[PhysBang]

The "Gulf Stream Thing" is something debated by actual climate scientists. You focus on it because it is dubious and the scientists agree. You ignore the actual problems, like the link I posted and that was reposted above at least once.

[jeffreyH]

I worked for around 10 years in hydrological analysis. Using data that we collected. Not just making assumptions. We saw the trends. It won't be suddenly doom and gloom, it will gradually get worse. Not really that noticeable. Always in the background. Chipping away. It is insidious. It is easy to ignore since the trends are not apparent in the short term. That is the last I will say on the matter.

[alancalverd]

as Alan advocates- run away.

Walk, not run. People who resort to insults are not a threat, merely beneath contempt.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

The "Gulf Stream Thing" is something debated by actual climate scientists. You focus on it because it is dubious and the scientists agree. You ignore the actual problems, like the link I posted and that was reposted above at least once.

I was responding to BC's initial talk of the gulf stream.

In order to satisfy the challenge you must do more than post a link.

You must explain what the issue is.

Then you must explain the mechanism.

Then you must post a link to actual science, a paper or some such.

Then it has to be something that will cost more than the local council concearned will be spending on traffic lights.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

I worked for around 10 years in hydrological analysis. Using data that we collected. Not just making assumptions. We saw the trends. It won't be suddenly doom and gloom, it will gradually get worse. Not really that noticeable. Always in the background. Chipping away. It is insidious. It is easy to ignore since the trends are not apparent in the short term. That is the last I will say on the matter.

As I have made clear; vague hand waving about doom and death are not enough.

If there is a decent argument why is it so difficult for anybody to express it?

[Bored chemist]

... "more extreme weather" and also say what the hell that means.

Which word(s) are you struggling with?

[Bored chemist]

If there is a decent argument why is it so difficult for anybody to express it?

Because there is none so blind as he who will not see.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

... "more extreme weather" and also say what the hell that means.

Which word(s) are you struggling with?

Well, what sort of extremes do you have in mind. can you specify it a bit more? Can you say something like the range of rainfall in a location would be expected to be more variable or something?

Just so we can actually look at it and look at the supporting science for the mechanis you describe etc.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

If there is a decent argument why is it so difficult for anybody to express it?

Because there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Have not been able to look at any argument here that is all the things I need. You know, described, mechanism described, mechanism supported by science and still scary.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

[Bored chemist]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.

[Bored chemist]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.

I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.

I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?

Well, bad weather is a bit vague for a start, not exactly measurable is it? Please specify what bad things you are talking about.

Then please explain what actual mechanism would do it.

Then the paper that shows the mechanism. That should be out there if such a thing exists. It would be profuond and interesting and technical.

Then we will look at it and see how bad this thing is in terms of how much it will cost to avoid/deal with.

You shouting is not enough.

[puppypower]

Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan

Doom and gloom is easier to sell than hope and change, because change and the unknown is scary. If you look at the news templates, bad news always gets a bigger audience. The reason is, fear is the lowest common denominator and can reach the widest audience. This is useful for selling soap and used cars.

With fear, people become less able to think, objectively. Fear causes use to rely on habit and impulse; fight and flight. Therefore, others, more often appear to be the voice of calm reason, helping us to decide our course of action. People watch bade news longer allowing, more exposure to ads. With good news, reason and creativity come back and people become more self contained. Good news makes you feel good and more open to new possibilities.

For example, if we broadcasted a story about the North Korea Nuclear war threat, people panic and will stay tuned listening to the experts feeding into the fear and/or reassuring our minds and hearts. With a good new story like the GNP does really well, people feel happy and don;t need the experts, as much. They don't hang around for sales, quite as long. Everyone who sells stuff, knows this correlation.

If I said there is a killer asteroid out there with the earth's name on it, you can capture an audience who will linger, hoping to know more so they can prepare for fight or flight. If had a jews story about a new satellite that can track and divert all asteroids, people are reassured by good news and go play in the garden instead of watch commercials.

When the earth warmed from the last ice age, if human media and politicians had been around then, they would assumed and preached gloom and doom, because any change will upset the apple cart and this will get the maximum audience. People feel more secure in a steady state situation. They don't want perturbations.

This fear of a change from the last ice was justified, in the short term, since there was instability  as the glaciers melted and great floods and climate change appeared. But as a new steady state was reached and lakes and more habitable land appeared, climate became more conducive to a new and better way of life. Now the audience is out looking around in the meadows and not watching TV.

A good example of the correlation between fear and sales is ObamaCare. Once the mandate was instituted, this was able to create fear of punishment, causing more people to buy health insurance. The fear helps the cattle line up in the chute ready to be branded. With the mandate gone, due to an Executive Order, less fear is being induced; hope of cheaper prices and more choices, more people became independent again. Fear allows a bad product to be in high demand.

Science is supposed to be like Mr Spock, without emotions. Once emotions are added, assume sales, with fear selling the most soap powder.
 

[Bored chemist]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.

I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?

Well, bad weather is a bit vague for a start, not exactly measurable is it? Please specify what bad things you are talking about.

Do you really not understand that weather which kills people is bad?
Death tolls are, in fact regularly measured.
How can you not see that killing people is a pretty good criterion for "bad"?

Are you just trolling or what?

[chiralSPO]

Let's talk about sugar maples for a second.

Here's a short article from 6 years ago discussing how climate change is moving the habitable zones for sugar maples around, and how quickly the forrests might be able to adapt:
http://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/sugar-maples-in-an-age-of-climate-change

These trees also appear to have changed the composition of their sap as the climate has changed, and the harvesting season has shortened and shifted earlier in the year as well. Both making it much less efficient/economical to produce maple syrup:
http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/02/global-warming-pushes-maple-trees-syrup-to-the-brink/
https://www.maplesource.com/blog/how-climate-change-is-impacting-maple-syrup-production/#.WQpkPSMrK2w

Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.

I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?

Well, bad weather is a bit vague for a start, not exactly measurable is it? Please specify what bad things you are talking about.

Do you really not understand that weather which kills people is bad?
Death tolls are, in fact regularly measured.
How can you not see that killing people is a pretty good criterion for "bad"?

Are you just trolling or what?

People dying is bad.

What weather effects are you actually talking about and can you link to some actual paper which shows how this extra energy will cause this?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Let's talk about sugar maples for a second.

Here's a short article from 6 years ago discussing how climate change is moving the habitable zones for sugar maples around, and how quickly the forrests might be able to adapt:
http://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/sugar-maples-in-an-age-of-climate-change

These trees also appear to have changed the composition of their sap as the climate has changed, and the harvesting season has shortened and shifted earlier in the year as well. Both making it much less efficient/economical to produce maple syrup:
http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/02/global-warming-pushes-maple-trees-syrup-to-the-brink/
https://www.maplesource.com/blog/how-climate-change-is-impacting-maple-syrup-production/#.WQpkPSMrK2w

Tim Perkins,  a Professor of Plant Biology at the University of Vermont’s Proctor Maple Research Center focuses on adaptation—how to help U.S. syrup producers make more with less.

He is quick to point out that technological improvements have offset much of the losses affecting American sugar maples to date. “… [W]ith better vacuum, evaporation, and sanitation, tappers get more from trees than they did 20 years ago—even with those trees stressed from warmer weather.”

Well done, you have satisfied the first criteria and the second but when we look at it for 5 minutes it is no longer scary at all.

Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.

Drivel.

The season for cherry blossom trees in the very big and dense city of Kyoto has changed. Yes, it will of, due to the heat island effect. That is what is warming the micro climate there.

I do not dispute that the world has warmed a bit. Nor do I dispute that the growing season has lengthened. Nor do I dispute that this appears to have had a slight negative impact on Maple syrup, which has caused us humans to get better at making it, but to say that decidious trees will all die if it gets as warm as it is 200 miles south is drivel.

Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 

[chiralSPO]

Thanks for reading my links and continuing the discussion in a serious fashion, Tim! There are many others on this site that don't put in the effort, and I appreciate it a lot.

I have some responses interspersed with yours below:

Let's talk about sugar maples for a second...

Tim Perkins,  a Professor of Plant Biology at the University of Vermont’s Proctor Maple Research Center focuses on adaptation—how to help U.S. syrup producers make more with less.

He is quick to point out that technological improvements have offset much of the losses affecting American sugar maples to date. “… [W]ith better vacuum, evaporation, and sanitation, tappers get more from trees than they did 20 years ago—even with those trees stressed from warmer weather.”

Well done, you have satisfied the first criteria and the second but when we look at it for 5 minutes it is no longer scary at all.

Glad I got the first criterion down on this attempt :-). The point I was trying to make was not so much that the maple industry is about to collapse (it isn't). Rather, the important takeaway is that there is a record of substantial changes in both the timing and quality of the maple harvest--and these changes are only relatively recent (past few decades).

Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.

Drivel.

The season for cherry blossom trees in the very big and dense city of Kyoto has changed. Yes, it will of, due to the heat island effect. That is what is warming the micro climate there.

I grant that the effects are exaggerated by the heat island effect, and taken alone shouldn't be viewed as strong evidence of global climate change. However, because the average temperature in Kyoto has increased by about 2°C over the last century, while global temperatures have only increased by about 0.5 °C during the same period (https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/heat/heatisland.pdf), this serves as a way to see more obvious changes in tree behavior due to temperature changes. If a 2°C change has moved the cherry trees in Kyoto by 2 weeks, what will the effect be on forests across North America if the global temperature increases by 4°C?

I do not dispute that the world has warmed a bit. Nor do I dispute that the growing season has lengthened. Nor do I dispute that this appears to have had a slight negative impact on Maple syrup, which has caused us humans to get better at making it, but to say that decidious trees will all die if it gets as warm as it is 200 miles south is drivel.

Well, I'm glad we agree on some points. As to my dire prediction: Trees have adapted to a certain climate, which has been more or less the same for several thousand years, and when it changed in the past, it was a gradual change that was slow enough for forests to migrate (latitude or altitude). If the climate changes in such a way that a shift of 200 miles is required, and the forests only have 50 years to move, that's going to be very bad for the health of the forest (not just the trees).

Trees (and most other organisms) have evolved to depend on all sorts of environmental cues--the most important being light, heat, and moisture. In a location with strong seasons, there is a roughly set alignment between these cues: the daylight changes throughout the year will not be affected at all by climate change, but the seasonal temperature and moisture patterns will shift, leading to mixed signals for the tree (organism). Also, because it's not just the trees themselves, but the whole ecosystem, these mixed signals can cause real havoc. What happens when the bees show up on time, but the blooms were 4 weeks early?? What happens when the bear comes out of hibernation (starting hibernation is tied to daylight, and ending is tied to when the bear gets hungry), and the fish have already done their thing and moved on (temperature driven calendar)?

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135837

Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 

There isn't going to be one big bad thing that kills everybody. There will be many changes, many of which might well be easily managed on their own, but they will combine to make a very bad thing.

Imagine: frequent coastal flooding in places like New Orleans, Miami and NYC, mega wildfires in California, another dust bowl in the midwest, Zika-bearing mosquitos as far north as Massachusetts, summers where the temp in Minneapolis never drop below 90 °F...

Any one of these is manageable, but altogether it's gonna be expensive, and overall quality of life will go down.
But this very US-centric view become scarier in places that don't have the money to adapt. "Your town flooded? Oh well, just move somewhere else." "What's that? Your drinking water all comes from melt-off from the mountains, and it didn't snow last year? Oh well, just buy bottled water."

And this human-centric view is also much more sheltered than for the animals who will probably go extinct because their niche no longer exists. "wah wah, polar bears. wah wah fruit bats. wah wah frogs..."