Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

So much for that low CO2 until we started burning fossil fuels:

Seems they may have been a bit higher that thought 12-15000 years ago


From a press release by the University of Edinborough:

"Sternai and his colleagues from the University of Geneva and ETH Zurich found that erosion is just as important as melting ice in driving the increase in magma production and subsequent volcanic activity. The results are published in the journalGeophysical Research Letters.
...
When volcanoes erupt, they release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating a cycle that speeds up the warming process. Previous models that attempted to explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the end of the last ice age accounted for the role of deglaciation in increasing volcanic activity, but did not account for erosion, meaning that CO2 levels may have been significantly underestimated."

[Dauntlessny]

2311 posts.
No matter how much humans affect the climate, the fact that there are 2311 posts about it is exactly what the powers to be want.

It's a distractor.

How many posts have there been on this site about the lack of fish in the oceans in the last 20 years?

If we truly cared about the environment, then the ocean would be a good place to start.
Bi-catch kills 11 tons of fish for every ton of shrimp we catch.

Factory trawlers destroy ocean beds and entire stocks of fish.

In 20 years, there will be no more fish.

Vast areas of tropical forests are burned for no other reason than to clear land.
THat puts more CO2 in the air than all the cars in the USA.

So, yes, let's spend another 2000 posts on whether we believe in global warming and what we should do about it, so that in 200 years, the planet will be the same temperature it is now.

But we won't have any fish and few forests left.

Sounds like a plan.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

So much for that low CO2 until we started burning fossil fuels:

Seems they may have been a bit higher that thought 12-15000 years ago


From a press release by the University of Edinborough:

"Sternai and his colleagues from the University of Geneva and ETH Zurich found that erosion is just as important as melting ice in driving the increase in magma production and subsequent volcanic activity. The results are published in the journalGeophysical Research Letters.
...
When volcanoes erupt, they release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating a cycle that speeds up the warming process. Previous models that attempted to explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the end of the last ice age accounted for the role of deglaciation in increasing volcanic activity, but did not account for erosion, meaning that CO2 levels may have been significantly underestimated."

The Vostok ice cores never exceeded 300 ppm CO2 for the past 800,000 years.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You are wrong about the water situation in California is what I mean. Many of those concrete lined river beds that look like canals in Cali have always been dry. They are actually river washes and are concrete lined in order to prevent the built up banks from washing out during torrential rain storms in the mountains.

Thanks Ken. I do know what washes are. I may have mistook some dry washes for canals, but not all. Regardless, that doesn't alter what I said about the drought, which is serious, and is affecting the area quite dramatically.

I didn't make it to southern California. What I observed, and where I talked to people, is in northern to mid California. I turned inland around Morro Bay. I didn't even get to the hardest affected drought areas, which are further south. And still, the impacts are obvious and very real.

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.

EXACTLY! That's what I'm saying. We've turned deserts into lush plantations, and are diverting water hundreds, maybe thousands of km to grow cash crops like citrus and pistachio, and watering lawns -- all in an area that should be growing cacti and some grasses. We've built a massive city (Los Vegas) with two million+ people depended on this completely artificial water construct. It's the classic human folly, where we think we can control Nature.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Mike remember all those areas you say that are/were parched and dry are/were dessert before man screwed with the water .

EXACTLY! This is classic human hubris. We've got away with turning desert to plantations and cities for the last couple hundred years due, in large part, to the abnormally stable and gentle climate that our civilization has grown up in. Rapid climate change is shifting this foundation, and imperilling many people as it does so. THIS is the crisis of climate change. It's a social and societal one.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Do you plan on keeping your boat in Newfoundland for a couple of years?

That's kinda the plan (as much as there is a plan). There's so much to explore up in that area that I can't see rushing through it. But you never know. If the bank account is draining too fast we might have to run south in search of cheaper digs.

But to answer you question, yes. We plan to be in NFLD for a few seasons. Thinking of joining us? That would be great .

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

...So, yes, let's spend another 2000 posts on whether we believe in global warming and what we should do about it, so that in 200 years, the planet will be the same temperature it is now.

But we won't have any fish and few forests left. Sounds like a plan.

I agree, but climate change and these other issues like deforestation and strip-mining of the ocean's fauna are all part and parcel of the same core problem. Our economic model is at war with global ecosystems everywhere. We're exploiting every resource and filling every pollution sink without regard to what the natural systems can manage. We do this in the name economic growth and ever-expanding profit. It's the madness of our age.

So yes, we should be focused on these other issues as well. But until we deal with the foundational problem, which is that our economic model insists on infinite growth in a finite world, we will only be moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Sailorboy,

Wanna join us in Annapolis?

I might be down in that area in Oct, but I don't have any firm schedule other that I don't want to be the NE in Oct waiting the last hurricane to blow in and I can't be south of GA before Dec.

I assume we are talking beer! I have been known to sail to a location based on beer choices.

Speaking of beer. The world will only start taking global warming serious when it effects beer production! Till then is is just hot air talk.

BTW - this is post 10,000. It seemed a waste to use it on such a silly thing. But then I thought about it and decided nothing would be a better post 10,000 than something that proves God loves me!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I might be down in that area in Oct, but I don't have any firm schedule other that I don't want to be the NE in Oct waiting the last hurricane to blow in and I can't be south of GA before Dec.

I assume we are talking beer! I have been known to sail to a location based on beer choices.

Speaking of beer. The world will only start taking global warming serious when it effects beer production! Till then is is just hot air talk.

BTW - this is post 10,000. It seemed a waste to use it on such a silly thing. But then I thought about it and decided nothing would be a better post 10,000 than something that proves God loves me!

Ah yes, Ben Franklin wasn't it? "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Congrats on completing your "first" 10K.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks Ken. I do know what washes are. I may have mistook some dry washes for canals, but not all. Regardless, that doesn't alter what I said about the drought, which is serious, and is affecting the area quite dramatically.

I didn't make it to southern California. What I observed, and where I talked to people, is in northern to mid California. I turned inland around Morro Bay. I didn't even get to the hardest affected drought areas, which are further south. And still, the impacts are obvious and very real.



EXACTLY! That's what I'm saying. We've turned deserts into lush plantations, and are diverting water hundreds, maybe thousands of km to grow cash crops like citrus and pistachio, and watering lawns -- all in an area that should be growing cacti and some grasses. We've built a massive city (Los Vegas) with two million+ people depended on this completely artificial water construct. It's the classic human folly, where we think we can control Nature.



EXACTLY! This is classic human hubris. We've got away with turning desert to plantations and cities for the last couple hundred years due, in large part, to the abnormally stable and gentle climate that our civilization has grown up in. Rapid climate change is shifting this foundation, and imperilling many people as it does so. THIS is the crisis of climate change. It's a social and societal one.

Some of your points are well-taken Mike, but is the long-term drought that has been afflicting many areas of the SW US being attributed to CC, i.e. MMGW? In fact, I thought the current mainstream thinking was that we would not feel the effects until after avg. temps rose past 2º C? Fwiw, the snowpack up in the Colo. R. Basin, the Sierras, the S. Rockies in N. Mexico, and other areas are well above avg. this winter. Even central Texas, which has been suffering from severe drought for years, has had heavy rains which have filled its reservoirs. And of course Calif. has also been getting a lot of rain the past 4-5 months. Who knows if this is the beginning of a wetter pattern in these areas or not, and whether it's attributable to CC or just weather?

Although I agree that obviously the growth of large desert cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and L.A. have taxed water resources, it is also true that, as Ken has said, more extreme environmentalist efforts have exacerbated the problem by preventing water capture & storage. Earlier incarnations of the environmentalist movement seemed to be more focused on conservation which attracted a broad consensus. But much of it now seems more focused on preservation based on the faulty assumption that humans have had no impact until recent times. I think there's some hubris in that sort of thinking that undercuts even the most well-intentioned efforts at caring for our environment.

[Reefmagnet]

When droughts have lasted at least 30 years, then we can confidently blame climate change. Until then it's just weather.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Some of your points are well-taken Mike, but is the long-term drought that has been afflicting many areas of the SW US being attributed to CC, i.e. MMGW? In fact, I thought the current mainstream thinking was that we would not feel the effects until after avg. temps rose past 2º C? Fwiw, the snowpack up in the Colo. R. Basin, the Sierras, the S. Rockies in N. Mexico, and other areas are well above avg. this winter. Even central Texas, which has been suffering from severe drought for years, has had heavy rains which have filled its reservoirs. And of course Calif. has also been getting a lot of rain the past 4-5 months. Who knows if this is the beginning of a wetter pattern in these areas or not, and whether it's attributable to CC or just weather?

Although I agree that obviously the growth of large desert cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and L.A. have taxed water resources, it is also true that, as Ken has said, more extreme environmentalist efforts have exacerbated the problem by preventing water capture & storage. Earlier incarnations of the environmentalist movement seemed to be more focused on conservation which attracted a broad consensus. But much of it now seems more focused on preservation based on the faulty assumption that humans have had no impact until recent times. I think there's some hubris in that sort of thinking that undercuts even the most well-intentioned efforts at caring for our environment.

I would never be so bold as to ascribe any single event to climate change (and as I'm sure you noted, I did not make that claim). These are the kinds of things one can expect from a shifting climate, but it's impossible to say this drought is climate driven, or is an extended freak of weather. As Reef says (and I agree), only time will tell.

I do note that California's Department of Water Resources states:

"Climate change is having a profound impact on California water resources, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flows . These changes are expected to continue in the future and more of our precipitation will likely fall as rain instead of snow. This potential change in weather patterns will exacerbate flood risks and add additional challenges for water supply reliability."

It is welcome news to see things are improving due to the recent rains and snows (do we thank El Nino?). Lets hope this becomes a new trend. But as the State's website states, climate change is expected to be unkind to California. And once again, it's all about the human impacts of CC. The planet doesn't give a damn, and will get along just fine either way. It's all about us.

I really know nothing about what past environmentalists have fought for with regard to water capture projects. If by that you mean dams and reservoirs, then I can imagine the push back would have been around the devastation these things bring to existing natural waterways and ecosystems. Whether this was wise or foolish I cannot say b/c I just don't know. Environmentalists are human, and can be as idiotic and short-sighted as any of us. So can those who promote "development" and expansion of our current unsustainable ways.

All species impact the environment(s) they live in. We have every right (if that's the appropriate word to use) to draw resources from our ecosystems. The problem we face is one of balance. To use the financial analogy, we need to stop living off the Earth's capital, and find a way to sustain our civilization on Nature's interest. To me, that's what this discussion is really about.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

2311 posts.
No matter how much humans affect the climate, the fact that there are 2311 posts about it is exactly what the powers to be want.

It's a distractor.

How many posts have there been on this site about the lack of fish in the oceans in the last 20 years?

If we truly cared about the environment, then the ocean would be a good place to start.
Bi-catch kills 11 tons of fish for every ton of shrimp we catch.

Factory trawlers destroy ocean beds and entire stocks of fish.

In 20 years, there will be no more fish.

Vast areas of tropical forests are burned for no other reason than to clear land.
THat puts more CO2 in the air than all the cars in the USA.

So, yes, let's spend another 2000 posts on whether we believe in global warming and what we should do about it, so that in 200 years, the planet will be the same temperature it is now.

But we won't have any fish and few forests left.

Sounds like a plan.

Yup, some have tried to make similar points in this thread, but CC seems to attract the throngs, even though for many it's theoretical and its harmful effects speculative. But nothing much theoretical nor speculative about tropical deforestation and over-fishing. The solutions to those problems, however, don't necessitate a radically different socio-economic model.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Fwiw, the snowpack up in the Colo. R. Basin, the Sierras, the S. Rockies in N. Mexico, and other areas are well above avg. this winter.

Not all areas

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/...mal_update.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The solutions to those problems, however, don't necessitate a radically different socio-economic model.

As I have pointed out a carbon tax is a advocate by staunch supporters of capitalism.

What would be radically different? And do not go all NWO and Agenda 21 on us.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I would never be so bold as to ascribe any single event to climate change (and as I'm sure you noted, I did not make that claim). These are the kinds of things one can expect from a shifting climate, but it's impossible to say this drought is climate driven, or is an extended freak of weather. As Reef says (and I agree), only time will tell.

Agreed . . . sorta. But you did raise CC in the same discussion about the regional SW drought, as do many others these days in explaining various weather-related phenomena. And it's consistent with the abbreviated time lines for disaster scenarios of James Hansen and the alarmists, none of which have transpired. It's also noteworthy that the warning below from the CA water authorities you quoted uses the word "is" not "will" in describing CC's "profound impact" on water resources.

I do note that California's Department of Water Resources states:

"Climate change is having a profound impact on California water resources, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flows . These changes are expected to continue in the future and more of our precipitation will likely fall as rain instead of snow. This potential change in weather patterns will exacerbate flood risks and add additional challenges for water supply reliability."

How can CC be having a profound impact now, but may only amount to a "potential" change in weather patterns that will negatively impact water resources?? I'm not trying to be overly semantic purely for the sake of argument. And I fully understand the notion that, if the dangers of CC are as dire as some predict, then we would logically need to take action preemptively. But if we haven't gotten to the point where these bad effects are actually supposed to be manifesting, then why are so many of these localized weather-type events being attributed to CC?

It is welcome news to see things are improving due to the recent rains and snows (do we thank El Nino?). Lets hope this becomes a new trend. But as the State's website states, climate change is expected to be unkind to California. And once again, it's all about the human impacts of CC. The planet doesn't give a damn, and will get along just fine either way. It's all about us.

Yes, what I primarily read & hear is that the wetter winter out west, and warmer temps in the midwest & east, are attributable to El Nino (and additionally the polar vortex(?) for the NE Atlantic coast). But even the official NOAA forecasters will throw in the occasional reference to CC as playing some sort of undefined role. Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the science, I don't get this. Either it means the climatologists don't really know, or it's simply propaganda.

I really know nothing about what past environmentalists have fought for with regard to water capture projects. If by that you mean dams and reservoirs, then I can imagine the push back would have been around the devastation these things bring to existing natural waterways and ecosystems. Whether this was wise or foolish I cannot say b/c I just don't know. Environmentalists are human, and can be as idiotic and short-sighted as any of us. So can those who promote "development" and expansion of our current unsustainable ways.

Never hurts to be skeptical of both. Always look for the real motivations of whichever party or interest is advancing the proposition I suppose.

All species impact the environment(s) they live in. We have every right (if that's the appropriate word to use) to draw resources from our ecosystems. The problem we face is one of balance. To use the financial analogy, we need to stop living off the Earth's capital, and find a way to sustain our civilization on Nature's interest. To me, that's what this discussion is really about.

It's an excellent analogy, except I would add that it's OK to live off some of Earth's capital if we can find ways of paying it back with interest and principal. Striking a better balance with the many competing interests vying for CA's water resources by not allowing so much run-off would probably be a good way of starting to make up for the diminished capital.