Climate Change - Bad News

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know why some people are still in denial. The only debate is wheter we humans are totally or partly responsible.

There is no debate about humans being totally responsible, that is just so stupid it burns...it is to what significant degree, if any, do humans play in climate change.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Then they are guilty of complacency and irresponsibility.

They're guilty of many things, but complacency isn't one of them.

The Livestock Industry is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.

GHGs are not created equal. There's a reason all the models show that co2 is so much more dangerous than any other. Despite the relatively low irradiative absorption/reflection, co2 stays in the atmosphere for far longer than methane or water vapor. As a result, it has far more time to influence climate subsystems and sustain positive feedbacks. The only reason we're worried about GHG emissions is climate sensitivity, which is basically entirely a matter of magnitude of the feedback parameter.

That is more than all cars, planes, ships, trains, motorbikes etc. - ALL forms of transport - COMBINED.

It doesn't really matter. Methane is a short-lived GHG. It's not integral to all ecosystems the way that co2 is nor is it suspected of being climate forcing through cloud dynamics, effects on atmospheric water vapour, and other climate subsystems.

Last year here in England we had a record year of rainfall.

Rain? In England!?

We had to import wheat for the first time in living memory

This is climate. Living memory is nothing.

The US had a poor corn harvest due to overly hot weather

My mother's side of the family is from the west (Colorado). My uncle is an agronomist who consults with farmers about their crops and the biggest is corn. It wasn't anything particularly bad. I was out there this summer.

I don't know why some people are still in denial

How much of the scientific literature have you read?

The only debate is wheter we humans are totally or partly responsible.

That isn't a debate. We're pouring GHGs into the atmosphere, so we're causing warming and I don't know of single scientist who disagrees. And as the earth has warmed so little in 15 years that we're below all model predictions, nobody thinks that we are responsible for all observed temperature trends since 1951 either. The question is simply what actions should be taken and why.

 

[Knight of Albion]

1) They're guilty of many things, but complacency isn't one of them.


2) GHGs are not created equal. There's a reason all the models show that co2 is so much more dangerous than any other. Despite the relatively low irradiative absorption/reflection, co2 stays in the atmosphere for far longer than methane or water vapor. As a result, it has far more time to influence climate subsystems and sustain positive feedbacks. The only reason we're worried about GHG emissions is climate sensitivity, which is basically entirely a matter of magnitude of the feedback parameter.
It doesn't really matter. Methane is a short-lived GHG. It's not integral to all ecosystems the way that co2 is nor is it suspected of being climate forcing through cloud dynamics, effects on atmospheric water vapour, and other climate subsystems.

3) My mother's side of the family is from the west (Colorado). My uncle is an agronomist who consults with farmers about their crops and the biggest is corn. It wasn't anything particularly bad. I was out there this summer.

4) That isn't a debate. We're pouring GHGs into the atmosphere, so we're causing warming and I don't know of single scientist who disagrees. And as the earth has warmed so little in 15 years that we're below all model predictions, nobody thinks that we are responsible for all observed temperature trends since 1951 either. The question is simply what actions should be taken and why.

1) I think they are being complacent. The UN produced their eye-opening Livestock's Long Shadow' report in 2006 warning of the harm being caused to the environment by livestock production, everything from greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, soil erosion etc etc. They've hardly been shouting it from the rooftops since.
The report said 18% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by livestock production. Another source said they overestimated and it should be 14.5% and another source again said they underestimated and it should be 51%.
Whichever way you look at it it is way more than all forms of transport combined. The Livestock Industry is wholly unsustainable at the present rate, never mind with 40% more people by 2050 and the millions more people tapping into the 'meat and dairy' system in the emerging economies.
Growth of the livestock industry is going to totally undermine other green initiatives.

2) I don't know what point you're trying to argue there, but you're wide of the mark.
United Nations News Centre - Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

3) Not according to my retired farmer friend in Texas who told me things were much down and with an increased risk of corn 'ear mould'.
Looking on a farmer's network website corn harvest is better than expected but "Overall corn harvest in the northern half of the Corn Belt is still significantly behind the five year average."
And last year there was a widespread drought and still is I believe in many places, which is the point I'm making. Crops are hostage to the weather. Weather fluctuations can spell disaster for crop harvests.

4) I agree with you on that (though some people are still disputing it.)
We are negatively impacting on climate and we're trashing the planet.
There are solutions though I fear humankind is not willing to make the sacrifices and changes required...
Most people have become totally detached from the notion of Mother Earth and the connectivity of all life upon it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I spotted this recently....
'HILARIOUS": Top MIT scientist mocks newest UN climate report | The Daily Caller
The science of climatology is adversely affected by political agendas on both sides.
Those of us who are not climatologists shouldn't be quick to embrace certainty. And those
who are should wait until their models make better predictions. This uneducated grounds
keeper is sure of one environmental issue though....we have a looming overpopulation problem.

 

[Alceste]

Over hear, everyone is so unanimous on climate change that it is hard to believe that the world doesn't think climate change is real.

The world does believe it's real. There are just a few pockets here and there where people are very well practiced in denying reality, thanks to being exposed to vast amounts of oil industry propaganda and lacking the necessary education to see through it.

 

[BSM1]

The world does believe it's real. There are just a few pockets here and there where people are very well practiced in denying reality, thanks to being exposed to vast amounts of oil industry propaganda and lacking the necessary education to see through it.

Believing and proving are two different animals. Reference:FSM

 

[Alceste]

Would deciding to have multiple children and contribute to a growing population be one of those decisions that are climate changing?

Or the decision to chop down all the trees in your region for firewood...

 

[metis]

Believing and proving are two different animals. Reference:FSM

Even though Wikipedia is not a scientific site, it does a good job overall on this. But, what's probably more important is the fact that there are links to numerous scientific reports near the end if you really are truly interested in looking at the evidence: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Alceste]

Certainly we could act to mitigate it; to what extent such mitigation might be effective is unclear at this stage, but there is no doubt that it is far too early to assert our inability to prevent climate change, there are an immense variety of advancements human kind have developed that we once thought impossible - so I am unwilling to accept (before we even really begin) that we cannot do anything to stop this.

It just so happens that the measures we can take to make our communities more resilient in a rapidly changing, unpredictable climate are exactly the same measures that would mitigate the impact of man-made climate change. Grow your own food, reduce your waste and energy consumption, generate your own electricity (solar panels, wind, geothermal), buy local, organic produce, and eliminate the purchase of anything that is not a necessity to "starve the beast" of unimpeded capitalism.

Other measures to protect yourself from the impact of peak oil, like riding a bike or converting your car to run on electricity (unless you live in a coal powered region) to avoid paying rising gas process, also reduce emissions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I spotted this recently....
'HILARIOUS": Top MIT scientist mocks newest UN climate report | The Daily Caller
The science of climatology is adversely affected by political agendas on both sides.
Those of us who are not climatologists shouldn't be quick to embrace certainty. And those
who are should wait until their models make better predictions. This uneducated grounds
keeper is sure of one environmental issue though....we have a looming overpopulation problem.

You don't have to be a climatologist though to know the risks and dangers of carbon emissions. Even if it's not the earth as a whole, there is still smog, corrosion, health and environmental hazards, and many other things that anyone can readily see and understand. You also don't have to be any sort of scientist to know we are going to eventually run out of natural/fossil fuels.
Essentially, you don't have to be a climatologist to know that A) pollution is bad, and B) we are going to run out and our continued dependency is going to make things much harder and harder as we have less and less.
Only the blind need a better model. It is debated how much of climate change we are causing, but we are causing it, and causing it with things that we should replace anyways.

 

[Alceste]

You don't have to be a climatologist though to know the risks and dangers of carbon emissions. Even if it's not the earth as a whole, there is still smog, corrosion, health and environmental hazards, and many other things that anyone can readily see and understand. You also don't have to be any sort of scientist to know we are going to eventually run out of natural/fossil fuels.
Essentially, you don't have to be a climatologist to know that A) pollution is bad, and B) we are going to run out and our continued dependency is going to make things much harder and harder as we have less and less.
Only the blind need a better model. It is debated how much of climate change we are causing, but we are causing it, and causing it with things that we should replace anyways.

Very reasonable!

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't have to be a climatologist though to know the risks and dangers of carbon emissions. Even if it's not the earth as a whole, there is still smog, corrosion, health and environmental hazards, and many other things that anyone can readily see and understand. You also don't have to be any sort of scientist to know we are going to eventually run out of natural/fossil fuels.
Essentially, you don't have to be a climatologist to know that A) pollution is bad, and B) we are going to run out and our continued dependency is going to make things much harder and harder as we have less and less.
Only the blind need a better model. It is debated how much of climate change we are causing, but we are causing it, and causing it with things that we should replace anyways.

I agree with all those things. They should be promptly addressed.
But they're independent of the climate change controversy.

 

[BSM1]

Even though Wikipedia is not a scientific site, it does a good job overall on this. But, what's probably more important is the fact that there are links to numerous scientific reports near the end if you really are truly interested in looking at the evidence: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, yeah...?

The Global Warming Scam

 

[Aquitaine]

It just so happens that the measures we can take to make our communities more resilient in a rapidly changing, unpredictable climate are exactly the same measures that would mitigate the impact of man-made climate change. Grow your own food, reduce your waste and energy consumption, generate your own electricity (solar panels, wind, geothermal), buy local, organic produce, and eliminate the purchase of anything that is not a necessity to "starve the beast" of unimpeded capitalism.

Other measures to protect yourself from the impact of peak oil, like riding a bike or converting your car to run on electricity (unless you live in a coal powered region) to avoid paying rising gas process, also reduce emissions.

Sadly, in the UK I don't think Solar Panels would be effective. However, there's got to be some potential for small wind turbines/wind farms.

Electric cars is an interesting idea, but don't they put significant strain on the environment too, like the batteries etc?

Have you seen how well Iceland have harnessed their own Geothermal hot-spots? Sadly though, I'm unsure as to whether or not the UK has any of these hot-spots...

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in sustainable living, and becoming more independent, but I'm unsure as how to effectively and realistically do it.

 

[metis]

Oh, yeah...?

The Global Warming Scam

So, you actually believe an obviously partisan political blog (check out the home page of your link) carries the same weight as peer-reviewed science? Really?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I spotted this recently....
'HILARIOUS": Top MIT scientist mocks newest UN climate report | The Daily Caller
The science of climatology is adversely affected by political agendas on both sides.
Those of us who are not climatologists shouldn't be quick to embrace certainty. And those
who are should wait until their models make better predictions. This uneducated grounds
keeper is sure of one environmental issue though....we have a looming overpopulation problem.

I agree with all those things. They should be promptly addressed.
But they're independent of the climate change controversy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/13/china-smog/2809669/

BEIJING – After years of complaints from foreign nations and its own citizens, the Chinese government says it plans to fight the acrid smog that fills many of China's cities where some days it is impossible to see more than a few blocks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/w...s-focus-on-emissions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

HONG KONG — Jiang Kejun may be one of the few Beijing residents who see a ray of hope in the smog engulfing the city. A researcher in a state energy institute, he is an outspoken advocate of swiftly cutting China’s greenhouse gas output, and he says public anger about noxious air has jolted the government, which long dismissed pollution as the necessary price of prosperity.

I fail to see how they are separate, as both are consequences of heavy pollution and carbon emissions.

 

[Alceste]

Sadly, in the UK I don't think Solar Panels would be effective. However, there's got to be some potential for small wind turbines/wind farms.

Electric cars is an interesting idea, but don't they put significant strain on the environment too, like the batteries etc?

Have you seen how well Iceland have harnessed their own Geothermal hot-spots? Sadly though, I'm unsure as to whether or not the UK has any of these hot-spots...

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in sustainable living, and becoming more independent, but I'm unsure as how to effectively and realistically do it.

Every country faces its own unique challenges and ideal solutions. The UK is particularly badly situated. That's why we left. We're on the West coast of Canada now, which has much better long term prospects if you can manage not to think about Cascadia. Lol.

What the UK has going for it is that it already has a couple of transition towns - towns with an explicit agenda of bolstering local resilience. They try to supply as much food and water locally as possible, do not pursue growth, make every effort to educate the public about reducing emissions, and even have their own currency.

We don't have anything like that in Canada. There will be political resistance to anything we try to do, and general public complacency. Apart from relentless pro-tar-sands propaganda (some of which or own federal government pays for with our tax dollars), things are also not yet difficult enough for average folks for collective action. We're all on our own, so every one of us has to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Revoltingest]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/13/china-smog/2809669/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/w...s-focus-on-emissions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I fail to see how they are separate, as both are consequences of heavy pollution and carbon emissions.

They are separate in the sense that even if AGW is bunk, it's still worth curbing
population growth, resource usage, pollution, & destruction of wild spaces.
A benefit of this view is that steps AGW types want are worth doing in any event.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=metis;3515241]So, you actually believe an obviously partisan political blog (check out the home page of your link) carries the same weight as peer-reviewed science? Really?

[/QUOTE]

Name one of these scientist, please.

 

[metis]

Let me recommend you just go the the library and pick up some copies of "Scientific American" which is a peer- reviewed publication, and look for yourself? Or check their website? I would say at least one out of every two issues has at least one article on climate change.