Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm certain someone could. Would it actually tell you anything useful? I imagine that if they'd stated that instead of the temperature goal, you'd be up and down them for posting some inscrutable and meaningless target.

Assuming you followed the discussion when this was explained, there seem to be significant variances btwn. CO2 levels and warming. There's a degree of "lag time" as I recall, but much of it hasn't been reconciled by the science (if I remember correctly).

You're sounding awfully whiny for someone who purports to disdain all the politics, and is all preachy about sticking to the science. I dunno, could almost make folks think you're only receptive to the science & politics that you favor or sumthin' . . . .

[Exile]

For some of us at least, this may be a more accurate analogy:

Originally Posted by GordMay

How many “warmists” does it take to change a light bulb that remains lit?
None. They can’t change anything that might be unnecessary, and therefore needlessly expensive and punitive .

How many “deniers” does it take to change a light bulb that remains lit?
None. They won’t change anything when it would be wasteful without settled evidence that the bulb is about to burn out.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

How about we use a potentially more instructive geological record as a precedent, namely the Medieval Warming Period? If temps were significantly higher back then than they are now, but the (pre-industrial) CO2 levels were presumably lower, then what does that say about the relationship btwn. CO2 and warming?

I know, too easy. I'm probably missing something . . . basic . . . .

CO2 levels are not the only factor in climate change.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ng-discovered/

We cannot control natural cycles, but we can control the human impact on the environment whether it is industrial aerosols which promote cooling or fossil fuel CO2 which promotes warming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Assuming you followed the discussion when this was explained, there seem to be significant variances btwn. CO2 levels and warming. There's a degree of "lag time" as I recall, but much of it hasn't been reconciled by the science (if I remember correctly).

Here is a lag time in my car brakes as well. I am not going to wait for the collision to occur before I brake.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Third Day and "healthy debate" are not things I generally associate with each other.

You may want to start. I suspect there are many more converts to his position after following this thread. Other than those myopically committed to your choir that is.

[SailOar]

Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth (book review) | Adirondack Explorer

Most books on climate begin with the last couple of centuries—the Industrial Revolution and the onset of massive emissions of carbon dioxide—and then move to what remains of the twenty-first century. In Deep Future, Curt Stager looks at millennia, thousands of millennia, back toward the very origins of life and forward for over a hundred thousand years...

It’s a troubling book. First, because it lays out in convincing, dramatic detail the profound ways that human activity is changing and will continue to change, far into the distant future, our planet’s climate. Stager adopts a term becoming widespread among scientists to label the era we are now in and will be in for many millennia, the Anthropocene, to emphasize the unprecedented human impact on the global environment. In addition to altering the climate, human activities have precipitated a devastating loss of biodiversity and the introduction of incalculable quantities of poisons into our air, water, and soils...

Deploying his encyclopedic grasp of the vast reaches of terrestrial history, Stager runs through a depressing litany of what our distant descendants can expect—not necessarily in the next generation or two, but eventually. One inevitable consequence of warming will be acidified oceans. CO2 absorbed by the ocean becomes carbonic acid, which in turn corrodes the shells of living sea creatures, including crabs, oysters, and lobsters; coldwater corals will also suffer. This process has already begun and will continue for centuries. The only question is how awful it will get: bad if we exercise restraint and start weaning ourselves from coal and oil, apocalyptic if we don’t. “Ocean acidification represents one of the most compelling reasons to control our emissions, not only for ourselves but for the sake of countless other species that share this water-dominated planet with us.” Mass extinctions anywhere in the complex marine food chain would have catastrophic consequences...

Another reason that Stager does not despair about the reality of a warming planet involves the cycles of ice ages. We’re currently in an interglacial period, which allows our human culture to thrive. Sooner or later, under normal circumstances, it would end and ice sheets would completely cover much of northern Europe and North America. The last ice age covered the north for about a hundred thousand years and ended only twelve thousand or so years ago. But because of the CO2 already introduced into the atmosphere by our relentless use of fossil fuels, “we have prevented the next ice age,” which otherwise would have arrived about fifty thousand years from now.

So, he asks, shouldn’t we consider the favor we’re doing our distant descendants? Suffering in the short run may mean rescuing the world from an ice age. “At first, this … might seem outlandish, a silly kind of joke.… It also feels like tossing red meat to the habitual contrarians who seek any excuse to avoid controlling fossil fuel consumption. But the facts are plain, and I believe they’re worth considering carefully.” Indeed, one reason for cutting back on our use of fossil fuels, he argues, is to leave some coal for future generations to burn if they want to prevent a far-off ice age...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 levels are not the only factor in climate change.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ng-discovered/

OK. But it seems like this has as much scientific certainty as ocean subduction.

"According to Trouet, a Pacific La Niña mode and a positive NAO mode could have reinforced each other in a positive feedback loop – and this could explain the stability of the medieval climate anomaly.

Trouet thinks external forces like abrupt changes in solar output or volcanism must have started and stopped the cycle, and hopes to pinpoint the most likely candidates in a workshop with other climatologists in May.

Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University says that based on the analyses and modelling that he has done, increased solar output and a reduction in volcanoes spouting cooling ash into the atmosphere could have not only kicked off the medieval warming, but might also have maintained it directly."

We cannot control natural cycles, but we can control the human impact on the environment whether it is industrial aerosols which promote cooling or fossil fuel CO2 which promotes warming.

How'd that subsequent workshop go for further pinpointing? The article sounds like they are trying to confine 350 years of warming to a specific region, and attributing it to natural forces. With all the uncertainty expressed about these two hypotheses, I'm not sure their conclusion -- or yours -- supports the view that natural forces don't also dominate the purported warming (or cooling) that is happening now.

Your own comment also sounds like you're saying that any sort of human impact is presumptively bad, whether it has a significant impact vis-a-vis natural forces or not. Is this because you believe industrialization is bad per se, or because you speculate that such human influences will eventually be harmful? Your answer could explain a lot about your motivations.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here is a lag time in my car brakes as well. I am not going to wait for the collision to occur before I brake.

Nobody would, so I have no idea why your analogy would apply. You are speculating about a coming collision on planet earth that even your fabled 99% "consensus" doesn't agree is likely.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Assuming you followed the discussion when this was explained, there seem to be significant variances btwn. CO2 levels and warming. There's a degree of "lag time" as I recall, but much of it hasn't been reconciled by the science (if I remember correctly).

You're sounding awfully whiny for someone who purports to disdain all the politics, and is all preachy about sticking to the science. I dunno, could almost make folks think you're only receptive to the science & politics that you favor or sumthin' . . . .

You may want to start. I suspect there are many more converts to [3rd Day's] position after following this thread. Other than those myopically committed to your choir that is.

Thank you for keeping the discussion to the science and for not indulging in ad-hominems or chest-thumping.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

For some of us at least, this may be a more accurate analogy:

Speaking of choirs...

I see not everyone can take a joke.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

How'd that subsequent workshop go for further pinpointing? The article sounds like they are trying to confine 350 years of warming to a specific region, and attributing it to natural forces. With all the uncertainty expressed about these two hypotheses, I'm not sure their conclusion -- or yours -- supports the view that natural forces don't also dominate the purported warming (or cooling) that is happening now.

Science is very conservative; that is why a level of uncertainty is expressed. IPCC actually has guidelines for expressing uncertainty.

The precautionary principle is an appropriate guide.

Canada’s environmental policy is guided by the precautionary principle and is reflected in the FSDS as required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act which states that the Minister of Environment must “develop a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy based on the precautionary principle”. The precautionary principle states that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. In other words, the absence of complete scientific evidence to take precautions does not mean that precautions should not be taken – especially when there is a possibility of irreversible damage.

You employ a similar principle when you use a seat belt, wear a pfd, buy insurance, etc

Natural forces would have us cooling right now. I have already several studies that show that human activities have over-ridden those natural forces.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The MWP was a Northern hemisphere phenomenon.

While it may have benefited Europe it has devastating effects throughout other parts of the hemisphere. I suggest you read Brain Fagan's, The Great Warming. (He is also written some good stuff on sailing.)

Check out this review from NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/bo...book.html?_r=0

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Science is very conservative; that is why a level of uncertainty is expressed. IPCC actually has guidelines for expressing uncertainty.

The precautionary principle is an appropriate guide.

Quote:
Canada’s environmental policy is guided by the precautionary principle and is reflected in the FSDS as required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act which states that the Minister of Environment must “develop a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy based on the precautionary principle”. The precautionary principle states that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. In other words, the absence of complete scientific evidence to take precautions does not mean that precautions should not be taken – especially when there is a possibility of irreversible damage.

Like avoiding a car collision by using your brakes, it's easy for everyone to agree with your oft-cited "precautionary principle" in the abstract. But do we apply it when there are in fact threats, or merely a possibility of such threats as underlined above? This propaganda thing is rather subtle, perhaps more so when coming from govt. entities.

You employ a similar principle when you use a seat belt, wear a pfd, buy insurance, etc

But only because, consciously or not, you do a cost-benefit analysis first. In your examples, the cost of doing so is minimal compared to the potential harm, and the chances of that harm occurring are substantial. Here, by contrast, reasonable (scientific & lay) minds differ on the amount of harm, risk of it occurring, and potential costs to mitigate.

Natural forces would have us cooling right now. I have already several studies that show that human activities have over-ridden those natural forces.

And others have soundly refuted this, or did you already forget? Doesn't necessarily mean anything has been settled, and your having the time & ability to post studies doesn't make those studies gospel.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The MWP was a Northern hemisphere phenomenon.

While it may have benefited Europe it has devastating effects throughout other parts of the hemisphere. I suggest you read Brain Fagan's, The Great Warming. (He is also written some good stuff on sailing.)

Check out this review from NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/bo...book.html?_r=0

The mere fact that a confluence of undisputedly natural forces had "devastating effects throughout other parts of the hemisphere" during the MWP tends to undercut your studies that conclude that human influences are overriding such natural forces now.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The mere fact that a confluence of undisputedly natural forces had "devastating effects throughout other parts of the hemisphere" during the MWP tends to undercut your studies that conclude that human influences are overriding such natural forces now.

Why? That assertion need some sort of justification.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
The mere fact that a confluence of undisputedly natural forces had "devastating effects throughout other parts of the hemisphere" during the MWP tends to undercut your studies that conclude that human influences are overriding such natural forces now.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why? That assertion need some sort of justification.

1. Your premise (i.e. studies you cite) is that, absent human influences, we would be in a cooling period right now. Because we are not, the reasoning goes, then any warming must be attributable to human causes. Fair thus far?

2. There are also studies -- many cited/posted recently in this thread -- that claim we are in fact in a long-term cooling period. This obviously depends on your starting point for identifying your trend as Reef & Stu have ably pointed out.

3. There are further studies -- also posted here at various times -- that agree we are in a warming trend, even agree that humans/fossil fuel/CO2 emissions have had some influence on that warming, but disagree that such human influences have over-ridden natural forces.

4. There have also been posted studies/evidence showing science-based disagreements over whether the start of the current purported warming trend lines up with the beginning of the industrial age, i.e. the surge in the burning of coal, and later oil and gas, and its resulting CO2 emissions.

5. There is further scientific dispute as to whether there is a correlation between an increase of atmospheric CO2 and warming. If you feel you should address this "minor" issue, then you may want to respond to Stu's recent question about this.

6. So back to your specific question, it only follows that looking at credible evidence from a pre-industrial period - spanning several centuries - that also experienced warming - could be instructive, no? In the absence of high levels of post-industrial CO2 emissions, your MWP study tells us not only about 350 years of regional warming, but also about "devastating effects" of natural forces in other parts of the hemisphere. Can science really tell us what the climate was doing 1,000 years ago in every corner of the globe?

Based on the current state of the science as outlined above, do you really believe it is now "settled" and the "case is closed" that MMGW is unquestionably overriding such powerful natural forces throughout the entire world? Whether you can post articles or studies supporting or refuting one facet of these issues may be relevant but is hardly dispositive. But like Pres. Obama, you seem to think they (and you) are the final word.

[jackdale]

Exile

I covered all of this before. You rejected it.

Time for a second order agreement and time to move on.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

I have a solar power system mounted on a trailer.
It would take 50 years for the appx 20 year life panels to return the energy it took to make the panels.
That does not include the energy used to produce the batteries. (which have already been replaced due to age)

Shhh....
The Green is the new Red folks won't like to hear that news....
Prepare to be attacked for when you challenge their religion, you must be silenced.