Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby jedrider » Sun 10 Jun 2018, 12:26:29

I've been reconnecting with Guy McPherson videos lately as a soothing anecdote to this amorphous feeling of doom.

I could not understand how he believes that humanity "will" be wiped out by as soon as 2025. He has a level of certainty that I don't hear elsewhere, so I wonder about that.

I understand his line of reasoning a bit better now. He says Arctic sea ice extent disappears by 2019 or so and the rest just follows. Well, that is a disappearance just during the end-of-summer period in the northern hemisphere, so I don't know how catatrophic by itself that is and, so, maybe he's mistaken.

His model appears to be:

1. Arctic sea ice extent goes to zero.
2. The climate is changed drastically enough to induce worldwide starvation.
3. Industrial civilization is thereby disrupted enough to reduce particulate emissions.
4. Now the temperature quickly rises another 2-3 degree C (guessing).
5. Game over as the additional C warming totally prevents our farming regiment being reestablished.
6a. Nuclear reactors start failing due to lack of maintenance, armed conflict, etc.
6b. The methane burb maybe comes into play now hammering the nails into the coffin of humanity amd not just of civilization.
7. Acidification, chemical changes to the oceans finishes off remaining percentages of life on earth.

Between numbers 4 and 5, most of us Western 5 percent'ers die for certain and take with us civilization. It would be nice and 'just', may I add, if it just stops here, but it won't. At this point humanity is certainly doomed and maybe quickly at that given 6a and 6b. Nobody left to remember us or our legacy. Oh well, just another advanced civilization wiped out before someone's SETI can find it :)
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 10 Jun 2018, 12:43:59

From my reading J, I see no outrageous or non sensical aspects to what Guy is saying. Granted we are not climste experts but all this information exists on the Net and more important in our records of pre-history, ice core samples etc.
We know that an ice free Arctic will cause dramatic changes to the mechanisms of climate. So this sequence of events is neither unnatural nor unprecedented except of course for the nuclear meltdown. The only two questions remaining is how fast will all this happen and can we do anything to prevent it.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 10 Jun 2018, 13:19:23

jedrider wrote:I could not understand how he believes that humanity "will" be wiped out by as soon as 2025. He has a level of certainty that I don't hear elsewhere, so I wonder about that.


We better alert the suicide hotline in 2026 for Guy when humanity is still 8 billion strong.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6368
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 10 Jun 2018, 17:33:27

Ibon wrote:
jedrider wrote:I could not understand how he believes that humanity "will" be wiped out by as soon as 2025. He has a level of certainty that I don't hear elsewhere, so I wonder about that.


We better alert the suicide hotline in 2026 for Guy when humanity is still 8 billion strong.


Guy himself doesn't seem depressed or even unhappy at the idea of humanity going extinct, but one of Guy's side businesses is providing counseling services for other people who are suicidally depressed by his claim that humanity will soon go extinct due to global warming.

guymcpherson.com/2014/07/contemplating-suicide-please-click-here

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21263
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby jedrider » Sun 10 Jun 2018, 17:47:17

Ibon wrote:
jedrider wrote:I could not understand how he believes that humanity "will" be wiped out by as soon as 2025. He has a level of certainty that I don't hear elsewhere, so I wonder about that.


We better alert the suicide hotline in 2026 for Guy when humanity is still 8 billion strong.


I'm happy and Guy seems happy, too! Well, there's some existential dread. Possibly the type of dread that the original existential philosophers felt when their world view was overturned by there being no God, no evident purpose to one's existence. Most of us do lead a nice life, with sufficient purpose, that this is no longer an issue. And if it was an issue for us, at least, we can calm the premonition by going shopping :)

I'm mostly interested in the mechanism of extinction. It's a form of gawking, no doubt, but most of us like to feel in control of something. There is no worst (well, one of the worst) feeling than confusion when in peril.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 10 Jun 2018, 18:42:12

Jed, as I understand it, another crucial step for Guy is when--because of local air pollution concerns or economic slowdown--there is a big drop in the amount of aerosols being emitted by coal plants, and when that 'aerosol parasol' falls out of the sky shortly thereafter, global temperature jump by 2C.

That figure is probably too high, which is kind of his modus operandi--pick the worst possible numbers that have ever been generated by science and assume those are the best values rather than outlier, low-probability possibilities. He also doesn't always update to the latest science.

I think he is not as far off as his most vociferous detractors claim. But I think his precise predictions are unlikely to come to fruition exactly along his ridiculously specific time frames.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17429
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby phaster » Thu 05 Jul 2018, 19:59:27

Plantagenet wrote:
Ibon wrote:
jedrider wrote:I could not understand how he believes that humanity "will" be wiped out by as soon as 2025. He has a level of certainty that I don't hear elsewhere, so I wonder about that.


We better alert the suicide hotline in 2026 for Guy when humanity is still 8 billion strong.


Guy himself doesn't seem depressed or even unhappy at the idea of humanity going extinct, but one of Guy's side businesses is providing counseling services for other people who are suicidally depressed by his claim that humanity will soon go extinct due to global warming.

guymcpherson.com/2014/07/contemplating-suicide-please-click-here

Cheers!


based upon math, I know its impossible to predict that humans have 10 years left,... BUT we know from ice core records there have been climate tipping points where average temperatures have gone up 10 degrees C in a decade

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKDVC4HJg7c

which would cause BIG problems in industrial farm food production,... perhaps this is what guy is thinking

actually just happens he will be in my neck of the woods to give a presentation, so guess that might be a good question to ask,....

CLIMATE CHANGE'S MISSING DISCIPLINE

Professor Emeritus, Guy McPherson, conservation biology, University of Arizona, will speak in San Diego. Prof. McPherson defines conservation biology simplistically as having three pillars; habitat, speciation, and extinction. Prof. McPherson will draw from his knowledge and understanding that his discipline (and his emphasis on interdisciplinary interactions) brings to the issue of Climate Change. In a word, McPherson says the main topic should be called Abrupt Climate Change. The title of his July 8th talk is, "Sometimes the Evidence is Right in Front of Our Eyes: Why the Deafening Silence About Abrupt Climate Change?"

When: Sunday, July 8, 2018, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2 ... -86551e98/


anyone have any thoughts about other interesting questions you want me to ask guy???
I'm 99.999% sure that unsustainable conspicuous consumption & economic mismanagement will result with a proverbial hell on earth! But the damage can be reversed if we acknowledge the problem, then use the scientific method to fix the problem.

www.TinyURL.com/DifferentDay
User avatar
phaster
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 02:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby phaster » Thu 05 Jul 2018, 20:13:29

FWIW thought this was interesting,... given climate change perhaps this world record will soon be broken???

Omani town sets temperature record after one of the hottest days ever monitored


On Tuesday 26 June, temperatures soared to record-breaking heights in the town near Muscat. Over the course of 24 hours, the “coolest” that the air reached was a sizzling 42.6 degrees Celsius (108.7 degrees Fahrenheit) – a new record for Highest “low” temperature.

The peak temperature in Quriyat within the same day was 49.8 degrees Celsius (121.6 degrees Fahrenheit) – the temperature at which road surfaces melt!

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/new ... red-531904



Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's emergency response

...Chicago was gripped by one of the city's worst natural disasters: a scorching heat wave that claimed more than 700 victims, mostly the poor, elderly and others on society's margins.

The temperature hit 106 degrees on July 13, 1995, and would hover between the high 90s and low triple digits for the next five days. Dozens of bodies filled the Cook County medical examiner's office. On a single day — July 15 — the number of heat-related deaths reached its highest daily tally of 215; refrigerated trucks were summoned to handle the overflow of corpses.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-c ... story.html



Deadly Degrees: Why Heat Waves Kill So Quickly

...when people with heat exhaustion can't find relief, they can quickly advance to heat stroke. This condition happens when a person's core body temperature rises above 104 degrees F (40 degrees C). (This number is something of an estimate; there are a few degrees' variability among people as to how much internal heat they can tolerate.)

In heat stroke, sweating stops and the skin becomes dry and flushed. The pulse is rapid. The person becomes delirious and may pass out. When trying to compensate for extreme heat, the body dilates the blood vessels in the skin in an attempt to cool the blood.


https://www.livescience.com/55129-how-h ... ickly.html
I'm 99.999% sure that unsustainable conspicuous consumption & economic mismanagement will result with a proverbial hell on earth! But the damage can be reversed if we acknowledge the problem, then use the scientific method to fix the problem.

www.TinyURL.com/DifferentDay
User avatar
phaster
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 02:00:00

Re: The Conspiracy theory thread?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 07 Jul 2018, 23:21:00

This logic reminds me of how AGW deniers try to use a relative handful of scientists blogging or signing some statement expressing doubt in AGW proves that AGW can't be true.


I don't believe in any of this crap. But, when you are dealing with an actual scientific consensus that whole idea is relatively unimportant. If there is a relevant scientific argument being made (in the closed system investigated) it needs to be considered.
In the case of 911 crap there is much supposition but what we all saw was the planes going into the towers. The arguments being made that somehow it was staged, or a US shadow gov't plot is impossible to analyze scientifically. Ochams razor should apply in this analysis I think.
In terms of trying to use the same "holes in the scientific argument" for global warming, it isn't there. There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that point to problems in the current "belief system" regarding global warming. This isn't a few "scientists blogging" it is a lot of scientists around the world publishing papers that in some way or another bring into question the whole theory you and many have about various parts of the argument called AGW. You are not a scientist, that is clear, you do not actually read any of the papers, that is also clear. What is clear is you get your opinions from the press or websites who benefit from the whole idea of a "climate change problem". There is an argument going on out there that is happening in the scientific literature. You do not see it because all you look at is press releases from those who benefit from a certain point of view funding their research.
I would suggest you get better educated on the matter. I personally don't know what the answer/prediction/outcome might be, what I do know is that there is a lot of work being done by many individuals and it all doesn't point in the direction that it seems you want it to point.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Conspiracy theory thread?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 06:09:12

Rockdoc, what utter hogwash! Saying they're is some doubt is NOT equivalent to inferring that AGW theory is suspect and baseless. AGW is grounded in empirical Science. And the geologic record ice cores etc. consistently demonstrate unequivocally the effects of this dynamic. As for scientists not agreeing , it is practicality unanimous
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
And, finally we now have present day events/measurements/records that unambiguously show the EARTH is warming
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: The Conspiracy theory thread?

Unread postby dissident » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 09:35:17

onlooker wrote:Rockdoc, what utter hogwash! Saying they're is some doubt is NOT equivalent to inferring that AGW theory is suspect and baseless. AGW is grounded in empirical Science. And the geologic record ice cores etc. consistently demonstrate unequivocally the effects of this dynamic. As for scientists not agreeing , it is practicality unanimous
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
And, finally we now have present day events/measurements/records that unambiguously show the EARTH is warming


I tend to agree with Richard Lindzen that the consensus argument is not valid. There can be plenty of consensus under various dystopian conditions and on any subject, but that does not imply recognition of the truth. Instead, the consensus in the scientific community today is an indicator of no serious questions about the existing science understanding. The consensus is natural and not forced by the state or political agendas. But it is only with these additional facts, that the consensus can be used as positive evidence for the validity of AGW.

Most of the public confusion on AGW stems from lack of understanding that:

1) O2, N2 and argon which basically account for 99.99999% of the atmosphere are not IR absorbers and without the trace greenhouse gases (CH2, CH4, etc.) the planet would be an ice Hell with the oceans frozen solid and no life possible.

2) The above results from the fact that H2O is not a dry gas but a readily condensing vapour at the temperatures found on this planet. If deniers want H2O to be a convenient excuse for warming being natural, then we need temperatures over 100 C everywhere on the planet. So, no life existing at all. Without the dry greenhouse gases, H2O would condense out over the poles resulting in accumulation of ground ice and snow and ever-increasing albedo, which would induce further condensation due to cooling of the air thanks to less surface shortwave absorption.

3) Humans are currently and for the last 150 years been the leading control on the greenhouse valve. This point is clear to most of those posting here, but out there in sheeple country, people actually believe that volcanoes emit most of the CO2. No they don't. The average volcano emissions are 600 million tons per year, while humans spew 30 billion tons per year at an accelerating pace. Then we have all the CH4 emissions resulting directly and indirectly from human activity.

4) Variability is not a physical process. Deniers love to claim that year on year temperature variations discredit global warming causal link to CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). Yet none of these politically motivated clowns bother to account for the variability. Most of it is merely the shuffling of heat energy between the oceans and the atmosphere (i.e. ENSO, PDO, etc.). Then we have oscillations associated with storm track dynamics such as the NAO and SAO. This partly involves ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but really are mostly dynamical modes of the system. The atmosphere will have such modes (even if they change) under warming and these oscillations are not some proof that there is no warming. None of the facile theories that cloud albedo would counteract global warming have panned out. The atmosphere will remain grey even under extreme conditions. If cloud albedo was such a big deal, then Venus would not have over 700 K surface temperatures.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: The Conspiracy theory thread?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 11:11:40

Rockdoc, what utter hogwash! Saying they're is some doubt is NOT equivalent to inferring that AGW theory is suspect and baseless. AGW is grounded in empirical Science. And the geologic record ice cores etc. consistently demonstrate unequivocally the effects of this dynamic. As for scientists not agreeing , it is practicality unanimous


So you are claiming there are no papers that call into question any aspect of the idea that man is responsible for most of the warming noted and that there is a catastrophy on the way because of that?
IF so then you truly are ill-informed. Over the years I've posted reference to numerous papers published in the peer-reviewed literature that question various aspects and point to interpretations that call into question a number of aspects of the arguments that fall into the AGW area.
Empirical science? Really? You must be joking. The forecasts are all model-based and depend on climate sensitivities that a large number of recent papers believe are too high. Few here actually understand that in order for CO2 to have an impact at all it requires numerous positive feedbacks in the system. You want empirical? Here is a plot of observed temperatures (that would be empirical) verus a wide range of CMIP5 models currently in use :
Image
What does that tell you?

There are very few scientists who question that man-made greenhouse gases can have an impact, the question has always been how much. This is why climate sensitivities studies are extremely relevant.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Conspiracy theory thread?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 11:37:10

You obviously ignored or did not read what Dissident wrote Sunshine. See his no. 4 remark. And again you are citing doubt about the degree and speed of temperature rise and warming to refute the entire theory? Really. Just because we cannot know exactly this progression does nothing to disqualify the hard scientific certainty of the processes involved and their eventual outcome. See again what Dissident wrote comments 1 and 2 about the details and FACTS that most laypeople are oblivious to including it seems yourself. This is empirical science not models. Nor do we need models to know that trace gases such as CO2 and CH4 have a strong heat trapping effect see Dissident comment 1.
The only relevance of the models is to try and project the level of warming to be expected going forward. And real world data over the past few years is for the most part ahead of what the time intervals indicated by the models are showing. Meaning effects such as the Arctic sea ice melting are progressing much faster than the models predicted. As for the temperature lag, it has been many times here explained that the ocean inertia and sink function is responsible for this. And that as this process unwinds these same oceans will begin releasing the CO2 and then temperatures will rise rapidly. Face it your arguments are bankrupt and your sources almost certainly have a nexus with your industry.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:22:33

phaster wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:Guy himself doesn't seem depressed or even unhappy at the idea of humanity going extinct, but one of Guy's side businesses is providing counseling services for other people who are suicidally depressed by his claim that humanity will soon go extinct due to global warming.

guymcpherson.com/2014/07/contemplating-suicide-please-click-here

Cheers!


based upon math, I know its impossible to predict that humans have 10 years left,... BUT we know from ice core records there have been climate tipping points where average temperatures have gone up 10 degrees C in a decade

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKDVC4HJg7c

which would cause BIG problems in industrial farm food production,... perhaps this is what guy is thinking

actually just happens he will be in my neck of the woods to give a presentation, so guess that might be a good question to ask,....

anyone have any thoughts about other interesting questions you want me to ask guy???


Actually the ice core record tells us about REGIONAL 10 C temperature jumps, not GLOBAL scale events. A lot of people seem to be confused about this and I don't understand why that is. There are two scales you can read from an ice core, one tells you what is happening where the ice core is forming and in the waters evaporating to make the snow that becomes that ice core. The other scale tells you what is happening on a broader scale over the entire surface of the Earth. Those 10C jumps are NOT repeat NOT the global average temperature, they are the regional temperature.

You can prove this to yourself logically with a tiny thought experiment. At the depths of major glaciation the Earth average temperature is 10C-11C. During a minor glaciation like we have right now with a frozen Greenland and frozen Antarctica the world temperature average climbs to 12C-13C world average. HOWEVER in say Ottawa, Canada or Stockholm, Sweden the regional temperature difference between major glaciation and minor glaciation like we have today is about +10C. In fact all the ice cores you could have gotten in those two locations 20,000 ybp melted away from the climate shift and no longer exist.

Further example, today we are up to about 14C global temperatures and the amplification effect means Greenland is becoming an unstable ice sheet, though it is not yet undergoing massive shedding events like those many predict including myself. When GLOBAL temperatures were around 17C-18C in the past there were no tropical mountain glaciers, Greenland island was covered in forests and roughly a third of Antarctica was ice free. During Global warm periods the scale tops out around 22C average with only one proven excursion and another theorized that went about those temperatures fro brief periods of time on the geological scale, say 10,000 years more or less.

The Earth climate system has massive shifts at different temperature stages, but it also has inherent limits as to how hot it can get at this distance from the sun with an atmosphere more or less the same as the current atmosphere, or on the other end how cold it can get either. Even with zero CO2 and snow everywhere reflecting sunlight creating a snowball Earth scenario it doesn't get cold enough to kill everything, and at the extreme hothouse end it doesn't get hot enough to kill everything either. These end point temperatures are set by the laws of physics, not something humans have any control over.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14770
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Conspiracy theory thread?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:39:43

You obviously ignored or did not read what Dissident wrote Sunshine. See his no. 4 remark. And again you are citing doubt about the degree and speed of temperature rise and warming to refute the entire theory? Really


What? Please explain as I don't think you understand the graph at all. Measured temperatures do not match models.
And you must be illiterate if you can't understand what I said. Nobody argues the fact that manmade greenhouse gases can have an impact, it is the degree to which they have an impact. I really do not think you have a clue what "AGW" theory entails or how it has been applied. If ECS tends toward the lower range of many of the current estimates there will be very little impact on temperature for CO2 doubling.

Just because we cannot know exactly this progression does nothing to disqualify the hard scientific certainty of the processes involved and their eventual outcome. See again what Dissident wrote comments 1 and 2 about the details and FACTS that most laypeople are oblivious to including it seems yourself. This is empirical science not models. Nor do we need models to know that trace gases such as CO2 and CH4 have a strong heat trapping effect see Dissident comment 1.


ONce again the fact that greenhouse gases can have an impact does not tell us how much impact. And that is what the whole argument is about. There is a raft of literature out there over the past two decades that looks to understanding internal variability within the climate system. Dissident wants to portray this as somehow being unimportant when in fact it is an area that is subject to a lot of research including the effects of ENSO and AMO.

There are two camps. One which says climate is generally stable and that change is caused by external inputs with CO2 being the primary control knob and that CO2 is amplified by known factors. The other says climate is dynamic with change primarily occurring naturally, a highly complex dynamical system with no simple cause and effect. In this case climate shifts in unexpected ways with a key-driver of large scale ocean circulations and changes in cloudiness. And as to the claim by dissident that clouds are somehow unimportant then exactly why would the International Space Science Institute conduct a workshop on Shallow Clouds, Water vapor, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity in 2017 and publish a book with 15 chapters covering the numerous presentations made? From the Preface to the book:
Pincus et al, 2017. Preface to the Special Issue “ISSI Workshop on Shallow Clouds and Water Vapor, Circulation and Climate Senstitivity”. Surveys in Geophysics, V38. Pp 1171 - 1172

It has been known for more than a decade that an understanding of factors controlling the distribution and amount of the low-level, fair-weather, clouds over the tropical oceans is critical for determining Earth’s climate sensitivity. What has become clear only recently is that these clouds do not simply respond passively to the large-scale circulations in which they form. Studies of clouds and circulations across a range of scales, enabled by increasing computational power, have shown that clouds help set these circulations through their interactions with radiation. Radiative cooling from low clouds drives low-level temperature and pressure gradients that reinforce the regions of gentle subsidence in which they prevail. This pathway is also thought to be responsible for the clustering—or self-aggregation—of deep convection seen in simulations with spatially uniform forcing. The relevance of self-aggregation behavior to clouds on Earth was one theme emerging from the workshop.
Water vapor, like clouds, interacts powerfully with radiant energy, and there is a longstanding appreciation that water vapor influences Earth’s climate sensitivity, especially through changes in water near the tropopause. But as several papers in this collection highlight, small departures in the relative humidity of the lower atmosphere can be just as important in influencing Earth’s radiative balance. Moreover, perhaps no other quantity is as important for patterning the distribution of deep convection. Despite the importance of lower tropospheric humidity for a vast array of climate relevant processes it is poorly characterized in the absence of field campaign measurements, largely because current remote sensing techniques have difficulty unambiguously detecting the structure of water vapor in the tropical boundary layer.


The only relevance of the models is to try and project the level of warming to be expected going forward. And real world data over the past few years is for the most part ahead of what the time intervals indicated by the models are showing


that is complete and utter horseshit. I just showed you a graph plotting the most recent CMIP5 models versus measured temperatures. There is no match.

Meaning effects such as the Arctic sea ice melting are progressing much faster than the models predicted. As for the temperature lag, it has been many times here explained that the ocean inertia and sink function is responsible for this. And that as this process unwinds these same oceans will begin releasing the CO2 and then temperatures will rise rapidly. Face it your arguments are bankrupt and your sources almost certainly have a nexus with your industry.


And Antarctic is not behaving as the models predict, nor is sea level rise when you take into account the balance, etc, etc. There are as many if not more areas of prediction in the models that have failed than have given reasonable projections. Perhaps you need to read AR5...not the summary for idiots but rather the actual research chapters.
As to my sources, you must be joking. I base my views on published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Science, Nature etc etc. Nothing from any "industry" publications. Your views are not based on the available literature, your views are based on websites that only show a narrow view that ignores a massive amount of literature.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:45:07

Tanada,
I like your posts because they give me hope and because they are practical. I’m in no position to know for sure what the future brings, I have to listen to others debate.

Since we are discussing existential threats here is my short list of humanities 5 biggest problems.

1- over population
2- climate change
3- global financial crisi
4- reaource depletion (oil, water, soli, etc.)
5- anti-biotic resistant infections

Taken individually their may he actions that are possible, but not likely. Taken as a whole they represent a very difficult interrelated set of problems that build on one another to produce substantial challenges to our viability.

I’m pretty sure you and I, not anyone here, will never know the final outcome. I’m likewise sure we will have a very deep die- off.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10509
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:59:59

To me the scariest continues to be climate change due to its implication in past Mass Extinction Events. And its runaway potential because of feedbacks. I am sure everything Tanada just said is true but the runaway effect overwhelms regional variance, so that the planet as a whole will experience a profound change of climate regimes. And remember the speed of change is important too both in the ability or lack of life to adapt and for geologic processes or negative feedbacks to attenuate this warming momentum
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 13:16:22

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17429
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby phaster » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 14:29:27

Tanada wrote:Actually the ice core record tells us about REGIONAL 10 C temperature jumps, not GLOBAL scale events. A lot of people seem to be confused about this and I don't understand why that is. There are two scales you can read from an ice core, one tells you what is happening where the ice core is forming and in the waters evaporating to make the snow that becomes that ice core. The other scale tells you what is happening on a broader scale over the entire surface of the Earth. Those 10C jumps are NOT repeat NOT the global average temperature, they are the regional temperature.


FWIW yup vary aware the ice core records from iceland ONLY indicate large swings of temperature in only the "regional" area,... BUT as the youtube video illustrates (starting at 3 min 10 sec),

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKDVC4HJg7c

a "region" is a BIG area (say where there is established large scale farms)

what I'm trying to point out is, if there were a large 10 degree C change in the bread basket region in the span of a decade,... my guess is there would be lots of "crop yield" failures

by the time farmers and the markets realized what was happening, whole new regions would have to have infrastructure designed, financed and built,... as it stands it might take a few years to do an EIR study required by government,...

bottom line,... given chaotic weather patterns mankind as a whole might not to able to adapt in fast enough during the darwin flush (i.e. dramatic local event), which then causes conflict over the scarse resources,... or said another way in a world where climate change upends large scale ag production, it will be about survival of fittest

Idiocracy

As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E


Idiocracy Corollary,... a reversion to the mean, happens via a darwin flush event
Attachments
Darwin award for climate mismanagement (600 x 600).gif
Darwin award for climate mismanagement (600 x 600).gif (40.29 KiB) Viewed 2371 times
I'm 99.999% sure that unsustainable conspicuous consumption & economic mismanagement will result with a proverbial hell on earth! But the damage can be reversed if we acknowledge the problem, then use the scientific method to fix the problem.

www.TinyURL.com/DifferentDay
User avatar
phaster
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 02:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests