Get ready for the next ice age, global warming fanatics.

[Smallc]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't think you are a very good judge of very many things, and certainly not of what I do or don't believe.

Well, the lack of a denial from you is also quite telling.

[Wilber]

29 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

A good chance? How does one estimate probability without a model?

Depends what happens when the permafrost starts melting at a great rate. It's estimated that there is more carbon trapped in permafrost than there is in the atmosphere right now. Irreversible would mean that the melting can't be stopped and neither can the emissions resulting from it. Right now, the arctic is a carbon sink. That could change drastically in the not very distant future.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Depends what happens when the permafrost starts melting at a great rate. It's estimated that there is more carbon trapped in permafrost than there is in the atmosphere right now. Irreversible would mean that the melting can't be stopped and neither can the emissions resulting from it. Right now, the arctic is a carbon sink. That could change drastically in the not very distant future.

 

I suspect by 'irreversible' you are referring to claims of 'perpetual global warming', 'run away global warming' or some 'tipping point' the exists just above 2C of warming.

 

Estimates for the CO2 - temperature feedback are generally around 20 ppm / C or less. Current atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm. The upper end of the estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC is around 4.5 C per doubling of CO2. That's not even close to being sufficient to cause 'perpetual' or 'runaway' global warming.

 

But your belief is understandable given the large amount of misinformation out there regarding the issue of climate change. Many people, including Green party leader Elisabeth May, falsely believe that such temperature-CO2 or temperature-methane feedbacks are large enough to make runaway global warming realistic. They haven't gone through the calculations or looked through the data and the misinformation that they have and use to justify policy is concerning.

Edited December 27, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

I suspect by 'irreversible' you are referring to claims of 'perpetual global warming', 'run away global warming' or some 'tipping point' the exists just above 2C of warming.

 

I don't know what the tipping point is but you maintain there isn't one. That is a foolish assumption because you believe there can't be a point where human influence ceases to become a factor and nature takes over. It is also foolish to assume that humans changing the very composition of our atmosphere can't have an effect on our climate.

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, Wilber said:

I don't know what the tipping point is but you maintain there isn't one.

 

I don't believe in such a tipping point for the same reason I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because there is no good evidence for the existence of such a tipping point. The magnitude of various feedbacks have been well estimated be it from paleo climate data, climate models or instrumental observations. And the mainstream scientific position is that they are not sufficient to cause a tipping point. The various feedbacks amplify warming, but are not sufficiently strong to cause runaway warming. Maybe in 2 billion years when the sun's irradiance is higher it would.

 

Just now, Wilber said:

It is also foolish to assume that humans changing the very composition of our atmosphere can't have an effect on our climate.

 

That would indeed be foolish. Fortunately, that is not the position I have.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

I don't believe in such a tipping point for the same reason I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because there is no good evidence for the existence of such a tipping point. The magnitude of various feedbacks have been well estimated be it from paleo climate data, climate models or instrumental observations. And the mainstream scientific position is that they are not sufficient to cause a tipping point. The various feedbacks amplify warming, but are not sufficiently strong to cause runaway warming. Maybe in 2 billion years when the sun's irradiance is higher it would.

 

 

That would indeed be foolish. Fortunately, that is not the position I have.

Sez you. You ask for models when you really want proof while providing none of your own.  There are plenty of models but you chose to ignore them with no evidence to back up your own position. 

Anything that disputes your position is trivialized as a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". You can't have a discussion such a person.

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Sez you. You ask for models when you really want proof while providing none of your own.  There are plenty of models but you chose to ignore them with no evidence to back up your own position. 

Anything that disputes your position is trivialized as a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". You can't have a discussion such a person.

If you want links to attempts to quantify the magnitude of the CO2-temperature feedback, links to the magnitude of the CH4-temperature feedback, links to estimates of climate sensitivity, links to expected evolution of solar irradiance over the next few billion years, links to the physics behind stellar evolution, links to how to go through the calculations to determine if warming is runaway or not, etc. then I can provide them for you. Just please be specific to what information you seek or want clarity on.

Edited December 27, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[Wilber]

I think you will be knee deep in diluted sea water still producing links to try and explain why it isn't really happening.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm getting the impression that you have a complete inability to distinguish between a person denying anthropogenic climate change and someone taking the mainstream scientific position that runaway global warming for Earth is unphysical given estimates of the strengths of various feedbacks.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Smallc said:

Well, the lack of a denial from you is also quite telling.

It's telling that I don't have a closed mind, unlike yours? I suppose. 

[Smallc]

I don't have a closed mind so much as I tend to believe the scientific consensus on the issue. Do you have an open mind regarding the Easter bunny, as well? 

[TimG]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

I don't have a closed mind so much as I tend to believe the scientific consensus on the issue. Do you have an open mind regarding the Easter bunny, as well? 

I doubt you actually know what the "scientific consensus" is and you are instead choosing to believe what activists like Suzuki claim is the "consensus" which is not much better than believing the Easter Bunny. If you really "believed" the "scientific consensus" you would understand that there is no real consensus on the magnitude or seriousness of future effects of warming. You would also understand that the most engineering professionals that work in electric production feel that meaningful CO2 reductions cannot happen using the technology we know about today or are likely to develop the in the near future.

Edited December 27, 2016 by TimG

[Smallc]

That's certainly not the actual consensus.  The IPCC agrees with everything that you've just said.  I'm certainly no expert, but I know who I'm more likely to believe.

[TimG]

Just now, Smallc said:

That's certainly not the actual consensus.  The IPCC agrees with everything that you've just said.  I'm certainly no expert, but I know who I'm more likely to believe.

Do you actually know what the IPCC report says? Some how I doubt you have read it. How can you believe something you have not read?

Many claims have been attributed to the IPCC which are simply not true. More importantly, the actual reports are filled with caveats and acknowledge the limitations of available data. The picture of the consensus gets a lot muddier if one reads the reports.

[Smallc]

Like I said, I'm no expert.  I do personally know a coupl of climate scientists.  I've also read interpretations of the reports by experts.  Their interpretation is very different than yours.  The science of climate change is as settled as science can get, from what I understand. 

[TimG]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

Like I said, I'm no expert.  I do personally know a coupl of climate scientists.  I've also read interpretations of the reports by experts.  Their interpretation is very different than yours.  The science of climate change is as settled as science can get, from what I understand. 

Then your "scientist" friends are not really acting like scientists. The general concept that human added CO2 is causing some warming has reasonably sound scientific foundations. However, predicting how much warming and what the consequences of that warming will be depends on unverifiable computer models which are  tuned by their makers to produce results that "look right". This means the entire process is extremely susceptible to group think and cannot be considered to be sound foundation for any claims. On top of this, these models have consistently predicted more warming than has actually occurred which suggests a systematic bias within the set of models used by so called "experts". You would not see other scientific fields that depend on computer models claim so much certainty based on models with a history of such large errors. 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

On top of this, these models have consistently predicted more warming than has actually occurred which suggests a systematic bias within the set of models used by so called "experts". 

If you actually have any interest in science: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

[TimG]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If you actually have any interest in science: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Post hoc rationalizations that don't change the fact that the models failed miserably over the last 20 years. They may be able to 'fix' the models but it will take another 20 years to collect enough data to determine if the 'fixed' models are any better (unlikely, since the people working in the field are too fixated on their CO2 hypothesis to consider alternative ideas). Any future claims which depend on unverifiable computer models with a poor track record are far from settled.  

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

Post hoc rationalizations that don't change the fact that the models failed miserably over the last 20 years. 

You could have just said you have no interest in science.

[TimG]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You could have just said you have no interest in science.

I am very interested in science. I am just not impressed with post hoc rationalizations used by people to avoid admitting there are systematic problems with the models. The Nature link does point out that if natural variations were large enough to swamp warming in the last 20 years it follows logically that natural variations should have *accelerated* warming in the prior period. This implies that prior empirical estimates of CO2 sensitivity are likely high because they did not take into account the effect of natural variations. Of course, this obvious conclusion is dismissed by Nature as 'controversial' and it attempts to suggest a myriad of other factors that could explain the lapse without actually acknowledging the problems with the models that is obvious to everyone. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[GostHacked]

On 12/23/2016 at 3:02 PM, bcsapper said:

I agree with the nuclear option.  I would start by converting every coal fired plant to gas fired in the meantime.  Still, though, that introduces the methane leaks issue.

Long term proper storage of after life fuel rods are very dangerous and expensive to dispose of properly. IN another 100 years when we are still talking about 'global warming' , these sites will continue to push out radiation for hundreds perhaps, thousands of years.  The nuclear option is shortsighted, not a green option in any sense.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Long term proper storage of after life fuel rods are very dangerous and expensive to dispose of properly. IN another 100 years when we are still talking about 'global warming' , these sites will continue to push out radiation for hundreds perhaps, thousands of years.  The nuclear option is shortsighted, not a green option in any sense.

It only speaks to how seriously people take AGW.  If it's just going to make our winters a little less unpleasant, lets try and stop it with windmills and electric cars. 

If, on the other hand, it could spell the end of the Human Race, with it's tipping points, and runaways, and melting sea ice and rising sea levels, then maybe insisting only green options are to be used to mitigate it is a little short sighted.

[Omni]

46 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Long term proper storage of after life fuel rods are very dangerous and expensive to dispose of properly. IN another 100 years when we are still talking about 'global warming' , these sites will continue to push out radiation for hundreds perhaps, thousands of years.  The nuclear option is shortsighted, not a green option in any sense.

Once we get fusion perfected it will be very green and virtually limitless.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Once we get fusion perfected it will be very green and virtually limitless.

I've got it going in my shed but I'm waiting for energy prices to rise a bit.

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I've got it going in my shed but I'm waiting for energy prices to rise a bit.

It must be very warm im your shed!