Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delancey]

18,857,217 sharks killed since this thread started. All this talk about climate change is making me hungry? Anyone else? Let's eat!!!

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

That's pretty different from this guys calculations... and that just the Petroleum
In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.2 This total includes about 0.34 billion barrels of biofuels.

Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy six trillion,eight thousand
nine hundred forty five billion,nine hundred ninety eight million gallons,
give or take a few trillion. It will be safer to take instead of give. That's how much.

The world oil supply is about 100 million barrels per day. There are 159 liters in a barrel so that's 100e6*159=15.9 billion liters per day. There are about 7.4 billion people on the earth so that is about 2 liters per day per person.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Otherwise known as the greenhouse effect.

So is there any reason to think it will not continue as more co2 is released into the atmosphere?

Of course not. But do I need to point out yet again that the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing is logarithmic and there is not much growth left in that curve at any reasonably conceivable rate of increase.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Ah, the good old "sustainability myth" Nothing is "indefinitely sustainable".
Adapt or perish.

^^^ ...yet you claim you're not anti-green

Sustainability requires adaptation. Nothing in the concept of sustainability depends on creating or positing a static, unchanging world.

Part of successful adaptation is behaviour modification. You can adapt to lying around in your own filth, or you can try to not **** the bed. Or some mix of the two.

When and how will this adaptation take place? Why isn't mitigating AGW a reasonable part of this adaptation? How do you expect to adapt wisely when your efforts are focussed mainly on denying the testimony of the subject matter experts?

Show me the posts from the "CAGW from CO2" sceptic/doubters showing that they don't give a **** for othe ecological concerns in general.

Most of us are very much conservationist in our outlooks.

Simply read the posts in this thread where some anti- posters in this thread have gone off about other eco topics. It's plain that they've been ragging on "green" well before AGW.

They prove it themselves with every falsified prediction and every distorted/falsified claim, many of which I have debunked in this thread. Haven't you been reading my posts?

As good as you are at this, I still haven't quite grasped the notion that you do better climate science than... climate scientists.

Repeat: Begging the question (do you understand what this means?). Many of them are working within the system and subject to peer review. You could start with a few of these:

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

I have room for skeptical arguments, but I simply do not accept that this small minority of skeptics are all right and the majority of the experts in the field are all wrong. And I don't accept that the majority of western governments have been duped, or are willing accomplices in some tinfoilhat-worthy scheme for world subjugation. It defies logic, and all the accusations, implausible scenerios and conspiracies spun out to explain why climate science is willfuly or otherwise putting forth a lie simply underscore the illogicality (did I just make that word up? if so, it's mine!) of the anti-AGW position.

COP21? Agenda 21?

What parts of these voluntary, non-binding and ultimately toothless resolutions are troubling you?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I leave this thread for just a few days and one of us backslides to the who's greener than who argument.....

Well Mr. Lake effect... Should I bring out my home photos of the solar panels again? And you can show us yours?

We know clearly where you stand, given your position on the California drought. And again, I'm sorry that your solar panels weren't the financial win you were hoping for.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by StuM

Of course not. But do I need to point out yet again that the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing is logarithmic and there is not much growth left in that curve at any reasonably conceivable rate of increase.

Some say "global temperature" sensitivity to CO2 (delta T per doubling of CO2) is about 2C. Others say less, and some say a bit more. No one knows for sure, because climate science is forensic science rather than operational science.

But assuming that 2C is the right number...

Does that mean that since CO2 at the beginning of the AGW apocalypse was about 280 ppm, then at about 560 ppm, we'd have about a 2C increase in "global temperature"...but as a logarithmic function, the next doubling of CO2, to 1120 ppm, would result in an additional increase of about 1.4C, and the next doubling to 2240 ppm would result in an additional increase of about 1C, and the next doubling to 4480 ppm would result in an additional increase of about 0.7C? Or, in other words, CO2 would have to increase about ten fold over the current levels for an additional 3C increase in temp.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

2. "which reviews all the existing literature on climate change beliefs" -

That's not science! Science is not about beliefs in any way. shape or form.

Begging your pardon, but analyzing the formation and underpinning of human behaviours and beliefs is science. At the very least it's statistical analysis.

I think you will find that the vast majority of sceptics have high levels of environmental concern. I know that those posting in this thread do.

I acknowledge that many in this thread such as yourself are making significant efforts in reviewing the actual literature. Yes Virginia, there are actual scientific skeptics. I still think it's fair to question in many cases whether the skepticism comes along with and was predicated by a political position.

(Given how few, relatively speaking, of the actual subject matter experts are AGW skeptics, ever pause to wonder why anti-AGW literature and "facts" are so easy to find? No? Oh well, let's move on)

The survey deals with the general population, and I'm sorry you won't convince me that the majority of AGW deniers are as scientifically rigorous. They're just following the herd.

In other words, it's not even mostly about the politics, it's about beliefs - and the alarmists blind acceptance of what they are being told.

Ah. Believing in the scientific process and the significance of a majority opinion makes one a blind alarmist; taking your scientific opinion from your political affiliation... sensible. Got it.

Maybe LE should take note.

Noted. Hype aside, the article's main point remains: in the US, opinion for/against AGW is a strong predictor of the individual's political view, and vice versa

[SailOar]

Coral growth already being affected by acidifying oceans, new research finds | Sydney Morning Herald

The world's coral reefs are already being weakened by climate change with new research claiming to identify for the first time in nature effects of more acidic oceans.

Separately, researchers are predicting the possibility of a major coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef because of unusually warm ocean waters - including in the region where the ocean acidification experiment took place.[...]

The scientists targeted One Tree Island, a unique series of micro atolls near Heron Island off Gladstone, for the test site.

As a result of the way the circular reef drains at low tide, isolating it from sea, the scientists could pump in sea water from a 15,000-litre tank at varying acidity levels to see how the ecosystem responded - without the effects of other influences such as ocean warming or pollution.

When acidity was lowered to pre-industrial levels, calcification rates increased. The result implied corals were growing about 7 per cent faster than has become normal today, Mr Wolfe said.

"It's the first experiment using an entire ecosystem of corals, crabs and fish and manipulating the acidity levels in situ," he said.

The next step would be to secure a permit to see what happens when the acidity of the added seawater is raised to levels expected in the future as oceans absorb more CO2, Mr Wolfe said.[...]

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Coral growth already being affected by acidifying oceans, new research finds | Sydney Morning Herald

> "When acidity was lowered to pre-industrial levels, calcification rates increased."

And they know pre-industrial levels of pH at One Tree Island, how?



--
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Coral growth already being affected by acidifying oceans, new research finds | Sydney Morning Herald

I just wonder how it is possible to come up with the data that the PhD student came up with which are long term events like the coral growth rate by doing a test that has in my mind a duration of no more than 4 to 5 hours between high tidal flow floods the test area. What is the growth rate now and what is 7% of that. There is so much data which seems to have been intentionally left out by the PhD students when they were doing their thesis work.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

> "When acidity was lowered to pre-industrial levels, calcification rates increased."

And they know pre-industrial levels of pH at One Tree Island, how?



--
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Pretty interesting that all the scientific work done if the many fields other than Climate Change appear to be accepted by you without quarrel, but within this field you seem to have a limitless appetite to scrap over any little imagined thing you can possible think of, real or imagined. Makes one wonder if you have some sort of an ulterior motive, rather than just promoting good scientific procedures?

[Reefmagnet]

Ocean "acidity" is propaganda. The ocean has a pH value of around 8.1. We've discussed this before on this thread.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Warby12]

Originally Posted by StuM

I am saying that there almost certainly is some causative link between CO2 emissions and "global temperatures" change (in quotes, because we could debate the reliability of the data and even the validity of the concept at great length).

This whole debate is about the magnitude of that link compared to little understood and studied natural cycles; the clearly strongly negative nature of overall long term climate feedbacks; the likelihood of the predicted "catastrophic anthropogenic warming" and cost/benefit analyses of proposed solutions.

Thanks Stu ,

So just to flip this again, please leaving climate change and global warming completely to one side

Are you saying that we should not worry very much about what we are putting into the atmosphere?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect:
As is the well-organized opposition to the scientific finding of AGW.

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, can we back track a bit.

What exactly is "the scientific finding of AGW" ?

This bears repeating for several reasons because it frames the debate, most notably the extent of the impact, if any, of MMGW on avg. global temps and its consequences, as opposed to natural forces. On this complex issue there doesn't seem to be much scientific consensus, as opposed to the broad consensus in the science community that humans are likely having some sort of impact (like they have always had on the environment). This is a position which Stu and perhaps most others on this thread seem to share, the debate being more about the extent of the impact, not merely that one exists. I suspect this is why the term "alarmist" and more recently "CAGW" for "Catastrophic" AGW is being used when discussing the most contentious and probably narrowest scientific view on the continuum of potential impacts.

So despite this having been stated again & again & again, and maybe for the benefit of newcomers to the thread, it's worth asking L-E again which "scientific finding of AGW" is he asserting there is "well-organized opposition" to? Otherwise, over-generalized, simple-minded comments like these falsely imply that anyone who challenges the mainstream thinking (as often stated by the media) is anti-AGW, anti-environmental, anti-ecology, anti-green, anti-liberal, or other such nonsense. It's possibly even more ridiculous, off-topic, and distracting as stereotyping this same "anti" crowd as politically conservative or affiliated with a particular political party. (This has all been hashed before in this thread so no need to re-argue the merits).

There is science to support and to challenge just about every point of view, so it's hard to find fault with anyone holding any particular position. What is troubling is people being so closed-minded about other points of view on account of political or group affiliation, or just personal identity. The science doesn't care about any of that, after all. Besides, how can so many non-scientists have so much more certainty than the scientific community itself?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep, using facts to try to debate with "true believers" is often a futile effort.

But I will continue to do so in the (forlorn?) hope that some of it may eventually sink in to the minds of a few of the less fervent among them.

Much obliged. At a minimum, maybe it will simply let some people know that there are many other facets to the issue than what's being presented in the mainstream media.