Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 14:45:09

To those who lived through Katrina, climate chaos came and went. The California drought felt like chaos to me. It seems the science is a matter of interpretation. I have to agree with IPCC, runaway GW won't happen. GAIA will see to it. :) 8)
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 24763
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 15:47:28

Another scientifically based finding for those so inclined haha. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 07881.html

Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be 'game over', scientists warn

New research suggests the Earth's climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an 'apocalyptic side of bad' temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime
“the Hell is what we will leave behind" Ibon
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 15:50:15

I think Trump's appointment of a climate denier to head the EPA pretty well seals the deal, or rather, puts a particularly rancid frosting on an already very over-baked cake.
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15736
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 15:54:07

dohboi wrote:I think Trump's appointment of a climate denier to head the EPA pretty well seals the deal, or rather, puts a particularly rancid frosting on an already very over-baked cake.

Yep we are toast pardon the pun
“the Hell is what we will leave behind" Ibon
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 20:11:00

pstarr wrote:To those who lived through Katrina, climate chaos came and went. The California drought felt like chaos to me. It seems the science is a matter of interpretation. I have to agree with IPCC, runaway GW won't happen. GAIA will see to it. :) 8)


I think that's part of the problem: individuals tend to see the effects of global warming in terms of local circumstances. But the effects are taking place in many parts of the world, and in many ways. Thus, it may not be runaway GW but just as bad, and made worse because of overpopulation, overconsumption, etc.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 20:27:53

Gosh, rockdoc, according to your many arguments regarding the science, you can't claim whether or not "climate chaos is not here". Like KJ, Your take seems to be that it hasn't been proven either way, and can't be proven. WTF? As you said above, "... equally invalid in the face of conflicting published research." Works both ways, eh?

UH, no. The way it works is there is a theory presented by person A who suggests that climate change will create more and bigger tornados and hurricanes as an example. Person B points out the historical data shows no increase in number or size of tornados and a decrease in large hurricanes and total cyclone energy over the period where CO2 was rising and AGW has been argued (industrial to present). Person A cannot be right in his/her theory (evidence to the contrary), Person B is, however, right as what he is doing is pointing out a particular theory is invalid (and either must be discarded or altered). What is lost on many here is that in science there is no requirement to propose an alternative theory to invalid a proposed theory, that is not how it has ever worked. As Einstein points out all you have to do is show that a theory failed (whether that be by experiment in the laboratory or on the computer or empirical observation in the field).
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby GHung » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 23:52:13

Sure, doc, have it your way. It is, after all, possible to prove a negative by disproving whatever you claim hasn't been proven. According to your warped logic anyway. Oh, and screw your Person A and especially Person B who hasn't shown the theory to be invalid at all just because Person A hasn't established its validity in your opinion.
Last edited by GHung on Thu 17 Nov 2016, 23:59:30, edited 1 time in total.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 17 Nov 2016, 23:59:08

@ rockdoc......give it time.....some people loudly proclaimed that temperatures were not increasing , compared to the spike in 1998......but they failed to mention that apart from the two la nina years in 1999 and 2000 , every year since 1997 has been warmer than 1997......which was the hottest year on record up to that time.

just as some are using the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice to claim that there is no AGW happening, while at the same time ice loss from West Antarctica in particular is definitely increasing

the problem is that the sinks are already starting to fail as the permafrost melts and the oceans warm for example, while ghg emissions are at best levelling off

logic would suggest that unless ghg emissions start falling rapidly we are at risk of losing control
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 01:01:59

Image
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 05:13:22

Our low last night here on Lake Texoma was 69. At 4 AM it is now 70.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 12:18:01

Sure, doc, have it your way. It is, after all, possible to prove a negative by disproving whatever you claim hasn't been proven. According to your warped logic anyway. Oh, and screw your Person A and especially Person B who hasn't shown the theory to be invalid at all just because Person A hasn't established its validity in your opinion.


My opinion doesn't come into play. It is the way the scientific method works which is well established. A theory is proposed and it is tested. That test can take the way of laboratory experiments or it could be tested via complex modeling or it could be tested against empirical observations. If it fails the test in anyway that theory is invalid. There is no other choice in science. You can't say well maybe it failed that test, I'll just ignore it because it passed a bunch of others...it does not work that way. Any failure requires the theory be revisited and either tossed out or revised. Using my example the documented fact that hurricanes have not increased in intensity over the past 50 years and that total cyclone energy has been decreasing disproves the theory that hurricanes have increased in a warming world unless you suddenly want to argue that the earth hasn't been warming. Not tossing out the theory or revising it at this point means you have left the realm of science.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby chilyb » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 12:41:41

Rockdoc lost credibility with me a long time ago when he said something about how the land reclamation of tar sands mining areas to pasture is actually a benefit to the environment. He must be affiliated with Suncor or one of the other major bitumen players because it seems beyond ridiculous (at least to me) for anyone with as much intelligence as he seems to have to actually believe that. I have generally avoided reading his posts since then, but I broke my own rule this time. Oops. I suppose we all have our own agendas.

But it's posts like his that make me side even more strongly with Cid_Yama's view (who seems to make almost too much sense). We might be facing a runaway/nonlinear/abrupt climate changing event, which we know has happened in the past based on the paleoclimate data. It's not disputable that we are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere way beyond the rate of any past changes, outside of maybe a meteor impact. But we can't even all agree on the significance of that, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence. And since we can't agree, it's certainly worth the risk to keep doing nothing and hope for that one data point we are looking for to invalidate all the working theories on climate change. Thanks for that Rockdoc, for adding even a little more chaos to the topic at hand. All too easy, I guess.

Cheers everyone.
chilyb
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby sjn » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 12:57:07

rockdoc123 wrote:Using my example the documented fact that hurricanes have not increased in intensity over the past 50 years and that total cyclone energy has been decreasing

I assume you're referring to this: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/10/30-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-reveal-the-lack-of-connection-between-hurricanes-global-warming/

There's a lot of papers there, and they're certainly not all at all relevant to your assertion. I guess you're mostly drawing from the papers by Landsea et al. From what I've read of his, he mostly draws the conclusion that you have given based on the fact that frequency of tropical storm systems have measurably increased due to better sensing and reporting. No doubt there is something to the idea, but it is a stretch to then draw the conclusions he does even if he's acting in good faith. I'm sceptical that he is though, giving his history and political grandstanding re. IPCC, and his past research associates.

I guess we'll have to await peer review to find out.
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby sjn » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 13:07:10

chilyb wrote:But it's posts like his that make me side even more strongly with Cid_Yama's view (who seems to make almost too much sense). We might be facing a runaway/nonlinear/abrupt climate changing event, which we know has happened in the past based on the paleoclimate data. It's not disputable that we are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere way beyond the rate of any past changes, outside of maybe a meteor impact.
Cheers everyone.

Meteor impacts largely cause a short-term perturbation to the climate, they may trigger secondary forcings such as increased vulcanism or seismic responses, but mostly after the dust settles atmospheric chemistry and climate returns to normal:
Chicxulub and Climate: Radiative Perturbations of Impact-Produced S-Bearing Gases, Elisabetta Pierazzo, Andrea N. Hahmann, and Lisa C. Sloan. Astrobiology. July 2004, 3(1): 99-118.
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 13:28:52

I assume you're referring to this: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/10/ ... l-warming/

There's a lot of papers there, and they're certainly not all at all relevant to your assertion. I guess you're mostly drawing from the papers by Landsea et al. From what I've read of his, he mostly draws the conclusion that you have given based on the fact that frequency of tropical storm systems have measurably increased due to better sensing and reporting. No doubt there is something to the idea, but it is a stretch to then draw the conclusions he does even if he's acting in good faith. I'm sceptical that he is though, giving his history and political grandstanding re. IPCC, and his past research associates.


I wasn't referring to that site at all. There are lots of papers out there that discuss the issue, including the IPCC both in AR5 and in their report on Extreme Weather and Climate Events, but all you really need to do is go and get the data on hurricane frequency and frequency of large hurricanes as well as the data on cyclone energy. IN the context of what I was using as an example that information on its own would damn that particular theory (i.e. disagrees with prediction). But I wasn't intending to get into a deep discussion on the topic at this point (which could be done of course), simply using it as an example.

Rockdoc lost credibility with me a long time ago when he said something about how the land reclamation of tar sands mining areas to pasture is actually a benefit to the environment.


attributing something out of context or something I didn't actually say is the lowest form of argument. Provide an actual quote or don't post as it borders on inflamatory.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby sjn » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 14:10:00

rockdoc123 wrote:
I assume you're referring to this: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/10/ ... l-warming/

There's a lot of papers there, and they're certainly not all at all relevant to your assertion. I guess you're mostly drawing from the papers by Landsea et al. From what I've read of his, he mostly draws the conclusion that you have given based on the fact that frequency of tropical storm systems have measurably increased due to better sensing and reporting. No doubt there is something to the idea, but it is a stretch to then draw the conclusions he does even if he's acting in good faith. I'm sceptical that he is though, giving his history and political grandstanding re. IPCC, and his past research associates.


I wasn't referring to that site at all. There are lots of papers out there that discuss the issue, including the IPCC both in AR5 and in their report on Extreme Weather and Climate Events, but all you really need to do is go and get the data on hurricane frequency and frequency of large hurricanes as well as the data on cyclone energy. IN the context of what I was using as an example that information on its own would damn that particular theory (i.e. disagrees with prediction). But I wasn't intending to get into a deep discussion on the topic at this point (which could be done of course), simply using it as an example.
I'm curious, so I will look it up. It is worth pointing out that large tropical cyclone development is dependent on low sheer at least as much as available energy, and as far as I know, current GCMs do not predict an increase in the short term so I'm not sure which prediction in particular you are referring to. There has certainly been more, large cyclone activity in the Arctic in recent years, although that's not a global phenomenon and is more linked to regional changes such as sea-ice loss.
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby sjn » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 14:44:43

The UK Met Office wrote:Although there is no clear consensus on whether global warming is currently having any measurable impact on tropical cyclones, climate models indicate that there may be an increase in tropical cyclone intensity in the future, under continued global warming. However, the models also indicate that tropical cyclone frequency will either remain unchanged or decrease.
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby chilyb » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 16:08:10

Rockdoc lost credibility with me a long time ago when he said something about how the land reclamation of tar sands mining areas to pasture is actually a benefit to the environment.


attributing something out of context or something I didn't actually say is the lowest form of argument. Provide an actual quote or don't post as it borders on inflamatory.[/quote]

OK, perhaps my exact words were a bit of stretch. Sorry. This was from 2012, after all:

post1132717.html?hilit=%20reclamation#p1132717

"The area is reclaimed with native soil, grasses, shrubs and trees. The grass and shrubs come back quickly as do hardwoods but the native conifers (eg black spruce) are slow growing and take a decade or more to mature. The fauna never went very far away and will return quickly as the land recovers. Suncor claims that observable wildlife such as ungulates, upland birds, foxes etc have already returned to the reclaimed areas. This is in essence no different than how a boreal forest recovers from fires, just a little bit quicker. The amount of Canadian boreal forest impacted by oil sands extractive process is actually quite small in comparison to the impact of hard rock mining activity throughout other provinces and the Territories."

I would say that you made some sweeping claims based on only a few years of Suncor's research. Yet you seem all too willing to question the consensus on climate science. Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery.
chilyb
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 16:11:33

Pretty good view from that gallery.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8332
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 3

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 25 Dec 2016, 07:13:13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLk8Uy2-Lsk
Jim Hansen: Hell Will Break Loose - Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms
“the Hell is what we will leave behind" Ibon
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests