Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Alan Goldhammer]

The geological and proxy records reveal that such events have occurred in the past with similar frequency and intensity, even though CO2 levels might have been lower in the recent past.

A lot of proxy records are by inference and there are no direct measurements that would argue that they are of similar frequency and intensity.  However, we do have on major event that hasn't been commented on so far and that was the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 that was responsible for sever weather for several years afterwards:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa 

Creating a scare about the dangers of an increase in such extreme weather events as a result of humanity's CO2 emissions, and spending huge sums of money on the uncertain outcome of reducing CO2 emissions, whilst not adequately tackling or adapting to the real problems of floods, droughts and storms, by building more dams, and/or ensuring that homes are built above the level of previous floods, and/or that homes are built to withstand the forces of previous hurricanes or cyclones, and so on, not only seems like very poor decision-making to me, but is also unethical.

The result of this scare about CO2 is that the general public, encouraged by biased reporting in the media, seem to accept that every major weather event that results in severe damage to property and/or loss of life, is another example of the result of anthropogenic climate change due to our CO2 emissions, and that the problem can be fixed if we reduce our CO2 emissions.

I don't know of anyone who is not advocating the prophylactic measures that you discuss above.  There was a radio program just this afternoon that discussed what types of protection would need to be undertaken to protect the southern 1/3 of Manhattan should another Hurricane Sandy come along.  The costs are somewhat staggering but if one assumes that there would be four major storms in the next 100 years it would be worth the expense given the costs of repairing stuff after the storm.

It can't. The problem can only be fixed by paying attention the record of past extreme weather events, making the rational deduction that such weather events will be repeated in the future, regardless of minuscule changes in CO2 levels, and taking practical steps to protect ourselves as outlined above. We have the technology to do that.

That's my message, and I don't think it's a load of waffle.

Science has told us that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas (along with methane) and that increased levels of CO2 may be contributing to some of the increased warming and frequency of storms that is being observed.  I don't think there is any argument about this because of the linkage to the data.  Solving this problem will require a multi-factoral approach.

[Farmer]

CO2 doesn't increase temperature per se.  It reduces the dissipation of heat energy after it has been received - just as a greenhouse does.  Therefore, at the end of each cycle where there is an increase in CO2, the lower temperature of the cycle is not as low as it would have been had there been less CO2.  The next cycle of warming you add more energy as the previous, but it starts from a higher base point.  Rinse, repeat.  Eventually, despite seeing temps go up and down, the lows are not as low and the highs are higher.

That CO2 and other greenhouse gases have this effect, and that man-made contributions have increased CO2 are utterly undeniable. 

So, yes, there are natural cycles going on.  But they are not revolving in the same way as prior to anthropogenic change.  Yes, the planet will survive in the sense that evolution will deal with the changes.  Evolutionary change typically involves a lot of failures punctuated by a few successes.

We can either stop contributing to this change or not.  If we don't, the planet will change and unlike the fast evolving plants, insects, bacteria and so on with short life cycles and fast reproduction cycles, humans will get left behind or will have to engineer to compensate.  Either way, big changes.

If we do take action now, we can reduce the impact which will give us longer to engineer solutions and minimise the harm.

It's no more complex than that with one exception.  Some people don't like change, so despite the risk of massive change they won't undertake any now in the belief that they won't be around by the time the other changes are forced upon us.  Some people tell us the change could be good - but they won't be around long enough to ever have to deal with them.  That's selfish.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So, what exactly is the change that you are advocating, Phil?

[LesPalenik]

There was an interesting article in 2016 Business Insider how the Dutch are protecting their coastline.
They don't look at it only as an expense, but also as a sound business investment and creation of recreational areas / parks.
It's an ongoing preventive activity which pays off, compared with the typical haphazard and more expensive Northamerican disaster fix and patch methods.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-dutch-engineers-are-protecting-coastal-cities-from-rising-seas-2016-5

[Farmer]

So, what exactly is the change that you are advocating, Phil?

I'm not advocating too many specific things as I'm not an expert in the field.  However, changes which limit, reduce, or remove CO2 creation from human activities is a good basis for making other decisions relating to industry, the economy as a whole, socially, and so on.  This a driver for change toward renewable energy sources (which solves other issues and provides other opportunities), among other things.

[Alan Klein]

... However, we do have on major event that hasn't been commented on so far and that was the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 that was responsible for sever weather for several years afterwards:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa 

Science has told us that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas (along with methane) and that increased levels of CO2 may be contributing to some of the increased warming and frequency of storms that is being observed.  I don't think there is any argument about this because of the linkage to the data.  Solving this problem will require a multi-factoral approach.

Since this is a photo forum, let me add something about that related to this thread.  As an admirer of Outdoor Photographer magazine when Galen Rowell. a major contributor, was alive, I remember reading his comments how Mount Pinatubo's eruption in the Philippines in 1991changed the sunrise and sunset pictures for years after the eruption.  It's eruption was the largest since Krakatoa and also dropped the world's temperature over a degree for a few years. The changes had to do with ash and Sulphur dioxide that caused a lot of acid rain as well.  While it inflicted lots of damage, especially nearby, the name Pinatubo is thought to mean ""fertile place where one can make crops grow".  It seems that much can be created out of destruction.  So it might be wise to examine the agricultural advantages of additional CO2 and global warming as well as the disadvantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects

[Alan Goldhammer]

This is just a more than gentle nudge at those posting on this thread.  If you cannot post on topic with a reference or point of discussion, the thread will be closed.  Please think about the language you use when considering a post so that it is not insulting.

[Ray]

Then they turned out to be pretty lousy capitalists, given the rate they are going bust. Throwing money into ideologically-pure projects is actually quite socialist.

Oh! my Gosh! That's terrible.  I think the problem is that solar panels are not considered to be sexy like stylish cars and cameras.

Perhaps the advertising industry could tackle this problem. Perhaps we should encourage photos of semi-clad ladies, casually lying on a solar panel roof, (preferably set in a nice garden roof), and gently caressing the panels with a look of amazement and excitement on their face. 

Perhaps this is a great photographic opportunity for you, Slobodan. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Since this is a photo forum, let me add something about that related to this thread.  As an admirer of Outdoor Photographer magazine when Galen Rowell. a major contributor, was alive, I remember reading his comments how Mount Pinatubo's eruption in the Philippines in 1991changed the sunrise and sunset pictures for years after the eruption.  It's eruption was the largest since Krakatoa and also dropped the world's temperature over a degree for a few years. The changes had to do with ash and Sulphur dioxide that caused a lot of acid rain as well.  While it inflicted lots of damage, especially nearby, the name Pinatubo is thought to mean ""fertile place where one can make crops grow".  It seems that much can be created out of destruction.  So it might be wise to examine the agricultural advantages of additional CO2 and global warming as well as the disadvantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects

Volcanic eruptions can also accelerate melting of glaciers:  https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2017-10-25-arctic-sea-ice-volcanic-eruption-trigger-melting  It's an interesting conundrum in that it can cool global temperatures slightly but then also cause a rise in sea level.

[RSL]

Russ,
It's as a result of my own inquiries into the issue that I now have some understanding of the history of previous climate changes and extreme weather events. I get the impression that many members of the public are not aware of these facts. Some college students in America even believe that our eyes project some type of beam onto what we see in order to illuminate it, just like the ancient Greeks believed. 

Ray, That's interesting, especially the part about our fragile and uninformed college students, but you didn't answer my question, which with reference to storms, hurricanes, people losing their homes, etc., was: "When, exactly, do you think this wasn't going on?"

[Alan Goldhammer]

A summary of the impact of a 3C increase in global temperature and its impact on some major cities:  https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/03/miami-shanghai-3c-warming-cities-underwater 

[Alan Klein]

A lot of scientists are now saying that the temperature is going up regardless of what we do or don't do so that we have to make plans for rising seas.   

[Alan Goldhammer]

A lot of scientists are now saying that the temperature is going up regardless of what we do or don't do so that we have to make plans for rising seas.

That is probably true.  CO2 mitigation might slow things down but as has been noted requires a will to do so that may not be present.

[Peter McLennan]

WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

How much longer can we ignore the science?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..l I'm reminded of that ancient Greek theory that we are able to see the objects that surround us because our eyes project a beam of light onto the objects. Even Plato accepted this theory, although Aristotle thought is was bunk.
...
For many centuries most people accepted the emission, or extramission theory of vision because brilliant minds such as Empedocles and Plato thought it was true. How could such people be wrong? They obviously must know more than I do.

... sometimes even college students still believe in the extramission theory of vision... students, namely, the belief that the process of vision includes emanations from the eyes, an idea that is consistent with the extramission theory of perception, which was originally professed by early Greek philosophers and which persisted in scholarly circles for centuries....

Indeed, how could all those great minds be wrong ?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A lot of scientists are now saying that the temperature is going up regardless of what we do or don't do so that we have to make plans for rising seas.

Always hard to discuss such things without a link to a report that supports your interpretation of the claim. It obviously does make a difference how fast the temperature is going to rise, and we can influence that by reducing the CO2 emissions.

As the latest version of a US government climate report (https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf) confirms, and its conclusions are also largely similar to those of the last IPCC report (just a bit more up to date and based on a denser sampling of observations), Climate change is mostly caused by human activity. If humans cause it, then humans can try to mitigate it. But inaction will not improve the situation. The point being, that if we do not take action, we may reach tipping points that are irreversible sooner rather than later. Also, the cost of countering the unwanted effects will grow higher if we postpone action longer, to the point that it becomes impossible to finance it.

US government climate report: Climate change is real and our fault
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climate-report-climate-change-is-real-and-our-fault/

Politics (which will be moderated) aside, the report itself offers a lot of useful info to inject further discussions with some more factual information, even if the report is obviously somewhat USA centric, and has yet to be fully finalized.

Cheers,
Bart


P.S. As always, and because it is mentioned in the above-linked report, it's important to understand some basic scientific jargon:
• Confidence in the validity of a finding based on the type, amount, quality, strength, and consistency of evidence (such as mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, and expert judgment); the skill, range, and consistency of model projections; and the degree of agreement within the body of literature.
• Likelihood, or probability of an effect or impact occurring, is based on measures of uncertainty expressed probabilistically (based  on the degree of understanding or knowledge, e.g., resulting from evaluating statistical analyses of observations or model results or on expert judgment).

So Confidence levels deal with data quality and consensus about it, Likelihood is about probability. Since the data quality is improving in recent times, the models keep getting better in predicting the outcome of different scenarios. The hardest part to predict is how human behavior will change to cope with the mostly unwanted consequences.

[Ray]

I don't know of anyone who is not advocating the prophylactic measures that you discuss above. There was a radio program just this afternoon that discussed what types of protection would need to be undertaken to protect the southern 1/3 of Manhattan should another Hurricane Sandy come along.  The costs are somewhat staggering but if one assumes that there would be four major storms in the next 100 years it would be worth the expense given the costs of repairing stuff after the storm.

Really! Then how come such prophylactic measures are not already in place? Certainly in the US and Australia there are instrumental records going back 150-200 years, and anecdotal and proxy records going back much further, that show the effects of massive storms in the past.

If so many people have been advocating protective measures during this time, we've done a lousy job in implementing such measures.
I suspect what's happening is that such concerns about protective measures only occur immediately after a devastating storm, but those in power realize that the problems are too difficult and expensive to address, and that addressing them would also affect economic expansion in the area because the practical measures that would be necessary would be an advertisement to other potential investors that the city or town is in a major 'risk area'.

With the help of the media, the real and actual risk of future devastation from extreme weather events is diminished by always blaming the latest event on AGW and describing it as the worst storm or flood in living memory, or since records began, or the worst in a hundred years.

After 20 or 30 years have passed with no major storm, people tend to forget about the past events. New people move into the area and get approval to build homes which would have been devastated if they'd been built in a similar location 30 years ago

After another 10 years or so, another major flood or hurricane occurs, which is actually the 4th or 5th or 6th worst in the past 2 hundred years, but which is described as the worst ever, and so the facade continues.

[Alan Klein]

Katrina laughed at the billions and billions spent on levies and pumps over decades to protect New Orleans.  Protecting New York City's 500 miles of coastline is a madman's or Dutch businessman's dream.  As someone who was born and raised in the Bronx, the only Borough that is contiguous with the rest of the United States mainland, the rest of the 5 boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island are all out Islands. Good luck with protecting them from rising seas and storms.

[Alan Goldhammer]

One bit of good news, the Ozone hole is shrinking in the Antarctic region in part due to warmer temperatures:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/earths-ozone-hole-is-shrinking-heres-why/2017/11/03/0ed1dbb4-c08b-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_video.html?utm_term=.59df23b80770   This will help reduce skin cancers in Australia since UV radiation will be less

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

One bit of good news, the Ozone hole is shrinking in the Antarctic region in part due to warmer temperatures:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/earths-ozone-hole-is-shrinking-heres-why/2017/11/03/0ed1dbb4-c08b-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_video.html?utm_term=.59df23b80770   This will help reduce skin cancers in Australia since UV radiation will be less

Which goes to show that humans can make a difference in rectifying what went wrong, if addressed soon enough. The reduced emission of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbons as cooling agent in refrigerators and airconditioners, does make a difference.

I wonder what the COP23 climate change summit in Bonn, Germany (from 6-17 November 2017) will bring in additional concrete steps.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/05/the-cop23-climate-change-summit-in-bonn-and-why-it-matters

Cheers,
Bart