It's all over but for the sweating?

[TheEnemy]

Scientists have already answered the greenland melting issue...

RealClimate: The Greenland melt

... Conclusion... its more stable than we thought.

[NeilBlanchard]

Not necessarily - it was a lot warmer 130-125,000 years ago than it is now, and yes "only" about half the ice melted then.

But read the Note: at the very end - today the carbon dioxide is *much* higher than it was back then. And remember that we know that the warming back then was caused by changes in the earth's orbit and angle of the axis of rotation; and it is the warming that then caused the carbon dioxide to be released from the ocean.

The warming we are now seeing is caused primarily by us burning fossil fuels which is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide - and the temperature is increasing because of that. So, we may see the temperature go up much more quickly in the near future, and it then might go much higher than it did 125,000 years ago. And we don't know how long it will take for the ice to melt quickly enough to cause the sea level to go up.

By the way, when half of Greenland's ice was melted 130-125,000 years ago, a lot of Antarctica was also melted, and the sea level was about 23 feet/7m higher. So we really do not want this to happen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4oMs...layer_embedded

There are other factors too - Jason Box is going to be studying "dark snow" i.e. what effect all the soot from fires around the globe (both natural and what we humans are burning) has on the melt rate:

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/31/...nd/#more-13806

[wmjinman]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

By the way, when half of Greenland's ice was melted 130-125,000 years ago, a lot of Antarctica was also melted, and the sea level was about 23 feet/7m higher. So we really do not want this to happen...[/URL]

Well, I don't know - sounds like a great opportunity for a savvy real estate investor!! Start buying up land 23 ft. above sea level & wait for it to become "beachfront property". You could make a killing!!

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Now where exactly are most people talking about committing several trillion, or GDP, or whatever? The money spent won't change, it'll just be directed to e.g. nuclear power plants, solar panel makers, railways, and so on, instead of going to oil companies, coal mines, etc.

I offer a worked example, the UK climate change act - which is barking madness at several £tn to implement, but for which the author got put into the House of Lords. I look forward to when the new Lord Ridley has a debate with Baroness Worthington.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Except that the present course of action seems highly likely to create less overall wellbeing in the 3rd world, not to mention the 2nd and 1st worlds, even if we completely leave out any consideration of CO2 and its consequences. That's the really ironic thing about your complaint above: by redirecting those several trillion dollars, we would get a far better world to live in. Mitigating AGW would be a bonus :-)

Two questions.
1) how is forcing them to use unreliable and expensive energy supposed to make them better off.
2) could you detail the effects hitting them now, due to CAGW (note the C).

Actually a third - could you indicate the negatives of what has happened in the 20th century in terms of climate so far ?

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Except that the present course of action seems Sure, question stuff, but at some point you either have to accept that there actually ARE answers (even if you don't happen to like those answers), or you have to admit that your "questioning" is just tinsel wrapping over wishful thinking.

Well no there aren't, otherwise those answers wouldn't need revising which they seem to quite often like models, or even impacts. GOOD NEWS - the amazon looks to be safe unlike doomed as it was before.

See that, thats questioning.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure. Of course some things depend on the landlord - you can't readily go adding insulation to your apartment - but you can do things like turning down the water heater, adding window film, or drying clothes on a line instead of using an electric dryer. (Which in my experience is pretty common in Europe anyway. When I lived in Switzerland, in an area where ordinary houses started in the $1 million range, every back yard seemed to have its rotary clothes line.) And of course renters can always vote with their rent money: if they're willing to seek out apartments with higher energy efficiency and thus lower utility bills.

All good advice, perhaps not totally applicable to the average renter - certainly not here (UK) and perhaps not making such large change as 15% year on year. Choice is more limited by price and it being available - I can live in a nice house in Edinburgh but that won't buy a garden shed in London.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Sandy was a wake up call. Insurance companies and people in Norfolk VA, the Solomon Islands, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Thailand, Pakistan, Venice, Holland, the US military, East Africa, Texas and the Midwest, Eskimos, etc. - already knew that climate change is a big problem.

Sandy was not unusual, it coincided with something else with made it worse. It also became political which might have been part of the problem.

Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of ‘The Honest Broker’—a key text about science and politics—kicked things off with a story of how Hurricane Sandy’s meteorological classification became a political issue. On its approach to the US east coast, the storm was initially called a ‘post-tropical cyclone of hurricane strength’ rather than a hurricane, putting the liability for ensuing damage onto insurance companies. In the aftermath—when the final classification of the storm is made—government officials put pressure on meteorologists to uphold this classification for its political (and financial) implications. Pielke’s tale illustrated from the off that for evidence in policy, the goals of governments on one side and scientists on the other can be very different.

As an event it wasn't that unusual in history, ok in televised history it is but not otherwise. It did happen a few times in the 19th century, and Battery Park is sinking with the rest of the Island.

The Maldives have just agreed to build a new CO2 emitting airport apparently.

Venice is sinking, this was news in 1978. There is a worldwide fund for works to stop this, I have donated.

Bangladesh and Pakistan flood often. There is some evidence of increased flooding and a lot of that might be due to deforestation - I think this is a major problem which is (in part) caused by poor people intruding into wildlife areas and because of corrupt governments. Lets sort those maybe, no more trips to Ikea for a start

No idea about the others - what about them ?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But now, people in New York and New Jersey know. And people in Boston know that they only missed a major disaster by about 5 hours - if it had coincided with high tide, Boston would have been a multi-billion dollar event. So, they are now starting the hard work of deciding how to prepare for more sea level rise - do we abandon certain areas? Do we build barriers? Do we supplement and enhance existing natural barriers? Do we have a government-back insurance plan? Do we pay people for lost property value? Do we spend a fraction of what we will pay for damage in the future, on mitigating carbon output now?

This is a common problem, the UK floods are caused by building on flood plains - how do you insure them ? uk.gov is failing on this.

As for mitigating CO2 now how much will that cost. The uk CCA will cost about £60tn. What would a US one cost ? And even if what you say is true how much would flood defence cost compared to this ? Maybe $30-40bn ?

And seeing as those predictions are reducing do we need to ?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The massive drought in the breadbasket of the US (and the world?) is continuing. The Ogallala aquifer is dropping at an alarming rate, and so is Lake Meade and the Great Lakes. How many more rivers will run dry? Will shipping on the Mississippi come to a halt? What happens when we produce less grain and soybeans than we consume? Do we continue to have factory farms for cows, pigs and chickens? Fracking operations have been halted in several areas already - due to a lack of water.

Can you link these from CO2 to CO2 driven climate to direct effects ?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Will the number of billion dollar plus events continue to increase? Will the Arctic ice be gone in August/September of 2016? 2018? 2020?

Well they haven't really.You might want to spend some time with this scientist (also linked above) with a blog as he studies this kind of thing for a living (well part of a living) and he says no. And he agrees AGW is happening and also in mitigation.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Will Greenland's ice pack melt faster and faster? Will we get 2 more feet of sea level rise in this century? We have "only" had about 8" rise so far in the last 100 years? Or will we get 4 feet, or even 6 feet? Will rainfall rates top 6 inches in an hour, or 8 inches in an hour? Will a storm drop more that 30" in three days, like what happened in Pakistan? Vermont and the Connecticut River valley almost got washed away by 7" of rain in about 10-12 hours.

Are these unusual though ? Please go through the historical records and find no previous instances of this happening. India (and Pakistan / Bangladesh) have an annual monsoon - have you been there when it happens ? Its more water falling from the sky than you or I will ever see. I plan to go there sometime soon hopefully, I want to go there then too.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

When will we all realize that we are all in this together?

Yes we are - which means we all have to pay for it, and we all have to deal with the consequences and we all have to deal with the "what ifs" including the "what if this is wrong" and we restrict how the poor world can develop. If I was convinced I would hold the other end of your banner and be at the head of the march shouting the loudest.

Eyes in the headlights question - would you make your kids live like the 3rd world ?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

There are other factors too - Jason Box is going to be studying "dark snow" i.e. what effect all the soot from fires around the globe (both natural and what we humans are burning) has on the melt rate:

Jason Box: Can We Save Greenland? « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Well, I hope he gets the money but really his project is the kind of one which should be fully funded - this post* (warning - evil skeptic site ) is an analysis of this post (warning, non-scientist expert) discussing the Greenland ice melt which includes a contribution from Box. The latter mentions a 69 foot sea level rise - hmmm, where have I seen that before ?

The conclusion is that Greenland will be ice free in 14k years.

*(I'm not a fan of this website myself but I read it alongside realclimate etc. for balance)

[Arragonis]

Slightly OT - what if we stopped using fossil fuels now.

What If Atlas Shrugged? by David Deming

[IMG]What would happen to the US today if the fossil fuel industry went on a strike of indefinite duration? What would happen if we gave the environmentalists what they want? Instead of nibbling around the edges, what if we just went all the way? What would be the consequences if Atlas shrugged*?[/IMG]

*I read this book when younger - its a bit crap really, just like the author's other work.

[niky]

So... population control, then?

Personally, I've never seen our current society surviving the end of easy oil in its current form. The big question is what should our society evolve into to survive?

[freebeard]

The big question is what should our society evolve into to survive?

I like that question.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by niky

The big question is what should our society evolve into to survive?

Originally Posted by freebeard

I like that question.

Eskimos with LOTs of suntan oil?