the books.

 

[onejayhawk]

What if the predictions are on track ?
And we hit 6C in around 100 years ?

When do we as humanity start to take it seriously, when the temp hit +3C, +4C, +5C ?
We might be able to rush some kind of global Apollo style program if we have say 50 years before the crisis point to have a reasonable chance of success. Any later and well might as well pray for some kind of hail Mary miracle science break though

You file them with the predictions that gold will hit $10,000 an ounce as the economy collapses. You overstate the extreme worst-case scenarios. That's tin hat territory.

Not just defunding, he's burning the books.

bad link

1) it's still property theft and an externality
2) this isn't how risk assessment works. Part of the expense is to mitigate the odds of a worst-case scenario. Part of the expense is to compensate the victims of a policy.*
3) we've known since 1992 that we needed to slow emissions
4) Trump is defunding the science, intentionally. the cries of "it's not a settled question" are shown to be crocodile tears.

*"What about the oil field workers?!?" If you didn't want them paying for it, the customers should have. The global carbon buffer isn't owned by oil-field workers. And they've known it since 1992.

1) Say what? What theft? What is stolen?
2) I have been in risk assessment. This is the quick and dirty version but still genuine.
3) False
4) There are no tears

J