Climate Change and You

[Euron Greyjoy]

Unless you're an octogenarian or are planning on having a fatal accident in the next ten years, this is simply untrue.

I'm about to be twenty two and why do you think the world will end in ten years, unless we change our ways as race?

[Ebb]

I'm about to be twenty two and why do you think the world will end in ten years, unless we change our ways as race?

I'm certainly not claiming that the world will end in ten years. I don't believe anyone espouses that.

However, there will certainly be visible effects within ten years. How well insulated you are from them largely depends on your socioeconomic class. Food will become more expensive, for example. The effects on weather should be evident, including a greater frequency for damaging weather events such as hurricanes. Once again, the poor will be disproportionately affected.

And over the next fifty years? Far greater effects. This article is a bit overdramatic, I think, but the general facts and trends it presents are solid:
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/worst-effects-global-warming.htm

[Euron Greyjoy]

I'm certainly not claiming that the world will end in ten years. I don't believe anyone espouses that.

However, there will certainly be visible effects within ten years. How well insulated you are from them largely depends on your socioeconomic class. Food will become more expensive, for example. The effects on weather should be evident, including a greater frequency for damaging weather events such as hurricanes. Once again, the poor will be disproportionately affected.

And over the next fifty years? Far greater effects. This article is a bit overdramatic, I think, but the general facts and trends it presents are solid:
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/worst-effects-global-warming.htm

Sorry I thought you were implying the destruction of the world in ten years.

Not to mention as the water levels rise in the ocean, the larger floods will grow. Eventually most of the world will be covered in water, but at least the Mid West might finally have a beach front ha.

[Ebb]

Eventually most of the world will be covered in water, but at least the Mid West might finally have a beach front ha.

Not quite that far. Here's a fascinating map if you're interested:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

[Euron Greyjoy]

Oh wow at least I'd be safe.  While I know we can at least slow down the effects of climate change by cutting CO2 levels, but is it even possible to reverse it? From what I remembered in my biology class CO2 can last thousands of years in the atmosphere.

[Ebb]

Oh wow at least I'd be safe.  While I know we can at least slow down the effects of climate change by cutting CO2 levels, but is it even possible to reverse it? From what I remembered in my biology class CO2 can last thousands of years in the atmosphere.

Ah, there's the rub. There are certainly things that can be done, but it's up in the air (no pun intended) which things would be most effective, and which would be worth the cost. That's an area of great debate and intensive study right now.

The sooner we can move past "Is it happening?" and "Should I care?" and get on to "So what should we do?", the better.

[Vekseid]

Oh wow at least I'd be safe.  While I know we can at least slow down the effects of climate change by cutting CO2 levels, but is it even possible to reverse it? From what I remembered in my biology class CO2 can last thousands of years in the atmosphere.

The primary way in which you are directly affected by climate change isn't through rising sea levels, it's through changes in regional water supply. Salination of low-level aquifers, changing rain patterns, etc.

This has already caused violence in some countries, and parts of the US (e.g. bottled water plants in drought-affected areas) probably aren't many years away from it.

[Oniya]

Also, changing storm patterns.  Seen the tornado reports this year?  I used to live in the Midwest, and I remember my daughter going through 'tornado drills'.

[Mikem]

stating that people who denied human-caused climate change were either willfully ignorant

Can I say that I just partially agree with this?

Oh yeah Humans have horribly damaged the climate/ecosystem possibly way beyond repair since we came into the Industrial age. But I also believe the planet has it's own cycles of natural Climate shift. We just horribly sped up the process. The Earth wasn't counting on Humanity as an unstable variable in the equation.

[Question Mark]

But I also believe the planet has it's own cycles of natural Climate shift.

I'm not pouncing on you Mikem, or calling you a denier, but I'm just using your words as an example,

In this modern day and age, facts no longer matter.  All people care about is opinions.  This is how deniers peddle their lies: they believe man-made pollutants aren't significantly impacting the environment.  They believe that this recent unprecedented warming trend is a natural phenonema.  They believe the data in support of climate change is either flawed or faked.

The nice thing about truth is that it doesn't give a damn what you believe.  All that matter in this arena are facts, and all the facts point to anthropogenic climate change.

The word believe should never, ever be used in these discussions.  It dilutes the weight of the evidence, and it allows worthless opinions with no basis in reality to be taken seriously.  Just look at Fox News.  They're constantly smearing climate change, but if you listen closely, it's always just opinions and beliefs.  Actual facts are few and far between.

The worst part is that most people don't even care.  They see opinions regarding climate change as just as valuable -- if not more so! -- than facts.  Until we can correct this horrifying delusion, I think we're all going to have a rough time of it.

[Mikem]

I'm not pouncing on you Mikem, or calling you a denier, but I'm just using your words as an example,

So...did you purposefully leave out the rest of my opinion so you could say all that?

[Question Mark]

So...did you purposefully leave out the rest of my opinion so you could say all that?

Yes.

I wasn't responding to your opinion, I was commenting on something only tangentially related.

[gaggedLouise]

Just a minor side effect, but the highest peak in this country will most likely be dethroned within a few years by another peak - in the same massif, but considerably easier to climb and without a glacier on top. The ice cap growing thinner, year by year, and thus lower...

[laa]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

The link includes data suggesting that the area of ice has been increasing, not decreasing.

[Oniya]

Area does not equate to volume, no matter what math you use.  How thick is that ice?

[Avis habilis]

The change is due, oddly enough, to warming oceans:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/06/climate-change-is-getting-worse-so-why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-expanding/

Then of course there's the math error:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/01/error-may-have-overestimated-antarctic-sea-ice-expansion

[Vekseid]

Talk about cherry-picking your data.

That the Antarctic has been accumulating ice has been known about for a long time, and is no secret.. As my first link shows, it's not making up for the loss of ice in the North.

[laa]

Taking the first article I found can't really be called 'cherry-picking'.

Also, I found this in a quick search: http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-sea-ice-volume-increases-50/
And this: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
Cus' they're related by a link in the bottom of the first one.

Which both documents an increase in ice volume.

I shan't say that I know these sources to be accurate, but I will say this - there's a lot more to the one-sided climate-change situation than what the media is let on - a lot more insecurity about data, so on and so forth.

[Vekseid]

Both or your links use the same data mine uses. Except mine presents the past thirty+ years of said data, yours cherry-picks two points.

Cherry-picking is all climate skeptics have.

Notably, not a single climate skeptic on this entire forum (or anywhere, for that matter) has made a single argument against the statements made in my opening post for this thread - we have a lot more than just temperature readings to go on, and they tell a far more drastic story.

[laa]

Look at it again. There is thirty+ years of data. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, I don't exactly consider myself a 'climate skeptic' in the more American definition of the term. I'm skeptic, but in a literal sense, not in an 'against it' sense. See, I'm just beginning to learn about the subject, so I'm still uncertain about most aspects of it, but from a more neutral perspective.

Per example, Shell mining oil in the arctic is retarded as a spill would be more than catastrophic and mass-deforestation needs to be stopped as it causes mass-extinctions.

However, when it comes to the ice, things are pointing in the other direction than what pop-science tells us - it's beginning to seem like things might even get pretty chilly, to put it mildly. And this makes sense, when you look at the past ice-ages and cooling events - we've been incredibly lucky for it to have been warm for as long as it has.

Although a cooling event isn't exactly something to fear in the present, as it happens very slowly. VERY slowly.

[Vekseid]

Look at it again. There is thirty+ years of data. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, I don't exactly consider myself a 'climate skeptic' in the more American definition of the term. I'm skeptic, but in a literal sense, not in an 'against it' sense. See, I'm just beginning to learn about the subject, so I'm still uncertain about most aspects of it, but from a more neutral perspective.

Per example, Shell mining oil in the arctic is retarded as a spill would be more than catastrophic and mass-deforestation needs to be stopped as it causes mass-extinctions.

However, when it comes to the ice, things are pointing in the other direction than what pop-science tells us - it's beginning to seem like things might even get pretty chilly, to put it mildly. And this makes sense, when you look at the past ice-ages and cooling events - we've been incredibly lucky for it to have been warm for as long as it has.

Although a cooling event isn't exactly something to fear in the present, as it happens very slowly. VERY slowly.

No, they both highlight one single pair of data points. The first site is particularly bullshit-laden. The second site at least acknowledges that there is a general decline and that the recent expansion was an exception to a long trend.

You call it 'pop-science' while blatantly ignoring the data - see 1982-1986, 1995-1998 in my first link. You'd have called that a 'cooling trend' as well I would wager. Do you think the upward trend will last five years, and that levels will still be higher in ten?

Would you bet money on it? Because no government is.

[laa]

The first article is inspired by the second, so that's why.

And I'm sorry, I should've explained what makes me think a cooling trend is about to occur.

http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html

See, the sun's activity has been eerily low lately. Combine that with the recent increase in ice mass, and yes, one might expect an increase in ice over the next ten years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age_2.html

Not only that, but the things going on now match up with the beginning of a potential mini ice-age within the next 100 years.

[Vekseid]

Weak solar cycles are not forever, and the sun is, over aeons, continually getting hotter. Thinking the next solar cycle is going to likewise be weak, when we have next to no ability to predict future cycles (beyond starting a neutrino record, which is going to be a hundred thousand years before that starts telling us anything. A bit late) is nothing more than gambling blind.

To say nothing of e.g. Greenland does not paint a pretty picture. At least arctic ice melting is neutral.

[laa]

Well, that's a valid point indeed. The sun is still incredibly hard to predict, yeap. Even then, it might be good to find solution for both possible scenarios - although if ice is going to be the problem, I guess we're going to have plenty of time to figure it out.

[Wheeler97]

laa,

The problem with talking about levels of sea ice going up is actually a point that supports the data that the oceans and the surface of the continent are warming. The way it's reported on is misleading.

Sea ice is covering more area over the past few years, great, but the continental ice, which is on land, is what is melting permanently. Antartica is a desert that receives very little precipitation, including snow, so once the ice melts, it's gone into the oceans. "Sea ice" comes and goes with the seasons. As more melts each summer, there's more surface area that returns in the winter, although it comes back thinner and doesn't last as long each spring. Just measuring the returning surface area isn't gathering the whole picture.