Climate Change

[Hacky McAxe]

I don't want explanations, I want reliable measurements. The example I gave of the polar ice cap melting - that was an explanation! How would you set about measuring its effect? There are myriad factors that might or might not contribute to radiative forcing. How do you put numbers on them?

I would take probable melting amount and base estimates on high melt, low melt, and median. Not sure it would be a massive effect though. The amount of energy absorbed by earth from the sun is relative to the angle. The polar caps are frozen primarily because they receive the least sun energy.

Btw, this seems similar to your debate about COP. Sounds like you're making assumptions and arguing that it's wrong based on your assumptions. Maybe look into what's actually included in the models rather than guessing what's included.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That was a long bow you drew there, where did I say they were bullshit?

Of course you make your own judgement. I haven't made mine yet.


Always a Bulldog

Fair enough. But if you're calling the research "bullshit" and those organisations are calling it valid, then I'm going to side with them for obvious reasons.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Just saying. Modelling anything stochastically is fairly easy but the predictive power is highly dependent on the same size. As we have a sample size of bugger all for climate change, a deterministic approach is required.

This kind of modelling is very dependent on the quality of your input data and your understanding of the interrelationships. And you can build feedback loops into your modelling approach. However, due to the complexity of modelling an entire planet, these guys use a combined approach. Now thats ok but you are then subject those feedback loops having minimal influence on the stochastic part of your modelling approach. Which then leads you to having to over characterise the influence of said feedbacks. This can cause significant changes in model output because you have little data with which to train this part of the model.

Radiative forcing is one such feedback loop.

I just find this whole argument stupid. The earths temps are going up. The cause of that is humanity. This is not in dispute. Just because someone cannot tell you whether the planet is completely fckd in 50 or 500 years shouldn't change a thing. But apparently it does - always good to kick the can down the road to the grandkids, grandkids eh?

"Stochastically", I like it, my new word for the day, "a process involving a randomly determined sequence of events".

"The earths temps are going up." That's true, but what are the causes? The Maunder Effect is absolutely one of them, the Milankovitch Cycle is another possibility, and we are right in the middle of that cycle. Could that be a reason why the northern hemisphere is warning more than the southern hemisphere? NASA also notes that Axial precession makes seasonal contrasts more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Of course the climate modelling bases the difference on the human factor, population and the always difficult to predict oceans' effect. We are supposed to be in a El Nino cycle at the moment, but its feels like (and measures) more like a La Nina cycle. That's gunna screw with the modeling.

The undeniable fact is the world experienced climate warming (and cooling) long before humans started emitting CO2 and those climate changes were far more extreme than what we are currently experiencing and what even the most extreme models are projecting.


Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

Fair enough. But if you're calling the research "bullshit" and those organisations are calling it valid, then I'm going to side with them for obvious reasons.

I'm not, and I have absolutely no doubt that there is some validity, that's not the question. How much validity, is the real question. What is interesting is "how" (not to be confused with "why") do 2 (in this discussion) very reputable, world recognised authorities on Climate Science differ so much in their projections? I keep hearing that the "science is settled" when plainly, with a 400%+ variation between them, it isn't.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'm not, and I have absolutely no doubt that there is some validity, that's not the question. How much validity, is the real question. What is interesting is "how" (not to be confused with "why") do 2 (in this discussion) very reputable, world recognised authorities on Climate Science differ so much in their projections? I keep hearing that the "science is settled" when plainly, with a 400%+ variation between them, it isn't.


Always a Bulldog

The science isn't settled. I have never liked that term. But it's generally used to say, "humans are impacting the climate" as oppose to "climate change is a hoax"

Regarding the differences in projections, as I said earlier, one sides with the IPCC and other climate scientists. The other sides with himself. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it's not like it's two different factions. It's one faction going with the status quo and one standing against the vast majority.

This is not an uncommon thing. Many well respected scientists end up going against the vast majority. And it's also a sign of how stupid the "group think" argument is when many climate deniers make it. Scientists don't want to agree with each other. They want to be the one that proves everyone else wrong.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

"Stochastically", I like it, my new word for the day, "a process involving a randomly determined sequence of events".

"The earths temps are going up." That's true, but what are the causes? The Maunder Effect is absolutely one of them, the Milankovitch Cycle is another possibility, and we are right in the middle of that cycle. Could that be a reason why the northern hemisphere is warning more than the southern hemisphere? NASA also notes that Axial precession makes seasonal contrasts more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Of course the climate modelling bases the difference on the human factor, population and the always difficult to predict oceans' effect. We are supposed to be in a El Nino cycle at the moment, but its feels like (and measures) more like a La Nina cycle. That's gunna screw with the modeling.

The undeniable fact is the world experienced climate warming (and cooling) long before humans started emitting CO2 and those climate changes were far more extreme than what we are currently experiencing and what even the most extreme models are projecting.


Always a Bulldog

Two problems with that:

1) the climate changes in the past happened over a much longer period of time. Data suggests it's never been this rapid

2) you're again dismissing the word of over 99% of climate scientists. I don't know what your qualifications are and I'm not going to question them, but even if the world's most well respected climate scientist differed from the vast majority of other climate scientists, I would not believe the prominent scientist until they prove it to the community

 

[TwinTurbo]

Vegetarians and vegans are happy.

Source;

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

While elevated levels of CO2 can help plants grow, the impacts of climate change mean it’s not all good news for the plant world.

news.climate.columbia.edu

.

The good news from the Agriculture Scientists;
"between 1982 and 2020, global plant photosynthesis grew 12 percent, tracking CO2 levels in the atmosphere as they rose 17 percent. The vast majority of this increase in photosynthesis was due to carbon dioxide fertilization.

Increased photosynthesis results in more growth in some plants. Scientists have found that in response to elevated CO2 levels, above-ground plant growth increased an average of 21 percent, while below-ground growth increased 28 percent. As a result, some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans are expected to benefit from increased CO2 with an increase in yields from 12 to 14 percent."

Of course there is the get out of jail clause from the Climate Scientists (can't have those pesky Ag Science guys saying Climate Change is good)
"there are still many unknowns about how the complex interactions between plant physiology and behavior, resource availability and use, shifting plant communities, and other factors will affect overall plant life in the face of climate change"



Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

Two problems with that:

1) the climate changes in the past happened over a much longer period of time. Data suggests it's never been this rapid

2) you're again dismissing the word of over 99% of climate scientists. I don't know what your qualifications are and I'm not going to question them, but even if the world's most well respected climate scientist differed from the vast majority of other climate scientists, I would not believe the prominent scientist until they prove it to the community

Again, I dismiss nothing, what I will do is to continue to look at the numbers then critique the conclusions, which often don't align with the numbers.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Vegetarians and vegans are happy.

Source;

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

While elevated levels of CO2 can help plants grow, the impacts of climate change mean it’s not all good news for the plant world.

news.climate.columbia.edu

.

The good news from the Agriculture Scientists;
"between 1982 and 2020, global plant photosynthesis grew 12 percent, tracking CO2 levels in the atmosphere as they rose 17 percent. The vast majority of this increase in photosynthesis was due to carbon dioxide fertilization.

Increased photosynthesis results in more growth in some plants. Scientists have found that in response to elevated CO2 levels, above-ground plant growth increased an average of 21 percent, while below-ground growth increased 28 percent. As a result, some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans are expected to benefit from increased CO2 with an increase in yields from 12 to 14 percent."

Of course there is the get out of jail clause from the Climate Scientists (can't have those pesky Ag Science guys saying Climate Change is good)
"there are still many unknowns about how the complex interactions between plant physiology and behavior, resource availability and use, shifting plant communities, and other factors will affect overall plant life in the face of climate change"



Always a Bulldog

Yeah, there is downsides to it. Plants need CO2. But they also need water and other soil nutrients. An increase in plants increases local warming through plant perspiration. But that same system takes water out of the soil and sends it into the atmosphere leading to more warming (and some cooling)

 

[Doogie]

"Stochastically", I like it, my new word for the day, "a process involving a randomly determined sequence of events".

"The earths temps are going up." That's true, but what are the causes? The Maunder Effect is absolutely one of them, the Milankovitch Cycle is another possibility, and we are right in the middle of that cycle. Could that be a reason why the northern hemisphere is warning more than the southern hemisphere? NASA also notes that Axial precession makes seasonal contrasts more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Of course the climate modelling bases the difference on the human factor, population and the always difficult to predict oceans' effect. We are supposed to be in a El Nino cycle at the moment, but its feels like (and measures) more like a La Nina cycle. That's gunna screw with the modeling.

The undeniable fact is the world experienced climate warming (and cooling) long before humans started emitting CO2 and those climate changes were far more extreme than what we are currently experiencing and what even the most extreme models are projecting.


Always a Bulldog

Yep. Thats why with stochastic modelling you can just model the numbers. Because your errors are randomly distributed. But as I said, if the sample size isn't large enough, can you truly be confident of your modelling.

U currently have to go back 125,000 years to find a time when temps were hotter than they are now. And after that is the time when humans probably left Africa. Is this a coincidence? No idea. No paleoclimate scientist can point to a specific time where temps have risen as quickly as they have in the last 50 years. Its all well and good to point back to some time when temps were hotter but were we trying to support 6B+ people on the planet then? I very strongly doubt that.

This is the problem with your statement. Are you a climatologist? I can point to the sun getting warmer or changes in the elliptic cycle of the Earth as being probable causes. But I won't because its just silly, for example, to be equivocal on a 500 year record (Maunder) to justify statistics developed over 100,000's of years (see what I mean about stochastics). I can also point at the feedback loop of Antarctica melting which is offsetting typical El Nino weather conditions as the reason why you've had 12 months of cool El Nino. But thats deterministic and I have no idea what other process or influences may change that assessment. I'm happy to leave all of that to the experts in that field. I'm not telling a neurosurgeon which part of the brain he can cut out. Not sure why people who aren't climatologists believe they can dabble in a highly complex field. And if you are a climatologist, apologies. You should have just said so and saved us all a lot of typing.

As a scientist looking at someone elses field, all I need to know is, does the conceptual model of why the world is warming make sense? Yes. Does the data support the conceptual model. Yes. Do the majority of scientists in this field have consensus. Yes. Are the consequences of what they are projecting significant. Yes. Are they significant enough that it warrants an intervention based on their best understandings. Yes. And if all scientists in this field agreed exactly on what the numbers are precisely, I'd have a problem about rigour because I understand the complexities of all this. And they don't all agree on the exact numbers so I'm good there too.

Everything else is just noise. As I said before, easy to kick the can down the road to your grandkids. Or your grandkids grandkids. I'd rather we didn't.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

I have the same view on climate change now, as I did when we first heard of it. I don’t particularly worry about how accurate or true the claims are. As far as I’m concerned it’s all about doing common sense things like reduce, reuse, recycle. Surely it’s not any more complicated than that?

We know that putting tons of crap in landfills is bad, we know that cutting swathes of forest down is bad, burning fossil fuels is bad, and so on.

The climate change movement is about looking after the planet and ensuring future generations right? Then my concerns are what really matters. Doing common sense and smart things with the technology available to make a better functioning and healthier planet. Edit: and/or limiting our impact on the planet.

 

[Doogie]

I have the same view on climate change now, as I did when we first heard of it. I don’t particularly worry about how accurate or true the claims are. As far as I’m concerned it’s all about doing common sense things like reduce, reuse, recycle. Surely it’s not any more complicated than that?

We know that putting tons of crap in landfills is bad, we know that cutting swathes of forest down is bad, burning fossil fuels is bad, and so on.

The climate change movement is about looking after the planet and ensuring future generations right? Then my concerns are what really matters. Doing common sense and smart things with the technology available to make a better functioning and healthier planet.

Unless you work in oil, coal mining or forestry etc. Apparently. 2500 oil industry people at COP28. Guess they were there for the after party?

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Yeah, there is downsides to it. Plants need CO2. But they also need water and other soil nutrients. An increase in plants increases local warming through plant perspiration. But that same system takes water out of the soil and sends it into the atmosphere leading to more warming (and some cooling)

I didn’t mention carbon because I honestly have no idea how accurate the claims of it being the planet’s death sentence are, but again, common sense says that more trees = more oxygen and less carbon = more oxygen? I’m not sure it’s been a minute since I studied science.

Speaking about a carnivore diet vs vegan as @TwinTurbo mentioned, I don’t know if it’s true but what Ricky Gervais said in his Armageddon show, was something about a major reason for deforestation in the Amazon is to grow grain for meat production. I mean meat production in general is extremely bad for the planet, so I’m not surprised and am guilty of consuming it. Although I eat minimal red meat, which iirc is one of the big contributors, through methane production and the cattle wreck the ground, making it unviable for agriculture for a few years or something.

Anyway, in an ideal world we’d probably be far more self-sufficient and only eat plants, not use plastic and get all our power from solar, wind, hydro and geothermal.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I didn’t mention carbon because I honestly have no idea how accurate the claims of it being the planet’s death sentence are, but again, common sense says that more trees = more oxygen and less carbon = more oxygen? I’m not sure it’s been a minute since I studied science.

Bit more complex unfortunately. Trees take CO2 and make Oxygen. But trees need additional resources to do it. Mainly water, but also nitrogen and other nutrients in the soil. Climate change reduces the amount of all of these leading to plants and trees dying due to lack of nutrients. But they'll still do OK.

The main issue is that trees can't absorb that much CO2. I can't remember the exact stats but I think trees absorb around 5% of our CO2. Add more trees and you can increase that to 5.1%. Trees are important, but they're not going to stop climate change.

The other issue is that most oxygen doesn't come from trees. Most of it is from organic matter in the ocean. Lots of that organic matter is dying due to ocean acidification from climate change.

Speaking about a carnivore diet vs vegan as @TwinTurbo mentioned, I don’t know if it’s true but what Ricky Gervais said in his Armageddon show, was something about a major reason for deforestation in the Amazon is to grow grain for meat production. I mean meat production in general is extremely bad for the planet, so I’m not surprised and am guilty of consuming it. Although I eat minimal red meat, which iirc is one of the big contributors, through methane production and the cattle wreck the ground, making it unviable for agriculture for a few years or something.

Anyway, in an ideal world we’d probably be far more self-sufficient and only eat plants, not use plastic and get all our power from solar, wind, hydro and geothermal.

Yep. All accurate. But unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. We're all hungry, greedy humans. I'm no better. I'm having steak for dinner tonight. Big juicy piece of steak.

 

[Doogie]

The other issue is that most oxygen doesn't come from trees. Most of it is from organic matter in the ocean. Lots of that organic matter is dying due to ocean acidification from climate change.

Organic matter is dying? I'm aware of turds that I believe have killed people but this is new.

Aerobic digestion of organic matter by bacteria is unlikely to be majorly impacted and if anything, promoted. Same with cyanobacteria and algae.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Organic matter is dying? I'm aware of turds that I believe have killed people but this is new.

Aerobic digestion of organic matter by bacteria is unlikely to be majorly impacted and if anything, promoted. Same with cyanobacteria and algae.

It's mainly phytoplankton that are effected right now. And "dying" isn't really the right term. More that it's preventing development of new phytoplankton to a certain degree.

Acid Oceans Could Drastically Cut Down One of The World's Biggest Oxygen Producers

The tiny floating organisms that supply our world with as much as a fifth of its oxygen will be in dire straights as our oceans acidify, new research suggests.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[Doogie]

It's mainly phytoplankton that are effected right now. And "dying" isn't really the right term. More that it's preventing development of new phytoplankton to a certain degree.

Acid Oceans Could Drastically Cut Down One of The World's Biggest Oxygen Producers

The tiny floating organisms that supply our world with as much as a fifth of its oxygen will be in dire straights as our oceans acidify, new research suggests.

www.sciencealert.com

This is something within my bailiwick. This isn't really a big deal. Other phytoplankton will move into the niche. And diatoms are not exactly that critical except to foodwebs. Zooplankton love diatoms and small fish love zooplankton and so we move up the food chain.

The lit usually focuses on mesocosm experiments and extrapolates. Its not exactly great science to be fair because determining the diatom quota in oceans is usually hit and miss. Diatoms bloom and most work is done during bloom time, its easier.

Nature abhors a vacuum and most phytoplankton photosynthesise. Something else will take up the carbon sequestration.

 

[Bad Billy]

We can all relax guys.
this is the man to lead us to the promised land.

 

[Cook]

Bit more complex unfortunately. Trees take CO2 and make Oxygen. But trees need additional resources to do it. Mainly water, but also nitrogen and other nutrients in the soil. Climate change reduces the amount of all of these leading to plants and trees dying due to lack of nutrients. But they'll still do OK.

The main issue is that trees can't absorb that much CO2. I can't remember the exact stats but I think trees absorb around 5% of our CO2. Add more trees and you can increase that to 5.1%. Trees are important, but they're not going to stop climate change.

The other issue is that most oxygen doesn't come from trees. Most of it is from organic matter in the ocean. Lots of that organic matter is dying due to ocean acidification from climate change.



Yep. All accurate. But unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. We're all hungry, greedy humans. I'm no better. I'm having steak for dinner tonight. Big juicy piece of steak.

Surprised to read more oxygen is produced from ocean. Makes me re think things. I always assumed wind comes from ocean, yet oxygen is from trees. The ocean comes up trumps again, the true giver of life

 

[Cook]

Surprised to read more oxygen is produced from ocean. Makes me re think things. I always assumed wind comes from ocean, yet oxygen is from trees. The ocean comes up trumps again, the true giver of life

Earlier u commented on trees only sucking up 5% CO2. Wonder if ocean again does more of the heavy lifting.