Can you imagine AR5 saying “sea levels will rise just like they have done in the previous 200 years, maybe a bit more and warming in the 21st century will be equal or less than the 20th”?
Or at least saying “the whole sensitivity thing: we ain’t about the number and even the sign of many forcings; don’t even start on the final sensitivity number or ask why our number make climate an incredibly unstable, positive-feedback crazy system”?
For that’s the truth
I’m never sure if I’m supposed to be ignorant, willfully ignorant, or evil for not drinking the kool-aid.
Couldn’t it also be that the problems are less troublesome or costly if dealt with later? Think of how fast technology evolves. Look at the human genome project. It took three billion dollars and thirteen years to complete, finishing a decade ago. Do any of us think, if it had never been done then but was started now, that it would take longer and/or cost more?
I think it’s entirely possible that whatever work needs to be done to protect coastal cities fifty years from now could be done by self-replicating, solar powered nanites at essentially zero cost.
Thank you for linking to that YouTube, GIGObuster. I think it does an excellent job of explaining some of the science, especially the change in Earth’s temperature over eons.
And thank you also, doorhinge. It was the excitement about the YouTube shown by such an erudite Doper as yourself which led me to click on the link in the first place.
Because your reply only shows that you have not read them.
When a third of the human population would die if you allow a fad to grow unchecked we did act. In essence you are saying that because AGW will not mean doom to humanity it will be OK to let the 1/3 be. Well, of course the “fad” I’m talking here is smoking tobacco and you really do sound like the think thanks like the Heartland Institute, that by pure “coincidence” also deny that our emissions should concern us.
Really, I have lived enough to remember that while it is true technology does accelerate, virtually all rates of the adoption of new technology fail to come when predicted. I do remember reading in the 80’s that full wall size TVs were going to appear in the 90’s and affordable too. I would not be surprised that it did, but not at mass market levels and affordable, so far the sizes an average household can get them now are impressive, but wall sized ones are still an arm and a leg. And I’m also aware that nanotechnology on the field will run into the same troubles as genetically engineered food in the wild, even though it has been shown to be safe there are issues with GMOs and most people are voting against it, it is unlikely that the testing and safeguards and modeling* will cost us zero.
So you need to read the complete cite to the second link I made in post #64 to the economist that reports that indeed it is much, much expensive to wait to act.
*Here is the time to mention that many contrarians out there do not realize the huge contradiction of claiming that climate models are useless, because when geoengineering -with nanotech or not- is considered as a solution and available (No matter how you cut it , we will have to pay for it) it will depend also on climate scientists, their modeling and the data collection that is disparaged now by contrarians to check if the application of the solution on the wild will be safe for us.
I mean, I’m sure you can find that Bob said 1, Anne said 2, Shaniqua said 3, Kim said 4, and so on; but can you find one person changing his stance in that way?
You need to check what a sliding scale is, it does not mean that all subjects are following that precise evolution. Most do start at different levels of that scale. Like Conservative, Republican Scientist Barry Bickmore:
In any case, it remains a straw man to claim that scientists are telling us that global warming is causing extreme weather, if you had paid attention currently the evidence says that the extreme weather incidents are made worse by global warming.
Going forwards the worrisome thing is that with the changing weather patterns talk of the warming eventually being a big factor in the cause of those extremes can happen.
Once again, more data is needed for the causation connection, but there is already plenty of evidence for the worsening of them when mother nature toss them at us. As mentioned, uncertainty goes both ways, any “we should not do anything” skeptic needs to take also into consideration that on top of the most likely results like the rise of the oceans or the acidification of them we could get, besides worse weather, more incidents of it.
Nothing like, in practical terms, meaningless distinctions
Also, nothing like trying to blame one variable on a very complex system. It only works if you already “know” the answer. I’d love to see how anyone in the history of humanity can see any (extreme) weather event and glean how it actually “should’ve” been, without human internvention.
BTW: Longest time without a landfalling hurricane in the US in over 100 years, possibly more.
As you even acknowledged before you are still refusing to accept what most scientists and scientific organizations have to say on the subject. By your own word you told us also that you will be vindicated.
[Gowron from Star Trek]Perhaps, but not today.[/GFST]
As pointed even on the lasts posts you are wrong on what a sliding scale is, wrong on all your points on post #109, it is just magical thinking that leads one to repeat nonsense and expect that it will make it real. You have no good sources or evidence, no good citations, only silly rhetoric as we have seen in all past threads.
The lesson to take home: the real Galileos of this science brought more evidence in the 30s-50s to change the minds of all the scientists that knew already that CO2 caused warming, but they thought that the massive increase of the gases that was man made would not be a problem, it was found that it was.
And so it is that nowadays there are virtually no scientific organizations that report that this is a fraud, the few groups that do are not scientific or discredited contrarians. So get us a cite from a scientific org reporting that there is no evidence, because so far it is just your ignorant words against history and science.
LOL. And your repeated insults makes you a first class asshole. So what? That doesn’t convince anyone to change their position on man-made CO2 causing global warming, which is the object of the debate. Your insults still suggest an act of desperation.
Peter Hadfield’s “Snowball Earth” was covered with ice. The ice changed to water and gas, land formed, the land mass divided, massive areas were again covered with ice, the ice retreated, the ice advanced, the ice retreated, the ice advanced, etc. There’s a history of repeated global warming and global cooling. All occured without any human input. Shocking ain’t it.
Since the last ice age, the “global” temp has (Surprise!) increased. The IPCC and it’s followers put their faith in the man-made inputs created for the computer modeling that was the basis for their claims. Man-made inputs that weren’t shared with the organizations that allegedly peer reviewed the IPCC’s work. “That sounds plausible”, isn’t a very scientific review of their work. If they had shared those man-made inputs, anyone could use them to discover where the IPCC had made it’s repeated misatkes. (hehehe).
The IPCC claims they have a new-and-improved report that, hopefully, will be MORE CONVINCING than their last efforts have been. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t.
*Dear IPCC,
Will your new and improved report prove that the GLOBAL temp is increasing at any of the rates you’ve suggested in the past? Or will you provide new rates of increase?
Since your IPCC “findings” been suspect, suspicious, and wrong in the past, how will you correct the level of mistrust that has created in your organization?
Is it possible for you to show conclusively that CO2 levels are causing the GLOBAL temp to decrease and increase?
Will you finally prove conclusively that man-made CO2 is causing the GLOBAL temp to decrease and increase?
Thank you for your time,
Your devoted servant,
Doorhinge.*
p.s. I’d wait for the next IPCC report to actually be published before defending it’s findings. They just might get something wrong again.
Nope, the desperation happens to the one that does not even know the difference between an ignorant an an asshole.
I’m an ignorant on many mathematical things and many grammar conventions. I however do welcome when other dopers let me know how off base I am on those subjects because I do want to learn.
And he even explained why that does not help your point, you only evaded the conclusion that even the scientists are reporting, that that is evidence of the actual sensibility of what would happen when CO2 levels increase, man made CO2 and prehistoric CO2 do the same stuff, unless CO2 has reformed his ways the past tells us about the risks of not controlling the huge amount we are releasing now.
[rest of silly complaint to the IPCC cut]
And this is more of a refusal to look at the science, and actually the previous IPCC reports, they point at the evidence that is also used by virtually all scientific organizations that are relevant to the issue, as mentioned before, it is your lack of evidence and cites and support what shows to all who is getting desperate, and it is specifically the denier media and the groups that finance them.
There was a recent scare regarding that, but it was not about the ocean one but the one in the permafrost areas of the planet, but the scientists at Realclimate (and yes, at least one of that group contributes to the IPCC) pointed at the flaws on that report.
(Notice here, that many contrarians refuse to acknowledge that scientists are not going for the alarm setting all the time, they cool down even reports that for the contrarians “it should help the scientists get all that grant money from the government to seed fear” :rolleyes: )
It is still a concern and the scientists also do take the current expected release of methane into account as part of why that low estimate many “skeptics” expect the future warming to be as flawed, but there is still no good evidence to worry a lot about a massive methane release. To avoid that possibility of massive releases of methane in the future where the temperature is increasing more, one has to control the thermostat knob that we have available, and that is to reduce the CO2 emissions as soon as possible.