Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:44 PM GMT on February 17, 2013

Share this Blog
26
+

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

I have been invited to contribute a piece to Zocalo Public Square for an event next week in Culver City, California. It is called Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change? If you are local, then it looks like an interesting event to attend with good people. To get more idea of the event from a previous event see Lost in Space. My piece is focused on California, but you will get the picture.

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

The Earth is warming, sea levels are rising, and the weather is changing. We know that the Earth has warmed and will continue to warm due to the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels—and the warming is and will be disruptive. Five years ago the talk was “if” we limited the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius, then we would avoid “dangerous” climate change. It is now quite obvious that we see large, consequential, and disruptive changes with even less warming—for example in the melting of the Arctic Sea ice. The commitments the world has made have us on a path toward 3.5 degrees of warming or more. If we burn all our fossil fuels, the warming will be much greater.

We have no choice but to adapt to this warming world. We have adapted to changes in the climate for the past 10,000 years—it is something we do. Now, scientific investigation has given us a vision of the future that is credible and actionable. This is unprecedented in history, and it gives us the opportunity to take responsibility and plan to adapt. We know that the Earth will warm; we know it will warm fast. We also know that the weather will change, and when the weather changes the way rain and snow are distributed will be different.

To take advantage of this knowledge, we need to think through scenarios of what will happen to real places. We need to look at the impact of rising sea level on the Sacramento River Delta. We need to focus on how much water is stored in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and drought impacts on the forests, grasslands, and rangelands. We must move away from sweeping statements about more droughts and greater floods and instead play out the scenario and the cost of this warmer world to Culver City, California, to the people of California, and to the people of the United States. Then we can decide whether to build sea walls or move inland, rather than patching different strategies together as fragmented responses of emergency management.

Should we just adapt—and not worry about our continued emissions of our energy waste into the atmosphere, ocean, and land? What would be adapt to? We started talking about the “new normal” when we calculated, in 2011, the 30-year average of temperatures from 1981 to 2010, and a new, warmer average “replaced” the 30-year average of some earlier period. In 10 more years we will have the next warmer “climate,” then the next, and the next—the “next normals.” There is no new normal. And the warming will be speeding up. There is no “just adapting” to this; there is no stable climate to adapt to. We must manage and limit our carbon dioxide waste or we will still be chasing the “new normal” in a thousand years.

It won’t just be getting warmer. Ecosystems will have to adapt far faster than they did in the past 10,000 years. The trees of California will die from hot, dry weather. Intrusion of the sea into the Sacramento Delta will make Katrina in New Orleans seem like a quaint artifact of the “old normal.” The accelerated release of methane and carbon dioxide as the Arctic melts will accelerate the warming. The oceans will become acidic, and there will be vast changes to phytoplankton and zooplankton. The oceans will become warm and will release the carbon dioxide we take comfort in their storing. There is no “just adapting.” We will be required to adapt, and the rate of change will make adaptation ever more challenging. We need both aggressive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the future changes, and we need aggressive adaptation to cope with the changes already occurring and those that are in store.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 282 - 232

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Cyclonebuster et al,

This is all very nice geography 101, but many labor under the misconception that melting ice is the reason the atmosphere has not warmed when the reality is that the energy to melt the ice is miniscule compared to the atmospheric energy budget.

You guys are meterology students right? Do you ever watch the 12000m animation? There have been persistent hot anomalies in the Arctic. 12000m is the lower stratosphere at that latitude and my suspicion is the melting ice has more to do with ozone than Carbon dioxide.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The north pole and the south pole are ... polar opposites. The north pole is all sea ice and the sea ice is bound by land masses. The south pole, for the most part, is land based ice. The south pole sea ice nearly melts out each thaw season and rebounds each freeze season. The currents around Antarctica are becoming warmer and thinning more of the sea ice. The wind patterns are also changing there and blowing more sea ice to greater extents since it is not land bound. ... Is there anything else you are curious about?


Correct...
The South pole will melt out after the North Pole due to the land based ice. The same thing will happen to Greenland....... It doesn't melt from below due to the fact there is no warm water below it to melt it except for the ice that is not bound up by land.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20682
Quoting azucas:
Cyclonebuster,

The Arctic ice is melting but the Antarcticice is not. Can you think of any reason a well mixed greenhouse gas would play favorites?

Also, enthalpy of fusion is really wimpy compared to enthalpy of vaporization. If we are losing 500 km^3 of Arctic ice it would be 6X10^-2 petawatts out of an annual budget of 175 petawatts. If the "missing heat" were melting ice, it would be gone from both poles.


The north pole and the south pole are ... polar opposites. The north pole is all sea ice and the sea ice is bound by land masses. The south pole, for the most part, is land based ice. The south pole sea ice nearly melts out each thaw season and rebounds each freeze season. The currents around Antarctica are becoming warmer and thinning more of the sea ice. The wind patterns are also changing there and blowing more sea ice to greater extents since it is not land bound. ... Is there anything else you are curious about?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I find it strange that you would ask this question. This is almost as if you are asking how can there be any natural CO2 present in the atmosphere.

Methane and CO2 from warmer oceans, bogs, and thawed permafrost will begin to enter the atmosphere and the methane released will quickly start decomposing into CO2. Soils contain CO2 that is released as the soils are warmed.
But there you have it the warming would have started first. If the CO2 caused the warming where did it come from. You are saying warming happened first.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
Quoting nymore:
I find this interesting, now we know CO2 has followed temps before the last time according to the article. My question would be where did the CO2 come from.


I find it strange that you would ask this question. This is almost as if you are asking how can there be any natural CO2 present in the atmosphere.

Methane and CO2 from warmer oceans, bogs, and thawed permafrost will begin to enter the atmosphere and the methane released will quickly start decomposing into CO2. Soils contain CO2 that is released as the soils are warmed.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Cyclonebuster,

The Arctic ice is melting but the Antarcticice is not. Can you think of any reason a well mixed greenhouse gas would play favorites?

Also, enthalpy of fusion is really wimpy compared to enthalpy of vaporization. If we are losing 500 km^3 of Arctic ice it would be 6X10^-2 petawatts out of an annual budget of 175 petawatts. If the "missing heat" were melting ice, it would be gone from both poles.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Really? Actually, it can happen either way. Adding CO2 into the atmosphere will induce a warmer climate and warming climate will lead to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. (As our climate continues to warm, watch the sequestered CO2 and methane begin to be released into the atmosphere. This will result in even more warming of the climate.)There is no distinct evidence that one will always precede the other. There is distinct evidence that adding CO2 into the atmosphere will lead to a warming climate. As a matter of fact, The Laws of Physics tell us that this will be exactly what happens when CO2 is added to the atmosphere. At the very least, additional CO2 would delay any cooling mechanisms that would be in place at the time.
I find this interesting, now we know CO2 has followed temps before the last time according to the article. My question would be where did the CO2 come from.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I feel certain that the question will arise, so it may as well be asked now. Are these figures for adjusted dollars?
They seem to be. The answer is simply more complex designs and expensive materials used. Also number of structures would play a part. Places that used to be nothing are now towns.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
Quoting Xandra:

The graph from EM-DAT shows all reported natural disasters, not only storms.

Anyway, below is a graph from EM-DAT with number of natural disasters reported 1900-2011. Click for larger image.

Ask yourself a question, do you actually believe some years as your graph shows had no natural disasters. Now notice how nothing really changes until better communications come along, then things begin to change and why the latest drop off? If you are trying to equate the change to CO2 it would seem this can not be the cause.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
Quoting azucas:
Daisyworld,

The reality that nearly 1/3 of human historic Carbon dioxide contributions to the atmosphere have occurred within the last 16 years while all the satellite groups and now the IPCC agree that atmospheric temperature has been flat is definitely step 1.

"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"

Goes squarely into "the moon landing was faked" category utterly unbefitting an erstwhile scientific journal. All the more reason it will soon be extinct.

The issue has been massaged to death, and while someone can find some outlier time series, the evidence is very clear that in every glacial/interglacial transition CO2 follows temperature like a poodle on a leash.


Really? Actually, it can happen either way. Adding CO2 into the atmosphere will induce a warmer climate and warming climate will lead to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. (As our climate continues to warm, watch the sequestered CO2 and methane begin to be released into the atmosphere. This will result in even more warming of the climate.)There is no distinct evidence that one will always precede the other. There is distinct evidence that adding CO2 into the atmosphere will lead to a warming climate. As a matter of fact, The Laws of Physics tell us that this will be exactly what happens when CO2 is added to the atmosphere. At the very least, additional CO2 would delay any cooling mechanisms that would be in place at the time.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting azucas:
Daisyworld,

The reality that nearly 1/3 of human historic Carbon dioxide contributions to the atmosphere have occurred within the last 16 years while all the satellite groups and now the IPCC agree that atmospheric temperature has been flat is definitely step 1.

"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"

Goes squarely into "the moon landing was faked" category utterly unbefitting an erstwhile scientific journal. All the more reason it will soon be extinct.

The issue has been massaged to death, and while someone can find some outlier time series, the evidence is very clear that in every glacial/interglacial transition CO2 follows temperature like a poodle on a leash.


It could be that even if it were flat for the past 16 years "which it isn't" could mean the extra heat has gone to melt more Northern Arctic Ice over the past 16 years????? Comprende?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20682
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Quoting azucas:

[deletia]

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting azucas:
Daisyworld,

The reality that nearly 1/3 of human historic Carbon dioxide contributions to the atmosphere have occurred within the last 16 years while all the satellite groups and now the IPCC agree that atmospheric temperature has been flat is definitely step 1.

"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"

Goes squarely into "the moon landing was faked" category utterly unbefitting an erstwhile scientific journal. All the more reason it will soon be extinct.

The issue has been massaged to death, and while someone can find some outlier time series, the evidence is very clear that in every glacial/interglacial transition CO2 follows temperature like a poodle on a leash.


Now you're just baiting people. Please take your lies elsewhere. The scientific reality does not support them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Daisyworld,

The reality that nearly 1/3 of human historic Carbon dioxide contributions to the atmosphere have occurred within the last 16 years while all the satellite groups and now the IPCC agree that atmospheric temperature has been flat is definitely step 1.

"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"

Goes squarely into "the moon landing was faked" category utterly unbefitting an erstwhile scientific journal. All the more reason it will soon be extinct.

The issue has been massaged to death, and while someone can find some outlier time series, the evidence is very clear that in every glacial/interglacial transition CO2 follows temperature like a poodle on a leash.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting no1der:
Some time ago, 1911maker made the interesting observation that in his experience, those in the climatological community who were best informed, were saying the least.

My contacts are mainly from the geological side of things, among geochemists and paleoclimatologists, and there is a similar reticence to speak openly. Two topics keep coming up in private conversations - PETM, and Elisabeth Kubler-Ross.

The PETM or 'Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum' at 56Ma was the previous instance of a relatively sudden atmospheric Carbon runaway. It was "a time of rapid evolution", which is another way of saying lots of extinctions and enormous selection pressure on the survivors. After a few 100Ka the worst of the Carbon spike was down and the biosphere had sort of stabilized, but finally cleaning up the mess in the atmosphere took another 6Ma. Eventually, most of the Carbon was sequestered in the Arctic Basin ('Azolla Event'), and sediments from this interval are the source rocks for much of the Arctic oil and gas now being eyed for production... and so it goes...

Here is an excellent review of the PETM:


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/10/h othouse-earth/kunzig-text


Yes, and what is often overlooked by non-scientists (and which biogeochemists have been trying to explain for years) is that carbon dioxide has been a major driver of Earth's climate from the very beginning. It was even found to be the primary mechanism of how the planet advanced out of the last ice age:

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Knowing just how powerful of a climate-changing gas that CO2 is, why would we be willing to continue pumping it into our atmosphere at unprecedented rates?

I suppose that's the million-dollar question...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:

For sure Rookie. I am also more aware now about making sure my laptop cover is closed when I'm not using it and I pull the plugs on my cell phone chargers once they're full.
Every little bit helps!
But in my job, we can do a lot of things electronically, yet the 'powers that be' still insist on hard paper copies. This requires printing and delivering, all which require energy.
Until we get into the idea culturally, of using less energy, we are going to continue to use energy beyond our means to handle its side effects.


Don't have to worry about it with Gulfstream Kinetic Energy...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20682
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Every effort to reduce your footprint helps, Chicklit. The single efforts of an individual does not make much difference in the big picture. Single efforts of many people will make some difference with this. The rewards you obtain right now is the money you save in fuel costs. Imagine how much you would be spending for gas now if you still had the V8. That money really adds up at the end of the year!

For sure Rookie. I am also more aware now about making sure my laptop cover is closed when I'm not using it and I pull the plugs on my cell phone chargers once they're full.
Every little bit helps!
But in my job, we can do a lot of things electronically, yet the 'powers that be' still insist on hard paper copies. This requires printing and delivering, all of which require energy.
Until we get into the idea culturally of using less energy, we are going to continue to use energy beyond our means to handle its side effects.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:
...so there is no 'new normal' just 'new abnormal'...
what ever happened to environmental responsibility?
I did trade my SUV in for a car that is averaging 40 miles per gallon. But I still have to drive enough so I fill my 10 gallon tank once a week!
Still, it take s 1/2 the gas of my old V-8.
Until we built energy savings into our economic system, we will continue to burn energy faster than the earth can handle its emissions.


Every effort to reduce your footprint helps, Chicklit. The single efforts of an individual does not make much difference in the big picture. Single efforts of many people will make some difference with this. The rewards you obtain right now is the money you save in fuel costs. Imagine how much you would be spending for gas now if you still had the V8. That money really adds up at the end of the year!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting azucas:
Such bile, yet so few specific objections. But here:

[...]

Perhaps you have higher regard for the IPCC.


Puuleeese, cease the blather about peer review. Scientific Journals will soon join the dinosaurs and dodo birds. Even now, most papers are posted on personal websites for review.


The only way scientific journals would go the "way of the dodo" is if evolution took its course through a natural modification of the peer review process that that would be beneficial to the scientific process as a whole. As it stands, no other process exists that can promote the kind of non-biased critical analysis by subject matter experts such as that provided by the peer review process within scientific journals.

If scientific journals become extinct, it would be because of a human-induced disaster that undermines the foundation of science literacy and critical thinking. Such events could happen through a rise to power of a popular movement funded by special interests that (1) usurps our educational system via science-illiterate leaders who dictate what teachers can/can't teach in our science classrooms and universities, (2) ignores historical data gained through centuries of scientific progress generated from the brightest minds of the human race, (3) interferes with and obfuscates current ongoing research by the pedagogical descendants of those scientific minds, and (4) misinforms the general public by supplanting established scientific verity with agenda-driven half truths and party-line propaganda intended to entrench and enrich said special interests to the detriment of the rest of civilization.

Oh, wait. That's already happening... Sequestration Would Cut U.S. Science Budgets
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
...so there is no 'new normal' just 'new abnormal'...
what ever happened to environmental responsibility?
I did trade my SUV in for a car that is averaging 40 miles per gallon. But I still have to drive enough so I fill my 10 gallon tank once a week!
Still, it take s 1/2 the gas of my old V-8.
Until we built energy savings into our economic system, we will continue to burn energy faster than the earth can handle its emissions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SPLbeater6:
I might consider thinking about maybe believing this if someone told me what a degree or two woul do for the next 50 years. Not 1,000 not 500 but 50.


What is to cause concern for us is not a slower and more gradual change of 2 degrees Celsius over 1,000 years, but the rapid change that is happening now. The longer for change to occur and the more gradual the change the more likely there is time to adapt. Adaptation not just for us, but for nearly every life form on Earth. Some species have become so specialized that they almost certainly will not be able to adapt and thus become extinct. Other species that cannot adapt quickly enough will also become extinct.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting nymore:
The dollar damage metric to show storms getting worse is dishonest at best. I will see if you can explain why. Hint as an example look at the cost of Texas Stadium and the original vs replacement costs in today's dollars, now look at Cowboy Stadium. What do you see? What would explain this?


I feel certain that the question will arise, so it may as well be asked now. Are these figures for adjusted dollars?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting indianrivguy:


How scary is it when you consider we have been in a cyclical cooling period, and we have forced the warming, at record levels, anyway.


As has been mentioned many times here before, the next strong and extended El Nino may push us to the point of no return. Adaptation will be our only hope then and mitigation efforts now is merely to try to ward off the worst that it could become. .... Some days, it is good to be old already.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting SPLbeater6:
I might consider thinking about maybe believing this if someone told me what a degree or two woul do for the next 50 years. Not 1,000 not 500 but 50.


Here's something for you to think about. Look at what has happened to glacial retreat in the Andes in the past 50 years, soley attributed to Global Warming. With the potential that warming will accelerate, the next 50 years look pretty dismal.


Key Facts

As glacial retreat reaches critical levels in Bolivia, water stress plagues the cities of El Alto and La Paz.3,8,9 If our heat-trapping emissions continue to rise at current rates, many tropical glaciers in Latin America are likely to disappear within a few decades.12
■Chacaltaya glacier, northeast of La Paz, lost more than 90 percent of its volume from the 1940s to the late 1990s-and disappeared completely in 2009.3,9,10,11
■Average temperatures throughout the tropical Andes rose around 0.6° F (0.33° C) per decade in the last quarter of the twentieth century.13,14 Scientists have observed that temperature increases of as little as 0.2° F (0.1° C) per decade can cause glaciers to shrink dramatically.17
■Melting of tropical Andean glaciers threatens the water supply of 30 million people, agriculture, hydropower, and the region's immense biodiversity.4,23


Details

La Paz and the neighboring city of El Alto, Bolivia, compose one of the fastest-growing urban areas in Latin America.2,3 La Paz, the world's highest capital city, depends on runoff from Andean glaciers for around 30 percent of its water supply.2,4

According to estimates by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), only about one-third of El Alto residents had access to all water-related services in the late 1990s, and one in five lacked potable water.5,6 With the basic needs of so many people already unmet, residents revolted against privatization of the city's water system, which priced tens of thousands of people out of access to water. In 2005 the government returned El Alto's water system to public control.7

However, water shortages continue to plague El Alto-La Paz, as glacial retreat reaches critical levels in Bolivia.8,9 Chacaltaya glacier—some 12 miles (20 kilometers) northeast of La Paz—lost more than 60 percent of its volume from the 1940s to the early 1980s, and more than 90 percent by the late 1990s.9,10 Early this century, scientists projected that Chacaltaya glacier would melt completely by 2010,9 and it disappeared in 2009.3,11 The Zongo glacier northeast of Chacaltaya is also shrinking.10

Glaciers across South America have shrunk severely in recent decades, with many vanishing altogether.12 Scientists attribute the accelerating retreat of Andean glaciers to climate change—primarily warming temperatures, higher humidity, and shifting precipitation.13 Average temperatures throughout the tropical Andes have been rising since the mid-twentieth century, with the rate of increase jumping to around 0.6° F (0.33° C) per decade in the last quarter of the century.13,14

High humidity also plays a role in shrinking the Andean glaciers, as it causes the glaciers to melt rather than turn into vapor through a process known as sublimation. Melting decreases the surface reflectivity—or albedo—of a glacier, which means that it absorbs more of the sun's energy. That leads to a cycle of further warming and melting.9

Scientists have also linked the disappearance of the Chacaltaya glacier to decreases in precipitation linked to more frequent El Niño events.9 The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a cyclical shift in ocean temperatures and atmospheric pressure in the Pacific Ocean. In a warming world, El Niño phases have been lasting longer and become more intense.9,15
Chacaltaya Glacier, Bolivia
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 210
I might consider thinking about maybe believing this if someone told me what a degree or two woul do for the next 50 years. Not 1,000 not 500 but 50.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:

The dollar damage metric to show storms getting worse is dishonest at best. [...]

The graph from EM-DAT shows all reported natural disasters, not only storms.

Anyway, below is a graph from EM-DAT with number of natural disasters reported 1900-2011. Click for larger image.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1831
Quoting JupiterKen:
Link

Open and honest


Hi, Ken

"Open and honest" is one man's opinion anyway.

How could this be considered open and honest when only 10 emails are shown out of 1,000's? Do you have the rest of the "release 2" emails for our viewing purpose? Until these 10 emails can be compared to the other 1,000s of emails, how can anyone say that this is "open and honest"?

2 of these emails were redacted for attorney/climate privileges and the other 8 were redacted for the deliberative content they contained.

Who is William Yeatman and what does he do?

William Yeatman
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Some time ago, 1911maker made the interesting observation that in his experience, those in the climatological community who were best informed, were saying the least.

My contacts are mainly from the geological side of things, among geochemists and paleoclimatologists, and there is a similar reticence to speak openly. Two topics keep coming up in private conversations - PETM, and Elisabeth Kubler-Ross.

The PETM or 'Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum' at 56Ma was the previous instance of a relatively sudden atmospheric Carbon runaway. It was "a time of rapid evolution", which is another way of saying lots of extinctions and enormous selection pressure on the survivors. After a few 100Ka the worst of the Carbon spike was down and the biosphere had sort of stabilized, but finally cleaning up the mess in the atmosphere took another 6Ma. Eventually, most of the Carbon was sequestered in the Arctic Basin ('Azolla Event'), and sediments from this interval are the source rocks for much of the Arctic oil and gas now being eyed for production... and so it goes...

Here is an excellent review of the PETM:


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/10/h othouse-earth/kunzig-text
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:

And how do you come to that conclusion?

Estimated damages (US$billion) caused by reported natural disasters 1900-2011. Click for larger image.




The dollar damage metric to show storms getting worse is dishonest at best. I will see if you can explain why. Hint as an example look at the cost of Texas Stadium and the original vs replacement costs in today's dollars, now look at Cowboy Stadium. What do you see? What would explain this?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

Natural disasters were much worse when CO2 was much less prevalent. [...]

And how do you come to that conclusion?

Estimated damages (US$billion) caused by reported natural disasters 1900-2011. Click for larger image.




Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1831
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


That graphic is pretty compelling evidence that La Nina years are not having much of an impact on cooling the planet any more. The denial industry must be scratching their heads on this one trying to find a 15 year span starting point for their next round of "evidence".


How scary is it when you consider we have been in a cyclical cooling period, and we have forced the warming, at record levels, anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Post 242 is waiting your response, but you find it less... inconvenient... to post another bit of rubbish instead. Very telling.

"If you spend a great deal of your time pretending to be an a$$hole to get a reaction from people...you aren't pretending."



Ed Brayton

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Natural disasters were much worse when CO2 was much less prevalent. As usual, facts win over subjective hysteria. So much for the increased CO2/freak weather phenomena:

Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Could you please provide some documentary evidence about the severity of natural disasters when CO2 was only 185ppm during the last glaciation.

Me thinks you don't have a clue about climate science!
You didn't need the "about climate science" part.

I'm beginning to believe that the only way to respond to our resident deniers is the Jeffersonian:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Natural disasters were much worse when CO2 was much less prevalent. As usual, facts win over subjective hysteria. So much for the increased CO2/freak weather phenomena:

Link


Could you please provide some documentary evidence about the severity of natural disasters when CO2 was only 185ppm during the last glaciation.

Me thinks you don't have a clue about climate science!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 210
Link

Open and honest
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SteveDa1:
Neapolitanfan ~



Source

This one graph, with no words (I'm assuming you can see the big picture yourself), has just dis-proven your "theory".

I guess all that's left to say is: next?


That graphic is pretty compelling evidence that La Nina years are not having much of an impact on cooling the planet any more. The denial industry must be scratching their heads on this one trying to find a 15 year span starting point for their next round of "evidence".
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
Neapolitan you never answered my question about your app.
Haven't seen you on much around recently either
And what does this have to do with the science of anthropogenic global warming and climate change?

I'm still waiting for an intelligent question or comment on the subject of this blog from you!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1763
Neapolitanfan ~



Source

This one graph, with no words (I'm assuming you can see the big picture yourself), has just dis-proven your "theory".

I guess all that's left to say is: next?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
As has been noted many times, it's very likely--in fact, extremely likely--that the next El Nino will produce years hotter than either 1998 or 2005 or any other previous year. The denialists will, of course, begin blathering that it's only warm because of the El Nino, which would be a specious argument at best since their entire "it hasn't warmed in 15 years" canard is built entirely around the anomalously warm El Nino year of 1998. It will also allow denialists the opportunity to reset their clocks, so, for instance, in 2015 they can claim, "It hasn't warmed in 2 years!", and in 2017 they can claim, "It hasn't warmed in 4 years!", and in 2020 they can say, "It hasn't warmed in 7 years!", and so on.

Sigh...

From a post in Skeptical Science (to do with Arctic sea ice, but equally applicable here):

"There is a principle in statistics known as 'regression toward the mean,' which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme, i.e. we should not expect to observe record lows [in sea ice] in consecutive years. This is because when extremes are reached and records are broken, a number of different variables generally have to align in the same direction to make this happen."

That doesn't change the overall trend of course; ice is still disappearing, and temperatures are still rising. And denialists will still insist that every snowstorm, every brief cold spell, every short-term spike in Arctic ice volume, and short-term dip in global temperatures, is sure-fire evidence that the planet isn't warming.

They're wrong, of course. But that won't stop them...


Thanks, I completely forgot about the regression towards the mean phenomenon. We usually don't have to worry too much about it in the social sciences since we generally do multivariate analyses and logarithmic regressions. In fact, I can't ever remember needing to account for it in any of the research I've done, which is probably why I forgot in the first place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


As usual, you ignore data and attack the source or the messenger. How many decades of static temperatures will it take for you to admit that the world is not warming and CO2 has no effect? You are also fond of criticizing the credentials and/or pedigrees of those who find fault with the anti-science pervasive in AGW supporters. Do you have any idea what Dr. Rajendra Pachauri's specialty is? He was a railroad engineer. How in the world did he become head of the IPCC?

Link
So, I asked you whether you were capable of seeing any internet site that is scientifically credible, and you responded with a link to the conservative, ultra free-market, climate change-denying, Rupert Murdoch-owned and operated The Australian, Oz's answer to Fox News.

Thanks for that, MeFan; you answered my question.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Quoting Naga5000:


I just explained all of this 2 posts above. We aren't talking about decades of static temperatures. We are talking about your use of short term, statistically unreliable trends as evidence. When dealing with non normal distributions n (number of years) needs to be greater than 30. Like I have explained to you multiple times now, you need to stop using bad math as evidence. You seem easily fooled by people who don't understand basic statistical concepts.
As has been noted many times, it's very likely--in fact, extremely likely--that the next El Nino will produce years hotter than either 1998 or 2005 or any other previous year. The denialists will, of course, begin blathering that it's only warm because of the El Nino, which would be a specious argument at best since their entire "it hasn't warmed in 15 years" canard is built entirely around the anomalously warm El Nino year of 1998. It will also allow denialists the opportunity to reset their clocks, so, for instance, in 2015 they can claim, "It hasn't warmed in 2 years!", and in 2017 they can claim, "It hasn't warmed in 4 years!", and in 2020 they can say, "It hasn't warmed in 7 years!", and so on.

Sigh...

From a post in Skeptical Science (to do with Arctic sea ice, but equally applicable here):

"There is a principle in statistics known as 'regression toward the mean,' which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme, i.e. we should not expect to observe record lows [in sea ice] in consecutive years. This is because when extremes are reached and records are broken, a number of different variables generally have to align in the same direction to make this happen."

That doesn't change the overall trend of course; ice is still disappearing, and temperatures are still rising. And denialists will still insist that every snowstorm, every brief cold spell, every short-term spike in Arctic ice volume, and short-term dip in global temperatures, is sure-fire evidence that the planet isn't warming.

They're wrong, of course. But that won't stop them...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


As usual, you ignore data and attack the source or the messenger. How many decades of static temperatures will it take for you to admit that the world is not warming and CO2 has no effect? You are also fond of criticizing the credentials and/or pedigrees of those who find fault with the anti-science pervasive in AGW supporters. Do you have any idea what Dr. Rajendra Pachauri's specialty is? He was a railroad engineer. How in the world did he become head of the IPCC?

Link


I just explained all of this 2 posts above. We aren't talking about decades of static temperatures. We are talking about your use of short term, statistically unreliable trends as evidence. When dealing with non normal distributions n (number of years) needs to be greater than 30. Like I have explained to you multiple times now, you need to stop using bad math as evidence. You seem easily fooled by people who don't understand basic statistical concepts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting azucas:
Such bile, yet so few specific objections. But here:

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/?attachment_id=58 1

Perhaps you have higher regard for the IPCC.


Puuleeese, cease the blather about peer review. Scientific Journals will soon join the dinosaurs and dodo birds. Even now, most papers are posted on personal websites for review.


Broken link.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1276
Quoting azucas:
Such bile, yet so few specific objections. But here:

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/?attachment_id=58 1

Perhaps you have higher regard for the IPCC.


Puuleeese, cease the blather about peer review. Scientific Journals will soon join the dinosaurs and dodo birds. Even now, most papers are posted on personal websites for review.


Okay here are some specific objections. You are using short term (statistically unreliable) trends to try and say warming isn't occurring. Frankly, it doesn't mean much of anything if a short term trend is even or even decreasing. What matters are trends over a period of 30 or more years since temperature is not a normal distribution. Adding the fact that we have seen drastic reductions in Arctic Sea Ice which means colder blue ocean waters are now free to absorb more heat energy, and the poles are seeing the faster and larger increases in heat, we can explain the short term (once again, statistically unreliable) trend of little to no increase in global average to mean the heat energy is being used to not only melt the ice, but warm the previously ice covered areas of ocean. It takes a lot of energy to warm the water and melt the ice, because of the drastic losses seen in the Arctic, it's actually kind of scary that instead of seeing a decrease in global average temperature due to the factors mentioned above, we are seeing a short term steadying of the trend line. The Arctic is one of the last natural lines of defense for regulation of temperature, what you are witnessing is the Earth trying to cool itself off, because we are out of equilibrium.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting azucas:
Such bile, yet so few specific objections. But here:

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/?attachment_id=58 1

Perhaps you have higher regard for the IPCC.


Puuleeese, cease the blather about peer review. Scientific Journals will soon join the dinosaurs and dodo birds. Even now, most papers are posted on personal websites for review.
Oh, you want specific objections? Okay:

Specific Objection #1) The mysteriously anonymous person behind geosciencebigpicture.com is quite obviously a know-nothing, anti-scientific denialist fraud who seems to know as much about science as your average rutabaga (and that's probably being unkind to root vegetables everywhere).

Specific Objection #2) That graph to which you just linked has been discussed and dissected and discredited and debunked perhaps a half-million times already, so for anyone at this point to try to bring it up again--especially here in a science-driven forum--speaks of either sheer ignorance, or wishful-thinking bordering on the criminal.

Specific Objection #3) What you misinterpret as "bile" is actually exasperation at being forced to be as polite and politically correct as possible to people who seek to destroy civilization, and lying their way to that goal.

I trust those objections were specific enough for you, and that this issue is now closed. However, if you'd care to talk about any actual science--as opposed to what you gleaned from the Denialist Drivel Of The Day website--I can promise you'll find a ready and eager audience here. Until then...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Such bile, yet so few specific objections. But here:

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/?attachment_id=58 1

Perhaps you have higher regard for the IPCC.


Puuleeese, cease the blather about peer review. Scientific Journals will soon join the dinosaurs and dodo birds. Even now, most papers are posted on personal websites for review.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
22 FEB 2013: A 1.5 C TEMPERATURE RISE COULD
RELEASE GREENHOUSE GASES IN PERMAFROST


A global temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius could unleash more than 1,000 gigatons of carbon and methane currently trapped beneath Siberian permafrost and accelerate global climate change, a new study says. In a study conducted in a frozen cave in Siberia, researchers...

Read more here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 282 - 232

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.