Climate Change Banter

[AvantHiatus]

There are almost no posters here that deny that the earth has warmed 0.5C to 1.0C.

It's an important distinction, but climate skepticism is a different beast and is the type of thinking that could lead us to a darker place than trying to adapt and mitigate.

[AvantHiatus]

[WXheights]

"I have to say I've always found it pretty funny how quickly extreme alarmists stoop to the levels of deniers...both when it comes to anti-science histrionics and ad hominem arguments".

 

There's a certain amount of emotion that comes with keeping a sustainable planet.  It should not be a shock to anyone when their future life-style or even off springs life is threatened because cold blooded even dare I say "calculated indifference" takes place.  What were you expecting?

 

Could you tell us what extreme means to you? i.e Guy McPhearson, James Hansen?

 

Could you also tell us what Alarmist at large is by your definition, just curious. thanks.

[AvantHiatus]

Emotional appeals and methodologies for climate action are more effective, rather than slow burn skepticism with a cautious optimism.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6b4f4f4ec9a9491ea7c6c01c34a04931/scientists-enlist-big-gun-get-climate-action-faith

 

 

PARIS (AP) — The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rationale brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

Physicist John Schellnhuber, founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said he has been coming to these international talks for 11 years and essentially seen negotiators throw up their hands and say "sorry guys we tried our best." And no one protested. But this time, with the power of Pope Francis' encyclical earlier this year calling global warming a moral issue and an even more energized interfaith community, Schellnhuber feels the world's faithful are watching and will hold world leaders accountable.

[hazwoper]

It is NOT a free market when government subsidies,( i.e your tax dollars) are assisting energy companies with renewables. All these "BIG OIL" companies which are demonized want to do is make money. That is all they care about and this is what they should care about. If  government subsidies help them make money they will develop renewables and you and I will pay the price....higher energy costs. If we decarbonize our energy sources it will be more expensive and punishing for the middle class and downright evil for the poor. The BIG OIL companies still make tons of money. Its the middle class scleps like you and I that foot the bill and 3rd world nations that suffer the most. This is all over a trace gas that has very little influence on the climate. This will go down as the biggest scam in the 21st century which ultimately will lead to more worldwide poverty and with that environmental destruction!!! Ever see the treeless country of Haiti??  Check out google earth sometime...this once was an island full of tropical rainforests....just look at Dominican republic which is not as poor they still have some tropical forests left.   Such fools...  

 

 

Wow, talk about a "fool" if you believe BIG OIL isn't subsidized.  Also, renewables in many parts of the country are now CHEAPER than fossil fuels.  You need to do some research.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/wind-energy-cheaper-than-natural-gas-for-xcel-ceo-fowke-says

[hazwoper]

sources??? Where did you get this info? I have said many times that if solar is affordable to the average person there would be a revolution in how we energize our homes. We could get off the grid or less dependent on the grid which would save the average person a lot of money. Last I heard a while back (from the news), solar still was quite expensive like 20,000 for a 2000 sq foot home. Is that still true?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/wind-energy-cheaper-than-natural-gas-for-xcel-ceo-fowke-says

 

Also, you don't need to spend any money most times to get solar installed on your home.  SolarCity offers a home solar PPA model that allows you as the homeowner to enter into a 20 year PPA with SolarCity with a reduced energy rate from your utility and includes no upfront cost for panels (you don't own the system)

[PB GFI]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/climate-skeptics-in-paris-branded-as-criminals-wanted-posters-go-up-in-the-city/

[AvantHiatus]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/climate-skeptics-in-paris-branded-as-criminals-wanted-posters-go-up-in-the-city/

It seems like infringement on one's personal rights but the process of accepting climate denial is analogous to similar arguments related to discrimination-based crime. Climate change is real and it does not care if your wealthy or locked into a third world country in Africa.

 

The apparent impacts on our lives will be relevant to your background and situation, thus is immoral to deny climate change or question negative impacts when there is empirical evidence.

[PB GFI]

It seems like infringement on one's personal rights but the process of accepting climate denial is analogous to similar arguments related to discrimination-based crime. Climate change is real and it does not care if your wealthy or locked into a third world country in Africa.

 

The apparent impacts on our lives will be relevant to your background and situation, thus is immoral to deny climate change or question negative impacts when there is empirical evidence.

 

 

You believe questioning temp correlation to CO2 is analogous to a hate crime ? 

[AvantHiatus]

ExxonMobil Warns of ‘Catastrophic’ 7°F to 12°F Global Warming Without Government Action

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

[Hoth]

Avant, a few items, largely piecemeal.

 

1) Do you know of any peer-reviewed literature out there that provide a percentage of warming that is directly attributable to Man’s activities? I’ve never seen anyone offer a quantitative breakdown or range.

 

2) The article you posted above states that the earth is even more sensitive to carbon dioxide than originally thought. Why then, since carbon emissions have been rising almost exponentially for decades with the rapid development of BRIC nations, has temperature maintained a more or less linear rate of increase? (Some might say there’s been a pause). Shouldn’t such sensitivity and strong correlation suggest we should have observed rapid temperature increase for some time?

 

3) You say emotional appeals are effective. Quite true. Propagandists throughout history, from Sam Adams to Joseph Goebbels, would vehemently agree with you. But if you have to resort to half-truths and hyperbolic claptrap, it almost argues that the science itself isn’t compelling. Hyperbole has no place in any field purporting to be scientific. Science requires a dispassionate, empirical approach wherein hypotheses are proposed, tested, refined, altered or rejected. Open debate with opposing viewpoints is healthy and essential for that refinement or rejection process. As Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

 

4) To say the “science is settled” assumes the whiff of religious dogma. How was it settled? Was an ecumenical council convened, as at Nicaea, to agree upon doctrine, orthodoxy, heresy, etc.? Are we to accept the council’s findings as a matter of faith? Suppression of opposing views is another vestige of religion. If such methods had survived the Middle Ages, we might still have a geocentric model of the Universe. Science is never settled. In some sense, there aren’t even laws, just models describing behavior, some of which work very well. Newton’s Laws worked perfectly for centuries, until they were found to break down in quantum mechanical and general relativistic scenarios.

 

Climate science remains in its infancy, as does our understanding of Earth’s staggeringly complex self-regulatory mechanisms. The interplay of every forcing and feedback mechanism is not well understood, and there may be other factors at work that remain to be discovered. So how does one put one’s faith in temperature projections for decades in the future, when even small initiation errors or incorrect assumptions compound dramatically as you step forward in time? Moreover, how can you expect the average lay person, with no interest in climate or weather, to believe long-term predictions when their weather forecasts bust all the time? Think of the public’s mistrust last year after the Euro’s epic bust during the blizzard in New York. That was the best weather model on Earth, using massive computing power and superior data assimilation, busting with a twenty four hour lead-time. 

 

By the way, I am not seeking to vitiate climate research. I believe Earth has warmed, that Man likely plays some role, and that we should firmly support incentivizing clean energy and conservation. I merely want to decouple the science from unhealthy extremism on both sides, the existential threat spewing alarmists and the anarchist hokesters alike. 

[FloridaJohn]

 

1) Do you know of any peer-reviewed literature out there that provide a percentage of warming that is directly attributable to Man’s activities? I’ve never seen anyone offer a quantitative breakdown or range.

Here's a summary of some of the research:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

That link summarizes eight different peer-reviewed, published papers that specifically assign the human contribution as a percentage. Notice that many of the studies show the natural contribution to be a cooling effect. That means for the earth to warm, the human contribution has to be greater than 100%.

[AvantHiatus]

I will respond one at a time, some of these require lengthy responses.

 

 

 

2) The article you posted above states that the earth is even more sensitive to carbon dioxide than originally thought. Why then, since carbon emissions have been rising almost exponentially for decades with the rapid development of BRIC nations, has temperature maintained a more or less linear rate of increase? (Some might say there’s been a pause). Shouldn’t such sensitivity and strong correlation suggest we should have observed rapid temperature increase for some time?

 

Truth be told, we have not emitted a 'godly' amount of Co2 but we have reached a point where cumulative emissions overtime are causing a response in the system and oceanic heat budget that we can detect in a human lifetime. We are now reaching CO2 levels last observed 5 million years ago during the Pliocene. Nonetheless, the surface conditions will not be responding to a 402 CO2 atmosphere (Some say we have a 485CO2e atmosphere when you consider man-made CH4 and related GHG) environment for a number of years afterwards.Due to the rate of emission, we are forever lagging behind and being fooled by a false sense of security. (in addition to the cooling effect of aerosols)

 

 

Make no mistake, this rate is unprecedented but the thermal inertia of the global ocean simply takes time to overcome. In addition, during most of the last 15 years, the natural forcings were encouraging increased trade wind speeds, sequestering most of the cumulative heating into the deep ocean.

 

Another caveat of human anthropogenic warming is that we find ourselves in a unprecedented forcing. Carbon dioxide concentrations have always followed slow feedback systems (albedo/volcanoes) and milankovitch cycles. This time around, we are emitting so much CO2 forcing that the relationship is reversed. One can only expect that the severe response (that we can see in daily life) will be delayed but will inevitably come (infact I argue that we are on the precipice of abrupt climate responses).

 

The warming effect of additional Co2 is minor day-to-day but growing larger overtime in a cumulative sense. The ocean's are massive batteries of heat, the heat already in the ocean will continue to melt glaciers and raise sea level for many decades even centuries if we stopped emitting CO2 right now. We cannot wait until the severe daily impacts arrive, we know they will be locked in if we do not adopt strict emissions reductions by 2020 or so.

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

 

 

As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists look back four million years for answers on what to expect from climate

 

The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.

 

Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

 

As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today.  Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene. 

 

In the oceans, fossils mark the spread of tropical and subtropical marine life northward along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard.  Both observations and models of the Pliocene Pacific Ocean show the existence of frequent, intense El Niño cycles—a climatic oscillation that today delivers heavy rainfall to the western U.S. causing both intense flooding but also increasing the river flows needed to sustain salmon runs. The absence of significant ocean upwelling in the warmest part of the Pliocene would have suppressed fisheries along the west coasts of the Americas, and deprived seabirds and marine mammals of food supplies.  Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.

 

Richard Norris, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, said the concentration of CO2 is one means of comparison, but what is not comparable, and more significant, is the speed at which 400 ppm is being surpassed today.

 

“I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur, even though the time scales for the Pliocene warmth are different than the present,” Norris said.  “The main lagging indicator is likely to be sea level just because it takes a long time to heat the ocean and a long time to melt ice. But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years.  And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”

 

Scientists can analyze the gases trapped in ice to reconstruct with high accuracy what climate was like in prehistory, but that record only goes back 800,000 years. It is trickier to estimate carbon dioxide levels before then, but in 2009, one research team reported finding evidence of carbon dioxide levels ranging between 365 and 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago. They based their finding on the analysis of carbon isotopes present in compounds made by tiny marine phytoplankton preserved in ancient ocean sediments.

 

That estimate made Earth’s last experience of 400 ppm a much more recent event than scientists have commonly thought. There has been broader consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than today’s but not for tens of millions of years. The assertion that Earth passed the 400 ppm mark a mere 4.5 million years ago has been supported by other analyses, many of which also concluded that the temperatures at that time were higher than previously estimated.  These studies suggest that the traditional way scientists currently rate Earth’s long-term sensitivity to extra doses of CO2 might not sufficiently take into account the slower effects of climate change on the sunlight-absorbing properties of the planet, such as ice sheet melt and changes in plant cover on land.

 

What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. Several prominent questions remain to be answered, though, before accurate scenarios can be created. The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.

“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered planet, as the ocean gradually warms up in response to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus.

 

– Robert Monroe

 

[chubbs]

2) The article you posted above states that the earth is even more sensitive to carbon dioxide than originally thought. Why then, since carbon emissions have been rising almost exponentially for decades with the rapid development of BRIC nations, has temperature maintained a more or less linear rate of increase? (Some might say there’s been a pause). Shouldn’t such sensitivity and strong correlation suggest we should have observed rapid temperature increase for some time?

 

A couple of points:

1) GHG forcing is proportional to the log of CO2 in the atmosphere. So an exponential or constant percentage increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in a linear increase in temperature. If atmospheric CO2 doubles it will take twice as much CO2 to have the same effect.

2) The yearly percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 depends on: man-made CO2 emissions, natural carbon sinks and the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Recently atmospheric CO2 has been increasing by about 0.5% per year. This percentage rate has increased slowly and unevenly from roughly 0.3% per year in the 1960s.

3) The rate of increase in non-CO2 man-made GHGs, like methane and refrigerants, has slowed down since the 1980s. When you add the impact of non-CO2 GHG to CO2, the resulting equivalent CO2 concentration has been increasing by roughly 0.6% per year recently.

4) The rate of increase in man-made aerosals, which have a cooling effect, has slowed considerably since roughly 1970.

 

When you put it all together man-made forcing increased slowly up to roughly 1970 and then began to increase faster in a roughly linear manner. The long-term global temperature trend fits the man-made forcing trend well. Note that man-made forcing increases slowly from year-to-year, so short-term pauses or spikes in temperatures from natural causes are to be expected.

[AvantHiatus]

Chubbs, you did not mention climate feedbacks. The truth of the matter is going from 280 to 400ppm in 150 years is not going to have a big immediate effect, it's only when you get into the deep ancient paleo range, and we've only been there for less than 10 years!

 

My argument is simply that the days of temperature holding a slow steady rate of increase are over beginning in 2015 and lasting indefinitely with a few brief breaks through out mostly centered on strong la event events. (as rare as they will become). A large part of this speed up is linked up to the 'lost ground' during the hiatus. The current amount of CO2 would ultimately raise the global average to 2.5C+(Over 150-300 years), and with no signs of GHG release slowing down, we will warm faster than we did 1980-2000.

 

The radiative forcing from CO2 is linear but the response is not. I know it's trendy to appear conservative and organized, but this has nothing to do with the science.

 

In addition, further changes caused by the GHG response enable the Earth to absorb heat even faster. (Hadley cell enlargement resulting in albedo reductions and water vapor content increase raising temperatures).

[ORH_wxman]

Chubbs, you did not mention climate feedbacks. The truth of the matter is going from 280 to 400ppm in 150 years is not going to have a big immediate effect, it's only when you get into the deep ancient paleo range, and we've only been there for less than 10 years!

 

My argument is simply that the days of temperature holding a slow steady rate of increase are over beginning in 2015 and lasting indefinitely with a few brief breaks through out mostly centered on strong la event events. (as rare as they will become). A large part of this speed up is linked up to the 'lost ground' during the hiatus. The current amount of CO2 would ultimately raise the global average to 2.5C+(Over 150-300 years), and with no signs of GHG release slowing down, we will warm faster than we did 1980-2000.

 

The radiative forcing from CO2 is linear but the response is not. I know it's trendy to appear conservative and organized, but this has nothing to do with the science.

 

In addition, further changes caused by the GHG response enable the Earth to absorb heat even faster. (Hadley cell enlargement resulting in albedo reductions and water vapor content increase raising temperatures).

 

It will be pretty easy to test your theory at least within 5 years. But you'd probably have to put some numbers to it. Saying words like

the slow steady rate on increase is over as of 2015" is really difficult to quantify, especially when you allow for giving exceptions to La Nina events.

[AvantHiatus]

It will be pretty easy to test your theory at least within 5 years. But you'd probably have to put some numbers to it. Saying words like

the slow steady rate on increase is over as of 2015" is really difficult to quantify, especially when you allow for giving exceptions to La Nina events.

It is not ethical to make a forecasting contest out of the situation. Just my two cents.

[chubbs]

CO2 emissions show recent evidence of stabilizing with a small 0.6% increase in 2014 and a 0.6% decrease projected for 2015. Main factors are a big slowdown in the growth of coal use in China and a general trend to less coal and more renewable energy elsewhere. While the future path is uncertain, it looks like following the unmitigated RCP8.5 pathway is becoming less likely.

 

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/

[ORH_wxman]

It is not ethical to make a forecasting contest out of the situation. Just my two cents.

 

Nobody said that, but testing a hypothesis with empirical data is part of science.

[csnavywx]

CO2 emissions show recent evidence of stabilizing with a small 0.6% increase in 2014 and a 0.6% decrease projected for 2015. Main factors are a big slowdown in the growth of coal use in China and a general trend to less coal and more renewable energy elsewhere. While the future path is uncertain, it looks like following the unmitigated RCP8.5 pathway is becoming less likely.

 

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/

carbonbudget2015.png

I'd be super-wary of using the most recent numbers. They're ball-park at best (high uncertainty) The 2014 number was already revised up and the 2013 number was revised way up. The drop was contingent on Chinese coal use dropping something like 8%, but this comes right after a massive upward revision in Chinese coal use (10-17%!) in the decade through 2013. Those stats are like a fine wine, they get better with age, so don't be too surprised if that number gets revised into the positive range a few years from now.

 

I buy a slowdown in Chinese coal use -- there was outright contraction in industry earlier this year (and half of coal use in China is in that sector) -- but I'm wary of that 8% number. In any case, some of that is likely to be temporary. I don't equate a manufacturing recession and a stock market bubble with GDP decoupling from carbon emissions, but apparently there's a lot of folks (Greenpeace, for instance) who are uncritically accepting that conclusion.

[AvantHiatus]

Keep the garbage in the banter thread please. It is actually a legit discussion on why satellites are not as reliable as one might think and what can be done to improve the surface data.

Apologies, I have edited my post to make it more in-line with what we expect in this forum. I'm just tired of the pretend game and this false sense of libertarianism. I still don't understand his perspective, it was a passive-aggressive way to convey the surface datasets are inferior.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

how come Obama just said, in his little climate change speech that :

 

"we've already driven carbon pollution levels down, to the lowest levels they've been in over 2 decades".

 

what's he lookin at...

[ORH_wxman]

how come Obama just said, in his little climate change speech that :

 

"we've already driven carbon pollution levels down, to the lowest levels they've been in over 2 decades".

 

what's he lookin at...

 

He's talking about U.S. emissions. Not global.

 

U.S. emissions are where they were in about 1990.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

He's talking about U.S. emissions. Not global.

 

U.S. emissions are where they were in about 1990.

 

 

Thanks....but wow, can't believe he'd use such irrelevant data for such a big speech.   

[HailMan06]

Overall the agreement is ok IMO. All it does however is set a goal of emission reductions for each country to follow. My main contention point is that It's all voluntary, has no teeth for enforcement, and current pledges are nowhere near ambitious enough to limit warming to 2C above preindustrial baseline.

[chubbs]

Overall the agreement is ok IMO. All it does however is set a goal of emission reductions for each country to follow. My main contention point is that It's all voluntary, has no teeth for enforcement, and current pledges are nowhere near ambitious enough to limit warming to 2C above preindustrial baseline.

 

Yes it is a step in the right direction but will need follow-up to be meaningful. Main reason it is voluntary is US and our strong political opposition to action.

[AvantHiatus]

Early Eocene and the equable climate problem

 

One of the unique features of the Eocene’s climate as mentioned before was the equable and homogeneous climate that existed in the early parts of the Eocene. A multitude of proxies support the presence of a warmer equable climate being present during this period of time. A few of these proxies include the presence of fossils native to warm climates, such as crocodiles, located in the higher latitudes,^[16][17] the presence in the high-latitudes of frost-intolerant flora such as palm trees which cannot survive during sustained freezes,^[17][18] and fossils of snakes found in the tropics that would require much higher average temperatures to sustain them.^[17] Using isotope proxies to determine ocean temperatures indicates sea surface temperatures in the tropics as high as 35 °C (95 °F) and, relative to present day values, bottom water temperatures that are 10 °C (18 °F) higher.^[18] With these bottom water temperatures, temperatures in areas where deep-water forms near the poles are unable to be much cooler than the bottom water temperatures.

 

An issue arises, however, when trying to model the Eocene and reproduce the results that are found with the proxy data.^[19] Using all different ranges of greenhouse gasses that occurred during the early Eocene, models were unable to produce the warming that was found at the poles and the reduced seasonality that occurs with winters at the poles being substantially warmer. The models, while accurately predicting the tropics, tend to produce significantly cooler temperatures of up to 20 °C (36 °F) colder than the actual determined temperature at the poles.^[18] This error has been classified as the “equable climate problem”. To solve this problem, the solution would involve finding a process to warm the poles without warming the tropics. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

gotta admit, first time i've ever seen the word Eocene anywhere. 

[AvantHiatus]

[Hoth]

Get me some cold air and a nice Miller A in that baroclinic zone. Salivating.