This site is a bit of a nightmare to peruse in its current format, and I've been busy with life.
Total output from the reactors, combined with the basic calculation of how much fuel has to be involved to generate that much energy, is what matters. Then multiply that by the number of reactors necessary for a population of around ten billion, as opposed to the current minority input that nuclear power has.
You're focusing on what is. My argument is about what will be.
Of course, Mr. Pot. I understand your position perfectly.
Your claim about Antarctica was already debunked in a reply to QB. You can check the direct article in this link.
Which doesn't change the fact that waste heat from human industry won't be a problem, even very far down the road, unless we somehow come up with ways to continue rapid growth of human population and fossil fuel consumption beyond what the apparent resources of this planet could possibly support. At which point... we are talking about a future involving technologies that we can't guess at and thus cannot plan for.
Oh, and those clothes? Fossil fuel product. Imagine how many tons of oil would need to be pulled out of the ground just to make PEDOT clothes common. Keep in mind we're talking at least 15 million tons of textiles annually for just the United States.
You're focused entirely on the pure energy usage of oil that you keep missing all of the ways we're inventing for investing fossil fuels that will mitigate reductions in fossil fuel usage from switching to alternative energy. And then thinking it's some kind of mystery when all you have to do is pick up a science magazine sometime.
Actually, it's based on an old photo of a submarine surfacing in an ice-free Arctic Circle. I might be off about the decade; it might be 1950s.
However, that doesn't mean the Arctic isn't warmer than it was back then. Just that the melting of sea ice isn't as important of a danger and the danger areas (the land-based ice sheets) seem to be more heavily affected by things other than planetary temperature. That doesn't mean it's not having an effect, so much as it's far from the only problem we have to solve if we wish to stop the ice from melting.
That's the amount now, when it's producing somewhere around two percent of the world's power. When it's producing around 90% of current world power requirements, you're looking at around 11,250,000 tons of nuclear waste annually. And each annual contribution compounds with prior contributions; as such, the amount of nuclear waste would have that 11 million range as the starting figure and it would continue to increase. If you wait ten years, you have over 112 million tons of nuclear waste to produce additional heat.
Note this is assuming that any amount of additional power requirements over today's amount is provided by other sources. If instead nuclear ends up the primary and stays that way and grows with the population, then you're probably talking about a massively higher figure.
Quark Blast wrote:
The coral reefs are dying from too much heat anyway. Eliminating plastics from the ocean won't save them. Coral reefs fall under the category of "won't survive humanity anyway due to other reasons."
Oops. I wasn't paying enough attention this morning.
Though, I am starting to wonder about wind power. The way some of my neighbors talk about it, I kinda wonder if wind turbines don't give off some kind of frequency that drives some humans nuts. The people who have it are nice, though. I wouldn't rule out wind turbines being firebombed just because they're wind turbines.
I just now saw this post. Your lack of an avatar makes you too easy to overlook :p
It is somewhat a distribution problem, but solving that problem would involve ramping up transportation which, at current, would involve ramping up carbon dioxide. It's going to be far longer than we wish to implement carbon neutral transportation on the scale necessary. Unfortunately, as much as we may not like it, solving the issues that are causing a lot of the current instability and slide toward increased global warfare is going to involve ramping up carbon dioxide. Even if temporary increases in some areas, such as the necessary ramp-up for solar panel production for large scale implementation over a short period of time.
The Paris Agreement is, pretty much, a waste of time. It's not feasible under any realistic implementation strategy, involves goals that are quite likely simply unattainable due in part to factors outside of science, and ultimately serves as a sort of blockade to any more effective agreement being negotiated. It ultimately doesn't leave us worse off than doing nothing because, in effect, it amounts to doing nothing. Especially in light of how easily it is simply withdrawn from.
The largest reactor in the world is literally in the world. Of the heat produced by the Earth, a full 21,000,000,000W is nuclear. I provided a link earlier that talks about that and efforts to identify if it's fission or fusion.
That is significantly more heat than carbon dioxide currently provides, making nuclear higher on the list of heating for the planet.
Secondly, the U.S. plant is a small fry. Canada has one with twice that capacity and Japan with nearly three times. And all of that is with nuclear still being, as far as the world goes, insignificant as a power production method currently implemented.
I must ask... Are you trying to say that because it's not a problem now, it won't be a problem later?
Terrinam, there are numerous problems with the arguments you are putting forth (e.g. 'it is more likely that hundreds of buildings with solar panels will be bombed than one fossil fuel plant generating the same amount of electricity' ??)... but ultimately the most relevant fact remains how relatively insignificant the factors you cite are.
Part of it is a mistake in scale on the end of those replying to me. Specifically, sometimes assuming the challenge presented carries an inherent equivalency of scale only for the answer to suggest that implementation may not.
I was asked if solar panels are at higher risk of firebombing. I was not asked if there is a greater likelihood of an equivalent amount of solar energy output in structures being firebombed than there is for oil power or coal power. I answered the question asked, not the question intended.
There is a method to my madness. Think about it a bit.
Nuclear power contributes to global warming because of the heat it generates? You might as well argue that people shouldn't exercise because their extra body heat will melt the ice caps. All 'extra heat' is not equally relevant... we must look at relative amounts, and when we do we find that greenhouse warming really is the only game in town.
To be honest, deforestation seems to be a greater threat to larger amounts of ice than planetary temperature. The Arctic ice cap melts regularly (we have records of it melting completely back as far as 1940) and the Antarctic has stabilized.
And, realistically, all extra heat is equally relevant at the base scale. One pound of extra heat from each source is still one pound of extra heat affecting the planet. It is only by comparing the amounts that they appear not to be a problem worth worrying about. Yet, deforestation also has a negligible effect upon planetary temperature, yet its indirect effects are still extremely dangerous and still altering climate on a global scale.
Greenhouse gases are currently warming the planet at a rate of approximately 2.5x10^14 joules per second. That is the equivalent of setting off four Hiroshima type nuclear bombs... every second of every day. Nothing else comes close.
I can think of a few things that would easily exceed that, but I assume you don't want to head down that rabbit hole. I know I don't. Let's just say I agree to save on the headache pills for everyone?
Waste heat generated by all of human industry (not just electricity production let alone just nuclear power) equals a little less than 1% as much heat as greenhouse warming. If waste heat growth were to continue at the rate it did over the 20th century (which seems unlikely given slowing population growth and dwindling fuel supplies) this could become a significant global warming factor in a couple hundred years. Right now... not so much.
And the really bad effects of climate change won't hit for a couple hundred years. I fail to see how this proves a point that is not detrimental to you elsewhere in this thread.
Part of the point in focusing so much on climate change now is to not repeat the same mistakes that got us in this situation to begin with. That means, sometimes, focusing on things that are not a problem now, but will be very far down the road.
Oil power plants and solar panels do not continue to generate heat for hundreds of years after power generation has stopped. Nuclear waste does. As such, as far as our predictive modelling for climate change, each pound of nuclear waste adds one permanent pound of additional heat source. In effect, it adds to the amount of heat being trapped by being a source of heat that does not go away.
And fighting climate change is not just about carbon dioxide. If it was that simple, the solutions would be easier to argue for. We also have to prevent or help mitigate other sources of climate change, such as the weather impacts of the heat island effect in cities or the climate degradation, including loss of at least one glacier, caused by deforestation. If we ignore those other sources, we fail and waste resources.
Also, something you are failing to grasp with your question in your exclusion of political inconvenience is that the human factor is what caused this problem and politics are part of the human factor. Ignoring them for the equation produces an inaccurate result.
And, yes, solar panels are more likely to be firebombed. They are more likely to be on buildings targeted by violent protest.
Ok, I should have said zero operational carbon. All construction emits some carbon.
I would disagree with that too based on how it is right now. Keep in mind uranium has to be mined, refined, and enriched. This doesn't come without a significant expense of energy.
But, that wasn't entirely my contention.
And, you addressed that issue with this:
Solar and wind power require steel too. As more clean energy comes online mining, refining, and various other processes will in turn also become cleaner.
So, I agree with you that it will eventually become carbon free as far as is feasible.
Irrelevant to carbon emissions, but also why I said "So 'clean' electricity (from a global warming perspective)...". Precisely because nuclear is not 'clean' from other perspectives.
I would disagree that it is clean from a global warming perspective. Much of the environmental impact of nuclear waste can include long-term damage that can impact climate. Even ignoring melt downs and construction costs and with uranium going carbon neutral, we're still dealing with a lot of highly-dangerous waste that can easily render an area incapable of supporting life, and which can emit heat for quite some time due to ongoing nuclear decay.
Reality is not insanity. Nuclear is 'clean' energy in respect to global warming. The atmospheric carbon generated from construction is comparable to that for any other type of power plant (i.e. wind, solar, coal, natural gas)... and those construction emissions are insignificant compared to operational emissions of fossil fuel plants.
If it were reality, I would agree with you. But you forget that nuclear reactions, even just nuclear decay, give off heat. A lot of it, given the fact it is a significant reason why Earth is warm enough to support life. (There's at least some effort to determine if Earth's radioactive heat is fission or fusion.)
Yes, Earth's climate systems are at least partially nuclear powered. Shocked me when I learned of it.
Nuclear energy is demonstrably not clean as far as global warming is concerned given that it is such of a vital part of Earth being warm enough to support life. As such, I would really rather we be concerned with this now and begin mitigation early rather than when we're trying to figure out why carbon dioxide elimination didn't do anything to stop or even mitigate global warming in two hundred years.
Let's not forget human nature includes such things as going to war over a bucket, going to war over a chair, nearly going to war over a pig, fighting a war that impacted the political make-up of at least part of the world because a couple of newspapers decided to see if they could start a war, and sometimes going to war because we're bored. I wouldn't be surprised if boredom didn't explain most of my examples.
That virtuous cycle you speak of is only possible if solar and wind are implemented as part of the infrastructure (which is amazingly difficult in many parts of the world) and will last through change-overs in government, political ideology, and even violent rebellions.
Tell me, how likely are solar and wind to provide a positive contribution if armed rebellions firebomb them as part of overthrowing governments or violent protest?
That's why political and social stability are key. Both are insufficient on Earth right now, and as time passes in increasingly short supply.
To explain where I'm coming from on the minimum necessary CO2 levels, I'm adding this.
These are the essential needs to provide to citizens for national stability in most types of society:
Skimp on any of those and you have problems. In particular, skimping on entertainment is not wise; humans have gone to war and had civil wars out of boredom. Skimping on food or water is suicidal.
Now, we come to the ugly part: On the global scale, none of those needs are not being met under the current resource distribution and most have insufficient resources devoted to them. In other words, we're not spending enough on most of them and are wasting the ones we are.
Unfortunately, something like the Paris Agreement requires global political and societal stability in order to be anything close to effective. Which means that in order for an agreement like that to have any possibility of being realistic, we need to be spending far more resources than we currently are for our population level.
If we don't have that stability, instead of global pollution reduction we get environment-destroying wars and civil wars and end up in far worse shape than we would have been if we hadn't even attempted such an agreement.
That is why the Paris Agreement is unrealistic. It may have the science behind it as far as chemistry, but it's ignoring the human element far too much. And the human element happens to be the one most important, since it's the one that caused the current problem to begin with.
Quark Blast wrote:
Derails are distraction tactics intended to lead someone down a path where what they can say is undermined.
This is an oversimplification of the climate mechanisms. The truth is, some stresses are multiplicative, some are additive.
Plastic in the ocean is additive; it doesn't increase heat retaining or reflection much, and barely kills off certain necessary living organisms, and thus has a much lessened long-term effect on the ocean. For the most part, the reason why it's such of a big deal is it's unsightly. Most life in the ocean will survive plastic just fine, and what won't isn't going to survive humanity anyway due to other reasons.
Cities are multiplicative, due to numerous reasons; the pollution generated, the heat they reflect back into the atmosphere, the resulting climate changes from what is effectively an artificial mountain, the power they require and resulting pollution from that... It goes on and on.
Farming is multiplicative as well. Just that one we can't do without.
Unfortunately, a lot of the carbon dioxide output is necessary. And if my estimate is right, the amount necessary just to keep us from environment-destroying wars is higher than the Paris Agreement and has been since before that agreement was even drafted.
Also, many of the other ocean pollution sources have a shorter residence time than plastics. Reducing plastics now has at least a 500-year continuous ROI.
Shorter residence times =/= shorter impact durations or impact strength. Plastics, for the most part, have a negligible impact duration and very little impact strength compared to many other pollutions. And with killing off the ocean, impact duration and impact strength is the key.
Nuclear is not zero carbon. Ignoring the sheer amount of steel and other fossil fuel products required just to build a nuclear power plant, have you ever examined how much oil is spent just mining and refining fissile materials? And the other, much worse, environmental effects of nuclear waste?
Suggesting nuclear is somehow a clean energy in any capacity is, to be blunt, dancing right into insanity. It's one of the dirtiest we have, on every level, and it's potentially a far worse ecological disaster than the carbon-heavy power sources. Ignoring even meltdowns, just the nuclear waste is an ongoing problem even with those low levels of implementation.
Unfortunately, it may be a necessary evil due to population levels.
Did you know Earth has four poles?
There are geographical North and South, basically the poles the planet revolves around.
There is also magnetic North and South, where the magnets point.
There was originally a 500 kilometer (nearly 311 miles) difference between magnetic North and geographical North. However, in the time since then, the magnetic poles have moved closer to the geographical poles.
captain yesterday wrote:
I'm pretty certain there's some of that in the air too.
captain yesterday wrote:
Wait, Wisconsin has people? I thought it was just an evacuation buffer zone in case the Great Lakes get too rowdy and part of Michigan needs a place to flee.
captain yesterday wrote:
When you live in an area where having a cow flung at you by the wind is a serious threat, you want your food places to be a lot sturdier than a truck :p
John Napier 698 wrote:
Terinam, I still disagree, respectfully. If you look closely, at about 1:09, the soldier that actually fires it is still firing from the hip. And, again, at 1:11 through 1:14. And at 1:26. And at 1:39. And at 1:53. Furthermore, since the trigger is at the top of the weapon, holding it against the chest would be awkward.
Both Ventura and the guy who fires it hold it by an awkward pose the entire time; they hold it at the bottom, where they risk getting burned as it heats up, rather than the handle on top. This change in holding position forces them to hold it close to their body rather than safely away.
Secondly, the trigger is clearly modified. Normally, these use the modification of the trigger to the sides. And in most cases, the trigger was either on top (as in the example at the top of the Wikipedia article) or in the back but designed very differently. They have a trigger design that allows it to be fire much closer to the chest without as much physical comfort.
And, I double-checked those scenes. I see one where it might be at his hip. The rest, it is clearly against his chest and stomach.
John Napier 698 wrote:
I hunted down the video clip of that scene. While Ventura had a shoulder sling, he's not the one who actually fired the minigun. And you can see the guy who did fire it brace it against his chest and arm.
And, yeah. Typically fired from a mount. Unless you're an FNG named Chad who doesn't do proper maintenance to prevent the trigger from getting stuck and has to prove you're a bada%^. Who later inexplicably developed a phobia of waking up to grenades on his pillow. Hypothetically, of course.
John Napier 698 wrote:
According to wiki, it weighs 85 pounds.
To put that much weight in perspective, that's heavier than full plate armor, more than half the weight of a modern full military loadout (including weapon!), and nearly 14 times the weight of a claymore (the sword). And that's before you load the minigun.
Controlling 85 pounds of metal when it's repeatedly trying to slam into your chest over the period of seconds is more than a little difficult. Pointing up and risking this mess knocking you onto your back is suicidal.
In Ahnold's defense, a minigun is f*($ing heavy. He almost qualifies as a superhuman just carrying the thing around.
You've obviously never dealt with the "climate disasters are the act/wrath of God" crowd. The idea that humanity could have the technology to, essentially, play god with weather even if unintentional and as a result of long-term actions is very much treading on ground essential to their religious beliefs.
I'm not arguing there won't be holdouts. I'm arguing we can make them irrelevant. I'm not certain of your point?
I want us to take action to prevent climate disaster. Real action. Not the carbon credit "I feel pretty!" bull$%^^ some think will somehow make a difference. Actually limiting CO2 outputs to levels necessary, adopting new technologies, beginning to adapt infrastructure so there might be something left of human civilization come 2100, and so on. But to do that, we need the public convinced it's necessary. And so far, the models, predictions, theories, sheer amount of data, and such are not doing the job. People want climate disaster mitigated, but for the most part they don't want to be inconvenienced by it.
The same thing was said about evolution, in particular about the religious objections. The biggest organized source of those objections, the Catholic Church, ceded the argument in 1950 and admitted evolution is right in 1996.
We're still dealing with ongoing, entrenched opposition to it. The same opposition that led the recent push against vaccines and has been leading the push against climate science.
The same thing was said about opposition to the Earth being round. They lost all scientific legitimacy over two thousand years ago. They haven't even had propaganda support from outside their own shouting chambers in at least five hundred years. We're still dealing with them.
No, they will not go away just because the propaganda shifts. They'll do what they always do, form their own underground propaganda, and continue the fight. Just like they did with evolution, vaccines, and the world being flat.
We're at the beginning of the fight, not the end; projecting the end of the battle is how a lot of people got a very surprising blow dealt to their power and the continued legitimacy of their voices back in November of 2016. The people who oppose climate science want you to make the mistake you are currently making. It's worked out for them before.
We're not talking about eliminating voices or irrational decisions. We're talking about eliminating any legitimacy they have in the public sphere. Reducing them to the same level of open mockery as the Flat Earthers have. Because if you are going to wait for them to be silence by propaganda, you'll likely still be waiting for it to happen two thousand years from now.
Don't let knowledge become arrogance. That's how science loses this fight.
Legitimacy in the public sphere does directly affect politics, such as deciding whether or not NASA has a government over it that wants to defund its climate research, and is often easily divorced from what is factually correct. Especially when it comes to the level of sacrifice involved, which very little of the world seems to actively believe. Actions speak much louder than words, and very few people act in a way that reflects a want to make the sacrifices necessary. Simply being right isn't getting the job done. So in order to take the actions necessary to avert total climate disaster, we need to be overwhelmingly right.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
It wasn't supposed to be an example of a frivolous lawsuit. I intended it as an example of a lawsuit that looked frivolous, but turned out legitimate when you considered details not readily apparent.
The chainsaw example was the only one where human stupidity was involved. The third one was an example of a lawsuit purely intended to make a point; the guy sued God to demonstrate a system weakness towards allowing frivolous lawsuits.
And, yeah. When you get into global-scale effects, "millions will die" is pretty much the norm. We have over seven billion people.
Even if a major mistake kills only 0.1% of the population, that is still nearly 8 million people dead.
I don't see how this hypothetical can even happen.
Three words: Hot Coffee Lawsuit.
Another example: Warnings on chainsaws about not stopping the running blades with genitals.
Another example: A man sued God.
Because people are unreasonable, illogical, and fully willing to blame others for their own failures?
Take a good, long look at the ongoing argument in America about immigration. Or about vaccines. Or the conspiracy theories about global warming. People are perfectly willing to be unreasonable to the extreme. It's covered in just about every chapter of human history.
...weren't you the one saying that climate models are inaccurate because they couldn't model clouds (with an unspoken 'reliably' added on later)?
Nope. That was Quark. This was my comment on it:
"Climate science doesn't even have a basic idea of how Earth's climate system works. We can't model the most basic mechanism of it. But that doesn't mean that climate science is wrong in its conclusions; you don't need the equations for the relationship behind mass, gravity, momentum, and kinetic force to understand a big rock falling onto your head will kill you. And climate disaster is a very big rock."
I bolded the important part. I was arguing that what climate science is saying is so obvious that we don't need the complex equations and models to see the disaster coming. I was wrong about them not having the basic idea down, but my comment about it being that obvious still stands.
The same reason they blame vaccines for autism. They can be unreasonable sods who prefer their own beliefs over reality, even when those beliefs are harmful, self-destructive, or even suicidal.
Pick up a history book and read it and see how often people have been that kind of unreasonable. We've fought wars because of it. Spanish-American War, for example. World War 2 was caused by that kind of unreasonableness.
Or go back to 2016 and take a good look at a certain event that happened in America in November. People are perfectly willing to follow those they outright know are liars if they prefer the lie over harsh reality.
This entire discussion is about whether or not climate models are capable of modelling clouds. I hold that they're not, due to lack of coverage for one region of Earth. CB holds that they are, due to covering the majority.
This is purely about each of us trying to convince the other on our stance. Something that will never be done, but it helps distract from the other endless conversation.
The bit towards the end, about it being used against science, is mostly to show how an unfortunate unpreventable reality is a very big negative of CB's stance. Whether or not it should have a large impact is a very dangerous position to work from, since I can show it is having that level of impact.
So, this isn't about the scientists being complacent. They're not, as the two IPCC assessments and the document on the history of climate change models show.
At which point you have bigger problems than clouds... because nothing in the climate models is 100% accurate. For example, they separate the atmosphere into artificial layers to simulate the different molecular content and other conditions at different altitudes... in reality these changes progress smoothly with altitude rather than in fixed steps. Over time the models have added more and more layers to get closer to this reality, but they remain models... not perfect simulations.
And those problems that I have will quickly become the problem of climate scientists if they are lax about the idea of seeking perfection.
Let's be blunt: Do you think people are going to care about guaranteed inaccuracy when their loved ones are lying dead before them because of a faulty prediction? Or do you think they will want some kind of accounting or, worse, vengeance?
The inaccuracies in these models have consequences far beyond getting a simple prediction wrong. Some of those consequences will be very personal for the people behind the models, even if they are not impacted directly by the faulty predictions.
So... you accept that models will never be perfect. You accept that millions of people will die (indeed, by some estimates already have died) due to global warming regardless of what we do at this point... so what is 'different' about cloud modelling?
What makes you think I hold cloud modelling any different than any other incomplete area of global climate modelling? Cloud modelling is just the portion we are discussing. That is why I mostly switched to discussing global climate models when discussing laxity of standards. It would not be fair to hold one portion any different than the others.
In that there remains insufficient data and knowledge to do that... it literally IS too much to ask. It can't be done... yet.
I hold that the "yet" part is sufficient evidence that it is not too much to ask. Just that it means I have to wait for the results I am asking for.
That said, the accuracy of local cloud modeling has gone from 'virtually nil' to 'correct most of the time' over the past ten years. Further, the specific areas of remaining uncertainty have been identified and multiple lines of study are looking in to ways to resolve them. There seems little reason to doubt that most of these issues will be addressed over the next decade and thus the uncertainty range around clouds reduced to the point that it disappears in the rounding.
I'm willing to wait that decade. Of course, that means taking necessary steps now to help alleviate the impact of humanity on the climate based on current predictions. I am not arguing we should not act based on what data we have; it would be decidedly suicidal.
However, even before that happens... I don't think 'millions of lives' can be put on the current uncertainties around clouds. Their effect on global warming has been constrained to 0.2 to 0.7 W/m^2 C within standard deviations... a small positive feedback. All claims that they will provide a huge negative feedback offsetting 50% or more of warming have been outright dis-proven. Ergo, the only impact they should have on global policy debates is a small increase in the urgency of dealing with global warming.
Yet, it is a key part of an anti-climate science argument that has far-reaching impacts both on those debates and potentially on climate science itself. We know it ended well this time, but this is far from the first attempt and will be far from the last.
Rest on your laurels on this if you wish. You have plenty of warning of the potential consequences, and the deaths that will result.
Yes, the cloud uncertainty at (some) local levels is greater, but we have more time to address local impacts. We have a few years to get CO2 emissions under control... and then decades to rebuild our infrastructure to protect against the changes which will be caused by the warming we didn't prevent. With the ongoing improvements I see no reason to doubt that climate models will be ready to meet that long term task... and they are already good enough to meet the more immediate question of how soon we need to stop emissions. Ten years ago there was a very small chance that a huge negative cloud feedback might mean we had more time. That has now been downgraded from highly unlikely to outright impossible.
We're not going to make it, entirely because people will use lack of complete reliable cloud estimates and other need-to-be-fixed-quickly weaknesses to slow down the process until it's too late. Just like certain recent uncertainties about important funding for NASA.
We need to secure our foundation before we build further. Those who oppose climate science are getting more bold in how they target the scientific organizations that provide necessary data for understanding the climate, and gaining more political power in certain key nations. It doesn't matter we're proven right if we end up cut off from the necessary data to finally force true action before we even get started adapting.
Did you think Climategate was a one-time deal?
I think this highlights a key difference in thinking between us.
"Right more often than not" in weather forecasting generally means people occasionally have a bad day. "Right more often than not" in global climate models means millions of extra people die due to faulty predictions. Global climate modelling cannot be held to the same level of quality as weather forecasting because of the sheer scale of potential consequences for a bad prediction. Nor can such models be held to the same scale of quality as most scientific models simply because lives are actually on the line.
So, I don't allow global climate models the same leeway I would any other scientific model. They have an all-or-nothing test with me. I don't want my descendants to die because of bad predictions.
I accept reality. There is never going to be a fault-free model. Mistakes will be made, and millions of people will die. This is unavoidable.
That does not mean that global climate modelling should have the same laxity of standards in other areas of science. Just due to the sheer scale of consequences, "reliably model clouds in most areas of Earth" cannot be accepted as "model clouds." Accepting it as such needlessly puts millions or even billions of lives at risk.
"Reliably" means "right more often than not everywhere" with me because of this. This means reliable modelling of clouds on every region of Earth. Given the risk involved, I don't think this is too much to ask.
I apologize for not being clear before now. I was trying to find how to properly word it.
My criteria for being able to model clouds includes one important word: Reliable.
You have to date shown nothing that meets that test fully. And it is pass/fail.
It is just that simple.
Admitting science has an area it is lacking in models is not a weakness. Does the idea science lacks truly reliable cloud modelling in any way detract from the proven record of global climate model reliability, or does it make that accuracy an even bigger accomplishment?
How do you explain the IPCC itself later calling those models unrealistic?
Your history includes this lovely statement:
Given that uncertainty in cloud feedback remains a dominant cause of uncertainty in projections of global warming and hence more societally relevant aspects of climate, such as sea-level rise and changes in precipitation, continued progress is necessary.
On the issue of actually verifying models, they have this to say:
Multi-platform observations of clouds and their meteorological environment in tropical trade-wind cumulus regimes and over the stormy Southern Ocean, two regions where clouds are poorly simulated by climate models and where important cloud feedbacks occur, will provide much-needed information.
Your second source admits they can't model clouds reliably.
That means the same lack of reliable modeling they had a problem with in 2007 was still present in 2017. I seriously doubt the six months since then have seen that problem clear up.
If anything, the sheer accuracy of the models despite lacking a component so key speaks more in favor of the stance you are arguing about modeling than it does in QB's favor. This is where they are without reliable cloud models. That suggests that finally nailing clouds is only going to exterminate the validity of any argument against the models.
I'm not asking for accurate modelling. I'm asking for reliable modelling at all.
The 2007 report was speaking a lot about estimates of cloud feedback and figuring out which one is reliable enough for modelling. In other words, they didn't have a usable model, even in estimate form, yet.
The 2014 report mostly ignores the idea of using estimates of cloud feedback and instead talks about the difficulty of modelling clouds directly. Where cloud feedback is discussed, it's always a small component being estimated and even then it's limited where it does come up.
In seven years of scientific advancement, there was a focus shift from estimates of cloud feedbacks to modeling clouds directly to gain their feedbacks while calling existing modelling unrealistic. The answer to the 2007 question of which estimate is reliable is none of them. There would have been far more emphasis on estimates if more than the occasional estimate of something minor had proven reliable.
This is why I'm asking for a source that matches your claim.
You picked your source poorly.
This is the beginning of the conclusion:
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable.
That outright states they cannot yet model clouds, but are on the verge of developing a reliable estimate. And it does not get better when the rest of the conclusion is included:
However, progress has been made in the identification of the cloud types, the dynamical regimes and the regions of the globe responsible for the large spread of cloud feedback estimates among current models. This is likely to foster more specific observational analyses and model evaluations that will improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedbacks.
This is the old information I was working with earlier when I said they could not model clouds yet. It is a statement about how advanced we were in climate science prior to 2007 and is 9 years out of date at minimum.
That information was also accurate with the Fifth Assessment, which had this to say about clouds:
7.2.2 Cloud Process Modelling wrote:
Cloud formation processes span scales from the sub-micrometre scale of CCN, to cloud-system scales of up to thousands of kilometres. This range of scales is impossible to resolve with numerical simulations on computers, and this is not expected to change in the forseeable future.
Further on, there is this information from the Fifth Assessment:
The representation of cloud microphysical processes in climate models is particularly challenging, in part because some of the fundamental details of these microphysical processes are poorly understood (particularly for ice- and mixed-phase clouds), and because spatial heterogeneity of key atmospheric properties occurs at scales significantly smaller than a GCM grid box. Such representation, however, affects many aspects of a model’s overall simulated climate including the Hadley circulation, precipitation patterns, and tropical variability. Therefore continuing weakness in these parameterizations affects not only modeled climate sensitivity, but also the fidelity with which these other variables can be simulated or projected.
The simulation of clouds in modern climate models involves several parameterizations that must work in unison. These include parameterization of turbulence, cumulus convection, microphysical processes, radiative transfer and the resulting cloud amount (including the vertical overlap between different grid levels), as well as sub-grid scale transport of aerosol and chemical species. The system of parameterizations must balance simplicity, realism, computational stability and efficiency. Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain.
This is the state of climate science as of 2014. I had assumed, from what you said earlier, that you had some information from post-2014 on cloud modelling that showed the stance the IPCC held in the Fifth Assessment was currently out of date.
I must now ask you for a source that scientists are currently able to model clouds. Because your own source held that science not only could not but won't be able to any time soon.
Quark Blast wrote:
Right. Because dumping large quantities of deadly chemicals into the ocean and heat into the air is really better than plastics.
We're still poisoning the ocean either way. We're just picking which poison we prefer to look at.
Saving the ocean is irrelevant to recycling plastic. Having those resources around for the future so someone else can come up with a way to restore the ocean is the goal at this point.
Quark Blast wrote:
Are you trolling me?
You brought up black plague in reply to me mentioning horse manure and agriculture. At this point, you are incoherent.
It would fail, and that failure would be a good thing. There are millions of people who have carbon footprints on par with, or even below, what cavemen had just due to their economic status. The only way to lower their carbon footprint any further is to commit genocide against them.
You're still too busy comparing yourself to others to do anything meaningful.
Also, you're missing the fact that it doesn't require centuries or millennia. A big enough event can do it in a matter of years. The largest one known in Earth's history is a certain asteroid strike, but it is neither the first or last example. Among the others is a rapid change in Earth's atmosphere through the increase in oxygen. That produced a greenhouse effect that completely ignored CO2 levels.
Of course, such overridings tend to be extinction-level events. The oxygen example is the largest in Earth's history. But since we're already in an extinction-level event, we really cannot make things much worse by trying such a solution. And with proper conservation efforts and reseeding efforts in the aftermath, we could repair the damage and undo most of what we've caused.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that I never stated we should go this path. You're just derailing from my point.
Remember, I’ve only been posting in regards to what the year 2100 will look like. That it will be worse for some time after that and then, eventually, get better, probably, has never been a point of contention with me.
So far, you seem to be trying to make your own predictions look optimistic. You will have to excuse me if I take your stance on this with a Dead Sea.
Quark Blast wrote:
Antarctica has ice dating back to periods when Earth was warmer than it is now. There is no way that ice would exist or that we would have the ice core data from that continent unless the continent was a little more robust than Rahmstorf thought.
I find four dozen grams of weed to be sufficient for enjoying Prometheus.
Ah! See, my info was old.
Which is further proof of how wrong Quark is. When I can provide a sufficient counter with outdated information, it's pretty much not a contest.
Yeah, but those theories are so one-dimensional and just stringing people along.
Looking back at that era, I'm finding it hard to see how it's any less problematic when we don't ignore the other groups. That entire era was just a terrible period for entertainment if you didn't enjoy white male-targeted media. I mean, some of the stuff that was empowering for women and minorities back then would be extremely sexist and racist by today's standards.
I might have missed a couple rare gems here or there. But I can see why someone would basically throw their hands up and decide it would be less problematic to just focus on the one group that had it good.
Quark Blast wrote:
Yes, thank you. I actually found that vocabulary lesson mildly helpful. However…
This should be good.
First, I’ll wager my Carbon Footprint is smaller than yours. I once did a calc to compare mine to Al Gore’s. His 1-year total a few years back was more than my lifetime total is likely to be; assuming I live an “average” expected lifetime for my generation.
I work within the medical industry. By necessity, my carbon footprint is always going to be slightly bigger.
But this isn't a carbon footprint e-peen competition. Having the attitude of "my carbon footprint is smaller" is part of what is preventing humanity from actually doing anything realistic about human-caused climate change. People get too much into carbon footprint comparisons to realize that carbon footprint is a worthless measure; carbon dioxide doesn't directly translate into climate change. If it did, Mars would have a much different climate.
Carbon dioxide is a primary feedback loop to the heat trapping and heat reflection properties of the global water cycle. It can be, and in Earth's past has been, overridden.
What we should be focusing on is how much of it is necessary and what we can do to override or lessen the impact of that necessary output. Because the last agreed-upon goal I saw isn't realistic without a billion or so people dying first under current technology implementation.
Second, we (humanity) also had some social consequences along the way to change. BLACK DEATH anyone?
Black plague predates the horse manure problem by four hundred years and the agriculture problem by six hundred. It is unrelated.
Our generation's is more likely to be NUCLEAR DEATH by some estimates. Or maybe some form of released/escaped bio-agent.
Nuclear death of the species is physically impossible. Humanity has never had enough nuclear weapons to accomplish that.
Don't worry about bio-agents too much. Those are far too easily controlled and countered to be a major problem.
This reflects an issue of ignorance on both sides of the climate change fight. For the most part, neither side gets this right because both sides completely misunderstand the point.
There is a key "secret" to why it's ignorance: Humanity does not have any sustainable technology for its population level.
Alternative energy isn't sustainable. It's still essentially dependent on oil and coal. All it does is prolong the supplies of oil and coal. But eventually, those materials will run out if we don't find a way to replace them.
Recycling isn't sustainable. It's a massive source of pollution that is utterly unnecessary in some cases. We are very unlikely to run out of trees for paper sometime within the next thousand years, for example.
The point is not to reach sustainable technology before 2100. It's to make certain the resources and human-friendly environment exist in 2100 so our descendants can invent sustainable technology.
And, yes, this does mean the green movement is backing reasonable fixes for reasons that are pure bull#%^&. It's an unfortunate aspect of reality that the truth has gotten completely lost along the way and it may be necessary to sell the lie to get things done. We'll just have to eat the consequences and future dissolution of the scientific community.
We can also achieve that lowered planetary heat growth without sustainable technology. But we need to get to work on it now.
It's a well-known fact they can't yet model clouds. Without modelling clouds, you can't model the water cycle. And the water cycle is Earth's climate.
Freehold DM wrote:
My left smallest toe. It's a seventh-level cleric of Freehold.
I have no idea how that works either. I just know it casts random Inflicts on me when I get it too close to certain pieces of furniture.
So I'm trying to figure out the point of this thread. Seems like it's all about just getting it to be as long as possible, by carrying on whatever conversations you feel like. Is that right? Or am I missing something? Are there rules? Like, no talking about goblins or paladins, not talking about the rules of this thread (fight club style, in which case I apologize for breaking the first two rules of Deep 6 FaWtL), or whatever?
Wait, there's a point?