17 Nobel Laureates Sign Memorandum Re: Climate Change

*sticks fingers in ears*

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

 

Let's see,,who re you gonna believe, a bunch of pointy headed Nobel laureates or some shills bought and paid for by big energy, big industry?

Icarus

 

mojo?

 

Im just laughing about the Lyndon Larouch protesters.
"Green Fascists"

 

The photo showed Mario Molina signing the document. He is one of my heros for saving the planet once already (re: ozone layer). If Molina thinks we are not already screwed (to quote Icarus), I'll have to give it (the "GW solution") some further thought. But that's the hardest part- what and when to really do about it?

 

you're already doing it. it's the suv drivers that are the problem and not paying attention.

 

Screwed? with the danger of sounding "clintonesque" the answer to that depends on definition.

If you define "screwed" as "we altered planetary climate and the results will see-able in milenia to come" the answer is yes.

If by "screwed" we mean we did enough to cause mass-extinction event then the answer is "not yet".

The biggest question is how much of the AGW can and will be handled by natural planetary cooldown mechanisms.. are they "screwed"?

 

Good questions. I do not want to speak for Icarus since he does a fine job, but I was assuming he meant Option B above when I quoted him. We all hope for Option A, but Option B is hard to say if could already happen long term (eg; if the Siberian methane bogs melt or some other add-on event). Preferably we get a mini-Ice-Age (Option C) as a lucky cool-down event, nessitating more fossil fuel use to warm Earth back up. The latter prob we can handle.

 

I will speak for myself.

What I men by screwed is multiple dimensional.

First and perhaps most important, I think that the well orchestrated, well funded denial community has hijacked the people to the point where the truth is very hard for even otherwise intelligent people to hear. The effect of this has been, and will continue to be further delay, further environmental degradation, increased costs, and increased human suffering.

The next way we are screwed, is that I believe that we are most probably past the tipping point. As such, the is going to be little that we can do to bend the curve in the right direction. (See number on above for exacerbating and hastening the race to the tipping point!)

As I have often suggested, the issue of methanol, both as a result of permafrost melting, as well as releases from sea water.

I also think we're screwed because our elected leaders have lost any political will to do even the smallest action to help (see also number one above).

What is ultimately at risk is civilization. Do I think that humans will become extinct, no. Do I think the social, economic and political upheaval is going to very significant? For sure. I would postit that human populations are going to look very different 10 generations on.

The world will go on, and indeed life will go on in the coming altered environment, but it may very well be that humans won't the chauvanistic top of heap (unnatural) creatures on the planet.

Can the world live without polar bears? Probaly. It is likely tht the cockroaches and the mosquitoes are going to benefit the most in the short 1-500 years. I would also posit that my grandchildren will inhabit a world that is much less human friendly than our current one!

My problem with many people, is that they have little concept of their space in the natural world, and how big the world really is. (and yet how small it really is,,, that is not a contradiction) Too few really have any idea of what goes on in parts of the world beyond their horizon. Couple that with no long term vision and you have the recipe for the disaster we already have. Consider business,, the next quarters profit is what matters, few look 5 years out, much less 50. Or politicians, the next election is the only thing that counts. Few are willing to lead, especially if it comes with a risk.

So, yea, I think we are screwed, and now you know why I think so.

Icarus

PS Sorry for all the typos in the original. One issue with typing on an Ipad is the auto correct that changes all kind of things in weird ways,,, plus my own typos!

I

 

Why 2?

Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

Two is at the very bottom of estimates. Humans survived climate in the past,, but not without significant change in anthropology. Also, those changes typically happened over a much larger (albeit still fast in some cases) time scale, allowing humans, and some plant species to adapt.

What happens if we have 2 in half a century? Or 8 in a century? The consensus is that if we don't reduce emissions (and prevent huge methane releases as mentioned oh so many times earlier which will only exacerbate the situation) is that 2 is just the beginning.

Icarus

PS I agree that there is hyperbole, but there is a pretty easy to miss key phrase in the hyperbole:

Personally, as I said before, biology will adapt, but human's world might likely look quite different a few degrees warmer.

Icarus

PS. I also view the idea that "crop yields are likely to rise" is more than a bit PolyAnnaish. Given the environmental costs of industrial agriculture, with it's reliance on that great bugaboo, fossil fuel both for tillage, harvest, transport, but also for fertilizer, it too is going to have a short life span. perhaps shorter than the time it is going to take to find any "benefit" from global warming.

 

I'm not sure what you are going on about. 2 was stated as a limit in the memorandum that is the subject of the OP, and I was refering too. I just wanted to clarify that this number is not magic or scientific but a political number. It does have some basis, but I thought the words of the man that pulled the number out of his a&* were appropriate.

I don't think the "as we know it" absolves the minister of anything. It was clearly a political statement, but Copenhagen was a failure even with some of the well intentioned politics or maybe because of them. Part of the failure may be in the crying of wolf. Things may get bad, but when they are constantly exaggerated to catastrophic it breeds skepticism. I only included this quote and the following because they tie the der spiegel piece together.

There is a great deal of controversy about crop yields. That was the opinion of the man that came up with the 2 degree estimate. I don't believe in the alarmist idea that we are going to run out of fertilizer soon. It should be noted that germany expects to be 100% renewable in electricity in 40 years, if they do that you would think they can figure out how to use their coal to make fertilizer

 

Icarus,
First of all lay off the coffee.
CO2s affect in the atmosphere is not linear.
Double the amount does not double the effect.Release methane won't cause any more warming than the initial doubling of CO2.
There is a finite effect that CO2 can have in warming the atmosphere.Add more CO2 or methane and it has no further effect.

 

^this just shows your own ignorance, (which is surprising quite frankly). I don't have time to provide citation this morning, but will later if requested. What you seem to be ignorant about, is the nature of methane, and how it reacts int rh atmosphere.

First, there are huge quantities of methane entrapped in both permafrost as well as sea water. Raising sea temps, and releases from permafrost will be comparatively large, comparatively fast.

Methane is a much more "effective insulater" than CO2. it also h as a much longer half life in the atmosphere. Both of these facts, conspire to make methane a huge issue,,It is not a function, of "too much coffee"

Icarus

 

From what I've read, methane has a considerably shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2. Of course, it degrades to CO2 so even after the methane is gone, you still have a green house gas contribution.

 

He is right; look at Venus it only has 96.5 % of CO2, and what a nice warm place it is!

 

Although I thought my post was neutral and informative it seemed to spark both you and Icarus.

Current climate models have a positive feedback between CO2 and temperture. So you are correct CO2 is not linear, but if anthopologic souirces doubled it may have more than double the warming forcing. One abrupt change may be large releases of arctic methane. These abrupt changes or tipping points are not well agreed upon, and there is wide disagreement about what temperatures we get to a point of no return. Although I agree with Kerr that release of arctic methane will likely amplify warming and not be catastrophic, others think it may.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5992/620

 

well oceans contain huge amounts of CO2 so warming oceans a few tenth releases alot of CO2, water vapor, etc.. another positive feedback to take into consideration.

With respect to methane clathrate melting in arctic, as with any melting it is endothermic, it takes energy, so it will not be instantaneous. Of cause it will have a big short-term effect as CH4 it is 72 times more potent then CO2 (calculated over a period of 20 years) or 25 (over 100 years).