Climate Change Could Kill Off One-Fifth of the World By End of the Century

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

What evidence? Some random numbers on a computer generated by strategically placed temperature sensors?

Obviously real world evidence would be desired.

 

Unfortunately if we want "real world evidence" for what will happen in the year 2100 we will have to wait until the year 2100. Until then the best quality of evidence is going to be simulation-based. Unless you have a time machine.

[Dashinka 24,871]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Opposite conclusions? How so?

 

The study you linked is suggesting that are current climate cycle has a solar origin.

 

The original study was showing that based on the current cycle (regardless of it's origin; solar, man-made, donkey-made), if it continues then millions will be displaced.

 

Even if the sun is responsible for the current rising global temperature trend, it is still worth trying to simulate/model future outcome so we can prepare for it. Maybe we can't completely prevent it, but we can try to slow it perhaps. Even if we can't do that, we need to be aware that it may be coming.

Because the first study says this isn't a cyclical natural phenomenon, but rather a continuing upward trend.  What is their basis that this will only continue upward?  The second study says we have regular ups and downs based primarily on solar activity.  Not really sure man can do anything about that.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

So since the science isn't settled, why do we have this MDL narrative regarding Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change?  I non-scientists in the press have no business with this, yet they still stick their nose in it.

I can't fully speak for the "MDL" on this topic (though I admit I tend to fall into that category) because I also believe that to a large degree the current climate change we are seeing is natural (or I acknowledge that there is evidence for that, and a lack of evidence that it is all directly man made).

 

I do also see though that there is a correlation over the last 50+ years between man-made factors and climate change. Of course that doesn't mean causation though.

 

Bottom line, for me at least, I don't really care what is causing the climate change. I care more about the studies that show what the climate change will impact. It may all very well be natural fluctuations but even if that is the case, it looks like it will have a significant impact on humanity. We need to be aware of that, accept that, and plan for it.

 

Part of that may mean "hedging our bets" a little bit. GHG may not be the primary culprit for climate change, but there is enough data out there to suggest that it plays some role. While it may not fix the problem, if we can focus on reducing our emissions and slow the "natural progression" by even 10% it may help. To what end? I don't know. The earth may naturally fluctuate towards a state that doesn't allow for human life (temporarily, before it fluctuates back) and at some point humanity will have to address that (either change how we live, or leave).

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Because the first study says this isn't a cyclical natural phenomenon, but rather a continuing upward trend.  What is their basis that this will only continue upward?  The second study says we have regular ups and downs based primarily on solar activity.  Not really sure man can do anything about that.

The issue is time frame. The second study shows we have regular ups and downs but those are over large periods. They only looked at the last 2,000 years. I'm sure there are even larger trends over thousands of years.

 

100 years is nothing in geological time scales. We have had an upward trend for the last century. It is not unreasonable to wonder "what will happen if that upward trend continues for another 100 years?". The difference between 100 and 200 years is absolutely miniscule for the Earth, but it is a huge deal for humans.

 

Look at Figure 3 in the paper you linked. The x-axis scale is massive. Small boxes are 250 years. While in their discussion they say their model predicts a small decrease in temperature until 2050, and then an increase after that, based on my very limited knowledge I would say that with the quality of data they have I don't think we can make such small scale estimates. The overall trend is impressive, and I tend to agree with it. But being able to narrow it down to what will happen in the next 50 years is reaching based on what data they are basing that on (as I mentioned in a prior post - Most of their data pre-1970's are very very regionalized, and therefore need to be extrapolated for the whole planet which is difficult).

 

Consider possible alternative outcomes:

 

1. It is a cyclical natural phenomenon AND it trends back down within this century - Hurray that means millions won't die in 100 years. That is great. We can continue to do whatever we want

2. It is a cyclical natural phenomenon AND it continues to trend upwards - Oh shoot, death/destruction ensues in areas of the world where millions live

3. It is a continued upward trend because of human activity - Same as #2

 

Now in those 3 scenarios assume we do successfully reduce our man-made impact

 

1. Nothing changes. Temperature trends down naturally, that's fine. We all live.

2. Many die regardless, maybe we slow it down by a few decades, but still much of the planet becomes temporarily uninhabitable for humans

3. We reverse the trend. Yay. We live

 

I'd say I would prefer to hedge our bets and try to reduce our emissions. It won't change the outcome if it is a natural cycle that is going to kill us all anyway. But it could potentially save our lives if we are a significant modulator in the cycle (or potentially give us more time to develop a more permanent alternative, like leaving the planet temporarily).

 

TL;DR - Even if climate change is all natural solar cycles (which I believe in large part it is), I'd still rather invest in reducing our emissions to potentially help in case our man-made impact does play a role. If it doesn't, we will have no control anyway. But if it does, we could make a difference. 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,871]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

I can't fully speak for the "MDL" on this topic (though I admit I tend to fall into that category) because I also believe that to a large degree the current climate change we are seeing is natural (or I acknowledge that there is evidence for that, and a lack of evidence that it is all directly man made).

 

I do also see though that there is a correlation over the last 50+ years between man-made factors and climate change. Of course that doesn't mean causation though.

 

Bottom line, for me at least, I don't really care what is causing the climate change. I care more about the studies that show what the climate change will impact. It may all very well be natural fluctuations but even if that is the case, it looks like it will have a significant impact on humanity. We need to be aware of that, accept that, and plan for it.

 

Part of that may mean "hedging our bets" a little bit. GHG may not be the primary culprit for climate change, but there is enough data out there to suggest that it plays some role. While it may not fix the problem, if we can focus on reducing our emissions and slow the "natural progression" by even 10% it may help. To what end? I don't know. The earth may naturally fluctuate towards a state that doesn't allow for human life (temporarily, before it fluctuates back) and at some point humanity will have to address that (either change how we live, or leave).

I agree, climate is changing as it always has otherwise it would have taken a really long time before people could have made it to the America's if you believe the land crossing at Bering theory.  Glaciers grow, glaciers shrink and snow/rain comes and goes.  My biggest issue with stories like the OP is that it borders on "the sky is falling" mentality, and it presupposes that man is essentially the cause of everything, and somehow if we just did this we would somehow stop global climate change. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, climate is changing as it always has otherwise it would have taken a really long time before people could have made it to the America's if you believe the land crossing at Bering theory.  Glaciers grow, glaciers shrink and snow/rain comes and goes.  My biggest issue with stories like the OP is that it borders on "the sky is falling" mentality, and it presupposes that man is essentially the cause of everything, and somehow if we just did this we would somehow stop global climate change. 

It's interesting because I looked at that study in a very different way. Granted I didn't read the article about the studying, I just clinked on the link to the study itself and ignored the article.

 

The actual study doesn't assume that man is the cause of the trend, it merely assumed that the trend will continue. Now yes we could argue that perhaps within the next 50 years the trend will reverse. But I still think it is worthwhile to try to simulate what will happen if the trend does continue. Our timescale is miniscule in the grand scheme of things so it is very hard to predict where we are in a 'cycle'. Pretty much all data pre 20th-century is based on inferences/calculated estimates of temperature and are widely interpretable. So we are working with a very small time scale.

 

We may not be able to stop any of this. However, I think it is worth a shot and I don't believe we lose much in the long run if man's impact is miniscule. If reducing our emissions of GHG does nothing, then we are at the mercy of the Earth regardless. If it DOES play a role - Then perhaps we can at least help to reduce/reverse it.

 

Of course we have to weigh the disadvantages of pushing towards a reduction in GHG, and yes those are significant. Entire industries may end (Oil and Gas, Coal), but hopefully others will grow. Regardless of whether GHG impact climate, we are working with finite resources and while the planet's O&G reserves may be sufficient for another 100-200 years I figure there is no harm in working to find renewable alternatives now. If anything it just helps to continue to propel our science and technology forward.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

We need to probe the issue further 

[Teddy B 17,252]

59 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

here's the gospel..

 

Why don’t Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.

You stop that talk now missy or you're going straight to Bangladesh!

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Teddy B said:

You stop that talk now missy or you're going straight to Bangladesh!

why should anyone listen to al gore when god gave noah the only flood insurance he ever needed? 

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

why should anyone listen to al gore when god gave noah the only flood insurance he ever needed? 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Teddy B said:

[IAMX 3,055]

10 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

We need to probe the issue further 

Patience and hysteria don't go hand in hand. 

[ready4ONE 5,400]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

So man made global warming not being true is a conspiracy made up by big oil yet Al Gore the poster boy for man made global warming was on the board of Occidental Petroleum. 

I never watched Al Gore's first film, plan to skip the sequal. Unsure how any of this makes "global warming" untrue. Of course I tend to disregard anything coming out of His Majesties' pie hole, as well as information gleaned from sketchy climate change denial websites.

[IAMX 3,055]

I just hate when there's no scientists that agree with the 476% of climate change scientists.. that are active.. and writing papers... for select journals.. that actually make a conclusion about global warming.. being caused by humans.

 

Science haters.

 

The criteria just isn't specific enough to make my views seem unchallenged. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, climate is changing as it always has otherwise it would have taken a really long time before people could have made it to the America's if you believe the land crossing at Bering theory.  Glaciers grow, glaciers shrink and snow/rain comes and goes.  My biggest issue with stories like the OP is that it borders on "the sky is falling" mentality, and it presupposes that man is essentially the cause of everything, and somehow if we just did this we would somehow stop global climate change. 

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Edited August 4, 2017 by Il Mango Dulce