More evidence that we are messing up the climate

[gatchaman]

I'm sold on those "how many earths" charts. Pure science.

How many Earths are needed for each of us to live like Al Gore?

How many Earths are needed for each of us to live like Leo DiCaprio?

C'mon science.

 

[Prutfis]

India and China do not give a single fuck about following any of this. An AOC Presidency might really see us going to Hot War over emissions, lol.

Yet every american pollutes as much as 3 chinese. Maybe america should get its shit in order as well. It doesnt have to be one or the other.

 

[Ûdun Ghuephd]

Leo Dicaprio invented Al Gore

 

[ocean size]

I hope you will understand that "could reach" and "barrelling toward" are not at all equivalent to me.

'could reach'... given the RCP 6/8.5 'business as usual' scenarios. i.e. what is predicted if 'business' doesn't change. Sure, 'barrelling' is dramatic language but clearly it means that's what we are on track for.

So, my understanding (from the information presented in the blog post and the graph from the article) is that the "epic new" Benthic Deep Sea Record merely reinforces what was already known: That it was much warmer on Earth millions of years ago during the Eocene (a time referred also referred "hothouse" and "Eocene optimum") when our primate ancestors were presumably not driving SUVs but nonetheless thriving and spreading to new places (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum).

If you want to read it, search for the title of the paper on google scholar, click on 'show all versions' and one of the 4 results will be a pdf that's not paywalled on a link that starts with 'paleoclimate.sci' What is new here is the temporal resolution and accuracy of the dating. Did we know it was hot? Yeah, we've had these same type of records since the 70s, but at low resolution. This record provides how much climate variability there is on the scale of 10 k - 1 million years which demonstrates the rate of recent warming exceeds natural variability on a very long time scale. That wouldn't have been so clear with previous low resolution data series that weren't astronomically dated.

Funny to mention our ancestors thriving as if a creature that looks like this can tell us much about what is good for human wellbeing:

But let's assume they can tell us something: many of these ancestral primate species did not survive the increase in CO2 and resulting Eocene maximum and resulting changes in climate, so I'm not sure we want to just be content with the changing climate based on the fate of our ancestors.

And nowhere does the "epic new" Benthic Deep Sea Record show a recent barrelling back towards the optimum hothouse condition.

Your last point is a bit pedantic. If someone said "recently discovered old family photos show that my hair hasn't grown as long as it is now since I was a kid" I doubt you would say "Nuh uh nowhere do family photos show that your hair is long now"

 

[gatchaman]

'could reach'... given the RCP 6/8.5 'business as usual' scenarios. i.e. what is predicted if 'business' doesn't change. Sure, 'barrelling' is dramatic language but clearly it means that's what we are on track for.


If you want to read it, search for the title of the paper on google scholar, click on 'show all versions' and one of the 4 results will be a pdf that's not paywalled on a link that starts with 'paleoclimate.sci' What is new here is the temporal resolution and accuracy of the dating. Did we know it was hot? Yeah, we've had these same type of records since the 70s, but at low resolution. This record provides how much climate variability there is on the scale of 10 k - 1 million years which demonstrates the rate of recent warming exceeds natural variability on a very long time scale. That wouldn't have been so clear with previous low resolution data series that weren't astronomically dated.

Funny to mention our ancestors thriving as if a creature that looks like this can tell us much about what is good for human wellbeing:

But let's assume they can tell us something: many of these ancestral primate species did not survive the increase in CO2 and resulting Eocene maximum and resulting changes in climate, so I'm not sure we want to just be content with the changing climate based on the fate of our ancestors.


Your last point is a bit pedantic. If someone said "recently discovered old family photos show that my hair hasn't grown as long as it is now since I was a kid" I doubt you would say "Nuh uh nowhere do family photos show that your hair is long now"

Thanks for clarifying that this is not even a comparison of apples (Benthic Deep Sea Record) to oranges (thermometer data) but rather an example of a comparison of apples (Benthic Deep Sea Record) to make-believe (RCP 6/8.5 projection).

As for the optimum temperature for humans, why do you suppose that humans sweat? What was the climate where/when humans first appeared? Why do bums migrate to Los Angeles? My ability to live where I live in Canada is made possible by the burning of oil and natural gas. But the Eocene left fossils of palm trees in Canada and fossils of crocodiles extending all the way to the arctic. People are posting in this thread about how many Earths are needed for humans to survive. Which is more conducive to our survival? (A) Plants (like palm trees) growing over the entirety the two largest countries (Russia and Canada) to feed a world that according to alarmists in this thread is rapidly being exhausted of resources or (B) the return of the Laurentide Ice Sheet covering all of Canada, which is the normal state of affairs for about 80,000 of every 100,000 years, all of human civilization having existed in that sweet-spot 20,000 year interglacial)

I'm no RCP 6/8.5, but here are some projections for you:
1) Mankind has more to fear from cooling than warming according to Milankovich cycles. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

2) The madness of crowds of alarmists in North America and Europe follows another cycle, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation). So I am predicting another downtrend (like the one in 60s and 70s) to start in about 30 years or less.

Spoiler

1999 GISS analysis of surface temperature change (Figure 6): https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

1924 MacMillan Reports signs of New Ice Age: https://www.nytimes.com/1924/09/28/...s-of-new-ice-age-explorer-brings-word-of.html

1932 Next Great Deluge Forecast by Science: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1930.pdf

1978 International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere: https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/...cialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html

1988 Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

You will note that the USA thermometer data corrorates the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation before the Communist historical revisionism that took place between 1999 (Figure 6: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf) and 2019 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png).

 

[rpn453]

What I mean is they will be living on western levels of consumption and CO2 production. I.e. driving cars, eating beef etc.

Maybe I was unclear. I agree. They would see people who are considered to be in poverty here that are driving cars, living in a comfortable shelter, and having access to a practically unlimited quantity and selection of food. They wish they could have it so good. They're not going to care if they have to burn a little oil to get there. They'd gladly trade starvation and suffering for climate change.

And who could possibly say they don't have the right to try to at least live as well as the poorest of us westerners, with all the consumption that allows it to happen?

 

[no fat chicks]

How many Earths are needed for each of us to live like Al Gore?

How many Earths are needed for each of us to live like Leo DiCaprio?

C'mon science.

Celebrities and political leaders are hypocrites.
Therefore the science must not be sound. . .
Ya that checks out

 

[no fat chicks]

Thanks for clarifying that this is not even a comparison of apples (Benthic Deep Sea Record) to oranges (thermometer data) but rather an example of a comparison of apples (Benthic Deep Sea Record) to make-believe (RCP 6/8.5 projection).

As for the optimum temperature for humans, why do you suppose that humans sweat? What was the climate where/when humans first appeared? Why do bums migrate to Los Angeles? My ability to live where I live in Canada is made possible by the burning of oil and natural gas. But the Eocene left fossils of palm trees in Canada and fossils of crocodiles extending all the way to the arctic. People are posting in this thread about how many Earths are needed for humans to survive. Which is more conducive to our survival? (A) Plants (like palm trees) growing over the entirety the two largest countries (Russia and Canada) to feed a world that according to alarmists in this thread is rapidly being exhausted of resources or (B) the return of the Laurentide Ice Sheet covering all of Canada, which is the normal state of affairs for about 80,000 of every 100,000 years, all of human civilization having existed in that sweet-spot 20,000 year interglacial)

I'm no RCP 6/8.5, but here are some projections for you:
1) Mankind has more to fear from cooling than warming according to Milankovich cycles. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

2) The madness of crowds of alarmists in North America and Europe follows another cycle, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation). So I am predicting another downtrend (like the one in 60s and 70s) to start in about 30 years or less.

Spoiler

1999 GISS analysis of surface temperature change (Figure 6): https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

1924 MacMillan Reports signs of New Ice Age: https://www.nytimes.com/1924/09/28/...s-of-new-ice-age-explorer-brings-word-of.html

1932 Next Great Deluge Forecast by Science: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1930.pdf

1978 International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere: https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/...cialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html

1988 Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

You will note that the USA thermometer data corrorates the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation before the Communist historical revisionism that took place between 1999 (Figure 6: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf) and 2019 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png).

The main point of your argument is a total straw man. Welp it's better than an ice age?
Too bad we've already made sure we won't have another ice age for a long ass time.
You also fail to mention that during times where co2 was that high and some terrestrial life was thriving we also had mass die offs in the oceans due to increased acidity. These changes also appear to have taken place over a much longer time scale.

 

[ocean size]

Thanks for clarifying that this is not even a comparison of apples (Benthic Deep Sea Record) to oranges (thermometer data) but rather an example of a comparison of apples (Benthic Deep Sea Record) to make-believe (RCP 6/8.5 projection).

As for the optimum temperature for humans, why do you suppose that humans sweat? What was the climate where/when humans first appeared? Why do bums migrate to Los Angeles? My ability to live where I live in Canada is made possible by the burning of oil and natural gas. But the Eocene left fossils of palm trees in Canada and fossils of crocodiles extending all the way to the arctic. People are posting in this thread about how many Earths are needed for humans to survive. Which is more conducive to our survival? (A) Plants (like palm trees) growing over the entirety the two largest countries (Russia and Canada) to feed a world that according to alarmists in this thread is rapidly being exhausted of resources or (B) the return of the Laurentide Ice Sheet covering all of Canada, which is the normal state of affairs for about 80,000 of every 100,000 years, all of human civilization having existed in that sweet-spot 20,000 year interglacial)

Besides being a false dilemma (ice age OR palms in Russia), if you really took a couple minutes to do the thought experiment and getting from our current state to palm trees in Russia in the scale of decades will occur without massive conflicts, social upheaval, species extinctions, and just generally very expensive in terms of money and quality of life then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[gatchaman]

The main point of your argument is a total straw man. Welp it's better than an ice age?
Too bad we've already made sure we won't have another ice age for a long ass time.
You also fail to mention that during times where co2 was that high and some terrestrial life was thriving we also had mass die offs in the oceans due to increased acidity. These changes also appear to have taken place over a much longer time scale.

Would you source this one please. What died in the ocean? When did it die? What was the CO2?

 

[gatchaman]

Celebrities and political leaders are hypocrites.
Therefore the science must not be sound. . .
Ya that checks out

Was any science presented to support man needing 1.7 Earths to live? It seems to be untrue by virtue of our very existence. Was any science provided to support that infographic?

 

[ocean size]

The main point of your argument is a total straw man. Welp it's better than an ice age?
Too bad we've already made sure we won't have another ice age for a long ass time.
You also fail to mention that during times where co2 was that high and some terrestrial life was thriving we also had mass die offs in the oceans due to increased acidity. These changes also appear to have taken place over a much longer time scale.

Exactly. I'm sure given a few million years the rodent like early monkeys evolved, redistributed to more habitable areas and adjusted (although we know many went extinct) but that rapid of a change in a 100 years instead of hundreds of thousands? Fuck that.

 

[gatchaman]

Besides being a false dilemma (ice age OR palms in Russia), if you really took a couple minutes to do the thought experiment and getting from our current state to palm trees in Russia in the scale of decades will occur without massive conflicts, social upheaval, species extinctions, and just generally very expensive in terms of money and quality of life then I don't know what to tell you.

Perhaps I should have imagined a bunch of scary things instead of looking at actual historical trends, but you haven't convinced me.

 

[no fat chicks]

Would you source this one please. What died in the ocean? When did it die? What was the CO2?

During what is known as the PETM.
More co2 makes for a more acidic ocean which in turn makes it harder for shells and corals to form. Leading to a mass extinction event for them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

 

[ocean size]

Perhaps I should have imagined a bunch of scary things instead of looking at actual historical trends, but you haven't convinced me.

You didnt look at historical trends. You told us about a grandiose Russia palm utopia fantasy and made some 'projections' based on you thinking your spitballing of basic concepts in climate is better than the actual science.

I mean fucks sake, GCMs are make believe and then you go on to say warming isnt an issue because Milankovitch cycles exist. Besides the 23k+ time scales of the cycles not being relevant to warming in the next couple hundred years- Are you under the impression scientists aren't aware of them?

 

[sherdogwantedtonamemekiki]

Nerds

 

[The Penetrator]

I mean, im no scientist, dont analyze no data, but when i see powerplant or a factory spewing thick black smoke into the sky, something tells me its no good for the enviornment, and i certainly dont wanna live anywhere near that place...

Sooo, yeah, im all for goin as clean as possible, going with my insinct on this one.

 

[Broken arrow]

So I remember reading that young growing forests are WAY better at producing O2 and eating greenhouse gasses then old stagnant forests. If that is true.... why has the left (the side pushing all the environmental regulations) worked so hard to limit sustainable harvesting/replanting of our forests ?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

So I remember reading that young growing forests are WAY better at producing O2 and eating greenhouse gasses then old stagnant forests. If that is true.... why has the left (the side pushing all the environmental regulations) worked so hard to limit sustainable harvesting/replanting of our forests ?

Source.

 

[gatchaman]

During what is known as the PETM.
More co2 makes for a more acidic ocean which in turn makes it harder for shells and corals to form. Leading to a mass extinction event for them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

I don't think that the corals will go extinct from a 200 to 400 ppm increase in CO2 over the Industrial Age when they somehow managed to come into existence when the CO2 was 10x as high.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral
Corals first appeared in the Cambrian about 535 million years ago.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million (ppm, on a molar basis) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years

But leave it to the alarmists to call icebox Earth too warm and all time CO2 lows too high.

What do you think the CO2 level should be? I think an optimum would be at least 800 ppm (double current levels). From: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production.

Crops are something we should be looking to maximize on this resource-scarce Earth, no?