The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Chap »

It's best to quote from this report at length, don't you think?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... _FINAL.pdf

Climate Extremes

There has been a strengthening of the evidence for human influ- ence on temperature extremes since the AR4 and IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) reports.
It is very likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century. Attribution of changes in temperature extremes to anthropogenic influence is robustly seen in independent analyses using different methods and different data sets. It is likely that human influence has substantially increased the prob- ability of occurrence of heatwaves in some locations. {10.6.1, 10.6.2, Table 10.1}

In land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for assessment, there is medium confidence that anthropogen- ic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century. There is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence owing to observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decad- al-scale variability in drought from long-term trends. {10.6.1, Table 10.1}

There is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence owing to insufficient obser- vational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropo- genic and natural forcings. This assessment is consistent with that of SREX. {10.6.1, Table 10.1}

Atmospheric Circulation

It is likely that human influence has altered sea level pressure patterns globally.
Detectable anthropogenic influence on changes in sea level pressure patterns is found in several studies. Changes in atmospheric circulation are important for local climate change since they could lead to greater or smaller changes in climate in a particular region than elsewhere. There is medium confidence that stratospheric ozone depletion has contributed to the observed poleward shift of the southern Hadley Cell border during austral summer. There are large uncertainties in the magnitude of this poleward shift. It is likely that stratospheric ozone depletion has contributed to the positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode seen in austral summer since the mid- 20th century which corresponds to sea level pressure reductions over the high latitudes and an increase in the subtropics. There is medium confidence that GHGs have also played a role in these trends of the southern Hadley Cell border and the Southern Annular Mode in Austral summer. {10.3.3, Table 10.1}

A Millennia to Multi-Century Perspective

Taking a longer term perspective shows the substantial role played by anthropogenic and natural forcings in driving climate variability on hemispheric scales prior to the twentieth century.
It is very unlikely that NH temperature variations from 1400 to 1850 can be explained by internal variability alone. There is medium confi- dence that external forcing contributed to NH temperature variability from 850 to 1400 and that external forcing contributed to European temperature variations over the last five centuries. {10.7.2, 10.7.5, Table 10.1}

Climate System Properties

The extended record of observed climate change has allowed a better characterization of the basic properties of the climate system that have implications for future warming.
New evidence from 21st century observations and stronger evidence from a wider range of studies have strengthened the constraint on the transient climate response (TCR) which is estimated with high confidence to be likely between 1°C and 2.5°C and extremely unlikely to be greater than 3°C. The Transient Climate Response to Cumulative CO2 Emissions (TCRE) is estimated with high confidence to be likely between 0.8°C and 2.5°C per 1000 PgC for cumulative CO2 emissions less than about 2000 PgC until the time at which temperatures peak. Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. These assessments are consistent with the overall assessment in Chapter 12, where the inclusion of additional lines of evidence increases confidence in the assessed likely range for ECS. {10.8.1, 10.8.2, 10.8.4, Box 12.2}

Combination of Evidence

Human influence has been detected in the major assessed com- ponents of the climate system. Taken together, the combined evidence increases the level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate change, and reduces the uncertainties associ- ated with assessment based on a single climate variable. From this combined evidence it is virtually certain that human influ- ence has warmed the global climate system.
Anthropogenic influ- ence has been identified in changes in temperature near the surface of the Earth, in the atmosphere and in the oceans, as well as changes in the cryosphere, the water cycle and some extremes. There is strong evidence that excludes solar forcing, volcanoes and internal variability as the strongest drivers of warming since 1950. {10.9.2, Table 10.1}
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_mikwut
_Emeritus
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:20 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _mikwut »

Chap,

Have I said the world is not warming where that would have been necessary?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Chap wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:As far as carbon neutral agriculture, it requires a bunch of stuff to be done exactly right. And that is going to take making sure it is profitable to decarbonize food production and to recarbonize soil. Creating those kinds of incentives while avoiding incentives to counterproductive behavior is difficult.


(a) What degree of unpleasant consequences of global heating would, in your view, have to be affecting (say) the US agricultural environment before most farmers themselves started to say 'Hell, it'll be difficult to go carbon neutral but we've just gotta do it'?


Geez, I don’t know. Have you met us Americans?

Some individual farmers have and some more will do so over time. But I’m not optimistic that any significant section of the economy will voluntarily incur significant cost or effort absent a significant effect on the bottom line. The farmer whose growing season was wiped out because he couldn’t plant this year has more incentive to adjust his farming practices to emit less CO2. A similar farmer who didn’t experience that flooding has less.

Profit is, in my opinion, a much more powerful incentive. Show a farmer how no till farming with cover crops wii increase his profits, and change will happen.

(b) Might it not, in fact, be less difficult over a medium time scale for US agriculture to start implementing the necessary measures now, rather than waiting until agriculture is actually staring large-scale damage in the face, and suffering major disruption before it has even begun trying to decarbonise?


Yes. To the extent we can provide financial incentives to encourage climate friendly practices, we should do that. Right now, our farming subsidies work against decarbonizing. I think a good thing to do right now would be to reconstruct our farm subsidies, including federal crop insurance, to increase incentives to decarbonize..
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Res Ipsa »

It is simply not true that we hear that global warming directly causes every storm.

Mikwut quotes from the AR5. It was published in 2014. The part he quoted from was completed in 2013, and, If I recall correctly, the deadline for submitting papers to be considered for that section was in 2012. So, the science reported in the AR 5 was state of the art seven years ago. One of the major areas of study since the AR 5 has been attribution of extreme events. As described in Nature last year, attribution studies have come a long ways. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9 I’m assuming lots of papers on attribution will be submitted for the AR 6. The final report will be published in 2022, with the WG 1 report, which is the part of the report that discusses attribution, to be completed in spring 2021. Anyone interested in the subject can hit google scholar and see what’s new.

Taking the position that we shouldn’t do anything until climate change manifests itself in disastrous impacts completely ignores the nature and magnitude of the threat. We don’t have a climate control knob that will let us easily change the CO2 level. There is a tremendous inertia in our present economic system toward continuing and burning fossil fuels. We can’t just stop burning fossil fuels on a dime and then quickly suck the CO2 out again. When we get to the point of human civilization becoming carbon neutral, we’re stuck with that climate for something like a thousand years. It’s only been about 150 since the industrial revolution.

The Titanic was 100% fine until it struck the iceberg, and even then it didn’t sink immediately. Saying “things are better today than ever” is not inconsistent with “if we don’t make some changes, tomorrow will suck.”

There’s an old story about a guy who was trapped at home by rising floodwaters. He prayed, asking God to save him from drowning. A friend called on his cellphone, asking if he needed help. He said “no, I have faith that God will save me..” The
Cajun Navy came by in a flatboat and asked him if he needed to be rescued. He replied, “no, I have faith that God will save me. After he had to get on to the roof of his house, a guy came down on a rope from a helicopter and offered rescue. The man waved him away. “I have faith that God will save me.”

The man drowned. When he met God in heaven, he asked God why he hadn’t saved him. God sighed: “I sent a friend, a boat, and a helicopter. What were you waiting for?”

To have faith that science and technology will somehow save us in the future, while science is telling us the magnitude of the problem and solutions we can implement starting today, is naïve in the extreme.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Gunnar »

Res Ipsa wrote:I agree, that under pretty restrictive conditions, one could arrange a scenario under which biofuels could be carbon neutral. But that requires all kinds of things to work exactly right — the kinds of things that generally don’t work exactly right in the real word. I’ve got no quarrel with a farmer making and using biodiesel to run his tractor (although, we should ask where the energy came from that he used to turn his corn into fuel). But that’s not an accurate picture of biofuel use in the US.

The US subsidizes biofuel production. As a direct result, 40% of the US corn crop is used to produce ethanol for use in Internal Combustion Engines. When we look at the total effects on CO2 emissions, we are worse off than if we’d never subsidized biofuels at all. From the standpoint of CO2 emissions, the best thing we could do is eliminate all subsidies for corn based ethanol and plant trees in the additional land that was put under agricultural production because of the subsidies.

One of the best paths we have to decarbonization is to convert our electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewable resources, while phasing out ICEs in favor of electric motors. In that context, I don’t think it makes much sense to spend time, effort, and dollars trying to create cleaner ICE fuels that would have the effect of slowing that transition down. In other words, why expend anything to support the the technology we need to phase out?


Yup! All your points make perfect sense. As for the energy needed to convert the farmer's corn into oil, that could come from solar panels or wind turbines, but, I realize, that immediately raises the question of why not just use the electricity produced to run his farm equipment directly. The intermediate step of first using that energy to produce biofuels makes sense only as long as the farmer does not immediately have the both the means and the opportunity to replace his ICE powered equipment with electrically powered equipment. Ideally it would be better to skip the intermediate step of converting the corn into biofuels, if possible and feasible.

May[be] there are uses for ICEs that will need to be around a long time. If that’s the case, and if we can produce fuel for those uses that results in lower CO2 emissions than petro gas or diesel, then I think we should pursue those. Proposed use of algae may avoid the CO2 emissions resulting from land use change may be viable, depending on the presence of other adverse effects. And it may make sense to work on developing and using biofuels as an intermediate step in decarbonizing transportation. But I don’t see biofuels as being part of a long-range, permanent solution to global warming.


Yes, I agree that this is the area where it makes the most sense to develop and use biofuels, especially in commercial aviation.

As to the cows, yes. A life cycle analysis looks at all direct and indirect emissions. So, not just cow flatulence. About 35% of our corn production is for cattle feed. So, the CO2 produced in growing the feed corn also counts.

As far as carbon neutral agriculture, it requires a bunch of stuff to be done exactly right. And that is going to take making sure it is profitable to decarbonize food production and to recarbonize soil. Creating those kinds of incentives while avoiding incentives to counterproductive behavior is difficult.


I concede these points also. Thanks for commenting on what I have said and further stimulating my own thoughts on these issues. These are the kinds of issues on which the whole world needs further thought and clarification. :smile:
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Actually, thanks for your end of the conversation. I hadn’t looked at the carbon neutral farming stuff in a while, and it was good to see the progress that has been made. The technological moves so fast, itsm’s hard to keep up.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Chap »

Res Ipsa wrote:Taking the position that we shouldn’t do anything until climate change manifests itself in disastrous impacts completely ignores the nature and magnitude of the threat. We don’t have a climate control knob that will let us easily change the CO2 level. There is a tremendous inertia in our present economic system toward continuing and burning fossil fuels. We can’t just stop burning fossil fuels on a dime and then quickly suck the CO2 out again. When we get to the point of human civilization becoming carbon neutral, we’re stuck with that climate for something like a thousand years. It’s only been about 150 since the industrial revolution.


Yup.

Res Ipsa wrote:To have faith that science and technology will somehow save us in the future, while science is telling us the magnitude of the problem and solutions we can implement starting today, is naïve in the extreme.


Yup. It's about risk and precaution. Imagine this dialog on the Titanic:

Radio officer to Captain:
Sir, I am getting warnings that there is a sizeable risk of major icebergs in the part of the ocean through which our present course will take us. I suggest that you change course or at least drastically reduce speed to avoid a collision in the current poor visibility.

Captain to radio officer:
But if I reduce speed we shall fall behind schedule, thereby inconveniencing our many important passengers and damaging the reputation of our shipping company and reducing its profits. If I change course it will cost the company a lot more in fuel expended, because we shall not be taking the shortest route. Those are big costs. Can you be sure there are icebergs along our route? Have you seen them?

Radio officer to Captain:
No sir. But the indications are that there may well be icebergs there, and if you think of the damage to the ship if we hit one, even if we are supposed to be unsinkable ...

Captain to radio officer:
(Patting the radio officer on the shoulder). OK, thanks for the information. But I'm not going to lose the company money based on a mere possibility. We shall maintain course and speed.

That seems to be just about where we are today. We are told that measures to keep global heating within less damaging limits cannot be taken because they will 'reduce living standards', 'cost jobs', 'damage the economy'. But if the science is, on the whole, right (and only a tiny minority of climate scientists think it is not right), then a few decades down the line there will be large reductions in living standards, mass unemployment and huge damage to the economy, all in a context where the anti global heating measures that will then be demanded by a shocked population will cost a lot more than they do now, and will be considerably less cost-effective as well.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Gunnar »

mikwut wrote:Yet we keep hearing every storm or drought is directly caused by global warming. This fear especially to our youth is irrational. It is speculative not empirical. Through policy and technology we will arrange our energy solutions accordingly. The end of the world is not nigh, we are actually better off than in any time in history.

mikwut

No honest, scientifically literate and competent people, especially climate scientists, claim that every storm or drought is directly caused by global warming. Nevertheless, there seems to be pretty wide scientific agreement that the frequency and severity of droughts and flooding events can be and will be adversely influenced by global warming, and there is no reasonable doubt about the ongoing, multi-billion dollar disinformation campaigns sponsored by fossil fuel companies to obfuscate and cast doubt about the realities of climate change, and their role in causing and aggravating it.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _Gunnar »

Res Ipsa wrote:There’s an old story about a guy who was trapped at home by rising floodwaters. He prayed, asking God to save him from drowning. A friend called on his cellphone, asking if he needed help. He said “no, I have faith that God will save me..” The
Cajun Navy came by in a flatboat and asked him if he needed to be rescued. He replied, “no, I have faith that God will save me. After he had to get on to the roof of his house, a guy came down on a rope from a helicopter and offered rescue. The man waved him away. “I have faith that God will save me.”

The man drowned. When he met God in heaven, he asked God why he hadn’t saved him. God sighed: “I sent a friend, a boat, and a helicopter. What were you waiting for?”

To have faith that science and technology will somehow save us in the future, while science is telling us the magnitude of the problem and solutions we can implement starting today, is naïve in the extreme.

I love that analogy! And I don't think that we can overemphasize the point that even if AGW were a complete hoax, transitioning to green, renewable energy has tremendous potential benefits, both economic and environmental.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_mikwut
_Emeritus
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:20 am

Re: The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

Post by _mikwut »

Hi Gunnar,

No honest, scientifically literate and competent people, especially climate scientists, claim that every storm or drought is directly caused by global warming.


Then show some science that they are increasing due to climate change, actual empirical data not just speculation.

Nevertheless, there seems to be pretty wide scientific agreement that the frequency and severity of droughts and flooding events can be and will be adversely influenced by global warming,


That is possible but you don't know that. And NASA not fossil fuel companies has concluded that “the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.” https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/ Prosperity is likely to continue to rise dramatically over the coming decades just as it has done in the past decades, this makes our ability to recover and deal with the events even greater than today. Once that is taken into account, the overall impact of hurricanes by 2100 will actually be lower than it is today. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1357

and there is no reasonable doubt about the ongoing, multi-billion disinformation campaigns sponsored by fossil fuel companies to obfuscate and cast doubt about the realities of climate change, and their role in causing and aggravating it.


Well I'll go with the UN rather than your hyperdramatic hysteria. The UN studies five different global futures and in scenarios of high fossil fuel use humanity is better off than even in a world where a low co2 output exists. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8016300681

Is the UN a part of your fossil fuel conspiracy?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Post Reply