They JUST NOW figured this out? This was as obvious as the f^%$ing Sun ten years ago!In other news:
Demand for Cobalt, which is critical to EV batteries, could soon outstrip supplyUntil 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.
Mining the ocean floor for cobalt has already been ruled out as an allowed strategy. Not because of technology limits, but because of increasing environmental damage and the steps humanity will likely take to counter it. By the time the technology exists, we're expecting the mining operations to be illegal under international law.
The problem, thus far, has been engineering an alternative to lithium ion batteries that shows long-term promise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mining the ocean floor for cobalt has already been ruled out as an allowed strategy. Not because of technology limits, but because of increasing environmental damage and the steps humanity will likely take to counter it. By the time the technology exists, we're expecting the mining operations to be illegal under international law.The problem, thus far, has been engineering an alternative to lithium ion batteries that shows long-term promise.
1. There's very little in the way of enforcement actions that prevent mining in international waters. Just like there's very little in the way of enforcement of fishing regulations in international waters. Most of the time it's a strongly worded letter, and that's it.
2. International law doesn't cover territorial waters, or exclusive economic zones. Japan has already started testing mining inactive hydrothermal vents.
3. The international regulating body for these things has issued 27 permits in the past few years for mining of the ocean floor, though all of this is mostly experimental/exploratory. Still, international law is allowing it to happen right now.
I agree that long term an alternative form of energy storage is the best bet, and there are a lot of people working on that. For the time being though, lithium ion batteries are our best available tool. Most governments are loathe to take action against consumer markets, and right now consumer markets are demanding lithium ion batteries. As long as they're a key feature for nearly all portable electronic devices, there will be little true will to inhibit the mining of lucrative sources of things like cobalt.
Here in Minnesota we're continuing to have a long debate over a copper-nickel (cobalt would be a by-product) mine near the Canadian border. Part of the issue is that it is really close to some harshly protected wilderness areas, and due to the problems several other mines have had, there is some hesitancy to open it up. If there is a significant price increase in copper/nickel/cobalt, and we experience an economic downturn, I would be surprised if the mine doesn't open up as a way to increase jobs.
It's mostly the "we're running out!" that I'm saying is silly. We have 25 million tons of reserves identified on land, and currently are mining 110,000 tons per year. That's over 200 years of production at current levels, or 60 years at estimated demand in 2025. At worst it is going to push up the price of lithium ion batteries, but even that won't be a massive change.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
...and then flat out lie about it. As if we were all somehow incapable of remembering what you said a few days earlier.
Like the scarcity of Cobalt (however temporary), most new climate studies either confirm that number (i.e. a +2.5°C year 2100) or threaten to add to it. There is no way, if the current state of climate science is the least bit accurate, that we will achieve the goals set forth in the Paris Agreement. Without some “win the lottery” breakthrough in the next few years (e.g. in CO2 sequestration or power generation tech), a +2.0°C year 2100 isn’t even the vague hope it was 20 years ago.
We can raise our CO2 production by 4000%. That should be enough to destabilize Earth's climate mechanisms in such a degree the planet is rapidly thrown into an ice age. That should give us an extra five hundred to a thousand years to figure out a better solution.
If the science is accurate, we are perfectly capable of reversing the heating with technology we currently have. It just is not a better solution with what would result. And if we turn out to be wrong, we simply made things worse for ourselves for no good reason.
The goal of lowering the heating rate is easily accomplished if we're willing to accept the massive environmental damage that will result.
And I'm certain others can come up with less destructive methods of accomplishing the goal. The point is, it's not as hard as you think.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
No, you claimed they weren’t negative feedbacks. You literally attempted a point by point rebuttal of them being negative feedbacks.Well, ya gotta give me #5. I mean, come on! Like “Etc.” is an acceptable summary of a negative feedback mechanism?
However to directly rebut your attempted point, I’ll say the same thing to you I did to CB:
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.
I assure you, I read that argument the first time you wrote it.
Repeating it at me doesn’t change the fact that it was your second rebuttal to CB, nor does it change the fact that it is substantially different than your first rebuttal.
The point I’m making is, your first rebuttal (arguing that the negative feedbacks CB listed aren’t real) is bad, and indicates some amount of ignorance about the subject. That you immediately abandoned and disavowed it the moment you were confronted by google is proof enough of that. :)
Hey, I don’t chew gum. And I’m glad you like things “slow and simple”. I guessed you would. So, you’re welcome... again.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.
I didn't think what I wrote was that obscure, but it went over your head it seems.
Not precisely climate change related, but someone on the lines of the original topic of the thread.... I've been delving into flat Earth theories lately. The theories themselves are nonsense, and hold zero interesting information, but the reasons behind the theories are fascinating. It seems to be the result of a general lack of trust in an elite "other" that is perceived to be controlling the world. Governments and scientists are conspiring to conceal the true nature of the world. In a sense it's the ultimate conclusion of certain branches of climate deniers. I don't feel like trying to dig up a post, but perhaps thejeff might remember some of Sissyl's concerns about climate scientists and how they wanted to use their science to convince the government to give them greater control and be able to take over the world, or perhaps that the government would corrupt their science and use it to justify taking freedoms away from people.
I was watching a video earlier today about a guy's "14 month investigation of flat Earth" theories, and basically it all hinged on his belief that since 9/11 was a conspiracy, therefore they also had to be lying to us about the shape of the Earth.
There's also an interesting adoption of left-leaning language. Essentially that all people have to be respected, and you have to also respect their beliefs. I know that the white supremacist movement has actually made concerted efforts over the past 30 years in order to mainstream their views, but it's interesting how other loosely affiliated groups have adopted certain tactics.
Anyways, it's been an interesting rabbit hole the past few weeks. The information present isn't of value, but the behavior is informative.
Irontruth, if you want some fun with Flat Earth theories, keep in mind space itself is curved by gravity. An argument can be made that Earth is a flat plane which is forced by the curvature of space into a spherical shape.
It shows the sheer amount of effort people will go to in order to hold a belief that is easily disproven.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your ham-handed Google search is entirely beside the point.
Technically, you may have read my "first rebuttal" but you did not do so . And context is KING!
It's far more relevant than some nearly random Google search by you or CB. How many more cracked rejoinders can this thread bear? I ask that because the recent ones are about as "on topic" as a typical AI chatbox... Hey, wait a minute! Are you?
:oTo summarize:
You and that other fellow simply missed my point over some (largely imagined) technicality. Now if ESL is involved just tell me so and I'll drop this side-conversation.
I'm seeing a lot of condescension here, but not a lot of proving me wrong. :)
That google search was not random. It was directly related to an explicit claim you made. And since you immediately changed your tune based on the results of that google search, I think it's clear that you found the results both relevant and credible. Or are you going back to saying that silicate weathering isn't a negative feedback (a second reversal!? The full flip-flop!).
The fact remains:
You said in one breath that the things CB listed are NOT negative feedbacks.
You said in the next breath that they ARE negative feedbacks, but don't matter anyway.
If there's a context that explains that contradiction, I'm happy to hear it. Feel free to assume that I'm a chat bot who speaks English as a second language, and explain it to me real slow :)
I tried the “real slow” part with Irontruth and that didn’t work.
It was your strategy, not mine. You could have changed it in any post that you wanted.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I tried the “real slow” part with Irontruth and that didn’t work.
I'm not trying to fool you at all! I was just trying to give you every available opportunity to explain yourself, rather than lazily writing you off as a robot, or someone less-than-fluent in English, or an idiot, or a troll.
But if you don't want to avail yourself of that opportunity, I'm certainly not going to force you. :)As to what I’ve said previously. This time you didn’t even quote me, let alone quote me in context. You keep getting further from making your case. Ah well...
My bad! I assumed that since I was still talking about the same post I quoted on Feb. 24th that I wouldn't need to keep quoting that post again and again every time I brought it up.
For clarity, here it is:
Now, regarding Negative Feedback Loops:
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) Etc1) 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.
There you are, denying that these things are negative feedbacks.
And for good measure, here's the quote for when you agreed that they are negative feedbacks, but said they don't matter for other reasons:
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.
So again.
--These are not negative feedbacks--These are negative feedbacks, but don't matter
Explain this contradiction.
Edit: And in case this was going to come up...
This (and things like it):
AFAIK, there are no negative feedback loops that fall outside of these two bins:
1) Feedback mechanisms already incorporated into one or more of the many popular existing climate models.
2) Feedback mechanisms that are thought to be anything more than trivial in effect. Hence them not being incorporated into one or more of the many popular existing climate models.
Is you restating your current argument. And that's fine.
But it does not resolve the contradiction between your previous statements. You don't need to repeat it at me for a third? fourth? time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should also be noted that the positive feedbacks QB has cited as the basis for his (sometimes held, sometimes not) belief that even with zero further CO2 emissions we will already hit at least +2.5 C by 2100... are also already accounted for in climate models.
Indeed, the whole 'not in climate models' redefinition of his position makes no sense... any significant feedback effect is going to be included in the climate models. Why would they ignore factors known to be important? QB's apparent belief that he has stumbled on super secret unknown feedbacks is belied by the extensive study and documentation of the factors he has cited/misrepresented.
In other news... predictions that India will not clean up their energy production are joining previous similar claims about China in the 'well that was obviously wrong' category: India targeting 100 gigawatts solar (approx 3000% growth) by 2022.
|
|
More evidence that the tide has turned on fossil fuels;
Arizona regulators want renewables, not more natural gas
Just a few years ago many of these same regulators were carrying water for state utilities that wanted to impose a massive extra charge on solar customers.
Now they're shutting down development of new natural gas power plants and telling the utilities to come back with a plan for switching new production over to renewables.
In short, the political factor has flipped. They've gone from holding back renewables to pushing them forward. This is the inevitable result of lower renewable energy costs leading to more people working in the sector, more money being made by renewables companies, and thus more political influence. The same pattern is playing out all over the world, but this particular case shows how quickly and completely the switch can take place.
The ramifications are also profound. The fossil fuel industry has been propped up by political favors for decades now. In just one (extreme) example, the United States builds whole fleets to secure oil delivery routes. As that political support is shifted the nominal costs of fossil fuels and renewables will rapidly change... which is why long term use of fossil fuels just doesn't seem plausible to me. Within a decade building, barring some unforeseen new technology, no one will be building new fossil fuel power plants because it just won't be cost effective. It is barely viable NOW with massive government support... take that support away and give it to renewables and the entire script flips.
Arizona has just turned that page. China, India, and most other major emitting countries are doing so as well. Even the most reluctant (e.g. Russia, some elements of US, Australia, Canada) will inevitably follow within the next decade. Basic economics / human greed created the global warming problem... but, as I have long argued, they are now the factors which will end it.
Ah humanity… How long till we hit the Great Filter?
You hit it when you detonated your first atomic bomb. You're currently being judged as to worthiness for continued existence and expansion into the galaxy. If you fail, it will be the third time we've had to purge this planet of a pest problem.
Don't fail. I'm getting tired of this place.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah well I can say that tacitly veiled insults aren’t want to elicit the response you say you hope for.
...spends a whole post insulting me, complains that me saying that's lazy is a veiled insult...masterfully done, QB.
Yeah that’s still not providing the context of my post...
The context I was speaking of occurs up thread of the first of my statements you quote. The second quote of mine is from down thread of the first (as is the third). Just spelling that out though I rather think I need not in most circumstances.I could repeat my objections from the first quoted statement using new phrasing. Maybe that will help you:
I've been a good sport about this. I've repeatedly asked you to explain the supposed context that makes sense of your previous, diametrically opposed statements. You've done nothing but refer me to posts I've already read (multiple times now) and restate your revised argument.
Of course you haven't given me what I'm asking for. There is no context that makes sense of that contradiction. You were talking about stuff you didn't fully understand, got called out on it, and then lied about what you'd said to keep from having to admit that you were wrong.
Even now, you're changing/revising your original objections and pretending that's what you were trying to say all along, rather than admit the mere possibility that you screwed up or misspoke.
So long as you refuse to acknowledge your error, there's nowhere for this conversation to go.
5) Do I really need to give another angle on why “Etc” isn’t a mechanism of any sort, positive or negative?
I'm gonna level with you. I chuckled a little bit the first time you pulled this gag. Not a lot, but a little.
I'm sorry to tell you, it has not gotten funnier with repetition. At the risk of making another "tacitly veiled insult"--you might want to try some fresh material.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, I checked a couple posts from 3 years ago. Back then it was a half-assed usage of chaos theory, and arguing that climate change probably wasn't even real.
Just for some perspective for you guys.
|
|
Out of curiosity, I checked a couple posts from 3 years ago. Back then it was a half-assed usage of chaos theory, and arguing that climate change probably wasn't even real.
Just for some perspective for you guys.
So... completely wrong in even more significant ways.
I choose to look at this as progress. :]
What makes anyone think that curbing AGW, to be (net effect) less than +1.5°C by the year 2100, is an even remotely plausible idea?
There's a difference between "plausible," "possible," and "probable."
You're making the same mistake a lot of scientists make, where you confuse one for the other. Is it plausible for us to achieve that goal? Yes. Is it possible? Easily. Is it probable? There is exactly a 0% probability of it happening under current technological, economical, and political momentum.
We're simply not doing enough, and most of what we are doing is stuff that has a negligible, at best, impact on climate change. We're doing the equivalent of switching our brand of lightbulbs and then hoping that solves the electricity bill.
But the key word there is current. In some areas, things are changing. It is entirely possible, and very plausible, that humanity will shift in a direction where an actual impact on climate change can be made, and possibly even the worst of the coming disaster averted.
And, really, doesn't this strike you as familiar? Humanity had the same problem with horse manure, and then unexpected societal and technological shifts happened. The same problem with agriculture, and then unexpected societal and technological shifts happened. We've been here before, far too many times to count, and we'll solve this one just like we solved all of the others. But only if people like you will do all of us a favor and get out of the way so it can happen.
We (read – climate scientist) barely have a grasp on how many moving parts there might be to the gargantuan task of herding global humanity towards a sustainable near term. Dream on if you think the year 2100 will be anything less than +2.5°C.
Climate science doesn't even have a basic idea of how Earth's climate system works. We can't model the most basic mechanism of it. But that doesn't mean that climate science is wrong in its conclusions; you don't need the equations for the relationship behind mass, gravity, momentum, and kinetic force to understand a big rock falling onto your head will kill you. And climate disaster is a very big rock.
|
|
Take a look at This Systems Approach Paper Here and you can see that CB’s four proffered feedback loops, even if they weren’t already accounted for in the climate models, only have an effect in the tens-of-thousands of years to low millions-of-years.
What measurable good effect will those feedback loops have by the year 2100?
The answer is essentially equivalent to no measurable effect.
Given that Planck feedback has already produced a measurable effect you are already wrong. Painfully obviously wrong.
That’s point I’m making.
Today.
You were previously making completely different erroneous points.
No one has even begun to assail my case that the year 2100 will see at least +2.5°C over pre-industrial measures. Not without some near-miracle achievement like scalable nuclear fusion fully deployed by 2050.
...and suddenly you've dropped the 'existing emissions alone will put us over 2.5°C' claim again.
As to no one assailing this latest claim? Why would I... it is essentially MY position, except that the 'near miracle' achievement required is the ongoing plummet of solar and wind electrical generation costs. It is already happening... making +2.5°C more likely an upper than a lower limit for 2100.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't understand, CBD. QB knows that he's smarter than all of us; we just can understand his arguments, and that's why we don't see how he's right. We're all too stupid to realize how stupid we are.
Yes, thank you. I actually found that vocabulary lesson mildly helpful. However…
This should be good.
First, I’ll wager my Carbon Footprint is smaller than yours. I once did a calc to compare mine to Al Gore’s. His 1-year total a few years back was more than my lifetime total is likely to be; assuming I live an “average” expected lifetime for my generation.
I work within the medical industry. By necessity, my carbon footprint is always going to be slightly bigger.
But this isn't a carbon footprint e-peen competition. Having the attitude of "my carbon footprint is smaller" is part of what is preventing humanity from actually doing anything realistic about human-caused climate change. People get too much into carbon footprint comparisons to realize that carbon footprint is a worthless measure; carbon dioxide doesn't directly translate into climate change. If it did, Mars would have a much different climate.
Carbon dioxide is a primary feedback loop to the heat trapping and heat reflection properties of the global water cycle. It can be, and in Earth's past has been, overridden.
What we should be focusing on is how much of it is necessary and what we can do to override or lessen the impact of that necessary output. Because the last agreed-upon goal I saw isn't realistic without a billion or so people dying first under current technology implementation.
Second, we (humanity) also had some social consequences along the way to change. BLACK DEATH anyone?
Black plague predates the horse manure problem by four hundred years and the agriculture problem by six hundred. It is unrelated.
Our generation's is more likely to be NUCLEAR DEATH by some estimates. Or maybe some form of released/escaped bio-agent.
Nuclear death of the species is physically impossible. Humanity has never had enough nuclear weapons to accomplish that.
Don't worry about bio-agents too much. Those are far too easily controlled and countered to be a major problem.
Will we get to our sustainable future?
Yes, I think so.Will we get there before the year 2100?
Hell no!
This reflects an issue of ignorance on both sides of the climate change fight. For the most part, neither side gets this right because both sides completely misunderstand the point.
There is a key "secret" to why it's ignorance: Humanity does not have any sustainable technology for its population level.
Alternative energy isn't sustainable. It's still essentially dependent on oil and coal. All it does is prolong the supplies of oil and coal. But eventually, those materials will run out if we don't find a way to replace them.
Recycling isn't sustainable. It's a massive source of pollution that is utterly unnecessary in some cases. We are very unlikely to run out of trees for paper sometime within the next thousand years, for example.
The point is not to reach sustainable technology before 2100. It's to make certain the resources and human-friendly environment exist in 2100 so our descendants can invent sustainable technology.
And, yes, this does mean the green movement is backing reasonable fixes for reasons that are pure bull#%^&. It's an unfortunate aspect of reality that the truth has gotten completely lost along the way and it may be necessary to sell the lie to get things done. We'll just have to eat the consequences and future dissolution of the scientific community.
We can also achieve that lowered planetary heat growth without sustainable technology. But we need to get to work on it now.
Thank you again for unambiguously endorsing one of my major points. This one from very early in my participation in this thread. A point that was much derided by several posters; some of whom are still active here. To them I say…
:p
It's a well-known fact they can't yet model clouds. Without modelling clouds, you can't model the water cycle. And the water cycle is Earth's climate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a well-known fact they can't yet model clouds. Without modelling clouds, you can't model the water cycle. And the water cycle is Earth's climate.
Not really.
Climate models have incorporated averaged / long term cloud impacts for decades. They are now getting to the point where they can accurately predict even short term / local geographical trends most of the time.
Indeed, it is getting to the point where there is increasing talk of consolidating weather and climate models now that the latter are approaching the short term predictive power of the former.
The issue with clouds was that different assumptions of future cloud levels and types could have radically different climate impacts... anywhere from significantly increasing warming to significantly offsetting it. However, the reality is that neither has happened... because the various cloud feedback mechanisms largely cancel each other out. Leaving the net impact so small that it falls in to the margin of error. Essentially, a non-issue for long term global climate modelling... which is why they have shifted to figuring out what short term and regional impacts (e.g. increased flooding) there might be.
You don't understand, CBD. QB knows that he's smarter than all of us; we just can understand his arguments, and that's why we don't see how he's right. We're all too stupid to realize how stupid we are.Wow! You should take to Twitter with a rant like that. Hear that type of participation is all the rage in the Twitterverse. Even the President does it!
:p
You haven't provided anything of substance in 4 months once I challenged you on your Stephen Wolfram b@&#~~#%.
Stephen Wolfram is a smart guy with really important and interesting ideas.
You have no idea what he's talking about.
It's a well-known fact they can't yet model clouds. Without modelling clouds, you can't model the water cycle. And the water cycle is Earth's climate.Not really.
Climate models have incorporated averaged / long term cloud impacts for decades. They are now getting to the point where they can accurately predict even short term / local geographical trends most of the time.
Indeed, it is getting to the point where there is increasing talk of consolidating weather and climate models now that the latter are approaching the short term predictive power of the former.
The issue with clouds was that different assumptions of future cloud levels and types could have radically different climate impacts... anywhere from significantly increasing warming to significantly offsetting it. However, the reality is that neither has happened... because the various cloud feedback mechanisms largely cancel each other out. Leaving the net impact so small that it falls in to the margin of error. Essentially, a non-issue for long term global climate modelling... which is why they have shifted to figuring out what short term and regional impacts (e.g. increased flooding) there might be.
Ah! See, my info was old.
Which is further proof of how wrong Quark is. When I can provide a sufficient counter with outdated information, it's pretty much not a contest.
Black plague predates the horse manure problem by four hundred years and the agriculture problem by six hundred. It is unrelated.But it doesn’t predate the overcrowding + bad hygiene causing pestilence.
Are you trolling me?
You brought up black plague in reply to me mentioning horse manure and agriculture. At this point, you are incoherent.
As for carbon footprint sizes:
My point was that I’m not even trying and mine is near infinitesimal compared to “Anti-AGW Champion” Al Gore. Imagine if global humanity, all of us individually together, actually tried to reduce CO2 emissions (instead of the mutual back-patting parade we call the Paris Agreement)?
It would fail, and that failure would be a good thing. There are millions of people who have carbon footprints on par with, or even below, what cavemen had just due to their economic status. The only way to lower their carbon footprint any further is to commit genocide against them.
This Person and her "Zero Waste Lifestyle" is semi-world famous for really doing next to nothing to reduce her energy consumption. In fact, with all of her traveling-to-talk she’s used up orders of magnitude more energy than she’s saved. Yet she’s held up as an inspiration for us common folk.
LOL!
So deride me for calling a “carbon footprint e-peen competition” if you want but your flavorless statement that; “Carbon dioxide is a primary feedback loop to the heat trapping and heat reflection properties of the global water cycle. It can be, and in Earth's past has been, overridden”, totally ignores the systems link I posted above on Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 09:28 pm. This “overriding” of the CO2, that you wave away, actually takes centuries-to-millennia to show useful reductions once CO2 is already in the atmosphere (as it is presently and still getting worse).
You're still too busy comparing yourself to others to do anything meaningful.
Also, you're missing the fact that it doesn't require centuries or millennia. A big enough event can do it in a matter of years. The largest one known in Earth's history is a certain asteroid strike, but it is neither the first or last example. Among the others is a rapid change in Earth's atmosphere through the increase in oxygen. That produced a greenhouse effect that completely ignored CO2 levels.
Of course, such overridings tend to be extinction-level events. The oxygen example is the largest in Earth's history. But since we're already in an extinction-level event, we really cannot make things much worse by trying such a solution. And with proper conservation efforts and reseeding efforts in the aftermath, we could repair the damage and undo most of what we've caused.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that I never stated we should go this path. You're just derailing from my point.
Remember, I’ve only been posting in regards to what the year 2100 will look like. That it will be worse for some time after that and then, eventually, get better, probably, has never been a point of contention with me.
So far, you seem to be trying to make your own predictions look optimistic. You will have to excuse me if I take your stance on this with a Dead Sea.
The base of the ice around the south pole shrank by 1,463 square kilometers between 2010 and 2016.
Underwater melting of Antarctic ice far greater than thought, study finds
Net retreat of Antarctic glacier grounding lines
Stronger evidence for a weaker Atlantic overturning
In the interests of learning to use adverbs well, and not just adjectives… by “exactly” Rahmstorf means “generally”.For decades, scientists have investigated the dynamics of the Atlantic overturning. Computer simulations generally predict that it will weaken in response to human-caused global warming. But whether this is already happening has so far been unclear, due to a lack of long-term direct current measurements. "The evidence we're now able to provide is the most robust to date," says Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute, who conceived the study. "We've analysed all the available sea surface temperature data sets, comprising data from the late 19th Century until the present."
"The specific trend pattern we found in measurements looks exactly like what is predicted by computer simulations as a result of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream System, and I see no other plausible explanation for it," says Rahmstorf. It is in fact not just the pattern in space that matches between computer simulation and observations, but also the change with the seasons.
It's not taken into account because it's likely not the entire truth of what's happening.
Antarctica has ice dating back to periods when Earth was warmer than it is now. There is no way that ice would exist or that we would have the ice core data from that continent unless the continent was a little more robust than Rahmstorf thought.
Lastly:
Recycling plastics instead of letting them accumulate as micro-detritus in the global ocean-cum-"landfill", thus contributing mightily to a marine life die-off of Big 5 extinction level, is not such a lame effort as Terrinam would have us believe.
Right. Because dumping large quantities of deadly chemicals into the ocean and heat into the air is really better than plastics.
We're still poisoning the ocean either way. We're just picking which poison we prefer to look at.
Saving the ocean is irrelevant to recycling plastic. Having those resources around for the future so someone else can come up with a way to restore the ocean is the goal at this point.
|
|
Climate models have incorporated averaged / long term cloud impacts for decades. They are now getting to the point where they can accurately predict even short term / local geographical trends most of the time.Oh look a bald claim without cited references.
You see a 'bold claim'. I see 'easily proven with a simple Google search';
IPCC on clouds in climate models
I prefer my reality to your delusion.
Indeed, it is getting to the point where there is increasing talk of consolidating weather and climate models now that the latter are approaching the short term predictive power of the former.
O’really?
Yes, really.
Climate models have incorporated averaged / long term cloud impacts for decades. They are now getting to the point where they can accurately predict even short term / local geographical trends most of the time.Oh look a bald claim without cited references.You see a 'bold claim'. I see 'easily proven with a simple Google search';
IPCC on clouds in climate models
I prefer my reality to your delusion.
You picked your source poorly.
This is the beginning of the conclusion:
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable.
That outright states they cannot yet model clouds, but are on the verge of developing a reliable estimate. And it does not get better when the rest of the conclusion is included:
However, progress has been made in the identification of the cloud types, the dynamical regimes and the regions of the globe responsible for the large spread of cloud feedback estimates among current models. This is likely to foster more specific observational analyses and model evaluations that will improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedbacks.
This is the old information I was working with earlier when I said they could not model clouds yet. It is a statement about how advanced we were in climate science prior to 2007 and is 9 years out of date at minimum.
That information was also accurate with the Fifth Assessment, which had this to say about clouds:
Cloud formation processes span scales from the sub-micrometre scale of CCN, to cloud-system scales of up to thousands of kilometres. This range of scales is impossible to resolve with numerical simulations on computers, and this is not expected to change in the forseeable future.
Further on, there is this information from the Fifth Assessment:
The representation of cloud microphysical processes in climate models is particularly challenging, in part because some of the fundamental details of these microphysical processes are poorly understood (particularly for ice- and mixed-phase clouds), and because spatial heterogeneity of key atmospheric properties occurs at scales significantly smaller than a GCM grid box. Such representation, however, affects many aspects of a model’s overall simulated climate including the Hadley circulation, precipitation patterns, and tropical variability. Therefore continuing weakness in these parameterizations affects not only modeled climate sensitivity, but also the fidelity with which these other variables can be simulated or projected.
The simulation of clouds in modern climate models involves several parameterizations that must work in unison. These include parameterization of turbulence, cumulus convection, microphysical processes, radiative transfer and the resulting cloud amount (including the vertical overlap between different grid levels), as well as sub-grid scale transport of aerosol and chemical species. The system of parameterizations must balance simplicity, realism, computational stability and efficiency. Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain.
This is the state of climate science as of 2014. I had assumed, from what you said earlier, that you had some information from post-2014 on cloud modelling that showed the stance the IPCC held in the Fifth Assessment was currently out of date.
I must now ask you for a source that scientists are currently able to model clouds. Because your own source held that science not only could not but won't be able to any time soon.
|
|
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable.That outright states they cannot yet model clouds, but are on the verge of developing a reliable estimate.
You've already lost me. How can you say that a paragraph talking about cloud modeling "states that they cannot yet model clouds"?
Do you mean to say that they cannot model clouds perfectly? Sure, but that's a meaningless standard. No model is ever perfect.
All that text says is that they don't know which model of cloud feedbacks is the most accurate.
I must now ask you for a source that scientists are currently able to model clouds.
You will first need to define what you mean by "model clouds", because you are literally quoting text talking about modelling clouds as your proof that scientists cannot model clouds.
We're clearly using different definitions... so you aren't saying what I thought you were saying and my responses don't mean what you thought they did.
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable.That outright states they cannot yet model clouds, but are on the verge of developing a reliable estimate.You've already lost me. How can you say that a paragraph talking about cloud modeling "states that they cannot yet model clouds"?
Do you mean to say that they cannot model clouds perfectly? Sure, but that's a meaningless standard. No model is ever perfect.
All that text says is that they don't know which model of cloud feedbacks is the most accurate.
I must now ask you for a source that scientists are currently able to model clouds.You will first need to define what you mean by "model clouds", because you are literally quoting text talking about modelling clouds as your proof that scientists cannot model clouds.
We're clearly using different definitions... so you aren't saying what I thought you were saying and my responses don't mean what you thought they did.
I'm not asking for accurate modelling. I'm asking for reliable modelling at all.
The 2007 report was speaking a lot about estimates of cloud feedback and figuring out which one is reliable enough for modelling. In other words, they didn't have a usable model, even in estimate form, yet.
The 2014 report mostly ignores the idea of using estimates of cloud feedback and instead talks about the difficulty of modelling clouds directly. Where cloud feedback is discussed, it's always a small component being estimated and even then it's limited where it does come up.
In seven years of scientific advancement, there was a focus shift from estimates of cloud feedbacks to modeling clouds directly to gain their feedbacks while calling existing modelling unrealistic. The answer to the 2007 question of which estimate is reliable is none of them. There would have been far more emphasis on estimates if more than the occasional estimate of something minor had proven reliable.
This is why I'm asking for a source that matches your claim.
|
|
The 2007 report was speaking a lot about estimates of cloud feedback and figuring out which one is reliable enough for modelling. In other words, they didn't have a usable model, even in estimate form, yet.
No.
Those estimates were the results calculated BY the models.
A good overview of the history of cloud modelling up through last year can be found here.
That summary essentially finds that the AR5 statement that net cloud feedbacks were "likely" positive can now be upgraded to 'very likely'... the standard deviation range is ~0.2 to 0.7 W/m^2 C.
The 2007 report was speaking a lot about estimates of cloud feedback and figuring out which one is reliable enough for modelling. In other words, they didn't have a usable model, even in estimate form, yet.No.
Those estimates were the results calculated BY the models.
How do you explain the IPCC itself later calling those models unrealistic?
A good overview of the history of cloud modelling up through last year can be found here.
That summary essentially finds that the AR5 statement that net cloud feedbacks were "likely" positive can now be upgraded to 'very likely'... the standard deviation range is ~0.2 to 0.7 W/m^2 C.
Your history includes this lovely statement:
Given that uncertainty in cloud feedback remains a dominant cause of uncertainty in projections of global warming and hence more societally relevant aspects of climate, such as sea-level rise and changes in precipitation, continued progress is necessary.
On the issue of actually verifying models, they have this to say:
Multi-platform observations of clouds and their meteorological environment in tropical trade-wind cumulus regimes and over the stormy Southern Ocean, two regions where clouds are poorly simulated by climate models and where important cloud feedbacks occur, will provide much-needed information.
Your second source admits they can't model clouds reliably.
That means the same lack of reliable modeling they had a problem with in 2007 was still present in 2017. I seriously doubt the six months since then have seen that problem clear up.
If anything, the sheer accuracy of the models despite lacking a component so key speaks more in favor of the stance you are arguing about modeling than it does in QB's favor. This is where they are without reliable cloud models. That suggests that finally nailing clouds is only going to exterminate the validity of any argument against the models.
|
|
How do you explain the IPCC itself later calling those models unrealistic?
I explain it by those cloud models having been unrealistic... which perforce requires that they existed.
For example, the climate models used in the first assessment report mostly estimated cloud cover based on relative humidity without taking other factors into account. That was "unrealistic"... but it WAS a model of cloud behavior.
As time has gone on, the cloud modeling has gotten more realistic... but it will always be 'unrealistic' to some degree. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a model. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Your second source admits they can't model clouds reliably.
...for tropical cumulus clouds and over the Southern Ocean. They're much better for the rest of the planet, and if/when they tackle those (and a few other) remaining complexities they'll basically be global weather models... in addition to climate models.
That means the same lack of reliable modeling they had a problem with in 2007 was still present in 2017.
Only if you also believe that today's lack of universal cell phone coverage is the same as what was present in 2007. The problem still exists... it is just much smaller now.
None of which changes the fact that cloud models HAVE existed for decades now. Nor the fact that the uncertainty range of cloud feedbacks has been narrowed down to a small positive factor. Nor the fact that climate models can now reliably model regional cloud coverage in most circumstances. In short... none of the things I said about cloud models have been contradicted / challenged EXCEPT for intermittent statements that cloud models don't exist at all. Which clearly isn't the case.
So... what exactly is in dispute?