|
The OP is remarkably more alarmist than the IPCC,, and diverges significantly from the science on issues like drought, flooding, hurricanes, and tornadoes. You state things as certainties that may not happen. Here is AR5 on what we've observed on extreme weather:quote:“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability" As far as global hunger...to repeat from the last thread, food is not trending to be a problem in the foreseeable future: humanity is increasing food production faster than the human population is growing (google food production per capita), and human population will be leveling off at around 9 billion over the next 40 or so years, before it starts declining. Contrary to your point that starvation is going to "worse," we're well on our way to solving global hunger over the next couple of decades as Africa & the middle east modernize (and hopefully become more peaceful). And on the topic of Greenland and Antarctica melting, you gloss over the fact that these are very slow processes, and the melting of these bodies of ice even under extreme temperature increases would take hundreds or thousands of years. Sea levels are rising far too slowly for it to have an outsized impact on coastal cities anytime in the next few decades at least, if not longer. Finally, temperature is increasing far less than the climate models predicted. This should give pause to someone painting too alarmist of a picture about the future.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:
Hundreds of millions of Indians live in extreme poverty. Lifting them out of that is their #1 priority, not whether Earth is 1-2 C warmer a hundred years from now. On the flip side, India is also building large solar projects, and they have decent solar radiation numbers making it easier to be cost competitive. Won't be long before solar is cheaper than coal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:The people who are going to get shafted the most by climate change are the poor, if reducing emissions is supposed to help anybody it's supposed to help them. The point of growing the economy (and energy usage) is that they won't be poor anymore. India has a hunger problem now. Do you think India will have a hunger problem in a few decades? There's unlikely to be many, if any, poor countries at all in a few decades, not even in Africa. There will be poorer countries, but lack of food, water, and electricity will be gone. Poor countries are able to modernize much more quickly than in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Bzzt. Food production is growing faster than population, and has been for a very long time. edit: India produces around 3000 kilograms of cereal yield per hectare, roughly half of what is produced in the United States, so the potential is there for India to increase its food output by a very large amount. Here is the World Bank showing worldwide food production of cereals (wheat, rice, etc.) per hectare:  As you can see, it is increasing rapidly... ...and will continue to do so:  Food scarcity is a completely idiotic bogeyman. Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I like how your graph stops at the year that phosphate shortage is predicted to become a thing. I guess peak phosphorous is the new peak oil. Another imaginary problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Verge posted:What would you prefer they replace it with? Nuclear power plants, watt-hour for watt-hour pollute very, very little. Do you know what size of solar farm you need to replace a nuclear power plant? I've heard if you put solar panels in the clear out area for a nuclear power plant (you can't build anything commercial/residential within X miles of a nuclear station, I forget the number), it would produce more energy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Phayray posted:The number is an exclusion zone radius of 0.65 km according to this report. Even if you take the high end estimate (1.6 km exclusion zone radius -> 8 sq km) for a typical 2 GW site (0.25 GW/sq km) and take the low end estimate for solar from this NEI report of 1 GW / 116 sq km (0.009 GW/sq km), you're off by about a factor of 30. I believe the radius can be much higher in the US, although I don't know for certain. Also, solar can be much more efficient than that. The Solar Star project that was completed this year has a 580 MW capacity on 13 sq km (which would be .044 GW/sq km). Either way, it is just something I heard. Elon Musk made it as an offhand remark in a talk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Wow, a carbon sequestration plant that mitigates the carbon of 60 households' worth of transportation (not their heating, cooling, etc.). Truly, technology will be our savior. Do you mean to tell me that brand new technology isn't immediately awesome?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
meristem posted:I just really want to note that putting the financing part in the non-binding part of the agreement was both a great troll and, well, a mindfuck that this was at all necessary to circumvent a supposedly advanced nation's Senate. I hope that Hillary will continue to abide by the pledge out of sheer spite, if nothing else. Nothing in the agreement is binding, and the pledge to reduce emissions is impossible without new technologies. We don't have much of a clue what level of emissions would keep temperatures 2C below pre-industrial...could be as high as 1200ppm if climate sensitivity is 1C per doubling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:GIven that the temperature has already increased by 1C with less than a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature increase would continue even if we were to stop emitting CO2 today, we can be pretty sure that it does not take one doubling to increase the temperature by 1C. This is misleading. Much of that 1C increase you cite is prior to 1940, and likely had very little correlation with human activity/CO2. This is why the problem is usually described along the lines of.... "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." Note: "most" and "recent decades." We know mathematically that a doubling of CO2, all other factors aside, leads to a 1C increase. There are likely to be feedbacks on top of that which increase the number to above 1C per doubling, but there's wide disagreement on what the number is (from the low 1s to above 2). Placid Marmot posted:The necessary reduction in emissions is not "impossible without new technologies" in any sense whatsoever; what you mean is that our infinite-growth capitalism would require sequestration technologies to outpace our emissions. We don't need new technology, we need a different economic system. Let me clarify: it is impossible without new technology in every scenario except the one where world economies are dismantled and humanity is immediately thrust into deep poverty. You are right...in that scenario of human misery, emissions will fall dramatically.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Pretty cool, the Earth is greening far more than we expected: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html Could help to explain why climate models have been so crap (probably a minimal short-term impact in depressing temperature rise, but potentially a large long-term impact).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:The only difference when it comes to climate change is that it will drag the western world back into suffering it hasn't known for generations and has forgotten how to deal with. You're anxious because your mind knows one day you or your children might be living like the Sudanese do now, today, and that is uncomfortable. I'd rate this outcome as.....unlikely. How are u posted:I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. Are you not having a child because of climate change? Arkane fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:How could it be a large, long-term impact? As the one of the authors of the study says, I didn't mean it would accelerate, I meant that the year on year effect, over the long run, could mitigate significant amounts of atmospheric CO2. Obviously as plant life expands, carbon intake increases. So along with carbon sinking into the oceans, this is another naturally-occurring valve by which carbon is being drained from the atmosphere. Climate models are predicated on extremely large increases in CO2 levels, so even small changes year on year would have a profound impact on models projecting the carbon imbalance in, say, the year 2100.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Hello Arkane. What is your opinion on the revision to the RSS temperature dataset that eliminated the so called pause? RSS has been an outlier for awhile, so this is not surprising. The hiatus was not an artifact of RSS, though. Both the ground and satellite observations showed a near zero trend starting around 2001 through 2014. The strong El Nino has perhaps finally ended it, although it could be a respite. The most compelling explanation I've seen for the hiatus is that it is due to cycles within the Atlantic ocean. It's postulated to last until somewhere in the neighborhood of 2025 if it is indeed a function of that: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988 Placid Marmot posted:This increase in leaf area was between 1982 and 2015; can you point out on this chart where this increase in leaf area has mitigated "significant amounts of atmospheric CO2"? You read into my post what you wanted to read, instead of what I actually posted. Human carbon emissions are clearly outpacing natural carbon sinks. By what margin, we don't know. What I said was over the next few decades, these sinks could reduce the increases. Because atmospheric co2 projections rely on compounding emissions growth, small changes to the year on year multiplier can have large impacts at the end point. For instance (these numbers are purely illustrative), if you start with 3ppm and compound it by 2% annually, you end up with 1050ppm in 2100. If you compound it annually by 1.5%, you end up with about 900ppm. A minuscule year on year change has a rather large impact over a long enough period of time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Notice how Arkane doesn't link to actual scientific papers, just pop sci articles from the BBC and other news sites. Is this a parody of a troll post? I've referenced two papers. For the greening paper, I linked to the journal...so in your mad dash to write your shitpost, I guess you missed that. For the Atlantic ocean study, I discussed that across many different posts when it was published including here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&pagenumber=167&perpage=40#post435295253 and here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&userid=107386&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post433920283 Both times I linked to the paper. Not like it matters, since the papers are frequently behind paywalls. Here's a good write-up on that paper & the oceans generally: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d=tw-share&_r=0 By the way, I've been discussing AMO as a possible culprit for the hiatus since at least 2010. This is not some new and controversial theory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:The problem is that those articles are essentially saying that global warming is occurring, but some natural mechanisms might have slowed down this warming in recent years. Good, you get it. This is exactly what I am saying. Mystic_Shadow posted:Your own worldview, which is that the atmosphere hasnt been warming since 1998, or that if it has it's only because of ENSO events. This is your fantasy of what I am saying. I've not posted these statements anywhere. So you're now onto two posts in a row of making random poo poo up. What's in store for post number 3?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Seems like an opportune time to bring up Richard Muller's spectrum of participants in the climate debate: https://www.quora.com/How-many-climate-change-denialists-are-there-in-the-US/answer/Richard-Muller-3 quote:How many climate change denialists are there in the US? The majority of posters in these climate threads on SA I would say fall into the category of alarmists. In fact, this forum is the single most alarmist place for climate discussion I've ever seen and I read a lot of climate stuff. Just batshit insane discussion about the downfall of humanity and civilization posted on a near constant basis. I think someone in a previous thread suggested that we non-ironically start killing oil executives, and another that we need a worldwide dictatorship. Anyway, I'm probably around 50% lukewarmist, 50% skeptic. I'd say there are serious flaws in climate reconstructions, but on the rest of the topics I'm fairly on board with everything. The climate models are obviously the biggest point of contention. When compared against observations, they've so far been trash, and alarmists ignore that, while the rest of the list embraces that discussion. Overall, I think this place is largely scientifically-ignorant and practically brainwashed on alarmism. So my 50% lukewarmist/50% skeptic is met with calls of "denier." Mystic_Shadow seems to be a good example of an alarmist not even pretending to read my posts or engage with me honestly. Probably out of his depth, if I had to guess. Arkane fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Apr 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
How cloud cover will change in a warming climate remains one of the biggest unknowns in modeling future temperature changes...it is (was) assumed to have a slightly positive feedback, which is to say changes in cloud cover were going to amplify warming. New research out of CERN points to it being a negative feedback that will slow the warming: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies That is good news. Also goes hand-in-hand with what I posted a couple weeks back about the Earth getting greener.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I hate to have to reply to you, but it has already been pointed out (without response from you [that's a good thing, btw]) that the increase in leaves has accompanied an accelerating level of CO2, so "the Earth getting greener" is at best indifferent or irrelevant news. The takeaway from this post is that the Earth is getting greener faster than we expected. And with the Earth greening faster than we expected, this sequesters more carbon than we expected and specifically relating to what I just posted...creates more aerosols than we expected, which will seed more clouds than we expected. Because, interestingly, the areas where we are seeing the most greening will create the most aerosols (boreal forests with pine trees). Placid Marmot posted:Similarly, increasing historical cloud cover (as opposed to the prehistory assumptions discussed in that paper) has accompanied increasing temperatures. We know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today, and that increasing temperatures increase cloud cover today. It is DEFINITELY false that "we know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today." It's also not as simple as that, since there are different types of clouds that have different effects on either inbound or outbound radiation. We have a lot of clues about what may happen with clouds in a warming world, but nothing close to definitive. In fact, your first link says pretty much exactly what I said lol: "Currently the role that water vapor and clouds play in warming or cooling the Earth's climate system is being investigated by scientists." Clouds are a big unknown. If you don't trust your own NOAA link, here is a link where alarmist SkS also says the exact same thing I said in their first graf: http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm This latest study is fascinating because CERN can do some really complicated poo poo, and they were able to create clouds without sulfuric acid. That's a huge breakthrough in a topic where we desperately need more knowledge. Placid Marmot posted:The article says "the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but 'the highest values become improbable' ", not that temperatures will not continue to rise or that the effects will not be catastrophic. Note that the global temperature anomaly is currently in the upper range of the IPCC's worse case projections from the 2013 report. Decreasing the upper bound is unequivocally good. Maybe El Nino has spiked us up above the models, I haven't seen a model/observation comparison in a few months, but we're in a huge outlier year temperature-wise and we have otherwise been significantly below the models. As far as "there is no good news"...well, if you don't know much about the topic, as it appears, then yeah I could see why you only see the bad news you specifically look for.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Almost every piece you link is either from think tanks or pieces taken out of context from a larger study. This is just something you've made up out of thin air. I'd guess its been years since I've linked to a think tank, and nothing is out of context. Banana Man posted:Your goalposts have slid considerably, which sure I could agree different information would naturally change your viewpoint, but when something new comes out you're immediately posting something from a defensive point. Also not true. And it only comes across as defensive because this is a highly polarized forum. Banana Man posted:What do you believe regarding climate change? How much have those beliefs changed over the last 5 years? What made you think differently then than you do now regarding it? My position has been that the climate is warming, but for two main reasons, it is unlikely to be all that bad. The first is that the climate models have likely exaggerated future warming for a number of different reasons, and the second is that humans are likely to be able to adapt to changes because they are so slow moving and because the world is becoming extremely wealthy extremely quickly. As an overall criticism, people are far too dismissive of technology altering the status quo. I mean in 2018, there's going to be hundreds of thousands of electric Teslas on the roads, many of them powered by solar panels. Did anybody predict that 10 years ago? Somebody called bullshit when I said half of all new cars sold in the US in 2025 may be electric, and yet I think this looks far more likely now than when I predicted it. Things will change very quickly for the better in many facets of our life as has been the case for the hundreds of years that capitalism has existed. It'd be shocking to me if natgas/coal is the biggest source of power/oil the biggest source of transportation fuel 40 years from now. Yet the models assume accelerating fossil fuel usage. Does that seem logical or probable to you? edit: on the last point, I'd say a position that has changed within the last 5 years is reticence to embrace the temperature record. There were I felt credible reasons to be skeptical of its preciseness, but I think it was Richard Muller with Berkeley Earth (who had similar reservations) did a very rigorous and comprehensive re-analysis and found it to be just about accurate. Squalid posted:Given that El nino occurs roughly every two-seven years it's hard to justify calling this year's temperatures an outlier, especially given that most estimates attribute about 10% of above average warming to El nino last year, and likely will contribute about 25% of warming for 2016 Not all El Ninos are the same. Look at 1998. Multiyear trends is what we want to be focusing on. Arkane fucked around with this message at 04:33 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Which trend do you mean? The 30 year trend is probably the benchmark (I think we're at around .16C/decade), but I think looking at smaller slices can be instructive, especially if we can isolate something like the hiatus from 2001-2014 which diverged observations so significantly from the models. I realize this graph gets pasted a lot as some sort of dumb gotcha, but it is actually a great illustration of decadal trends within oceans. You can see warm phase oceans led to large decadal increases starting from the late 70s into the end of the century, and when you had the ocean phase flip from warm to cool, you see it level off quite significantly. One of the primary reasons that the models are likely to be exaggerated is that they were built upon the warm-phase 80s & 90s (and one can see that they were immediately and significantly off in the 00s). Lemming posted:He believes in the Climategate email scandal conspiracy theory. That should pretty much sum him up entirely. I mean...I was posting about malfeasance at CRU/Mann before Climategate; it was a hot button issue before any email ever leaked. So yes I believe in that scandal, and no it's not some wacky conspiracy theory. They undermined peer review, thwarted FOIA, conspired to deny data from other researchers, and blatantly deleted data which showed proxy/temperature mismatches in two high-profile temperature reconstructions. They crossed the line from scientists to activists. People generally frame the issue as one where global warming was put in doubt, and some media outlets pretended that it did just that. But for those who knew the issue well, it was strictly about a group of scientists who write the entire paleo reconstruction section of the IPCC report conspiring to make the reconstruction data as alarmist as possible. The reconstruction section of climate science is a cesspit of activists using very bad statistics to come to highly suspect conclusions that are in direct opposition to anthropological data from that time period. It's a complete farce, and if their field was medicine instead of paleoclimate, Jones & Mann at a minimum would be out of a job.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You don't need to link your post since I specifically referenced it and mentioned that it was irrelevant, since atmospheric the CO2 increase accelerated both during the studied timeframe and subsequently. Alright let's slow this down: you're saying that something that was expected to happen (CO2 accelerating) makes something that was not expected to happen (Earth greening very quickly) irrelevant? Makes no sense. I mean, NCC thought it was important enough to publish, which isn't a complete validation, but it gives you at least a higher benchmark to dismiss it than that nonsense. Placid Marmot posted:Yeah, we know that the types of cloud that block more incoming than outgoing energy are the types that are decreasing with increasing sea surface temperature, as stated in the link I gave. If you read through the 7 paragraphs on clouds in AR5, you'll see that the datasets do not even agree with each other on changes in cloud cover, let alone being able to identify net impacts on temperature. Isolating one study and calling it evidence when you have countervailing data is a joke. Placid Marmot posted:Do you think that modelers don't know about the existence of El Nińo? The 2013 IPCC report prominently features the Smith et al. 2012 forecast that shows this year's spike as approximately its upper bound. If we hit cool phase ENSO in 2018 and we're back below the MoE for the models, are you going to be in here posting about it? Not exactly intellectually honest taking a victory lap for the models in a year where ENSO has given an adrenaline shot to temperature.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:It's evidently irrelevant since the extra leaves have had no impact on CO2, which was the entire supposedly positive thing about the extra leaves. It likely has/had an impact on CO2, but perhaps too small to notice in the near-term. Which is what I said when I talked about the paper and also, you know, one of the main takeaways of the paper. A few trees growing isn't going to halt CO2 increases, nor was that ever implied lol. Placid Marmot posted:Is it physically possible for the Earth to shed enough energy for the termperature to fall back that far in 2 years? Are you banking on another Pinatubo? Might be probable. Look at 1999's monthlies compared to the monster 97-98 El Nino. Placid Marmot posted:I just looked at the old thread (so you don't have to) and I found some gems. ??? I often just post off the top of my head, so apologies if I was slightly off in C/decade when I made a post. Not like it matters that much, and it's not like I'm trying to hide information. I mean if it's .15 and I post .14 or .14 and I posted .15, it's kinda beside the point in terms of the larger argument. quote:Edit: To clarify, I superimposed the blue chart on Arkane's original chart here, in case the notes don't make that clear: Looks like you got some work to do on your 37 month smoothing at the end points bruh. And we're also not at 2018 yet, but cherry pickers gonna cherry pick I guess. Their model could still be correct. Or maybe it won't be correct. quote:And there are loads of examples where he has subsequently been proved wrong, where better data or analysis have come in. Yeah? Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:53 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
rscott posted:I think most people in this thread are willing to embrace change, like say changing the global capitalist hegemony to something more willing and able to address the needs of all the world's citizens Let's destroy the thing raising standards of living across the planet. Good idea!
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Bloomberg with an opinion piece on the case against alarmism...bit simplistic but it conveys the basic point: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-01/global-warming-alarmists-you-re-doing-it-wrong
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/09/co2-turned-into-stone-in-iceland-in-climate-change-breakthrough It's interesting how when faced with monumental challenges, humanity finds new and exciting ways to tackle them. Almost as if we're good at it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Nic Lewis and Judith Curry out with another climate sensitivity paper, and again estimate that ECS/TCS will be half of what climate models assume: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 Would be great news!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:I haven't followed any developments in the science for the past few years. Is he right to say that if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions right now, we're still screwed? That seems like a pretty bold claim given it seems we're pretty bad at predicting how the multifarious feedback loops, carbon sinks etc actually work? Nah, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280ppm, we're at 409 right now. The IPCC's "best guess" at the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the rise in temperature based upon a doubling of CO2, is that temperatures would increase by 1.5C-4.5C (and there's been papers in the few years since AR5 which have suggested the higher bounds of that range are very unlikely). As you can see from the ppm incraese, we're not even close to a doubling yet. So in the fantasy scenario where all emissions stopped right now, temperature would continue to rise very minimally and very slowly over the next few hundred years, but a "doomsday" would be extremely unlikely. TACD posted:Here's some straight–talking doom for you on this fine morning I think this sentence kind of encapsulates the ignorance of alarmists: "Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried." Not only would I say that is just completely wrongheaded thinking belied by the past few hundred years of our existence, but the example he gives is just plain factually incorrect. In fact, there's a project in Iceland which has shown what was once thought nigh impossible (sequestering carbon in solidified form) is doable, and might even become inexpensive. They already succeeded a couple years ago with the first iteration and are now onto the second: quote:The CarbFix2 pilot program can remove an estimated 50 metric tons of CO2 from the air each year, eliminating more CO2 than it produces. Climeworks’ engineers want the testing to show that similar projects could be used globally, though cost is among the issues—Climeworks estimates it costs $600 to extract one ton of CO2 from the air. http://www.powermag.com/test-of-carbon-capture-technology-underway-at-iceland-geothermal-plant/?mypower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarbFix And that's just one example of what one company has accomplished.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:You're aware that we've already seen an increase in global mean temperature of over 1°C and not even a 50% increase in CO2 ppm, right? You're painting a little too simplistic of a picture....can't just subtract current temperature from long ago temperature and divide by carbon changes to ascertain climate sensitivity, so the snippet "we've already seen an increase in global mean temperature of over 1°C and not even a 50% increase in CO2 ppm" is you I guess trying to mislead people. The assumption there is that co2 is the only factor in the change, whereas (as just one immediate problem with your method) natural variability is probably dominating the pre-1940s temperature changes. Secondly, the logarithmic relationship between co2 ppm and temperature increase means that the temperature increase will be "frontloaded" within the doubling. Which I guess brings up an ancillary point that predictions, for instance, of temperature in the year 2100 is based upon accelerating carbon usage by humans. And yet, we're rapidly developing technology that moves us away from a carbon economy, and that in spite of the huge economic expansion of the past few years, we haven't seen much annual co2 ppm acceleration as economies have been slowly decarbonized. As just one point of contention with the models, I'm fairly skeptical of humanity reaching much higher than say 600 ppm. Things like batteries/electric cars and solar panels are becoming better and cheaper very rapidly.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is factually incorrect excepting for rcp 8.5. Yes, sorry, model predictions of large temperature increases are premised upon accelerating carbon emissions. RCP 8.5 assumes we make close to 0 technological progress and carbon emissions accelerate.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
double nine posted:here's a hopeful lecture. This is the type of presentation of completely wrong information that I think is so insidious in climate discussions. He conflates the 97% number with unscientific scare mongering about natural disasters that is completely at odds with the IPCC. He misstates the science, then says scientists "agree" on the stuff he has just made up, because it suits his argument. Saying "extreme weather gets worse wherever you are" is contrary to the IPCC. "Droughts and crop failure is currently happening as a result of climate change" is again unsupported by the IPCC. Citing storms and then saying "no question" that these storms were made worse. The IPCC does not agree. He cites a correct WHO number of air pollutant deaths, but then scaremongers by saying it's from "factories, tailpipes, etc.", which is of course false (and also nonsensical). Most of it is from people that are extremely poor and burning wood (and similar fuels) in their homes, because they lack any access to electricity. I think the model of policy outcomes he has made is very effective in how interactive it is, and it truly gets to the politics of the matter....BUT he has juiced the baseball significantly with a 3C climate sensitivity. And if I am reading that correctly, he has used a value for the TCR of 3C? Logging into his simulator, he has atmospheric CO2 at 880ppm in 2100, and a temperature increase at 2100 of 4.2C. That is.....very alarmist, and very detached from reality. The IPCC's estimate of TCR is 1-2.5C, so he is almost double the midpoint. Consequently, the sea level rise is then equally juiced, and his scaremongering about flooding is of course dumb as a result. A charitable viewing of his presentation is that he just doesn't know much about the science, a less charitable view is that he knows, but is distorting it to prey on people's ignorance. It's unfortunate, because I think the software is very cool from a geopolitical standpoint!
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
call to action posted:it's weird how, even though it hasn't happened yet, there is actually a plausible possibility of one of guy mcpherson's predictions coming true (blue/blue-ish ocean in the arctic, or at least free of multiyear ice) If by plausible possibility you mean a massive meteor strike that sends the Earth careening into the sun, then yes it is plausible. This Guy McPherson is the flat-earther type who says no life will exist by 2026... Trabisnikof posted:"Trust me, I know more about the climate science than this guy who presented at COP 15, he's completely wrong about the science, and no I don't need to actually cite anything, I said the magic letters 'IPCC' what more do I need as proof?" Well he is wrong, and I emailed him, so we'll see if he responds! And everything I've posted I've cited previously and can be googled easily. Feel free to read the IPCC SREX yourself, the first few pages are the summary. Arkane fucked around with this message at 19:20 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I'll engage even with Arkane and did in the old thread, too. I think that is a very interesting callback considering the state of the world in May, 2018 versus May, 2012. Who do you think is winning that argument right now? Given the efficiency advances and extreme price decreases in solar and batteries, given the exponential growth in electric vehicles, given the fact that the majority of new power generation coming online in the world is renewable, given the rate of decarbonization in the economy...that doesn't give you pause about the trajectory of advancement versus ominous predictions about the far flung future? Do you think the AVERAGE person born in the year 2018 will purchase as their first car one powered by gas? Assuming owning cars is still something the average person does. Do you think that this same person, when they purchase their first home, will be reliant upon energy generated mostly by fossil fuels? And yet, when you look at the alarmist predictions about temperature, the most dire are dependent upon a status quo economy wherein a person born in the year 2080 is driving around a gas-powered car and burning carbon for electricity. That strikes me as a dumb and funny joke. How does it strike you? I read a great non-fiction book recently called Devil in the White City, and I recall a reference to the horse manure crisis, where a newspaper declared "in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure." That to me is a fitting analogy for predictions of (something like) 1000ppm CO2 levels in 2100.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
self unaware posted:if there are twice as many people born in 2018 buying cars in 2038 or whatever than there are now, it won't matter because buying and driving an EV isn't some sort of emissions free activity For the future of emissions growth, there are two numbers to account for, the rate of GDP growth, and the amount of carbon emitted per $1 of GDP. If, under your scenario, twice as many people are buying cars and let's say half of them are electric, that means world GDP attributable to automobile sales has skyrocketed and carbon emitted per $1 of GDP attributable to automobile sales has plummeted. It may have increased in absolute terms, as you point out, since constructing the vehicle and driving the vehicle aren't 100% emissions free, but you've decreased the carbon intensity by a very large amount. This would be an extremely good thing. Using China in your example, the number of vehicles sold in China last year rose by mid-single digits. The number of electric vehicles sold in China last year rose by 53%. You're going to find similar-ish numbers across the world, which is world vehicle sales slowly rising but the specific segment of electric vehicle sales skyrocketing. Volkswagen recently placed a $50 billion order for batteries, and plans to ramp up to >3 million electric vehicles per year by 2025. We've reached a point in energy efficiency in many parts of the world where building a new solar plant makes more financial sense than building a new gas/coal plant (and I read somewhere recently that we're a couple years away from a new solar plant being cheaper to build/operate than closing an existing coal plant). As I said in the post, most of the new power generation last year was renewable...157 GW of new power plants last year were renewable, a net 73 GW of new power plants were fossil fuel. That number will likely soon reach negative numbers for net new fossil fuel power plants. So, much like energy production, when we get to the point where an electric vehicle is cheaper and better than an ICE vehicle, a point we are rapidly approaching, then um, why would anyone buy a new ICE vehicle?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i think in the case of EVs you're looking at something like a 50% reduction in total emissions over the car lifecycle, that's not enough if you want to export the idea of every person who lives outside a city center owning a vehicle (which is how American, Australian, Canadian, etc infrastructure all works) given that only like 1 in 7 people own a car at this point wordwide. that going to 2 or 3, even if they were all EVs, would be an ecological disaster You base these assumptions on 2018's energy mix, but the energy mix as electric cars become more widespread will change dramatically. Just as a small for instance, I just bought a solar system on my house, and I have a Tesla reservation. I bought the solar not because I am obsessed with being green, but because it made financial sense. My electric car would use net zero emissions. How commonplace will solar on a home and an electric car be in the future? I mean, I don't even give a poo poo about my minuscule carbon footprint in the grand scheme of humanity, and yet I am "green" now. The world will become green not by force as you suggest it should, but by choice and some incentives. self unaware posted:Unfortunately the earth doesn't really care about how "carbon intensive" car production is, only how many emissions we put out total. The bottom line is that continued economic growth and development that follow the model global capitalism insists on is simple incompatible with a 2 degrees C future (or a 3 or 4 for that matter) The earth may not care about carbon intensity of the economy, but climate models will change dramatically depending on the number, which is where you are getting your projections. self unaware posted:The bottom line is that continued economic growth and development that follow the model global capitalism insists on is simple incompatible with a 2 degrees C future (or a 3 or 4 for that matter) I think one of the great ironies of the anti-capitalist stance is that free and free-ish markets are going to make the world a whole lot better, a whole lot quicker than the economic standstill and energy reorganization that you're likely to be a proponent of, and your lip service of caring about people dying would seem to stand in contradiction to your policy ideas. Far more humans die in extreme poverty than climate change can ever hope to kill off, and yet the expansion of markets and economic growth is quickly eliminating extreme poverty from the planet. The countries that rise out of poverty now will not have to use antiquated technology like coal and gas guzzling vehicles, but will have immediate access to 2018 technology of super advanced renewable energy, storage technology, and things like electric vehicles. The world is going to rapidly decarbonize its economic growth, massively grow its economy, become massively smarter and wealthier, and "wizardy" isn't going to be involved. And yes, carbon ppm will probably keep slowly rising by 3ish ppm per year in the near term, and the Earth will warm very slowly, and sea levels will rise very slowly, and everyone is going to be perfectly okay because it's incredibly slow moving, and when and if ill effects come, the ill effects will be able to be tackled by a world that is incredibly more advanced and richer.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Jesus christ, Thug Lessons dragged this thread so far into climate denialism that loving Arkane came back. Your posts in this thread seem to be nothing but a lot of repetitive, hackneyed soothsaying about the end of the planet that are completely disconnected from reality, including frequently waxing on about global dictatorships and the death of billions being the only realistic solution. The sad thing is that you've convinced yourself you know something about climate science. You don't. To seriously suggest killing people, which you did twice, is demented and dangerous. To label everyone who thinks the apocalypse might not be so close a "denialist" is stupidly disingenious. You have 5 pages of posts, and the only thing I found in a skim that even SCRAPES the surface of the science of climate change is completely wrong: quote:Lets not forget that the most recent IPCC report left out important feedback systems and ended up looking hilariously optimistic considering the data we've seen since. The exact opposite has occurred since AR5; we've reigned in and lowered the bounds for climate sensitivity (again), and the high-end climate model will likely drop CO2 emissions projections as well due to the global deployment of renewables obliterating the IEA's projections together with the decarbonization we've seen across the globe, including specifically China. A sampling of climate sensitivity studies since AR5, including "best guesses": ECS 2.0 - https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1836 ECS 2.0 - https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-119/esd-2017-119.pdf ECS 3.0 - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012693.pdf ECS 1.7 - https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 ECS 2.0 - https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105156 ECS 2.8 - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450 ECS 2.0 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014000404 If you think the scientists that have begun work on AR6 are going to deliver predictions for your much-hyped apocalypse, you're going to be sadly let down.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this isn't even a climate thing, I've just never understood in life people like arkane and thug who somehow get so lost in the details, and so wrapped up in their identity of you're-wrong-because-i-know-more-than-you contrarianism that they wind up simultaneously knowing the *details* of something inside out while completely failing to draw the obvious conclusions that indicate even a *basic* level of understanding. you see it with people who memorize the poo poo out of the bible too. or anime, or whatever. Turns out it's not hard to be a "contrarian" when a lot of the thread is an anti-science, anti-progress cesspit of despair. Why don't you elucidate the obvious conclusions you have drawn...what is your guess at the state of the planet in 2050 at the current trajectory? It's 2018 right now. If you were born in the year 1985, sea levels are about 3.5 inches higher, temperatures are about .6C warmer, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 66 parts per million. Meanwhile, global population has increased by 2.6 billion, GDP per capita has tripled, and the number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped from about 40% of the world to about 8% of the world. That is the previous 33 years, where are we headed in the next 33 years, Hobo? edit: I'll even go first! I think we'll be about .5C degrees warmer (relative to 2018), sea levels will have risen by about 4 inches, atmospheric CO2 will have risen by about 90 ppm. I think population will grow by about 1.5 billion, GDP per capita will have increased by 2.5 times, and the number of people living in extreme poverty will drop from about 8% to <1%. Oh and for fun, I also think that the population of Mars will be >5,000 people! What a time to be alive! Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:12 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think one of the consequences of having TR in this thread has been normalization of one of the rhetorical tools in his poo-poo-everything Denialism 2.0 kit: that pretty much any negativity beyond a very light threshold is full arzy alarmism when the truth is that people are genuinely and personally worried about even the most mundane consequences of the 2.0 C world we're likely to enter. It's fine to be genuinely and personally worried, and there is obviously no shortage of scientists that are on that end of the spectrum. Anybody can recognize that humanity has taken dominion over a planet and is changing it in myriad ways, with unexpected results. However, because the issue has become interwoven with politics & economics, people on both ends of the debate greatly overstate their case to the point of departing from science in order to get the issue to dovetail perfectly with their existing worldview. Which is not to say that climate science is infallible or immalleable, but one doesn't get to make up their own reality and state that is where the science is. And lastly I would say that if you want to get people to engage with unknowns that could cause more warming than we expect, then perhaps don't dismiss unknowns that could cause less warming than we expect as being "denialist." The point of posting in here, I think, should be to challenge your own beliefs via argument and learning.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
How are u posted:It’s an unsettling mix of willfully blind optimism and condescension. "Willfully blind optimism"! It's basically a toned down RCP 6.0 scenario, which is probably going to be updated (in AR6) to be super close to what I posted. Well, not the Mars thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
If you became a worldwide dictator and waved your climate solution wand and had everyone stop flying for leisure, you would do next to nothing for emissions (maybe a ~1% reduction in annual CO2 output), destroy millions of tourism jobs including many in poor countries that are only realistically accessible by plane, and you'd sink the world into a recession. Is there even like 5 seconds worth of thought put into this bullshit outrage over airplanes? If you want to slow down emissions dramatically, then the ballgame is: ground transportation, electricity generation, and CO2 sinks. It's not your dumb crusade against pithy things that overwhelmingly benefit the human race.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2018 19:25
|
|