Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The honest answer? Climate has warmed 1 degree Celsius in * pick your years duration * on a planet that has global minima and maxima value ranges regularly exceeding 100 degrees Celsius and whether this warming is on balance good or bad there is sfa we can do to stop it, let alone reverse it at this juncture.

If there's sfa we can do about it, then why is it so important to you to slap down the finding? Sounds you're locked into step 1 of the grieving process, maybe?

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You need to remember too that the IPCC has placed on record that climate change has a 95% probability of being caused by anthropogenic sources. To use this number in another context, if only 95% of an airline's flights made it to their destination without crashing - would you fly with them?

bad example. Like eating more veggies, making reductions in CO2 output won't kill you, and might do you some good in other areas as well.

If there's a 95% probability you have cancer X, you would at least cough up for more tests, and at 95% likelihood, you might immediately opt for treatment anyway.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

You find it frustrating that the "subject matter experts have come under relentless attack", when trillions of dollars of human activity is at stake and the timesacale for general concern (in terms of assessment period) is less than two decades?

It's frustrating that you're wallowing in false assumptions. You don't know what the final tab will be because we're nowhere near discussing the specifics. Nor do you know the value of the upsides, like the opportunities in renewables and alternatives.

You find it strange when all other human activities which could be targeted and modified in terms of our impact upon the biosphere are sidlelined? Really?

The same people who are most against acting on AGW are for the most part the same people who are against acting on the other ecological issues too. Acting on AGW is in most cases also acting against many of those other situations. Anti-AGW sentiment is what's blocking stuff.

You do realise that there have been similarly powerful moments in scientific orthodoxy which have become infamous in history, during which speaking out against would have been similarly vilified for similar reasons of "consensus".

Mmmmm... nope, I don't. Nearest equivalance is the 50+ year effort to avoid acknowledging that tobacco causes cancer.

Should we still be pursuing the policies of the 1920s and 1930s regarding the treatment of the "feebleminded"? How would a skeptic of those policies have been treated, then?

Not equivalent by a longshot.

There are nuances here and you are not regarding them. The situation is NOT as clear as you suggest it is by this post. You perhaps think it is as clear as, for example, the absurdity of the creationists' holding on to the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old. But it is not anything like so clear cut.

Um, yes it is that clear, nearly. You're either in the majority of declared doubters for which the primary objection is political (very likely, considering your hype about what's to be done), or you are, like creationists, flying in the face of a preponderance of evidence.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's frustrating that you're wallowing in false assumptions. You don't know what the final tab will be because we're nowhere near discussing the specifics. Nor do you know the value of the upsides, like the opportunities in renewables and alternatives.



The same people who are most against acting on AGW are for the most part the same people who are against acting on the other ecological issues too. Acting on AGW is in most cases also acting against many of those other situations. Anti-AGW sentiment is what's blocking stuff.



Mmmmm... nope, I don't. Nearest equivalance is the 50+ year effort to avoid acknowledging that tobacco causes cancer.



Not equivalent by a longshot.



Um, yes it is that clear, nearly. You're either in the majority of declared doubters for which the primary objection is political (very likely, considering your hype about what's to be done), or you are, like creationists, flying in the face of a preponderance of evidence.

Pure handwaving. What on earth are you even on about? US and THEM. I see I am, according to you, an "other" or "THEM" when it comes to your orthodoxy. As regards my pointing to historical precedent, you bat it aside with ZERO warrant. Well, it appears you at least are satisfied with your certainties.

Peace, and Happy New Year

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Pure handwaving. What on earth are you even on about? US and THEM. I see I am, according to you, an "other" or "THEM" when it comes to your orthodoxy. As regards my pointing to historical precedent, you bat it aside with ZERO warrant. Well, it appears you at least are satisfied with your certainties.

Who's handwaving, again? If you're still sold on your historical comparisons, defend them.

Am I wrong in thinking you're an AGW-doubter? If I am, I apologize.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Who's handwaving, again? If you're still sold on your historical comparisons, defend them.

Am I wrong in thinking you're an AGW-doubter? If I am, I apologize.

Why on earth would I need to "defend" the idea that, for example, it is obviously untrue that a 4 degree C rise in atmospheric temperature as a result of incremental rise in CO2 would destroy ALL reef systems, or even many? The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of the history of coral reef systems (ca 410 million years) has been during periods of approximately, on average, 10 degrees celsius higher and 750 percent (conservatively) higher CO2 than is currently the case, for hundreds of millions of years. That data was quite clear as per the previous posts that I posted. I have no need to defend that at all.

If you think that I doubt that AGW exists as a feature of our current environment, perhaps you should return to my previous posts, and read more carefully.

Happy New Year

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Why on earth would I need to "defend" the idea that, for example, it is obviously untrue that a 4 degree C rise in atmospheric temperature as a result of incremental rise in CO2 would destroy ALL reef systems, or even many? The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of the history of coral reef systems (ca 410 million years) has been during periods of approximately, on average, 10 degrees celsius higher and 750 percent (conservatively) higher CO2 than is currently the case, for hundreds of millions of years. That data was quite clear as per the previous posts that I posted. I have no need to defend that at all.

If you think that I doubt that AGW exists as a feature of our current environment, perhaps you should return to my previous posts, and read more carefully.

Happy New Year

I'm... gonna respond to just one point in the above.

A very Happy New Year to you and best wishes for a safe, happy and prosperous 2016.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Why on earth would I need to "defend" the idea that, for example, it is obviously untrue that a 4 degree C rise in atmospheric temperature as a result of incremental rise in CO2 would destroy ALL reef systems, or even many?

A little paleohistory

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.
- Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
- Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
- The Arctic was ice free.
- Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
- Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

“The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A little paleohistory



The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

Really? The pliocene? You do realise that corals, and extensive coral reefs have been a very prominent feature of the biosphere for 400 million years?

This simple quotation tells me nothing of "paleohistory" with regard to the relationship between CO2 and coral reef structures. I find it rather ironic that you seek to instruct me in particular of "paleohistory" as it has been me in particular who has sought to bring the very idea of the significance of paleohistory into this discussion. I have repeatedly, on this thread, pointed out the fact that through the 500 mllion years since the cambrian (and frankly even more in the precambrian) the atmospheric quotient of CO2 has been MASSIVELY HIGHER that it presently is. This has not been addressed in any way whatsoever other than the entirely lame "well humans weren't there" suggestion, whch you repeat, again, here. I repeat: So what?

Really? What on earth is the point of that? Other than to demonstrate that the ordinary and usual state of the biosphere is that it is comprised of above 1000ppm CO2 and some 10 degrees celsius higher than present, among other delights. The suggestion in your post that "coral reefs suffered massive die offs" in a period where the CO2 content of the atmosphere was close to a record low in terms of the 410 Mllion year history of coral reefs on this particular planet is apropos of what, exactly?


And by the way, Happy New Year!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Really? The pliocene? You do realise that corals, and extensive coral reefs have been a very prominent feature of the biosphere for 400 million years?

Can't remember the source of this ... coral has been with us for that long, but the types of coral that existed then are not exactly the coral we have now. Each was adapted to the climate and water chemistry of their respective periods.

If AGW causes changes to the oceans equivalent to thousands of years, in a century or less... it's possible there'd be a big dieoff before more suitable species rise to prominence.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Can't remember the source of this ... coral has been with us for that long, but the types of coral that existed then are not exactly the coral we have now. Each was adapted to the climate and water chemistry of their respective periods.

If AGW causes changes to the oceans equivalent to thousands of years, in a century or less... it's possible there'd be a big dieoff before more suitable species rise to prominence.

Well… ok…. but mate, seems kinda weak now, doesnt it? Go hunting. See if you can find somthing to bolster your position…

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Can't remember the source of this ... coral has been with us for that long, but the types of coral that existed then are not exactly the coral we have now. Each was adapted to the climate and water chemistry of their respective periods.

If AGW causes changes to the oceans equivalent to thousands of years, in a century or less... it's possible there'd be a big dieoff before more suitable species rise to prominence.

Possible? In one specific locale? Or the the entire muiti oceanic biosphere all at once?

I repeat my previous statement: it is not the composition of the atmosphere which is most pressing, environmentally speaking, it is direct, chemical and mechanical damage.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I repeat my previous statement: it is not the composition of the atmosphere which is most pressing, environmentally speaking, it is direct, chemical and mechanical damage.

Are you referring to coral, or everything? Anyway i agree that those are pressing issues, and the solutions are somewhat simpler and more direct than fixing AGW. So, why don't we get on with them? It's not either/or; AGW hasn't really drawn attention away from them, it's just that not enough of us seem to care, period.

AGW requires a complex, long-term strategy, and is one of those things where the longer we wait, the harder it will be. We at least need to be on top of the research.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Are you referring to coral, or everything? Anyway i agree that those are pressing issues, and the solutions are somewhat simpler and more direct than fixing AGW. So, why don't we get on with them? It's not either/or; AGW hasn't really drawn attention away from them, it's just that not enough of us seem to care, period.

AGW requires a complex, long-term strategy, and is one of those things where the longer we wait, the harder it will be. We at least need to be on top of the research.

With regard to chemical and mechanical damage it is with equal regard to oceanic and terrestrial environments. I am VERY IRRITATED by the IMHO fairly pointless redirection of political and environmental capital away from what is most pressing and most clear in terms of what is both needed and pressing. In short, we NEED TO STOP DIRECTLY KILLING THINGS. The rest, really, can follow. There is an immense amount of frankly misdirected effort on the part of well meaning folks which can be directly traced to the current atmospheric hysteria. Far more important is the immediate fact of blanket harvesting of the Oceans…

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Well… ok…. but mate, seems kinda weak now, doesnt it? Go hunting. See if you can find somthing to bolster your position…

Ok.
Ancient Corals Provide Insight on the Future of Caribbean Reefs

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok.
Ancient Corals Provide Insight on the Future of Caribbean Reefs

Well this is nothing better than an attempt at a press release. Really. What on earth is this supposed to represent and how does it address anything at all that I have said? This is one of the sloppliest, most weirdly irrelevant (to anything vaguely identifiable as scientifically relevant) pieces that I have ever had the displeasure to read from an ostensibly academic institution.

I mean… truly. You posted it here. What do you think that it is attempting to say? What are its actual, scientifically relevant and precise data points? WTF is this even supposed to be, because it bears almost zero resemblance to anything like any scientific paper I have ever known.

And BTW,

Happy New Year1