Arctic thaw quickening threatens trillion-dollar costs - report

[soalbundy]

2 minutes ago, maewang99 said:

2 feet of snow..... in Poughkeepsie..... in March.

BECAUSE of a warmer Artic.  

 

 

If the Gulf stream diverts its course from Europe due to warming then the Whole of Europe will freeze up all year round

[ilostmypassword]

56 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Could you please provide a list of the 95% of scientists that support man made global warming? A list of the 5% that oppose would also be helpful.

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

There's a lot more if you care to click on the link. Fair use rules won't allow me to quote any further.

[maewang99]

14 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

It is probably better to err on the side of being too cautious than to experience an 'OMG, too late' moment.

especially when there is a 10 to 40 ****year**** lag between the emission of Co2 and it's climate effect eh?

[why we can't nail it down to how many decades is in itself quite revealing..... and sobering].
mostly because of how long it takes for the oceans to react, such as deep ocean currents.... and which is where 90% of the excess infrared goes.

and our pipeline that feeds into current emissions... our "infrastructure"... would take 20 or 40 years to switch over to solar and wind.....not just new stuff... as well as figure out how to keep 9 or 10 billion people by that time.... not rioting or starving, eh?

that's how we know it is already too late except for unburning what we already have burnt.... which we don't know how to do yet... to scale.... but which COP21 demands.  and COP21 was 2 years ago already.

yeah the timelines on this are REALLY important.

if there is an OMG.... we might be 60 to 80 years too late.  or we have to really whop up our Negative Emissions Technology.... that we don't have yet [to scale]. 



   

  

Edited May 12, 2017 by maewang99

[maewang99]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

If the Gulf stream diverts its course from Europe due to warming then the Whole of Europe will freeze up all year round

did you see the chart? 

 

I had trouble adding it until now. 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by maewang99

[Thunder26]

Just to show the extent of the damage that late  spring snowfall caused in the South East Europe at the end of April.

 

 

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

There's a lot more if you care to click on the link. Fair use rules won't allow me to quote any further.

Really, if we're trying to have a debate about this, you should avoid dumb sources like the SkS Kidz, which is simply a joke site run by cosplay fetishists.

 

John Cook's own efforts to prove a consensus have been rightly ridiculed by numerous commentators. I recommend "Consensus=Nonsensus" by Michelle Stirling as a starting point. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807652.

 

 

Cook should stick to dressing up and drawing cartoons.

 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Really, if we're trying to have a debate about this, you should avoid dumb sources like the SkS Kidz, which is simply a joke site run by cosplay fetishists.

 

John Cook's own efforts to prove a consensus have been rightly ridiculed by numerous commentators. I recommend "Consensus=Nonsensus" by Michelle Stirling as a starting point. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807652.

 

 

Cook should stick to dressing up and drawing cartoons.

 

You know, you've been spanked before by the authorities for labeling (or is it libeling?) as dumb or fake respectable sites that cite peer reviewed research to support their case,  It's especially bizarre coming from someone who just above, as I pointed out,  told an obvious falsehood about the source of the 97% statistic.

[maewang99]

let's talk Thailand. 

there are 5 out of 8 models that show a 50% chance of a 3rd year of El Nino conditions.  there are some 'what if' ideas on this... such as what if the El Nino is no longer a multi year cycle... but rather becoming a feature... instead of a cycle. which implies drought conditions for SE Asia.

on another thing, what if we get an OMG and someone (any country, it's not really expensive) tries chemical veiling.  you know, just like in Oliver Morton's The Planet Remade.  that would be cooling to mitigate the green house effect..... but likely to be uniform cooling.... and we could lose the variations that cause the local Monsoon cycle. another way to get to serious drought conditions.

serious droughts means more salt water intrusion in Bangkok tap water plants... even without thermal expansion or a failure to hold sheets back because of Larsen B breakoffs..... because less fresh water headed to the Gulf of Thailand to hold back the salt water.      

and fires. smoke. more than ever before in the North... which has been barely tolerable some years. 

be prepared for what might happen. at least have a plan.

the good news is more moisture in the air.... and maybe the mountains to the north will still get water. 

but........ things are changing.  2015 and 2016 were off the charts.  there is no denying it.  

2015 and 2016 were like if you had an old book of random numbers, pre WW2 [back before we had calculators and computers we had binded books with rows and row of random numbers]...... and you were looking at a row of random numbers and suddenly saw 12345678910111213141516171819202122..... you would say heh! that doesn't seem random at all..... it could be a random 12345..... but it don't seem likely.

that is how 2015 and 2016 came in.

and even the politicians... at COP21...... knew it half way through that [2015 it was].....  that and the Hansen ACP study under review at late 2015... and a few other things.     

 

and this is why it is no longer political in the USA.. in any major way.... because it's too late except for VC funding of negative emissions... something the govt never does... applied science except for the Manhattan Project... pretty much. and that is the way it is in the USA.  just listen to Bill Gates a few months ago at Caltech when he is asked about it by a student. he says it point blank. this is why Musk is supplying the space station and not NASA... or Russia. we know this. this takes serious money and how it is managed is critical.

Gates is pretty cool on it. he politely uses the expression "general population" and "how it maps out is mind blowing" [and leaves it at that because spelling it out any more than that is......... unspeakable... because Gates is, and has to be, coldly rational.... but not sound like a nutter either so he leaves it simply as 'mindblowing'.

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by maewang99

[CGW]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Could you please provide a list of the 95% of scientists that support man made global warming? A list of the 5% that oppose would also be helpful.

I would be interested to see this also, just who are these "scientists" that we hear about so often? who do they work for, who pays them & what is their agenda.

In all my travels I have yet to meet a scientist

[RickBradford]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You know, you've been spanked before by the authorities for labeling (or is it libeling?) as dumb or fake respectable sites that cite peer reviewed research to support their case,  It's especially bizarre coming from someone who just above, as I pointed out,  told an obvious falsehood about the source of the 97% statistic.

If you haven't read the original Doran and Zimmerman paper from 2009, I suggest you do so. Then you will see that the 'obvious falsehood' you are claiming to see, is actually described in detail by the authors, just as I reported it.

 

But if you get all your information from joke websites like the SkS Kids, then you won't have seen that. Or anything else worth discussing, for that matter.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If you haven't read the original Doran and Zimmerman paper from 2009, I suggest you do so. Then you will see that the 'obvious falsehood' you are claiming to see, is actually described in detail by the authors, just as I reported it.

 

But if you get all your information from joke websites like the SkS Kids, then you won't have seen that. Or anything else worth discussing, for that matter.

That is one paper out of 7.

[RickBradford]

Have you read it?

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Have you read it?

Just did.  I think this article fairly sums up the validity of your claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html?utm_term=.051da7f17036

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just did.  I think this article fairly sums up the validity of your claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html?utm_term=.051da7f17036

Yes, it largely substantiates it, in my estimation.

 

Nowhere is there an explanation of why so much weight is placed on the opinions of 77 people.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yes, it largely substantiates it, in my estimation.

 

Nowhere is there an explanation of why so much weight is placed on the opinions of 77 people.

This is from that article. I put the relevant sentence in boldface:

Stewart is trying to stack the deck here. He focuses on one small aspect of the survey — the result of a relatively small sample of climate scientists — while ignoring the broader result that found a substantial majority of scientists believed that humans have made a significant contribution to climate change. Moreover, he ignores the many other surveys that have found results very similar to the survey he referenced, whatever its possible flaws.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html?utm_term=.051da7f17036

Edited May 12, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

It is probably better to err on the side of being too cautious than to experience an 'OMG, too late' moment.

But spending trillions of dollars to "maybe" reduce the global average temperature by 0.03 degrees is by far even more ludicrous a proposition.

[soalbundy]

Just now, Ahab said:

But spending trillions of dollars to "maybe" reduce the global average temperature by 0.03 degrees is by far even more ludicrous a proposition.

How many lives and how much money will it cost if we do nothing ? The goal i believe is to let the temperature grow to no more than 2 degrees C

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

How many lives and how much money will it cost if we do nothing ? The goal i believe is to let the temperature grow to no more than 2 degrees C

That is correct. But do you know where the 2 degree C limit came from? It was invented by a German scientist, partly to simplify things for Angela Merkel, as the perpetrator admitted in an interview.

Quote

 

"Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

 

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

 

"Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling. The idea didn't hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser -- a position any researcher would envy.

 

 

[onthesoi]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

But spending trillions of dollars to "maybe" reduce the global average temperature by 0.03 degrees is by far even more ludicrous a proposition.

 

Even more ludicrous a proposition than doing nothing and "definitely" raising global average temperature?

 

.....u sure bro?

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That is correct. But do you know where the 2 degree C limit came from? It was invented by a German scientist, partly to simplify things for Angela Merkel, as the perpetrator admitted in an interview.

 

It was chosen as a goal because it was reckoned to be a tough but attainable one.  I guess another option would be not to have any goals at all.  An agenda without goals. Interesting concept.  And it might work as a zen koan, but not so much for policy.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

It was chosen as a goal because it was reckoned to be a tough but attainable one.  I guess another option would be not to have any goals at all.  An agenda without goals. Interesting concept.  And it might work as a zen koan, but not so much for policy.

Rather than having arbitrary goals chosen for political reasons, it might be better to have policy based on the best evidence.

 

But that wouldn't suit the alarmist movement at all.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Rather than having arbitrary goals chosen for political reasons, it might be better to have policy based on the best evidence.

 

But that wouldn't suit the alarmist movement at all.

Here we go again. Climate scientists overwhelmingly concur that anthropogenic global warming is real and it will have harsh consequences for the planet. And I've noticed that you've abandoned your misleading claim that the 97 percent figure for scientists is based on that one survey. Don't you ever get tired of distorting the evidence?

[onthesoi]

Yes, smear campaigns dont qualify as science.

 

But, it's telling when presented as such.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

 How many lives and how much money will it cost if we do nothing ? The goal i believe is to let the temperature grow to no more than 2 degrees C

People will adapt, coastal building will be more restrictive and life will go on. This is the new religion, you have to believe in it or you a labeled a blasphemer  (AKA denier). The difference between X degrees and x degrees plus 0.03 degrees will not make any noticeable difference and IS NOT  worth the trillions that will have to be sacrificed before the AGW god.

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

^^

As regards the silly "95%" thing. The original survey of 10,257 "earth scientists" asked just 2 main questions:
 

Nothing to do with damage, danger, or indeed anything to do with CO2 for that matter.

 

Furthermore, the survey team did not use all the answers they received. In fact, they threw out 97% of the answers, and used less than 80 in total.

 

Q1 was agreed to by 76/79 (96.2%) respondents

 

Q2 was agreed to by 75/77 (97.4%).

 

It goes to show that when you throw out 97% of the answers, you can get a 97% consensus for your proposition

 

And this is the weak piece of pseudo-science which has been generating gigatonnes of alarmist hot air for almost a decade now.

 

 

 

Before that several universities were falsifying their date. Wonder why? Maybe because fact is that CO2 have nothing what so ever to do with the current tiny 0.85 C warming. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy 

[Jai Dee]

Several troll posts (and replies) have been removed from this thread.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Here we go again. Climate scientists overwhelmingly concur that anthropogenic global warming is real and it will have harsh consequences for the planet. And I've noticed that you've abandoned your misleading claim that the 97 percent figure for scientists is based on that one survey. Don't you ever get tired of distorting the evidence?

How do we get from "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"  (key words highly likely), to "Climate scientists overwhelmingly concur that anthropogenic global warming is real and it will have harsh consequences for the planet."

 

I guess it is OK to equate "highly likely" to "concur it is real", but this is the reason why for some it seems to have become a religion and you must believe. The planets climate has been changing continuously for as long as we can tell, why do you or anyone think that we are going to change that significantly one way or another? I remember a big sign on a church in the USA stating that "Jesus is coming soon", well that sign has been there for over forty years and still no sign of the second coming.  The measured temperature is at the lower end of numerous IPCC "predictions, and if current temperature trends hold we will shortly be out of the lowest temperature increase based on IPCC predictions. When the data does not match your predictions there may be some issue that was not considered by your theory (i.e. the effect of clouds on average temperature).

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

Before that several universities were falsifying their date. Wonder why? Maybe because fact is that CO2 have nothing what so ever to do with the current tiny 0.85 C warming. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy 

Had you bothered to read the article you would know that the so called Climategate scandal was massively and utterly debunked.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

How do we get from "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"  (key words highly likely), to "Climate scientists overwhelmingly concur that anthropogenic global warming is real and it will have harsh consequences for the planet."

 

I guess it is OK to equate "highly likely" to "concur it is real", but this is the reason why for some it seems to have become a religion and you must believe. The planets climate has been changing continuously for as long as we can tell, why do you or anyone think that we are going to change that significantly one way or another? I remember a big sign on a church in the USA stating that "Jesus is coming soon", well that sign has been there for over forty years and still no sign of the second coming.  The measured temperature is at the lower end of numerous IPCC "predictions, and if current temperature trends hold we will shortly be out of the lowest temperature increase based on IPCC predictions. When the data does not match your predictions there may be some issue that was not considered by your theory (i.e. the effect of clouds on average temperature).

So, so wrong. This is from Naomi Oreskes:

"In 2013, my colleagues and I published an analysis of scientific predictions related to climate change. We found that scientists had generally either been correct in their predictions, within error bars, or had underestimated the rate at which climate change would unfold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/answering-bret-stephens-on-climate-science.html?_r=0

[Ahab]

55 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, so wrong. This is from Naomi Oreskes:

"In 2013, my colleagues and I published an analysis of scientific predictions related to climate change. We found that scientists had generally either been correct in their predictions, within error bars, or had underestimated the rate at which climate change would unfold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/answering-bret-stephens-on-climate-science.html?_r=0

Very different than the IPCC has been predicting.