Western US could lose up to 60% of the annual snowpack in the next 30 years

[Monique]

This is quite the alarming statement and I'm not sure there is any evidence that points to it being even remotely true.

Okay, that's fair. Note I did say *if*.

Can we agree that, IF the sea level rises by 1-2 meters ... hundreds of thousands of people would be displaced because their homes would be underwater? That there would be significant impact on food supplies internationally?


How many people internationally need to be at risk for the US to look at whether we can do something to turn things around? At what percentage likelihood should we attempt to take action, even if it turns out (not that we will ever know for sure) that the risk was overstated? How confident do we need to be in the correctness of our action (ie, that it will make things better for us, not worse) before we choose that action?

These are not meant to be alarmist rhetorical questions. These are serious questions that we as humans do need to answer.

 

[Monique]

These are not meant to be alarmist rhetorical questions. These are serious questions that we as humans do need to answer.

I guess we don't *need* to answer them. We can just see how it plays out. That's how we handle a lot of things by default.

 

[Jully]

I guess we don't *need* to answer them. We can just see how it plays out. That's how we handle a lot of things by default.

Again, the US is watching, many other countries (not necessarily all though) are very much acting.

The Netherlands solutions for SLR are impressive and horrifying compared to what the US has.

 

[Fishbowl]

Science should never be political. Public policy, what to do with scientific findings, is....but that's not the focus of this discussion.

Science istself is not an is not an exact science. Scientists do not always agree, so when people say "you can't argue with science", they are really saying "you can't argue with my scientists."

Everything from how studies are funded, to how data is collected, correlated, sorted, analyzed and the conclusions drawn can be subject to influence. And that influence is often financial, professional, religious or political. So when the science itself is debateable, it is inevitable that the discussion will become political.

 

[Monique]

Science istself is not an is not an exact science. Scientists do not always agree, so when people say "you can't argue with science", they are really saying "you can't argue with my scientists."

Everything from how studies are funded, to how data is collected, correlated, sorted, analyzed and the conclusions drawn can be subject to influence. And that influence is often financial, professional, religious or political. So when the science itself is debateable, it is inevitable that the discussion will become political.

This is not incorrect. Science is, hopefully, converging on Truth, in fits and starts. Much that was believed because Science has since been disproven.

And yet ... at what point do we decide there is enough data to act? Enough consensus among experts? Should the layperson's opinion have a place at all?

Again, honest questions.

 

[TonyC]

This is not incorrect. Science is, hopefully, converging on Truth, in fits and starts. Much that was believed because Science has since been disproven.

And yet ... at what point do we decide there is enough data to act? Enough consensus among experts? Should the layperson's opinion have a place at all?

Again, honest questions.

And excellent questions. I think climate science is still somewhat in its infancy. The broad scientific consensus is really only with respect to the overall warming trend and that greenhouse gases are the primary driver since 1950 or so. Predicting when that ongoing rise in temperatures will accelerate sea level rise or change regional climates wetter or drier, I don't think any one has a good handle on those kind of questions yet.

His other prediction is that in the winter of 2019-2020 or 2020-2021 that we will receive record snow fall, up to 800 in. at local resorts and 300-400 in. at lower elevations like Couer d Alene.

This is the kind of prediction where you're really sticking your neck out. Like Joe Bastardi's call for plunging temperatures starting in 2017, I'd place very long odds against an extreme event like this being called for a specific year.

 

[Lofcaudio]

Can we agree that, IF the sea level rises by 1-2 meters ... hundreds of thousands of people would be displaced because their homes would be underwater?

I can agree with that. That's considerably different than saying that a large fraction of billions will suffer and die.

That there would be significant impact on food supplies internationally?

It certainly seems that it would be reasonable to expect for a sea level rise to impact food supplies, but what remains to be seen is whether such impact is positive or negative. Most of the focus is solely on the negative aspects which create fear, when there is the possibility that the rise in the earth's temperature could ultimately be a good thing.

 

[dlague]

Western US could lose up to 60% of the annual snowpack in the next 30 years

Wait, reading the title, seems like they were saying this 30 years ago?

 

[TonyC]

A few years ago my wife and I visited a rebuilt original Viking camp that was approx. 75 yards from the Baltic sea. The camp was carbon dated to the decade of 1350 AD. When we were there in 2012 the water was 1/2 mile away. The Vikings went to Greenland and established a colony and grew corn. Now that was a "warm" period in the earths millions of years of history.

Yes there are other such examples about the Medieval Warming. There are Inuit remains on Ellsmere Island, where it is still too severe for for them to live now. Iceland's glaciers were smaller when it was settled 1,000 years ago than now. Receding glaciers in the Alps are uncovering human and tree remains. So when I see claims that "temperatures now are the warmest in some number well over 1,000 years," I'm calling BS.

Can we agree that, IF the sea level rises by 1-2 meters ... hundreds of thousands of people would be displaced because their homes would be underwater?

Since the argument against taking preventative action is based upon economic cost, the argument of the economic cost of relocating hundreds of millions of people out of coastal cities should be enough in favor of such action regardless of whether a lot of them die.

It certainly seems that it would be reasonable to expect for a sea level rise to impact food supplies, but what remains to be seen is whether such impact is positive or negative. Most of the focus is solely on the negative aspects which create fear, when there is the possibility that the rise in the earth's temperature could ultimately be a good thing.

I'll hazard a guess here that ongoing warming would be quite favorable for Russia and Canada in terms of food production and perhaps a few other things. But for the majority of the world's population it's reasonable to expect more negative than positive impacts.

 

[albertanskigirl]

This is some of the research that I find the most fascinating (and the scariest). Most people in the general public don't know this ,.but 'it's not widely reported in climate-related news. Many people don't know there is a carbon cycle of which the oceans are a huge part. I know the microbial ecosystems in the Arctic were being studied back in the 1990's.....one of the women in one of my remote sensing grad classes was working on this in Alaska for NOAA.

The above mentioned research is a big reason why the public needs to trust scientists to do their thing. There's a great deal more to climate research than is published in news outlets. Armchair meteorologists and weather observers, or those who cherry-pick just a few data sets, aren't seeing the whole picture.

I think this is for me one of the most annoying parts about the climate change debate - it is so focused on weather. And people think that looking at weather logs etc is reliable. There are other datasets (ie microbial composition of the Arctic ocean) that are really irrefutable, and yes, there is consensus that the seas are different. I think that is the stuff that needs to get out there more, and it would do a hell of a lot more for convincing climate change skeptics than weather.

As for sea level rise - hundreds of thousands is an understatement. Much research is currently ongoing in the Subcontinent, as it is a particularly vulnerable area:

"Climate change in Bangladesh has started what may become the largest mass migration in human history. In recent years, riverbank erosion has annually displaced between 50,000 and 200,000 people. The population of what the Bangladesh government calls “immediately threatened” islands, called “chars,” exceeds four million."

This isn't a scientific article, but it summarizes well what the government has had to do already in the past few years:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/

And don't forget that mass migration isn't actually some of the worst stuff associated with rising sea levels - don't forget contaminated groundwater and the salination of soil - which means agriculture will become impossible in some coastal regions.

 

[albertanskigirl]

This is some of the research that I find the most fascinating (and the scariest). Most people in the general public don't know this ,.but 'it's not widely reported in climate-related news. Many people don't know there is a carbon cycle of which the oceans are a huge part. I know the microbial ecosystems in the Arctic were being studied back in the 1990's.....one of the women in one of my remote sensing grad classes was working on this in Alaska for NOAA.

The above mentioned research is a big reason why the public needs to trust scientists to do their thing. There's a great deal more to climate research than is published in news outlets. Armchair meteorologists and weather observers, or those who cherry-pick just a few data sets, aren't seeing the whole picture.

I think this is for me one of the most annoying parts about the climate change debate - it is so focused on weather. And people think that looking at weather logs etc is reliable. There are other datasets (ie microbial composition of the Arctic ocean) that are really irrefutable, and yes, there is consensus that the seas are different. I think that is the stuff that needs to get out there more, and it would do a hell of a lot more for convincing climate change skeptics than weather.

As for sea level rise - hundreds of thousands is an understatement. Much research is currently ongoing in the Subcontinent, as it is a particularly vulnerable area:

"Climate change in Bangladesh has started what may become the largest mass migration in human history. In recent years, riverbank erosion has annually displaced between 50,000 and 200,000 people. The population of what the Bangladesh government calls “immediately threatened” islands, called “chars,” exceeds four million."

This isn't a scientific article, but it summarizes well what the government has had to do already in the past few years:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/

And don't forget that mass migration isn't actually some of the worst stuff associated with rising sea levels - don't forget contaminated groundwater and the salination of soil - which means agriculture will become impossible in some coastal regions.

 

[Monique]

As for sea level rise - hundreds of thousands is an understatement.

Absolutely. I was looking for a threshold low enough that I thought all reasonable (and even some unreasonable) people could accept in the discussion.

 

[Guy in Shorts]

I'm still amazed that people think that they can control the weather by driving a Tesla . If the infestation of the earth by humans is truly causing a global climate disaster then population control has to be in the solution mix. Time to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona and let those sea levels rise.

 

[Eleeski]

My son is a performer in the Waterworld show at Universal Studios. People will survive.

I want a Tesla and will justify it any way I can.

Eric

 

[Sibhusky]

I heard someone, somewhere (super reliable, right) comment that USians are the only people who absolutely must have an opinion about everything. S/he commented that in most places, it's not expected for you to have an opinion about things outside your area of expertise/experience. I wonder if this relates. And I wonder if it's even true ...

My brother is one of those. Living expert on everything. There is nothing he doesn't have an opinion on, and he'll back it up with long winded monologues that I want to Google every statement. He probably thinks I'm an airhead, because my response is usually, let's have another beer, and start looking for the waiter. It's just not worth it. THERE IS A TON OF STUFF I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT. Except ski tuning.

 

[Monique]

My brother is one of those. Living expert on everything. There is nothing he doesn't have an opinion on, and he'll back it up with long winded monologues that I want to Google every statement. He probably thinks I'm an airhead, because my response is usually, let's have another beer, and start looking for the waiter. It's just not worth it. THERE IS A TON OF STUFF I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT. Except ski tuning.

I had a friend who had to argue every gd thing to the Nth degree. Every nuance of a disagreement or even uncertainty had to be defended vigorously and analyzed from every point of view.

I couldn't take it anymore.

Sometimes, yes. When both parties feel up to it and think it's fun or interesting. But not every conversation.

 

[jack97]

[QUOTE="Eleeski, post: 130430, member: 166"
I want a Tesla and will justify it any way I can.

[/QUOTE]

Not sure if I feel the same way. The battery revolution has other ramifications.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...ution-powering-social-and-environmental-risks

 

[DanoT]

While I am retired now, I spent most of my working life in the forest industry and as such I have encountered more than my share of anti-logging zealots. These are "the end justifies the means" people and as such are willing to manipulate or ignore facts to fit their agenda.

Now look at the part in bold below. Has scientific investigation lost some objectivity or all objectivity when scientist are out to save the world? Where is officer Joe Friday when you need him? "Just the facts madame". (I guess I am dating myself here by quoting Dragnet from the 1950s.)

But seriously, I have good reason to be a skeptic when it comes to the experts and what they are telling us if they have an agenda.

Apples and oranges. Climate models are long term (that's the definition of climate)' while weather is short term. (As are presidential election models....they only go months out as opposed to decades or centuries).. No climate scientist will deny that super snowy winters can still occur....in fact, climate change points to wilder weather swings, which by definition, include both snowier and drier winters, They key is that the long-term trend is toward warmer and drier. The doesn't mean outlier winters can't exist.

However, some climatologists are saying that the recent difficulty in forecasting weather as of late is due to a lot of atmospheric variables that are no longer following their usual patterns.

Climate change/global warming was a Thing back when I was a geology student in the 1980's. The anthropogenic effect on warming was making its mark......what was different then was the poorer quality and lesser number of satellites. And, a lot of remote sensing data (taken by spy planes, etc) was still classified and not used for general scientific research. Moreover, computer models were more archaic, and the lack of data affects the accuracy of the models. So, the mainstream media did not pick up on research abstracts and report to the general public.

What has changed within the last decade or so: 1) increase in satellite/remote sensing data, 2) increase in on-the-ground field work, 3)huge improvement in computer models 4) better data to input into said models, 5) better understanding of thermodynamics and the role of the oceans in our climate (which is huge). 6) better instrumentation, including mass spectrometry, that has contributed to our knowledge of isotope chemistry (which plays a large role in our understanding of past climates and tracing of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans).

I'm fortunate to know some climate scientists, and they are some of the smartest, most dedicated, and most adventuresome people I know. They see their role as trying to save the planet,

As a trained geologist, I am used to examining change and time in terms of millions of years. My perspective is different from one without such training. So when it comes to climate change, change in terms of decades or a hundred years is frighteningly fast. Another thing I've learned as a result of my training: Mother Nature always wins,


.

 

[TonyC]

While I am retired now, I spent most of my working life in the forest industry and as such I have encountered more than my share of anti-logging zealots. These are "the end justifies the means" people and as such are willing to manipulate or ignore facts to fit their agenda.

Environmental purity does lead to paralysis and doing nothing. You're heard of NIMBY (not in my backyard). There
is also the mindset of BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).

So yes the Democratic Republic of the Congo is and has been a exploitative hellhole almost continuously since the Belgians got there in the 19th century. And I'm sure the Chinese don't give a #%& how the cobalt is mined there. But I'd rather see the Chinese mining that cobalt for electric cars that building thousands more coal power plants.

 

[DanoT]

So yes the Democratic Republic of the Congo is and has been a exploitative hellhole almost continuously since the Belgians got there in the 19th century. And I'm sure the Chinese don't give a #%& how the cobalt is mined there. But I'd rather see the Chinese mining that cobalt for electric cars that building thousands more coal power plants.

China has recently announced that they are mandating a huge increase in electric cars. Never mind battery production and use, the electricity to charge the batteries has to come from somewhere. So won't that mean even more coal fired power plants, not less?