Climate change skeptic turned proponent

[emilynghiem]

The more people who accept the evidence, the better the chance of saving our planet. Kudos to him.

Until "accepting the evidence" leads to actually doing something about it, there is little to no hope. Unfortunately, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is very profitable while other methods of energy production are far less so. Unless that changes...

Is there any reason the same arguments against pollution and toxicity can't be made on the basis of pollution and toxicity? Why does it HAVE to be argued on the basis of "changing temperature or climate"

Isn't environmental destruction enough to call it for what it is?
And agree to preserve resources and not pollute or destroy the planet?

??? We'd already agree by now, if it was good enough to just agree to stop pollution and destruction of natural environment.

Why the added agenda? This merely creates more suspicion and accusations that the carbon credits is some monopolized way to make money and take political control over the issue. Can't that factor be removed and just focus on saving the environment for its own sake?

Anybody?

[FatAndFaithless]

Uh..what exactly do you think climate change is?

[orogenicman]

Until "accepting the evidence" leads to actually doing something about it, there is little to no hope. Unfortunately, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is very profitable while other methods of energy production are far less so. Unless that changes...

Is there any reason the same arguments against pollution and toxicity can't be made on the basis of pollution and toxicity? Why does it HAVE to be argued on the basis of "changing temperature or climate"

Isn't environmental destruction enough to call it for what it is?
And agree to preserve resources and not pollute or destroy the planet?

??? We'd already agree by now, if it was good enough to just agree to stop pollution and destruction of natural environment.

Why the added agenda? This merely creates more suspicion and accusations that the carbon credits is some monopolized way to make money and take political control over the issue. Can't that factor be removed and just focus on saving the environment for its own sake?

Anybody?

The only way to achieve carbon neutrality in our actions is with a political consensus that the science is right, and political action to make it so. I don't know how that is going to be achieved unless those who oppose it are either convinced of the science, or else are made a political minority. The solution has to have a political component. Otherwise, nothing changes.

[Aractus]

You have to show that rate of antropogenic CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is equal to the rate of CO2 absorbed by the ocean. However, we know this is not the case since the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up by 40% according to your numbers.

Also, the ocean water store a lot of natural GHG. As the water warms up, it can holds less and less GHG, giving a positive feedback.

That explanation you just gave off the top of your head is incorrect. It's actually the deep-ocean activity that dictates the capacity for CO2 absorption by the oceans. Furthermore it's the deep-ocean currents which itself may be the true driving factor for climate change.

As the surface temperature increases, ice melts which reduces the amount of light reflected back into space. Hence, a positive feedback.

Actually again that's not entirely true. If temperatures had not increased at all in the 20th century and had stayed the same throughout that time there would still be some Arctic melting, and glaciers would still be melting also because the climate is unable to sustain them. Global warming in the 20th century has accelerated this, but it didn't start it.

[Surgenator]

You have to show that rate of antropogenic CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is equal to the rate of CO2 absorbed by the ocean. However, we know this is not the case since the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up by 40% according to your numbers.

Also, the ocean water store a lot of natural GHG. As the water warms up, it can holds less and less GHG, giving a positive feedback.

That explanation you just gave off the top of your head is incorrect. It's actually the deep-ocean activity that dictates the capacity for CO2 absorption by the oceans. Furthermore it's the deep-ocean currents which itself may be the true driving factor for climate change.

Source please.

How well does this deep-ocean current model predict the rise in temperature we are observing?

As the surface temperature increases, ice melts which reduces the amount of light reflected back into space. Hence, a positive feedback.

Actually again that's not entirely true. If temperatures had not increased at all in the 20th century and had stayed the same throughout that time there would still be some Arctic melting, and glaciers would still be melting also because the climate is unable to sustain them. Global warming in the 20th century has accelerated this, but it didn't start it.

If temperatures had stayed the same, some ice will melt and some water will freeze. There would be an equilibrium between the two processes like we observed in the 18th and 19th century. You have to explain why the glaciers are not growing as fast as they're melting (on average). Why can't the climate not sustain them?

[Aractus]

If temperatures had stayed the same, some ice will melt and some water will freeze. There would be an equilibrium between the two processes like we observed in the 18th and 19th century. You have to explain why the glaciers are not growing as fast as they're melting (on average). Why can't the climate not sustain them?

"All ice bodies on Kilimanjaro have retreated drastically between 1912–2003. Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003]. Though the processes responsible for the formation of the vertical walls is still not well understood, once established, the vertical wall retreat is irreversible, and no change in 20th century climate appears to have significantly altered their ongoing demise.

...

"Rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them."

[Surgenator]

If temperatures had stayed the same, some ice will melt and some water will freeze. There would be an equilibrium between the two processes like we observed in the 18th and 19th century. You have to explain why the glaciers are not growing as fast as they're melting (on average). Why can't the climate not sustain them?

"All ice bodies on Kilimanjaro have retreated drastically between 1912–2003. Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003]. Though the processes responsible for the formation of the vertical walls is still not well understood, once established, the vertical wall retreat is irreversible, and no change in 20th century climate appears to have significantly altered their ongoing demise.

...

"Rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them."

So let me get this straight. I state that there was an equilibrium in the 18th and 19th century. So to counter my claim, you quote something that happened in the 20th ad 21st century. You're at least a century off. However, I will admit that I oversimplified how glaziers behave and jumped to an unjustified conclusion. I will like to point out that I was originally talking about ice in general not specifically glaciers. Nevertheless, glacier formation/erosion depend on more than just the air temperature. Rainfall, vertical walls, dust/ash and solar radiation also have to be taken into account. Finally, the little ice age (1300-1800) caused glaciers to advance well beyond previous regions. So we would expect glaciers to recede following the little ice age.

Getting back on topic, you cannot explain the recent changes.

Consistent with most mountain glaciers worldwide, glaciers in the tropical Andes have been retreating at an increasing rate since the late 1970s. The rate of current
retreat appears to be unprecedented since the LIA maximum, i.e. since the second half of the 17th century and the early 18th century.

And also what is happening to glaciers on a global scale.

After 1975, glacier shrinkage continues to accelerate until present. The mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.

The ice is melting faster than normal. Care to give a hypothesis on what such a driven force could be. Those deep ocean currents would have a tough time reaching glaciers located on mountains. Unless there was some positive feedback mechanism.