It's all over but for the sweating?

[NeilBlanchard]

How does a conspiracy explain melting ice and record temperatures, acidifying ocean, higher ocean levels, more intense rainfall - and how did they go back in time to convince Svante Arrhenius?

Where is the scientific debate on the basics of anthropogenic climate change?

[Arragonis]

There is no debate on the basics, the debate is around the intensity, sensitivity, effects and what mitigation or accomodation that should be made - if any is required.

There is also no conspiracy or consensus, thats a volcanic ash screen

Its interesting that a particular scientist who's work is funded by taxes, and is (or rather was - it seems to have been dropped these days and is described as "crap" by other scientists) used as a key material to promote the idea of doom seems more than willing to share everything with some people who think the same, but not with others.

Its also interesting to note how many $s his university spent in legal fees trying to keep his "working out" secret.

If they were my taxes I'd be annoyed. Just saying.

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper

...McIntyre had reconciled their work with his own so that he understood every difference. And he therefore now knew that Wahl and Amman's work suffered from exactly the same problem as the hockey stick itself: the R2 number was so low as to suggest that the hockey stick had no meaning at all, although another statistic, the reduction of error statistic (or RE) was relatively high

And here there was an upside because, buried deep within the paper, Amman and Wahl had quietly revealed their verification R2 figures, which were, just as McIntyre had predicted, close to zero for most of the reconstruction, strongly suggesting that the hockey stick had little predictive power.

[NeilBlanchard]

I don't think there is any legitimate about the seriousness of climate change. We have already warmed 0.8C and even if we instantly stopped all fossil carbon output, we will see at least another 30-40 years of warming - that would bring us up to ~1.5C.

The only debate is about whether any/some/all the positive feedback forcings kick in.

Obviously, we cannot stop using fossil fuels instantly. So, every decade that we continue to increase our carbon output means that in all likelihood - we will blow past the 2C temperature rise by 2100.

The most critical debate is around the threshold of a runaway warming - the generally accepted threshold is ~2C including the 0.8C we have already seen. If we reach the level high enough to tip us over into melting tundra and/or causing the ocean to start releasing the carbon dioxide it has been absorbing up until now, or any other forcing - then we are up a creek without a paddle.

The current climate change is *far* more rapid than anything we know about before ever before. And even if it did happen this quickly before, it has never happened while humans existed - and it would be a terrible thing. It is this rapidity and it's "momentum" that is the main reason for the uncertainty.

Here's a "non-sucky" information graphic laying out the possibilities:


A larger more readable version is available here, and additional information - click on the image to enlarge: The rare non-sucky infographic on climate change | Grist

To review - we have warmed 0.8C and the ocean has risen about 8" in the past 100 years or so, and we have about 4-5% more evaporation. If we hit the 2C but stay under it, we have about 13 years if we do not cut our current fossil carbon emissions to exhaust our carbon budget of another 500 gigatons of carbon - and then we *would* have to stop all fossil carbon use. To put it another way, if we want to stay under the 2C rise is global average temperature, and if we want to continue to use some fossil fuels longer than ~13 years into the future - we have to greatly reduce our use of them *now*.

Here is the best estimate of what a 2C warmer planet looks like (from the graphic):

1.04m/3.4ft sea level rise from the 1990 level
The means Amsterdam and other cities like it are in knee high flooding
Coral (and plankton?) starts dissolving their shells
Summer heatwaves reaching 10C/18F higher than normal
20% reduction of corn and wheat crops
13% heavier rainfalls
~30% of all species at risk of extinction
Greenland ice sheet will start to melt, and while it will take about 50,000 years to completely melt - this will raise sea level by 6m/19.7ft

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Fukushima was three "partial" meltdowns.

And so? We still have AFAIK zero fatalities from anything to do with radiation. Indeed, I believe the only deaths outside the plant were from the unwarranted panic & stress of forced evacuations. The actual dangers of radiation have been exaggerated at least a thousandfold.

Nuclear is not zero carbon, or even "low" carbon.

It's as close to being zero carbon as solar, wind, geothermal, or any other "renewable" source.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...Here is the best estimate of what a 2C warmer planet looks like (from the graphic)...

OK - a question - could you identify the current negative effects of warming ?

[Arragonis]

Looks like the latest hockey stick is broken already.

The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service « Climate Audit

Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below....

And this got past peer review. Ladies and germs, this is the science as it exists today.

[NeilBlanchard]

We have had ~8" of sea level rise, a 30% increase in acidity of the ocean, ~4% more evaporation which leads to increased rainfall which has lead to a lot of flooding, droughts are intensifying, more and larger wildfires, crop failures due to drought and due to too warm winters and/or earlier spring, about 4:1 ratio of record high temperatures vs record lows (when the normal was 1:1), Arctic ice that is rapidly decreasing, and will likely go away during the summer within the next decade - this in turn is having a strong effect on the jet stream, changing the typical weather patterns. The so-called "perma frost" is melting, and releasing huge amounts of both methane and carbon dioxide. Many species are severely threatened - we are in the midst of a die-off similar to or more rapid than those in the past. Glaciers all over the world are shrinking quickly, and land based ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than they were just a few decades ago.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We have had ~8" of sea level rise, a 30% increase in acidity of the ocean, ~4% more evaporation which leads to increased rainfall which has lead to a lot of flooding, droughts are intensifying, more and larger wildfires, crop failures due to drought and due to too warm winters and/or earlier spring, about 4:1 ratio of record high temperatures vs record lows (when the normal was 1:1), Arctic ice that is rapidly decreasing, and will likely go away during the summer within the next decade - this in turn is having a strong effect on the jet stream, changing the typical weather patterns. The so-called "perma frost" is melting, and releasing huge amounts of both methane and carbon dioxide. Many species are severely threatened - we are in the midst of a die-off similar to or more rapid than those in the past. Glaciers all over the world are shrinking quickly, and land based ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than they were just a few decades ago.

I was kind of meaning some links to evidence. OK I know I could do that but I looked up sea level rise and didn't find a place with an 8 inch rise. I have found places with half that, but some of it is down to the land sinking too, and erosion.

Anyway the Daily Mail is back on it again...

[ksa8907]

wow, im honestly sorry i clicked on this thread...

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

wow, im honestly sorry i clicked on this thread...

We all are.

EDIT - lets let it die. Unsub...