Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-12-2018, 01:16 PM
Ryan_Liam Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,022
How likely is this scenario? Global warming at 4C

I don't know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...1457487412372/

Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can't wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US?

Is it scaremongering? I can't imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding 'Yup, we can't do anything now, let's go to Canada'
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #2  
Old 08-12-2018, 01:35 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I don't know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...1457487412372/

Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can't wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US?

Is it scaremongering? I can't imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding 'Yup, we can't do anything now, let's go to Canada'
Seems that the map came from a British report from 2009, AFAIK it was based on early projections that are a bit obsolete now. The map projects the temperatures between 2060 and 2100 if present rates of adding CO2 and other global warming gases into the atmosphere are not slowed.
  #3  
Old 08-12-2018, 01:44 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,176
Yes, that map is undoubtedly realistic for a 4C average global rise in temperatures. All that's uncertain is how long it will be before that number is reached.

Global warming is also undoubtedly the most important and pressing issue of our time. If scaremongering creates even a slight change in attitude or postpones these results for an extra couple of decades I'm all for it.
  #4  
Old 08-12-2018, 02:05 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
A more recent study shows that the changes will take place more on higher latitudes:

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-temper...emissions.html
Quote:
Earth's temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally?

A new study published in Nature Climate Change pinpoints the temperature increases caused by CO¬2 emissions in different regions around the world.

Using simulation results from 12 global climate models, Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia's Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, along with post-doctoral researcher Martin Leduc, produced a map that shows how the climate changes in response to cumulative carbon emissions around the world.

They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.

"This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming," says Matthews. "This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes."

Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramon de Elia from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.
So, if we get to see no stronger control of our emissions, it is a matter of time that we could see an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius on equatorial regions (Remember, Celsius degrees increase at a higher rate than Fahrenheit ones) all over the world, while higher latitudes can see 4 or more degrees Celsius of an increase.

https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-...-warmer#page-3
Quote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an organization that advises governments on the causes and impacts of climate change—is now studying what the world would be like if average temperatures rise by three degrees, four degrees, or higher. It could lead to “substantial species extinctions, large risks to global and regional food security,” and an inability to work outside—and live—in some areas of the world.

Can countries like the United States, China, and India not just limit but reduce CO2 emissions in order to keep our planet below the 2°C mark? The outlook is grim. Studies based on IPCC data say there’s a 95% chance we’ll pass 2°C by the year 2100—and the detrimental effects of climate change may be unavoidable. We do have the power to lower our emissions and keep the worst possible warming at bay. But we're running out of time.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-12-2018 at 02:05 PM.
  #5  
Old 08-12-2018, 02:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,934
Part of the problem with a map like that is that regional projections are really hard to do reliably, though we're now getting global circulation models with much finer spatial resolution. One thing that can be said reliably, though, is that 4°C temperature rise relative to some nominal 20th century average would have pretty devastating effects. The good news is that this kind of temperature rise by 2100 is unlikely because projections show it to be a worst-case outcome, essentially requiring reckless continued growth in global emissions. We'd hit that temperature by 2100 under conditions that allowed greenhouse gas accumulations to reach a net incremental forcing of +8.5 W/m2, a scenario called RCP 8.5. By contrast, RCP 6.0 or even 4.5 are considered more likely, but if we don't reverse the trend of GHG accumulation we're going to hit 4°C eventually and just keep right on going.

As I've often said, CO2 levels during glacial maxima have averaged around 180 ppm and during interglacial maxima between 280 and 300 ppm. It's cycled in that narrow band for millions of years. Today it's over 400 ppm.

Here is a brief chart of some of the expected impacts at different temperature levels relative to temperatures in the latter part of the 20th century. It's from the older IPCC AR4 report but still reasonably accurate. This is a report on some of the RPC and temperature projections from the newer AR5. Unfortunately this brief report only shows RCP 2.6 and 8.5 on most of the charts and you sort of have to extrapolate the middle ones, but it gives you some idea. The full IPCC Working Group 1 AR5 report is excellent and informative reading if you're interested. If you want something briefer, download the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) from that page.
  #6  
Old 08-12-2018, 07:38 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I don't know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...1457487412372/

Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can't wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US?

Is it scaremongering? I can't imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding 'Yup, we can't do anything now, let's go to Canada'
Hell yeah go to Canada ... well, maybe your great-grandchildren should go to Canada ... it's beautiful up there now and the future is nothing but prosperity and wealth ... and you can trust Canadians to do the right thing ...

The map you've linked to has a major red flag ... it shows deserts along the equator ... that's pretty much physically impossible ... here's a diagram of the large scale circulation pattern on Earth, see the arrows all point up and the equator, that means it rains all the time, ask anyone who's lived near the equator ... 30 feet of rainfall every year doesn't allow for a desert climate ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Yes, that map is undoubtedly realistic for a 4C average global rise in temperatures. All that's uncertain is how long it will be before that number is reached.

Global warming is also undoubtedly the most important and pressing issue of our time. If scaremongering creates even a slight change in attitude or postpones these results for an extra couple of decades I'm all for it.
Emphasis mine

Oh, sorry ... it's completely unrealistic at any temperature ... there's never been a desert at the equator while conditions on Earth allow for rainfall ... billions of years now ...

I appreciate scaremongering for truly noble causes ... but if the claim is so divorced from reality as to be complete fantasy, it's going to cause minds to change the other way ... many of us can simply drive a few hours south and experience the total sum of all climate change over the next 100 years in just an afternoon ... have dinner and drive home and wonder what's to be a afraid of ...
  #7  
Old 08-12-2018, 07:51 PM
Twoflower's Avatar
Twoflower Twoflower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South Oregon
Posts: 1,337
The idea that 4°C would only result in 2 meters of sea level rise seems awfully optimistic. And all the displaced populations are going to peacefully migrate to compact, high-rise cities, with no wars or border walls or any of that trouble?
  #8  
Old 08-12-2018, 09:17 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Seems that the map came from a British report from 2009, AFAIK it was based on early projections that are a bit obsolete now. The map projects the temperatures between 2060 and 2100 if present rates of adding CO2 and other global warming gases into the atmosphere are not slowed.
Looking around, that OP map is not coming from the Met Office. It seems to be coming from a book by Parag Khanna, an international relations expert, not a climatologist. So not as reliable as the other map I linked to. Better to look at the references that wolfpup made too.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-12-2018 at 09:18 PM.
  #9  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:22 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Oh, sorry ... it's completely unrealistic at any temperature ... there's never been a desert at the equator while conditions on Earth allow for rainfall ... billions of years now ...
That might be true, but I'd like to see cites. Weather patterns and climate changes are heavily dependent on the configuration of continents and oceans, though, and our present configuration seems to have potential for new patterns. See this study in Nature Climate Change that shows aridification in equatorial South America if not Africa.

That's a meaningless argument in the bigger picture, however. People are denying any coming inconveniences at any temperature change. Realism has absolutely nothing to do with the political discussion. The idiots will seize on anything, true or false, to bolster their case. People won't wake up until they feel it slapping their faces.
  #10  
Old 08-13-2018, 10:25 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
That might be true, but I'd like to see cites. Weather patterns and climate changes are heavily dependent on the configuration of continents and oceans, though, and our present configuration seems to have potential for new patterns. See this study in Nature Climate Change that shows aridification in equatorial South America if not Africa.

That's a meaningless argument in the bigger picture, however. People are denying any coming inconveniences at any temperature change. Realism has absolutely nothing to do with the political discussion. The idiots will seize on anything, true or false, to bolster their case. People won't wake up until they feel it slapping their faces.
This is all basic meteorology ... if you haven't taken the class then my citation would be any textbook ... not ground school, the textbook should be presenting triple integrals right away and systems of partial differential equations someplace ... there's good reasons for universities offering climatology degrees to start the climatology instruction at the junior level, you need two years calculus, a year of physics, a year of statistics and I'd recommend a year of general chemistry ...

I only got as far as the first diagram in your citation, as this completely validates my claim ... see in the "a" portion: Amazonia, The Congo and Indonesia are all noted as "humid" and the very highest of the index the authors defined ... and in the "b" portion it shows these regions as "no change" ... profuse rainfall today, profuse rainfall in a 100 years ... this letter was written by climatologist for other climatologists, so we won't find a detailed discussion of buoyancy forces ... the authors assumed complete competence of such matters by the readers ... and we can make all kinds a crazy claims by just ignoring 80% of the Earth's surface, like the authors seems to have done ...

"People won't wake up until they feel it slapping their faces." ... you seem to be missing the time scales involved here ... most babies born today will have lived their entire lives and died of old age before 100 years will have past ... a 3ºC increase in 100 years means that over ten years we're still within instrumentation error ... there's nothing to 'wake up' to, we're discussing several generations from now ...

We're heading for a major crisis, that's for sure ... the way Western Europeans and Anglo-Americans are blowing through a thousand kW-hr of electricity every month is unsustainable if expanded to the other 5 billion people we have today ... a 100 years from now we'll have maybe 10 billion more people ... I don't think we can burn fossil fuels fast enough even if the supply were unlimited ...

Anyway ... physically impossible for there NOT to be a convergence zone over the equator ... due to the fact the equator receives the most solar energy ...just apply what you know of buoyancy forces ...
  #11  
Old 08-13-2018, 10:42 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,025
Well, Alaska's freaking HUGE and I believe could support a good chunk of mass lower 48 migration if it got all pretty and green most of the year. That's assumes they throw some mega cities up there in preparation like they've done in China.

Interesting idea building in Antarctica. I could see the US commandeering that too.
  #12  
Old 08-13-2018, 01:33 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
... a 3ºC increase in 100 years means that over ten years we're still within instrumentation error ...
While I do agree that the Image in the OP is not accurate, what Exapno Mapcase linked to was more in tune with what is more likely.

But what you point here is even more meaningless. Ten years is not enough to find a significant difference, but in less than 100 years scientists have found it and that there are no significant errors in our records that have already been looked at.
  #13  
Old 08-13-2018, 02:13 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
While I do agree that the Image in the OP is not accurate, what Exapno Mapcase linked to was more in tune with what is more likely.

But what you point here is even more meaningless. Ten years is not enough to find a significant difference, but in less than 100 years scientists have found it and that there are no significant errors in our records that have already been looked at.
I've never doubted global warming ... but if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change ... then a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands ... a place like St Louis will change from "humid continental" to "humid sub-tropical" ... the catastrophe here is Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years, or just like Arkansas today ...

Global warming won't cause bad things to happen ... that's a philosophical position since science doesn't define "good" and "bad" ... if the climate model outputs "bad" as a result, then it was programmed to do so ...

if ($climate_forcing > 1.5) {echo "bad"}
else {echo "still bad"}
  #14  
Old 08-13-2018, 02:20 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,456
Missed Edit window: I don't disagree with Exapno Mapcase ... just pointing out the vast majority of the Earth's surface won't see the index fall anymore than "noise" allows ...
  #15  
Old 08-13-2018, 02:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I've never doubted global warming ... but if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change ... then a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands ... a place like St Louis will change from "humid continental" to "humid sub-tropical" ... the catastrophe here is Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years, or just like Arkansas today ...
We had a similar conversation before, Of course this shows that you did not learn anything from Jennifer Frances and the other Polar experts that contrarians pointed before as being the beesnees; when in reality they were pointing out that the reduction of the winds actually leads to weather patterns getting stuck for longer periods of time, all that, and the loss of ice at the poles does change climate. Also the point made that while some wind circulation cells will slow down, others will increase in speed in a warming world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Global warming won't cause bad things to happen ... that's a philosophical position since science doesn't define "good" and "bad" ... if the climate model outputs "bad" as a result, then it was programmed to do so ...
There is no evidence for what you claim here.
  #16  
Old 08-13-2018, 03:17 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I've never doubted global warming ... but if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change ... then a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands ... a place like St Louis will change from "humid continental" to "humid sub-tropical" ... the catastrophe here is Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years, or just like Arkansas today ...

Global warming won't cause bad things to happen ... that's a philosophical position since science doesn't define "good" and "bad" ... if the climate model outputs "bad" as a result, then it was programmed to do so ...
This is false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong. Most of the critical climate drivers do NOT remain stable under conditions of strong climate forcing and temperature rise -- that's fundamentally most of the basis for the concern about climate change! The most important things that change are regional and global atmosphere and ocean circulation patterns which make huge differences to regional climates.

A few degrees temperature rise will exacerbate global problems like increased damage from extreme weather, increased water stress, ocean acidification, 30% species extinction, sea level rise, total coral bleaching, and species range shift along with pests and disease vectors. Specifically in North America, the IPCC AR5 lists the following projections with high confidence -- and that is in addition to global factors like casualties and property damage from extreme weather:
  • Wildfire-induced loss of ecosystem integrity, property loss, human morbidity, and mortality as a result of increased drying trend and temperature trend
  • Heat-related human mortality
  • Urban floods in riverine and coastal areas, inducing property and infrastructure damage; supply chain, ecosystem, and social system disruption; public health impacts; and water quality impairment, due to sea level rise, extreme precipitation, and cyclones

None of that sounds to me like "will not change climate" or "won't cause bad things to happen" or "a philosophical position". California wildfires are already at all-time record levels with smoke now visible on the other side of the continent.
  #17  
Old 08-13-2018, 05:12 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I only got as far as the first diagram in ecithertation, as this completely validates my claim ... see in the "a" portion:
Odd. I would have expected an expert of your magnitude to be able to read the caption on a chart. That first diagram clearly says "present climate."

Most of the rest of us would therefore read on to the second diagram, which has the projected future aridification that I mention.
  #18  
Old 08-13-2018, 10:27 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
We had a similar conversation before, Of course this shows that you did not learn anything from Jennifer Frances and the other Polar experts that contrarians pointed before as being the beesnees; when in reality they were pointing out that the reduction of the winds actually leads to weather patterns getting stuck for longer periods of time, all that, and the loss of ice at the poles does change climate. Also the point made that while some wind circulation cells will slow down, others will increase in speed in a warming world.
Yes, that's when I pointed out that that a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is less likely for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes ... so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world ... less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery (my Bible says this last one is a "good" thing) ...

If you want more extreme events, you'll need faster winds ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
There is no evidence for what you claim here.
None that you will accept? ... fair enough ... that's allow in philosophy ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Odd. I would have expected an expert of your magnitude to be able to read the caption on a chart. That first diagram clearly says "present climate."

Most of the rest of us would therefore read on to the second diagram, which has the projected future aridification that I mention.
I clued into the first diagram because of the word "change" in the title of figure 1b ... that has a very explicit definition in science ... this displays rainfall changes with respect to aridity index changes ... this is zero in the Amazon Basin ... that means it doesn't matter what the aridity index does, the effect on the Amazon Basin is nothing ...

Scaremongering at it's finest ... take the most extreme forcing value humanly imaginable (= 8.5 W/m2, current value = 1.8 (±0.6) W/m2) and show me a completely irrelevant shade of green and say that makes a horrific desert ... I get it, don't get me wrong ... tell an Iowa corn farmer climate change he thinks no rain in summer ... tell him global warming and he plans to work his fields a couple weeks sooner ... 100 years from now has to sound scary or nobody will listen ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong ... [snip]
I love you too, wolfpup ...
  #19  
Old 08-13-2018, 10:38 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Yes, that's when I pointed out that that a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is less likely for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes ... so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world ... less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery (my Bible says this last one is a "good" thing) ...

If you want more extreme events, you'll need faster winds ...
And you'll need to read again, faster winds were also mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
None that you will accept? ... fair enough ... that's allow in philosophy ...
Your refusal to bring evidence is philosophically noted.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-13-2018 at 10:38 PM.
  #20  
Old Yesterday, 07:48 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Yes, that's when I pointed out that that a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is less likely for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes ... so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world ... less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery (my Bible says this last one is a "good" thing) ...

If you want more extreme events, you'll need faster winds ...
It appears that my earlier statement characterizing your claims as "false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong" is a recurrent theme in your writing, because it applies here, too. This is totally wrong and exactly backwards, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the research on Arctic amplification.

Increased radiative forcing means higher energies in the climate system, hence the predictions of stronger and more damaging storms and other damaging effects. For instance, the potential for stronger hurricanes because of higher sea surface temperatures imparting more energy to hurricane formation.

The work of Jennifer Francis and others pertains to expected reductions in high-altitude jet stream winds, leading to the above-noted extreme weather events lasting much longer, staying in one place for much longer periods and thereby being much more damaging. Cites:
We find robust relationships among seasonal and regional patterns of weaker poleward thickness gradients, weaker zonal upper-level winds, and a more meridional flow direction. These results suggest that as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/10/1/014005

The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, an effect enhanced when the sea ice that normally cools the Arctic air melts away. Because of this, the air currents that come from that region are getting disproportionately warmer too, narrowing the temperature difference between the Arctic and southerly winds, and thereby weakening the jet stream itself. “The winds have weakened by 10 per cent over the past three decades in the west-to-east wind of the jet stream,” says Francis.

Francis thinks that, as the cool air of the Arctic becomes warmer, the jet stream is slowing down, almost to the point of stopping trapping weather systems in one place for prolonged periods. Instead of swirling round the world, winds reverberate back and forth in the same place, creating what she calls “extreme waves”.

... Between 1980 and 2010, extreme weather events doubled from about 400 to 800 a year, according to the insurance firm Munich RE.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...on-jet-stream/
  #21  
Old Yesterday, 08:08 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
... so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world ...
Extreme weather finally brings home the reality of climate change
  #22  
Old Yesterday, 08:22 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Oh, sorry ... it's completely unrealistic at any temperature ... there's never been a desert at the equator while conditions on Earth allow for rainfall ... billions of years now ...
This is not true. Only 250 Ma, in the late Permian, the equatorial regions of Pangaea were arid desert.
  #23  
Old Yesterday, 08:57 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Global warming won't cause bad things to happen ... that's a philosophical position since science doesn't define "good" and "bad" ... if the climate model outputs "bad" as a result, then it was programmed to do so ...

if ($climate_forcing > 1.5) {echo "bad"}
else {echo "still bad"}
The unfettered fatuousness and borderline incoherency displayed in these posts is so appallingly counterfactual it is difficult to read them as anything other than a poor attempt at satire, or else intentional misinformation. Setting aside the fact that the global climate circulation models and the IPCC and other reports that reference provide quantitative estimates which are evaluated for their impact upon agriculture, sea level rise, livability, et cetera, rather than just giving the qualitative result of “bad”, the feckless appeal that those concerned about climate change are sorely misinformed and need to read a textbook would appear to ignore the fact that the overwhelming consensus of meteorologists and climatologists—some of whom have literally written the textbooks referred to—is that climate change is real, demonstrable, and will have dramatic impact upon agriculure and habitibility, an opinion shared by the US Department of Defense considers climate change to be not only a major long term threat to national security and international stability but also a “present security threat” that has been integrated into the planning of all of the combatant commands. The idea that a rise in average global temperatures just means that it is consistently just a couple degrees warmer overall belies an utter lack of comprehension in climate behavior and meteorology.

As for the notion that everyone (in the continental United States) can just migrate up to Alaska as some kind of absurdly reductionaist solution to the multitude of impacts of temperature rise and attendant climate changes, Alaska is actually currently suffering the most pronounced effects of climate change including permafrost melting, coastal erosion, and habitat reduction. Notwithstanding the logistical problems of somehow migrating more than three hundred million people to Alaska, or what to do with the majority of the world’s population that lives in low laying and coastal regions directly impacted by sea level rise, the food security and other stability impacts of global climate change make any simplistic solutions and casual dismissal of such changes as something to be addressed as hoc as benighted foolishness of the most obtuse kind.

Stranger
  #24  
Old Yesterday, 10:14 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
The unfettered fatuousness and borderline incoherency displayed in these posts is so appallingly counterfactual it is difficult to read them as anything other than a poor attempt at satire, or else intentional misinformation.
I refute this. This is nothing borderline about his incoherency.
  #25  
Old Yesterday, 11:14 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I don't know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...1457487412372/

Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can't wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US?

Is it scaremongering? I can't imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding 'Yup, we can't do anything now, let's go to Canada'
Next couple of decades? No. That's not accurate unless there is a radical change (somehow we set all of the coal and oil reserves on fire or something along those lines). I can't really speak to the map itself, though it's an older map (it does come up as the top link on Google when you ask about 4 degree increases). I know that China is already under quite a bit of stress wrt water, and the desert zone in Africa is increasing, in the US the west coast especially is under a lot of stress but that stretches into the south west and into the central part of the country. Droughts seem to be the new norm, though wrt weather at least here the prediction was for a very weak monsoon this year which doesn't seem to be the case.

I don't believe that the US, China, Japan etc. will be abandoned, no. In that respect I think viewing such a map is 'scaremongering'. But I think that as global climate change increases so will the costs. This will, IMHO, hit the poorer countries the hardest, and I think this is already the case. But wealthy countries such as China will do what they are doing...they are already doing major mega projects to divert water from the west and south to the north, and I expect that to continue. There are also the possibility on a 100 year time scale of other mitigation technologies. Carbon capture or even solar shades are not outside of the realms of possibility, though of course tech solutions often are double edged swords, causing unexpected problems. Perhaps if things get dire enough we might even consider building some new nuclear fission plants. Crazy, I know, but we might...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; Yesterday at 11:16 AM.
  #26  
Old Yesterday, 11:34 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,858
Nah, no problem at all in the US, a 4 degrees C will only effect those metric 'euro type' countries, we have here only Fahrenheit here, so no problem with a temperature rise in Celsius.
  #27  
Old Yesterday, 01:50 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And you'll need to read again, faster winds were also mentioned.
Got a link?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Your refusal to bring evidence is philosophically noted.
I'll offer the Biblical definition of "good" ... the rich and powerful are obligated to protect the poor and weak ... the richest billion people should be building power plants, grids and providing electric stoves to the poorest billion ... so the children don't have to spend all day every day gathering firewood to cook the families meals, they can spend their day in a school room learning to read ... thus alleviating human misery ...

Yeah, I know, that means it's "evil" for the richest billion to interfere with the poorest's ability to do this themselves ... wind/hydro/solar is expense, diesel generators are off-the-shelf ... only Satan would complain of carbon pollution here, as he loves to see little children physically toil all the day long in abject misery ...

Sooooooooooooooo ... how about you suggest a definition of "good" and "evil" ... I have a lot more trust in you than you have in me ... maybe you are the better person to decide this ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It appears that my earlier statement characterizing your claims as "false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong" is a recurrent theme in your writing, because it applies here, too. This is totally wrong and exactly backwards, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the research on Arctic amplification ... [snip]
Ah ... I think I see why this doesn't make sense to you ... energy and power are different things, related but distinctly different ... it doesn't matter how much energy we have in one place (10100 Joules), if none of it is flowing to or away we have no power (0 Watts) ...

Air has friction, to have wind of constant speed, we must have energy flowing into the air parcel (power) to counteract the energy flowing out of the air parcel due to friction (power) ... faster wind require more energy flow (power) and slower winds require less energy flow (power) ... this is true whether the air is -10ºC (energy) or 40ºC (energy) ...

With lower wind speeds then, we have lower power values ... powerful weather events require more power, not more energy ... hurricanes (cyclones) and droughts (anti-cyclones) occur when power is concentrated, with less power available it becomes much more difficult to concentrate the power in one place ... not that it won't happen, just the odds of it occurring will be less ... less power means less powerful events ...

I see Stranger on a Train is attending our discourse ... perhaps he would be kind enough to explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is applied to Arctic Amplification to make the above assertions ... I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to trust me on a few points and I don't think that trust from you is possible right now ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
This is not true. Only 250 Ma, in the late Permian, the equatorial regions of Pangaea were arid desert.
If I may, how do geologists define "sub-tropical" ... the meteorological definition puts these belts in the temperature circulation cell ... to merge would mean the elimination of the Hadley Cell ... how would this event be recorded in the geologic record? ...

... or are we just using the lack of fossils to determine this area was inhospitable? ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Nah, no problem at all in the US, a 4 degrees C will only effect those metric 'euro type' countries, we have here only Fahrenheit here, so no problem with a temperature rise in Celsius.
Please refer to Figure 2d in Exapno Mapcase's citation ... LOOK AT ALL THE RED IN EUROPE ... the metric system is DANGEROUS ... may God have mercy on their everlasting souls ...
  #28  
Old Yesterday, 02:51 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
If I may, how do geologists define "sub-tropical"
Same way geographers do - 23.5°-35°- which is kind of irrelevant, since we're talking about the equatorial region here, not the subtropics.
Quote:
... the meteorological definition puts these belts in the temperature circulation cell ... to merge would mean the elimination of the Hadley Cell
Yes, it would, wouldn't it ... it's pretty naive to think the atmospheric circulation is confined to neat cells either side of the equator. That's certainly not the case with the East Asian monsoon today, and definitely wasn't with the Pangaean megamonsoon - characterized by cross-equatorial flow. You may want to learn the word "meridional", it'll come up a lot in this regard.
Quote:
... how would this event be recorded in the geologic record?
By aeolian deposits indicating steady cross-equatorial flow inland and monsoonal flow in more coastal regions, for one thing.
Quote:
... or are we just using the lack of fossils to determine this area was inhospitable? ...
No, we're using the rocks - thick evaporites, thicker dune red sandstone beds. Lack of certain other rockforms inland away from Tethys.

Look, just what exactly is your level of knowledge of geology, palaeoclimatology or desert geomorphology, just so I know what level to pitch any further replies at.

Last edited by MrDibble; Yesterday at 02:56 PM.
  #29  
Old Yesterday, 03:13 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Ah ... I think I see why this doesn't make sense to you ... energy and power are different things, related but distinctly different ... it doesn't matter how much energy we have in one place (10100 Joules), if none of it is flowing to or away we have no power (0 Watts) ...
Really, trying to pass off yet more bullshit when your credibility is already at zero is not helping you.

Projections of the effects of rapid forcing on the climate system are based on many decades of observation and a large suite of sophisticated global climate models, not on simplistic assumptions drawn from an elementary fifth-grade understanding of physics and an apparent misunderstanding of how winds and storms are affected. There is substantial evidence that Arctic amplification is slowing the winds in the jet stream, changing its flow pattern, and making it both slower and its N-S ridges wavier, which has been shown to lead to stronger storms, extreme temperatures, and precipitation extremes, all of which tend to linger much longer than normal because of the same jet stream changes that caused them.

This is, in part, the reason for the strong association between climate change and extreme weather events including stronger storms and hurricanes. Warmer SSTs are a clear factor in powering stronger hurricanes. Meanwhile there will likely be changes in surface winds as well, and while there may be modestly weaker surface winds in many areas and stronger ones in others on a day-to-day basis, this has absolutely no bearing on the formation of stronger storms, stronger wind gusts, stronger storm surges, regional heat waves, and potentially catastrophic changes in precipitation -- all supported by very widely published data including some of the links I posted previously. Most parts of the world will respond to continuing unabated climate change with a much more extreme and violent climate regime -- some of which we're seeing already -- and not the tranquil paradise you're trying to paint for us, which is complete unsubstantiated bullshit.
  #30  
Old Yesterday, 04:23 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Look, just what exactly is your level of knowledge of geology, palaeoclimatology or desert geomorphology, just so I know what level to pitch any further replies at.
It is clearly at the level of knowing a few words of jargon and misrepeating things he’s heard without comprehending, often entirely absent of meaningful context.

I can’t make heads or tails of the gibberish in his reasoning of why Arctic amplification would result in less powerful weather systems other than that he seems to be of the misapprehension that if the average global temperature rises and the polar ice caps decline that there will be a less of a temperature differential to drive weather systems and heat energy will somehow remain static. Setting aside the fact that the global climate is not a static equilibrium and direct cooling of the atmosphere by polar cap and sea ice is less of a driver of meteorological events than the thermohaline circulation and exchange with the surface water, the effects of reduced polar cap and sea ice have a multitude of effects including a reduction in albedo with less sunlight being reflected back into space, melting of permafrost and release of trapped greenhouse gases in frozen tundra, and the potential for release of methane clathrate reservoirs in deep ocean sediment disturbed by changes in salinity and density. A warmer atmosphere also holds more water vapor and thus has a higher heat energy content, resulting in greater momentum differences in the atmosphere between interacting flows, which is what produces and drives cyclones around low pressure centers. A quick introduction to Arctic amplification from the NOAA Nationals Snow and Ice Data Center.

A good introduction to climate dynamics and feedbacks can be found in Chapter 10 of Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey which is readily accessible to anyone with a layman’s understanding of Earth science and only a few easily skipped equations. It also has an extensive discussion (in Chapter 3) on the topic of atmospheric thermodynamics including the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and the generalized statement of the second law of thermodynamics, for those who wish to imbue themselves with knowledge on the topic.

Stranger
  #31  
Old Yesterday, 07:41 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,608
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I refute this. This is nothing borderline about his incoherency.
Knock it off.

You have stepped away from attacking the post to attacking the poster.

[ /Moderating ]
  #32  
Old Yesterday, 11:21 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Global warming won't cause bad things to happen ... that's a philosophical position since science doesn't define "good" and "bad" ... if the climate model outputs "bad" as a result, then it was programmed to do so ...
*blinks*

Did you just premise your argument against the consequences of climate change on there being no scientific definition of "good" and "bad"?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; Yesterday at 11:21 PM.
  #33  
Old Today, 12:55 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
*blinks*

Did you just premise your argument against the consequences of climate change on there being no scientific definition of "good" and "bad"?
The worst thing for his argument is that, looking at resources, it makes more sense and good for developing countries to leapfrog and develop with technology that does not use (for example) millions of pounds of metal for telephone lines or electric lines to get communications and energy to all. (Metal that is more expensive now than when developed countries did electrify or put telephone lines all over.)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...r-power-africa
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017