JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Expect this to be used as an argument against global warming and CO2 reduction: http://news.yahoo.com/calm-solar-cycle-prompts-questions-impact-earth-213912384.html
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."Climate Change: Consensus
The above linked article contains the list of the 18 scientific associations.
wcalvin
Member
We are already in the danger zone for major damage.
The threat is not simply proportional to average global temperature (which is only an index, like the DJI, not what does the damage).
Wind speed, for example, is a function of the difference between sea and land temperatures. And the land is warming 2.5 times as fast as Sea Surface Temp. A strong contrast across the coastline is likely to produce stronger winds.
You don't need an accurate wind warming model to know how much additional damage will occur. The insurance industry has lots of data on what a 50 mph windstorm costs them. And what a 60 mph storm costs.
It's only a mere 20% increase in wind speed, but damage claims increase 500%. Welcome to nonlinearity.
Guess what happens to insurance premiums then? Well, actually they won't go up 500%. Insurance companies will simply stop writing policies for affected areas. (See my Global Fever book, links at Brains and Climate: William H. Calvin)
This isn't an iffy prediction: it has already begun. Recall what happened in Florida after 4 hurricanes hit in 2004-05 and the major insurance companies pulled out. The state taxpayers had to go into the insurance business because coastal cities would soon turn into slums as insurance vanished and, in consequence, mortgages as well. No one would be able to sell and move elsewhere without an ability to cash out on their FL property.
Should FL taxpayers become unable to bear the burden of self-insuring, do you really suppose (recall New Orleans) that the federal taxpayers will pick up the load?
There is no timeline for that sort of cascade, and we are already ten years into the danger zone for it. Climate threats are not just to grandchildren, or children. Thanks to ignoring fifty years of scientists' warnings, it's now us as well.
The threat is not simply proportional to average global temperature (which is only an index, like the DJI, not what does the damage).
Wind speed, for example, is a function of the difference between sea and land temperatures. And the land is warming 2.5 times as fast as Sea Surface Temp. A strong contrast across the coastline is likely to produce stronger winds.
You don't need an accurate wind warming model to know how much additional damage will occur. The insurance industry has lots of data on what a 50 mph windstorm costs them. And what a 60 mph storm costs.
It's only a mere 20% increase in wind speed, but damage claims increase 500%. Welcome to nonlinearity.
Guess what happens to insurance premiums then? Well, actually they won't go up 500%. Insurance companies will simply stop writing policies for affected areas. (See my Global Fever book, links at Brains and Climate: William H. Calvin)
This isn't an iffy prediction: it has already begun. Recall what happened in Florida after 4 hurricanes hit in 2004-05 and the major insurance companies pulled out. The state taxpayers had to go into the insurance business because coastal cities would soon turn into slums as insurance vanished and, in consequence, mortgages as well. No one would be able to sell and move elsewhere without an ability to cash out on their FL property.
Should FL taxpayers become unable to bear the burden of self-insuring, do you really suppose (recall New Orleans) that the federal taxpayers will pick up the load?
There is no timeline for that sort of cascade, and we are already ten years into the danger zone for it. Climate threats are not just to grandchildren, or children. Thanks to ignoring fifty years of scientists' warnings, it's now us as well.
Last edited:
Relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and Temperature
In the following graph it can be seen that there is a strong relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and Temperature changes in the history of the Earth.
In the following graph it can be seen that there is a strong relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and Temperature changes in the history of the Earth.
Attachments
Last edited:
Maybe if you ignored the headline and actually researched the issue (or just read the fine article), you'd see that BBC grossly exaggerated the headline using the claims from one scientist (Professor Wieslaw Maslowski who has consistently produced estimates far more drastic than others). If you read further down in the article, Professor Peter Wadhams says that 2030 was his best estimate.
But hey - go ahead and keep on cherry picking data points to fit your view.
Still not sure why I bother replying to anyone who insists they live in "Kalifornia". Big Brad Pitt fan I'm assuming?
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
While I suppose it is possible to deny the severity of climate change... I don't understand how anyone can deny it's existence.
1- Is CO2 transparent to light from the sun but opaque to infrared light emitted by the earth? YES, not disputed ANYWHERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
2- Is the primary mechanism through which the Earth cools Infrared Radiation? YES, not disputed ANYWHERE
3- Is the concentration of CO2 rising? YES, from ~280ppm (pre-1900) to ~400ppm (Today)
4- Does industrial activity emit enough to be responsible?
31.6E12kg (2012 fossil fuel emissions) / 5.15E18kg (Earths Atmosphere) = ~6ppm/yr compare to a rise of ~2ppm/yr
So... YES, YES, YES and YES... these CANNOT all be true and anthropogenic climate change be false and there is zero doubt about each statement.
1- Is CO2 transparent to light from the sun but opaque to infrared light emitted by the earth? YES, not disputed ANYWHERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
2- Is the primary mechanism through which the Earth cools Infrared Radiation? YES, not disputed ANYWHERE
3- Is the concentration of CO2 rising? YES, from ~280ppm (pre-1900) to ~400ppm (Today)
4- Does industrial activity emit enough to be responsible?
31.6E12kg (2012 fossil fuel emissions) / 5.15E18kg (Earths Atmosphere) = ~6ppm/yr compare to a rise of ~2ppm/yr
So... YES, YES, YES and YES... these CANNOT all be true and anthropogenic climate change be false and there is zero doubt about each statement.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Really? Is your weatherman laughed out of the room since he can't predict 6 years into the future, are stock analysts and fund managers laughed out of the room because they can't predict 6 years into the future? In fact please name one subject where people are actually expected to predict the future, and are "laughed out of the room" when they aren't 100% accurate. Guess what did happen for the first time ever in 2013? A bulk freighter went through the Northwest passage because there was so little ice. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...hwest-passage-passable-climate-change-arctic/
Indeed you won't, even by the facts in some of the very articles you post, or all the facts that are presented to you as counter arguments.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
I think 2007 consensus was that we'd have an ice free September by now at the North Pole. I know a few NOAA people and they certainly thought we'd have seen it by now. And it'll likely still happen one of these years.
I don't really care what the poles are doing or what the ice extent is or if it's thinner or thicker this year or the next, CO2 concentrations should be more than enough for people to be considerably more than alarmed right now. Simple measurements that coincided with major temperature increases. How can there me a more clear cause for concern?
Can we stand to lose Florida and New Jersey? Perhaps. But what about after that?
I don't really care what the poles are doing or what the ice extent is or if it's thinner or thicker this year or the next, CO2 concentrations should be more than enough for people to be considerably more than alarmed right now. Simple measurements that coincided with major temperature increases. How can there me a more clear cause for concern?
Can we stand to lose Florida and New Jersey? Perhaps. But what about after that?
No, the 4th IPCC report (which represents the consensus at the time) released in 2007 projected that late summer sea ice would disappear by the latter part of the 21st century.
Thank you for that. This thread was definitely growing wearying. A chuckle was long overdue.
The wording of your own cited article says that "nothern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years". The key takeaway is "could be".
Just at the statement "I could flip a coin and have it land on tails". I then flip a coin and it lands it heads. Was my intentional statement that it "could have landed on tails" false? No it wasn't. Because that was a probable outcome.
Back to the "ice isn't melting" myth that you are trying to perpetuate, this article does a thorough debunking of it.
Ice isn't melting
I hesitate to jump in on this but when I read phrases like "could be", I tune out. It has not teeth and thus, to me, has little value.
"I could be a trillionaire tomorrow."
A new article from Scientific American
Safe Limit for Global Warming Is Lowered Dramatically by Experts: Scientific American
- - - Updated - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
Safe Limit for Global Warming Is Lowered Dramatically by Experts: Scientific American
- - - Updated - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
That doesn't address my point. If you (people in articles) want to make a statement, express it more crisply than a broad "could be" otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.
The use of "could be" is appropriate. They are not declaring certainty because the claim is falsifiable, and that's exactly how it should be.
Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?
Appropriate or not, it's useless to me.
Evaluation IsPrime(int) { return Maybe; }
Also useless.
Similar threads
