The problem isn't climate change; it's "overshoot"

[Lord of Planar]

We know the mechanism (global warming gasses) and we've measured the effect (in atmosphere and oceans.) We're forcing climate change, and to think otherwise is worse than hubris: it's denialism.

You are in scientific denial.

It is true that the sensitivity of CO2 would increase the planets warmth by 1.2 C for a doubling if all other variables remained stable, according to the science. Your camp suggest that positive feedback increases this farther. However, there are negative feedbacks as well.

Now to get to any dangerous levels caused by CO2, the feedback would have to exceed unity. When a feedback of any system exceeds unity, it goes into a runaway condition. If this is true, that the climate feedback exceeds unity, then one of two things are true, and mutually excursive. And would happen without our added CO2.

1. The earth would have a Venus like condition.

2. There is a hard-stop and we have reached it. We are at a maximum level that the earth can warm with the solar forcing we have. I believe this may be true, as in all past inter-glacial periods, they have stayed within a four degree range.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fair enough. But wind and solar are the cheapest energy, and all that's needed is storage on the scale of hours and days. Creating demand for that storage is progressed by creating a renewable surplus, but impeded by government intervention in favor of oil or gas.

Wind is only cheaper with lies and subsidies. I do like solar however.

Storage is also a sufficiently new industry that American capital can still get off its ass and create an export industry. We missed the opportunity to do that with solar, because of people like you who thought oil and gas were all we needed.

Storage is essential to use wind and solar. It is currently a cost that needs to come down before we see it as practical.

Biodiversity is a result of evolution. Which is quite slow, compared to extinctions. What humans around the planet have done is NOT just a change of biodiversity from one area to another. It's a mass extinction event, threatening biodiversity everywhere.

Extinction will happen with or without our help. We probably do increase the rate, but to claim we are wholly responsible would be ludicrous.

That's just bullshit.

Maybe, but I doubt it. A warming climate is good for the biosphere.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Food production does weigh heavily on the environment. Land clearing, soil and freshwater degredation (both of which cause emissions.) Both food production (farming or exploitation of natural stocks) are big issues for the ocean too. Absorption of CO2 makes ocean water more acidic, damaging coral reefs which are nurseries for many kinds of fish. And perhaps most disappointing of all, huge amounts of mangrove were filled in for marginal uses or for tourism.

The oceans self-buffer, and I did see a study many years back that had the acidity by year, and the acidity looks cyclical rather tha by CO2. It also has the oceans more acidic several decades back and did not follow CO2 levels.

I challenge you to produce a study to show me wrong.

Acidity is a factor of temperture and salinity. And one other ocean chemistry I forget. Not CO2, as I already stated. It is self buffering.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We're also running low on water. Water's kinda important.

Yep. We have too many people using a limited, cyclical about of fresh water.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Irrigation is a big user. And mining, more than you'd expect.

But as to domestic usage, I have a story. Two guys turned up on the doorstep and offered to replace all our shower-heads and sink faucets with low-flow alternatives. The state government offered a rebate of a few bucks for each one installed, and that was enough for these two guys to run their own small business. Replacing shower heads for nothing.

Same thing with incandescent lights, a few years before. Now it's fluorescent lights. You can get LED lights in place of either incandescent or fluorescent, for nothing.

Wasted government money. At least in my view.

When LED lighting came out, I spent more than $400 for bulbs for myself and family. When the government has to spend money to motivate people, the people become sheeple.

But then that what the democrats want... Noe sheeple voters.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fracking is horrible on water.

Maybe.

My understanding is that fracking is too deep to affect the water table, and that fracking chemicals in the water table are a result of illegal dumping, instead of expensive treatment.

 

[Ishm]

I believe EV's will be prevalent in the future, but rushing their production will be a logistical nightmare.

No. We should not move quickly for a fabricated problem.

This is at least tywo decades away, and the only federal money I advocate is to make a nation-wide HVDC grid.

What I know is that todays climate is not the one I grew up with. More extreme weather events and plenty of signs that something is happening to our climate. Signs that I don't need scientists to tell me about. So I am 100% convinced that climate change is happening from my own personal observations. Now I don't know why it is changing. Is it a natural part of a long cycle? The speed of recent change suggests it probably isn't. Is it part of a natural short cycle? Maybe, but that doesn't fit so well with known patterns. Is it caused by mans pollution? Lots of scientists from all over the world, under many different governments, of many different political beliefs are saying that it is.

Me, I don't know who is correct about why the climate is changing, so what are my choices? I have raised two children, and expect to have grandchildren in the next decade. So do I ignore all the cleverer than me people who say we are destroying our own world and risk handing down a disaster to my children and grand children, or do I say let's clean up our pollution and not take that risk? Cleaning up our pollution has a cost, but really it means paying that cost now instead of handing it off to future generations. I'm comfortable paying my own way rather than passing it on to my kids and their kids. Is there a downside to creating a cleaner planet, only in the short term cost. Again, I am happy to pay my way to clean up the mess my generation is creating.

Bottom line is that I am not convinced there is no risk or future cost if we don't clean up the mess we are making today. There isn't enough evidence to show that ignoring the mess won't harm future generations. I owe my kids and grandkids the right to inherit a planet that is as close to the one I inherited as possible.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What I know is that todays climate is not the one I grew up with. More extreme weather events and plenty of signs that something is happening to our climate. Signs that I don't need scientists to tell me about. So I am 100% convinced that climate change is happening from my own personal observations. Now I don't know why it is changing. Is it a natural part of a long cycle? The speed of recent change suggests it probably isn't. Is it part of a natural short cycle? Maybe, but that doesn't fit so well with known patterns. Is it caused by mans pollution? Lots of scientists from all over the world, under many different governments, of many different political beliefs are saying that it is.

It is not true that "lots of scientists" say it bis so. They are granted money for aspects of research, and how can they turn down the cash cow? If you ever read the studies, they are rather wishy-washy on the wording, and never have explicit statements to that effect. They do word it however in a manner to satify their cash-cow, because if they didn't, they would likely never see a grant from that cash-cow again. The pundits then come along, offering a study as proof, that doesn';t say whatbthey claim it says.

Fins a study that proves me wrong. I have probaly read a thousand over the years

Me, I don't know who is correct about why the climate is changing, so what are my choices? I have raised two children, and expect to have grandchildren in the next decade. So do I ignore all the cleverer than me people who say we are destroying our own world and risk handing down a disaster to my children and grand children, or do I say let's clean up our pollution and not take that risk? Cleaning up our pollution has a cost, but really it means paying that cost now instead of handing it off to future generations. I'm comfortable paying my own way rather than passing it on to my kids and their kids. Is there a downside to creating a cleaner planet, only in the short term cost. Again, I am happy to pay my way to clean up the mess my generation is creating.

I agree with cleaning up the pollution. My take is to clean up the pollution, and see if CO2 is really the culprit after removing that variable.

Bottom line is that I am not convinced there is no risk or future cost if we don't clean up the mess we are making today. There isn't enough evidence to show that ignoring the mess won't harm future generations. I owe my kids and grandkids the right to inherit a planet that is as close to the one I inherited as possible.

There is no evidence that CO2 will be the problem the AGW cult claims. It is an unproven agenda driven hypothesis. The only facts we do know surrounding CO2 is that the biosphere lives more of it.

 

[Fearandloathing]

What I know is that todays climate is not the one I grew up with. More extreme weather events and plenty of signs that something is happening to our climate. Signs that I don't need scientists to tell me about. So I am 100% convinced that climate change is happening from my own personal observations. Now I don't know why it is changing. Is it a natural part of a long cycle? The speed of recent change suggests it probably isn't. Is it part of a natural short cycle? Maybe, but that doesn't fit so well with known patterns. Is it caused by mans pollution? Lots of scientists from all over the world, under many different governments, of many different political beliefs are saying that it is.

Me, I don't know who is correct about why the climate is changing, so what are my choices? I have raised two children, and expect to have grandchildren in the next decade. So do I ignore all the cleverer than me people who say we are destroying our own world and risk handing down a disaster to my children and grand children, or do I say let's clean up our pollution and not take that risk? Cleaning up our pollution has a cost, but really it means paying that cost now instead of handing it off to future generations. I'm comfortable paying my own way rather than passing it on to my kids and their kids. Is there a downside to creating a cleaner planet, only in the short term cost. Again, I am happy to pay my way to clean up the mess my generation is creating.

Bottom line is that I am not convinced there is no risk or future cost if we don't clean up the mess we are making today. There isn't enough evidence to show that ignoring the mess won't harm future generations. I owe my kids and grandkids the right to inherit a planet that is as close to the one I inherited as possible.

At the end of the day there is one question for Americans:


Where will you get your drinking water?

 

[Ishm]

It is not true that "lots of scientists" say it bis so. They are granted money for aspects of research, and how can they turn down the cash cow? If you ever read the studies, they are rather wishy-washy on the wording, and never have explicit statements to that effect. They do word it however in a manner to satify their cash-cow, because if they didn't, they would likely never see a grant from that cash-cow again. The pundits then come along, offering a study as proof, that doesn';t say whatbthey claim it says.

Fins a study that proves me wrong. I have probaly read a thousand over the years

I agree with cleaning up the pollution. My take is to clean up the pollution, and see if CO2 is really the culprit after removing that variable.

There is no evidence that CO2 will be the problem the AGW cult claims. It is an unproven agenda driven hypothesis. The only facts we do know surrounding CO2 is that the biosphere lives more of it.

So what is causing climate change then? I have watched 100 year old homes I have known washed into the sea and the land abandoned. I have watched roads that I have known for a life time get flooded by the sea for the first time. I have watched areas that have never flooded before suffer devastating floods from multiple '100 year storms' in a single year. Places where the land is going to be abandoned due to climate change making it too risky to rebuild on. I have watched fish turn up in waters that they never used to exist in due to sea warming. I have watched other sea creatures head for local extinction due to warming. I have lived through numerous 'weather events' in the past decade that are the biggest/hottest/coldest/windiest etc events in recorded history. I don't need or rely on scientists to tell me that the climate is changing. I don't need to try and interpret reports to try and pick holes in them (although I sometimes do). All I need to know is that climate change is a fact. That it isn't a good thing. That man doesn't really know why it is changing. Then, based on the reality of that uncertainty I pick the safest option for my family and future family. And if we create a cleaner planet as a side result then I am really good with that as well.

I am not denying that the science can be influenced by funding considerations, I have been involved in that first hand in a large global industry. On the other hand, I don't believe in grand global conspiracy theories either. Human nature doesn't allow those to exist in the way people try to claim climate change science is being manipulated.

 

[Ishm]

At the end of the day there is one question for Americans:


Where will you get your drinking water?

I've been following the Colorado river debates. Man, what a mess that is. Luckily the recent weather has bought at least a temporary reprieve from the impending disaster, but I doubt that problem is going away, and I am betting that the reprieve won't be used to try and fix the real problems.

 

[longview]

What I know is that todays climate is not the one I grew up with. More extreme weather events and plenty of signs that something is happening to our climate. Signs that I don't need scientists to tell me about. So I am 100% convinced that climate change is happening from my own personal observations. Now I don't know why it is changing. Is it a natural part of a long cycle? The speed of recent change suggests it probably isn't. Is it part of a natural short cycle? Maybe, but that doesn't fit so well with known patterns. Is it caused by mans pollution? Lots of scientists from all over the world, under many different governments, of many different political beliefs are saying that it is.

Me, I don't know who is correct about why the climate is changing, so what are my choices? I have raised two children, and expect to have grandchildren in the next decade. So do I ignore all the cleverer than me people who say we are destroying our own world and risk handing down a disaster to my children and grand children, or do I say let's clean up our pollution and not take that risk? Cleaning up our pollution has a cost, but really it means paying that cost now instead of handing it off to future generations. I'm comfortable paying my own way rather than passing it on to my kids and their kids. Is there a downside to creating a cleaner planet, only in the short term cost. Again, I am happy to pay my way to clean up the mess my generation is creating.

Bottom line is that I am not convinced there is no risk or future cost if we don't clean up the mess we are making today. There isn't enough evidence to show that ignoring the mess won't harm future generations. I owe my kids and grandkids the right to inherit a planet that is as close to the one I inherited as possible.

It is a question of are the risks great enough to damage the economic engine that has allowed billions of people to radically improve their lifestyle ? I strongly suspect that even if we achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions, we will still be warming from things we should not change,
like aerosol reductions. I already have Grandkids, and I think their best chance for a bright future is for us to address Humanities more
pressing problems of Sustainable energy and fresh water.

 

[Individual]

We should ask all nations to attempt going to a zero growth policy.

Some problems are unsolvable, at least by intentional reasonable means.

 

[longview]

So what is causing climate change then? I have watched 100 year old homes I have known washed into the sea and the land abandoned. I have watched roads that I have known for a life time get flooded by the sea for the first time. I have watched areas that have never flooded before suffer devastating floods from multiple '100 year storms' in a single year. Places where the land is going to be abandoned due to climate change making it too risky to rebuild on. I have watched fish turn up in waters that they never used to exist in due to sea warming. I have watched other sea creatures head for local extinction due to warming. I have lived through numerous 'weather events' in the past decade that are the biggest/hottest/coldest/windiest etc events in recorded history. I don't need or rely on scientists to tell me that the climate is changing. I don't need to try and interpret reports to try and pick holes in them (although I sometimes do). All I need to know is that climate change is a fact. That it isn't a good thing. That man doesn't really know why it is changing. Then, based on the reality of that uncertainty I pick the safest option for my family and future family. And if we create a cleaner planet as a side result then I am really good with that as well.

I am not denying that the science can be influenced by funding considerations, I have been involved in that first hand in a large global industry. On the other hand, I don't believe in grand global conspiracy theories either. Human nature doesn't allow those to exist in the way people try to claim climate change science is being manipulated.

The sea level will continue to rise until the next ice age causes it to start falling again.
Our earliest tide gauges show that the sea level rise is very consistent.
NOAA sea level trends
The rise predates the period of AGW by more than a century.
Also the world is warming, but Human activity is likely speeding that up some.
People who are skeptical may disagree as to the ratio of the causes, but to me aerosol clearing is one of the larger factors.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds
to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).

For reference the supposed total greenhouse gas forcing from Human emissions is ~3.31 W m-2,
yet between 1992 and 2001 clearing skies added 6 W -2 of imbalance, almost double the total
for all Human emitted greenhouse gases.
Warming we can adapt to, cooling is what we really have to fear.

 

[Ishm]

It is a question of are the risks great enough to damage the economic engine that has allowed billions of people to radically improve their lifestyle ? I strongly suspect that even if we achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions, we will still be warming from things we should not change,
like aerosol reductions. I already have Grandkids, and I think their best chance for a bright future is for us to address Humanities more
pressing problems of Sustainable energy and fresh water.

I always chuckle when I see the aerosol stuff mentioned, I have multiple nationalities, and one of them is in New Zealand where I have spent a lot of time on and off over my lifetime. I love the place and am working a contract there at the moment. NZ is the country that was most affected by the ozone depletion that is linked to aerosol and refrigeration gasses etc. The northern hemisphere by comparison never really saw any impact from ozone depletion despite of course being the primary cause of the problem. This is another example where I don't need scientists to tell me that the ozone layer is better now than it was decades back. It is actually noticeable to people like me who have been around long enough that you can spend more time in the sun now without burning. The analysis of the yearly ozone hole size of course confirms that. The global ban on harmful aerosols is actually a classic example of where the science was right and humans actually made an improvement without any serious cost.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what is causing climate change then? I have watched 100 year old homes I have known washed into the sea and the land abandoned.

The sea level is always rising. Always have since we came out of this last ice age. The oceans will naturally continue to rise until we start a new ice age. Ever study the geosciences? We have silt flowing down the rivers. We have sand blowing out of the deserts into the ocean. This displaces the water. We have some places that with the movement of out tectonic places, rise while others lower. Much of the east coast is experiencing subsidence.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb8549

The largest effect we have on the sea level rises is from soot on sheet ice, where the soot is reducing the albedo of the ice. The reduced albedo allows more solar energy to warm and melt the ice, rather than being reflected.

I have watched roads that I have known for a life time get flooded by the sea for the first time. I have watched areas that have never flooded before suffer devastating floods from multiple '100 year storms' in a single year. Places where the land is going to be abandoned due to climate change making it too risky to rebuild on. I have watched fish turn up in waters that they never used to exist in due to sea warming. I have watched other sea creatures head for local extinction due to warming. I have lived through numerous 'weather events' in the past decade that are the biggest/hottest/coldest/windiest etc events in recorded history. I don't need or rely on scientists to tell me that the climate is changing. I don't need to try and interpret reports to try and pick holes in them (although I sometimes do). All I need to know is that climate change is a fact. That it isn't a good thing. That man doesn't really know why it is changing. Then, based on the reality of that uncertainty I pick the safest option for my family and future family. And if we create a cleaner planet as a side result then I am really good with that as well.

Well, the frequency of storms to claim a "100 year" cycle is impossible to tell. Probably a claim to get people to but otherwise worthless property at a higher value.

We have over the decades also contributed to the sea level by pumping our aquifers lower than natural. With less water in the land, there is more water in the oceans.

I am not denying that the science can be influenced by funding considerations, I have been involved in that first hand in a large global industry. On the other hand, I don't believe in grand global conspiracy theories either. Human nature doesn't allow those to exist in the way people try to claim climate change science is being manipulated.

We do have an impact. We need to focus on the impacts we can without harming the economy, like getting rid of soot and other pollutants.

A study on antropogenic subsidence:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn3676

 

[Fearandloathing]

The sea level will continue to rise until the next ice age causes it to start falling again.
Our earliest tide gauges show that the sea level rise is very consistent.
NOAA sea level trends
The rise predates the period of AGW by more than a century.
Also the world is warming, but Human activity is likely speeding that up some.
People who are skeptical may disagree as to the ratio of the causes, but to me aerosol clearing is one of the larger factors.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

For reference the supposed total greenhouse gas forcing from Human emissions is ~3.31 W m-2,
yet between 1992 and 2001 clearing skies added 6 W -2 of imbalance, almost double the total
for all Human emitted greenhouse gases.
Warming we can adapt to, cooling is what we really have to fear.

Wow

Five decade old propaganda that's been disputed.

Pretty desperate.

 

[longview]

Some problems are unsolvable, at least by intentional reasonable means.

Or they are simpler than the governments would led people to believe.
Oil will keep increasing in price, and research will keep improving hydrocarbon energy storage.
At some point, the cost curves will cross, and it will become more profitable for a refinery to make
fuel from Atmospheric CO2, Water and electricity, than to purchase and refine oil.
At that point the least cost fuel at the pump, will also be the carbon neutral fuel, not just in the US but globally.
Energy storage will also allow Solar to finally become a dispatchable electricity source.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I always chuckle when I see the aerosol stuff mentioned, I have multiple nationalities, and one of them is in New Zealand where I have spent a lot of time on and off over my lifetime. I love the place and am working a contract there at the moment. NZ is the country that was most affected by the ozone depletion that is linked to aerosol and refrigeration gasses etc. The northern hemisphere by comparison never really saw any impact from ozone depletion despite of course being the primary cause of the problem. This is another example where I don't need scientists to tell me that the ozone layer is better now than it was decades back. It is actually noticeable to people like me who have been around long enough that you can spend more time in the sun now without burning. The analysis of the yearly ozone hole size of course confirms that. The global ban on harmful aerosols is actually a classic example of where the science was right and humans actually made an improvement without any serious cost.

Good going!

It's kind of like being a west coast Canadian and being told glaciers are NOT disappearing while where you are standing was 100 feet of ice ten years ago.

 

[longview]

I always chuckle when I see the aerosol stuff mentioned, I have multiple nationalities, and one of them is in New Zealand where I have spent a lot of time on and off over my lifetime. I love the place and am working a contract there at the moment. NZ is the country that was most affected by the ozone depletion that is linked to aerosol and refrigeration gasses etc. The northern hemisphere by comparison never really saw any impact from ozone depletion despite of course being the primary cause of the problem. This is another example where I don't need scientists to tell me that the ozone layer is better now than it was decades back. It is actually noticeable to people like me who have been around long enough that you can spend more time in the sun now without burning. The analysis of the yearly ozone hole size of course confirms that. The global ban on harmful aerosols is actually a classic example of where the science was right and humans actually made an improvement without any serious cost.

BUT the policies that limited aerosols, also allow a lot more of the available sunlight to reach the ground.
not so much in the Southern Hemisphere, but the Northern Hemisphere has warmed much faster, not because of CO2, but aerosol clearing.

 

[longview]

Wow

Five decade old propaganda that's been disputed.

Pretty desperate.

Then you should be able to cite and quote something showing where I am in error?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Then you should be able to cite and quote something showing where I am in error?

ten years ago I would have.

Now. Find another sucker

 

[longview]

ten years ago I would have.

Now. Find another sucker

If I am wrong, you should be able to prove it easily, put up or shut up!

 

[Ishm]

Good going!

It's kind of like being a west coast Canadian and being told glaciers are NOT disappearing while where you are standing was 100 feet of ice ten years ago.

Somewhere in the family album there is a photo of me at ~10 yrs old standing on a glacier that today isn't even visible from where I was standing then. As I mentioned above, I don't need to rely on scientists to see that the climate is really changing. I just don't know why, and don't want my kids and grandkids to suffer if we get it wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I always chuckle when I see the aerosol stuff mentioned, I have multiple nationalities, and one of them is in New Zealand where I have spent a lot of time on and off over my lifetime. I love the place and am working a contract there at the moment. NZ is the country that was most affected by the ozone depletion that is linked to aerosol and refrigeration gasses etc.

Aerosols? How is ozone depletion linked to aerosols? The differing aerosols have different effects, but I don't recall ever readin a paper that claims aerosols affect the ozone holes.

The northern hemisphere by comparison never really saw any impact from ozone depletion despite of course being the primary cause of the problem.

I suspect the ozone hole at the sothern pole is larger primarily due to the polarity of the earths magnetic field. the refrigerant chemicals should be closely equal in quantity.

This is another example where I don't need scientists to tell me that the ozone layer is better now than it was decades back.

The solar winds make a difference too, but yes. We F'd it up with refrigerants.

It is actually noticeable to people like me who have been around long enough that you can spend more time in the sun now without burning. The analysis of the yearly ozone hole size of course confirms that. The global ban on harmful aerosols is actually a classic example of where the science was right and humans actually made an improvement without any serious cost.

Its coming again, as China has no care.