Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

NASA stunner: Burning fossil fuels cools Earth

Wow. That is a fascinating bit of "journalism". It is curious that they don't provide a link to the study they are talking about.

A couple of bits of food for thought:

The article opens with this (and emphasizes the sentiment in the headline):

A stunning new development is creating waves across the global warming community of activists with a report from NASA that burning carbon fuels actually lowers the temperatures in local environments.

Umm... that is not a stunning development. We all know that aerosols have a cooling impact.

It goes on to describe the study, seemingly not based on reading the actual paper, but rather reading another source's interpretation (The Express?)

According to a new report in the Express, the result throws “into doubt” many of the major theories about what causes temperatures to rise.

It, by the way, quickly backtracks on the "stunning" nature of this "new" discovery about aerosols:

The report said the spokesman confirmed it is “well known” that aerosols such as those released in volcanic eruptions and from power stations operations cool the earth’s surface.

And it wraps up discussion of that study with this fascinating quote:

NASA’s conclusion is that existing global warming models “have underestimated … the future impact.”

But it neglects to mention what "future impact" was underestimated. The paper states that we have underestimated the warming impacts of CO2, not the future cooling impacts of aerosols.

Here is NASA's actual statement about the study:
NASA GISS: NASA GISS: Examination of Earth's Recent History Key to Predicting Global Temperatures

Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide — or atmospheric carbon dioxide's capacity to affect temperature change — has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7°C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).

“If you've got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you're systematically underestimating what's going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.

And here is a link to the paper:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2888.html

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by newhaul

NASA stunner: Burning fossil fuels cools Earth

to bad they can not link that NASA report because they are to busy linking to their "Superstore".

[nicholson31]

Originally Posted by Exile

I like your idea of a "plan." It brings to mind a quote I've always enjoyed:

"Unless we change direction, we are bound to end up where we are headed."

Btw, how will you -- or maybe I should first ask "will you" -- live on the boat all winter in a place like Lewisporte? That pic that Nicholson posted showed the marina pretty iced up & empty, and it has apparently been a warm winter up there. Or do you haul & winterize the boat and retreat to land for the winter months? Never can tell with you hardy Canadian types.

EXILE:
We are hardy but not foolish!! lol
We have many visiting yachts here but they all Haul out and winterize and come back in the spring. Yes on an average trend we have warmed up but it still gets well below 0c for extended periods of time.

Here is a local statistic given yesterday, for 2016 up to this date, there has only been 10 days in the minus double didgits. 2015 there were 15 and 2014 there were 28 days. Its currently -12 c but going back up to +6 and rain tomorrow.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Southern California would be and is an arid desert like area without water being diverted to the region. It always has been an arid area, desert sage I think is what it's called. But due to politics, water is now being diverted to southern California lawns or allowed to flow free into the ocean, rather than being used to grow crops. More use of water, improper use of water is what's caused the artificial drought.... NOT climate change.

Always

adverb
1. every time; on every occasion; without exception: He always works on Saturday.


2. all the time; continuously; uninterruptedly: There is always some pollution in the air.


3. forever: Will you always love me?


Already asked Exile, but since you bring it up also, I'll ask you too, "How many Californian rivers are dam-free?"

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Read some California history, it was required reading 50 years ago when I attended school in Southern Cal. Nowadays, who knows what crap they're teaching the kids.

OK, to satisfy you I'll only go back in time to when the Spaniards landed in California 500 years ago and established missions.... Southern California (where the largest water issue exists today) was an arid, sage, semi desert like climate. During the entire 30 years I lived there 1959 until 1990, it never rained more than 8-10 days per year. During the summer, it never rained. What else would you call it? When it rained, it usually rained all day which could at times cause flooding along the river washes. So 50 years ago... the river washes were lined with concrete in order to prevent the artificial built up banks from eroding.

Don't go jumping back in time 2.6 million years to try and make some ridiculous point. Southern California had an arid climate 500 years ago, just as it did 60 years ago, and as it has today.... it still has an arid climate.

Let me ask you this question... What do YOU think caused the climate to change from semi tropical or lush forest 2.6 million years ago to the arid conditions today? Giant sloth and Sabertooth Tiger farts?

I think the one who needs to read some California history is you. And maybe also work on your expository skills. The only ridiculous points being made are by you in calling 60 years or 500 years 'always', and suggesting climate change is caused by megafauna flatulence.

And there's no need to distort or misquote my point. The climate of California is variable now and has been for a long time. if you want to educate yourself, here's a re-link to a paper about recent variations: http://cepsym.org/Sympro2009/Malamud-Roam.pdf (hint: you might find the answer to your facetiously silly question there)

I'm sure an enquiring mind like yours can find many more relevant works with a little effort...

Science is rarely 'settled'; as more information is gathered and tested, paradigms change. Hence, now (most of us) believe the earth is an oblate spheroid that circles the sun (not so 450 or so years ago), that life forms are not fixed, but change over time (not so roughly 150 years ago, except by the illiterate and ungrateful half of Americans [and others] who don't understand evolution), that Newtonian gravity isn't relevant at the quantum level (roughly 100 years ago), and that the climate is not constant and is changed at a variable rate by a large variety of factors (150 years ago to now). Doesn't mean the 'old science' was bad, just that it wasn't complete...

[fryewe]

Sometimes weather is just weather...first recorded snowfall on Okinawa (not just on the heights, but at sea level, with accumulations)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I92u...PH0wMjAyMjAxNg

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

...treating model outputs as decision-relevant projections can be significantly misleading. In extrapolatory situations, such as projections of future climate change, there is little reason to expect that post-processing of model outputs can correct for the consequences of such errors. This casts doubt on our ability, today, to make trustworthy probabilistic projections at high resolution out to the end of the century.[/COLOR]

It almost seems as if the conspiracy that L-E insists can't possibility be so broadly afield, is. Or at least some scientists think so.


From Christy's recent Congressional testimony...

It is a bold strategy in my view to actively promote the output of theoretical climate models while attacking the multiple lines of evidence from observations,” Christy wrote. “Note that none of the observational datasets are perfect and continued scrutiny is healthy, but when multiple, independent groups generate the datasets and then when the results for two completely independent systems (balloons and satellites) agree closely with each other and disagree with the model output, one is left scratching one’s head at the decision to launch an offensive against the data.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Sometimes weather is just weather...first recorded snowfall on Okinawa (not just on the heights, but at sea level, with accumulations)...

I agree. Here's a picture of Huntington Beach California after it snowed one day in 2015.

OH NO..... GLOBAL COOLING!! We're entering the next ice age.

Mike,

Sail your boat over to Southern California and watch as the glaciers begin to form.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Let me ask you this question... What do YOU think caused the climate to change from semi tropical or lush forest 2.6 million years ago to the arid conditions today? Giant sloth and Sabertooth Tiger farts?

No as I've seen the movie. It was the black monolith that appeared in the camp of a bunch of monkeys.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

No as I've seen the movie. It was the black monolith that appeared in the camp of a bunch of monkeys.

Pure gold. Heh. If I were a little younger, this post would simply be "LOL."

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

91% of Americans are not worried about climate change....yet this thread lives on.

Well, not according to this 2015 global survey:

A full 42 % of Americans are "very concerned" about global climate change.

AND

Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, with a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.

Of course the same survey found that: "People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change."

And as we already know, "Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines. The polarization that characterizes U.S. public opinion on so many issues is especially stark on climate change. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to consider it a very serious problem, believe its effects are being felt now, think it will harm them personally, and support U.S. participation in an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions."

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

I like your idea of a "plan." It brings to mind a quote I've always enjoyed:

"Unless we change direction, we are bound to end up where we are headed."

I like it.

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, how will you -- or maybe I should first ask "will you" -- live on the boat all winter in a place like Lewisporte? That pic that Nicholson posted showed the marina pretty iced up & empty, and it has apparently been a warm winter up there. Or do you haul & winterize the boat and retreat to land for the winter months? Never can tell with you hardy Canadian types.

All good questions. Wish I had all good answers . I'm pretty sure we'll haul for the winter. I don't think there are any liveaboards in Lewisporte, but I could be wrong. But we'll likely haul.

Now, what we will do over the winter is still a work in progress. Since our boat is our only home, we might try and rent a cheap, small cabin on The Rock, and winter nearby. Or we might do what we're doing this winter, which is to drive south via motorcycles (or car if we keep it ... don't really know).

I've also thought about house/pet sitting. Or maybe one of you fine folks who sail in warmer winter climes will need a boat sitter . Who knows...

The fun part of this life is, I really have no idea what I'm doing most of the time. All I can say for sure is that I'm driving to Big Bend today. Beyond that, all bets are off.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

No as I've seen the movie. It was the black monolith that appeared in the camp of a bunch of guys in monkey suit s.

Priceless! LOL

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKlOkAMjJg

The Southern California Joshua trees in the background are a nice touch. Sweet.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, not according to this 2015 global survey:

Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, with a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.
[/I]

I need a little help with this part of this post. When I look at the linked report's spreadsheet of the survey results, I see that majorities in only 17 of the 40 nations are "very concerned" (the report's terminology) vice majorities in all 40 nations. What am I missing?

When a sample size is an even number, the median is determined by taken the mean of the two central elements. In this case, both of those elements are less than 50 percent (see above), so the mean of those two elements has to be less than 50 percent, and can't be as high as 54%. What am I missing? If my deductions are right, why do you think the report mischaracterizes the survey results? (Mike characterized the survey exactly as the report states...I'm not suggesting any error is on his part).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by lindabarzini

I judge a person's intelligence political affiliation by his skepticism to AGW.

FTFY.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

FTFY.

Your fix doesn't work for those of us who have no political affiliation.

Also doesn't work for those who can't be characterized using the pejorative terms assigned to conservatism and libertarianism in the US...which 95 percent of the world population.