Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15739 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Jul 05, 2019 5:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Anchorage hits 90 degrees, all-time record by five degrees F

Click on page 1 of this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 376 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostSat Jul 06, 2019 10:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Anchorage hits 90 degrees, all-time record by five degrees F

Is Anchorage special for some reason?  The record high temp for AK was set over 100 years ago.  Just guessing but I bet the 1930s saw more record high temps in Alaska than the current decade.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records#status

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6387 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostSat Jul 06, 2019 4:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think it's funny how when
region specific/local data supports a position it is legitimate , but when it hurts that position,  then only global averages are legitimate.   In the last week both sides have presented regional/local data as supporting their conclusion and refuted regional/local data when it undermines their position.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSat Jul 06, 2019 7:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
gb wrote:
Anchorage hits 90 degrees, all-time record by five degrees F

Is Anchorage special for some reason?

Are you special? ...or?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSat Jul 06, 2019 7:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Planet's hottest June on record - so Anchorage is just along for the ride.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1163 | TRs
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
  Top

Member
PostSat Jul 06, 2019 11:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Parked Out wrote:
gb wrote:
Anchorage hits 90 degrees, all-time record by five degrees F

Is Anchorage special for some reason?

Are you special? ...or?

Yes. Yes, I am.

Best.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 376 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostSun Jul 07, 2019 6:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Are you special? ...or?

I wish I was special....


--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 10:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
A while back I posted about an article that discussed attribution of extreme weather events to climate change. I now have run into a 2016 report from the National Academy of Sciences that deals with the issue.

Quote:
The ability to understand and explain extreme events in the context of climate change has developed very rapidly over the past decade. In the past, a typical climate scientist’s response to questions about climate change’s role in any given extreme weather event was, “We cannot attribute any single event to climate change.” The science has advanced to the point that this is no longer true as an unqualified blanket statement. In many cases, it is now often possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human-induced climate change (or another causal factor, such as a specific mode of natural variability) has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes. The science behind such statements has advanced a great deal in recent years and is still evolving rapidly. Still further advances are necessary, particularly with respect to evaluating and communicating event attribution results and ensuring that event attribution studies

I would add that the specific type of event is important - some kinds of events are much harder to make attribution estimates on with any confidence. The report goes into much detail there.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 10:32 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize in climate economics last year and in his opinion, climate change by the end of the century may cost us a few percent of GDP.  Hardly the end of civilization.

I'm curious what level of emissions he was assuming in those calculations, but nonetheless, GDP is hardly the best measure of the impact of climate change. By the way, Nordhaus is no climate skeptic. He advocates for a carbon tax. He also had an article recently in the New York Review of Books entitled, "Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong."

I would add that a few percent of GDP is not trivial, and like you say, also not the end of civilization. That comes form the things we talk about like rising sea levels and extreme weather and so on. The end of civilization happens when multi-year draughts hit major food-producing regions and we get some major famines, and probably some major conflicts too as those areas with enough food stop exporting it to protect their populations. We don't know when that would happen and macroeconomic models aren't about to predict it. Draughts have apparently brought down a number of civilizations before.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 10:45 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
I think it's funny how when
region specific/local data supports a position it is legitimate , but when it hurts that position,  then only global averages are legitimate.   In the last week both sides have presented regional/local data as supporting their conclusion and refuted regional/local data when it undermines their position.

I think it's funny how you conflate the two. The first, if it occurred which I doubt, illustrates a problem to be addressed.

The second is an argument which does not necessarily demonstrate a problem, since there is no inherent conflict between data of the same type (regional) from differing sources and studies.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 11:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Oay, I looked up the treatment of emissions in Nordhaus' DICE economic model. It is a variable based on carbon intensity - the amount of carbon emitted per dollar of economic activity. So that variable can be modified for any particular run of the model and that would give a different cost of climate change. Saying that the cost would be a few percent by the end of the century is meaningless without knowing what value was used and how much emissions and CO2 atmospheric ppm resulted. As I have said repeatedly, my comments are predicated on us continuing along a so-called business as usual path and not really decreasing our carbon emissions.

Quote:
The model calculates the carbon emissions as a function of the Gross Output of the global economy and two adjustable parameters, one of which (sigma) sets the emissions per dollar value of the Gross Output (units are in metric tons of carbon per trillion dollars of Gross Output) and something called the Emissions Control Rate (ECR). The equation is simply:

Emissions = sigma*(1 -ECR)*Gross_Output

Currently, sigma has a value of about 0.118, and the model we will use assumes that this will decrease as time goes on due to improvements in efficiency of our economy — we will use less carbon to generate a dollar’s worth of goods and services in the future, reflecting what has happened in the recent past. The ECR can vary from 0 to 1, with 0 reflecting a policy of doing nothing with respect to reducing emissions, and 1 reflecting a policy where we do the maximum possible. Note that when ECR = 1, then the whole Emissions equation above gives a result of 0 — that is, no human emissions of carbon to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. In our model, the ECR is initially set to 0.005, but it can be altered as a graphical function of time to represent different policy scenarios. In other words, by changing this graph, we are effectively making a policy — and everyone follows this policy in our model world!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6387 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 12:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I think it's funny how you conflate the two. The first, if it occurred which I doubt, illustrates a problem to be addressed.

The second is an argument which does not necessarily demonstrate a problem, since there is no inherent conflict between data of the same type (regional) from differing sources and studies.

Of course it expected that you would never recognize your own behavior.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 3:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Of course it expected that you would never recognize your own behavior.

There's no basis upon which to recognize that which doesn't exist.

I'm willing to learn, and change if need be. Otherwise, I wouldn't be applying proper method.

Show us the cases in which you claim I demonstrate this behavior.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 376 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 8:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
I'm curious what level of emissions he was assuming in those calculations

The graphic I posted earlier referred to this paper:  https://www.nber.org/papers/w23646.pdf  which is a survey of 27 previous studies on the matter.  The authors skip emissions and go directly to increases in temperature (+3 and +8 degrees) for the damage estimates, settling on slightly over 2% of GDP as the best cost estimate of a 3-degree increase.  Yes I'm aware that Nordhaus isn't a climate skeptic.  Pretty sure climate skeptics aren't in the running for Nobel prizes these days.

drm wrote:
I would add that a few percent of GDP is not trivial, and like you say, also not the end of civilization. That comes form the things we talk about like rising sea levels and extreme weather and so on. The end of civilization happens when multi-year draughts hit major food-producing regions and we get some major famines, and probably some major conflicts too as those areas with enough food stop exporting it to protect their populations. We don't know when that would happen and macroeconomic models aren't about to predict it. Draughts have apparently brought down a number of civilizations before.

If climate-induced sea level rise will lead to the end of civilization, then what effect will sea level rise due to land subsidence have?  If the Mekong Delta feeds over half of Vietnam and is on track to be under water by 2100, not because of climate change but because of subsidence due to groundwater depletion, why is climate change the big concern?  Tomorrow's not really a problem if you don't survive today.  Can I interest you in a carbon tax?  I'm sure it will stop your country from sinking 3 inches every year.

How about the widespread threat to populations and agriculture from the effective drought of groundwater depletion itself?  I guarantee there are more people around the world today who are desperate because their water supply is drying up than are desperate about some vague future threat of climate change.   

Something's not right with the climate-catastrophe crowd when a future maybe-problem is obsessed over while the world's immediate problems are ignored.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6387 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 9:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Of course it expected that you would never recognize your own behavior.

There's no basis upon which to recognize that which doesn't exist.

I'm willing to learn, and change if need be. Otherwise, I wouldn't be applying proper method.

Show us the cases in which you claim I demonstrate this behavior.

On Page 646 of this thread you referenced Greenland Ice core temperatures  -- When it was pointed out that regional temperatures don't necessarily reflect global temperatures. 

Then when presented with a hemisphere temperature chart


You dismiss that out of hand.

MtnGoat wrote:

As for the conclusion, putting up the hockey stick long known to be problematic at best, isn't helping your argument.

Seem pretty spot on with

RandyHiker wrote:
I think it's funny how when
region specific/local data supports a position it is legitimate , but when it hurts that position,  then only global averages are legitimate.   In the last week both sides have presented regional/local data as supporting their conclusion and refuted regional/local data when it undermines their position.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Snowdog, Man-inna-hillz!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy