Supposing climate change is all true

To clarify, our estimate of electricity cost increase is based on the cost of retrofitting existing power with CO2 reduction technology and the market based transition from GHG emitting production to "renewables". These numbers are pretty easy to predict and calculate.

However, long term extrapolations of the "true" cost of climate change are pretty dubious.

Atlantic Hurricanes Down 80% from 10 Years Ago

On October 6, 2016 it will be 4,000 days since the last time a major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which was Wilma on October 24, 2005. Sandy was not a hurricane by the time it reached land.

The Atlantic is quiet right now, and there has been no significant trend in global tropical cyclone activity since satellite monitoring started in the early 1970s.

Researchers found that hurricanes striking the U.S. killed on average twice as many people if they had a female name rather than a male name.

The CO2-vaccinated mind is immune to all evidence and can lie to itself till the iceman cometh.

incidence of cyclonic conditions on the east coast of australia, great barrier reef

look it up

goodnight /pol/

See this refugees? There will be hell of a lot refugees from the flooded/deserted regions. They will come from everywhere, they will have less food and water, less space to live, which basically means war, social and political instaility.

Not everybody will die, probably it wont even be world war (still possible though). In the end nothing special will happens to Earth, and humanity will survive, couse we are very good at adapting. But average Joe probably wont survive that shit.

So whatever we did it or nature itself, we fucking should react, or we are fucked. Even if there is no problem at all, and we were lied to by world goverment i still prefer beign carefull.

Why do people always say climate change will negatively effect food production?

Sure, some agricultural areas will lose productivity, but others will gain productivity.

No one cares about Australia. If that whole continent sank into the sea, the world would be a better place.

>If you jump of that building you'll die
>No that's just your model, you have no evidence
>There is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that gravity exists and that people die from falls.
>nuh uh, that's just government science propaganda *jumps*

Yep, there will be new areas. But we are just not ready. By the time we adapt, society will already start falling apart.

>Supposing climate change is all true

But then I would be lying to myself.

>Sandy was not a hurricane by the time it reached land.
Ah well I'm sure that's very comforting to the people who lost family members and their homes.

Anyway, the effect on the frequency of hurricanes is unclear, so responding as if climatologists say they will increase is a strawman. What is clear is that hurricane windspeed and rainfall will increase, while higher sea levels exponentially magnify the damage caused by storm surge. But yeah, Sandy wasn't technically a hurricane when it devastated the east coast. Great point.

So as someone who lives on an island, is the value of my house going to plummet in 25 years?

Fast winds aren't really good for wind power generators, consistent winds are the best. A very turbulent atmosphere has powerful, but inconsistent winds, plus the wind can get so strong it can damage or destroy the turbines.

Fuck off

How do we stop China from singlehandedly destroying the entire planet?

buttmad abbo detected

that's what I meant by the two sides

Dunno about that, I think most people are good and helpful by default and these characteristics shine the best when there is a need

Millions of people being displaced and thrown into poverty, destabilizing countries and whole regions which leads to wars over resources and massive death tolls is what you should be concerned about. And yes, that's indirectly going to affect you too.

No it won't though

Deserts are still deserts, no matter the temperature
tundras and taigas are still barren wastelands, no matter the temperature

>But electricity will rise to 3-4x its cost

????
how could this be a realistic prediction??
Electricity should be DECLINING in cost, its only government involvement, monopolies, and corruption that sends the price up.

It's insane to think higher CO2 will reduce crop yields when doubling CO2 INCREASES crop yields.. this conclusion of reduced arable land is pure fantasy as well.

>But in your opinion what are the consequences for the average joe?
The eventual consequence is an ice age, which will end human civilisation

>It's insane to think higher CO2 will reduce crop yields when doubling CO2 INCREASES crop yields
I believe this effect has already been noticed, global plant growth is accelerating

And you get these insane predictions based on what?
Massive death tolls of sub 80iq third worlders is an overall good thing btw, if we are being honest about improving humanity.

yeah this is true

good for terrestrial food production perhaps

very bad for marine and freshwater food production

>eutrophication
>blackwater events

the problems with these short-term positives are the long-term negatives likely to arise due to flow-on effects

So we need to start doing ocean seeding?

Sea levels rising due to polar ice melt and thermal expansion will likely cause significant damage to coastal areas around the globe. Precipitation trends suggest an increase in both total rainfall but also in how that rain is distributed. Stronger convection as a result of increased water content in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures allowing for greater destabilization of the atmosphere would result in more frequent heavy precipitation events. Farms, at least in the Midwestern U.S., fare poorly when heavy precipitation events occur during the planting season of April/May. Reduced snowpack across the country and increased winter/early spring temperatures indicate that we could see earlier heavy precip events.

This user is right about hurricane frequency. It's been incredibly quiet for the past decade or so in the Atlantic. The pacific, however, continues to see its fair share of hurricanes. Tropical meteorology is not something I'm familiar with though so I'm not at liberty to comment any further on this topic.

Also it's worth nothing that variations in both ENSO and the 11-year Solar Cycle can either add on to or reduce the effect of climate change and are not to be misinterpreted as evidence that climate change doesn't exist. It does exist with overwhelming consensus from the scientific community stating that it is also the result of anthropogenic forcing due to human activities. If you want to read more I suggest flipping through the IPCC's 2013 report.

no use in seeding if excess of plant life / algal matrix is sucking up the O2 needed for life bruh

what we need is to not be warming the climate

lel

Tropical marine user here, we have seen an increase in cyclone activity; this is why the reef is getting fucked on.

Yeah, bleaching is bad but she can recover / adapt (symbiont clade D, etc.). Yeah, algal cover is bad but herbivory can buffer against it. Yeah, sedimentation is bad, but healthy wetlands can buffer against it.

What we can't buffer the reef against is ocean acidification and storm damage - the increase in storm frequency and severity so far is likely to be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.

tbqh, fish abundance at the family level will stay pretty stable without reefs as we know them today (in the worst case scenario) but biodiversity at the species level is going to take a fucking hit.

We fucking depend on the ocean, so, this is concerning.

Higher temps result in more rainfall what a bad thing for arid areas.
More rain and higher CO2 levels directly lead to more plant growth and more food for animals, what a terrible outcome.

Sea levels will rise slowly for thousands of years, the dutch have been building dikes sense before roman times, its really not hard to have a city stay dry under sea level.

Netherlands, where they build bridges to let the ocean travel over roads.

thats more to do with the land sinking than the ocean rising

>Netherlands

There are hundreds of 3rd world cities on the coastline, where a 50cm rise could force milions of ppl out of their homes. If you think the migrant crysis is bad now, wait until then

it's gonna be a big beautiful wall

Except that most places are getting higher temperatures, but lower rainfall. It's turning everything into a hot desert.

>more food for animals
>animals like algae and freshwater flora

this nigga simply does not understand the meaning of the term 'eutrophication'

I'm going to reply to your dumb comment with my own dumb comment.

How are the 3rd worlders going to get to the 1st world countries, their military, and citizens who would beat them to death, user?

user replying to my own post, i wanted to add that cyclonic conditions occur when water temperature goes > 26 celcius

the ocean is acting as a heat sink, and warms faster than the atmosphere; if our governments are committing to a 2 degree maximum increase in atmospheric temperature, thinking this is a reasonable figure, they certainly are not taking the heat-storage capacity of the ocean into account.

So basically, claiming that a global warming scenario won't cause an increase in storm activity is fucking idiotic - by definition it will.

Food shortages, water shortages, mass human migrations.

This will affect EVERYONE on the planet I don't care where you live.

Worst case, outside the crazy Venus predictions, is the hydrogen sulfide release.

Purple oceans, green skies, toxic air, sunlight that will burn out your retinas.

robertscribbler.com/2014/01/21/awakening-the-horrors-of-the-ancient-hothouse-hydrogen-sulfide-in-the-worlds-warming-oceans/

Do you see the british military beating up migrants?
Do you see the french military beating up migrants?
Do you see the german military beating up migrants?
I sure as hell don't

>ENSO and the 11-year Solar Cycle

"The [current] cycle 24 will probably mark the end of the Modern Maximum, with the Sun switching to a state of less strong activity."

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder minimum."

see Thanks to satellite data we will be able to follow the end of the Modern Warm Period in real time, should it come to pass. Solar cycle 25 will be a precursor, watch closely. 1360 W/m^2 was the total solar irradiance (TSI) during the Little Ice Age.

>Is there any positive about climate change?
Why should you have to go to Florida, when we can bring it right to you?

/thread

I'd say a viable fusion reactor that lockheed is working on will make a huge difference in co2 emission.

At least I pray for it. I'm actually thinking to volunteer my time to help them if I can.

Climate change literally keeps me up at night. It seems like our beautiful world is on its way to total collapse.

what's wrong with fission for the time being?

>Climate change literally keeps me up at night. It seems like our beautiful world is on its way to total collapse.

hence this thread. I see a lot of fear mongering regarding the issue, but if you filter out the /pol/ junk, most predictions so far

1. More rain
2. Stronger storms, hurricanes
3. Sea levels rising, coastal cities might suffer
4. Economic damage

I don't consider any of them catastrophic and they are some of the worst case scenarios.

It's one of many current changes with human activity impacting ecosystems in novel forms, and the unprecedented rate at which this is occurring.

theconversation.com/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-has-begun-new-study-confirms-43432

>i dont consider any of them catastrophic

what field are you in user?

>Sea levels rising, coastal cities might suffer
History, trend 20 cm per century, not much of a problem.

This "china's to blame" mentality is silly, the reason chinks don't give a shit about the environment is because those who buy their goods don't care or atleast don't care enough to want to pay more.
If they suddenly decided to be more ecological people would start buying their goods from some other shithole that doesn't care.

oh, good!

no worries then, because we can definitely rely on historical measurements instead of projection models, especially for a novel ecosystem !

novel ecosystem

novel ecosystem

novel ecosystem

fucking kek

I agree, not that they will go underwater overnight

debating semantics, it seems like we are having a new financial crisis every other year costing trillions ( huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/financial-crisis-cost-gao_n_2687553.html ) and I don't consider them to be catastrophic either. Not on the majority of people are facing extinction and we have left the point of no return scale climate change people want us to believe.

> Not on the majority of people are facing extinction and we have left the point of no return scale climate change people want us to believe.
So it's not a catastrophe until everyone's dead. Okay then.

the majority or at least a significant number, yeah. Don't hate on me I did not set the bar.

No one seems to be worried about the frequency of financial crises, but they have been causing enormous economic damage. The pol nightmare of climate change induced mass immigration is a limited hypothesis at best, yet the definitely real Syrian conflict is driving people away from the country as we speak. I fail to see how climate change is the worst thing ever.

I think they have enough domestic staff

>The pol nightmare of climate change induced mass immigration is a limited hypothesis at best, yet the definitely real Syrian conflict is driving people away from the country as we speak.
Climate Change is thought to be s significant contributing factor to the Syrian conflict. The climate in Syria has been pushing farmers out of work, and the financial fallout and increased unemployment likely contributed towards the riots that evolved into the current conflict.

Also, if you only ever worry about bad things after they've already happened, you'll never accomplish anything but cleanup. If you want to actually fix things, you have to start BEFORE shit hits the fan.

I don't think that's true though, and why would be only Syria affected and not e.g. its neighbors

>Author implies that his friend who researched this stuff killed himself because he foresaw how fucked mankind is

Jesus fucking christ that article got dark at the end

Same way you stop third world from using antibiotica excessively.
You nuke em.
There really isn't any other option.

>already forgotten the Arab Spring
I mean it was a few years ago now, but the whole area was having revolutions.

Some of them worked out, some of them didn't.

Greater fluctuations in temperatures within the seasons over the course of decades.

Help them through their growing pains so that it may not last as long as ours did.

Climate change is much, much worse than widely believed. Forget migrants. Any additional warming will threaten the food and water supply in the United States. I would strongly urge everybody to stockpile food, water, and weapons while they still can. The powers that be are already trying their damnedest to attack the Second Amendment. Expect a major food price shock within the the next 5 years.

AGW = Adios Global Warming

Where do climate scientists acquire the data they use as model inputs?

Don't forget your water filters. Would wouldn't want those reptilians to poision you into being gay with fluoride, now would you?

heat is energy, right?

i don't see much of a problem here, simply use the energy, problem solved

Al Gore helps propagate the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Wins the Nobel prize.
Helps propagate the data that the sea level is raising.
Buys a mansion by the beach.
>logic

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes
>let's just handwave away everything to shoehorn climate change

Well, if you follow the single cited analysis that blames food prices, you will find his reasoning is something like climate change = dude poverty lmao

Alex Jones is a shill who claims climate change is a hoax. As I said, things are much, much more dire than you've been led to believe. As Mark Twain once said, it's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. Reading this essay should help remove the blinders.

guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/

Ok alex jones is a wierdo but saying that and posting guy mcpherson is not helping your case. Same with the people posting scribbler links. these threads are infested with doomers and haoxers. there can be no civil dialog becuase you will either get "its not happening!" or "its worse than we thought buy food and guns!" when in reality neither is true

>Where do climate scientists acquire the data they use as model inputs?
Meteorologists collect the raw data. Climate Scientists combine together lots of raw data and apply homogenisation etc. to remove artefacts, producing datasets like HadCRUT or GISTEMP. Other Climatologists then build models, and by providing a model with a dataset and a list of assumptions (future emissions and so on) produce a model run. By comparing lots of model runs with different assumptions, they can then connect assumptions to changes in the probability of different outcomes.

>let's just handwave away everything to shoehorn climate change
Do you not know what the term "contributing factor" means?

>these threads are infested with doomers and haoxers
It's actually pretty rare to see "doomers" here who aren't obviously trolling, unless you interpret "doomers" to mean something silly. There's , and here, and I suspect that's one person.

>here can be no civil dialog becuase you will either get "its not happening!" or "its worse than we thought buy food and guns!"
Interestingly enough, in my experience the deniers are almost entirely driven by political concerns and regard any discussion of the underlying science and data as a debating tool at best. You can tell, because almost any direct argument with them will turn to political claims within a few posts.

Well I've only made the first two. In fact, they are my only two posts in this thread (and on this board, for that matter). Did not post the Scribbler link.

Just wanted to respond. Listen, I'm just too far down the rabbit hole to see climate change as anything other than an existential threat. I'm actually rather skeptical and conservative, by nature. But I took a legitimate skeptical look at the data about ten, fifteen years ago. And what I discovered was rather alarming. I feel it is very likely that it's warmed considerably more than widely believed. Part of the problem is the timing of the various data sets. GISS, for instance, begins in 1895. The reality is it was significantly colder from the 1820s through 1870s. Look at the old Smithsonian and Signal Service records. The recorded temperatures aren't even in the ballpark of what is recorded today. Many of them lie far outside anything in the modern records. But even the data themselves are likely rather conservative, given the equipment and methodology used to record the temperatures. Let's just say Watts has a good point, but the reality is the old data is likely systematically overreporting temperatures (especially high temperatures). Today, most temperature data is from automated, fan-aspirated sensors. And generally sited in a grassy area some distance from any exterior source of heat. Sure, you can cherypick a few spots to trick people into believing the opposite is true - but the reality is it was much more common to record temperatures on rooftops back in the old days (sometimes even on window sills or shaded walls). Obviously, the historic data is of questionable value (and this is the US!). But almost all potential biases (other than a poorly calibrated thermometer) would lead to temperatures too high. The only corrections applied to the US records are for time of observation and the switch to MMTS.

The MMTS has a massive cold bias relative to the LiG thermometers housed in Stevenson Screens. I have doubts that the correction applied is sufficient. But in any event, a lot of this is moot. Just looking back at lake ice records, phenological records, growing seasons, observations of snow and frost, it's clear that there's been a major shift just in the last 100 years. I'm talking trees leafing out 2-3 weeks earlier now (and 4-6 weeks during particularly warm springs). Growing seasons are probably another 30+ days in length, and the rare summertime frost has all been eradicated. So up to this point, I'd say the warming has mostly been beneficial for agriculture.

My fear is that we are very near to a tipping point. And even modest additional warming may result in damaging warming that threatens crop yields. If you look at CONUS summertime temperatures, you'll see that almost every summer recently has been approaching Dust Bowl levels. With the expansion of the subtropical zone of high pressure, I'm really afraid that there may be a rapid warming & drying trend within this decade that sends much of the Plains into a permanent dust bowl like state. I'm also very concerned about the arctic and the rapid disintegration of sea ice. This is a ticking time bomb for a number of reasons. I don't think the average person grasps just how fine of a line it is from a mixture of ice and saltwater at -1C to all saltwater at 10C. Because of its high enthalpy of fusion, it takes an incredible amount of heat energy to melt ice. Raising the same volume of liquid water 10, even 20 degrees C can be accomplished with a fraction of the heat. Believe it or not, the arctic receives more solar radiation than any place on earth on the summer solstice. Despite the low sun angle, the 24 hour daylight period more than makes up for the weaker rays. Once the ice melts, the arctic will be storing vast quantities of heat.

This heat will be released during the arctic winter, but it will be accompanied by a great increase in cloud cover, which itself will act as a blanket further exacerbating the warming winter temps. At the same time, the warming ocean will destabilize vast quantities of undersea clathrates. This influx of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, could lead to rapid periods of warming. What's so alarming is the positive feedback loop that gets triggered. Warming results in changes in ice and snow cover, which result in enhanced warming (at least on a regional scale). More importantly, it decreases the earth's albedo. Less snow and ice, more open water. Plus, the tundra begins to be overspread by boreal forest. Even the Sahara may begin to green, especially at the edges (Sahel). In addition, water vapor increases, but at the same time cloud ceilings tend to retreat higher. And natural carbon sinks turn to net emitters (with the biggest wildcard being the methane clathrates).

We are doomed. We have triggered irreversible changes, and even if we stopped all fossil fuels tomorrow it would not matter. We are over the IPCC's danger zone already, and it's clear that the changes going on now guarantee it will continue warming for hundreds of years. When you accept this reality, you realize the models are likely underestimating current warming (and by extension underestimating future warming). Look at past eras and epochs as guidance. Of course, there wasn't 7.4 billion people living then...

Sorry for the long posts. It's just that the possibility that things could be dire never seems to get much mention. I'm not a climate scientist, but I do have a very high IQ. But there are many scientists out there who oppose the IPCC projections. They just don't get heard. The popular debate is between those carrying on the conservative IPCC numbers and outright deniers, often funded by fossil fuel interests. When scientists act out, they tend to get ostracized and attacked. Yet deniers can tell outright lies and they don't get attacked with the same furor. Plus these denier memes, then get parroted by clueless idiots. The newest one (as things become more dire) is we will just engineer our way out of this mess. Unfortunately, the progress of technology is often way overestimated. And that's not even addressing the moral issues and whether there would even be the sort of international consensus to take such action.

no