It's all over but for the sweating?

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Nope. The great barrier reef is fine, they adjust - who knew ? They are older than human history - maybe there is a clue ?

That one is easy: half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has disappeared over the past 30 years. Some of the loss is due to run off from land based activities, such as agriculture (pesticide and fertilizer residues), which would have occurred regardless of greenhouse gas emissions. Some of it is due to the various impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. The loss has been because of a combined effect.

The causes attributable to greenhouse gas emissions include the aforementioned acidity, warming ocean temperatures (eg. coral bleaching) and an increase in the run off from land due to unusually intense and frequent storms. The storms have also caused direct physical damage. This reef has copped it from many directions.

The run off also damages the reef because it increases turbidity, which has direct effects on the coral. More significantly it has also increased the survival of Crown of Thorns starfish larvae which, as adults, eat the coral.

The consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, indeed human activity in general, are cumulative. That applies to all ecosystems.

Addressing climate change is just the most pressing issue at the moment. That is because it has the most widespread effects, the effects have long term consequences and are not easily reversible. No, it's not the only issue that has to be addressed. It does have to be seen as the first step in acknowledging that our home planet is finite and its resources cannot be seconded for our use without limit.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

define "chaos"

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know, Lorenz, Gleick, strange attractors.

It gets mention at—for instance—1:14 to 2:30 into They Want to Blame You

...watch?v=l-RvUedfKpk

Heat, cold, precip, tornados—they're all over the map.
_____________

The Seattle Times.com:Sea Change, The Pacific's Perilous Turn

the-glass-is-mostly-half-empty reporting.

[Arragonis]

So one year when the ice declines (2012) is significant, and one year when it doesn't (2013) it is not ? Do you work for the UKMO ? By the way older ice is increasing too meaning it is "sticking" and growing. It might be a temporary thing but we were told (by science) we would be able to sail through here by now for the full year.

The ships that have tried (and even a couple of Jet Skis piloted by "campaigners" - what JetSki Hybrids ?) are having to be rescued.

The same rule of limited data applies to "plankton is declining" - satelites observing grids of sea for only a couple of decades - which is really no time at all to work out a global trend.

Whales are doing well though - as reported by spotting ships, which is about as reliable as satelites.

As are Polar Bears - Some countries want a cull.

And reefs.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

That one is easy...

I don't agree with the attribution but lets work this through in terms of response.

The runoff from farms can be solved - different chemicals and fertilizers can be developed and used, the waste can be caught and run off prevented. The cost of doing that, even on a major scale can be estimated and implemented. IMHO if that is causing damage then it should be done, and the polluters made to pay, and ultimately the consumers of their products via the prices they charge.

Is it possible to work out a GW/CO2 response which would work as well ? And if so how much would it cost, who would implement it and when ?

Take another example, you want to protect wildlife ? Me too. Habitats are under threat. Why ? Because people on the "edge" will start to exploit those areas for a living. Give those people an alternative, like a factory or an office, or a skill, or a trade - and they will leave those areas alone.

And despite what you might think about quality of life and living out of town, those in the developing world just want what we have - good pay, good healthcare and a future for their kids. They don't debate whether GM food is good or not, they just want food and clean water.

Solving that one globally is about 1/52nd the estimated cost of solving "climate change" even if it was possible.

And if we solve it then we also solve the growth in global population - did you notice the rate of increase has slowed ?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know, Lorenz, Gleick, strange attractors.

I get it - a butterfly flaps it's wings in Birmingham means I fall over in Edinburgh, or something like it

My response was prompted by Richard Muller's interview here.

Scientists Often Pigeonholed By Political Debates : NPR

He is the reformed skeptic, apparently.

[freebeard]

Muller interview: What the editor saw when he chose the headline

They want you to be either a warmist or a skeptic or something like that.

Mac OSX Summary Service by Sentence:

MULLER: Well, I think what's happened is that many scientists have gotten so concerned about global warming, correctly concerned I mean they look at it and they draw a conclusion, and then they're worried that the public has not been concerned, and so they become advocates.

Mac OSX Summary Service by Paragarph

Prof. MULLER: That really shook me up when I learned about that. I think that Climategate is a very unfortunate thing that happened, that the scientists who were involved in that, from what I've read, didn't trust the public, didn't even trust the scientific public. They were not showing the discordant data. That's something that - as a scientist I was trained you always have to show the negative data, the data that disagrees with you, and then make the case that your case is stronger. And they were hiding the data, and a whole discussion of suppressing publications, I thought, was really unfortunate. It was not at a high point for science

I think ClimateGate (which failed, right? science works) was caused by scientists who were raised on Edgar Rice Burroughs novels, got a look at the real Venus, and it kind of freaked them out.
___________

The runoff from farms can be solved - different chemicals and fertilizers can be developed and used, the waste can be caught and run off prevented....Is it possible to work out a GW/CO2 response which would work as well ? And if so how much would it cost, who would implement it and when ?

By generalizing the nitrogen fixing bacteria the costs [up front and after the fact] of fertilizers are neatly sidestepped.

CO2 response? Biochar. By everyone everywhere.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The runoff from farms can be solved - different chemicals and fertilizers can be developed and used, the waste can be caught and run off prevented. The cost of doing that, even on a major scale can be estimated and implemented. IMHO if that is causing damage then it should be done, and the polluters made to pay, and ultimately the consumers of their products via the prices they charge.

They can be reduced through more careful application. Fertilizers only become run off when they are not utilized by the crops. That can be addressed directly or as part of avoiding climate change

Addressing climate change will reduce fertilizer and pesticide run off because N2 fertilizers that are not utilized ultimately contribute to atmospheric NOx. That's in addition to the CO2 released through their production. The pesticides likewise cause CO2 release through their production.

Price the emissions (banning might not be possible yet - longer term we will probably see the N2 fixing bacteria ^ - we're going to need GM) and there is stronger incentive to more directed and lower use. It may be more economic to accept lower yields by not using them, so trading off a reduced short term yield for sustained yield into the future. (Assuming lower later yields due to climate change are inevitable absent reduced greenhouse gas emissions now.)

Without the hits from climate change, ecosystems can cope better.

Is it possible to work out a GW/CO2 response which would work as well ? And if so how much would it cost, who would implement it and when ?

The cost of not avoiding AGW is so much greater than doing so even a simple analysis shows that it has to be avoided.

Take another example, you want to protect wildlife ? Me too. Habitats are under threat. Why ? Because people on the "edge" will start to exploit those areas for a living. Give those people an alternative, like a factory or an office, or a skill, or a trade - and they will leave those areas alone.

And despite what you might think about quality of life and living out of town, those in the developing world just want what we have - good pay, good healthcare and a future for their kids. They don't debate whether GM food is good or not, they just want food and clean water.

Solving that one globally is about 1/52nd the estimated cost of solving "climate change" even if it was possible.

And if we solve it then we also solve the growth in global population - did you notice the rate of increase has slowed ?

Wave your magic wand so that the undeveloped world becomes developed right now. Do you think that any of the environmental and resource problems we are facing, at the current (much lower) level of consumption, will have been solved? With three or four times the emissions and three or four times the resource demands? Development alone won't work.


Re. biochar. That may be needed as a re-sequestration process (for CO2) but it makes no sense to dig up ancient Carbon in one place, burn it and then spend more money and effort to try to bury the Carbon again elsewhere. Far better not to release the ancient Carbon in the first place.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Muller interview: What the editor saw when he chose the headline

Thanks - Looks like it may be another interview or perhaps an edit - I linked to it on earlier pages. Will try and look again later. I recall the lady interviewer was quite happy to state she had been on Al Gore's "Training" course.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

They can be reduced through more careful application. Fertilizers only become run off when they are not utilized by the crops. That can be addressed directly or as part of avoiding climate change

But directly you can estimate the cost. Via "addressing" CC, nope.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Addressing climate change will reduce fertilizer and pesticide run off because N2 fertilizers that are not utilized ultimately contribute to atmospheric NOx. That's in addition to the CO2 released through their production. The pesticides likewise cause CO2 release through their production.

But not using them reduces yield, oh hang on...

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Price the emissions (banning might not be possible yet - longer term we will probably see the N2 fixing bacteria ^ - we're going to need GM) and there is stronger incentive to more directed and lower use. It may be more economic to accept lower yields by not using them, so trading off a reduced short term yield for sustained yield into the future. (Assuming lower later yields due to climate change are inevitable absent reduced greenhouse gas emissions now.)

Without the hits from climate change, ecosystems can cope better.

Well developing GM means CO2, and also quite a few people here don't like GM in any way shape or form - Personally I'm neutral. Whilst we have a choice to go organic or not in the rich first world if you offer a farmer in Africa a crop than can withstand drought better, needs fewer fertilizers, yields more, and extracts less nutrients from the soil I doubt he or she would say no.

With that lower yields mean higher food prices. Higher food prices mean those on the edge will expand their use of land into more wilderness areas.

We can outlaw it all you like but it will happen, and wildlife dies and wilderness is gone.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

The cost of not avoiding AGW is so much greater than doing so even a simple analysis shows that it has to be avoided.

A simple analysis using IPCC data says the opposite apparently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

And Lord Stern was wrong in so many areas. The guy he quoted the most in his report says his report is pish.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Wave your magic wand so that the undeveloped world becomes developed right now. Do you think that any of the environmental and resource problems we are facing, at the current (much lower) level of consumption, will have been solved? With three or four times the emissions and three or four times the resource demands? Development alone won't work.

I'm talking incremental growth, without Greenpeace imposing only renewable power and WWF taking land (sometimes by force) for Palm Oil, if we could do it in one go that would be superb but we can't.

Without this how do you propose to solve population growth ? People getting richer have fewer kids because they all survive. Did you notice world population growth is slowing as the world is getting richer ? If not using this way then how - bottom line, who dies and who decides who dies ? If it is based on emissions and consumption then surely our kids should die first - so is going to go with that idea ? Not me.

How do you propose to solve environmental pollution ? Wealthier countries impose emissions standards (clean air act, anti smog, restrictions on fertilizer use and run off as good examples, there are more) and can afford the costs required to abide by them. They can also provide clean water.

How do you propose to protect wilderness ? Poor people use more and more land or hunt more and more wildlife to survive, wealthier people living in cities don't. Wealthier countries also protect wildlife areas, wildernesses and impose standards on anyone doing anything in them.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Re. biochar. That may be needed as a re-sequestration process (for CO2) but it makes no sense to dig up ancient Carbon in one place, burn it and then spend more money and effort to try to bury the Carbon again elsewhere. Far better not to release the ancient Carbon in the first place.

Partially agree - CCS makes no sense at all, which is why nobody is doing it. uk.gov offered £1bn (of taxpayers money) for a working CCS "pilot" - everyone backed out. Norway cancelled their full size proof of concept too because it was also barkingly mad expensive with little return.

Unless you have a magic herd of unicorns we will be digging up the ancient carbon and turning it into CO2. Personally I would rather we did that in the most efficient way possible, not by burning it in a field full of Diesel generators acting as backup for useless and bl00dy expensive renewables.

[NeilBlanchard]

The Arctic ice is declining decade after decade after decade. That's what the data show.

2007 was a record low, and even though it was followed by 3 years of relative "rebound" we then had 2 years of record lows. So, this 1 year of relative rebound is probably meaningless. Because, we have had over 30 years of overall decline.

And the Antarctic ice is also beginning to decline:

Remote Antarctic Trek Reveals A Glacier Melting From Below : NPR