|
Sylink posted:Woodrowskilson: Tanreall posted:This was posted a bit back but here is the Permian Mass Extinction video from the BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn62AjIpWMw Should throw this in the OP so we don't have to repost it a million times when the same question gets put forth.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Sylink posted:Woodrowskilson: gently caress off. I've been one of the ones arguing against people that were claiming the US would be Mad Max in 45 years. I never made any claims as to how bad it is going to be, simply that it is inevitable, which is a rather well supported statement at this point. This entire thread pretty much supports the idea that we are not doing anywhere near enough to have any appreciable effect on climate change. If you have different evidence by all means show us how can can avoid 2-4 degrees. Coming in here claiming that 2-4 degrees is chicken little and then asking questions that are pretty loving basic is hilarious though so keep that up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:That's idiotic. We all know that liberals (in the world sense, but especially in our peculiar American sense) whinge and whine about climate change while they do absolutely nothing to mediate or negate the environmental impacts they produce, and in fact environmentalists' obsession with visiting natural spaces clad in and wielding a dizzying array of overpriced consumer products from REI or similar businesses. If you cannot see how the connection might exist to a people who believe they really don't have to save the planet because god will come down and take care of everything, don't know how I can help you, Also: Its not just Christians, but I live in a nation that is filled with people who want to try to drag us into a theocracy, I think its a fair comparison. Also, as I pointed out, its not just the religious folks, but the people that assume the world is going to end in their lifetime anyways. However, its funny how you can turn and do the same thing to liberals that you claim I just did to Christians. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
I seen stuff in various posts in the many conservative threads here where some fundies think that. It's not idiotic. Coincidentally these same people also believe that rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem summons Jesus so he can do his thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:gently caress off. I've been one of the ones arguing against people that were claiming the US would be Mad Max in 45 years. I never made any claims as to how bad it is going to be, simply that it is inevitable, which is a rather well supported statement at this point. This entire thread pretty much supports the idea that we are not doing anywhere near enough to have any appreciable effect on climate change. If you have different evidence by all means show us how can can avoid 2-4 degrees. I didn't say we could avoid it, it doesn't mean the end of the world either. You act like nothing will be done is the issue. Nothing is being done now on a large scale, but humanity has demonstrated it will go through drastic hoops when pushed. I'm not sure why you think everyone should just up and do something. Planetary engineering is not something that has ever been done on a controlled level and we don't exactly have test examples. Sure you have historical extinctions, but we don't have all the data on them. The permian extinction had a huge temperature, sweet. But that doesn't mean the temperature rise caused the extinction. Same with the dinosaurs. Yes the climate changed rapidly but a rock the size of Texas obliterating the planet is far different from incremental changes over a century. Right now, there isn't enough adversity to push civilization towards anything. We are just now seeing electric cars start to enter the market in a serious form. It is not easy to predict what the next 20 years will bring in lifestyle/technology changes, much less by 2100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Sylink posted:I didn't say we could avoid it, it doesn't mean the end of the world either. You act like nothing will be done is the issue. Nothing is being done now on a large scale, but humanity has demonstrated it will go through drastic hoops when pushed. We live in an age where the rise and fall of agriculture can mean the fall of nations, sure the slightest rise in temperature could not kill us, it could starve us to death however. We know we are making changes to the environment, we know that they are probably detrimental based on data analysis. Ignoring the changes because 'we don't know' is only going to end up bad for us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Sylink posted:I didn't say we could avoid it, it doesn't mean the end of the world either. You act like nothing will be done is the issue. Nothing is being done now on a large scale, but humanity has demonstrated it will go through drastic hoops when pushed. Again, I have not made a claim about mass extinctions or planetary engineering. I said there is no way we are avoiding what is commonly referred to as climate change, and more specifically 2-4 degrees of temperature rise. That rise is enough to cause a slew of massive problems on a global scale. Cities having to be evacuated, wars, water shortages, famines, and poo poo tons of instability. Beyond that it gets fuzzy and the thread has argued about the potential extent of effects ranging from just what I said to a 95% extinction rate and the collapse of civilization. The effects of global warming actually being felt will probably drive change, but it will be too little too late. Maybe we will head off 10 degrees, but at that point it will be at a massive cost. At this point there is literally nothing most of us can do to avoid any of this. That was my original point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
My own opinion is that there is going to be a lot of death, but almost entirely in Asia/Africa (not dissimilar from now...) especially in South East Asia and India as overpopulation and dwindling land in some places gets royally hosed (like Bangladesh). Looking at some of the agricultural estimates, its almost a wash at double CO2 concentration as some areas open up to farming and some crops respond positively to increased CO2. Though, it largely depends on where you are. Africa seems to be a clusterfuck while Asia and North America are more stable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Sylink posted:My own opinion is that there is going to be a lot of death, but almost entirely in Asia/Africa (not dissimilar from now...) especially in South East Asia and India as overpopulation and dwindling land in some places gets royally hosed (like Bangladesh). The changes won't just be CO2, we are seeing changes in weather patterns and that will outweigh any benefits that extra CO2 would provide farmland. They are already reporting crop losses last year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:gently caress off. I've been one of the ones arguing against people that were claiming the US would be Mad Max in 45 years. I never made any claims as to how bad it is going to be, simply that it is inevitable, which is a rather well supported statement at this point. This entire thread pretty much supports the idea that we are not doing anywhere near enough to have any appreciable effect on climate change. If you have different evidence by all means show us how can can avoid 2-4 degrees. Your pessimism is a symptom of the disconnect most North Americans feel with respect to their political system. It's ignorant to say there's "a lack of effort", when there's so much being done right now that you apparently don't even know about. The recent push by the EPA to impose emission standards on energy plants would have effectively reduced carbon emissions. The Canadian province of British Columbia implemented an actual carbon tax, and the state of Hawaii has an oil tax. Carbon taxes are being seriously considered internationally and would effectively reduce carbon output. Organizations such as the Citizen's Climate Lobby and Sierra Club are constantly agitating for these types of taxes. State subsidized alternative power generation is on the upswing (although its implementation in Ontario was disastrous). Equally important is stopping the development of the carbon emission industry, and a significant victory was scored just this past year with the delay and possible cancellation of the Keystone pipeline. It's true that stopping a 2 degree C rise in global temperature is probably not possible at this point, but stopping further rises is certainly achievable and the political battle for that is being waged right now. Action on climate change is inevitable, as there's a slow but steady change in public opinion towards the scientific consensus. The goal for progressives right now is to speed up this process as much as possible, and frankly your "nothing can be done" argument is worse than ineffective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Studies show that if you give dire warnings of the future, but don't give solutions, people won't believe you. If we want to mobilize the public, we have to be stating solutions, not just the problem, and give people hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Studies show that if you give dire warnings of the future, but don't give solutions, people won't believe you. If we want to mobilize the public, we have to be stating solutions, not just the problem, and give people hope. To be fair, we have given solutions, and since they are inconvenient to people they choose to instead ignore the entire problem i.e. 'Gas prices went up?! HOW WILL I FILL UP MY FORD EXPLORER!' (Its an extreme example) Change is generally inconvenient and hard for most people, especially radical changes that require social systems or economic systems make adjustments. Its not that we haven't given several solution paths, people just think its too much
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Converting to near 100% nuclear energy while massively funding renewable and battery research/installation while also supporting movement into cities with massive funding for public transit is not a solution, but its what needs to be done yesterday to avoid significant portions of climate change. That is not happening anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Converting to near 100% nuclear energy while massively funding renewable and battery research/installation while also supporting movement into cities with massive funding for public transit is not a solution, but its what needs to be done yesterday to avoid significant portions of climate change. That is not happening anytime soon. Its a path to a solution, but you are absolutely right its not the entire solution. It doesn't stop emissions from cars and industrial as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Converting to near 100% nuclear energy while massively funding renewable and battery research/installation while also supporting movement into cities with massive funding for public transit is not a solution, but its what needs to be done yesterday to avoid significant portions of climate change. That is not happening anytime soon. Your solution would be nice and would effectively deal with the problem. The issue is that our political system and specifically the interests of established wealth won't allow it. The mistake is thinking that this means all action is impossible and unrestrained climate change is inevitable. The fact is there's constant political agitation for other solutions that will likely work and have a better chance of acceptance. I think you need to accept these other possibilities and help implement them, as opposed to declaring doom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Your solution would be nice and would effectively deal with the problem. The issue is that our political system and specifically the interests of established wealth won't allow it. The mistake is thinking that this means all action is impossible and unrestrained climate change is inevitable. The fact is there's constant political agitation for other solutions that will likely work and have a better chance of acceptance. I think you need to accept these other possibilities and help implement them, as opposed to declaring doom. When it comes to nuclear, I don't think it's established wealth that's the problem. It's the public and unfortunately many environmental activists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:When it comes to nuclear, I don't think it's established wealth that's the problem. It's the public and unfortunately many environmental activists. Not the fossil fuel industries pouring billions into fighting it or anything. Not to mention outright lying to the public about fossil fuels. Blaming environmental activists on the lack of nuclear energy is comical. There are much stronger forces at play preventing that from happening and plenty of environmental groups are pro-nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you cannot see how the connection might exist to a people who believe they really don't have to save the planet because god will come down and take care of everything, don't know how I can help you, The fact that I can easily turn the argument to include liberals or just about anyone means that you singling out Christians is just dumb internet liberal "sky wizard" stuff, because the Christians aren't you and represent an easy way to displace your share of blame for these cataclysmic problems. The only people who are blameless are the ones who see what's happening and put a bullet through their head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
I cant remember where I read (or possibly heard) it, but I know Ive been told that there are a lot of other just as dangerous outcomes from climate change than just rising water and global warming. The possibility of another major outbreak of some kind increases as well with many of the varying, and sometimes rapid, changes to environment and its not something that gets much attention but could be just as costly and more immediate. I hope Im just confusing this with something else because the more I think about it, the worse it seems. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Sylink posted:I didn't say we could avoid it, it doesn't mean the end of the world either. You act like nothing will be done is the issue. Nothing is being done now on a large scale, but humanity has demonstrated it will go through drastic hoops when pushed. You're right that planetary engineering is not something we have ever really done, and if/when rogue states or groups start trying it anyway out of desperation (or try it again, perhaps) we will just have to hope it doesn't gently caress things up too much. What we actually need to do is change a lot of fundamental aspects of our civilisation: end the obsession with endless impossible growth, start getting really serious about a global agreement to bring everybody - Western nations as well as China and India - down to very low emissions, and very likely have a serious discussion about how we're going to approach the global population issue. Not a single one of those things seems anywhere remotely plausible to me. It would take an earth-shattering paradigm shift to get the Republican Party to even acknowledge that climate change is real, let alone a serious threat, let alone something that is worth making unprecedented changes to the country in order to fix. By the time we're getting "pushed" (which you would have thought might be now given the drought in the US) it will be far too late to do anything. This is why I and others are exceedingly pessimistic about our future. TACD fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Same with the dinosaurs. Yes the climate changed rapidly but a rock the size of Texas obliterating the planet is far different from incremental changes over a century. Mass extinctions often take place over centuries or millenia. The idea that 100 years is going to be a long enough time for species to evolve shows a lack of biological understanding (maybe you were not saying this, but that's how I read it). Consider this: the warming that Earth has already experienced due to fossil fuel combustion lags behind the production of CO2. We've been on the gentle part of that upward slope to a hotter planet. Despite that we are probably already experiencing a mass extinction. If species have been unable to adapt to the mild (compared to what's expected to come) warming over the last 150 years, how are they going to adapt to the more violent warming that will occur in the next 100 years? I agree that humanity isn't going to go extinct due to global warming. We'll adapt as a species; we're really ingenious. But a ton of people are gonna die and for those who live it won't be as simple as "some places will do better with longer growing seasons/more CO2, and some will do worse." Yeah, Canada might be really tropical in 100 years but it still won't have the soil quality needed to grow crops in the quantity and variety we do today. One question. Why are people in this thread so opposed to geo-engineering? I certainly think that the best option is to stop using fossil fuels, but this thread is so doom-and-gloom. If you think that we have no chance of getting off fossil fuels, and you think the result of that is going to be a literal hell on Earth, why accept it? I'd expect people would be interested in thinking about alternative options. We might do a lot more damage than intended, but discussing and researching the topic does not mean we have to go through with it. At the very least we should keep our minds open to the potential of geo-engineering as well as the risks. My personal opinion is it's our only shot at preventing runaway warming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Sylink posted:
Then what, pray tell, caused it? The impact theory is the most suggested alternative but the evidence is flimsy at best. Most scientists seem to agree that intense global warming caused or exacerbated by the Siberian traps and a massive methane release was the culprit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:The fact that I can easily turn the argument to include liberals or just about anyone means that you singling out Christians is just dumb internet liberal "sky wizard" stuff... Oh grow up. Lets be clear: We know global warming/climate change is happening, most of us know something must be done. There are numerous people who, seriously, believe that climate change isn't real because 'This world was made for us'
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Somebody mentioned geo-engineering earlier, I studied climate physics and from the papers we looked at it proved pretty ineffective. Even things that sounded fairly reasonable in theory such as dropping powdered iron into the ocean to encourage growth of algae didn't outweigh the carbon cost of doing it in the first place. That doesn't even consider the possible ramifications of severely altering an ecosystem. People are looking into alternatives but it's pretty obvious our first-world lifestyles are incompatible with our long-term survival. There's no point recycling your cardboard if you're going to drive your child 2 miles to school and back every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Woodrowskilson:  Yes CO2 has been significantly higher in the past. You wouldn't want to have been alive then either as it would not have been conductive to the continuation of our species. We've had run-away a few times now. The most significant was the Permian–Triassic extinction event which almost ended life on earth. This was believed to have been caused by a 4-5c rise in temperatures from the siberian traps erupting making GBS threads methane and stuff into the air over about 1000 years, which caused the permafrost to melt raising it up to around 10c+ rise. That hosed things up so badly it drat nearly sterilized the planet. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum was another event associated with a 6c rise that lead to wide spread extinctions. There have been others. Nobody is suggesting we are going to go venus. But if we trigger a full blown permafrost melt, what I can tell you is we'll be looking back at the 4c rise predictions as tragic optimism and quite likely being very concerned for the continuation of our species.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Sure you have historical extinctions, but we don't have all the data on them. quote:The permian extinction had a huge temperature, sweet. But that doesn't mean the temperature rise caused the extinction. Big claims require big evidence. What mechanism do you propose stopped the extinction (that was also coincidently thwarted by another unknown but simultaneous event). Because when you say "This doesnt mean the temperature rise caused it" you are also saying;- 1) There was a temperature rise almost guaranteed to cause mass extinction (Because a 10c temperature rise would be catastrophic, this isnt deniable.) 2) But maybe it didn't because of some reason preserved it I havent said yet. (possibly wizards?) 3) However SOME OTHER mechanism DID cause it somehow. Without explaining the mechanisms behind 2 and 3, you fundamentally make some huge claims about science without supporting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Anyone who believes in the day of judgement and tries to hasten it must be really, really confident in their records.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Anyone who believes in the day of judgement and tries to hasten it must be really, really confident in their records. The sooner judgement day comes the sooner they'll get to stop struggling to not have gay sex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh grow up. Yeah, and there's plenty in Christian doctrine that supports being good stewards to the planet, too, but that wouldn't fit your dumb prejudice. Knowing that something must be done and doing nothing is precisely the same as thinking nothing needs to be done and doing nothing. I'm saying that this particular brand of conservative Christianity you're describing is no better or worse than the ideology of liberal environmentalists whose sole contribution to activism is looking down their noses at poor people for eating at McDonalds and shopping at Whole Foods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Yeah, and there's plenty in Christian doctrine that supports being good stewards to the planet, too, but that wouldn't fit your dumb prejudice. Got some citation to back that up? I'm well aware not all Christians are polluters with no care about the environment, ironically you are the one that shoved that into my mouth, I simply suggested that some Christians and other religious people believe there is no need to preserve the Earth. Either way, keep calling me a prejudiced liberal. Nobody cares. duck monster posted:
We'll never go full Venus, we're not close enough to the sun nor could we really get the greenhouse effect going to that level, but we can really screw up our agriculture and weather to the point where plant life outside of certain small regions would be nearly impossible. Either way, we need to get this in check. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
US Carbon Emissions at Lowest Level since '94quote:America's carbon dioxide emissions last year fell to their lowest levels since 1994, according to a new report. Not trying to say everything's cool but a LITTLE good news is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 07:57
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
CommieGIR posted:Got some citation to back that up? I'm well aware not all Christians are polluters with no care about the environment, ironically you are the one that shoved that into my mouth, I simply suggested that some Christians and other religious people believe there is no need to preserve the Earth. What a brave claim to make, that some people believe some things. Here's a good summary of Christian environmentalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_environmentalism quote:18 Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 08:09
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Yeah, and there's plenty in Christian doctrine that supports being good stewards to the planet, too, but that wouldn't fit your dumb prejudice. The GOP is not run by the loving Roman Catholics. It's run by the Falwell Evangelicals, who believe that the environment doesn't exist (liberals made it up b/c communism). What does Christian doctrine have to do with absolutely anything. No conservative progress on climate = no American progress on climate = little global progress on climate. Long climate discussion on Science Friday here. The Republican didn't show up, which I have come to believe is a generally good thing for the discussion and a pretty awesome thing for a radio show for entertainment.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:US Carbon Emissions at Lowest Level since '94 I had a quick look at the report and it indeed seems that there is a little glimmer of optimism. On the other hand, in one of the first figures in the report you see CO2 emissions plotted against GDP, and if you look at the past development, you see that CO2 emissions always lag behind GDP a little bit. I'm not sure that these decreases are not all still perfectly consistent with the diminished output after the Great Recession. Furthermore, much of the CO2 that is actually produced by US consumption and lifestyle is emitted in other countries and transportation, in particular in and from Asia. I have not seen a figure in this report that would even acknowledge this. I don't think that it is therefore safe to talk about a move towards sustainability. Lastly, the big shale gas boom that many people are seeing on the horizon will offset any of the savings by slow adoption of renewable energy sources. At least those are my impressions as a non-expert...
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I wish there was more research done on the effects of various aerosols. With increased research, we could potentially discover an aerosol to reduce the amount of infrared radiation which reaches the earth while minimizing the effect on the visible spectrum. If this aerosol had a minimal biological effect and was relatively short-lived, we could potentially prevent some of the more drastic effects due to increased temperature. While this wouldn't solve the effects of heightened CO2, it's certainly something worth looking at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
This might be a bit of a retread, so apologies in advance. Someone recently linked me an article by Matt Ridley published in the WSJ claiming the IPCC models and reports are grossly exaggerating rises in temperature. The article is titled "Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change," and can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html The article is loving atrocious and is full of glaring errors, misinterpretations, and complete bullshit. It's obvious Ridley doesn't know climate science from his own rear end in a top hat. What I'm curious about though is an "expert reviewer" Ridley cites by the name of Nic Lewis. The article claims Lewis has a history of uncovering statistical manipulations and falsehoods published by the IPCC. I've tried to do a little research to verify these claims and have come up more or less empty-handed (surprise!). For those of you that are more "in-the-know" with this subject, are you familiar with this Lewis guy? How big of a hack is he?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
duck monster posted:
The claim under discussion is whether an increase in temperature caused the permian mass extinction, not whatever you say he's saying. I don't remember anyone posting evidence supporting that conclusion recently so Sylink has good reason for skepticism. I don't have time to get into it now but tomorrow I can explain the theory if anyone is interested. Maybe describe some elements of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum relevant to climate research.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
whatis posted:This might be a bit of a retread, so apologies in advance. I don't know much about Lewis's history interacting with climate scientists, but his "strong mathematics and physics background" is apparently that he majored in math and minored in physics at Cambridge; while Cambridge is certainly a good school, I don't think undergraduate degrees really cut it for claiming a "strong background" when the people he's trying to discredit have doctorate degrees. Any idiot can sign up to be an IPCC "expert reviewer"; all you have to do is ask to see the draft reports and promise not to leak them. As far as I can tell, Lewis's recent climate sensitivity measurement isn't completely hackish (as in, it's not some wacky new model he made up; he actually just copied the procedure from another study) but he plugs in numbers that favor a low climate sensitivity. When more realistic numbers are plugged into the model he used, the climate sensitivity estimate jumps from 1.62 to somewhere in the low to mid 2's, which is within the IPCC range, if on the low end. Also note that the difference in climate sensitivity related to the smaller aerosol forcing that he makes the main thrust of his argument is really not that big; his model, with the old aerosol numbers, gives 1.83 degrees for a doubling, so he's starting from a point that dramatically diverges from the IPCC estimates already. His and Ridley's insinuations that the reduced aerosol forcing in AR5 should reduce estimated climate sensitivity from 3 to 1.6 are therefore extremely misleading. Also, the method Lewis used does apparently tend to lowball climate sensitivity estimates, as it estimates "effective" CS rather than equilibrium CS; this means that Lewis's model is ignoring the fact that temperature change from a change in radiative forcing does not happen immediately. He alleges that this shouldn't matter because his time period is so long (1870-2011), but this does not really address the objection; more than half of the increase in radiative forcing in his time frame has occurred in the last 30 years, so this approach is going to miss a good deal of warming regardless of how far back in the past it goes. I pulled all this information from the discussion here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/12/20/people-if-you-want-to-argue-with-stoats-first-read-enough-to-be-a-weasel-parrots-neednt-apply/ Finally, even if climate sensitivity were only 1.62, as Lewis (implausibly) claims, we'd still be looking at a temperature increase of 2-3 degrees if we don't do anything about climate change and the CO2 concentration goes to 800 ppm or 1000 ppm or whatever absurd number we hit without action. If CS is closer to 2.5, as his model suggests with more realistic numbers, we'll go to or beyond 4 degrees of warming, which is definitely "we are so screwed" territory. snowball39 fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:US Carbon Emissions at Lowest Level since '94 We're having similar-ish successes in some sectors here in Aust too. Its the subtle interventions, it seem, that make all the difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Squalid posted:The claim under discussion is whether an increase in temperature caused the permian mass extinction, not whatever you say he's saying. I don't remember anyone posting evidence supporting that conclusion recently so Sylink has good reason for skepticism. I don't have time to get into it now but tomorrow I can explain the theory if anyone is interested. Maybe describe some elements of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum relevant to climate research. Then why did he post this;- quote:The permian extinction had a huge temperature, sweet. But that doesn't mean the temperature rise caused the extinction. He's asserting that a 10c rise in temperature wouldn't cause a mass extinction (and something else simultaneosly caused it maybe by coincidence). So what I want to know is what mechanism does he propose stopped the 10c from causing a mass extinction, a mechanism that was ultimately apparently pointless because something else caused it (I dunno a solar flare or a comet or something?). We're only, what maybe 1c into our global warming and theres already evidence we're starting to get extinction events. 10c would actually start causing mass die offs even of humans ( a supremely adaptable species ), particularly around the equator where temperatures could soar close to 60c, a temperature no vertebrate I'm aware of can survive. Because sure maybe something else caused it. But if that thing wasn't there, all that stuff would have died anyway because of the 10c rise. UNLESS something managed to bend physics and science and prevent the die off. Remember, he's arguing against the weight of science here. Its a big claim that requires big proof. It'd be great to know what that is. It might save us if poo poo goes pear shaped here. duck monster fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 12:30
|
|