Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[lomiller]

You were told it's 5000 lines of Fortan, but you say "a few hundred lines". Why is that? Fifty isn't "a few" by any normal use of English.

Gavin Schmidt (IIRC) has said it can be replicated with a few hundred lines in MatLab. Natural that would run a lot slower, but would not require as many lines.

 

[macdoc]

no risk eh......

Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios: research
January 9, 2011

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.
The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

"We created 'what if' scenarios," says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor.

"What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?" The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.

The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada. At the same time parts of North Africa experience desertification as land dries out by up to 30 percent, and ocean warming of up to 5°C off of Antarctica is likely to trigger widespread collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, a region the size of the Canadian prairies.

Researchers hypothesize that one reason for the variability between the North and South is the slow movement of ocean water from the North Atlantic into the South Atlantic. "The global ocean and parts of the Southern Hemisphere have much more inertia, such that change occurs more slowly," says Marshall. "The inertia in intermediate and deep ocean currents driving into the Southern Atlantic means those oceans are only now beginning to warm as a result of CO2 emissions from the last century.

The simulation showed that warming will continue rather than stop or reverse on the 1000-year time scale."

continues

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

and how many hundreds of millions live near the coasts?

It turns out that two-thirds of world's largest cities — cities with more than five million people — are at least partially in these low areas. That's important, because people are increasingly moving to cities.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9162438

That is NOT a long time span......the oldest building in Venice was built in 639 - 1300 plus years ago.
The next thousand will see it meters underwater as a diving site.....

Along with most of Manhattan, London et al

 

[BillyJoe]

The "risk" is freezing to death because you can't afford the heating oil, or rather the carbon tax on the heating oil. The "risk" is not being able to afford food because of the transportation costs? The "risk" of even more children going without electricity because they can't afford it?.

Here are the real risks to humans of ignoring climate change:

Less food:
CO2: Increasing levels of CO2 improve crop growth - that's a positive.
Temperature: Increasing temperature increases crop production up to a certain point, then it causes heat stress.
Water: The lack of water as a result of drought has an obvious negative impact.
Acidification: More CO2 is absorbed into the oceans resulting in ocean acidification. The combination of increasing ocean temperature and increasing acidifiction of the oceans has a negative impact on food derived from the oceans.
Sea level rise: This means a competition for land as populations move inland. As well there is contamination of fresh water with salt water.

Less water:
Melting glaciers: The loss of glaciers and snowfields means there is less fresh water for the millions of people who are dependent on it for drinking water and for irrgation.

And all of this risk comes from alarmists screaming to have more money thrown at a "problem" that doesn't yet exist and ignoring the problems that do. That's the risk.

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
AGW deniers pick out SMALL PIECES of the total evidence which, it seems to them, refutes AGW.
The experts in climate change avail themselves of ALL of the evidence on which their consensus view is based and, as a result, 97% agree with the consensus that AGW is real and requires urgent action.
Of nearly 1000 relevant peer reviewed research papers over a ten year period up to 2003, none rejected AGW

 

[lomiller]

Less water:
Melting glaciers: The loss of glaciers and snowfields means there is less fresh water for the millions of people who are dependent on it for drinking water and for irrgation.

It doesn’t mean less water, it means less consistent water. Instead of the glacier helping to average out seasonal and year to year variation you all the water at once in the rainy season and none in the dry season. This is really the worst of both, with the same region getting both flooding and drought in the same year.

 

[macdoc]

CO2: Increasing levels of CO2 improve crop growth - that's a positive.

but reduces nutrients - more is not necessarily better ( see the not above about hunger and nutrients )..

Water: The lack of water as a result of drought has an obvious negative impact.

Climate change is featured by extremes so too MUCH water or water out of season can be as devastating as drought and far more destructive to infrastructure Australia is getting all of heat and drought and bush fires and rain out of season in the south and devastating floods in the sub tropical and tropical north.

The atmosphere HAS more water vapour now, it IS showing up in more extreme rain events and the rain events are of higher intensity.

Hydrology IS the leading edge and it IS here now.

 

[Trakar]

Can anyone refute the claims made in this link?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Yes, they are, most simply put, fallacious.

Is it human-caused? I think everyone can agree that there is a change, but some people are saying it is caused by humans use of driving cars and all that **** we are burning into the atmosphere where others are saying it is a natural cycle of the Earth.

human activities and byproducts are at the heart of forcing the current planetary climate change episode. This is primarily through the process of taking carbon in the form of fossil fuels that have long been buried and burning them, producing excessive and accumulating carbon in our atmosphere. We can track how much carbon we have pulled out of the ground and burned, we can establish that the excess carbon in the atmosphere is the result of our burning these fuels over the last two hundred years. Coincidentally, it has been known for about 2 centuries that atmospheric CO2 has this effect and that our burning of these fuels would cause this effect. The Earth does indeed have cycles, and we track and measure these cycles with quite a bit of precision. The current episode of climate change, however, is the result of the well understood, recorded and cataloged effects of burning huge volumes of previously sequestered carbon-fuels.

Also even if all the ice melts that wouldn't actually increase the sea level would it? It's like an ice-cube melting in a cup of water... the level stays the same because the solidified ice and liquefied water take up the same amount.

the melting of floating ice does not change the level of water in a glass (very little of the world's ice is floating), grounded ice makes up 97%+ of the world's ice, as this ice melts and runs into the oceans it causes the level of the oceans to rise. We are currently looking at expected sea level rises in the neighborhood of 6 feet over the coming century and if all the ice melts over the coming centuries, a sea level rise of some 70 meters or around 200 feet would be expected.

 

[Trakar]

Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios: research
January 9, 2011

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

This seems an extremely conservative estimate, and seems to be based upon an assumed state where we stop all emissions over the next couple of decades, this does not seem at all likely or probable.

 

[BenBurch]

DOES increased CO2 help crop growth?

Sometimes it does, but not for every crop, and it isn't linear, and sometimes it has the opposite effect. If you search around on this board you can find where I documented the limits to this effect.

 

[BenBurch]

...
the melting of floating ice does not change the level of water in a glass
...

However, melting of sea ice does (very slightly) increase water level because of the salinity difference.

 

[macdoc]

I agree - but the bad news is the world is altered - period full stop unless we remove carbon from the atmosphere in fairly short order.

 

[CapelDodger]

What risk? This is just an alarmist mantra. The "risk" is freezing to death because you can't afford the heating oil, or rather the carbon tax on the heating oil. The "risk" is not being able to afford food because of the transportation costs? The "risk" of even more children going without electricity because they can't afford it?

And all of this risk comes from alarmists screaming to have more money thrown at a "problem" that doesn't yet exist and ignoring the problems that do. That's the risk.

The classic Lomborg argument. Do you favour providing money for children in foreign parts to have electricity? All those children who don't have electricity now, and aren't about to get it - what exactly are they being denied by action on AGW?

(Very few people live where cold is a great threat to their lives. Most live where a hotter, drier world is much the greater danger. That and the classic problem - lack of affordable food.)

When it comes to getting electricy to da little children, solar is coming through as the best option. Local production for local consumption, with no vast investments in distribution. Perhaps not sufficient for metre-wide plasma-TV's, but that's not really the problem is it? Not for da poor little children.

 

[Trakar]

I agree - but the bad news is the world is altered - period full stop unless we remove carbon from the atmosphere in fairly short order.

The reality is the change currently in progress, the hope is for people to realize their personal and social responsibility and act in a different manner; to sacrifice personal and cultural profit and comfort for the problems and solutions that exist in a future that most of them won't be around for. If we possessed (as a people/species) that level of long-term future planning skills and selfless rational decision-making, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

 

[Furcifer]

when do you think is the right point to do something against the problem?

I'm pretty sure we are doing "something". I'm just against alarmism creating an environment of panic in the Western World, specifically Canada.

The governments bought back crappy cars, given grants for energy saving home improvements, scheduled coal plants for decommissioning, encouraged alternative energy, got a nuke plant in the works and many more green initiatives. There isn't anything else we can do besides divert taxes from where they are needed and raise the price and taxes on energy.

Yet here you are making statements like the above. The alarmists are doing what they always do, trying to whip people up into a frenzy. It's counterproductive.

 

[Furcifer]

Here are the real risks to humans of ignoring climate change:

Less food:
CO2: Increasing levels of CO2 improve crop growth - that's a positive.
Temperature: Increasing temperature increases crop production up to a certain point, then it causes heat stress.
Water: The lack of water as a result of drought has an obvious negative impact.
Acidification: More CO2 is absorbed into the oceans resulting in ocean acidification. The combination of increasing ocean temperature and increasing acidifiction of the oceans has a negative impact on food derived from the oceans.
Sea level rise: This means a competition for land as populations move inland. As well there is contamination of fresh water with salt water.

Less water:
Melting glaciers: The loss of glaciers and snowfields means there is less fresh water for the millions of people who are dependent on it for drinking water and for irrgation.




The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
AGW deniers pick out SMALL PIECES of the total evidence which, it seems to them, refutes AGW.
The experts in climate change avail themselves of ALL of the evidence on which their consensus view is based and, as a result, 97% agree with the consensus that AGW is real and requires urgent action.
Of nearly 1000 relevant peer reviewed research papers over a ten year period up to 2003, none rejected AGW

All of which can be mitigated, many of which benefit Canada. There's no need for Canadians to spend another dime until mitigation strategies have a demonstrable effect on climate change.

 

[Furcifer]

The classic Lomborg argument. Do you favour providing money for children in foreign parts to have electricity? All those children who don't have electricity now, and aren't about to get it - what exactly are they being denied by action on AGW?

It's pretty simple, the cheaper energy is the more people that can have it.

It's a global problem and doing things within our own borders won't be effective. So yah, let's give poor kids electricity. The US and Canada would be better off building Candu or Westinghouse reactors in India than windmills in Arizona.

 

[Furcifer]

The US Military and organizations around the world would beg to differ.
Do you have some science to add or just empty rhetoric?

Holy non sequitur, what does science have to do with the US military?

The US military as a very different view than you - care to argue the science of how they are wrong and you are correct??

Again, a total non sequitur.

Unlike you, these organizations understand the need to assess the risks associated with climate change that is already underway.
Insurers have already made changes to their policies on coastal properties for instance.

What does this have to do with the price of coal in China?

WHO states flat out the coming and EXISTING deleterious effects of climate change..

Utter nonsense because of course they can't measure the lives saved.

The first step in dealing with a risk issue is to admit there is a problem. You haven't even got to that stage.

I have clearly identified the problem, alarmists. They are the problem.

You bring no science to the science forum or the specific climate science moderated thread, only unsupported personal opinion with a self admitted background of self interest in the energy industry.

We are discussing the science. Namely the tendency for alarmists to cherry pick the extremes of possibility and exploit it for political means.

Now what possible contribution is your "argument" to the science forum?
All of the "risks" you mention are complicated by climate change - in particular hunger.

The science is incomplete, it is not accurate enough to make decisions beyond that which is already in progress. The timeline for making such decisions depends on the accuracy of the data. There are currently more pressing problems. The issue of hunger is not a result of climate change, but the cost of production and transportation. The science is sound, Canada and the US could produce the food to feed much of Asia and South America but the costs are prohibitive. These costs are directly related to the price of energy and fossil fuels. Understand?

http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/the-hidden-hunger-caused-by-climate-change.html

You instead of confronting the reality, play down risks with trite comments about alarmism. Hardly a rational approach given the overwhelming body of evidence indicating there are large scale risks associated with rapid climate change.

The risks pale in comparison to the immediate problems. Alarmism seeks to create and then solves it's own fictitious problem for future generations. It's self aggrandizing at it's finest.

I mentioned the Dutch...tell us once more about climate change not being a "major risk" needing to be dealt with now.

This is a nonsequitor. You could very well be making the same argument with Japan and earth quake preparedness. If you build your country below sea level sea level is always going to be the "major risk". If you build your city on a fault line earth quakes are going to be a "major risk".

 

[Trakar]

I'm pretty sure we are doing "something". I'm just against alarmism creating an environment of panic in the Western World, specifically Canada.

The governments bought back crappy cars, given grants for energy saving home improvements, scheduled coal plants for decommissioning, encouraged alternative energy, got a nuke plant in the works and many more green initiatives. There isn't anything else we can do besides divert taxes from where they are needed and raise the price and taxes on energy.

Yet here you are making statements like the above. The alarmists are doing what they always do, trying to whip people up into a frenzy. It's counterproductive.

Except of course that the actions being taken so far won't even significantly reduce the problem much less correct it. For the most part, even the steps you are trying to label as extremist, are insufficient to correct the problem, they are merely the first baby steps towards solutions.

 

[macdoc]

It's pretty simple, the cheaper energy is the more people that can have it.

ruining the planet for "cheap" energy is not cheap - it's stupid. and expensive to all in the intermediate and long term.

The rest of the comments are meaningless chaff and diversion.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
Here are the real risks to humans of ignoring climate change:

Less food:
CO2: Increasing levels of CO2 improve crop growth - that's a positive.
Temperature: Increasing temperature increases crop production up to a certain point, then it causes heat stress.
Water: The lack of water as a result of drought has an obvious negative impact.
Acidification: More CO2 is absorbed into the oceans resulting in ocean acidification. The combination of increasing ocean temperature and increasing acidifiction of the oceans has a negative impact on food derived from the oceans.
Sea level rise: This means a competition for land as populations move inland. As well there is contamination of fresh water with salt water.

Less water:
Melting glaciers: The loss of glaciers and snowfields means there is less fresh water for the millions of people who are dependent on it for drinking water and for irrgation.

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
AGW deniers pick out SMALL PIECES of the total evidence which, it seems to them, refutes AGW.
The experts in climate change avail themselves of ALL of the evidence on which their consensus view is based and, as a result, 97% agree with the consensus that AGW is real and requires urgent action.
Of nearly 1000 relevant peer reviewed research papers over a ten year period up to 2003, none rejected AGW

All of which can be mitigated, many of which benefit Canada. There's no need for Canadians to spend another dime until mitigation strategies have a demonstrable effect on climate change.

Do you even understand the term mitigation??
And just what in that list, is of benefit to Canada...??

and lets hear how you "mitigate" sea level rise, acidification, loss of plant nutrients......

you want "mitigate" climate change.....!!!!????? and wait til you have "mitigation strategies" that will alter climate change



talk about floundering.....

 

[Furcifer]

Except of course that the actions being taken so far won't even significantly reduce the problem much less correct it. For the most part, even the steps you are trying to label as extremist, are insufficient to correct the problem, they are merely the first baby steps towards solutions.

Fine then, give me a breakdown of the money that's been spent, what's been accomplished, the effect that's it's had on the climate and what effect it will have 10, 25 and 50 years out.

I mean the science is solid right, so answer the question.

Or just admit you don't know how much money has been spent, what's been accomplished and what effect it will have in the future. None. You're advocating spending more time and money and you have no idea what the time and money already spent has accomplished.

It's the most unscientific way of doing things. There are no measurable results, it's essentially ineffective in terms of the climate.