Everybody needs to just chill about climate change

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

…You are indeed getting your information from the wrong sources or poisoned wells, you need to read a lot of what the science is actually telling us and while there are chicken littles indeed, they are also not respected by the sources I use; so the point stands…

(post shortened)

The average global temperature isn’t increasing and hasn’t for over a decade.

The current cycle of global warming began before the last ice age.

The IPCC’s predictions have been repeatedly failed to meet expectations over the last 25 years.

[SlackerInc]

Got cites for any of that?

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

The average global temperature isn’t increasing and hasn’t for over a decade.

A very ignorant thing as no scientific organization agrees and the temperature is still increasing in the oceans.

@doorhinge

The current cycle of global warming began before the last ice age.

The talk among many contrarians is that there is cooling going on, so, just par for the contradictory course from deniers.

@doorhinge

The IPCC’s predictions have been repeatedly failed to meet expectations over the last 25 years.

Wrong.

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been...

Not surprisingly, the Frame and Stone result is very similar to our evaluation of the FAR projections, finding that they accurately simulated the global surface temperature response to the increased greenhouse effect since 1990. The study also shows that the warming since 1990 cannot be explained by the Earth’s natural temperature variability alone, because the warming (red) is outside of the range of natural variability (black and gray).
IPCC Trounces Contrarian Predictions

As shown above, the IPCC has thus far done remarkably well at predicting future global surface warming. The same cannot be said for the climate contrarians who criticize the IPCC and mainstream climate science predictions.

Richard Lindzen

One year before the FAR was published, Richard Lindzen gave a talk at MIT in 1989 which we can use to reconstruct what his global temperature prediction might have looked like. In that speech, Lindzen remarked

“I would say, and I don’t think I’m going out on a very big limb, that the data as we have it does not support a warming…I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small”

The first statement in this quote referred to past temperatures — Lindzen did not believe the surface temperature record was accurate, and did not believe that the planet had warmed from 1880 to 1989 (in reality, global surface temperatures warmed approximately 0.5°C over that timeframe). The latter statement suggests that the planet’s surface would not warm more than 0.2°C over the following century, which is approximately the range of natural variability. In reality, as Frame and Stone showed, the surface warming already exceeded natural variability two decades after Lindzen’s MIT comments.

Don Easterbrook

Climate contrarian geologist Don Easterbook has been predicting impending global cooling since 2000, based on expected changes in various oceanic cycles (including ENSO) and solar activity. Easterbrook made two specific temperature projections based on two possible scenarios. As shown in Figure 1, neither has fared well.

[SlackerInc]

I skimmed through that, and it would appear to me there is evidence for both sides to tout. Overall, there has clearly been warming since 1990. But it is also fair to say that the past 10 to 15 years are flat. The next 10 years should settle the point one way or another.

It reminds me actually of the graph of the S&P 500. Those who are bullish can accurately say that stocks have given a good return over the past 25 years; the bears can correctly note that the index is flat since 2000.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Although the ocean CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content remains at equilibrium with the lower atmosphere and can therefore act as a natural reservoir to absorb and concentrate CO[SUB]2[/SUB] for sequestration, atmospheric carbon in the upper atmosphere (where it will contribute most to the so-called “greenhouse effect”) will remain in place for decades or even centuries before migrating down to surface level where it can be absorbed.

Can you elaborate more on this point (and provide a cite)? My understanding had always been that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] was a very well-mixed gas, and that over even relatively short time-frames (months, not centuries), adding or removing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere anywhere on the planet would have roughly similar global results.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

I skimmed through that, and it would appear to me there is evidence for both sides to tout. Overall, there has clearly been warming since 1990. But it is also fair to say that the past 10 to 15 years are flat. The next 10 years should settle the point one way or another.

Once again, you are missing the oceans.

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

@SlackerInc

It reminds me actually of the graph of the S&P 500. Those who are bullish can accurately say that stocks have given a good return over the past 25 years; the bears can correctly note that the index is flat since 2000.

**If **the index would not reflect more than 70% of the whole world and it was reported that the rest was hidden to support an agenda, I would look for the torches and pitchforks and go to Wall Street.

[SlackerInc]

But your cite says the “pause” “can’t last forever” and that the atmosphere will at some point begin to warm again. So just as I said, we will have to wait and see if that happens–and I don’t doubt that it probably will.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

But your cite says the “pause” “can’t last forever” and that the atmosphere will at some point begin to warm again. So just as I said, we will have to wait and see if that happens–and I don’t doubt that it probably will.

But that is what the problem is, right now the deniers in congress deny and ignore what science is telling us were the heat is going and (regarding the surface) it will eventually show up more.

More, because AFAIK cold years that are usually la nina years are getting warmer, meaning that the warming coming from CO2 is still there in the background.

The natural cycles that are making an “apparent” pause on the surface alone will, based on what was found, return and the heat they will bring will be added to what has kept the “pause” still in average temperatures higher than the previous decades.

[vivalostwages]

I’d love to chill, but it’s too damn hot to do that without the a.c. on.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@SlackerInc

But what I’m advocating is not just to slap a tax on stuff but to swap one tax for another in a revenue neutral way. Seems worth trying, moreso than just handwringing.

Er, there have been proposals like that. In fact, most carbon tax proposals contain some sort of tax cut so as to make the net outcome less regressive. But when roughly 1/2 of Congress is into science denial, passing such a law is a hard sell. A cap and trade framework is politically easier which is why it is pushed, but it still involves some effort. If we started this process back in 1990, yeah, my insufficiently informed guess would be that research and hard work could handle it.
Also the difference between global temperatures and the SP500 is that the former is believed to follow physical processes while the latter is approximated by some experts as a random walk. Meaning, one expects the SP500 to jump around, while global temperatures look more like this.

[Princhester]

@SlackerInc

Princhester, you used the phrasing “you can’t really get yourself to accept…” and then asked if I would consider this a “fair observation”. Are you actually expecting a response, or was that just a rhetorical question?

OK, so I may have poisoned the well a little. Sorry. Let me try again.

I get the feeling based on this comment:

@SlackerInc

I would be fine with increasing energy taxes, although I think basing it on carbon is the wrong approach. I would rather it be based more on the amount of soot and other pollutants released into the air and water.

and another one above that because carbon dioxide isn’t itself immediately poisonous to humans in (very) low concentrations, and you can’t see it or taste it or smell it, you don’t accept that it’s dangerous to us. Is that a fair observation?

[SlackerInc]

@Measure_for_Measure

Er, there have been proposals like that.

“Er”, yeah, no shit: the first time I mentioned it upthread I noted that I got the idea from Thomas Friedman. In fact, you quoted that very post, including the reference to Friedman. So are you just being disingenuous or what?

@Princhester

**ecause carbon dioxide isn’t itself immediately poisonous to humans in (very) low concentrations, and you can’t see it or taste it or smell it, you don’t accept that it’s dangerous to us. Is that a fair observation?

in a word, no.

First of all, a rereading of my OP should disabuse you of the notion that I do not see carbon dioxide is posing any danger whatever.

I have, however, made a more nuanced assertion: that I am less concerned about it than about some other toxic substances, on which I would like to focus greater attention, in relative terms.

Now, am I less concerned about it because I can’t taste, see, or smell it? Certainly not. That is also true of some very toxic substances, including its close cousin carbon monoxide. More importantly, it is also true of substances which I am greatly concerned about, like pseudoestrogens, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals that get into many of the predatory fish that otherwise could be a very healthy part of our diet. It’s also true of GMO’s, which I have a strong and urgent desire to ban or at least heavily regulate.

The main thing that makes me less concerned about carbon dioxide in relative terms is that it is life-promoting, and its levels are currently near the low end of the spectrum of where they have been in the history of life on Earth.

[Smeghead]

@SlackerInc

It’s also true of GMO’s, which I have a strong and urgent desire to ban or at least heavily regulate.

Just chill about that.

[SlackerInc]

@Smeghead

Just chill about that.

Aight. Touché, it’s all good.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

The main thing that makes me less concerned about carbon dioxide in relative terms is that it is life-promoting, and its levels are currently near the low end of the spectrum of where they have been in the history of life on Earth.

I call this idea the “Greenland will be lovely” argument, problem is that ocean rise and other effects means that we are not likely to get an easy time when we pass through the bottle neck and it will be a while until we reach a new stable state. Then Greenland will be great, but down will go many other neighbourhoods.

Then there is the issue that more CO2 does not mean that automatically everything would be better for plant life and in the long run to us humans.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

[SlackerInc]

I was happy to hear a grudging acknowledgement on NPR that climate change is not necessarily bad for everyone, everywhere:

But as NPR’s John Ydstie reports, there are some benefits to climate change. In North Dakota, conditions are now better for raising corn and production is going up.

Meanwhile, I’ve been catching up on the new COSMOS via Hulu, and had to grit my teeth a bit through much of the penultimate episode, dedicated mainly to this topic. He did go more into a tech-optimist mode at the end, though, which I was very glad for.

However, I have a serious bone to pick with Tyson, whom I otherwise generally like. Or maybe it’s with someone else involved in the production. In any case, the graph of CO2 levels they used is a very shady, disingenuous type of graphic. This is the kind of thing progressives rightly decry when Fox News does it. Those on the left should not be using this kind of obfuscation either.

[Smeghead]

What precisely is your complaint in regards to the graphic? Inaccuracy?

[SlackerInc]

It is highly misleading, like the one from FOX (and you can be sure it is intentional in both cases). It makes it appear as though CO2 levels have spiked upward at least 500 percent in the recent period at the right of the graph, when the truth is that the increase is less than 50 percent.