Jonger

Is there a summarized version of the current deal?

Already, the ruptured storage facility has released well over the equivalent of 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide – about the same amount that would be generated by driving 160,000 cars for a year, according to the California Air Resources Board.

I'm guilty of it as are most of you, but I'm sick of burning dead plant material and gases.

Can we simply take half the military budget and divert that to solar/wind farms and end this nonsense?

Agreed on all grounds. All you see is an endless pattern of ad hominem attacks in a endless cycle. This forum is an echo chamber for skeptics and deniers.

There are almost no posters here that deny that the earth has warmed 0.5C to 1.0C.

Yes they are additions. That is the whole point. The free market is choosing to build solar and wind over gas and coal because it is more profitable. 

 

Again, welcome to the 21st century.

Wait a minute... are you saying that burning dead plant material isn't futuristic? 

Solar just sits and earns money after being installed. Requires no fuel source.

You install a coal or natural gas plant and you have a non stop expense to keep it running, you don't with solar.

Suck it from the air... inject it into the earth.

From whence it came.

This is quickly becoming a real possibility too.

Not methane but this is not good. Carbon feedbacks on hyperdrive in a human hothouse.

I don't think the general public recognizes the ENSO connection, and 2014 was warm without strong ENSO forcing. Nobody can stop an idea whose time has come, and it expands way beyond AGW.

Most of the general public probably thinks el nino is AGW driven. It's not. 

If it changes policy, I'm fine with it.

The best thing about AGW mitigation is that it drives innovation and increases the pace of technology. I'm a technology geek more than a weather geek.... bring it on.

70+% extinction is a total reset/wipeout. All you are left with is simple Eukaryota and Fungi. We have a decent amount of buffer in regards to temperature but deep down I don't think the Holocene biosphere is well-equipped to deal with a hothouse Earth.

 

Everything is correct in principle Jonger, but it's simply not worth it just to keep an economic system going for one species when there are more productive alternatives.

 

Global warming could conceivably kill the Earth but it's the least likely outcome at this point. There is just too much sequestered carbon in the Arctic from the Azolla event to rule it out tho. It would be like simultaneously dumping all sequestered CO2/CH4 to ever exist into one time interval. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

 

This won't happen if we stop short of say....750ppm? Which is very likely to happen.

I'm not sure there is enough remaining hydrocarbons to achieve 750ppm.

Lets say we were able to get co2 up to 1000ppm. Lets say the earth was 8C warmer, are you saying that animals in the temperate zone wouldn't migrate north? Fish would migrate north easily.

I'm only discussing this for the sake of interest, I'm not trying to advocate some position that we allow that to happen.

There has been several wipe outs since vertebrates have come on the scene and it has been complex life, not pond scum and plankton.

You could warm the planet up 15C more and life wouldn't go extinct. It would just spread north and half of the current animal life would vanish. 

1,000 years later, equilibrium would be reached with the surviving life forms.

1,000,000 years later and you would never have known a die off happened.

This is just a moment time time. As long as Earth remains in the Goldilocks zone of habitability, nothing short of an asteroid will wipe out life to the point that it wouldn't recover. Even then it would still recover.

We have one alarmist praying for el Nino to "shock the world" with a new record and another alarmist praying it away to remove the excuse for higher temps.

Very well. Its not like this board will make a difference in the grand scheme of climate policy or anything. Putting it in perspective is important. Sometimes being anonymous

allows people to be more bold or arrogant than they otherwise would be. My rule of thumb; treat others as if you were having an in face conversation with them, and all should be better.

Paul Beckwith!

I thought the sun was getting stronger on longer timescales, but it's definitely a minor change in the timeframe being discussed above. Unless you're referring to the Milankovitch influence, not sure how potent that is when everything is already melted out.

 

We will have to agree to disagree here. Would be nice to see the paper but since there no paleo analogs for the anthropocene, we can't say for sure how it would play out.

At present, it is increasing in brightness by about 1% every 100 million years. = Wikipedia

Well my man, 250ft SLR rise takes time ya know no matter how much CO2 is discharged. It's not made up at all but may not be necessarily correct. Nobody is capable of predicting the future using logic.

 

I think the middle road approach is the best option but the most risky approach because we risk simultaneously investing and collapsing in the short and long-term.

250 feet of sea level rise isn't going to happen before the next glacial age begins. That would require melting Antarctica, it's still gaining ice in the interior -- the calving on the edges might be completely normal. 

All you need is 1-2ft of SLR to disrupt most coastal communities and at 3-4ft they become totally dysfunctional and real estate/housing would likely begin collapsing. Safe to assume this will occur in our lifetimes without strong policy action unless you are older than 50.

 

Thus we have a two-pronged initiative to act, both for ourselves and future generations. Anything above that range before 2070 would basically solidify future projections like 5-10 meters because of rate hysteresis.

We may be speeding up sea level rise, but even if humans went extinct 500 years ago... Miami would still end up under water within a few hundred years. Building big cities next to the sea, is kind of a new thing in this interglacial period.

True story. I don't think the core of the AMOC slowdown has occured yet which is scary. The Eemian did not have 480 co2 equivalent tho, something to keep in mind. We should expect only regional effects from this.

 

This is a nasty brew for sure with some unknown consequences, most likely not very not distant from James Hansen's vision of continent-wide superstorms.

 

A large portion of the AMOC warmth may be simply due to OHC increase.

The Eemian period was an interglacial period driven by Milankovitch cycles. The era we are in now, is the first carbon driven era in perhaps a few hundred million years.

Your reference to the era and its co2 level is laughable.

10 year USCRN data for the US.

Adjustment free - no bias data.

I thought it was interesting to see that its been out for 10 years now.

I wonder when the next adjustment is due. They can milk the ocean quite a bit I assume.

typical denier talk.

 

It's ok, most here already know how the place operates.. 

You can't fling these claims out there with no possible way to verify the claim.

The types and severity of them are.. 

We have no way to verify this.

3 things we could pretty much confirm are occurring , with no real known endgame :

 

1) Co2 increasing every year...  ( I won't even go into the causes or future effects....since it'll automatically cause arguments / flame / spam )

 

2) An enormous amount of more moisture in the environment over the years, due to more freshwater / icemelting every year.  (arctic)   Which is surely already to blame for massive flooding outbreaks all across the globe.  

 

3) Clouds lowering, with no known explanation. Could also be contributing to massive amounts of rainfall in short periods of time.  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=3285

right....

Because floods are a new thing, 

It's the banter thread. Whether the CC forum should have a banter thread is another story

Why not?

When the banter thread was started, alarmists nearly lost their marbles... I'm not sure why it's such a touchy topic to banter over.

Every sub-forum has a banter section.

Um, you may be confusing SIV anomalies with SIV values. The POIMAS anomalies are from the trend line, not from a baeline. In 2006 the SIV Sept minimum was about 9,000 km3, in 2007 it was about 6,500 km3, and in 2014 it was just less than 7,000 km3. Do you really think that the Arctic SIV will increase by roughly 25% in the next few years to return to 2006 levels?

That was a best case scenario, it will probably take 2 good seasons to get back to pre 2007.

In hindsight, you will realize that you can't recover from something like that.

But we have been... We have almost erased 2007's damage. One more good season and we might get back to 2006 volume.