UN report on climate change concludes we're in serious trouble

[Jaskalas]

Not going to pretend to be a climate expert, but just looking at the chart, it looks like during the warm phase, the temperature is rising, but during cold phase it's flat. So overall, it looks like it's rising, just not as fast, because it's only rising during the warm phase.

I agree with that assessment. Our historical record, as portrayed there, for over 100 years shows warming and pausing. Never in that record has it cooled.

The implications being that, having never seen cooling, we cannot expect any in the near future. It does lead to the belief that, given natural forces alone, we should be paused until at least 2030.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Scam for more money.

 

[Vic]

Just keep buying your birckenstocks and we'll all be ok.

I'm looking forward to warmer weather.

 

[mect]

I don't see a problem adopting alternative energy at an accelerated rate. That will spur innovation and drive down cost, and we'll be better off in the long run, even if there is no global warming. I bike my to work every day too too. Even if there is no global warming, it's good for my fitness. Gives me an hour of cardio every day even if I don't do anything else. I usually take the ski bus for skiing because of the convenience. I also bought a 4 cylinder Outback AWD with CVT, so it burns less gas than a big SUV. I get 25mpg instead of 15-20mpg, and performance is fine for my needs. All these things add up.
The choice is not between driving to work or driving to outdoor activities, those are separate decisions, each on has its own impact.

The question is, do these things add up from a climate change perspective? Will even an accelerated rollout of alternative energy sources do anything? How fast? If we wait 5 more years, how will the cost alternative energy sources compare to if we were to do it today? Will five years from now be too late in terms of global warming? These are hard questions to address. We know that the price of solar has decreased tremendously over the past 5 years. Was it worth waiting to start an accelerated rollout now?

I do think we need to look into changes we can make that don't have a significant impact on our lifestyle, for example issues affecting the cost of solar. A common misconception these days is that solar is expensive due to the price of the panels. The panels are actually pretty dirt cheap. It is the installation cost that makes it expensive. I found this chart to be extremely interesting. While I've read comments that the German numbers may be somewhat misleading, surely we can do something to significantly decrease the cost of the installation.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

Has the Sun gone to sleep?

17 January 2014 Last updated at 05:57 GMT
Scientists are saying that the Sun is in a phase of "solar lull" - meaning that it has fallen asleep - and it is baffling them.
History suggests that periods of unusual "solar lull" coincide with bitterly cold winters.
Rebecca Morelle reports for BBC Newsnight on the effect this inactivity could have on our current climate, and what the implications might be for global warming.

 

[Dman8777]

I think the issue is that it is all a matter of scale. How much do we need to cut back to to have a significant impact? Can we cut back by simply being more energy efficient and less wasteful? Do we need to start adopting alternative energy sources at an accelerated rate? Do we need to severely change our lifestyles (ie cut driving to an average of 20 miles per week)? I agree, its easy so long as it is just a matter of making more informed decisions that don't significantly impact our lifestyle.

I follow global warming pretty closely compared to an average citizen. I agree that the scientific consensus is that mankind is contributing to global warming. What I'm uncertain of is what is a reasonable course of action. Everyone always wants someone else to change something. I ride my bike to work everyday. Not really because of global warming, but its way cheaper, gives me exercise, and most of all, I enjoy it. I personally think the majority of Americans should ride a bike to work instead of driving or even taking a bus. It is way more environmentally friendly than public transportation. A great way for us to fight global warming. But guess what, I also really like to go up to the mountains on the weekends. Love going up skiing in the winter, hiking, biking, climbing in the summer, and backpacking in the fall. I would hate to have to cut back on these trips. So, am I really any better than someone that doesn't drive anywhere on the weekends, but drives to work all week? How do we affect change in people when I get the impression that we really don't know how much change is needed to have an effect. How do we determine who is responsible for making these changes?

Americans produce something like 20 tons of CO2 per year per person. Europeans are around 10-12 and developing nations are 1-2. The UN set a target of 2.3 tons per year per person as being sustainable. That means the average american would have to reduce their energy use by ~90%. That's more than just putting solar panels on your roof and turning the heat down a bit. However, driving less would go a long way. That's one of the reasons europe is where it is.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Not going to pretend to be a climate expert, but just looking at the chart, it looks like during the warm phase, the temperature is rising, but during cold phase it's flat. So overall, it looks like it's rising, just not as fast, because it's only rising during the warm phase.

That chart is temperature anomalies when compared to the 1961-1990 average, not temperatures.

If for example the 1990-1999 decade was included, the average would be higher, making the anomalies looking smaller for the current years.

Also, why is the 1961-1990 the golden standard of temperatures?

If you on the other hand look at temperature trends based on satellite data you get no warming.

 

[GaiaHunter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

And if ones listen to it, the space physicist scientist says that if we want to see such a low minimum and maximum we would have to go back 100 years. And he talks about the little ice age that ended in the 1800s.

The sun is coming from a phase of high activity and going to less and less activity.

 

[unokitty]

A prudent environmental policy is just common sense.

But Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about environmental policy. From the IPCC's point of view, Its about money.

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Uno

 

[Muse]

You do understand that this statement is beyond absurd...right? Sea level has been rising the last 20,000 years since the last glacial maximum.

OK, my drowning metaphor was ill-chosen. I should have said we are screwed if the average temperature rises more than 3.6 F by 2050 (they said this would be very difficult to avoid at this point, but presumably not impossible if they get really serious about this and can get the egregious polluters to ease up). I think that's what they say in the linked article. It just doesn't sound as forceful as the metaphor. It was just a metaphor, sorry for any confusion.

If you haven't (you, reading this post, whoever you are), read the linked article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/un-says-lag-in-confronting-climate-woes-will-be-costly.html

Electricity produced by coal is a major source of CO2 emissions. If we can't prevent the global temperatures rising more than 3.6 F, the report that the article explains asserts that it will be necessary to launch a difficult and expensive but theoretically possible global project to trap CO2 and store it underground. Otherwise they foresee cataclysmic results. That project will compete with the already difficult task of feeding the human population (they both require using a lot of agricultural land).

 

[theeedude]

That chart is temperature anomalies when compared to the 1961-1990 average, not temperatures.

If for example the 1990-1999 decade was included, the average would be higher, making the anomalies looking smaller for the current years.

Also, why is the 1961-1990 the golden standard of temperatures?

If you on the other hand look at temperature trends based on satellite data you get no warming.

The chart in the Nature article you posted is 1920-2010, and I see warming overall. Not sure what you are talking about.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The chart in the Nature article you posted is 1920-2010, and I see warming overall. Not sure what you are talking about.

Its temperature anomalies from 1920-2010 when compared to the average temperature 1961-1981.

See the Y-axis.

 

[theeedude]

Its temperature anomalies from 1920-2010 when compared to the average temperature 1961-1981.

See the Y-axis.

I see that 0 on Y-axis is set ass average temperature from 1961-1981.
You can set 0 to whatever you want, it won't change the fact that the chart shows a rising temperature from 1920 to 2010.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/un-says-lag-in-confronting-climate-woes-will-be-costly.html

Read this last night on NY Times Blog. The report was leaked first to Reuters last week, then the New York Times, it will be officially released in a couple of months or so.

I was raised to be an optimist, but this is pretty convincing that we are in for it if we don't get much more serious in addressing the carbon emissions issue. If you are skeptical, read this and give a reason not to think that the most serious issue we are apt to face in the coming decades is global warming, by far.

The first paragraph of the article:
- -
Nations have so dragged their feet in battling climate change that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising, according to a draft United Nations report. Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies, experts found.

- - - -

Another quote from within the article:
- -
While emissions appear to have fallen in recent years in some of the wealthiest countries, that is somewhat of an illusion, the report found. The growth of international trade means many of the goods consumed in wealthy countries are now made abroad — so that those countries have, in effect, outsourced their greenhouse gas emissions to countries like China.

We can solve that problem partially by producing products not overseas but locally. That means those product need to be no longer transported. Less transportation is also less green house gas emissions. Good for local economic development and good for the environment with proper guidelines and regulations.

 

[monovillage]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/13/freezing_is_the_new_warming_121202.html

Or try refuting global warming. Temperatures have stopped warming for more than a decade? That’s just a temporary “pause” in the warming that we just know is going to come roaring back any day now. Antarctic ice is growing? That’s actually caused by the melting of ice, don’t you know. A vicious cold snap that sets record low temperatures? That’s just because the North Pole is actually warming. So if the winter is warm, that’s global warming, but if the winter is cold, that’s global warming, too. If sea ice is disappearing, that’s global warming, but if sea ice is increasing, that’s global warming.

Now we can see what they mean when the warmthers say that global warming is supported by an ironclad scientific consensus. The theory is so irrefutable that it’s unfalsifiable!

Which is to say that it has become a cognitive spaghetti bowl full of ad hoc rationalizations, rather than a genuine scientific hypothesis.

It's all about the money.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/13/freezing_is_the_new_warming_121202.html



It's all about the money.

Yep, oil and gas money.

 

[IGBT]

the eco-KOOK hoax is loosing traction thus the alarmist propaganda. Next they will pump their willing accomplices in the old media to recycle media action lines / sound bites. More alarmist rhetoric about polar bears and calving ice from glaciers. It's a hoax. It's liberal mythology based on voodoo junk science / cherry picked rigged computer models and flat out lies. Elections Have Consequences.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting, I think, that folk like the Koch brothers can fund lies that will destroy the human race assuming, of course, that fossil fuels are what will do us in.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I see that 0 on Y-axis is set ass average temperature from 1961-1981.
You can set 0 to whatever you want, it won't change the fact that the chart shows a rising temperature from 1920 to 2010.

If it was a temperature chart, it would show cooling between 1940-1970.

If the 0 was set as the 1979-1999 average, it would show cooling in the 2000s.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yep, oil and gas money.

I don't get how one of the biggest energy industry of the world, t that has more to lose, COAL, always seem immune to conspiracy theory.

If I was betting I would say oil and gas are supporting AGW to get rid of the COAL industry that get hammered with regulation.

Maybe oil can use the cheap coal to make synthetic oil once all the oil reserves disappear.

 

[Geosurface]

One of the elements of my former lefty worldview that remains unchanged is my belief in the threat of global warming.

I'm unaware of any consideration which would negate the inevitable consequences of pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Even if there is something counteracting warming, miraculously, there's still the fact that it is toxifying the air. That alone is cause enough to step up our game on reducing emissions and ditching fossil fuels.

 

[theeedude]

I don't get how one of the biggest energy industry of the world, t that has more to lose, COAL, always seem immune to conspiracy theory.

If I was betting I would say oil and gas are supporting AGW to get rid of the COAL industry that get hammered with regulation.

Maybe oil can use the cheap coal to make synthetic oil once all the oil reserves disappear.

Oil gas and coal money.
Coal is bad even aside from global warming and CO2. It's just a horrible energy source from toxic chemical and particulate matter point of view.

 

[Jaskalas]

One of the elements of my former lefty worldview that remains unchanged is my belief in the threat of global warming.

I'm unaware of any consideration which would negate the inevitable consequences of pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Even if there is something counteracting warming, miraculously, there's still the fact that it is toxifying the air. That alone is cause enough to step up our game on reducing emissions and ditching fossil fuels.

Toxifying the air? Call me back when it reaches 2,000 ppm. See, from where I stand, we've got centuries left to go with CO2. Plenty of time for alternative energy to be fully developed and deployed.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...rs-a-v-for-victory-or-maybe-its-a-peace-sign/

 

[GaiaHunter]

Toxifying the air? Call me back when it reaches 2,000 ppm. See, from where I stand, we've got centuries left to go with CO2. Plenty of time for alternative energy to be fully developed and deployed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy.[84] Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level.[88][89] However, it should be noted that submarines have carbon dioxide scrubbers which reduce a significant amount of the CO2 present.

Carbon dioxide differential above outdoor levels at steady state conditions (when the occupancy and ventilation system operation are sufficiently long that CO2 concentration has stabilized) are sometimes used to estimate ventilation rates per person. CO2 is considered to be a surrogate for human bio-effluents and may correlate with other indoor pollutants. Higher CO2 concentrations are associated with occupant health, comfort and performance degradation. ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2007 ventilation rates may result in indoor levels up to 2,100 ppm above ambient outdoor conditions. Thus if the outdoor ambient is 400 ppm, indoor levels may reach 2,500 ppm with ventilation rates that meet this industry consensus standard. Levels in poorly ventilated spaces can be found even higher than this (range of 3,000 or 4,000).

------------------------------------------------------

More like 70000 ppm.