Author Topic: here comes the next ice age  (Read 47324 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #500 on: January 09, 2020, 06:00:28 PM »
I can't comment on the quality of historical fires but there's a difference between a fire that burns through the underbrush and the scorched earth the current fires seem to leave behind.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #501 on: January 09, 2020, 06:29:44 PM »
Quote
While nobody in here is being histrionic about it, there is plenty of chatter going on everywhere about how the fires in Auz are "clearly the result of global warming" because they're so big, and so destructive. Typically logical fallacy material for a lot of AGW types, where any evidence of extreme weather is proof of AGW, natural variability doesn't exist for them.

The problem is that those who deny climate change is happening look at events like the fires in Australia in isolation.  "These terrible fires in Australia don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in California don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in Montana don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  The same with heat waves, droughts, floods, powerful hurricanes, etc.  There were almost always worse incidents in the past.

What's happening now is that these almost-worst incidents are happening more frequently.  We have terrible fires in Australia, California, Montana, France, etc.  We have heat waves in France, Australia, California, etc.  We have floods in the Midwest, etc.  And not just regular fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and power hurricanes.  100-year floods every 50 to 25 years; heat records being broken every few years; category 5 hurricanes one after another.   When we look at the historical records, we are seeing upward trends.

Sure, AGW types tend to blame every extreme weather event on AGW.  But deniers tend to ignore the increasing frequency of these very same extreme weather events, and discount all of them as just being incidents of natural variability.

When the variability trends in one direction, that indicates a change.  And something is causing that change.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #502 on: January 09, 2020, 06:30:33 PM »
Oh, and here's one of the studies regarding fires/fire seasons in North America:

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/11/2946#sec-2

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #503 on: January 09, 2020, 06:41:38 PM »
Interesting to note that the trend of lightning-cause large wildfires is faster than those of human-caused large wildfires (see Fig. S3).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #504 on: January 09, 2020, 07:00:20 PM »
Interesting to note that the trend of lightning-cause large wildfires is faster than those of human-caused large wildfires (see Fig. S3).

It is, but at the same time it isn't, when you consider the amount of dead matter that has allowed to accumulate in a lot of our forests and other public lands. Or the invasive diseases/insects which have been killing forests off. More chances for a lightning strike to hit something which is likely to burn because it's been dead and drying out for some time.

Of course, it might also be a good proxy indicator for storms in general intensifying(more lightning in general means more circulation happening within the cloud), which can be attributed to a number of other things beyond AGW, primarily land use changes, but other factors as well.

The problem with the trend line on that particular metric is the limited time-span being covered.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2020, 07:06:07 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #505 on: January 09, 2020, 07:01:56 PM »
Gotta get out there and start raking the forest...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #506 on: January 09, 2020, 07:11:40 PM »
Gotta get out there and start raking the forest...

Not quite that silly, but in areas that haven't burned in a very long time, and aren't being grazed, it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to go in and "thin out" the undergrowth and possibly a number of trees as well.

https://www.pbs.org/video/inside-the-megafire-uzvhug/

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #507 on: January 09, 2020, 11:35:53 PM »
Optimism re climate change: the people actually doing something useful:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200109-is-it-wrong-to-be-hopeful-about-climate-change

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #508 on: January 14, 2020, 02:52:47 PM »
Quote
The problem is that those who deny climate change is happening look at events like the fires in Australia in isolation.  "These terrible fires in Australia don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in California don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in Montana don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  The same with heat waves, droughts, floods, powerful hurricanes, etc.  There were almost always worse incidents in the past.

What's happening now is that these almost-worst incidents are happening more frequently.  We have terrible fires in Australia, California, Montana, France, etc.  We have heat waves in France, Australia, California, etc.  We have floods in the Midwest, etc.  And not just regular fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and power hurricanes.  100-year floods every 50 to 25 years; heat records being broken every few years; category 5 hurricanes one after another.   When we look at the historical records, we are seeing upward trends.

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #509 on: January 14, 2020, 02:58:58 PM »

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

Give me an extremely rough prediction model for global wildfires.  What are the factors? 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #510 on: January 14, 2020, 03:54:47 PM »

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

Give me an extremely rough prediction model for global wildfires.  What are the factors?

Off the top of my head, drought and heat would be the major factors (to dry out the plants).  Periodic water to allow the plants to grow before drying them out helps, too.

So you would expect more wildfires in areas that become drier as AGW expands the desert zones.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #511 on: January 14, 2020, 05:18:31 PM »
Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

The worst since 1995? Oh my what will we ever do. If only there were records going back even further...

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #512 on: January 14, 2020, 06:38:58 PM »
If you got 'em, show 'em.

Otherwise, we gotta work with what we got.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #513 on: January 14, 2020, 06:54:17 PM »
If you got 'em, show 'em.

Otherwise, we gotta work with what we got.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
Year   Fires   Acres
2018   58,083   8,767,492
2017   71,499   10,026,086
2016   67,743   5,509,995
2015   68,151   10,125,149
2014   63,312   3,595,613

...

1952   188,277   14,187,000
1951   164,090   10,781,000
1950   208,402   15,519,000
1949   193,774   15,397,000
1948   174,189   16,557,000
1947   200,799   23,226,000
1946   172,278   20,691,000
1945   124,728   17,681,000
1944   131,229   16,549,000
1943   210,326   32,333,000
1942   208,218   31,854,000
1941   199,702   26,405,000
1940   195,427   25,848,000
1939   212,671   30,449,000

...


1931   187,214   51,607,000
1930   190,980   52,266,000
1929   134,895   46,230,000
1928   175,934   43,542,000
1927   158,438   38,531,000

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #514 on: January 14, 2020, 08:45:38 PM »
Wait wut. We had large scale data collection/aggregation of forest fires in 1927?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #515 on: January 14, 2020, 08:51:11 PM »
Whoa, cowboy!  Wayward made reference to global statistics, and in response, you provide numbers for the USA exclusively?  Oh, and from your own link:
Quote
Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #516 on: January 14, 2020, 10:02:30 PM »
Whoa, cowboy!  Wayward made reference to global statistics, and in response, you provide numbers for the USA exclusively?  Oh, and from your own link:
Quote
Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

Because methods and criteria for sourcing is not the same. So in that respect, it's a valid enough point. Unknown sources means possible duplications, or other "bad reports" in the form of "overly generous reporting."

Except there is the matter that data is data, so even with a large margin of error, the historical numbers are absolutely huge compared to modern numbers. Although I will admit that there are problems with data that suggests that an area nearly the size of Minnesota burned in 1930 at least as per their aggregate. Or that an area the size of Indiana(or bigger) was burning with regularity up until the 1940's before it suddenly was restricted to an area a little larger than Maryland during particularly bad years from the 1950's and later.

So I'll agree the early(pre-1940's) numbers are highly suspect. The 1950's numbers are likely to be pretty close to valid, as that was when Aerial resources in the form of Military Surplus bombers converted into tankers started to make an impact on both fire suppression and better information about where the burns were. Considering a lot of these fire burn in wilderness areas that it's highly unlikely that they even now send people out to verify/measure in person the areas that burned vs didn't burn. Most of that is being estimated using aerial recon or satellite imagery, then(1950's+) and now.

But the records we do have are the best we've got. And the problem with the refrain about "fires are worse now than ever before(*)" (* = since their favored record keeping started, typically in the 1980's or later) leaves a problem with cherry picked numbers and very small sample sizes.

And as mentioned before, we're also coming off of the legacy of very aggressive fire suppression starting after WW2 specifically(aerial tankers helped a lot), which lasted into the 1980's. Further compounding that problem is that by the 1980's we hard increasing amounts of human encroachment into those same forests, which meant those areas still weren't allowed to burn because of the "threat to structures"/people which is reasonable enough. But then we further compounded this starting in the 1990's when Activist Conservation groups decided to start waging an increasingly effective campaign against grazing on public lands--which allowed fuel loads to increase even further.

This also ignores that prior to Mr. White Man moving into the area, the Native Americans actually did practice proscribed burns of their own, in order to mitigate the risk of such wild fires. Both here in North America and in Auz. Yosemite National is one such example of some of that, where photos exist of the Park before any real development happened, and the park as it is now. There were extensive meadows that existed when the White Man first photographed the area, those meadows existed because the local Tribe burned that area on a semi-regular basis, to prevent trees from becoming established.

100+ years later in the care of the National Park Service? Nearly all of those meadows are gone now, they've been replaced with Trees.

"Strange, it wasn't this bad 100 years ago." Has all kinds of misnomers in play, most places didn't have 100+ years of fuel load accumulation taking place. Most places didn't have human beings around to be ignition sources during the driest times of the year. And further, even where we do have some data from 100 years ago, you don't want to trust it because the methodology is unknown/suspect. Which makes the claim even more bizzare.

"It's never been this bad before."
"How do you know that?"
"Because our records going back to the 1980's say so."
"Weren't there humans around keeping records prior to that?"
"Yes, but we can't trust them."
"So how do you know things are worse now?"
"Because the damage being observed is so much more extreme."
"Okay, that's valid enough, but that's a qualitative argument rather than a quantitative one. Is more land burning now than burned in the past historically to justify your claim? Or is it simply that the land that is burning now is burning more completely than it did in the past? If it's the former, where are you getting your numbers from as you said you can't trust the data? If it's the latter, how do you know that's not a consequence of bad land-use management practices paired with bad timing with respect to human caused wildfires? You might be looking at a correlation of other data points rather than an indicator of your preferred causation in the form of AGW."
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 10:10:56 PM by TheDeamon »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #517 on: January 15, 2020, 06:56:18 AM »
That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that your numbers are for the US only... Supposedly to refute Wayward's global numbers.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #518 on: January 15, 2020, 07:18:56 AM »
...but this is all really academic; that there are increasing numbers or amounts of wild fires is just evidence that the planet is warming.  But we already knew that the planet is warming, that 2019 was the second warmest year in all the temperature products, and almost certainly the second warmest year in the past 10,000.

Whether there were other years with greater fire extents won't change that fact.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #519 on: January 15, 2020, 07:50:01 AM »
Quote
....2019 was the second warmest year in all the temperature products, and almost certainly the second warmest year in the past 10,000.

Really? What was the exact high and the low temperature in 7,500 BC?

Why are you trying to limit it to the last 10,000 years?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #520 on: January 15, 2020, 08:17:37 AM »
That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that your numbers are for the US only... Supposedly to refute Wayward's global numbers.

Then please provide the global numbers that support the assertion.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #521 on: January 15, 2020, 08:54:00 AM »
Wayward already provided the numbers to support his assertion.  Do try to keep up.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #522 on: January 15, 2020, 09:08:30 AM »
Oh, and why 10,000 years?  That is essentially the time frame of human civilization.  If you prefer, I could have said "the last 115,000 years" - better?

Here are analyses suggesting the current period is the warmest for the past 100,000 years or so.  Of course it is possible that a single year, or a very small set of years, somehow exceeded those of the past decade - but it is not likely, and would have been exceedingly transient to not have shown up in the analyses.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-roughly-warmest-years.html

https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #523 on: January 15, 2020, 10:55:56 AM »
Never forget that such a study is a model and therefore untested. Until scientists can repeat results in an experimental setting you should treat any such assertion as a hypothesis, not a fact. In the last 20-30 years there seems to have been a surge in scientific journalism of making sensational claims about single studies or about untested hypotheses as if they are breaking news. Maybe that happened in the 30's and 40's too, who knows, but I've seen it escalating.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #524 on: January 15, 2020, 11:19:35 AM »
...but this is all really academic; that there are increasing numbers or amounts of wild fires is just evidence that the planet is warming.  But we already knew that the planet is warming, that 2019 was the second warmest year in all the temperature products, and almost certainly the second warmest year in the past 10,000.

Whether there were other years with greater fire extents won't change that fact.

Temperature products that also often have measurement intervals that can often times have measurement intervals measured in fractions of a second, comparing against historical data sets which may have been doing good to have taken hourly measurements, using mercury, which has a time lag of several minutes.

Or the historical proxy records that they reference, which likely had even more pronounced time-lags than even mercury based thermometer. You're not comparing apples to apples, and we lack sufficient data to be able to tell if we're using the proxies correctly (more specifically, that their error bars are within fractions of a degree)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #525 on: January 15, 2020, 11:31:13 AM »
I think people who spend their lives working in this area will be shocked to learn that there were neither satellites nor mercury thermometers 10,000 or 100,000 years ago...

I also note you misunderstand how using thousands of data points to generate averages can lead to greater precision/smaller uncertainty, even down to fractions of a degree, where single measurement devices have larger uncertainties.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #526 on: January 15, 2020, 12:21:09 PM »
I think people who spend their lives working in this area will be shocked to learn that there were neither satellites nor mercury thermometers 10,000 or 100,000 years ago...

I also note you misunderstand how using thousands of data points to generate averages can lead to greater precision/smaller uncertainty, even down to fractions of a degree, where single measurement devices have larger uncertainties.

I think most of the Scientists who work in this area are amazed at the level of certainty people ascribe to many of their findings and their tendency to ignore the error bars.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #527 on: January 15, 2020, 12:34:11 PM »
Quote
I think most of the Scientists who work in this area are amazed at the level of certainty people ascribe to many of their findings and their tendency to ignore the error bars.
Ah, but your previous post was questioning the scientists' findings, not how people misrepresented them.

I think it's fair to say that those scientists continue to be amazed at how some lay people continue to assume they understand the scientists' work better than the scientists themselves do...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #528 on: January 16, 2020, 07:38:29 AM »
Wayward already provided the numbers to support his assertion.  Do try to keep up.

He provided the temperature for 7500 BC? Really? That exact year? You claim we know precisely what the highest and lowest temperatures were in 7500 BC? I think your desire to be a smartass is outrunning your ability to be honest again.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #529 on: January 16, 2020, 07:43:09 AM »
Oh, and why 10,000 years?  That is essentially the time frame of human civilization.  If you prefer, I could have said "the last 115,000 years" - better?

Here are analyses suggesting the current period is the warmest for the past 100,000 years or so.  Of course it is possible that a single year, or a very small set of years, somehow exceeded those of the past decade - but it is not likely, and would have been exceedingly transient to not have shown up in the analyses.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-roughly-warmest-years.html

https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/
h

You pick these because you’re cherry picking. We all know this. You pick an artificially small slice of time that shows what you want and demand that everyone believe it represents the entirety of planetary history. It’s a logical fallacy to do this, and you know that.


Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #530 on: January 16, 2020, 08:01:48 AM »
Oh, and why 10,000 years?  That is essentially the time frame of human civilization.  If you prefer, I could have said "the last 115,000 years" - better?

Here are analyses suggesting the current period is the warmest for the past 100,000 years or so.  Of course it is possible that a single year, or a very small set of years, somehow exceeded those of the past decade - but it is not likely, and would have been exceedingly transient to not have shown up in the analyses.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-roughly-warmest-years.html

https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/
h

You pick these because you’re cherry picking. We all know this. You pick an artificially small slice of time that shows what you want and demand that everyone believe it represents the entirety of planetary history. It’s a logical fallacy to do this, and you know that.

For once I agree with Crunch's truth seeking missile of logical doubtness.  The earth is over 4 billion years old, and we know that in the first 500,000,000 or so years the planet was MUCH hotter than at any time in recent memory (agree?), and it was during that time that life was first put on the earth and proliferated wildly to what is here now.  Compare that to whining that a few species might go extinct sooner or later.  How come you aren't including that in your oh-so-smug claims about global things?

[Drive by, sorry.]

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #531 on: January 16, 2020, 08:05:28 AM »
100,000 years is a small slice of time - really? Show me any analyses that go for, say, 1,000,000 years that show decadal rates of increase in temperatures that match or exceed those of the past several decades.

As for the "assertion" - since you injected yourself into a discussion where Wayward made an assertion - actually, the European Space Agency made it - that 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years back to 1995 - you should really understand to what you are responding before you actually respond.

Now, my response was simply that TheDaemon's attempt to refute Wayward's point on a longer time scale failed because his numbers were both regional only (literally including only 2% of the planet's surface) and were also self admittedly non-comparable across the time frame presented.  I don't need numbers to make that point - just the ability to read.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #532 on: January 16, 2020, 09:56:49 AM »
100,000 years is a small slice of time - really? Show me any analyses that go for, say, 1,000,000 years that show decadal rates of increase in temperatures that match or exceed those of the past several decades.

I'm really  not sure where you think you are going with this, but you do realize that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age right?  I thought that's why you picked "10,000" out of your hat was to (very roughly and inaccurately) correspond to the start of the inter-glacial period. 

There are no decadal rates (other than by assumption) that go back 10k years, there are none that go back 100k years or 1m years either.  But the evidence that we do have indicates that the exit from a glacial period is "rapid" (but what that means, isn't entirely clear).   If you go back 1m years you're going to see at least a dozen entries into a glacial period (which are gradual) and exits out of them (which are "sudden").  It would be stunning if these "rates" of change have no historical precedent against that backdrop.

Quote
Now, my response was simply that TheDaemon's attempt to refute Wayward's point on a longer time scale failed because his numbers were both regional only (literally including only 2% of the planet's surface) and were also self admittedly non-comparable across the time frame presented.  I don't need numbers to make that point - just the ability to read.

You can do is show that a reference doesn't prove that claim.  There's no way to refute the claim without better knowledge (no reason to accept it either).  Even indirect evidence though can be a reasonable proxy where there's a comment element (ie human's changing how fires are prevented and stopped).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 09:59:29 AM by Seriati »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #533 on: January 16, 2020, 12:16:00 PM »
Quote
you do realize that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age right?
This is shocking! Why didn't anybody tell us this?!?!
Quote
I thought that's why you picked "10,000" out of your hat was to (very roughly and inaccurately) correspond to the start of the inter-glacial period.
If you realize it is not accurate, why would you point it out and then immediately show your assumption to be inaccurate?  I mean, you didn't actually need to make an assumption, since I explicitly stated my rationale in a very recent post, i.e., "That is essentially the time frame of human civilization".  It's also a nice round number ending all in zeroes, just like 1,000,000 does as well.
Quote
You can do is show that a reference doesn't prove that claim.
I'm not sure exactly what this was meant to convey, but if I were to guess, this is exactly what I did: I showed that TheDaemon's reference does not in fact support his claim.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #534 on: January 16, 2020, 12:35:05 PM »
So you deliberately picked a period of time that is an anomaly to use to make your claim that there are no comparable rates of change?  Apparently even knowing that they exist in periods immediately prior to the period selected and in the historical record.  That makes little sense.

You didn't.  They are indirect support.  You didn't show that they don't indirectly support his claim.  Given that virtually all of climate science relies on indirect support that seems a big problem.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #535 on: January 16, 2020, 01:03:52 PM »
 ::)

I know you don't understand how 2% of the globe, completely segregated geographically from the rest of the globe, and having substantially different land use practices than most of the rest of the globe, is not necessarily representative of the planet in total, and cannot be used to generalize to the rest of the globe... but other people do. 

For instance, the dust bowl years of the 1930s in the USA - those years were very hot and dry in parts of the USA, but globally, that decade was basically average for the duration of the instrumental record.

Other people also understand that, when a source says "these numbers are not comparable" it is a fools errand to pretend that they are comparable.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #536 on: January 16, 2020, 01:20:32 PM »
How does your patronizing response stand up to your own reference to the last 10k years when looking at the unprecendented decadal rate of change (that is likely not unprecedented)?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #537 on: January 16, 2020, 01:23:53 PM »
Where's the evidence that the change is likely not unprecedented?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #538 on: January 16, 2020, 02:13:17 PM »
Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

The link you reference shows 2018 to 2019, which is where the "exceptional" change in fires is reported.  Not aware that 2018 was somehow a "cold" spot, wasn't 2015-2019 on record as the "warmest"?

Why do I bring that up?  Well there's another interesting coincidence.  The second Sentinel-3 satellite was launched in 2018 (the first in 2016).  The Sentinel-3's have twice the resolution of the satellites (500m) that were used previously by the ESA to measure infrared (1k).  If you take a close look at the numbers produced by ESA you'll see somewhere in the neighborhood of under 250k fires in 2019 and under 150k in 20218 (the chart in your link only shows through September).  Yet the NASA numbers record 13 million for 2003 to 2016 (that's a million per year pace).  Why is ESA only showing 15-25% of NASA's numbers?

The change from 2018 to 2019 is interesting because it's on the same instruments, the changes from 1995 forward are across 3 generations of ESA satellites, and maybe are less meaningful.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #539 on: January 16, 2020, 03:04:11 PM »
Where's the evidence that the change is likely not unprecedented?

It's kind of tough to say now isn't it?  You're welcome to look at the charts (any google search for interglacial period or ice age will bring up dozens if not hundreds of treatments) that have been  compiled to show the estimates of temperature before, during and after the interglacial periods.  They all pretty much agree that entry into the glacial period is gradual and keeps increasing to a point, and then bam, temperature rapidly rises by a large degree and kicks of off a melting and an interglacial.  How rapid?  no one really knows with any accuracy.  Quite possibly far slower than the current change, but then again, maybe not.  We don't have much in the way of direct measurement to use as a baseline. 

But it seems silly to narrow the scale to just an interglacial period, and then make a claim that something is unprecedented when if could look exactly like the process that occurred almost immediately prior to that period.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #540 on: January 16, 2020, 03:26:20 PM »
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #541 on: January 16, 2020, 03:50:27 PM »
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

I think the question never has been "what will it take to convince you we should protect the enviroment?" I mean, maybe for certain harcore industrialists ('who cares about a bunch of damn trees and monkeys') that really is an issue, but mostly I think people would be for conservation, reducing pollution especially, and 'saving the rainforest' type of ideas. The question is always how much to spend on or sacrifice for those things. Most people want to sacrifice very little, or even nothing. They'll recycle, if it's easy, not messy, and they barely have to lift a finger. They'll throw out trash, if the can is right in front of them. If they have to walk a block then they may throw the plastic on the ground.

What I suspect Seriati is pushing back against isn't the idea that we may need to cut back on emissions or to update our energy sources. I think the pushback comes from "and we need to do it right now! it's an emergency!" I'm not taking a side right now but just pointing out that the pushback seems to come as a result of seemingly high demands being made in the immediacy, but that come along with no short or long-term plans of how this will function economically. And what's more, it seems to lack a sense of what it will achieve towards its stated goal. Even if you obtained 100% full agreement that 'something must be done now' you might still receive pushback on what those steps should be. So far the main plan seems to be to...uh...stop producing, or maybe to just charge people for carbon use and it will stop that way. Presumably along with the general economy. But it's more likely you'd get agreement in the form of "it would be nice to do something, but along what timeframe? 30 years? 50?" The 'RIGHT NOW' refrain is part of the problem, which goes along with the apocalyptic warnings Crunch keeps making fun of.

So it can be tough to see, but 'sit on our hands' is not the only conclusion you might draw from "we will not accept your mandate to DO SOMETHING now regardless of whether there is a functional something on the table, and without knowing what damage the plan might do." Being averse to signficant sacrifice, especially when not even knowing if there will be a payoff, is not irrational. You might say it will prove to be wrong in hindsight, but it's not irrational. Pushback against individual claims may feel like climate science denial to you, but in fact it's a resistance to the entire movement and all the political baggage that comes along with it. I don't think you would find Seriati or TheDeamon opposed to an infrastructure update to the U.S. that featured solar and nuclear power, for instance (I'm guessing!), and a reduction in non-renewable resources. It's a question of what's on the table.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #542 on: January 16, 2020, 03:57:05 PM »
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #543 on: January 16, 2020, 04:15:22 PM »
By the way, this is an extreme event (at least as far as we understand it.  Take a look at the Younder Dryas and how it  ended (from Britannica):

"The Younger Dryas event (12,800 to 11,600 years ago) is the most intensely studied and best-understood example of abrupt climate change. The event took place during the last deglaciation, a period of global warming when the Earth system was in transition from a glacial mode to an interglacial one. The Younger Dryas was marked by a sharp drop in temperatures in the North Atlantic region; cooling in northern Europe and eastern North America is estimated at 4 to 8 °C (7.2 to 14.4 °F). Terrestrial and marine records indicate that the Younger Dryas had detectable effects of lesser magnitude over most other regions of Earth. The termination of the Younger Dryas was very rapid, occurring within a decade."

Only bring it up because of the statement that it ended within a decade (and therefore would be evidence that such an even it no "unprecedented").  Makes sense given the cause. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #544 on: January 16, 2020, 04:15:37 PM »
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward.

Well, I'd be more convinced if they had reliable observation records from a thousand years ago that they could cross-reference against ice cores, soil sediments, etc. As it would give them a reliable cross-check against their predictions for the ice-core samples and the projections they're making with them.

Something they might be able to do in a thousand years, but they cannot do right now.

More realistically, it should be able to be largely validated in another handful centuries depending on the specific location. It's just a matter of waiting long enough for ice from the 1960's and later to be buried in several dozen, if not hundreds, of feet of other snow/ice.   

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #545 on: January 16, 2020, 04:18:08 PM »
 How dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #546 on: January 16, 2020, 04:20:23 PM »
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward.

That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #547 on: January 16, 2020, 04:28:25 PM »
What I suspect Seriati is pushing back against isn't the idea that we may need to cut back on emissions or to update our energy sources. I think the pushback comes from "and we need to do it right now! it's an emergency!" I'm not taking a side right now but just pointing out that the pushback seems to come as a result of seemingly high demands being made in the immediacy, but that come along with no short or long-term plans of how this will function economically. And what's more, it seems to lack a sense of what it will achieve towards its stated goal. Even if you obtained 100% full agreement that 'something must be done now' you might still receive pushback on what those steps should be. So far the main plan seems to be to...uh...stop producing, or maybe to just charge people for carbon use and it will stop that way. Presumably along with the general economy. But it's more likely you'd get agreement in the form of "it would be nice to do something, but along what timeframe? 30 years? 50?" The 'RIGHT NOW' refrain is part of the problem, which goes along with the apocalyptic warnings Crunch keeps making fun of.

So it can be tough to see, but 'sit on our hands' is not the only conclusion you might draw from "we will not accept your mandate to DO SOMETHING now regardless of whether there is a functional something on the table, and without knowing what damage the plan might do." Being averse to signficant sacrifice, especially when not even knowing if there will be a payoff, is not irrational. You might say it will prove to be wrong in hindsight, but it's not irrational. Pushback against individual claims may feel like climate science denial to you, but in fact it's a resistance to the entire movement and all the political baggage that comes along with it. I don't think you would find Seriati or TheDeamon opposed to an infrastructure update to the U.S. that featured solar and nuclear power, for instance (I'm guessing!), and a reduction in non-renewable resources. It's a question of what's on the table.

That and the matter that "do something" itself, often in respect to what their proposed "something" is, is of questionable effectiveness according to their own models. Those models also fail to account for the other disruptions and environmental(/wildlife) impacts those measures entail if applied at the requisite scale.

Of course, the other side of the dispute is disagreement over claims about how "bad" things will get in the event that the predicted warming does happen. The doomsday scenarios are just that, doomsday scenarios. Would things change? Certainly. Would things have likely changed anyway? Probably, the climate record we have to date indicates change is pretty much inevitable, even without human contributions.

As to Nuclear, I'm all for it. Both Fission and Fusion. I'm highly disappointed that there isn't a stronger "green" push in regards to Fusion research myself. But as it stands, if we want to "decarbonize" using existing technology, the only way it works, with dedicating truly mind-boggling amounts of land to wind/solar, is to go heavy into Nuclear Fission for now.

That most of the Climate Activists don't want to event discuss Nuclear anything, and instead fixate on Solar and Wind, says they're a joke and not looking at it in any depth.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #548 on: January 16, 2020, 04:28:40 PM »
Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

Just a point about psychology: I think for many or even most people, when they begin at "too difficult to fix" they are going to immediately revert to "it's not happening" as their belief. I think there are a great many truths in the world that, knowing they are powerless to stop them, people will wilfully refuse to believe are true. In fact they will fight to the death to avoid having to see what they don't want to see. So while I'm sure corporate PR strategies may well take the form of that list, on an individual basis I think denial of various things goes much deeper than just being stubborn. Despair on a subject will make people believe all sorts of things. Real solutions would do more to alleviate this than trying to get people to admit there's a problem (that they can do nothing about).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #549 on: January 16, 2020, 04:35:05 PM »
That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

1) Nobody disputes the warming is happening, the cause is in dispute. (As are some of the methodologies being used to claim the extent of said warming)

2) Yes, how bad it is in dispute and anyone who claims it's only going to be bad has a very high bar to cross on that one.

3) "It's not our fault" was previously covered in #1, but it's also relevant that if we're seeing "natural variability" in play, nothing we do about "our contribution" is going to change anything, because in that case, we had little to do with what's being observed.

4) This goes back to #1 and #3, if it's mostly natural variability in play. We're not just talking about "fixing" our own contribution, we're talking about trying to counter-act mother nature herself. But in order to do that effectively,  we need to understand how Mother Nature is doing it. But as we're stuck in the clutches of the cult of we're doing it, we're not progressing very well on that front.