How much is too much

[Tpaine]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would appear to depend on your current climate zone. As I see it, warming of a few degrees would have much he same effect as moving south couple hundred miles in the US.

Interactive Map | USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map

 

[Jack Hays]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

[h=2]Decision theory and the doom scenario of climate catastrophe[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on September 11, 2016 | 127 comments[/FONT]
by Lucas Bergkamp
Can decision theory help a rational person decide whether to believe in climate catastrophe?
Continue reading →

 

[Steve Case]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think
it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times
is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a
problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem?
I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

Good question. What would really be a problem is the cooling predicted in the
'70s. The notion that a warmer world with more rain, longer growing seasons,
more arable land and more CO2 to augment and fortify the basic photosynthetic
process of agriculture is a very hard sell but they seem to have done it! The
steady drum beat of propaganda has been very effective.

The scares generally revolve around sea level rise, and extreme weather events
such as heat waves, droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. So far none
of that really seems to be happening. Sea level rise isn't accelerating
certainly not to rates necessary to reach the scary predictions we read about
in the press. In most cases, Maximum temperatures are cooling, it's the
Minimums that are seeing the warm-up. NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows us
that rain fall is generally up as predicted by the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Ryan Maue's charts show us that Hurricanes are about the same, and NOAA's
charts of class 3 and larger tornadoes show a general decrease.

Well none of that answers the question other than to say a lot more than the
degree or so that has occurred over the past century or so. And on that note,
there isn't a lot of correlation between CO2 and temperature except that both
have gone up. The rise in CO2 is steady and temperature goes up and down, up
being greater than down as measured over what in reality is a very short time
frame when compared to known events that were warmer or colder.

 

[chuckiechan]

Well, if it's warmer here, it's cooler somewhere else. Do we have the right to change someone else's weather because "we are the infallible ones"?

 

[Tpaine]

Good question. What would really be a problem is the cooling predicted in the
'70s. The notion that a warmer world with more rain, longer growing seasons,
more arable land and more CO2 to augment and fortify the basic photosynthetic
process of agriculture is a very hard sell but they seem to have done it! The
steady drum beat of propaganda has been very effective.

The scares generally revolve around sea level rise, and extreme weather events
such as heat waves, droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. So far none
of that really seems to be happening. Sea level rise isn't accelerating
certainly not to rates necessary to reach the scary predictions we read about
in the press. In most cases, Maximum temperatures are cooling, it's the
Minimums that are seeing the warm-up. NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows us
that rain fall is generally up as predicted by the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Ryan Maue's charts show us that Hurricanes are about the same, and NOAA's
charts of class 3 and larger tornadoes show a general decrease.

Well none of that answers the question other than to say a lot more than the
degree or so that has occurred over the past century or so. And on that note,
there isn't a lot of correlation between CO2 and temperature except that both
have gone up. The rise in CO2 is steady and temperature goes up and down, up
being greater than down as measured over what in reality is a very short time
frame when compared to known events that were warmer or colder.

I just made a similar post on another thread. If you accept the estimates that the ice ages were the result of 5-8 degrees lower and the little ice age we just had is estimated to have been around 0.5 degrees lower is accurate and those caused major weather disruptions, does it concern you that we are talking about temperature changes that are say 40-50% of the amount that caused ice ages?

 

[Threegoofs]

I would appear to depend on your current climate zone. As I see it, warming of a few degrees would have much he same effect as moving south couple hundred miles in the US.

Interactive Map | USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map

Except for all the submerged coastlines, extinct animals, and disrupted precipitation patterns.

 

[FieldTheorist]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

At some level, there's no point in debating the 40% who are too irrational, have too much motivated reasoning, or are otherwise willfully ignorant. They will invent reasons for why they believe what they believe, they will muddy the waters over irrelevant issues, they will insist publicly that they are correct, and their leaders/bloggers/etc will continue to get cut paychecks by the fossil fuel industry. It's better to just get involved in #NoDAPL and similar projects. Direct action at this point is nearly obligatory, but the public dialogue will remain muddied and full of falsehoods and misinformation, much like the creationism-evolution debate was 10 years ago or the public health discussion over smoking 50-60 years ago. You fight, you get a major court case, and fossil fuel gets in line by force.

There aren't really alternative options here.

 

[Jack Hays]

At some level, there's no point in debating the 40% who are too irrational, have too much motivated reasoning, or are otherwise willfully ignorant. They will invent reasons for why they believe what they believe, they will muddy the waters over irrelevant issues, they will insist publicly that they are correct, and their leaders/bloggers/etc will continue to get cut paychecks by the fossil fuel industry. It's better to just get involved in #NoDAPL and similar projects. Direct action at this point is nearly obligatory, but the public dialogue will remain muddied and full of falsehoods and misinformation, much like the creationism-evolution debate was 10 years ago or the public health discussion over smoking 50-60 years ago. You fight, you get a major court case, and fossil fuel gets in line by force.

There aren't really alternative options here.

It is a myth that climate skeptics depend on the fossil fuel industry.

 

[FieldTheorist]

It is a myth that climate skeptics depend on the fossil fuel industry.

Jack, the world doesn't have time for you and your ilk's sophistry.

 

[Threegoofs]

At some level, there's no point in debating the 40% who are too irrational, have too much motivated reasoning, or are otherwise willfully ignorant. They will invent reasons for why they believe what they believe, they will muddy the waters over irrelevant issues, they will insist publicly that they are correct, and their leaders/bloggers/etc will continue to get cut paychecks by the fossil fuel industry. It's better to just get involved in #NoDAPL and similar projects. Direct action at this point is nearly obligatory, but the public dialogue will remain muddied and full of falsehoods and misinformation, much like the creationism-evolution debate was 10 years ago or the public health discussion over smoking 50-60 years ago. You fight, you get a major court case, and fossil fuel gets in line by force.

There aren't really alternative options here.

True.

It's pretty pointless, so I find pointing fingers and laughing at their delusions is both effective and therapeutic!

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, the world doesn't have time for you and your ilk's sophistry.

Nor your untutored arrogance. Neither Henrik Svensmark nor Nir Shaviv has any link whatsoever to the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Steve Case]

I just made a similar post on another thread.

Good for you.

If you accept the estimates that the ice ages were the result
of 5-8 degrees lower and the little ice age we just had is
estimated to have been around 0.5 degrees lower is accurate
and those caused major weather disruptions,

Yes, colder weather isn't to be celebrated.

does it concern you that we are talking about temperature
changes that are say 40-50% of the amount that caused ice ages?

If you mean colder (which you don't) Yes. Warmer? No.

 

[Steve Case]

I just made a similar post on another thread. If you accept the estimates that the ice ages were the result of 5-8 degrees lower and the little ice age we just had is estimated to have been around 0.5 degrees lower is accurate and those caused major weather disruptions, does it concern you that we are talking about temperature changes that are say 40-50% of the amount that caused ice ages?

Oh, I just noticed, you're the author of this thread, what was it again, oh yes:

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

Not to make too much of a fine point about it, why don't you take a flying leap?

 

[FieldTheorist]

Nor your untutored arrogance.

Arrogance is calling is the 98% consensus by climate scientists a farce and a hoax, because as a layperson you read a few blogs by a few people and now you think that's better than a PhD and the collective agreements of thousands of people with PhD's who've spent their careers scrutinizing the physical evidence and modeling.

Neither Henrik Svensmark nor Nir Shaviv has any link whatsoever to the fossil fuel industry.

Totally and grossly irrelevant, because every field contains crackpots and ideologues. There are/were still physicists even a few years ago who believed that Lorentzian aether theory was true (e.g. Tom Van Flandern), and 50 years ago the tobacco industry found thousands of doctors with questionable morals to do pro-smoking advertisements. 10 years ago, creationists loved to point to Michael Behe and the very few in his cohort who support some absurd notion of intelligent design and happen to have an advanced degree in biology. It's not in question whether or not crack pots with an ideological axe to grind exist (or are paid).

To reiterate, no one is disputing that there's 1-2% of experts in climatology and related fields who don't agree with man-made climate change, so of course you can find a few of them who aren't paid off by the fossil fuel industry. Their existence is not the noteworthy fact in the case for or against anthropogenic climate change --the only noteworthy fact is that they are only 2% in the entire community. What's also relevant is that among those 1-2%, there's certainly a major contingent of non-scientist and a few scientists who took part of the nearly 90 million dollar pay-offs that the Koch Brothers gave to the climate-denier movement. And that's just the Koch Brothers disinformation campaign. That doesn't address how much money energy companies spend on TV ad buy-outs on our local news, you can't watch an episode of MSNBC, CNN, Fox, or local news without seeing "Paid for by [X Energy Corporation]." What's also noteworthy is that even though the Koch Brothers are physically funding some of these research groups, the case against global warming is so bad that even they have abandoned the Koch Brother's funding because their research has shown that global warming exists and is caused by fossil fuel and other human activities.


So again, spare all of us your sophistry. I'm certainly not interested in hearing it or in legitimizing your absurd positions by debating you.

 

[Tim the plumber]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

I would expect that there would be some trouble with a rise of +2c over what we have now but over all the benefit from that would be higher than any trouble. Beyond that it would depend largely upon where the warming happened. If it was in the tropics then it would generally be negative but this is highly unlikely as the temperature there is controlled by the cloud cover and more heat input will just increase rainfall.

The effect of +2c on the rest of the world is going to be beneficail.

+4c, ummm, likely to start having troubles, I can't think of any significant ones but there must be some surely. At this point it woyuld certainly be the presumption that we should stop warming the planet rather than treat it as a none-problem. Unless we could work out what would happen next and see that it would still not be a problem.

 

[Tim the plumber]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

Given that this is reasonable question can you answer my reasonable question;

How long does that temperature data have to come in at lower than the lowest case predictions of the IPCC for you to think that AGW is not a problem? Another 10 years? 20 years? 60 years?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Good question. What would really be a problem is the cooling predicted in the
'70s. The notion that a warmer world with more rain, longer growing seasons,
more arable land and more CO2 to augment and fortify the basic photosynthetic
process of agriculture is a very hard sell but they seem to have done it! The
steady drum beat of propaganda has been very effective.

The scares generally revolve around sea level rise, and extreme weather events
such as heat waves, droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. So far none
of that really seems to be happening. Sea level rise isn't accelerating
certainly not to rates necessary to reach the scary predictions we read about
in the press. In most cases, Maximum temperatures are cooling, it's the
Minimums that are seeing the warm-up. NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows us
that rain fall is generally up as predicted by the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Ryan Maue's charts show us that Hurricanes are about the same, and NOAA's
charts of class 3 and larger tornadoes show a general decrease.

Well none of that answers the question other than to say a lot more than the
degree or so that has occurred over the past century or so. And on that note,
there isn't a lot of correlation between CO2 and temperature except that both
have gone up. The rise in CO2 is steady and temperature goes up and down, up
being greater than down as measured over what in reality is a very short time
frame when compared to known events that were warmer or colder.

Yes, but you really do need to answer his question.

 

[Baralis]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

My concern is for the wildlife which are the innocent victims to mankind's destructive nature, AGW just being a small part of this, mankind its self will adapt and survive as we have other major global changes in our history.

My biggest gripe is with many of the people who advocate global measures to curtail mans contribution to GW. While I greatly support a persons effort to minimize their impact on the earth in all aspects what I generally see is people who will only make token efforts themselves and proclaim their great achievements to saving the planet while advocating greater changes or sacrifices be mandated onto others. My view is until you are willing to make the sacrifices and put in the effort yourself then you really have no right to expect anything of anyone else. In short, for the 99% of people I have met, **** or get off the pot.

 

[Voice-of-truth]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

How much? Hundreds of billions of Dollars !!!

This is how much the industry of talking about global warming cost Usa and western Europe.
And this money flows into the pockets of useless people and friends of the useless people.

After knowing this, consider again the numbers and warnings you hear daily in their propoganda.
.

 

[Quaestio]

Oh, I just noticed, you're the author of this thread, what was it again, oh yes:


Not to make too much of a fine point about it, why don't you take a flying leap?

As the new poster was being very polite, it would only be polite of you to give a demonstration first.

 

[longview]

In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.

There are many factors at play, some may be within Human control.
The IPCC has a job, that job is to find evidence of Human caused Climate change,
If none exists they will be out of a job, so they find it everywhere they look.
Part of the issue with AGW is that they intermix actual science with quite a bit of subjective opinion.
For the Science part, Doubling the CO2 level from 280 to 560 ppm, will likely cause warming of about 1.2 C.
One of the assumptions is that humans are actually capable of doubling the CO2 level.
We are roughly 43 % of the way towards doubling the CO2 level, but the easy oil is mostly gone.
The remaining oil will be much more expensive and difficult to extract.
The subjective portion of the IPCC position is that the 1.2 C from the extra CO2,
Will be amplified through feedbacks to produce somewhere between minor and exceptional additional warming. (1.5 to 4.5 C)
The IPCC originally targeted 2 C, as the level to stay below to avoid the really catastrophic impacts of AGW.
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036 - Scientific American

Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during preindustrial time would harm all sectors
of civilization—food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity.

I think that number has been revised down, (I believe because the IPCC lead authors found that 2 C was a best estimate for ECS)
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
On the other side of the equation, the warmer earth with more CO2 is causing the plant hardiness zones to expand,
and the planet is greening up.
Greening of the Earth and its drivers : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research
Keep in mind the same math that says burning one pound of fuels makes 3 pounds of CO2, works the other way.
It takes 3 pounds of CO2 to make one pound of biomass.
We have enough energy, it is just is not in costs effective portable format.
Those evil oil companies, after corporate profits will save us all.
With surplus power from wind and solar, a Modern refinery can make carbon neutral fuel from air and water,
it just will cost the equivalent of about $90 a barrel to do so.
As the current surplus declines (and it will) the price will climb, and we will likely start to see carbon neutral fuel at the pumps.
It is really not important for AGW, but solves any problems with AGW as a byproduct of solving our real problem of energy storage.

 

[Jack Hays]

Arrogance is calling is the 98% consensus by climate scientists a farce and a hoax, because as a layperson you read a few blogs by a few people and now you think that's better than a PhD and the collective agreements of thousands of people with PhD's who've spent their careers scrutinizing the physical evidence and modeling.



Totally and grossly irrelevant, because every field contains crackpots and ideologues. There are/were still physicists even a few years ago who believed that Lorentzian aether theory was true (e.g. Tom Van Flandern), and 50 years ago the tobacco industry found thousands of doctors with questionable morals to do pro-smoking advertisements. 10 years ago, creationists loved to point to Michael Behe and the very few in his cohort who support some absurd notion of intelligent design and happen to have an advanced degree in biology. It's not in question whether or not crack pots with an ideological axe to grind exist (or are paid).

To reiterate, no one is disputing that there's 1-2% of experts in climatology and related fields who don't agree with man-made climate change, so of course you can find a few of them who aren't paid off by the fossil fuel industry. Their existence is not the noteworthy fact in the case for or against anthropogenic climate change --the only noteworthy fact is that they are only 2% in the entire community. What's also relevant is that among those 1-2%, there's certainly a major contingent of non-scientist and a few scientists who took part of the nearly 90 million dollar pay-offs that the Koch Brothers gave to the climate-denier movement. And that's just the Koch Brothers disinformation campaign. That doesn't address how much money energy companies spend on TV ad buy-outs on our local news, you can't watch an episode of MSNBC, CNN, Fox, or local news without seeing "Paid for by [X Energy Corporation]." What's also noteworthy is that even though the Koch Brothers are physically funding some of these research groups, the case against global warming is so bad that even they have abandoned the Koch Brother's funding because their research has shown that global warming exists and is caused by fossil fuel and other human activities.


So again, spare all of us your sophistry. I'm certainly not interested in hearing it or in legitimizing your absurd positions by debating you.

You should alert the UK's Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton that Svensmark and Shaviv are crackpots and ideologues.

 

[Steve Case]

Yes, but you really do need to answer his question.

I said a lot more than the degree or so... How 'bout, I don't know?
After all if that response was good enough for Mark Twain who said,
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn’t
know." At any rate I don't think we're going to find out as "Too much"
doesn't seem to have occurred in the last several billion years, and just
this morning I see that over at Watts Up With That, Bob Tisdale
suggests, "...that there MAY BE a maximum rate at which surface
temperatures can warm. " Um yeah that's max rate, not max temp.
I'll stick with I don't know except to say that it would be a lot more and
hasn't happened probably ever.

As an aside I've been chastised for telling TPaine where to go and what
to do. Hmmmm, I got the impression that he knew darn well what the
answer to his innocent question was which is why I responded the way
I did. So I went back and reread his stuff, Dunno, maybe I was wrong.

 

[Quaestio]

There are many factors at play, some may be within Human control.
The IPCC has a job, that job is to find evidence of Human caused Climate change,

No it isn't.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

If none exists they will be out of a job, so they find it everywhere they look.

There you go wandering off into conspiratorial climate truther territory again. You don't even appear to know much about the IPCC. Perhaps you've never bothered to read the organizational information and policies and procedures:

"How does the IPCC work? - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC."
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Part of the issue with AGW is that they intermix actual science with quite a bit of subjective opinion.

No, you're projecting, although you mix very little actual science with a huge amount of uninformed/misinformed amateur opinion and 'interpretation'.

For the Science part, Doubling the CO2 level from 280 to 560 ppm, will likely cause warming of about 1.2 C.

That's just the no-feedback Planck physics response.

The subjective portion of the IPCC position is that the 1.2 C from the extra CO2,
Will be amplified through feedbacks to produce somewhere between minor and exceptional additional warming. (1.5 to 4.5 C)

That's not subjective, it's based on observations, paleo evidence, modelling, and physics (eg energy balance, heat transfer, Clausius-Clapeyron equation etc). Plus you are ignoring the probability distribution.

The IPCC originally targeted 2 C, as the level to stay below to avoid the really catastrophic impacts of AGW.
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036 - Scientific American

Why not quote the IPCC then?

I think that number has been revised down, (I believe because the IPCC lead authors found that 2 C was a best estimate for ECS)
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

You have been corrected on this false claim several times, but keep on making it. No, the literature shows the best estimate for ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) still centres around about 3C despite a couple of outlying papers. I even provided a google scholar search for climate sensitivity papers since 2013 that you clearly ignored.

I'll post it again although you'll probably ignore it again:

No. Best estimate for ECS was still centred around 3 C on the graphic in the AR5 WG1 report.

See Chapter 12, page 1110 Box 12.2

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

Also see Chapter 10 section 8.2 pages 920-926
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Otto et al 2013 is not the 'most recent papers', it's just one paper and it's now several years old. Read what the authors themselves say about it.
Try using some scientific curiosity and do a literature search instead of relying only on what you read on climate truther 'skeptic' blogs.

For example, search for the term 'climate sensitivity' since 2013 in Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+sensitivity&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2013&as_yhi=2016