• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

cullennz said:
All good


Forgive me if I am wrong, but you are saying we are doomed to catastrophe in 11 years if we don't do anything
Click to expand...


There will be catasrophic consequences if we don't. Read the reports from the scientists. I don't know why so many people only think of the impact on one species. Most species are going to be adversely affected, many specied are being affected already. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef.
 
There is really no more to say about this 11-year shiny object sidetrack

Moving on to deniers (hopefully OK in the thread):

The Brazilian President's speech to the UN is being replayed on CSPAN right now. He's in total denial the fires are as bad as the satellite images prove they are. He claims they have zero tolerance for the illegal burning and surprise surprise, he claims it's all fake news that is lying about the burning. And he has some letter from the indigenous peoples who have moved out of the forest and are part of the farmers burning the land, stealing the forest from those that have stayed. So empathy for the forest dwellers is misplaced.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
I fear that can only help Trump win in Florida.
Click to expand...

Tidal flooding is a semi-regular event in cities like Miami, I don't think it will disrupt the election in a way that could help Trump. It may put climate change at the front of voters minds come election day which should work against him if it's played properly.
 
lomiller said:
Tidal flooding is a semi-regular event in cities like Miami, I don't think it will disrupt the election in a way that could help Trump. It may put climate change at the front of voters minds come election day which should work against him if it's played properly.
Click to expand...

Many house owners in Florida depend on Federally subsidized flood insurance. Trump will certainly keep on paying even if it means people will build their house below sea level.
A Climate-aware Democrat will probably start changing the program to demand that there can't be reconstruction on vulnerable locations.
 
Interesting article at RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/

Apparently the newest generation of climate models are showing higher climate sensitivity that older versions. Many of them are up in the 5 deg C per doubling of CO2 as opposed to the 3 Deg that multiple lines of research has centered on for several decades. They discuss several possibilities, but it doesn't look like there are any explanations yet.
 
lomiller said:
Interesting article at RealClimate



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/



Apparently the newest generation of climate models are showing higher climate sensitivity that older versions. Many of them are up in the 5 deg C per doubling of CO2 as opposed to the 3 Deg that multiple lines of research has centered on for several decades. They discuss several possibilities, but it doesn't look like there are any explanations yet.
Click to expand...


Here!s a very different opinion:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Estimates of climate sensitivity have varied considerably over the years, and narrowing the range has proved difficult. Most of the work done so far points to the most likely value being somewhere around 3C, which would be bad enough for humanity, so any new findings which suggest a sigificantly higher value are obviously concerning. All most of us can do is hope that the actual value turns out to be nearer the lower end of the range of the estimates than the higher, whilst continuing to do whatever we can to help limit the rise in atmospheric CO2.
 
pbrabbit said:
Here!s a very different opinion:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/
Click to expand...

Quick summary. If we cherry pick studies that find low climate sensitivity plausible then low climate sensitivity is plausible. Yup, that's really all it comes down to.

The problem with any claim of low climate sensitivity is that it doesn’t mesh with the paleo-climate data and in fact below ~2 D/doubling of CO2 you can’t get glaciation cycles to happen.

When ALL the research on climate sensitivity is included, the accepted range remains 2-4.5 deg C with the greatest likelihood centered on 3 deg C. Two caveats to this are that the tail is longer on the high sensitivity side than the low sensitivity side. IOW if that range is wrong, it’s much more likely that it’s to low than to high. The second caveat is that only fast feedback effects are included but many slow effects like melting artic soils releasing more Carbon are not.
 
a_unique_person said:
Curry is a well established concern troll. She adds nothing to the science.
Click to expand...

She does actually get papers published from time to time, one of the few contrarians that does. Like most deniers who get papers published from time to time the claims in her papers are far more modest than her internet commentary and are typically not all that well received by other scientists.

Her published work typically follows the same pattern to other deniers who occasionally get papers published occasionally. Mostly her published work simply argues for larger levels of uncertainty in specific data and model results. She then uses this wider uncertainty band in one result to claim that low climate sensitivity is plausible in spite of other evidence to the contrary and the possibility that wider error bars could also mean higher climate sensitivity rather than lower.

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Good news on the climate at long last!

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...it-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates
Click to expand...
Ocean temperatures hit record high as rate of heating accelerates is bad news for the climate.
Oceans are clearest measure of climate crisis as they absorb 90% of heat trapped by greenhouse gases.

The heat in the world’s oceans reached a new record level in 2019, showing “irrefutable and accelerating” heating of the planet.

The world’s oceans are the clearest measure of the climate emergency because they absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by the greenhouse gases emitted by fossil fuel burning, forest destruction and other human activities.

The new analysis shows the past five years are the top five warmest years recorded in the ocean and the past 10 years are also the top 10 years on record. The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night.
Click to expand...
 
Yes. Live in Norway, in a place that is 200 meters or more above the current sea level. So far it has worked fine for me! :)
 
fritznien said:
Thats all well and good but 3 or 5 C, but what is the plan?
Does anyone have a workable plan?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Ignore it all and don't even begin to hope humans will act before it's too late.

The evidence is now so massive that I believe the climate warming by over 4 degrees C is utterly unavoidable, so make like WWII Britain - keep calm and carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom