Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by fryewe

... For example, let's say that doctor you love gives you a diagnosis using his expert knowledge and experience, and you decide to get a second opinion, from another expert with similar experience, and you get a decidedly different opinion ...

Wouldn't one, then, get another (and perhaps, another & another) opinion, and depending upon the confidence one places in each Dr's opinion, go with the (weighted) preponderance of opinion (consensus)?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have access to data that suggests that earthquakes increase as the climate warms

Cenozoic climate change as a possible cause for the rise of the Andes : Abstract : Nature

Linking continental-slope failures and climate change: Testing the clathrate gun hypothesis

Seasonality and Increasing Frequency of Greenland Glacial Earthquakes

Oh crap. I've started batting for the other side

Amazing what science can do.

Of course the only ones that "hints" of AGW is the last one. But it actually says nothing about AGW; it could be any "changing climate condition". The first two deal with time frames that precede human existence.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Wouldn't one...go with the...consensus...?

Perhaps, unless the risks of action are too great, and would cause significant loss of life and suffering in the 3rd world, or risk the unintended consequences of unknown unknowns (geoengineering)...in which case I suggest we invoke an underlying theme of the Hippocratic corpus: First, do no harm...a notion which is clearly in conflict with the precautionary principle.

[Mike OReilly]

Not sure if this has been referenced before, but just in case ... there is just-released survey done by the Pew Institute on global attitudes towards climate change.


It highlights a lot of fascinating measures such as:

• Majorities in all 40 nations polled say [climate change] is a serious problem.
• 78% support the idea of their country limiting greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international agreement in Paris.
• 51% believe people are already being harmed by climate change and another 28% think people will be harmed in the next few years.
• More than half in 39 of 40 countries are concerned it will cause harm to them personally during their lifetime (the United Kingdom is the exception).

Not surprisingly, the survey finds that nations with high levels of carbon emissions per capita are less likely to express strong worries about climate change. These include the U.S., Australia, Canada and Russia.

Looking at demographics, the report finds:

• The young (18-29) are most likely to support limiting green house emissions
• The older generations (50+) are the least
• The US has the greatest difference between young and old

The same pattern repeats itself on the question of whether rich countries should do more. Americans once again exhibit the greatest spread between attitudes of young verse old.

There are interesting gender differences as well:

"In a number of the advanced economies that are responsible for much of annual CO2 emissions, it is women, more than men, who believe major changes in the way they live will be necessary to reduce the effects of global climate change. This gender difference on the contribution required from lifestyle changes is particularly large in the U.S. (18 percentage points), Canada (15 points), the UK (14 points) and Australia (14 points)."

And as we all know, there is a clear political divide between those on the left vs those on the right:



Lots of fun data...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Perhaps, unless the risks of action are too great, and would cause significant loss of life and suffering in the 3rd world,

Bangladesh

Climate Change & its Impacts on Bangladesh | NCDO

[Viedeau]

I know it is seen as one of the greatest existential threats to the National Security according to CIA. I am very pessimistic on stopping it without using climate manipulation technology. Think high altitude cloud seeding or such. I think there is a lot of fear about replicating volcanic activity and unintended consequences.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bangladesh

Climate Change & its Impacts on Bangladesh | NCDO

Hmmm, any link that contains:

Dear Global Citizens... and Friends of the Global Village...!

The Glaciers are Melting, Sea-level is Rising since the World is getting Warmer - our Coast line, Green Villages, Paddy fields, Schools, Hospitals, Markets are sinking... Please, come forward and let’s fight our Common Problems together...!

People are losing their Homesteads, Agriculture fields, Sweet water Ponds, Fishery, Poultry, Livestock and every thing... Becoming Homeless - taking shelter in the roadside Unhygienic Squatters and Slums. Once upon a time – they had Sweet Families along with all the members - Mom-Dad, Brothers-Sisters, Husband-Wife, Sons and Daughters...! They were surrounded by Greeneries, Water bodies, Vegetable gardens and Fruit trees - Cows, Goats, Hens and Ducks were common in every family... now, all are sweet memories...! Small Boats used to play in the Canals and Rivers - were the main mode of Transportation That Village was like a piece of Heaven... they lived for generations...!

Has gotta be totally factual.

Cyclones are a big problem if you live in the lowlands of Bangladesh. From what I can deduce from the link below, there's no clear trend of increasing cyclonic activity in the Northern Indian Ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...te-intensity-8

[pbmaise]

Even if 100% of the fuel burned today was stopped 100% we have a larger problem.

While a tiny amount of new ice has formed around the South Pole, so much snow and ice has been lost in other areas that the earth is absorbing far more solar radiation.

The amount of extra solar radiation being absorbed is greater than the heat generated by all the fuel we currently burn.

Further, the extra temperature has caused a decrease in the amount of cloud cover over areas where there is usually no ice and snow. That decrease in cloud cover also adds to the earth warming.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmmm, any link that contains: [citation removed] Has gotta be totally factual.

Agenda 21/Sustainable development claptrap...

Cue the violins...

Bangladesh has been a catastrophe for as long as I've been alive. It's Katrina and New Orleans every year, without the first world capabilities to recover, with or without the natural variability of weather and climate. For the global village crowd, it's a propaganda opportunity.

Women and children hit hardest...

From your link...

Bangladesh is one of the largest deltas in the world which is highly vulnerable to Natural Disasters because of its Geographical location, Flat and low-lying landscape, Population density, Poverty, Illiteracy, Lack of Institutional setup etc. In other words, the Physical, Social as well as Economic conditions of Bangladesh are very typical [edit: BS] to any of the most vulnerable countries to Natural Disasters in the world. The total land area is 147,570 sq. km. consists mostly of Floodplains (almost 80%) leaving major part of the country (with the exception of the north-western highlands) prone to flooding during the rainy season....

The climate of Bangladesh can be characterized by High temperatures, Heavy rainfall, High humidity, and fairly marked three seasonal variations like Hot Summer, Shrinking Winter and Medium to Heavy Rains during the Rainy season....

With the rise of Sea-level up to one meter only, Bangladesh could lose...Cities and Towns situated along the Coastal belt in Bangladesh are at the Front line of Climate Change related Disaster impacts and could experience...Direct impacts may occur...Urban poor are therefore directly at the risk...Women are especially Vulnerable...

[senormechanico]

What if everybody just held their farts?

Documentation please, especially from Jackdale, after all he's the top poster here.
He MUST have a real chart for that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Perhaps, unless the risks of action are too great, and would cause significant loss of life and suffering in the 3rd world, or risk the unintended consequences of unknown unknowns (geoengineering)...in which case I suggest we invoke an underlying theme of the Hippocratic corpus: First, do no harm...a notion which is clearly in conflict with the precautionary principle.

Sorry, reposting, this seems appropriate reponse:



... what do you think people are proposing in response to AGW, that you see as a harm?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, reposting, this seems appropriate reponse:

... what do you think people are proposing in response to AGW, that you see as a harm?

Why, "people" are proposing policies that result in unicorns and rainbows and dancing in alpine meadows, of course!! Just look at the cartoon! Who could be against that?

You're right. Why should I be skeptical of policies proposed by the organization that had the wisdom to elect Iran, Cuba and Sudan to its human rights committees, including Iran to a four year membership on the Committee on the Status of Women?

What could possibly go wrong?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, reposting, this seems appropriate reponse:



... what do you think people are proposing in response to AGW, that you see as a harm?

Those of us fortunate enough to enjoy the relative luxury of first world lifestyles tend to take it for granted that the whole world is like this. It's not! The reality is that all the advantages we enjoy would not have been possible without the cheap energy that burning fossil allows. IF we're all willing to spend a lot more of our disposable incomes on it, we "might" be able to buy enough expensive alternative energy for our own use but we surely can't afford to also buy similar amounts of energy for the hundreds of millions of people currently living third world lifestyles and of course they can't afford to buy it for themselves. Anything we do while the third world continues to burn coal for their energy needs will having no meaningful impact on CO2 levels which is what AGW chicken littles seem to think is so critically important. Worldwide, meaningful changes in how energy is produced will mean denying those hundreds of millions in the third world any chance to ever enjoy anything close to the lifestyles you and I take for granted. You might be OK with that, but I doubt if they are. Of course you'll never run into these people and you'll never see the misery they endure as a result of your misguided policy so you can feel good about having "done something," congratulations.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Those of us fortunate enough to enjoy the relative luxury of first world lifestyles tend to take it for granted that the whole world is like this. It's not! The reality is that all the advantages we enjoy would not have been possible without the cheap energy that burning fossil allows. IF we're all willing to spend a lot more of our disposable incomes on it, we "might" be able to buy enough expensive alternative energy for our own use but we surely can't afford to also buy similar amounts of energy for the hundreds of millions of people currently living third world lifestyles and of course they can't afford to buy it for themselves. Anything we do while the third world continues to burn coal for their energy needs will having no meaningful impact on CO2 levels which is what AGW chicken littles seem to think is so critically important. Worldwide, meaningful changes in how energy is produced will mean denying those hundreds of millions in the third world any chance to ever enjoy anything close to the lifestyles you and I take for granted. You might be OK with that, but I doubt if they are. Of course you'll never run into these people and you'll never see the misery they endure as a result of your misguided policy so you can feel good about having "done something," congratulations.

I taught in West Africa. I have first hand knowledge of life in poverty stricken countries.

The thought that other countries have to take the same path to development as the Europe and North America is simplistic thinking. The fossil fuel path we took is simply unsustainable.

I happen to favour nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric energy for large scale power sources.

[Muckle Flugga]

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.

And with it, planetary albedo.

So let's look at the worst case scenario in terms of sea level rise: the melting of the West Antarctic Ice sheet. This from a discussion on the subject including the latest findings and projections, from SCIENCE, on 2 Nov, 2015:

" What they found was that local destabilization of the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica ultimately causes the entire ice sheet to fall into the ocean over several centuries to several thousands of years, gradually adding 3 meters to global sea levels, they report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The model shows that “there’s no holding back,” Levermann says: Just a few decades of melting leads to “thousands of years of ice motion.” More than 150 million people globally live within just 1 meter of the sea; in the United States, a sea level rise of 3 meters would inundate many of the East Coast’s largest cities, including New York and Miami.
…

“This paper does confirm what we hypothesized, that knocking out the Pine Island Glacier and Thwaites takes down the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” says Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who co-authored last year’s Science paper. He adds, however, that the model’s weakness is its resolution; it shows the destabilization of the glaciers occurring roughly 60 years from now, whereas present observations suggest that collapse is already underway. As a result, Joughin says, the model’s time scale for the collapse is probably too long. “It’s more likely measured in centuries rather than millennia.”

Indeed, “the jury is still out” on whether Feldmann and Levermann’s study got the time scale right, Rignot says. The long-term evolution of an ice sheet “is a very complex modeling problem. Some of the variables controlling the models are not all that well known,” he adds, including forces such as winds, ocean circulation, and how icebergs calve. “There is not a model out there that is getting it right, because they all have caveats. I think the discussion is ongoing, and is only going to be more interesting with time.”

So… if you notice the worst case scenario with this projection is that sea level rise will be approximately 3 meters, over either a few centuries, or a few millennia. And yet they dramatise this by suggesting that this would "inundate" Miami and New York. Interesting choices of city for example, given that the entire history of either city from foundation with a little wood village to the present is somewhere in the vicinity of the timescale of the raciest predictions for the melting of this ice sheet. A good friend of mine runs a fossil business in the UK. He continually sells pieces of mammoth, rhino and even human artefacts dredged up by North Sea trawlers. At the more conservative end of the scenarios of this 3 meter rise, we can look back and see how this "dramatic" rise compares to what was. So, say this rise takes, in fact, 8,000 years to occur. Well, 8,000 years ago you could walk from Norwich to Denmark through the woods and hills of Doggerland, if the neolithic inhabitants and megafauna let you, that is.

Meanwhile, our wholesale burning of the rainforests to plant the likes of palm oil and hoovering up of the biomass of the world's oceans to provide varied menus in cities far from any coastline continues at an ever increasing pace…

So, while the unaccountably newly static, passive, and paralysed populations of New York and Los Angeles wait like statues for the gradual rise of the sea to dampen their basements over the next few hundred (!) to few thousand years, this is what has occurred to Borneo since 1950: