I agree with Stephen Wolfram. Climate is computationally irreducible.
My contention right now is that you don't know what "computationally irreducible" means. Seeing as you've spent now a half dozen posts avoiding answering any question in a way that shows understanding of the concept, I feel comfortable with this idea until proven otherwise.
You don't know what computationally irreducible means.
Here... I'll show you how easy it would be to have proven me wrong.
Computational irreducibility: complex behavior developed from simple rules that make prediction difficult. You can't predict the answer, you have to run the computation in order to find out what the answer is.
I was curious if you could produce those two sentences (without copy pasting), or something similar. Evidently you couldn't. Here's a quote from Wolfram-Alpha if you're curious (but you couldn't be bothered to look up):
Quote: The principle of computational irreducibility says that the only way to determine the answer to a computationally irreducible question is to perform, or simulate, the computation. So here's the thing, even a good model of weather (not even actual weather) is computationally irreducible. You have to input variables into the model to get a result from the model. Just because something is computationally irreducible doesn't mean we don't understand the rules behind it, nor that we can't measure the inputs or outputs. It has nothing to do with that (even though you've been going on for pages as if that were the definition).
Basically, you've been using "computational irreducibility" to insult Kirth and others to imply that they understands less about this stuff than you do... but you don't even understand the words you're typing.
Before this there were three options:
1. You knew what you were talking about.
2. You knew you were wrong, but went on anyways.
3. You didn't know you were wrong.
I feel comfortable in having eliminated the first one. Which of the remaining do you feel best explains your behavior?
Again, I agree with Stephen Wolfram. It just happens that you don't actually know what he's saying.
Quark Blast wrote:
”thejeff” wrote: This started with operating costs of existing coal plants being higher than new wind or solar construction. Even existing infrastructure runs at a loss.
That's not true for oil yet, but it's likely coming. When the price of oil drops below extraction & refinement costs even with existing infrastructure, then countries will stop running that infrastructure. Before that of course both corporations and countries will slow and stop making investments in new infrastructure.
First, don’t forget natural gas. It will last far longer than oil as an economically viable energy source.
Second, those countries will run that infrastructure into the ground after they stop significantly investing in it. For far too many countries a double-digit portion of their GDP depends on oil. The leadership will do whatever to keep the money flowing or they’ll be out of a job on the end of a hangman’s noose.
Not once the price drops below the cost of producing it using the existing infrastructure.
You don't keep mining coal when the cost of doing so exceeds the price you can get for your coal, even if you've already built your mine. You don't run your coal power plant if the cost of coal exceeds what you can sell your power for, even with the sunk cost of the plant.
Quark Blast wrote: And as I just outlined above to thejeff there are a lot of lives and livelihoods riding on coal/oil/natural gas. Which, no matter how often you repeat it, will not change the fact that people wanting to SELL something does NOT equate to other people BUYING that thing. Nobody is going to pay MORE for 'dirty' fossil fuel power and no amount of existing infrastructure or political commitment is going to make them do so.
Quote: So, reading for comprehension lesson time… again.
Twenty years ago global humanity passed the tipping point of being able to segue over to renewables with little additional disruption to the global climate (and the global economy). Because what happened at the Paris Agreement ought to have happened circa 1995, we’ve waited too long for an easy transition and guaranteed a +2.5°C year 2100, minimum.
Right. Like I said, your new position that continued future emissions as we transition to renewables are likely to get us to +2.5°C is much more reasonable than your previous claim that;
Quark Blast wrote: "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C" Quote: Are they a total ####### waste of time viz-a-viz mitigating AGW?
OH YEAH!
Nonsense. If solar roadways were to be mass produced they could produce enough electricity to replace all current fossil fuel generation.
Now, it may or may not be possible to mass produce solar roads economically... but that's why you build prototypes and do research.
People in this thread said there would never be any actual solar roads built at all. They were wrong. You insist they will never have any significant impact towards mitigating AGW. We don't know yet, but I suspect the only way you won't be wrong on that is if some easier solution is developed first.
”Irontruth” wrote: I agree with Stephen Wolfram. Climate is computationally irreducible. Whew!!!
Glad we got that settled. I was beginning to worry you might pop a gasket over this trivial dispute.
High Fives all around! Woot!
”CB” wrote: Right. Like I said, your new position that continued future emissions as we transition to renewables are likely to get us to +2.5°C is much more reasonable than your previous claim… It’s not a “new” position.
Tell me, if parachutes take no less than 600’ at terminal human free-fall velocity to full deploy and you’re parachuting and have yet to begin the process to open your chute while passing the 600’ local altitude marker, is it fair to say you have failed in your skydiving attempt?
You’ve got 600’ to go so, being a pedantic lawyerly type, one could say it is not true that you’re dead or very grievously injured. But so what?
”CB” wrote: Nonsense. If solar roadways were to be mass produced they could produce enough electricity to replace all current fossil fuel generation.
Now, it may or may not be possible to mass produce solar roads economically... but that's why you build prototypes and do research.
People in this thread said there would never be any actual solar roads built at all. They were wrong. You insist they will never have any significant impact towards mitigating AGW. We don't know yet, but I suspect the only way you won't be wrong on that is if some easier solution is developed first.
Your suspicions do not interest me.
As for your hypothetical AGW-mitigating globe spanning solar roadways - add to them geostationary super gigantic space mirrors to control the amount of insolation striking the planet to begin with... ‘cause why not?
Solar roads will do next to nothing to mitigate the coming +2.5°C year 2100. Sadly my detractors will be long dead by then and will be unable to see me “celebrate” my victory of prescient insight.
Actually I could very well be dead by then too but I figure I can celebrate preemptively circa 2050 as by then the pattern will be well confirmed by all sides of the debate.
”thejeff” wrote: Not once the price drops below the cost of producing it using the existing infrastructure.
You don't keep mining coal when the cost of doing so exceeds the price you can get for your coal, even if you've already built your mine. You don't run your coal power plant if the cost of coal exceeds what you can sell your power for, even with the sunk cost of the plant.
Technically you’re right.
However, the global economy is most emphatically not that tightly integrated.
For instance, I would hazard a guess that we passed the time when coal was truly profitable sometime in the late 1980’s. Yet we’re still mining coal today and will be for several more years (indeed, for how many more decades?).
This is why I’m so keen on pegging 1995 as the year we should’ve been about where the Paris Agreement got us to. Even moving things along as well as we can hope global humanity needs a couple of decades to make a move as large as getting off fossil fuel as the primary energy source.
Quark Blast wrote: ”Irontruth” wrote: I agree with Stephen Wolfram. Climate is computationally irreducible. Whew!!!
Glad we got that settled. I was beginning to worry you might pop a gasket over this trivial dispute.
High Fives all around! Woot! I am however disagreeing with you.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: ”Irontruth” wrote: I agree with Stephen Wolfram. Climate is computationally irreducible. Whew!!!
Glad we got that settled. I was beginning to worry you might pop a gasket over this trivial dispute.
High Fives all around! Woot! I am however disagreeing with you. Well I'm with Stephen...
Hey!!! We've got a Perpetual Motion machine going.
####! the 2nd Law!
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: ”Irontruth” wrote: I agree with Stephen Wolfram. Climate is computationally irreducible. Whew!!!
Glad we got that settled. I was beginning to worry you might pop a gasket over this trivial dispute.
High Fives all around! Woot! I am however disagreeing with you. Well I'm with Stephen...
Hey!!! We've got a Perpetual Motion machine going.
####! the 2nd Law! But you aren't with Stephen. I've shown that. You've parroted words, but then when you try to apply them to a concept, you fail to do so correctly.
Quark Blast wrote: It’s not a “new” position. New. Different. Changed. Altered. Revised. Previously unstated.
Whatever you want to call it, you have changed from claiming that we would hit +2.5°C warming by 2100 based on past emissions to that we will do so based on future emissions. The past and future are different things. Your position has changed from a highly unlikely claim to a much more probable one.
On the other hand, your effort to now claim that you held the plausible position all along is simply dishonest.
Although I agree with jeff that the weather forecast debate was tangential, I rarely mind a tangential debate. However, I wasn't entirely impressed with the way you blew by the paper noting weather modeling improvements without a reply and shifted to different examples (influenza? FWIW, although this year is a downside outlier, my understanding of the vaccine effectiveness issues in recent years is that they are related to the rise of more problematic strains, i.e., the base task has substantially increased in difficulty over time).
Quark Blast wrote: ”thejeff” wrote: Not once the price drops below the cost of producing it using the existing infrastructure.
You don't keep mining coal when the cost of doing so exceeds the price you can get for your coal, even if you've already built your mine. You don't run your coal power plant if the cost of coal exceeds what you can sell your power for, even with the sunk cost of the plant.
Technically you’re right.
However, the global economy is most emphatically not that tightly integrated.
For instance, I would hazard a guess that we passed the time when coal was truly profitable sometime in the late 1980’s. Yet we’re still mining coal today and will be for several more years (indeed, for how many more decades?). I'm disinclined to trust a guess and would be more inclined to accept evidence.
Coriat wrote: Quark Blast wrote: For instance, I would hazard a guess that we passed the time when coal was truly profitable sometime in the late 1980’s. Yet we’re still mining coal today and will be for several more years (indeed, for how many more decades?). I'm disinclined to trust a guess and would be more inclined to accept evidence. It depends on how we define the 'profitability' of coal. If you look at the nominal price, what you actually pay to buy it, vs what it sells for then coal is still profitable for most of the globe today. If you look at the total price, including all the external costs imposed through increased health and environmental problems, then the late 1980s estimate might be about right. However, if you also consider the societal benefits that coal provided (e.g. mass electricity to run modern industries and computers) then coal was enormously 'profitable' until other power sources became able to fully replace it for those needs... which has just been in the past few years.
All that being said, global coal electricity production peaked in 2014... but we will certainly continue to mine coal for decades, if not centuries... given the fact that it has numerous uses outside power generation.
”Coriat” wrote: I wasn't entirely impressed with the way you blew by the paper noting weather modeling improvements without a reply and shifted to different examples (influenza? FWIW, although this year is a downside outlier, my understanding of the vaccine effectiveness issues in recent years is that they are related to the rise of more problematic strains, i.e., the base task has substantially increased in difficulty over time). I think the influenza issue is the most directly comparable analogy posted so far on this thread.
What with all the known and proposed positive (and negative) feedback loops in the global climate, I would say mutating viruses are still far less complex than the global climate.
But then you are “disinclined to trust my guess”, so whatevs…
If you can't predict the weather ten days out, you can't predict the climate 10 years out. The comparison isn't 1:1 but they do have a great many things in common as far as difficulty in getting an accurate predictive model.
Also, I've acknowledged from my first post on the topic that weather prediction has gotten better compared to 50 years ago. Though not much better over the past 10-15.
The approach we take to modeling weather and climate is the same. Acting as if the same equations that Boyle or Lorenz used are going to get us what we need is similar to thinking we can use Newton's equations, and only Newton's equations, to get astronauts to Mars and back.
”CB” wrote: Whatever you want to call it, you have changed from claiming that we would hit +2.5°C warming by 2100 based on past emissions to that we will do so based on future emissions. The past and future are different things. Your position has changed from a highly unlikely claim to a much more probable one.
On the other hand, your effort to now claim that you held the plausible position all along is simply dishonest.
OK, it’s like this.
In order to practically ramp down our global CO2 emissions rate* to achieve less than +2.5°C by 2100, we (the royal we, all humanity) would needed to have been on the trajectory we are on today in about the year 1995. Since we were never on that trajectory, we have effectively already emitted too much greenhouse gas to achieve a +2.5°C year 2100.
Yes, it’s a done deal. Just like opening your parachute too late, you can’t say before you hit the ground that, “Well, technically it’s not too late”, when it most emphatically is. If your parachute isn’t open at 600’, then what happens at 500’ or 400’ or 300’… won’t make a ###### #### bit of difference!
Be a “lawyer” if you want and “win” this pyric victory but in 2050 I’ll be laughing at your optimism. Because, well, there won’t be much else to laugh at by then I’ll wager.
Also, I notice you spend a lot of effort calling me a liar. Wouldn’t that be self-evident from my posts? Your apparent great need to repeat that accusation regardless, even to the point of wheedling thoroughly irrelevant side points from the actual trend of this thread toward that end, is more than a little creepy. I would recommend you buck up and tackle my arguments head-on or at least show some maturity and simply ignore me like thejeff does.
* Note: not theoretically in some “perfect” world of humans that don’t and never have existed; but practically being able to ramp down emissions.
Trump solar tariff follows in the footsteps of EU, India
”Newsday” wrote: Dave Keating of Fortune noted Tuesday that the EU “did the exact same thing in September of last year.” It set “minimum import duties for Chinese solar modules and cells that price them up to 30 percent above market levels,” he wrote.
And earlier this week, India imposed a 70 percent import duty on Chinese and Malaysian solar panels, stirring debate similar to that surrounding the U.S. announcement on Tuesday.
Even if NOAA's (IPCC's, whoever's) climate models were everything a reductionist scientist could hope for, it's stuff like this that makes prognosticating what the climate will be in 2100 an impossible goal.
Quark Blast wrote:
If you can't predict the weather ten days out, you can't predict the climate 10 years out. The comparison isn't 1:1 but they do have a great many things in common as far as difficulty in getting an accurate predictive model.
This is the fundamental problem you have. It's a common one. Climate isn't weather. This statement doesn't hold up.
You can't predict weather 10 days out, but your predictions don't get much worse as you go out months or years, precisely because they blur into climate.
It's not like you can predict temperature within 5 degrees 10 days out, within 20 degrees 30 days out and 100 degrees six months out - the errors stop accumulating. You don't know if a front will be coming through that day, but you know the baseline. That's climate. The details are tricky, but you still know when winter will come and when it's time to plant.
That you equate the two so simply suggests you just don't understand.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
If you can't predict the weather ten days out, you can't predict the climate 10 years out. The comparison isn't 1:1 but they do have a great many things in common as far as difficulty in getting an accurate predictive model.
This is the fundamental problem you have. It's a common one. Climate isn't weather. This statement doesn't hold up.
You can't predict weather 10 days out, but your predictions don't get much worse as you go out months or years, precisely because they blur into climate.
It's not like you can predict temperature within 5 degrees 10 days out, within 20 degrees 30 days out and 100 degrees six months out - the errors stop accumulating. You don't know if a front will be coming through that day, but you know the baseline. That's climate. The details are tricky, but you still know when winter will come and when it's time to plant.
That you equate the two so simply suggests you just don't understand. The two are related in that they both intimately involve what's happening in the global atmosphere - or for weather at the scale of a typical forecast, at least a hemisphere.
The equations for fluid dynamics - weather models and climate models alike - are the same from one type of model to the next.
That there are limits to the total error is not something intrinsic to the equations but hard parameters set for "reasons" (some good, some bad, some... as good as we can get and to be revised later).
I could quote from leading scientists who state that, "Weather and climate are not related, just like ocean waves and ocean tides are not."
Tides however are almost entirely driven by gravitational interaction with the Moon (with a minor solar component + local bathymetry) and waves are largely storm generated (with an occasional tsunami).
I don't understand how leading scientists keep repeating this refrain like it makes sense. Waves-and-tides are simply not analogous to weather-and-climate - they use entirely separate equations.
Weather and climate models use a great many equations in common.
Quark Blast wrote: I don't understand how leading scientists keep repeating this refrain like it makes sense. Waves-and-tides are simply not analogous to weather-and-climate - they use entirely separate equations. How come every time you try to explain technical things in your own words, it's always wrong?
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I don't understand how
† Mr. Banks is no longer with us :_(. Fortunately, he was quite prolific and if you are just starting on the Culture series you are in for a treat and I kind of envy you. For some reason whenever I finish a Cult leading scientists keep repeating this refrain like it makes sense. Waves-and-tides are simply not analogous to weather-and-climate - they use entirely separate equations.
How come every time you try to explain technical things in your own words, it's always wrong? I'm just amused by "I could quote leading scientists who disagree with me" as a defence for his position. :)
Quark Blast wrote: Be a “lawyer” if you want and “win” this pyric victory but in 2050 I’ll be laughing at your optimism. How? Your new position is essentially the same as what I have been saying all along... we'll likely hit around +2.5°C by 2100 with continued emissions. Maybe less if the renewable transition accelerates or more if it drags out, but in that ballpark.
Quote: Also, I notice you spend a lot of effort calling me a liar. Wouldn’t that be self-evident from my posts? Errr, it IS self-evident from your posts. Which is why I simply quote them;
"Problem is we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C"
"And remember, if we clean up our gas-guzzling ways and otherwise scrub out the atmospheric pollutants from our activities we will add +0.5°C to the AGW total; then another +0.5°C when jet airliners become too expensive to be commercially viable and humanity stops making contrails.
Added to what we've already measured and that makes for net +2.5°C over preindustrial times minimum."
The above represent two different claims (one based on existing GHG emissions and the other on already observed warming plus your estimates of cooling forcings which would be removed when we stopped emissions) that we were already over the +2.5°C thresh-hold... no future emissions required. These claims were extremely unlikely to be correct. Your new claim that we will get to +2.5°C by 2100 when future emissions are taken in to account is much more reasonable.
That you meant future emissions to be included all along is clearly and obviously a lie... the quotations above directly contradict it.
Quark Blast wrote: ”Coriat” wrote: I wasn't entirely impressed with the way you blew by the paper noting weather modeling improvements without a reply and shifted to different examples (influenza? FWIW, although this year is a downside outlier, my understanding of the vaccine effectiveness issues in recent years is that they are related to the rise of more problematic strains, i.e., the base task has substantially increased in difficulty over time). I think the influenza issue is the most directly comparable analogy posted so far on this thread.
What with all the known and proposed positive (and negative) feedback loops in the global climate, I would say mutating viruses are still far less complex than the global climate.
But then you are “disinclined to trust my guess”, so whatevs… I have some past reason to distrust your guesses and it doesn't strike me as unfair to do so (and I'm pretty skeptical of the coal guess based on what I do know), but take it as an invitation to provide evidence and not as a commitment to disagreeing. I admit that I do not know enough to form a well-founded opinion about whether modeling influenza is more or less complicated than modeling climate (and after doing some casual research, I can say that the question doesn't seem susceptible to casual research).
As an amateur speculative exercise it is easy to think of ways in which climate modeling might be better off than influenza modeling (for instance, it seems plausible to me that we possess much better monitoring capabilities for the present-day climate than for the the present-day state of the influenza viruses in their animal reservoirs in SE Asia, providing more accurate starting conditions to plug into the models). However, I do not have the expertise to know whether these speculations are valid, so they are of little value compared to evidence, the opinions of expert modelers on the question, etc., and I'm open to being convinced.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Be a “lawyer” if you want and “win” this pyric victory but in 2050 I’ll be laughing at your optimism. How? Your new position is essentially the same as what I have been saying all along... we'll likely hit around +2.5°C by 2100 with continued emissions. Maybe less if the renewable transition accelerates or more if it drags out, but in that ballpark.
Quote: Also, I notice you spend a lot of effort calling me a liar. Wouldn’t that be self-evident from my posts? Errr, it IS self-evident from your posts. Which is why I simply quote them;
"Problem is we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C"
"And remember, if we clean up our gas-guzzling ways and otherwise scrub out the atmospheric pollutants from our activities we will add +0.5°C to the AGW total; then another +0.5°C when jet airliners become too expensive to be commercially viable and humanity stops making contrails.
Added to what we've already measured and that makes for net +2.5°C over preindustrial times minimum."
The above represent two different claims (one based on existing GHG emissions and the other on already observed warming plus your estimates of cooling forcings which would be removed when we stopped emissions) that we were already over the +2.5°C thresh-hold... no future emissions required. These claims were extremely unlikely to be correct. Your new claim that we will get to +2.5°C by 2100 when future emissions are taken in to account is much more reasonable.
That you meant future emissions to be included all along is clearly and obviously a lie... the quotations above directly contradict it. "Directly contradict"? I'm not sure they do. You certainly haven't demonstrated that with your limited and sans-context quotations. However...
Everyone seems to agree we are at no less than +1.0°C over the pre- industrial mean.
That value expressly does not include any latency seen in recent measurements of deep sea temperatures. A research item I've cited up thread more than once.
Additionally various other positive feedback mechanisms have been proposed with varying degrees of support beyond mere theorizing.
I know of no proposed negative feedback mechanisms in the global climate literature that has any certain support.
Then, quoting you quoting me just above:
"add +0.5°C"
and a second time right after that
"then another +0.5°C"
And we get >=1.0 + 0.5 + 0.5 + known latency of uncertain positive value = +2.5°C
And that value is a conservative floor to what we can expect by the year 2100.
Coriat wrote: Quark Blast wrote: ”Coriat” wrote: I wasn't entirely impressed with the way you blew by the paper noting weather modeling improvements without a reply and shifted to different examples (influenza? FWIW, although this year is a downside outlier, my understanding of the vaccine effectiveness issues in recent years is that they are related to the rise of more problematic strains, i.e., the base task has substantially increased in difficulty over time). I think the influenza issue is the most directly comparable analogy posted so far on this thread.
What with all the known and proposed positive (and negative) feedback loops in the global climate, I would say mutating viruses are still far less complex than the global climate.
But then you are “disinclined to trust my guess”, so whatevs… I have some past reason to distrust your guesses and it doesn't strike me as unfair to do so (and I'm pretty skeptical of the coal guess based on what I do know), but take it as an invitation to provide evidence and not as a commitment to disagreeing. I admit that I do not know enough to form a well-founded opinion about whether modeling influenza is more or less complicated than modeling climate (and after doing some casual research, I can say that the question doesn't seem susceptible to casual research).
As an amateur speculative exercise it is easy to think of ways in which climate modeling might be better off than influenza modeling (for instance, it seems plausible to me that we possess much better monitoring capabilities for the present-day climate than for the the present-day state of the influenza viruses in their animal reservoirs in SE Asia, providing more accurate starting conditions to plug into the models). However, I do not have the expertise to know whether these speculations are valid, so they are of little value compared to evidence, the opinions of expert modelers on the question, etc., and I'm open to being convinced. K, when I do research on viral pandemic modeling I'll drop it here.
Quark Blast wrote: "Directly contradict"? I'm not sure they do. You certainly haven't demonstrated that with your limited and sans-context quotations. You mean the quotations that linked back to the original posts... thus providing the full context and showing it in no way changed their self-evident meanings?
Quote: And we get >=1.0 + 0.5 + 0.5 + known latency of uncertain positive value = +2.5°C
And that value is a conservative floor to what we can expect by the year 2100.
Which... is the exact argument you have just been insisting you never made.
Again, the future and the past are different things. You previously, and again just above, argued that things we have already done in the past will result in +2.5°C warming by 2100. Your 'math' above 'adds' up to 2.5 even assuming ZERO future GHG emissions.
Briefly you then shifted to saying that where we are now PLUS best case scenario future GHG emissions would get us to +2.5°C warming by 2100... AND that this was your position all along.
Unless you are going to claim that it is plausible for GHG emissions between now and 2100 to cause zero warming (which I can ALSO cite you disagreeing with) these two positions of yours are contradictory.
Here’s what I said in September of 2015:
”QB” wrote: See, here's one relatively simple example where the reading-for-comprehension fails.
It is too late to avoid the 2°C warming.
What I said was, focusing on efficiency, will likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.
Do you see the difference?
In the wrong case you are accusing me of self-contradiction.
In the real case, which you misread (on purpose?), I say that, efficiency in energy use will get us back to emission levels that are below the 2°C warming level.
Perhaps I should have said "emission rates" instead of emission levels? No matter. Still renewables won't even touch that without a corresponding lowering of our average standard of living.
Of course we (global humanity) won’t focus on efficiency improvements to anywhere near the level needed to achieve this. The Paris Agreement, as it’s all voluntary and squiffy on the being held accountable thing (particularly for the non-western world), is a good first step. Albeit a step taken two decades too late.
But the bigger point to be made with digging out this quote from yours truly is that the number I was throwing around at that time was +2°C.
So where did the other +0.5°C come from that we see in QBs more recent posts?
I’m glad you asked!
Well you see, I’ve done a ####-ton of reading scientific reports, papers and watching talks by respected experts (TED Talks and also recorded classroom and symposia lectures) as well as presenting that information in term projects and term papers (among other activities). And what I’ve learned in those roughly 18 months is that things are worse than I initially thought.
What was true then is still true now. Namely, that value expressly does not include any latency seen in recent measurements of deep sea temperatures. A research item I've encountered since I reported the +2.0°C number and have since cited up thread more than once.
Then when you factor in various other positive feedback mechanisms which have been proposed and not just in a theoretical manner but based on field research; And the fact that I know of no proposed negative feedback mechanisms in the global climate literature that have any certain support (and I’ve looked!); you see me starting to raise the floor for average global temperature to +2.5°C above pre-industrial times by the year 2100.
I might raise it again as I learn more. Not likely another +0.5°C but I can sure see something in the +0.1°C to +0.3°C range being a distinct possibility based on the research now underway in the Arctic ocean, Antarctica, Greenland and permafrost regions in NA and Asia.
You will note that I lead in my September quote with you having problems reading for comprehension – a persistent trait in your character apparently. Indeed your very raison d'être seems to be to misread everything I write, and if I should actually make a misstatement, misattribution, or possibly ambiguous claim you veritably squeal with glee and spend an inordinate amount of text to “prove” something I never said or intended.
Dude! GAL!
”Ironthruth” wrote: How come every time you try to explain technical things in your own words, it's always wrong? How come you never give anyone a compliment or even a simple “thank you”?
”thejeff” wrote: I'm just amused by "I could quote leading scientists who disagree with me" as a defence for his position. :) You are far too easily amused!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: ”Ironthruth” wrote: How come every time you try to explain technical things in your own words, it's always wrong? How come you never give anyone a compliment or even a simple “thank you”? You haven't given an answer worth complimenting or thanking.
You misrepresented Stephen Wolfram's ideas. Either knowingly, or not. I guess you can have an attaboy for attempting to understand what he's saying, but you haven't actually succeeded yet.
Good on you for trying though.
QB, I can only conclude that you are trolling or suffering some form of mental impairment.
Your latest response is almost entirely devoted to explaining WHY you believe that we will hit at least +2.5°C by 2100 based on existing factors (i.e. even with zero future emissions).
While there are several places where this explanation is wrong or takes extremely unlikely values as givens... that is irrelevant because we were not debating what the warming value would be.
Rather, after you stated that we would get to +2.5°C by 2100 due to continued future emissions, I said that this new position of yours was much more reasonable... I AGREED with your revised estimate... and then you went completely bonkers by claiming first that it had been your position all along and now diverging in to why your supposedly non-existent prior position of +2.5°C by 2100 without continued future emissions is right.
That's just... irrational.
Quote: And the fact that I know of no proposed negative feedback mechanisms in the global climate literature that have any certain support (and I’ve looked!) Keep looking. There are several;
Warming -> Increased heat loss to space
Warming -> Increased evaporation -> Increased low altitude cloud formation -> More incoming sunlight blocked
Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased chemical weathering rate
Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased ocean carbon sequestration rate
Etc
”CB” wrote: QB, I can only conclude that you are trolling or suffering some form of mental impairment. Yikes! I’ll wager good money that these are both unsubstantiated non sequiturs.
”CB” wrote: Your latest response is almost entirely devoted to explaining WHY you believe that we will hit at least +2.5°C by 2100 based on existing factors (i.e. even with zero future emissions). Because there is no such thing as “zero future emissions”.
Unless Wrath proves to be right way, way up thread where he said, “Nuclear power is our doom!” *
”CB” wrote: While there are several places where this explanation is wrong or takes extremely unlikely values as givens... that is irrelevant because we were not debating what the warming value would be.
Rather, after you stated that we would get to +2.5°C by 2100 due to continued future emissions, I said that this new position of yours was much more reasonable... I AGREED with your revised estimate... and then you went completely bonkers by claiming first that it had been your position all along and now diverging in to why your supposedly non-existent prior position of +2.5°C by 2100 without continued future emissions is right.
That's just... irrational.
You say I’m bonkers. After that there are no more facts to be gleaned from this portion of your most recent post here on this thread.
Now, regarding Negative Feedback Loops:
”CB” wrote: Keep looking. There are several;
1) Warming -> Increased heat loss to space
2) Warming -> Increased evaporation -> Increased low altitude cloud formation -> More incoming sunlight blocked
3) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased chemical weathering rate
4) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased ocean carbon sequestration rate
5) Etc
1) That is not a feedback mechanism.
2) High clouds (think cirrus) and big volcano eruptions would do what you describe. Low level clouds are not much help.
3) So this helps an already carbonate-saturated world ocean by bringing yet more carbonate into solution. How does that make for a negative feedback loop? and you say I'm irrational!
4) Also increases ocean acidification which kills micro fauna and thus it actually dials back sequestration from tests sinking into the benthic zone.
5) I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with “Etc” as a feedback mechanism, positive or negative.
Waah-waaaah
Well, you're down five for five. Try again. If you dare.
* Wrath was actually far more erudite than that, I placed that in quotes because it is I think the essence of his far more expansive post.
”Ironthruth” wrote: You haven't given an answer worth complimenting or thanking. And my point was, according to your posting history, neither has anyone else. Ever.
”Ironthruth” wrote: You misrepresented Stephen Wolfram's ideas. Either knowingly, or not. I guess you can have an attaboy for attempting to understand what he's saying, but you haven't actually succeeded yet. Says you. My college professors say different… Unless a grade of “A” doesn’t carry its usual meaning, and the university honor society hasn’t noticed and so put me on the honor roll in gross error.
:o
Let’s keep this strictly here on this thread just in case. K? Thx!
”Ironthruth” wrote: Good on you for trying though. A compliment!
Oh wait, no, Backhanded Compliment.
Well, at least you’re consistent… And good for an occasional laugh.
:D
Here's some good news for Tesla Solar
But then here’s a load of bad news from China:
Data undermines long-term aim to wean nation of coal power
”Reuters” wrote: The jump came as millions of homes across northern China used more electricity and gas to heat their homes after being forced to switch from coal.
It also reflects a ramp-up in coal-fired power use due to the gas shortages caused by the ambitious plan, undermining the government's long-term plan to boost clean energy use and wean the nation off its most-used fuel.
Nothing like a “planned economy” to go according to plan.
:D
They are still producing less than 10% of their power from nuclear, wind and solar; less than 6% from wind and solar. These would be hopeful numbers if the year was 1998 instead of 2018.
”Reuters” wrote: Last year, China had more than 4,000 coal mines with a total capacity of 3.41 billion tonnes a year, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said in November…
Under its five-year plan to 2020, China has pledged to eliminate around 800 million tonnes of outdated capacity and add around 500 million tonnes of advanced output. Coal output will be around 3.9 billion tonnes a year by 2020.
Going from 3.41 GT/year to 3.90 GT/year. That’s quite a reduction!
Oh wait…. No, that’s an increase of roughly half a GT/year. Oopsy!
Quark Blast wrote: ”Ironthruth” wrote: You haven't given an answer worth complimenting or thanking. And my point was, according to your posting history, neither has anyone else. Ever.
”Ironthruth” wrote: You misrepresented Stephen Wolfram's ideas. Either knowingly, or not. I guess you can have an attaboy for attempting to understand what he's saying, but you haven't actually succeeded yet. Says you. My college professors say different… Unless a grade of “A” doesn’t carry its usual meaning, and the university honor society hasn’t noticed and so put me on the honor roll in gross error.
:o
Let’s keep this strictly here on this thread just in case. K? Thx!
”Ironthruth” wrote: Good on you for trying though. A compliment!
Oh wait, no, Backhanded Compliment.
Well, at least you’re consistent… And good for an occasional laugh.
:D More empty words.
You still haven't produced anything that shows you understand Wolfram's concept.
QB wrote: ”CBDunkerson” wrote: 1) Warming -> Increased heat loss to space 1) That is not a feedback mechanism. It is universally recognized (amongst people who have any clue what they are talking about) as the single most powerful climate feedback effect. Read up on "Planck feedback" before you embarrass yourself further.
Quote: 2) High clouds (think cirrus) and big volcano eruptions would do what you describe. Low level clouds are not much help. High altitude clouds cause net POSITIVE climate feedback (i.e. blocking more outgoing IR than incoming visible light), not negative.
Large volcanic eruptions are generally considered a climate FORCING. The only way to count them as a FEEDBACK would be if you could make a solid case for the warming environment CAUSING the eruptions. While their are theories that mass redistribution from melting ice and rising sea levels could cause tectonic activity, it is a long road from there to a significant increase in volcanic activity... which, it must be noted, has also not been observed to date.
Setting aside the problems above... if you don't believe negative feedbacks exist, why are you suggesting that these two things ARE negative feedbacks? Again, I can only conclude that you are trolling or somehow mentally impaired.
”CBDunekrson” wrote: 3) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased chemical weathering rate QB wrote: How does that make for a negative feedback loop? Let me Google that for you
”CB” wrote: 4) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased ocean carbon sequestration rate Quote: 4) Also increases ocean acidification which kills micro fauna and thus it actually dials back sequestration from tests sinking into the benthic zone. What it does or does not "Also" do is irrelevant to the fact that this negative feedback exists. There are numerous things 'also' influenced by EVERY feedback effect. The existence of a counterbalancing feedback does not 'unmake' a feedback. If we accepted such 'logic' then the Planck feedback would be the ONLY climate feedback effect.
Quark Blast wrote: But then here’s a load of bad news from China:
Data undermines long-term aim to wean nation of coal power
”Reuters” wrote: The jump came as millions of homes across northern China used more electricity and gas to heat their homes after being forced to switch from coal.
It also reflects a ramp-up in coal-fired power use due to the gas shortages caused by the ambitious plan, undermining the government's long-term plan to boost clean energy use and wean the nation off its most-used fuel.
For one month.
That is, the 'surge' in coal use was because it was cold in December. It was notable because it was the highest month for coal use since 2015. Which means... OTHER than last month, coal use in China has been DOWN.
Global trends for different energy sources can be broken down in to three categories;
Dying
Coal
Nuclear
Slowing
Natural gas
Oil
Surging ahead
Hydro
Other renewables
Those are all 2016 figures, but preliminary estimates for 2017 have started to come out and show the same trends continuing. Projections can vary wildly based on the underlying assumptions (and biases) of the people making them... but the actual historical trends are painting a clear picture. Fuel based power sources are losing to renewables.
”Ironthruth” wrote: ”QB” wrote: A compliment!
Oh wait, no, Backhanded Compliment.
Well, at least you’re consistent… And good for an occasional laugh.
:D
More empty words.
You still haven't produced anything that shows you understand Wolfram's concept.
Re empty words, you said:
”Irontruth” wrote: I agree with Stephen Wolfram. Climate is computationally irreducible. Sometime after I had said:
”QB” wrote: Our global climate is its own shortest description. We all agree, Wolfram is right when he says typical climate models do not and cannot do what they are designed for.
Re what I "haven’t produced", you will recall I have posted previously:
”QB paraphrasing Wolfram” wrote: I’m sorry* it hurts when I don’t dance to your tune but there it is. * Though to be honest it gets harder and harder to be sorry with every piffling mewl that retreads this same empty grudge.
”CB” wrote: What it does or does not "Also" do is irrelevant to the fact that this negative feedback exists. There are numerous things 'also' influenced by EVERY feedback effect. The existence of a counterbalancing feedback does not 'unmake' a feedback. If we accepted such 'logic' then the Planck feedback would be the ONLY climate feedback effect. Note: These negative feedback loops in the global climate system that you highlight are all already incorporated in the suite of climate models in use and have been for at least half a decade, most of them since the beginning. If you will carefully re-read my original post (a vain suggestion I know but it would really help your BP if you would actually read to comprehend what I type instead of simply reading to disagree-and-name-call), I was referring to proposed positive and negative feedback loops. None of the ones you listed fall into that category.
There simply are no ‘good ideas’ out there that are proposed to dampen CO2 induced global warming and have yet to be folded into general climate models to any great effect. Hence I see no reason to reduce the value of my year 2100 temperature increase prediction.
”CB” wrote: Projections can vary wildly based on the underlying assumptions (and biases) of the people making them... but the actual historical trends are painting a clear picture. Fuel based power sources are losing to renewables. Losing? Yes.
Losing fast enough to make the year 2100 less than or equal to +2.0°C? No. Not even close.
Speaking of unintended consequences, here’s something that will be greatly exacerbated by carbonic acid weathering (aka feedback 3) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased chemical weathering rate):
SCIENTISTS FIND MASSIVE RESERVES OF MERCURY HIDDEN IN PERMAFROST
AGU wrote: The study reveals northern permafrost soils are the largest reservoir of mercury on the planet, storing nearly twice as much mercury as all other soils, the ocean and the atmosphere combined...
“24 percent of all the soil above the equator is permafrost, and it has this huge pool of locked-up mercury,” he said. “What happens if the permafrost thaws? How far will the mercury travel up the food chain? These are big-picture questions that we need to answer.”
While this is not a condition that will have direct feedback on global climate it has great disruptive potential on global-scale economics, particularly as relates to fisheries. Just one more piece of poo on the ginormous pile as we move rapidly towards 11 billion people* and +2.5°C.
* Give or take a billion
Ozone Still Layer Busted! Wut!??
SA wrote: What is the culprit? Ball’s team found the ozone in the lower stratosphere has slowly, continuously dropped since 1998. “We see a small but persistent and continuous decline—not as fast as before 1998 but a continued [trend] down,” he says. “This is surprising, because we would have expected to also see this [region’s ozone] stop decreasing.” The finding is important because the lower stratosphere contains the largest fraction of the ozone layer.
Overall, Ball says, global ozone has declined 5 percent between 1970 and 1998—prior to the protocol’s effect. Since then “our analysis suggests that the [ozone in the] stratosphere has declined…another 0.5 percent, most of which has occurred in the lower stratosphere,” he says. “It doesn't sound like much, and it’s slower, but it’s contradictory to the trajectory expected in models.”
The research team does not yet know the cause of this persistent decline in lower stratospheric ozone. In their paper they venture a handful of possible explanations, several of which are driven by climate change. Another potential reason might be that rising emissions of short-lived chemicals are reaching the lower stratosphere and destroying ozone. But these are just hypotheses scientists still need to explore. “It’s quite clear that the Montreal Protocol has worked,” Ball says. “But it looks as if something else has come on the stage, and we don't really know what it is.”
Imagine that? Climate models – all of them apparently – have failed to account for, or even represent at all, a major feature of the global atmosphere.
It’s almost as if some feature(s) of the global climate are computationally irreducible and/or sensitively dependent on initial conditions and/or involve mechanisms not yet accounted for. I wonder if that will affect the accuracy of current climate models?
OTOH International Ultraviolet Explorer Early Results
”TAJL” wrote: These normalized surface fluxes show a strong linear relationship with activity R'HK (R^2 = 0.857 after three outliers are omitted). From this linear regression we estimate a range in UV flux of 9.3% over solar cycle 22 and a reduction of 6.9% below solar cycle minimum under a grand minimum. The 95% confidence interval in this grand-minimum estimate is 5.5%–8.4%. It’s nice that the relationship is strongly linear. Maybe 2050 won’t be so bad. Or maybe the relationship is not as “strongly linear” as they think.
Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much
”PhysOrg” wrote: One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. But this looks like even if the model holds by 2070 it’ll all be as if nothing has changed. Maybe it’ll give the deniers a few decades of “Ha! Told ya so!”
Still, this plus half a dozen evenly timed and proportional volcanic eruptions might see us through and we can avoid the worst of the effects expected from a +2.5°C year 2100, or at least kick them off onto our great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren. /sarcasm
In other news:
Tesla Model 3, Elon Musk’s Grail, Remains a Costly Pursuit
"NYTimes” wrote: Just two years ago, Mr. Musk hoped to make 500,000 by 2018, and the ambitious forecast helped push Tesla’s market value above that of General Motors and Ford Motor for a period in 2017.
In July, as Model 3 production was about to begin, Mr. Musk ratcheted back expectations, resetting his target to 20,000 vehicles a month by December. But difficulties producing battery packs at Tesla’s Nevada plant, called the Gigafactory, and other glitches in the car’s assembly process combined to slow output to a crawl.
Tesla built just 260 by the end of September. In January, it said it had made only 2,425 in the final quarter of 2017, and set a goal of increasing output to 5,000 a month by the end of the first quarter…
On a positive note, Tesla reported it used up only $277 million in cash in the fourth quarter. That was down from $1.4 billion in the third quarter. On a full-year basis, however, the company used nearly $3.5 billion in cash, more than twice the amount from 2016.
“On a positive note” they say? Makes me want to know what “bad news” sounds like to them.
:D
Quark Blast wrote:
We all agree, Wolfram is right when he says typical climate models do not and cannot do what they are designed for.
That isn't what Wolfram is saying.
So, me and Wolfram agree. You're saying something else.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: We all agree, Wolfram is right when he says typical climate models do not and cannot do what they are designed for. Except that isn't what Wolfram is saying, which implies that you don't understand what he's saying. K, quote Wolfram talking on climate models where he says otherwise.
You haven't quoted him. Not sure why I should have to if you haven't.
Quark Blast wrote: Look up the work of Stephen Wolfram and Stuart Kaufman as it relates to complex systems like the global climate. We have three sources of not knowing.
1) Not knowing from our simple ignorance (undiscovered feedback loops and the like)
2) Sensitive dependence of the system parameters that we hope to model (where we can't even in principle measure carefully enough to produce accurate models)
3) Computational irreducibility (some things... well, some things you just can't calculate however well you can measure them)
Of note is part 3, which is patently false if you bother to read his website's definition, listen to his TED talk, or read his book.
Quark Blast wrote: Note: These negative feedback loops in the global climate system that you highlight are all already incorporated in the suite of climate models in use and have been for at least half a decade, most of them since the beginning. If you will carefully re-read my original post (a vain suggestion I know but it would really help your BP if you would actually read to comprehend what I type instead of simply reading to disagree-and-name-call), I was referring to proposed positive and negative feedback loops. None of the ones you listed fall into that category. So, if we pretend to believe this nonsense... why then did you first insist that none of these things were negative feedbacks at all?
”Irontruth” wrote: You haven't quoted him. Not sure why I should have to if you haven't. Oooohhh....
I thought that since you seem so keen on making people dance to your tune that you’d like the same treatment back… my mistake.
:D
”Irontruth” wrote: Of note is part 3, which is patently false if you bother to read his website's definition, listen to his TED talk, or read his book. Says the man who can’t quote his sources!
:D
”CB” wrote: So, if we pretend to believe this nonsense... why then did you first insist that none of these things were negative feedbacks at all? I insisted that they were already incorporated in the various climate models. So the results (i.e. a +2.5°C year 2100) remain unchanged and unchallenged.
Nothing in the way of proposed negative feedback loops proffered by you, or by anyone else I’ve read, would dampen that year 2100 result.
Most new studies either confirm that number (i.e. a +2.5°C year 2100) or threaten to add to it.
In other news:
Demand for Cobalt, which is critical to EV batteries, could soon outstrip supply
”SA” wrote: Olivetti and her colleagues extrapolated trends in lithium and cobalt supply through 2024. To calculate demand, they created two scenarios based on estimates of slow or speedy growth in battery use for EVs and portable electronics.
Lithium is unlikely to be a limiting factor in the long run, they found. But even with a very conservative estimate of 10 million EV sales in 2025, the demand for cobalt that year could reach 330,000 metric tons, whereas the available supply at that time would be at most 290,000 metric tons.
I expect there to be a work around for this by the time 2025 gets here. Maybe there will be a little slow down as alternatives are scaled up but this is more click bate than a real difficulty for the EV industry long term. Unless of course an all-out war breaks out in the DRC. Then this scenario of insufficient Cobalt supply is likely to be far worse than calculated.
And then there’s this:
Case-in-Point
”Bloomberg” wrote: Apple Inc. is in talks to buy long-term supplies of cobalt directly from miners for the first time, according to people familiar with the matter, seeking to ensure it will have enough of the key battery ingredient amid industry fears of a shortage driven by the electric vehicle boom.
The iPhone maker is one of the world’s largest end users of cobalt for the batteries in its gadgets, but until now it has left the business of buying the metal to the companies that make its batteries.
The talks show that the tech giant is keen to ensure that cobalt supplies for its iPhone and iPad batteries are sufficient, with the rapid growth in battery demand for electric vehicles threatening to create a shortage of the raw material. About a quarter of global cobalt production is used in smartphones.
Do you think Apple would hose EV sales to keep its market dominance?
Hell yeah!
On the other hand:
EV Sales Might Not Hit the 10 Million Mark by 2025
Tesla is still having difficulty ramping up production. They’ve reset their estimate three times in the last 6 months or so and still aren’t on track. For certain we’ll never see the promised “$35,000 Tesla Model 3”. They have to make money eventually and, by the time they patch this cash hemorrhage called “Tesla 3 Production Hell”, so there will be no $35,000 option. I actually hope I’m wrong about that prediction but I won’t be. Don't believe the Elon hype. Its all about money. They gotta make money.
Quark Blast wrote: In other news:
Demand for Cobalt, which is critical to EV batteries, could soon outstrip supply
They JUST NOW figured this out? This was as obvious as the f^%$ing Sun ten years ago!
Quark Blast wrote: ”Irontruth” wrote: You haven't quoted him. Not sure why I should have to if you haven't. Oooohhh....
I thought that since you seem so keen on making people dance to your tune that you’d like the same treatment back… my mistake.
:D
”Irontruth” wrote: Of note is part 3, which is patently false if you bother to read his website's definition, listen to his TED talk, or read his book. Says the man who can’t quote his sources!
:D
Lots of gum flapping, no substance.
Oh, I am dancing to your tune right now. I find it to be a very slow and simple song.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Terrinam wrote: Quark Blast wrote: In other news:
Demand for Cobalt, which is critical to EV batteries, could soon outstrip supply
They JUST NOW figured this out? This was as obvious as the f^%$ing Sun ten years ago! Until we see actual changes result from a shortage, I would treat this like the "rare earth metals crisis" of 8 years ago. All told there are roughly 25 million tonnes of "proven reserves" in the world. Just like oil though, there is a massive quantity beyond this that we've already identified, plus plenty of potential for more.
Manganese nodules on the ocean floor are rich in cobalt, and there's roughly another 120 million tonnes sitting there. If the price of cobalt (or any rare earth metal) goes up significantly, firms will go into overdrive exploring potential methods of collecting this source. Right now it's just too expensive, but if it becomes profitable companies will start mining it. Once they do, lots of engineers will be working on ways to do it more cheaply.
Currently 110,000 tons are produced a year and that article suggests demand could rise to 330,000 tons per year. As the supply gets tighter, the pressure to invest in new production will increase. There will be short term shortages, perhaps even lasting a couple years, but there is no industry ending crisis on the horizon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
”CB” wrote: So, if we pretend to believe this nonsense... why then did you first insist that none of these things were negative feedbacks at all? I insisted that they were already incorporated in the various climate models. So the results (i.e. a +2.5°C year 2100) remain unchanged and unchallenged.
No, you claimed they weren’t negative feedbacks. You literally attempted a point by point rebuttal of them being negative feedbacks.
Quark Blast wrote:
Now, regarding Negative Feedback Loops:
”CB” wrote: Keep looking. There are several;
1) Warming -> Increased heat loss to space
2) Warming -> Increased evaporation -> Increased low altitude cloud formation -> More incoming sunlight blocked
3) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased chemical weathering rate
4) Increased atmospheric CO2 -> Increased ocean carbon sequestration rate
5) Etc
1) That is not a feedback mechanism.
2) High clouds (think cirrus) and big volcano eruptions would do what you describe. Low level clouds are not much help.
3) So this helps an already carbonate-saturated world ocean by bringing yet more carbonate into solution. How does that make for a negative feedback loop? and you say I'm irrational!
4) Also increases ocean acidification which kills micro fauna and thus it actually dials back sequestration from tests sinking into the benthic zone.
5) I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with “Etc” as a feedback mechanism, positive or negative.
Waah-waaaah
Well, you're down five for five. Try again. If you dare.
And only when you got straight up “let me google that for you”-‘d did you switch to arguing that these negative feedbacks don’t matter.
It’s like you only do just enough research to back your opinion at any given moment, without out ever developing any actual understanding of the subject.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
