The Planetary Emergency

[Algeroth]

Speaking of acid rain, how much of a problem it was in North America and how it was solved? I'm fairly familiar with the situation in Europe, but I've never bothered to check up the North America.

 

[History_Buff]

Very big deal. Fixed it with Cap and Trade.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Speaking of acid rain, how much of a problem it was in North America and how it was solved? I'm fairly familiar with the situation in Europe, but I've never bothered to check up the North America.

It's been solved?

Anyway, they must have done something in the Greater Toronto Area as acid rain is less of an issue than what it used to be. Before, the nearby city of Hamilton and Burlington (where all the industrial yucky stuff takes place) was the cause of Acid Rain (that would pass through Hamilton before reaching Toronto further to the east). In the GTA we just needed to straighten out the factories in the industrial sector in Hamilton. (Though how exactly, I'm not sure)

 

[Algeroth]

Very big deal. Fixed it with Cap and Trade.

Cool, didn't know that. But one would expect then that you would move faster to Cap and Trade with carbon dioxide.

It's been solved?

I was under impression that it has been solved, at least in NA and Europe. It's non-issue here since the nineties, mainly thanks to collapse of heavy industry in former Eastern Bloc.

 

[History_Buff]

It's been solved?

Anyway, they must have done something in the Greater Toronto Area as acid rain is less of an issue than what it used to be. Before, the nearby city of Hamilton and Burlington (where all the industrial yucky stuff takes place) was the cause of Acid Rain (that would pass through Hamilton before reaching Toronto further to the east). In the GTA we just needed to straighten out the factories in the industrial sector in Hamilton. (Though how exactly, I'm not sure)

Yeah, there's a ton of legislation from the early 90s that cut sulfur emissions, and continues to do so today.

Cool, didn't know that. But one would expect then that you would move faster to Cap and Trade with carbon dioxide.

The political climate here right now is straight broken. Canada has a nutbar evangelist in charge, who probably doesn't even believe that global warming is a real thing.

And we all know about the mess that is the states.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Eesh, we still have people "waiting" for global warming effects? Stop by Venice when you have some time; they are living with rising sea levels and have been for years now. It's not a "what if" situation there, but a "what now." Or maybe stop by Ghoramara, where 5,000 people are losing their island to the sea as we speak.

 

[Rashiminos]

*checks Antarctic Ice Extent (and volume for good measure)*



Moving on..

PS: That SS chart is hilariously peninsular, among other things

What's the worst case 1000 year scenario? Are we looking at a Venus-like hellscape or just your run of the mill famine/war/mass-death semi-apocalypse followed by a tropical watery paradise?

Third snowball from the sun.

Spoilered for future reference:

Spoiler :

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html

 

[peter grimes]

*checks Antarctic Ice Extent (and volume for good measure)*



Moving on..

Spoilered for future reference:

Spoiler :

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html

What do you think the Antarctic growth has to do with this?

If you check the data at your NASA link, you'll see that the Arctic has lost 1.2 *million* square miles, about 100 times as much as the Antarctic has gained.

But even so, these are very different beasts. It's not as if any ice lost at one pole is perfectly mitigated by ice gain at the other. This circumstance is due to the chaotic nature of the climate system...

But you'd know that, of course, if you sincerely made an effort to learn about climatology. It's one of the things you learn in the first week of classes.

 

[tokala]

And even a bit of critical thinking would have led one to the conclusion that Antarctic winter ice area change is of negligible importance for the energy budget, compared to Arctic summer ice area change.

Which, together with snow cover changes, has been shown to have an even greater than expected effect (Figure b) shows change over the last three decades:

Full paper: http://aoss-research.engin.umich.edu/faculty/flanner/content/ppr/FlS11.pdf

We find that cyrospheric cooling declined by 0.45 W m−2 from 1979 to 2008, with nearly equal contributions from changes in land snow cover and sea ice. On the basis of these observations, we conclude that the albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere falls between 0.3 and 1.1 W m−2 K−1, substantially larger than comparable estimates obtained from 18 climate models.

As with summer sea ice, those Warmista alarmist models have turned out to seriously underestimate the effect of global warming in the Arctic.

 

[strijder20]

Eesh, we still have people "waiting" for global warming effects? Stop by Venice when you have some time; they are living with rising sea levels and have been for years now. It's not a "what if" situation there, but a "what now." Or maybe stop by Ghoramara, where 5,000 people are losing their island to the sea as we speak.

Or Bangladesh, a country of 160 million inhabitants which is basically one river delta.

 

[peter grimes]

Or Bangladesh, a country of 160 million inhabitants which is basically one river delta.

Bangladesh is the one I really worry about.

- Muslim country, used to be part of Pakistan, completely surrounded by India. Nukes + desperate populations are a bad mix.
- 1/3 of the population lives within 1m of sealevel, 3/4 of the population within the monsoon belt.
- Currently suffers increasing aquifer degredation due to both sea level rise, wetlands removal, and land subsidence.

A change in the monsoon track coupled with variability in annuals flood levels is likely to have severe effects on millions of people - people who are, for the most part, dirt poor. Picking up and moving, which is a common solution proposed by global warming complacents, is simply not an option here.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Bangladesh is the one I really worry about.

- Muslim country, used to be part of Pakistan, completely surrounded by India. Nukes + desperate populations are a bad mix.
- 1/3 of the population lives within 1m of sealevel, 3/4 of the population within the monsoon belt.
- Currently suffers increasing aquifer degredation due to both sea level rise, wetlands removal, and land subsidence.

A change in the monsoon track coupled with variability in annuals flood levels is likely to have severe effects on millions of people - people who are, for the most part, dirt poor. Picking up and moving, which is a common solution proposed by global warming complacents, is simply not an option here.

Well they could move to India and collapse the government there.

 

[Masada]

Bangladesh doesn't have nukes, and, as a general rule, loathes Pakistan.

Picking up and moving, which is a common solution proposed by global warming complacents, is simply not an option here.

The War of Liberation saw like millions cross the border, a lot stayed, and a lot have since followed them.

 

[Rashiminos]

What do you think the Antarctic growth has to do with this?

If you check the data at your NASA link, you'll see that the Arctic has lost 1.2 *million* square miles, about 100 times as much as the Antarctic has gained.

(A degree of) Matching seasonal growth and decline between hemispheres for starters. The emphasis on area deserves a nice laugh by itself (Antarctic area extent and arctic area extent is NOT an apples to apples comparison.)

But even so, these are very different beasts. It's not as if any ice lost at one pole is perfectly mitigated by ice gain at the other. This circumstance is due to the chaotic nature of the climate system...

But you'd know that, of course, if you sincerely made an effort to learn about climatology. It's one of the things you learn in the first week of classes.

Yeah, so there's natural variation between hemispheres with a chaotic magnitude*.


@tokala Figure a is a 30 year average and figure b is the trend change. 30 is half of 60 if I recall correctly, (what do you mean the core cycles?)

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah, is the Antarctic reference supposed to imply that Global Warming is not happening?

 

[Rashiminos]

Ah, is the Antarctic reference supposed to imply that Global Warming is not happening?

Nope. Just an effective "transfer" of ice. I check the SST for other things, or GISS, when it's not experiencing oodles of unexplained changes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Nope. Just an effective "transfer" of ice. I check the SST for other things, or GISS, when it's not experiencing oodles of unexplained changes.

So, as long as the Antarctic is stable, no worries, eh? Doesn't that risk seeing useful warning signs, if the Antarctic is the warning sign?

 

[tokala]

The emphasis on area deserves a nice laugh by itself

Figure a is a 30 year average and figure b is the trend change. 30 is half of 60 if I recall correctly, (what do you mean the core cycles?)

What "core cycles"??

Would you be so kind to explain in complete, coherent sentences what exactly your line of argument is when disregarding the Arctic sea ice decline and/or Northern Hemisphere snow cover changes as something important in the context of anthropogenic climate change?

Preferably supported by actual numbers and/or the relevant physics governing the climate system.


I'm not very good at reading other people's minds.

 

[Rashiminos]

So, as long as the Antarctic is stable, no worries, eh? Doesn't that risk seeing useful warning signs, if the Antarctic is the warning sign?

If.

We could do this again in a little less than 6 months, and I'll then check Arctic sea ice "extent."

Would you be so kind to explain in complete, coherent sentences what exactly your line of argument is when disregarding the Arctic sea ice decline and/or Northern Hemisphere snow cover changes as something important in the context of anthropogenic climate change?

To be kind... I already did.

 

[Verbose]

The OP shouldn't be THAT surprising.

What always seems to get lost in the brouhaha of people not liking the IPCC's messages, is that the IPCC's estimates are all lowest-common-denominator assessments. I.e. everyone agrees on the LEAST dramatic interpretation of the data.

I'm kind of glad I don't have kids, given how things seem to be starting to shape themselves...