Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its gonna regardless, no scientist disputes that.

    Don't you think it would be wiser to plan for that eventuality now instead of kicking the problem down the road?
     
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are dozens of studies on those very topics. Here is a nice chart to track global warming against CO2 concentration. And it tracks the warming against multiple other potential causes (including deforestation).

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    As for how to combat it, I actually made a thread on that very topic in regards to a study which offered something like 20-25 localized natural based solutions that could help reduce something like 1/3 of the impact of climate change. I'll see if I can find it for you.

    Here's the article: http://www.newsweek.com/want-save-p...natural-climate-solutions-curb-climate-724362

    And my thread on that study: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ch-carbon-as-halting-oil-use-–-report.516938/
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    Zhivago, penner and Curious Yellow like this.
  3. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So then why ask what the temperature would be in 50 years without warming?
     
  4. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It'll be the same as it is now. But, I think what you actually meant to ask was "what will the temperature be in 30 years without anthroprogenicly induced global warming". But, even that's a vague questions. Do you mean without anthroprogenic CO2 emissions or without ALL anthroprogenic forcing mechanisms. Assuming the former the Earth would be colder than it now for two main reasons. First, the Sun is predicted into a grand minimum so there will be less solar forcing. Second, anthroprogenic aerosols have a strong cooling effect. Assuming the later the Earth would probably stay about the same or get slightly cooler, but not as cool as in the former case. Again, it's hypothetical because you'd have to make all anthroprogenic forcing mechanisms (CO2 and other GHGs, aerosols, and land use changes) go poof instantly which isn't possible.
     
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I realize you know this, but for those unfamiliar with terminology keep in mind that deforestation is still anthroprogenic...ya know...because humans are responsible for that. In academic jargon deforestation is lumped into the "land use change" bucket along with a bunch of other stuff.
     
    Zhivago and MrTLegal like this.
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh my, another alarmist article in The Guardian. Say it ain't so.
     
  7. Russ103

    Russ103 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,595
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, I applaud you for your out of the closet Bolshevik like answer!

    Now read your opening sentence (“I have no interest in mandating”) and then go to your mandating indirectly via industry standards (CAFE in particular) and you’ll see the unintended honesty you provided, even though I already know that about you libs.

    You basically want to be told what to do, and what to buy by a bunch of faceless government bureaucrats who know nothing about innovation and the private market. In other words, you’re a sheep. I don’t mean that as an insult to you, it is what it is, and every country has its sheep, no doubt the DNC shows some appreciation for your support.
     
  8. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oxygen isotope studies in Greenland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Tibet, China, New Zealand, and elsewhere, plus tree-ring data from many sites around the world all confirm the presence of a global Medieval Warm Period. Soon and Baliunas (2003) found that 92% of 112 studies showed physical evidence of the MWP, only two showed no evidence, and 21 of 22 studies in the Southern Hemisphere showed evidence of Medieval warming. Evidence of the MWP at specific sites are summarized in Fagan (2007) and Singer (2007). Thus, evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event is widespread. The IPCC 2nd report (Climate Change 1995) included a graph showing the MWP with warmer temperatures than today and the Little Ice Age with much cooler temperatures.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You say this like it was factual, and yet, it isn't. So, why? I suggest doing more reading. Very informative. Provides lots of perspective that seems so lacking usually in the AGW discussions.

    https://www.livescience.com/28493-when-sahara-desert-formed.html

    Just for some context.
     
  10. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Am I reading that correctly to say that the transition took 1,000 years?
     
  11. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I put your quote into google, the first result is globalwarminghoax.com....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

    The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China[1] and other areas,[2][3] lasting from about c. 950 to c. 1250.[4] Other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Averaged global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[5]

    The period was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic and elsewhere termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that climatic effects other than temperature were important.[6][7]

    It is thought that between c. 950 and c. 1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was only in the 20th century that the Northern Hemisphere experienced warmer temperatures. Climatic Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a globally uniform event.[8]
     
    Zhivago and Curious Yellow like this.
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More seawater...higher temperatures... more evaporation... more precipitation... more deserts.
    Trying not to laugh out loud.
     
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As the earth warms, the atmosphere is able to hold onto more moisture before it becomes too saturated and must fall as precipitation.

    Most of the rising sea levels will come from thermal expansion and melting glaciers.

    I have a difficult time understanding the mirth you feel.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    Zhivago likes this.
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I happen to recognize some of those names. Anyway, this whole paragraph comes from Easterbrook. Did you know Easterbrook and his friends (Soon and Baliunas) have all predicted global cooling and have failed miserably. They've failed so badly they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct. And they're still doing it...predicting cooling year after and year even though it never happens. You should read some of these guys publications. Make sure you research the Soon and Baliunas controversy. Also, Fagan and Singer do not publish research. They are authors who write books. In the case of Singer he happens to be a well known climate change denier who misleads by omission, misinterpretation, and fraud.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    Zhivago, Curious Yellow and MrTLegal like this.
  15. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The story doesn't quantify it. Assume that it was gradual. Even so, what shift created it? Or more importantly, what shift became permanent enough to create the shift? The current spate of speculation about 1/4 of all land becoming arid doesn't account for the current land that already is, so doesn't indicate what the impact might look like (for example). Currently, 1/4 of the earth's land mass have an arid or semi arid climate. So, does that mean there is any impact at all if it changes, while other climate changed improve other climactic areas? The answer is, no on knows, so it is only speculation and guesses at what might happen given a set of logic elements that may indicate the result. Still speculation. What if they are simply wrong and higher temps lead to more humidity that leads to better precipitation distribution? Why wouldn't that also be just as valid an expectation?
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see cooling outside today. It was 4F this morning. That's only something like 25F colder than normal....
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gas went up under Bush, down under Obama, hope it doesn't go up under Trump
     
  18. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because higher global temperatures means that the atmosphere is able to hold onto more moisture before it reaches a point of saturation where precipitation occurs. And when it does occur, it will occur in heavier events.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-the-science-of-extreme-weather/
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would you bother with this troll post?
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An effect exceeded by the increase in evaporation due to temperature; less energy is required to evaporate the water and so more evaporates.
    And? More water available to evaporate.
    Among most other things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm referring to the global mean temperature. 2016 was the warmest in the modern era. 2017 is the second warmest...and that's with a La Nina.
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  22. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When we have record highs, that's all the evidence necessary to call it climate change. Just using the same methods. I see a trend here....
     
  23. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps. Or perhaps the data collection created the anomaly, and of course, we have to remember that "hottest" is measured in terms of hundredths of a degree C. Right? Oh, and of course, there is a certainty calibration to which, I believe this year's "certainty" was 40%. So much definitive info there.
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe by the media and Al Gore. But actual real bona-fide climate scientists do not use the number of record highs as the defining metric for gauging global warming. Instead they use the global mean temperature.
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. And we can compute the global mean temperature to an accuracy on the order of 0.01C using reanalysis.

    Which group advertises the certainty as 40% for the post 2017 ranking?
     
    Zhivago likes this.

Share This Page