Arctic thaw quickening threatens trillion-dollar costs - report

[RickBradford]

Quote

So, so wrong. This is from Naomi Oreskes:

 

As the saying goes, "If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail."

 

Similarly, if you only rely on poorly qualified people like Oreskes and John Cook for your climate change information, you inevitably end up with a very simplistic and one-dimensional view of the issue.

 

Fortunately, there is a way out — read some science.

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

As the saying goes, "If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail."

 

Similarly, if you only rely on poorly qualified people like Oreskes and John Cook for your climate change information, you inevitably end up with a very simplistic and one-dimensional view of the issue.

 

Fortunately, there is a way out — read some science.

 And I imagine if I name any of the other 97% you'll be launching specious attacks on them, too. You're not honest. I've demonstrated that time and time again.

[RickBradford]

41 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 And I imagine if I name any of the other 97% you'll be launching specious attacks on them, too. You're not honest. I've demonstrated that time and time again.

No need to get bent out of shape - it was just a piece of friendly advice. It's much more rewarding reading the actual science than endlessly repeating third-hand Green/Left tropes.

 

For example, a debate about this manufactured 97% consensus would have much more point if you'd actually read the study which started the whole thing off, has been recycled hundreds of times through the media, and has been publicly available online for 8 years.

 

The stuff that came later, Oreskes' screed and Cook's two miserable efforts, don't qualify as science under even the most favourable conditions.

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 12/5/2560 at 3:25 AM, spiderorchid said:

Data seems to suggest that overall, temperatures since the 1850's has been increasing at an alarming rate. But there will always be those that believe man never landed on the moon, the world is flat, twin tower bombings is a CIA conspiracy.

Scientists, you know, the guys that discovered how to control electricity, found vaccines, the television, computers and mobile phones, weather scientists, oceanographers - 95% of all of them are warning of the damage caused by recorded increased global warming. They also suggest the causes and possible mitigation. But nah, it is another conspiracy theory, these guys know nothing. All 95% of them are deluded. 

0.85C is an alarming rate?

 

Temperature is only increasing because you select a recent low-point as reference point. Relative to the Roman warm period. we are actually freezing our butts off today.

By the way, the polar bears did fine in the Roman warm period, so they will also be fine this time around.

[anon4546543]

11 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

0.85C is an alarming rate?

 

Temperature is only increasing because you select a recent low-point as reference point. Relative to the Roman warm period. we are actually freezing our butts off today.

By the way, the polar bears did fine in the Roman warm period, so they will also be fine this time around.

What you present is possibly true of life in pre human times. (who really knows, it is just scientific investigation based on their studies)

The world temperature since 1850 has been rising. And in long term projections, is not sustainable.

It is not just both Arctics dissolving, it is the corals that sustain life in the sea are bleaching more and more each year. 

The oceans are warming. This is good in that algae grows and creates oxygen, but algae oceans are not healthy.

As a former mining worker, you must have learnt the many millions of years it took to make your product.

But now informed scientists warn about man made global warning. (who really knows, it is just scientific investigation based on 95% consensus of their studies)

It is ok for you now, you made your money. But your children may not be able to tolerate a 2% projected temp increase in this century.

As projected by the very same scientists that made your pretty little graph.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

7 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

What you present is possibly true of life in pre human times. (who really knows, it is just scientific investigation based on their studies)

The world temperature since 1850 has been rising. And in long term projections, is not sustainable.

It is not just both Arctics dissolving, it is the corals that sustain life in the sea are bleaching more and more each year. 

The oceans are warming. This is good in that algae grows and creates oxygen, but algae oceans are not healthy.

As a former mining worker, you must have learnt the many millions of years it took to make your product.

But now informed scientists warn about man made global warning. (who really knows, it is just scientific investigation based on 95% consensus of their studies)

It is ok for you now, you made your money. But your children may not be able to tolerate a 2% projected temp increase in this century.

As projected by the very same scientists that made your pretty little graph.

 

 

Bit harsh to call the Roman period pre human, but I guess anything goes when you have to manufacture fact to fit an elusive apocalyptic future.

 

The Roman's kids did just fine and probably truly enjoyed the warmer weather. Maybe we should just do the same.

[boomerangutang]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:43 PM, Ahab said:

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.

                            Spoken like a person who is not poor and not living in a delta region (like Bangkok or Bangladesh or S.Nigeria or Florida or Shanghai, etc etc etc) or stuck in a desert region (like N.Africa, NE Africa, SW USA, M.East, Gobi, etc etc etc) which are getting drier.   It's like Trump walking out of Trump Towers on a winter day, sticking his little hand out and feeling some snowflakes, and saying, "You see, there's no warming.  It's cold out, wouldn't you agree?"

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

0.85C is an alarming rate?

 

Temperature is only increasing because you select a recent low-point as reference point. Relative to the Roman warm period. we are actually freezing our butts off today.

By the way, the polar bears did fine in the Roman warm period, so they will also be fine this time around.

 

A huge problem with this graph is that you don't cite any source. I did a little checking and the only places I found it were on denialists sites. It's significant the the test on the lower right hand corner reads "Modified after Dansgaard & Johnson." So what did Dansgaard and Johnson's original research say? Anybody can make up a graph and this one is especially pretty. But did it originally appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I haven't found any evidence that it has.

 

Another problems with your graph is that it represents only the Northern Hemisphere.  This may be news to you, but last time I checked the Earth was considered to be very nearly spherical and not a hemisphere.. 

 

But if you are truly interested in scientific evidence, you can go to this link

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198?panels_ajax_tab_trigger=tab-figures-data&_=1494730774174&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&oauth-code=47d8147c-766a-403f-b2f5-e7969570fd0b

It's an important paper done by Marcott et al about temperatures on planet earth over the last 11,000 years. He shows lots of graphs from toher scientific research showing global average temperatures. Not one of them agrees with the graph you've show above. You'll have to join Science Magazine to get the complete info but it's free.

And please, stop wasting our time with fake science.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

A huge problem with this graph is that you don't cite any source. I did a little checking and the only places I found it were on denialists sites. It's significant the the test on the lower right hand corner reads "Modified after Dansgaard & Johnson." So what did Dansgaard and Johnson's original research say? Anybody can make up a graph and this one is especially pretty. But did it originally appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I haven't found any evidence that it has.

 

Another problems with your graph is that it represents only the Northern Hemisphere.  This may be news to you, but last time I checked the Earth was considered to be very nearly spherical and not a hemisphere.. 

 

But if you are truly interested in scientific evidence, you can go to this link

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198?panels_ajax_tab_trigger=tab-figures-data&_=1494730774174&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&oauth-code=47d8147c-766a-403f-b2f5-e7969570fd0b

It's an important paper done by Marcott et al about temperatures on planet earth over the last 11,000 years. He shows lots of graphs from toher scientific research showing global average temperatures. Not one of them agrees with the graph you've show above. You'll have to join Science Magazine to get the complete info but it's free.

And please, stop wasting our time with fake science.

 

 

 

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

 

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

 

I see you didn't provide a link to original chart you posted in ID #154. Ashamed much?

[ilostmypassword]

40 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

 

And as for the fakery and dishonesty behind these charts you can read all about it here:

https://skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core3.html

[maewang99]

nationwide real estate prices only go up and up and up.... ooops.... 2007/2008
 

you don't need a computer backup or licensed OS........ oooops... 2017 

an ice free Arctic isn't a harbinger of a tiny microscopic change in the amount of infrared radiation that escapes the upper atmosphere due to 200 years of very rapid Co2 emissions with a 10 to 40 year latency..... noooo!!!! it's a Chinese Hoax.....

2020 something..... maybe 2030 something on the outside.

ooops! 

everything with eyeballs.

 

not just thumbs.

bye bye.





    

Edited May 14, 2017 by maewang99

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I see you didn't provide a link to original chart you posted in ID #154. Ashamed much?

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/28/german-public-television-stuns-its-readers-concedes-medieval-warm-period-may-have-been-0-5c-warmer-than-today/#sthash.u3GFzFSu.dpbs

[onthesoi]

The clue is in the name: medieval warm period. 

All natural systems have ebb and flow.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by onthesoi

[onthesoi]

29 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/28/german-public-television-stuns-its-readers-concedes-medieval-warm-period-may-have-been-0-5c-warmer-than-today/#sthash.u3GFzFSu.dpbs

 

The guy who runs the website is a well known science denier with less than zero credibilty, he is completley unqualified in any field relating to CS which might be ok, but, for eg, in 2008 he wrongly predicted that climate was heading for a big freeze which is the opposite of where all the data was pointing, he didnt just get it wrong he got it very wrong:

 

 

So I would be doubtful of any graphs posted on his one man blogging site, especially when they contradict NASA and other respected scientific organisations.

Edited May 14, 2017 by onthesoi

[ExpatOilWorker]

15 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

The guy who runs the website is a well known science denier with less than zero credibilty, he is completley unqualified in any field relating to CS which might be ok, but, for eg, in 2008 he wrongly predicted that climate was heading for a big freeze which is the opposite of where all the data was pointing, he didnt just get it wrong he got it very wrong:

 

 

So I would be doubtful of any graphs posted on his one man blogging site, especially when they contradict NASA and other respected scientific organisations.

 

You got my attention now as you seem to know stuff. I do agree there are some one-man sites out there with dubious information, but mass hysteria about climate change is still a bit hard to accept.

Can you explain:

   1. Why the alarm about methane emission from the tundra regions? That gas have been there for millions of years and stayed in the ground in past warmer periods.

   2. The fear of massive melt of the polar caps? With core samples 100,000+ years old, that ice is also not melting this time around.

   3. The polar bears? Are they just good cast to get the focus off the science? They have lived through previous warmer periods and will do so again.

 

[rickudon]

Expat oil workers graphs unfortunately work on a scale where you do not see modern changes. The most glaring one being his ice cores only show CO2 up to 285 ppm. It is now over 400 ppm in the atmosphere. Maybe that extra 120 ppm might make a difference? I expect the temperature is also a lot higher - reckoned to now be 4 degrees Centigrade higher in the Arctic, which would put it off the top of his temperature chart.

 

Bare in mind that different regions of the planet respond in different ways - some warm more quickly (e.g. Arctic) and others more slowly or actually get cooler. You have to average all that out. But you still get around 1 degree centigrade of warming over the last 70 years or so. And it is very difficult to accurately say what temperatures were before the little ice age as it is based on inferred temperatures from archaeological information from a few very limited sites - some might say the medieval warm period was warmer than today, and others will not.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

You got my attention now as you seem to know stuff. I do agree there are some one-man sites out there with dubious information, but mass hysteria about climate change is still a bit hard to accept.

Can you explain:

   1. Why the alarm about methane emission from the tundra regions? That gas have been there for millions of years and stayed in the ground in past warmer periods.

   2. The fear of massive melt of the polar caps? With core samples 100,000+ years old, that ice is also not melting this time around.

   3. The polar bears? Are they just good cast to get the focus off the science? They have lived through previous warmer periods and will do so again.

 

How do you know that the gas has stayed in the ground during past warmer periods? The historical levels of methane in the atmosphere positively correlate with the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Just because not all the ice melted doesn't mean that a lot didn't. And 35 million years ago, Antarctica was not covered with ice. Even 20 million years ago Antarctica could still sustain plant life.

[the guest]

On 2017-04-25 at 5:59 AM, impulse said:

 

Global warming doesn't necessarily mean warmer weather for everyone.  Melt enough glaciers to stop the Gulf Stream conveyor, and Europe could go into another ice age...

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

 

Of course, there's going to be winners and losers.  But stability isn't to be under-rated.  The global economy is pretty fragile anyway, and any abrupt changes could result in even more refugees who look a lot more like economic migrants.  Great if you live in a gated community and need cheap labor to fund your billionaire lifestyle.  Not so great if you're looking for a job.

The conveyor you speak of, has previously stopped and restarted. Mankind will realize the wrath of nature itself, and accept who actually is in charge of this planet. It certainly ain't Humans !

[anon4546543]

20 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I see you didn't provide a link to original chart you posted in ID #154. Ashamed much?

I don't mind the fact that an ex oil worker defends his former career. I spent most of my life mining gold, diamonds, salt and copper. 

I use oil products every day. I go to a Thai funeral today. Gas will cremate this lovely old lady. 

In my former life in mining, it was interesting to talk to the geos. Other than the huge salt farm, everything was mined in open "pits" or"cut" mining.

As you went down the holes, you went back many millions of years. In the diamond mine, there were many fossils, in the gold mine there was just folded earth showing the trauma of history before life.

 The geos explained the significance of the earth to me, only because I showed an interest. They started my interest in current global warming.

The final little bit to this post is about the salt mine, or to be correct, the salt farm. Sea water is brought in from the sea, concentrated, and then placed on already deep salt "beds". The salt crystals quickly grow and are harvested for use in chemical and iron manufacture. Not human consumption. 

Problem are starting, the sea water base now has too much algae, this distorts and corrupts the crystal. Global caused hot weather makes the area, known for millennia for hot and dry conditions to now be over hot and over humid. Tropical fish are moving to cooler waters and the salt farm gets too much water.  

[anon4546543]

5 minutes ago, the guest said:

The conveyor you speak of, has previously stopped and restarted. Mankind will realize the wrath of nature itself, and accept who actually is in charge of this planet. It certainly ain't Humans !

The conveyor you speak of supports human life in the northern hemisphere. You and others wish for its demise.

Other conveyors and currents support life everywhere. Stop the conveyor and the currents and most life on earth will cease. But according to you, not to worry, who cares about my children and the children of my children. According to you "Live life today, for tomorrow we die". You may appear to some to be a tad to greedy. Me, I think you a re totally....

[boomerangutang]

                                 Meanwhile, people with money keep buying properties in risk areas, ....for crazy prices.  Herd mentality.  City properties are so coveted and so over-priced, it's nuts.  Since the buyers are mostly buying with borrowed money, maybe they don't even care if their property winds up submerged under year-round standing water, like will happen in large tracts of Bangkok.  Heck, they'll just walk away from their loan commitments, like they did in 1997.    And like millions of Americans did in 2008, when the values of their homes tanked to less than they were committed to paying on mortgages - they'll just walk away, or row away in a rowboat. 

 

                             Personally, If I'm going to get some property, I'll get something on higher ground, and pay 1/80th what the same-sized property costs in Bkk.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

   1. Why the alarm about methane emission from the tundra regions? That gas have been there for millions of years and stayed in the ground in past warmer periods.

   2. The fear of massive melt of the polar caps? With core samples 100,000+ years old, that ice is also not melting this time around.

   3. The polar bears? Are they just good cast to get the focus off the science? They have lived through previous warmer periods and will do so again.

 

The alarm of methane emissions is real deal. Not something one can pass as silly folks talking.

 

I don't agree with most of the 'environmental scientists', but I do agree that we have gone beyond the threshold of our planet.

 

I don't fcucking care about  polar bears nor other bears. I however care of the air I breath and the water I drink.

[Guest]

I hate the Greenpeace and the green parties in general. I hate them, because they are religious entities without ability to think beyond what they have chosen to represent.

 

The Green movement was supposed to bring new and thoughtful thinking to us all. It failed to do the simple task. It became a stupid religion for few of it's leaders.

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 15/5/2560 at 10:10 AM, ilostmypassword said:

How do you know that the gas has stayed in the ground during past warmer periods? The historical levels of methane in the atmosphere positively correlate with the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Just because not all the ice melted doesn't mean that a lot didn't. And 35 million years ago, Antarctica was not covered with ice. Even 20 million years ago Antarctica could still sustain plant life.

Because it is million of years old.

 

http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html

 

Contrary to what many people believe, fossil fuels are not the remains of dead dinosaurs. In fact, most of the fossil fuels we find today were formed millions of years before the first dinosaurs.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Because it is million of years old.

 

http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html

 

Contrary to what many people believe, fossil fuels are not the remains of dead dinosaurs. In fact, most of the fossil fuels we find today were formed millions of years before the first dinosaurs.

What in the world does this have to do with methane being released from the tundra or land that was formerly permafrost or from hydrates in the oceans?

[RPCVguy]

On 4/25/2017 at 8:40 PM, soalbundy said:

so does excessive heat and drought. Climate change is a normal function which takes hundreds of thousands of years,even millions on a natural basis so life has a chance to adapt. The man made global warming is extremely fast,nothing can adapt. Even rice needs lower temperatures at night otherwise it gets stressed and you have poor quality low yields.

Thank you soalbundy for being the most recent post I could find that discusses the hidden threat to Thailand's primary food = rice. "Gin kaao mai?" being synonymous with the question of "Have you eaten?" Searching ThaiVisa for "climate change" and "rice"  is almost as non-productive as searching for "climate change" and "food security."  Your comment - inserted midst a discussion of Arctic ice was allowed to stay.

I added an image and link to the current discussion on a Food Security report that was just released, but even that report ignored the nighttime temperature issue for Thailand's rice fertilization. The issue has not been seriously discussed by Thai academics (in a way that drew publication with discussion on Thai Visa) since this post in 2010. 

The image and its source video was removed in the discussion from Food Security. That discussion is being limited to poor food choices from processed foods available and too frequently eaten in recent years. Very true, and part of a global problem, but it will be a self correcting problem as crop yields fall regionally, then globally. Lack of food will force a more conscious and efficient consumption of it. Lean times ahead - within a generation. To me, that is definitely a concern as to Food Security.

Here is the image:
 

Photosynthesis and plant growth improves with temperature – up to a point. Above that, plant vitality rapidly drops off. Each crop has its own ideals, but even attempts at GMO have failed to much raise the temperature ranges tolerated by different crops.

The video lecture by Prof David Battisti from which this image was screen captured is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc&t=2090

I am fairly certain that Thai academics are aware of the issue, and not forgotten about it, but disappointed that the issue is so far down in public awareness/ media expression. 

 

[Grouse]

57 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Thank you soalbundy for being the most recent post I could find that discusses the hidden threat to Thailand's primary food = rice. "Gin kaao mai?" being synonymous with the question of "Have you eaten?" Searching ThaiVisa for "climate change" and "rice"  is almost as non-productive as searching for "climate change" and "food security."  Your comment - inserted midst a discussion of Arctic ice was allowed to stay.

I added an image and link to the current discussion on a Food Security report that was just released, but even that report ignored the nighttime temperature issue for Thailand's rice fertilization. The issue has not been seriously discussed by Thai academics (in a way that drew publication with discussion on Thai Visa) since this post in 2010. 

The image and its source video was removed in the discussion from Food Security. That discussion is being limited to poor food choices from processed foods available and too frequently eaten in recent years. Very true, and part of a global problem, but it will be a self correcting problem as crop yields fall regionally, then globally. Lack of food will force a more conscious and efficient consumption of it. Lean times ahead - within a generation. To me, that is definitely a concern as to Food Security.

Here is the image:
 

Photosynthesis and plant growth improves with temperature – up to a point. Above that, plant vitality rapidly drops off. Each crop has its own ideals, but even attempts at GMO have failed to much raise the temperature ranges tolerated by different crops.

The video lecture by Prof David Battisti from which this image was screen captured is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc&t=2090

I am fairly certain that Thai academics are aware of the issue, and not forgotten about it, but disappointed that the issue is so far down in public awareness/ media expression. 

 

This is first class!

 

Some might find the statistics a little heavy going but I was enthralled! Such erudition!

 

Recommended for educated people everywhere 

 

Trumpsters and Brexiters will find Coke and Popcorn elsewhere ?

[soalbundy]

'Threatens to cost trillions of dollars' phew ! Thailand will be OK then, they have the Baht.

[rickudon]

Interesting ....... Supposedly rice grows best at around 30 degrees centigrade (depends on variety), but can survive considerably higher temperatures, up to over 50 centigrade. Although higher temperatures might decrease harvests in some countries, the biggest temperature factor affecting rice is cold ..... outside of the tropics it is a big limiting factor. Any fall in tropical production would probably be matched by increased temperate zone harvests. Wheat, on the other hand, is much more vulnerable to a rise in temperature (especially because a lot is grown without irrigation) - although i suppose it would allow bigger harvests in Canada and Siberia .....

 

This document gives some idea of rice temperature tolerance (easy to find info on cold tolerance, high temperature tolerance less so). Bare in mind that changing to a more heat tolerant strain could offset yield losses.

 

https://agritrop.cirad.fr/570279/1/document_570279.pdf