Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 16694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8949
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #210 on: August 24, 2018, 02:41:41 PM »
Nearly any climate scientist will tell you it's probably worse than they're saying.

Not in my experience, and I've had email conversations with a number of them. Some will say that, but most just point out that even the moderate IPCC scenarios are plenty bad enough. I've had more than one climate scientist lament the fact that implausible doomsday scenarios are used as cannon fodder and straw men by the climate change deniers to ridicule the entire field as if they are representative of what serious climate scientists are thinking.

I don't disagree with that. It's actually my point. They avoid the worst case or even the most likely scenarios and report the data as conservatively as possible because the doomsday scenarios are ridiculed.
Quote
No, they bring up the low end range because it is bad enough, and they want to keep the conversation focused on reaching a climate state that is not a potential disaster.

OK, this language seems like exactly what I'm talking about. Wanting to keep a conversation focused is a non-scientific motivation for reporting results.


Quote
Focusing on a 5+ degree warming by 2100 scenario is both an arbitrary (and somewhat unlikely) outcome given the data we have, and counterproductive because it focuses on the wrong number when we want to talk about setting limits on climate change.

If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.


Quote
But in any case, you've now moved the goalposts to "it's as bad as the science says". Let me quote the post that I was arguing against:
These are not "worst-case." They are very realistic and most likely outcomes.

Worst case is far worse. (The planet becomes inhospitable for life)

 Scientists have been far too conservative in their predictions for Global Warming.

You were arguing that things are worse than the science says, not that things are as bad as the IPCC says. The 'inhospitable for life'-type doomsday scenarios are avoided because they are basically complete pseudoscience at this point.

No goalposts have been moved in this argument. I argue that predictions made of the severity of global warming are overly conservative, and unbiased predictions based solely on evidence and data analysis would result in more dire and more accurate predictions.

I also argue that this has been going on for years and we are seeing now that previous predictions have indeed been overly conservative.

Quote
But while the doomsday scenarios sound like wild-eyed extreme worst case, they can be as likely if not more likely than the too conservative estimates they report.

No, they can't. You can keep asserting this, but even by your own assertion, the data simply does not support this.


(Also, this conversation began with me disagreeing with the comment that the specific page and video linked to were "worst case scenarios." in both those cases, they were not intended as worst case, but were their predictions.

I maintain that even these dire predictions are overly conservative and things will get worse faster than they predict. That's the part you're disagreeing with, right?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4208
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #211 on: August 24, 2018, 02:54:06 PM »
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

I maintain that even these dire predictions are overly conservative and things will get worse faster than they predict. That's the part you're disagreeing with, right?

I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.
Mooohn!

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8949
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #212 on: August 24, 2018, 04:55:30 PM »
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

No argument there. That is the worst case scenario.

Quote

I maintain that even these dire predictions are overly conservative and things will get worse faster than they predict. That's the part you're disagreeing with, right?

I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.

I don't get what you mean with what's in bold, unless you're reading things into what I'm saying.

What, specifically, have I said that doesn't support that?

 
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4208
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #213 on: August 25, 2018, 09:00:20 AM »
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

No argument there. That is the worst case scenario.

It may be the worst case scenario as reported by laymen. However atm it is not backed up by any real empirical evidence or plausible mechanism. In order for a "worst case" scenario to be meaningful in any way, it should be based on some vaguely plausible arguments or empirical evidence. I can come up with a non-science based even worse case, like "global warming is going to cause the universe to collapse in on itself", but that is obviously meaningless since it's not based on anything factual.

Quote
I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.

I don't get what you mean with what's in bold, unless you're reading things into what I'm saying.

What, specifically, have I said that doesn't support that?

You said multiple times that climate science scenarios are overly conservative. Obviously, you can't be basing that on climate science, since you're saying they're not reporting on the real worst case scenarios as you see them. So by your own words your worst case scenarios can't be based on climate science. Otherwise climate science would clearly not be overly conservative, since they would be describing these worst case scenarios.
Mooohn!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7599
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #214 on: August 26, 2018, 12:39:48 PM »
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8949
Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #215 on: August 26, 2018, 01:17:22 PM »
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

No argument there. That is the worst case scenario.

It may be the worst case scenario as reported by laymen. However atm it is not backed up by any real empirical evidence or plausible mechanism. In order for a "worst case" scenario to be meaningful in any way, it should be based on some vaguely plausible arguments or empirical evidence. I can come up with a non-science based even worse case, like "global warming is going to cause the universe to collapse in on itself", but that is obviously meaningless since it's not based on anything factual.

Quote
I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.

I don't get what you mean with what's in bold, unless you're reading things into what I'm saying.

What, specifically, have I said that doesn't support that?

You said multiple times that climate science scenarios are overly conservative. Obviously, you can't be basing that on climate science, since you're saying they're not reporting on the real worst case scenarios as you see them. So by your own words your worst case scenarios can't be based on climate science. Otherwise climate science would clearly not be overly conservative, since they would be describing these worst case scenarios.

No. The whole worst case scenario aspect was only brought up in relation to those two links. They were not intended to be worst case scenario predictions.

My point is simply that due to factors other than science, when predictions are made they are more conservative than they would be if based only on science and data. Some of your arguments support this claim.

Also this has been happening for years and as time passes this claim is proving true.

Many markers for global warming have consistently gone significantly beyond what was predicted.

 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4208
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #216 on: August 26, 2018, 05:28:52 PM »
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
Mooohn!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7599
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #217 on: September 03, 2018, 02:08:22 PM »
Neat infographic:
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4618
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #218 on: September 04, 2018, 05:39:03 AM »
I note that the left to release doesn't include arable food production.  (or what part of the 1010gt is due to arable)
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1805
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #219 on: September 04, 2018, 07:45:18 AM »
So if we stopped or neutralized all other emissions, but the number of trees were reduced by ~335 billion/11%, we'd go over budget?

I wonder what the rate of expected tree loss to drought and fires is, along the lines of how fast Greenland melts given an average temperature.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 07:51:17 AM by 2397 »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4618
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #220 on: September 05, 2018, 01:56:07 PM »
So if we stopped or neutralized all other emissions, but the number of trees were reduced by ~335 billion/11%, we'd go over budget?

I wonder what the rate of expected tree loss to drought and fires is, along the lines of how fast Greenland melts given an average temperature.

I reckon that feedback loop would be hard to calculate.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • If you believe ...
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #221 on: September 18, 2018, 11:09:16 PM »
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.
I don't understand some things

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 17983
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #222 on: September 19, 2018, 12:56:05 AM »
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline gebobs

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #223 on: September 19, 2018, 11:08:50 AM »
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.

Over at least 100 millenia, not a few centuries.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 17983
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #224 on: September 22, 2018, 12:08:08 AM »
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.

Over at least 100 millenia, not a few centuries.

I am under the impression that conditions very rapidly became what would be extremely hostile for most life although took a long time to kill almost everything.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

 

personate-rain
personate-rain