And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al, which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods).
Upvoted. I am not a AGW denialist, but I find it disturbing that every time I come across a new finding in atmospheric science in a press release it is in some way linked to James Hansen's research or advocacy. Can anyone point to a body of research for the layperson that is independent of his influence?
How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods?
In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that all are "influenced" by just one person.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar findings, nobody would accept his work as serious:
Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them can't even make the basic assumptions right.
So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international organization of scientists who work on these topics.
Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.
You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.
I agree that there are people who don't understand how science works (that is, they are effectively illiterate for basic scientific methods and facts), so I always try to explain them the basics of science first. Somebody who believes Earth existed for just 6000 years doesn't even know what science is all about, so you can't even expect him to plan more than until the imminent judgement day, oh happy day (sadly, there are actual influential US politicians who said such things).
I start explaining such person that without using the same scientific principles, the mobile phone they carry around wouldn't be possible (just for GPS, the satellites have to carry atomic clocks and the formulas that are used every time have to consider both special and general relativity). Science works.
Otherwise, how can you even talk about the fact that we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now (see the chart, max around 300, now we're already at 400 ppm).
And how we know? The same way we know how to make GPS. Science. And it's nothing US-based, there are other countries very capable of the best science. You know, countries able to send the probe to the comet.
Once somebody understands the basics, the start about climate should be learning about IPCC, the process and conclusions.
"Science" is not one thing. It works with very different accuracies and predictive powers in different disciplines. The science that makes your mobile phone and GPS work is nailed down by massive amounts of data and controlled experiments confirming theories to many decimal places. That's why those things work so well and so precisely.
Climate science is nowhere near that accurate--not by many orders of magnitude. So if you are telling people that they should believe climate science with the same confidence that they should believe the science that makes their mobile phone and GPS work, you are giving them serious misinformation.
> we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now
Yes. And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the last few hundred million years were much higher than now.
What we don't know is how the climate works to a sufficient accuracy to bet trillions of dollars on particular predictions about what effect rising CO2 levels now are going to have.
The range is accurate enough to know the problems. We even know that the effects will have a very long time span, certainly longer than a few hundred years during which we've released so much CO2.
Those that demand "accuracy" expect to receive one line and not the range. Which less changes how much our children will suffer, and even less for children of our children, only more for us who are old enough to die before the bigger effects come.
"After me the floods" is immensely selfish to those that follow us.
> And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the last few hundred million years were much higher than now.
To compare, that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop!
The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form. The immense part of that is already now burnt in just around hundred years. Note the difference in magnitudes.
And comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions:
> The range is accurate enough to know the problems.
I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data.
> We even know that the effects will have a very long time span
No, we have models that say that, but the model predictions don't match the actual data.
> that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop!
CO2 was much higher then, yes. But it was also much higher during a good part of the Cenozoic.
> The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form.
No, they didn't. They formed during the Carboniferous period, a small part of the total time period during which CO2 was much higher than it is now. Also, CO2 was much higher than it is now for a long time after the Carboniferous, when the fossil fuels had already formed.
> comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions
Only if you assume, incorrectly, that CO2 changes caused the temperature changes during the ice ages and interglacials. But the CO2 changes during the ice ages and interglacials happened after the temperature changes.
The claims you promote are without any scientific background, here's why:
The concentration of 500 ppm now would make all ice on Earth disappear, whereas 400 million years ago there would be needed 3000 ppm (note three thousand, ten times more than it was before we stat high-rate burning) to achieve the same, as, among other effects, the solar constant was 4% lower then:
Now consider this: during the last 800,000 years CO2 concentration oscillated between 200 and 300 ppm. The humanity pushed it to 400 ppm in around 100 years, and the 500 ppm is the point of no ice on the Earth.
> The claims you promote are without any scientific background, here's why
None of this addresses the actual issues I was raising.
> The concentration of 500 ppm now would make all ice on Earth disappear
According to the hypothesis given in the paper you link to. But it's a hypothesis, not a fact. One obvious omission in the paper is treatment of other forcings besides CO2 and solar. Also, all of the data is proxy data, and the solar forcing is not even based on data but on an assumed linear rate of increase in the solar constant.
> None of this addresses the actual issues I was raising.
Just when somebody closes the eyes and screams at the same time "I don't see anything." It was exactly on the subject: when you claim that millions of years ago the concentration was higher, we even know that the state of the Earth wasn't comparable. Not to mention that humans didn't exist.
The IPCC AR5 admits it--and then tries to argue that it doesn't matter, because their conclusions aren't based on the models, they're based on "expert judgment" or something like that.
"New Zealand politician and a lawyer." "He was also involved with the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a charitable organisation that, according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), appears to have been set up solely to take court action against them. The trust lost two court cases against NIWA and on both occasions, was ordered to pay costs. NIWA has put the trust into liquidation and as of 2014 was considering to pursue Brill and another trustee for the owed money.[7]"
His claims are, of course, a distortion of what really happened, and are based on what he and those like him call the "hiatus." Which is also misinterpretation of the curve of the temperature change, and which those especially liked before the last two years that broke most of the records.
I see only the agenda there, and again, scientific illiteracy.
The quotes presented on that page mean really nothing, which is somehow expected when written by the guy who doesn't understand the subject, being scientifically illiterate.
> the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT
A post which gives specific quotes and references from the IPCC AR5. Whatever you might think of WUWT in general, this particular post is talking about what the IPCC itself is saying.
I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times". At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, not substance. That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself, rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.
> I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times"
No, you can´t if you don´t lie
> At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority,
No, WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist
> That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself
No, you quoted an article where someone interpreted what the IPCC said. You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC. And that was your claim
> rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.
Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists
But I will wait a lot, you're just another denier that has nothing to back what you write
> WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist
In other words, you would rather argue from authority than look at the actual substance. Thank you for making your position clear.
> You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC
The article I linked to had direct quotes from the IPCC AR5.
> Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists
Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, to name just two, are climate scientists and have written skeptical papers. But there's nothing magical about the label "climate scientist" that makes what they say correct. You have to look at the actual substance. But you've already indicated you don't want to do that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.
You can have any religion you want but don't expect to be considered of any scientific significance (except as the example of a deluded mind) if your claims don't match the reality.
As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance."
I know one older guy who I really respect, and with nice scientific background, whose political beliefs would make him agreeing with the "deniers." He started to blog how global warming is a lie etc. I've just sent him the links to really look at the data, the scientific work and to check himself. He never wrote or said anything against global warming again. You seem to have more scientific background than a lawyer, maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once...
> Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen claims are provably scientifically wrong
I can't find any source for the data underlying the graph in your first link comparing Hansen to Lindzen regarding temperature predictions. The skeptical science article it is attributed to has a link to a 1988 Hansen paper that is broken ("not found"), and a link to a 1989 MIT Tech Talk article quoting Lindzen that has no graph at all and does not make any temperature prediction. So as far as I can tell, the supposed comparison in that graph has no factual basis.
Your second link shows multiple comparisons between statements Spencer has made and the "mainstream" IPCC position on climate science; the differences between them would be more accurately described as differences in opinion on how to interpret the data and how to make predictions, not as showing that Spencer is "provably scientifically wrong".
> As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance."
Yes, I did. See above.
> maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once...
I have been, for quite some time now. As I said, we're just going to have to disagree.
> looking at the people that really knows what they talk is not arguing from authority.
Why do you think they really know what they are talking about? Because they say so? Because they are "climate scientists" and have the "proper" credentials? That is arguing from authority.
Thanks a whole lot. Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers to a report instead of handwaving about how 2500 scientists cannot be wrong. Now we are talking!
Edit: still ain't completely sold. Anyone has pointers to why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago or can prove that this is wrong?
Compare to IPPC estimates: two whole degrees change are the most optimistic expectations and assume almost no use of fossil fuels in future, compared to now.
> Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers
See my other comment here, I also give the link to the raw data and the programs of the models too. And the books that teach the basic formulas involved. It is all real, and the effective consensus of the scientists is not accidental. There's immense scientific work on one side, almost no scientific work on another, and people have the impression that it's 50:50 only because the other side gets so much "air time."
See also how that other side is really the one which effectively lives from being there:
Thanks again. You did something right that I can't remember having seen before in the threads I have participated in.
Now that I have hopefully established myself as an uninformed but intelligent sceptic, not denier, here are two pointers as to why the explanation kind of worked this time:
* links to the actual report, and the intro part. Most people, even in technical forums, assumes malice right away, starts telling me how "2500 scientists can't be wrong" and that I should read the report, all while leaving me with a not-so-subtle feeling that they never read it themselves.
* actually, to a degree at least, answer my question about Greenland instead of immediately assuming malice and bringing out the troll hunting gear. This is, IIRC, the first time I have seen a serious answer that partly covers that question.
On my side I might read a bit more in the report, note one AGW person who isn't all torch and pitchforks and possibly change my mind. (I already live kind of carefully but because I don't like wasting resources, not because I have believed in AGW so far.)
"Each report is produced by a committee of experts selected by the Academy to address a particular statement of task and is subject to a rigorous, independent peer review; while the reports represent views of the committee, they also are endorsed by the Academy."
------
1) chartered by the US Congress in 1863 at the request of President Lincoln
Take a look at ecological changes: range of species, growing season change, bird migration changes in timing and whether migration happens or not. All point toward significant warming. Hansen has very little to say about them.
I'm looking at the paper. I don't understand the domain well enough to find the constants to which you're referring—do you have an example and why you find it weird?
For the Western US, the problems aren't so bad. There's a coastal mountain range along most of the California coast. In LA, a few places such as Venice/Marina Del Ray may need seawalls, but except for a few areas areas, three blocks inland is at least 100 feet above sea level. LAX is 121 feet above sea level.
The SF bay has more problems than the coast. Parts of San Francisco may need seawalls, and bayfront development such as Redwood Shores needs to be stopped. Google HQ is in trouble; they're on fill and only 10' above sea level. But once you're south of US101/CA237, you're OK in most of Silicon Valley.
In the southeastern US, things are potentially much worse. There's no coastal mountain range. Florida is barely above sea level now. Miami floods regularly. New Orleans is partly below sea level already.
A big question is what this does to Mississippi River flooding. A higher sea level means less river flow and more upstream flooding.
I'm really not convinced Miami will be around in 20 years. The floods are worse every year. Miami Beach doesn't just flood, it shuts down. There will come a time when sea level rise and hurricane season will collide in such a way that it won't be practical to rebuild.
Miami Beach is 4' above sea level on limestone. The slightest acceleration in seal level rise will doom the city. Maybe when the mega mansions on Palm Island become unserviceable people will take things seriously.
People say it could take another 100 years for the sea level to actually consume the land, but that's really not necessary. Just look at New York post Hurricane Sandy. Crippled parts of the city for months. When you get a storm like that, combined with higher tides and more regular flooding it seems like game over because they're just won't be enough time to rebuild before the next flood.
That's a good point. What high sea levels look like in practice is more frequent flooding. This happens long before total immersion.
For Hurricane Sandy, if the 14th St power substation had been protected, and subway and train tunnels equipped with flood gates (that was supposed to happen after 9/11 as an anti-terrorism measure) the damage would have been much more localized. The appropriate role for government here is to toughen up the infrastructure. New York has a plan.[1]
We just have to write off Miami Beach and parts of New Orleans. New Orleans has higher ground nearby, but Miami doesn't.
There are some tricks used in urban areas subject to river floods. Here's the Tamshui River as it flows through Tapei.[2] The river is bordered by broad parks, and the park is bordered by a freeway raised on a berm. That's all for flood control. During floods, the parks are underwater. Massive floodgates block roads under the freeway. (There are emergency stairs for people caught on the wrong side.) The river bridges are all high enough to bridge any flood. After each flood, the parks need some maintenance, but they have few structures and the ones they have are very solid. San Jose has a similar, but smaller, arrangement for the Guadalupe River. (Yes, that's why there are such nice trails and bike paths in downtown San Jose.)
The basic problem is the limestone. Because of the limestone, seawalls are essentially useless as the water goes underneath through the porous ground. I think very likely the comments only seem exaggerated to you because it's difficult to imagine with all the people around you driving fancy cars and buying expensive condos, like pre-cupernican difficult.
No one knows how long miami has, but I would bet it's closer to 20 years than 100 years. To be quite honest, I hope it happens sooner rather than later as maybe something like that will start to wake people the fuck up. Doubtful though. There's always another rationalization.
You're second paragraph is a cruel wish on the lives of millions. You wish this cruelty for the petty purpose of being on the right side of an argument
There is this strange idea, particularly in the US, that we can buy our way out of the problems caused by sea level rise. That's (somewhat) true in some cases, but Miami is not one of them. The ground is simply too porous. You'd have to pull some Dubai-level shit and build a second Miami Beach next to the original and move everyone over.
South Florida will almost undoubtably be the first area in the United States where wealthy people are materially impacted by sea level rise. And because the foundation is so porous it won't take 100 years before areas become untenable. Flooding that last a few days starts to last weeks.
Why would the place you live in have any baring on your knowledge of the effects of sea levels rising? You aren't handed a geotechtonics degree when you move there.
The idea that Miami will be gone in 20 years and not 200 is a ridiculous one. I live here on an island by the sea, I guess that doesn't make me a geotechtonista but it gives me some perspective other people in their basements in middle America might not have.
I wouldn't even give NYC 20 years. A direct hit from a category-3 hurricane would decimate that city. The building codes were only updated in 2008 to withstand hurricane winds. It's really only a matter of time
No, I'm serious. I assume the problem won't be fixed globally, so we have to look at it locally. For the Western US, it's not that bad. Southeastern US, not so much. The northeastern US has populated low-lying areas; the low-value ones need to be evacuated and the high-value ones, like Manhattan, protected. Even Manhattan isn't very flat; seawalls only need to go up to 30th St or so.
The US as a whole is in good shape; much of the US is way above sea level. Russia, which has almost no useful coastline, will be fine.
I appreciate your observations. I may be defeatist it seems too late to stop climate change. The last time political gridlock at the federal level was this bad, the U.S. had a Civil War, so I find it hard to envision a federal solution that happens soon enough. So instead, I'd like to know, "What comes next?"
You can't fix it "locally". Without global solution the sea level will just go higher and higher, and you will have to relocate all major coastal cities in a matter of centuries. Seawalls by themselves can only delay the inevitable.
The cost of maintaining sea walls will affect the value of land protected by the walls, and if levels continue to rise it will make land elsewhere more competitive. So I think local solutions will have global effects - effects of moving people and stuff around. It's not like sea level rises are going to be sudden and unexpected; they will be priced in if and when they have economically measurable effects.
I don't think there are any real problems directly caused by global warming in rich countries. Price information, including insurance costs, will be enough.
Second order effects like changes in the viability of crops may affect food security (but I expect climate change to make crops more viable elsewhere, or a different production mix), and economic (but warming related) migration will be a continuing and increasing challenge. International migration of farmers is probably the biggest problem I see.
International coordination of action is not going to happen or make any real difference without threat of military force, and I don't buy the idea that the problems will be acute and obvious enough to justify that. You can't fight tragedy of the commons without an overarching authority which we don't have. Countries will cheat for local gain. Global climate change politics is mostly a waste of time unless people are willing to start wars over failures to curb emmissions, and I just don't see it. People are much more willing to start wars over migration pressures, so I think that's what we'll see.
In light of how hard of a problem the global solution is (stopping greenhouse gas emissions), which one do you think is cheaper and easier? The global solution costs trillions of dollars as well, and has much more difficult coordination problems.
The local solution in this context at least has the benefit of having well defined goals where individual agents act out of there own easy to understand best interest. i.e: My house in Florida is flooding- I'm going to move to a different state. i.e: New York City is flooding and I'm a property developer- I'm going to build high rises somewhere close to NYC but at +30 m elevation.
Well, as they say, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. That is, the "local solutions" are at best interim measures to give us more time (while we hopefully tackle the root cause). They don't "solve" anything.
If your house in Florida is flooded and you move to Montana, you merely avoided the problem. I'm not saying it's wrong of you; it's the rational action for an individual. But it didn't solve anything any more than refugees fleeing Syria have solved the problem of war in Syria. And, just like Syria, some people will have to foot the bill this way or that.
I think this understates the magnitude of the problem. Humanity has had pretty constant coastlines for our entire history. If we get accelerating sea level rise we'll have to keep rebuilding our urban infrastructure every decade or three.
So, we finance seawalls with money no one has, but what happens when most of those buildings can withstand hurricane winds. What then? Rebuild all of them?
The assumption underlying a lot of the recommendations for actions in response to climate change is that the overwhelmingly dominant factor is CO2 emissions, and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only and/or best way to walk back from the consequences. Neither is true. For one, CO2 emissions reductions may not be realistically possible with our current technology and geopolitical situation. More importantly, there are other factors at play (such as soot changing the albedo on snow/ice covered arctic areas) and it's likely that there are dynamic effects at play which cannot simply be walked back by reducing CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
It's very likely that we're already locked into a certain level of sea level rise over the next few hundred years due to the breakup of antarctic ice sheets. This may not be something we can stop even if we could reduce atmospheric CO2 to whatever level we chose tomorrow. We need to look at ways of mitigating the impact of climate change and environmental change (whatever the cause) in the future even as we look at ways to try to reduce the negative impact of human activity on the climate and biosphere in general.
There are far too many people who look at pollution and climate change through an essentially religious lens. As though CO2 emissions are sin, and the only thing to do when caught sinning is to stop sinning, or at least sin less. This is an incredibly immature way to handle the complex relationship between mankind and Earth's environment.
Building sea walls is not a very good solution, we need to find a way to move melt water to the deserts instead. There is a very large amount of dry land that could consume a large portion of ice sheets as groundwater.
This assumes that climate change problems are local (in fairness, maybe the parent comment just happens to be focusing on those particular issues), but it may well create global economic and security crises, including wars.
Other than concern for the welfare of billions of people, who will buy your products? How will technology, education, and economic development spread in the developing world or even in the wealthy ones, when so many resources are spent on surviving climate change? Look what a blow the Great Recession and a couple of minor wars was to so many people; this would be much worse.
Seawalls are a bandaid fix, yes, but they're probably a reality we'll have to deal with at this point. We may have passed the point of inevitability for this rise in sea level -- barring, as the article suggests, any unforeseen stabilizing or countervailing forces to balance out the loss of the ice sheets.
Basically: seawalls aren't the solution, but they're probably part of how we cope with whatever degree of sea-level rise is already bound to happen at this point.
I think the unfortunate reality is that we're going to have to go through a major, catastrophic climate change event before the narrative of the American right (which is by far the most vocal denier of climate change) changes and we can start making some progress in reversing it.
I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for terraforming technology.
Every single Republican candidate for president was openly mocking Obama when he was in Paris a few months ago for the climate talks. They're an absolute embarrassment:
So many people point to politicians as the problem, but remember the people who keep them in power. Politicians are just people who play the numbers, which is exactly how a republic is supposed to operate.
Yes that's correct and it works assuming the population is accurately informed. There's been a huge propoganda push against the idea of human caused climate change. And it's largely worked. I'm sure many of the politicians even believe it.
I think it has a lot more to do with moneyed interests who would lose out on climate-change regulation than with a tremendous bloc of voters who will not support a candidate who believes climate change is real.
Saying ISIS is a bigger threat to the global world than climate change is....embarrassing? Innocent people are being blown up and their heads are being cut off at this instant because of ISIS. They are committing a genocide at this very minute.
How many people per year would you estimate ISIS kills?
Is it more than 150,000 people [1]? Because that's how many people the WHO estimates currently die right now as a result of climate change. And the number is expected to go up to 250,000 by 2030-2050 [2].
Other estimates have been even higher, e.g. [3] which came up with 400,000 extra deaths due to climate change per year already.
Thanks for the links. I'll read them later in full. Off the bat: “That estimate includes deaths as a result of extreme weather conditions, which may be occurring with increased frequency.” May being the keyword there. Also, if the argument is more rainfall and temperatures contributing to spread of disease, does it estimate the ability to harvest more, or for longer periods in cooler climates? Not to belittle the warnings and data presented, but to look for the positive in the negative.
The GP poster is right--the threat to the average person from terrorism, from all sources, is tiny compared to, say, the risk due to extreme weather....or getting hit by a bus when crossing the street. Humans don't tend to respond rationally to fear, and tend to over exaggerate the risks of shocking things like death from terrorism. It is so common that some people came up with the idea of micromorts, so that one can reliably compare risks of unrelated items. Terrorism results in pretty tiny micromorts compared to, say, getting stuck by lightening.
And yet, with the record levels of climate emissions, billions of people are living longer and healthier due to cheaper energy costs that keep them warm and fed at low cost.
Why is the global world living longer despite its ever increasing usage of fossil fuels? Just to take one example, China's life expectancy has grown increasingly despite having record levels of pollution. You would think that more and more people would die as fossil fuels increase. Something doesn't connect here. Care to explain the conundrum for me?
ISIS having their hands on a nuke would be catastrophic.
Isis getting a nuke is quite far fetched. What is a bigger danger is one of the terrorist groups in Pakistan (which actually has nuclear weapons) getting a nuke. Or India & Pakistan having a nuclear exchange. Or one of the wars in the Middle East leading to Israel or the USA to use the nuclear weapons they have ready there (which they continually threaten). Nuclear war is one of the scariest things we face and could destroy us instantly, it's a small chance but a possibility.
However climate change is definitely already happening and is potentially also devastating for the survival of the species. It could itself ignite a number of conflicts, we have no idea what will happen, but we know it could be very bad.
Actually since Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret they are not continually threatening to use them, however the US is a different story. There are US nuclear weapons present in every war and the threats are made with statements like, "no option is off the table", and by looking at official policy, which maintains the option of a first nuclear strike.
I did exaggerate, sorry. There is some credible possibility of this happen, but our current models don't predict it. [1] I think it is fair to say that climate change could be very disruptive to civilization. Eg, it could cause famines, refugee crises, collapse of some societies, etc.
I would note that the graph does not show what the headline indicates.
The graph BNEF prepared shows carbon emissions ~tripling from 2012 to 2040, due to substantial growth in non-OECD coal & gas consumption, which swamps the drop in these categories for OECD countries.
Meanwhile, its consumption of coal – the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – dropped by 3.7 per cent, with imports down by a substantial 30 per cent.
The country’s solar and wind energy capacity soared last year by 74 and 34 per cent respectively compared with 2014, according to figures issued by China’s National Bureau of Statistics yesterday.
The latest figures state that “clean energy” – a combination of hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas – now accounts for 18 per cent of all its energy, up from 13 per cent in 2011.
Such rapid changes in how energy generation in China is changing suggests to me, that graph projecting non-OECD CO2 emission is most likely be wrong and overly pessimistic.
I'm not worried about China at all, their leadership has a far better chance of listening to science and acting appropriately. As they grow their standard of living it will be using less carbon intensive methods.
Meanwhile, the US is far too entrenched with ideology and vested interests that have captured the political machinery.
Kind of sad that we're in this state, but people keep voting Republican...
This could be primarily because of the economic slowdown, but I've read other articles that report the change is more systemic and permanent as China seeks to lead in clean energy tech.
I care about China of course, I said I'm not "worried" about them. I'm not "worried" about those increasing emissions, that's completely expected, and better than what most people thought it would be in previous years.
What solutions are you proposing exactly to reverse climate change? The trillions in investment so far in clean energy have yielded minimal results. What specifically are you recommending?
If renewables did get trillions in investment this far, a reference would be nice, it wouldn't touch the subsidies fossil fuels receive annually at $5.3tn[0].
Accounting for environmental damage is important, but if you calculate the subsidies like that, it isn't just the energy industry that gets subsidized (as would largely be the case with renewables), it's the consumers using the energy (they receive most of such subsidies).
So just to be clear: The $5.3 trillion is arrived at by counting untaxed environmental harm as a subsidy. Which I think it is interesting to consider the damage, but I don't think that is what people are going to think when they think energy subsidy.
No, this really is a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry: the amount they pay to obtain fossil fuels is less than the actual cost, which means they can sell them for prices which would be unprofitable if they paid for the environmental costs and for applications where they'd otherwise be replaced by other more environmentally-friendly options. The consumers definitely aren't the ones who are being subsidised here - they don't care where their energy is coming from, so the actual consumer benefit is only the difference between the cost of fossil fuels and the cost of the cheapest option if fossil fuel producers had to pay the full environmental price, minus the environmental harms to the consumers. (Which may well actually not be a net benefit to consumers at all.)
But consumers would have either had to pay extra for that $5.3 trillion expense, or not use as much energy. Figuring out where the blame should be placed is a bit of chicken and egg, but we're trying to point out that bandying questionable numbers around like this isn't helping the cause.
I think my point still stands in response to his argument, if you ignore post-tax subsidies. The pre-tax sum is $333bn in 2015 and $541bn in 2013. So would easily accumulate to trillions over a short number of years.
But I do think post-tax subsidies is a fair metric, for example, in places where there's state health care, my tax is being spent to care for people whose health has been affected by fossil fuels. So it seems like state subsidised to me.
As I mentioned in my other reply to you (which happened at the same time) revenue neutral carbon tax, or the equivalent righty version which is cap and trade.
But really technology is going to drive this change, as long as the entrenched interests don't prevent the use of renewables that are cheaper than fossil fuels.
Already ideally sited solar and wind are cheaper than coal, and learning curves are pushing that down all the time.
Storage is also getting incredibly cheap, with lithium ion batteries it's around $0.08/kWh right now at the wholesale level.
What we're really going to need is efficient carbon capture schemes though, because the feet-draggers have cost us an extremely valuable 15 years. If we can do capture at something less than $500/ton then I'm starting to feel a bit optimistic that we can head off the worst of it.
But every. Single. Ton. That we emit right now is going to cost out children several times that amount. Improving efficiency of use and increasing the scale and efficiency of the renewable energy manufacturing is a massively important economic development for the US and the world.
The trouble with the idea that technology will drive this change is that it's just driving down the cost of fossil fuels to below the new technologies as countries like Saudi Arabia desperately try and make sure they sell all of their oil. In order to avoid global warming we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and that's just not in the interest of fossil fuel producers, and because for a lot of those fuels extraction is a tiny portion of the price they can afford to undercut renewables all the way down the cost curve until the pumps run dry or the renewable energy manufacturers give up and go out of business.
Fuel costs are just one part of the infrastructure, as fuels get cheaper, capital costs will dominate. (And they already do for, say, cars where less than half of the per mile costs are for fuel.) At some point I believe the capital costs will be less for renewables than for any fossil fuel based system.
Of course if we were to price in the negative externalities, I think that renewables would already be cheaper. But this is one case where ideology has prevented us from setting up an efficient market for energy.
Except cap and trade programs have done nothing to prevent or curb climate change. Oil companies just buy carbon offsets and continue polluting. Solar still depends on billions in subsidies to be viable, as with many other renewable energy sources. Solar is also extremely inefficient. It costs around 8 times more to output the same energy compared to natural gas for example. We've already invested billions in solar, and we've barely made a dent on solar costs. Oil is very cheap and affordable to the poor, which explains their continued use in the developing world over renewable energy.
What carbon cap and trade programs? Is your contention that a cap and trade program could t reduce emissions? If it can't, then it's not a cap and trade program.
Your pricing information on renewables is out of date, and quickly becoming more out of date.
The renewable industry is changing fast, traditional energy industry changes slow. Those dinosaurs won't know what's hit them until it's too late.
Not 100% sure about this, but if you rely only on a pure market approach, then oil & coal will become cheaper & cheaper while they become less popular. Their demand will drop & so the price will go down.
The reality is that we must put an human mandated limit on the amount of carbon fuels to burn.
Think of it another way: If burning carbon fuels causes major instability in the climate, then the fate of the human race should not be determined by the amount of carbon in the ground. It should be determined by humans being determined.
Higher prices on carbon fuels would be the simplest solution. Cap and trade works. It's not perfect but it works. Creating property rights for the sky lets markets do their magic.
"A 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1."
There are several examples in history of succumbing to hte logic "we need a single-party state in order to finally listen to scientists about the best way to run society!" It doesn't end well.
I suppose if the scientists were in charge, we'd finally stop burning fossil fuels? That we'd force massive changes to resource distribution and reshape society in order to save the world?
And if you don't agree, you're too dangerous, right? Off ot the gulags?
Do you understand that millions and millions of people would die of starvation?
It's amazing how eagerly people advocate for the right kind of totalitarianism.
Hah, that's not even remotely what I was asking for, and very weird that you would put totalitarianism as words in my mouth. Most unfair.
the way that parties change is that people stop voting for them. Any vote for such a stridently anti-science and anti-future party encourages them.
That said, this is my most important issue. Others will rank other issues higher, and vote on that basis. But it will be at least a decade after the Republican Party apologizes and corrects their science mistakes that I will trust them to vote for them.
Since when are any politicans forthright in correcting and apologizing for their mistakes? Barring prison or other legal woes, when was the last time the advocates of any government program awknowledged and sought to remedy the deleterious effects of their actions?
I don't read that epistasis was suggesting it's because they're a single party totalitarian state. It's because their elected officials aren't loudly proclaiming that climate change doesn't exist, regardless of how many parties there are.
Plenty of multi-party democracies have parties that somehow manage to agree on whether anthropogenic climate change exists and whether dinosaurs were real. America just isn't one of them.
We don't need a single party state, we need parties that aren't embarrassingly out of touch with how the world works. When your presidential candidates take pride in not believing things despite overwhelming evidence, you have a problem.
What's amazing is that people think questioning means you aren't scientific (and thus an idiot). Believing in science MEANS questioning everything.
Our society questions nothing. If we find it on the internet - it's true. Very few want to be a contrarian or go against what's popular at any given time for fear of others shaming them in mob-groups for having a different viewpoint.
We've entrusted too much credibility in people with science degrees and their models. I've done some interesting things with machine learning. It's extremely easy to develop predictive models that confirm what you want to confirm. That was probably the first thing I learned and if you aren't humble - you'll use a model as a crutch and be proved a fool.
Some of the greatest minds in history have been proven wrong. Science is not a democracy.
Our country isn't either but people forget that. They think 50+1 should dictate everything. Me-first.
If only they understood the other side - they could unite. But they haven't advanced beyond their tribalism and self-righteousness.
There is this scary video[1] done by NASA that shows the earth with the level of CO2 across a year. The CO2 from China goes right to SF... And then it goes crazy. You can also see why the amazon rainforest is named the lungs of the planet or in this video it looks more like the heart of our planet.
But China seems now to be really willing to reduce its impact on the planet. There are the huge investments on solar panels for instance.
Can you provide a link supporting your claim that animal agriculture has >50% of the CO2 footprint or that the American continents produce much more CO2 than China?
I couldn't find the links for the second claim (its somewhere out there) but the ones provided don't account for animals, land use and rainforest elimination. All three are major factors of the animal agriculture.
Note that these links are talking about total greenhouse gas production, not just CO2 as was originally stated in pitchka's comment and questioned in mine. Pitchka's "18%/51%" estimates are not actually talking about literal CO2 output, but rather about general "GHG" (greenhouse gas) emissions, including gases like methane.
Based on these links which we traded, while you appear to be incorrect in your claims about literal CO2 emissions (which was what I originally commented on), perhaps what is more important is that you are correctly alluding to the effect of greenhouse gases besides CO2, such as methane.
The American right is really a coalition of several different factions, and it can be chipped apart on certain issues. We see that today, with religious conservatives proposing state laws to discriminate against gay and transgender people, but many big businesses opposing those laws.
Maybe we could make progress more quickly on fighting climate change if we simply bought off businesses. Implement a carbon tax that replaces business income tax and results in a net lower tax burden on businesses (from day one), and I bet a lot of opposition funding would dry up.
It would be very expensive... but compare to the cost of protecting or moving all our coastal cities and communities.
Maybe one reason climate change has become a cultural/political issue is that the people who understand the issue best and have worked on it the hardest, tend to also be people who are suspicious of businesses in general. They resist anything that looks like a corporate giveaway, and prefer a regulatory, government-led approach. As a result, "freedom first" libertarian types have lined up with big businesses in opposition.
I won't pretend that I've thought through the details deeply--take this as a musing more than an actual proposal.
Policy is not going to fix this. Neither are politicians. We're trapped in an economic model which demands infinite growth. A system built principally on hydrocarbon energy. Modest improvements can be made to improve efficiencies (see Jevon's paradox), but we're in a treadmill to hell. You can't grow GDP without consuming more energy. We stop growing, the system will collapse. And you're never going to have a politician get elected on a platform of conservation. "You know all that wasteful consumption we've enjoyed since winning the second world war, you're going to have to do with less"
Like mold in a petri dish, the human population will collapse ultimately into decentralized anarchist societies who trade among one another. Assuming we stop the 400+ reactors from going into meltdown, the majority of the population will return to farming.
We're not going to Mars anytime soon. You people can't live without AC or even know how to grow a fucking tomato plant. Sadly, most of this community will die.
Like Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy? Or the streets of Miami flooding? I don't think anything is going to change a denier's minds if they don't want to. We just have to try and fix it without them.
This is an unintentionally great comment. When people claim that every weather event is caused by global warming, it's hard to take it those claims seriously.
You're saying that those hurricanes would not have been any less severe without the impact of humans messing with the atmosphere for the last century?
I'm not saying "global warming causes all the hurricanes", I'm saying "humans messing with the atmosphere has increased the variance and severity of our weather". If you don't agree with that, you're in willful denial.
Anyways, thanks for recognizing that my comment was great. I'll take what I can get.
Do we really think a century of data is a lot? Especially when you are talking about ~20 events per year?
Can you explain why 1850 looks comparable or worse than the 1990s and worse than 2010s so far? I don't see what this proves.
The inputs for "man's impact" in the 1850s would not come close to modern day. If we took that into account, by your logic, the bar charts should explode out the top! But it doesn't. Not even close.
1850 - 1.2B people
2010s - ~7B people and a lot more pollution
From your linked data, the impact of AGW on hurricanes over the last year = 0
Edit: I think you may agree with me that it doesn't point to more extreme weather events. If so - my comment is directed at the parent.
The problem, of course, is that the salaries of most supporters of the Republican party would not be impacted at all by most measures that would be taken to curtail emissions. The salaries of the leaders (and, more importantly, their backers) on the other hand...
I'm not sold on the AGW stuff the environmentalists put out, but their problem is positioning and they haven't grasped that in their battle.
Nobody is arguing climate change can have big impact. We're discussing AGW. Obviously deforestation and air pollution is a Bad Thing. The environmentalists would be better off telling that story which is quite simple and easy to understand.
I'm a buyer of that as both logic and an investment but not the Chicken-Little AGW story. Positioning is very important when you are selling something.
~7 million die from air pollution related deaths per year
Total number of people that die of starvation per year: ~8 million. ~900 million malnourished.
~800 million don't have access to clean water. Several millions die each year from diseases related to unsanitary water.
I don't understand why we can't unite and tackle those 3 instead of making it a battle between politics, environmentalism and self-righteousness (both sides).
If you believe or don't believe in AGW - tackling air pollution, food supply and the water crisis should be of utmost importance.
What if the left just figure out how many people to move into right leaning states to make a sweep?
The left has been the majority for a while, but not in charge because 1 person != 1 vote (2 senators / state regardless of population, no D.C. senator, electoral college system.. any more?)
It would be even easier if the left would just get off its collective butts and go vote.
Disproportionate representation is a problem, for sure, but the American left would have far more success despite that problem if only they would go vote in off-year elections.
Either way, I don't think it would help the fundamental problem, which is that roughly half of the voters in this country don't accept climate science, and their party and associated media have set up a huge feedback loop to keep it that way. Helping the Democrats isn't really a solution, because we need two healthy parties.
So long as a dangerously insane candidate is in danger of winning an election, the only ethical choice is to vote for the sane candidate most likely to win in any race.
Agree that we need multiple functional sane parties, but we haven't had that happy situation in the US for forty years.
I totally agree, you have to work within the framework you have, and in this case that means voting against the crazies. It just doesn't work very well. I don't claim to have any answers for what would work better, it's just that this particular answer is unsatisfying.
Really? So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left? That's odd because I know a lot of conservative folks who are for marriage equality and left-wing folks who love guns and are members of the NRA.
> So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left?
For hysterical raisins, the US has a basically permanent two-party system. Charitably speaking, you can be socially and economically either conservative or liberal, R or D.
There are some people who are economically conservative and socially liberal -- "do what you want, and leave me alone." There are others who are economically liberal and socially conservative -- "we should help the less fortunate, because that is what Christ and compassion demand." And there are plenty of other positions, but the only two real options are R and D. Tweaking the meanings of those two letters is your best bet.
This is meant to be a thought provoking question, not an attack:
What if the safety of the planet lay in stopping greenhouse emissions. But certain large blocs of the international community refused to stop pumping it out of the ground.
Now say diplomatic means don't create any real progress, only broken promises. For an example of what that might look like, take the nuclear accord John Kerry just got Iran to sign this year. Already they have tested new long range missiles and their leader, Khamenei, released a statement this week: "Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors," [0].
Seriously, what happens when those with fossil fuel reserved chose to use them, even when your country is being responsible? What if it meant another war in Iraq: would the positions on policy for fixing AGW swtich between Democrats and Republicans?
it is an interesting question - would we go to war to prevent carbon release?
for me to have a position on the question would depend on the particulars.
A related thought - there aren't a ton of countries that have both large fossil fuel reserves and a large enough domestic market to burn them at a high rate. US and China are the only two that come to mind. Maybe Iran? Which implies that sanctions (either on the import of energy or the export of finished goods) might be effective if you can keep the US and China on board.
As long as people are flying private jets to climate conferences I cry foul.
If they want anyone to act they would do as the king of Nineveh:Jona 3:6
"For word came to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes."
The moment I see climate scientists starts to switch to teleconferences I think I will give it a second thought.
(Yeah. I know many, possibly most of you don't believe a thing of that but it is still a good example.)
(FWIW: I make a living making solar cell technology, I previously programmed recycling machines. I just happen to be tired of hypocrisy.)
A private jet releases something like 20 tons of CO2 per flight (depending on distance / type of jet / etc. etc.). The US Coal industry released 5.4 billion tons of CO2 last year. Each private jet flight then represents about 120 milliseconds of US Coal production. So yeah, Al Gore and Leo could (and should) cut out their private jet habit, but maybe we also should burn less coal?
The power of examples. Or: actions speak louder than words.
The very moment politicians start acting like there is a crisis, people will listen.
For now it all looks like a giant racketeering scheme to deprieve the small man of cheap energy and travel while the rich ones get richer.
Not saying it is like this, but think about it a moment before knee-jerkingly hitting the downvote button.
I'm in no position to judge the science behind this but I have a nose for fish and something stinks so badly I have a hard time crediting it all to right-wing nuts for now at least.
> I'm in no position to judge the science behind this
And yet, you do.
Why do you imagine the politicians would be concerned with climate change? It's not like they or the rest of the oligarchy are going to be the ones affected.
I think you could say the same about most issues that politicians (attempt to) address. Were Nixon or Nancy Reagan ever trapped in the inner-cities deciminated by the results of their failed drug policy? Were generations of their families imprisoned as a result? Does George Bush ever have to worry about ISIS causing harm to himself or his family? Or an onslaught of immigrants on his family ranch? Will Diane Fienstein be spending her old age alone, unarmed, 30 miles from her nearest neighbors or other assistance? Unlikely.
Al Gore buys carbon offsets for his jet travel. Letting him do what he wants and still have a net carbon contribution that is 0.
Of course that depends on the people he pays for the carbon offsets actually reducing carbon emissions somewhere else in the world. It is easier to claim that you will than it is to actually do it.
(My bet is that within 10 years there will be a major scandal as someone in that space turns out to be a pure and simple scammer.)
Nah, but it helps against getting fooled while we wait for them to either stop trying to fool me (not sure about this) or put their money where their mouth is.
It was not about me being downvoted, that is more or less a given, it was about the person replying to me getting downvoted although IMO his point was valid.
Ok, that's why I was confused; by the time I got to the thread, that person had been upvoted back in the black (perhaps due to your votes). Anyway, I love some good discourse. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
I kind of don't care about their opinion on a scientific matter. The real issue is building political coalitions to force their compliance through democratic legislation.
What specific solutions are you recommending to reverse climate change? Ban fossil fuels? Force everyone to buy Teslas (which ironically depend on fossil fuels)?
A revenue neutral carbon tax at about $80/ton is popular enough that oil companies use it in their planning for the future.
The "right" has favored cap and trade schemes in the past (specifically Reagan), but suddenly became allergic to the idea.
Your "solutions" are ridiculous anti-market solutions, presumably exaggerations that you would use to describe the solutions that have actually been proposed?
Also, Teslas and other electric vehicles do not depend on fossil fuels, even if they can potentially be powered by fossil fuels (at much higher efficiencies than fossil fuel vehicles)
>Also, Teslas and other electric vehicles do not depend on fossil fuels, even if they can potentially be powered by fossil fuels (at much higher efficiencies than fossil fuel vehicles)
Of course they do. They are made of materials that depend on fossil fuels for extraction. To pretend otherwise is completely idiotic. Everything that doesn't come from plants has to be mined and mining is energy intensive.
Technically speaking all the plastic used is made from fossil fuels, but taking fossil fuels and turning them into something that we'll bury in holes in the ground instead of burning them probably isn't a bad thing when talking about global warming.
For the past 15 years or so, Germany has been pursuing an aggressive plan to switch entirely to renewable power, which includes building out lots of wind and solar. Some say it's not fast enough, but it's still pretty impressive, especially for a country so far from the equator. I think the country is around 30% renewable by now.
Bear in mind, this is absolutely necessary for the entire world at some point. Fossil fuels will not last forever. Best start now and not procrastinate.
In terms of specific policy to pursue: basically lots of subsidies.
All the power in my camper is provided by solar energy. I paid maybe $500 for the system, including a lithium ion battery. It will provide power for the next 25 years for two people, using computers all day long and plenty of bright lights at night.
Solar power is hella cheap. People need to stop whining.
It is cheap because manufacturing was subsidised by cheaper dirty coal-fired electricity. Solar panels today are essentially overpriced batteries that require years of time and sunshine to discharge. 10 years ago most solar panels barely returned 50% of the energy expended to make them. At least we seems to be getting close to the breakeven point.
P.S. I really doubt that the panel will last 25 years, and the battery is likely to go poof even sooner.
The battery is Lifepo4 chemistry with a good solar controller from electrodacus.com. I typically drain to about 65% so these are considered shallow cycles.
I think the battery will go for 15 years & the panels too. So 25 years was a bit of a stretch but 15 years electricity for $500 was pretty OK.
Solar energy really is cheap.
There are many parts of the world where it makes the most financial sense.
Does anyone know if these climate models are open source, how they work etc? It seems this is an area where we as software engineers can start to have a think about how accurate these simulations are and possibly think about ways of improving them...
It is possible to access many parts of most of these models, however I think it's not as easy as you might imagine to just dive in and improve them. Often, an individual needs a background in a specific scientific field in addition to some software engineering capabilities. Sometimes this means you have mathematicians and physicist pursuing higher degrees in atmospheric science, in other cases an ecologist gains a masters in CS. I think you might be underestimating the programming and numerical chops of people who are involved in making the models run, not everyone is a great programmer, but they do exist within the broad field.
The overarching climate models also typically aren't individual monolithic models, but tend involve various multidisciplinary pieces spanning much of the physical sciences. Also, get ready to work in Fortran. I spent a summer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and met some people there whose work was mostly the uncertainty quantification of outside climate models. My understanding at the time was that the lab specifically does not produce their own model, but rather, acts as an impartial testing ground for the major efforts from other global institutions.
All of that aside, they do have plenty of problems, and people from the outside do come in and make improvements, it's just not necessarily easy to break into. If you wanted something more accessible to start thinking about, you could do worse than the edGCM from Columbia[1].
As someone with a small amount of background in software engineering (though it's not my primary job) I can say that they do think about these things and do have very experienced software developers working on these projects, but help is always appreciated!
Speaking to the accuracy of the simulations I do think that's more in the domain scientist's court though, since most of these things use pretty specialized numerical models and physical approximations.
Edit: I'd also like to say that I pretty much agree with everything cwal said.
The models are all numerical simulations. But even if you are skilled in numerical calculations you'd need a lot of energy to learn and understand the domain too.
Here's one university elementary-introduction-level course about that:
For some context about what impact this could have on major U.S. cities, the NYTimes published an interactive a few years back[1].
I guess if this new model is accurate, the scenarios on that link which are projected for 100-300 years out could instead happen in a few decades. This would result in major areas of Miami, New Orleans, NYC, and Sacramento all going underwater.
Central valley all used to be marshlands/lakes/extensions of the bay. The coastal regions of CA are hills. CA is basically a giant bowl (which flattens out towards the south).
Right, totally not what one would expect. But based on the geography of California, it's very vulnerable if the water levels were to go up significantly. There would essentially be a second Bay cutting deeper into the state, only it would probably be a toxic mess a few feet deep with acres of asphalt and buildings barely submerged.
This story is about ~1 metre sea level rise. Greenland's glaciers (if they were to entirely melt) provide ~8 metres, and Antarctica's would provide ~60 metres - so even if you built a wall to protect some / much of this area, you'd have to be planning either subsequent abandonment or a lot more construction work.
But this presupposes that it's feasible from an engineering or financial perspective -- I suspect that in any but a tiny number of cases that it would not be.
In turn it assumes that people would want to live behind a wall that is protecting them from probable death if it collapses, or is intentionally destroyed by the kinds of people who like to kill other people. And these walls would be quite an attractive target.
Would you want to live beneath sea-level if you had the option to live above sea-level?
Then there's groundwater issues (salinity is going to render such earth less habitable).
> "I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase."
This is a good 'eli5' answer to the question posed.
What is an alternative hypothesis? The energy companies worked against renewable because it was Good For The Country? Because nothing expensive or hard is worth getting? Because economic ruin was definitely going to happen?
The other answers don't actually address your question. To some extent, yes, because adequately protecting large areas of exposed coast requires building and maintaining many miles of seawalls. This isn't impossible by any means, but economically it's not very feasible to protect, say, Miami from both rising sea levels and the intense hurricanes that are likely to result. It would be much cheaper to just relocate people inland as needed.
i.e. is there one catastrophic event where everything is immediately flooded? (Similar to Katrina).
Or is the area just slowly flooded over decades? In which case, no one does anything? (i.e. the Sacramento scenario is hard to fathom in this scenario)
I suppose it would be like Katrina (New Orleans) or Sandy (New York), which of course un-flooded after the storm, but each time it floods, with the base sea level being higher than last time, it gets progressively worse until you just give up spending the money to reclaim the land and protect it from the next storm.
Maybe look into whatever it is they do in the Netherlands. A very large fraction of the entire country is just barely above sea level (or even below it in places).
60% of the population is below sea level, even. It's true that only 25% of the land area is below sea level (and another 25% less than 1 meter above it), but that happens to be the most densely populated area.
For example, if the sea were to spill over onto all below-sea-level land, Amsterdam would be an island, some 15 km off the new coastline. The Port of Rotterdam would still be there (25km offshore), but the rest of the city would disappear.
It'll be underwater (literally and figuratively) 5 years after you buy it...
Also, changes in land values are far more likely to be driven by changes in employment patterns, transportation technology, and weather systems than by sea levels.
Honest question, does Antartica have any, what you would consider as, inhabitants? My understanding is that it is only scientists from a variety of countries that live there on temporary stints. However, if the ice melts in any considerable way, I wonder if (some very extreme) individuals might start looking at moving there?
It is a huge continent... if the ices melts, it's terrible in a way, but looking positivistically at the situation, there must be lots of potential.
I'm sure there are some treaties etc on Antarctica that limit exploitation? What if a bunch of people went down there with some guns and claimed some land, what would happen?
Antarctica does have exposed rock; it's not all just ice.
Not sure why you were downvoted. What we do with it is an interesting question. There is little harm in looking for ways to adapt to climate change if we don't succeed in stopping it.
Plenty of countries have claimed overlapping areas of Antarctica. Currently an international treaty reserves Antarctica for mostly science and nature (no military, no mining) but the treaty isn't permanent.
Unless you were planning to transport a giant iceberg with a boat, it doesn't matter that there is a lot of fresh water in Antarctica.
Water is very cheap, people need it. The important thing is to have available water near the people that is easy and cheap to process. So it's important to keep the big rivers as clean as possible, and use that water efficiently.
If tomorrow all the ice in Antarctica magically disappears, it would not change the problems of the people that need water to drink or cultivate plants.
(If the ice magically disappears, it will create other problems changing the climate patterns. If it just melt instead of truly disappearing, it will cause floods.)
Antarctica exists basically in two separate ice sheets, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the first of which consists of 90% of the sheet.
The collapse of ice in Antarctica is basically limited to the tinier West Antarctic Ice Sheet, with the EAIS expected to make a more or less neutral balance (perhaps even slightly positive).
If I actually want to use fresh water, Antarctica's ice is not available at all - at least not until we start towing icebergs to Saudi Arabia or something...
Maybe I'm missing something, but what does that do for us? It's not like you or I are drinking antarctic water. For it to get to us, it has to melt into the salty ocean, evaporate, and then rain.
The problem is that the best-case scenario for Antarctica is severely limited by the whole "daylight" problem. Being at the pole, it is dark a lot of the time, and even when it is light a lot of the time, the light is hitting it at sharp angle, making it both inconvenient and weaker.
At best you're probably talking, Antarctica becomes as livable as Alaska is now.
There has been industrial interesting at exploiting the mineral resources of Antarctica, so I wouldn't be surprises if there has been consideration at colonizing it as well, or if one of the justification for such enterprise would be to study harsh conditions for potential space colonies.
I fear an Armageddon. We are changing the climate faster than we understand what's happening, and we're starting to get weirder and weirder weather patterns. We're threatening our food supply.
We've destroyed most of the ocean's fish, and we're heavily dependent on livestock and crops for food. If we disrupt the weather too much, we're not going to be able to make food. People are going to starve, and not by the millions but by the hundreds of millions. Certainly enough strife to cause war between the countries that are actually trying to do something and the countries that are continuing to ramp their CO2 output.
We don't know when we cross the line from 'severe' to 'dire', but we've got enough destructive technology that if it becomes a global problem, we may end up blowing ourselves up trying to resolve the conflict.
I was recently in Africa, and I was shown the rate at which the country (Cote d'Iviore) was growing. Families with as many as 10 kids. But all I could see was deforestation. Miles and miles of deforestation, something like 30 minutes of driving through an urban area that had all been vegetation in 2011.
This season's weather was weird, and it has made me very afraid of what's coming in the next 5 years. We're destroying our planet's methods of regulation, and at the same time we are increasing the rate at which we're introducing adversarial agents. It's going to be a disaster, because everyone reading this critically knows that the people in power aren't going to do anything about it until people in their own country are dying by the millions as a result.
If you care about surviving the next 20 years, this should be your biggest concern. We depend on a stable climate. Without that, we will not have food. Be afraid.
If you were shocked to see 1 million crossing into Europe in 2015, imagine what it will be like in the near future when tens of millions face drought & famine.
The general problem is that most of the world lacks the scientific understanding to know how big & bad of a problem this may turn out to be.
Google & zuckerberg could just black out certain zip codes every so often. go to google.com & get a message about the impending doom & what the person can do about it.
To me, people should not be able to pick & choose technology. If you enjoy using a cell phone & sending email then you should accept what scientists are saying. No more doubting.
If software is eating the world, it should hurry up & start directing the herd.
> If you enjoy using a cell phone & sending email then you should accept what scientists are saying.
This is not a valid argument. The science that underlies the workings of your cell phone and email is more accurate by many orders of magnitude than climate science. "Science" is not all one thing, and climate science does not get to claim the same accuracy as, say, electrodynamics just because it has "science" in its name.
It sounds like you're advocating for totalitarianism. What scientists in what disciplines are the designated authorities? What does "no more doubting" or "you should accept what scientists are saying" even mean?
Suppose some scientists say "global warming is an imminent existential threat". Should I be forced to implement their policy proposals as well, or do I just have to nod my head in agreeance to their every decree? What is the threshold upon which scientists must be "accepted" (and presumably obeyed)? Who decides this?
I do not doubt that the climate is changing nor I doubt that humans play a large factor in that. Yet I cannot gather the will to be afraid. It is true that we haven't faced this challenge from a prevention standpoint, at least not beyond small mitigations, but when has humanity embraced prevention from the start? We usually leave that as a lesson for the second time...
Climate change will stress our civilization and we will deal with that stress, becoming more capable and sophisticated in the process. Well that, or we will die. But that has been the deal since the start. Lets stay awake people, there will be lots of adapting to do!
Assuming no major attempt to stop or reverse climate change happens until the major crises start (Im an American), huge swathes of infrastructure will be destroyed or rendered unusable. To say we've grown used to that infrastructure is a adorably naive understatement; like I'm sitting here eating a genetically engineered animal grown a thousand miles away that was only born so it could be killed, while arguing with hundreds of people simultaneously by mashing my finger into a sheet of sapphire and having light waves beamed into space and back. Modern human is so weird that we're essentially a different species compared to what we were/will be without the current global infrastructure. I'm afraid societies dont have or wont quickly be able to develop the knowledge needed to survive the new planet we're making.
Well certainly, but the difference is Europe was given loans from decidedly non-postapocalyptic America and they didnt have to worry about understanding an effectively different planet. Reconstruction post climate change isnt really analogous.
If excess energy consumption is a 'vice', we would be following Malthus's prediction of a vice-based catastrophe before a food based 'Malthusian' catastrophe:
"The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
Just like yeast die of alcohol (pollution) poisoning during fermentation before their food source is anywhere near depleted, we might have plenty of food but not do so hot. If yeast could only slow their reproduction they might last for a darn good while in the brew...but luckily they destroy themselves! Otherwise beer would be too slow, and that's unacceptable.
From what I understand, a carbon tax is one of the most immediate and effective things we could do to combat climate change. If I understand the Macroeconomics correctly, the supply side shouldn't feel too much of a hit. Low-income consumers could maybe write off the carbon tax. I.e., the revenue from the tax could either go towards infrastructure spending, or it could go back to people in the form of a tax offset somewhere else.
Imagine if the money pouring into the American political process right now was channeled into electing Congressional leaders who, you know, believe in science. Or if some of the grassroots dollars being burned on TV ads for candidates A, B and C could be spent on a campaign to convince the public that a carbon tax would be good for us.
Australia was a good experiment on this and the effects were dramatic, equally dramatic when it was repealed (yes a major piece of legislation was rolled back, which is another problem in itself) http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repeale...
Note that you will need to select "Southern Hemisphere" at this link in order to see the Antarctic ice measurements. By default you are seeing something else.
Do note that the sea ice extent has little to do with what the ice sheets are doing. From what I last heard (my information might be out of date), the slight increase in sea ice extent in the south pole could be due to changes in winds or ocean currents in the southern ocean.
I haven't read through the paper in enough detail to see if the actual model used is mentioned, but I did see that they use CCSM forcings. You can see the relevant CESM models here: http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models. They provide links to the various components as well as validated configurations for you to play with.
If you are specifically interested in ice sheet models you could look at these:
I'm fairly ignorant in terms of the science behind this, and one thing in the article raises some questions for me:
> Sea level has risen a lot — 10 to 20 meters — in warm
> periods in the past
Presumably this is in the distant, pre-industrial past. If so, what caused the warm period and, assuming sea level subsequently dropped afterwards, what caused the warm period to end? Other than human activity contributing to the current warm period, why is it different than previously?
There appears to still be active research about mechanisms that explain the historical data but here's a clearly written article [1] discussing a few factors such as: variation in solar radiation due to variation in Earth's orbit, changing ocean currents which may lead to huge upwellings of carbon dioxide from previously sunken dead algae.
We merged this thread and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246, but adopted the more neutral title of the latter. If people feel strongly about one URL being better than the other, we can change that.
I wonder how much the public perception of the danger of large-scale ice melt is influenced by a lay understanding of the way phase changes can happen extremely suddenly.
Probably not that much. What worries me is feedback loops like the melting permafrost, and collapse of the Amazon ecosystem. Or the loss of ice causing more sunlight to be absorbed. Or a sudden overflow of the ocean's ability to store energy (something that has been masking most of the warming so far). Things could run out of our control in a very short amount of time.
I was talking about this to a fellow physicist friend the other day. Natural system with equilibrium points don't evolve away from them smoothly. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect the climate to be any different.
Did you notice that there is more signs every year, that we are heading to catastrophe but we try not to think about it and feel like everything will be ok anyway - who cares? It's better to read what's up with Kardashians instead of facing the reality. Reality in this case means changing the way we live, dramatically, because there is no other way to stop what's coming. Politicians will not do this because it means economical decline, unemployment etc.
On last conference in Paris NOTHING was done. All agreed that everyone will do what they "can" to work against global warming, which means every country in the world can say "we are doing what we can" while doing almost nothing.
If you look at the time scales we are looking at, it becomes more understandable.
For example, this article that describes the runaway rising of sea level predicts that "Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than 15 metres by 2500."
We are dead by 2100 when the sea level is up one meter. It's the future generations who suffer.
I'm holding on to some optimism re: Paris summit. It's too early to say that nothing was done, as we haven't hit the first checkpoint. In the U.S., the most troubling thing to happen since Paris is the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily block Obama's clean power plan. Given the vacancy on the court, it's unclear how this will play out once the case makes its way up.
In terms of the 'we don't seem to think about it' – it's behavioral economics 101. We're very optimistic about our futures, and very obsessed with the present. It's why people need to be opted-in to 401k plans. We imagine 'tomorrow' to be this wonderful place where everything will get done and work out ok.
Did you ever notice the conflict of interest in which government funded scientists predict disaster, requiring more research to be funded? Oh and did you ever notice how all of the solutions proposed give the government more control over the economy?
As opposed to the conflict of interest where the people who make money from the status quo, and the scientists on their payroll, say there is no problem?
I understand the scepticism, but if there is a problem with the status quo, that is the only way to find out about it. The people making money off selling oil aren't going to volunteer to shut down.
There's other ways. Let people put their money where their mouth is. If AGW is a real problem, then we ought to see certain insurance become expensive or coastal land value decreasing. People could even trade climate derivatives that start paying once temperature rises above a cap or something like that.
Reduce or eliminate your consumption of animal products. I think this is the easiest and most impactful step any individual can take. It doesn't rely on politicians or corporations. You just need some temporary will power to learn and change a few habits.
When I needed a new car a few years ago, I passed on my 'dream car' for a more basic car because the flashy car took 50% more fuel.
But in the end, that's small fries. I should be taking the bus to work if I really wanted to reduce my travel carbon footprint.
My house probably produces way more CO2 than my car. Heating/cooling (use a programmable thermostat, wear warm clothes indoors in winter). Lights (I've mostly switched to CFL.. no LEDs yet, until the CFLs start dying). Laundry (use cold water.. new detergents work better in cold water anyway). Water heating (you'll never take my long hot showers from me!!).
Do not reproduce, encourage others to not reproduce. The 100% most effective way to reduce the human effect on the planet is to reduce the number of humans on the planet.
But of course if you follow that philosophy that probably just means you lose the evolutionary lottery and someone else will have plenty of children to take your kids' place.
Unless China, USA and India start cutting emissions anything the smaller countries do to limit their emissions will likely dwarfed by the growth in these super polluter countries.
Slightly more nuanced point: US emissions are actually down from their peak by quite a bit [1]. The problem is that developing countries like China are rapidly increasing their emissions to US per capita levels [2] while the rest of the world's emissions aren't dropping fast enough to compensate. At this point it's pretty inevitable that world CO2 levels are going to continue rising for many years.
The problem is that developing countries like China are rapidly increasing their emissions to US per capita levels
I've also read that many of China's emissions come from producing products for export, such that the U.S. may be shedding official omissions by shifting production to China, which allows the emissions to be counted there even though the final product ends up being used in the U.S.
I don't think the problem is sovereignty. The problem is vested interests, wealth and greed.
I have no doubt that given the will, the problem of climate change is not an overly hard problem to fix. We humans have always been good at problem solving.
We just need those vested interest to get out of the way and let that happen.
That's not really how it works. Small countries can make massive differences by improving technology, updating best practices, and doing research that can help illuminate the path forward.
We desperately need a clearer picture of what the climate change timeline is going to look like, and how to approach each step, given immensely complicated cultural realities. People in smaller countries with good education systems are positioned perfectly to take a lead role in that.
Yes, the EU will need to cut its emissions but it has a cap and trade system and political leaders are generally on board with the need to remake their economies without carbon. In addition, it is miles ahead of the US in terms of emissions. According to this article, in 2013, the EU had per capita emissions of 6.8 tons/person versus 16.5 for the US. Even more startling, it was lower than China, which weighed in at 7.2.
What is the impact of CO2? We do not actually know its magnitude (on global temperature). We certainly know that the relationship is not one of direct proportionality. Climate literature shows that its interpretation (in terms of causation) is made exceptionally difficult by many other factors which if given a fair discussion would render virtually every popular account unreadable and most definitely outwith the reach of any rational policy making. Doubters should examine the Vostok core data and temperature data for 1880-2016. For sure, there's a story there but to claim there's a policy directive arising from this data is simply unjustified. To be clear - simplistic denial of <any> link is of course mere ignorance.
Those who want others to take climate change seriously must take these models with a boatload of salt. Be definition these are models based on data we don't fully understand and has very bad record of proving completely wrong.
These models are very much life stock market predictions of boom and bust which seldom come true yet both booms and busts happen regularly.
So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in why, given the other scenarios, the technology isn't being developed for a energy efficient way to do this.
It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate.
To just tread water we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding presently.
Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10 gigatons to make the math easier.
That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars per year in carbon sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US), and the US GDP is about $15 trillion.
This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output.
On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything.
It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation.
There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project.
Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable.
------------
Correction: I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was carbon, rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and percentages by 3.5.
That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.
> It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate.
Well, given the cost it looks like relocating NYC by itself is going to be, it might be worth it to pursue some research into energy efficient processes that can break the CO2 down.
> There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project.
I was proposing putting money into researching a technique / process to break the CO2 down into O2 and carbon. Carbon has uses that would freeze it outside the carbon cycle for a long time.
> Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable.
Well, from all the news, its too late now, so we might need to go to some other solution.
That's assuming that we don't find new processes to do the separation, and its not forever. We will eventually get to a place where energy generation using new technology is as cheap, easy, and storable as coal/gas. Since it seems to be too late to change our ways, and no country is going to sacrifice when others have already used polluting sources to advance their living standard, we need to do the cleanup.
We know the energy costs of chemical reactions. They're not subject to change (a prime reason why batter capacity has remained stubbornly unchanged over the past 100 years, though costs have fallen). I'm not optimistic.
Your other statement is an article of faith, not evidence.
I think anyone who thinks the population of India, China, or the countries in Africa will stop using more energy to get a better standard of living has faith in the wrong direction.
The energy requirements to do it make it impractical, like splitting water into hydrogen for fuel cells.
Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
We need to spend money on this type of research since these articles keep saying it we've come too far.
> Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
We need to make up the delta not replace what's there.
As long as politicians remain cheap to purchase, there will never be a solution without catastrophe and maybe not even then.
We need a well-funded super pac to more than offset the super pacs of the fossil fuel industry. A big stick that can go after every congress person, senator and governor relentlessly.
> “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
> Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).
---
The sea level is currently rising at about 3mm/yr (~1.2in/decade). The sea level is about 8 inches higher now than in 1870, and the rate of rising is increasing (+0.016mm/yr^2).
Yes, and heat stroke can give you chills. If we just keep giving the pendulum a boost, eventually the difference between extremes will become untenable.
I'm dumb when it comes to science. But if the worst case scenario happens, couldn't we build facilities to 'dispose' of the melted ice in any way, instead of letting the sea level rise?
WAIS is 530,000 cubic miles of ice. This comes out to 2x10^18 kilograms of ice (assuming it's all at glacial ice density; in reality the upper few hundred meters are less dense) which will correspond to 2x10^18 liters of water to dispose of. This is 100 times the volume of lake Baikal or the Great Lakes (and only ten times smaller than the Arctic Ocean), if I did all my math right...
Possibly a better idea, but still stretching the limits of human engineering, would be to try to structurally reinforce the weakest points of Greenland/Antartica, e.g. Jakobshavn, Thwaites, etc. It's important to understand these aren't just homogenous sheets of ice, due to geology/ocean currents/etc there's specific weak points that are collapsing far more rapidly, and as they do it will be like popping the cork off a bottle. If we could find a way to buttress the corks, it could help slow the melt-out.
That said, any time you consider any geoengineering idea, you have to make the argument that the $1 trillion or whatever you'd spend on solar radiation management or ice shelf preservation or whatever, would not be money better spent on just transitioning away from fossil fuel use.
That's a really good question. Maybe we could pump it to a colder area of Antarctica? Or pump a corresponding amount of ocean water to a cold area of Antarctica.
I read an article about this a few weeks ago. Basically it's not possible because of the amount of energy required to pump the water. It's a HUUUUGE amount of water. Sea levels are rising 3mm/year, which is ... hmm
Surface area of Earth = 510 million km^2 = 5.10e14 m^2.
But the hoover dam just drops the water, what, a few hundred meters? We'd need to transport the water many km from the oceans to the middle of the antarctic continent, and lift it a couple km, to the tops of the glacier. So it's way more than 15 hoover dams.
Based on the down votes I have to assume some people think you can move a warm body mass to a colder region and that will have no effect on the temperature of that colder region.
Where does all the energy go if it does not go into raising the temperature?
The Gulf Stream does exactly what is suggestion, moving massive amounts of warm water north and it's effect on winter temperatures in Western Europe is massive.
So, if that Boston map is correct, then MIT, Boston University, and chunks of Harvard will all be toast by the time my youngest is the age of her great-grandfater. Crazy.
Given the timescales involved they'll be saying it for many more years and given the consensus amongst scientists the smart move is to work to correct.
The worst case is they where wrong and we improved the planet for nothing...oh no.
I'd say the worst case is we spend billions of dollars (that could have been spent elsewhere, say improving human health) on something that makes no difference at all.
It would seem reducing global air pollution, especially in areas that suffer enormously on a daily basis (China is a prime example), is at least as beneficial to human health as focused efforts in medical research. And that's even without asking how this hypothetical "spending elsewhere" is going to be regulated in your opinion, and that is not a rethorical question. After all, similar complaints are heard every time a robot lands on a planet or satellite in the Solar System.
As r0muald and nitrogen said, reducing pollution definitely is not something that "makes no difference at all". But...
The other problem is that "makes no difference at all" is a good outcome. A bad outcome is that we reduce carbon usage drastically, which reduces economic output drastically, which causes many deaths. (This is not hyperbole. Take China, for instance. They're polluting like crazy, but even with all the pollution, people are better off. They're moving to the cities to get out of rural poverty. That poverty shortens life spans more than the pollution does.)
On the other hand, spending billions of dollars on things carrying questionable benefits for humanity would not be news. At least the reason for this would be noble.
Reducing particulate emissions and other pollution which harms the human respiratory system is a different objective from reducing CO2 emissions. There are some synergies between the goals, but optimizing for one will negatively impact the other in many instances.
I'll believe it when I see it. We have at least 40% larger ice sheets now than in 2012, and more than in 2006 [1]. See also [2].
These models have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at empirical prediction [3], so I think we need to work harder and exercise more scientific skepticism before creating alarmist headlines in the mainstream media.
> please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific skepticism
Linking to blog posts is not "exercising scientific scepticism". It's a fucking biased blog post that's just another echo in your echo chamber. Here, let me try:
Obama is a space lizard[1][2][3]
Edit: To all the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific scepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses the presidents reptilian status?
FYI the doctor is a "young-earth creationist" who has a PHD in an unrelated subject. Here's him arguing about how evolution is rubbish[1], perhaps we should listen to him because he's a doctor don't you know?
The other two sources are essentially reblogs from patently biased websites with an agenda to push, one by a neo-conservative (wow unexpected) and the other unnamed.
If you'd spend a little time critically thinking about your sources rather than using them to confirm some bias of yours you'd have already discounted them as trash.
Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Gosh, I wonder what would happen if the authors of Nature papers had to reveal their political affiliations on every article they published. Can I discount someone's argument just because they support the Green party?
I don't agree with creationism in any form, but that doesn't mean that someone who does is wrong when they quote Al Gore, post a picture of a graph, or try exercising critical thinking about a topic.
> Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid
No, him saying the Earth is between 5,700 and 10,000 years old makes what he's say invalid. Him saying evolution is rubbish and believing word for word an ancient religious text condoning all kinds of crazy stuff makes what he says invalid.
If you actually stop for a second and start critically thinking rather than just repeating it in sentences as if it's some kind of defence it's fairly obvious that your source doesn't pass any kind of litmus test for scientific credibility. I judge some of his views on par with thinking Obama is a space lizard, but you appear to be saying "hey let's conveniently ignore all that other crazy stuff he says because his views match mine and CRITICAL THINKING".
Practice what you preach.
Edit: fuck me sideways he sources the Daily Mail, what a train wreck. Are you kidding me? This is too perfect, you can't actually believe this guys anything other than just another crazy fundamentalist can you? Take a hard long look at what you read please, if you want to post that crap somewhere I would suggest sending it to your fellow "critical thinkers" and not HN.
Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid.
Not by itself, but combine those views with the fact that the source used from the blog post is the Daily Mail, I'm comfortable ignoring the rest of the content.
Here are some papers, from climate scientists, acknowledging that models need to be re-evaluated since they've tracked poorly with climate change over the past decade.[1][2]
Steven Novella, a scientific skeptic (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-arctic-sea-...), summarizes it well: Arctic sea ice is undeniably decreasing over the last 36 years. The long term trend is clear. Those who want to deny this trend, however, focus on short term data because you can cherry pick any conclusion you wish.
It's pretty stable during the industrial revolution, when CO2 production really was kicked up a notch. Also, the rate of sea level rises rose at a much faster rate say 10,000 years ago than they're rising right now.
What I'm trying to say is that I think these temperature trends are more macro on the order of thousands of years, and probably mostly out of our control. I think what we're seeing now with contemporary research - 10 years ago, or 40 years ago - is mostly noise.
Chart 1: take a look at the scale, it says "millions of years." The predicted sea level changes would be fine and easy to deal with if they were projected to happen in a million years, not in a few decades.
Chart 2: again, the scale, it's thousands of years. A thousand years literally take up 20 pixels in that chart, so the beginning of the industrial revolution was about 5 pixels from the right. It's literally smaller than the dots used to mark the data points. Also, CO2 and greenhouse gasses released due to human activity are higher now than they have ever been in history: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_C... (this whole chart fits inside the last dot on your second chart.)
That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. The latter is a pretty big contradictory data point in the typical mainstream climate change narrative, particularly the one peddled by the likes of Al Gore et al.
Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China.
But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.
> Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China.
But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.
These, by the way, are a common defenses used by skeptics: this might be a cycle and not understanding what is meant by global warming. The preferred term is climate change. Yes, it has been colder in the past, and yes, it still snows. What has changed is the pattern of cold weather. Here's a relevant XCKD: https://xkcd.com/1321/. Essentially, it get cold, but it's doesn't stay cold. Also, the patterns of storms have changed. We've always had blizzards and tropical storms, but the intensity of these storms has ramped up.
The claim of a cyclical nature is questionable considering the data highly suggests a correlation between rising CO2 levels and the global temperature. The point that is missing out is that this is referring to the global average warmth, and our weather systems are VERY sensitive to this. Even a small change, like 2 to 4 degrees will have devastating effects.
Globally, sea ice is declining, and has been for a while: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246 (That's pulled from the end of the blog post I linked elsewhere.) Quoting directly from what I just linked:
Claire Parkinson (http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/claire.l.parkinson) has been studying polar sea ice for about four decades. She has been speaking to public audiences for nearly as long. And it was those public audiences who provoked one of the NASA climatologist’s latest research projects.
“When I give public lectures or talk with people interested in the topic of polar ice, somebody will often say something like: ‘Well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” said Parkinson. “The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”
> Here's what I think. ... Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now
People think all sorts of interesting and plausible thoughts and hypotheses; that doesn't make them correct. People once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, which seems plausible when you look outside. How do we distinguish between true and false hypotheses? Science!
The hypothesis you describe is interesting but not a new one. It has been carefully considered and ruled out by almost all scientists involved - based not on an idea in someone's mind but on extensive evidence, it's almost certain that global warming is caused by humans. A good place to read about the evidence would be the IPCC[1]; their summary reports are succinct, and written clearly for non-scientists.
We'll never be absolutely certain, but we'll never be absolutely certain of anything and would never take any action if we waited to meet that standard. What will you say to the millions who die, starve, lose their homes and wealth: 'I didn't know?' We could not have more or clearer warnings. I feel we have a great responsbility and need to act immediately or blood will be on our hands, just like the people who refused to act in the face of catastrophes in the past.
> Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now.
I'm pretty sure that climatologists are acutely aware of the nature of the climate.
> But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.
According to the IPCC AR 5 (which I'm sure a well-informed skeptic such as yourself have perused), there is a 95-100% probability that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are responsible for at least half of the warming observed from 1950-2010. Are you not satisfied with this certainty level?
I think it's a lot easier to accept man-made global warming when you realize how significant humans are on a global scale.
There's two numbers that blow my mind every time I think about them.
The first is the energy produced by the radioactive decay at the fiery core of the Earth: 45 terawatts. That power is enough to move the continents around the globe.
The second is the energy produced by human industry -- all of our coal plants, oil burned, nuclear power, solar & wind, the whole 9 yards: 16 terawatts. That's 1/3 the power generated by the entire rest of the Earth, down to the core, and it's growing: if it grows at the same rate as it has historically, in 25 or 30 years we'll surpass the core entirely.
Humans aren't just insignificant specks on the surface of the Earth, we're major players, comparable to its fiery core. Knowing that, is it so surprising we can affect the climate significantly?
It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "definitive proof" is? There's no a priori definition of definitive proof, only what satisfies the inquirer. Why aren't you skeptical of your standards when they fly in the face of consensus amongst thousands of professional scientists?
This is a challenging viewpoint. It could theoretically be correct, but what if it wasn't? What if there truly is an imminent threat to the stability of our civilization, and we are still debating its existence when we should be acting?
This is where examining the evidence and arguments is important. If this whole thing were a conspiracy propping up unnecessary research, then the arguments would be weak and the evidence would be inconclusive. Unfortunately for humanity, this is not the case.
I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening.
At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.
Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from?
There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined.
People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?
Well, I don't know why people are down voting in particular.
But exercising "scientific" skepticism would involve citing real (i.e. primary) sources, not blog posts that don't seem to be able to cite properly either. Otherwise it's just skepticism.
Certainly not from the insanely warm, practically snowless winter we've had in the northeast US.
Everybody's perfectly happy to believe the climate scientists when they say "That's mainly due to El Nino this year."
Then the next day the same scientists say "CO2 emissions are affecting the climate" and we're back to "What global warming? If I can't see something it doesn't exist."
Honest question. If 99% of scientists and astronomers said a giant asteroid were headed to earth, and within 10 years, all life on the planet would be destroyed. Would you believe it?
For something as (relatively) easy to predict as asteroid trajectories, I would be very curious why the 1% disagree, or whether it really is 99% given that exact phrasing with no qualifications. It invites scrutiny, but also invites not being certain either way (though I would err on the side of that large a majority even if I'm not certain). I posted this quote by Bertrand Russell almost a month ago, it's worth a repost: "(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
It's a good quote, but it is based on the premise that all the experts are equally qualified and have no conflict of interest. I am not convinced that is the case, which means we all have to find our own way. Hence all the discussion, I guess :)
I thought of disputing the "scientists and astronomers" bit in the parent (what do botanists generally know of orbital dynamics that make them any more qualified to comment than anyone else who took a few physics courses in high school / college?), it should really be restricted to domain-relevant experts which would then make it easier to take the claim that they're all more or less equally qualified. You're right there are lots of incentives in play that don't always make finding the truth the best course of action for either an expert or a so-called expert. As a layman on the subject I don't have much to contribute on the topic and would rather study other things. Though when I see the occasional chart (as the paper you linked above has) and notice that, while not "wildly incorrect", predictions have generally been "incorrect" over the last 15 years, or when I notice a shift or new emphasis in narrative, I end up feeling justified in my suspicions on the epistemic virtues (let alone the actual claims argued for being true or false) of the relevant experts. It's like, seeing all the issues with replication and so on in Psychology, how can you not help but feel like the entire field would be better off starting from scratch with rigorous methods?
Not as a certainty, no. Given that kind of time frame and a very far object, neither our measurements, nor our calculations could possibly be precise enough to know anything other than a probability of an earth impact.
Unless we are talking about a big object hanging out nearby, slowly getting closer, in which case I have plenty of non-scientist acquaintances who will be pointing telescopes at it and verifying.
Is it really 10 years? Within our lifetimes? Within 50 years?
I really wish someone would nail down a definitive timeline to when someone should really worry about climate change.
I mean ordering the world's problems big to small, I'd say unemployment, income inequality, and stagnant economic growth are more important things to worry about.
In your own lifetime it does make more sense to worry about those short term things - in comparison to climate change, the inequity / unemployment / economy change very quickly. If you have children or are worried about the survival of our species, then climate change is a far more important problem.
I'm tired of arguing about CO2. Let's make the Republican argument for a carbon tax.
Buying oil enriches countries antagonistic to the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. Oil is a global commodity. If we use less oil then those countries will lose twice: Once because they're selling fewer barrels of oil and then again because, with less demand, pre-tax price per barrel goes down.
This also means we get free money at the expense of those countries. If we enter into a treaty with Europe and China to each put a $2/gallon tax on oil, that does not make gas go from $2 to $4, because the tax will reduce consumption (as intended), which reduces demand, which lowers prices. So instead of paying $2 of which $2 goes to the bad guys, you pay $3 of which $2 goes to Uncle Sam and $1 goes to the bad guys. Then that's $2 we can use to cut other taxes, $1 of which came from the bad guys. So not only is this revenue neutral, it's effectively a tax cut -- you pay $1 extra for gas and then pay $2 less in income tax. American taxpayers end up with more money in their pockets at the expense of Russia and Iran. And the higher we make the gas tax the more it reduces demand which transfers even more money from antagonistic foreign countries to US taxpayers.
Somebody tell me why CO2 even matters when carbon tax justifies itself regardless.
I don't have an opinion yet on a carbon tax or politics, but I can't agree with oil-producing countries suffering a double loss in lower sales and lower prices. The overly-simplified version of supply-vs-demand states that with constant supply, prices are lowered to raise demand. Thus, it's only a single loss there.
The language parent post used may be imprecise, but the effect is largely what oil extractors are now seeing.
Global oil prices have fallen due to demand descruction. Total quantity of oil consumed is down as well. Revenues, as P * Q, are down. It's a compound effect.
Saying that both supply and demand have fallen is incorrect in an economist's sense as to an economist these are functions. Shifting one function (usually expressed as a "curve") moves along the other curve, even without a change in that function.
What makes you think supply is unaffected by price? If that were true then we should clearly impose a 99.9% revenue tax because supply would be unaffected.
Simple way of burning less oil is taking subsidies from all the industries that get them, like meat, dairy and eggs.
Luxury foods are really the biggest greenhouse gas footprint. Cows produce more than 60% of our methane footprint, and on a 20 year scale methane is around 80 times more potent than CO2 for global warming.
Taxes can be a solution but you have to take subsidies too.
According to that link agriculture is 9% of CO2-equivalent emissions while electricity and transportation are 58%. Which isn't to say nothing should be done about agriculture, but it isn't the bulk of the problem, and it isn't what motivates climate change deniers.
Some hypothesise that the footprint is even larger.
Given the fact that we have to produce food for around 100 billion animals yearly (where a significant amount of these animals weighs more than 250lbs it's not surprising it takes a lot of energy to do that.
Machines like cars, planes are on the other hand pretty efficient. Unlike animal bodies.
You're comparing 18% world-wide to 9% in the US. Both of those numbers sound right. People drive more miles and use more electricity per capita in the US than in BRIC countries.
The 51% number is silly. First they count "livestock respiration" as a source of CO2 but that CO2 came from the atmosphere during the last year via plants the animals ate, which they even point out and then try to hand wave away. Then they count land use (i.e. natural forest converted for livestock), which is a serious problem in Brazil and Asia but not the US.
Then they argue that the factor used for methane should be higher than the one FAO uses because methane has a shorter half life in the atmosphere than CO2, but that's a double edged sword. We could get a more immediate effect by reducing methane emissions but not reducing CO2 emissions takes longer to recover from than not reducing methane emissions. It's an argument that methane and CO2 are different and we need to reduce both, not an argument that we should reduce methane instead of CO2.
And then they point out some miscellaneous factors. Some of them are just silly, like meat requires refrigeration, as if people are going to stop having refrigerators in the alternative.
And most of the real ones apply world-wide but not in the US, e.g. FAO's numbers are old and livestock production is now higher world-wide but not in the US, the baseline was Minnesota and third world practices are less efficient, etc.
So the EPA's 9% still sounds about right for the US.
But third world countries might want to consider growing more vegetables.
> Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat?
USA is a net exporter of meat.
> When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere.
But the contributions are different. USA needs to burn less oil and coal, tropical countries need to stop cutting natural forests, China and India need fewer pig farms. You won't fix it by having less livestock in the US and burning less oil in Africa and not cutting forests in Russia.
How can we expect that tropical countries stop cutting rainforests if USA, Australia, Denmark and others want to continue exporting meat?
Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA.
The problem is global, not local. The main exporters are the main problem. It might be that Brazil has a huge footprint regarding forest cuts but it is not doing that for themselves but for others.
So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. Not to mention that 50 billion chickens yearly thrive mostly on soybean.
> Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA.
The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause.
> So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock.
It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places.
While you are correct that methane is quite potent, when discussing climatological effects it's not as important as CO2. Especially when discussing ice sheets and sea level rise, the long term (1000+ year) effects are what's likely to reduce Greenland and Antarctica to points where feedbacks will prohibit their regrowth (thus dooming them to complete melt and us to deal with the unfortunate side effects).
Again, not disagreeing in any way, just looking to provide some context in relation to the subject matter in the original post. In fact, I think climate change and environmental stewardship are issues that go hand in hand and should definitely be taken more seriously.
It's going to be a lot worse than this. Time to get realistic about the fact that the balance of the natural environment has been broken, and it will definitely lead to a collapse of the global ecosystem in a couple years. This problem is not being caused by CO2 alone. That's only a tiny part of it. There will be massive tectonic activity. Global warming is only the first step. It's like when a human gets a fever. 1°C of global temp increase is a huge amount of heat but does not show terribly dangerous symptoms. But 2 - 3°C increase means massive upheaval and risk of brain death. To solve this problem, we need to be looking into gravity, not just radiative transfer/greenhouse gasses.
But perhaps a bigger problem than nobody knowing about the gravity problem is that at this stage, nobody wants to know, either. For that reason, nobody can prevent the coming period of change.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, plants, and thus animal life will die. In fact plant death nearly occurred recently on a geological timescale. More co2 = more life. There is no such thing as stasis wrt global climate, and I'm glad the climate does not appear to be moving in the direction of an ice age in the near term, although it looks as though in the long term this is inevitable.
OMG co2 is not harmful it is plant food. If there is more of it more plants grow. The earth has had insanely higher amounts of co2 in the atmosphere than are present today in which periods life thrived even more so than today.
It's the level that we are interested in. Everything is a poison, what matters is the dose. It is good for plants, but it is also a greenhouse gas. Venus has a lot more CO2 than Earth, and a lot less life.
Water is also essential for life, still you can drown. Yes, we had higher levels of CO2 in geological times of the earths past. The problem is, we are changing the CO2 content at a rate where ecological systems might not be able to cope with it. Also, even if the ecological systems do not collapse, just flooding of the inhabited costal regions would create enough human suffering to justify strong countermeasures against raising CO2.
interesting that you bring in human suffering. Have you thought about all the lives saved and brought into existence due to the burning of fossil fuels? I'm not much of a utilitarian, but gradual sea rise is nothing compared to the degree of poverty inflicted and number of people that would never be born if fossil fuel use were forcibly reduced. And no solar can't replace it, nor wind. The only contender is nuclear.
There is no doubt that modern civilization was only possible due to fossil fuels. But that says nothing about how long we should continue to use them. Actually its just in the last very few years that alternative energies are competitive. This is really a development which happened in the last 20 years. And solar and wind can replace fossil fuels. In 2015, 30% of the German electricity was produced by regenerative energies, up about 5% from 2014. So in the next few years, it will be the largest part of energy production. We don't have to go to 0% CO2 emissions, having 10-20% gas power plants for filling gaps is absolutely acceptable, as long as the rest is CO2-free.
And direct link to the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1...
And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al, which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods).
These are scary times.