i didn't realize you had it in you smath. well done.

5/24/2013 12:10:03 PM

Acknowledging the existence of both positive and negative feedbacks in climate is common sense

It's when you conjecture or imply that they magically balance each other out, all the time, every time, that you engage in wishful thinking and depart from the objective.

[Edited on May 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2013 12:31:26 PM

what about when you conjecture that the only ones of significance are the ones that just happen to fit your boogie-man theory?

5/24/2013 8:46:44 PM

the only person doing that is you.

5/24/2013 9:07:12 PM

riiiiiiiiight. that's why the only things you ever hear about are the positive feedbacks and you never hear about the supposed negative ones.

5/24/2013 9:09:00 PM

that's the only thing YOU hear about because you're totally ignorant of this shit and read nothing but blog posts about how the earth is fine and free markets work.

5/25/2013 1:19:01 PM

Quote :

"The real heated debate (which was de-emphasized due to it being a science class vs political science class) was "what should we do about it" which is by it's very nature political."

Indeed, this is what the global debate should be right now.

I think it all shows just how disconnected we all are. People believe that if someone has the facts, there is no doubt that they'll support emissions reduction measures. That's not true, but no one is willing to admit it. Both sides are willing to incorrectly pin that on different perceptions of the science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?_r=0

5/27/2013 5:38:17 PM

I've been saying for years that sulfate aerosols are a cheap fix if it gets too hot. Boom, crisis averted.

I know the idea of spraying shit into the atmosphere to counteract all the other shit we put up there is not a particularly elegant or natural solution. But it's the best one we've got considering that no global consensus will be reached on reducing emissions until things start to get really bad. And even if we do reduce emissions, all the carbon from the past 200 years will stay in the air for a really long time. Might as well find a way to mitigate the damage instead of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Reflective aerosol particles fit the bill.

6/1/2013 5:09:56 PM

Nobody thinks things will get "too hot". We're talking about a few degrees. The problem is that the balance will be disrupted and it would be disrupted even worse if you put aerosols into the atmosphere.

Aerosols don't "counteract climate change" they simply reflect incoming solar radiation. That would potentially be worse than what we are already facing. The event 65mya was caused by aerosols.

6/1/2013 6:43:52 PM

What balance are you referring to?

6/2/2013 2:25:08 AM

The energy balance.

6/2/2013 11:27:42 AM

Quote :

"I know the idea of spraying shit into the atmosphere to counteract all the other shit we put up there is not a particularly elegant or natural solution."

It's not desirable, which is why we need to:

a) plan concretely for aerosol geoengineering
b) get seriously mad about (a)

We need to show responsibility as a species, period. We have to accept that whatever state the planet is in, it's our problem to maintain the balance. The biosphere wasn't intelligently designed and there's no case, whatsoever, that the absence of corrective action gives desirable outcomes.

People won't like aerosols and they shouldn't like it. That's a good thing, because they've found it perfectly fine to sit on their asses and do nothing for the last 20 years. We should see how they feel in the years after an international climate engineering protocol.

Quote :

"Nobody thinks things will get "too hot". We're talking about a few degrees."

The water vapor feedback, even if you'd rather it be zero, is likely a severely positive. Even if you think the science isn't good, there's no credible case for passing it off as neutral. No one has even made that argument. Even if you think the combination of feedbacks has huge error with it - so what?

The predictions are like 5.5 degrees F for 2100. They give error bars. You can feel that temperature difference.



No one proposes to lower temperatures to pre-industrial levels. Mitigation would lower temperature some fraction of the increase. I've not seen a single person propose otherwise. It would still be warmer after engineering.

6/2/2013 12:24:26 PM

Aerosols would destroy the biosphere. We're more concerned about the biosphere than we are feeling a five degree difference (which would be most noticed at the poles). It will never happen because it is crazier than any amount of emissions.

The key is cutting down on emissions by moving away from fossils which are going to run out anyway. Might as well start now. We also need more photosynthesis, so more forests to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, stop building out globally, everything else has to be in and up.

Aerosols would severely decrease CO2 consumption which would offset the affect.

6/2/2013 2:17:22 PM

The problem with geoengineering, specifically aerosols, has been addressed in this thread before, I think. If not then in the "what should we do about climate change" thread. The short list:

-you are only addressing symptoms not the actual cause of warming (it's a band aid)
-even serious researchers balls deep in "aerosol geoengineering" advocate carbon reduction as the primary mode of climate change reduction
-there has been significant research showing widespread aerosol use could cause dramatic drought trends in certain parts of the world
-acid rain is a concern, even if you believe we can put aerosols high enough into the atmosphere where it won't immediately dissolve into rain, etc
-is the cost of widespread aerosol geoengineering really cheaper than reducing carbon emissions? Still seems like a significant unknown. We have the ability to cut our emissions SIGNIFICANTLY over the next decade if we really wanted too. Don't post some industry "research" to debunk this. The fact is the clean air act, clean water act, banning of CFCs, and the "market based plans" to end acid rain were all called too expensive by industry at the time they were implemented. I'd like to think we are better off ( both financially and from an enviromental perspective due to all of these laws)

6/2/2013 7:03:53 PM

honestly at this point who cares about emissions?

let's talk about where we're going to get food and fresh water from in 20 years, not to mention fucking energy.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM. Reason : all of these things need the sun, so aerosols aren't great here.]

6/3/2013 3:54:02 PM

We're not running out of food, fresh water or energy. Please stop with that alarmist nonsense.

6/3/2013 11:52:08 PM

if by we you mean the top 5%

[Edited on June 4, 2013 at 12:34 AM. Reason : a lot of the world don't have those 3 things to begin with]

6/4/2013 12:34:32 AM

aren't all of us here in the top 5%?

6/4/2013 8:01:59 AM

Quote :

"honestly at this point who cares about emissions?"

okay

Quote :

"let's talk about where we're going to get food"

Well, hopefully from arable farmland where we have agricultural infrastructure in place, something that will increasingly be problematic as changing climate basically shifts temperate zones around. There's also the sea, full of fish, who are rapidly dying out or at best seeing their migration routes shifting as a result of climate change...

Quote :

"and fresh water from in 20 years,"

There's a shitload of it trapped in ice, being slowly released into the sea as a result of warming...

Quote :

"not to mention fucking energy."

If only we'd invest more in shifting from fossil fuels to renewables, but the economic incentive will be lacking for a few decades, probably right up until the point of crisis.

In case you didn't notice: talking about emissions would go a long way regarding all three of your concerns.

6/4/2013 11:29:40 AM

Quote :

"We're not running out of food, fresh water or energy."

Are you sure about the fresh water? I was under the impression that water levels of fresh water sources are diminishing all over the world.

Certainly not every fresh water source, but there are some fresh water sources that are running out.

[Edited on June 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2013 2:13:11 PM

Quote :

"We also need more photosynthesis, so more forests to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, stop building out globally, everything else has to be in and up."

The planet has already been doing this naturally. The Earth is far greener now than it was 20 years ago, thanks to increased CO2 concentration. Of course it wouldn't hurt to stop destroying the rain forest and other irreplaceable ecological systems.

6/11/2013 4:11:28 PM

Boreal forests contribute to warming, and if you cut down every forest the earth would cool. CO2 isn't the only way they effect climate.

[Edited on June 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM. Reason : do we actually have more forests worldwide? i thought that was just is and a few other countries]

6/11/2013 4:29:06 PM

lol no they don't

6/11/2013 7:20:47 PM

They do

6/11/2013 11:41:20 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/28/207762/study-boreal-forests-positive-feedback/?mobile=nc

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shift-northern-forests-increase-global-warming

It's not hard to find this stuff Smath. Good thing you're a fucking teacher.

Earth Science I hope.

[Edited on June 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM. Reason : -]

6/12/2013 12:05:47 AM

its gonna be hot as shit tomorrow

iop70

6/12/2013 12:15:46 AM

^^thats the misleading post of the year award. of course if you replace snowpack with forests its going to be warmer.

6/12/2013 4:52:11 AM

i don't know how any of that was misleading, it says exactly what it says. it's pretty clear.


but do we really have more forested land world wide?

6/12/2013 7:29:38 AM

Quote :

"It's not hard to find this stuff Smath. Good thing you're a fucking teacher. Earth Science I hope."

I do teach earth science, and I'll tell you what I'd tell my kids to do... actually read the articles you reference.

from the first one:

Quote :

"Russia’s boreal forest – the largest continuous expanse of forest in the world, found in the country’s cold northern regions – is undergoing an accelerating large-scale shift in vegetation types as a result of globally and regionally warming climate. That in turn is creating an even warmer climate in the region, according to a new study…."

It is misleading and untrue to say that boreal forests are causing global warming. It would be more correct to say that the effects of climate change are causing a shift in the vegetation in boreal forests, and as a result, they are unable to store as much carbon.

6/12/2013 9:04:06 AM

its pretty clear that you didn't read those

6/12/2013 9:11:58 AM

He said 'contributing to' which is exactly what your quote says.

I think the problem is that some people can't understand that things (like CO2) can be both a cause AND/OR a enhancing factor.

Other warming factors caused the boreal shift which in turn is now contributing to warming further. That means boreal forests do in fact contribute to warming.

6/12/2013 9:12:29 AM

Yes, changing climate conditions have caused a vegetation shift in boreal forests. I don't dispute that in any way. However to say that "boreal forests cause global warming" is not a correct interpretation of the data.

and saying "Boreal forests contribute to warming" by itself is misleading and insinuates that the forests themselves are the CAUSE of global warming. This is simply not true. A shift in the forests because of climate change has decreased the amount of carbon stored.

[Edited on June 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2013 9:18:43 AM

uh, how?

6/12/2013 9:28:12 AM

Quote :

"That in turn is creating an even warmer climate in the region"

6/12/2013 9:29:45 AM

context.

6/12/2013 9:34:39 AM

i think you may be reading into a point that i'm not making

6/12/2013 10:37:52 AM

Quote :

"its gonna be hot as shit tomorrow"

I'm ridiculously happy that today is the first forecast day over 90 degrees (I believe). Usually this shit would have happened a month ago. (i.e. I hate hot summers).

Quote :

"but do we really have more forested land world wide?"

As to the planet being greener, the AGU released a report last month about that. And they're mainly talking about arid areas becoming greener, not mainly existing forested areas. Maybe I should have said foliage, instead of forest. But its still increased vegetation. It appears that I never said "forest" above.

Quote :

"Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener 31 May 2013 AGU Release No. 13-24 WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010. Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes. The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract


[Edited on June 12, 2013 at 10:59 AM. Reason : so point stands]

6/12/2013 10:55:39 AM

i can't pull the entire article (pay wall), but it looks like they are only looking at warm, arid areas

6/12/2013 11:10:29 AM

yeah sorry about the pay wall. And you are correct. I guess that wouldn't properly represent my statement. I've read other articles that do a better job but not within the last few months and I don't recall where they are. oops

6/12/2013 12:28:24 PM

more green area aint shit if you're talking about more grass and less tropical rain forest.

6/12/2013 6:08:20 PM

Quote :

"its gonna be hot as shit tomorrow"

it was pretty muggy, but its actually gonna be hotter tomorrow

though its supposed to be stormy and windy, which will help...then back down to the 80s this weekend

not that this week's weather has anything to do with climate change but just saying

6/12/2013 8:59:54 PM

Right. The spring all over the US has been well below average (and I love it) but that's not climate change, just regional variability. (though it tends to shut up the ignorant bunch that think global warming is to blame every time its hot outside)

6/14/2013 9:27:36 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/13/2138531/nasa-finds-amazing-levels-of-arctic-methane-and-co2-asks-is-a-sleeping-climate-giant-stirring-in-the-arctic/

let's talk about this y'all.

6/14/2013 4:21:41 PM

We've spent so much time examining the lower bound/lower warming scenarios, wringing our hands wondering if doing something is worth the cost. What rarely enters that conversation is that the confidence levels for the upper bound/high warming scenarios are basically the same as the low warming scenarios. If you take a look at the higher warming scenarios they leave zero doubt that cutting emissions and attempting to cope are well worth their economics (which is basically how the author closes the article). ^ this is probably one of the scarier areas of unknowns that I've read about. I posted earlier ITT that temperature predictions were proving too conservative, and this is just another example of us under predicting a particular feedback, except this one is large enough to be a huge game changer.

[Edited on June 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM. Reason : With regard to climate change, the conservative nature of science can be very frustrating ]

6/15/2013 9:31:22 AM

^^^ You do realize that "global warming" is a bad term for it because not everyone will see their temperatures rise universally right? Climate change is more accurate because in general there will be more extremes in both directions. The quelling of warm ocean currents by ice melt and salinity changes can certainly play into it and places ordinarily moderated by warmer sea surface temperatures may actually experience colder weather. Call it the "Day After Tomorrow" type of effect (although that is a horrible disaster movie and meteorologically inaccurate in a number of ways).

6/15/2013 11:25:05 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341484/Floods-droughts-snow-May-Britains-weather-got-bad-Met-Office-worried.html

After summer floods and droughts, freezing winters and even widespread snow in May this year, something is clearly wrong with Britain's weather.

Concerns about the extreme conditions the UK consistently suffers have increased to such an extent that the Met Office has called a meeting next week to talk about it.

Leading meteorologists and scientists will discuss one key issue: is Britain's often terrible weather down to climate change, or just typical?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341484/Floods-droughts-snow-May-Britains-weather-got-bad-Met-Office-worried.html#ixzz2WIbL45wQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

6/15/2013 11:27:10 AM

6/15/2013 12:40:21 PM

^^^^ to boot, IPCC’s Planned Obsolescence: Fifth Assessment Report Will Ignore Crucial Permafrost Carbon Feedback

6/17/2013 6:57:33 AM

Is the permafrost feedback mostly CO2 or methane?

6/17/2013 8:30:28 AM

^^I think by this point we can all agree the IPCC is just politically driven.

eyewall, "Climate change" is a horrible term as well, b/c to the uninformed it implies that we humans are now making the climate change compared to before we had any impact, when it didn't change. Of course the climate has always been changing and never in a state of equilibrium. And it never will.

Warmists changed their preferred term from "global warming" to "climate change" after the warming stopped over a decade ago. The description no longer fit.

It's also amusing how almost every weather event (of noteworthiness) is now extreme. Whereas before the AGW craze it was just weather.

6/17/2013 1:59:03 PM