‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening

[MysticStrummer]

I just don't understand why the concept is so hard to grasp. Our planet's atmosphere is a mix of chemicals. Human activity is adding chemicals to that mix, including some that don't even occur in nature. You really think that has no possible consequence?

[MysticStrummer]

Oops double post

Edited August 10, 2012 by MysticStrummer

[docyabut2]

A hot summer we fear gobal warming, a cold winter we fear ice age:) I guess there always been climate changes in the earth, weather man was around, or not.

[Doug1029]

A hot summer we fear gobal warming, a cold winter we fear ice age:) I guess there always been climate changes in the earth, weather man was around, or not.

We need never fear another ice age. We know how to warm the earth - the output from one CFC plant is enough to head off an ice age. It is warming we can't control.

The central US has had nine drought cycles since 1650. The last four have been getting progressively worse. Measured by precip, not temp. The drought cycles are just weather; it's the "getting worse" part that is the climate change.

The denialists like to attack climate models - like there are only two or three of them (There are over 300.). Global models now work pretty well. But regional models leave a lot to be desired - so denialists try to paint all climate models with the same regional-model brush. Because the general public does not understand the difference, they can get away with it.

But when all regional models predict the same thing, what does that tell you? They are all predicting drying in the American Southwest and northern Mexico. We're already on the edge of a desert and further drying will send us over the edge. My town gets its water from Kaw, Blackwell and MacMurty reservoirs. They are all runoff reservoirs. City officials are worried about the low water levels in them right now and have instituted water conservation measures (Last year, MacMurtry dropped below the intake level.). If it gets dryer, the day is coming when all three will be dry - and that means no water for any purpose. Suddenly, you can't get a drink or wash the clothes or cook dinner. You have to leave, move somewhere where there is water. And that will turn most of western Oklahoma into ghost towns. Not to mention devastating the livestock and farming industries (Conservation Reserve land has already been released in an attempt to provide ranchers with feed for their animals; and the current drought is the fifth-worst one we can see in the tree ring record and pretty minor compared with what is coming in another 35 to 50 years.).

The American Midwest is the breadbasket of the world. It will be hit hard. What do you think that will mean to prices in your local grocery store? Or worse yet, to the people who can't buy food when America pulls its farm products off the international market? I'm wondering if this year's drought is about to turn America into a net importer of food.

I expect the shift in Oklahoma will come suddenly, over perhaps three to five years. Three years of drought will deplete reservoirs and set up a high-risk fire condition. Massive wildfires like we had two years ago will destroy the grass cover, allowing wind erosion of the soil (This year's fires are nothing to sneeze at.). The dunes will begin to move again, preventing plants from growing back (Most of western Oklahoma is covered by grassed-over sand dunes.). Lack of water in the reservoirs will force people to leave in droves (A mild version of this happened during the Dust Bowl.). I think Oklahoma has one more wet period left and I expect it will begin in 2017, lasting through 2026. After that, we will see from five to 20 years of "normal" weather and then go into another drought. That is based on what drought cycles have done in the past allowing for a slight increase in drought intensity.

I think our "grace period" is about to run out. Deforestation of the American west has already begun. Bark beetle attacks are getting worse throughout the country and in Canada. We are at 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and increasing about 3ppm per year. 450ppm is considered the threshhold of severe ecosystem disruption - the point when we can expect to see ecosystem collapses. Do the arithmetic: we're 16 years from reaching that point.

Doug

Edited August 10, 2012 by Doug1029

[Guest]

A hot summer we fear gobal warming, a cold winter we fear ice age:) I guess there always been climate changes in the earth, weather man was around, or not.

You may fear these things but I certainly don't. They are all evidence of climate change which is an aspect of global warming.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Isn't it also amazing how common sense, and a genuine concern for the economic success of America is so often, by a certain non-conservative faction, spoken of as being ideological, rather than what it is:

Common Sense, and a path to the America we once had.

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

This is the situation we face with climate change. We can take preventive action now while the job is still small and the costs low, or we can wait until the job is huge and the costs are astronomical. Which makes the better economic sense?

We have already dithered away most of the time in which we could have been acting. No matter how you cut it, we're in for a hard landing.

We might try rebuilding the electric grid. That would cost money and set the denialists in an uproar. But the existing grid is both obsolete and starting to break down. We're going to have to replace it, anyway. Why not build a new one before the old one breaks down and we have to get along without electricity for weeks at a time? Rebuilding has the advantage of reduced friction and leakage, giving a 30% reduction in cost once the new one is in place. So "costs" are deceptive. Increased efficiency will defray a large part of the cost and allow wind systems to be integrated into the grid more effectively, further decreasing costs (Wind is already cheaper than coal or oil and is roughly comparable to natural gas in price.). Temporarily use gas to generate base load and wind as the main energy source. Convert to nuclear-generated base load as existing plants become senescent or obsolete.

Electric vehicles are just around the corner. In another five years, improved batteries will give them a range of 300 to 500 miles and allow them to be recharged from a plug in your garage. Hook that to the grid and you have wind-powered cars! Mass-production will get the costs down in a few years and then we will see a move away from gasoline-powered vehicles. The market will do that without government help. I think Obama jumped the gun with his cash-for-clunkers program: he didn't have a good replacement vehicle available, but in a few years they will be on the market and a cash-for-clunkers program would actually work.

TVA coal plants are actually being encouraged by poorly-thought-out regulations. Change those regulations to make conversion more attractive. There are good regulations and there are bad regulations. This is a bad one.

There are lots of things we can do to head off climate change without increasing our out-of-pocket costs. The myth of it being expensive is coming from obsolete industries trying to hang onto their profit margin for a few more years. Once they convert, they'll be strong supporters of remedial action.

Who do you think will be the enrgy providers in a post-climate change world? I think they'll have names like Shell, Exxon and Detroit Edison.

Doug

[Guest]

Doug you are wasting your time with MID - he is a full blown denier who bases his denial on a dubious list of hundreds of climate skeptic scientists. He has never once engaged with the real climate science issues in any of his discussions. He is ideologically driven by a belief in Neo-liberal economics which will not be swayed by any point regarding preparation to save in the future. If the market doesn't do it - it ain't worth doing according to MID.

When I pointed out to him that oil reserves were in decline and would take us into a expensive energy future which would cripple the future economy - he had no comment simply believing that the market had deliverer the best of all possible worlds.

His only substantive comment in this thread could very easily have been cut and pasted from his comments on climate change 5yrs ago. That really should tell you all you need to know about his understanding of the issues.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 10, 2012 by Guest

[Doug1029]

Doug you are wasting your time with MID -

Maybe. But other people read these threads too.

And good government has to take economic considerations into account. It is the government that sets regulations and if some of those can be changed in the right direction, business will fix some of the problems without the need for new taxes or laws.

The Farm Service Agency could start requiring the use of carbon-sequestering tillage methods. Simply require that crops not grown using these methods don't qualify for cost-sharing and other price-support payments. US agriculture would convert in a single year - and save a few dollars for the tax payer at the same time. With the right incentives, a free market can be made to work for the environment, not against it. It's only when monopolies start taking over the markets that socialism becomes a better system than capitalism. I'm all for saving capitalism - by limiting the influence of big business in the markets.

For MID -

I'd rather have the government telling me what to do than have a business telling me what to do. At least the government is trying to act in my best interests - I can count on that not being the case with business.

Doug

[Guest]

I agree entirely Doug. Business is the right ways to get the heavy lifting done - but it is entirely incapable of making long term strategic plans for the whole of society. That is why we need a strong interventionist government to set the incentives and define the regulatory framework.

It would horrify me to think that companies like Monsanto were in a position to define agricultural policy without constraint.

I also agree that I enter into these debates for the benefit of the silent audience.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

For MID -

I'd rather have the government telling me what to do than have a business telling me what to do. At least the government is trying to act in my best interests - I can count on that not being the case with business.

Doug

I'd rather neither told me what to do.

How is it that the government is acting in your best interest, and that business is acting against it?

I can't wait for that answer!

[questionmark]

I'd rather neither told me what to do.

How is it that the government is acting in your best interest, and that business is acting against it?

I can't wait for that answer!

That depends, are we talking functional government or dysfunctional government (i.e. Washington)?

[MID]

Climate change has always been happening - duh. It's the human contribution that is the question

Precisely.

And it's highly questionable...

[Guest]

Precisely.

And it's highly questionable...

A bit of straw man that - since no climate scientist would deny that climate changes.

Unfortunately no reputable climate scientist can account for the current warming without invoking CO2 as a primary cause.

Br Cornelius

[Arbenol]

Seems to me that this issue breaks down to a few clear points:

It's clear that atmospheric CO2 and temperature are linked. As one goes up, so does the other. Masses of evidence converges on this conclusion.

Over the last couple of centuries we've burnt massive amounts of hydrocarbons and continue to do so. We know this produces CO2 as a waste product. The increase in atmospheric CO2 has been measured. This increase is real and very difficult to refute.

Am I missing something, or is this something of a no-brainer?

[docyabut2]

It took just six months for a warm and sunny Europe to be engulfed in ice, according to new research

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1227990/Ice-Age-took-just-SIX-months-arrive--10-years.html#ixzz23D1S4unh

[Guest]

It took just six months for a warm and sunny Europe to be engulfed in ice, according to new research

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz23D1S4unh

That article restates the widely held belief that rapid North atlantic warming could cause an ice age. Unfortunately it would still be due to mans CO2 emissions. The paleclimatic record also suggest that rapid warming often proceeds an Ice age.

Br Cornelius

ornelius

[questionmark]

That article restates the widely held belief that rapid North atlantic warming could cause an ice age. Unfortunately it would still be due to mans CO2 emissions. The paleclimatic record also suggest that rapid warming often proceeds an Ice age.

Br Cornelius

ornelius

Which is not surprising and all down to the same: The hotter it gets the less likely earth will be capable of supporting large animals. The less animals the less carbon, at the same time the vegetation increases as it is not decimated by feeding, leading to an additional reduction of carbon. The end of the story: it gets damn cold.

And before somebody sees this as the solution, let me remind you all that in as far as biology humans are but large animals.

[Little Fish]

Seems to me that this issue breaks down to a few clear points:

It's clear that atmospheric CO2 and temperature are linked. As one goes up, so does the other. Masses of evidence converges on this conclusion.

Over the last couple of centuries we've burnt massive amounts of hydrocarbons and continue to do so. We know this produces CO2 as a waste product. The increase in atmospheric CO2 has been measured. This increase is real and very difficult to refute.

Am I missing something, or is this something of a no-brainer?

water absorption of co2 is inversely proportional to its temperature - cold water absorbs more co2, warm water releases co2.

http://www.newton.de...06/gen06306.htm

merely stating the relationship (like al gore and his zealous minions do) means very little and cannot be used as evidence that co2 causes warming.

[Guest]

water absorption of co2 is inversely proportional to its temperature - cold water absorbs more co2, warm water releases co2.

http://www.newton.de...06/gen06306.htm

merely stating the relationship (like al gore and his zealous minions do) means very little and cannot be used as evidence that co2 causes warming.

Still denying the basic science that CO2 is opaque to IR radiation and so traps heat. What you are describing is one of the many competing feedbacks. You crack me up Little Fish

You even invoked the mighty all concurring Gore monster.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 11, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Still denying the basic science that CO2 is opaque to IR radiation and so traps heat. What you are describing is one of the many competing feedbacks. You crack me up Little Fish

You even invoked the mighty all concurring Gore monster.

Br Cornelius

you need to show there are net positive feedbacks, and then quantify them. the co2 warming on its own is between itty bitty and teeeny weeny, nothing to wet the bed about, so the statement is valid - merely stating al gores chicken-and egg co2-warming ice core graph is meaningless.

[Arbenol]

water absorption of co2 is inversely proportional to its temperature - cold water absorbs more co2, warm water releases co2.

http://www.newton.de...06/gen06306.htm

merely stating the relationship (like al gore and his zealous minions do) means very little and cannot be used as evidence that co2 causes warming.

So, you're saying that increase temp causes the increase in CO2 and not the other way round. I've considered this myself, but the arguments seem to be a case of cherry picking data that suits and discarding that which doesn't.

Just a word of advice: try not to mention Al Gore so much. He's not a scientist and I don't hear too many people citing him. There are far more credible sources. And it does make it appear that your opinion is politically motivated.

[Little Fish]

So, you're saying that increase temp causes the increase in CO2 and not the other way round. I've considered this myself, but the arguments seem to be a case of cherry picking data that suits and discarding that which doesn't.

co2 is more soluble in cold water, less soluble in warm water. so a warming ocean can expect to give way to more co2 in the atmopshere, a cooling ocean can be expected to give way to declining atmospheric co2, so determination of cause and effect has not been established.

Just a word of advice: try not to mention Al Gore so much. He's not a scientist and I don't hear too many people citing him. There are far more credible sources. And it does make it appear that your opinion is politically motivated.

you may not hear people cite him, but his influence and funding behind the public scene in this matter is not to be underestimated, unfortunately it's not science that matters, it is public perception that matters, which manifests into the political realm. Edited August 11, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

We could discuss the isotopic fingerprint of the astmospheric CO2 which shows it is anthropgenic in origin and the parallel decline in atmospheric O2 (showing that combustion is causing it), but it would be a waste of all of our time to do so.

Simply describing a well known feedback mechanism which amplifies the effects of the anthreopogenic CO2 is hardly helping your case Little Fish.

Some states of denial are to deep to penetrate with facts.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 11, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

We could discuss the isotopic fingerprint of the astmospheric CO2 which shows it is anthropgenic in origin and the parallel decline in atmospheric O2 (showing that combustion is causing it), but it would be a waste of all of our time to do so.

but it is the temperature response we are talking about, not the amount and cause of recent co2. using prehistoric ice core graph to argue cause and effect doesn't resolve it.

Simply describing a well known feedback mechanism which amplifies the effects of the anthreopogenic CO2 is hardly helping your case Little Fish.

a warming world will produce more water vapour, but this give rise to more cloud which have a big cooling effect reflecting the sun's energy back into space, its not as simple as you are making out. the core issue is the feedbacks. which is biggest and whether they are understood correctly and accurately.

Some states of denial are to deep to penetrate with facts.

funny, our last several discussions have resulted in your admission of uncertainties and not enough data, if you are uncertain then you shouldn't use the term 'denier'. Edited August 11, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

but it is the temperature response we are talking about, not the amount and cause of recent co2. using prehistoric ice core graph to argue cause and effect doesn't resolve it.

a warming world will produce more water vapour, but this give rise to more cloud which have a big cooling effect reflecting the sun's energy back into space, its not as simple as you are making out. the core issue is the feedbacks. which is biggest and whether they are understood correctly and accurately.

funny, our last several discussions have resulted in your admission of uncertainties and not enough data, if you are uncertain then you shouldn't use the term 'denier'.

If you had been paying attention for the last 5 years you would know that clouds are both coolers and warmers. The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming.

Uncertainties are not a basis for denial -they are a spur to research. The warming trend is clear and the only driver which explains it is anthropogenic CO2. The process of climate science is refining the understanding. It is the empirically measured energy flux in and out of the planet and the recorded temperature trend which is the basis of recommendatiolns to curtail emissions. Perfect understanding is neither possible or necessary to act on the strong evidence we already have.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 11, 2012 by Guest