Climate Change Banter

[AvantHiatus]

And you smile like that's what you want...At least now we know your slant

The Earth is going back to the native state. Icehouse Earth has only been around for 20% of the paleo record, and a good chunk of that is pre-Permian when the sun was weaker.

[Jonger]

True story. I don't think the core of the AMOC slowdown has occured yet which is scary. The Eemian did not have 480 co2 equivalent tho, something to keep in mind. We should expect only regional effects from this.

 

This is a nasty brew for sure with some unknown consequences, most likely not very not distant from James Hansen's vision of continent-wide superstorms.

 

A large portion of the AMOC warmth may be simply due to OHC increase.

 

The Eemian period was an interglacial period driven by Milankovitch cycles. The era we are in now, is the first carbon driven era in perhaps a few hundred million years.

 

Your reference to the era and its co2 level is laughable.

[AvantHiatus]

The Eemian period was an interglacial period driven by Milankovitch cycles. The era we are in now, is the first carbon driven era in perhaps a few hundred million years.

 

Your reference to the era and its co2 level is laughable.

Welcome to trollville. Temperatures follow ocean trends, never forget and you will go far. Don't underestimate the situation we are entering.

 

Most rapid increase of CO2 ever? Unprecedented.

[AvantHiatus]

True but I don't know of a better way to generate urgent awareness (which is what is required due to climate system inertia). AGW is a perfect risk because it's a human lifetime-scale event but not as close in as 10-20 years which is when people stop caring.

 

How do we propose solutions without explaining implications? Do we make up new reasons for going green? I can claim that my ideas on this subject are usually well-thought out and I don't expect to be wrong. It's just that most on this forum have a false perception of how bad things already are. 

 

I can't adapt to what you believe in. I am just stating soon-to-be well known facts. For example, Hurricane Sandy should of been an all hands on deck moment for this generation of people. There will be more storm surges that people just can't brush away and forget about.

 

Largest red tide on record.

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/hot-pacific-ocean-runs-bloody-blob-now-features-record-red-tide/

[nflwxman]

There are some extremely alarming things well within the threshold of scientific possibility with climate change.  While abrupt methane feedback or sudden sea level rise is not likely in the next 100 years, there is some evidence to suggest there is a modest possibility either could actually occur.  Even if that possibility is 2%, should climate scientists just sweep it under the rug?  I just don't understand that logic.  Why bury earth changing consequences of climate change because they are unlikely or cause "scary" PR?  Look at the WAIS.  No more than 10 years ago scientists that suggested inevitable collapse were heavily mocked and now that thought is becoming mainstream in literature.

 

Some on this board treat many of these scientifically feasible CAGW events as alarmist propaganda while other treat them like an absolute certainty.  Both are wrong, IMO.

[AvantHiatus]

There are some extremely alarming things well within the threshold of scientific possibility with climate change.  While abrupt methane feedback or sudden sea level rise is not likely in the next 100 years, there is some evidence to suggest there is a modest possibility either could actually occur.  Even if that possibility is 2%, should climate scientists just sweep it under the rug?  I just don't understand that logic.  Why bury earth changing consequences of climate change because they are unlikely or cause "scary" PR?  Look at the WAIS.  No more than 10 years ago scientists that suggested inevitable collapse were heavily mocked and now that thought is becoming mainstream in literature.

 

Some on this board treat many of these scientifically feasible CAGW events as alarmist propaganda while other treat them like an absolute certainty.  Both are wrong, IMO.

That came about because of the failed predictions in the 2000s of Arctic ice lasting until 2080 and Antarctica not contributing to SLR in the 21st century. If we assume this trend of underestimating risks continues, very nasty things will transpire.

[stadiumwave]

That came about because of the failed predictions in the 2000s of Arctic ice lasting until 2080 and Antarctica not contributing to SLR in the 21st century. If we assume this trend of underestimating risks continues, very nasty things will transpire.

I wouldn't call it nasty...humans can adapt to sea level rise you know

[FloridaJohn]

His account of NYC's west side highway being underwater due to SLR by 2030.

James Hansen was misquoted in that article. The author admitted that he misunderstood what Hansen was saying, and reported it differently than what occured.

[FloridaJohn]

I wouldn't call it nasty...humans can adapt to sea level rise you know

It's cheaper to prevent the sea level rise than to try and adapt to it.

[chubbs]

There are some extremely alarming things well within the threshold of scientific possibility with climate change.  While abrupt methane feedback or sudden sea level rise is not likely in the next 100 years, there is some evidence to suggest there is a modest possibility either could actually occur.  Even if that possibility is 2%, should climate scientists just sweep it under the rug?  I just don't understand that logic.  Why bury earth changing consequences of climate change because they are unlikely or cause "scary" PR?  Look at the WAIS.  No more than 10 years ago scientists that suggested inevitable collapse were heavily mocked and now that thought is becoming mainstream in literature.

 

Some on this board treat many of these scientifically feasible CAGW events as alarmist propaganda while other treat them like an absolute certainty.  Both are wrong, IMO.

Yes its silly to blame scientists for their communication limitations - that is what politicians and PR experts are for. Climate change happens over very long time frames and there is large uncertainty. Scientists who have a little clearer vision into the future have a huge communication challenge that they are not prepared for. The potential WAIS collapse is a good example.The impact is so large that it is difficult for most to fathom and our current science cannot provide any timing estimate. So messaging is difficult. No matter what is said most people find it too alarming to contemplate or far enough in the future to ignore.

 

The flip side is effective communication by deniers/skeptics. Their job is much easier since they mainly aim to confuse and discredit.  The key components are a few simple talking points repeated in a consistent and reinforcing manner combined with villains that many can identify with (liberals, lying scientists, big government etc).

[ORH_wxman]

James Hansen was misquoted in that article. The author admitted that he misunderstood what Hansen was saying, and reported it differently than what occured.

 

 

The misquote was for the year...some though he meant 2008...but it was really more like 40 years beyond that time (of 1988), which would be closer to 2030 (the year I reported in my post).

 

Regardless, it is still that type of hyperbole which was being criticized.

[chubbs]

The misquote was for the year...some though he meant 2008...but it was really more like 40 years beyond that time (of 1988), which would be closer to 2030 (the year I reported in my post).

 

Regardless, it is still that type of hyperbole which was being criticized.

According to skeptical science this is an internet myth that has been propagated by Anthony Watts. Hanson's original statement needs to be placed in the proper context. He was asked to speculate in a 1988 interview what the view from his office might look like in 40 years if CO2 doubled. The interviewer published Hanson's  response in a book 10 years later, but in a subsequent interview for Salon the interviewer left out the doubled CO2 and shortened the time to 20 years. A key learning over the past few days - don't believe what you read on the internet about climate scientists.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html

[ORH_wxman]

According to skeptical science this is an internet myth that has been propagated by Anthony Watts. Hanson's original statement needs to be placed in the proper context. He was asked to speculate in a 1988 interview what the view from his office might look like in 40 years if CO2 doubled. The interviewer published Hanson's  response in a book 10 years later, but in a subsequent interview for Salon the interviewer left out the doubled CO2 and shortened the time to 20 years. A key learning over the past few days - don't believe what you read on the internet about climate scientists.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html

 

 

That's still hyperbole....

 

1. Why would CO2 double in 40 years?

 

2. Even if it did, the claim is still outlandish. The West Side Highway isn't going to be underwater by the time CO2 is doubled even a few more decades beyond that.

 

The semanatics game distracts from the general point...a point where I was also blaming media for taking these talking points and promoting them to the public.

[AvantHiatus]

We know more now than we did in 1988, just saying'

[ORH_wxman]

We know more now than we did in 1988, just saying'

 

I should hope so.

[AvantHiatus]

All you need is 1-2ft of SLR to disrupt most coastal communities and at 3-4ft they become totally dysfunctional and real estate/housing would likely begin collapsing. Safe to assume this will occur in our lifetimes without strong policy action unless you are older than 50.

 

Thus we have a two-pronged initiative to act, both for ourselves and future generations. Anything above that range before 2070 would basically solidify future projections like 5-10 meters because of rate hysteresis.

[ORH_wxman]

Sea level rise predictions are too far out in time to blame or praise scientists for their communications skills since we won't be around to see how they verify. Most of the criticism out there involves the shorter term predictions made back in the 80's

and 90's for the last 15 years.

 

There was a lot of coverage and what in hindsight looks like knee-jerk reactions during the '97-'98 Super El Nino.

 

An example...the "permanent El Nino theory":

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/25433.stm

 

 

Now we have this:

 

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5245/20140408/scientists-discount-permanent-el-nino-theory-say-tropics-could-get-even-hotter-future.htm

[AvantHiatus]

If you have doubts, feel free to use NJ Flood-mapper.

http://54.243.129.238/SLR.html#

[StudentOfClimatology]

There are some extremely alarming things well within the threshold of scientific possibility with climate change. While abrupt methane feedback or sudden sea level rise is not likely in the next 100 years, there is some evidence to suggest there is a modest possibility either could actually occur. Even if that possibility is 2%, should climate scientists just sweep it under the rug? I just don't understand that logic. Why bury earth changing consequences of climate change because they are unlikely or cause "scary" PR? Look at the WAIS. No more than 10 years ago scientists that suggested inevitable collapse were heavily mocked and now that thought is becoming mainstream in literature.

Some on this board treat many of these scientifically feasible CAGW events as alarmist propaganda while other treat them like an absolute certainty. Both are wrong, IMO.

If there's one thing to be worried about, in my opinion, it's the relative dampening of the equator-to-pole thermal gradient. This is what drives keeps the circulatory network stabilized (Hadley/Ferrel/Polar). The paleoclimate data suggests that before we entered the Pleistocene era, the NH was dominated by a single Hadley cell for the majority of the solar year. A broad Hadley Cell is a weak Hadley Cell, so tropical convection and wind speeds are significantly reduced in this scenario (we can already easily this in modern day observations, including ENSO).

This alone would significantly reduce the rate of heat expulsion (latent heat released in the upper troposphere is more readily emitted than surface heat). And unlike CH4 release, an abrupt circulatory shift can occur in a very short period of time. Perhaps in a year or less.

This is the positive feedback loop I'm looking for. I can't say that the developments in 2013 and 2014 have quelled my concern, either.

[chubbs]

That's still hyperbole....

 

1. Why would CO2 double in 40 years?

 

2. Even if it did, the claim is still outlandish. The West Side Highway isn't going to be underwater by the time CO2 is doubled even a few more decades beyond that.

 

The semanatics game distracts from the general point...a point where I was also blaming media for taking these talking points and promoting them to the public.

See the interviewers summary of the discussion below. It was a very informal discussion. I don't sense a desire to mislead or exaggerate on Hanson's part.  We have had posts alleging that Hanson was to blame for climate denial by overstating climate impacts. After a little investigation we haven't found too many examples of exaggeration - just some bad reporting perhaps. On the other hand Anthony Watts  plays fast and loose with the truth about Hanson and this becomes an internet myth. This gets repeated over and over again in the denier blogosphere. Our posters pick it up and there you are.  

 

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

 

 "When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

[ORH_wxman]

See the interviewers summary of the discussion below. It was a very informal discussion. I don't sense a desire to mislead or exaggerate on Hanson's part.  We have had posts alleging that Hanson was to blame for climate denial by overstating climate impacts. After a little investigation we haven't found too many examples of exaggeration - just some bad reporting perhaps. On the other hand Anthony Watts  plays fast and loose with the truth about Hanson and this becomes an internet myth. This gets repeated over and over again in the denier blogosphere. Our posters pick it up and there you are.  

 

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

 

 "When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

 

 

I've called that hyperbole.

 

 

But what Hansen said was hyperbole too. There's no two ways about it. Whether his intentions were that or not? Who knows. The media is even worse.

[AvantHiatus]

Why even answer him? He is just another troll, should be five posted.

Keep this stuff out of the Arctic ice thread, and no I was not trolling but I know your agenda.

[stadiumwave]

It's cheaper to prevent the sea level rise than to try and adapt to it.

1. Is it cheaper?

2. How can we prevent it?

[Jonger]

All you need is 1-2ft of SLR to disrupt most coastal communities and at 3-4ft they become totally dysfunctional and real estate/housing would likely begin collapsing. Safe to assume this will occur in our lifetimes without strong policy action unless you are older than 50.

 

Thus we have a two-pronged initiative to act, both for ourselves and future generations. Anything above that range before 2070 would basically solidify future projections like 5-10 meters because of rate hysteresis.

 

We may be speeding up sea level rise, but even if humans went extinct 500 years ago... Miami would still end up under water within a few hundred years. Building big cities next to the sea, is kind of a new thing in this interglacial period.

 

[AvantHiatus]

1. Is it cheaper?

2. How can we prevent it?

1.) Yes

 

2.) By abruptly shutting down all CO2 emissions, not even geoengineering can stop bottom melt.  It looks like 1-4ft of SLR is locked in.

[StudentOfClimatology]

1.) Yes

2.) By abruptly shutting down all CO2 emissions, not even geoengineering can stop bottom melt. It looks like 1-4ft of SLR is locked in.

Abruptly shutting down all CO^2 emissions would cost trillions and would lead to your eventual starvation and death.

[AvantHiatus]

Abruptly shutting down all CO^2 emissions would cost trillions and would lead to your eventual starvation and death.

We would still have 1-2 years (before cutting emissions) to install a 100% renewable infrastructure in a new-deal on steroids type overhaul but yes it would never happen cause many are not willing to cut their losses and it would be a human/economic rights violation for third world countries that depend on our petroleum exports.

 

The other way to prevent the effects of SLR is simply to build seawalls and drainage systems, but this solution is only feasible for certain cities that can afford it, and it begins to fail in the long-run when SLR really accelerates.

 

We would have to start upgrading before 2020 tho to stop dangerous SLR from kicking in faster than we can adapt in the long-haul. You could say this is the most pivotal decade in the history of human civilization.

 

The cost benefit does not show up until the 22nd or 23rd century but it is cheaper, it's really way out there but I'd say it's better than the collapse of civilization and possibly mass extinction depending on how long we stay on business as usual.

 

It would seem possible to keep current civilization alive after coastal cities have flooded out but such rapid SLR flux is indicative of rapid system change and instability resulting in poor food productions and biosphere collapse.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Okay, but you said adapting to SLR would be more expensive than stopping it. What you're suggesting would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars that, frankly, no one actually has.

[AvantHiatus]

Okay, but you said adapting to SLR would be more expensive than stopping it. What you're suggesting would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars that, frankly, no one actually has.

It's possible to do this over a longer period like 10-20 years for about 15% of the US GDP per year. We would just have to take more risks with SLR and accept the loss of some cities and hope abrupt climate change does not occur.

 

It's definitely possible but the willpower is not there yet. Regardless, the US going 100% renewable doesn't solve outside emission sources.

 

I still think it is cheaper in the deep future to fight SLR now rather than adapt but probably more expensive for the next 100-200 years.

[StudentOfClimatology]

So, you're back to making things up. Stupid of me to expect otherwise.