Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 Next
Comments 15501 to 15550:
-
nigelj at 05:03 AM on 1 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
A similar thing is happening now with Europes unusually cold weather and very high arctic temperatures. This article discusses the events and the possible mechanism.
www.dw.com/en/arctic-warmer-than-much-of-europe-is-a-worrying-sign-of-climate-change/a-42759475
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:49 AM on 1 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
It would be good also to mention more specifically the extraordinary Arctic winter event that has unfolded this year, with temperatures above freezing at extreme lattitudes in the dead of the polar night and the lowest sea ice extent recorded for January.
WaPo article previously referenced by OPOF on another thread. Links to the Danish Meteorological Institute. Arctic Temperatures as high as 20 deg C above normal.
Sea ice is not tracking any better now, NSIDC shows that we are fast approcahing the max extent time and have barely made it above 14 millions square kilometers. Of all the features of climate change, I find the loss of Arctic sea ice to be one of the most worrisome; it is truly a geological scale event that we are witnessing in a blink of an eye.
-
michael sweet at 03:53 AM on 1 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM
From paragraph 6 of the executive summary of the US Climate Report 2017 which I have copied for you before here at SkS:
"Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise—by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1–4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out." my emphasis
They put this number at the top so everyone would see it.
When they say they have "low confidence" in their upper bounds that means they think they may have underestimated the high end and that it is possible for it to be much higher. That is no reason to be confident about your low ball number, it is a reason to be less confident in low numbers. They are very confident that sea level rise will be higher than their low estimate.
Apparently they are estimating rise from today so you have to add 9 inches to obtain total rise.
As I have quoted to you before and above, 8 feet is what they think is a possible maximum before adding the acceleration from Nerem and the recently documented destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Engineers are generally required to design public works so that they survive the worst case ie 8 feet of sea level rise.
"Plan for the worst and hope for the best" is appropriate. Planning for the best and hoping that it works out is a receipt for disaster
-
NorrisM at 02:43 AM on 1 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 153
I have now read the Executive Summary of the US Climate Report 2017 and look forward to reading Ch 14 on sea level rise. In the above post you state that my claim of 11" from now to 2100 "is false" and you exhort me to consider a possible sea level rise of 8 feet by 2100.
But here is what the Executive Summary has to say about sea level rises for the period up to 2100:
"Relative to the year 2000, GMSL is very likely to rise by 0.3–0.6 feet (9–18 cm) by 2030, 0.5–1.2 feet (15–38 cm) by 2050, and 1.0–4.3 feet (30–130 cm) by 2100 (very high confidence in lower bounds; medium confidence in upper bounds for 2030 and 2050; low confidence in upper bounds for 2100). Future emissions pathways have little effect on projected GMSL rise in the first half of the century, but significantly affect projections for the second half of the century (high confidence)."
So my suggestion of 11" is pretty close to the low range prediction of the Climate Report of 1.0 ft. Is it not a little extreme to call my "linear" estimate of 11" "false"?
And as for your 8 ft number, I know somewhere else in the Report this "outside" number is used (I think based upon the unrealistic RCP 8.5) but as to its upper bound estimate of 4.3 ft the Climate Report states that it has "low confidence" in this estimate. So if the Report has "low confidence" in 4.3 ft then what reliance should be place on 8 ft?
-
michael sweet at 21:32 PM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
What MA Rdger said times two.
"You fail to differentiate between a bunch of AGW deniers and a grown-up call for more action to mitigate AGW" describes NorrisM perfectly.
Lomborg has no expertise in environmental matters. He has a degree in Political Science, not science. He has never published a peer reveiwed paper on an environmental issue. He has gained fame for claiming expertise he does not have and writing OP-ED pieces that support raping the planet.
It is typical for deniers to cite an industry shill as an environmental expert.
-
MA Rodger at 19:28 PM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @173,
You clearly continue to have "it wrong."
The Copenhagen Consensus on Climate argues for nothing in common with that called for by the Global Apollo Programme. You will note that the Copenhagen Consensus On Climate considers amongst other apparent options action to mitigate AGW, mitigation being predicated with the following assertion:-
"Humankind is changing the earth’s energy balance. It is doing so by releasing large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions into the atmosphere. While it is still a matter of scientific debate how much the build-up will alter our climate, there is little doubt that at least some change will occur, with potentially serious ecological, social and economic implications."
So there is even remaining doubt attached to there view that 'potentially' there will eventually be serious implications from AGW.
This is a different ballpark from the Global Apollo Programme who express no doubt and bucket-loads of urgency for a big increase in mitigation measures.
"By 2035 the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will exceed the critical level for a 2 ̊C rise in temperature and on current policies the temperature will eventually reach 4 ̊C above the pre-industrial level. This is the central forecast, implying a 50% chance of still higher temperatures. We must take action to prevent this, by radically cutting the world’s output of carbon dioxide (see Figure). We must reduce the use of energy and we must make the energy we use clean i.e. free of carbon-dioxide emissions. This Report is about how to make energy clean."
You fail to differentiate between a bunch of AGW deniers and a grown-up call for more action to mitigate AGW.
-
NorrisM at 14:43 PM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
OPOF @ 170
Let me apologize for often not replying to you when I have made replies to others at the same time. I just have to admit that your comments are so long and have so much in them that I honestly give up.
I fully respect your qualifications as an engineer who even worked in the Canadian oil and gas sector before moving out of Alberta. I am sure that one of your reasons for moving out of Alberta was the attitude of Albertans to anything that could impact their welfare which is clearly tied to the production of oil and gas. I have to admit that when I am in Calgary on business I tend not to get into discussions of climate change because it does not go over well. With my good friends I can have some discussion but even then I watch what I say. Somewhat like suggesting to Republicans while in the US that there were some good things about Obama.
But there is another reason why I often do not respond which relates to our different philosophies and what I consider to be your somewhat unrealistic view of the political systems under which we operate, at least in the Western World. The key word is "democracy". There is no world government and everything we do has to be based upon convincing our governments (and the populace) that certain actions should be taken. I often see (perhaps wrongly) a desire in you that we had some rational benevolent world dictator who could wave a magic wand and make everything right. Because of that there is much we disagree on even if we agreed in principle on many things if there were such a benevolent dictator in charge. I just think it is wasted time not taking into account the political realities which exist in the world.
-
NorrisM at 14:07 PM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 169
I clearly had it wrong.
First of all, the "Council of Scientists" as I called it is the "Copenhagen Consensus" which is a collection of scientists who do believe that the best expenditure of funds to battle climate change is to invest significant capital into research into green technologies rather than cutting off the public's present use of fossil fuels without viable alternatives for major sectors of the economy and world (read storage for one example).
But here is the connection to Lord Stern.
On Lomborg's website referencing the Paris Agreement and what it does or does not achieve here was a reference to the Apollo Program which has the same aims:
"Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair Turner and Lord John Browne."
So Lord Stern is not part of Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus but is part of a group which seems to have the same objectives.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:14 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM:
By all means enjoy your vacation, and cut back on what my wife calls "climate blogging". There will still be issues to discuss when you get home - we won't have solved them all by then.
What OPOF describes as "the impacts they impose on those others are less than the benefit they get for themselves," fall into what economists call "externalities": I get personal benefit while someone else bears the costs. Great for me in teh short term if I'm selfish; not so good for society (and maybe me) when the poor suffering peasants get uppity and find weapons to fight with.
As for the IPCC reports: keep in mind that the three working groups have completely different areas of study. WG I is climate science. The other two deal with economic and social issues. Also keep in mind that there is a hierachy of information here:
- Summaries provide, well, summaries of the main reports.
- The main reports go into much more detail.
- Ultimately, even the main reports refer to the scientific literature. It's in the scientific literature that you will find the greatest level of detail.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:12 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@167,
I hope that your understanding of present value of money and the related assumptions is consistent with my reply to scaddenp@165.
I have an MBA and decades of observation and consideration of what is going on as the basis for that understanding. But it does not even require a business class in economics to understand that any evaluation that combines/compares future benefit/cost is only legitimate if the same people experience all the benefits and costs now and into the future of what is evaluated.
Any other evaluation would be like a person justifying doing something that causes costs/problems/harm for other people by declaring that the impacts they impose on those others are less than the benefit they get for themselves, with the comparison done as 'they (not the harmed person) sees it'.
Properly understood, there is no need for complicated assessments to understand what is acceptable and what needs to change regarding climate change. Any negative impact on future generations is unacceptable. And the politics of popularity in pursuit of bargaining to get away with creating more future harm, delaying the correction of the incorrect things hat have developed, can be seen clearly as being grossly unacceptable.
As for International Leadership, the UN led the development of the IPCC, Kyoto, the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris Agreement (along with many other international leadership actions that are contrary to the damaging unsustainable developed desires among humanity).
I am glad you appear to appreciate the unacceptability of what has developed and have the abiliity to recognise the specific players in humanity who deserve penalties for their behaviours. But I have yet to see you bluntly admit that recognition of reality. Your presentations tend towards excusing the bad behavers among us, and tend towards finding and arguing for excuses for their understandably unacceptable harmful unsustainable behaviour.
-
nigelj at 10:05 AM on 28 February 2018Scientists have detected an acceleration in sea level rise
I thought much the same as Riduna. It's human nature to try to reach personal conclusions on what it all means, even if the data is not 100% conclusive. I think a smart assessment would be definitely one metre by end of century, with a very distinct possibility of more.
-
michael sweet at 09:07 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norrism:
I get nothing from GOOGLEing Lomborg Stern "Council of Scientists" and also nothing from Lomborg "council of Scientists". Can you provide a link supporting your unbelievable claim that Lord Stern would work with Lomborg.
It is easy to make false claims. Please support your claims.
-
Riduna at 07:16 AM on 28 February 2018Scientists have detected an acceleration in sea level rise
As pointed out by Dr Abraham, sea level rise is primarily caused by loss of polar ice and, to a lesser extent, thermal expansion of water. The prediction of a 65 cm. rise in sea level by 2100 appears to be based on the assumption that loss of polar ice does not change over the next 82 years.
Is this true – or is the rate of polar ice loss likely to accelerate? The latter seems certain, a view supported by eminent specialist climate scientists, including Drs. Rignot, Velicogna and Hansen, who point to on-going acceleration in the rate of ice loss from the three polar ice sheets.
They point to Arctic amplification which is accelerating both surface melt and glacier discharge from the Greenland Ice Sheet and to the effects of formation of warming bottom water on the West Antarctic Ice sheet grounded on the seabed. These developments can only result in much more rapid acceleration of mean global sea level rise.
How much will sea level rise by 2100? At present, this can not be accurately determined but a multi-metre rise by 2100 is certainly possible and is becoming increasingly likely with accelerating polar ice mass loss.
-
BaerbelW at 05:04 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 160 & 164
Ocean-Acidification.net is a website dedicated to just this particular and worrying issue. It has lots of graphics and articles to explore.
-
NorrisM at 02:40 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 162
About the only two things I took away from my undergraduate economics degree was the present value of money and the importance of assumptions in any analysis (ie my joke about the economist's contribution to opening the can of beans on the desert island).
The arguments of what discount rates to use render any discussion about future costs of climate change very problematic. The assumptions used again make the discussion very difficult.
Again, my point is that governments have a lot more resources than we do to come up with some estimates of the costs but we once again meet up with the problem that there is no world body that has any power to do anything about it.
The information that China's population is more at risk than any other nation state is somewhat interesting. If there is one thing the oligarchy in China is concerned about is staying in power and keeping its nation united. This should be a strong incentive for China to come up with innovative ways to deal with climate change knowing that they have 50 million people to protect.
I hate to say it but I look at Florida with some amusement. Did they only discover yesterday that some areas are only 12" above sea level? Or was it not a problem when it was 15" perhaps 10 years ago? I have no idea what the annual rate of sea level change is in this area.
As for Lomborg, I have read his book and I recall the reception I received on this website bt making reference to him.
I might be mistaken but I believe that Stern has joined Lomborg's "council of scientists". I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on this. Even if that is the case I am not sure what that means as to whether any of his views have changed. I do not follow Lomborg's website.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:32 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
in my prevous comment the second last paragraph is intended to end at ... flawed global economy.
More could be stated, but 'is leaving for' is a legacy of original phrasing that I made a last second edit of.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:19 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp@162,
When you develop the understanding that future generations are 'others' and that the only sustainable perceptions of wealth are the perceptions developed due to truly sustainable economic activity, you understand that even the criticized 'lower discount rate' used by Stern is unacceptably high.
One of the recommendations in the detailed back-up of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is for the discount rate to be zero, to be fairer to future generations. Even a discount rate of zero isn't truly 'fair' to future generations.
A proper evaluation would simply identify all of the unproductive costs and reduced resources (including decimated agricultural land due to unsustainable industrial agriculture) 'Others in the future to have to deal with' that are the result of unjustified Winning by Private Interest pursuits of benefit that incorrectly over-developed in the flawed global economy is leaving for.
The correction of those unsustainable incorrectly over-developed perceptions is contrary to the Private Interests of many already very fortunate people who refuse to give up 'pursuing more benefit any way they can get away with'.
-
NorrisM at 02:09 AM on 28 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @ 161 & 163
Thanks for the reference re ocean acidification.
As for the studies, I printed the 50 page assessment of the IPCC that I read which is at home so I will defer trying to locate the information now. My wife is not impressed with how much time I am spending on my notebook so I do have to watch my time spent. Clearly I have not read everything published by the IPCC but what I did read was the IPCC making the statements that I have referenced above which obviously took into account everything they had published. I will locate it when I am home in late March.
-
jef12506 at 00:34 AM on 28 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
It does not matter one bit if it is fully automated or so called "regenerative" when the climate swings wildly from record heat and drought, to record cold and atmospheric rivers dumping 20" of rain in a day or two flooding out all your efforts.
Regenerative agriculture was a great concept. I wish we could have adopted it 50 years ago.
-
RedBaron at 19:57 PM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
@6 Riduna,
It's not the tools of agriculture you have wrong, it's how those tools are used. And yes Australian farmers are inventive. Here is one example:
Why pasture cropping is such a Big Deal
Pasture Cropping: A Regenerative Solution from Down Under
And a 10 year case study of the above + several other inventive Australian farms also developing other similar types of regenerative agriculture?
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
"If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:30 PM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 160:
There is a good but lengthy series of posts on ocean acidification at SkS. The last post in the series (with links to all other parts), is here:
-
scaddenp at 12:26 PM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM - try the Stern review. Attempts to show otherwise (eg Lomborg) can only do so by not talking about risk and positing impacts lower than anything in the IPCC studies. There have been numerous criticism of Stern for discounting rates, but also plenty of concern (even from Stern himself) that in hindsights, the risks were underestimated.
Maybe a new analysis might do better, but to make a convincing case for not mitigating, someone needs to publish a study with that kind of breadth that also makes a realistic assessment of risks and impacts. So far, I have only seen hand-wavy stuff or over-sold critiques of Stern that dont change the overall conclusion.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:25 PM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @159:
Before I go on a wild goose chase into the IPCC reports, can you clarify just what you have looked at to support your statement that it "has very little in it on actual numbers"?
I am wondering in particular if you have looked at the full reports for Working Groups II and III.
-
NorrisM at 10:59 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 153
I have to say that what troubles me most about what is happening with climate change is the increasing acidification of our oceans and the potential loss of our coral and the implications this has for our oceans and the living organisms in it. Maybe this is how you get to "conservatives".
There is no way to fix this by spending money later. I personally do not see the nation states of this world coming together. If they cannot even clean up the plastic in the oceans, then what hope is there for the coral? I am not very conversant on this. Is there a thread on this website which deals with the loss of coral and ocean acidification?
-
nigelj at 10:54 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
What I'm saying is humanity is not going to be able to simply "adapt" our way out of climate change with technology as Riduna seems to be saying, and so we better cut emissions. Technology will of course help.
I'm a big technology fan, but a world of millions of robots is probably a fantasy because there are going to be too many shortages of critical metals. I'm very sure humanity will be forced to chart a rather more careful path, with technology moving more towards the essential things even in rich market economy countries.
-
NorrisM at 10:51 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 153
"It will be much cheaper to take action to reduce CO 2now than to try to repair the damage in the future."
Here is the rub.
My understanding is that the IPCC Fifth Assessment has very little in it on actual numbers making any such comparisons for very obvious reasons. You have criticized me for not having any "peer reviewed studies" for various common sense comments I have made. Is this your "common sense" view or can you provide me with some study that has concluded this? I am not criticizing you if you do not have a peer reviewed study but just making a point about asking for "peer reviewed statements" for any comments or questions posed on this website.
-
nigelj at 10:43 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
Riduna "It is not science fiction to believe, indeed expect, that the future of farming is likely to be linked to the use of electrically driven, computer controlled equipment such as those shown in this video."
Yes definitely in Australia and similar countries if they want, (NZ also has some pretty smart farmers) but if you think this can be scaled up globally in an idealistic way, I think you are mistaken. Do some reading on resource scarcity and population growth. Put it this way, things are going to have to change in certain respects. However point taken.
-
NorrisM at 10:40 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 153
Here is a qualification stated in the Climate Central Study you quote: "The ranges depend on the ultimate sensitivity of sea level to warming."
I could not find any reference to what assumed sea level rise by 2100 is used in the study. Do you know? If you are quoting these figures I assume you have access to the New York Times more detailed information.
You are placing a lot of emphasis on the Nerem 2018 paper. I have not finished reading the information from the US Climate Change Report or the other website but my understanding from what I have read so far that Nerem has basically reinterpreted the data from the first 6 years of TOPAZ and then made some assumptions about what would have happened to sea levels if Mt Pitulabo would not have erupted in 1991. From my understanding the first 6 years of TOPAZ is so problematic that it should simply be discarded.
My suggestion is that when I get through this reading material, I will post any comments I have on the sea level rise thread but address the post to you.
-
Riduna at 10:28 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
nigelj & Red Barron
Australia is well known for its inventiveness and the success of its inventions and its farmers are, as in many other parts of the world, ‘conservative’. However they are also smart and quick to recognise how mechanisation can improve their productivity and profitability. Australian scientists are showing them how this can be done.
It is not science fiction to believe, indeed expect, that the future of farming is likely to be linked to the use of electrically driven, computer controlled equipment such as those shown in this video.
-
nigelj at 08:39 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
"Climate scientist Jim Salinger: a letter to my grandchildren"
A New Zealand climate scientist talking about the impacts of climate change recently, and as projected, including on human health.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12002170
Apologies for spamming a little with several comments, but the Salinger article just appeared and seemed relevant.
-
michael sweet at 08:00 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
John Hartz,
From the UCS paper:
"Using the Army Corps of Engineers scenario and tide gauge
data from Virginia Key, UCS analysis projects that tidal flooding
is likely to affect areas in Miami, Miami Beach, Coral
Gables, and other nearby cities around 80 times per year
by 2030 (compared to roughly six per year currently) and
more than 380 times per year by 2045. [!!] In 2045, given normal
variations in the tides, while some days would be flood-free,
many days would see one or even two flood events—one
with each high tide." my emphasisAt some point insurance (currently provided by the government) will not be extended any more to houses that flood many times per year. Once that happens banks will not loan mortgages and the property values will collapse. Since this paper projects 80 floods per year in only 13 years (!!!) one wonders how long it will be before banks catch on.
It states that 20% of Miami-Dade county is within 12 inches of sea level. 15 inches of sea level rise is expected by 2050. A big hurricane (they just dodged one last summer) will swamp the city.
OMG!
-
scaddenp at 07:11 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"This discussion began with your claim that it might be good for the economy that people have a lot of work to do to adapt to climate change."
NorrisM is really desparate for reasons to do nothing. Wild suppositions in preference to the literature that actually crunches the numbers.
-
nigelj at 06:11 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
"What would happen if we burned through all of the fossil-fuel resources known to exist? In a paper published today in the journal Science Advances, a quartet of German, American, and British researchers take on this question. The answer, not surprisingly, is grim. If mankind managed to combust the world’s known conventional deposits of coal, gas, and oil, and then went on to consume all of its “unconventional” ones, like tar-sands oil and shale gas, the result would be emissions on the order of ten trillion tons of carbon. Average global temperatures would soar, and the world would remain steamy for millennia. After ten thousand years, the planet would still be something like fourteen degrees Fahrenheit hotter than it is today. All of the world’s mountain glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet would melt away; Antarctica, too, would eventually become pretty much ice free. Sea levels would rise by hundreds of feet."
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/if-we-burned-all-the-fossil-fuel-in-the-world
-
nigelj at 05:53 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
There's another problem with things like AI automated farming and heavy duty robotics. The world probably doesn't have enough mineral resources left to scale these up in every country in the world. We will struggle just to do basic products and renewable energy etcetera.
-
RedBaron at 05:40 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
@ riduna,
Sory to burst your bubble but your vision of the future of agriculture can not even begin to exist, because long before it is even fully developed, it crashes.
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues
Furthermore, it is only cheaper, more efficient, and higher yielding than currently extremely inefficient, expensive, low yielding, low profit industrial "green revolution" agriculture. It doesn't even approach sustainability, nor even touch far more modern regenerative holistic approaches on any of those most important catagories.
The real trend that has a chance at least of sustainability?
"Organic systems and the practices that make them effective are being picked up more and more by conventional agriculture and will become the foundation for future farming systems." - Dr. Charles Benbrook
But probably the most important point of all, your vision cooks the ecosystems that support agriculture even worse! They are a net carbon emissions source rather than a net sink as properly done agriculture.
"The first duty of the agriculturalist must always be to understand that he is part of nature and can not escape from his environment." - Sir Albert Howard
Ignore that little bit of wisdom at your own peril.
-
nigelj at 05:40 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
The insidious things about the climate issue is its relationship to global inequality. Vox has an article comparing heatwaves against the effects of reduced cold periods. On balance problems of heatwaves appear greater, however another point is heatwaves are going to be most deadly in tropical and sub tropical countries which tend to be poor countries (India, much of Africa etc) so cant afford technology fixes. Of course there are exceptions like Australia that are high income.
India is unlikely to have much in the way of AI automated farming for a long time, because it lacks the financial resources. The same problem applies to increased diseases in that they seem more of a problem in tropical climates and poor countries. Denge fever is unlikely to affect Europe unless it warms drastically is it? So climate change is exacerbating global inequality.
Of course various aspects of climate change are an absolute danger to wealthy countries, and drain their resources as well. This means they will be even less willing to help poor countries making the inequality / poverty problem even worse still, in a sort of feedback effect.
www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/17/16851398/cold-snap-heat-wave-deaths-human-health
-
sparker at 05:30 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
Gingerbaker - sea level will not necessarily stop rising in 300 years; what the study shows is that the greenhouse gas emissions we project to have occurred by the year 2100, even under the most optimistic scenarios, commit us to rising sea levels through the year 2300. The year 2300 is essentially arbitrary. Once we curtail anthropogenic emissions, the planet will eventually return to steady state, but some of the processes involved operate on timescales of thousands of years so it will take a while. Extra heat in the Earth system in 2300 will still go partially into melting ice, partially into warming the oceans, partially into warming the land and atmosphere, so there will still be melting and thermal expansion going on. The study also shows that the sooner we act to curtail our emissions, the less sea level rise we commit ourselves to by 2300 to a substantial degree - the study indicates that every 5 years we delay peaking our emissions commits us to a further 20cm sea level rise by 2300, and that right now we're looking at about a meter rise by 2300 if we sustain zero net greenhouse gas emissions until then, which is a really tough goal to hit. The study also shows that even if we manage to curtail emissions so as to hit our 2C warming cap, depending on our emissions pathways there's still a chance that sea level rise in 2300 could be much greater than a meter - up to 4+ meters under some scenarios.
The ice sheets will not be gone by 2300 but meltwater from them will certainly be a large contributing factor to sea level rise. If the ice sheets did somehow manage to completely melt, we'd be looking at nearly 70 meters of sea level rise from the added water alone, discounting thermal expansion.
-
John Hartz at 05:19 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
For details about the impacts of sea level rise in Miami, check out this post by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):
Tidal Flooding and Sea Level Rise in Miami-Dade County, Florida (2016)
The above article provides context for the 10-page fact sheet, Encroaching Tides in Miami-Dade County, Florida prepared by the UCS.
-
Riduna at 03:41 AM on 27 February 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
The human response is not to curb greenhouse gas emissions but to automate. Expect to see AI-automation occurring most rapidly where exposure to heat and health risk are probably the highest – farming.
In Australia, research, development and demonstration of automated machinery able to till, plant, tend and harvest crops without human intervention is gaining momentum. Guided by GPS and optical sensors, machines are being developed which have the capacity to prepare the soil and where appropriate add fertilizer before planting seed or young plants at pre-determined depth and spacing over a given area. Other machines already exist which can recognise and eliminate weeds and others have been designed to harvest crops.
Eventually, multipurpose machinery, electrically driven and computer controlled will be deployed to undertake all agricultural activity where human labour was once deemed essential. Its cheaper, more efficient and doesn’t need time off when it gets too hot and humid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:58 AM on 27 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
I encourage everyone to rigorously differentiate the people who are doing something when discussing the actions related to climate change impacts.
Regarding sea level rise. The sub-set of current day humanity desiring prolonged or increased burning of fossil fuels are creating harm plus high risks of more harm that others, particularly future generations, will have to suffer from and attempt to deal with. And a sub-set of the previous generations can be included in the group that knowingly pursue(d) more Private Interest benefit in ways that do harm to others (do harm to the Public Interest).
It is not helpful to discuss things as a generic totality of human with terms like We. The current generation of humanity is a separate group from future generations. This is not a matter of what We are doing to Us. What a current generation does 'affects Others in the future'. It is Us and Them. And the future Them do not really get any benefit from the fossil fuels burning by Us, regardless of the silly economic assessments that pretend that perceived wealth/value today will always increase into the future. Only the value connected to completely sustainable activities can be expected to continue into the future, and it can only grow into more future wealth if a better truly sustainable way of doing things is developed to supersede it.
More precisely the delay or lack of action to reduce the future rapid global warming climate change impacts that Others will have to deal with is 'a portion of the current population doing harm to All Others, including future generations'. And even more explicitly it is harm that is substantially being done by a portion of the wealthiest among the current day population who want to get away with benefiting more from the burning of fossil fuels to be perceived to be Winners relative to all others'.
More correctly presenting who is doing what should help increase the number of people who will understand and support the required corrective actions to advance humanity to a sustainable better future.
I am pretty sure that the trouble-making few among the wealthiest 'understand this this way' and are very highly motivated to delay the development of that increment of improved awareness and understanding in the general population.
-
michael sweet at 22:29 PM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norrism:
In commment 152 you say "My understanding is that the IPCC 1 m was the median case not the "best case" suggesting you claimed sea level would rise 1 meter. In comment 137 you say "At the present rate of sea level rise of ballpark 3.5 mm/yr by 2100 this represents about 11 inches of sea level rise." Your claim of 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100 is false. Nerem's estimate of a minimum of 0.68 meters with at least 8 feet as an amount plannners should plan for. You consistantly minimize the danger we must plan for.
This discussion began with your claim that it might be good for the economy that people have a lot of work to do to adapt to climate change. I asked where you were going to put hundreds of millions of refugees from sea level rise as an example of how bad it might be. This Climate Central study estimates as many as 650 million sea level refugees by 2100. More would come after that. Where do you think Canada can put several million refugees?
We have not begun to discuss negative affects on agriculture (like the desertification of Texas, California and large areas of Africa among other areas) or the extinction of most coral species. Need I expand this list further? Of course jobs might be created building new water systems and who wants to go fishing anyway.
You do not want to face the facts of the matter. AGW is already bad for the economy. It will be much cheaper to take action to reduce CO 2now than to try to repair the damage in the future.
-
NorrisM at 14:12 PM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 149
Thanks for the reference. That was a bit lazy on my part. I will read the chapter on sea level rise.
Although everyone knows what is meant by the term "porous", technically the proper term is "permeable". Swiss cheese is porous but you need permeability as in a sponge (interconnectivity) for fluids to move through rock. Learned this a long time ago being corrected by geologists.
My understanding is that the IPCC 1 m was the median case not the "best case".
I have a little more reading to do on sea level rise, both the Climate Science Report as well as some other sea level discussion recently published on another website.
I think Florida will be instructive as to how we deal with sea level rise in developed countries. My guess is that at some point real estate prices will start to decline, there will be less new development and people will gradually over the next 50 years move out of south Florida. The parents will stay but the children will live elsewhere, somewhat similar to what has happened in rural areas of the US and Canada. There will be no mass migration but rather a gradual reduction in the population and the importance of Florida.
-
nigelj at 12:56 PM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
"Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warming."
Is this political tribalism at work, or just gross ignorance?
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:18 PM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM:
The parent web page of the detailed Miami map I linked to is:
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
It took me a few minutes to get this map of New York City. (Mostly because the web page seems to want to rotate through different options faster than you can choose them.)
Typing "Los Angeles" in the box in the upper right corner of the New York (or Miami) map and then zooming and moving a bit rapidly gets me to this map.
It's taking me more time to type this comment than it took to get those maps.
-
NorrisM at 11:54 AM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @ 147
I suspect the red on the NASA map is Miami Beach. I find the map you referenced difficult to work with. I would have thought NASA would have had a much more comprehensive "climate time machine" for all parts of the world. Cannot even see New York or Los Angeles.
I do not have a lot of sympathy for Florida. There is a certain amount of "caveat emptor" that does not apply to countries like Bangladesh. And here Florida, the most vulnerable state in the US to climate change passes its electoral college seats to Trump who calls climate change a hoax. Is this a bit of "head in the Florida sand"?
-
michael sweet at 09:38 AM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norrism"
Googleing "US climate change report" gave me Climate Science Special Report 2017 as the third hit. The 5th paragraph of the executive summary states:
"Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise—by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1–4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out." there is a chapter on sea level rise.
Please note that this is a substantial increase from the National Climate Assessment 2013 which gave a maximum of 6.6 feet.
The Nerem paper is too recent to be considered in any summary report. When the Nerem paper is taken into consideration the maximum (and the expected) will have to be increased again. There have been several recent papers on Antarctic ice starting to collapse. That will be added on also. This is par for the course, they always increase sea level rise every time they write a report. Hansen's suggestion of 16 feet of rise by 2100 as posssible is looking more likely all the time.
Sea level declined slightly from 1500 to 1850 then started to rise as AGW took effect. (details in the reports cited above)
You only consider the best case. To properly plan for the future you have to plan for the worst case. "plan for the worst and hope for the best". The problem with planning for the absolute best possible, like you do, is that if it doesn't work out than you are in big trouble. If you plan for the worst you can adapt easily to better conditions.
Look carefully at the NASA map. Often satalite data is used which measures to the top of buildings and the top of trees. That is not very useful and it appears to me that is what NASA has done. The Climate Central map that Bob Ladlaw linked up thread is more accurate (I believe it has been peer reviewed). Both NASA and Climate Central only consider a home flooded when it is permanently under water. In the real case, people have to have several feet of difference between their house and mean higher high water. That means they substantially underestimate the number of people flooded by a certain amount of sea level rise.
South Florida cannot be defended because the rock is porous. They have not realized that they will all have to move when the sea rises a few more feet. They will have no water and it will be clear they will be flooded in the long run. What will be done with the nuclear reactor at Turkey Point that is already on a low lying island island?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:34 AM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
To reinforce the understanding of my previous comment about the future perception of unacceptability of a portion of current day humanity enjoying the creation of future consequences others will have to deal with, I offer the following current day perception regarding the lack of action through the past several decades.
It can be justifiably claimed that the current generation of humanity faces a larger and 'more urgent to act on' challenge to reduce the total accumulated climate change impacts due to the 'attempts by already more fortunate humans to continue to personally benefit from burning of fossil fuels', as well as having to make amends for the already identified harmful consequences being experienced by people who did not significantly sustainably benefit from the creation of the challenges they face.
Current day people understanding that would be justified in taking actions against the Private Interest of all of the more fortunate people who, since 1987 (and likely earlier) when it became undeniable that their continued attempts to benefit that way were unacceptable, have continued to try to get away with understandably unacceptable behaviour rather than change their minds and their ways. And those justified actions would include stripping some of those "Big Winners" of most of their wealth (Just like cheating athletes get their medals removed at later dates).
The likely result of increased understanding of what is going on includes the end of the belief that popularity and profitability are decent ways of determining acceptability. The improved understanding would include the knowledge that everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please will actually delay or reduce the chances of developing sustainable improvements for humanity. A lot of horrible harmful things have developed and been prolonged in the games of popularity and profitability.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:15 AM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 144:
OK. Now I can see what you see on the NASA map. At least, I think I see what you see.
What I see is a map of the SE US, from Texas to Florida and points north along the Atlantic seaboard. A map that simply does not have sufficient detail around Miami to show the areas that will flood that are shown in the map I link to in #138. I do see a bit of red near Miami on the NASA map.
If the NASA map were the first one I was to see, I'd go looking for another map with better resolution and detail around Miami. I"d be curious what those few pixels or red represented. I am guessing that you saw what you wanted to see (lots of white), and stopped.
-
nigelj at 05:11 AM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
One third of the worlds food is wasted, just thrown out.
www.businessinsider.com/food-world-wastes-most-2016-10/?r=AU&IR=T
However I suggest changing this behaviour will be difficult, especially in affluent societies. So any climate impacts on crop productivity etcetera will still be huge concerns.
-
Gingerbaker at 04:42 AM on 26 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
Why only 300 years? Will the ice sheets be gone by then? Will thermal expansion stop by then?
Prev 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 Next
