Climate Change is here and man made

[mancity1]

@mancity 1
RE thinking that KS55 is a denier - yeah, I think so. Maybe I'm wrong. I've allowed for this possibility in my latest post.

RE y2k - numerous experts in computer science facing a complete unknown with no evidence one way or another thought the worst and were dead wrong. Experts are sometimes wrong especially in such circumstances with little or nothing to go on.

Whereas climate change has been studied for decades, and over time, more and more sophisticated climate models have been developed with ever increasing fidelity to real-world outcomes. If anything, current models are a bit too reluctant to predict bad outcomes - although severe weather was predicted by current models, the actually occuring weather has been even more severe than predicted by most models.

Those who knew a lot about dates and computerised systems and how the date impacted on their functionality knew long before Y2K that with some basic intervention much of the hype and much of it on the networks you alluded to overhyped in some cases ridiculously so and as I know a little about the subject matter having worked in IT in an insurance company throughout the 80's with a basic knowledge of programming knew it was overhyped.

There were many in IT and related and or impacted industries that knew it was overhyped and many took advantage of that so to speak.

Modelling for severe weather I suppose a noble cause and of some benefit to a range of industries and individuals throughout the world but like most models they rely on real data in smaller amounts of time scale.

Its not directly related of course but perhaps one should at least bear this in mind that the modelling for covid19 in the main has been woeful in terms of outcomes given the variable and unreliable intangible nature of humans and human activity and our knowledge of the virus itself and how it behaves.

So called experts in Australia for example were predicting that hard lockdowns would ensure little spread and no community transmission after 7 to 14 days even with the delta variant and failure to do so would result in tens of thousands of deaths in this country some predicting over 100k in death,

the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

could you pooint me in the direction of a 'proper earth scientist'?

you called?

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Those who knew a lot about dates and computerised systems and how the date impacted on their functionality knew long before Y2K that with some basic intervention much of the hype and much of it on the networks you alluded to overhyped in some cases ridiculously so and as I know a little about the subject matter having worked in IT in an insurance company throughout the 80's with a basic knowledge of programming knew it was overhyped.

There were many in IT and related and or impacted industries that knew it was overhyped and many took advantage of that so to speak.

Modelling for severe weather I suppose a noble cause and of some benefit to a range of industries and individuals throughout the world but like most models they rely on real data in smaller amounts of time scale.

Its not directly related of course but perhaps one should at least bear this in mind that the modelling for covid19 in the main has been woeful in terms of outcomes given the variable and unreliable intangible nature of humans and human activity and our knowledge of the virus itself and how it behaves.

So called experts in Australia for example were predicting that hard lockdowns would ensure little spread and no community transmission after 7 to 14 days even with the delta variant and failure to do so would result in tens of thousands of deaths in this country some predicting over 100k in death,

the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.

@mancity1
RE: Y2K - YWK was a projected outcome by experts but with no data to back them up - they were wrong. But that's not surprising.

RE: Weather modeling - you seem to misunderstand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is a short-term prediction which is somewhat reliable for a short time frame based on satellite data and actual observations - 1 to 5 days out or so is perhaps the extent of very accurate, predictable weather.

RE: Climate Change - this isn't at all akin to the random factors of short term weather. This is a long term, averaged expectation of carefully modeled variables - and is much, much, much - more accurate than 10-day hence weather predictions. Weather predictions versus climate predictions are fundamentally different.

RE: COVID-19 spread - another very difficult problem to predict. Science can however point to the efficacy of wearing masks, social distancing and vaccination - whereas predicting the precise spread of the vaccine even knowing all variables such as vaccination/mask wearing/distancing apriori is going to be subject to a large variance.

>> the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.
Nobody understands the weather this well - no one. 30-day hence weather is basically unknown. Climate in the next 10 years however, is much more understood. Why? Because random variables which dramatically affect short term conditions (weather) - on average - even out over time - leading to much better long term predictions (climate).

 

[mancity1]

Good post.

I suggest CNN/ABC as a counterbalance to the newsfeeds KS55 is consuming - and perhaps you too? CNN/ABC are left leaning for sure. No argument there.
===
My opinion on climate change - it's a huge, huge deal. Economically, politically, socially and environmentally.

Numerous cities are on the coast - and will be underwater if nothing is done. The economic and political impact form this alone is going to be huge.

As CO2 emissions increase, the climate warms and CO2 levels in our oceans increase. Although similar/higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere may have existed in the distant past - and life went on - the difference currently is that the change from pre-industrial age CO2 levels to that in a decade or so, are very large - and this change is occuring in a matter of decades.

Life is resilient and will adapt to change. But the pressure to adapt has mostly been gradual - whereas the large CO2 rise is sudden. It's not clear how many species may die because of this - unable to adapt in time.

And then there's some very alarming unknown variables - a large amount of methane is trapped in ice. Methane is roughly 30 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If global temperatures rise enough, all methane trapped in ice will be released. If not mitigated somehow, this will prove catastrophic for civilization (at least) and for most life forms extant currently for sure.
===
As to mitigations...

Invest in green technology. But that alone won't suffice.

Better, safer nuclear fission- such technology either exists or is in the pipeline - is necessary.

As for nuclear fusion - forget about it in the short term. Nuclear fusion is at least 2 decades or more from being a viable source of energy.

Fair enough I think we do need a measured and common sense response but their are limits on what we can do and how effective a massive reduction of co2 and ch4 emission for example through technological development and eliminating fossil fuels for example from the energy mix that contribute around 25-30 per cent of all emissions each year will be on limiting the rise global temperature should it continue on its recent path.

its a pity we don't have two earths to see what eventuates but then again maybe we just don't realise where the other ones are yet.

 

[mancity1]

@mancity1
RE: Y2K was projected outcome by experts but with no data to back them up - they were wrong. But that's not surprising.

RE: Weather modeling - you seem to misunderstand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is a short-term prediction which is somewhat reliable for a short time frame based on satellite data and actual observations - 10 days out or so - very unpredictable.

RE: Climate Change - this isn't at all akin to the random factors of short term weather. This is a long term, averaged expectation of carefully modeled variables - and is much, much, much - more accurate than 10-day hence weather predictions. Weather predictions versus climate predictions are fundamentally different.

RE: COVID-19 spread - another very difficult problem to predict. Science can however point to the efficacy of wearing masks, social distancing and vaccination - whereas predicting the precise spread of the vaccine even knowing all variables such as vaccination/mask wearing/distancing apriori is going to be subject to a large variance.

>> the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.
Nobody understand the weather this well - no one.

Whereas scientists reliably predict climate trends - over years and years/decades - based on current models. Such trends may be somewhat overstated/understated - nonetheless predicted trends are accurate.

I know the difference blue it was just you discussed weather events in your post.

Most models look at climate over 30 years then 50 years the 100 year year and 200 year and 1000 year moving average.

The number of extreme events hasn't changed that much over the past 30 years to the previous I believe you will find.

Deaths per events on a rolling cycle of 40 years are down in I think you will find but this is partly due to a number of non climate related factors I admit.

I think the jury is out somewhat on massive migration death and destruction on a global scale as you alluded to from rising sea levels and extreme weather events within the next ten years if we carry on the path we have tread since 1990 say in the next ten years.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Fair enough I think we do need a measured and common sense response but their are limits on what we can do and how effective a massive reduction of co2 and ch4 emission for example through technological development and eliminating fossil fuels for example from the energy mix that contribute around 25-30 per cent of all emissions each year will be on limiting the rise global temperature should it continue on its recent path.

its a pity we don't have two earths to see what eventuates but then again maybe we just don't realise where the other ones are yet.

Yes - but if we're screwed based on climate models unless we as a society adapt massive change - and that's where we are by the way - then we need to adapt massive change and should other nations fail to do so - pressure them accordingly.

It's counterproductive to assume that other nations won't recognize the imperative for change and will not act as we do... moreover, it's not at all clear that green technology/nuclear fission is going to be more expensive than fossil fuel power generation.

 

[Barcon]

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

@mancity1
>> I think the jury is out somewhat on massive migration death and destruction on a global scale as you alluded to from rising sea levels and extreme weather events within the next ten years if we carry on the path we have tread since 1990 say in the next ten years.
===
Huh?

Look - here's a lesson from high school chemistry. It's called equilibrium.

We've pumped a bunch of CO2 into our atmosphere. We're nowhere near equilibrium. Even assuming that we produce no more new CO2, we're still not at equilibrium.

What does that mean?

Equilibrium temperature - due to the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 hasn't been reached. Temperatures will continue to rise.

Equilibrium concentration of CO2 in our oceans hasn't been reached. Acidification of our oceans will continue.

We've seen coral die offs because of this - and it will get worse. If plankton is adversely affected on a large scale - that's going to cause huge problems - the effect of rising ocean acidification on plankton is currently not well known.
===
So here we are. Looks like we're in huge trouble if we burn all the CO2 we can, ignoring climate change. Might work out OK though but with sea level rise and forced migration.

On the other hand, might result in the death of most life forms currently on earth if all ice melts and the methane trapped in ice is released (methane is about 30 times more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse gas effect) leading to run-away warming - with any luck not so bad as Venus where lead easily melts on Venus' surface due to extreme heat/pressure.

 

[KS55]

Those who knew a lot about dates and computerised systems and how the date impacted on their functionality knew long before Y2K that with some basic intervention much of the hype and much of it on the networks you alluded to overhyped in some cases ridiculously so and as I know a little about the subject matter having worked in IT in an insurance company throughout the 80's with a basic knowledge of programming knew it was overhyped.

There were many in IT and related and or impacted industries that knew it was overhyped and many took advantage of that so to speak.

Modelling for severe weather I suppose a noble cause and of some benefit to a range of industries and individuals throughout the world but like most models they rely on real data in smaller amounts of time scale.

Its not directly related of course but perhaps one should at least bear this in mind that the modelling for covid19 in the main has been woeful in terms of outcomes given the variable and unreliable intangible nature of humans and human activity and our knowledge of the virus itself and how it behaves.

So called experts in Australia for example were predicting that hard lockdowns would ensure little spread and no community transmission after 7 to 14 days even with the delta variant and failure to do so would result in tens of thousands of deaths in this country some predicting over 100k in death,

the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.

I thought at first that you just had the wrong end of the stick, but now I'm sure you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I have wasted enough time already. In debating circles, misrepresentation is considered the lowest of the low, not just childish but dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. End.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I thought at first that you just had the wrong end of the stick, but now I'm sure you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I have wasted enough time already. In debating circles, misrepresentation is considered the lowest of the low, not just childish but dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. End.

Thanks for your adult response, welcoming debate; outlining your beliefs for future dialog or indeed - should we concur - for possible enthusiastic agreement. And especially for continuing to engage in debate - explaining our differences (where they exist) and agreeing on core beliefs otherwise.

You sir, are a tribute to us all!