Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »nope, i dont feel the need to, again, ive accepted our reality since childhood, ive moved on
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The warmest years ever recorded globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 in that order. 2020 looks like its on course to be the hottest ever just like the climate models predicted, so no, its not a case of cherry picking the hot stuff, the world is being heated to scary levels by our greenhouse gas emissions just like all the climate models predict so carry on dismissing it as weather if it makes you feel better.
Don't let Arkaisa catch you printing data without adding the source. :pac::pac:
2017, 2018 and 2019 colder than 2016.
So what ever we did in those 3 years we can repeat? Cause it worked to bring down temperatures? Am I doing this right?
If CO2 is constantly rising, why are we not seeing a year on year compound increase. More CO2 = More heat retention, except for 2017-2019 where more CO2 = Less heat? Surely based on AGW theory it should be in order of hottest 2019, 2018, 2017 ect..
If not, there must be another factor we are missing or don't understand. Or our instruments of measure aren't as accurate as we think.
It's worth noting tho.
The sparse records we do have from the ~1880s to 1970s have been adjusted.
Any temperature recording before that are extrapolated and estimated from ice cores and and decaying plant animals remains ect.
Extrapolation and interpretations, it's really open to interference.
Edit: When I say sparse records, I mean in terms of global coverage. Not how often records were maintained in a particular site.0 -
-
Wow thats shocking even by the low standards of this thread.Don't let Arkaisa catch you printing data without adding the source. :pac::pac:
2017, 2018 and 2019 colder than 2016.
So what ever we did in those 3 years we can repeat? Cause it worked to bring down temperatures? Am I doing this right?
If CO2 is constantly rising, why are we not seeing a year on year compound increase. More CO2 = More heat retention, except for 2017-2019 where more CO2 = Less heat? Surely based on AGW theory it should be in order of hottest 2019, 2018, 2017 ect..
If not, there must be another factor we are missing or don't understand. Or our instruments of measure aren't as accurate as we think.0 -
-
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »Again, I've moved on from the environmental science, even though it's continual research is now critical more than ever, and critics such as yourself are important, to continue questioning, but we will need you to try help us resolve these issues. It's important to note, some criticism of ipcc findings believes, that projected models are extremely conservative, which is deeply alarming, if true, and those critics make extremely good arguments for their concerns
Politics needs to be removed from the science.
Big name preachers of AGW are buying seafront property
Flying around the globe, shaming others for driving their cars to work.
The predicted extremes are so varying that any change we make today can't be measured in the future.
If the predictions are as bad as they say, well there is nothing we can do about it, maybe go back to stone age technology?
Global warming is only something that peoples and countries of wealth can be concerned about. It requires that people in poverty remain in poverty so as not to increase their energy needs. Then the wealthier move to technology and energy inputs not accessible to the poor. it's a societal disaster pushed in a large part by socialists (go figure). It's all pinned on a prediction that warmer weather means the demise of humans, and that ice core interpretations have shown that climate varies only fraction's of degrees over millennia. It reads like a B movie on the Sci-Fi channel.
There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first.
The folks who are are pushing for change do very little to act out what they preach, usually defaulting to "well the government need too..."
Those people should be giving up their modern luxuries, but they don't, they stand on their pedestal virtue signalling to everyone else.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90338232/climate-change-has-made-rich-countries-richer-and-poor-countries-poorerClimate change has made rich countries richer, and poor countries poorer
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136009/climate-change-has-already-made-poor-countries-poorer-and-rich-countries-richer/Climate change has already made poor countries poorer and rich countries richer
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richerHow global warming has made the rich richer
Even the overly BIASed and heavily moderated skepticalscience.com side step the question. Instead opting for the What's better for Humanity :rolleyes:How are the poor impacted by climate change?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm
Imagine that in heavily politicised issue, some people are gonna get richer and others poorer. :eek::eek:0 -
-
Don't let Arkaisa catch you printing data without adding the source. :pac::pac:
2017, 2018 and 2019 colder than 2016.
So what ever we did in those 3 years we can repeat? Cause it worked to bring down temperatures? Am I doing this right?
If CO2 is constantly rising, why are we not seeing a year on year compound increase. More CO2 = More heat retention, except for 2017-2019 where more CO2 = Less heat? Surely based on AGW theory it should be in order of hottest 2019, 2018, 2017 ect..
If not, there must be another factor we are missing or don't understand. Or our instruments of measure aren't as accurate as we think.
It's worth noting tho.
The sparse records we do have from the ~1880s to 1970s have been adjusted.
Any temperature recording before that are extrapolated and estimated from ice cores and and decaying plant animals remains ect.
Extrapolation and interpretations, it's really open to interference.
Edit: When I say sparse records, I mean in terms of global coverage. Not how often records were maintained in a particular site.
Because not all the energy is retained in the ocean surface and atmosphere. 90% of the extra energy gets absorbed in the oceans
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/my_pubs/Meehl2011etalNCC.pdf
There are natural processes that sequester some of this heat in the deep ocean, and others that release sequestered heat to the surface again, these currents and oscillations impact on natural variability but the energy imbalance also affects these systems.
There is a worry that the safety valve of deep water heat sequestration is slowing down in its ability to mitigate climate change.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Politics needs to be removed from the science.
Big name preachers of AGW are buying seafront property
Flying around the globe, shaming others for driving their cars to work.
The predicted extremes are so varying that any change we make today can't be measured in the future.
If the predictions are as bad as they say, well there is nothing we can do about it, maybe go back to stone age technology?
Global warming is only something that peoples and countries of wealth can be concerned about. It requires that people in poverty remain in poverty so as not to increase their energy needs. Then the wealthier move to technology and energy inputs not accessible to the poor. it's a societal disaster pushed in a large part by socialists (go figure). It's all pinned on a prediction that warmer weather means the demise of humans, and that ice core interpretations have shown that climate varies only fraction's of degrees over millennia. It reads like a B movie on the Sci-Fi channel.
There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first.
The folks who are are pushing for change do very little to act out what they preach, usually defaulting to "well the government need too..."
Those people should be giving up their modern luxuries, but they don't, they stand on their pedestal virtue signalling to everyone else.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90338232/climate-change-has-made-rich-countries-richer-and-poor-countries-poorer
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136009/climate-change-has-already-made-poor-countries-poorer-and-rich-countries-richer/
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer
Even the overly BIASed and heavily moderated skepticalscience.com side step the question. Instead opting for the What's better for Humanity :rolleyes:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm
Imagine that in heavily politicised issue, some people are gonna get richer and others poorer. :eek::eek:
removing politics from the science, is probably the most idiotic thing ive heard in relation to this topic, its important to realise why humanity created our political institutions! one of the biggest hurdles in regards action towards our environmental issues, has in fact being our political institutions, and their deeply embedded ideologies, in particular our current, most predominant form of capitalism, i.e. neoliberalism, and its associated economics school of thought, neoclassical theory. removing this debate from politics, essentially de-democratises, the whole debate, and the possibility of solving these issues by so, it would more than likely move the whole process towards alternative domains, in particular, more plutocratic ones. most humans, including myself, continually engage in activities that are harmful to our planet, its currently virtually impossible to do so, so in a way, most of us are hypocritical towards these issues in our overall actions.
yes, it is true, 'all models are wrong, but some are useful', us weather geeks truly should understand this one well by now, we truly dont know what will happen in the future, but if current predictions, from organisations such as the ipcc, do actually occur, human life will probably be in serious trouble in the not to distant future, this means your kids and grandkids futures are hanging in the balance here. its important to also realise, some elements of ipcc research, is currently being heavily criticised, some research showing, ipcc research is seriously under estimating future predictions, but the truth is, nobody truly knows for sure, but do we truly want to risk this!
all humans need to be concerned about this, and is doesnt necessarily mean we all have to down grade our living standards either, i personally believe we can continue improving our standards, globally, and continue working on improving our environmental situation, at the same time. we have figured out how to create vast amounts of wealth, and quickly, we just need to resolve our serious and growing, wealth distribution issues, and theres some very interesting ideas out there, in how we might be able to do that, but our political world, is currently stuck, and unwilling/unable to even consider these alternatives, but that might be changing now. im not sure where you re going with the use of the term 'socialists', as i suspect most humans have little or no knowledge of this ideology, nor interest in creating such a world, but of course i could be wrong. i personally agree with libertarian economist deirdre mccloskey, 'most humans would rather a capitalist society over a socialist one', a socialist society sounds fairly miserable to me, but of course, i could also be wrong with that as well. i think the argument truly should be capitalism v's capitalism, i.e. i believe in this moment in time, the solution to capitalisms problems, is in fact capitalism itself, even though this could be wrong, and future generations may discover a better approach.
we maybe able to help resolve these issues, 'There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first', and our environmental issues, all at the same time, if we started tackling our growing wealth distribution issues.
our current form of capitalism has in fact being making developed countries wealthier, by extracting this wealth, in many ways, from developing nations, one of the main methods being 'debt peonage' etc, this has in fact being occurring for many decades, probably centuries now, i.e. long before our current environmental movements were even conceived.
again, our growing wealth inequality issues, is far more complex than just our growing environmental issues, but both are intertwined0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Oops, that was a bit too logical for this science, please head on over to astronomy where they do logic routinely.
I don't find a 1 C deg warming to be "outside the bounds of natural variability" at all, but as I've said several times, I do agree that is roughly the working figure, possibly some fraction between one third and two thirds of it is natural and the rest due to increased greenhouse gases. Note also some debate exists about whether the increase in greenhouse gases is all because of human activity (I think 90% of it is) or due to warming climates, a sort of mutual reinforcement feedback loop (see Venus for possible final results of that).
Anyway, nothing really changes my mind that our best course of action politically is to plan around nearly inevitable rises in sea level and some of the other touted predictions within climate change, although I tend to take some of them with a grain of salt, in particular the more intense storms part (some evidence that trends are blanding rather than going in that direction). Still, a bland warmth can have its unwanted consequences.
The strictly political analysis is probably this -- assuming we accept the logic of the AGW theory, what are the reasonable chances of actually cutting back carbon emissions to this net zero goal often mentioned, and over how many years? What are the predictable consequences of so doing, in economic terms? Some say, we must do this for the future of the planet. However, that's an overstatement. The human race could survive, more or less comfortably, on a planet with 10 metres higher sea levels. 30-40 metres would be genuinely catastrophic, but it would not lead to the extinction of humanity. (that latter figure assumes complete disappearance of Antarctic land ice)
A new "ice age" (better put, glacial maximum) would be a worse catastrophe than even the 30-40 metre sea level rise. According to Milankovitch's accepted theory, the time line on that is luckily more gradual than it was between the last two glacials. We may have 30k to 50k years to plan for the next big glacial advance. Some of the orbital variables are oscillating at their steadier levels and we don't really start much of a slide down to a full glacial for at least 15k years. So in a way, that makes my next point a bit weaker but I think it's worth making, if we don't load up on carbon now then cut back and maintain a healthy greenhouse, then what is plan B to prevent the onset of that glacial. Some will say, well that's so far off, who cares? But if it's logical to care about our grandchildren and great-grandchildren's future, then what about those distant generations. They might be quite pleased with us if we send on our carbon. The trick would be to stabilize the climate at the slow-Greenland-meltdown levels of greenhouse gases and keep researching the question of how much more (if any) would be needed to prevent future major glaciation.
My guess is that around 20k to 30k years from now, science will be so advanced that weather control might be feasible. From my own research, I'm pretty certain that a well-placed second satellite of the earth, or some number of them, might do the trick. They might only need to be asteroid-sized, hence a supply of them exists.
I think the best approach in general is to keep trying on all fronts, advance technology, reduce emissions, plan for mitigation strategies, look into major desalination and agricultural expansion projects in arid regions, and try to figure out non-climate-based methods of preserving land ice and removing surplus water from the oceans.
If we spent all the money that is now spent on the military (or lottery tickets or make-up etc etc) on engineering projects relevant to climate stabilization, then we would probably succeed. It's quite possible that a dam across the Bering Strait would have a positive impact (it could be removed 20,000 years from now if desirable too). There could be road and rail links from North America to Asia built into that. It's only about 30 miles wide, and there's a fairly large island in the middle. The impact of a dam there would be to prevent warmer water from the Pacific from flowing into the west arctic basin. It should counteract at least the sooty deposition aspects of climate change in terms of maintaining longer and more extensive ice cover. Whether it would have any knock-on effects on the eastern half of the arctic basin is difficult to say but I would imagine to some extent a colder climate in half the arctic would quite conceivably lead to a slightly cooler regime in the other half as well. Even if not, Greenland and glaciated Canadian arctic islands (Ellesmere, Axel Heiberg, Devon, parts of Baffin) might be cooled slightly -- and that's all we really need, we don't need to put the arctic into a total deep freeze to achieve the desired results of stabilization of current ice levels).0 -
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement