Have we lost the battle against global warming?

drummerboy

It sure looks like it.

Extreme weather events are becoming the norm.

Is it too late to do anything about it?


Like  1 Like
BG9

Yes. We passed the tipping point.

The problem is the melting arctic ice reducing albedo. That increases global warming, causing more ice to melt. A self sustaining growing system.

There are other system causing the additional release of CO2 into the atmosphere due to warming. Warming water releases CO2. 

Even if we didn't add CO2, the warming conditions will cause the release of enough CO2 to override the system that kept it down.

Its like a train. We pushed uphill to pass the top and it is now accelerating downhill with weak brakes. 

Many of the the elite are no longer concerned with reducing global warming because they know its too late. They feel they'll be rich or politically powerful enough to survive in the dystopian future. Where all future resources will be devoted to their well being.

What's the answer? Get very rich real fast.


Like  2 Likes
tjohn

We still need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions one way or the other.


Like  
Kim

We lost that battle about 2 Presidents back.


Like  
drummerboy

We've basically always been losing....


Like  
Kim

This issue brings up another of my pet peeves - the lack of adequate science taught in US schools.  During my corporate career, I repeatedly had to teach basic science to sales people selling pumps, control valves and liquid measurement devices.

It is my impression, that most of the 'deniers' simply lack the frame of reference to understand the issue.


Like  
jimmurphy

It is my impression that the deniers are just selfish and want to do what they want to do.


Like  1 Like
DottyParker
tomcat said:
This issue brings up another of my pet peeves - the lack of adequate science taught in US schools.  During my corporate career, I repeatedly had to teach basic science to sales people selling pumps, control valves and liquid measurement devices.
It is my impression, that most of the 'deniers' simply lack the frame of reference to understand the issue.


Absolutely.  This past week Japan has been hit with a record-breaking heat wave resulting in the loss of life and the hospitalization of hundreds for heat stroke.  In May, dozens were killed by the sweltering heat in Pakistan.  A good first start is the reinforcement of basic geography instruction in U.S. schools, reinforced with a world atlas at home -- preferably tacked to a wall.  (Such maps are free with National Geographic subscriptions.)  It is useful to know where in the world science can do the most good.  (BTW, I have long given up hope of the U.S. ever truly converting to the metric system.)  All is not lost. The winner of the geography quiz below -- the youngest contestant -- killed it.   smile  




Like  1 Like
montagnard

The battle against global warming takes several forms. It’s possible that we are past the tipping point, and that warming will continue for centuries, even with the best efforts to reduce carbon emissions. A short-term return to the status quo ante seems unlikely, but that doesn’t mean that we should throw up our hands and do nothing. 


We are looking inevitably at large scale population movements from the global South to the global North. The battle against the consequences of global warming will be fought by people against other people. However, the shape of this battle has not yet been determined, and there is still room for action by those seeking to avoid its most destructive outcomes. 


Like  
paulsurovell

Here's the Democratic Party's latest response to global warming:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-fossil-fuel-donations_us_5b6dddd4e4b0530743c9ca67?oh





Like  
tjohn
paulsurovell said:
Here's the Democratic Party's latest response to global warming:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-fossil-fuel-donations_us_5b6dddd4e4b0530743c9ca67?oh






 I'm more interested in the platform regarding moving away from carbon fuels and towards renewables.  The DNC can take donations from murderers, rapists and child predator for all I care as long as they have a good platform.


Like  
paulsurovell
tjohn said:


paulsurovell said:
Here's the Democratic Party's latest response to global warming:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-fossil-fuel-donations_us_5b6dddd4e4b0530743c9ca67?oh




 I'm more interested in the platform regarding moving away from carbon fuels and towards renewables.  The DNC can take donations from murderers, rapists and child predator for all I care as long as they have a good platform.

 You also have to consider the influence of donors on how a platform is implemented.


Like  
Sweetsnuggles

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html?action=click&contentCollection=magazine®ion=supplemental&module=undefined&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront


This is a long read, but very worthwhile.  Before reading this I did not know how long ago our leading scientists figured out the link between carbon emissions and rising temperatures.  This article makes it clear how our leaders, both Democrat and Republican,  have truly failed us. 


Like  1 Like
paulsurovell

More details on the DNC decision to reverse its decision to reject fossil fuel donations:

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/dnc-fossil-fuel-donations-climate-change/


Like  
drummerboy

I thought this might be an apropos time to resurrect this thread.

As Florence approaches the east coast, there are two other storms right behind it.

Between the possible intensity of Florence when it hits, and the two storms behind it (3 active hurricanes in the Atlantic is a rarity. Only 2 are hurricanes at this point.) we may be seeing once again an effect of climate change.

Time (and not much of it) will tell.





Like  
Alex
drummerboy said:
I thought this might be an apropos time to resurrect this thread.
As Florence approaches the east coast, there are two other storms right behind it.
Between the possible intensity of Florence when it hits, and the two storms behind it (3 active hurricanes in the Atlantic is a rarity. Only 2 are hurricanes at this point.) we may be seeing once again an effect of climate change.
Time (and not much of it) will tell.







 Nope.


Like  
drummerboy

Well, that was expected. Because, you know, how can you ever prove the cause of single events?

Should we ever talk about the likelihood of a single event being caused by GW?


Like  
Alex

Do you really want to play this game? The information you provided about the "rarity" of three concurrent Atlantic Tropical cyclones is patently incorrect. Its not uncommon. You're just suddenly paying attention.


Like  
Alex

And before we go any further here, I'll say the same thing I said last year when this question was raised: I don't deny anthropogenic climate change or the potential impacts that it causes. What I deny are people like you who feel that they are all of a sudden experts on the subject.


Like  3 Likes
Alex

And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.


Like  1 Like
BG9
WxNut2.0 said:
Do you really want to play this game? The information you provided about the "rarity" of three concurrent Atlantic Tropical cyclones is patently incorrect. Its not uncommon. You're just suddenly paying attention.

Before the Internet we were blissfully unaware of most hurricanes.

Only when we read in newspapers or were told on the news of the imminent arrival of one near our shores. We knew nothing of the many hurricanes parading the Atlantic.

Now, thank you Internet, we can see them all in graphic detail.


Like  2 Likes
tjohn
WxNut2.0 said:
And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.

 I don't like saying we have lost the battle since there is still a need for us to become carbon neutral even if we are going to experience the consequences of not being carbon neutral for the last 300 years or so.


Like  
drummerboy
WxNut2.0 said:
Do you really want to play this game? The information you provided about the "rarity" of three concurrent Atlantic Tropical cyclones is patently incorrect. Its not uncommon. You're just suddenly paying attention.

 As I said, the rarity is having 3 concurrent hurricanes. That is not "normal".  Show me numbers to prove me wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/americas/three-hurricanes-atlantic-basin/index.html



Like  
drummerboy
WxNut2.0 said:
And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.

 And what is?


Like  
Alex
drummerboy said:


WxNut2.0 said:
Do you really want to play this game? The information you provided about the "rarity" of three concurrent Atlantic Tropical cyclones is patently incorrect. Its not uncommon. You're just suddenly paying attention.
 As I said, the rarity is having 3 concurrent hurricanes. That is not "normal".  Show me numbers to prove me wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/americas/three-hurricanes-atlantic-basin/index.html

You want numbers? Sure. From the Hurrdat 2 dataset (which I'm absolutely sure you knew existed and have extensively parsed), there were three concurrent hurricanes in the Atlantic in: 

  1. 1893 (four hurricanes)
  2. 1950 (twice)
  3. 1961 (twice)
  4. 1967
  5. 1980
  6. 1995
  7. 1998; (also four hurricanes)
  8. 2010
  9. 2017
  10. 2018

And lets make sure we keep in mind that before satellites, the only way we knew of a hurricane's existence was a ship report. So you really wanna tell me that all of a sudden this is a new thing?

Edit: sorry I missed a couple more:

  1. 1853
  2. 1926


drummerboy said:


WxNut2.0 said:
And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.
 And what is?

Arctic Sea ice depletion; changes to the upper-level jet pattern; extreme monsoon related precipitation events; extreme drought. You know, things that occur on a climatological time-scale. How hard is this? 


Like  1 Like
drummerboy
tjohn said:


WxNut2.0 said:
And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.
 I don't like saying we have lost the battle since there is still a need for us to become carbon neutral even if we are going to experience the consequences of not being carbon neutral for the last 300 years or so.

Yes, I agree, but on the other hand, do you really believe the world can come together to halt the progress of GW? It seems kinda doubtful. Even The Paris Accords, while an important advance, was pretty weak soup. And probably 20 years too late anyway.


I think people need to start thinking about where they want to live 10-20 years from now, but they need to decide that pretty soon. 


Like  
Alex
tjohn said:


WxNut2.0 said:
And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.
 I don't like saying we have lost the battle since there is still a need for us to become carbon neutral even if we are going to experience the consequences of not being carbon neutral for the last 300 years or so.

Unfortunately, given that the ocean is a tremendous heat sink, there is little we can do to stop the effects now. That's not at all to say we shouldn't stop trying of course. But we will see a sea-level rise of a meter by the end of the century even if we permanently stopped emitting carbon today.


Like  1 Like
drummerboy
WxNut2.0 said:


drummerboy said:


WxNut2.0 said:
Do you really want to play this game? The information you provided about the "rarity" of three concurrent Atlantic Tropical cyclones is patently incorrect. Its not uncommon. You're just suddenly paying attention.
 As I said, the rarity is having 3 concurrent hurricanes. That is not "normal".  Show me numbers to prove me wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/americas/three-hurricanes-atlantic-basin/index.html
You want numbers? Sure. From the Hurrdat 2 dataset (which I'm absolutely sure you knew existed and have extensively parsed), there were three concurrent hurricanes in the Atlantic in: 
  1. 1893 (four hurricanes)
  2. 1950 (twice)
  3. 1961 (twice)
  4. 1967
  5. 1980
  6. 1995
  7. 1998; (also four hurricanes)
  8. 2010
  9. 2017
  10. 2018
And lets make sure we keep in mind that before satellites, the only way we knew of a hurricane's existence was a ship report. So you really wanna tell me that all of a sudden this is a new thing?
drummerboy said:

WxNut2.0 said:
And for the record: yes, we have lost the battle. But this is not the evidence that should be used to argue that.

 And what is?
Arctic Sea ice depletion; changes to the upper-level jet pattern; extreme monsoon related precipitation events; extreme drought. You know, things that occur on a climatological time-scale. How hard is this? 

 Look at your series of dates. 2010, 2017 and 2018 is unique in terms of time between events.


So you're saying that weather, the actual thing that affects us the most and most immediately, can never be used as a measure of GW? 

You should notify your colleagues, because there seems to be some disagreement.


Like  

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.