Climate Change Banter

[WinterWxLuvr]

Sorry, no they don't. That second article is just a summary of the first article.

 

Neither Stephen Hawking nor Bill Gates are experts in Artificial Intelligence. But even ignoring that, this is not something society should be concerned with at the moment. There is almost an infinate number of things that could change that would make their prediction never happen. The "warning" they are giving has been around since the 1950s. As of yet, none of those predictions have come true. I do believe that one day there will be robots that look and act human walking among us, but that day is very, very far away. The time that HAL from the movie 2001 or the Terminator exist is much farther in the future than that.

 

What I do know is that continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere will result in changes to the environment that are harmful to our society. Those changes will be more disruptive, cost more, and happen long begore the threat of robots taking over the earth. If you want something to be concerned about that is within our current event horizon, climate change is it.

But you are?

 

We were talking about economic revolution, but I suppose that's just too abstract for you to handle.

[FloridaJohn]

But you are?

 

We were talking about economic revolution, but I suppose that's just too abstract for you to handle.

No, I am not. Please enlighted me on what year the AI experts are predicting the robot apocalypse.

 

In regards to economic revolution, my point was that your basic premise was in error as can be shown by history. Even a near collapse of the world banking system a couple years ago (remember that?) did not result in an "economic revolution." Gradually changing our sources of energy and increasing efficiency over a timeframe of several decades will not result in an "economic revolution." But maybe that is too abstract for you to handle.

[AvantHiatus]

 

All of the above is irrelevant if you live on a wasteland planet. 

[ORH_wxman]

The clear cutting of the tropical rainforests and the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation for billions  is of a much greater

concern at least in the near term than climate change will be.

 

 

I belong to Audubon Society and limiting land use has always been a top priority for them over CC. Though they've gotten more vocal on the CC issue in recent years....but the overwhelming problems from an environmental standpoint come from land use.

[Isotherm]

The media doesn't usually report on the "truth" because the "truth" is often not exciting, exhilarating, threatening, or intimidating. Marketing fear to induce consumer action is what the media does best, and this is true across a variety of subject fields [climate change inclusive]. Thus, in this case, the media chooses to report on the most extreme scenario pertaining to our future climate. And ironically, even that doesn't seem to faze the majority of citizens. I'm a believer in educating people with the truth in order to get them to act, not lying or exaggerating information to induce a response. The problem is that most people are driven primarily by short term concerns, and a possibility 30+ years down the road isn't going to be at the top of their to-do list upon awakening every morning.

[AvantHiatus]

The clear cutting of the tropical rainforests and the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation for billions  is of a much greater

concern at least in the near term than climate change will be. Even the pollution and illness rate of the 

extreme coal burning in China eclipses any near term effects from the raised CO2 emissions.

There are just so many more immediate environmental issues that a long term problem

like climate change will continue to get lost in the shuffle.

As an individual, do you view climate change as a more important issue in relation to the public consensus?

 

FWIW, land use would fall under the overall umbrella of anthropogenic effects.

[ORH_wxman]

As an individual, do you view climate change as a more important issue in relation to the public consensus?

 

FWIW, land use would fall under the overall umbrella of anthropogenic effects.

 

Yes it does, but it is vastly different from climate change in mitigation strategy/policy.

 

Land use has devastating effects that are manifested much faster than climate change...so distinguishing between the two is necessary.

[AvantHiatus]

I didn't know 2012 was this bad.

 

[LakeEffectKing]

I didn't know 2012 was this bad.

 

Yes it was...we've recovered quite nicely since then....even with the CO2 death umbrella hanging over head.

[chubbs]

Even if climate change ranked higher on the list of concerns for the general public, the technology problem would still

be there. It's going to take a much more concerted effort on the part of the global community to find a viable replacement

for fossil fuels as our primary energy source. There is just nothing in the near term which can meet the majority of

the worlds energy needs and significantly reduce emissions. People relate to money so a serious push in R&D 

spending would have to be marketed to the public as a way that it's going to save them money in some tangible manner.

 

You are right there is no short-term easy fix. However today's actions will determine whether we can make a significant move away from fossil fuels in the longer term. The best way of reducing the cost of renewable energy sources is to increase deployment to benefit from cost learning curve and economies of scale. A carbon tax or carbon credits would move us in the right direction.

[AvantHiatus]

You are right there is no short-term easy fix. However today's actions will determine whether we can make a significant move away from fossil fuels in the longer term. The best way of reducing the cost of renewable energy sources is to increase deployment to benefit from cost learning curve and economies of scale. A carbon tax or carbon credits would move us in the right direction.

 

This topic often places me in the conservative camp because I believe a carbon tax would break the back of the already weakening middle class unless it is distributed back to the consumer like an income tax return.

[AvantHiatus]

Yes it was...we've recovered quite nicely since then....even with the CO2 death umbrella hanging over head.

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

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

It is no wonder that a lot of the general public has a very tepid attitude toward it. Their attitude toward climate change starts to mirror their attitude and dissatisfaction toward the state of American politics.

 

Good point, but what caused it.   Right wing media swung on it the hardest...making it seem like climate change was a joke, and anybody who believes in it is nuts. Will be interesting in the years ahead to see how they change their attitudes on it being such a "joke".

 

Just having the arctic melt more ice every year = guarantees  more moisture and extreme flooding episodes worldwide...along with warmer oceans to assist ?  foggettabouddit.  And I didn't even mention the countless of other variables being discussed here by others.   Co2 through the roof being 1.

 

This could be the most interesting thread in history.  Such fierce debates, while everybody's 'mostly' civil about it. I enjoy even the conversations that I don't agree with.  

[Jonger]

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.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Nice bump up correlation between the 80's and now with very similar patterns to boot with the +NAO/+PDO and what not. There is nothing to suggest we will gain much this year. Flat-line or back into the dump it seems.

[PhillipS]

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

 

 

 

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?

 

[ORH_wxman]

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?

 

 

 

 

It's really not that far fetched, Just look at some of the comments in the sea ice thread after 2012....people saying things like 2009 SIA and volume wouldn't be matched again. We had an 84% increase (3,100 km^3 in absolute numbers) in min volume in just 2 years.

 

 

While I wouldn't actually expect 2006 volume to be seen in the next few years, it wouldn't shock me either. If we keep avoiding the nasty dipole pattern that was the signature of 2007-2012, then I would expect volume to slowly increase until we get another poor dipole episode.

[Jonger]

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.

[SVT450R]

It's really not that far fetched, Just look at some of the comments in the sea ice thread after 2012....people saying things like 2009 SIA and volume wouldn't be matched again. We had an 84% increase (3,100 km^3 in absolute numbers) in min volume in just 2 years.

 

 

While I wouldn't actually expect 2006 volume to be seen in the next few years, it wouldn't shock me either. If we keep avoiding the nasty dipole pattern that was the signature of 2007-2012, then I would expect volume to slowly increase until we get another poor dipole episode.

Agreed well said.   I still liked the talk of warm core tropical like storm systems in the arctic at the time.

[AvantHiatus]

Agreed well said.   I still liked the talk of warm core tropical like storm systems in the arctic at the time.

[superjames1992]

Agreed well said. I still liked the talk of warm core tropical like storm systems in the arctic at the time.

Woah. Was this actually discussed? I'd love to read those posts.

[SVT450R]

Agreed well said. I still liked the talk of warm core tropical like storm systems in the arctic at the time.

No doubt you would have been all over that bandwagon.

[SVT450R]

Woah. Was this actually discussed? I'd love to read those posts.

Indeed I don't have the time to dig up the post. If I remember correctly I think it was brought up after the potent storm in early August 2012 ripped through the western CAB. So if you go back in the sea ice thread to around that time you will see it.

[AvantHiatus]

Bull bull bull bull bull.

You don't even know what arctic amplification is, let alone what drives it.

I'm about to begin my thesis about how the US government is secretly geo-engineering the arctic. 

 

Arctic amplification is a culmination of fast and slow feedbacks that allow the arctic to warm faster than the tropics.

 

 

 

That appears to arise both from a (possibly transient) intensification of polewards heat transport and more directly from changes in the local net radiation balance (an overall decrease in outwards radiation will produce a larger relative increase in net radiation near the poles than near the equator).

Related to changes in the Hadley Cell since 2013? Please post credentials so I can feel better about being talked down. You just post random garbage that is not relevant, way worse than what I've done.

 

A good person would explain what Arctic Amplification is rather than just agree to disagree. I'm truely done responding to your trolling in what could be best described as attempts to destroy my confidence across the board.

 

You are not here for the science, and you only want to boost your ego. Who else would have such a name? I've figured out your game.

 

It is human nature to believe the present will be like the recent past.

[StudentOfClimatology]

No one takes you seriously because you're constantly inventing stuff and trying to pass it off as fact thereafter. It's irritating to read, honestly.

I'm happy to have a reasonable, science-based conversation with you, but you'll need to stop playing dress-up before I do so.

[AvantHiatus]

No one takes you seriously because you're constantly inventing stuff and trying to pass it off as fact thereafter. It's irritating to read, honestly.

I'm happy to have a reasonable, science-based conversation with you, but you'll need to stop playing dress-up before I do so.

You are entitled to your opinion. Remember why you are still here.

 

Sociopaths are not worth my time. All I need to do is sit back and watch you eat crow.

[skierinvermont]

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's not true. The anomalies on the PIOMAS graph are anomalies from average, not from the trendline. Both your graph, and that graph show last year's min was just below 2007s.

[AvantHiatus]

The nice thing about agw - there is no slow period.

You could still get stuck in persistent dry patterns and what not. For myself, anomalous does not always imply fun.

[AvantHiatus]

I am not sure that we will ever warm fast enough on a decadal basis to act as an attention grabber since .85C

from 1880-2012 has been too gradual and abstract for people to notice. We have basically evolved to respond to immediate

threats and and are not wired for long term challenges. Current culture is all about short attention span and sound

bites which is reflected in the huge number advertisements we are bombarded with daily. The whole economy 

is geared to short term thinking about maximizing profit for this quarter and instant gratification. So the people

in the future will just have to adapt to any adverse effects from AGW.

This is an immoral statement because nobody knows what the effects of AGW will be in sufficient detail and liability issues could arise alongside generational injustice.

[AvantHiatus]

Read a headline today that says that ICE vehicles will be obsolete by 2025, that's 10 years. It doesn't mean they will vanish from the roads, it means that the remaining ones will operate until they are DOA. GM & Tesla have 250+ mile range $35,000 cars about to be released, wait a few more years and they will be on par with ICE pricing. 

 

We used to think electric cars would be wimpy and no fun, Telsa currently has the fastest production car ever made. In fact, the acceleration is so intense that people have blacked out from the acceleration.

 

Electric cars also have little maintenance, they are simple beasts. Break pads, shocks and struts, windshield wipers and new tires. No exhaust system to rust, no oil changes, no transmission failures.....

Sounds like the ultimate job killer my man.

 

Honestly, if co2 become enough of a problem, we could just suck it from the atmosphere. The technology is there, the push to implementing it isn't there. I bet we could get back to 280ppm in 20 years. The idea that the earth is going to turn into some uninhabitable wasteland is far fetched, we can do whatever we want with this planet.

 

Enjoy hurricanes while we have them, soon enough, we will simply gel the ocean in the path and take a Cat 5 and turn it into a depression.

Tropical cyclones are a necessary climate system feature. Redirecting them would be the best option, otherwise you end up with a torching equator and the side-effects therein.