How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:13 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... study-says

Risks of 'domino effect' of tipping points greater than thought, study says

Scientists warn policymakers not to ignore links, and stress that ‘every action counts’

Jonathan Watts Thu 20 Dec 2018 19.00 GMT Last modified on Thu 20 Dec 2018 19.01 GMT

Policymakers have severely underestimated the risks of ecological tipping points, according to a study that shows 45% of all potential environmental collapses are interrelated and could amplify one another.

The authors said their paper, published in the journal Science, highlights how overstressed and overlapping natural systems are combining to throw up a growing number of unwelcome surprises.

“The risks are greater than assumed because the interactions are more dynamic,” said Juan Rocha of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “The important message is to recognise the wickedness of the problem that humanity faces.”

The study collated existing research on ecosystem transitions that can irreversibly tip to another state, such as coral reefs bleaching and being overrun by algae, forests becoming savannahs and ice sheets melting into oceans. It then cross-referenced the 30 types of shift to examine the impacts they might have on one another and human society.

Only 19% were entirely isolated. Another 36% shared a common cause, but were not likely to interact. The remaining 45% had the potential to create either a one-way domino effect or mutually reinforcing feedbacks.

Among the latter pairings were Arctic ice sheets and boreal forests. When the former melt, there is less ice to reflect the sun’s heat so the temperature of the planet rises. This increases the risks of forest fires, which discharge carbon into the air that adds to the greenhouse effect, which melts more ice. Although geographically distant, each amplifies the other.

By contrast, a one-way domino-type impact is that between coral reefs and mangrove forests. When the former are destroyed, it weakens coastal defences and exposes mangroves to storms and ocean surges.

The deforestation of the Amazon is responsible for multiple “cascading effects” – weakening rain systems, forests becoming savannah, and reduced water supplies for cities like São Paulo and crops in the foothills of the Andes. This, in turn, increases the pressure for more land clearance.

Until recently, the study of tipping points was controversial, but it is increasingly accepted as an explanation for climate changes that are happening with more speed and ferocity than earlier computer models predicted. The loss of coral reefs and Arctic sea ice may already be past the point of no return. There are signs the Antarctic is heading the same way faster than thought.

Co-author Garry Peterson said the tipping of the west Antarctic ice shelf was not on the radar of many scientists 10 years ago, but now there was overwhelming evidence of the risks – including losses of chunks of ice the size of New York – and some studies now suggest the tipping point may have already been passed by the southern ice sheet, which may now be releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

“We’re surprised at the rate of change in the Earth system. So much is happening at the same time and at a faster speed than we would have thought 20 years ago. That’s a real concern,” said Peterson. “We’re heading ever faster towards the edge of a cliff.”

The fourth most downloaded academic research of 2018 was the Hothouse Earth paper, which considered how tipping points could combine to push the global climate into an uninhabitable state.

The authors of the new paper say their work goes beyond climate studies by mapping a wider range of ecological stress points, such as biodiversity loss, agricultural expansion, urbanisation and soil erosion. It also focuses more on what is happening at the local level now, rather than projecting geo-planetary trends into the future.

“We’re looking at things that affect people in their daily lives. They’re things that are happening today,” said Peterson. “There is a positive message as it expands the range of options for action. It is not just at an international level. Mayors can also make a difference by addressing soil erosion, or putting in place social policies that place less stress on the environment, or building up natural coastal defences.”

Rocha has spent 10 years building a database of tipping points, or “regime shifts” as he calls them. He urges policymakers to adopt a similar interdisciplinary approach so they can better grasp what is happening.

“We’re trying to connect the dots between different research communities,” said Rocha. “Governments also need to look more at interactions. They should stop compartmentalising ministries like agriculture, fisheries and international relations and try to manage environmental problems by embracing the diversity of causes and mechanisms underlying them. Policies need to match the scale of the problem.

“It’s a little depressing knowing we are not on a trajectory to keep our ecosystem in a functional state, but these connections are also a reason for hope; good management in one place can prevent severe environmental degradation elsewhere. Every action counts.”
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:50 pm

BenDhyan » Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:21 am wrote:
...snip...


I understand you believe in, and are concerned about the more extreme predictions of increase in global temperature, but my view takes into consideration the view of some respected climate scientists who are skeptical, and thus am not worried about the extreme claims.

Beyond that, I don't worry about climate at all, nor fwiw, any other of the prevailing possible doom and gloom end time scenarios of the world, I just use my time to enjoy the opportunity this life has provided me to experience the awesome wonders of existence. If some planetary disaster were to occur, so be it, bed wetting about these possible scenarios is not my way.


What respected climate scientists? Name names.

What I believe or not about the most extreme predictions (which btw are now more and more considered too conservative) is irrelevant. What I do believe is that it is insane to take the risk. We don't have a plan B. If we screw it up (with a helping hand from you and your fellow travelers) we can't fix it, and we're talking about the ecosystem that supports human civilization. You're saying it's okay to gamble with the future of humanity. I say that's fucking stupid.

And of course you don't worry about climate change. You'll be dead and buried when/if it really hits the fan. It's easy to burn down a house when you know for a fact you won't have to live in the rubble.

Also: we're not talking about "some planetary disaster" that we can't avoid, like a giant meteor or a supernova. We're talking about "some planetary disaster" that we know for a fact we're responsible for, and we know how to avoid it. You might as well have said "I don't worry about crashing the car" while stepping on the gas and aiming for the nearest brick wall.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:13 pm

DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:50 am wrote:
BenDhyan » Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:21 am wrote:
...snip...


I understand you believe in, and are concerned about the more extreme predictions of increase in global temperature, but my view takes into consideration the view of some respected climate scientists who are skeptical, and thus am not worried about the extreme claims.

Beyond that, I don't worry about climate at all, nor fwiw, any other of the prevailing possible doom and gloom end time scenarios of the world, I just use my time to enjoy the opportunity this life has provided me to experience the awesome wonders of existence. If some planetary disaster were to occur, so be it, bed wetting about these possible scenarios is not my way.


What respected climate scientists? Name names.

What I believe or not about the most extreme predictions (which btw are now more and more considered too conservative) is irrelevant. What I do believe is that it is insane to take the risk. We don't have a plan B. If we screw it up (with a helping hand from you and your fellow travelers) we can't fix it, and we're talking about the ecosystem that supports human civilization. You're saying it's okay to gamble with the future of humanity. I say that's fucking stupid.

And of course you don't worry about climate change. You'll be dead and buried when/if it really hits the fan. It's easy to burn down a house when you know for a fact you won't have to live in the rubble.

Also: we're not talking about "some planetary disaster" that we can't avoid, like a giant meteor or a supernova. We're talking about "some planetary disaster" that we know for a fact we're responsible for, and we know how to avoid it. You might as well have said "I don't worry about crashing the car" while stepping on the gas and aiming for the nearest brick wall.

Google is your friend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

As I explained to you...I am skeptical of the more extreme claims concerning climate change, so I do not worry.. As for your own beliefs, that's your business and I understand your concern, but I am not to blame. Stay cool my friend...
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:02 pm

I asked for the "respected climate scientists" you follow and you post a list of scientists, almost all of whom are not climate scientists.
How very rigorous (and completely expected) of you. Try again. Which respected climate scientists do you follow? I assume you don't follow all the people on that list, so which ones? Who has convinced you not to worry?

And yeah, I get that you don't worry. It's easy to not worry when it's not going to be your problem, but you're still completely missing my point: we can't afford to take the chance. Even if the split among scientists was 50/50 you would have to be insane not to take it seriously.

I don't know for a fact that the most dire scenarios will happen, but you don't know that they won't either. You're hoping that things will be alright in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which is fine if you're gambling in Vegas and might lose a few bucks, but not when you're gambling with the global ecosystem. That's the kind of bet you just can't afford to lose, so you don't take it in the first place.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:33 pm

DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:02 pm wrote:I asked for the "respected climate scientists" you follow and you post a list of scientists, almost all of whom are not climate scientists.
How very rigorous (and completely expected) of you. Try again. Which respected climate scientists do you follow? I assume you don't follow all the people on that list, so which ones? Who has convinced you not to worry?

And yeah, I get that you don't worry. It's easy to not worry when it's not going to be your problem, but you're still completely missing my point: we can't afford to take the chance. Even if the split among scientists was 50/50 you would have to be insane not to take it seriously.

I don't know for a fact that the most dire scenarios will happen, but you don't know that they won't either. You're hoping that things will be alright in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which is fine if you're gambling in Vegas and might lose a few bucks, but not when you're gambling with the global ecosystem. That's the kind of bet you just can't afford to lose, so you don't take it in the first place.
.
I have kept up on the debate through Judith Curry's blog....https://judithcurry.com/

I don't belong to any 'we' who is into taking the extreme position on climate change, so it follows that I do not worry.

You are here admitting you don't know if the most dire scenarios will happen, yet you want to bet on the worse case actually happening. So while I don't have a problem with that, for myself I don't gamble.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:53 pm

BenDhyan » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:33 am wrote:
DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:02 pm wrote:I asked for the "respected climate scientists" you follow and you post a list of scientists, almost all of whom are not climate scientists.
How very rigorous (and completely expected) of you. Try again. Which respected climate scientists do you follow? I assume you don't follow all the people on that list, so which ones? Who has convinced you not to worry?

And yeah, I get that you don't worry. It's easy to not worry when it's not going to be your problem, but you're still completely missing my point: we can't afford to take the chance. Even if the split among scientists was 50/50 you would have to be insane not to take it seriously.

I don't know for a fact that the most dire scenarios will happen, but you don't know that they won't either. You're hoping that things will be alright in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which is fine if you're gambling in Vegas and might lose a few bucks, but not when you're gambling with the global ecosystem. That's the kind of bet you just can't afford to lose, so you don't take it in the first place.
.
I have kept up on the debate through Judith Curry's blog....https://judithcurry.com/

I don't belong to any 'we' who is into taking the extreme position on climate change, so it follows that I do not worry.

You are here admitting you don't know if the most dire scenarios will happen, yet you want to bet on the worse case actually happening. So while I don't have a problem with that, for myself I don't gamble.


Are you intentionally twisting my words, or are you really so daft that you don't understand them? I don't want to bet on the worst case, I hope to $Deity it's not true, but the vast majority of scientists in the field are saying it is, so I would have to be a complete fucking idiot not to take that seriously.

Of course you're gambling. You're gambling on everyone else being wrong and you being right.

Oh, and Judith Curry. I'll give you that one, I was wrong about her earlier (we argued about her years ago). Not being familiar with her work I (stupidly) assumed she was a serious scientist. I am familiar with her now, and she is widely considered to be a crank. What credibility she had is long gone and no one takes her seriously anymore.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:42 pm

DrEvil » Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:53 am wrote:
BenDhyan » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:33 am wrote:
DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:02 pm wrote:I asked for the "respected climate scientists" you follow and you post a list of scientists, almost all of whom are not climate scientists.
How very rigorous (and completely expected) of you. Try again. Which respected climate scientists do you follow? I assume you don't follow all the people on that list, so which ones? Who has convinced you not to worry?

And yeah, I get that you don't worry. It's easy to not worry when it's not going to be your problem, but you're still completely missing my point: we can't afford to take the chance. Even if the split among scientists was 50/50 you would have to be insane not to take it seriously.

I don't know for a fact that the most dire scenarios will happen, but you don't know that they won't either. You're hoping that things will be alright in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which is fine if you're gambling in Vegas and might lose a few bucks, but not when you're gambling with the global ecosystem. That's the kind of bet you just can't afford to lose, so you don't take it in the first place.
.
I have kept up on the debate through Judith Curry's blog....https://judithcurry.com/

I don't belong to any 'we' who is into taking the extreme position on climate change, so it follows that I do not worry.

You are here admitting you don't know if the most dire scenarios will happen, yet you want to bet on the worse case actually happening. So while I don't have a problem with that, for myself I don't gamble.


Are you intentionally twisting my words, or are you really so daft that you don't understand them? I don't want to bet on the worst case, I hope to $Deity it's not true, but the vast majority of scientists in the field are saying it is, so I would have to be a complete fucking idiot not to take that seriously.

Of course you're gambling. You're gambling on everyone else being wrong and you being right.

Oh, and Judith Curry. I'll give you that one, I was wrong about her earlier (we argued about her years ago). Not being familiar with her work I (stupidly) assumed she was a serious scientist. I am familiar with her now, and she is widely considered to be a crank. What credibility she had is long gone and no one takes her seriously anymore.


As I explained before, I have no problem with your climate change end time beliefs, it is your problem, not mine. And if you want to blame me for whatever reason as contributing to your climate change nightmares, so be it, but forgive me for not caring, I have a serious goal in life.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:41 pm

Way to not have any reading comprehension whatsoever. Since you seem to be incapable of arguing in good faith I retract my reluctant welcome back from when you started posting again. I should have known better.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:08 am

DrEvil » Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:41 pm wrote:Way to not have any reading comprehension whatsoever. Since you seem to be incapable of arguing in good faith I retract my reluctant welcome back from when you started posting again. I should have known better.

So I was correct, I presumed you were trying to start an argument, that's why I was not biting. You haven't changed at all.

Btw, your punishment is a bit severe, but ok, I'll get over it.. :)
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:25 pm

Not trying to start a fight, just pointing out that you are engaging in your usual bad faith bullshit and trolling, that's all.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:27 pm

BenDhyan » 13 Dec 2018 08:55 wrote:Wouldn't be dead for quids mate...


Good one.

Merry christmas and all that.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:49 pm

^ Have a good Christmas mate...

Image
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:45 pm

DrEvil » Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:25 am wrote:Not trying to start a fight, just pointing out that you are engaging in your usual bad faith bullshit and trolling, that's all.


And the season's blessings to you Sir, God bless you and your family with peace and joy for the year to come...
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:23 pm

If it's all the same to you I'd rather not have the blessing of the psychotic sky daddy (or as Hannu Rajaniemi called it: memetic noise in monkey brains), but the sentiment is returned, this being the holiest time of the capitalist system and all.

You're still wrong btw. :hrumph
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:02 pm

Aaaand we're boned. The fossil fuel industry is too powerful and their lapdog politicians are too fucking cowardly and greedy to do anything. There's too much money at stake in countries like Russia, The United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia and any number of smaller places (including my own country), and most of them have flaming assholes in charge.

Immediate fossil fuel phaseout could arrest climate change – study

Scientists say it may still technically be possible to limit warming to 1.5C if drastic action is taken now

Climate change could be kept in check if a phaseout of all fossil fuel infrastructure were to begin immediately, according to research.

It shows that meeting the internationally agreed aspiration of keeping global warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is still possible. The scientists say it is therefore the choices being made by global society, not physics, which is the obstacle to meeting the goal.

The study found that if all fossil fuel infrastructure – power plants, factories, vehicles, ships and planes – from now on are replaced by zero-carbon alternatives at the end of their useful lives, there is a 64% chance of staying under 1.5C.

In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the difference between 1.5C of warming and the earlier international target of 2C was a significantly lower risk of drought, floods, heatwaves and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

Christopher Smith, of the University of Leeds, who led the research, said: “It’s good news from a geophysical point of view. But on the other side of the coin, the [immediate fossil fuel phaseout] is really at the limit of what we could we possibly do. We are basically saying we can’t build anything now that emits fossil fuels.”

Nicholas Stern, of the London School of Economics, who was not part of the research team, said: “We are rapidly approaching the end of the age of fossil fuels. This study confirms that all new energy infrastructure must be sustainable from now on if we are to avoid locking in commitments to emissions that would lead to the world exceeding the goals of the Paris agreement.”

The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, used computer models to estimate by how much global temperatures would rise if a fossil fuel infrastructure phaseout began immediately. The lifespan for power plants was set at 40 years, cars an average of 15 years and planes 26 years. The work also assumes a rapid end to beef and dairy consumption, which is responsible for significant global emissions.

In this scenario, the models suggest carbon emissions would decline to zero over the next four decades and there would be a 66% chance of the global temperature rise remaining below 1.5C. If the phaseout does not begin until 2030, the chance is 33%.

The analysis did not include the possibility of tipping points such as the sudden release of huge volumes of methane from permafrost, which could spark runaway global warming.

The scientists accept their scenario is at the extreme end of ambition, but said it was important to know that meeting the 1.5C target was still physically possible and dependent on the choices made now and in the coming years. “The climate system is not stopping you [hitting the target], global society is stopping you,” Smith said.

Other work, using a different approach, has also shown that keeping within the 1.5C limit is possible if radical action is taken immediately. In some sectors, zero-carbon technology already exists, such as renewable energy. But in others, such as aviation, it does not. “Maybe the solution here is flying less,” Smith said.

Prof Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, who also was not part of the research team, said: “Whether it’s drilling a new gas well, keeping an old coal power station open, or even buying a diesel car, the choices we make today will largely determine the climate pathways of tomorrow. The message of this new study is loud and clear: act now or see the last chance for a safer climate future ebb away.”

Smith’s personal belief is that global heating will surpass 1.5C. “We are going the right way, but I don’t think we will do enough, quickly enough. I think we are heading for 2C to 2.5C.”

But he added: “If you don’t have a goal, you are not going to get anywhere. If you have a target that is really hard to achieve and you miss it slightly, that is better than wandering aimlessly into a future climate that is no good for anybody.”


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ange-study
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests