Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

An argument from authority is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
- The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
- The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
- There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
- The person in question is not significantly biased.
- The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
- The authority in question must be identified.

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just showed that extreme weather has increased. I made no reference to climate change. I have already indicted that tying individual weather events to climate change is very hard.

Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes | Munich Re

But tying weather events to CC seems to happen all the time, regardless. As I mentioned, I heard a NOAA forecaster attribute the high temps in the US NE over the holidays to a combo of El Nino, containment of cold temps to the Arctic, and CC. My cynicism causes me to think NOAA is being "instructed" to throw in CC whenever unusual weather events are being explained.

So Jack -- In sum, would it be fair to say that there is little scientific consensus establishing a nexus b'twn. individual weather events & CC?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Land ice is of particular interest because when it melts, it increases ocean level.

If all of Greenland's ice were to melt, it's estimated it would raise the ocean level by 23 ft. The 0.3% loss referred to in your article... is like 3/4".

(big whoop, I hear you say)

Sure, but the melt rate is accelerating; it's probably going to be more than 0.3% lost in the next century. Shall we gamble that there won't be accelerated melt?

Same issue with Antarctic land ice.

(who cares, we have boats)

If we stopped using all fossil fuels today, world wide, how would that change the rate and duration and extent of land ice melt?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Land ice is of particular interest because when it melts, it increases ocean level.

If all of Greenland's ice were to melt, it's estimated it would raise the ocean level by 23 ft. The 0.3% loss referred to in your article... is like 3/4".

(big whoop, I hear you say)

Sure, but the melt rate is accelerating; it's probably going to be more than 0.3% lost in the next century. Shall we gamble that there won't be accelerated melt?

Same issue with Antarctic land ice.

(who cares, we have boats)

I've posted this before but I guess you didn't see it
Antarctic land ice is growing
Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports

[GordMay]

What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today?

Would we return to the climate of our elders?

The simple answer is no, and you would not expect to see a reprieve from that warming in your lifetime, your children's lifetime, their children's lifetime ... and many generations after that.

Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves amongst the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms' shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it.

After maybe 40 more years, the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations. The reason is that it takes a long time for atmospheric conditions to stabilize, and the recent sharp rise in CO2 levels has not yet finished producing major changes in the atmosphere. These changes in turn are very complicated because they are mediated by a series of interrelated "feedback mechanisms" such as water evaporating, ice melting, etc.

This is not reason, however, to continue with unbridled emissions. We’re already stuck with some amount of guaranteed climate change at this point. Rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible futures.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today?

Would we return to the climate of our elders?

The simple answer is no, and you would not expect to see a reprieve from that warming in your lifetime, your children's lifetime, their children's lifetime ... and many generations after that.

Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves amongst the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms' shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it.

After maybe 40 more years, the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations. The reason is that it takes a long time for atmospheric conditions to stabilize, and the recent sharp rise in CO2 levels has not yet finished producing major changes in the atmosphere. These changes in turn are very complicated because they are mediated by a series of interrelated "feedback mechanisms" such as water evaporating, ice melting, etc.

This is not reason, however, to continue with unbridled emissions. We’re already stuck with some amount of guaranteed climate change at this point. Rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible futures.

Source?

We're doomed!!

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by fryewe

If we stopped using all fossil fuels today, world wide, how would that change the rate and duration and extent of land ice melt?

Hint....
NADA....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The first 2 are science sites reporting the same story verbatim, the third is a radio weatherman's bog poo-pooing the first two.

It still takes a lot of heat energy to turn that much ice into water, especially when solar activity is down.

Yes, perspective is required.

Speaking of perspective, or at least attempting to broaden it, I read some of Judith Curry's blog on the issue of Arctic sea ice since you quoted her in a previous post. It's complex stuff for a layman to get a handle on, but I also tried to digest some of the critiques in the commentaries. I don't want to start another ping-pong match by parsing out quotes, and/or get accused of quote-mining, etc., but in summary Dr. Curry cites a number of factors as to why she believes the ebb & flow of Arctic sea ice is more properly attributable to natural forces vs. CC. These seem to include (the best I can gather) the geographic land boundaries surrounding the Arctic ocean & the flow of currents moving ice in & out, along with the salinity of the water as influenced by sea water vs. fresh water run off from land (sea water having a lower freezing point).

Curry points out that the decrease of ice has not been consistent throughout the entire Arctic ocean, but has shown significantly larger or smaller changes in different regions. Curry also claims that the large decrease in 2013 started to stabilize in 2014, and projects the start of an overall increase in the next decade. And as Newhaul just reminded us, the Antarctic ice pack has been steadily increasing.

This leaves me wondering how much scientific consensus there is when it comes to the nexus b'twn. CC and the extent of the ice packs in the polar regions.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

yes... 97% of climate scientists, and most western governments... could all be wrong/incompetent/crooked... it's not impossible. I guess you're right.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

This leaves me wondering how much scientific consensus there is when it comes to the nexus b'twn. CC and the extent of the ice packs in the polar regions.

Oh there is a Lexus connection all right...the MMGW scam generates lots of cash for those Lexus payments...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

yes... 97% of climate scientists, and most western governments... could all be wrong/incompetent/crooked... it's not impossible. I guess you're right.

And 4 out of 5 Dentists recommend Crest...
That's about as scientifically valid as the fake 97% line...but marketing sells baby...it sold you.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

yes... 97% of climate scientists, and most western governments... could all be wrong/incompetent/crooked... it's not impossible. I guess you're right.

The 97%, etc. = the purported consensus on the existence of AGW. We're now discussing the strength of that consensus on impacts, i.e. ice packs, weather, economies, coral reefs. I know it involves reading a lot of posts, but try and keep up.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So Jack -- In sum, would it be fair to say that there is little scientific consensus establishing a nexus b'twn. individual weather events & CC?

That is my sense.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Source?...

“Climate commitment in an uncertain world” - K. C. Armour and G. H. Roe
Publication of the American Geophysical Union “Geophysical Research Letters” (Jan. 2011)
➥ http://web.mit.edu/karmour/www/ArmourRoe_GRL2011.pdf
➥ If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer | UW Today

Matthews and Caldeira ➥ http://precaution.org/lib/zero_emiss...red.080227.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speaking of perspective, or at least attempting to broaden it, I read some of Judith Curry's blog on the issue of Arctic sea ice since you quoted her in a previous post. It's complex stuff for a layman to get a handle on, but I also tried to digest some of the critiques in the commentaries. I don't want to start another ping-pong match by parsing out quotes, and/or get accused of quote-mining, etc., but in summary Dr. Curry cites a number of factors as to why she believes the ebb & flow of Arctic sea ice is more properly attributable to natural forces vs. CC. These seem to include (the best I can gather) the geographic land boundaries surrounding the Arctic ocean & the flow of currents moving ice in & out, along with the salinity of the water as influenced by sea water vs. fresh water run off from land (sea water having a lower freezing point).

Curry points out that the decrease of ice has not been consistent throughout the entire Arctic ocean, but has shown significantly larger or smaller changes in different regions. Curry also claims that the large decrease in 2013 started to stabilize in 2014, and projects the start of an overall increase in the next decade. And as Newhaul just reminded us, the Antarctic ice pack has been steadily increasing.

This leaves me wondering how much scientific consensus there is when it comes to the nexus b'twn. CC and the extent of the ice packs in the polar regions.

No one denies that natural forces are a factor in climate change.

The dynamics of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are very different. One is an ocean surrounded by continents, the other is a continent surrounded by oceans.

The artci is better understood that the Antarctic. One theory about Antarctic SEA ice is that melting ice sheet fresh water at 0C is freezing when it hits Antarctic saline sea water at -1.8C.

Wind as also been identified as a significant factor in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions.

The current Arctic sea ice levels are below the record 2012-2013 levels. That seems to contradict Curry's forecast.