Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

Let's see where this leads us.

 

It seems to me that if there are threats that we cannot control then this, if anything, gives added importance to dealing with threats that we can control.

 

I'm fine with vigorous debate, I am all for it. But if there is broad consensus that there is warming, and broad consensus that it will cause major disruption, really unpredictable disruption, then it would seem we should be working on lessening the problem as best we can. We control what it is within our power to control, and we have to hope that this will suffice. If not, then we are all screwed no matter what. The dinosaurs might well have had this same conversation sometime back.

 

The threat that we can control, makes no sensible difference so then all those efforts are wasted ones. Has the planet warmed? In the context of normal variation, barely but yes. Will this (or future further warming) cause major disruption? Not based on anything scientifically accurate nor actually measured to date.

 

The greater threat is wasting our resources rather than investing them wisely in projects that can benefit humanity and not the agenda of a bureaucratic boondoggle.

[blackshoe]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The death of the dollar has been greaty exaggerated." The dollar's demise, and economic collapse have been predicted almost as many times as the end of the world. In 2008, Peter Schiff predicted that the dollar would lose half its value by 2010, and be worthless today. These predictions are always popular among the doomsayers. Doug Casey has been predicted a crash of the US markets since 1980. Remember how bad the bird flu was going to be? The Y2K scare? California falling into the ocean? My personal favorite is that planet X will crash into the Earth in {2004, 2006, 2008, 2012, insert date here}.

Interestingly, I read a while ago that in terms of 1913 dollars, a 2014 dollar is worth about five cents, which seems pretty close to "worthless" to me. <shrug>

 

"When the Big One hits, everything East of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic Ocean". Heard that one when I lived in California in the 1980s. B-)

 

In The Last Centurions, John Ringo predicted three simultaneous disasters in 2019: a bird flu epidemic that kills off about half the world's population, the beginning in earnest of the next ice age, and Hillary Clinton in the White House. Well, he called her "President Warrick," but the analogy was pretty clear. I suppose we'll find out if he was right in five years. :lol:

[Daniel1960]

Let's see where this leads us.

 

Example: "the majority of this rise is due to solar activity." Well, we cannot control the sun. But saying that the majority of the rise is due to solar activity, if that is correct, is not saying that all of the rise is due to solar activity. It seems to me that if there are threats that we cannot control then this, if anything, gives added importance to dealing with threats that we can control.

 

I'm fine with vigorous debate, I am all for it. But if there is broad consensus that there is warming, and broad consensus that it will cause major disruption, really unpredictable disruption, then it would seem we should be working on lessening the problem as best we can. We control what it is within our power to control, and we have to hope that this will suffice. If not, then we are all screwed no matter what. The dinosaurs might well have had this same conversation sometime back.

 

Agreed that we should control what we can. However, the claim that the warming will be disruptive is contentious. Global warming theory predicts that the warming will lead to glacier melting and sea level rise - this is occurring, with a majority of the alpine glacier melting and sea level rising at 2-3 mm/yr. Greenland has experienced slight melting and Arctic sea ice has decline 44%, but Antarctica has increased. The theory also predicts increased rainfall based on Clausius-Clapeyron, which has been measured globally. As total rainfall increases, the likelihood of extreme rainfall episodes increases similarly. The claim that droughts increase is antithetical to this theory, and indeed, drought occurrances have decreased over the past 150 years. Flooding would be expected to increase. However, this data is conflated due to flood control measures. The biggest contention with global climate models is the treatment of evaporation. Clausius-Clapeyron predicts a 7% increase in evaporation with each 1C increasxe in temperature. GCMs use values between 1% and 3%; resulting in much less evaporation, and hence, much higher temperature increases. The other difference between C-C and GCMs is that C-C predicts increased convection and greater vertical heat loss through high cloud tops than GCMs, which predict less convection as the surface temperature of the oceans increase.

 

Global warming theory also predicts that temperature increases will be most prevalent during the coldest periods; nighttime, winter, and high latititudes. This has been measured as the tropics have seen the least temperature rise, and little rise has been observed in daytime highs. Claims of increased heat waves and cold spells is not supported. Claims of extreme weather, except for rainfall amounts, are also not supported. Increasing temperatures during the colder periods lessens the atmospheric pressure difference and reduces boundary calshes. This is supported by the decrease in extreme tornadic activity measured in the U.S. since 1950. One of the most glaring errors presented by some AGW advocates is worldwide famine due to crop failures. This is contradicted by both theory and evidence. Since most of the temperature increase has occurred during the coldest periods, the growing season has been increased by up to two weeks. The enhanced rainfall and atmospheric CO2 content has also contributed to higher yields over the past several decades (other human influences have contributed also).

 

Claims by some AGW activists that all the changes will be detrimental, and that we must return to some idyllic climate of the past seem unwarranted. History has shown that civilization has prospered turning the warmest periods and suffered during the coldest. Whether there is a maximum temperature to this prosperity is not known.

[kenberg]

Daniel, thank you for this. At the very least it gives a clear presentation of a view, and it presents specifics that could be evaluated. As you can probably surmise, my knowledge base is far too meager for me to be able to comment meaningfully on it.

 

Actually I can't imagine what got into me to post here. I know nothing about the whole subject.

[PassedOut]

Agreed that we should control what we can. However, the claim that the warming will be disruptive is contentious. Global warming theory predicts that the warming will lead to glacier melting and sea level rise - this is occurring, with a majority of the alpine glacier melting and sea level rising at 2-3 mm/yr. Greenland has experienced slight melting and Arctic sea ice has decline 44%, but Antarctica has increased.

This last statement is wrong. The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is expanding as predicted by models, but that has no effect on the rise of sea levels. The mass of Antarctic ice, both in the sea and, most importantly, on land is decreasing at an accelerating rate. Here is a piece that addresses the difference: Antarctic Ice Melt

 

Antarctica is melting, not growing. In fact the ice mass is dropping at an accelerating rate due to multiple factors including accelerated glacial ice calving rates. The loss of sea based ice allows the Antarctic ice to move faster towards the ocean resulting in an increased rate of loss of the Antarctic ice.

 

Antarctica is losing ice mass while gaining ice extent. This is a confusing point to some.

As Ken said, we can't do anything about the sun. Mankind can, though, take action to rein in the spewing of greenhouse gases.

 

To the conservative mind, the very fact that we don't know for certain the effects of meddling with the composition of the atmosphere means that we should not be doing it. The alarmists who predict serious economic harm from instituting a carbon tax lack faith in free enterprise, to the point of suggesting that a "government fiat" is the only solution. They are wrong.

[kenberg]

 

To the conservative mind, the very fact that we don't know for certain the effects of meddling with the composition of the atmosphere means that we should not be doing it.

 

This is what I come back to. A few people screwing around with the environment is apt to cause, at worst, some local trouble for them. On a global scale, I don't think a person has to be a committed pessimist to find it all worrisome. This is not the sort of thing where you want hear someone say "Oops".

 

I don't actually think the Earth can support 7 Billion people in a modern middle class lifestyle. This is worrisome.

[blackshoe]

The mass of Antarctic ice, both in the sea and, most importantly, on land is decreasing at an accelerating rate.

Well, I've always kind of wondered what's under all that ice. :D

[shyams]

Well, I've always kind of wondered what's under all that ice. :D

Megatron, and the rest of the Decepticons. Waiting for the thaw...

[Daniel1960]

Daniel, thank you for this. At the very least it gives a clear presentation of a view, and it presents specifics that could be evaluated. As you can probably surmise, my knowledge base is far too meager for me to be able to comment meaningfully on it.

 

Actually I can't imagine what got into me to post here. I know nothing about the whole subject.

 

Ken,

I thought it was a very worthwhile post. Trying to do something about what he cannot control wouild be futile. THerefore, we should concentrate on correcting what is within our control, and prepare (as best we can) for that which is not.

[Daniel1960]

This last statement is wrong. The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is expanding as predicted by models, but that has no effect on the rise of sea levels. The mass of Antarctic ice, both in the sea and, most importantly, on land is decreasing at an accelerating rate. Here is a piece that addresses the difference: Antarctic Ice Melt

 

 

The expanding Antarctic sea ice has baffled modelers, who forecast that the sea should decline similarly to the Arctic as ocean temperature rise.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1

 

Much of the research concluding the Antarctic glacial ice is melting focuses on the Antartic peninsula and, to a lesser extent, on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Research on the much larger East Antarctic Ice sheet is less available, but results show that the glaciers are increasing.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/nature12382.html

 

When considering the increase in mass balance of the East Antarctic glaciers compared to the loss in the West, the net mass balance is slightly positive, although this gain in statistically insignificant, given the large size of the Antarctic glacial fields.

 

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495.pdf

 

Additionally, the predicitons of continued declines in West Antarctica are based on continued melting from warmer ocean waters. However, recent advances in Antarctic sea ice have stimied these forecasts.

[kenberg]

Ken,

I thought it was a very worthwhile post. Trying to do something about what he cannot control would be futile. Therefore, we should concentrate on correcting what is within our control, and prepare (as best we can) for that which is not.

 

Well, thanks. But I am not indulging ion false modesty when I say that I am often stunned by my own ignorance on this subject.

 

Even a non-student of the subject can recognize some worrisome trends. I bought a new car at the beginning of 2013. It nowhas about 23K miles on it. Not a lot by modern standards but I'm retired. And we have two cars. And the Chinese are riding bikes less and driving cars more. Certainly they have that right, no one thinks they get to bike, we get to drive, but it is worrisome, at least to me. I was hitchiking in the 1950s and got picked up by a guy who lived in Stillwater Minnesota and worked in Minneapolis. I was shocked by the idea of driving over 20 miles each way to work. My surprise at such a choice seems very quaint now. At least I drive a car (an Accord) that gets decent, albeit not fantastic, mileage.

 

We would like everyone to have a good life. We would like it here, in South America, in China, in Africa, wherever. Of course we would. And anyway, whether we want them to or not, they have an opinion on the matter. How do we intend to arrange this so that everyone can happily whip around on the open road?

 

A metaphor: On some tv show, I forget which, a woman was saying that she had joined a gym but still had not lost any weight. "Apparently you also have to go there" she observed. It seems to me that there are many things that could be done to get consumption at least somewhat under control. But apparently we also have to do it.

[Daniel1960]

Well, thanks. But I am not indulging ion false modesty when I say that I am often stunned by my own ignorance on this subject.

 

Even a non-student of the subject can recognize some worrisome trends. I bought a new car at the beginning of 2013. It nowhas about 23K miles on it. Not a lot by modern standards but I'm retired. And we have two cars. And the Chinese are riding bikes less and driving cars more. Certainly they have that right, no one thinks they get to bike, we get to drive, but it is worrisome, at least to me. I was hitchiking in the 1950s and got picked up by a guy who lived in Stillwater Minnesota and worked in Minneapolis. I was shocked by the idea of driving over 20 miles each way to work. My surprise at such a choice seems very quaint now. At least I drive a car (an Accord) that gets decent, albeit not fantastic, mileage.

 

We would like everyone to have a good life. We would like it here, in South America, in China, in Africa, wherever. Of course we would. And anyway, whether we want them to or not, they have an opinion on the matter. How do we intend to arrange this so that everyone can happily whip around on the open road?

 

A metaphor: On some tv show, I forget which, a woman was saying that she had joined a gym but still had not lost any weight. "Apparently you also have to go there" she observed. It seems to me that there are many things that could be done to get consumption at least somewhat under control. But apparently we also have to do it.

 

In order to reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, we must acknowledge the sources of this rise. Deforestation has been estimated to contributed between 25 and 50% of the total increase since the mid 19th century. Hence, reforestation would go a long ways in reducing the atmospheric buildup. This may be the easiest issue to remedy. Of the remaining sources, most are due to the buring of carbon-based fuels (there is some component due to respiration, but killing off people to reduce this source is not palatable). The major source is fuel for heating and electricity, which comprising almost half of CO2 generation, of which coal is the largest contributor. Transportation is next at about 25%, which includes cars, trucks, ships and planes. Next is industrial production at another 20%.

 

To put all this in perspective, I have listed how some individual activities roughly contribute to the annual total CO2 emissions: air travel - 2%, home heating - 5%, all gasoline-powered passenger cars - 8%, clear-cutting forests - 20%, coal power plants - 33%.

[mike777]

In order to reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, we must acknowledge the sources of this rise. Deforestation has been estimated to contributed between 25 and 50% of the total increase since the mid 19th century. Hence, reforestation would go a long ways in reducing the atmospheric buildup. This may be the easiest issue to remedy. Of the remaining sources, most are due to the buring of carbon-based fuels (there is some component due to respiration, but killing off people to reduce this source is not palatable). The major source is fuel for heating and electricity, which comprising almost half of CO2 generation, of which coal is the largest contributor. Transportation is next at about 25%, which includes cars, trucks, ships and planes. Next is industrial production at another 20%.

 

To put all this in perspective, I have listed how some individual activities roughly contribute to the annual total CO2 emissions: air travel - 2%, home heating - 5%, all gasoline-powered passenger cars - 8%, clear-cutting forests - 20%, coal power plants - 33%.

 

you seem to suggest that global warming science is not settled science. In fact your posts over time suggest new evidence and new science that reject old conclusions. At times they seem to go against the consensus of old. The consensus of experts

 

-----

Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem.

 

As I have stated for many years I don't know how urgent the problem is. If urgent then we have to look at radical, dangerous options.

 

If not urgent in 2014 we can look to innovation and the Entrepreneur

[mike777]

We can look to tinker with options.

[Al_U_Card]

you seem to suggest that global warming science is not settled science. In fact your posts over time suggest new evidence and new science that reject old conclusions. At times they seem to go against the consensus of old. The consensus of experts

 

-----

Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem.

Hey Mike.

What evidence might that be? Lowest hurricane/tornadic activity in the last 50 years. Greening of the Sahel. Greening of the biosphere in general. Specifics that are not computer model projections would be appreciated. Thanks.

[hrothgar]

Hey Mike.

What evidence might that be? Lowest hurricane/tornadic activity in the last 50 years. Greening of the Sahel. Greening of the biosphere in general. Specifics that are not computer model projections would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

Yo ***** for brains, did it ever occur to you that claiming that climate anomalies are happening is completely inconsistent with your usual claims that no climate anomalies are happening.

[nige1]

Man's effect on the weather is a contentious issue because of random and cyclic changes (e.g. ice-ages).

 

Intuitively, however, it seems likely that fracking, fossil-fuel burning, CFC release, water-table paving, rain-forrest removal, toxic-waste dumping, and so on are likely to make things worse -- possibly irretrievably with positive feed-back.

 

IMO, strict governmental control and investigation are urgently needed. Control should come first. If subsequent investigation indicates that some fears are unfounded, then those controls can be relaxed. Waiting to prove damage before imposing control is an unjustifiable gamble with the welfare of future generations.

 

The rest is propaganda fuelled by greed and avarice.

[blackshoe]

IMO, strict governmental control and investigation are urgently needed. Control should come first. If subsequent investigation indicates that some fears are unfounded, then those controls can be relaxed. Waiting to prove damage before imposing control is an unjustifiable gamble with the welfare of future generations.

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems? :( :(

[PassedOut]

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems? :( :(

Instead of insisting that everyone is out of step but you, you might consider an alternate explanation.

:rolleyes:

[hrothgar]

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems? :( :(

 

Even your co-religionist admit to the existence of externalities and say that there is a role for the government in addressing them...

[Daniel1960]

you seem to suggest that global warming science is not settled science. In fact your posts over time suggest new evidence and new science that reject old conclusions. At times they seem to go against the consensus of old. The consensus of experts

 

-----

Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem.

 

As I have stated for many years I don't know how urgent the problem is. If urgent then we have to look at radical, dangerous options.

 

If not urgent in 2014 we can look to innovation and the Entrepreneur

 

New evidence in science can either confirm or reject old conclusions. Sometimes even the major of experts can be wrong. Not that this is the case here, as the consensus was only that the globe had warmed - not the cause(s).

 

Both the seriousness and urgency of the problem are critical issues here. Obviously, the more dire the situation, the more urgent is the action needed. However, if the situation is rather slow and benignm, then you suggestion of entrepeneur innovation is the best course of action. In an ideal world, with unlimited funding, we could throw all sorts of money at this issue, and see what works. However, we have other real world problems that need attention also. Should we divert funding from these issues, which may be more dire and urgent?

[Al_U_Card]

As the science evolves (settled and consensus are not terms that can be applied to scientific endeavor) we get a clearer picture of just what exactly is happening over time viz:

 

Global assessment of trends in wetting and drying over land. Nature Geoscience

 

We find that over about three-quarters of the global land area, robust dryness changes cannot be detected. Only 10.8% of the global land area shows a robust ‘dry gets drier, wet gets wetter’ pattern, compared to 9.5% of global land area with the opposite pattern, that is, dry gets wetter, and wet gets drier. We conclude that aridity changes over land, where the potential for direct socio-economic consequences is highest, have not followed a simple intensification of existing patterns.

 

So the meme about CAGW causing dry to get drier and wet to get wetter was just plain wrong, based on actual observation and measurement. Like so many other tenets of alarmist zealotry, the sky is NOT falling!

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2014-September-13, 03:16, said:

 

"Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem."

 

I would tend to agree that weather does cause some serious problems and that, over time, trends can go in different and thus better or worse directions, but that has nothing to do with [CO2] unless you have found some as yet undescribed in the literature correlation?

[blackshoe]

Instead of insisting that everyone is out of step but you, you might consider an alternate explanation.

:rolleyes:

I did not say that "everyone is out of step but me". There's a lot of people who believe as I do.

[Al_U_Card]

Recall that the IPCC is claiming that CO2 is mainly responsible for the recent warming (1975-1998) but not for that which occured in the 30s and 40s or any time previously. Not to mention the recent 20 year pause in global temps despite ever more CO2.....REALLY?....really.