|
NewForumSoftware posted:also how do you square this circle: Asinine point. Ignorant at best, maybe deliberate deception. Yes, scientists agree that feedbacks will cause CO2 to increase even after human emissions peak, but they certainly don't agree that they go on forever. The is a clear consensus that a runaway greenhouse effect is not going to happen, a consensus as strong as that the greenhouse effect is occurring at all.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Asinine point. Ignorant at best, maybe deliberate deception. Yes, scientists agree that feedbacks will cause CO2 to increase even after human emissions peak, but they certainly don't agree that they go on forever. The is a clear consensus that a runaway greenhouse effect is not going to happen, a consensus as strong as that the greenhouse effect is occurring at all. So when do you think co2 concentration in the atmosphere will level off?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So when do you think co2 concentration in the atmosphere will level off? I can't possibly give you an answer on that because I don't have a crystal ball. But if you want to advance claims of a runaway greenhouse effect, a prospect roundly rejected by the IPCC and every climate scientist I've ever read, then you should be the one providing the evidence and not me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I can't possibly give you an answer on that because I don't have a crystal ball. But if you want to advance claims of a runaway greenhouse effect, a prospect roundly rejected by the IPCC and every climate scientist I've ever read, then you should be the one providing the evidence and not me. When did I say anything about a runaway greenhouse effect? There's a lot of room between Venus and RCP 8.5
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:When did I say anything about a runaway greenhouse effect? Okay. Then what you're really saying is that the IPCC is underestimating climate sensitivity. Their current ECS is 1.5-4.5C. Prove to me that it's higher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay. Then what you're really saying is that the IPCC is underestimating climate sensitivity. Their current ECS is 1.5-4.5C. Prove to me that it's higher. No what I'm really saying is that the IPCC's latest report's RCP 8.5 pathway is more conservative than reality, and it's supposed to be the "BAU" pathway iirc just respond to what im saying, stop trying to read into my posts to find some deeper statement/meaning
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:No what I'm really saying is that the IPCC's latest report's RCP 8.5 pathway is more conservative than reality, and it's supposed to be the "BAU" pathway iirc Are you going to provide proof, in the form of peer-reviewed studies, or not? Because otherwise this is going nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Ah yes, the part where we start screeching about peer-reviewed data that none of us are qualified to understand. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Are you going to provide proof, in the form of peer-reviewed studies, or not? Because otherwise this is going nowhere. lol you mean like I already did. do I have to get the scientific credentials of the noaa tech that updates the co2 concentration chart? i literally posted the paper the graph came from and posted the mauna kea co2 concentration chart if you have a problem with the data go ahead and share
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
call to action posted:Ah yes, the part where we start screeching about peer-reviewed data that none of us are qualified to understand. Awesome. Maybe we're not, but it sure beats the poo poo out of taking some internet rando's word for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Maybe we're not, but it sure beats the poo poo out of taking some internet rando's word for it. NOAA: Some internet rando NFS: posts charts from legitimate sources: internet rando making things up Thug Lessons: responds as if I claim the venusification of earth is underway
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol you mean like I already did. do I have to get the scientific credentials of the noaa tech that updates the co2 concentration chart? You provided data that showed atmospheric CO2 was increasing. No poo poo. We are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere which is causing concentrations to rise. It does not prove your larger point that feedbacks will make RCP8.5 obsolete in some way you refuse to quantify.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
a big part of the problem is that you can post things like NOAA's co2 concentration chart and be met with "where is that data sourced from though?" from people who claim to actually follow this issueThug Lessons posted:You provided data that showed atmospheric CO2 was increasing. No poo poo. We are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere which is causing concentrations to rise. It does not prove your larger point that feedbacks will make RCP8.5 obsolete in some way you refuse to quantify. RCP8.5 was obsolete the second it came out because they intentionally left out feedbacks they knew about I can't believe you actually want to contend this point
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Maybe we're not, but it sure beats the poo poo out of taking some internet rando's word for it. Eh, the data's already been posted (thanks NFS). We're on an RCP 8.5 emissions pathway, and that model doesn't account for feedback mechanisms (particularly melting permafrost) that scientists believe could have a strong effect on medium term climate. Your flailing about me being an internet rando, which I clearly and always have admitted, is sad. Again, notice that no one has disputed the magical thinking (particularly CCS and ability to control refrigerant propagation in the third world) in the RCPs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
The fact that these guys can't find even a single climate scientist to back them up speaks for itself. This has gone on long enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The fact that these guys can't find even a single climate scientist to back them up speaks for itself. This has gone on long enough. This is what you're reduced to? Impotent personal attacks as a response to peer reviewed literature? There's a NOAA office where I live do I need to go there and have my picture taken with a climate scientist before you won't look at my posts and go "LOL THIS GUY THINKS WERE HEADED TO VENUS"? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/ quote:"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Do yourself a favor and think a bit before making your next post, because you're really coming off as an idiot right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
I would like to respectfully dedicate page 235 to the forums 'ignore' functionality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The fact that these guys can't find even a single climate scientist to back them up speaks for itself. This has gone on long enough. James Hansen literally thinks a runaway greenhouse effect is possible. You're an idiot debating with other idiots. Read: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426608/how-likely-is-a-runaway-greenhouse-effect-on-earth/ quote:A couple of years ago, he wrote: “If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there’s a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.” By the way, an ECS of 4.5C is already beyond bad. Do you understand why? Also, IPCC doesn't take into account things like carbon/methane release from peatland as well, something that is being more heavily researched now. It's one of the reasons I tell idiots like you to quit using old IPCC reports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
On one hand we have the climate nihilists who don't understand that we have ratcheted equilibria at 6C and 11C before things get truly hosed. Humanity may or may not be able to survive at each one. On the other hand, we have lil milquetoast idiots trying to cite IPCC numbers while ignoring the myriad positive feedbacks that have been researched since. Not to mention some dumbass who thinks that a current ECS range that includes 4.5C in the range is anything other than a giant alarm bell to change everything we're doing right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
I'm not sure what your definition of truly hosed is but its hard to imagine a +6C world that doesnt result in a billion+ deaths
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It doesn't run dry in normal years, though it did during an unprecedented recent drought. The second part's correct though. Er right. I meant that post to be about the huang he but I misspoke. An interesting consequence of lower average flow in the Yellow River is an increase in flood risk. This is because with lower flow the river has less energy and capacity to move sediments, which instead build up on the river bottom, decreasing the capacity of levees to hold back flood waters. This problem is compounded for China because most of the Yellow River's dams were not built to cope with it's high sediment inputs, and have lost much of their storage capacity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm not sure what your definition of truly hosed is but its hard to imagine a +6C world that doesnt result in a billion+ deaths There's no way we get to +6C without a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, that's for sure. The IPCC reports also don't really account for what to do with climate refugees or how the world is going to cope with GDP drag that's big enough to put us into permanent recession. Because they're bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:On one hand we have the climate nihilists who don't understand that we have ratcheted equilibria at 6C and 11C before things get truly hosed. Humanity may or may not be able to survive at each one. On the other hand, we have lil milquetoast idiots trying to cite IPCC numbers while ignoring the myriad positive feedbacks that have been researched since. Where's the equilibria stuff from? Been curious about that for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:This is what you're reduced to? Impotent personal attacks as a response to peer reviewed literature? There's a NOAA office where I live do I need to go there and have my picture taken with a climate scientist before you won't look at my posts and go "LOL THIS GUY THINKS WERE HEADED TO VENUS"? I read your article in is entirety and it does absolutely nothing to support your point. It does not mention feedbacks at all. The word "feedback" does not appear in the article, and no discussion of specific feedbacks such as melting permafrost. Nor does your NOAA graph, in and of itself, prove anything about feedbacks. You either have to provide some backing for your argument or drop it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:James Hansen literally thinks a runaway greenhouse effect is possible. You're an idiot debating with other idiots. Read: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426608/how-likely-is-a-runaway-greenhouse-effect-on-earth/ Hansen is an alarmist who will endorse even the most extreme scenarios and the very article you quote says that the actual literature is "nowhere near as pessimistic as Hansen". And in any case, burning literally all fossil fuel reserves is entirely out of the question anyway. quote:By the way, an ECS of 4.5C is already beyond bad. Do you understand why? Also, IPCC doesn't take into account things like carbon/methane release from peatland as well, something that is being more heavily researched now. It's one of the reasons I tell idiots like you to quit using old IPCC reports. Okay. Quantify the results of these and show me how much of a difference it makes. Cite sources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I read your article in is entirety and it does absolutely nothing to support your point. It does not mention feedbacks at all. The word "feedback" does not appear in the article, and no discussion of specific feedbacks such as melting permafrost. Nor does your NOAA graph, in and of itself, prove anything about feedbacks. You either have to provide some backing for your argument or drop it. My claim is that the IPCC's 5th report's estimates were conservative and that we are on pace to surpass their "worst case"/"business as usual" scenarios. You said there's no climate scientist who agrees with me. I quoted a climate scientist who agrees with me. Try again. The article is probably poo poo(I didn't read it), it's Scientific American anyways, but you seem to be under the delusion that climate scientists aren't aware the IPCC puts forth conservative estimates, which could not be farther from the truth. You can't just dismiss any climate scientist who disagrees with you as an alarmist and then make posts about how "look at these goombas who can't find one climate scientist who agrees with them!" Dismissing James Hansen's work is just  I mean come on this guy has been working in the field for decades and you're just going to write him off because "he's an alarmist" that's quite the ideological bent you've got there.
NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:My claim is that the IPCC's 5th report's estimates were conservative. You said there's no climate scientist who agrees with me. I quoted a climate scientist who agrees with me. Try again. You are now changing your argument. Earlier your posts were all about how feedbacks the IPCC does not account for will "make RCP8.5 obsolete", whatever that is supposed to mean. You have provided no evidence to support that claim and never will. I certainly agree that the IPCC is conservative, but not in the sense that's relevant to your point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You are now changing your argument. Earlier your posts were all about how feedbacks the IPCC does not account for will "make RCP8.5 obsolete", whatever that is supposed to mean. You have provided no evidence to support that claim and never will. I certainly agree that the IPCC is conservative, but not in the sense that's relevant to your point. I'm not changing my argument you're just starting to read my posts. See: you responding to me as if I was claiming Earth will be Venus in 100 years. I've literally posted the actual real world data on current emissions and it outpaces the estimates put forth in RCP 8.5. In a peer-reviewed published paper no less but I guess that isn't good enough for you. You keep posting about an emissions growth slowdown/flatline that almost mirrors the arguments of those who talk about a "hiatus" in global warming. FYI here's the post that started this, note that Venus, runaway greenhouse, and collapse do not appear in this post: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750508&pagenumber=234&perpage=40#post476290771 NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You can't just dismiss any climate scientist who disagrees with you as an alarmist and then make posts about how "look at these goombas who can't find one climate scientist who agrees with them!" On this specifically, you don't have to take my word for it! Just look at what climate scientists report on sea-level rise. quote:Peter Thorne, climate science professor at Maynooth University, Ireland, was invited to be a referee. “The initial submission was highly political, written largely as a blog article,” he told Climate Home. “It was overly long and I had real questions as to whether the journal was the right journal.” While the reviews for the paper itself are mixed, almost everyone goes out of their way to note how alarmist and political Hansen is. This is well-known in the climate research community. He is a legitimate scientist but he is also essentially an activist who purveys the most extreme scenarios as part of a strategy to scare people into cutting emissions as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:While the reviews for the paper itself are mixed, almost everyone goes out of their way to note how alarmist and political Hansen is. This is well-known in the climate research community. He is a legitimate scientist but he is also essentially an activist who purveys the most extreme scenarios as part of a strategy to scare people into cutting emissions as fast as possible. What's your point? He's not alone in his "alarmism" and he's credentialed as any climate scientist working in the field. Maybe... just maybe... there are real risks he sees and it's worth listening to him as opposed to parroting the IPCC's latest report as climate gospel. Alternatively, stick your head in the sand cheer for natural gas and pray for fusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm not changing my argument you're just starting to read my posts. See: you responding to me as if I was claiming Earth will be Venus in 100 years. You posted data from 2014 ago that showed us outpacing RCP8.5 estimates. I then posted a news article noting that since emissions have leveled off since 2014 we are probably no longer outpacing RCP8.5. You then started talking about historical trends and never addressed, and apparently are not willing to admit that the trend has changed since 2014. I admit I misunderstood you when I started talking about runaway greenhouse effects, since you started talking about "natural feedbacks [that] will overpower any sort of minuscule emissions reductions we manage to pull off". See? I can admit I made a mistake. Can you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What's your point? He's not alone in his "alarmism" and he's credentialed as any climate scientist working in the field. Maybe... just maybe... there are real risks he sees and it's worth listening to him as opposed to parroting the IPCC's latest report as climate gospel. Honey, you do not want to go down this route. Because I know scientists that are "just as credentialed as any climate scientist working in the field" too. I can cherry-pick a lot better than you can, and I can do it to the extent that I make climate change look like NBD. Just accept that Hansen is well outside the consensus and that he is an alarmist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You posted data from 2014 ago that showed us outpacing RCP8.5 estimates. I then posted a news article noting that since emissions have leveled off since 2014 we are probably no longer outpacing RCP8.5. A news article?! Pretty rich coming from a guy who wants peer reviewed scientific literature. Surely it shouldn't be hard to compare the data from 2017 to RCP 8.5. PS I'm not doing it for you and sorry for your loss when it turns out we're still above the pathway. Thug Lessons posted:Honey, you do not want to go down this route. Because I know scientists that are "just as credentialed as any climate scientist working in the field" too. I can cherry-pick a lot better than you can, and I can do it to the extent that I make climate change look like NBD. Just accept that Hansen is well outside the consensus and that he is an alarmist. I'm not the one telling you there isn't one single climate scientist that agrees with you. I'm not that stupid. I'm also not stupid enough to pretend like James Hansen's insight into climate change isn't valuable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:A news article?! Pretty rich coming from a guy who wants peer reviewed scientific literature. Surely it shouldn't be hard to compare the data from 2017 to RCP 8.5. PS I'm not doing it for you and sorry for your loss when it turns out we're still above the pathway. I have not heard a single scientist claiming that the atmospheric CO2 data shows that we are surpassing RCP8.5 in 2017. As far as I can tell it is your invention. Prove me wrong if you want anyone to be convinced. PS the article cites sources quote:I'm not the one telling you there isn't one single climate scientist that agrees with you. I'm not that stupid. I'm also not stupid enough to pretend like James Hansen's insight into climate change isn't valuable. I don't care whether it's "valuable", I care whether it's credible based on the science. And it isn't. The notion of a runaway greenhouse effect is dismissed by almost everyone as a virtual impossibility and Hansen's star power does nothing to detract from that consensus, especially given his well-known and deliberate tactic of alarmism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I have not heard a single scientist claiming that the atmospheric CO2 data shows that we are surpassing RCP8.5. As far as I can tell it is your invention. Prove me wrong, or don't, it makes no difference. PS the article cites sources Please post the peer reviewed research if you think we are now below RCP8.5 emissions pathways. This really shouldn't be hard given your fetishization of the science. You just have to answer two questions: How much carbon are we emitting now? How much carbon would we be emitting if we were following the RCP8.5 pathway? I know you can do this, you're clearly educated enough on the topic to figure it out. Complaining that my source is 3 years old could easily be applied to the entire IPCC report. It's not on me to ensure the studies get made, that's the best data I/we(?) have. Thug Lessons posted:I don't care whether it's "valuable", I care whether it's credible based on the science. And it isn't. The notion of a runaway greenhouse effect is dismissed by almost everyone as a virtual impossibility and Hansen's star power does nothing to detract from that consensus, especially given his well-known and deliberate tactic of alarmism. You're the one that came in swinging the "there's not one climate scientist who agrees with you" hammer. Maybe that was a bad idea? Unless you're suggesting James Hansen isn't a climate scientist, his credentials were revoked when he became too "alarmist" (when was this by your measure?) NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Please post the peer reviewed research if you think we are now below RCP8.5 emissions pathways. This really shouldn't be hard given your fetishization of the science. You just have to answer two questions: I can't find yearly tables, so the best I can offer you is this. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions under the RCP8.5 scenario are expected to rise to 41.7 GtCO2 by 2020 according to IPCC. However, currently, they steady at 32.1 GtCO2 for the third straight year, according to the IEA. I am not entirely sure if they are in line with the RCP8.5 scenario since, as I said, I cannot find the yearly tables, however we would have to turbo-charge CO2 growth to reach those levels when in reality the trend is flat. The IPCC numbers are in GtC rather than GtC02 so multiply them by 3.67 if you want to check my math.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay. Quantify the results of these and show me how much of a difference it makes. Cite sources. The ultimate Brandolini's Principle response from an idiot that has no idea how to act under uncertainty. What a vast question, which domain should you look at? Do we talk about the fact that at 4.5C the minimum tropical cyclone pressures would be expected to decrease 70+ millibars compared to where they are now? Do we talk about increased convective potential leading to more lightning strikes in wildfire prone areas? Do we talk about the deepening thermocline in the oceans preventing upwelling from terminating storm systems? Do we talk about what sort of permanent baroclinic features may show up in the Arctic once the ice melts and the thermocline warms significantly? Do we talk about the relationships between seismological events and tropical systems and/or ice sheet collapse? Do we talk about the fact that you think business as usual is good enough when the system we're talking about generating feedbacks is literally the one that originated the term The Butterfly Effect? Would you rather just be willfully dense or is your understanding of risk really that naive? We should play poker, I love taking money from idiots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I can't find yearly tables, so the best I can offer you is this. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions under the RCP8.5 scenario are expected to rise to 41.7 GtCO2 by 2020 according to IPCC. Can you do me a solid and actually quote where it says this because I see 50 pages of charts and I don't see the number "41.7" Show up anywhere when I control+f Thug Lessons posted:The IPCC numbers are in GtC rather than GtC02 so multiply them by 3.67 if you want to check my math. Just saw this, thanks for this Anyways, I think it's fair to say we're at best "on" the RCP8.5 pathway, it's obviously too short a time period to draw any strong conclusions and I do hope emissions keep levelling off or what not. I have to admit I'm skeptical, both of the IEA and whether the feedbacks not included in the IPCC report won't make up the gap, but I have to say the last three years have been pretty "good" for emissions. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The ultimate Brandolini's Principle response from an idiot that has no idea how to act under uncertainty. What a vast question, which domain should you look at? Do we talk about the fact that at 4.5C the minimum tropical cyclone pressures would be expected to decrease 70+ millibars compared to where they are now? Do we talk about increased convective potential leading to more lightning strikes in wildfire prone areas? Do we talk about the deepening thermocline in the oceans preventing upwelling from terminating storm systems? Do we talk about what sort of permanent baroclinic features may show up in the Arctic once the ice melts and the thermocline warms significantly? Do we talk about the relationships between seismological events and tropical systems and/or ice sheet collapse? Do we talk about the fact that you think business as usual is good enough when the system we're talking about generating feedbacks is literally the one that originated the term The Butterfly Effect? I certainly don't want to play poker with a stacked deck, so I'm not inclined to operate on an assumption of upper-bound ECS. However, you are absolutely right that we shouldn't play poker with "business as usual" GHG emissions either. We should cut them as quickly as possible. I'm not arguing for unrelenting emissions, just against people who literally, ("literally" meaning literally, not literally meaning figuratively), argue that we are doomed to a RCP8.5 emissions scenario.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:34
|
|