Climate change: Point of no return?

Posted 28 November 2015 by Matt Young

Eli Kintisch at Science magazine has put together a remarkable collage called After Paris: The rocky road ahead. Rocky indeed! The upper left graph shows steadily rising global emissions of carbon dioxide, with not even a glitch after the Kyoto meeting. The projections after the Paris meeting are not comforting either, unless we undertake a massive effort. But now look at the lower-right graph. Does anyone believe that we – that is, the world – will really reduce investments in coal, oil, and gas production by over $100 billion per year between 2010 and 2029? Or that we will increase expenditures on energy efficiency by over $300 billion per year? Or that we will learn to sequester more than half our carbon dioxide emissions by 2100? In a companion article, Climate crossroads, Kintisch tries to be optimistic and writes,

Optimists point to the growing use of solar, wind, and other renewable power sources and the success of some nations, such as Denmark (see p. 1020), in curbing emissions. But rising emissions from China, India, and other developing nations are swamping that progress. And the dismal track record of global climate talks inspires little confidence that nations can agree to make the huge changes required to stop treating the atmosphere like a carbon sewer. Negotiators huddling in Paris next week are convinced these talks will be different. In Kyoto, nations attempted to create a legally binding agreement, which subsequently failed to deliver results in part because the United States would not ratify the treaty. This time, nations—164 of them, by the time Science went to press—have each prepared pledges, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which detail their promised emissions cuts and other actions through 2030. Negotiators hope the bottom-up INDC approach will prevail where the top-down Kyoto strategy failed. Developing nations largely stuck to the sidelines in previous talks. This time almost everyone—including China and India (see p. 1024)—has pledged to limit emissions. And by arriving in Paris with pledges in hand, negotiators hope to avoid the last-minute deadlocks that have doomed past efforts.

I hope his optimism is not misplaced. ~~I think we would rather not see Scranton, Pennsylvania, on the Atlantic coast in 2100 (upper right).~~ [Sorry, it is Scranton, North Carolina, elevation, 0!]

44 Comments

RWard · 28 November 2015

When has man ever chosen long-term good over short-term profit?

Mike Elzinga · 28 November 2015

The real story is implicit in the integrals of the CO₂ emission curves on the left. No matter which scenario is followed, the integrals are monotonically increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses over the forseeable future; there are no technologies or natural processes in place to decrease greenhouse gasses.

The major differences in these scenarios are the total amounts of human-produced greenhouse gasses dumped into the atmosphere in the future. No matter which course we take, that amount is going to increase; but the differences in the future courses of action will determine which species, if any, survive.

It is a fundamental law of nature that consuming entities that gobble up resources from a finite environment are self-limiting. One might excuse creatures that aren't conscious of what they are doing to themselves; but humans have no such excuse. By electing idiot politicians, they ensure their own ultimate demise.

Duncan Cairncross · 29 November 2015

While it is important to reduce CO2 as much as possible I personally am confident that in the medium to long term we will avoid the worst problems

The reason is our behavior in a proper war (like WW2)
When the effects start to really bite we will move onto a "war footing" and implement one of the Geoengineering strategies
Mirrors in space, vapor in the upper atmosphere, ocean fertilization
It will cost a fortune -
But it will be done when even the Republicans admit that it needs to be done

Rolf · 29 November 2015

Duncan Cairncross said: While it is important to reduce CO2 as much as possible I personally am confident that in the medium to long term we will avoid the worst problems The reason is our behavior in a proper war (like WW2) When the effects start to really bite we will move onto a "war footing" and implement one of the Geoengineering strategies Mirrors in space, vapor in the upper atmosphere, ocean fertilization It will cost a fortune - But it will be done when even the Republicans admit that it needs to be done

All it takes is global consensus, we all pay our share. The UN will be the arbiter, we all concur.

Duncan Cairncross · 29 November 2015

No it won't happen like that!
I'm more thinking about a "coalition of the willing" - just like a war!

Sylvilagus · 29 November 2015

Um.... That's Scranton, North Carolina.

Reaching Scranton, PA would require a whole other level of disaster.

Rolf · 29 November 2015

Duncan Cairncross said: No it won't happen like that! I'm more thinking about a "coalition of the willing" - just like a war!

Why should we be willing? Here in Norway, we most likely will benefit from AGW. So what? no more "Lillihammer" olympics without snow transport from higher altitudes, or artificial snow. Haven't owned a pair of skis for decades. Whether AGW or GW, a drawback is summers already getting rainier, winters too. What more could we ask for. We get our vitamin D from vacations in Spain, Turkey, Greece... Glaciers receeding, marine species spreading/migrating to the north. That's a fact.

Matt Young · 29 November 2015

Um.â¦ Thatâs Scranton, North Carolina.

Oops, sorry! Scranton, Pennsylvania, is not all that far from the Delaware River, but its elevation seems to be over 200 m. Wikipedia says that the elevation of Scranton, North Carolina, is 0 m, and it is basically on the Atlantic coast.

bachfiend · 29 November 2015

Rolf,

Why should you, in Norway, not be 'willing'? What would happen to you if, as one scenario has it, the northern part of the Gulf Stream shuts down as a consequence of global warming? Northwestern Europe gets heat from the Gulf Stream equivalent to 25,000 power plants. London is on the same latitude as Newfoundland, yet has a temperate climate.

The scenario has a large amount of ice melting suddenly in the Arctic dumping a lot of freshwater in the North Atlantic forming a surface layer of relatively less salty water which freezes more extensively in Winter, and then in the subsequent Summer the westerly winds aren't able to pick up heat and evaporating water from the now frozen North Atlantic, which as a result doesn't become more salty, cold and dense, so the 'waterfall' south of Greenland, which is the driving force of the thermohaline circulation, stops, and water ceases to be 'sucked in from the Mexican Gulf. And the Gulf Stream stops.

Rolf · 29 November 2015

Sorry, that aspect was absent from my mind. I have not studied the details but I presume the scenario you are painting also will impact other currents in the global network.

I better leave climate to the experts.

If and when will a new semi-stable configuration be established, and what will it look like?

Maybe climate is like balancing a pencil on its tip, 7 seconds is about maximum possible.

Sylvilagus · 29 November 2015

Matt Young said:
Um.â¦ Thatâs Scranton, North Carolina.
Oops, sorry! Scranton, Pennsylvania, is not all that far from the Delaware River, but its elevation seems to be over 200 m. Wikipedia says that the elevation of Scranton, North Carolina, is 0 m, and it is basically on the Atlantic coast.

If you were a creationist, you could claim that both cities are still of the Scranton "kind". Or, insist that elevation measurements are unreliable because of the Flood. Or something. But no, you decided to admit a simple mistake. And then add some new facts contributing to the general knowledge.

DS · 29 November 2015

Duncan Cairncross said: While it is important to reduce CO2 as much as possible I personally am confident that in the medium to long term we will avoid the worst problems The reason is our behavior in a proper war (like WW2) When the effects start to really bite we will move onto a "war footing" and implement one of the Geoengineering strategies Mirrors in space, vapor in the upper atmosphere, ocean fertilization It will cost a fortune - But it will be done when even the Republicans admit that it needs to be done

That's very optimistic. But the real problem is that if we wait until the danger is obvious to all it will undoubtedly be too late. The longer we wait the harder it will get and the more it will cost to make any substantial change. There will come a point where catastrophic change will be inevitable and that will probably come long before the deniers will admit the truth. Think of it this way. What if everyone in the car decided to ignore the fact that they were approaching the edge of a cliff, until they were too close to the edge for the brakes to stop them in time? Just before they went over the edge and started to fall, everyone would say, "oh yea, I guess you were right, now let's do something about it." But of course by then it would be too late. Now you could hope that something would come along to save them, you know like it magically turning into a parachute car at the last second. But these are the guys who were too myopic to see what was right in front of them in the first place. What are the odds that they will be able to save the day after they actually go over the cliff?

Duncan Cairncross · 30 November 2015

The car over a cliff scenario is just a tiny bit unlikely
- possible - but unlikely

What is more likely is the pecked to death by ducks scenario

And at some point even without the US Republicans the rest of us are going to do something about it

IMHO we have gone beyond CO2 reduction as an option - we will be firmly in the Geo-engineering option

With that there are a number of options - all expensive but cheaper than moving London uphill

The only real disaster would be if some people chose to fight against the required changes

Yardbird · 30 November 2015

DS said: Just before they went over the edge and started to fall, everyone would say, "oh yea, I guess you were right, now let's do something about it."

I think the exchange would be more like: "Why didn't you tell us we were going over the cliff?" "We did tell you." "Nuh-uh! You were supposed to keep us safe. Why did you let us do that?" And they'd still be arguing about it when the car hit the ground.

DS · 30 November 2015

Duncan Cairncross said: The car over a cliff scenario is just a tiny bit unlikely - possible - but unlikely What is more likely is the pecked to death by ducks scenario And at some point even without the US Republicans the rest of us are going to do something about it IMHO we have gone beyond CO2 reduction as an option - we will be firmly in the Geo-engineering option With that there are a number of options - all expensive but cheaper than moving London uphill The only real disaster would be if some people chose to fight against the required changes

Sorry, no. The car over the cliff scenario is actually the most likely. In a complex system there are tipping points where non linear responses predominate. Just like the cliff scenario, you go along for a while with a linear response, even after it is actually too late to avoid the non linear response. I'm not saying that you can't still make changes or that they won't help at all. I'm just saying that the response will be inevitable before it becomes apparent, especially to those who are strongly motivated to ignore the evidence. You are probably right. It is probably too late for CO2 reduction to be effective at this point. And we still haven't done that, let alone started to make the other changes necessary. It is already too late to just turn the car slowly away from the cliff. Now with that track record, what are the odds that we will decide to put on the brakes soon enough? And yes, part of the problem is that people are already fighting against the required changes. And this is true even though we know that oil is essentially a non renewable resource and that alternatives could be cheaper, even in the short term. There are many hands grabbing for the wheel and they are apparently content to drive the car right over the cliff. And if they were willing to fight to prevent turning the wheel, they will probably be willing to hold a gun to your head to prevent you from putting on the brakes. They simply have too much invested in making sure that the car keeps going straight ahead. Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic, but history has shown that humans can be myopic enough to allow such tragedies to occur. And the consequences of such short sightedness are increasing in magnitude. As long as people continue to ignore the evidence, there is little hope that things will ever change for the better. Just look at the continued struggle over evolution in this country. People have been ignoring the evidence for over one hundred and fifty years. That does tend to make one pessimistic.

Rolf · 30 November 2015

DS, I share your views there. An optimist by nature, I've grown quite pessimistic wrt the AGW issue and I don't know who's going to put the thumbscrew on the big spenders of the sources of greenhouse gases over which we potentially have control. The non-controllable sources are gearing up as we are debating the topic.

Before we, mankind collectively agree on cuts to consumption, we may well be over the cliff.

The prudent thing to do would be to take action now and hope it is not too late. Better early than too late.

Taxation is the way to go. Up the taxes - and don't recirculate more than required of the credits back into the market. Death penalty for black marketeering and corruption?

Matt Young · 30 November 2015

Sylvilagus said:
Matt Young said:
Um.â¦ Thatâs Scranton, North Carolina.
Oops, sorry! Scranton, Pennsylvania, is not all that far from the Delaware River, but its elevation seems to be over 200 m. Wikipedia says that the elevation of Scranton, North Carolina, is 0 m, and it is basically on the Atlantic coast.
If you were a creationist, you could claim that both cities are still of the Scranton "kind". Or, insist that elevation measurements are unreliable because of the Flood. Or something. But no, you decided to admit a simple mistake. And then add some new facts contributing to the general knowledge.

Or I could have changed the original article, erased the comment, and denied I'd ever written that. Like Certain Politicians. Alas, another confession: I did not look at my map carefully enough. Scranton, Pennsylvania, is in the Susquehanna River basin, not the Delaware River basin (which, of course, does not disconfirm my claim that it is "not all that far from the Delaware River").

MichaelJ · 1 December 2015

Rolf said: DS, I share your views there. An optimist by nature, I've grown quite pessimistic wrt the AGW issue and I don't know who's going to put the thumbscrew on the big spenders of the sources of greenhouse gases over which we potentially have control. The non-controllable sources are gearing up as we are debating the topic. Before we, mankind collectively agree on cuts to consumption, we may well be over the cliff. The prudent thing to do would be to take action now and hope it is not too late. Better early than too late. Taxation is the way to go. Up the taxes - and don't recirculate more than required of the credits back into the market. Death penalty for black marketeering and corruption?

It all depends on where you define the "cliff". People had said that the rise of ISIS and the refugee crisis was in part caused by droughts in the Middle East that were them selves caused by climate change. Now that has been debunked but how much change in climate do you need for marginal farming areas to become unsustainable? I think that the climate has already changed enough that what we see happening in the middle east is going to spread and become the norm.

DS · 1 December 2015

MichaelJ said: It all depends on where you define the "cliff". People had said that the rise of ISIS and the refugee crisis was in part caused by droughts in the Middle East that were them selves caused by climate change. Now that has been debunked but how much change in climate do you need for marginal farming areas to become unsustainable? I think that the climate has already changed enough that what we see happening in the middle east is going to spread and become the norm.

I think you are right. For example, the American southwest is caught in a drought that has already lasted at least four years and could last for many more. It has not yet affected food prices dramatically only because the food producers are irrigating extensively using water from underground aquifers. The aquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate. When that water is gone there is going to be a significant increase in food prices. We have known about this for at least two years, but water is still being wasted on unimportant crops and the hard decisions have been postponed. So where exactly is the cliff? Was it when the weather patterns changed? Was it when the extensive irrigation became necessary? Will it be when ground water sources are depleted? Will it be when we can no longer afford to grow almonds? Will it be when sink holes start to develop as the subsidence occurs? Will it be when the cost per pound of broccoli reaches five dollars? We will probably argue about just how bad it will get until it is too late to do anything about it.

Shebardigan · 1 December 2015

It is an observed phenomenon that adding energy to a complex nonlinear dynamical system often results in an increase of the peak-to-average ratio of some cyclical system behaviors.

Try designing an idle speed control system for a large-manifold 8-cylinder gasoline engine, e.g. to discover what things like "inflection points" and "hysteresis" mean.

So far that argument hasn't worked with the "Winter is REALLY cold. Global warming is a conspiratorial myth!" crowd, even with some of them who are actually engineers.

Rolf · 2 December 2015

There are so many things happening all at the same time. Just one example: Not long ago, Kiwi fruits -imported from Italy or New Zealand, used to be on offer at 4 for NOK 10. At present they are more like NOK 6 apiece.

But bananas (Puerto Rico?) have been surprisingly stable for quite a long time now.

So I am waiting to see bananas start going up, then we'll know something new has entered the stage and a new but progressive level has been established.

DS · 2 December 2015

And then there is the story of Lake Mead, which is near an all time low in the amount of water it holds. Was the cliff when the water flowing out of the dam started to get wormer, thus altering the down stream ecosystems? Was the cliff when millions were spent on tunneling under the lake to make sure we could drain the last drop wf water? Was the cliff reached when the point came where it would take twenty years or more for the lake to recover to historic levels, even given the best possible scenarios? Or will the cliff be when the last drop of water is gone and people start moving out of the area, only to find drought conditions and water shortages over a large area? Exactly how bad does it have to get before people realize there is a problem?

There is a well known principle in ecology, it is called sustainability. Somehow we seem to have forgotten this principle. What we are doing to the environment is not sustainable, so there will be an inevitable price to pay, whether you believe in climate change or not. Let's hope the conference will produce some real results this time.

Rolf · 2 December 2015

Just watched a documentary on melting glaciers in Bolivia. Seems like they have some real problems already and more in store!

Michael Fugate · 2 December 2015

And then there are the Republic candidates who opt for burying their heads in the sand even further:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/01/jeb-bush-says-he-would-have-probably-skipped-climate-conference/

Climate changes without human influence - so humans can't influence climate or, if we do, it will be good, or the economy won't anyone think of the economy?

Rolf · 2 December 2015

That figures, we are watching;) Mention any Bush to me and I respond like Albert Leo Schlageter

Michael Fugate · 2 December 2015

Hanns Johst's Schlageter Schauspiel Leo Schlageter Oller Fritze! (Lachend.) Dich lockt kein Paradies aus deinem Stacheldrahtverhau! Friedrich Thiemann Ne, bestimmt nicht! Stacheldraht ist Stacheldraht. Da weiÃ ich, woran ich bin... Keine Rose ohne Dornen!... Und zu allerletzt laÃ ich Ideen mir auf den Leib rÃ¼cken! Den Kram kenne ich von 18... BrÃ¼derlichkeit, Gleichheit ... Freiheit ... SchÃ¶nheit und WÃ¼rde! Mit Speck fÃ¤ngt man MÃ¤use. Auf einmal, mitten im Parlieren: HÃ¤nde hoch! Du bist entwaffnet... Du bist republikanisches Stimmvieh! â Nien, zehn Schritt vom Leibe mit dem ganzen Weltanschauungssalat... Hier wird scharf geschlossen! Wenn ich Kultur hÃ¶re... entsichere ich meinen Browning!

The famous last sentence "When I hear the word culture... I unsecure my Browning!

DS · 3 December 2015

How about salmon in the Pacific northwest. The water in the tributaries they use for spawning, already almost inaccessible due to multiple dams on the rivers, has been warming steadily for the past few years. This year there were major problems due to low snow fall and decreased spring runoff. This made the rivers lower and temperatures increased even higher, to the point where diseases became rampant and the salmon could no longer survive. Soon, it may be impossible for salmon to spawn in the rivers. Do we really have to wait until the salmon disappear completely before we realize that there is a problem? Does anyone really think that the population can be saved at the last minute by some miraculous last ditch effort?

We are already over the cliff on this one. Populations already cut off from optimal spawning sites by dams and decimated by over fishing are already experiencing mass die offs. Some of these populations may never recover. And genetic diversity has already been severely impacted, so the fish that are left probably won't be able to meet environmental changes as readily in the future. Oh well, we can always switch to farmed fish, there certainly aren't any problems with that (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Robin · 3 December 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/10/capital-weather-gang-2015-2016-winter-outlook-for-washington-d-c-stormy-and-mild-with-below-normal-snow/

JT Alden · 5 December 2015

Wow.
Must be a slow news cycle.
The evos-inbreds have now resorted to pimping Global Warming.

Matt Young : we are at the " point of no return "
Wait ........ WTF ???
Hey Matthew......... it has been much warmer in the past, and we survived quite well.
Source ? How about the Environmental Protection Agency....

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html

Tell us, Mr. Matt...... what was the CAUSATION that forced temperatures in the 1930s, to such extreme levels, if human activity is always to blame ?

Was it all those Model A automobiles being driven around ?
( Damn you Henry Ford )

To Mike Elzinga : who said..." future courses of action will determine which species, IF ANY, even SURVIVE.....blah......blah.....blah.....

Survive ? At CO2 levels around 400 ppm ?
Gosh Mikey, we've had much higher levels in the past.
Take the Cambrian Period, when CO2 levels were around 7,000 PPM.
Just slightly higher than today's so called toxic range.
Hey Mikey, the Cambrian Period proves your opinion, to be nothing more than
Total, Bogus, Bullshit. It was the EXACT OPPOSITE.
The Cambrian Period gave us an " Explosion " of life forms..... not less.

Finally, DS chimes in with....... the salmon depletion in the Northwest ?
WTF.... does this........ have to do..... with global warming ?
That's an economic problem. Too many people, living in a concentrated area, with a dam on every tributary. This has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels. Not jack-squat.

Here's some advice boys and girls.
Stick to pimping your Darwinan, delusional, projectile vomiting, aka macroevolution.
Leave global warming to the experts, like Albert Arnold.
He needs all the money he can scam, before the government grant gravy train money runs dry.
And next time, before you even think about giving us your 2 cent opinion on climate change, go visit another website first. It's run by an old friend and colleague of mine....

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

Yardbird · 5 December 2015

JT Alden said: Wow. Must be a slow news cycle. The evos-inbreds have now resorted to pimping Global Warming. Matt Young : we are at the " point of no return " Wait ........ WTF ??? Hey Matthew......... it has been much warmer in the past, and we survived quite well. Source ? How about the Environmental Protection Agency.... http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html Tell us, Mr. Matt...... what was the CAUSATION that forced temperatures in the 1930s, to such extreme levels, if human activity is always to blame ? Was it all those Model A automobiles being driven around ? ( Damn you Henry Ford ) To Mike Elzinga : who said..." future courses of action will determine which species, IF ANY, even SURVIVE.....blah......blah.....blah..... Survive ? At CO2 levels around 400 ppm ? Gosh Mikey, we've had much higher levels in the past. Take the Cambrian Period, when CO2 levels were around 7,000 PPM. Just slightly higher than today's so called toxic range. Hey Mikey, the Cambrian Period proves your opinion, to be nothing more than Total, Bogus, Bullshit. It was the EXACT OPPOSITE. The Cambrian Period gave us an " Explosion " of life forms..... not less. Finally, DS chimes in with....... the salmon depletion in the Northwest ? WTF.... does this........ have to do..... with global warming ? That's an economic problem. Too many people, living in a concentrated area, with a dam on every tributary. This has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels. Not jack-squat. Here's some advice boys and girls. Stick to pimping your Darwinan, delusional, projectile vomiting, aka macroevolution. Leave global warming to the experts, like Albert Arnold. He needs all the money he can scam, before the government grant gravy train money runs dry. And next time, before you even think about giving us your 2 cent opinion on climate change, go visit another website first. It's run by an old friend and colleague of mine.... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

Who is paying you, troll?

Just Bob · 5 December 2015

JT Alden said: Survive ? At CO2 levels around 400 ppm ? Gosh Mikey, we've had much higher levels in the past. Take the Cambrian Period, when CO2 levels were around 7,000 PPM. Just slightly higher than today's so called toxic range. Hey Mikey, the Cambrian Period proves your opinion, to be nothing more than Total, Bogus, Bullshit. It was the EXACT OPPOSITE. The Cambrian Period gave us an " Explosion " of life forms..... not less.

Were large animals -- like PEOPLE -- living on land then, and breathing like, you know, AIR?

Henry J · 5 December 2015

Not to mention that the sun was a bit smaller back then. (by about 1 % each hundred million years)

Hassan Baloch · 5 December 2015

Climate change is certainly most neglected issue nowadays. Every one is talking about it but no one is willing to devise a strategy to mitigate its dangers. Here is another research done on results of climate change. see here http://wowengineering.com/physics/climate-change-threat-flying-boulders/

gnome de net · 5 December 2015

The cited source at the Washington Post may be a little easier to read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/28/oceans/

DS · 5 December 2015

JT Alden said: Finally, DS chimes in with....... the salmon depletion in the Northwest ? WTF.... does this........ have to do..... with global warming ? That's an economic problem. Too many people, living in a concentrated area, with a dam on every tributary. This has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels. Not jack-squat. Here's some advice boys and girls. Stick to pimping your Darwinan, delusional, projectile vomiting, aka macroevolution. Leave global warming to the experts, like Albert Arnold. He needs all the money he can scam, before the government grant gravy train money runs dry. And next time, before you even think about giving us your 2 cent opinion on climate change, go visit another website first. It's run by an old friend and colleague of mine.... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

You seem to be ignorant of the science behind the phenomena you are describing. I would advise you to increase your knowledge. For example, the mass die off in the salmon population is directly attributable to altered ocean temperatures and circulation patterns, brought about by, you guessed it, global climate change. This led directly to severe drought, decreased snowfall and increased water temperatures in spawning rivers. The science here is not in dispute. The causes are well know and the effects are directly observed. Are you gong to claim that extensive and prolonged drought is not climate change" Are you going to claim the the depletion of Lake Mead is a monetary issue? Grow up and smell the crap. But thanks for proving my point that some people will deny the obvious right up to and past the time it is too late to do anything about it. As for macroevolution, you can sputter and bluster all you want, but once again the evidence is clear. Denying it won't get you anywhere. And by the way, the government gravy train is supporting big oil. Get a clue al;ready.

Matt Young · 5 December 2015

...some people will deny the obvious right up to and past the time it is too late to do anything about it.

I heard a talk by Jared Diamond a number of years ago, and he said something like,

The person who cut down the last date palm on Easter Island was still calling for another study.

Things have not improved much since.

DanHolme · 8 December 2015

JT Alden said: . It's run by an old friend and colleague of mine.... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

Is that Steven Goddard or Tony Heller, JT? And would he - and you - like to head up to Cumbria and help bale out some flooded houses? But of course that's nothing to do with climate change, right?

DS · 8 December 2015

JT Alden said: Survive ? At CO2 levels around 400 ppm ? Gosh Mikey, we've had much higher levels in the past. Take the Cambrian Period, when CO2 levels were around 7,000 PPM. Just slightly higher than today's so called toxic range. Hey Mikey, the Cambrian Period proves your opinion, to be nothing more than Total, Bogus, Bullshit. It was the EXACT OPPOSITE. The Cambrian Period gave us an " Explosion " of life forms..... not less.

Actually, it's more like 6000 ppm, maximum. But what's you point? AS Bob points out, there were no humans alive at that time, let alone over seven billion of them. (or are you one of those creationists who doesn't believe this either). It took 200 million years for all of that carbon to be sequestered. Do you really think that it is a good idea to release all of it back into the atmosphere in a two hundred year period? Sure, bacteria and cockroaches might survive, but are you really willing to risk the survival of the human species? The issue isn't so much the magnitude of the change, it's the rate of change. We might already be near carrying capacity. Rapidly and drastically altering the climate in unpredictable ways is going to lead to famine, starvation and war at the very least. Is this what you are advocating? And of course the alternative is not some unthinkable horror. It is merely developing alternative sources of energy that are sustainable, cheaper and more efficient. That's it. Why would anyone oppose this? Oh right, the people who are against this are the ones who are selling you the oil. You're not gong to fall for that are you?

DS · 8 December 2015

Climatologists tell us that the maximum amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be 350 ppm for several reasons:

1) Levels have been below that for at least 500 thousand years, therefore that is the level in which modern civilization developed.

2) That is the level to which humans and entire ecosystems are adapted. Rapid change could be catastrophic.

3) Beyond that range there are tipping points that will result in rapid, unpredictable and perhaps uncontrollable changes.

We hit 350 ppm in about 1990. We are now over 400 ppm. It is likely that some tipping points are already inevitable. Glaciers are already disappearing, ice caps are already starting to melt. temperatures are already rising, sea level is already rising. Soon the permafrost will start to melt, releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide that have been trapped for millions of years.

The front wheels are already hanging off the edge of the cliff. It was too late to turn away twenty years ago, it is too late to simply apply the brakes now. We will most likely go completely over the edge in a very short time. But even as we soar through the air, waiting for the inevitable drop, there will be those who are screaming that there is nothing wrong. If only they would look out the window they would see what has been obvious for many years now.

JT Alden · 8 December 2015

DS,

Are you claiming that the world was SOOOOOOOOOOO much better, when we had CO2 levels at 350 and under ? What a pathetic POS. Below is a link to the TRUTH instead.
Make sure you have lots of spare time on your hands when you read through all the information. It will take you HOURS upon HOURS, to comprehend all the data presented. Ultimately, it will expose your position as blatant insanity. But then again, you're an evos-inbred, who drinks macroevolution-flavored Kool-Aid everyday, so I wouldn't expect anything else.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/below350-org/

DS · 8 December 2015

JT Alden said: DS, Are you claiming that the world was SOOOOOOOOOOO much better, when we had CO2 levels at 350 and under ? What a pathetic POS. Below is a link to the TRUTH instead. Make sure you have lots of spare time on your hands when you read through all the information. It will take you HOURS upon HOURS, to comprehend all the data presented. Ultimately, it will expose your position as blatant insanity. But then again, you're an evos-inbred, who drinks macroevolution-flavored Kool-Aid everyday, so I wouldn't expect anything else. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/below350-org/

Sorry dude. No one claimed that things were better, just different. If anyone claimed things were better, it was you. And of course you completely failed to address any of my points. I'll take that to mean that you agree with them. SInce you can't even represent my position honestly, I think I'll pass on reading your propaganda. Bur feel free to read the latest IPCC report. Sounds like you really need to. Looks like you have swallowed the big oil kool aid and are now gagging on it. Better take smaller sips next time.

DS · 9 December 2015

JT,

Still a waitin cream puff. Got any answers yet? Or maybe all you can do is attack straw man arguments that no one ever made.

While you're reading the IPCC report, let me ask you a question. How old do you think the earth is? Here I'll make it easy for you:

A) Hundreds of years

B) Thousands of years

C) Millions of years

D) BIllions of years

E) TrIllions of years

Science Avenger · 12 December 2015

JT Alden said: Tell us, Mr. Matt...... what was the CAUSATION that forced temperatures in the 1930s, to such extreme levels, if human activity is always to blame ?

This sums up the basic problem underlying all the specific denials. They don't get that there has been a lot of analyses done to tease out and eliminate other potential causes. They think you just looked around and said "Golly gee, its getting warmer, must be our fault" and stopped there.

Yardbird · 12 December 2015

JT Alden said: DS, Are you claiming that the world was SOOOOOOOOOOO much better, when we had CO2 levels at 350 and under ? What a pathetic POS. Below is a link to the TRUTH instead. Make sure you have lots of spare time on your hands when you read through all the information. It will take you HOURS upon HOURS, to comprehend all the data presented. Ultimately, it will expose your position as blatant insanity. But then again, you're an evos-inbred, who drinks macroevolution-flavored Kool-Aid everyday, so I wouldn't expect anything else. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/below350-org/

Who is paying you, troll?