Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Next
Comments 8201 to 8250:
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
OPOF @60
"Claiming more needed to be known before acting is like saying that new structural systems and materials should be used without detailed understanding of their acceptability. And claiming that someone other than the ones wanting to benefit need to do the research into the potential unacceptability. In fact, it is like claiming that research to determine the safe use of the system or materials is not required up-front (I am indeed stating that your argument is defending actions that have a significant risk of harmful consequences being allowed before the consequences are reasonably understood)....That is what you are arguing as a defence. "
I dont think you can compare structural design and testing new materials to our use of fuels in the past. In the 1970's we had already been using fossil fuels for decades, and along comes some information that they could be a problem, but it was very preliminary information. It didnt look like enough to stop using fossil fuels, especially as 1) the agw thing was uncertain back then 2) there were no well developed alternative fuels, and 2) it was unclear if warming was a danger. Arrhenius claimed it was a benefit (erroneously as it turns out).
We just didn't have much to go on back then, regardless of the interests of powerful people. And yes of course some of them always try to downplay environmental problems.
I agree about the precautionary principle as a useful tool, but you do need a fairly clear threat to use it, otherwise we would not get out of bed in the mornings.
Remember what we had in the 1970s, a hypothesis that industrial emissions could lead to warming with no atmospheric experiment to really back it up. We literally had to wait to see if the atmosphere warmed, and if this could be attributed to CO2. J Hansen established there was a problem around 1990 and so I think that was the time to act. Bear in mind we still arent 100% sure of the risks, so have to still apply the precautionary principle. Getting that through to people is still frustratingly difficult.
However your argument is thought provoking, and a force to be reckoned with.
-
michael sweet at 06:04 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer at 61: "[I] et labelled by themn as denialsist or a 'concern roll'(sic)".
Tamino says to you here "You seem WAY too eager to accept the one number that will make the bushfires unprecedented, while ignoring the testimony from so many experts (including firefighters and scientists who specifically study bushfire) and from people who lived through both times in Australia."
It is rare for Tamino to comment to posters in this way.
Greta Thunberg is the most successful climate activist in the world today by a lot. She was Times Person of the Year.
You are a concern troll.
-
nigelj at 05:40 AM on 14 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
richieb1234 @15, if we used ocean heat content the denialists would probably say "and look that leads to just 1 degree, of warming" (or some other small number) and all the usual related blather. So we end up back where we started.
It might also create the impression we are trying to scare people by cherrypicking the most scary looking data, and if people start to think we are selectively doing this, scientists credibility gets shot to pieces.
The best thing is just to stick to the obvious thing people relate to which is temperatures like MS points out. Clearly 1.5 or 2 degrees doesn't sound very scary until you look into the consequences and how serious they are. I also like to point out that if we don't stop temperatures getting to 1.5 degrees, it could lock in tipping points that might take us over 5 degrees c eventually and 5 degrees should get peoples attention.
I totally understand your frustrations and I have experienced all the same things, but I think we just have to stick to the conventional approach and hope it convinces enough people. Once we try to be too clever in our approach to the thing it could backfire.
Denialists are frustrating. Even if we only convince a few of the hard core denialists its something, and it will probably only be a few.
Also people won't tell you if you are being persuasive, because people are too proud to publicly admit they have changed their mind. This doesn't meant they haven't changed their mind.
-
Nick Palmer at 05:07 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet@62 "Anyone who says Greta Thunberg is using "extreme rhetoric" is a concern troll. Greta constantly cites the IPCC reports when she speaks"
Where in the IPCC reports does the IPCC call for total divestment and ceasing of investment in fossil fuels right now?
Greta's latest heading for, later this month, the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
"We demand that at this year's forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions, and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies, and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels," the op-ed declares. "We don't want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now—as in right now.""
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/10/greta-thunberg-and-20-youth-climate-activists-call-davos-attendees-abandon-fossil -
Nick Palmer at 04:56 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
"When lots of people call you a "concern troll"
Hardly anyone has - about two in 30 years... - stop making stuff up! -
michael sweet at 04:27 AM on 14 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Ritchieb,
I understand your frustration. Imagine how Michael Mann and James Hansen feel after trying to deal with this issue for 30 years.
The Earths energy imbalance and ocean heat content have only been accurately measured for a few years, less than 2 decades. There are no proxies to extrapolate the data into the far past. There are still large error bars for these measurements. The deep ocean (over 2,000 meters) is poorly measured.
By contrast, there are accurate thermometer temperature measurements going back to 1880. Proxies have been found that accurately go back over 800,000 years and much further with poorer resolution. There is a reason deniers deny the Hockey Stick graph so much. Current estimates of the world temperature anomaly have error bars of hundredths of a degree. People do not understand what 2E18 joules means. I have a very strong scientific background and 2E18 joules does not have much meaning to me except it is a lot of energy.
As you point out, many people do not recognize that 2C will have big effects. I remember 10 years ago I wondered if I would live to see obvious sea level rise, more fires, increased storms, Antarctica melting and other effects (I expect to live to 2045). Here in just 2020 we see all of those effects already. Scientists seriously underestimated what effects 1C would have. Remember that only a 5C decrease in temperature means a mile of ice over New York! The last time carbon dioxide was over 400 ppm sea level was 20 meters higher!! (that will not happen overnight, do you care about your decendants in 300 years?).
It was recently pointed out here that 2C world average means 4C over land which is 7.2F over the entire USA!! I knew all the math but had not connected all the dots to see how much change F 2C really was. We are heading for most likely 3C by 2100 (more after that!) which is 11F every day all summer! Are your audiences really prepared for 11F? How could you visit Los Vegas half the year?
The deniers will deny whatever measurement scientists make. EEI and OHC would make no difference. I try to focus on the effects we all currently see. Point out that they will get worse over time. Here in Florida people moan about 10 inches of sea level rise. Can Miami Beach continue to exist when they already have 8 inches of water in the streets? Fires worldwide are obvious and people know about them. Storms like Harvey, Florence and Sandy are unprecedented and people worry. They have had three 500 year storms in the last 3 years in Houston.
If you are speaking to the public use the numbers you are most comfortable with. One talk I heard used pictures of people and had no data. The speaker found people did not relate to data no matter what it described but related to stories of people whose homes were flooded or Koalas killed in the thousands. One moving picture showed the speakers' friend who lost their home in the Paradise fire and is now a climate refugee in the USA. This October I went diving in North Cuba and Cozumel, both world class coral reefs. Over 90% of the coral was dead in both areas.
Use what you find relates best to people. If you find you are successful in reaching people come back here and tell us what works best for you.
-
michael sweet at 03:44 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer:
When lots of people call you a "concern troll" you need to consider if they are correct.
Anyone who says Greta Thunberg is using "extreme rhetoric" is a concern troll. Greta constantly cites the IPCC reports when she speaks. When you ignorantly call the IPCC "midballing" you demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about. Read more of the background material.
-
kricklin at 03:23 AM on 14 January 2020I had an intense conversation at work today.
A followup - I wonder if your co-worker will be responding to you again. My experience (online) is patience, knowledge, courtesy are key to having meaningful dialogue, but I've not had any success getting others to accept climate science.
Thanks - Ken -
kricklin at 03:20 AM on 14 January 2020I had an intense conversation at work today.
Well done Claire.
-
Nick Palmer at 01:31 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
nigelj@54 wrote: "However in these posts I always mention that I think climate change is deadly serious and why, to try and get across that I'm not minimising the problem, but that we just need accuracy"
100% yes!! It's the lack of accuracy in the rhetoric that motivates me to take on 'difficult' people, both denialst or doomist or left or right and all of the various combinations. I try to explain to the hyper-alarmists that their overblown rhetoric is actually a significant problem to getting the public on board and get labelled by themn as denialsist or a 'concern roll'. It's frustrating because I know that any undecided more reasonable readers who may be following can be turned away from the sensible middle path by the prejudice and misinformation on display
Thank you for taking the time to 'judge' the Barlow/Palmer contretemps. I must say I have never been so insulted by someone who is nominally on 'our side' before and that is why I needed a little confirmation that it wasn't me who had gone too far down a path...
I accept what you say. It's interesting that you sense that Barlow is/was an ecologist type. In my own 'environmentalist career' I started out completely believing the imminent tales of ecological doom spread by such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth - indeed I was a local groups FoE 'coordinator' throughout the 90s. I very much thought that modern society had us on a one way irrecoverable trip to ecocidal hell with the job of our organisations being to slow down the damage as much as possible while fearing the worst would happen. In one sense I go a little easy on Steven Barlow and others like him because I (kind of) was like him several decades ago - I know his arguments well because they were also close to mine before I wised up (I think) a little...
I came to see that there were sufficient people who cared to make a difference and I've seen many initiatives succeed in increasing recycling, protecting areas of wildlife, specific threatened species, certain types of air and water pollution etc and all without 'crushing capitalism' - which is unfortunately, an ideology that some 'extreme ecologists' get driven towards.
Are there still large ecological problems? Sure, and climate change will have many large impacts if we don't get on top of it, but the years have made me more optimistic about how the human race can handle big problems, once it is aware they are genuine and not over-hyped, as many things have been in the past.
The extreme ecologist Barlow's of this world, who use 'fear porn' in their rhetoric in a bid to scare the public towards their favoured solutions - in Barlow's case I suspect he is deep down a Back to Eden type - are no doubt sincere in what they believe, but they then go on to believe that their back to nature/abandon industry methodology is the only solution. I mentioned earlier on that there were 'sufficient' people who cared enough to forego the trappings of civilisation to 'save the world' but I have come to believe, at least in the West, that that figure is only about 20-25% of the general population. Try and impose policies that threaten the lifestyles, ambitions and aspirations of the large amjority too much and one will probably come up against what the President of the Finance and Economics Committee of my then government explained would be (metaphorically) a lot of angry people with swords fighting back!
That is why I reject the increasingly extreme rhetoric that Greta Thunberg, and her back seat driver advisers, are drip feeding out to the public that we have to drop fossil fuel use almost overnight - see the link...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/10/greta-thunberg-and-20-youth-climate-activists-call-davos-attendees-abandon-fossilI accept the view of many economists that such draconian action would immediately precipitate the world into a colossal mother of all global economic crashes. I think that's why IPCC targets allow for continued (but steeply reducing) use of fossil fuels as late as 2050. I think that is sensible. It's hard not to see, because of this relatively new development, that behind the Thunberg speeches that there is more than a hint of some politically minded influencers trying to engineer the destruction or hobbling of capitalism.
I worry that if such extreme action gets validated and taken on board by her many followers that the great mass of the population will be repulsed by it in short order.
In my view over-hyping dangers, calling for extreme and immediate one dimensional 'solutions' runs a grave risk of immunising the public against more measured action, and in this respect I think it a comparable to (or possibly greater, these days) problem than out and out denialism, which I think has recently moved into a new phase. In public fora and media they less and less actually deny the science directly any more but instead focus on cherry picking extreme media statements by alarmists and polticians, and innacurate 'shock horror' journalism, which they then knock down to smear the actual science in the minds of the public by proxy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:21 AM on 14 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj @58,
Another way to respond to "But the problem wasn't clear. There was nothing to act upon."
The significance of the issue to the future of humanity was not in question.
Claiming more needed to be known before acting is like saying that new structural systems and materials should be used without detailed understanding of their acceptability. And claiming that someone other than the ones wanting to benefit need to do the research into the potential unacceptability. In fact, it is like claiming that research to determine the safe use of the system or materials is not required up-front (I am indeed stating that your argument is defending actions that have a significant risk of harmful consequences being allowed before the consequences are reasonably understood).
That is what you are arguing as a defence. And the undeniable reality of how harmful it is to allow actions to not be restricted 'because not enough is known about them to be sure they should be restricted' is understandably absurd, potentially repugnant (Absurd and Repugnant are the technical terms used in ethical arguments).
My point remains that the power players of the 1960s and 1970s were already fighting against being responsibly restricted, to maintain their understandably undeserved status and opportunity to increase their status.
Sustainable Development awareness and understanding was and continues to be a response to that absurd and repugnant reality. And it can undeniably be claimed to be divisive. There is undeniably a helpfully correct side of expanded awareness and improved understanding, and a harmful side needing to be helpfully corrected or governed and limited.
-
richieb1234 at 21:10 PM on 13 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
As a relative newcomer to the climate change issue, I find it surprising that our preferred figure of merit is global mean surface temperature (GMST). Is it advisable for the IPCC to state their goals in terms of limiting global warming to a GMST rise of 1.5 degree C, or even a 2.0 degrees? People I talk to are not alarmed by those figures. They see that much change every day of their lives.
Climate deniers find it very easy to raise doubt about whether the temperature measurements are accurate; whether calculating a global aveage is meaningful; whether that small a temperature difference is dangerous; and whether "that small an effect" is just due to natural fluctuations. We end up debating whether models are validated and how much committed heating there is. [Have we already passed 1.5 degrees?]. It sometimes seems like a losing battle.
Moreover, none of the consequences of global warming arise from GMST. They arise from the addition of heat to the oceans, the ice sheets, the soil and the atmosphere.
Wouldn't Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) or ocean heat content (OHC) be more compelling figures of merit? These numbers are enormous; the equivalent of detonating a nuclear weapon every few seconds. They are more easily attibutable to fossil fuel. They have direct impact on consequences such as sea rise, ice melting and drought. And future projections are less dependent on models.
I would be vey interested in hearing other opinions on this question.
Very Respectfully, --Richieb1234
-
eschwarzbach at 19:41 PM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Unfortunately the simulation title is incorrect, making the wonderful video unusable in arguing with deniers. The title should make it clear, it is about anomaly, or more understandable, deviation from a base.
-
John ONeill at 18:44 PM on 13 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet - sorry, that was just an error, not an insult. The beryllium was proposed for Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors, but not used in the end. Sorenson's Flibe reactors are currently just one of many paper reactors. So apart from very small amounts for welding flux, and only in Candu fuel rods, my statement is correct.
-
nigelj at 16:49 PM on 13 January 2020I had an intense conversation at work today.
Great attitude Claire. This is a model of how to talk to climate sceptics and denialists, in that context anyway. I take my hat off to this woman and learned a lot.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:47 PM on 13 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
nigelj @58,
A pretty clear presentation regarding the understanding of the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful prior to 1985 is the following blunt statement made in the 1987 UN Report "Our Common World".
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."That was a polite-political way to say what the rich and powerful were aware of and what the worst among them were doing. And that was not just realized in 1987 (or in 1985). That was an observation regarding a history of behaviour.
And that type of unacceptable behaviour by the harmful among the rich and powerful continues today, risking a worsening of the current day potential future that appears to only be as bad as RCP6.0. Humanity would have been on a much better path if there had been responsible leadership that did not allow risky harmful and undeniably unsustainable behaviour to continue to increase, especially not allowing already rich people to get even richer from it.
The efforts to raise doubt about the risks were already starting at the time of the Stockholm Conference. The people willing to personally benefit through actions that are likely to be harmful to others have always been a problem. The future of humanity requires that problem to be sustainably solved.
The efforts to expand awareness and improve understanding and apply that learning to develop sustainable improvements for humanity led up to the Stockholm Conference and also triggered the efforts to fight against limits being imposed.
The basis for the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals includes the detailed understanding of the planetary boundaries of human impacts as presented in 2009 by Rockstrom et.al. in "A Safe Operating Space for Humanity". Of the 10 identified Planetary Boundaries, Biodiversity Loss and Nitrogen Cycle impacts were already exceeding the sustainable impact limits (as the research for the 2009 book was done). And Climate Change impacts had already reached approximately 2/3 of the sustainable planetary impact limit, and RCP6.0 significantly exceeds that limit.
But global leadership was well aware that very significant harm was being gotten away with. The 2009 report was not a shocking new revelation. And the 1987 "Our Common Future" makes that abundantly clear.
-
nigelj at 11:44 AM on 13 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
OPOF @57, the best that can be said is wealthy and powerful knew there 'might' be a problem in the 1970's. But the problem wasn't clear. There was nothing to act upon. You are stretching the precautionary principle a long way.
Did the wealthy and powerful try to stop research into the problem? Or hide its significance? There is definitely evidence the oil companies thought there was a problem in the 1980s but were not upfront with the public. So the public were denied full information. However I doubt it would have lead to action, because it was just modelling at that stage, and there were no significant rising temperatures.
I think evidence of climate change hardened up around 1990 and that is when the wealthy and powerful really marshalled their forces, in a strong campaign of denial like a loose federation of various interests preaching from the same hideous song book.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:09 AM on 13 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigel @56,
I do not dispute that the average person in the 1970s was not being made aware of the concern about fossil fuel use. Actually, that is the point of my comments.
Global Leadership (primarily in politics and business) failed to responsibly expand awareness and improve understanding and apply that learning to limit the harm being done to the future of humanity and help develop lasting improvements for humanity. In particular there has been a failure to cautiously responsibly limit the pursuit of fossil fuel profiteering while better understanding of the magnitude of the harm was developed. The worst among the wealthy and powerful took the damaging approach of fighting against limits on the risky harmful activity, claiming the need for more certainty and trying to mislead the public. That harmful flawed behaviour has occurred regarding almost every popular and profitable harmful unsustainable activity that humanity has ever developed.
The Stockholm Conference and the coordinated global development of better understanding since then are evidence that in the 1970s global leadership was aware and understood of many issues that had the potential for serious risk of future harm, including climate change due to fossil fuel use.
The wealthy and powerful knew about the potential problems in the 1970s. How they behaved is my point, and is a valid criticism by anyone regarding any of the many unsustainable and harmful developments that have occurred since the 1970s. Being aware of the potential for harm, the collective global leadership (all of the wealthy and powerful) should have tried to keep the already more fortunate people from trying to become even more fortunate through the increased use of fossil fuels until more was understod about the consequences. If that had happened the future for humanity would be less harmed than it is today and there would be less resistance today to any corrections that are still required.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 13 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
One Planet Only Forever @55, I just disagree that back in the 1970s and 1980s humanity was aware of the climate problem with some degree of certainty sufficient to do something. This is from a related article on the Stockholm conference in the 1970's:
unchronicle.un.org/article/stockholm-kyoto-brief-history-climate-change"In a section on the identification and control of pollutants of broad international significance, the Declaration raised the issue of climate change for the first time, warning Governments to be mindful of activities that could lead to climate change and evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of climatic effects.The UN Scientific Conference also proposed the establishment of stations to monitor long-term trends in the atmospheric constituents and properties, which might cause meteorological properties, including climatic changes. Those programmes were to be coordinated by WMO to help the world community to better understand the atmosphere and the causes of climatic changes, whether natural or the result of man's activities."
This is clearly saying there might be a problem, but more work is needed to figure it out.
In addition I did physical geography at university in the 1980s and the textbooks definitely did not say there was a serious climate problem being caused by industrial emissions that is known to cause a lot of warming etc. They accepted its likely that industrial emissions would have an effect, but the world was in a cooling period and this created some uncertainty. The majority of the science at the time did predict warming, but we were stuck having to see if this actually happened. We needed that real world certainty to confirm the predictions.
But by the early 1990s we were much more sure.
Agree about the rest of your comments.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:47 AM on 13 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank @41,
That change of the way the US code works that you mention will result in the same reduction of safety as the climate conditions get worse that I have mentioned.
The reality remains, everything already built is less safe as the climate conditions become more severe. Even things designed to the updated requirements will become less safe as the climate conditions become more severe. Admittedly, there is potentially an over-statement of the design requirements that will make new designs even safer under current conditions. But how significant the over-statement is and how much climate change impact continues to be created will determine if and when the over-statement is no longer an over-statement, after which time the design level of safety becomes less than the desired minimum as climate changes continue to be increased.
Does the code identify how much it is over-stating the design requirement and indicate the related amount of global warming that the over-statement is expected to be valid for? Is it good for 1.5C, 2.0C, 3.0C warming? And if it claims to be good for anything beyond 1.5C warming I would really be interested to see the basis for being so certain about that. Everything I have seen appears to indicate that significant uncertainties exist if there is more than 1.5C warming.
-
nigelj at 05:18 AM on 13 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank @40, yes I might have unintentionally done that. For the record I don't see any evidence engineers have been derelict in their duty protecting the public from climate change, and other threats. Theres something a bit weird going on where I live, but I suspect it reflects entirely on other parties not engineers. I have worked with dozens of engineers, enough to get a general view and ok its anecdotal, but In New Zealand they push for high standards and treat the codes with respect. I wont bring up the issue again either.
That said we have to be able to "talk about stuff" even if its contentious, and not get too defensive. It just needs us all to be clear on exactly what we mean and have the evidence.
Yes I comment on RC and I recognise your name.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:18 AM on 13 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
nigelj @54 (and others),
Discussions regarding what global leadership was aware of and understood in the 1970s should be based on a comprehensive understanding, particularly regarding what is required to develop sustainable improvements for humanity.
It is not correct to believe that “The state of the science in the 1970's and 1980's was definitely too uncertain for us to conclude we were warming the climate and should do something.”
In the 1960s global leadership understood that increasing atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuel use was a concern. The 1972 Stockholm Conference compiled what was understood to be going wrong and what required expanded understanding of the directions of development and corrections required to sustainably improve the future of humanity. The report included the concern about increasing atmospheric CO2.
Perceptions of success that rely on harmful and unsustainable activity, like fossil fuel use, are undeniably unsustainable. Fossil fuel use is making the future worse. That has been understood for a long time. The fact that such a fundamental undeniable understanding is still not generally understood in the powerful and supposedly more advanced populations today indicates that the developed socioeconomic-political systems over-developed in the wrong direction. They require significant correction, not a continuation of Kumbaya-style compromising in an attempt to have 'everyone get along with everyone allowed to believe what they want and behave as they wish'.
The identified concern about fossil fuel use in 1972 should have been sufficient to result in global leaders cautiously restricting the pursuit of increased benefit from fossil fuel use, especially by already more fortunate people, until more was understood about the consequences. There was plenty of discussion by global leaders about it in the 1970s, even though more focus was put on concerns that more immediate threats to humanity like the ozone layer impacts, tobacco use, and vehicle safety.
Increased pursuits of benefit from fossil fuels since the 1970s by people who were already living better than basic decent lives has tragically strengthened the resistance to correction. Powerful people who unjustifiably benefited more from continued and increased global use of fossil fuels almost certainly hoped would that increased resistance to correction would develop.
Efforts by undeserving powerful wealthy people to raise doubts about 'climate science and the required corrections' and to discredit climate scientists (and the related scientists in fields affected by climate change), increased when global leadership was starting to responsibly restrict the continuation of that harmful behaviour by undeserving powerful people. The undeserving powerful people collectively mobilized their resistance. Their actions included:
- getting political-minders involved in writing IPCC reports to push the wording as far away from supporting the need for corrective action as they could get away with. And they mobilized misleading marketing to popularize misunderstanding and unjustified doubt.
- A coordination of actions to create the Climategate Scandal (theft of emails, the effort to comb through them for nuggets to abuse in misinformation programs, and the development and distribution of the misleading marketing).
- Fighting to have national leadership restrict the science being publicly developed and presented. The Harper-led Conservatives in Canada selectively muzzled scientists and redirected federal research funding away from improving understanding of the negative impacts of climate change when they had the power to do so. The Bush and Trump led USA acted in similar ways, as have similar groups in other places around the planet (including Putin's Russian group).
There is an identifiable global political faction that is a significant part of the problem, being deliberately correction resistant, being as harmful as they can possibly get away with. And it is correct to identify the 1970s as a point in time when that collective started to 'globally coordinate their efforts against the expansion of awareness and improvement of understanding of the corrections that climate science (and other sciences) had identified are urgently required to stop making the future worse'. There is little doubt that what has developed today is more harmful to the future than what had been developed by the 1970s, in spite of it appearing that RCP8.5 is no longer the likely rate of making the future worse.
What is now required, and will be required at all future 'Nows' and was required in previous 'Nows', is leadership responsibly limiting how much worse the future will be, and actually acting to help sustainably improve the future. And that limiting of the harm done to the future, and helping improve the future, now includes justifiably 'reducing' the perceptions of superiority of those who unjustifiably significantly increased their benefit from the use of fossil fuels since the 1970s. The more recently the benefits have been obtained, and the wealthier the beneficiary is, the more the perception of superiority deserves to be lost.
That may be unpopular. And it may anger many people. But it is undeniably the correct understanding.
Compromising awareness and understanding to 'get along with people who are harmfully unaware or have developed a harmfully incorrect belief/opinion' is not helpful. There are many issues where diversity is to be embraced. Awareness and understanding regarding climate science is not one of them.
The use of fossil fuels makes things worse. A possible exception would be fossil fuel use as a temporary transition measure to raise a desperately poor population up to a starting level for sustainable development.
An improving future requires an end to the harmful climate change impacts of fossil fuels use, the sooner the better. And the most fortunate need to be leading the correction, including wealth from fossil fuel use being exclusively used to assist the desperately poor sustainably improve their life circumstances. And any more fortunate person that can be shown to be resisting that effort deserves a serious loss of status.
-
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
Just want to make a general comment related to Mathiew #1. The way the climate denialists work is they try to goad warmists into making exaggerated claims and mistakes, then they can say "look you got that wrong", and by implication you are wrong about everything. Dont fall for it. For example some people have claimed none of these fires are caused by arson, when commonsense should tell them a few probably are.
Better to concede a few are caused by arson, but it remains unconfirmed, and mention accidents, and lightening strikes as well in more isolated areas, and that global warming leads to a longer fire season and larger areas being burned.
Ask the denilaists a simple question. How would a hotter climate not make bushfires worse?
-
william5331 at 04:34 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
Some time ago I read an article on Australian weather history as determined by examining the yearly rings of Calcium carbonate in stalictites and stalicmites. They suggested that Australia experiences a 200 year cycle between 'wet' and dry periods and said that Aus is now going into a dry period. Perhaps this exacerbating the overall effects of climate change. If the last two hundred years was a wet period, what must a dry period be like. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190708122343.htm
-
John Hartz at 02:18 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
Also see:
Australia's indigenous people have a solution for the country's bushfires. And it's been around for 50,000 years by Leah Asmelash, CNN, Jan 12, 2020
-
Tom Dayton at 02:08 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
See also Hotwhopper about Australian arson.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:06 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
Nick Stokes posted data and sources about Australian arson.
-
Joel_Huberman at 00:53 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
One can explain to skeptics that, even if every single one of the fires was caused by arson, the years of drought and current record-high air temperatures have created conditions where the arsonists' fires generate far more damage than would have been the case with normal rainfall and normal temperatures.
-
Mathieu18981 at 00:39 AM on 13 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #2
Sadly this attempt to close the lid on this arson lunacy is more in itself a denial than an argument. I have no material to confront my skeptics friends with numbers and proofs of bushfires policies and actions.
A link with australian official number about firebreaks and bushfires preventive activities would be sufficient to prove skeptics wrong. The case is simple, if there is no reduction or an increase in preventive activities the debate is won.
If there is a decrease there is a case for more discussion on the causes. The article i read and its links simply push aside any skeptic's claim instead of attempting to debunk. Like always it will increase even more theirs feeling of confidence that we live in a bubble.
-
Hank11198 at 22:40 PM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
OPOF @38
“The same applies to structure performance. The design codes establish a minimum factor of safety against performance failure. The factor of safety is a combination of increasing the expected forces on the structure (factors greater than 1.0 are applied to that loads) combined with reducing the structure resistance values (factors less than 1.0 are applied to material resistance properties).”
In the US the factors of safety you mentioned (we call them load factors) have been reduced to 1.0 for wind. The wind speed maps were then increased to compensate for the load factor reduction. This now produces a procedure where the design wind speed is the actual wind speed the structure is designed for without yielding instead of a lower wind speed with a safety factor. I like this change as it seem more transparent to our customers. In other word what you are told is what you get.
-
Hank11198 at 22:32 PM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Nigelj @ 39
Nigelj I have seen you post at different climate blogs and agree with you almost 100% of the time. I do not think you would intentionally disparage engineers. However I do think in this case you un-intentionally created an impression that engineers have been derelict in their duty to protect the public by not addressing climate change. It appears some of the differences in our understandings is due to living in different countries with apparently different systems of producing design codes. It may also due to my frustration in trying to defend scientists against climate change deniers who continuously accuse climate scientists of fraud and deception. Regardless this is the last I will comment on this subject.
BTW I have seen you post on realclimate (I assume you are the same person). I sometimes post there under the name of TPaine.
-
nigelj at 12:51 PM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank @36,
"The study I link too stated a 1 to 10% increase in intensity for a 2C warming with the probability that the strongest storms will be less frequent."
Ok that changes the complexion a bit. My understanding is research is suggesting a higher frequency of the strongest storms. For example its interesting that numbers of category 5 hurricanes seem to have increased as below. Some people are suggesting we need category 6 hurricanes. And this is why I was concerned about the whole wind speed thing.
www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp
Anyway I agree it all needs further investigation, and that current code standards in America look good, and theres no point in a panic over design reaction.
“It looks like our codes are weighted a long way towards lowest cost. However I doubt that has anything to do with the engineers on the committees that develop codes”. What? How can the codes be weighted towards lowest cost without the engineers who write the codes being responsible? "
My understanding is our structural building codes in New Zealand are designed to some extent by a committee process that includes not just structural engineers, but builders, representitives from building research organisations etc and the code has to be approved by politicians at the end of the day. It just sounds quite different from your system. Engineers do the detail work, but it appears other parties have some input. We are also not as litigous as you guys. Not saying our system is better than yours, the opposite could well be true. Anyway you can see there are several input factors that could be aiming for minimising costs and standards rather than the engineers.
"If I have taking things the wrong way then I apologize. "
Apology accepted.
"And saying our building codes are weighted towards lowest cost without evidence is doing exactly that. "
I was talking about New Zealand! I thought that was reasonably clear. Sorry for any confusion.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:05 AM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
michael sweet @35,
The 'flood concern' is a valid one. And it allows a clarification to be made regarding structural performance.
In addition to structure design which need to account for rain ponding on roofs, I have designed surface run-off systems. These systems get designed for events that are based on historical weather data for a region. And there is a level of safety against that design failing to perform so that the design will withstand events that exceed the maximum expected design condition. What that means is that if climate change increases the severity of rain events there is an increased likelihood of the system failing to perform adequately. The system becomes less safe than the desired safety level of the design.
Updated design requirements will result in 'new designs' meeting desired safety standards. But anything designed base on the previous requirements will become 'less safe'. There is no way of arguing around that. It is the reality. Existing surface run-off systems all become less safe if the weather conditions they may experience become more severe.
The same applies to structure performance. The design codes establish a minimum factor of safety against performance failure. The factor of safety is a combination of increasing the expected forces on the structure (factors greater than 1.0 are applied to that loads) combined with reducing the structure resistance values (factors less than 1.0 are applied to material resistance properties). Updated design requirements establishing higher design loads will result in new designs having the desired safety. But structures designed to the previous requirements will be less safe, they will have an increased chance of a failure of performance.
And as I have stated in other comments, there is no real value in discussing exactly how much less safe things are going to become. Many structures are still standing many years beyond a '50 year design basis'. The fact that human caused climate change is making almost all existing structures and surface run-off systems 'less safe' should be sufficient to motivate responsible leaders of society to rapidly correct the incorrect activities that are making things 'less safe'.
-
Hank11198 at 09:38 AM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Michael @ 35
Michael that is a very good observation. Engineers are definitely concerned about how flooding is affecting structures. The three most recent code revisions have increased the attention and detail in every revision regarding how to design for flooding in the US. This is a case where the increased flooding has been documented by research. And as flooding is becoming more intense engineers who write the codes have more detailed loading requirements. Also insurance companies are becoming more involved in specific requirements for design as they often employ engineers or consult with engineers on the subject.
-
Hank11198 at 09:27 AM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Nigelj @ 34
I am educated in the science of structural design. I am no expert in determining what loading should be applied to a structure in order to balance risk to economy. As you said structures are designed on the basis of a 50 year life. Although some are used longer we have to put some limit on a design time. The study I link too stated a 1 to 10% increase in intensity for a 2C warming with the probability that the strongest storms will be less frequent. That will probably be 2100 if we don’t change our direction which is 80 years from now, long past the design life of a structure. Taking the largest estimate way past the life of a structure with a decreased probability of frequency for structures we know the failure limit is way past the design limit just seems to need further study, which I’m not qualified to do. You can say you are just tossing around ideas but I can promise you ideas like this tend to be spread around the internet by those saying engineers are derelict for not preparing for the future by their disregard for climate change. Just like the opposite side says climate scientists are irresponsible for being alarmists.
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. I was using my words to say it ‘appears’ you are saying the professionals aren’t doing their job.
“It looks like our codes are weighted a long way towards lowest cost. However I doubt that has anything to do with the engineers on the committees that develop codes”. What? How can the codes be weighted towards lowest cost without the engineers who write the codes being responsible? As I have said before I can only speak for the US codes. But in the US the politicians and bureaucrats have zero input in the development and revisions to the structural design codes. In the US the government has legislated the material design codes to be the law which they didn’t have to do. Although I doubt any engineer would design any differently even if they weren’t the law. But there have been so many lawsuits regarding damages when a structure fails I would imagine the politicians are afraid not to legislate those laws. In addition no insurance company would insure a structure not certified by a Professional Engineer.
If I have taking things the wrong way then I apologize. But it still seems to me that it would be better if the experts are not second guessed in social media at least until there is evidence they are not doing their job. And saying our building codes are weighted towards lowest cost without evidence is doing exactly that. It’s certainly your right to do that, at least in America, but that’s what is being done to climate scientists and I’m opposed to that also.
-
nigelj at 07:35 AM on 12 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer @53, yes we see at least some issues the same way, and I respect your views as well.
I looked at the video, and read Barlows comment and your comment, and your debate between yourselves.
Overall I find your views the most credible. Thats the short answer.
I don't see that you were being overly insulting. You called him a fanatic just to get his attention, perhaps borderline insulting. Having got his attention, you could have been clever and then said sorry didn't mean to be too abrasive :)
But Barlow made some good points as well. Like a lot of issues the truth looks like it maybe somewhere in the middle between you guys, on some of this at least.
The thing is Barlow is an ecologist and I've noticed these sorts of people catastrophise about climate change a lot, probably to be expected as they fall in love with nature a bit. I actually respect that, but the risk is they loose objectivity and Barlow has.
Barlow is confused about the state of the science way back then. The state of the science in the 1970's and 1980's was definitely too uncertain for us to conclude we were warming the climate and should do something. The AGW signal was only confirmed in the early 1990's and even then it was not clear what the hell we should do. We had to have some real world evidence of some actual warming like this, plus detection of AGW, to confirm the theories.
But by the mid 1990s it was very clear we had a problem, and that it was serious enough to justify robust mitigation, and that we had some good mitigation options.
It's absurd of Barlow to say models in the 1970s were accurate, so action should have been taken back then. We only know they were accurate with the passing of time since then.
Regarding Barlow claiming the risks were downplayed for decades and hes claiming virtually a cover up. This is a thorny issue. I dont really think they have been on the whole. We just didn't know enough back then. It's not like the link between smoking and cancer which was quite compelling at even an early stage, so using scare tactics did make some sense.
However I do think the IPCC reports "lowball" some things a bit in recent years as I've mentioned. Whether this is political pressure or scientists being conservative is an interesting question.
Maybe I sit a little bit between you and Barlow on the whole thing. But my bottom line is if scientists put scary scenarios in front of the public, and they should, these scenarios need some pretty good evidential basis. They cannot just be speculation full of endless "what ifs".
Regarding the Australian bushfires. I dont think Climate Adam was hyping things. They definitely look very concerning. Yes more area was burned in the past but this latest fire seaon has just started. Its not unreasonable to suspect we are heading towards an absolute record setter, and climate change is a factor in it (which you did mention).
Of course your area calcs look robust to me and it was useful to mention those.
This is a tough one for me. I've sometimes done the same sort of thing as you. The hyper alarmists have sometimes made wild, exaggerated hand waving claims on various things and I have criticised their views and been labelled a luke warmer as a result which is so frustrating.
However in these posts I always mention that I think climate change is deadly serious and why, to try and get across that I'm not minimising the problem, but that we just need accuracy. I also make a point of posting alarmist science where I think it does actually have a robust basis.
Sorry for a rather nuanced reply but I'm just being honest. Hope it helps a bit.
-
BaerbelW at 06:43 AM on 12 January 2020Seal of approval - How marine mammals provide important climate data
A recent article published by Esprit Smith on NASA's website on December 4, 2019 provides another example where data collected by seals around Antarctica provides new insights:
Seal Takes Ocean Heat Transport Data to New Depths
The article includes a link to a related post written by Carol Rasmussen and published on May 2, 2019:
Data with Flippers? Studying the Ocean from a Seal's Point of View
H/t to David Kirtley, who made me aware of the article.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 12 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Cooper @13, yes I see it now at comment 10, and your 2x looks feasible. Its just you jumped around a bit comparing different things.
This looks like something that should be in the general media. Most people would assume that statements of warming made in the media apply to land. Its a seriously misleading thing. Must mention it to our local science writer in our main newspaper.
-
michael sweet at 06:00 AM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
The discussions of how buildings are designed are interesting.
Flood damage is expected to be worse in the future because AGW causes harder rainfall. It has been recently reported that most nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand the most severe anticipated floods. While there are not many nuclear power plants it occured to me that much infrastructure like drinking water plants, sewage plants, airports, chemcal facilities and other heavy industry are located near rivers or the ocean (where sea level rise is also a problem). There were reports of many facilities being flooded by Harvey in Texas.
I am not an engineer but it occured to me that if nuclear plants are not designed to withstand expected flooding many other industrial facilities will also not be designed to withstand high floods.
Do the engineers here have any comments on how major infrastructure will be affected by increased flooding?
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank @33
"In effect you have decided that you know enough about the statistical analysis of wind speeds .....etc... and many other things that makes you an expert in how the structural codes should be changed. "
I never claimed that. I was simply tossing some ideas around sparking some discussion.
You are the expert, so roughly how much cost would upgrading the code to cope with an increase of 17% of wind pressure add to 1) a typical timber framed house and 2) typical highrise building?
Maybe its too high to be feasible. Like I said I believe in tough codes, but its always a balancing act between toughness and what the public can reasonably afford. I dont see where we differ - you tell me.
"And it appears you assume that the professionals that produce these codes are either not aware of environmental changes and how they affect the design of structures or they are deliberately ignoring those changes because of political pressure or greed. Pretty much exactly what climate change deniers are saying and using against climate scientists. "
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have already said the exact opposite above "It looks like our codes are weighted a long way towards lowest cost. However I doubt that has anything to do with the engineers on the committees that develop codes....( I explained my reasons)"
The codes in NZ do appear to set lower standards than some other countries. This is not my opinion, the issues has been raised by various experts after the Canterbury earthquake. The question is why. I think its probably political in origin but I doubt it reflects badly on engineers.
Politicians or bureaucrats sometimes have the last say on approving building codes. This is not the venue to pontificate in detail on all this, other than to say this is a very different thing to denialists claiming politicians write or approve climate science (which they dont). You are comparing apples and oranges.
However bureaucrats do sign off the IPCC report summary for policy makers, so that is something to bear in mind. Evidence suggests the language in this report got watered down a bit in one of the reports. Very likely became likely etcetera.
You are taking things personally as an attack on structural engineers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have lots of respect for engineers. You have taken things completely the wrong way.
-
Hank11198 at 00:56 AM on 12 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
I will admit that I may be defensive about my profession after practicing and experiencing it for 50 years but I hope I can still be objective. I think we are all on the same team of trying to prevent climate change deniers from spreading their false and damaging message. However....
One of the things I have consistently found is that climate change deniers use bits and pieces of scientific research and twist it into the opposite of what the research found. If they can convince the public that they know as much about climate change as the scientists because the data is just simple to understand, then they have accomplished their mission. One of the things I have learned in my limited research into climate change is that what can appear simple on the surface is very complicated when digging down into the details, something that deniers take advantage of every day. In my experience the same is true of all technical professions so in the end I ask and defer to the opinions of peer reviewed published material as explained by the authors. So I think that ironically the same thing is happening in this debate.
Nigelj has stated this:
“However let's take an increase in wind pressure of 17% as you mentioned. This doesn't sound too horrendously severe. I agree much of the global warming threat comes more from flooding etc. Anyway upgrading the code for a 17% increase in pressure sounds like a bit of extra wall and roof bracing and more fixings, so not a huge increase in cost.”
In effect you have decided that you know enough about the statistical analysis of wind speeds, the application of that analysis to structures, the development of risk factors the economics of risk and the risk to the public among many other things that makes you an expert in how the structural codes should be changed. Yet you have pretty much admitted you have no expertise in any of these areas. And it appears you assume that the professionals that produce these codes are either not aware of environmental changes and how they affect the design of structures or they are deliberately ignoring those changes because of political pressure or greed. Pretty much exactly what climate change deniers are saying and using against climate scientists.
From what all of you have said it seems you have some if not a fair amount of structural training. If so you should know that the design of structures are limited by the yield strength of the material for wind design in most cases. This is far from the “failure” of a structure unless you consider the “failure” of a structure to be some limited permanent deflections of the structure. This is evidenced by the success of seismic designed structures to prevent the total collapse of structures which exceed the wind forces by a large amount. In other words there is almost always a large amount of redundancy in structures due to many factors that are not considered in design. So rarely is this a matter of risk to public safety, but to economic risk.
I am by all means in favor of requiring structures to consider human safety first and economy risk second. However there is no way codes can be written to cover all possible risks. My company and some of the companies I have worked for have multiple standard products they sale. The costs of upgrading all those products by a 17% increase in wind pressure would include a massive amount of redesign (I’m not sure everyone realizes the amount of time and work that goes into designing a large structure), the replacement and/or modification of millions of dollars of tooling required for the existing structures and the amount of published marketing material that would need to be replaced. This is not just adding some bracing. Existing structures would be grandfathered in with a new code but sales of new structures have to meet the new codes. If the experts decide an increase is necessary I will be leading the cause to get it implemented. But I’m not in favor of unnecessary feel good changes that can have unintended consequences.
I am all in favor of public pressure to create changes in public policy when it is obvious the government is ignoring public safety. I think that is pretty evident with climate change when you look at heat waves, drought, floods, rising seas, the consensus of climate scientists, etc. Of course structures do fail for many reasons. But I have not seen, nor has anyone here presented any evidence of an increase in structural failures due to increased wind pressures.
-
Cooper13 at 00:51 AM on 12 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
@nigelj
Subsequent posts linked to data for the past 5-6 decades indicate the Land:Global ratio for warming is indeed approximately 2.
1.6 is the lower end of the estimate - if you look at longer time-scales back to the beginning of the 20th century. But where most of the warming has occurred (past 5+ decades), it is a ~2x ratio; that is based upon the linear trendlines, not 'ballparking' off graphs.
-
Nick Palmer at 21:57 PM on 11 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
nigelj@51
I think I've expressed before that I respect your views. Although we differ slightly I think both of our points are view are reasonable enough, as are we, that I think both of us could change or modify each other's position with suitable new credible evidence - at least I hope so.
Having said that, may I ask a favour? I would appreciate you (or any other SKS'er) doing a 'reality check' on this short 7 comment thread on one of 'Climate Adam's' Youtube videos. I would like your opinion on whether I or Steven Barlow (or both of us) went too far, and whether our assessments about each other, and our views, were reasonable.. Thanks in advance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kJvKgOqWrc&lc=UgywrnJct_lMB_vKWXx4AaABAg -
nigelj at 15:41 PM on 11 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer @51, definitely commenters. The website articles remain a beacon of sanity.
-
Nick Palmer at 09:52 AM on 11 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
nigelj@50
"Alarmists who exaggerate the science are very frustrating, and do more harm than good, like the mirror image of the hard core denialists. There are a couple over at realclimate.org"
At realclimate?! That's disappointing. I hope you mean commenters rather than contributors! -
One Planet Only Forever at 07:39 AM on 11 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
A better way to make the point of my comment @20 may be to state that the objective of the current day population should be for the accumulated result of everyone's actions to be an improvement that lasts into the future, making the future better for humanity. And the supposedly more advanced or more fortunate a person is the more helpful they should be required to be in order to maintain their status.
While debating how much worse the future is being made, the important thing to remember is that the discussion is all about things being Worse. Fossil fuels cannot be burned forever, so any perceived benefit from fossil fuel use has no future. The only exception is the temporary transitional use of fossil fuels to kick-start sustainable development in the few remaining regions that are still in extreme poverty.
Looking reasonably holistically at any future that is the result of GHG emissions continuing to accumulate beyond today's levels exposes that the future, on the whole, is being made Worse. How much worse the future becomes is a direct function of how high the accumulated total impacts become. And less corrections of the harm creation today makes things worse. And a continuation of the attitude that there is some way to justify making the future worse will undeniably create a much worse future, potentially worse than the worst that has been conceived so far (and that is not an extremist claim).
A serious correction is required to end the cycle of making-up excuses for continuing to act harmfully. One of the worst excuses is believing that history proves that industrial materialistic consumerism always makes things better. An even worse excuse is believing that any challenges created can be overcome by the brilliance of innovative developments.
Things could become much worse than the conditions potentially created by RCP8.5 by 2100. The future of humanity should continue well beyond 2100. And hopefully those future people will not have to deal with an even worse future after 2100.
As shocking as some of the potential futures for humanity may appear to be, they are still potential futures, especially if less correction happens today, or the next day, or the next day ....
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 11 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Ignorant Guy @30, oops I didn't read your link for some reason. Sorry. No it doesn't mention 10X but "if" Hansen said 10X that article may be what he had in mind. I recall mention of these super storms pushing quite huge boulders up beaches, which suggests high wind speeds affecting the oceans.
I find it a bit hard to see how 'slightly' higher wind speeds and 'slightly' more precipitation being ten times worse. Granted the two effects combine, but 10X seems intuitively seems like its stretching things.
The problem seems to me more that that the IPCC reports might be underestimating how bad storms will get. Thats a whole other subject and space doesn't allow, but theres numerous discussions on the IPCC low balling some things. But without a correct estimate its hard to develop codes.
And for the record I believe its wise to have quite high building code standards, so not done on the cheap. But there are limits to this, because eliminating all damage would make building costs astronomical. Its a balancing act.
-
nigelj at 05:45 AM on 11 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Cooper13
You said at the start @ 6 that "It is well established from observations, and from projections/models, that land temperatures (where most of us live, and where we grow our crops and livestock) increase at roughly 2x the rate that global temperatures rise."
I think this is wrong but it is maybe a sort of "typo" on your part. Global temperatures are the average of the land and ocean temperatures arent they? The data suggests land temperatures are increasing maybe 1.5% faster than the average global temperatures (eyeballing your graphs)
Dont get me wrong. Your basic point is really important namely that land temperatures are increasing significantly faster than both ocean temperatures as you mention elsewhere, and the "average temperatures" we typically use in discussion that combine land and ocean. By using this average of land and oceans we miss the fact that land is heating significantly faster.
-
Ignorant Guy at 01:03 AM on 11 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
nigelj @29
You link to the exact same paper as I did.
I never said that Hansen specifically mentioned "10X worse wind speeds". Did you find "10X worse wind speeds" in that text?
"Worse storms" are not necessarily storms with higher wind speeds. Storms with more precipitation are also "worse".
If we anticipate a certain worst case level for a bad storm and build our infrastructure to withstand such storms with only small damages then a storm with only slightly higher wind speeds and only slightly more precipitation could cause significantly more damage. And so it could be "10X worse".
I repeat again: My point was _not_ that Hansen ever said we would see storms with 10X wind speeds. My point was that if anyone says that we may encounter storms that are "10X worse" that claim is too vague to be immediately rejected as unreasonable.
-
Cooper13 at 01:01 AM on 11 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
@anticorncob6
Here's the whole article, with sourcing and a snippet:
In the past six decades, land temperatures have risen about 2.3°F, a warming rate of nearly 0.4°F a decade, as the top chart shows. That’s nearly double the temperature rise of the ocean, which is 1.25°F per decade. Moreover, in the past 30 years, the rate of warming appears to have sped up even more, with land temperatures rising more than 0.6°F a decade. That’s now a bit more than double the ocean warming.
Prev 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Next
