• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supposed to be based on the upcoming IPCC report - can't find a New Scientist article to link to - but wow 4 C at 2070 :boggled:

Basically its conclusions are:

- An ice-free North Pole is likely to happen within a decade rather than by the end of the century.

- We are back on track for the IPCC Worst Case Scenario emissions (it fell a bit in the 2008 crisis, but has risen back within two years).

- Food production is already dropping (it was estimated this wouldn't happen until 3.5C Temp rise).

- Sea level rise caused by meltwater happens by 1.3mm a year and is increasing (this was estimated to have been 0.3mm) (NY had better prepare itself for that).

- CO2 levels will keep rising even if emissions are cut 100% due to feedback loops set in motion. "Even in the lowest emissions scenario, we could end up with atmospheric CO2 concentrations consistent with the worst-case emission scenario." (Paul Higgins, American meteorological Society)

- We are on track for a 4 degrees C rise by 2070, and if the CO2 feedback loops are strong this temp will be reached 10 years quicker.
- Heat stress may render large areas of Africa, Australia, China, Brazil, India and the USA uninhabitable for at least part of the year.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1539075.html#p1539075

anyone got something about this??? That's seriously on the extreme end....
 
Something which has bugged me since I first got involved online is the simplistic concentration on surface temperatures. I see how it happens, of course, but we all know how fleeting surface temperatures are. A cloud comes across the Sun, you shiver and reach for a shirt.

Well, denialists always answer "no" when I ask them if air at 20° can contain more heat than air at 20.5° -same volume, same pressure-. It's amazing the gruesome ignorance of every kind of fundamentals these people have. I use about a dozen of questions like that to unmask these cheaters promoting crazy opinions and analysis just because they have developed a hedonistic attachment to them. But I don't talk about that in "Internet" just because they'd learn quickly to cheat and feign they know. I think there's sort of a implicit agreement of doing so, because it's so easy defying them with fundamentals, but nobody is doing it except in the context of specific discussions and when it's relevant and denialists have reached that point by their own intellectual means.

The most amazing thing of "Internet" is the mass of people believing that "it" contains an uneven but pretty encompassing sample of every branch of human knowledge, which might be the case with porn, unix and php, but it's hardly the truth to almost all the rest.

The question is, of course (and it's what models are good at answering) : what happens to rainfall patterns in a warmer world than we've ever, as a civilisation, experienced? That's the first question, anyway; after that come the questions of what that might mean in a 7 billion human context.

I was thinking about what was my understanding of climate and its change when I was 27. By that time, the climate was no longer as "it had always been". Until I was 15 or 16, we were used to frosts or fogs early in the morning during Winter, suffocating dry heat during Summer, then humidity rising, one day, two days, until a line of the blackest clouds ever showed in the horizon coming from south-west and a violent short rain and/or hail storm, among tree bending winds and thunders and bolts passed leaving the air clear and 15 to 25°C colder, so we had to get a light coat. Petrichor was so common.

This included going to sea shore resorts in Summer, and having almost every night some windy 10 or 15°C. It was a buoyant home industry of the Atlantic shore making wool sweaters to sell to the tourists. Sea waters were a bit cold, but almost always free from jellyfishes.

Well, one day of Summer it started to rain, and it rained almost every day for 45 days. Later we had even more rains in the Pampas, some 400 cubic kilometres in a few months. Some villages and a town disappeared covered by water definitely. Later we had mosquitoes in June for the first time; an invasion from a Patagonian species that was considered a one time event. In 1985 we had the worst rain ever, some 350 mm in 30 hours. By the time I was 27 they were talking of the Pampas having dry and wet periods of about 50 or 70 years. The source for that hypothesis were historians and data collected during the last century. I didn't have an opinion, but winter frosts disappeared -London like fog vanished once they started to control the soot generation within the city-, Summer was longer and the number of unbearably hot nights started to raise. In the shore, few people buying sweaters and many avoiding jellyfishes.

Now, time has gone by and I'm not even 27 x2 -age that looks not so far in the future now-. We know now we are living a period of AGW. Mosquitoes, from 2 to up to 20 species, including dangerous Aedes Aegypti torture us once the average temperature surpasses 16-17°C which some years is during 9 months. No more black line in the horizon, just more rain, less hail and less summer thunderstorms -more winter thunderstorms-; have you smelled the petrichor? I forgot how it feels. The ruins of the town that had been covered by waters are now visible, just because a lot of public works deviate, pump up and force rain water into canals just to avoid hundreds of lagoons flooding lands and towns. I no longer go to the sea shore during Summer (January, February) in spite I have a house there: it's too hot for me. I can enjoy the house during other seasons, and I could even swim during April and end of November. No many jellyfishes near the shore then, not lifeguards either.
 
Supposed to be based on the upcoming IPCC report - can't find a New Scientist article to link to - but wow 4 C at 2070 :boggled:



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1539075.html#p1539075

anyone got something about this??? That's seriously on the extreme end....

It's an article by Michael Le Page -journalist- in seven parts:

A preview -follow those seven "more"-

I wouldn't take it too seriously. And that forum post is to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. For instance, the 1.3 mm a year is there, but about food production the article refers to a study concluding that without GW main crops should be 1% higher. The 2070 temperatures are apparently a stretch of the UK Met Office model (2011) data (anyway, it doesn't look much wrong). If the fourth assessment had its "glaciargate", let's avoid extreme conclusions informally taken from half cooked works.
 
Alec - or anyone else who'd like to contribute - what's the best approach for people arguing (as per the BigFooty carbon neutral thread) that Australia is a net sink?

My thoughts are that its a global system and the carbon cycle already absorbs about 40% of human emissions, so even if the Australian terrestrial carbon budget is a bet sink that is already taken into account by the global budget so the fossil fuel carbon we burn is still contributing to the build up.

If anyone is bored and wants to offer some tips the thread is here ;)

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/is-australia-carbon-neutral.418704/
 
Last edited:
Alec - or anyone else who'd like to contribute - what's the best approach for people arguing (as per the BigFooty carbon neutral thread) that Australia is a net sink?

My thoughts are that its a global system and the carbon cycle already absorbs about 40% of human emissions, so even if the Australian terrestrial carbon budget is a bet sink that is already taken into account by the global budget so the fossil fuel carbon we burn is still contributing to the build up.

If anyone is bored and wants to offer some tips the thread is here ;)

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/is-australia-carbon-neutral.418704/

You could say that people living in the Sydney Metropolitan Area (except some blocks in Mosman, where some people is doing something about it), Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Gold Coast-Tweed, Newcastle, Canberra-Queanbeyan, Wollongong, Sunshine Coast and (Greater) Hobart should restrain themselves and do something immediately, as they are net savage vicious emitters. The rest of the country is OK, though people in Darwin, Cairns or Toowoomba are playing it badly. Even the regions where that "billionaire" lady -who only donates a few clinical thermometers and trifles a year- makes her slaves to drag coal to sell it to Japan could emit more, as they are net carbon sinks. But I'm not sure about the last, as many among your countrypeople are not only used to crooks later climbing to the top of the social ladder but probably many would love to be them.

Of course, countries like Belgium are such irremediably net polluters that they should appoint Reverend Jim Jones as their queen. That's why they have some turmoil: who go first? the Walloon of the Flemish?

In the end, the argument of that biped piece of manure boils down to Australia being an absorber because she has a population density consistent with a world populated by 400 million people. Well, such a world would be a net absorber herself. And most importantly, such a world wouldn't need what Australia has to offer to them: coal, iron, gold, petroleum and liquefied gas, bovine meat, wine, aluminium products, medicines, and maybe some wool and lanolin.

But what does Australia absorb? Was she going to deplete the atmosphere of CO2 by herself? If that's the case, thanks Darwin for the emissions. If Australia is a net absorber -what I doubt- is because CO2 air content is raising and 5% of world's CO2 emissions come from Australian coal, oil and gas. But why are them to blame if they manufacture guns and the buyers use them to kill people? Guns don't kill people, people do! Coal doesn't burn by itself, people ignite it!
 
Last edited:
LMAO! You conjure up such vivid imagery, would to hear you on your native tongue, sadly my castellano is far too rudimentary. I don't know that the advice will be entirely practical to apply (I know my audience, per capita is a dirty word among those circles :D) but I do thoroughly enjoy reading your work :p
 
. Even the regions where that "billionaire" lady -who only donates a few clinical thermometers and trifles a year- makes her slaves to drag coal to sell it to Japan could emit more,

Just a piece of OT BigFooty trivia; "that" lady (Gina Rinehart) has recently been involved in a legal dispute with her children (trying to stiff them out of their multi billion $ trust fund). She tried to submit a suppression order to the court to prevent the media from reporting on the case due to a threat to her family due to their high profile. To try and confect a threat her lawyers trawled social media looking for anything that could be construed as a threat to the fat vile coal ming piece of **** and one thing they dredged up was a thread I started on BigFooty. I was actually cited, in a court of law, as a reason to suppress details of the case. Needless to say, the court ruled against her

Image from the court documents (already had one warning for hotlinking today, can't upload images on Tapatalk)

http://www.crikey.com.au/wp-content.../bf5eea0261c02e3bb52c084a23c7ff22.300.205.jpg

Link to source article

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/03/gina-rinehart-definitely-doesnt-like-the-internet/

Link to original BF article

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=905025

I don't even like Aussie Rules footy, hell I don't like ANY sport, but that little political sub forum can be pretty hard hitting :D
 
Hey guys!

I need some help, I've recently started discusssing AGW at a swedish forum where a member talks about that the effects of the warming is not a problem since the warming itself is so small and have possibly already stalled the last 10-15 years. He doesnt think the sea level rise is a problem since its only 0.15-0.2 meter/century.

He thinks that all the money that is spend on GW-solutions and research is just a waste of recourses.

I now he sounds like a nutjub...but I need some ideas and good sources to confront him with, so I turned to the best :)
 
The question is, of course (and it's what models are good at answering) : what happens to rainfall patterns in a warmer world than we've ever, as a civilisation, experienced?

but are they?

one of the things that bugs me is that the basic science is deep enough to strongly suggest we do not want to go to a significantly higher CO2 world; but then many turn to models and push them well beyond the range over which they are adequate.

i do not have the AR4 to hand, but as i recall the world precip map had hashing where something like "two thirds of the models agree and the sign of the change" of precipitation amount. and there was a lot of unhashed earth.

today's models do not do precip realistically, and few believe they could get changes in circulation realistically. do we really need to wait till we can compute the details (or oversell today's approximations) if we are convinced that the big picture is something we do not want to experience?
 
Long term underlying trends are easier to predict than short term (mostly random) variations. That's why it's easier to predict whether the tide will be in or out in 100 years time than it is to predict whether the next wave up the beach will come higher or lower than the previous one. Likewise it's easier to predict what will happen to average global temperatures as a result of a steady rise in atmospheric CO2 over the next century than it is to predict whether next year will see La Nina or El Nino conditions.

i, of course, do not disagree that longer term trends are easier to predict; and i expect that global mean temperature will keep trending upwards.

but when we consider things on human scales, and in nonlinear systems more generally, the idea of separating "signal" and "noise" starts to fall apart.

locally (on the scales of a typical nation-state) changes in the circulation of the earths atmosphere can have impacts that dwarf (as in: are out of all proportion to) the global changes. energy balance arguments tell us roughly what must happen in the global average, and so one might reasonably speak of a trend or signal there; but on human scales an for variables like precipitation, cloudiness,vegetation... the distinction between signal and noise is neither so easy nor so useful.

similarly, positive feedbacks can lead to increases even in global averages temperatures that well above today's estimate of "the trend."

let your island be a southern US barrier island. we can of course predict where the moon will be in 100 years with some accuracy, and thus the state of the tide. but if we are unable to model the waves realistically - not forecast the wave pattern exactly, but forecast a variety (ensemble) of realistic looking wave patterns - then we may have the island in the wrong place, as barrier islands tend to move about on those timescales (or, i admit, perhaps slightly longer, it depends on the wave pattern: NOT its average).
 
but are they?

one of the things that bugs me is that the basic science is deep enough to strongly suggest we do not want to go to a significantly higher CO2 world; but then many turn to models and push them well beyond the range over which they are adequate.

i do not have the AR4 to hand, but as i recall the world precip map had hashing where something like "two thirds of the models agree and the sign of the change" of precipitation amount. and there was a lot of unhashed earth.

today's models do not do precip realistically, and few believe they could get changes in circulation realistically. do we really need to wait till we can compute the details (or oversell today's approximations) if we are convinced that the big picture is something we do not want to experience?
Part of the problem is that most GCMs use a grid (5 deg x 5 deg) that does not support factors related to precipitation. These are better dealt with using regional models. For instance the UK precipitation pattern is predominently a wetter western half due to the presence of the Cambrian, Snowdonian, Pennine, Cumbrian and Western Highland mountain ranges. These would not be modelled in such a coarse grid.
 
I don't think we've got this far in one interglacial by neglecting the obvious.
i think that is correct. but often "we" were competing with each other. and our now extinct neighbors. humans exploiting the obvious flaws in the current human system, sometimes advancing.

it is a bit different when discussing the "obvious " in nature, no? when humans are competing with each other in the midst of guns, germs and steel, some humans have tended to win. but as the energy in play increases and inertia of systems lead to longer delays and less obvious cause-effect relationships...??? how good have we been at noticing the subtle?
 
Hey guys!

I need some help, I've recently started discusssing AGW at a swedish forum where a member talks about that the effects of the warming is not a problem since the warming itself is so small and have possibly already stalled the last 10-15 years. He doesnt think the sea level rise is a problem since its only 0.15-0.2 meter/century.

He thinks that all the money that is spend on GW-solutions and research is just a waste of recourses.

I now he sounds like a nutjub...but I need some ideas and good sources to confront him with, so I turned to the best :)
The problem is that moving a mean, makes the extremes more likely. So 1 in 100 year events become 1 in 25 or even 1 in 10. It's impossible to say that any single event is attributable to climate change, but there have been a number of events and a growing body of evidence that extreme events are becoming more common as highlighted in a recent technical report from insurers Munich Re

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37601/1/No...atural_disasters_a_global_analysis(lsero).pdf

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-sandy-global-warming-asking-right-questions.html

as for the silliness that it has somehow 'stopped', that's another myth. The usual headlines about warming are usually related to the surface temperature, the ocean heat content has continued to rise. The deep ocean, surface ocean, surface air, tropospheric and stratospheric air temperatures are all aspects of components within the system. Energy transfers between each. One of the key drivers of energy transfer is ENSO. Tamino did an excellent article that looked at the surface temperature accounting for ENSO and other factors and demonstarted that the heating effects are continuing unabated:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/data-and-code-for-foster-rahmstorf-2011/

If he doesn't think sea-level rise is a problem then I suggest he looks at the effects of Hurricane Sandy, how the NYC subway is still recovering, fuel supplies have only just recovered. The costs of dealing with more extreme storm surges and tides will be considerable, and will only increase the longer they are delayed.

Hope that helps
 
Hey guys!

I need some help, I've recently started discusssing AGW at a swedish forum where a member talks about that the effects of the warming is not a problem since the warming itself is so small and have possibly already stalled the last 10-15 years. He doesnt think the sea level rise is a problem since its only 0.15-0.2 meter/century.

He thinks that all the money that is spend on GW-solutions and research is just a waste of recourses.

I now he sounds like a nutjub...but I need some ideas and good sources to confront him with, so I turned to the best :)

In a certain way, discussing AGW implies a personal compromise that requires a good deal of learning. To answer the first portion "small effect, probably stalled", well you may search skepticalscience.com about our time's +0.6°C in a century being some 5-10% of the total range of variation of our planet's average temperature during the last few hundreds million years, the sound physics behind it (greenhouse gases causing it) and how that is becoming worse and worse so any "stall" is just temporarily and product of natural variability, so "no fundamental stall", and about appearances you may explain the scalator, that is, how professional denialists are always looking for subsets of data -temperature, ice extent, etc.- to claim "it's stalled" or "it's going better now ... it was just a blip".

With the see level rise, you have graphics like mine in post #6901 or bit_pattern's in this post, and let the denialist explain where he or she sees the 0.15/0.20 m a century. You also may explain what happened with the surge provoked by Sandy in New York, or what may happen in Bangladesh or the Delta of the Nile, or Vanuatu, or The Maldives, with as little as one metre. Remember, the fundamentals are clear and infrangible, so that person have to start venting some delusional theory about carbon dioxide or its relative "lack" of importance.

Prepare yourself for the worst, as these people work with ill faith based on an adversarial system to debate in courts and political venues. They are not clean.
 
re ENSO: do you think a model could provide actionable simulations for 100 years hence, if it cannot get the statistics of ENSO events realistically?
As for your last comment, that is disingenious.
it was not intended to be.
i am not suggesting that adequate climate models must be able to forecast individual el nino events; only that if they are to get the impacts and feedbacks realistically over the next century then they must simulate those ENSO events adequately.
start 100 slightly different model runs from 1 Jan 2000, they will have el nino events in different years, but if they are to model the impacts realistically, they must simulate el nino, and changes in its evolution in a warmer climate, realistically. no?
Long term models can afford to use previous long term measurements of ENSO to predict future events, they are not designed to try and catch the unknowables of extreme ENSO events anymore that they could predict volcanic effects.
yes, they could use historical ENSO signals; in fact they do not, and doing so would require ENSO run independently in a changing climate, which does not seem obvious to me at least. but ENSO differs from volcanoes in that it is part of the earth's system driven directly by atmospheric and oceanic phenomena in a way that volcanoes are not.
That said, it depends on the mechanisms controlling ENSO fluctuations remaining the same, and that is not a given.
agreed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom