PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

[skierinvermont]

On this board it seemed to me that the older the commenter, the more likely he was to recognize AGW. I thought this a little strange as it's usually the younger generation that grasps new scientific truths more readily than their elders.

I had not considered that they may simply never have experienced the climatic stability evidenced in my youth. I think I'll try to be a little more sympathetic to their plight, It's probably much more difficult to recognize that something has gone terribly wrong if you have lived your whole life in a very abnormal environment.

I don't think that is the case at all.. quite I, loko, albers, mallow, friv and others are young and recognize AGW with varying degrees of understanding. Moreover, I do not think climate change even over a fairly elderly person's life has been large enough to significantly impact one's understanding of the issue. It is impossible for a person to detect the warming or any change in the frequency/severity of weather events without the use of large, precise, and/or global data sets which are equally accessible to people of all ages.

[skierinvermont]

Vergent and TerryM:

The scientific consensus is that there is not compelling evidence of an increase in the frequency of hurricanes OR tornadoes. Increases in most data sets have been attributed to improved observation by the leading experts in the field. If you read the peer reviewed literature instead of posting graphs that you find on the internet you will find this to be the case.

[OSUmetstud]

vergent, steve mentioned that there has been more El Ninos...El Ninos have a decent correlation with decreased hurricane and tropical storm activity in the North Atlantic basin since it induces more shear...especially across the Caribbean. Also, the background AMO state has been positive since 1995 which leads to an increase in hurricane and tropical storm activity. Hurricanes and major hurricanes should be the best indicator since weaker tropical storms and subtropical storms are more difficulut to detect and each Director of the NHC has different standards as to how long something must exist to be named and how tropical the entity needs to be in order to be named. Subtropical storms have been counted in the seasonal count off and on since the 1960s I believe.

[OSUmetstud]

Vergent and TerryM:

The scientific consensus is that there is not compelling evidence of an increase in the frequency of hurricanes OR tornadoes. Increases in most data sets have been attributed to improved observation by the leading experts in the field. If you read the peer reviewed literature instead of posting graphs that you find on the internet you will find this to be the case.

Yeah from what I understand the general consensus is that we would see decreased activity overall in the Atlantic basin in a warmed world since global warming would lead to a persistent El Nino-like state which increases shear across the North Atlantic. I also think the consensus is that there could be a percentage wise increase in the strongest storms.

[ORH_wxman]

Here is a good piece written by Chris Landsea on hurricanes and global warming....he cites just about all relevant papers on this topic in his piece here

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

[OSUmetstud]

Here is a good piece written by Chris Landsea on hurricanes and global warming....he cites just about all relevant papers on this topic in his piece here

http://www.aoml.noaa.../gw_hurricanes/

that graph showing the increase in the number of short-fused storms is really telling, i think.

[PhillipS]

This is true.. sea level rise this century will probably be .5 to 2 meters. Most of that will be in the latter third of the century and it will continue to accelerate thereafter. Sea level rise over the next 300 years will likely exceed 10 meters.

Skier - you make a very good point - that sea level rise will not stop in 2100. Ice will continue until either thermal equilibrium is reached or until there is no more ice to melt. That is basic physics and thermodynamics. And there is plenty of ice in Greenland and Antarctica to raise sea levels by 10 meters.

But skeptics and pseudo-skeptics like to skip over that inconvenient fact. It is much easier to claim that we can adapt to a 1 meter sea level rise (as if that were worst-case) than to admit that the costs of a 10 meter sea leve rise will be staggering to every country with a coastline.

Just to illustrate the problem look at airports, a vital piece of every metropolitan area. Many of the busiest airports in the US are built on reclaimed land and therefore are vulnerable to changes in sea level. Here are a few I turned up with a quick google search:

Boston - elevation 20 feet

JFK - elevation 13 feet

Newark - elevation 18 feet

Reagan National - elevation 15 feet

Miami - elevation 11 feet

San Francisco SFO - elevation 13 feet

And internationally, Tokyo HND 35 feet, Amsterdam Schiphol -11 feet, and Hong Kong 19 feet.

How are these airports going to kept open? Build a 33 foot tall cofferdam around their perimeters? Raise the level of the runways, taxiways, terminals and hangers by 33 feet? Or will it be cheaper to abandon the current sites and relocate the entire airports? I'm sure that the approaches chosen will vary - but whatever approach is chosen will it entail a massive public works project to implement.

This sort of airport infrastructure project is unprecedented so there is little data to use, but the Boston Big Dig project may be a useful example. Big Dig was started in 1982 and formally finished in 2007, though work is still on-going. The original cost was estimated at $6B (adjusted for inflation) and the actual cost is expected to reach $22B. Twenty five years and an almost 400% increase in budget.

Decades of time and many billions of dollars just for airports. Add to that comparable projects for highways and mass transit, water and waste treatment, energy generation and distribution, and on and on - and you start to grasp the magnitude of the disaster we are creating for our children.

[Jonger]

Skier - you make a very good point - that sea level rise will not stop in 2100. Ice will continue until either thermal equilibrium is reached or until there is no more ice to melt. That is basic physics and thermodynamics. And there is plenty of ice in Greenland and Antarctica to raise sea levels by 10 meters.

But skeptics and pseudo-skeptics like to skip over that inconvenient fact. It is much easier to claim that we can adapt to a 1 meter sea level rise (as if that were worst-case) than to admit that the costs of a 10 meter sea leve rise will be staggering to every country with a coastline.

Just to illustrate the problem look at airports, a vital piece of every metropolitan area. Many of the busiest airports in the US are built on reclaimed land and therefore are vulnerable to changes in sea level. Here are a few I turned up with a quick google search:

Boston - elevation 20 feet

JFK - elevation 13 feet

Newark - elevation 18 feet

Reagan National - elevation 15 feet

Miami - elevation 11 feet

San Francisco SFO - elevation 13 feet

And internationally, Tokyo HND 35 feet, Amsterdam Schiphol -11 feet, and Hong Kong 19 feet.

How are these airports going to kept open? Build a 33 foot tall cofferdam around their perimeters? Raise the level of the runways, taxiways, terminals and hangers by 33 feet? Or will it be cheaper to abandon the current sites and relocate the entire airports? I'm sure that the approaches chosen will vary - but whatever approach is chosen will it entail a massive public works project to implement.

This sort of airport infrastructure project is unprecedented so there is little data to use, but the Boston Big Dig project may be a useful example. Big Dig was started in 1982 and formally finished in 2007, though work is still on-going. The original cost was estimated at $6B (adjusted for inflation) and the actual cost is expected to reach $22B. Twenty five years and an almost 400% increase in budget.

Decades of time and many billions of dollars just for airports. Add to that comparable projects for highways and mass transit, water and waste treatment, energy generation and distribution, and on and on - and you start to grasp the magnitude of the disaster we are creating for our children.

What are you posting this for? Do you have solutions?

[FPizz]

What are you posting this for? Do you have solutions?

I guess all those airports listed would have to do exactly what Amsterdam on that list is already doing since their entire airport is below sea level.

[skierinvermont]

I guess all those airports listed would have to do exactly what Amsterdam on that list is already doing since their entire airport is below sea level.

What a ridiculous oversimplification. Most of the worlds population and infrastructure will likely either have to be protected by large levy projects or relocated at unfathomable expense. The cost of building levies in the Netherlands is not at all comparable to building a levy around Manhattan and most other major cities in the U.S.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah from what I understand the general consensus is that we would see decreased activity overall in the Atlantic basin in a warmed world since global warming would lead to a persistent El Nino-like state which increases shear across the North Atlantic. I also think the consensus is that there could be a percentage wise increase in the strongest storms.

Yes... an increase in the frequency of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic is not only lacking proper observation evidence it actually runs contrary to the predictions of climate models.

An slight increase in tornado frequency on the other hand is considered a low confidence predicted consequence of AGW, but it is not generally believed that there is compelling evidence of such an increase at this time.

[LithiaWx]

I guess all those airports listed would have to do exactly what Amsterdam on that list is already doing since their entire airport is below sea level.

What a ridiculous oversimplification. Most of the worlds population and infrastructure will likely either have to be protected by large levy projects or relocated at unfathomable expense. The cost of building levies in the Netherlands is not at all comparable to building a levy around Manhattan and most other major cities in the U.S.

I have to agree Skier. That is not a good way to explain what the consequences would be. I agree that if Greenland and Antarctica melted away we would have major problems to deal with. I don't know when or if it will happen but to say just do what the Netherlands did is pretty dumb. I would think levys (don't know the plural for that)would not be a good choice, relocating everything that is susceptible to that amount of water rise is probably the best bet and the cost would be staggering.

[ORH_wxman]

that graph showing the increase in the number of short-fused storms is really telling, i think.

Yeah its essentially the reason why graphs like Vergent posted are bogus. When you account for all the marginal short-fuse storms that would have been unnoticed or unnamed years ago, it essentially corrects the trend to nothing over the long term.

[Jonger]

What a ridiculous oversimplification. Most of the worlds population and infrastructure will likely either have to be protected by large levy projects or relocated at unfathomable expense. The cost of building levies in the Netherlands is not at all comparable to building a levy around Manhattan and most other major cities in the U.S.

The world sucked before the industrial age. If thats the price we pay, so be it.

[skierinvermont]

The world sucked before the industrial age. If thats the price we pay, so be it.

Well that was a detailed cost benefit analysis.

Instead of doing a cost benefit analysis of ALL of the likely consequences of AGW vs. mitigating AGW you've come up with your own personal assessment (not founded in any knowledge or research) of the cost of one consequence of AGW and compared this to eliminating all industrialization and technological progress since the mid 19th century.

[TerryM]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not claiming that there is an overall increase in tornadoes. I'm claiming that tornadoes are increasing to the north of their traditional path.

I'm not claiming to be able to feel a change in the weather do to climate change. I'm claiming that the river here which used to freeze every year, no longer does, that snow free Xmas's. New years and Groundhog days did not occur as recently as 50 years ago and that many are in fact capable of remembering this accurately.

If I was still living primarily in Southern California or in Las Vegas you would be absolutely correct in stating that I could not detect any change. Here in Galt I certainly can, and I've spoken to many further north who are suddenly seeing birds that did not exist in their part of the world 20 years ago, and who miss the migratory geese that they traditionally feasted upon.

If you are living in an area that is not experiencing major upheavals yet - wait.

[PhillipS]

What are you posting this for? Do you have solutions?

I posted my, well, rant in response to the chuckleheads who post on this, and other, forums their unthinking nonsense that we have nothing to be alarmed about because the IPCC only predictied about 1 meter sea level rise by 2100, or we have nothing to worry about because 'Technology' will solve everything. Arrrgh! The Stupid is strong in those people!

I chose airports as my example because everyone is familiar with them - how big they are, how important they are to transportation and commerce, and so on. Hopefully, readers understood that raising a number of airports by 10 meters to keep them about rising water is a huge undertaking. But it's an undertaking that we are committing our descendants to having to implement and pay for thanks to our continuing BAU. And the rebuilding the airports is only one facet - and not even an major one - to all of the expensive consequences that will result from the path we are on.

And, yes, I have a solution - one which is not original to me by any means - we, and by 'we' I mean the US and every other country we can influence, need to take aggressive steps to curb GHG emissions. Just as we did for the Manhattan Project in WWII, we need to take a sober, non-partisan assessment of what will it take to achieve our goal - and then implement those plans without waffling. We need leaders, at home and abroad, instead of politicians pandering to megacorporations whose interest is this quarter's profits and not our next generation's needs.

/end rant

[bluewave]

I posted my, well, rant in response to the chuckleheads who post on this, and other, forums their unthinking nonsense that we have nothing to be alarmed about because the IPCC only predictied about 1 meter sea level rise by 2100, or we have nothing to worry about because 'Technology' will solve everything. Arrrgh! The Stupid is strong in those people!

I chose airports as my example because everyone is familiar with them - how big they are, how important they are to transportation and commerce, and so on. Hopefully, readers understood that raising a number of airports by 10 meters to keep them about rising water is a huge undertaking. But it's an undertaking that we are committing our descendants to having to implement and pay for thanks to our continuing BAU. And the rebuilding the airports is only one facet - and not even an major one - to all of the expensive consequences that will result from the path we are on.

And, yes, I have a solution - one which is not original to me by any means - we, and by 'we' I mean the US and every other country we can influence, need to take aggressive steps to curb GHG emissions. Just as we did for the Manhattan Project in WWII, we need to take a sober, non-partisan assessment of what will it take to achieve our goal - and then implement those plans without waffling. We need leaders, at home and abroad, instead of politicians pandering to megacorporations whose interest is this quarter's profits and not our next generation's needs.

/end rant

I think that you are well meaning, but have no clue how things really work in this world.

You should do yourself a favor and stop worrying about things that you have nor control over.

http://dotearth.blog...-and-treatment/

[PhillipS]

I have to agree Skier. That is not a good way to explain what the consequences would be. I agree that if Greenland and Antarctica melted away we would have major problems to deal with. I don't know when or if it will happen but to say just do what the Netherlands did is pretty dumb. I would think levys (don't know the plural for that)would not be a good choice, relocating everything that is susceptible to that amount of water rise is probably the best bet and the cost would be staggering.

My point, which I should have expressed better, is that Greenland and Antarctica ARE melting already - and their melting will accelerate as global temperatures continue to increase. It's happening. And nobody that I'm aware of has suggested even a hypothetical process that could stop the melting before global temperatures stabilize.

Geoengineering - that's a joke. Much like CO2 sequestration from coal-fired plants was a joke. (We haven't heard much about that lately, have we?)

The legacy we will be leaving our kids and grandkids will be a world much worse off than how we got it from our parents.

[turtlehurricane]

My point, which I should have expressed better, is that Greenland and Antarctica ARE melting already - and their melting will accelerate as global temperatures continue to increase. It's happening. And nobody that I'm aware of has suggested even a hypothetical process that could stop the melting before global temperatures stabilize.

Geoengineering - that's a joke. Much like CO2 sequestration from coal-fired plants was a joke. (We haven't heard much about that lately, have we?)

The legacy we will be leaving our kids and grandkids will be a world much worse off than how we got it from our parents.

The ice sheets won't completely melt off for a long time, humans will probably be wiped out beforehand. We're talking thousands but probably tens of thousands of years of warming to wipe Antarctica out.

[PhillipS]

I think that you are well meaning, but have no clue how things really work in this world.

You should do yourself a favor and stop worrying about things that you have nor control over.

http://dotearth.blog...-and-treatment/

Well, you may be right, but having spent over thirty years developing and fielding new technologies I feel that I have a basic grasp of the technological, regulatory, and budgetary hurdles we face in dealing with AGW. I enjoy reading Revkin, but I often disagree with his positions.

And I appreciate your suggestion to stop worrying about things I have no control over. That's good advice for anyone.

[PhillipS]

The ice sheets won't completely melt off for a long time, humans will probably be wiped out beforehand. We're talking thousands but probably tens of thousands of years of warming to wipe Antarctica out.

You're right that it would take a long time to melt all of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland - but I'm not talking about the 80 meter sea level rise that would cause - I'm only talking about a 10 meter sea level rise. Call it 12% of the potential. That amount of melting will happen a lot quicker under BAU. We know from the paleo record that during times of rapid melting the sea level has risen as fast as a meter per decade.

I think we can all agree that a period of sea level rising at that pace would be very, very bad.

[Vergent]

My point, which I should have expressed better, is that Greenland and Antarctica ARE melting already - and their melting will accelerate as global temperatures continue to increase. It's happening. And nobody that I'm aware of has suggested even a hypothetical process that could stop the melting before global temperatures stabilize.

Geoengineering - that's a joke. Much like CO2 sequestration from coal-fired plants was a joke. (We haven't heard much about that lately, have we?)

The legacy we will be leaving our kids and grandkids will be a world much worse off than how we got it from our parents.

Actually, a geoengineering solution for the short term is quite practical for the arctic. One third of the energy melting the arctic ice comes from the pacific through the Baring Strait.

http://psc.apl.washi...BS2007Heat.html

So it is possible to reduce the summer melt by 1/3. This would put the arctic in a net freeze for a yearly cycle. Up to about 8,000 years ago, the arctic was cut off from the Pacific. It is only in the warm inter-glacial periods that they are connected.

[turtlehurricane]

You're right that it would take a long time to melt all of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland - but I'm not talking about the 80 meter sea level rise that would cause - I'm only talking about a 10 meter sea level rise. Call it 12% of the potential. That amount of melting will happen a lot quicker under BAU. We know from the paleo record that during times of rapid melting the sea level has risen as fast as a meter per decade.

I think we can all agree that a period of sea level rising at that pace would be very, very bad.

It would be bad, but even that rate is manageable. It's not like people are going to be drowning. We'll have to move the cities back a bit.

[turtlehurricane]

Actually, a geoengineering solution for the short term is quite practical for the arctic. One third of the energy melting the arctic ice comes from the pacific through the Baring Strait.

http://psc.apl.washi...BS2007Heat.html

So it is possible to reduce the summer melt by 1/3. This would put the arctic in a net freeze for a yearly cycle. Up to about 8,000 years ago, the arctic was cut off from the Pacific. It is only in the warm inter-glacial periods that they are connected.

That sort of thing could trigger an ice age, and would have catastrophic environmental consequences since it cuts ecosystems in half.

[Jonger]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not claiming that there is an overall increase in tornadoes. I'm claiming that tornadoes are increasing to the north of their traditional path.

I'm not claiming to be able to feel a change in the weather do to climate change. I'm claiming that the river here which used to freeze every year, no longer does, that snow free Xmas's. New years and Groundhog days did not occur as recently as 50 years ago and that many are in fact capable of remembering this accurately.

If I was still living primarily in Southern California or in Las Vegas you would be absolutely correct in stating that I could not detect any change. Here in Galt I certainly can, and I've spoken to many further north who are suddenly seeing birds that did not exist in their part of the world 20 years ago, and who miss the migratory geese that they traditionally feasted upon.

If you are living in an area that is not experiencing major upheavals yet - wait.

Until about 40 years ago most tornados probably went unreported and were never even known about. What time frame are you using as a reference?

[Jonger]

I think the bigger issue is mitigating the use of coal. It seems like progress on cars is well underway. Right now nucleur is our best bet... Followed by hydropower.

[bluewave]

Well, you may be right, but having spent over thirty years developing and fielding new technologies I feel that I have a basic grasp of the technological, regulatory, and budgetary hurdles we face in dealing with AGW. I enjoy reading Revkin, but I often disagree with his positions.

And I appreciate your suggestion to stop worrying about things I have no control over. That's good advice for anyone.

I can see from your posts that you care deeply about this issue. Unfortunately the economic system in this world

is too shortsighted to see past next quarters profits. I also wish that the people in power today actually cared

more about what type of world that they are leaving the next generation than making a quick buck.

[skierinvermont]

It would be bad, but even that rate is manageable. It's not like people are going to be drowning. We'll have to move the cities back a bit.

"move the cities back a bit" = teenager whose primary understanding of reality was developed by TV, video games and computer games

[TerryM]

Until about 40 years ago most tornados probably went unreported and were never even known about. What time frame are you using as a reference?

I "cherrypicked" data from areas that I knew to have been settled for all of this century, then noted the number of reported twisters.

I don't claim it to be scientifically stringent methodology - but do claim that most people are aware of the fact when a twister alights nearby. Also that detection equipment did not make huge improvements here between 2000 / 2010 as opposed to 2011 / 2012.

In the 50s in Southern Ontario we were certainly aware of what tornadoes were, and we were certainly aware that they were a danger in "Tornado Alley", far to the south. We also knew that every now and then, under unusual circumstances one could occur this far north - but I never knew anyone who claimed to have actually seen one.

Today that is no longer true. I suppose if I wanted to explore it further I'd check to see when farmers and others started purchasing tornado riders on insurance policies. I've heard that western Canadian farmers all now carry flood insurance on their crops - wonder when that started and how the rates have progressed through the years.

This stuff costs money and lives - and it does leave a trail.