State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.[W:318]

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I fully agree that rises in sea level will occur slowly, but I don't agree that it would be "cheaper" to relocate the people who will lose their livelihood, and homes if we see even a foot or two rise in sea levels. Where do you relocate very large numbers of subsistence farmers and what do they do to survive when they get there, given the countries where this would occur. While I don't know whether the temperature trends seen over the past 50 or 100 years will continue. If it does, we will see a whole of lot of ice currently residing on land, find its way back to the sea. If this does occur everyone should hope that greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant factor, as that is something we might be able to do something about.

Actually, the whole point here is that if it does happen, it will be too late to do anything about it, since the latency of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 100 years.

That's why there is an urgency to deal with CO2 now.... We already have a couple degrees temperature rise baked into the atmosphere today.

 

[dpcal]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Actually, the whole point here is that if it does happen, it will be too late to do anything about it, since the latency of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 100 years.

That's why there is an urgency to deal with CO2 now.... We already have a couple degrees temperature rise baked into the atmosphere today.

Can you be more specific. For example, an actual range of temp ?? to ?? degrees(F or C), which will occur between ?? and ?? year, and ?? and ?? ppm C02? As well as any main assumptions, surrounding these estimates. I have no problem with uncertainty, and assumptions, when it comes to temperature predictions. Given the impossible complexity of a model, a system that can't be reproduced, and the amount of "new science" and methodologies that have been developed and remain to be developed, what I don't trust is certainty.

 

[code1211]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Yeah, some of the global warming denialism relies heavily on a lack of information coupled with a lack of imagination.

A Huge Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Three Times Faster Than Previously Thought | ThinkProgress

SOTC: Ice Sheets | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Imagination is the key to being gripped by panic in this area of discussion.

There was a glacier in Europe that melted enough to reveal a mummified victim of a violent crime about 5000 years. The man who was revealed by the retreating glacier was originally thought to be a hiker who had died recently.

He was actually killed, rather died from injuries suffered in some kind of a confrontation. He sat down on dry ground and was covered almost immediately, probably, in snow fall and stayed buried in a small rock alcove for 5000 years. His body was not picked over by scavengers so we know that it was not exposed to scavengers.

Finally, after 5000 years, the glacier that preserved him was melted.

What does this tell us?

1. There was no glacier there when he leaned his ax against the rock, sat down and died.
2. He was almost immediately covered completely by snow.
3. He stayed completely covered by snow and ice for 5000 years.
4. Our world has only recently warmed to the level of climate prevalent 5000 years ago.
5. Those who say we have never had climate like this (unprecedented) are simply wrong.

Otzi The Iceman - Crystalinks

Also, the sea has been rising since the last ice age age ended. The rate of rise is very slow right now, but the warming since 1600 has been dramatic compared to the cooling the preceded it. The Sea should have risen pretty dramatically since that time. The rise should have been very noticeable.

How can we know how much the sea has risen? There are very few good landmarks that were well identified in 1600 and are still present today. One is the Castillo San Marcos. It was built in about 1600 on the coast of what is now Florida and it's still on the Coast there today.

It was built close enough to sea level so gates could be opened to flood a moat. It's still close enough to the ocean so the gates could opened to flood the moat. However, the moat is dry.

Interesting lack of imagination present in the old Castillo, don't you think? Don't you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_San_Marcos

 

[dpcal]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Actually, the whole point here is that if it does happen, it will be too late to do anything about it, since the latency of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 100 years.

That's why there is an urgency to deal with CO2 now.... We already have a couple degrees temperature rise baked into the atmosphere today.

I could be mistaken, as I do not follow the actual scientific literature on the topic, but it is my distinct impression that while there is an enormous degree of concern regarding the effects of elevated average world temperatures on the ice masses on land, very little is known about the sensitivity of those areas to average temperatures, and the time period it would take for changes to manifest in terms of net water loss. The hundreds of feet of change in sea level that are known to have occurred over long periods (10,000 years) proves the ice masses are vulnerable to increases in the earth temperature over long periods, and that this can occur with "stable" CO2 levels. But it tells us very little about the short term (10,20, 50 years) response of these masses to temperature change regardless of the cause. (Other than if the temperature stays here or goes higher, we will at some point see the manifestation in a sea level rise)

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

[h=2]Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology?[/h] Posted on June 25, 2015 | 291 comments
by Judith Curry
The authority of a scientific body is not undermined by questioning, but rather depends upon it – Beatty & Moore
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I fully agree that rises in sea level will occur slowly, but I don't agree that it would be "cheaper" to relocate the people who will lose their livelihood, and homes if we see even a foot or two rise in sea levels.

Well, first of all, it is happening naturally. If we are contributing, there is no way we can stop the natural part of it. therefore, if anything, we are simply accelerating the process. Only on the island do people have a hard time relocating. Coastal areas of continents will have generations simply move farther away with no cost occured by the whole.

Where do you relocate very large numbers of subsistence farmers and what do they do to survive when they get there, given the countries where this would occur.

What types of crops so they grow in salt marshes? If an area is in danger of flooding, then it's already under water at times.

While I don't know whether the temperature trends seen over the past 50 or 100 years will continue. If it does, we will see a whole of lot of ice currently residing on land, find its way back to the sea.

Maybe, maybe not. Predictions have rarely come true from the modeling the alarmists use. Even if so, this would be occurring anyway. Just at a slower rate.

If this does occur everyone should hope that greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant factor, as that is something we might be able to do something about.

I find that exceptionally unlikely that the added greenhouse gasses play a dominant role. First of all, if it did, we wouldn't see such a long hiatus.

Have you heard of the iris effect?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Actually, the whole point here is that if it does happen, it will be too late to do anything about it, since the latency of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 100 years.

That's why there is an urgency to deal with CO2 now.... We already have a couple degrees temperature rise baked into the atmosphere today.

Do you have a single paper that explicitly states that as fact?

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

[h=2]Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology?[/h] Posted on June 25, 2015 | 291 comments
by Judith Curry
The authority of a scientific body is not undermined by questioning, but rather depends upon it – Beatty & Moore
Continue reading →

Yeah. Can you believe all those people who believe in Evolution?

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Do you have a single paper that explicitly states that as fact?

It's referenced here somewhere:

www.ipcc.ch

I'm not digging it up since I won't do your homework,

 

[dpcal]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Actually, the whole point here is that if it does happen, it will be too late to do anything about it, since the latency of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 100 years.

That's why there is an urgency to deal with CO2 now.... We already have a couple degrees temperature rise baked into the atmosphere today.

Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D

'Only way to a positive scenario is innovation'

“Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates has given his opinion that today's renewable-energy technologies aren't a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert their green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers.

Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday, saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be "beyond astronomical". At present very little power comes from renewables: in the UK just 5.2 per cent, the majority of which is dubiously-green biofuel burning1 rather than renewable 'leccy - and even so, energy bills have surged and will surge further as a result.

In Bill Gates' view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead. This would offer a chance of developing low-carbon technologies which actually can keep the lights on in the real world.

“The only way you can get to the very positive scenario is by great innovation,” he told the pink 'un. “Innovation really does bend the curve.”

Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D

If you are wanting to do something now, start convincing those who share your passion to switch all spending to R&D.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

So come up with a different name.

Skeptic.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

The need to relocate is not something that will need to occur over night.

The advance of the oceans doesn't seem to be coming in like a breaking wave.

Or you could just build some sea defences.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

The problem may be that I don't understand what you mean when say someone is a denier. The only prior example I was aware of prior to the AGW movement of the term denier was a "Holocaust denier". Those who were/are "Holocaust deniers" unequivocally deny that the Holocaust occurred. During the time period when individuals practiced or researched phrenology, it was considered to be a scientific discipline. Those engaged in phrenology were in fact scientists, and were considered scientists by other disciplines at that time. So clearly I don't know what you mean when you refer to phrenologists as science deniers. Once I have a better understanding of what it is you are actually trying to say, it may clarify why the AGW approach is not just a reincarnation of the Inquisition.

You will find that not having a clue what he is talking about is a constant feature of 3goof's posts.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I fully agree that rises in sea level will occur slowly, but I don't agree that it would be "cheaper" to relocate the people who will lose their livelihood, and homes if we see even a foot or two rise in sea levels. Where do you relocate very large numbers of subsistence farmers and what do they do to survive when they get there, given the countries where this would occur. While I don't know whether the temperature trends seen over the past 50 or 100 years will continue. If it does, we will see a whole of lot of ice currently residing on land, find its way back to the sea. If this does occur everyone should hope that greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant factor, as that is something we might be able to do something about.

You are mistaken in thinking anybody needs relocating.

The sea level rise will be so small and slow that nobody will notice. The large populations are in places such as Bangladesh. There the anual monsoon depositis 5cm+ or so of sediment each year. The sea level rise of half a meter over a century will mean that there will be a lot more Bangladesh by 2100 than now. The same is true of other river deltas.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Yeah. Can you believe all those people who believe in Evolution?

Do you really have nothing to offer besides irrelevant red herrings?

 

[code1211]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Or you could just build some sea defences.

Of course, that is what will be done.

I lived in LaCrosse WI for years and there is a beautiful park that has the river bank defined by a Levy, there is a road for your Chevy to drive to it, and it's there to help to mitigate the effects of the annual flooding.

It's hard to imagine that the residents of the ocean shores would be more stupid than the residents of river banks.

Of course, the oceans are generally washing up onto Blue States and the rivers run generally through Red States.

Maybe this is what is causing all the whimpering regarding the ocean shores.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Of course, that is what will be done.

I lived in LaCrosse WI for years and there is a beautiful park that has the river bank defined by a Levy, there is a road for your Chevy to drive to it, and it's there to help to mitigate the effects of the annual flooding.

It's hard to imagine that the residents of the ocean shores would be more stupid than the residents of river banks.

Of course, the oceans are generally washing up onto Blue States and the rivers run generally through Red States.

Maybe this is what is causing all the whimpering regarding the ocean shores.

I think there is some sort of personality type filter here.

There are those who deal with risk and danger in their day to day lives. We calculate things and understand that it is OK to know something may well need to be dealt with and that the time to do so can be now or it can be in 10 years time.

There are those who do not deal with any sort of risk or change. They are thrown into a strange panic about the whole philosophical idea of change and any risk, especially when that risk cannot be 100% predicted. That we know the risk is slight and the worst case result is small and easy to deal with has no impact on the thinking of these people. That is not what is flustering them in the first place.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Moderator's Warning:

Let's not make things personal ok? Keep to the topic instead of each other and you won't be thread banned/infracted ok?

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Do you really have nothing to offer besides irrelevant red herrings?

Yet this is precisely on point.

A widely understood mechanism is AGW. And pretending it's not anthropogenic, and not global, and not warming (all tacks we've seen taken here) runs counter to how we best understand the science.

In fact, the understanding is so wide, most of those positions can be considered 'fringe'.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Yet this is precisely on point.

A widely understood mechanism is AGW. And pretending it's not anthropogenic, and not global, and not warming (all tacks we've seen taken here) runs counter to how we best understand the science.

In fact, the understanding is so wide, most of those positions can be considered 'fringe'.

Do you consider Princeton University to be "fringe?"

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Do you consider Princeton University to be "fringe?"

Nope.

But I also don't consider one professor at a University to define the entire institution.

 

[Earthling]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

You are mistaken in thinking anybody needs relocating.

The sea level rise will be so small and slow that nobody will notice.

Correct, only geologists have noticed sea level rise.

The large populations are in places such as Bangladesh. There the annual monsoon deposits 5cm+ or so of sediment each year. The sea level rise of half a meter over a century will mean that there will be a lot more Bangladesh by 2100 than now. The same is true of other river deltas.

Agreed, except I doubt very much that sea level will rise 50 cm over the next century.
My money's on a 20 cm rise by 2100.

 

[Earthling]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Can you be more specific. For example, an actual range of temp ?? to ?? degrees(F or C), which will occur between ?? and ?? year, and ?? and ?? ppm C02? As well as any main assumptions, surrounding these estimates. I have no problem with uncertainty, and assumptions, when it comes to temperature predictions. Given the impossible complexity of a model, a system that can't be reproduced, and the amount of "new science" and methodologies that have been developed and remain to be developed, what I don't trust is certainty.

Don't be silly, he's 3 goofs, of course he can't be more specific.

 

[Earthling]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Do you have a single paper that explicitly states that as fact?

Of course he doesn't, the best he can do is point vaguely toward something he thinks the IPCC may have published.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Agreed, except I doubt very much that sea level will rise 50 cm over the next century.
My money's on a 20 cm rise by 2100.

I am looking at placing my mental bet on a drop. That's assuming a 2 degree c rise in world climate by 2100.

The world's dry bits are big, if we get increased temperatures we may well see a significant increase in rainfall over the whole of central Asia and the rest. the rise in the water table could account for a good 40 cm of sea level. The rise due to ice melt is drivel. There just is not enough ice at all vulnerable to melting. The thermal expansion is also bogus, a 1 degree rise by 2100 = 7cm of thermal expansion at most.

So I'm going to look at the -20cm slot, depending on the odds.