Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 621 - 640 of total 2200 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 12, 2016 - 11:45am PT
The purpose of the different projections for climate change is mostly to model differing amounts of CO2.
One way that has been categorized is RCP Representative_Concentration_Pathways
Which are different levels of added radiation forcing in W/m2
Often these are categorized into 4 bands in order to simplify:
RCP 2.5
RCP 4.5
RCP 6.5
RCP 8.5

There is no one magic failsafe point. The impacts become more and more extreme with higher GHGs and additional net radiation.
Most of the charts showing future temperature, sea level, ocean ph, include these different amounts of GHG emissions, and make the effects obvious for continuing to do very little about reducing GHG emissions.

Right now we are still on the path towards RCP 8-8.5, which means society doing very little to minimize GHGs and the effects are far more disastrous and net costly than RCP4.5 We are already past stopping at RCP 2.5, which might have been roughly equivalent to the call to stop CO2 at 350ppm a couple years ago; - that ship has sailed. Since it takes decades to shift towards greener energy, it is not difficult to see where we will be in 20 years. C02 will keep rising at nearly it's current pace for some time, but where it goes in the 20-100 year timeframe is still completely open to action, if our selfish leaders could see past the next quarterly report.

as I posted 2 years ago:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2523348#msg2523348

and last spring

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2780073&msg=2781335#msg2781335


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways#/media/File:All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentration.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3

>> Four Representative concentration pathways (RCPs). Four RCPs…produced from IAM scenarios available in the published literature: one high pathway for which radiative forcing reaches >8.5 W/m2 by 2100 and continues to rise for some amount of time; two intermediate “stabilization pathways” in which radiative forcing is stabilized at approximately 6 W/m2 and 4.5 W/m2 after 2100; and one pathway where radiative forcing peaks at approximately 3 W/m2 before 2100 and then declines. These scenarios include time paths for emissions and concentrations of the full suite of GHGs and aerosols and chemically active gases, as well as land use/land cover…


Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 12, 2016 - 11:52am PT
More explanation of RCP scenarios
https://medium.com/@davidfurphy/what-on-earth-is-an-rcp-bbb206ddee26#.vlex1ybjp

Future effects will be costly.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/04/antarctic-melting-to-boost-sea-levels-by-2100/

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/m-cei050216.php

August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Dec 12, 2016 - 12:17pm PT
If CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for centuries, what would it take to cause atmospheric CO2 levels to decline? How much would we need to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to reverse the current trend? Would we need to reduce current emissions by 50%? 90%? How long would it take for A-CO2 to start falling?

I'm not asking for an in-depth explanation. Just a ball park figure.

What I'm wondering about is whether or not dramatic reductions in emissions would result in lowered A-CO2 levels in our lifetimes.

Those are two really different things. The trend is ever increasing CO2. If we could slow the rise in CO2, that would leave future generations better off versus a business as usual scenario.

Outside of civilization collapse, I don't see any way atmospheric CO2 levels are going to start dropping in the next few decades. I guess you can't absolutely rule out some technological breakthrough that makes it economic and pragmatic to scrub CO2 out of the air. Personally, I wouldn't bet my planet on it.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:03pm PT
The earth has "greened" (plant life including trees increasingly encroaching into previous low habitable areas) 12% over the satellite Era. Any legitamate study of deforestation should account for this, increased urban human planted greenery, and tree farms etc in there calculation of forest loss. Not saying it totally makes up for the alleged forest loss cited by Ed above, but it does significantly reduce his dire numbers. Additionally, this hundreds of years of CO2 atmospheric residence time is a bunch of hooey. Recent studies show residence time in the 5-7 year range.

Never mind what Ed says. He's a f*#king elitist. He will continue to believe that his facts and scientific method should be given more weight than repeated opinions that align with your worldview.

Curt
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:07pm PT
rick wrote:
The earth has "greened" (plant life including trees increasingly encroaching into previous low habitable areas) 12% over the satellite Era.


no citation, my guess he is either making it up, or taking it off some strange blog some place.

Additionally, this hundreds of years of CO2 atmospheric residence time is a bunch of hooey. Recent studies show residence time in the 5-7 year range.


once again, no reference to "recent studies," so in the absence of a citation(s), I presume rick is also making this up, misunderstood the source, or is referring to a blog.

this is rick's MO, something he has consistently done in the past: he states as fact very sketchy sources, so sketchy that he wouldn't provide the reference to the sources.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:09pm PT
ed you better save all this data before TRUMP has it erased.

it will not be "erased."

Studly

Trad climber
WA
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:11pm PT

If John Denver was still around and ran for President, what kind of world would we be living in? A better one I think..

[Click to View YouTube Video]
tuolumne_tradster

Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:38pm PT
https://eos.org/articles/current-carbon-emissions-unprecedented-in-66-million-years

From a geologic perspective, the important point is not that CO2 levels were much higher throughout most of earth history, it is the recent rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 that is unprecedented. How the planet is adjusting to this rapid CO2 flux is being played out in slow motion in a broad range of environments from alpine to ocean. We're in uncharted waters folks.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:53pm PT
the problem is the "Pollution Game" has a Nash equilibrium that has all the players withholding action. (this is an analysis in the spirit of the "Prisoners' Dilemma").

In this "game" all the players have a choice to make, if they act together, putting in some small of resource, they will avoid the outcome of inaction. The even when the cost of the outcome due to inaction is some very large number, say 10 times the cost of mitigation, the Nash equilibrium is that no one pays the mitigating costs.

The implication is that a "free market" system will not take advantage of early action and, instead differ to that later time when the costs are much higher. This is the tone of the discussion on this thread, DMT is an example of a game player, and he is absolutely correct, or at least acting in his self interest, as Nash would have him, he has divined the correct strategy.

It is why government intervention, and the global cooperation of governments, will be required to alter the "free market" and act early.

Interestingly, we don't know if there is a solution if we wait, no matter the costs. It is that risk that we are looking at.

the ricks of the say: nothing is happening, what is happening cannot be changed by us, what is happening is no big deal, we can fix anything...

but, of course, this analysis is rather simplistic, and is certainly biased in a way that has the ricks' self interest squarely central. In other words, it isn't an analysis at all, just a reaction to a perceived threat now, and ignoring the later, much larger threat.


tuolumne_tradster

Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
Dec 12, 2016 - 10:04pm PT
moral prudence in the form of emissions reduction is a 1st world luxury...

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/01/503628893/amid-economic-crisis-mongolians-risk-their-lives-for-do-it-yourself-mining

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 12, 2016 - 10:28pm PT
You guys on the other side of this debate are just negativists constantly handwringing over the nightmares induced by your malthusian delusions. You should know better by now. Recent history has disproved the dire predictions of at least three of your seers predictions. We have the population bomb with its projections of mass starvation, peak oil with its scheduled rapid decline by 1970, and finally your current little nightmare of CAGW, which some of your leading prognosticators having already called for an ice free arctic, an epic collapse of the antarctic ice shelves, and the meltdown of Greenland . Also, who can forget the blessed "models" at the core of your sick religion deviating ever farther from reality. Can't you guys ever learn?

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 12, 2016 - 11:05pm PT
hey rick,
you're singing a tired song...

...why not post up some citations.... or are my suspicions correct?

you got nothing.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 12, 2016 - 11:23pm PT
Why save the ice Robert? Soon enough the current brief interstadial will end and the continental ice sheets will once again grind the landscape. Enjoy the warmth while you can.

The whole 4' high stack is committed to poor memory Ed. It's all in there somewhere amongst the disorganization.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 13, 2016 - 01:20am PT
nice story, rick...
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Dec 13, 2016 - 03:55am PT
Robert, the problem with individual observations, unverified by anyone else, is very subject to bias.

One could have gone to NYC for the last 100 summers in a row, and state upon that definitive proof, that flooding of NYC subways by a superstorm is a liberal lunacy.


Emissions reduction involves the reduction of 1st world luxury.

I really disagree with that. Here in LA, we have had dramatic reduction in air emissions, such that air that used to be so thick you could cut, was today bright and clean, in spite of a winter thermal layer. I doubt that you could make a reasonable claim that the "luxury" of the LA lifestyle has greatly declined in the last 50 years while this happened.

I don't dispute that it is POSSIBLE to attack emissions by a reduction in luxury. Probably, some of that would be good for us.

For example, gas lawn mowers put out about the same amount of air pollution in an hour of running, as a modern car does in an entire year. If those were replaced over time with electric mowers, whose sources of power can be relatively non-polluting sources, this could be largely eliminated. Get a long cord. Is that really a significant loss of luxury? Same dynamics of leaf blowers.

I'd like to see them banned from sale in LA. After, say, 5 years, banned from use. Probably the equivalent of a million cars off the road....without touching your Hummer. Your yard looks the same.
(in fact, get rid of the damn water-wasting grass!)
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Dec 13, 2016 - 04:14am PT
We have the population bomb with its projections of mass starvation

You are really off on this one. Your facts are wrong, and your logic is wrong.

We HAVE had huge population growths.
We have had large starvation events. (I think of Ethiopia, and the boxes of Baby Ruths the conservatives sent)

BUT BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZED the dangers, we did something about it, by huge investments in crop science and genetics, and widespread dispersion of that knowledge and expertise world-wide.

We averted the worst of it by our actions!

We have made massive advances in birth control technology, and made it available world-wide, with a result of MASSIVE reduction in birth rates, world-wide, that will cause us to reach a stable population by 2100 or so.

Did doing those things destroy our economy or culture? NO! If anything, it enhanced both.

EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Dec 13, 2016 - 05:49am PT
In other words, it isn't an analysis at all, just a reaction to a perceived threat now, and ignoring the later, much larger threat.

Exactly. Asking everyone in industrialized nations and most in emerging economies to make sacrifices for the rest of their lives to possibly help future generations is a tough sell. It's an especially hard sell in this country, where much of the population already feels entitled to things that don't deserve.
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Dec 13, 2016 - 09:18am PT
hey rick,
you're singing a tired song...

...why not post up some citations.... or are my suspicions correct?

you got nothing
We all know this. Even Rick knows this. He's just playing the role of the recalcitrant teenager thumbing his nose at the world.
tuolumne_tradster

Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
Dec 13, 2016 - 10:35am PT
Recommended reading...
Earth’s Fickle Climate: Lessons Learned From Deep-Time Ice Ages

We currently live in an “icehouse” — a climate in which large continental ice sheets exist, in this case at both poles. The onset of this icehouse began in Antarctica 34 million years ago and in the Arctic about 2 million years ago. The latter stages of human evolution occurred in this bipolar icehouse, and human civilization unfolded during the relatively stable, most recent interglacial phase of this icehouse (the glacial times are popularly known as ice ages). This particular climate state, however, represents only a fraction of 1 percent of Earth’s history. Thus, humans evolved during, and are adapted to, an atypical climate state.


But although we technically live in an icehouse, we may be embarking on a one-way voyage into a permanently deglaciated greenhouse. To grasp what may be in store for the planet, we can look at the “deep-time” geologic record, which archives a nearly-billion-year-long record of several icehouses. Each of these icehouse periods was associated with abrupt climate change over a range of timescales, and each provides insight into the climatically fickle transitions from icehouse to greenhouse states.
http://www.geotimes.org/mar06/feature_deeptimeiceages.html
Bad Climber

Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
Dec 13, 2016 - 10:44am PT
Intense, Malmute. Thanks for the post. Melting glaciers don't lie. I just don't see how this is going to be turned around, however. People really aren't concerned, at least not to the level of actually changing their lives. Al Gore has a huge, obscenely wasteful mansion when he has the money to show us how to do things differently. That guy could have the most recycled, re-purposed, green, carbon-freaking-neutral place on earth! But he don't. I think we'll all have brace ourselves for more melting ice, rising seas, etc. Should be interesting at least.

@T-Tradster: Great article. One discouraging quote: "99.96 percent of Earth’s climate behavior remains virtually unexplored."

BAd
Messages 621 - 640 of total 2200 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta