" Since people are adaptable and can live about anywhere, I am not worried
about extinction due to climate change."
That's a poor place to start, that all is OK if we don't entirely die out as
a species.
In the last ice age, glaciation over New York was a mile deep and average
global surface T was only 5 degrees lower than today. Humanity existed as
hunter-gatherers, where it could. If warming proceeds to 5 degrees higher
than today should we expect anything less disastrous, or do we just to turn
up our air-conditioners? There will be upheaval and dislocation such as
humanity has not known. Is that the future each of us wants to nurture our
DNA into?
The unprecedented rate of temperature rise in the last 150 years of this
interglacial period must be addressed acceptably by those rejecting the CO2
hypothesis. They now cling to the hiatus blip, as if it makes that onus
moot, confidently telling us we have no control over the rate and that we'll
cope.
Why don't I feel better?
-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Folkerts,
Timothy J
Sent: Monday, 6 October 2014 1:03 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] carbon wars
John, I think physicists (and climate scientist) often open themselves up
for trouble by overstating confidence in areas that are either uncertain or
outside their expertise. This erodes confidence so that the general public
has less confidence when we do speak from expertise.
In this thread you were confident in proclaiming that 500 GT of carbon
(about 50 years) will lead not just to some range of warming, but that it
will lead to "utter catastrophe". Then you backpedal to "I am not an expert
in this area" and give some plausible (but hardly certain) arguments.
*"The #1 most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor."
More water also leads to more clouds, which is a cooling effect. Are you
ready to confidently say which one is stronger?
* "increases instability i.e. the prevalence of violent weather."
Yet tornadoes in the US are running below average
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-clim
atology/trends) and it has been about 8 years since a major hurricane hit
the US. By what objective measure is the weather "more violent"?
*"There are already "dead zones" in the ocean"
Attributed to excessive nutrient pollution, not global warming.
* "Collapse of antarctic ice sheets may already have passed the tipping
point. This process will play out over many decades"
1) You say "may". 2) this will occur over *centuries*, not decades.
* "There's a lot of frozen peat in the high latitudes. "
Yep. I agree with you there. That could be very important.
* "The last time there was a sudden warming, 75% of the large animal species
died out. Do you really want to gamble that humans are going to be in the
lucky 25%?"
The decline has been attributed to climate change & getting killed off by
humans. Since people are adaptable and can live about anywhere, I am not
worried about extinction due to climate change. I would worry more about
extinction at the hands of humans.
* "The last 20 years of data is systematically /above/ the 100-year trend
line, which tells me the warming is most likely accelerating."
My quick analysis of the GISS data says 2 of the last 20 were below the 100
year trendline. another 3 were pretty close. Furthermore, for the last 30
years, there was a NEGATIVE acceleration (although only at the p=0.12
level). While CO2 levels were accelerating, the temperature rise was
decelerating.
************************************************
It is getting late. The point is that there is a lot of important and
complicated science involved that needs to be understood so that we as a
species can make good decisions. This process is not helped by hyperbole.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l