Some random thoughts on climate change

[[DHT]Osiris]

A) Normal? It is a swing that is probably due in part to emissions. Is that what you are after?

I'm asking you to just deliver what your stance is. You keep waffling around a statement of your argument or a deliverable discussion point.

B) I guess to be a big deal it has to be a big change. If it was a big change in a short time it is likely an extinction event. Not seeing that.

We are *literally* in an extinction event.

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Current rate of 100-1,000 times natural background extinction rates. Virtually everything is in dramatic decline, except Humans and Bacteria.

Given that our worst case scenario would be another ice age, our real fear should be that this spike up in temperature could well set off a correction that would lead us into some serious cooling.

No, our worst case scenario is a global heating resulting in ocean acidification, resulting in a mass die-off of plankton, resulting in an overwhelming amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere resulting (finally) in 10c+ of heating and the loss of 90%+ of life on this planet, ourselves included.

You're lacking a dramatic amount of scientific knowledge and logical thinking if you're under the impression that we're headed for an ice age that'll conveniently 'cancel out' global warming, or that ANYTHING we're experiencing now is within even the most liberal of bounds for what has happened in the past. It's completely unprecedented.

 

[balloonshark]

It was 67F here in the mountains of WV yesterday. We crushed our previous old record of 63F set in 2016. Winters have been getting noticeably more mild here in the last 20 years.

 

[gill77]

Are you disputing his data about the rate of CO2 increase, then?

Nope. No denial. I don't think we should mess with mother nature.

There was just an article posted that it postponed an ice age.

Who knows, a spike up in temps could follow. Better than an ice age.

 

[nakedfrog]

Nope. No denial. I don't think we should mess with mother nature.

There was just an article posted that it postponed an ice age.

Who knows, a spike up in temps could follow. Better than an ice age.

Better for who?

 

[gill77]

I'm asking you to just deliver what your stance is. You keep waffling around a statement of your argument or a deliverable discussion point.

We are *literally* in an extinction event.

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Current rate of 100-1,000 times natural background extinction rates. Virtually everything is in dramatic decline, except Humans and Bacteria.

No, our worst case scenario is a global heating resulting in ocean acidification, resulting in a mass die-off of plankton, resulting in an overwhelming amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere resulting (finally) in 10c+ of heating and the loss of 90%+ of life on this planet, ourselves included.

You're lacking a dramatic amount of scientific knowledge and logical thinking if you're under the impression that we're headed for an ice age that'll conveniently 'cancel out' global warming, or that ANYTHING we're experiencing now is within even the most liberal of bounds for what has happened in the past. It's completely unprecedented.

I am sincerely trying to give you my stance. Maybe I am just hearing what you want to hear, but if you are more specific. To be honest, it is so simple I am baffled.

I am not predicting anything. There was an ice age article posted just a bit ago. I would suggest you email Nature Magazine to inform them that they are publishing articles from those who are lacking a dramatic amount of scientific knowledge and logical thinking.

 

[JeepinEd]

I found this article to be very informative: Woods Hole Oceanographic Article

 

[gill77]

Better for who?

I think that general consensus is that ice ages are worse than warming periods. It's clear that we have both and we are still here.

 

[gill77]

I found this article to be very informative: Woods Hole Oceanographic Article

Blasphemer! LOL.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I am sincerely trying to give you my stance. Maybe I am just hearing what you want to hear, but if you are more specific. To be honest, it is so simple I am baffled.

I am not predicting anything. There was an ice age article posted just a bit ago. I would suggest you email Nature Magazine to inform them that they are publishing articles from those who are lacking a dramatic amount of scientific knowledge and logical thinking.

Okay, so the Nature paper is positing that we almost hit a potential glacial period, but missed it by increasing co2 levels. Super, we missed an interglacial period lasting for 50,000 years, and instead we're facing mass planetary devastation over the next 100. What exactly is your point? Things like this don't conveniently 'cancel out'. Global warming has/will dramatically overwhelm any potential natural cooling period.

EDIT: Also, their simulations (note, from 2016) are clearly incorrect, regarding this:
"Our simulations demonstrate that under natural conditions alone the Earth system would be expected to remain in the present delicately balanced interglacial climate state, steering clear of both large-scale glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere and its complete deglaciation, for an unusually long time. "

Glaciation levels don't correlate specifically with co2 levels, but we're in the thick of a massive deglaciation thanks to global warming, and warming oceans.

Oceanic forcing of penultimate deglacial and last interglacial sea-level rise - Nature

A reduction in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation initiated during the penultimate deglaciation led to excess polar ice losses, contributing to higher sea levels during the last interglacial period.

www.nature.com

 

[Paratus]

I have to hand it to you for posting that.

It would probably be best to preface this by saying that the general consensus is that ice ages are far worse than warm periods. Freezing in the cold, mile thick glaciers covering vast areas, crop production seriously impaired etc.

If I read it correctly this article states that in part the ice age was averted by carbon emissions at the beginning of the industrial revolution. I doubt that was their reason for burning coal.

So the root of all evil was our savior?

Still don’t think your getting it. What I’m concerned about is what’s good for us.

Since it seems your ideologically opposed to the idea of manmade climate change let me try it this way.

Fossil fuels have been absolutely amazing for our quality of life. Without them we wouldn’t have been able to support our populations or live the life styles we are accustomed to.

Unfortunately the downside is this has been an unplanned experiment that messes with Mother Nature . We have been relying on margin in the environmental systems of the Earth to deal with the excess CO2 produced by our fossil fuel use. That margin is almost gone.

Now I’m not saying life hasn’t flourished in the past with higher temps or CO2 levels. What I’m saying is we rely on the current climate, the historical record shows fast changes in climate leads to extinction events and nothing in the climate record is as fast as the change we are going through currently. We depend on the climate and environment as they have been.

Or to paraphrase George Carlin, the Earth has been through worse than us, the Earth will be fine, the people however will be fucked.

Staving off the next ice age in 10K years is a moot point if we collapse our society in the next 100.

Besides doing nothing is likely to be MORE expensive than doing nothing.

Preliminary studies show mitigation efforts that keep the total warming to 2C have the best Cost/Benefit ratio.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/the-cheapest-climate-target-to-hit-around-2c/

Finally I suggest you watch the PBS Space Time video on climate cycles I linked earlier it explains them very well.

 

[nakedfrog]

I am sincerely trying to give you my stance. Maybe I am just hearing what you want to hear, but if you are more specific. To be honest, it is so simple I am baffled.

I am not predicting anything. There was an ice age article posted just a bit ago. I would suggest you email Nature Magazine to inform them that they are publishing articles from those who are lacking a dramatic amount of scientific knowledge and logical thinking.

So your position is indeed that we just don't need to do anything at all, everything will be fine? Or is it "well, we don't know what might happen, so we just don't need to do anything at all"?

 

[Paratus]

I found this article to be very informative: Woods Hole Oceanographic Article

Ocean currents can move hot or cold spots around the globe. But that’s all they move energy from one place to another they don’t create it. So from a long term global perspective It doesn’t change the overall warming or cooling.

 

[gill77]

Since it seems your ideologically opposed to the idea of manmade climate change let me try it this way.

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to man poring carbon into the atmosphere that may result in climate change.

I have pretty much said the same thing many times.

What else, three hail mary's and an our father?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to man poring carbon into the atmosphere that may result in climate change.

I have pretty much said the same thing many times.

What else, three hail mary's and an our father?

You really haven't. It's like pulling teeth getting you to state your stance.

So you understand and believe anthropomorphic climate change. That's good to hear, now on to what we do about it yes?

 

[Paratus]

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to man poring carbon into the atmosphere that may result in climate change.

I have pretty much said the same thing many times.

What else, three hail mary's and an our father?

Great!

How do you feel about removing fossil fuel subsidies and instead subsidizing renewables?

 

[nakedfrog]

You really haven't. It's like pulling teeth getting you to state your stance.

This.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How do you feel about removing fossil fuel subsidies and instead subsidizing renewables?

Or how about a nation-wide campaign to grow and bury empress trees?
1 acre can sequester 103 metric tons of CO2/yr. ~51 million acres (about the size of Kansas) would cover our current yearly usage, assuming we could find enough places to bury that much wood. We'd need less if we used less co2 sources of energy, of course.

 

[gill77]

So your position is indeed that we just don't need to do anything at all, everything will be fine? Or is it "well, we don't know what might happen, so we just don't need to do anything at all"?

Those are my two choices?

I think we can rule out the "do nothing at all" part.

It's all hypothetical since no one is going to do what I say, but here goes, if someone died and made me king:

Priority one, with no close second, would be the complete (as possible) conversion of our energy sector to solar.

This would be done to transform a big part of our economy to the zero marginal cost paradigm.

The huge competitive advantage would help fund the infrastructure allowing for byproduct of zero emissions, CO2 and other.

I would suggest not holding your breath.

Even if CO2 levels came down to preindustrial levels I would not so arrogant as to suppose that we have mastered global climate and we will flat line the historical cycles.

 

[gill77]

You really haven't. It's like pulling teeth getting you to state your stance.

So you understand and believe anthropomorphic climate change. That's good to hear, now on to what we do about it yes?

See post #143.

 

[gill77]

Great!

How do you feel about removing fossil fuel subsidies and instead subsidizing renewables?

Subsidies have their issues.

A complete transformation of the energy sector would not be as simple as that.

 

[nakedfrog]

Those are my two choices?

No, but based on what you've been saying, it came across as maybe one of those, and it's been difficult to ascertain what it is you think.

I think we can rule out the "do nothing at all" part.

It's all hypothetical since no one is going to do what I say, but here goes, if someone died and made me king:

Priority one, with no close second, would be the complete (as possible) conversion of our energy sector to solar.

This would be done to transform a big part of our economy to the zero marginal cost paradigm.

The huge competitive advantage would help fund the infrastructure allowing for byproduct of zero emissions, CO2 and other.

I would suggest not holding your breath.

Even if CO2 levels came down to preindustrial levels I would not so arrogant as to suppose that we have mastered global climate and we will flat line the historical cycles.

But it does sound like you believe that something should probably be done, so that's good at least.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to man poring carbon into the atmosphere that may result in climate change.

I have pretty much said the same thing many times.

What else, three hail mary's and an our father?

Yes, you have stated your preference to reduce man-made carbon emissions in several posts.

I can understand, however, how other posters may have overlooked it because you also seem to be arguing that the climate change we appear to be experiencing now due to human activities is small (and unimportant) given the much bigger swings in climate that the earth has seen over geological time. Perhaps this isn't what you mean to convey.

As I have tried to point out, we are best served by the current climate and any change is likely to be detrimental -- regardless of its cause. So unless or until we think we can control the earth's climate, I think our best course of action is to minimize activities that we have reason to believe might move the climate in any direction. There may come a day (in 10's or 100's of thousands of year) when we might want to take action to counteract climate change being caused by other factors (e.g. orbit, solar activity, volcanoes).

FWIW, the consensus seems to be that CO2 levels (in the last 500M years) topped off in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 parts per million, which would be 0.5% to 1.0%; nowhere near 70%.

My smile about Talib is that you cited him as an expert to debunk the idea of trusting experts. It seems a bit circular to me.

 

[renz20003]

Take the trouble to inform yourself rather than spew your wishful thinking. You don't know about the massive moves that have been progressing in green energy? You're really peeing all over yourself here.

Wrong the oil companies will never stop peddling their products. Too much money involved.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Say what you want, but killer bees and fire ants are migrating North. Those gone' git ya before the oceans rize!

 

[Paratus]

Say what you want, but killer bees and fire ants are migrating North. Those gone' git ya before the oceans rize!

Not really a problem. Killer bees make their hives near the ground where they are tasty snacks for the fire ants so it all works out.