2015 Warmest Year on Record

[MountainBuzzMan]

Did you know that atmospheric carbon comes from other sources besides emissions? One very obvious source is melting ice.

A melting Arctic is driving up carbon dioxide emissions, new US government report says - Bellona.org

Even if industry, power and transport could be revolutionized in that short period, a melting Arctic could still put those temperature goals out of reach. That’s because the Arctic may already have become a net emitter of carbon dioxide due to thawing permafrost, which will accelerate global warming, the new report says.

Permafrost is the carbon-rich frozen soil that covers nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere. It encompasses huge swathes of territory across Siberia, Alaska, Greenland and Canada. These frozen Arctic soils are thought to contain some 1,460 to 1,600 billion metric tons of organic carbon, which can be converted into the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide and methane by microbes in soil. These microbes become more populous as temperatures warm. As a result, melting permafrost across the world’s northerly climates could release twice as many greenhouse gases as are already in the atmosphere.

The Arctic Report Card 2019 shows that this process may already underway, concluding that permafrost ecosystems could be releasing as much as 1.1 billion to 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually – making the Arctic as big an emitter as Japan on the lower end and Russia on the higher.

While technically there is truth to this. 2,000 years the temperature was 2 degrees warmer than it is now and the sea level was several feet higher due to the much higer temeratures. a LOT more permafrost and melting artic ice happened then to get the sea level that much higher than today. Yet the C02 concentrations did not explode like these predictions are estimating. So yeah let it melt like it did 2,000 years ago and it wont make a measurable difference. Oh and the polar bears will not go extinct. They have So much more ice then they did then and no gentic bottle neck from that episode.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't think I am being clear in trying to make my point. Let me try again. I am NOT trying to argue that mankind is not affecting current rise in CO2 levels. I AM arguing that there have always been very severe climate shifts in our planet's history, including extinction level events, and that there is no indication that ...even if we learn to stop adding to the problem with our over-population...mankind cannot stop it.

Our best strategy has ALWAYS been in learning how to "role with the punches" and not to try to spend literally trillions to stop something that inevitably will happen with or without our contribution. If you really want to spend that kind of money, spend it on the space program so our entire species isn't dependent on one planet's fortunes.

“I’ve been building models and watching others build models for 45 years,” he says. Climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life to or even your trillions of dollars to.” Younger scientists in particular lose sight of the difference between reality and simulation: “They have grown up with the models. They don’t have the kind of mathematical or physical intuition you get when you have to do things by pencil and paper.”

All this you can hear from climate modelers themselves, and from scientists nearer the “consensus” than Mr. Koonin is. Yet the caveats seem to fall away when plans to spend trillions of dollars are bruited.

From deeply examining the world’s energy system, he also became convinced that the real climate crisis was a crisis of political and scientific candor. He went to his boss and said, “John, the world isn’t going to be able to reduce emissions enough to make much difference.”
-Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department.

From the WSJ article on his upcoming book: "Any reader would benefit from its deft, lucid tour of climate science, the best I’ve seen. His rigorous parsing of the evidence will have you questioning the political class’s compulsion to manufacture certainty where certainty doesn’t exist. You will come to doubt the usefulness of centurylong forecasts claiming to know how 1% shifts in variables will affect a global climate that we don’t understand with anything resembling 1% precision."

It would appear that not all scientists believe we are at (or past) a tipping point...nor that we are even at a point where we should commit that kind of spending to a Green New Deal. Please don't ascribe to the religious zealotry of the environmental left.

This is where the long line of incorrect models, terrible track record on covid, and everything else in the world comes into play. While humans are polluting the every loving crap out of the planet, there are limits to the types of programs people will agree to when we know how frequently incorrect models are and have been.

 

[forensicbuzz]

If the CO2 levels are currently rising without the aid from mankind then what do you attribute it to? From what I've read they've been able to explain pervious warmings with volcanic eruptions or positron to the sun but those don't apply currently.

Huh? We have tons of volcanic activity going on in the world. Not all of it is blowing the top off mountains, but we still live on a very active planet. How does this not apply?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think it might be constructive to go back 15 years and look at some of the predictions made back then and their accuracy.

* Hurricane frequency and intensity would significantly increase. This prediction has not been borne out yet as overall there has been no change to either. There has been a slight increase on the extreme low end of tropical storms (40mph) in terms of frequency, but many people attribute that to better technology and monitoring. (The IPCC doesn't see any increase either, and attributes larger property losses in more recent years to more people building more structures along the coast.)

* Ice melting in the polar regions will flood the North Atlantic, interrupting the currents from the tropics to Europe. This hasn't happened.

* Sea level rise. This prediction has been pretty accurate. But its impossible to know how much if any of this comes from human activity since the historical record shows a much more significant increase in sea level during the periods following recent mini ice ages.

* Increased tornadoes. Hasn't happened.

* Mount Kilimanjaro's glacier would disappear by 2016. Current estimates are it will be gone by around 2050.

* The Arctic could be ice free by 2014. Current estimates are it will be ice free by around 2050.

Of course the two biggest problems in most people's eyes are that none of the global warming studies are double blind. Everybody who is getting paid knows who is paying for it, what is the desired outcome, and what is necessary to keep the gravy train moving along. Second, many of the highest profile people advocating for certain policies have extremely large direct financial stakes and interests in the companies that stand to benefit from it. And I suppose a third problem is how many times its been discovered that people have manipulated raw temperature data along the way. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

 

[Lotta Booze]

I don't think I am being clear in trying to make my point. Let me try again. I am NOT trying to argue that mankind is not affecting current rise in CO2 levels. I AM arguing that there have always been very severe climate shifts in our planet's history, including extinction level events, and that there is no indication that ...even if we learn to stop adding to the problem with our over-population...mankind cannot stop it.

Our best strategy has ALWAYS been in learning how to "role with the punches" and not to try to spend literally trillions to stop something that inevitably will happen with or without our contribution. If you really want to spend that kind of money, spend it on the space program so our entire species isn't dependent on one planet's fortunes.

I understand there have been changes in the climate in the past but I haven't seen any indication that we are undergoing one currently that is not due to, or at least largely correlated, with mankind's emissions. You seem to be speaking with a certainty that you criticize when the opposite side uses similar statements. If humans are contributing, and are the largest known variable, then there is some level of management that can be done. Obviously there are forces of nature that are out of anyone's control but it does seem like there are things that are within our control and ignoring those simply because maybe something will happen that is out of our control just seems obstinate.

And I'm all for investing more into the space program.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Huh? We have tons of volcanic activity going on in the world. Not all of it is blowing the top off mountains, but we still live on a very active planet. How does this not apply?

Probably should have said, "an increased amount of volcanic activity". I'm not suggesting volcanic activity stopped simply that the current trend of CO2 levels seems much more strongly correlated with human emissions than an increase in volcanic activity over time. If someone has info backing up the latter I'm all ears

 

[bobongo]

Our best strategy has ALWAYS been in learning how to "role with the punches" and not to try to spend literally trillions to stop something that inevitably will happen with or without our contribution. If you really want to spend that kind of money, spend it on the space program so our entire species isn't dependent on one planet's fortunes.

A commitment to fighting global warming would actually spur new industries and invigorate the American economy, as well as provide enormous health benefits of lessening pollution. On the other hand, doing nothing will cost us dearly. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Climate Change Will Cost U.S. More in Economic Damage Than Any Other Country But One - Inside Climate News

 

[Deleted member 2897]

A commitment to fighting global warming would actually spur new industries and invigorate the American economy, as well as provide enormous health benefits of lessening pollution. On the other hand, doing nothing will cost us dearly. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Climate Change Will Cost U.S. More in Economic Damage Than Any Other Country But One - Inside Climate News

Have you read that study in its entirety? The problem I have with it is the differential effects on health and property damage. What I mean by that is that if our world is more polluted, absolutely we're going to have higher health costs due to dirtier air and water and so on. But whatever that number is should not be compared to 0. In other words, if CO2 concentrations at 420 ppm = X healthcare costs, we should only be comparing that differential to what healthcare costs would be if CO2 concentrations were at say 350 ppm if we weren't polluting like we are. That differential healthcare cost number is significantly lower. Second, property damage from storms has exploded in size while the number and severity of storms has not. Its because the number of properties in vulnerable locations and the value of those have exploded in size. So using property damage (which is a huge proportion of the costs in this study) as the metric is disingenuous. The per square foot value of a home in my town has quadrupled in the last 30 years. So given the exact same frequency and severity of storms, property damage would still quadruple without any climate change effect. Now add in that there are 3x as many homes in my town as there were 30 years ago, and the multiplier is even worse. Using those super large numbers for property damage is real - that is damage and it is a cost - but its not due to climate change.

 

[bobongo]

No, what you’re missing is that if the CO2 levels can rise that much WITHOUT any aid from mankind

But they ARE rising with the aid of mankind, as I've already explained by pointing out the ice melt and the release of CO2 from that, for one example.

 

[bobongo]

Have you read that study in its entirety? The problem I have with it is the differential effects on health and property damage. What I mean by that is that if our world is more polluted, absolutely we're going to have higher health costs due to dirtier air and water and so on. But whatever that number is should not be compared to 0. In other words, if CO2 concentrations at 420 ppm = X healthcare costs, we should only be comparing that differential to what healthcare costs would be if CO2 concentrations were at say 350 ppm if we weren't polluting like we are. That differential healthcare cost number is significantly lower. Second, property damage from storms has exploded in size while the number and severity of storms has not. Its because the number of properties in vulnerable locations and the value of those have exploded in size. So using property damage (which is a huge proportion of the costs in this study) as the metric is disingenuous. The per square foot value of a home in my town has quadrupled in the last 30 years. So given the exact same frequency and severity of storms, property damage would still quadruple without any climate change effect. Now add in that there are 3x as many homes in my town as there were 30 years ago, and the multiplier is even worse. Using those super large numbers for property damage is real - that is damage and it is a cost - but its not due to climate change.

Uh huh. Well if you're right and there's nothing to see here as regards global warming, we'll be left with new industries and better health. And if you're wrong, it's a complete and total global disaster. This is what we call a "no-brainer".

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Uh huh. Well if you're right and there's nothing to see here as regards global warming, we'll be left with new industries and better health. And if you're wrong, it's a complete and total global disaster. This is what we call a "no-brainer".

Well you continue to put words in my mouth and I’m not sure why. I’ve never said there’s “nothing to see here”. In fact I’ve said the opposite. I’m not sure what your motivations are here. It is possible to state that humans are polluting the hell out of the earth, but at the same time point out when studies like this one are severely exaggerated.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Uh huh. Well if you're right and there's nothing to see here as regards global warming, we'll be left with new industries and better health. And if you're wrong, it's a complete and total global disaster. This is what we call a "no-brainer".

What I see on this thread is someone trying to engage in a conversation and another person who has made their mind up that the worst-case scenario is going to happen and there doesn't need to be any discussion about the data. If you're not willing to engage in discourse, just say "nothing's going to change your mind" and others will stop trying to engage.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know we have an ethical obligation to be stewards of our planet and need to change certain behaviors. But, I also know that the data is far from conclusive and that the entire discussion of global warming and man-made climate change has become politicized, and therefore is more propaganda now than science.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

What I see on this thread is someone trying to engage in a conversation and another person who has made their mind up that the worst-case scenario is going to happen and there doesn't need to be any discussion about the data. If you're not willing to engage in discourse, just say "nothing's going to change your mind" and others will stop trying to engage.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know we have an ethical obligation to be stewards of our planet and need to change certain behaviors. But, I also know that the data is far from conclusive and that the entire discussion of global warming and man-made climate change has become politicized, and therefore is more propaganda now than science.

Well, if the people who do think the data is conclusive and the situation is dire would make changes in their life commensurate with the level of perceived threat, it would set a good example. The biggest mistake in my opinion from the people who think global warming is a dire threat is that they tied it to a specific level of temperatures. Not only is that impossible to predict or control, it doesn't make logical sense to most people. Am I really supposed to believe that if today it were 75F instead of 77F that all our problems would be over? We should have tied it directly to the science that we know around pollution and health. When you see a flotilla of trash the size of Manhattan in the ocean, you understand in your gut that its a problem and don't need some threat or model to try and convince you. When you are presented with an argument about how bad the earth will be if the temperature increases 1 degree, its very difficult on the average person to envision that can be true. Our local weatherman has a charity contest every day where they give $100 if he's within 6 degrees (+/- 3 degrees). He makes the prediction at 11pm for the high temperature for the next day. He's only right about 2/3rds of the time.

 

[bobongo]

What I see on this thread is someone trying to engage in a conversation and another person who has made their mind up that the worst-case scenario is going to happen and there doesn't need to be any discussion about the data. If you're not willing to engage in discourse, just say "nothing's going to change your mind" and others will stop trying to engage.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know we have an ethical obligation to be stewards of our planet and need to change certain behaviors. But, I also know that the data is far from conclusive and that the entire discussion of global warming and man-made climate change has become politicized, and therefore is more propaganda now than science.

The data is very, very strong. The great majority of scientists concur that global warming is manmade and is a looming disaster. While we wait for absolute certainty, time during which we could be doing something about it is wasting.

If I'm wrong, we'll be left with new industries and better health for our efforts. If I'm right and we do nothing, we'll be left with a total, long-term global disaster. Your call.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The data is very, very strong. The great majority of scientists concur that global warming is manmade and is a looming disaster. While we wait for absolute certainty, time during which we could be doing something about it is wasting.

If I'm wrong, we'll be left with new industries and better health for our efforts. If I'm right and we do nothing, we'll be left with a total, long-term global disaster. Your call.

This is debatable. There is a large percentage of the scientific community that is absolutely quiet on the matter because it has become a political situation where if you even question the data you become a pariah and are attacked by a very vocal sector of the academic community. SO, I'm not convinced it is the "great majority of scientists concur..." There is great debate whether it is manmade.

 

[bobongo]

This is debatable. There is a large percentage of the scientific community that is absolutely quiet on the matter because it has become a political situation where if you even question the data you become a pariah and are attacked by a very vocal sector of the academic community. SO, I'm not convinced it is the "great majority of scientists concur..." There is great debate whether it is manmade.

Well, it's your call. You know the risks. The risk of doing nothing is enormous. The risk of doing something is new industries and better health. Seems a no-brainer to me. As far as political influence on scientists, that has come much more from the right than the left.

Attacks on Science | Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org)

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The data is very, very strong. The great majority of scientists concur that global warming is manmade and is a looming disaster. While we wait for absolute certainty, time during which we could be doing something about it is wasting.

If I'm wrong, we'll be left with new industries and better health for our efforts. If I'm right and we do nothing, we'll be left with a total, long-term global disaster. Your call.

We were just told on an earlier page that despite a drastic reduction in the trend in annual production of green house gases over the last decade , we shouldn't expect even 1/10th of a degree temperature change or even 1 single PPM difference in CO2 concentrations compared to where we would have been. We've been shown studies that drastically overestimate the economic consequences of global warming. We've been given all kinds of various predictions of events that over the ensuing 30 years did not happen. The people advocating most loudly for huge economic changes have made no changes in their own personal lives and in many cases have significantly larger carbon footprints than the average person. Many of these same people have large financial interests in the companies due to benefit from the proposed economic changes. You put all of this together and there is no wonder people have a little reticence on the issue.

 

[bobongo]

We were just told on an earlier page that despite a drastic reduction in the trend in annual production of green house gases over the last decade

Slight. And you're just talking about a reduction in the trend. Carbon emissions have continued to rise, and we continue to produce more emissions that the sinks can handle.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Slight. And you're just talking about a reduction in the trend. Carbon emissions have continued to rise, and we continue to produce more emissions that the sinks can handle.

View attachment 10387
View attachment 10388

We doubled annual emissions from 1980 to 2010. We're flat from 2010 to 2020. I would call that a substantial bending of the curve, although I will cede the point that the definition of that trend is subjective.

 

[bobongo]

We doubled annual emissions from 1980 to 2010. We're flat from 2010 to 2020. I would call that a substantial bending of the curve, although I will cede the point that the definition of that trend is subjective.

The trend has levelled off somewhat. But that isn't nearly enough, because we're still pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
It's sort of like saying that as long as we can keep the annual deficit from increasing, the debt should go down. No, it won't. It will keep going up by whatever number the deficit is. It's a cumulative effect. Really not so hard to understand.
Only the earth doesn't have inflation to bail it out. We get closer and closer to the tipping point every year. And the whistling just gets louder and louder.