Global Warming GIF

This refers to the 'circles' thing right? I have read that it is very dramatic, but can't quite see how it would change anyone's mind.

Group A already feels that anthro warming is a substantial danger in the short term.
Group B accedes a possible (probably) long-term threat, but that there are more important short-term issues. This of course presumes that issues are separable.
Group C believes (or say they believe) that the whole thing is a hoax.

is there a group D?

 

undecided?

not as smart as group a, as disingenuous as group b, nor as obstinate as group c.

 

I am quite sad to learn that group b is disingenuous. Group D undecided - well I suppose existence is not in question - how about susceptibility to evidence? There is already a lot of evidence on the table. D membership means all that was ineffective. I'd just like to know how this graphic might be different.

 

i'm afraid the evidence is beyond some of our abilities to digest. have you ever been on a jury, where both sides bring in 'expert witnesses', and then you have to decide which expert is more expert? and you really don't understand either of them? it's a tough place to decide someone's fate.

 

Jury service I confess is 'no'. Was in the interview queue once (quite a juicy case) but they filled up before me. I have the general impression that jurors are sometimes 'declined' for having strong science backgrounds. Perhaps too capable of sorting out those conflicts? In mine, I admit to wanting to be interviewed to get some first-hand idea about that.

I have known 'expert witnesses' whose testimony carried the day, in particular because they were able to explain technical points to that (small) general audience. So, if this matters for the topic, it is because prior evidence was opaque while this is not. Do Bob or Bisco see it that way?

Because I do not. I see prior evidence as simplicity itself. Maybe mine are the wrong eyes to look with.

 

Please note that I am not suggesting the GIF should not have been done. Rather I ask 'so what'?

 

so too, the creator of the universe. i'm really the only one here who can answer this question. and mojo, but he's in c? or is there e) evidence pointing to the opposite of a?

 

We'll see mojo again...facebook can't be THAT great. Till them I'll take the liberty of putting him in Group C.

You have seen evidence (might put that in quotes) of benign CO2, IR-ineffective CO2, and benefits of warmer. I'm sure you have. You are simply discounting it.

Similarly I suspect I am putting Group B in a more positive light than Bisco does. Three more decades on the 'since 1970' temperature line is not very much. If it is enough to disrupt agriculture, then Bs (belatedly?) become A's.

If the global need (and it exists) for more electricity takes too much water from agriculture, then Bs become A's.

If burning -> bad air quality -> human effects becomes unacceptably large, then Bs become A's.

If a really big (Crichton-scale) Antarctic ice loss (and its SLR) occurs, Bs become A's.

The above is not an exhaustive list. But at such time, with CO2 approaching 500 ppm, group A may see the situation as irreversible; suicidal. I do not. I see large untapped potential for soils and forests to reduce CO2 quickly. More speculative, with iron (and phosphorus) for marine phytoplankton to assist.

We could do all that now. We could more quickly accelerate energy efficiency and renewables generation now. But we are not. From my view it is Group C that ties our hands. For Bisco it is both B and C.

 

perhaps i don't know enough about b's. what other issues are so important to them that they preclude corrective actions on cc?

 

why can't you people speak english? no wonder us d's are so confused.

 

Only reflecting my own perspective on Group B.

I would take Roger Pielke Sr. as archetype, with misgivings, and always wanting to hear about others. It flows from some sort of realpolitik, the (uncertain) view that all 'humanity-friendly' work draws from the same, relatively small pot of money.

Starting from there, we need to defend coasts better, even if small +SLR does not make it worse. It is already bad. We need to defend against rainfall-driven landslides (onto people), even if extreme events are not increasing. It is already bad. We need to defend better against diseases, even if their increase is not tied to small +T. It is already bad. There are others. Start from things that are killing people and suppressing the human enterprise now.

The idea that all this must be done at the expense of slowing CO2 increases is distasteful to me. It ought to be a false paradox. I don't know how to fix that.

As I perceive Group B, none would oppose energy-efficiency or renewable-energy efforts that already represent savings. Read McKinsey. Doing the next set of things, that cost money, bump into realpolitik.

"We'll always have Paris" Recently a whole bunch of countries committed to control +CO2. Sorta. This could be seen as victory of Group A over C, and without B involved.

The famous high-90s % consensus of climate scientists has not been separated into A's and B's. Were that to happen, it would inform both of us.

 

BobW, does speak English, but here, not quite quite down to the juror level. Polar coordinates are often just the thing, but if you tell the general public, their minds turn to Santa, polar bears, and penguins. You lose them.

Communication is 'impedance matching'. Somebody will come up with something better than frogs sous vide, I don't see it here yet. And a second tangent has already developed here. Bringing the two together is not without hope. But for me, all groups are where they are, and I am not sure that bringing them together relies on better (prior) evidence or better presentations. Rather it depends on events in the future.

It would be heretical for me to suggest that softening the tone of (some of) Group A, that we are already on a suicidal path, might actually be helpful. So I cannot, here. We have a 'pillowfights' section for heresy.

 

Bob, I gotta tell you that I have not seen the polar GIF because it is not 'in the clear' for me. You shall regard my comments with that in mind.

About 1998, I have so far only lightly pressed Dr. Spencer at his website. If someday I wake in a bad mood, might press harder. We might imagine a Group F, knowing full well that things are on a bad path, but for unknown reasons allowing their own work to be misrepresented.

 

....starting point is what: Little Ice Age?

 

G Firewall is not your problem. I could probably find it somewhere in the clear, just by making an effort. But perhaps the problem is me supposing that people already attend to evidence that suits them.

I'd put Sauron's eye in the middle instead of 2016, just for fun.

 

I think you need to go to game theory to understand what is happening. It was clearly anounced by the us senate before kyoto.

Europe made a bid. We will cut. They cut, but ghg grew. Did they cut enough? Well not as much as they said, but not nearly as much as china grew. What did they do? Blame the US, because scapegoating is more fun than solving problems.

What is the cost of getting china and india to cut ghg emissions enough to stay under 2 degree c rise. My guess is war and taking over those countries, maybe nuclear war. The cure is worse than the disease.

So assuming china and india, and now post fukashima japan expand ghg, what can the US, EUrope, Africa, and South America do short of war? My guess is technology, which is the oposite of what europe has done. The US is moving in that direction but really slow.

So for you global warming catastrophe predictors, how are you going to stop china? If you can't what difference do the advancements in europe and america make?

 

If one projects China CO2 emissions as linear extrapolation from recent years, the result is rather horrifying. However, mechanistic projections accounting for policy and economic transformation are lower. You can actually find predictions of a peak around 2020 to 2025,and declining after.

I certainly don't know how it will play out. China and India probably will have later peak/decline transitions than any other major. When the measured Mauna Loa CO2 slows its increase (has not yet) we can start to talk about progress.

So thermal efficiency of building improves, slowly. Vehicle fuel efficiency improves, slowly. renewable E shares increase, slowly. Slow everywhere but rates differ.

I suppose we are on track to handle things, more or less, if many short-term climate risks are overstated. Getting on a faster track may require a substantial real-world event. Not just better graphics. I'd like a faster track, but cannot see CO2 in isolation from water, agriculture, health, and energy supply for those on bottom rungs.