Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climate Change

Climate Change
(07-20-2019, 09:39 AM)Alan V Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...sFaCgnI1wk

And once again, the wealthy piss on the poor, and have the financial resources necessary
to say "fuck the environment".

It's estimated that the average Australian has a carbon footprint of about 15,000kg of CO2
per year.  Which is 13,000kg above  the recommended annual amount if we want to keep
global warming under 2ºC by 2050.  Although 120 other countries also have a per-person
carbon footprint above the recommended figure of 2,000kg of CO2 per year.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Alan V, grympy
Reply

Climate Change
(07-21-2019, 12:02 PM)SYZ Wrote: And once again, the wealthy piss on the poor, and have the financial resources necessary
to say "fuck the environment".

The disconnect is certainly alarming, since the rich also have the financial resources to change to renewable technologies.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Climate Change
"Machines that suck CO2 directly from the air could cut the cost of meeting global climate goals, a new study finds, but they would need as much as a quarter of global energy supplies in 2100. The research, published today in Nature Communications, is the first to explore the use of direct air capture (DAC) in multiple computer models. It shows that a 'massive' and energy-intensive rollout of the technology could cut the cost of limiting warming to 1.5 or 2C above pre-industrial levels. But the study also highlights the 'clear risks' of assuming that DAC will be available at scale, with global temperature goals being breached by up to 0.8C if the technology then fails to deliver. This means policymakers should not see DAC as a 'panacea' that can replace immediate efforts to cut emissions, one of the study authors tells Carbon Brief, adding: 'The risks of that are too high.' "

https://www.carbonbrief.org/direct-co2-c...UFzeBCrj-w
Reply

Climate Change
"Forty years ago, a group of climate scientists sat down at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts for the first meeting of the 'Ad Hoc Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate'. It led to the preparation of what became known as the Charney Report – the first comprehensive assessment of global climate change due to carbon dioxide. ... Other scientists, starting in the 19th century, had already demonstrated that carbon dioxide was what we now call a 'greenhouse gas'. By the 1950s, scientists were predicting warming of several degrees from the burning of fossil fuels. In 1972 John Sawyer, the head of research at the UK Meteorological Office, wrote a four-page paper published in Nature summarising what was known at the time, and predicting warming of about 0.6℃ by the end of the 20th century. But these predictions were still controversial in the 1970s. The world had, if anything, cooled since the middle of the 20th century, and there was even some speculation in the media that perhaps we were headed for an ice age. The meeting at Woods Hole gathered together about 10 distinguished climate scientists, who also sought advice from other scientists from across the world. The group was led by Jule Charney from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected atmospheric scientists of the 20th century. The Report lays out clearly what was known about the likely effects of increasing carbon dioxide on the climate, as well as the uncertainties. The main conclusion of the Report was direct: 'We estimate the most probable warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3℃ with a probable error of 1.5℃.' "

https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago...B7oAcMwYPA

My comment: 3.0+/-1.5℃ was still the most accurate estimate for climate sensitivity until quite recently. Now the climate sensitivity is estimated to be 2.8+/-0.6̊C (or 5.0+/-1.1̊F). So doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm preindustrial to 560 ppm will change the global average surface temperature by about 2.8̊C (or 5.0̊F) when it reaches equilibrium.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Climate Change
Scientists have released alarming new satellite images showing enormous wildfires
spreading across the Arctic Circle, with potentially dire consequences for the environment.  
In recent years the earth's boreal forests—the world's northernmost forests, which
stretch across vast swathes of land in Alaska, eastern Siberia and Greenland—have
been burning at a rate that has not been seen in at least 10,000 years.

Arctic Circle burns as heatwaves plague Europe and the US

[Image: 11345924-3x2-700x467.jpg]


The Arctic is warming at about twice the rate of the global average, with melting glaciers
and disappearing sea ice no longer able reflect the sun's heat effectively.

     Sad
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Alan V, GenesisNemesis
Reply

Climate Change
I like the title of this article: "Would Trump’s Reelection Doom the Planet?"

"But the most potent reason for voters to be concerned about climate change this year is that we’re running out of time to prevent some of its worst effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined that the world could hit 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming—the point at which irreversible damage begins—as soon as 2030. This time crunch has led some to say the 2020 election represents humanity’s last hope. 'This is a climate crisis. An emergency,' Washington Governor Jay Inslee said last month during the first Democratic debate. 'And it is our last chance in an administration—the next one—to do something about it.' But how important is this election, really? Scientists and policy experts agree that 2020 isn’t literally the last chance to save humanity, but four more years of Trump undoubtedly shrinks our chances to ensure a future safe from catastrophe. U.S. emissions likely wouldn’t reduce at the necessary pace, and the lack of leadership on the international stage could cause countries to decelerate their own energy transitions. The planet wouldn’t be doomed quite yet, but it would be closer to doom than ever before."

https://newrepublic.com/article/154539/t...-uMou0Ef80
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply

Climate Change
"Many other candidates have also used the word 'existential' in the past to describe the threat of climate change, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren in last night’s debate. The language is vague, so it’s hard to tell exactly what is meant in each case, but it’s worth noting that climate scientists do not expect climate change to eliminate the human race from the planet. 'There is too much over-heated rhetoric these days arguing that all life, including human beings, will go extinct,' said Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann about climate change in an email. 'That simply cannot be defended scientifically.' "

...

"As we’ve explained before, scientists don’t view climate change as having a hard cutoff. Being aggressive on emissions now will certainly reduce negative consequences and make it easier in the long run to address the challenge, but that does not mean efforts at a later date would have no impact."

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/factch...t1yLHXUs60
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply

Climate Change
One of the nation’s leading climate change scientists is quitting the Agriculture Department in protest over the Trump administration’s efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice loses nutrients due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Lewis Ziska, a 62-year-old plant physiologist who’s worked at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service for more than two decades, told POLITICO he was alarmed when department officials not only questioned the findings of the study — which raised potentially serious concerns for the 600 million people who depend on rice for most of their calories — but also tried to minimize press coverage of the paper, which was published in the journal Science Advances last year. 'You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views,' Ziska said in a wide-ranging interview. 'That's so sad. I can't even begin to tell you how sad that is.' "

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/0...mp-1445271
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mark, GenesisNemesis
Reply

Climate Change
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/...onthebrink

Quote: The amazon basin, most of which sits within the borders of Brazil, contains 40% of the world’s tropical forests and accounts for 10-15% of the biodiversity of Earth’s continents. Since the 1970s nearly 800,000km² of Brazil’s original 4m km² (1.5m square miles) of Amazon forest has been lost to logging, farming, mining, roads, dams and other forms of development—an area equivalent to that of Turkey, and bigger than that of Texas. Over the same period, the average temperature in the basin has risen by about 0.6°C. This century, the region has suffered a series of severe droughts.

Both the reduction in tree coverage and the change in climate were endangering the forest’s future well before Brazil’s general elections of October 2018. But after that the forest faced another threat: Jair Bolsonaro, the new president, and arguably the most environmentally dangerous head of state in the world.

From 2004 to 2012 the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon slowed. The government’s environmental protection agency, Ibama, was strengthened. Other countries, and global ngos, nagged and encouraged; in 2008 an international Amazon Fund was created to help pay for protection. Not a moment too soon, said rainforest scientists. They had begun to suspect that, if tree loss passed a certain threshold, the deforestation would start to feed on itself. Beyond this tipping-point, forest cover would keep shrinking whatever humans might try to do to stop it. Eventually much of the basin would be drier savannah, known as cerrado. As well as spelling extinction for tens of thousands of species, that devastation would change weather patterns over much of South America and release into the atmosphere tens of billions of tonnes of carbon, worsening global warming.


FYI you have to sign up to read a limited number of free articles for The Economist now...
The following 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • SYZ, Alan V
Reply

Climate Change
" 'It’s a climate delusion. It’s a climate collusion,' James Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, told an audience of around 250 gathered at the Trump International Hotel in Washington for the institute’s 13th International Conference on Climate Change in late July. Other speakers argued that any warming of the Earth is part of a natural cycle and not the result of human activity, as record heat swept through Europe, toppling records in France, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. Chicago-based Heartland is part of a nesting group of right-wing organizations that for decades have sought to undermine public confidence in mainstream climate science. It publishes 'climate realist' books and articles that find their way into Republican platforms and into the media, and has tried to push materials into schools."

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/20...xm4DLCnkAg
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, skyking
Reply

Climate Change
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/health/ip...index.html

Quote: Food will become scarcer, grocery prices will spike and crops will lose their nutritional value due to the climate crisis, according to a major report on land use from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released Thursday.

The climate crisis will also change what kinds of crops farmers can grow. Some climates will become too hot for what farmers are growing now. Some climates will see more flooding, more snow, more moisture in the air, which will also limit what can be grown.

"The window is closing rapidly to have lower emissions and to keep warming to less than 2 degrees.That is the key message of this report," said one of the report's authors, Pamela McElwee, an associate professor of human ecology in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University.
The following 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Climate Change
(08-14-2019, 04:05 PM)mordant Wrote: Climate change, in particular, is a slow-motion debacle that would be decades in the making. It's not like half the land currently above sea level in Florida will disappear all at once in the next hurricane. It will just gradually flood and dry out, then flood a little more each time, and the new coastal reality will not be set in stone until maybe as late as the year 2200. We'll gradually move population centers inland, leaving behind the most impoverished and vulnerable to die a slow death, and we will accept that as the New Normal.

The poor in other countries will certainly suffer from sea levels rising, in Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Egypt in particular.

But in America the rich own most of the seafront property. So they will be hit disproportionately hard by rising sea levels.

Year 2200 is rather optimistic. With a business-as-usual scenario, billions of dollars worth of Florida real estate could be underwater by 2050. By 2100, the value of drowned properties could exceed a half trillion. By 2100, sea levels could rise as high as 6 to 8 feet above the pre-industrial.

My fear is that many of the rich will pressure the government to spend public money to preserve their private properties, when they are already lost causes due to long-term effects. Miami is already a lost cause due to its underlying porous limestone. So the city will either have to adapt to higher water levels or be abandoned. Perhaps both.
Reply

Climate Change
If the world heats up enough the Blob might thaw out and run rampant.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply

Climate Change
(07-21-2019, 12:02 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(07-20-2019, 09:39 AM)Alan V Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...sFaCgnI1wk

And once again, the wealthy piss on the poor, and have the financial resources necessary
to say "fuck the environment".

It's estimated that the average Australian has a carbon footprint of about 15,000kg of CO2
per year.  Which is 13,000kg above  the recommended annual amount if we want to keep
global warming under 2ºC by 2050.  Although 120 other countries also have a per-person
carbon footprint above the recommended figure of 2,000kg of CO2 per year.

 Yair, Aussies  are extreme in so many things. Our take up of new tech, from PC's to mobile phones,  to solar panels, to skin cancers rates. one could be forgiven for thinking we have no sense of restraint .

I'm  beginning to feel a lot of rich, clever, powerful people think as in the clip below. I'm not counting the millions of common or garden variety dickheads

I became a ware of climate change (global warming) from a  brilliant but  paranoid mate, in the early  1980's . He dumbed down the science for me

Scientists of the time claimed we REALLY needed to reduce or carbon output by 20%, THEN. That within 20 year from that time (early 2000's) it would be too late.

Well, we didn't, and here we are in 2019 .I think we're fucked.

So, I believe  anything I do is probably futile. I do what I can anyway because it makes me feel better, . IE: I recycle as much as I can and have bought a shopping trolley to reduce my use of plastic .  Three months ago, I got rid of my 2.4 litre Camry, and replaced it with a jellybean, a 1500 cc Mazda 2.  Two years ago, I installed a  5 KW solar power system. A net feed in system, it has reduced my electricity costs by 1/3 over the year. Next project is to install a bank of  small rainwater tanks in my large  garage. That's so nobody will knowI have them .  

Over the last 20 years I have always thought  I would dead before climate change became personally inconvenient (my city under  a meter of water,  that kind of thing) Now, I'm not so confident .Talk about Hobson's choice!


The following 2 users Like grympy's post:
  • Alan V, SYZ
Reply

Climate Change
(08-14-2019, 05:48 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: If the world heats up enough the Blob might thaw out and run rampant.

Too late.

[Image: il_794xN.1714257729_qku6.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Climate Change
(08-15-2019, 06:16 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
(08-14-2019, 05:48 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: If the world heats up enough the Blob might thaw out and run rampant.

Too late.

[Image: il_794xN.1714257729_qku6.jpg]

Re the quote about religious founders and a sense of humour. Pretty depressing, although probably true of the real founder of Christianity, Paul Of Tarsus. Also very obviously true of the unpleasant founder of Lutherism , Martin Luther.,a complete twat. .

Can Jesus be considered a founder of a religion?  I've always liked to think that Jesus  enjoyed and told fart jokes.  Can't prove it of course, but the logic: ; Christians  claim  Jesus was was fully human. He spent a lot of time on the road with some pretty basic  types of blokes. Quite likely they would have had a vulgar/earthy sense of humour. The average human farts about 16 times a day . I suspect those guys ate a lot of beans and lentils, so probably some quite thunderous farts. Surely, there would haven been mirth sometimes.  Thumbs Up
Reply

Climate Change
"Often considered the bogeyman of global climate diplomacy, China is making greater and faster strides than expected away from fossil fuels — becoming the world’s largest investor in solar and wind technology and boasting more jobs in solar energy than in coal-mining. It’s all part of a longterm economic strategy to dominate in critical technologies. The torrid pace and unprecedented scale of China’s investments in clean energy are driven in part by local concerns about toxic air quality. China remains the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for roughly 30 percent of global carbon dioxide pollution."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/1...ns-1662345
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Climate Change
"After months of record temperatures, scientists say Greenland's ice sheet experienced its biggest melt of the summer on Thursday, losing 11 billion tons of surface ice to the ocean -- equivalent to 4.4 million Olympic swimming pools. Greenland's ice sheet usually melts during the summer, but the melt season typically begins around the end of May; this year it began at the start. It has been melting 'persistently' over the past four months, which have recorded all time temperature highs, according to Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist with Danish Meteorological Institute."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/gre...index.html

Trump has said he doesn't believe in climate change. If not, why would he be interested in buying Greenland?

Who knows what mineral wealth will be exposed by the ice sheet melting.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • M.Linoge, GenesisNemesis
Reply

Climate Change
"The advantage of faith over reason, is that reason requires understanding. Which usually requires education; resources of time and money. 
Religion needs none of that. - It empowers the lowliest idiot to pretend that he is wiser than the wise, ignoring all the indications otherwise "
 - A. Ra
The following 2 users Like M.Linoge's post:
  • Alan V, GenesisNemesis
Reply

Climate Change
A few days ago here in Canberra (Australia's capital) Australian league (AFL) footballers
played their first ever game in the snow, during football's 150-year history here.

Bloody global warming LOL.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Climate Change
(08-22-2019, 10:48 PM)SYZ Wrote: A few days ago here in Canberra (Australia's capital) Australian league (AFL) footballers
played their first ever game in the snow, during football's 150-year history here.

Bloody global warming LOL.

That's different.  But I would call that possible climate disruption rather than global warming.  Global warming causes climate change.
Reply

Climate Change
(08-22-2019, 11:09 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(08-22-2019, 10:48 PM)SYZ Wrote: A few days ago here in Canberra (Australia's capital) Australian league (AFL) footballers
played their first ever game in the snow, during football's 150-year history here.

Bloody global warming LOL.

That's different.  But I would call that possible climate disruption rather than global warming.  Global warming causes climate change.

At what  point does climate disruption become climate change?  Over what period of the same disruption, and what variance is acceptable?. I ask  because I want to be able to use the term 'climate change' accurately , rather than as a knee jerk reaction after say an especially hot summer.

I've noticed  in recent years, that our Summers seem to be getting hotter. Last summer, the temperature in this city reached 50 C, the hottest day on record.   It has been common in recent summers (5-10 years) to have a week at  a time of temperatures of 38C (100f) or more. When I was growing up , summer temperatures rarely exceeded 35C (90f). Now I'm aware this is only hearsay, and unreliable at that----I'm going back over 50 years, so may be misremembering .

Is say the melting of the ice on Greenland  proof of climate change, or  merely climate disruption.?

Please don't misunderstand; I accept climate change as fact. I simply want to be better informed.
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Climate Change
(08-23-2019, 12:07 AM)grympy Wrote: At what  point does climate disruption become climate change?  Over what period of the same disruption, and what variance is acceptable?. I ask  because I want to be able to use the term 'climate change' accurately , rather than as a knee jerk reaction after say an especially hot summer.

Yes, you are correct.  Weather is not the same as climate, so short term unusual events might not indicate trends.  From what I have read, careful records have to be kept for 30 or more years to indicate trends in the climate above and beyond normal weather variations and local climate oscillations.

That's why scientists still can't say what effects climate change might have on tornadoes.  They don't have enough reliable data yet.

I wrote this on natural climate change and natural variability in post #84:

(01-04-2019, 12:16 AM)Alan V Wrote: Natural climate change

In the last 2.7 million years or so, there have been dozens of glacial-interglacial cycles. So the natural pattern of climate change over that period has been one of long ice ages separated by shorter warm periods. It takes tens of thousands of years for the earth to cool down, but only a few thousand to warm again. We are presently living in such a warm period called the Holocene, which started after the last ice age ended around 12,000 years ago.

Scientists are convinced that these natural climate changes can be explained by small shifts in the earth’s orbit, the Milankovitch cycles, which increase or decrease the solar energy it receives. The earth’s axis, the precession of the equinoxes, wobbles on a 23,000 year cycle. The earth’s tilt shifts on a 41,000 year cycle. And the earth’s eccentricity, how elliptical its orbit is, oscillates on a 100,000 year cycle. The 100,000 year cycle has the greatest impact on global average temperatures. Presently, the first two cycles are out-of-phase by about 10,000 years and the orbital eccentricity is small, so the length of our interglacial period would normally be extended beyond the typical. The last time the earth was in this configuration 400,000 years ago, the interglacial was 50,000 years long.

These variations are amplified by the increase or decrease of CO2 which follow them by several hundred years. Soils and oceans release or capture CO2 and methane depending on their temperatures, so both rise and fall in close correlation with the ice age cycles, amplifying their climate extremes. These greenhouse gases account for nearly half the glacial-interglacial global temperature changes. This correlation goes back 650,000 years, through seven glacial cycles.

This is the natural climate change we could expect if no other factors came into play. Nevertheless, present climate change will likely delay the onset of the next ice age for over 130,000 years. CO2 has varied between 180 and 290 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. It was 280 ppm as late as 1750, before the industrial revolution. But at over 410 ppm today, it is about 45% higher, and likely the highest it has been for millions of years.

Natural variability

Overlaying that general pattern of glacial and interglacial periods is a fair amount of natural variation.

Weather is chaotic, so it varies in ways which have nothing to do with the overall trends of climate. Different factors cause this natural variability, and those factors must be taken into account and averaged out, or even offset in some cases, to clearly see the overall trends in climate. Such factors include the El Niño Southern Oscillation for instance, or volcanic eruptions, increases in industrial aerosols like after the end of World War II, and temporary changes in solar output. Some variations are regional rather than global, which must also be taken into account.

The average temperature varies randomly above and below the trend line by about 0.2̊C, or about 0.4̊F. Volcanic particles lifted into the stratosphere can lead to a cooling effect which lasts for two or three years on average, followed by a slow recovery. Solar output varies by about 0.1% over the typical ten-to-twelve year solar cycle. Although no unexpected, large solar output variations have happened in the near past, further back in history they led to such events as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, according to solar proxies.

The warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be masked by such natural variability by as long as a decade or more, which is why long-term tracking of weather is so important in detecting climate change. For instance, a recent apparent pause in the upward trend of global warming temperatures was caused by a combination of volcanic activity, a short-term reduction in solar output due to the natural solar cycle, and a series of La Niña events. The background “noise” of natural variability must be taken into account to clearly see the steady “signal” of incrementally increasing temperatures. This is why natural variability was still considered a possible explanation for observed changes as late as the 1990s.
Reply

Climate Change
(08-23-2019, 12:07 AM)grympy Wrote: I've noticed  in recent years, that our Summers seem to be getting hotter...

Oh yes, I'd agree totally with this.  I'd also say our winters are getting milder too, as it
was common when I was a kid to see puddles frozen over in mid-winter where I lived in
suburban Melbourne.  And I easily recall snapping(!) a garden hose which was frozen solid,
when I attempted to wash the frost off my car windscreen in the mid-1960s.  We seldom,
if ever, get a true frost now.

Having said that though, Melbourne's previously hottest summer day on record was 117°F
(47°C) on 6th February 1851, known as "Black Thursday", and reported in The Argus of 17 Jan 1857.

And this image is of the Murray River's dry bed in 1915, which I believe was a one-off event:

[Image: 10%20River%20Murray%20Koondrook%201915%2...0&mode=max]



But this image is a forewarning of similar things yet to come; the dry bed of the Darling River in 2017.
[Image: 7442152-3x2-700x467.jpg]

—We've been warned have we not?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • brunumb, grympy
Reply

Climate Change
https://earther.gizmodo.com/david-koch-e...1837505612

With regards to the recent death of David Koch...

Quote: Greenpeace estimates the brothers spent $127 million from 1997 to 2017 funding 92 organizations that muddied the waters on climate change, a move that helped make international efforts to combat climate change, like the Kyoto Protocol, worthless. They funded a network of overlapping climate denial organizations to kill a 2009 bill that would have created a cap and trade system, a very business-friendly climate solution they rejected on principle.
The following 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Alan V
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)