ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[billvon]

Talk about fake news. That guy had nothing to do with Greenpeace.

Well, he used to be president of Greenpeace Canada - that's where they got "he's a founder!" So he did have something to do with them, just not what Breitbart is claiming.

 

[MJSfoto1956]

Talk about fake news. That guy had nothing to do with Greenpeace.

Well, he used to be president of Greenpeace Canada - that's where they got "he's a founder!" So he did have something to do with them, just not what Breitbart is claiming.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It matters not. He's a guy with a grudge and an agenda who is a paid propagandist for the oil lobby. At the very least, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. A more logical approach would be a wholesale rejection and dismissal of anything he says since his patently lack of transparency poisons his whole spiel.

 

[neptronix]

I was reading some bombastic article about global warming a few days ago and found at least one thing that looks like a fact and not just wild speculation / doom 'n gloom.

The ocean is projected to rise 0.3 inches a year, which means in 40 years, it will be up by 1 foot. Current rate of rise is something like 0.1-0.2 inches per year.

A common projection for how far the ocean COULD rise if all the ice melted is about 200 feet.

Assuming that the ocean rose at a steady rate of 0.3 inches per year, it would take 8000 years to reach the scenario of 200 feet rise of ocean.

I think we can find some kind of low carbon energy solution in the next 40 years. If not, we have another couple millennia before shit has hit the fan 100%

 

[neptronix]

Talk about fake news. That guy had nothing to do with Greenpeace. He's a paid oil lobbyist. The sad thing is that people just regurgitate this stuff thinking it is real. And agreeing with such overt propaganda makes you part of the problem.

Moore was the president of Greenpeace Canada for 9 years and saved them from fiscal insolvency in it's early days. Even went down on a ship they were operating when the French government attacked it.

So he was involved at a high degree. He may not have technically been a co-founder, but his impact in the organization was large.

You may find him to be a despicable human being today, but his reasons for flipping positions are very interesting.
I would recommend giving an interview with him a good read/watch when you are feeling open minded.

( and for the record, i do not necessarily support his positions. )

 

[MJSfoto1956]

Assuming that the ocean rose at a steady rate of 0.3 inches per year, it would take 8000 years to reach the scenario of 200 feet rise of ocean.

A couple of false assumptions here.

• #1: just two feet would be enough to flood every coastal city to the tune of many trillions of dollars damage each year.

• #2: the oceans could rise that much (and more) in just decade if the Greenland ice sheet slid into the ocean (which it appears to be in the early stages of doing).

Basically, it is a bad bet to assume nothing is going to happen in our lifetimes. It is an even worse bet to assume it won't affect our children.

YMMV.

M

 

[billvon]

I think we can find some kind of low carbon energy solution in the next 40 years.

We absolutely can - but it will cost trillions. Nuclear, for example, which is a very low carbon solution, is the most expensive form of electric power we have.

So if the mantra is "no real worries! Everything will be FINE!" then those trillions will go to bigger SUV's and burgers.

Climate change isn't going to be the end of the world. We will see sea level rise, loss of coral reefs, large extinctions and changes in extreme weather. A rich guy living in Denver is probably going to be just fine; he can afford higher prices for water and food. But for the people living near the water in Bangladesh, it may not be so fine. And that's not alarmism; that's based on the best science we have.

As you said, we can find alternative sources of energy. But we have to take the problem seriously to do that, not treat it like a big, overblown joke.

 

[neptronix]

A couple of false assumptions here.

• #1: just two feet would be enough to flood every coastal city to the tune of many trillions of dollars damage each year.

• #2: the oceans could rise that much (and more) in just decade if the Greenland ice sheet slid into the ocean (which it appears to be in the early stages of doing).

Basically, it is a bad bet to assume nothing is going to happen in our lifetimes. It is an even worse bet to assume it won't affect our children.

Two feet? Okay, in the worst case scenario, we have 80 years to save those cities, assuming the worst case scenario of water rise starts immediately. The best case is that we have 200 years.

I think that is more than ample time to sort out what to do with energy. Do you agree?


Greenland ice sheet sliding into the ocean may not come to pass. Just like all the other scary things that never happened:
+ runaway effect
+ 'artic summers ice free by 2013'
+ etc

I think the safest bet is that the catastrophe does not happen. 999 times out of 1000, it doesn't.
Peak oil, asteroids hitting the earth, the dollar crash, nuclear war with Russia, Hitler taking over, a new civil war, the return of christ, aliens, peak population by 1970, the new world order, the ozone hole killing us all, the mayan prophecy, global cooling, etc.

You are, most often, falling for someone's spook story when you believe that the end is near.
I am not making that bet and letting that sit in my psyche and brew. Been there, done that with peak oil in the late 2000's.

 

[Chalo]

Even sudden, consequential, and revolutionary developments on a global scale take enough time to unfold that the changing conditions can be taken for granted. That's how AGW and peak oil and the population bomb are expressing themselves-- just slowly enough that folks can personally face scarcity, natural disaster, added expenses and price spikes due to these things, but still not place the credit where it's due.

 

[billvon]

Two feet? Okay, in the worst case scenario, we have 80 years to save those cities, assuming the worst case scenario of water rise starts immediately.

Right. And the energy to do that - to run construction equipment, run pumps, build new buildings, elevate roads - will come from. . .oil?

One of the problems here is that it's going to be incredibly expensive to get away from oil. Oil is still relatively cheap, even after the transition to tight oil. That represents capital - the capital that is saved by NOT switching to nuclear for electricity, for example.

So let's say we take your approach. We have ample time. No need to get excited. It's a spook story. The water is rising slowly.

Then the subways start to flood. And geez - wouldn't you know it? - our national debt is kind of high. No extra cash to build those levees and pumps. So we'll cancel all that money that was going to support nuclear and solar, and use it for those pumps. After all, there's no emergency, we're just a little tight on money. We'll do the low carbon stuff later.

Then farm yields drop off due to higher temperatures. Oh man, and now the deficit is even higher. We'll have to switch back to coal because we have a lot of that and it's cheap. And start pumping down the Great Lakes.

Now we have water problems. Hey, Canada has a whole lot of water, and they're willing to sell it. But wow that canal is going to be expensive!

Huh. Now the temperature is rising faster. Certainly not our fault. But with the food problems and the flooding problems and the water shortage, we don't have any money for your pie in the sky "low carbon energy solution" ideas. What are you, crazy? We have bigger problems.

 

[neptronix]

I think we can find some kind of low carbon energy solution in the next 40 years.

We absolutely can - but it will cost trillions. Nuclear, for example, which is a very low carbon solution, is the most expensive form of electric power we have.

A planet lined with solar panels or wind turbines is also hugely expensive. Continuing to burn fossil fuels is hugely expensive too because of collateral damage. The one thing that AGW skeptics and alarmists have to face is that the energy demands of our modern cushy lives are too high, and there are way too many of us living this kind of lifestyle. Nobody wants to look down the barrel of that gun. They would rather argue about the most optimal way to continue.

Climate change isn't going to be the end of the world. We will see sea level rise, loss of coral reefs, large extinctions and changes in extreme weather. A rich guy living in Denver is probably going to be just fine; he can afford higher prices for water and food. But for the people living near the water in Bangladesh, it may not be so fine.

Things have got to be bad for us to change. But the earth has wiped it's surface clean, and it has been repopulated multiple times over history. I would feel sorry for those living in Bangladesh who did not see the writing in the wall, but i do doubt we won't find a band aid to save them in the amount of time we need.

As you said, we can find alternative sources of energy. But we have to take the problem seriously to do that, not treat it like a big, overblown joke.

It gets treated as a big overblown joke because there is a segment of the western population making it into one by being dishonest about how bad the problem is and what is attributed to natural cycles versus what we can pin global warming on.

Somewhere in the middle of the hysteria and the heads in the sand is the truth.
But as usual, we are divided into two political camps and our job is to be at each other's throats, rather than the people who call the shots.

There's a gazillion dollars being spent globally on energy research, and at least a million very smart people being involved in that. So we *are* aware of the problem, it's just that finding a substitute for fossil fuels to continue using energy to this degree is picking high hanging fruit.

My bet is that we will find an energy solution that will extend the time we have to live a cushy life on this planet. ( then we can start worrying about some other element of our environmental destruction and be miserable over that, lol )

 

[billvon]

A planet lined with solar panels or wind turbines is also hugely expensive.

Yes. Those things aren't so expensive per watt of power generated compared to other forms of energy, but the infrastructure to support them (VERY long transmission lines, batteries, pumped storage) is.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels is hugely expensive too because of collateral damage.

Also agreed. But it's not expensive NOW. It's expensive tomorrow, so it can be put off until tomorrow. Forever.

The one thing that AGW skeptics and alarmists have to face is that the energy demands of our modern cushy lives are too high, and there are way too many of us living this kind of lifestyle. Nobody wants to look down the barrel of that gun.

Yes. And the only way to a soft landing there is 1) use less energy and 2) make sure that energy is cleaner.

Things have got to be bad for us to change. But the earth has wiped it's surface clean, and it has been repopulated multiple times over history. I would feel sorry for those living in Bangladesh who did not see the writing in the wall . . .

Well, see, that's the thing. Many of them do. Not just because they are "dishonest about how bad the problem is" or what have you - but because they are seeing the effects firsthand, and are smart enough to know where they are coming from and where they are going. But they are powerless to change what we (the people emitting the CO2) do.

My bet is that we will find an energy solution that will extend the time we have to live a cushy life on this planet.

Only if we treat it as a serious problem, one deserving of the trillions of dollars that solution will cost. It will surely be cheaper than living with the costs of climate change - but again, even claiming that gets one labeled as a clueless alarmist. Here I am labeled a troll for even suggesting it, and this is less rancorous than many forums out there.

 

[neptronix]

Nice reply. I only have one thing to respond to, then.

Here I am labeled a troll for even suggesting it, and this is less rancorous than many forums out there.

That's based on your behavior towards others more than your individual positions. Yet you are pretty level headed when you talk to me.

There's quite a few people here who would fit the definition of a troll, and that has nothing to do with their positions.

Calling someone a troll or a racist or a sexist or literally hitler instead of having a real human conversation is all the rage these days, and it's sad to see, especially on a forum where the IQ is at least a couple notches above average.

 

[MJSfoto1956]

Two feet? Okay, in the worst case scenario, we have 80 years to save those cities, assuming the worst case scenario of water rise starts immediately. The best case is that we have 200 years.

Um no. Worst case is 20 years from now, the non-linear system which is our climate bifurcates and it goes into uncontrollable, unpredictable feedback loops. The best case might be as much as 200 years but I'd bet 100 is more like the best-case scenario.

From a risk mitigation perspective, not a good bet to ignore it given the potential disastrous downsides. In other words, we are playing with fire and we are being cavalier with the next generation. This angle is also known as the Precautionary Principal. See https://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html.

Michael

 

[Punx0r]

CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years so even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, excess global temperature and melting are locked in. This is even before considering any positive feedback loops.

Claiming we have a long time before needing to act before risking anything bad is just wrong. Pretending to take a middle-of-the-road approach between the false dichotomy of "denier" and "alarmist" isn't the intellectual way, it's just a more disingenuous form of denialism.

 

[Punx0r]

I would feel sorry for those living in Bangladesh who did not see the writing in the wall, but i do doubt we won't find a band aid to save them in the amount of time we need.

This is one of the most callous things I've read in a while. The Western world caused the damage to the planet that threatens those impoverished people, but it's their own fault for not having been born somewhere nicer, and it's a lot of effort to help them, so oh, well, they're just collateral damage? Sucks to be them! Lol...

 

[neptronix]

This is one of the most callous things I've read in a while. The Western world caused the damage to the planet that threatens those impoverished people, but it's their own fault for not having been born somewhere nicer, and it's a lot of effort to help them, so oh, well, they're just collateral damage? Sucks to be them! Lol...

I never said it was their fault or that we shouldn't help them.
I'm saying that they should probably come up with a plan, having been given time, to adapt, migrate, or whatever else.
Because there is zero indication that the west is going to do anything about the path it's sent the planet on.

The most callous thing to do is to ignore what is going on and not talk about it.

 

[neptronix]

Claiming we have a long time before needing to act before risking anything bad is just wrong. Pretending to take a middle-of-the-road approach between the false dichotomy of "denier" and "alarmist" isn't the intellectual way, it's just a more disingenuous form of denialism.

I never claimed that. Scroll up and re-read.

As for the next sentence, that reminds me a lot of George Bush's idea of 'you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists' style thinking. I am not insulted that you think i fit the denier camp, when it's coming from someone whose mind works like that.

 

[neptronix]

Um no. Worst case is 20 years from now, the non-linear system which is our climate bifurcates and it goes into uncontrollable, unpredictable feedback loops. The best case might be as much as 200 years but I'd bet 100 is more like the best-case scenario.

I've been hearing about uncontrollable, unpredictable feedback loops since the 90's when i first heard of the idea of global warming, but it is one of those things that is speculative and non-testable, so it's not something i'd bet on.

It reminds me of all the fears of meteor strikes. Another thing that's a real threat, but highly improbable. We were frequently told that we should be afraid of that, and other things before climate change became a big concern.

From a risk mitigation perspective, not a good bet to ignore it given the potential disastrous downsides. In other words, we are playing with fire and we are being cavalier with the next generation. This angle is also known as the Precautionary Principal. See https://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html.

You'll have no disagreement for me on that. But i see little evidence of preparation for disaster anywhere. There's also a lot of talk about doing something about the problem we're creating, and a whole lot of finger pointing and divisive rhetoric, but very little action. And technological solutions appear to be very high hanging fruit.

Let me ask you this - do you think there's any turning back?

The way i see it is that we are going to fall off the cliff someday, but you should enjoy the ride while it lasts.. instead of live the life you were gifted in perpetual terror thanks to the constant reminder from the media etc about how X, Y, or Z thing is going to end it all for us.

 

[MJSfoto1956]

I've been hearing about uncontrollable, unpredictable feedback loops since the 90's when i first heard of the idea [sic] of global warming, but it is one of those things that is speculative and non-testable, so it's not something i'd bet on.

I guess you're unfamiliar with chaos theory then. Here's a primer: https://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

As for adopting the Precautionary Principal with regards to risk mitigation (i.e. betting), here a take by one of the foremost statisticians in the world on the matter: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/climateletter.pdf and http://nassimtaleb.org/tag/climate/

...There's also a lot of talk about doing something about the problem we're creating, and a whole lot of finger pointing and divisive rhetoric, but very little action.

I would suggest investing the time to familiarize yourself (and your friends) with this program which shows the way forward: https://www.drawdown.org

Care to invest the time to read these and then comment?

M

 

[neptronix]

I guess you're unfamiliar with chaos theory then. Here's a primer: https://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

I'm familiar with chaos theory ( i'm the lead programmer for an online math school, and also get tasked with proofreading math content sometimes ). I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation though.

As for adopting the Precautionary Principal with regards to risk mitigation (i.e. betting), here a take by one of the foremost statisticians in the world on the matter: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/climateletter.pdf and http://nassimtaleb.org/tag/climate/

The climateletter.pdf is more of a short opnion piece and the nassim taleb one is above my head and full of graphs and equations about black swan events.

I don't understand what you're getting at with these links and would rather hear a response from your own viewpoint.

...There's also a lot of talk about doing something about the problem we're creating, and a whole lot of finger pointing and divisive rhetoric, but very little action.

I would suggest investing the time to familiarize yourself (and your friends) with this program which shows the way forward: https://www.drawdown.org

Care to invest the time to read these and then comment?

M

I looked over that site when you mentioned it before and i think i commented on it.

I already follow a lot of the best practices and have tried to get others to follow them ( unsuccessfully ).
I think the drawdown site is overly focused on co2 to a fault, but it's a good place to start, in regards to what the average person can do.

Most people still won't give a shit about trying those things though.. let's be honest

 

[MJSfoto1956]

I'm familiar with chaos theory ( i'm the lead programmer for an online math school, and also get tasked with proofreading math content sometimes ). I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation though.

Really? You are kidding, right?

The climateletter.pdf is more of a short opnion [sic] piece and the nassim taleb one is above my head and full of graphs and equations about black swan events.

Um, same guy. Also, same math as chaos theory btw. Are you really sure you "understand" chaos theory? Please don't tell me you one of those IYI types that Nassim loves to deride...

I think the drawdown site is overly focused on co2 to a fault...

CO2 is what Nassim is talking about. How can you understand something but not understand it at the same time?

I already follow a lot of the best practices and have tried to get others to follow them ( unsuccessfully ).
Most people still won't give a shit about trying those things though.. let's be honest

Hence, the need for government/communal action. "The Market" will never lift a finger to address it.

 

[neptronix]

I have a very surface level understanding of chaos theory, however i don't see how it's useful to get into unless we're discussing specific things that will kick off a major event.

Let me get back to what i was saying before. I have heard many theories about a climate runaway effect as the result of X or Y thing. Often from respected scientists ( or at least respected in their own circle ). It is usually related to a large body of ice falling into the ocean, and the doomsday scenario assumes that the earth does not have a counterbalance to that force. Sometimes the runaway story isn't even that specific ( but some people believe it anyway ).

Are there any models of these disaster scenarios?

I'm just saying i wouldn't bet on any of these major catastrophic events, given the track record.. the best bet to make is that we will not be prepared and some shit will go down, and in a way, it's necessary for something like that to happen. So kick back and enjoy the popcorn..

I think the drawdown site is overly focused on co2 to a fault...

CO2 is what Nassim is talking about. How can you understand something but not understand it at the same time?

I understand he's talking about co2. I'm referring to the drawdown site and how it overly focuses on co2. Some of the solutions for co2 reduction create other kinds of nasty pollution, trading one environmental problem for another.
Drawdown is a good starting point, but of course we can do better ( and deal with all the non-co2 related damages )

I already follow a lot of the best practices and have tried to get others to follow them ( unsuccessfully ).
Most people still won't give a shit about trying those things though.. let's be honest

Hence, the need for government/communal action. "The Market" will never lift a finger to address it.[/quote]

The government, the market, and the commune are all made up of the same people, albeit in different roles.
And there are a lot of younger people who have started companies that are trying to do good. Don't write them off. The biggest problem is that there aren't enough of those.

 

[MJSfoto1956]

...And there are a lot of younger people who have started companies that are trying to do good. Don't write them off. The biggest problem is that there aren't enough of those.

Which means we need to get out of the way and let them lead.

I have faith in their generation.
Not so much in mine (baby boomer).
Nor so much in the generation that followed mine.

.

 

[neptronix]

...And there are a lot of younger people who have started companies that are trying to do good. Don't write them off. The biggest problem is that there aren't enough of those.

Which means we need to get out of the way and let them lead.

I have faith in their generation.
Not so much in mine (baby boomer).
Nor so much in the generation that followed mine.

I agree, although i think some of the values of the millenials and generation Z will do them in in other ways while they're busy calculating ways to shave carbon dioxide off everything and make everyone equal.

Then there'll be some other predicted catastrophe that will be the next generation's problem. And so on and so forth. Such is life

 

[Punx0r]

In short: "Well, even IF we are changing the climate there's nothing we can do about it"

Remind me, which stage of the Denier mantra is that?

I would feel sorry for those living in Bangladesh who did not see the writing in the wall, but i do doubt we won't find a band aid to save them in the amount of time we need.

"I would feel sorry" = "I don't feel sorry for them"
"those..who did not see the writing on the wall" = "they had warning but failed to act to save themselves"
"I...doubt we won't find a band aid to save them" = "sounds like a lot of work, so...meh..."

I never said it was their fault or that we shouldn't help them.
I'm saying that they should probably come up with a plan, having been given time, to adapt, migrate, or whatever else.

Considering the U.S. still refuses to engage with the Paris Climate agreement and plenty in the U.S., including the government and the president, deny climate change, when exactly did their warning start? Plenty on this forum would claim there's nothing to report with regards the climate. Furthermore, even if they had a warning, what do you think they ought to have done to "adapt", considering many literally don't have pot to piss in? Grow gills?