- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 15
1 edit
For those claiming that RAPID climate change is something we shouldn't worry about and
should just adapt to...
I present this article on the [almost certainly climate change fuelled] drought in California
as a case study in the damage rapid climate change can cause.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/29/california_s_drought_is_now_even_more_horrible.html
Not quite as dramatic as the "Great Dying", but it's happening right now.
EDIT: Also this story highlights why last years temperature record is so worrying.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/20/_2014_wasn_t_the_hottest_year_ever_on_land_that_s_terrifying.html
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThose are sobering links!
For those claiming that RAPID climate change is something we shouldn't worry about and
should just adapt to...
I present this article on the [almost certainly climate change fuelled] drought in California
as a case study in the damage rapid climate change can cause.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/29/california_s_drought_is_now_ ...[text shortened]... /blogs/future_tense/2015/01/20/_2014_wasn_t_the_hottest_year_ever_on_land_that_s_terrifying.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/29/california_s_drought_is_now_even_more_horrible.html
“...California’s epic drought is about to set another seemingly unbreakable record.
With just two days remaining in the month, no rain in the forecast, and a monster ridge of high pressure camped out overhead, San Francisco is now all but assured of its driest January in city history—exactly zero (that’s right, 0.00) inches have fallen so far.
If the dearth of raindrops holds out, it will beat the record set last year, when just 0.01 inches fell at the airport. The long-term average rainfall in San Francisco in January is about 4.5 inches, with records dating continuously back to 1850. In the past, the city has received up to 14.5 inches in January (in 1916).
And it’s not just San Francisco. In most of northern and central California—the hardest hit regions of the state’s drought—rainfall in 2015 has been less than 2 percent of normal.
…
…
California was off-the-charts hot in 2014, shattering the previous statewide heat record by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit. That may not sound like a lot, but until last year, the entire historical range for all years dating back to 1895 was only a bit over 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The distance separating the now second- and third-warmest years (1934 and 1996) is just one-tenth of 1 degree. The temperature so far in 2015 has been much above normal, as well.
…
...”
Climate models predict a greater frequency of severe and record-breaking droughts like this due to increases in CO2 -exactly like what we are actually observing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/20/_2014_wasn_t_the_hottest_year_ever_on_land_that_s_terrifying.html
“...
There was big news on Friday: Earth’s temperature reached new heights last year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. Averaged over the entire planet, that means 2014 was likely the hottest year in the history of human civilization.
But on land, where everyone lives, there wasn’t a new record. Global land temperatures ranked only fourth hottest, next to 2005, 2010, and 2007. Instead, 2014’s extreme heat was almost entirely on the backs of the global oceans, which beat 2003 and 1998 by a relatively wide margin. The fact that the oceans—and not the land—were so warm last year should deeply worry us.
Here’s the basic physics: It’s very hard for Earth’s climate system to store heat year-to-year on land. That’s because the oceans can store energy much more easily than land and circulate it through the entire climate system. The global oceans act as giant heat reservoirs and add inertia to the steadily escalating push from human greenhouse gases.
There’s evidence the Earth’s oceans are undergoing never-before-seen change. The (then) record-warm temperatures linked to the super El Niño of 1997–1998 featured primarily shallow warmth that straddled the equator. By contrast, Earth’s oceans were record-warm in 2014 down to a depth of more than a mile. Record-warm water was found in every ocean basin, particularly the North Pacific, helping boost hurricane and typhoon formation and broil Alaska. In fact, 2014’s ocean heat content was literally off the charts:
Plus, we live on a water planet, after all, and the oceans drive the global climate in a way that the continents can’t. Abnormally warm ocean temperatures are regularly linked to extreme weather events, like nor’easters, rapidly intensifying hurricanes, and the incredibly intense recent rainfalls in places like Pensacola, Florida; Long Island, New York; and Phoenix.
All this means it’s much less likely that this year’s global heat record was a one-off fluke—and that the extra ocean heat is probably here to stay.
Indeed, recent news from the ocean has taken a dire turn:
The rate of sea-level rise is “far worse than previously thought,” according to a new study. In addition to melting glaciers and ice sheets, the rising temperature of the ocean is a big driver of sea-level rise, as warm water has a greater volume than cold water, by weight.
There’s fresh and convincing evidence that ocean life is facing a mass extinction.
Though the extent of the changes humans are imparting on the planet are vast, it’s the rate of change that’s most alarming. A separate study released last week showed that critical tipping points in Earth’s life support system are increasingly being crossed. As a result species are going extinct at a rate 100 times faster than has occurred historically. “It's kind of like you've stepped off the curb. You're not going to get hit by a car immediately, but there is danger," Steve Carpenter, a professor of zoology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told Vice. Humans sometimes tend to forget that we’re just another species on the planet, and our livelihood depends on a planet capable of supporting a rich diversity of life.
When you couple 2014’s record-setting oceans with our ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions, it portends an ominous surge of heat globally—on both land and in the oceans—for years to come.
...”
31 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeOnly if you choose to do it all at once. The reality is that most countries are building new power stations all the time, and choosing to build renewable power stations as opposed to coal or other fossil fuels is not significantly more expensive, and in many cases would actually be cheaper.
Changing our energy infrastructure [among other things] to be
environmentally sustainable and zero carbon will be expensive.
But it comes with a big upfront cost to build the new infrastructure
and tear down the old.
Only if you choose to do it instantaneously. That is not necessary.
It would have been much cheaper if we started a few of decades ago and
simply banned CO2 emitting NEW power generation from being built and
required all the new power generation to be zero carbon because you would
simply be replacing new fossil fuel power generation expenditure with
green power expenditure.
The exact same thing applies right now. Many countries are still building fossil fuel based power stations faster than they are building renewable based power stations.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe do HAVE to do it all at once.
Only if you choose to do it all at once. The reality is that most countries are building new power stations all the time, and choosing to build renewable power stations as opposed to coal or other fossil fuels is not significantly more expensive, and in many cases would actually be cheaper.
[b]But it comes with a big upfront cost to build the new infra ...[text shortened]... g fossil fuel based power stations faster than they are building renewable based power stations.
The leeway we had to do it gradually has gone.
We have to not only switch all new build to green power but decommission
existing fossil fuel generation and replace that as well.
We are building fossil fuel power stations at the moment that are built with
the expectation of 50~60+ years lifetime. Yet if they are allowed to run anywhere
close to that long we will cross the boundaries for catastrophic change. [if they
have not been passed already]. 30~40 years ago that wasn't the case.
Plus, old generation was almost exclusively made in a relatively small number of
high power density power stations.
A lot of new generation [wind/solar] is made by lots and lots of small distributed
generators, many of which have to be located far away from the cities that use
the power, unlike the power stations that got built in and around them.
Also things like needing lots more energy storage capacity to cope with varying
supply and demand.
That means we have to upgrade and alter our infrastructure in ways that simply
building new high density power-stations doesn't require.
Also we have the economic costs of killing off the fossil fuel industry and dismantling
the huge infrastructure that is associated with fossil fuel transport and refining ect.
Just as it's very expensive for a manufacturer to retool their factories to make a new
product, it's expensive to change our infrastructure to deal with new kinds of power
generation. It's totally worth doing... but just from the energy industries perspective
it is expensive, which is one reason they haven't done it already.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyHow can ice core samples determine accurate temperatures? I can see the CO2 levels, but temperatures are harder to determine that far back in time, right?
So you would admit ice core measurements can reliably show a man made warming trend?
-Now we are getting somewhere.
That means your earlier baseless vague assertion that ice core data is "inaccurate" (exactly how 'inaccurate' is "inaccurate"? ... ) was both so vague as to be meaningless and totally irrelevant to the issue.
01 Feb 15
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
How can ice core samples determine accurate temperatures? I can see the CO2 levels, but temperatures are harder to determine that far back in time, right?
How can ice core samples determine accurate temperatures?
“accurate” by exactly how much? -this is why your above question is so vague as to be totally unanswerable and pretty much meaningless. Do you define “accurate” as being reliable within, say, 1C? Or 0.1C? Or 0.01C? or what?
ALL measurements have what is called an “error of measurement” which implies none are infinitely accurate but that doesn't mean they are useless for, for example, those from ice cores (esp when combined with other sources of data ) are accurate enough to determine many past temperature changes.
If you really want to know how accurate it is, look it up for yourself . I want bother wasting my time doing it for you.
I bet, you don't even know the method used to determine temperatures from ice cores until if or when you bother to look it up. Despite my science education, not even I know this but the experts on this DO know how and, hypothetically, if the (indirect ) temperature measurements were so inaccurate as to be totally useless, they would have thrown out the temperature measurements rather than publish them to show past temperature changes. So, given that you don't know the method used, however you define “accurate”, if you are implying they are not “accurate”, how would you KNOW that the method is NOT “accurate”?
What makes you more qualified to judge this than the experts that know vastly more about it than you or I do?
Why should any of us just blindly take your ignorant word for it that they are not “accurate” rather than the words of the qualified experts that have researched it and actually know what they are talking about?
I can see the CO2 levels, but temperatures are harder to determine that far back in time, right?
How hard is “harder” and why would this be relevant? Are you desperately trying to make out that “harder” means either that they didn't bother to do it or it means “impossible” here? If so, temperatures HAVE been determined “that far back in time” so proving it possible to do so and thus how much “harder” it is than measuring CO2 levels is irrelevant.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt would be nice, but its not going to happen.
We do HAVE to do it all at once.
The leeway we had to do it gradually has gone.
Nevertheless, we can do it much faster than we are now, at no extra cost.
Plus, old generation was almost exclusively made in a relatively small number of
high power density power stations.
A lot of new generation [wind/solar] is made by lots and lots of small distributed
generators, many of which have to be located far away from the cities that use
the power, unlike the power stations that got built in and around them.
Whereas rooftop solar is the complete opposite.
Also things like needing lots more energy storage capacity to cope with varying
supply and demand.
Not yet a problem. Not even close. And I actually dispute that it will ever be a problem. We don't have to rely solely on wind and solar.
That means we have to upgrade and alter our infrastructure in ways that simply
building new high density power-stations doesn't require.
The vast majority of new high density power stations do require new transmission infrastructure.
Also we have the economic costs of killing off the fossil fuel industry and dismantling
the huge infrastructure that is associated with fossil fuel transport and refining ect.
Costs? In many cases it will be the complete opposite. We are currently subsidizing much of that infrastructure.
It's totally worth doing... but just from the energy industries perspective
it is expensive, which is one reason they haven't done it already.
They haven't done it, because it will be a different industry, and they obviously don't want that. It won't be a case of old power industries retooling, but rather a case of new power industries arising. That is one of the key reasons for political resistance.
03 Feb 15
5 edits
given some of the posts in this thread, I think this would be an appropriate comment:
Some people just cannot handle science nor the scientific facts. They just forever believe whatever they want to believe and, when confronted with evidence against their pure fantasy world, they just close their eyes and cover their ears and angrily deny and belittle the evidence. Rather than choosing to develop the moral and emotional strength to face brutal realities, they choose to commit the crime of lobotomizing their own intellect by sinking ever deeper into their own pure fantasy world, cowardly hiding from themselves the brutalities of reality. In their pure fantasy world, it is those that point out the evidence against their pure fantasy world that are the ones just believing whatever they want to believe. Thus, whenever the rational minded point out to them the evidence against their pure fantasy world, the delusional angrily accuse them of being the ones that are believing whatever they want to believe, when, in fact, the rational believe the realities they do not want to believe.
Mean while, brutal reality, just as it always has and always will do, continues unabated, both totally unchanged and totally indifferent to all their delusional minds without a single exception.
-And the relevance this has to this thread:
I don't want to believe there is man made global warming (MMGW). I want to believe there is NO MMGW! Why on earth wouldn't I? Unless I was an undertaker, which I am not, I would not benefit from MMGW. Even if I was a climate scientists, if MMGW was one big lie, I would benefit more from exposing the lie! In that hypothetical scenario, I would say:
"My climate model proves there is no MMGW. Now, after I collect my Nobel prize for proving MMGW false, I will go and work for the big rich oil companies researching how to take maximum economic advantage of being able to pollute without consequences. In fact, I will make far more money from this than I would ever have done by propagating the MMGW lie! WOW all those other climate scientists must have been REALLY STUPID not for a single one of them in the whole of climate science history to ever think of this! They just didn't figure this one out!"
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyYou must be really bored or something. Why are you such an irrational alarmist? Global warming is not the end of the world. We can live with it, but you and your fellow alarmists act like the earth will be flooded and people will die. It isn't like that. The scientific facts don't support that extreme position.
given some of the posts in this thread, I think this would be an appropriate comment:
Some people just cannot handle science nor the scientific facts. They just forever believe whatever they want to believe and, when confronted with evidence against their pure fantasy world, they just close their eyes and cover their ears and angrily deny and belittle the ev ...[text shortened]... ally unchanged and totally indifferent to all their delusional minds without a single exception.
Just out of curiosity, what is your preferred solution to slowing the warming? With oil being so cheap right now are you freaking out right now? With gasoline at about 2 buck per gallon you must be pulling your hair out. The carbon is increasing in the atmosphere. Are you going to pour gasoline on yourself in a public place and light yourself on fire if this continues or are you going to find a low carbon fuel to burn yourself with? 😛
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyHey! With 5 edits so far it is hard to follow you. Will you just write something and live with it?
given some of the posts in this thread, I think this would be an appropriate comment:
Some people just cannot handle science nor the scientific facts. They just forever believe whatever they want to believe and, when confronted with evidence against their pure fantasy world, they just close their eyes and cover their ears and angrily deny and belittle the ev ...[text shortened]... e whole of climate science history to ever think of this! They just didn't figure this one out!"
By the way, those climate models are different and they don't agree with each other. That is why science is not black and white as you would like it to be. You can't determine anything certain with the climate models.
03 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have just watched it. It is pretty good. It has just made me learn something new about psychology, specifically, how we irrationally asses treats according to whether intentions are involved, how soon they will be a threat, and the rate of change we notice when they happen.
If you haven't seen it before, I highly recommend this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fle_FkILmEQ
I can also see now how this wouldn't be too much of a problem in the stone age but a big problem in the modern age.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyLOL!!!!
I have just watched it. It is pretty good. It has just made me learn something new about psychology, specifically, how we irrationally asses treats according to whether intentions are involved, how soon they will be a threat, and the rate of change we notice when they happen.
I can also see now how this wouldn't be too much of a problem in the stone age but a big problem in the modern age.
I can't believe you called that propaganda piece "pretty good". The guy said global warming was a threat to all life on earth. That statement alone shows how ignorant he is. He destroyed his own credibility with that one statement alone. Do you and twhitehead ignore ridiculous statements like that when you agree with the overall premise of it? Now you both look foolish for liking such nonsense without being critical of the lies and/or ignorance.
That guy also made a lot of statements about probabilities and reality and made a careless statement about modern jet planes on 911. He correctly stated that terrorism is not statistically a big threat, but went on to make the statement that if a jet was brought down by lightning that few people would remember the date it happened. What are the odds of a modern aircraft being brought down by lightning? Jets are hit by lightning all the time, but if one has ever crashed because of a lightning strike I am unaware of it.
Maybe you should give that guy some science lessons and statistics about lightning and modern aircraft before you endorse an idiot like that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe largest mass extinctions in the entire history of the planet were caused by sudden
LOL!!!!
I can't believe you called that propaganda piece "pretty good". The guy said global warming was a threat to all life on earth. That statement alone shows how ignorant he is. He destroyed his own credibility with that one statement alone. Do you and twhitehead ignore ridiculous statements like that when you agree with the overall premise of it? N ...[text shortened]... essons and statistics about lightning and modern aircraft before you endorse an idiot like that.
massive climate change.
It's called The Great Dying.
Climate change is also what turned Venus from something resembling Earth, into an acid
hell with pressure like the bottom of the ocean, and temperatures hot enough to melt lead.
97% of all EXPERTS in the field agree that global warming is real, man made, and dangerous.
Economic analysis after economic analysis states categorically that it will cost vastly more
to 'adapt' to climate change than to prevent it.
We are already seeing rapidly escalating species extinctions.
And more than 2 MILLION people die every year world wide due to air pollution from burning
fossil fuels. And that's not even counting deaths from climate change itself.
You are an ignorant conspiracy nut with no understanding of the subject.
So your opinion has no value on this topic whatsoever.
And opinion is all you have, because you have no evidence whatsoever.