Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Furcifer said:
More accurately it's to what extent we're contributing. The fact is scientists are unsure.
Click to expand...
Not really, this was covered by Huber and Knutti in 2011

http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress....red-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (12%, 1[sigma]) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to
anthropogenic and 1% (-10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.
Click to expand...
 
Furcifer said:
More accurately it's to what extent we're contributing.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

The fact is scientists are unsure.
Click to expand...

The uncertainty is weighted towards high sensitivity, not low, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a high degree of certainty that the impact will NOT be in the lower estimates. The real uncertainty is just where on the tail of the high sensitivity estimates we'll fall.

In other words, Schmittner et al. find equilibrium sensitivities of less than 1.3°C just as unrealistic as sensitivities greater than 4.5°C. ​

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html
 
A good read: ‘Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math’

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven’t convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Click to expand...

An important context for the climate debate I think. There is a tendency among the pro-science side of the so-called climate 'debate' that we should be very measured when it comes to expressing certainty, especially when it comes to attributing a particular event to AGW.

While it's true that uncertainties should be clearly communicated, in some ways it panders to the bogey-man of the 'alarmist' that the denier-brigade has conjured up in the popular imagination. And by pandering to this false construct the pro-science side of the debate loses control of the single most powerful device we have to sway popular opinion, i.e. linking extreme weather events with climate change in the popular imagination. Sure, we can't attribute particular events to climate change but we can asses the statistical probability of whether they are. and that is a message that should be being expressed loudly and clearly.
 
Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/07/unprecedented-greenland-ice-sheet-surface-melt-.html

July 24, 2012: For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

Now, let's recall a few things;

1. Melt pools and ice where the snow has melted off is darker than ice covered in snow by a considerable amount.
2. Nearly full-time sunlight right now.
3. Glaciers move on a layer of water at their base, and melt accelerates glacier movement.
4. Water percolating through ice leaves rotten ice full of air space that has a lot less mass than it's volume suggests.

I've said before that we would likely see things we didn't expect and that Greenland would likely melt more quickly than any model accounts for. I think we are seeing that happening.

We are experimenting on a planet, and the experiment has no control planet...
 
bit_pattern said:
...An important context for the climate debate I think. There is a tendency among the pro-science side of the so-called climate 'debate' that we should be very measured when it comes to expressing certainty, especially when it comes to attributing a particular event to AGW.

While it's true that uncertainties should be clearly communicated, in some ways it panders to the bogey-man of the 'alarmist' that the denier-brigade has conjured up in the popular imagination. And by pandering to this false construct the pro-science side of the debate loses control of the single most powerful device we have to sway popular opinion, i.e. linking extreme weather events with climate change in the popular imagination. Sure, we can't attribute particular events to climate change but we can asses the statistical probability of whether they are. and that is a message that should be being expressed loudly and clearly.
Click to expand...

Proper qualification and measured restraint have nothing to do with any potential "alarmist" labelling, it has to do with the practices and manner of science. If your positions are what they are based upon the science, then it is only appropriate to adhere to those principles when you discuss the science upon which your positions are based. Now, this does not mean that you must restrain all aspects of considerations and discussions to that same standard. The worst that can be said, is that your argument is unscientific, but scientific is not the only valid format for the discussion of climate change. Most discussions, at least, most of the discussions I have on the topic of climate change, away from this and a couple of other forae, are not about the science.
 
bit_pattern said:
There could be more sustainable means:

Larger populations of whales would have produced more of this "bio-available" iron, leading to bigger phytoplankton and krill populations in turn, says Nicol.

"Allowing the great whales to recover will allow the system to slowly reset itself," he says. And this will ultimately increase the amount of CO2 that the Southern Ocean can sequester.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18807-whale-poop-is-vital-to-oceans-carbon-cycle.html

Save The Whales! [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Sustainably increasing the whale population to sufficient levels to address this problem, as well as teaching them to use the appropriate loo eddies, might be a rather involved industry all on its own,...might serve as a good plotline for a sci-fi story.
 
bit_pattern said:
And by pandering to this false construct the pro-science side of the debate loses control of the single most powerful device we have to sway popular opinion, i.e. linking extreme weather events with climate change in the popular imagination.
Click to expand...

The general population is going to make that link itself, and I don't think the onus is on us to disabuse them. It's the denial machine which has the task of unmaking that link.

Sure, we can't attribute particular events to climate change but we can asses the statistical probability of whether they are. and that is a message that should be being expressed loudly and clearly.
Click to expand...

We can indeed make such assessments, or at least appreciate how they're arrived at and what they mean. When it comes to general conversation I think something along the lines of "Yup, we can expect more of this with climate change" gets the job done deniably :).
 
Last year as Hurricane Irene approached my area, i realized that it's the planet's world and the rest of us just live on it, pretty much helpless in the face of catastrophe. Half of the earth's population lives within 120 miles of a coastline, so it seems that given the scientific consensus, assuming climate change is real and treating it as a crisis should be the obvious thing to do. Really, what's the downside, given the potential stakes?
 
If the consensus really believes there is a crisis, and the answer is to stop burning fossil fuels (which I support in any case, they are polluting as hell), then somebody really should take some of the billions of dollars spent on research, or from carbon taxes, and show everybody the alternative. If it's impossible to create even a tiny community that can function with out fossil fuels, then in what dream world do the people shouting the alarm expect us to live in?

Is there any place in the civilized world where any modern community is living carbon neutral? I know Germany recently produced half the countries electricity from solar, (just one sunny Saturday, but still), but even if they used solar for all the electricity, what about the cars and trucks?

Doesn't the US produce more carbon from vehicles each day than anything else? I read that the only way to replace fossil fuels for electricity would mean 10,000 nuclear plants, which is like one new reactor every four days, for the next ten years. But even that wouldn't solve the portable fuel issue.

What is the solution? I've read a thousand posts bemoaning the end of the world as we know it, but nobody is posting a solution.
 
Trakar said:
Sustainably increasing the whale population to sufficient levels to address this problem, as well as teaching them to use the appropriate loo eddies, might be a rather involved industry all on its own,...might serve as a good plotline for a sci-fi story.
Click to expand...

Had some talks regarding this (the first half :) ) with Victor Smetacek. It's a great idea, if we can convince japanese scientists to stop researching the perfect whale sandwich.

On the other hand, since now we started commercially capturing krill, it might be that we are screwed in many more ways than one.
 
r-j said:
Doesn't the US produce more carbon from vehicles each day than anything else?
Click to expand...


No.

I'm assuming you were using the word "carbon" to mean the so-called greenhouse gases. According to the US EPA,

EPA said:
The primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are:
  • Electricity production (34% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions)....
  • Transportation (27% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions)....
  • Industry (21% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions)....
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
If the consensus really believes there is a crisis, and the answer is to stop burning fossil fuels (which I support in any case, they are polluting as hell), then somebody really should take some of the billions of dollars spent on research, or from carbon taxes, and show everybody the alternative. If it's impossible to create even a tiny community that can function with out fossil fuels, then in what dream world do the people shouting the alarm expect us to live in?
Click to expand...

A carbon tax, a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, a US commitment to 15PWh (PetaWatthours - about 1/2 of US estimated demand) worth of baseload, modern design nuclear power online by 2030. That would establish the baseline. Gas is already as cheap as (or cheaper than) coal, with a minor effort getting rid of US coal will be a big step (getting rid of the exports might be more difficult). The carbon tax will push petrol prices up high enough that EVs are a lot more attractive (even though carbon offset checks will compensate most, if not all private expenses, people aren't going to want to spend all of their offset checks to actually offset the rise in prices of petrol - they will demand vehicles that help them avoid using as much petrol as they can). There are a lot of options, and a lot to be worked out, but courses along this pathway will be big steps along the right pathway.

Gas, itself, is a carbon fuel that we must eventually eliminate as well, but it is much cleaner (per BTU) than coal or oil. If we can use gas as a transitional fuel to help wean our economy off of coal and oil, along with a strong, dependable nuclear baseload, and a sustainable alternatives (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.,) sector growing and increasing their own local mix of electric percentage supplanting more and more of the gas power systems, by 2060 we could be virtually carbon neutral as far as our energy needs and requirements go. Getting the rest of the world to follow our lead, that is certainly more problematic but not undoable.

...but even if they used solar for all the electricity, what about the cars and trucks?
Click to expand...
with a mandate, and enough baseload electricity, battery or fuel cell EVs as well as hybrid systems are viable (both for personal transport and for trucking loads).


What is the solution? I've read a thousand posts bemoaning the end of the world as we know it, but nobody is posting a solution.
Click to expand...

Many of us would prefer to talk about the range of solutions and public policy options, but it is difficult when the default opposition refuses to acknowledge the problem exists and wants to delay and disrupt any discussion of policy or practice by asserting that the problem doesn't exist.
 
r-j said:
If the consensus really believes there is a crisis, and the answer is to stop burning fossil fuels (which I support in any case, they are polluting as hell), then somebody really should take some of the billions of dollars spent on research, or from carbon taxes, and show everybody the alternative. If it's impossible to create even a tiny community that can function with out fossil fuels, then in what dream world do the people shouting the alarm expect us to live in?
Click to expand...

I'm not one who shouts alarm, but I expect many people will live (however briefly) in a nightmare world due to AGW, while others continue (however briefly) to claim that there is no alternative.

Is there any place in the civilized world where any modern community is living carbon neutral? I know Germany recently produced half the countries electricity from solar, (just one sunny Saturday, but still) ...
Click to expand...

Germany is one of those communities which has put money into alternative energy and, as you say, has already made considerable progress.

... but even if they used solar for all the electricity, what about the cars and trucks?
Click to expand...

Fewer travel-miles by cars and trucks (and planes), more public transport, less travel generally, and the use of electric vehicles and biofuels could answer that.

Doesn't the US produce more carbon from vehicles each day than anything else? I read that the only way to replace fossil fuels for electricity would mean 10,000 nuclear plants, which is like one new reactor every four days, for the next ten years. But even that wouldn't solve the portable fuel issue.
Click to expand...

Read enough and you'll read just about anything. Presumably this "calculation" assumes the same amount of travel in the same weight of vehicle by the same weight of people (both the latter being notoriously bloated in the US); were these reduced the energy requirement would obviously be less.

What is the solution? I've read a thousand posts bemoaning the end of the world as we know it, but nobody is posting a solution.
Click to expand...

There may well not be one, given the world as we know it and people as we've always known them. There are rational solutions, but when did reason ever count for much when it conflicts with vested interests and entrenched mindsets? No obvious examples spring to mind.
 
Trakar said:
Getting the rest of the world to follow our lead, that is certainly more problematic but not undoable.
Click to expand...

It's far from likely that the US will be taking the lead at any time; it certainly isn't now.

Many of us would prefer to talk about the range of solutions and public policy options, but it is difficult when the default opposition refuses to acknowledge the problem exists and wants to delay and disrupt any discussion of policy or practice by asserting that the problem doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

There's the rub. Vested interests, entrenched mindsets and simpletons currently rule the roost in far too many places. The US is pretty much a leader there, but not unique.
 
Unscientific observation: The banded gecko, a critter of the North American Southwest, is now occasionally spotted in my garden here in Northwest Florida. Our regular "lizard" is the green anole. Nimble indeed, but the anole can not cling upside down to horizontal surfaces as the gecko can. I'll have more important posts like this later on. You can hardly wait, huh. Here's an example: One of the first economic disasters of global warming was the collapse of the sardine fishery off Monterey, Ca. Fish and lizards?
 
321xamt said:
Unscientific observation: The banded gecko, a critter of the North American Southwest, is now occasionally spotted in my garden here in Northwest Florida. Our regular "lizard" is the green anole. Nimble indeed, but the anole can not cling upside down to horizontal surfaces as the gecko can. I'll have more important posts like this later on. You can hardly wait, huh. Here's an example: One of the first economic disasters of global warming was the collapse of the sardine fishery off Monterey, Ca. Fish and lizards?
Click to expand...

Welcome to JREF!

A very similar thing is found on mountains. Animals happiest at particular elevations have been moving uphill as the climate on the mountain has changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom