Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Here is the original study.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01441-2

They have basically just projected how much ice loss there will be by referencing both the lowest temperature year (201 and the highest temperature year (2012).
There is not much peer review of the work though.

 

This is not 1970. Our knowledge has advanced in gigantic ways. And, Earth's warming has accelerated since then.

It's false logic to claim that some past lack of knowledge means that current knowledge must be ignored.

Besides that, they were SUPPOSED to teach you how to learn - not some list of "facts" presumed to be static. Your education totally failed you.

Paul Ehrlich is absolutely irrelevant. He made predictions about population - not about climate. What he missed is that our human population would not continue to grow at the rate that was common when he wrote that book. The reason that China, the USA, Europe, etc., are growing at slower rates has NOTHING to do with climate change. So, scientists have studied why it is that population growth has slowed in so many countries.

In China, the slowed growth has been so extreme that they see it as a catastrophe. One can project a future for China where there is nearly 1 retired person for every working person - a totally untenable mixture that China recognizes as a gigantic problem.

So, WHY did you mention Ehrlich???


As for Roy Spencer, yes, you CAN find scientist who don't accept human caused warming. But, his view is a TINY minority of those who study climatology.

Also, Roy Spencer believes other stuff that is totally counter to science. For example, he believes in "intelligent design" - a debunked religious fabrication.

 

The land he bought will be there for a long time, so he, his kids and others will be able to enjoy it.

Plus, capitalism has a great way of measuring property value.

I really just don't get your thinking on this.

Are you thinking that the property he bought is an example of sea rise risk to all land on Earth? Are you thinking that sea rise is the only problem that climate change will bring?

 

". . . In the body of the story, they say this, bolds mine:

Human-driven climate change has set in motion massive ice losses in Greenland that couldn’t be halted even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, according to a new study published Monday.

The findings in Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet will melt — equal to 110 trillion tons of ice, the researchers said. That will trigger nearly a foot of global sea-level rise.

The predictions are more dire than other forecasts, though they use different assumptions. While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise, the authors suggested much of it can play out between now and the year 2100.

There is no time frame specified for the one foot of claimed rise? How can peer reviewed climate science be so imprecise?

110 trillion tons of ice? That sounds unimaginably large, and most people can’t even begin to understand the magnitude of that. For most people, the number alone is scary.

First let’s tackle the big scary “110 trillion tons of ice” number that will supposedly be melted. In our companion website, Climate at a Glance (CAAG) we have already debunked this issue in Climate at a Glance: Greenland Ice Melt.

The key point to consider is this: When recent ice loss is compared to the full Greenland ice sheet, the loss is so small that it is almost undetectable. . . . "

No, Washington Post, Greenland Ice Melt Won’t Raise Sea Level 1 Foot
SEA LEVEL AUGUST 29, 2022

 

I’m splitting your post into 2 because they are 2 separate issues.

I have heard that same arguement for 50 years - our knowledge has advanced, our simulations are better, this time we are right. But it’s always the same answer - the world is going to be destroyed because of humanity unless people totally change their way of life.

And the predictions never come true. Is Miami under water? Glaciers gone? No snow in the UK? Worse hurricanes? No to all, and the deadlines are long past.

It’s Chicken Little, the boy who cried wolf. After 50 years I recognize the pattern.

And in typical AGW fashion you assume because I don’t agree with you that I am ignorant and uneducated. That’s not how you win people to your side, that’s not the scientific method. Name calling and canceling people are a standard tactic of AGW proponents.

 

OK. I'm not the greatest at causing people to respect expert opinion.

How should one go about convincing you that the cites I gave on the performance of current models is real?

 

Well I think you are right that it is an imprecise science. That doesn’t mean it is not melting or that the melting will not cause a massive change in sea level and salinity and affect the overall climate.

I’m still not sure why you keep comparing the amount lost to the overall size. It’s a huge ice sheet that is going to take a long time to melt. So what? If you have a really big house but only the bathroom is on fire do you just go back to sleep? Don’t worry people, it’s just a small fire. Nothing to lose sleep over…

 

Because there's no fire.

Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.

 

Wow - Watts said something you want to hear AGAIN!

However, the actual issue doesn't involve Greenland's total ice.

Instead, the issue is how much sea rise will come from what is going to melt due to our warming Earth.

 

Well, no. The study has nothing useful to say about that.
"No matter what end date you choose, you still can’t get to 1 foot of sea level rise cited by the study. And since the study can’t even put a date in place for that, nor do they consider soot, weather patterns, or changes to energy production, especially in China, the study is little more than an exercise in guessing wrapped up in a peer-reviewed paper to give sort of sense of credulity for unquestioning reporters."

 

You probably can't because it requires a change in the presentation from the "experts". You don't have any control over those people. As long as they (and that includes the scientists) pretend its "settled science" and squelch all dissent and skepticism, I'm not interested.

Its probably frustrating for you, I think you are sincere, but the issue has been so politicized, the tactics by the AGW side so brutal, their claims so discredited, that they have poisoned the well.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/655321


The researchers' analysis found that the baseline of that pulse--the amount of ice being lost each year--started increasing steadily around 2000, so that the glaciers were losing about 500 gigatons each year. Snowfall did not increase at the same time, and over the last decade, the rate of ice loss from glaciers has stayed about the same--meaning the ice sheet has been losing ice more rapidly than it's being replenished.


King said that large glaciers across Greenland have retreated about 3 kilometers on average since 1985--"that's a lot of distance," she said. The glaciers have shrunk back enough that many of them are sitting in deeper water, meaning more ice is in contact with water. Warm ocean water melts glacier ice, and also makes it difficult for the glaciers to grow back to their previous positions.

 

Figure 2. Source: Our World in Data, China energy mix. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-region?

Figure 2 shows China’s use of coal really took off around 2001, and as most anyone knows, coal produces significant amounts of soot when burned, which is why it has been dubbed as a “dirty fuel.” It doesn’t take a PhD in climate science to notice the clear correlation between China’s coal use, soot production, and Greenland ice melt post 2001.

The new study cited by WaPo misses that completely. What will happen in the future if China uses less coal and produces less soot?


No, Washington Post, Greenland Ice Melt Won’t Raise Sea Level 1 Foot
SEA LEVEL AUGUST 29, 2022

 

Yes. I would say that it has to be limited to the scientists, as anything else is seriously suspect.

Climatologists do consider it settled that Earth is warming and that human activity is the reason. There are other "sub issues" that are more in the range of continued research.

Some deniers claim it is the sun, but the sun is at a low point in its cycle. If the sun were the issue, we would be cooling. Outside of that, deniers simply proclaim their position. I would say THAT is the behavior of a brute.

 

That does NOT justify posting the chart you posted.

You're flip flopping between issues.

 

Now, you are resorting to ridiculous claims of what a study should show.

The study was about Greenland, not pollution in China. No valid study would range so far outside of what it actually studies.

And, it is still the case that on a per capita basis the USA emits more greenhouse gas than does China. So, singling out China can not be justified.

As far as I can tell, you're just trying for a political smear.

 

If you don't understand the connection then you don't understand the issue.

 

That is a seriously uninformed claim.
The Sun-Climate Effect

 

The earth is warming but the question of human causation is not settled. The science is not settled, and the politics are in question. For example, if it was settled then why does China (the biggest polluter now) get a pass on the issue?

The term "deniers" is perjorative, its used to dismiss anyone who does not agree completely with the AGW idea. If you have questions, are not convinced, raise legitimate scientific questions, you are labeled a denier and shunted aside.

Skeptics may simply proclaim their position, but thats not the behavior of a brute. When did "deniers" force people who disagree with them to lose their job, get canceled, be ridiculed?

 

You can say YOUR ideas are settled.

But, scientists get to be the ones stating what they find when they study Climate.

Right?

If you have a better term than "deniers", make it know.

I have NO idea what has got you riled up about losing jobs or this "canceled" thing or brutes.

 

I agree that it’s politicized. We need a bipartisan effort to change our reliance on fossil fuel and the reasons are not just to avert climate change.

 

I never say my ideas are settled, science is never settled. I have graduate degrees and taught physics at the University, nothing is ever “settled” and beyond question. When someone says it’s “settled” they should be dismissed as an ideologue.

I use the term “skeptic”, that’s the term used for everything else and always has been - except when it comes to AGW.

AGW skeptics get fired, ostracized, lose grants and funding. AGW is like a religion, it’s highly political in universities, industry, govt, and general society. And it’s big money.

 

Per capita emissions are a ploy to make the USA the worst offender and to excuse China from regulation.

The climate doesn’t care about per capita emissions, it doesn’t matter if a billion tons of Nitrous oxide comes from a billion people or one person the effect is the same. If it’s bad for the climate then it has to be addressed, not excused.

But it’s politics because part of the AGW agenda is to hurt the USA. Plus the AGW crowd can’t control or seriously influence China so they leave China alone. China is essentially a closed country that will do what it wants but say what you want to hear.

 

And I'm an engineer who's done a stint in the government and lost big personally to the AGW skeptics. Like you I've paid a heavy price for my entirely logical skepticism. I too know how the scam works and the destruction it promulgates.

Don't have much else to add except thank you, it's brilliant.

 

Of course you don't.