Cont: Global warming discussion V

[crescent]

Thats all well and good but 3 or 5 C, but what is the plan?
Does anyone have a workable plan?

The problem with any plan is that as soon as a plan is put forward, it is immediately attacked by the deniers. That includes a lot of disinformation about the plan. The plan becomes the thing to plan against.

So long as the American Republican Party, other like-minded political parties of other nations, and so many large businesses maintain the pseudo-religious disbelief in human-caused climate change, planning counts for little. Any plan developed now would not be implemented until conditions have changed so much as to make the plan moot.

The closest thing to a viable plan is to take individual action while continuing to apply pressure (including voting) to get politicians to acknowledge human caused climate change and to accept that a plan is needed.

 

[Armitage72]

Over the weekend I heard someone claim that the data shows that the climate is currently the most stable it's been in history. I just cannot comprehend how that conclusion can be reached. I guess a steady climb can be considered stable, in a sense.

 

[Belz...]

Thats all well and good but 3 or 5 C, but what is the plan?
Does anyone have a workable plan?

We don't have one.

My personal wager, to my great distress, is that the situation will correct itself... in the sense that we're not going to do anything about it and will be reduced in population so much that our ability to affect climate will be removed, while the system rights itself over the next few millennia.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We (as in overall civilization) will wait until the last minute when the problem gets so big we can't ignore, the smart people we (again as overall civilization) have been ignoring will pull a miracle out of their butts to fix it and then we (see above) will go "See? No big big deal, we were all worried sick about nothing."

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks Sherlock, that was actually self-evident. ...insult snipped...

But not what you wrote: "Good news on the climate at long last!"

 

[hgus]

Over the weekend I heard someone claim that the data shows that the climate is currently the most stable it's been in history. I just cannot comprehend how that conclusion can be reached. I guess a steady climb can be considered stable, in a sense.

If I recall correctly the climate have been remarkably stable the last ten thousand years. If you remove the last hundred years or so that is.

 

[novaphile]

My expectation is that things will unfold like this.

1. Eventually things become so bad, that the deniers have to stop denying.
2. The general population murder all the scientists, and anyone who can think, for not doing enough to prevent climate change.
3. Civilisation collapses, and remnant, isolated populations of humans eventually succumb to easily preventable disease due to a lack of nutrition and vaccinations.

I'm expecting that the above will happen roughly 100 years after my death.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Thats all well and good but 3 or 5 C, but what is the plan?
Does anyone have a workable plan?

I have one yes. But let's just assume I am a self serving Kook, and my plan is BS....

I have also identified no fewer than 6 other plans that probably could work if enough people actually made the effort.

Here is one of the better ones, not perfect but pretty damn good.
Project Drawdown

This one is pretty good too and gaining traction:
Savory Institute: Our Mission

And obviously there is the IPCC plan. It's not bad.

 

[Reality Check]

I have one yes. But let's just assume I am a self serving Kook, and my plan is BS....

Unfortunately you cite one bad source - nothing about global warming in the Savory Institute mission statement.
The Savory Institute web site has articles by Alan Savory who "believes grasslands hold the potential to sequester enough atmospheric carbon dioxide to reverse climate change.". He is ignorant about climate change in at least one: With 100% certainty it is management causing global desertification and climate change and all the many symptoms.
It is 97% certain (as in the consensus of climate scientists) that increasing CO2from industry, transport, etc. is the cause of climate change .

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Unfortunately you cite one bad source - nothing about global warming in the Savory Institute mission statement.
The Savory Institute web site has articles by Alan Savory who "believes grasslands hold the potential to sequester enough atmospheric carbon dioxide to reverse climate change.". He is ignorant about climate change in at least one: With 100% certainty it is management causing global desertification and climate change and all the many symptoms.
It is 97% certain (as in the consensus of climate scientists) that increasing CO2from industry, transport, etc. is the cause of climate change .

You stated that incorrectly Reality Check. It is certain that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, and the warming Earth is a cause of climate change.

But You and many others are focused on mainly the emissions side of the carbon cycle out of long term sinks, while Savory's work focuses mainly on the opposite side back into long term sinks.

It's a POV issue which is neither right nor wrong from both. Flip sides of the same coin.

In reality being cyclical we have the ability to balance both sides of the carbon cycle by both reducing fossil fuel emissions and at the same time sequestering that carbon back into long term sinks.

and the IPCC acknowledges this completely. In fact their Representative Concentration Pathway is not based on emissions but rather atmospheric concentration. It is a model of the balance between sources and sinks and the only one that actually shows a solution is RCP 2.6 which models BOTH a reduction of emissions and a moderate increase in sinks.

Savory supposes a somewhat greater increase in sinks and a somewhat lessor reduction in emissions, but the differences between the IPCC and Savory's work is far less dramatic than you seem to suppose. In fact since RCP 2.6 doesn't actually name the technology to be used as a sink, and leaves it open to many competing technologies, you could actually say that Savory has simply solved which technology works to make RCP 2.6 happen.

 

[Warmer1]

There are three words constantly seen now in climate change news "Faster than expected".

New climate models which include clouds predict greater warming but there is still uncertianty.

https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1513326/climate-models-suggest-paris-goals-reach

"Right now, there is an enormously heated debate within the climate modelling community," said Earth system scientist Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

"You have 12 or 13 models showing sensitivity which is no longer 3C, but rather 5C or 6C with a doubling of CO2," he told AFP. "What is particularly worrying is that these are not the outliers."

Models from France, the US Department of Energy, Britain's Met Office and Canada show climate sensitivity of 4.9C, 5.3C, 5.5C and 5.6C respectively, Zelinka said.


The solution
In order to reduce warming hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 need to be captured, compressed and sequestered.

"In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios"

(And the IPCC scenarios have been too conservative)

https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/

What really shocks me though is that other than nuclear war climate change is one of the biggest threats to humankind. The science is very clear.
If there is no major effort to address climate change the projected scenarios of what living conditions on Earth will be like by 2050 are horrific. Half of the world's reefs are dead, there are massive fires all over the planet, huge areas of kelp forest off of California just died, and the permafrost is melting 70 years ahead of schedule, a million species are at risk, and on and on.

University students that are around 20 years old will be around 50 years old by 2050 and they may have to live in a time of mass die off and will likely have to deal with the continued unstoppable degradation of their life support system. One would think that university students in the US would be taught about what is possibly the greatest threat to their future well being as well as the supporting science.

Here are the university students cheering for Donald Trump the climate denier, who's polices will help possibly wipe them off the face of the Earth. Trump's pulling out of the Paris climate accord allows other countries and excuse not to participate in a meaningful way.
It's unbelievable to watch university students that are totally scientifically illiterate cheer for the con man that is helping to wipe them off the planet - unreal!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/donald-trump-lsu-clemson-cheers/index.html

This is historic footage of the ignorance of modern students at the university level, the failure of the US educational system and the silence of the media on the subject. It may as well be the Stone Age.

 

[The Atheist]

This is historic footage of the ignorance of modern students at the university level, the failure of the US educational system and the silence of the media on the subject. It may as well be the Stone Age.

It's not just the USA.

Even in old backwoods New Zealand, I tried to get some traction on climate 35 years ago and got shot down in flames for my trouble. That was long before climate denial became a thing - it was just a belief the planet was big enough that humans couldn't damage it on a global scale outside of nuclear war.

Them pigeons have all come home to roost.

In the space of 20 years we've gone from 1-2 degrees warming to 4 looking to be on the low side of predictions.

 

[Steve001]

Over the weekend I heard someone claim that the data shows that the climate is currently the most stable it's been in history. I just cannot comprehend how that conclusion can be reached. I guess a steady climb can be considered stable, in a sense.

They are correct to a small point. Where they aren't is stating this has been the most stable in the Earth's entire history.

NASA
Earth’s climate has been stable for the past 12,000 years. This stability has been crucial for the development of modern civilization.
• A stable climate enabled humans to pursue agriculture, domesticate animals, settle down and develop culture.
https://news/1010/climate-change-and-the-rise-and-fall-of-civilizations/

 

[Reality Check]

You stated that incorrectly Reality Check. It is certain that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, and the warming Earth is a cause of climate change.

But You and many others are focused on mainly the emissions side of the carbon cycle out of long term sinks, while Savory's work focuses mainly on the opposite side back into long term sinks.

You are missing the deep ignorance of climate science stated by Savory in that article. Read what he actually wrote: With 100% certainty it is management causing global desertification and climate change and all the many symptoms. That is a clear belief that it is (grassland) management that causes climate change.
Another hint: That "Climate Change – Cause and Remedy" article does not have any mention of carbon dioxide as a cause!

What climate scientists have found is that reducing CO2 emissions is the best way to mitigate global warming. It is established technology that works.

Why Savory and his institute is a bad source:

• Alan Savory is not a climate scientist.
  See his ignorance about the cause of global warming.
• Alan Savory is touting his debated farm management system.
• Savory "work" is only a 2013 TED talk titled '‘How to fight desertification and reverse climate change’, and documents on his web site.
• When people examine his claims in published papers they see that they are invalid.
  For example:
  Nordborg, M. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method. Uppsala: SLU/EPOK – Centre for Organic Food & Farming & Chalmers. (PDF), described at Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. Their calculation gives "Despite optimistic assumptions, 0.76 billion tonnes of C correspond to less than 10% of current annual emissions," or "less than 5% of the emissions of carbon since the beginning of the industrial revolution.".

Thus Savory is wrong. His goal of converting 1 billion hectares to use his management method will not reverse global warming as in his TED talk. Established improvements in management will get as good a result in carbon sequestration.

 

[whatsthedreamnow]

Not to derail, but how would you recommend an attempt to convert deniers who believe that warming is part of the natural climate cycle? The "it's been warm before, it's been cold before" crowd.

Pointing out the near 100% consensus, introducing the basic concepts, offering non-Facebook articles, etc is not resonating.

 

[crescent]

Not to derail, but how would you recommend an attempt to convert deniers who believe that warming is part of the natural climate cycle? The "it's been warm before, it's been cold before" crowd.

Pointing out the near 100% consensus, introducing the basic concepts, offering non-Facebook articles, etc is not resonating.

There is not much you can say. I try anyway.

One thing is to point out HOW we know the climate has always changed: Climate Scientists. They did the work, the math and science and all that.

Then, who tells us that the modern climate is changing much faster than natural cycles: Climate Scientists. The same ones who showed that the climate has always changed. Its the same people.

Alas, the argument never works. The disbelief of climate science is pretty well now religious in nature. Evidence is meaningless to them.

 

[foophil]

Not to derail, but how would you recommend an attempt to convert deniers who believe that warming is part of the natural climate cycle? The "it's been warm before, it's been cold before" crowd.

Pointing out the near 100% consensus, introducing the basic concepts, offering non-Facebook articles, etc is not resonating.

It depends on how far up the Crazy Creek they are. Most climate change deniers, the true ones who believe the earth is cooling, stable, or is in a natural cycle, won't really believe anything you try and show them. But if you do run into a rare one, someone you know personally who is willing to actually listen to you rather than shout you down with debunked nonsense, they can be pointed to the website https://skepticalscience.com/. It even has the word Skeptical in it!

The site contains a Q&A if you will of common (and uncommon) questions like that. The answers all link in overwhelming detail to many, many studies along with a brief (and sometimes not so brief) write up summarizing those studies.

Here's a direct link answering your question:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

The short answer is it's not a natural cycle, but that we should in fact be cooling at this point.

For example, we are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age, and the Milankovitch cycles that drive glaciation show that we should be, in fact, very slowly going into a new ice age (but anthropogenic warming is virtually certain to offset that influence).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Not to derail, but how would you recommend an attempt to convert deniers who believe that warming is part of the natural climate cycle? The "it's been warm before, it's been cold before" crowd.

Pointing out the near 100% consensus, introducing the basic concepts, offering non-Facebook articles, etc is not resonating.

The basic point is that it should be cooling, but because there is too much CO2, it is warming instead.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You are missing the deep ignorance of climate science stated by Savory in that article. Read what he actually wrote: With 100% certainty it is management causing global desertification and climate change and all the many symptoms. That is a clear belief that it is (grassland) management that causes climate change.
Another hint: That "Climate Change – Cause and Remedy" article does not have any mention of carbon dioxide as a cause!

What climate scientists have found is that reducing CO2 emissions is the best way to mitigate global warming. It is established technology that works.

Why Savory and his institute is a bad source:

• Alan Savory is not a climate scientist.
  See his ignorance about the cause of global warming.
• Alan Savory is touting his debated farm management system.
• Savory "work" is only a 2013 TED talk titled '‘How to fight desertification and reverse climate change’, and documents on his web site.
• When people examine his claims in published papers they see that they are invalid.
  For example:
  Nordborg, M. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method. Uppsala: SLU/EPOK – Centre for Organic Food & Farming & Chalmers. (PDF), described at Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. Their calculation gives "Despite optimistic assumptions, 0.76 billion tonnes of C correspond to less than 10% of current annual emissions," or "less than 5% of the emissions of carbon since the beginning of the industrial revolution.".

Thus Savory is wrong. His goal of converting 1 billion hectares to use his management method will not reverse global warming as in his TED talk. Established improvements in management will get as good a result in carbon sequestration.

Wrong on almost every point including you substituting (grasslands) into the quote. That's your words, not his. Holistic management is not only about grasslands.
Further, it is those other references that are debunked by the evidence, not Savory.
Finally you have tried for many years now to pretend we can't sequester carbon in the soil at those rates, and yet over and over again LOTS of others are also sequestering carbon at those rates and even higher. So stop with the denialism and follow the evidence, or just piss off. Because I am tired of restating all this 100's of times for you.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is hard at solutions while you tell your silly tales.

The latest in a long line? The indigo terraton initiative.

 

[Reality Check]

Alan Savory's article is ignorant about the cause of global warming

Wrong on almost every point...

It is still correct that Alan Savory's article is ignorant about the cause of global warming. We know it is CO2 primarily from industry and transport, not any kind of farm management.
It is still correct that Savory and his institute is a bad source on climate science.

I posted this science in the 'Holistic Grazing' thread on 19 March 2019.

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

The Skeptical Science article referenced in the rebuttal is Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

What the science says...
Multiple scientific studies from climate scientists and agricultural specialists show little or no significant gain in carbon sequestration on soils managed holistically to those with other grazing techniques. Even under the most favourable conditions, Holistic Management (HM) alone can only slow climate change by a small percentage, over a limited period, and certainly cannot reverse climate change.

Climate Myth...
Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
“Holistic management as a planned grazing strategy is able to reverse desertification and sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide into soil, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to pre-industrial levels in a period of forty years.” (Allan Savory, 2014)

I have been citing the scientific literature on carbon sequestration in soils to you and have cited a source yet again with many references yet again.
Nordborg, M. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method. Uppsala: SLU/EPOK – Centre for Organic Food & Farming & Chalmers. (PDF), described at Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.
The sequestration section is clear. Nordborg states with some generous assumptions, e.g. that plant growth measured as Net Primary Productivity doubles after HM is introduced, and gets a sequestration rate 18 times less than Savory's value.

List the LOTS of published papers reporting "sequestering carbon at those rates and even higher" and what are "those rates"?