Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[CarlF]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

I don't oppose new technology....

I oppose NAZI strongarm tactics and lies forcing us to adopt it before its ready.

Funny, I've never been forced to buy a solar panel by a Nazi. Do you worry about Martian mind rays too?

And I'd like to be as wrong as Gore. His net worth has gone from $2M to over $200M - a substantial part from investing in clean tech companies. And it's not just startups. GE is moving their headquarters to Boston (my home town) because they want to be near the clean tech innovation coming out of MIT. This is a fundamental shift in the US and world economies. A lot of jobs are being created and a lot of money is going to be made.

Your position was always wrong. It's also now irrelevant.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So... RM - are we good? Is the hissy-fit done?

Cos, I know you're not a bad sort. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand.

Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Oooooooooooooooooo
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

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

[TurninTurtle]

The quickest way to go from being broke to becoming a millionaire is to get into congress. or other high political office. Nowhere else do you find people spending $millions of other people's money trying to get a job that pays $140k a year but somehow resulting in net worth of millions or billions. (usually the first term)

AlGore got his money through political graft and corruption... like every other good democrat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

The quickest way to go from being broke to becoming a millionaire is to get into congress. or other high political office. Nowhere else do you find people spending $millions of other people's money trying to get a job that pays $140k a year but somehow resulting in net worth of millions or billions. (usually the first term)

AlGore got his money through political graft and corruption... like every other good democrat.

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

AlGore got his money through political graft and corruption... like every other good democrat.

Actually, he had a good start from his father Al Gore Sr., who spent the majority of his career in Congress.

Ironically, Sr represented Occidental Petroleum as a Lawyer and later served as a VP on the board of directors. He also served on the board of directors for one of their subsidiaries, Island Creek Coal Company.


Maybe honorable Al Jr. is trying to make amends for his family profiting off of the fossil fuel industry.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

The quickest way to go from being broke to becoming a millionaire is to get into congress. or other high political office. Nowhere else do you find people spending $millions of other people's money trying to get a job that pays $140k a year but somehow resulting in net worth of millions or billions. (usually the first term)

AlGore got his money through political graft and corruption... like every other good democrat.

[SailOar]

Climate change could make North Africa and Middle East 'uninhabitable' | CNBC

Climate change could make sections of North Africa and the Middle East uninhabitable, according to a recent study.

Researchers at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Cyprus Institute in Nicosia have found that the region – already incredibly hot in the summer – could become so warm that "human habitability is compromised."

The researchers found that even limiting global warming to lower than two degrees Celsius – agreed at the United Nations COP21 climate change summit in Paris last year – would do little to stop the region from overheating, with summer temperatures increasing more than two times faster than the average pace of global warming...

They found that by the middle of the century temperatures in these regions would not drop lower than 30 degrees Celsius at night during the warmest periods, with temperatures potentially hitting 46 degrees Celsius during the day.

By the end of this century, "midday temperatures" on warm days could reach a staggering 50 degrees Celsius, with heat waves potentially occurring 10 times more than they do today...

Europe is in the midst of a migrant crisis, with thousands of people seeking to start a new life in the west. Lelieveld went on to say that the impacts of such temperature increases in the Middle East and North Africa – home to hundreds of millions of people – would only increase the amount of people migrating.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Climate change could make North Africa and Middle East 'uninhabitable' | CNBC

So what would be different if we wave our magic wand and stop using oil? This region relies on oil sales for revenue. Without it million upon millions of people will have no income. Do you think they can just sit in the desert with no source of money or energy but the temps were 5C lower? Seems unlikely to me.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So what would be different if we wave our magic wand and stop using oil? This region relies on oil sales for revenue. Without it million upon millions of people will have no income. Do you think they can just sit in the desert with no source of money or energy but the temps were 5C lower? Seems unlikely to me.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

It was hot there during the mwp and in roman times to what makes you think that they won't stay this time. Be ides no oil money means they can't afford air conditioning . Well I guess that would mean they would go back to living in big tents and swimming in oasis's
again just like they have done for several thousand years.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Exile, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here with my 2cents here (worth at least 0.75cents). Pardon my long and wordy answer, but I take your requests for more information at face value. I know you are already aware of much of this, and I know much of it has been discussed on this thread already, but to avoid the impending "but what about", I thought I would try to be thorough.

The reason that statistic is misleading (and I assume Delfin is well aware of this) is that he is listing gross emissions rather than net emissions. Yes, there are large natural carbon fluxes to the atmosphere and there always have been. There are also large natural fluxes of carbon out of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter that natural sources are much larger than anthropogenic sources. They could be millions of times larger with no impact on atmospheric concentration if they are balanced by reciprocal processes of equal magnitude. It matters what the net emissions are -- the balance of sources and sinks.

Natural sources and sinks have been reasonably balanced over relatively long timescales. We know this because the concentration of CO2 have only fluctuated between 170 and 300 ppm over at least the last 800,000 years according to ice-core records. We are now well above that range. So the relevant question is how much of that change was caused by human emissions. Certainly, as many have cited, they varied over a much larger range in the more distant past, due to natural processes. Natural sources and sinks may be out of balance at the moment. This could explain the change in atmospheric CO2. In fact they are out of balance currently. I will get to that momentarily.

By far the largest fluxes to the atmosphere are respiration (about 220Gt CO2 from soil decomposition and about 220Gt CO2 from plant respiration) and gas exchange with the ocean (about 330 Gt CO2). Those 3 terms add up to essentially the entire 770Gt CO2 from natural sources quoted in the IPCC table that Delfin cited. There are other smaller terms that others have mentioned, such as volcanos, forest fires, etc. But of course, the respiration term (both soil and plant and other) and forest fires are offset by photosynthesis (you can't respire any carbon that wasn't originally taken up via photosynthesis). The ocean-atmosphere carbon exchange is a 2-way process. (And yes, I understand those processes also remove our emissions from the atmosphere, I will get there momentarily too.)

The real answer to "what is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2" is not found by comparing our emissions to gross natural emission. Instead it requires answering a) "are natural processes sufficient to remove our additional emissions from the atmosphere at the rate at which we emit", Or, b) "is there a recent imbalance in the natural processes resulting in more net natural emissions (sources minus sinks) which are much larger than our emissions".

A quick look at the table Delfin cited should give you your answer. We emit over 20 Gt CO2 per year (based on 1990s numbers) and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 10 Gt per year. It should be pretty obvious that the other half of our emissions were absorbed somewhere else in the Earth system. (About half of that was absorbed by the ocean, and about half was absorbed by land-based sinks -- such as the increased photosynthesis others have mentioned). Add the natural sources from the IPCC table (770 Gt CO2) to the sinks (-781 Gt CO2) and you get a net natural CO2 emission of *negative* 11 Gt CO2.

The sum of the natural systems is currently a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 -- and that is including all 770 Gt CO2 emitted through natural sources: the respiration, ocean-atmosphere exchange, volcanoes, forest fires, etc. But this sink is not sufficient to offset our emissions -- the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by about 10 Gt CO2 per year. This means that the *only* reason atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the moment is because we are emitting it.

You may notice that I lumped all of the sinks into the "natural" category, which may be contentious. The reason the ocean is absorbing more CO2 than it is releasing is due to increased atmospheric CO2. The extent to which photosynthesis increases is driven in part by the increased atmospheric concentration. Since we are driving the increase, perhaps those should be considered anthropogenic sinks. I think that is largely semantics. If you prefer, we can call it balanced natural sources and sinks, and net 10 Gt CO2 anthropogenic emissions. Either way, we still own the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The only way to conclude that natural sources are the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 (97%), and reducing our emissions would have little impact (3%), is to assume that natural sinks increased to a rate that was more than sufficient to offset our total emissions, but there exists some other recent large increase in natural emissions -- an increase that hasn't happened in 800,000 years. I am aware of no evidence that supports that, and it seems to me it would take a huge leap of faith. Even if that were the case, since the amount of CO2 is increasing at a rate that is roughly half of the rate that we emit, we could offset that natural increase by reducing our emissions.

As Jack has pointed out previously, this is not the only line of evidence to support our emissions as the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2. Isotope studies have come to the same conclusion.

None of this is to say the factlet is false. Anthropogenic emissions ARE only 3% of gross natural emissions. But anthropogenic emissions are far larger than net natural emissions.

mr_f -- thank you for your patience & time in explaining this. I, for one, always welcome such discussion on the science, at least those issues which seem pretty fundamental to the CC debate, at least to this layman. Although personal vilification seems to dominate the discourse these days, the reality is that most people are not so ideologically invested and share the same basic environmental goals, but have varying degrees of trust from those who zealously advocate one side or the other. It is the majority in the middle, however, who will ultimately need convincing one way or the other to get policy choices implemented.

I have long understood in more basic terms the distinction btwn. gross & net CO2 emissions, but thanks for discussing it in more detail. This was presumably why, for example, Jack kept bringing up the sequestration issue. Some on this thread don't seem to understand the educational value in considering conflicting science, especially when it leads to more than the one conclusion they happen to prefer. In my line of work, opposing parties are required to acknowledge and agree to any facts or opinions which are not in dispute, and then argue about disputed and contentious facts & opinions by making "assumptions" for the sake of argument. As the facts are developed, this is usually an effective way of advancing the truth without getting into useless & wasteful personalization and other irrelevancies.

My initial take on your explanation of what I gather is the mainstream IPCC position is that it requires critical assumptions which themselves are not settled science. Btw, in my (non-scientific) mind, I agree it seems easier to categorize CO2 emissions as "natural" vs. "anthropogenic," but to discuss carbon "sinks" as "natural" since it is a natural process which humans have little or no influence over. Fwiw, here's my initial take, and feel free to "debunk" and/or comment as you may wish.

I'll start with your conclusion that "the *only* reason atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the moment is because we are emitting it," based on scientific evidence which (quite plausibly) assumes that anthropogenic emissions are exceeding the capacity of the sinks. But SailOar recently posted an article where scientists theorized that it wasn't a question of exceeding the sinks' overall capacity to absorb the net increase in CO2, but rather to keep up with the rate at which we are emitting. In the short run this is perhaps a distinction without a difference, but in the long run could be critical for the planet's ability to "heal" itself should some of the predictions of doom come true.

And it seems to me that your conclusion also assumes that the predominant cause of our purported warming trend is anthropogenic, and mostly attributable to the net increase in CO2 emissions. But if, as many other scientists believe, we are in a mostly natural long-term warming trend (with human influences contributing) as many scientists also believe, then the reduced capacity of the sinks to balance out the net emissions increase may have more to do with the higher (mainly surface ocean) temps than the increase in emissions. Increased CO2 alone, after all, doesn't seem to pose a big threat, and some scientists believe its "greening" effect is beneficial.

Finally, it makes sense that, as you note, there are "large natural carbon fluxes to the atmosphere and there always have been. There are also large natural fluxes of carbon out of the atmosphere." But the explanation for why the sinks cannot now handle this "extra" 3% flux (as of the 1990's) seems to rest primarily on the data that shows lower CO2 concentrations over the 800,000 years prior to industrialization. OK, and assuming that data is correct, we still have the historical record of warming, i.e. a much longer history of warming & cooling irrespective of net increases in anthropogenic CO2 since they occurred prior to industrialization and, as you note, were significantly lower.

I know you were responding more specifically to Delfin's representations concerning gross anthropogenic vs. natural CO2 emissions and so to that extent your point about analyzing net measurements is well taken. But I'm not sure I agree that Delfin's analysis was all that misleading given the variables outlined above, and the assumptions needed to support them.

But then I'm not a scientist nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night . . . so have at it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

A NASA article showed evidence that the *very* deep ocean was not warming. And he posted a link that showed that the deep, but less deep, ocean is warming. The NASA statement even mentions that other studies of "deep" ocean which show warming were looking at different depths, and their study does not contradict that. That portion of the ocean is both "deep" and warming.

In an attempt to cut to the chase on this one, my understanding is that the science marks the cut-off btwn. "surface" and "deep" ocean waters at 700m. Maybe a bit arbitrary, but serves as an attempt to distinguish btwn. water temp changes due to atmospheric warming that more directly affects "surface" waters, and longer-term "sinks" which should show up as warming in deeper waters.

Is this correct and, if so, has there been any evidence of warming in deeper waters?

Sorry, but my eyes start to glaze over with the protracted he said/she said colloquies.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So what would be different if we wave our magic wand and stop using oil? This region relies on oil sales for revenue. Without it million upon millions of people will have no income. Do you think they can just sit in the desert with no source of money or energy but the temps were 5C lower? Seems unlikely to me.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

I doubt you'll get a response to such an obviously rational, fact-based post. Just like the lack of response to your pointing out the decreased carbon emissions from fracking technology's ability to produce plentiful, affordable, and cleaner natural gas. But then the silence always speaks volumes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First, thank you for your detailed and patient answer to the "3%" point. I've never had such patience in the face of so much willful ignorance, and this lot burned out even the patient, well-read and thorough Jackdale. In the relatively few times that I engaged directly with a scientific dialogue, they usually scatter like bugs when the kitchen light goes on.

But you hit the nail on the head: this is entertainment, mainly, and a place for birds of a certain feather to repeat their half-truths to each other, in the belief that if you say anything often enough, it becomes significant. It is only a little entertaining for me; I wouldn't bother normally, except that the subject of AGW is, to me, just too important to be dismissed like this.

Just as an "experiment," try imagining this post authored by someone you disagree with, and have it be directed towards you. Might provide a little self-insight.

There's never been any question that AGW is indeed "too important" . . . to YOU. Maybe one of your psych mags you like to read could provide some insight on that one too.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually jack didn't get burned out he is actually enjoying the weather sailing in the Georgia straights here in the pnw for the next few days.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's true. But you can tell from the tone of his most recent posts that he's getting pretty exasperated, and Exile's been all gloaty about it.

"Gloaty?" No, I welcome Jack's vast library of knowledge, only wish he'd take a bit more time to analyze than merely cutting & pasting. Although Jack gets rather testy about it, I also welcome people getting challenged on their understanding of the science and the positions they hold, including my own. It also helps to expose any relevant political or personal bias, so readers may better understand why overly zealous advocates won't forthrightly respond to legitimate questions. I think it's called education & truth, L-E, to the extent that a sailing forum can accomplish that on a highly complex and politicized scientific issue.

Not sure why you find such debate & discussion so personally offensive.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Finally. You two get it. Thank you.

It's not just the right thing to do, it's GROWTH. It's the bedrock of the future economy.

I don't know about that one, but there's a difference btwn. desiring a transition to renewable energy (or another viable substitute for fossil fuels like nuclear), and wanting to do so because you believe that MMGW requires it. But then if both are part of the political platform you took an oath of allegiance to uphold . . . .