A dismantling of one of the last bastions of climate-change deniers

[werepossum]

"Moving to a new location" to keep the mean surface temperature the same won't result in the same crop yields because crops grown at more extreme latitudes (where you'd need to move to) won't receive the same duration of solar radiation as those formerly grown at lower latitudes.

http://www.livescience.com/51155-globally-plants-will-not-benefit-as-climate-warms.html

Geez, how far do you think crops might be moved?

 

[Jaskalas]

A study I was able to find said a significant portion of the rainforest can repopulate in 65 years. So if we got started in the next 20 years we could probably shave 50PPM off our totals by the end of the century.

Earth is on track to lose an India-sized chunk of its tropical forests by mid-century

Using your previous equation, this news means we're on track to emit an additional 40ppm CO2 from deforestation of rainforest alone. And that's only by mid century.

 

[maluckey]

Geez, how far do you think crops might be moved?

What I've seen implies only a couple of hundred miles of shifting. Maybe Shira feels we need to move everything into the arctic circle?

You don't necessarily need to maintain the surface temperature. You need an acceptable range and light for the cultivar at hand. Many crops can be grown in areas that we currently do not use. I have seen White Birch trees in Little Rock, Arkansas, and also have seen cantaloupes and watermelons in Maine. Both are Waaaay out of their zone, but somehoew doing fine.

M

 

[dphantom]

I'll look at the link you provided, but based on the conclusion a four year old analysis of historical US tidal gauges doesn't necessarily strike me as being a great proxy for global sea level rise.

Let's try this paper then. From 2014 and global in its review.

http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide gauge location.pdf

 

[shira]

What I've seen implies only a couple of hundred miles of shifting. Maybe Shira feels we need to move everything into the arctic circle?

You don't necessarily need to maintain the surface temperature. You need an acceptable range and light for the cultivar at hand. Many crops can be grown in areas that we currently do not use. I have seen White Birch trees in Little Rock, Arkansas, and also have seen cantaloupes and watermelons in Maine. Both are Waaaay out of their zone, but somehoew doing fine.

M

As usual, righties thinking in black and white, rather than shades of gray.

The issue isn't whether a crop CAN grow at a particular latitude. The issue is what happens to crop yields. A 200-mile shift northward would reduce crop yields by at least a few percent. That would have a significant effect on crop prices, especially for crops for which production is already pretty much maxed out.

 

[Paratus]

Let's try this paper then. From 2014 and global in its review.

http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide gauge location.pdf

The paper comes out and says 1mm/yr rise yet NOAA satellite data shows ~2.9mm/yr.

They also suggest that a significant number of stations show no sea level rise with the ones that do being limited to the U.S., Baltic and a few others.

Again NOAA seems to disagree:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html


Plus as I said sea level rise impacts are starting to show up on various places like Florida. I would have like to see the paper you reference address that.

 

[dphantom]

The paper comes out and says 1mm/yr rise yet NOAA satellite data shows ~2.9mm/yr.

The science is far from settled. Your certainty is not replicated in the science. Florida according to the NOAA link is seeing lea level rise of 0mm to ~4mm/year. The margin of error of the instruments is +/- 3mm. Certainly a trend can be detected but we also need to take into account what has happened in Florida over the last 60 years - a massive population boom with corresponding groundwater extraction resulting in some subsidence. Globally, groundwater extraction and subsidence accounts for about .8mm/year to sea level rise.

Abstract – 23 February 2011
Sea-level acceleration based on US tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/Puls_Rahmstorf_Mann_Meerespiegel_2000/MSp.J.Coast.Res.2011May.pdf
==================
Abstract – July 2013
Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?
………..The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.
American Meteorological Society – Volume 26, Issue 13
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
==================
Abstract – January 2014
Global sea level trend during 1993–2012
[Highlights
• GMSL started decelerated rising since 2004 with rising rate 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
• Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
• Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.]
… It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level….
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397

 

[OverVolt]

The paper comes out and says 1mm/yr rise yet NOAA satellite data shows ~2.9mm/yr.

They also suggest that a significant number of stations show no sea level rise with the ones that do being limited to the U.S., Baltic and a few others.

Again NOAA seems to disagree:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html


Plus as I said sea level rise impacts are starting to show up on various places like Florida. I would have like to see the paper you reference address that.

Why is it negative in 1995. Doesn't that artificially increase the slope by picking a time frame when ice was forming and then going to current time where it is melting. You'd expect even in a worst case scenario of runaway ice melt that the rate would slow down. Melting ice is an equilibrium, which is why if you mash two ice cubes together even at room temperature they will freeze together. The rate of change is going to be fastest when you go from forming ice to melting ice. As we approach a new equilibrium the rate will slow.

 

[shira]

Why is it negative in 1995. Doesn't that artificially increase the slope by picking a time frame when ice was forming and then going to current time where it is melting. You'd expect even in a worst case scenario of runaway ice melt that the rate would slow down. Melting ice is an equilibrium, which is why if you mash two ice cubes together even at room temperature they will freeze together. The rate of change is going to be fastest when you go from forming ice to melting ice. As we approach a new equilibrium the rate will slow.

An anomaly is - by definition - the divergence from the mean. What that means is that as the sea level rises, the mean rises, and earlier years that had positive anomalies will end up with negative anomalies. At some point in the future, 2014 will have a negative anomaly.

If you begin the chart in 2001, which appears to have a 0 anomaly, you'll still end up with negative anomalies when you consider only the remaining years, because the mean for 2001 through 2014 is greater than the sea level in 2001 (and in 2002 through 2007 as well).

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's become clear that nothing, short of a catastrophic meteorological global event, will change the minds of the deniers. And I doubt that would change the minds of some as well.

 

[OverVolt]

It's become clear that nothing, short of a catastrophic meteorological global event, will change the minds of the deniers. And I doubt that would change the minds of some as well.

To be fair the climate scientists would have missed predicting that.

 

[OverVolt]

An anomaly is - by definition - the divergence from the mean. What that means is that as the sea level rises, the mean rises, and earlier years that had positive anomalies will end up with negative anomalies. At some point in the future, 2014 will have a negative anomaly.

If you begin the chart in 2001, which appears to have a 0 anomaly, you'll still end up with negative anomalies when you consider only the remaining years, because the mean for 2001 through 2014 is greater than the sea level in 2001 (and in 2002 through 2007 as well).

If I didn't care to look it up I don't particularly care to have it explained to me

 

[werepossum]

What I've seen implies only a couple of hundred miles of shifting. Maybe Shira feels we need to move everything into the arctic circle?

You don't necessarily need to maintain the surface temperature. You need an acceptable range and light for the cultivar at hand. Many crops can be grown in areas that we currently do not use. I have seen White Birch trees in Little Rock, Arkansas, and also have seen cantaloupes and watermelons in Maine. Both are Waaaay out of their zone, but somehow doing fine.

M

Agreed.

I could also point out that it's only within the last couple decades that citrus once again can be commercially grown in Citrus and Orange Counties and even Marion and Volusia. All through central and northern Florida one finds abandoned groves being reclaimed. Hell, if we get much more of this unprecedented global warming we might even see wine-making return to Great Britain.

 

[maluckey]

Agreed.

I could also point out that it's only within the last couple decades that citrus once again can be commercially grown in Citrus and Orange Counties and even Marion and Volusia. All through central and northern Florida one finds abandoned groves being reclaimed. Hell, if we get much more of this unprecedented global warming we might even see wine-making return to Great Britain.

To that point....History students remember that European wine is grown on American roots for the most part. Modification of the vines via grafting.

If the global warming plan is to do nothing (other than talk about it, which seems to be the case), our think-tanks and agricultural specialists had better be playing their "A" game. I'll wager that new pests will emerge in areas where they are unknown.

M

 

[OverVolt]

To that point....History students remember that European wine is grown on American roots for the most part. Modification of the vines via grafting.

If the global warming plan is to do nothing (other than talk about it, which seems to be the case), our think-tanks and agricultural specialists had better be playing their "A" game. I'll wager that new pests will emerge in areas where they are unknown.

M

If you are going to try and engineer the composition of the climate you had better be correct. One false assumption and you've messed it up. The sheer scale of the thing would require an experiment on a scale that could wipe us out just as easily as it could save us. The way climate scientists aren't stoic about the debate and drag it through the mud, like someone who thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth 5,000 years ago is really a threat politically, tells me they feel threatened by "deniers" when if it were so obvious, it should speak for itself. If what we had to do to save the planet were crystal clear, there wouldn't be so much arguing.

Oh please tell us the grand solution to our climate woes. Can you guarantee a hospitable climate for thousands of years to come? You're going to need something more than a patched up version of a model from 2001.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Agreed. I think there are many things we can do that make sense today. Reducing CO2 output makes sense regardless of whether we are convinced the sky is falling. More solar at the least will make fossil fuels last longer, and they make the most cost effective plastics too. More and better nuclear makes sense. Higher mandated insulation and efficiency makes sense. And basic research into things like efficiency, solar, waste heat capturing, etc. will always pay off in the long run.

I can't argue with that. Its nice to occasionally see people discuss solutions.

 

[maluckey]

If you are going to try and engineer the composition of the climate you had better be correct. One false assumption and you've messed it up. The sheer scale of the thing would require an experiment on a scale that could wipe us out just as easily as it could save us. The way climate scientists aren't stoic about the debate and drag it through the mud, like someone who thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth 5,000 years ago is really a threat politically, tells me they feel threatened by "deniers" when if it were so obvious, it should speak for itself. If what we had to do to save the planet were crystal clear, there wouldn't be so much arguing.

Oh please tell us the grand solution to our climate woes. Can you guarantee a hospitable climate for thousands of years to come? You're going to need something more than a patched up version of a model from 2001.

I think that you mis-read, or confused me with someone else....I stated that since nobody is doing anything other than talking, that perhaps somebody should be planning for success AND failure. Success means stability and failure means that we can't stop the change.

Failure to have a plan is unacceptable. Second, a plan must be realistic and we must have the capacity and capability and buy-in from the world as a whole.

M

 

[werepossum]

To that point....History students remember that European wine is grown on American roots for the most part. Modification of the vines via grafting.

If the global warming plan is to do nothing (other than talk about it, which seems to be the case), our think-tanks and agricultural specialists had better be playing their "A" game. I'll wager that new pests will emerge in areas where they are unknown.

M

We're already seeing that, but the cause isn't climate change, it's globalization. As products are increasingly shipped world wide, pests increasingly hitchhike to new areas where they have no natural predators and food sources with no tailored allelochemicals. But agreed, our specialists need to be on their A game. When America turned abruptly colder around the turn of the century, we had lots of good agricultural land waiting to be developed. We no longer have that easy solution, so we have to be smarter predicting changes in climate and rainfall patterns and in developing and deploying appropriate cultivars.

I can't argue with that. Its nice to occasionally see people discuss solutions.

 

[BlueWolf47]

We're already seeing that, but the cause isn't climate change, it's globalization. As products are increasingly shipped world wide, pests increasingly hitchhike to new areas where they have no natural predators and food sources with no tailored allelochemicals. But agreed, our specialists need to be on their A game. When America turned abruptly colder around the turn of the century, we had lots of good agricultural land waiting to be developed. We no longer have that easy solution, so we have to be smarter predicting changes in climate and rainfall patterns and in developing and deploying appropriate cultivars.

Actually, climate change is having a direct effect on species migration. For example, mosquito species that carry dengue fever and malaria are very temperature dependent. As temperatures warm, they are able to move into new areas causing local endemics.

 

[OverVolt]

Actually, climate change is having a direct effect on species migration. For example, mosquito species that carry dengue fever and malaria are very temperature dependent. As temperatures warm, they are able to move into new areas causing local endemics.

And I presume the original area is no longer hospitable to them? Why does everyone leave that part out hmm?

 

[werepossum]

Actually, climate change is having a direct effect on species migration. For example, mosquito species that carry dengue fever and malaria are very temperature dependent. As temperatures warm, they are able to move into new areas causing local endemics.

I think that's very overplayed. Mosquitoes travel easily in puddles of water aboard ships. If this is enabled only by the climate getting warmer, these same species would long ago have become extinct as natural year-to-year variations far exceed any measurable warming.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I think that's very overplayed. Mosquitoes travel easily in puddles of water aboard ships. If this is enabled only by the climate getting warmer, these same species would long ago have become extinct as natural year-to-year variations far exceed any measurable warming.

Shipping containers? We arnt talking about introducing a new species to an area. Three of the major disease transmitting mosquitos already exsist in africa, but are localized to specifics regions within the continent.


The geographical range of mosquito species is very dependent on temperature and the amount of moisture in a specific region. As temperatures warm, the range of each species will change.

Extinction?
Species migrate to avoid extinction, an orgamisms niche isnt a static location.

 

[BlueWolf47]

And I presume the original area is no longer hospitable to them? Why does everyone leave that part out hmm?

Yes. Other areas may no longer be hospitable.