Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Here is a VERY interesting article that can help shed light on the MMGW Cultists. Understanding leads to compassion for their plight..

It's an Outrage! See? Look How Outraged I Am! - Bloomberg View

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Every such study also details what has happened and what is happening, according to observations, and usually builds a good case for what could, may, might happen. This surprises you?

Regardless of whether or not you think we are currently experiencing serious negative effects with the CO2 and other emissions to date, just about everyone agrees that these emissions have already had a measurable warming effect. Do you actually think we can simply let emissions continue increasing at the current rate, and there won't be repercussions?

FTFY

Emissions are not increasing at the "current rate". The annual CO2 emissions in the US has been about zero or slightly negative for the past 10 years. The US emits less CO2 now than in 2016.



This is one reason among many that oil prices are way down.

[fryewe]

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly | New York Times

Of course it could.

Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age | Skeptical Science

Of course it is.

Climate guru James Hansen warns of much worse than expected sea level rise | The Guardian

Of course he does.

How Psychology Can Save The World From Climate Change | NPR

Of course it can.

Man has always needed to be saved from himself. And there's always been someone ready to save him

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Emissions are not increasing at the "current rate". The annual CO2 emissions in the US has been about zero or slightly negative for the past 10 years. The US emits less CO2 now than in 2016.

Good to know, I guess, though I'd probably wanna wait til 2016 is actually over before using it as a benchmark . You do know WHY US emissions are going down, right? Meanwhile, globally, total annual emissions continue to rise.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Here is a VERY interesting article that can help shed light on the MMGW Cultists. Understanding leads to compassion for their plight..

It's an Outrage! See? Look How Outraged I Am! - Bloomberg View

VERY interesting indeed. And shows how much personality issues shape the debate, especially outside the scientific community. Remarkable how the advocates cannot see that, even to the point of citing psychology to try and explain away the skeptics and deniers! This level of self-importance and self-delusion only makes others outside their own choir that much more dubious. We have a few excellent examples of this right here on our sailing forum. In fact, Jack's most recent youTube demonstrates this "outrage" and self-moralizing all too well in the form of Bill Nye-the-science-guy. I love how he equates Morano's anti-MMGW position into him not loving his own children! So much for sticking to the science!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Good to know, I guess, though I'd probably wanna wait til 2016 is actually over before using it as a benchmark . You do know WHY US emissions are going down, right? Meanwhile, globally, total annual emissions continue to rise.

Doesn't matter that the emissions are down in "the world's largest polluter," only that you can no longer truthfully claim that U.S. emissions are increasing. Don't you see, it's the agenda that counts, not the emissions.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Greenland ice sheet is melting.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

Overall hasn't it been melting for something like 10,000 years? When it finally is melted the current ice age will be close to over.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Good to know, I guess, though I'd probably wanna wait til 2016 is actually over before using it as a benchmark . You do know WHY US emissions are going down, right? Meanwhile, globally, total annual emissions continue to rise.

Can Economies Rise as Emissions Fall? The Evidence Says Yes | New York Times

[...] Now there are signs that G.D.P. growth and carbon emissions need not rise in tandem, and that the era of decoupling could be starting. Last year, for the first time in the 40 years since both metrics have been recorded, a study by the International Energy Agency found that in 2014, as global G.D.P. grew, global carbon emissions leveled off. Economists got excited, but they also acknowledged that it could have been an anomalous blip.

But a study released by the International Energy Agency last month found that the trend continued in 2015. In another study published on Tuesday, Nathaniel Aden, a research fellow at the World Resources Institute, a Washington think tank, found that since the start of the 21st century, 21 countries, including the United States, have already fully decoupled their economic growth from carbon emissions. In those countries, while G.D.P. went up over the past 15 years, carbon pollution went down.[...]

In the United States, the decoupling of emissions and economic growth was driven chiefly by the boom in domestic natural gas, which when burned produces about half the carbon pollution of coal. The glut of cheap natural gas drove electric utilities away from coal, while still lighting and powering ever more homes and factories. The decoupling was also driven by improvements in energy-efficiency technology.[...]

But decoupling can hurt. Even as the industrial sector grew over all in those years, a push by American factories to use more energy-efficient technology contributed to a 21 percent loss of industrial jobs, Mr. Aden says.[...]

But in large, industrial economies that are trying to decouple, the change raises thorny questions. For example, will the pollution just move elsewhere? In Britain, emissions fell 20 percent between 2000 and 2014, while G.D.P. grew 27 percent. That was largely the result of a push to de-industrialize in the country that gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. As Britain’s financial and service sectors grew and its coal mines, mills and steel factories closed, some of those industries went to China, which became the world’s largest polluter.[...]

Decoupling presents another problem. “The countries that have achieved decoupling have de-industrialized — and that has increased income inequality,” Bill Cassidy, a United States senator from Louisiana, said in an interview. “One of the things that has not been analyzed is the job prospects for those families. There’s going to be unintended consequences of their livelihoods being curtailed.”[...]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Tectonics appear to be a factor in sea level changes.



Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Check out those three sites. They are anomalies that show sea level decrease.

Read the rest of the notes associated with the graph.

Originally Posted by jackdale

re: the 2004 Indian Ocean quake - The raising of the sea floor significantly reduced the capacity of the Indian Ocean, producing a permanent rise in the global sea level by an estimated 0.1 millimetres (0.004 in).

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

You are out by a factor of 10.

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Luckily I'm an engineer and understand a bit about water and density. I did google about sea ice melting though. Go you...

Of course all sea ice includes the arctic ice. So add 2" to the 6" rise per century and in a few thousand years we might have a disaster. Again I'm not loosing sleep over it.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Ice sheet melt is a serious problem.

If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, it is growing - for now. Do not count on it continuing to do so.



NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA

Originally Posted by StuM

Muller's supposed skepticism was thoroughly debunked a couple of thousand posts ago. Do we really need to revisit it?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Muller was a skeptic, not a denier. Learn the difference.

Originally Posted by jackdale

An image is worth a thousand words



The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years in two categories: human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies. The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers are best estimates from each study.

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK the is actually directed at every post concerning sea level changes. I have posted this before and most if not all of the sea level changes I'm not posting the links again. Think techthonic shift and resultant upheaval. Remember the Indian ocean quake in 2004?
Well that one quake caused a rise of between 1 and 2 mm world wide. The Costa Rica quake later that year did approx 1 mm rise. Now think about all the quakes that happen all the time. And I'm not even mentioning the sub surface volcanic activity . ( look at t mid Atlantic ridge.)

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Overall hasn't it been melting for something like 10,000 years? When it finally is melted the current ice age will be close to over.

Could there be any better sampling than from the last few pages showing that the science is unsettled? What good is simply cutting & pasting from recycled links that support the MMGW . . . excuse me . . . CC position?

Anyone want to take a stab at WHY data from the troposphere is an inaccurate reflection of temp trends on the surface? How about developments in the thus far nascent theory that the oceans are absorbing so much of the excess heat? That could move the discussion along, and these are both fundamental bases of dissent within and without the scientific community, so the burden is on the MMGW/CC proponents. But that would require a bit of analysis of all the cut & pastes, and maybe even a smidgeon of critical thinking.

Better hurry up or I suspect Rich is going to have a lot more customers wanting to buy his watermakers.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Could there be any better sampling than from the last few pages showing that the science is unsettled? What good is simply cutting & pasting from recycled links that support the MMGW . . . excuse me . . . CC position?

Anyone want to take a stab at WHY data from the troposphere is an inaccurate reflection of temp trends on the surface? How about developments in the thus far nascent theory that the oceans are absorbing so much of the excess heat? That could move the discussion along, and these are both fundamental bases of dissent within and without the scientific community, so the burden is on the MMGW/CC proponents. But that would require a bit of analysis of all the cut & pastes, and maybe even a smidgeon of critical thinking.

Better hurry up or I suspect Rich is going to have a lot more customers wanting to buy his watermakers.

Have you noticed that the "alarmists" typically back up their claims with reputable scientific sources, while the "deniers" typically either dredge something up from the blogosphere or don't provide any source at all.

You might want to revisit this post, particularly the second graph.

I can hear it now from the deniers: "The New York Times, etc, is not a reputable scientific source!" No it's not, but their articles typically are reporting about a scientific report, and they give references to where you can find the original source, if you desire.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Have you noticed that the "alarmists" typically back up their claims with reputable scientific sources, while the "deniers" typically either dredge something up from the blogosphere or don't provide any source at all.

You might want to revisit this post, particularly the second graph.

I can hear it now from the deniers: "The New York Times, etc, is not a reputable scientific source!" No it's not, but their articles typically are reporting about a scientific report, and they give references to where you can find the original source, if you desire.

The part I find most interesting about that bar graph is none of the MMGW science organizations could even agree on what their side wanted to represent.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Doesn't matter that the emissions are down in "the world's largest polluter," only that you can no longer truthfully claim that U.S. emissions are increasing. Don't you see, it's the agenda that counts, not the emissions.

When did I claim that US emissions were increasing?

Sorry if that spoilt your putdown.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Could there be any better sampling than from the last few pages showing that the science is unsettled? What good is simply cutting & pasting from recycled links that support the MMGW . . . excuse me . . . CC position?

Anyone want to take a stab at WHY data from the troposphere is an inaccurate reflection of temp trends on the surface? How about developments in the thus far nascent theory that the oceans are absorbing so much of the excess heat? That could move the discussion along, and these are both fundamental bases of dissent within and without the scientific community, so the burden is on the MMGW/CC proponents. But that would require a bit of analysis of all the cut & pastes, and maybe even a smidgeon of critical thinking.

Better hurry up or I suspect Rich is going to have a lot more customers wanting to buy his watermakers.

Please respond to one post at a time. It is nearly impossible to respond to this word salad.

Carl Mears of RSS believes that surface temperatures are more appropriate. Ask him why. Personally I live on the earth's surface, not in the troposphere. I suspect some here do inhabit the troposphere.

Mears also contends that the oceans are absorbing more heat energy.

Give him a thorough read.

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The part I find most interesting about that bar graph is none of the MMGW science organizations could even agree on what their side wanted to represent.

What bar graph are you talking about?

What MMGW science organizations are you talking about?

What positions that they can't agree on are you talking about?

[Reefmagnet]

We're in an interglacial period, folks. In another 2000 years or so our descendents will be thanking us for our foresight in insulating the sky.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app