Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

Started by Syt, November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

alfred russel

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 01:49:13 PM

And of course since we are still releasing CO2, and will be doing so in massive quantities for the foreseeable future, the problem will be getting worse.

Well you cannot reasonably expect centuries of engineering and technological efforts to be overturned overnight. We are getting really close on clean energy and electric cars and many other techs. These are rapidly becoming not just superior in emissions but superior technologies period (as one might expect when almost all the new stuff is designed with these purposes). But nobody can wave a magical wand and do it all in ten seconds.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if global warming in any one year is a relationship between the atmospheric change in greenhouse gases caused by humans and the current temperature, the change we are causing in the short term through reduced emissions is probably a rounding error in the models.

If we take next year, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by humans is going to be the cumulative gases released by humans over all time with some adjustment for environmental changes (such as clearing forests), plus what will be released next year. The changes you are talking about are a change from having that amount grow by a few percent vs. shrink by a few percent. That change is going to be tremendously dwarfed by what has been released over the past century.

The point I'm trying to make is that doing better doesn't mean we aren't still fucked. :)
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Valmy

Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 02:40:51 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that doing better doesn't mean we aren't still fucked. :)

The graph seemed to suggest otherwise. The difference between different policies produced radically different global outcomes for actions taking place in a very short period of time.

Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

alfred russel

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 02:40:51 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that doing better doesn't mean we aren't still fucked. :)

The graph seemed to suggest otherwise. The difference between different policies produced radically different global outcomes for actions taking place in a very short period of time.

The graph goes out a century and is also very vague as to what is causing the changes - it isn't as though modeling global temperatures a century out is simplistic. "Optimistic scenario" could just reflect that is the outcome of a model with similar inputs to the "pessimistic scenario", but wtih more optimism.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

viper37

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
The United States and Euroland both have lower CO2 emissions than we did in 2000, for Europe even lower than they did in 1990. China's has started to trend down. Only India is still headed upwards. Surprising that EVERYTHING IS DOOMED FOREVER STARTING IN 2000 and that the current trend is a straight line to doom despite these facts. But hey whatever the new normal is we will have to adjust. The engineering is clearly devoted to lowering CO2 emissions.
the trend is on the rist for the entire earth. Certainly higher than 2000. In any case, we shouldn't just measure CO2, it ain't the only GHG, there are others like methane, for example.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Valmy

Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2016, 11:38:20 PM
the trend is on the rist for the entire earth. Certainly higher than 2000. In any case, we shouldn't just measure CO2, it ain't the only GHG, there are others like methane, for example.

1. No, the trend is on decline for the entire earth.

2. Yes it is higher than 2000.

3. All GHG should decline when we stop burning shit for fuel and power.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Berkut

Is this the new climate denier strategy?

After a decade or more of clear scientific consensus on human driven global warming, they finally accept it...but think it is fine, we are going to solve it with science without any need to worry about actually reducing emissions or anything?

That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

There is no global warming! It is a hoax! Scientists are charlatans!
OK, there is some warming, but it isn't much! And its natural! Science is bullshit elitism!
OK, there is warming, but it is perfectly normal, and no evidence that humans have driven it! Scientists are all in a conspiracy!
All right, maybe humans have driven it, and maybe it is pretty bad...but no worries! Scientists will invent clean energy and the problem will go away without any need for business to do anything! Go scientists!
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Valmy

Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 08:32:06 AM
Is this the new climate denier strategy?

After a decade or more of clear scientific consensus on human driven global warming, they finally accept it...but think it is fine, we are going to solve it with science without any need to worry about actually reducing emissions or anything?

That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

There is no global warming! It is a hoax! Scientists are charlatans!
OK, there is some warming, but it isn't much! And its natural! Science is bullshit elitism!
OK, there is warming, but it is perfectly normal, and no evidence that humans have driven it! Scientists are all in a conspiracy!
All right, maybe humans have driven it, and maybe it is pretty bad...but no worries! Scientists will invent clean energy and the problem will go away without any need for business to do anything! Go scientists!

Damn. My entire question was does it make that big of a difference if it is solved next year or a few decades from now? Considering we are talking about the entire world here. I mean Clinton stated her goal would be to use 50% clean energy by 2030. I pointed out that we, in fact, are already well above that threshold if you count Natural Gas as clean energy. We are pretty close even if you don't. I am very enthusiastic about what sorts of new engineering we are doing and how we can effectively eliminate emissions sometime this century.

I am an Electrical Engineer in the power industry entirely because I have devoted my entire life and career to reducing emissions and fighting climate change so calling me a climate denier is bizarre.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Berkut

"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Habbaku

Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 10:04:52 AM
I didn't call you a client denier.

:yes:  As long as Valmy keeps billing, we're all happy.
The medievals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people.

-J. R. R. Tolkien

Malthus

Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 10:04:52 AM
I didn't call you a client denier.

Well, I would, just for kicks, but watching his head explode isn't worth the greenhouse gasses that event would generate.   :P
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Syt

Damn those Chinese hoaxers!  :mad:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html

(Article has many graphics)

QuoteHow 2016 Became Earth's Hottest Year on Record

Global temperatures have continued to rise, making 2016 the hottest year on the historical record and the third consecutive record-breaking year, scientists say. Of the 17 hottest years ever recorded, 16 have now occurred since 2000.

In the historical record, months early in the year, like February and March, have moved further away from the norm than the rest of the year. Scientists expect that the early months of 2017 will continue to show levels of warming beyond the norm, but likely not at the level of 2016 because a strong El Niño weather pattern is now subsiding.

Human-induced climate change has made it at least 160 times more likely that three consecutive years after 2000 would be record-setting, according to Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University and a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Scientific Assessment, which was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

His findings show that if human-induced climate change was not part of the equation, the amount of warming in 2016 have less than one-in-a-million odds of occurring.

"One could argue that about 75 percent of the warmth was due to human impact," Dr. Mann said.

The later months of 2015 and the first half of 2016 experienced faster warming partly due to the El Niño climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean, which sent a surge of heat into the atmosphere.

The El Niño pattern occurs irregularly, in intervals of about two to seven years, and scientists say that the most recent El Niño was among the largest in a century. The peak of the most recent El Niño occurred during winter of 2015, and temperatures were dramatically higher than normal. It began to subside over the course of 2016.

Scientists are working to understand whether climate change is also making El Niño phenomena stronger.

Historical records of global temperature are compiled by two American government agencies: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Meteorological agencies in Britain and Japan also compile reliable datasets of global temperature.

The analyses by the agencies are based on thousands of measurements from weather stations, ships and ocean buoys around the world. Each group tracking global temperature uses different methods to take account of problems in the data, but usually reach similar conclusions about the significant long-term trend of global warming.

For 2016, the records from NASA were likely the most accurate, because of data collection in Antarctica and a more sophisticated statistical analysis in the Arctic. The combination allows NASA to have more reliable coverage in the polar regions of the world, which have been highly affected by rising temperatures. Global sea ice extent reached near record low levels late in 2016.

"We expect records to continue to be broken as global warming proceeds," Dr. Mann said.

Well, good thing that Trump wants NASA to focus on exploring space instead of navel gazing on Earth, so hopefully we will soon have less bad news from them on the climate front. :)
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

Jacob

Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 09:04:38 AM
Damn. My entire question was does it make that big of a difference if it is solved next year or a few decades from now? Considering we are talking about the entire world here. I mean Clinton stated her goal would be to use 50% clean energy by 2030. I pointed out that we, in fact, are already well above that threshold if you count Natural Gas as clean energy. We are pretty close even if you don't. I am very enthusiastic about what sorts of new engineering we are doing and how we can effectively eliminate emissions sometime this century.

I think it's a bit like compound interest... even small amounts can make a big difference over longer periods of time.

Syt

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15109876/climate-change-science-committee-hearing-republicans-consensus

QuoteRepublicans held a fake inquiry on climate change to attack the only credible scientist in the room

Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a heated hearing on the "assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method" of climate science. In fact, the hearing was just an excuse to pretend there's uncertainty within the scientific community on whether human-made climate change is real.

Four witnesses were asked to testify before the committee; only one of them — Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University — agreed with the other 97 percent of scientists who believe that human activity, like the burning of fossil fuels, is causing our planet to heat up. The other witnesses testified that we don't really know how much people are contributing to climate change, and there's too much uncertainty to consider global warming a threat.

"The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists who have concluded that there is a connection between human activity and climate," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said at the hearing. "For a balanced panel, we need 96 more Dr. Manns."

In fact, Mann's views aren't only representative of pretty much the entire science community; they also represent the views of the majority of Americans. Data released last week by the Yale Program on Climate Communication shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that climate change is happening; 53 percent believe that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. And 75 percent want the US government to regulate heat-trapping carbon dioxide as a pollutant. (More than 70 percent of Americans also trust climate scientists on global warming.)

Bonamici said that the hearing was a waste of time. Yet, the committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) commented in his opening statement that "much of climate science today appears to be based more on exaggeration, personal agendas, and questionable predictions than on the scientific method." He added, "Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses."

Some members of Congress went on by asking some ridiculous questions and targeting the only climate scientist in the room who seemed to take climate change seriously. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked the witnesses whether it's true that sea levels are actually going to fall, not rise as a result of global warming. (Melting glaciers and land-based ice caps are already causing sea levels to rise.) Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) asked whether we know what caused the ice ages just to make the point that the ice ages occurred naturally and so we can't claim with certainty that climate change is human-made. (Again, within the scientific community, there's basically no disagreement that by pumping heat-trapping gases like CO2 into the atmosphere, people are warming up the planet.)

In a particularly intense moment, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) attacked Mann for saying that Smith took part in a "climate science denying conference" at the Heartland Institute. "From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack after personal attack coming from those how are claiming to represent the mainstream of science, even to the point that our chairman is attacked," Rohrabacher said. "That is ridiculous, people should be ashamed of yourselves." (The live stream then stopped working.)

Rep. Darin Lahood (R-IL) asked three of the witnesses whether they had ever been personally attacked by Mann for their views on climate science. "As I understand it in the past, and this is public record, Dr. Mann has referred to you as 'a carnival barker' and also 'a contrarian pundit.' Are you aware of that?" Lahood asked the witness Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado's Environmental Studies Department. "I can't keep up with all of Dr. Mann's epithets," Pielke responded.

Mann did represent the only "mainstream" scientist at the hearing, so the fact that he was repeatedly attacked is not that surprising. There was a lot of what one congressman referred to as a "food fight among scientists." But as members of Congress hold useless hearings and President Donald Trump tries to bring back coal mining, climate change is only getting worse and we're running out of time.

"The consequences for this country are very grave for our citizens," Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) said at the hearing. "At some point we have to go with consensus for the time being, as we continue research." She added: "We cannot wait for final ultimate truth to make decisions."
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.