View Single Post
  #960  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:40 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,694
We can now observe that Sammy is not just an arrogant blowhard, but a shameless liar. Let us count the ways ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
First, climate engineering isn't listed in the paragraph of "certain to happen". So you're misstating my position.
Am I? Let me highlight in bold the relevant bits so that your defective fevered brain can actually see them, and the rest of us can observe your lie:
Same with climate engineering or nanotechnology or self replicating factories or anything else. All very obvious ideas that very obviously will be seen eventually, they are all as certain to happen as nuclear fission was once it was demonstrated to work.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=953
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Second, if the math checks out an idea (or are you going to jump in and claim the laws of physics mean we can't change the climate in a positive way?), and the idea gets just 1 paragraph, that would be a sign that it was not given the consideration the idea deserves.

"oh, those semiconductors Bell labs found? Got 1 paragraph at the vacuum tube conference".
Yes, this is back to the "scientists don't know how to do science, but I, SamuelA, will show them the way! Fools, all of them!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Finally: given that CO2 reductions are not happening per any of the IPCC suggested schedules, essentially the policy of the working group is to do nothing at all? That is, they wrote a 1500 page report and asked for something that won't be done?

I can't deny their knowledge in the subject nor do I claim to know better than these people, I'm just pointing out that most people would wonder if "do nothing" is the optimum plan.

"well, we don't really know what to do, so let's just do nothing and let the climate die".

To be fair, that is what the modern "treatment" for aging and Alzheimer's is. Absolutely nothing.
On this one, there's so much confused misinformation that it's hard to even know where to start, and I can't possibly cover it all briefly. But to the main points of wrongness:

1. The IPCC doesn't have "suggested schedules". This is the exact opposite of what they do. This is another major demonstration of abject ignorance on your part. The IPCC is very specifically non-prescriptive with respect to policy. They used to discuss impacts in terms of emissions scenarios, but now they're cast in terms of end-point CO2 levels called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The basic idea is, pick your end-point target, and these will be the consequences.

2. CO2 reductions absolutely are happening, just not as fast as we would like. Every country on earth signed on to the COP21 Paris accord, until Trump pulled the US out. Everyone else is in.

3. The WG3 report does not resign itself to "do nothing". It provides a very exhaustive list of mitigation options. That's the fucking reason the IPCC gathered together the top experts in the world, and the fucking reason the report was written.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You're a moron. I just looked at the actual fucking IPCC documents, and there are exhaustive discussions of climate mitigation methods. All over the fucking place.
Wow, you mean the report whose basic fucking purpose was to discuss climate mitigation methods, exactly as I said, actually discussed climate mitigation methods, exactly as I said? Well, color me embarrassed!

You're really not very bright, are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And there are specific policy statements that methods that might be a "fix" for the problem are being deliberately left out as to avoid misleading policymakers that climate change has a "quick fix".
This is total bullshit. The IPCC has always been about completeness and transparency. The reason it says essentially nothing about climate engineering besides CDR (CO2 removal, which is entirely different from the bullshit you're suggesting) is that there's nothing to say about it except that it's probably infeasible and highly risky at best. But yeah, keep telling us how "the math works" (whatever the fuck that means -- have you done whatever "math" is supposedly involved here?) and that this is a "very obvious idea" that is "certain to happen".

You're not just an uninformed moron, you're a shameless liar, and I'm happy to call you out on your lack of ethical decency. This is what the AR5 WG3 actually says about what they call "solar radiation management" (SRM):
Technical Summary, page 61
Knowledge about the possible beneficial or harmful effects of SRM is highly preliminary. SRM would have varying impacts on regional climate variables such as temperature and precipitation, and might result in substantial changes in the global hydrological cycle with uncertain regional effects, for example on monsoon precipitation. Non-climate effects could include possible depletion of stratospheric ozone by stratospheric aerosol injections. A few studies have begun to examine climate and non-climate impacts of SRM, but there is very little agreement in the scientific community on the results or on whether the lack of knowledge requires additional research or eventually field testing of SRM-related technologies. [1.4, 3.3.7, 6.9, 13.4.4]

3.3.7 Geoengineering, ethics, and justice
Geoengineering technologies face several distinct sets of objections. Some authors have stressed the substantial uncertainties of largescale deployment (for overviews of geoengineering risks see also Schneider (2008) and Sardemann and Grunwald (2010)), while others have argued that some intended and unintended effects of both CDR and SRM could be irreversible (Jamieson, 1996) and that some current uncertainties are unresolvable (Bunzl, 2009). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that geoengineering could make the situation worse rather than better (Hegerl and Solomon, 2009; Fleming, 2010; Hamilton, 2013) and that several technologies lack a viable exit option: SRM in particular would have to be maintained as long as GHG concentrations remain elevated (The Royal Society, 2009).
And that's why they don't talk about it beyond basically just dismissing it. It's basically a pipe dream, unless there's some unknown miracle breakthrough, one with no pollution consequences whatsoever, and even then, we'd still be faced with ocean acidification and a vast array of unprecedented unknowns. And worst of all, if any of this hypothetically successful SRM ceased for any reason, the earth's temperature would bounce back with such forceful rapidity that it would be utterly catastrophic.

But yeah, Sammy, keep telling us how this is a "certainty". Maybe it can all be done with self-replicating nanobots. Because you've done the math!

I rest my case with this fucking idiot.

Last edited by wolfpup; 06-09-2019 at 09:45 PM.