Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[Lacessit]

On 9/19/2018 at 1:58 PM, DrTuner said:

So you take a graph and do a linear approximation based on current rate and call that a forecast? Very scientisty. To muddy it up at least throw some nifty DIY variables in there.

So your approach is to ignore the data in front of you, or claim the trend will stabilize or reverse. Very sanguine of you.

If I can use an analogy you might understand, what we are seeing is like an oil, coolant or brake fluid leak in a car. I think most people know leaks never get better.

[DrTuner]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

So your approach is to ignore the data in front of you, or claim the trend will stabilize or reverse. 

My approach is to question the validity of a model, as I stated before. Those who have worked with f.ex. trading algorithms know full well fitting a model to a limited data set and applying it to real time processes will cause you to go broke, as the model will only fit that set and ignore a plethora of variables. Like these fellas adding stochastic noise to a model and finding out it's still just as (in)valid: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-62362016000400279 . That's a tell-tale sign that the model could just as well be pulled out of one's backside.

 

Taking a linear angle from a short time trend and applying it to to predict something is like pissing your pants in winter. Feels warm at first. Since you like analogies.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

My approach is to question the validity of a model, as I stated before. Those who have worked with f.ex. trading algorithms know full well fitting a model to a limited data set and applying it to real time processes will cause you to go broke, as the model will only fit that set and ignore a plethora of variables. Like these fellas adding stochastic noise to a model and finding out it's still just as (in)valid: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-62362016000400279 . That's a tell-tale sign that the model could just as well be pulled out of one's backside.

 

Taking a linear angle from a short time trend and applying it to to predict something is like pissing your pants in winter. Feels warm at first. Since you like analogies.

Unfortunately for us and future generations, climate change is not a trading algorithm. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy at work.

I think most scientists are more concerned with the possibility climate change won't be linear. Perhaps you'll be one of the people using hindsight on a black swan event.

Sorry, your link doesn't function. Much like your logic.

[DrTuner]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I think most scientists are more concerned with the possibility climate change won't be linear. Perhaps you'll be one of the people using hindsight on a black swan event.

Ok so a sudden unexplicable event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory that affects the climate in a non-linear way. Now, could you explain to me how giving money to Gore and his propaganda machinery will prevent the climate from changing when an asteroid hits again?

 

Link works fine for me. Maybe your logic defies Internet.

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Ok so a sudden unexplicable event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory that affects the climate in a non-linear way. Now, could you explain to me how giving money to Gore and his propaganda machinery will prevent the climate from changing when an asteroid hits again?

 

Link works fine for me. Maybe you're logic defies Internet.

I think you've just resorted to a fairly tired red herring. I've set out the facts for you, and Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

I'm more referring to the possibility that vast quantities of methane trapped in permafrost can be catastrophically released when permafrost melts.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-permafrost-methane.html

[DrTuner]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'm more referring to the possibility that vast quantities of methane trapped in permafrost can be catastrophically released when permafrost melts.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-permafrost-methane.html

Ok so Siberia farts and we all get to live in a greenhouse. Fine, now, how do you propose we should stop the climate from warming? Please don't say start taxing CO2 emissions...

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 9/17/2018 at 7:59 AM, YetAnother said:

imagine trying to get countries like china and india to sacrifice some of their own interest for all our greater good; good luck with that

China and India are complying with their commitments under the Paris Climate Accord. China is actually exceeding its targets.

 

As per a Reuters article on the subject:

 

Quote

China was on track to over-achieve its pledge under the Paris Agreement to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, it said. And India was also making progress to limit a surge in emissions driven by more coal use.

[...]

“It is clear who the leaders are here: in the face of U.S. inaction, China and India are stepping up,” said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, one of the research groups.

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

Ok so Siberia farts and we all get to live in a greenhouse. Fine, now, how do you propose we should stop the climate from warming? Please don't say start taxing CO2 emissions...

Tax CO2 emissions. Accelerate research into solar power and battery storage. Develop ammonia as the alternative to fossil fuels.  Pay for R&D with the tax on carbon.

Think about it. We've gone from mainframes to desktops to laptops to smartphones in a very few decades. The same engineering innovations are now taking place with solar cells and batteries. You can live off the grid with a solar roof and Powerwall battery NOW. That's why mainstream power generators are shitting themselves.

You can generate hydrogen from solar power, combine it with nitrogen ( there's plenty of that in our atmosphere ) to form ammonia, then transport it around the world. Reconstitute as hydrogen when it reaches its destination using membrane technology. The research is already there.

The only reason we can't accelerate this process is vested interests with too much to lose if coal was left in the ground. That, and deniers who say nothing can be done. In a truly logical world, we would put every CEO of a fossil-fuel fired power generator up against a wall, and shoot them as environmental criminals.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the politicians.

[Vacuum]

On 9/19/2018 at 6:47 AM, Lacessit said:

the Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate. Ditto the Greenland glaciers. The Northwest Passage is open to shipping for the first time in human memory.

As far as modelling goes, the Tibetan Plateau supports 1.4  billion people. Its glaciers and lakes feed the Mekong, Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The lakes are drying up and the glaciers receding as we speak, and are forecast to lose about two-thirds of Asia's fresh water reserves by 2050

.....and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Vacuum said:

.....and there's nothing you can do about it.

Not personally, no. If enough people can get it into their heads something can be done, then yes. Refer my post of 3 minutes ago.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

China and India are complying with their commitments under the Paris Climate Accord. China is actually exceeding its targets.

where does the data come from?

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Tax CO2 emissions. Accelerate research into solar power and battery storage. Develop ammonia as the alternative to fossil fuels.  Pay for R&D with the tax on carbon.

Think about it. We've gone from mainframes to desktops to laptops to smartphones in a very few decades. The same engineering innovations are now taking place with solar cells and batteries. You can live off the grid with a solar roof and Powerwall battery NOW. That's why mainstream power generators are shitting themselves.

You can generate hydrogen from solar power, combine it with nitrogen ( there's plenty of that in our atmosphere ) to form ammonia, then transport it around the world. Reconstitute as hydrogen when it reaches its destination using membrane technology. The research is already there.

The only reason we can't accelerate this process is vested interests with too much to lose if coal was left in the ground. That, and deniers who say nothing can be done. In a truly logical world, we would put every CEO of a fossil-fuel fired power generator up against a wall, and shoot them as environmental criminals.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the politicians.

There is one thing that the current climate models are 100% optimized for. To maximize the money flow to the government via taxes. Which ends up feeding the government employees, after the cream has been skimmed off the top. Remember, those scientists that can't use a toaster? They can still create a models that feeds their troughs. Like ones that correlate CO2 to warming.

 

I agree with everything else though, technological advances are good, as is getting rid of corruption. The best way to get it done is to create demand from customers .. and no, not again through subsidies paid with taxes, that just creates more corruption. Make it more desirable than current tech, as in saving $ or simply working better. Carrot works always better than a stick. 

[zzaa09]

Awaiting Mother Nature's selected extermination period. 

 

Can only be beneficial.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Awaiting Mother Nature's selected extermination period. 

 

Can only be beneficial.

You can call me crazy, but i think Mother Earth is a self conscious being, and she's getting really pissed off

[duanebigsby]

On 9/17/2018 at 3:01 PM, Nyezhov said:

Rock on I have had my fill of snow and cold.

 

I know we hear the whinging about how heat waves are going to kill people. Well, try standing outside in the middle of winter in Fairbanks Alaska for 6 hours and see what it's like.

Try telling those living in Florence's path.

Global warming is causing these storms to be more common and more violent.

[duanebigsby]

On 9/18/2018 at 2:23 PM, utalkin2me said:

This is actually an interesting concept not often brought up. No matter what happnes to the world's major capitals or temperatures, doesn't it stand to reason that whatever we "lose" we will gain in another location? This could include climate and biodiversity.

The vast majority don't live in the extreme north or the extreme south. And dead oceans

will affect all.

[duanebigsby]

I believe the earth is warming naturally as it has gone though these cycles for millions of years.

I also believe human activity is accelerating that trend.

 

Whether or not you believe the scientists' warnings, isn't it just common sense to reduce the crap we're putting in the air, water, and landfills?

 

You can dismiss the global warming all you want but spewing toxins into the air, clear cutting  rain-forests, plastics in the ocean, and massive landfills aren't working.

 

Regardless of the scientists warning of impending disaster (which I believe) we need to quit crapping in our own back yard.

[mogandave]

The 4th was a Tuesday, guess these guys don’t need to work...

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

There is one thing that the current climate models are 100% optimized for. To maximize the money flow to the government via taxes. Which ends up feeding the government employees, after the cream has been skimmed off the top. Remember, those scientists that can't use a toaster? They can still create a models that feeds their troughs. Like ones that correlate CO2 to warming.

 

I agree with everything else though, technological advances are good, as is getting rid of corruption. The best way to get it done is to create demand from customers .. and no, not again through subsidies paid with taxes, that just creates more corruption. Make it more desirable than current tech, as in saving $ or simply working better. Carrot works always better than a stick. 

I do have to agree some of the science is corrupted. Such as the BS about "clean coal" technology, which any unfunded scientist will tell you is in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Billions of dollars have been thrown at developing something which is unworkable.

There's no question CO2 levels are rising, and have just broken through the 400 ppm mark. The main concern with that is ocean acidification and consequent effects on coral reefs.

I guess for the layman science is like financial advice - it's difficult to tell who the good performers are, unless one is a scientist or financial adviser themselves.

Market forces only work in a free market. The energy market has been distorted for decades.

 

[mogandave]

I do have to agree some of the science is corrupted. Such as the BS about "clean coal" technology, which any unfunded scientist will tell you is in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Billions of dollars have been thrown at developing something which is unworkable.
There's no question CO2 levels are rising, and have just broken through the 400 ppm mark. The main concern with that is ocean acidification and consequent effects on coral reefs.
I guess for the layman science is like financial advice - it's difficult to tell who the good performers are, unless one is a scientist or financial adviser themselves.
Market forces only work in a free market. The energy market has been distorted for decades.
 

In the finance sector, most anyone can tell who the good performers are, but almost no one knows who the good performers are going to be.

Too many people making too much money in climate science to believe anyone doing it for a living.

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

where does the data come from?

According to an article written by Alistair Doyle and published by Reuters, it comes from:

 

Quote

The Carbon Action Tracker (CAT) report, by three independent European research groups

It didn't name all of them but one is named as Climate Analytics. The report was published in November 2017.

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

In the finance sector, most anyone can tell who the good performers are, but almost no one knows who the good performers are going to be.

Too many people making too much money in climate science to believe anyone doing it for a living.

 

If you continue on that analogy, you'll also find that the people being good performers now are likely the same ones that screw it up royally later. Usually due to something that's right in front of your eyes but not taken into account because hey, the trend is your friend.

 

That could well be the black swan mentioned before, a total 180 degree in the predictions when some disregarded variable suddenly raises it's ugly head. Like, say, ocean currents like the gulf stream suddenly redirecting due to a salinity change. Would spell disaster to the nordic countries as the temperatures would plummet instantly. 

 

Mother nature is an evil biaaatsch.

[utalkin2me]

12 hours ago, duanebigsby said:

The vast majority don't live in the extreme north or the extreme south. And dead oceans

will affect all.

My point was, nobody knows exactly what is going to happen, assuming the climate does take a drastic change. We can't even predict which way a storm will turn with any accuracy, do you think we can predict what will happen if the global temp jumps up? We can say all the changes will be "bad" all we want, but many of the changes could possibly be "good". This is not a reason to continue on the path we are on, just making a point that humans essentially understand nothing when it comes to the effects of rapid, global temperature changes. 

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, duanebigsby said:

Try telling those living in Florence's path.

Global warming is causing these storms to be more common and more violent.

This is the mantra repeated continuously by climate-change alarmists, but there is no sound evidence that storms, floods or droughts have been increasing in frequency or getting more intense, on a global scale. I emphasize Global Scale because weather patterns are always changing regionally. Whilst some regions might have experienced more frequent storms or hurricanes over the past few decades, other regions, during the same period, will have experience fewer hurricanes and storms.

 

For example, according to the technical summary of the latest IPCC report, the AR5 Working Group 1 Summary, based on evidence from the physical sciences, the frequency and intensity of storms have been increasing in the North Atlantic since 1970, or more precisely, between 1970 and 2013 when the latest IPCC report was issued. However, even the IPCC, the so-called main authority on climate change, does admit that the reasons for this increase in storms in the North Atlantic are still being debated.

 

To quote from the summary:

Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated.

 

 

The Working Group 1 summary uses the terms 'low confidence' when there is a lack of evidence to support a particular view, 'medium confidence' when there's a moderate amount of evidence that implies a particular position could be true, and 'high confidence' when the available evidence is sufficient to be reasonably certain or 'virtually' certain.

 

Here are other quotes from the summary:

There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms.

 

With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia.

 

In other words, the IPCC is virtually certain that previous flood that have occurred during the past 500 years have been greater than any recent floods recorded in the 20th century.
If we go back further, to the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period, say 1,000 years ago, the available evidence strongly implies, with high confidence or virtual certainty, that there have been previously more severe droughts of greater magnitude and longer duration than any that have been observed since the beginning of the 20th century.

 

There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

 

So there you have it, from the horse's mouth. It's interesting to see how the climate-change alarmists try to wriggle and squirm out of such clear statements from this great authority on climate change.
However, in case I'm accused of cherry-picking, I shall also mention that this IPCC report does state that it is likely that the number of warm days and nights have increased between 1951 and 2010, and that it is very likely that the amount of precipitation has increased, on a global scale.

 

In other words, it is very likely that warming has taken place during the 20th century, which few people would deny. That's not the issue.
If global warming takes place for any reason, natural or human induced, one would expect the number of warm days to increase and one would expect the average amount of rainfall to increase. Higher temperatures cause greater evaporation. More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds and more rainfall.

 

Here's my source, from page 50 of the report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

 

[Catoni]

On 9/17/2018 at 1:06 AM, simoh1490 said:

So your love affair is with the planet itself, even if it is devoid of all life forms, that's odd. If that's the case then the planet has a finite lifespan, at some point it will once again become cosmic dust so no, it won't survive.

     The Sun will eventually go Nova and reduce the Earth to not much more than a melted over lump of iron and rock.

  But even before that.... in only about 500 million years... the Sun will increase in temperature enough that it will be too hot on Earth for life. 

   We neet to develope Interstellar and Integalactic space travel before then.  Or perhaps ways to "jump" to other alternate universes capable of sustaining our form of life.

[Catoni]

15 hours ago, duanebigsby said:

The vast majority don't live in the extreme north or the extreme south. And dead oceans

will affect all.

   Uhm... what's going to "kill" the oceans ? ? 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Catoni said:

     The Sun will eventually go Nova and reduce the Earth to not much more than a melted over lump of iron and rock.

  But even before that.... in only about 500 million years... the Sun will increase in temperature enough that it will be too hot on Earth for life. 

   We neet to develope Interstellar and Integalactic space travel before then.  Or perhaps ways to "jump" to other alternate universes capable of sustaining our form of life.

You mean parallel universes ?

[mogandave]

   Uhm... what's going to "kill" the oceans ? ? 

Climate change. Please try to follow along.

[kannot]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds and more rainfall.

but isnt water vapour the main greenhouse gas anyway and doesnt more cloud  means less heat reaches the earth and is reflected back to space? 

[mogandave]

but isnt water vapour the main greenhouse gas anyway and doesnt more cloud  means less heat reaches the earth and is reflected back to space? 

No