Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

RE: Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

e14 Contributor — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:57:14 GMT

In general I would say to DAB - I can see why you think you might be onto something here, but as I understand it the science does not support your argument.

A lot of people who are concerned about the economic consequences of climate mitigation seek refuge in the natural historical climate cycles. Yes it's true that the earth warms and cools - very very slowly, but the problem is that it should currently be cooling, not warming. Furthermore, the last time it warmed by the factor of the past 150 years, it took mother nature 8,000 years to manage it.

It's essential to understand that the chief danger from climate change is not the direct effect of the weather on humans - serious though this already is for many. It is the effect on agriculture, and the ecosystem services which support it - which have largely been taken for granted until relatively recently. Your ambitions for the climate would be catastrophic for the organisms which deliver clean air, clean water and productive soil, as well as allowing for massive shifts in the distribution of predatory pests and microbes, without allowing sufficient time for interdependent ecosystems to adapt. Listen to Farming Today each morning, (that's BBC by the way), and you'll soon understand the devastating effect of the current very minor changes to weather patterns on UK farms, and the situation elsewhere in the world is already vastly worse.

Historically, climate change has occurred for two reasons:

1) Slow change caused largely by fluctuations in solar forcings (on cycles we understand pretty well, with a couple of small question marks). These have had major consequences for life on Earth, but on the whole it has adapted and flourished as a result (with casualties and winners, as expected though evolution, along the way).

2) Rapid change caused by a) volcanic emissions - which only last for a few years and have had little effect on the ecological footprint during the holocene, and b) major externalities such as the meteor that did for the dinosaurs - and in fact a large percentage of the species on earth at the time.

We are looking at something much closer to 2b today - with almost certainly major loss of life though wars over resources, and starvation due to collapse of food systems, long before by any by heat, thirst or drowning.

As for the veracity of the science, we can now put the argument to bed. There is 97% agreement by those qualified to speak on this (and it is after all very complicated) working under the closest scrutiny applied to any science since the Enlightenment. The consensus is a dynamic thing, based on argument and disagreement, yet there is remarkable unanimity - further endorsed by the signatures to IPCC5 of 193 heads of state - most of whom would FAR rather believe you than the scientists!

There is of course a massive amount of misinformation in the internet - and you can find very convincing-looking websites to support any hare-brained theory you like, from chemtrails to HAARP to World Trade Building Three (not to mention Elvis still being alive and working in a chip-shop). And it's even possible that buried within one of these rants there's something that would change the whole story - because there are still a few gaps an anomalies in IPCC5, and no science is ever fully proven. (Actually all the emerging science has the situation far FAR worse than IPCC5 - which barely mentions the terrifying likelihood of major methane release from melting permafrost and acidifying oceans - but let's not go there today)!

Oddly enough, many of the skeptic websites are run by retired TV weathermen and semi-pro metrorologists (many of whom are also linked to Big Oil or Big Man in the Sky agendas, but we can safely ignore them in this debate). Maybe the genuine ones just can't let go of decades of habitual methodology - which sadly no longer works because the underlying physics is changing.

If anyone wants a reliable website to test out the various theories - and by reliable I mean endorsed by genuine climate scientists (and no, they're not just in it for the money - there would be FAR more to be made from 'proving' that we could carry on as before - and they're not environmentalists either, except perforce - many might have agreed with your take on the world, DAB, until the data became incontrovertable)... if you want some guys to trust go here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

The argument against your theory, DAB, is top of the list.

It's a darn nuisance this is happening, and yes, it's going to cost a bomb and dramatically affect all our lives. But it IS fixable if we stop looking for reasons not to take action, and instead put our considerable skills into working out how to turn adversity to advantage.

Tom

RE: Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

e14 Contributor — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:19:24 GMT

Whatever peoples feelings are on this subject, it's become clear that there's no longer any way to have a sensible debate. Too many agendas and entrenched views on all sides.

I prefer a simpler view. We know with a fair degree of certainty that the only constant is that things change. So I find troublesome the amount of effort being expended to try to keep a vast and ever changing system in exactly the state it is today. It should be obvious it's impossible to do so.

In a few hundred years our descendants will look back and wonder what we were thinking, no matter what the outcome...

RE: Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

vsluiter — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:39:24 GMT

Yes, the ice will release a lot of water, BUT, ice takes up 10% more volume than water! So we should se a net reduction in sea levels as the ice melts.

That 10% is sticking out of the water, as Archimedes has explained. The sea level will thus stay -kind of- the same if we depend on sea ice melting.

I don't know what to make of the climate change discussion; I do however think that ít's foolish to waste resources and ruin nature only because other generations will probably find a solution. Even if CO2 is not the cause of evil, we may still think about what we're doing to our environment.

RE: Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

mcb1 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:34:14 GMT

DAB

Well done.

I believe along the same lines that the natural cycle is not caused by humans and get angry when humans are blamed for it.

Sure we can have an effect on emissions and may have a minor influence, but we're not the cause.

Corporate greed is fuelling the hype, and to some extent academic funding may also be getting 'polluted' by the political greenies.

An interesting comment was made regarding the CO2 emissions of the recent volcano in iceland (that no-one can pronounce let alone spell) but they seem to ignore that.

Unfortunately I think you're going to need a much bigger loud hailer to be able to spread your message.

Mark

RE: Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

johnbeetem — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:24:44 GMT

I was intrigued by your claims, so I did a bit of Internet research. I found this interesting page at USA Environmental Protection Agency.

It does confirm what you say about there being a natural cycle of cooling and warming, correlated with CO2 levels in the atmosphere: 800,000 Year Record.

As we can see, CO2 concentration varies between approx 180 ppm and 300 ppm with a period of roughly 100,000 years. This is the natural variation that the Earth has been able to handle over the last 800,000 years.

However, recent accumulation of CO2 is far more than the max 300 ppm: Keeling Curve.

This is quite disturbing to me and other people who care about the ecosystem, since it suggests new levels that Earth may not be able to handle.

So why has CO2 gone to such a high level? Models that do not consider the effect of humans are unable to account for it. Models that include the relentless burning of fossil fuels predict it quite well: Nature alone versus Human Effects.

It seems to me that the Industrial Revolution and the huge surge in human population came at a particularly bad time, i.e., when Earth was already on its natural temperature rise cycle. If we'd done this 50,000 years ago it may not have mattered. By doing it now, IMO we're taking the natural temperature rise and making it far worse, perhaps resulting in devastation of the only planet we have.

JMO/YMMV