Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maithanet

Is Climate Change Impacting Your Long Term Planning?

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Triskele said:

The feedback loops are part of why I think there's a a real reason for serious pessimism.  It's not that I think that hell on earth is guaranteed in my lifetime, but it makes me think that it's something that is on the table.  It also is a mental model that makes me think there's no great to really handle this from a traditional climate-modeling standpoint.  Someone please correct me if they know I'm wrong about that.

What I'm saying is that the climate scientists seem pretty sure that these feedback loops like permafrost and methane burps can legit happen.  But is there any way to really guess at how bad they'll be or at what rate they start happening once it kicks in?  

How incredible that one day we could be praying for a super volcano eruption to cool that planet.   

More like trump will drop a nuke in an active volcano to see it will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two articles today: sea level rise is now being studied in conjunction with storm surge and the result is that the risks are much much worse than anyone ever suspected—and this study is already too conservative as their top sea level rise of two meters is now both outdated and too low

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-coast-storm-damage-20190313-story.html

 

and second, a new and severe weather occurrence has just birthed itself over the midwestern United States, as hurricane force winds will combine with a snow blizzard. Climate change.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/13/18263630/bomb-cyclone-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here’s a climate change question. Say ten years from now, successive droughts and severe storms have wrecked agricultural production in various places around the globe and lead to widespread famine events, 1.5 billion people are starving, and not just in Africa, but in China, the United States, parts of Europe etc. food prices more than double, governments panic and then panic harder when their paltry attempts at international food aid trigger massive domestic riots.

there is more than enough land around the world to grow enough food to feed the world and break the famine, but we can’t do it without  outlawing the use of agricultural land for alcohol production.

is 1.5 billion people starving worth cutting off the worlds alcohol supply, or is that a bridge that we can never cross no matter the cost?

or if global warming is couched in terms of how it affects alcohol supply, does that actually cause people to act and take global warming personally?

(obviously the global black market would be insanely high!)

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

there is more than enough land around the world to grow enough food to feed the world and break the famine, but we can’t do it without  outlawing the use of agricultural land for alcohol production.

is 1.5 billion people starving worth cutting off the worlds alcohol supply, or is that a bridge that we can never cross no matter the cost?

or if global warming is couched in terms of how it affects alcohol supply, does that actually cause people to act and take global warming personally?

I think we could sacrifice alcohol if we had to, but I don't see a scenario under which doing so would make a meaningful difference -- alcohol doesn't actually use up that much of our agricultural output.

If it became necessary to curtail some dietary intake, the prime target would almost certainly be meat. Not only are the ethics of its consumption already disputed, but its production consumes a massive amount of land and grain and there's a pretty good case to be made for eating significantly less of it than, for example, Americans currently do based purely on its impact on human health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 9:29 AM, Week said:

But but FASTER PLANES!!*

*As long as you are flying with the jetstream ... 

I never brought up the jetstream, I just responded to it with actual facts.

Regarding NEEM - with 14 degrees F higher temps than the highest projections today, I don't understand how anyone can conclude that CO2 emissions/etc/whatever are responsible alone for the earth warming.  It did so before, many times in the last 100k years, based on the only scientific test/modelling I've ever seen done using an actual scientific method (NEEM), and not just a bunch of subjective guesswork. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 9:19 AM, Week said:

So? What relevance does that have to the current human impact on the climate? How many humans lived on the planet during those times?

https://phys.org/news/2013-01-deep-ice-cores-greenland-period.html

  

On 3/5/2019 at 1:36 AM, SerHaHa said:

The NEEM Greenland ice core samples taken a few years ago, and the analysis done by actual climatologists, one of whom founded Greenpeace, have ×used actual scientific measurements that were observable and repeatable, and proven that at 2000, 5000, and 10000 years ago respectively, it got FAR warmer than even the most nightmare predictions we're hearing right now. 

So? What relevance does that have to the current human impact on the climate? How many humans lived on the planet during those times?

https://phys.org/news/2013-01-deep-ice-cores-greenland-period.html

Quote

"Unfortunately, we have reached a point where there is so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it's going to be difficult for us to further limit our impact on the planet," White said. "Our kids and grandkids are definitely going to look back and shake their heads at the inaction of this country's generation. We are burning the lion's share of oil and natural gas to benefit our lifestyle, and punting the responsibility for it."

In the past, Earth's journey into and out of glacial periods is thought to be due in large part to variations in its orbit, tilt and rotation that change the amount of solar energy delivered to the planet, he said. But the anthropogenic warming on Earth today could override such episodic changes, perhaps even staving off an ice age, White said.

 

What difference does it make how many humans are on earth regarding the temperatures being hotter 5k to 100k years ago than are projected now? If anything according to the global warning/climate change side, it should be warmer now due to having more humans, but it's not, and not going to be according to the global warning "science" projections.  The relevance and difference regarding how many humans lived in 5k to 100k years ago times, and today, is obvious isn't it?  There were fewer humans with no technology which is blamed for current climate change due to billions of humans alive today.  Shouldn't the temperatures be swapped if the climate change argument is to be accurate and scientific based on it being "mankind's" fault?

Funny how scientist from the same places who 40 years ago warned constantly of us entering a new ice age, are now passing off the NEEM results and data on astrophysics, using their typical "though to be", "could", and "perhaps" language. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

I never brought up the jetstream, I just responded to it with actual facts.

Regarding NEEM - with 14 degrees F higher temps than the highest projections today, I don't understand how anyone can conclude that CO2 emissions/etc/whatever are responsible alone for the earth warming.  It did so before, many times in the last 100k years, based on the only scientific test/modelling I've ever seen done using an actual scientific method (NEEM), and not just a bunch of subjective guesswork. 

99% of scientific consensus is the the earth is warming and it is due to anthropogenic. The consensus that you find elusive has already be made.

6 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

What difference does it make how many humans are on earth regarding the temperatures being hotter 5k to 100k years ago than are projected now? If anything according to the global warning/climate change side, it should be warmer now due to having more humans, but it's not, and not going to be according to the global warning "science" projections.  The relevance and difference regarding how many humans lived in 5k to 100k years ago times, and today, is obvious isn't it?  There were fewer humans with no technology which is blamed for current climate change due to billions of humans alive today.  Shouldn't the temperatures be swapped if the climate change argument is to be accurate and scientific based on it being "mankind's" fault?

Funny how scientist from the same places who 40 years ago warned constantly of us entering a new ice age, are now passing off the NEEM results and data on astrophysics, using their typical "though to be", "could", and "perhaps" language. 

"warmer now due to having more humans, but it's not,"

I could respond to the rest (which others have already made similar arguments) -- I have to ask though -- what logic are you using here? 

Science is always changing as we are learning new things. To ignore the impact of radar, satellite imaging, ubiquity of computing (at immense scale), networking, etc. has had in the last 40 years as irrelevant to our ability to learn in non-computer science fields is not credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

I never brought up the jetstream, I just responded to it with actual facts.

Regarding NEEM - with 14 degrees F higher temps than the highest projections today, I don't understand how anyone can conclude that CO2 emissions/etc/whatever are responsible alone for the earth warming.  It did so before, many times in the last 100k years, based on the only scientific test/modelling I've ever seen done using an actual scientific method (NEEM), and not just a bunch of subjective guesswork.  

Well first you'd want to realize that, they fucking don't. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of climate knows that CO2 is the major driver, not the only driver. But then you're under the impression that the 100's of years of work done in climate was subjective guesswork and it wasn't until this one study, that includes a person claiming to have been a founder of Greenpeace even though none of the Greenpeace founders were climatologists because you want to give it some perceived authority, has been the only one to use "an actual scientific method" even though ice core sample studies are common as fuck. Here's a hint NEEM isn't the name of the method, it's the name of the project, North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling. The methods used are the same as the methods using in hundred of other ice core samples. The only difference here is that they are drilling deeper to get farther back. That "Eemian" thing in the name.

Here's another interesting little tidbit for ya, ice core samples are not and cannot be used to show the temperature of the entire planet. This shows only that the temperature in Greenland was higher than we thought not global temperatures.

Finally, yes temperature at various periods in the past have been higher than modern temperatures, largely due to the higher levels of CO2 in those time periods. I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, and honestly I don't think you do either.

Quote

Funny how scientist from the same places who 40 years ago warned constantly of us entering a new ice age, are now passing off the NEEM results and data on astrophysics, using their typical "though to be", "could", and "perhaps" language. 

Except you know, 40 years ago most papers predicted warming. The few that didn't were outliers based on aerosols, which we stop using cause of the damage to the ozone they caused.

Also "thought to be", "could" and "perhaps" is just basic fucking honesty acknowledging the fact that no prediction is perfect. You'll find that same language in every discipline in science no matter how solid. Including the papers published by the "actual scientific method" you were wanking off earlier.

3 hours ago, Week said:

I could respond to the rest (which others have already made similar arguments) -- I have to ask though -- what logic are you using here?

I assume he's one of those idiots who's under the impression that the only source of CO2 is man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Except you know, 40 years ago most papers predicted warming. The few that didn't were outliers based on aerosols, which we stop using cause of the damage to the ozone they caused.

You can also link the paper directly. It's freely available online, and not a long read. 

FWIW, Sceptical Science is an excellent resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rorshach said:

You can also link the paper directly. It's freely available online, and not a long read. 

FWIW, Sceptical Science is an excellent resource.

Fair enough, probably should have practiced what I preached there and just linked the paper directly.

ETA: Though what does it say about how prevalent this horseshit is that an actual paper needed to be produced on it, rather than just like a quick spreadsheet.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

farmers prefer to call it WEATHER WEIRDING

because they know shit has changed, but Fox News says it's fake, which must be true, but if they practice what fox news preaches, they're fucked, so they deal with it by calling Climate Change fake, but Weather Weirding real.

https://www.farmanddairy.com/news/is-it-climate-change-weather-weirding-or-land-use-impact/542467.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

Fair enough, probably should have practiced what I preached there and just linked the paper directly.

ETA: Though what does it say about how prevalent this horseshit is that an actual paper needed to be produced on it, rather than just like a quick spreadsheet.

Makes me rather irritated if I think on it, so I try not to.

William Connolly have commented on his blog sometime (no idea when) that this is his most-cited paper. Shouldn't really be neccesary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Well first you'd want to realize that, they fucking don't. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of climate knows that CO2 is the major driver, not the only driver. But then you're under the impression that the 100's of years of work done in climate was subjective guesswork and it wasn't until this one study, that includes a person claiming to have been a founder of Greenpeace even though none of the Greenpeace founders were climatologists because you want to give it some perceived authority, has been the only one to use "an actual scientific method" even though ice core sample studies are common as fuck. Here's a hint NEEM isn't the name of the method, it's the name of the project, North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling. The methods used are the same as the methods using in hundred of other ice core samples. The only difference here is that they are drilling deeper to get farther back. That "Eemian" thing in the name.

Here's another interesting little tidbit for ya, ice core samples are not and cannot be used to show the temperature of the entire planet. This shows only that the temperature in Greenland was higher than we thought not global temperatures.

Finally, yes temperature at various periods in the past have been higher than modern temperatures, largely due to the higher levels of CO2 in those time periods. I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, and honestly I don't think you do either. 

 

 

Hah, thanks, after 2 years of posting about NEEM here, you've finally corrected my confusion about a project/site which I've referenced other times here(and was the first to have mentioned NEEM on this forum).  A tidbit back for you - I put NEEM in brackets as a reference for the tests done (tests using scientific method - part of my point), ON the NEEM core samples, NOT calling NEEM some method of scientific testing.  Don't be obtuse, there is NO way you could have mistaken my meaning.

You agree that temperatures were likely higher in the past time periods I used as examples (again, based on NEEM core analysis and results), and you take a stab at  higher CO2 levels being the cause for this.  Say this was the case - where did that CO2 come from, if there aren't man made technologies and use of fossil fuels to blame it on?  This IS my point - modern science has no scientific proof that CO2 put into the atmosphere now as compared to 2k/5k/100k/etc years ago, is the major cause for current temperature changes and trends in the last century.  To simplify - if there were no man made CO2 causes to blame thousands of years ago for warming/change with much higher temp ranges, how does this logically compare to blame placed squarely on man made CO2 today, yet with much, much lower temp ranges?  How exactly is that supposed to compute?  Warming trends now, blame man made CO2, greater warming treads in the past...crickets.  Why isn't anyone asking the question that IF the planet warmed at a faster/higher rate in the past without man made causes, why are man made causes being held responsible for current slower/lower temperature increases now, particularly without any scientific method showing why and how?

Personally I believe it's getting warmer across the planet.   What I won't wholesale buy into without evidence, or a scientific explanation as to the discrepancies above, is that man made CO2/etc are completely, or even as a majority, to blame, not when it's been proven through scientific method that it got hotter at higher/faster rates in the not very distant past, without man made interference.

Obviously there aren't ice core samples available to drill in every area of the planet - nor does there need to be.  There are other places core samples are taken and analysis made, it isn't just NEEM, NEEM is just the one with the most available data, from a source that is very unlikely to be biased.  There are core samples from Greenland that show the lead pollution from the industrial manufacturing of the Roman war machine.  Italy is a long way from Greenland, planet models don't necessarily require temps/samples from local samples.

Edited by SerHaHa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

Personally I believe it's getting warmer across the planet.   What I won't wholesale buy into without evidence, or a scientific explanation as to the discrepancies above, is that man made CO2/etc are completely, or even as a majority, to blame,

So what is, genius? Invisible unicorn farts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

Hah, thanks, after 2 years of posting about NEEM here, you've finally corrected my confusion about a project/site which I've referenced other times here(and was the first to have mentioned NEEM on this forum).  A tidbit back for you - I put NEEM in brackets as a reference for the tests done (tests using scientific method - part of my point), ON the NEEM core samples, NOT calling NEEM some method of scientific testing.  Don't be obtuse, there is NO way you could have mistaken my meaning. 

Sure you did, that's why you referring to it like this "the only scientific test/modelling I've ever seen done using an actual scientific method (NEEM) " even though again, same methods and modelling as hundreds of other projects. But yeah, there's no way I could suspect someone who doesn't understand non-man made sources of CO2 of getting that mixed up when they spoke in a way that explicitly makes it sound like they were referring to testing methods.

Quote

You agree that temperatures were likely higher in the past time periods I used as examples (again, based on NEEM core analysis and results), and you take a stab at  higher CO2 levels being the cause for this.  Say this was the case - where did that CO2 come from, if there aren't man made technologies and use of fossil fuels to blame it on?  This IS my point - modern science has no scientific proof that CO2 put into the atmosphere now as compared to 2k/5k/100k/etc years ago, is the major cause for current temperature changes and trends in the last century.  To simplify - if there were no man made CO2 causes to blame thousands of years ago for warming/change with much higher temp ranges, how does this logically compare to blame placed squarely on man made CO2 today, yet with much, much lower temp ranges?  How exactly is that supposed to compute?  Warming trends now, blame man made CO2, greater warming treads in the past...crickets.  Why isn't anyone asking the question that IF the planet warmed at a faster/higher rate in the past without man made causes, why are man made causes being held responsible for current slower/lower temperature increases now, particularly without any scientific method showing why and how?

Actually I don't, I agree there have been periods of warmer temperatures, I don't agree with the specific "cherry pick science so only the points I think agree with me are actual science" periods you want to believe were warmer. NEEM is northern Greenland specific, they do not, and can not, show warmer global temperatures. 2000, 5000, and 10000 year ago were mot warmer than today, and NEEM suggest no such thing because the people running it aren't the kind of idiot who take a single data set and extrapolateit far beyond what it can show. It does suggest that the Eemian period in Greenland, the Eemian being 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, was warmer, but again that specifically pertaining to Greenland. With other studies we actually do know that Eemian was warmer than today by about 1-2 degrees Celsius (Which is not " FAR warmer than even the most nightmare predictions", 1-2 degree Celsius is an optimistic prediction at this point), so the NEEM project supplies us with some new data, but doesn't show anything unexpected. The Eemian is actually a great example of why scientists have come to the conclusion they have writ modern climate change (and this is why the NEEM project was so interested in it), in the Eemian temps rose, CO2 rose too, jumping from less than 200 to 280 ppm, then some of the other climate triggers that you think that scientists haven't discovered and don't understand caused temps to go back down, and CO2 dropped too until about 20000 years ago when it rose back up to about 280ppm and those other climate trigger you don't think scientists understand kept temps from jumping back up to Eemian temperatures. Now we're at greater than 400 ppm, and temps are looking to surpass the Eemian temps in all of a couple hundred years.

Also there are source of CO2 other than burning fossil fuels, this is elementary school stuff, did you never learn about the carbon cycle? Volcanism, ocean degasification, consumption by microbes and animals, plant and animal respiration, release from permafrost melting, etc. That's where the CO2 in the past that caused various periods of higher warming came from. Like there was no man-made CO2 in the past yes, so the blame is put on natural CO2 and climate shift triggers like the milankovitch cycles, or volcanism, or massive evolutionary shifts that caused living beings to alter the earth atmosphere, etc.

Like your under the impression we don't know or study the climate of the past or understand what happened. We do, there are thousands of papers reconstructing the past climate and how it got that way. And then we apply that knowledge to our present to figure out the cause. That's why we place the blame on man made CO2, we know the milankovitch cycles aren't pushing us toward warming, we know there haven't been an volcanic events that would cause this issue, and we know there's been no evolutionary event to cause a massive change in the components of the atmosphere just to name a few phenomenon we know have cause climate change in the past. But then again, your an idiot who is under the impression that climate scientists aren't aware of other things that impact climate besides CO2, as if they aren't the ones to discover them.

Quote

Personally I believe it's getting warmer across the planet.   What I won't wholesale buy into without evidence, or a scientific explanation as to the discrepancies above, is that man made CO2/etc are completely, or even as a majority, to blame, not when it's been proven through scientific method that it got hotter at higher/faster rates in the not very distant past, without man made interference.

You have no discrepancies, just ignorance. Like what the hell, you trust the science when it says the Cretaceous was 4 °C above modern temperatures, but don't when it says that's in large part because CO2 concentrations were 1700 ppm, 6 times pre-industrial concentrations and 4 times more than current, you also don't trust it when it used the same knowledge it used to get that Cretaceous temperature to conclude that the planet is currently warming due to CO2.

Quote

Obviously there aren't ice core samples available to drill in every area of the planet - nor does there need to be.  There are other places core samples are taken and analysis made, it isn't just NEEM, NEEM is just the one with the most available data, from a source that is very unlikely to be biased.  There are core samples from Greenland that show the lead pollution from the industrial manufacturing of the Roman war machine.  Italy is a long way from Greenland, planet models don't necessarily require temps/samples from local samples.

Oh so now NEEM isn't the "the only scientific test/modelling [you've] ever seen done using an actual scientific method" how convenient. Regardless of how unbiased you think NEEM is, and on that side I do agree NEEM isn't biased, your just shite at reporting their findings, a single sample still cannot give us a planetary model, which is why NEEM doesn't even try. Past global temperature is reconstructed using samples from all over the planet, not even just ice cores, not even with ice cores in some cases cause we have reconstructions from time periods of no permanent ice.

Though if your so trusting of NEEM, why do you reject CO2 as the driver of global warming when NEEM affirms it and the reason they did their drilling is so they can use the Eemian to help model future global warming? Once again we come to the problem of you only accepting science when it agrees with your view.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find especially precious about his argument is that he ignores completely the absurd speed of temperature increase that we have had in the last 100 years. From a scientific viewpoint the scale that it is rising looks like a massive geologic or meteoric event. There is nothing in the record of such a fast change outside of incredible calamity.

That it also almost perfectly correlates with co2 rises is a factor, but really that the temp rose without any other major attributable factor should be enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What I find especially precious about his argument is that he ignores completely the absurd speed of temperature increase that we have had in the last 100 years. From a scientific viewpoint the scale that it is rising looks like a massive geologic or meteoric event. There is nothing in the record of such a fast change outside of incredible calamity.

That it also almost perfectly correlates with co2 rises is a factor, but really that the temp rose without any other major attributable factor should be enough. 

What I love about that argument too is how the arguer always thinks that they are the ones with some kind of sophisticated, nuanced take on the situation unlike lefties and centrists who just blindly accept the simplistic emissions argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 10:37 PM, lokisnow said:

Here’s a climate change question. Say ten years from now, successive droughts and severe storms have wrecked agricultural production in various places around the globe and lead to widespread famine events, 1.5 billion people are starving, and not just in Africa, but in China, the United States, parts of Europe etc. food prices more than double, governments panic and then panic harder when their paltry attempts at international food aid trigger massive domestic riots.

there is more than enough land around the world to grow enough food to feed the world and break the famine, but we can’t do it without  outlawing the use of agricultural land for alcohol production.

is 1.5 billion people starving worth cutting off the worlds alcohol supply, or is that a bridge that we can never cross no matter the cost?

If it came to that then sure, I think it's a no-brainer. I'd also add all tobacco plantations to that list. Of course, that would leave many without an income but they could continue to make money planting edible crops. Same with cattle, less land for roaming cattle and more for directly feeding people. 

In response to the original question, I don't have many long-term plans yet since I'm in a place where my life is already quite unpredictable as it is. Due to the instability of my boyfriend's work I have no idea which part of the world I'll be living in next year, but I'm hoping it will be somewhere in Europe or Canada. I would prefer to stay somewhere in northern / central Europe where the weather might still stay relatively mild for the next ten or so years without any drastic seasonal alterations. My future job will most likely be location independent so I can work from home most of the time. It's important that I don't need to travel long distances regularly, plus I'm not planning to ever become a car owner (hopefully I can keep my word). I'm also hoping to find a home with a low energy consumption and just enough space for my needs. That would either mean having a small house with a small garden or an apartment with a balcony, either way, I want to be able to grow some small stuff for the needs of my household. That's probably going to be just the two of us since we are not super keen on having kids.

This is an interesting question and the more I think about it, the less confident I feel about my plans since there's no way of knowing how predictable the future (even just the next five years) will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reforestation and better soil management with ground cover crops can help suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the soil. These are two areas we should be striving to improve on everywhere asap imo.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/carbon-capture-trees-atmosphere-climate-change/

Ive thought for years that the correctional departments should offer work opportunities for the incarcerated, planting trees. I know if I was stuck in some jail Id love a chance to do some outdoor work like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it effects me in a way more existential way. I’m pretty young, so just the idea of knowing that because of climate change and because everyone in power is too ignorant or selfish to do anything to stop it just makes me realize that I probably won’t get to live that long, that I won’t get to have a future. 

 

Shit, I’m doing it again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×