Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The part about the MMGW warmist was directed specificly at the time frames mentioned in the report. The times are much less to sequester x amount of carbon vs the hundreds of years that others are stating for the same quantity in their what if scenarios . ( This paper is actual/ boots on the ground data. )
Also the statement was meant to elicit a response from people. But to respond and not sound like an idiot they would have to read the paper or at least the abstract. Thereby gaining some insight .

OK. I guess I am not privy to what these "others and their what if scenarios" have said. It is true that it can take hundreds of years (or longer) for a forest to regain all the carbon that was lost when it was removed, cut down, burned, etc.

I am happy to see that you are touting the value of a modeling study such as this. Few people here seem to understand their value.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

For the warmist, history begins in 1979.

Nope.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

OK. I guess I am not privy to these to what these "others and their what if scenarios" have said. It is true that it can take hundreds of years (or longer) for a forest to regain all the carbon that was lost when it was removed, cut down, burned, etc.

I am happy to see that you are touting the value of a modeling study such as this. Few people here seem to understand their value.

Actually you have seen and read the what if scenario stuff. I was making reference to the fact that this was an actual boots on the ground study with historical records being kept and used to come to their conclusions not just computer modeling/extrapolation.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually you have seen and read the what if scenario stuff. I was making reference to the fact that this was an actual boots on the ground study with historical records being kept and used to come to their conclusions not just computer modeling/extrapolation.

Could you be more specific about the "what if" you are talking about?

I am aware of the data this paper used. And that they then used that data to create a model which was used to project potential carbon sequestration between 2008 and 2048. Their 40 year sequestration projections are the results from their model.

To determine the carbon sequestration potential of regenerating forests, we first modeled the area and age distribution of existing SFs up to 100 years old. We used a 2008 map of Neotropical AGB in woody vegetation (15) to infer stand age using an equation relating biomass to climate and forest age on the basis of 43 successional chronosequences and 1148 plots across the lowland Neotropics (14). This map provides the most accurate spatially explicit data on forest biomass currently available and is based on a large network of field plots coupled with satellite LiDAR (light detection and ranging) to parameterize MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data at a spatial resolution of 500 m (15). Additionally, we incorporated data on the spatial extent of croplands and pastures across Latin America on the basis of the most recent coverages available at this geographic scale. We then projected future AGB accumulation of SFs (≤60 years) from 2008 to 2048. Our projections account for regional variation in climatic water availability, which strongly influences rates of biomass recovery across our study area (14).

I hope you understand that all models have foundations in actual data.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Speaking of water, what are you fellow Canadians drinking up there that places all of you so firmly on the same page with this Global Warming stuff?

A more precise question is, why has the "right" wing of the US political spectrum accepted as unquestioned dogma that AGW is false or harmless... when the rest of the developed world is engaging with it? It's like a litmus test: American? deny AGW? is Al Gore the antichrist? yes to all: you're almost certainly conservative. Very few of the general public, right or left, have the background or interest to genuinely understand and question the science... so where does that conviction come from?

As I mentioned, I'm finishing a little research on a recent bit of misinformation, which shows more about how this crap is disseminated.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... when the rest of the developed world is engaging with it?

The rest of the Developed world...ha ha ha...
So now Science gives a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks?

Are you basing your decision on Science or Religion or Twitter?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Could you be more specific about the "what if" you are talking about?

I am aware of the data this paper used. And that they then used that data to create a model which was used to project potential carbon sequestration between 2008 and 2048. Their 40 year sequestration projections are the results from their model.



I hope you understand that all models have foundations in actual data.

Yes I do get that.
My point on the reforestation is that the real worlo is showing it is capable of handling the added carbon that man is producing much better that the MMGW side of this discourse are wanting to admit to.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The rest of the Developed world...ha ha ha...
So now Science gives a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks?

Are you basing your decision on Science or Religion or Twitter?

Hey. You're up early.

No, I'm saying the rest of the world gives a rats ass about what Science thinks.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes I do get that.
My point on the reforestation is that the real worlo is showing it is capable of handling the added carbon that man is producing much better that the MMGW side of this discourse are wanting to admit to.

This was exactly my take-away from reading the abstract Newhaul. It seems directly relevant to mr_f's explanation of the claimed net effect of the 3% of anthropogenic emissions, and whether or not earth's negative feedback systems have much higher potential to mitigate them than has been estimated. (Remember the skeptic/physicist who suggested it might take 1 trillion new trees?). Whether it is realistic to actually achieve this given the current rate of deforestation, etc. is a different question.

Got that L-E? There's actually been a pretty informative back & forth on this issue and the one concerning GW's impacts on coral bleaching, so try not to be so disruptive again with your brain-numbing "spin" into political stereotyping. The science will ultimately be flushed out on its merits or demerits, not because people of certain political orientation, religious faith, or nationality happen to "believe" or "deny." I'm sure it's soothing for you, but what exactly do you think this sort of foolish attempt at further divisiveness does for your "cause?"

[Exile]

Sooooo easy to show how unproductive & unpersuasive this sort of political spin has become, the best evidence of which is how simple the opposing side can "spin" it 180 degs. as shown below:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A more precise question is, why has the "right" "left" wing of the US political spectrum accepted as unquestioned dogma that AGW is false true or harmlessful... when the rest only about 50% of the developed world is engaging with it? It's like a litmus test: American? deny or even question AGW? is the credibility of Al Gore questionablethe antichrist? yes to all: you're almost certainly conservative entitled to your opinions as a free citizen not subject to thought control & propaganda from your govt. Very few of the general public, right or left, have the background or interest to genuinely understand and question the science... so where does that conviction come from?

A recognition that free speech, thought, expression, and debate is the most effective way for citizens in a democratic society to make important policy decisions. Might also be fair to say, in the U.S. anyway, that modern-day conservatives tend to prioritize individual liberty, have less unquestioning faith in govt., and so are perhaps more cognizant of the trade-offs btwn. individual freedoms and govt. regulation. You'd be better off studying up on some of these conservative philosophies should you desire to be a more effective advocate for your liberal ones (or whatever they are).

As I mentioned, I'm finishing a little research on a recent bit of misinformation, which shows more about how this crap is disseminated.

Nothing but pins & needles all morning awaiting another example of your brilliance.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope.

Since you follow her blog, what's Judith Curry's latest predictions for Arctic sea ice extent in coming years, and what do other scientists who frequent her blog have to say in agreement or retort?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Since you follow her blog, what's Judith Curry's latest predictions for Arctic sea ice extent in coming years, and what do other scientists who frequent her blog have to say in agreement or retort?

Her predictions

https://judithcurry.com/2014/10/15/n...ns-on-sea-ice/

What is happening.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/22/a...ea-ice-puzzle/

[transmitterdan]

Lots of misinformed chatter about coral bleaching from both sides. So in what will ultimately prove a futile attempt to help I offer these points:

1) Stony corals can't "migrate". They stay in one place their whole life as they are not mobile. Only the larval form can "migrate" by just random current flow. But that isn't called migration.

2) Most hard corals do not require thousands of years to grow back. Anyone who dives after a major cyclone and then returns a few years later knows this. Corals grow at a rate determined by many factors but largely based on resources and location. Much as do trees.

3) Coral bleaching is caused by the plant material within the coral either being "ejected" by the coral or the plant life just dies. If bleaching continues too long the coral starves to death because it's food supply is no more. So bleaching is usually not fatal right away.

4) Corals can't just take up residence anywhere they like. They require a fairly narrow range of depth and temperature to survive. That's because a stony coral is actually a symbiotic colony of life forms both plant and animal. The calcium carbonate secretions house it's own garden so to speak. A coral lives off its plant tenants. Too deep or shallow and the plant life within the colony can't make photosynthesis work, too hot or cold and the plant life can't survive.

The 93% bleaching snippet is a headline designed to mislead the easily duped while also giving fodder to deniers. This kind of journalism hurts both sides. It needs to be called out, not used to make either side's point because it doesn't.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Her predictions

https://judithcurry.com/2014/10/15/n...ns-on-sea-ice/

What is happening.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/22/a...ea-ice-puzzle/

From your first link summarizing her predictions:

And finally, my prediction for 2015 sea ice minima. I predict minimum sea extent will be the same or greater than 2014, with a continued recovery of sea ice volume. I expect continued recovery in the Atlantic portion of the Arctic, with continued low sea ice extent in the Siberian Arctic.

My decadal scale prediction is either no trend in sea ice minima or an increase (I do not expect continued decline in the coming decade).

I don’t place too much confidence in mine or any predictions on these timescales, but my confidence could increase once I can analyze Walsh et al’s forthcoming historical sea ice analysis.

Stay tuned.

From your second link summarizing what she believes is happening now:

Arctic sea ice extent has been anomalously low this winter.

There are 3 factors in play regarding Arctic sea ice variations:

* secular global warming trend

* multidecadal variability associated with large-scale ocean oscillations

*subseasonal weather variations associated with with weather regimes such as the MJO, AO, etc.

The amplitude of the subseasonal variations in sea ice is greater than the amplitude associated with multidecadal ocean oscillations and secular warming trend, hence invariably it is weather that is responsible for an individual blip (that may contribute to a record in sea ice extent). The sea ice data set is inadequate for sorting out the secular global warming trend from the multi-decadal variability.

The Penn State team is making important contributions to unraveling this, in presenting some ideas that challenge ‘alarmist wisdom’ about the Arctic sea ice decline. I look forward to following their work.

Plenty of additional links and opposing views from equally reputable climate scientists are available from your linked blog articles for all to see. But once again, the undisputed observation of apparently record low sea ice in the Arctic doesn't compel the singular conclusion that it is attributable only or even predominantly to MMGW. So why all these alarmist headlines & articles?

This is another example of the sorts of dogmatism I keep encountering in this debate which the science doesn't seem to support. Again, I don't discount scientific opinions which blame MMGW more heavily for Arctic sea ice reductions, I just don't see how this supports such singleminded zealousness unless other agendas are also in play. Even Judith Curry acknowledges that "I don’t place too much confidence in mine or any predictions on these timescales," a point which seems more in line with the unsettled nature of the science, and one which therefore gives her credibility.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Lots of misinformed chatter about coral bleaching from both sides. So in what will ultimately prove a futile attempt to help I offer these points:

1) Stony corals can't "migrate". They stay in one place their whole life as they are not mobile. Only the larval form can "migrate" by just random current flow. But that isn't called migration.

2) Most hard corals do not require thousands of years to grow back. Anyone who dives after a major cyclone and then returns a few years later knows this. Corals grow at a rate determined by many factors but largely based on resources and location. Much as do trees.

3) Coral bleaching is caused by the plant material within the coral either being "ejected" by the coral or the plant life just dies. If bleaching continues too long the coral starves to death because it's food supply is no more. So bleaching is usually not fatal right away.

4) Corals can't just take up residence anywhere they like. They require a fairly narrow range of depth and temperature to survive. That's because a stony coral is actually a symbiotic colony of life forms both plant and animal. The calcium carbonate secretions house it's own garden so to speak. A coral lives off its plant tenants. Too deep or shallow and the plant life within the colony can't make photosynthesis work, too hot or cold and the plant life can't survive.

The 93% bleaching snippet is a headline designed to mislead the easily duped while also giving fodder to deniers. This kind of journalism hurts both sides. It needs to be called out, not used to make either side's point because it doesn't.

Certainly not a futile clarification, at least not for me. Not unlike overall atmospheric warming and its many claimed impacts, the issue must be analyzed over a sufficient period of time, and compared to the "natural" life cycle of coral reefs. This is why the point was made awhile back that the alarmists are likely doing more harm to the AGW "cause" than any of its detractors. Credibility is everything in a debate this complex.