Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

2,201 to 2,250 of 5,074 << first < prev | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | next > last >>

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
No. I haven't shifted goalposts.

Saturday: "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C"

Sunday: "Stop cold turkey on coal, globally, and we will still exceed 2.0°C by the year 2100."

Still haven't read the papers I linked up thread?

Still haven't watched the talks/lectures I linked up thread?

Still can't understand why I cite a number varying from 2.0°C to 2.5°C ?

Despite the fact that I've explained my reasoning at length; almost pedantically. Still having reading-for-comprehension problems?

Well guess what? Not my problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
Wind farms can be a serious bight on the countryside/seascape

Have you seen an actual wind farm, IRL? They're surprisingly beautiful. I'll willingly take a longer route if it means driving past one.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
No. I haven't shifted goalposts.

Saturday: "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C"

Sunday: "Stop cold turkey on coal, globally, and we will still exceed 2.0°C by the year 2100."

Still haven't read the papers I linked up thread?

Still can't find any which support your claim that current CO2 levels will cause "at least 2.5C" warming.

Can still see that changing from 2.5 to 2 is moving the goalposts.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

China doubles solar power generation in 2016

That makes them now the world's largest consumer of solar power. It also means they went from essentially zero percent solar power generation in 2014 to 1% of their national total in 2016. They're targeting growth of 11% renewable generation currently to 20% (of a much larger total) by 2030, and most of that growth will likely be solar.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
doc roc wrote:
Wind farms can be a serious bight on the countryside/seascape
Have you seen an actual wind farm, IRL? They're surprisingly beautiful. I'll willingly take a longer route if it means driving past one.

As I understand it Trump was part of an opposition to a wind farm in the UK because it would have been in view of one of his properties there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
As I understand it Trump was part of an opposition to a wind farm in the UK because it would have been in view of one of his properties there.

Or just because he wanted to be in opposition to something. He's been known to do that.


To CBDunkerson - Go argue with Elon.

Elon Musk says

@ the 15:05-15 mark, "I think it's pretty much a given that the 2°C increase will occur. The question is whether it will be much more than that; not if there will be a 2°C increase."

@ the 28:11-45 mark, <paraphrasing> "We have 10 or 20 years before we will see significant change in our energy source patterns on a global scale. Even deciding right now, unanimously, that we will begin the switch to green power at a global scale, it would be 5 years before the numbers started to change in a way that would make a measurable difference for climate change."

A sustainable energy future is inevitable but getting there with an acceptable impact on global climate is not inevitable. We need to incentivize the better outcome instead of waiting for economic forces to get us to the eventual energy system.

Currently there is about a $5.3 T/yr effective subsidy for fossil fuels industry. To fix it we need a Carbon tax offset with a scaled tax credit for the poor people in rich nations and poor nations as a whole.

Lithium is not limiting. Building battery storage for current power generation (ignoring, for the moment, "green" energy) could reduce the number of power plants by 50%-66%.

In other words, we could shut down the worst CO2 polluters without any investment in wind, solar or wave energy.

Economics of climate change innovation

Take away: "Green Energy" subsidies are not going away, not for a few decades anyway, despite the poor ROI.

Pivot: Invest in new tech instead of current tech to get a 366% absolute improvement on ROI.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:

To CBDunkerson - Go argue with Elon.

Elon Musk says

@ the 15:05-15 mark, "I think it's pretty much a given that the 2°C increase will occur. The question is whether it will be much more than that; not if there will be a 2°C increase."

@ the 28:11-45 mark, <paraphrasing> "We have 10 or 20 years before we will see significant change in our energy source patterns on a global scale. Even deciding right now, unanimously, that we will begin the switch to green power at a global scale, it would be 5 years before the numbers started to change in a way that would make a measurable difference for climate change."

Why would I argue with him? I agree with both of those statements.

Quote:
A sustainable energy future is inevitable but getting there with an acceptable impact on global climate is not inevitable.

Converting to non-carbon emitting energy sources will reduce the impact of global warming. We are certain to do so before global warming gets so bad as to wipe out the human race. Ergo, any such conversion would indeed be "acceptable".

Sooner is better, but eventually still beats extinction.

Quote:
Currently there is about a $5.3 T/yr effective subsidy for fossil fuels industry. To fix it we need a Carbon tax offset with a scaled tax credit for the poor people in rich nations and poor nations as a whole.

That's one possible means of accelerating the conversion. There are others.


Changes in CO2 useage dont create an effect overnight....it takes years for the the whole system to react and adjust.

Contrary to what many internet warriors claim, NOBODY actually properly understands climate science..... the amount of inter-relating and confounding variables is so vast and complicated as to give the worlds best supercomputers migraines!!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No, there are people who understand it, just because some people find it impossible to understand doesn't mean everyone does.


All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

To CBDunkerson - Go argue with Elon.

Elon Musk says

@ the 15:05-15 mark, "I think it's pretty much a given that the 2°C increase will occur. The question is whether it will be much more than that; not if there will be a 2°C increase."

@ the 28:11-45 mark, <paraphrasing> "We have 10 or 20 years before we will see significant change in our energy source patterns on a global scale. Even deciding right now, unanimously, that we will begin the switch to green power at a global scale, it would be 5 years before the numbers started to change in a way that would make a measurable difference for climate change."

Why would I argue with him? I agree with both of those statements.
Because This
CBDunkerson wrote:

Still can't find any which support your claim that current CO2 levels will cause "at least 2.5C" warming.

Can still see that changing from 2.5°C to 2°C is moving the goalposts.

Because Elon's argument is just one of many in support my floor statement of 2°C.

As I explained up thread, it depends on which expert you listen to.

Also, as I explained up thread, you would have to actually watch the talks/lectures and read the papers I have linked to.

About Elon in particular:
Elon was speaking 2 years ago. The numbers haven't gotten significantly better since then. Even he was saying 2°C.

So 2°C is my floor. Then looking at what other experts have said, and paying attention to when they said it, I surmise that 2.5°C is a better current estimate. But even if you don't like that, you cannot be rational and argue for anything lower than 2C°.

Now looking at the Paris Agreement and subsequent efforts and people are still saying "Our goal is a target of 1.5°C rise above pre-industrial CO2 levels". I can't find a single expert, speaking contemporaneously, that gives any hope for a 1.5°C rise.

1.5°C rise? Srsly?? Well good luck with that since we've already passed that mark by no less than 0.5°C.

Furthermore, given how slow and bureaucratic response times are on a global scale to things (December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 being obvious exceptions), I am as certain as humanly possible that a 2.5°C rise will occur; with a not insignificant chance of 3.0°C to 3.5°C eventual rise even with our collective "best efforts" over the next decade or two.

Humans are just that short sighted.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
A sustainable energy future is inevitable but getting there with an acceptable impact on global climate is not inevitable.

Converting to non-carbon emitting energy sources will reduce the impact of global warming. We are certain to do so before global warming gets so bad as to wipe out the human race. Ergo, any such conversion would indeed be "acceptable".

Sooner is better, but eventually still beats extinction.

"Eventually" could see a 5.0°C rise from fossil fuel use. The impact of burning all the coal and oil that is practical to burn likely won't exceed that. Coal loses to natural gas badly in any economic scenario and still loses handily to oil; except perhaps for tar sand oil.

"Eventually" is basically a worst-case scenario. "Extinction"? Well, that isn't going to happen from anthropogenic CO2.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Currently there is about a $5.3 T/yr effective subsidy for fossil fuels industry. To fix it we need a Carbon tax offset with a scaled tax credit for the poor people in rich nations and poor nations as a whole.
That's one possible means of accelerating the conversion. There are others.

It's also the most sensible given human nature. The other solutions don't stand much of a chance for a timely implementation. At least, not on a scale that matters.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Because Elon's argument is just one of many in support my floor statement of 2°C.

Musk said 2°C is likely a best case scenario assuming we reduce emissions as quickly as possible going forward. I agree that is in the right ballpark.

You said that 2.5°C is already inevitable even if there were zero future emissions. That is nonsense.

Quote:
Now looking at the Paris Agreement and subsequent efforts and people are still saying "Our goal is a target of 1.5°C rise above pre-industrial CO2 levels". I can't find a single expert, speaking contemporaneously, that gives any hope for a 1.5°C rise.

Roy Spencer. John Christy. Richard Lindzen. Judith Curry.

All climate scientists who say that less than 1.5°C is still possible. Granted, they also all have a history of shoddy work that has been proven incorrect over and over again... but they exist.

More mainstream climate scientists would likely say that 1.5°C is still theoretically possible, but seems completely implausible given the rate of response thus far.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Because Elon's argument is just one of many in support my floor statement of 2°C.

Musk said 2°C is likely a best case scenario assuming we reduce emissions as quickly as possible going forward. I agree that is in the right ballpark.

You said that 2.5°C is already inevitable even if there were zero future emissions. That is nonsense.

No. No it's not nonsense.

Depends on which expert climatologist/physicist/atmospheric chemist/etc. you listen to. We may very well have hit the 2.5°C level already.

That's my informed opinion. I may be shown to be wrong on this but you cannot say, in good faith, that my opinion is mere "nonsense".

Also, in point of fact, Elon was speaking two years ago, using data that was at best current at the time. My estimate, based on the work and opinion of every scientists I've had time to read, is that the number is closer to 2.5°C than it is to 1.5°C. In fact, 1.5°C is long gone as a realistic target. We passed that mark sometime in the late 90's.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Now looking at the Paris Agreement and subsequent efforts and people are still saying "Our goal is a target of 1.5°C rise above pre-industrial CO2 levels". I can't find a single expert, speaking contemporaneously, that gives any hope for a 1.5°C rise.

Roy Spencer. John Christy. Richard Lindzen. Judith Curry.

All climate scientists who say that less than 1.5°C is still possible. Granted, they also all have a history of shoddy work that has been proven incorrect over and over again... but they exist.

More mainstream climate scientists would likely say that 1.5°C is still theoretically possible, but seems completely implausible given the rate of response thus far.

So why cite sketchy scientists?

You disagree with me (I think o_O) yet cite facts that support my position.

Whatever. I'll take it.


doc roc wrote:

Changes in CO2 useage dont create an effect overnight....it takes years for the the whole system to react and adjust.

Contrary to what many internet warriors claim, NOBODY actually properly understands climate science..... the amount of inter-relating and confounding variables is so vast and complicated as to give the worlds best supercomputers migraines!!

Of course the models aren't perfect, but they're getting better with the ever increasing amount and depth of the data we collect. We understand it well enough to know that it's absolutely idiotic to keep going on with business as usual.

No we can't reverse the the century long walk we've taken into the forest over night. But the sooner we start walking the path out, the better the quality of life we'll leave for our descendants.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.

As far as lifeboats go, Mars is a real crappy choice. We either solve our problems here, or our problems solve us.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Depends on which expert climatologist/physicist/atmospheric chemist/etc. you listen to. We may very well have hit the 2.5°C level already.

Great.

Name one climate science expert who supports that position. (though I note that the "may have" is still a softening of your original claim).

Quote:
So why cite sketchy scientists?

Errr... because you said you were basing your position on the range of expert opinions and then implied that there weren't any who thought less than 1.5°C was still possible. In reality, there are some who still say that is LIKELY and many who say it is possible, but extremely unlikely.

Note: You're citing Elon Musk... who isn't a climate expert at all.


Squeakmaan wrote:
No, there are people who understand it, just because some people find it impossible to understand doesn't mean everyone does.

No there really arent..... there are far too many random, confounding and inter-relating variables to be able to come up with any definitive answers or predictions.

Then theres the school of thought that states.... actually human beings will not do any long term damage whatsoever to the planet since the Earth has been through several naturally occuring mass exctinction episodes that were far worse than any potential 'climate change' scenario can envisage.

There are however, lots of people with opinions and critically......agendas


doc roc wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
No, there are people who understand it, just because some people find it impossible to understand doesn't mean everyone does.

No there really arent..... there are far too many random, confounding and inter-relating variables to be able to come up with any definitive answers or predictions.

Then theres the school of thought that states.... actually human beings will not do any long term damage whatsoever to the planet since the Earth has been through several naturally occuring mass exctinction episodes that were far worse than any potential 'climate change' scenario can envisage.

There are however, lots of people with opinions and critically......agendas

Well, sure. We may not equal the worst extinction events and those didn't do long term damage to the planet. The planet will almost certainly recover.

OTOH, some scientists already consider us to be in the middle of a mass extinction: the Holocene extinction event. Caused by human activity and predating even the current level of climate change damage.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Depends on which expert climatologist/physicist/atmospheric chemist/etc. you listen to. We may very well have hit the 2.5°C level already.

Great.

Name one climate science expert who supports that position. (though I note that the "may have" is still a softening of your original claim).

I'm not in the habit of reposting links I've made previously. They're still there if you're actually interested.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
So why cite sketchy scientists?

Errr... because you said you were basing your position on the range of expert opinions and then implied that there weren't any who thought less than 1.5°C was still possible. In reality, there are some who still say that is LIKELY and many who say it is possible, but extremely unlikely.

Note: You're citing Elon Musk... who isn't a climate expert at all.

Yes but citing discredited "experts" doesn't really counter my claim of consensus among the scientists I linked/cited up thread.

Most recently I linked to Elon's talk for two reasons.

One, he's a credible source. Known for a summary understanding of complex issues and not known for hyperbole and such.

Two, he specifically mentions the 2.0°C floor to the current state of AGW as determined by various climate scientists (who they are he doesn't specifically state but that's not terribly germane here - see reason One above).

Elon is comfortable with that value. I'm more comfortable with a range between 2.0°C and 2.5°C, with a personal bias towards the higher amount.

Any talk of only a 1.5°C rise is pure fantasy at this point.
Something like stratospheric sulfurous volcanic eruptions every few years for the next century or more might keep things at 1.5°C; so while that is strictly speaking not an impossibility, I think it's apt to label such "saves vs AGW" as pure fantasy.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.

As far as lifeboats go, Mars is a real crappy choice. We either solve our problems here, or our problems solve us.

Well it's not like I can get the starship Enterprise A to come pick us up and drop us off at the nearest star system...

So Mars is kind of it for me. Unless you know how build a ship that goes at/near or beyond the speed of light. Or can warp space. Cause I can't.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.

As far as lifeboats go, Mars is a real crappy choice. We either solve our problems here, or our problems solve us.

Well it's not like I can get the starship Enterprise A to come pick us up and drop us off at the nearest star system...

So Mars is kind of it for me. Unless you know how build a ship that goes at/near or beyond the speed of light. Or can warp space. Cause I can't.

Seveneves had a O'Neill Cylinder local orbit type answer, but that would require a whole lot of work in the face of disaster, you know?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hitdice,

And money I don't have.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Great.

Name one climate science expert who supports that position. (though I note that the "may have" is still a softening of your original claim).

I'm not in the habit of reposting links I've made previously. They're still there if you're actually interested.

So there aren't any climate experts who support your claim of 2.5C warming from existing GHG levels.

Got it.


I posted them up thread.

Some of them more than once.

You didn't read the them then, why do you keep asking for them now?

FWIW: some of the experts, the ones interested in tipping points, support +5°C scenarios.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the Paris Agreement China will see peak CO2 emissions in 2030. Let's say for the sake of argument that everyone else follows China's lead. There is about a four decade lag for the world ocean to heat up.

Question: What does that mean for the future?

Answer: Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet

Oopsy.

These scientists show general agreement with this outcome: Inevitable Demise of the West Antarctic Sheet

Rignot et al wrote:

Upstream of the 2011 grounding line positions, we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin....

The retreat is proceeding along fast-flowing, accelerating sectors that are thinning, become bound to reach floatation and unground from the bed. We find no major bed obstacle upstream of the 2011 grounding lines that would prevent further retreat of the grounding lines farther south. We conclude that this sector of West Antarctica is undergoing a marine ice sheet instability that will significantly contribute to sea level rise in decades to centuries to come.

Supportive but slightly less so: Goldberg et al
Goldberg and Co wrote:

Sensitivity studies suggest large near-future levels of unforced, i.e. committed sea level contribution from these ice streams under reasonable assumptions regarding uncertainties of the unknown parameters...

Extending the simulations beyond the 2001–2011 calibration period, both snapshot and transiently calibrated models are run in “predictive mode” from 2011 to 2041, without any changes in boundary conditions or external forcing. Both show a significant sea level contribution. That of the transiently calibrated model is nearly 20 % smaller, but with significant grounding line retreat and grounding line-concentrated thinning. Sensitivity calculations suggest that, under reasonable assumptions regarding parameter uncertainties, a committed grounded ice loss of ∼21 cubic km/yr can be expected from the region, even in the absence of external forcing or climate-induced feedbacks.

Also supportive but with a much larger timeline uncertainty: Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet after local destabilization of the Amundsen Basin

Feldmann and Levermann wrote:
Our simulations suggest that if a destabilization of Amundsen Sea sector has indeed been initiated, Antarctica will irrevocably contribute at least 3m to global sea-level rise during the coming centuries to millennia.

Models are of little use in predicting what will happen in particular but it should be noted that even with conservative parameters most climate models show a bad to very bad future. At this point the models are being built from 30 to 40 years of direct observational data, meaning that predictions out to the year 2100 are not to be simply dismissed as mere speculation.

Take a look at page 141 and the graphs thereon.

You will see that what humans will do provides the largest portion of uncertainty (assuming the climate model uncertainties are correctly given). What's funny is history has shown us an invariant mode of human interaction on the scale of mobs or larger. There is just no way the lower (and better) case scenario will happen. If for no other reason than any tightening of the belt will be hitting us square in the wallet and the Bill Gates' and William Buffets of the world won't see a net income flux at all. Even in places that aren't democratic (talk'n to you China) the mob will rule when they see how bad they're getting it compared to the "rulers" and especially compared to what they had.

I'm only assuming a double digit degree of austerity here. We see how well austerity sells in Europe (talk'n to you Greece). It won't sell any better anywhere else. Never has.

Another thing to note is the "natural variability" line still sits above 2.5°C by the year 2100.

On page 1005 we see a general consensus of a global temperature increase of nearly 1.5°C over the near recent average; which translates to a 2.5°C+ change since pre-industrial times.

That enough citation for you CB?

Note I'm not doing this for you but as an aside from term paper research I have to do anyway. I'm willing to put the effort into copy-and-paste just for you CB because; I'm just that thoughtful.

Oh, and I'll say You're Welcome! because I know you'll be thanking me shortly.


Quote:
You will see that what humans will do provides the largest portion of uncertainty (assuming the climate model uncertainties are correctly given). What's funny is history has shown us an invariant mode of human interaction on the scale of mobs or larger. There is just no way the lower (and better) case scenario will happen. If for no other reason than any tightening of the belt will be hitting us square in the wallet and the Bill Gates' and William Buffets of the world won't see a net income flux at all. Even in places that aren't democratic (talk'n to you China) the mob will rule when they see how bad they're getting it compared to the "rulers" and especially compared to what they had.

I find this somewhat amusing, since it seems to assume the chances of action would be higher if the Gates' and the Buffetts (Not to mentions the Kochs and the Adelsons) would actually suffer alongside the poor.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
I posted them up thread.

No, you didn't. You posted examples of people saying other things. NOT that we had already emitted enough GHGs to pass 2.5 C warming.

Quote:
That enough citation for you CB?

No. Obviously.

Citations of people saying that we will pass 2.5 C with continued emissions through 2100 do nothing to support your claim that we will pass 2.5 C based on emissions through 2016. 2100 is not 2016.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I posted them up thread.
No, you didn't. You posted examples of people saying other things. NOT that we had already emitted enough GHGs to pass 2.5 C warming.

Yes we have. We are now on an unchanging trajectory that will see us release enough CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to send us into the +2.5°C zone by the year 2100.

China going solar is not going to change that. Trump won't make a difference. People, being people (as we always have been), will send us down this path with a surety that can only be gainsaid with a global cataclysm (e.g. a 10km diameter rogue asteroid impact; or a Penitubo 1991 equivalent eruption every two years).

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
That enough citation for you CB?

No. Obviously.

Citations of people saying that we will pass 2.5 C with continued emissions through 2100 do nothing to support your claim that we will pass 2.5 C based on emissions through 2016. 2100 is not 2016.

See above.

And note that the one link from my previous post (the one referencing page 1005 from the report) not only corroborates my 2.5°C position but that single link is the work of many scientists (dozens? scores?) who are all climate experts in one sub-field or another. So that one link alone is worth nearly as much as all my previous links.

Of course you haven't read any of my links, including the latest ones, because you seem only concerned with some sort of face-saving pedantic finger pointing crusade about how I don't know what I'm talking about. Despite the patently obvious fact that my opinion is based on the expert testimony of hundreds of climate scientists at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I posted them up thread.
No, you didn't. You posted examples of people saying other things. NOT that we had already emitted enough GHGs to pass 2.5 C warming.
Yes we have. We are now on an unchanging trajectory that will see us release enough CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to send us into the +2.5°C zone by the year 2100.

Being on an unchanging trajectory to release enough CO2 to reach +2.5°C zone by the year 2100 is a direct contradiction to "have already emitted enough GHGs to pass 2.5 C warming".


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I posted them up thread.
No, you didn't. You posted examples of people saying other things. NOT that we had already emitted enough GHGs to pass 2.5 C warming.
Yes we have. We are now on an unchanging trajectory that will see us release enough CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to send us into the +2.5°C zone by the year 2100.
Being on an unchanging trajectory to release enough CO2 to reach +2.5°C zone by the year 2100 is a direct contradiction to "have already emitted enough GHGs to pass 2.5 C warming".

Yes, gods of Golarion yes! I was not precise enough in my prior post from several weeks ago.

The meaning of my post - the point I'm still making - is not changed one iota.

All this handwaving argumentation that I (once!) wrongly conflated future and present tense re AGW is one BIG pedantic so what?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And you couldn't have corrected that several weeks ago rather than expecting everyone to read your mind and know you mistyped when you never said anything?

So, CB Dunkerson was correct. We have not already emitted enough CO2 to increase temps by 2.5C. We are on course to emit this amount unless something radically changes, which he hasn't argued against. Good. Glad to see we all agree.

So this whole s~*!storm is purely because you couldn't be bothered to correct yourself and just got on a high horse because we couldn't read your mind. Good job. Way to win over people.


I don't even understand Quark's main argument. Which seems to be centered on since we can't change any projected temperature change, we shouldn't bother doing anything. even if it's too late to avoid a 2 degree shift, we can still avoid a 3 and 4 degree, which would be way way worse.


MMCJawa wrote:
I don't even understand Quark's main argument. Which seems to be centered on since we can't change any projected temperature change, we shouldn't bother doing anything. even if it's too late to avoid a 2 degree shift, we can still avoid a 3 and 4 degree, which would be way way worse.

I'm not sure his argument is so much that we shouldn't as that we won't.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:

Yes, gods of Golarion yes! I was not precise enough in my prior post from several weeks ago.

The meaning of my post - the point I'm still making - is not changed one iota.

All this handwaving argumentation that I (once!) wrongly conflated future and present tense re AGW is one BIG pedantic so what?

Ok, well with that out of the way... we more or less agree. Everything else you've said about eventual temperature anomaly increase falls within the range of 'likely' results.

That said, I lean somewhat on the optimistic side... enough that I think there is some chance that we'll avoid 2.5 C by 2100 primarily due to rapid adoption of solar power.

If, as seems likely, solar becomes the least expensive form of energy world wide before 2030, then there would presumably be little or no new fossil fuel generating capacity built from that point forward and by 2050 annual CO2 emissions should have dropped to the point that the atmospheric CO2 level would stop rising. If that is below ~500 ppm then we should fall short of 2.5 C. We're currently at ~405 and rising ~2 ppm per year. Thus, an eventual peak of 470 ppm or less seems plausible.

Of course, new methods of reducing fossil fuel costs could be found and throw all of that out the window... OR methane leaks from permafrost and/or the oceans could hit a tipping point and start acting as a powerful natural feedback... OR natural carbon sinks could become saturated and stop absorbing half of our annual emissions... OR... et cetera. Plenty of things which could go wrong, but things are looking much better now than they did ten years ago... despite the lack of much meaningful action over that time period.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I don't even understand Quark's main argument. Which seems to be centered on since we can't change any projected temperature change, we shouldn't bother doing anything. even if it's too late to avoid a 2 degree shift, we can still avoid a 3 and 4 degree, which would be way way worse.
I'm not sure his argument is so much that we shouldn't as that we won't.

That is the take away message, yes.


LINK

Charlot Observer wrote:
fuel prices for natural gas – to $35 per megawatt-hour of energy

Making decisions based on a LCOE is fine except there are assumptions that go into calculating the LCOE and, while it is true that fossil fuel is subsidized, some of that subsidy is unavoidable. Once the infrastructure has been built there is a strong economic incentive to keep using it. LCOE calculations always seem to be made in the "best possible world" instead of the world we actually live in.

Modern natural gas power plants are going to be around much longer than the 20-40 years most facilities have left in them. We as a species will continue to build them for decades to come.

Solar at scale takes up land and land is valuable in many parts of the world; particularly where the population is greater. But populated areas are precisely where we need solar as generating the power near to where it will be used is more efficient. Only in Africa are things looking up with regard to solar power, "unused" land, and power needs. Unfortunately I believe that good news is offset by AGW-induced shifting rain patterns and an already politically strained (collapsed?) environment across the whole continent.

Moving on: The problem with citing facts like this,

CB wrote:
...by 2050 annual CO2 emissions should have dropped to the point that the atmospheric CO2 level would stop rising. If that is below ~500 ppm then we should fall short of 2.5 C. We're currently at ~405 and rising ~2 ppm per year. Thus, an eventual peak of 470 ppm or less seems plausible...

is the lag in CO2 present in the atmosphere to the eventual steady state increase it gives to global temperature is on the order of 4 decades, when the system is seeing century scale continuous increases. That is, a bump in CO2 for a year or two won't make any long term difference. A continuous up of a few ppm/year for 100 or 150 years will see an eventual working out of deep ocean thermal interchange with the atmosphere. Changes that may take nearly half a century to manifest.

So the current state of 406 ppm CO2 is not equal to a 1.0°C rise in average global temperature. Because this 406 ppm value was achieved at the tail-end of a 150 year run up of CO2 levels, it is equal to something more than that. AFAIK no one is saying it is less that 1.5°C, some are saying it is roughly 2.0°C and me, being me, suspect the real value us around 2.5°C.

The worlds oceans act like an enormous somewhat independent two-stage battery. How that increased heat energy is stored and released is, to a large degree*, not well modeled. To be clear I'm saying; tipping points aside it is not well modeled. What happens in the deep ocean (>700 meters) is particularly obscure.

* pun intended :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FINALLY! Solar on Warehouse Roofs

Seattle Times wrote:

By 2020, 50 Amazon facilities around the globe will be drawing some energy from the sun.

That amounts to a meaningful percentage of Amazon operations: In the U.S., the company has about 95 warehouses and distribution centers and 29 regional sortation centers, while it has 149 facilities outside the U.S.

Solar and wind combined with something like this has real potential. The likelihood of scaling it up to something more than 20-30% of global power needs by 2050 is anybody's guess.

You can be hopeful if you want to but I have all of human history telling me to always be something less than hopeful.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Making decisions based on a LCOE is fine except there are assumptions that go into calculating the LCOE

...and generally those assumptions have been slanted towards existing mainstream power sources over disruptive sources. That wind and solar are now matching natural gas in many LCOE calculations still lags the fact that they are coming in with markedly lower bids for actual power supply contracts.

Quote:
Modern natural gas power plants are going to be around much longer than the 20-40 years most facilities have left in them. We as a species will continue to build them for decades to come.

Most of the world doesn't use natural gas at anywhere near the levels the US does. It has only been cost competitive with coal for about a decade, and the technology which makes it so requires expertise and up-front capital investment that aren't available everywhere.

Meanwhile, in the US, wind and solar are now growing faster than natural gas... a trend which will only accelerate as their cost continues to decline while the cost of natural gas slowly increases (barring some new technological breakthrough). Thus, I suspect that natural gas is already at or near its peak in terms of percentage of global power generation.

That said, natural gas emits half the CO2 of coal. Thus, we can get to stable atmospheric CO2 levels even with a mix of natural gas and clean power.

Quote:
Solar at scale takes up land and land is valuable in many parts of the world; particularly where the population is greater.

New Jersey is densely populated and yet has more solar power installed than all but three (much larger) US states. This was achieved primarily by putting small solar panels on roughly half the telephone poles in the state.

So no... solar at scale does NOT have to take up land.

Similarly, you act as if the recent Amazon announcement is some new thing, but it isn't... solar on warehouses, business complexes, schools, and other large area buildings is becoming increasingly common. Ditto for solar over parking lots... and of course on home roofs. These are large enough that they are tracked separately from 'utility' scale generation as 'commercial' and 'residential' solar power.

Solar electricity generation has been integrated in to windows, roofing shingles, building siding, cloth, and yes even roads. As the costs of these come down it will become common to have solar built right in to our infrastructure... generating power precisely where it is most used.

Quote:
Only in Africa are things looking up with regard to solar power,

Sure. Only in Africa. If you ignore China, India, the US, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, France, Spain, Australia... and pretty much the rest of the planet. Heck, Saudi Arabia is going solar.

Quote:
Moving on: The problem with citing facts like this,
CB wrote:
...by 2050 annual CO2 emissions should have dropped to the point that the atmospheric CO2 level would stop rising. If that is below ~500 ppm then we should fall short of 2.5 C. We're currently at ~405 and rising ~2 ppm per year. Thus, an eventual peak of 470 ppm or less seems plausible...
is the lag in CO2 present in the atmosphere to the eventual steady state increase it gives to global temperature is on the order of 4 decades, when the system is seeing century scale continuous increases.

NOT a problem, as the temperature anomalies I cited were the values AFTER the decadal equilibrium climate response time (e.g. 'on the order of 4 decades').

Quote:
You can be hopeful if you want to but I have all of human history telling me to always be something less than hopeful.

Funny, as I see it, human history shows that we continue to cooperate to build a better world for ourselves. Looking at current human behavior always makes me doubt our viability as a species, but history shows that we somehow always muddle on.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.

As far as lifeboats go, Mars is a real crappy choice. We either solve our problems here, or our problems solve us.

Well it's not like I can get the starship Enterprise A to come pick us up and drop us off at the nearest star system...

So Mars is kind of it for me. Unless you know how build a ship that goes at/near or beyond the speed of light. Or can warp space. Cause I can't.

I am extremely skeptical of the notion that star travel will ever be a practical option for a species that's as short-lived and unsuited for long-term space habitability as ours is. Or of the notion that it's practical at all. If just one species had cracked that nut in the history of the universe, they'd have filled up the Galaxy by now.

The fact that Mars is the only available choice doesn't change the fact that it won't work. The main problem is that Mars needs high tech solutions to just barely survive on the planet, and that means support from Earth.

Like I said, the only answers that will save us in the time we have left are those that maintain Earth's viability for us, not pin our hopes on some pie in the sky notion, Mars isn't a lifeboat even if you ARE willing to write off more than 99 percent of humanity, for the reasons I mention. Martian colonies for the foreseeable future aren't viable without constant Earth support for those necessities that can't be locally made.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
As I understand it Trump was part of an opposition to a wind farm in the UK because it would have been in view of one of his properties there.
Or just because he wanted to be in opposition to something. He's been known to do that.

Most people who live in scenic areas don't share your appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of wind farms. Most places where they would be suited for, meet heavy opposition to them, because they're considered ugly blots on the landscape.

Trump's motives for opposing them at the time are fairly clear. Like many in the area, he most likely felt that they would lower his property values, and since he buys land as an investment, that's a germane concern. This is LONG before his second career as a political candidate.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Most people who live in scenic areas don't share your appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of wind farms. Most places where they would be suited for, meet heavy opposition to them, because they're considered ugly blots on the landscape.

I've mostly heard the 'blot on the landscape' spiel from Europeans (though not the Netherlands) and 'east coast liberal elites' (e.g. Trump, Kennedy).

Some of the best onshore wind energy potential in the world is in the US midwestern states, and there most people have no problem with them. Huge wind farms have sprung up throughout that region in the past decade without anything like the caterwauling NIMBYism witnessed over efforts elsewhere.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Most people who live in scenic areas don't share your appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of wind farms. Most places where they would be suited for, meet heavy opposition to them, because they're considered ugly blots on the landscape.

I've mostly heard the 'blot on the landscape' spiel from Europeans (though not the Netherlands) and 'east coast liberal elites' (e.g. Trump, Kennedy).

Some of the best onshore wind energy potential in the world is in the US midwestern states, and there most people have no problem with them. Huge wind farms have sprung up throughout that region in the past decade without anything like the caterwauling NIMBYism witnessed over efforts elsewhere.

Goggling the term "protests against windfarms in the midwest" Yielded articles about such protests in the following states:

Ohio
North Dakota
South Dakota
Indiana
Texas
Illinois

That search also shows pages on the global backlash particurarly in places such as Maine and Britain. Even a Kennedy shows up in Robert F. Kennedy's oppostion to the Cape Wind project on the grounds of threats to the local fishery


CBDunkerson wrote:
New Jersey is densely populated and yet has more solar power installed than all but three (much larger) US states. This was achieved primarily by putting small solar panels on roughly half the telephone poles in the state.

Incorrect. the purpose of those solar panels is to power city-wide wifi. What IS going on in New Jersey is massive pushes for roof type solar panels that hook directly into the power grid. The panels aren't for powering the houses themselves but to sell electricity to the power company. I generally get three calls a week from folks trying to sell me panels.

Liberty's Edge

The existence of protests does not dispute my assertion that the majority in the mid west support wind power... and the telephone mounted solar panels in New Jersey are a power company initiative that has nothing to do with WiFi.

That said, yes... we get a ridiculous number of calls about installing solar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nature.com

Mann and Colleagues wrote:
It is well-documented that climate models reasonably well capture changes in global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily thermodynamically controlled. In contrast, there is much less confidence in circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics34,35,36. We assume here that even models that don’t correctly simulate certain details of planetary wave dynamics responses37— an issue we will examine later– are still likely to get the QRA fingerprint right, allowing us to draw reliable real-world conclusions about how climate change may impact the phenomenon of QRA.

In other words, climate models can tell us the likely magnitude of change to expect but nothing about the details of how that change will actually express itself.

So I lament:
I've been lambasted and excoriated multiple times on this thread for saying exactly the same thing. Each time I cite quality references in support of my position and each time I either get belittled while the citations get ignored or I hear silence. Never a retraction of the criticism nor an apology. People! *eye-roll*

Here's a link to a YouTube vid explaining a key point of the Nature paper.

Same Peeps wrote:
For the anthropogenic-only case (Fig. 3d), the post-1970 trend is greater (0.01 units/year), and an increase is found in 88% of the multimodel ensemble members (also significant at the p < 0.0001 level; Table 1), nearly breaching the IPCC “very likely” threshold (Table 1). The more dominant trend in this case appears to be a consequence of the absence of volcanic forcing, particularly the absence of the prominent 1982 El Chichon and 1991 Pinatubo eruptions. It is reasonable to conclude that these volcanic events have likely acted to obscure an anthropogenic signal in the QRA fingerprint.

Echoes what I've said up-thread about volcanic activity masking AGW. It's not much of a hope but this paper, like many other climate modeling exercises, show that a well timed and large enough volcanic eruption can totally reset AGW.

Interesting to note that in the paper their models explain the effects of particulate pollution from the 1950's to 1970's; the era of massive industrialization before things like the Clean Air Act got traction.

Repeat lamentation here. :D

Here is an easy to understand summary of what humanity needs to do and when in regards to CO2 emissions. Use a “Carbon Law” to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050

This pace of change needed seems about right to me. I don't think we'll get there because... people.

What this summary does not address is the fact that getting there will call for a notable reduction in the standard of living for most people in the "west" and a significant limit to how high the standard of living will be for the remaining 2/3rds of humanity. The minority of us in the "west" aren't too likely to go vegetarian/pescitarian with our diets, let alone all the other reductions in consumption we will need to endure. The majority of us who, thanks to the Internet and smart phones, can see how we in the "west" live aren't going to be too happy about not joining us in our excesses.

Here is a short video pleading for the unity and effort needed to keep the average global temperature at or below 1.5C. How pathetic is this? It completely ignores human nature. So Kira doesn't want to get married and have 2.2 kids? Great, a few middle class Europeans will do their part (or more likely, fool themselves into thinking they are fully doing their part) about being good "world citizens", while the majority of Europeans and the rest of humanity go on like there is no urgent need.

Because we will.

Because we always have.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:

Nature.com

Mann and Colleagues wrote:
It is well-documented that climate models reasonably well capture changes in global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily thermodynamically controlled. In contrast, there is much less confidence in circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics34,35,36. We assume here that even models that don’t correctly simulate certain details of planetary wave dynamics responses37— an issue we will examine later– are still likely to get the QRA fingerprint right, allowing us to draw reliable real-world conclusions about how climate change may impact the phenomenon of QRA.
In other words, climate models can tell us the likely magnitude of change to expect but nothing about the details of how that change will actually express itself.

No.

Your 'other words' are not an accurate representation of what that passage is saying. Rather, the text states that climate models have better mapped temperature changes than they have changes in atmospheric circulation. It says literally nothing about "details of how that change will actually express itself".

Further, they are making that statement as background for an 'until now' reveal. The entire point of that study is that they WERE able to match models to observations for a significant atmospheric circulation change. Specifically, the recently observed increase in 'blocking patterns' within the jet stream which result in weather systems lingering over an area for prolonged periods and creating extreme events.

Quote:

So I lament:

I've been lambasted and excoriated multiple times on this thread for saying exactly the same thing. Each time I cite quality references in support of my position and each time I either get belittled while the citations get ignored or I hear silence. Never a retraction of the criticism nor an apology. People! *eye-roll*

Your quality reference literally disproves your position.

It is a breakthrough showing climate models now being able to predict one of the few details of 'how climate change will express itself' which they had previously been unable to.

Quote:

Here's a link to a YouTube vid explaining a key point of the Nature paper.

Same Peeps wrote:
For the anthropogenic-only case (Fig. 3d), the post-1970 trend is greater (0.01 units/year), and an increase is found in 88% of the multimodel ensemble members (also significant at the p < 0.0001 level; Table 1), nearly breaching the IPCC “very likely” threshold (Table 1). The more dominant trend in this case appears to be a consequence of the absence of volcanic forcing, particularly the absence of the prominent 1982 El Chichon and 1991 Pinatubo eruptions. It is reasonable to conclude that these volcanic events have likely acted to obscure an anthropogenic signal in the QRA fingerprint.
Echoes what I've said up-thread about volcanic activity masking AGW. It's not much of a hope but this paper, like many other climate modeling exercises, show that a well timed and large enough volcanic eruption can totally reset AGW.

OMG!

No, just no. It doesn't say anything remotely like that. No volcanic eruption is going to "totally reset AGW". Indeed, volcanic eruptions put MORE greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere. Yes, they also throw up particulates (aka 'dust') which can block incoming sunlight and cause cooling... but only for a few months or (in extreme cases) years. By then the dust has all settled to the ground... but the CO2 is still up there. No global warming reset. Short term counter only.

All the quoted text is saying is that volcanic eruptions caused short term changes which made it difficult to detect the correlation between changing temperature and circulation patterns... until sufficient data was gathered over a longer period and new analysis techniques (aka that study) were applied.

Quote:

Here is an easy to understand summary of what humanity needs to do and when in regards to CO2 emissions. Use a “Carbon Law” to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050

This pace of change needed seems about right to me. I don't think we'll get there because... people.

I remain somewhat hopeful because... greed.

Solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels for much of the world and within a decade will be much cheaper nearly everywhere. If people can sell you electricity for the current price while decreasing their cost to generate it... they will. People like making larger profits.

Quote:
What this summary does not address is the fact that getting there will call for a notable reduction in the standard of living for most people in the "west"

I have seen no evidence for that 'fact' being anything but fiction.

Again, your own source contradicts you... indicating that we can get to net zero emissions without decreasing power generation. Ergo, no need for a SOL decrease to stop global warming. Purely a technology change... driven by carbon emission pricing in their proposal.


Is this thread still going?!?

Heads up to all of you who are trying to "win" this debate..... there is no "winning"... there are only opinions.

Climate change is phenomonally complex due to it being so interdisciplinary.

Even the people who call themselves 'Climate change experts' arent actually experts in the strict sense of the word......

Its like statistics.... the 'facts' can be manipulated to show just about anything you like


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

Is this thread still going?!?

Heads up to all of you who are trying to "win" this debate..... there is no "winning"... there are only opinions.

Climate change is phenomonally complex due to it being so interdisciplinary.

Even the people who call themselves 'Climate change experts' arent actually experts in the strict sense of the word......

Its like statistics.... the 'facts' can be manipulated to show just about anything you like

And yet, somewhere out there is reality.

The Greenhouse Effect is either working on a planetary scale or it isn't.

We're either increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or we're not.

The details are fantastically complex, but the basic questions are pretty straightforward. And the answers are clear.

2,201 to 2,250 of 5,074 << first < prev | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards