patrick.net

"But climate scientists have a strange kind of faith: We will find a way to forestall radical warming, they say, because we must."

Wow.

It's a good article, especially for those who cannot understand what could possibly go wrong if the world were 2 or 4 degrees warmer.

We all know how accurate extremely complex models have been.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

We all know how accurate extremely complex models have been.

"The Dr. says I will lose my hand or possibly my arm up to the elbow. They don't know enough to make an accurate diagnosis yet between the two diagnoses."

It's not the point of the article to predict what will concretely happen. It's to show you what is possible with the path we are on. That article is filled with real things that are occurring now due to warming, and then projecting further into what is likely to happen.

The US military views climate change as one the defining threats and challenges it faces. You telling me Mattis and the top brass are wrong? Want to wave it away as politics only?

Some of the scientists interviewed are, however, being critical of this piece though. They think it encourages a doomist fatalism instead of spurring a call to action. They also point to an error in interpretation of the points around warming occurring at twice the rate expected. Gosh dang them and their objective rational thought!

This article is fear mongering w no scientific method in sight.

"Barring a radical reduction of emissions, we will see at least four feet of sea-level rise and possibly ten by the end of the century." Al Gore made the same claim about NYC being under water "within 10 years". That was 20 years ago.

I'm sure they are telling you truth this time though. Sigh

"Barring a radical reduction of emissions, we will see at least four feet of sea-level rise and possibly ten by the end of the century." Al Gore made the same claim about NYC being under water "within 10 years". That was 20 years ago."

Why don't you post the actual quote from Gore with a little context from his speech and let's see how "wrong" he was.

What's nice is that you don't actually have to worry about any of this shit, because the "true" Armageddon will be a Black Swan, and nobody will see it coming or know what it is.

So relax, be happy!

In more unrelated news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34540414

"One of the world's leading experts on permafrost has told BBC News that the recent rate of warming of this frozen layer of earth is "unbelievable".

Prof Vladimir Romanovsky said that he expected permafrost in parts of Alaska would start to thaw by 2070."

Rew says

"The Dr. says I will lose my hand or possibly my arm up to the elbow. They don't know enough to make an accurate diagnosis yet b hietween the two diagnoses."

You yourself should know why this is horrible analogy.

How many earth analogues experiencing combustion fuel revolutions do your climate scientists have as factual, precedence?

. Did you remember the 1.1g one in the orbit of beetlegeese inhabited by gas burning Beatles like creatures, and how bout seti alpha yommma?

100 Earth's or 566 or 56732?

Gentle Readers,
May I highlight a data point that show human beings can, and do, effect the atmosphere on a global scale? CFC refrigerants and propellants. We produced and used CFCs for about 50 years or more from the early 1930s to the 1980s. We started seeing degrading of the upper atmosphere ozone layer and a serious ozone layer depression above Antartica during the early spring. Ok, so we let Dupont get their patent money on the stuff until the patent expired, and then, more or less, switched to HCFCs. Never let anything get in the way of making money.

Since then, we have seen improvement of the ozone layer, but it has not recovered yet. It will be quite some time before it is. The conclusion: If we can effect the ozone layer to the global extent that we did with CFCs, then we can screw up the whole atmosphere with the amount of CO2 from fossil fuels. It will be a long time before we can: know the extent of the damage, how long it will last, and can we develop a "technical fix" to speed along a recovery.

It is interesting to speculate about what could happen if and when we get to the back side of the CO2 loading. Could we destroy our civilization 400 years or more in the future with a new ice age? Hmm. Like I said, this is speculation. Still, speculation is almost as much fun as the sex itself. So to speak.

Regards,
Roidy