+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 3
Total: 3

Author Topic: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️  (Read 75356 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #360 on: October 31, 2015, 03:29:38 pm »
AG, you accuse me several times of saying that Collapse will save us from Climate Change.  I have said that elsewhere, but in this thread I have only said Peak Fossils will save us from Climate Change.  There is a big difference - the Peak Fossils scenario at least has us burning all the FFs we can extract until it has all gone, Collapse would leave most of the remaining FFs still in the ground.

So there is a spectrum of forecasts of FF burning, that runs from low to high:
Collapse, Peak Fossils, RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, RCP8.5, Dutton
I believe Collapse is the most likely, and Peak Fossils is the very worst we could experience.  You believe Dutton is right (or perhaps you  believe even that is too conservative).  I just wonder where you think all those FFs are going to come from.

The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing?  What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.

Quote
Quote
Palloy:     Look at the charts I provided and answer the questions beneath them.
...
Do you really imagine that the amount of oil extracted in 2050 is going to be 70% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of gas extracted in 2070 is going to be 310% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of coal extracted in 2090 is going to be 155% of 2010 levels?

AG: I HAVE looked at the charts. YOU apparently HAVEN'T.

Huh? What is THAT supposed to mean? - I haven't looked at my own charts?
No, you haven't looked at my charts (of RCP2.6), and you haven't answered any of the questions.  Anyone that understands Peak Fossils would know that those charts are way too high.

It follows that RCP2.6's forecast for maximum temperature rise of +1.6°C (range 1.2 - 1.9) is way too high.  Anyone can see that.  What you don't want to do is admit that because of Peak Fossils, Climate Change is not a top priority.  +1.6°C probably will have some unpleasant consequences, but it is not catastrophic.

So let me try to get to the crux of this.  Do you believe in Peak Fossils?  I know MKing doesn't, but how about you, AG ?

Palloy SAID:
Quote
What you don't want to do is admit that because of Peak Fossils, Climate Change is not a top priority.  +1.6°C probably will have some unpleasant consequences, but it is not catastrophic.

I am convinced there will be a collapse. I am convinced that the use of fossil fuels will be reduced by said collapse, but not one second before the collapse. I AGREE with MKing that there is no way in hell that we will EVER "run out" of fossil fuels. Sure, the "cheap" stuff is gone, but SO WHAT? Are you going to start with MKing's "supply and demand" horsehockey? The issue here is CO2 pollution damage, NOT whether we can find more hydrocarbons to burn. But you just cannot believe that because you are so enthralled by the "strictly correct" IPCC models happy talk.

Your post above is confirmation that

A) you think collapse will save our bacon (you even posted that the collapse would take care of the fossil fuel "problem" to me once - I'll dig it up if you like.     ) and

B) you do not understand or accept the relationship of the PRESENT 400CO2PPM concentration in the atmosphere with average global temperature and sea level rise over the next 85 years as evidenced by these two studies.

And it will get a lot worse, according to two recent studies by credentialed climate scientists.  

These studies further confirm the reality that burning fossil fuels is poisoning the biosphere. 

Global civilization is threatened within 25 years.

The  Hansen <i>et al</i> June 2015 study * and the Dutton <i>et al</i> July 2015 study ** evidence a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400PPM. As of October of 2015, the CO2 concentration is at 400PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.  

<b>*</b>Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-
© Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 

<b>Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming is highly dangerous</b><i> 

J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5,
G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9,
K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and
K.-W. Lo3,4</i>


<b>**</b> Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
<b>Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods</b>

<i>A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9</i>

Palloy SAID:
Quote
The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing? What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.


No, Palloy the amount of methane effects on temperature increase modeled are much less than the latest accurate estimates. The Dutton model is the one that is STILL too conservative!

WHAT PART of "ANOTHER USA in equivalent emissions" (see video below) do you think is in ANY of the models? NONE! Model THAT!

CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDxw0PcRgE0&feature=player_embedded


Your "strictly correct" precious models (see circular argument) are happy talk IN and happy talk OUT. You mathematicians were convinced waves couldn't get higher that 80 feet or so on planet Earth. The waves was just a bit of math stupidity, but the IPCC models are far more egregious.  :emthdown:

The FACT that every single model, including the most "alarmist" RCP-8.5 Business as Usual scenario, was subject to MASSAGING by government lawyer(s) defending GDP fossil fuel fun and games has been DOCUMENTED by luminaries from the IPCC itself has apparently no importance to you. I have posted about that. I guess you missed that.  ;)

The ice retreat models ensemble MEAN predicted the 2012 retreat to occur in 2060! ONE STANDARD DEVIATION on the "alarmist" side predicted it in 2048. WTF is with you trying to make a case that these models are anything but happy talk, HUH?

And one more thing, Palloy, EQUILIBRIUM on these deleterious effects has been ERRONEOULY modeled as taking CENTURIES, not decades. But I expect you to try to talk your way around Dutton with the , "it takes centuries to reach equilibrium"    happy talk that has already been totally discredited.

What Dutton predicts is baked in LONG before 2100. I do not care if you do not wish to believe it. That's your prerogative. But the next 25 years will prove that even Dutton is too conservative.


Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods
Quote
... In the words of Michael Le Page from The New Scientist:

Whatever we do now, the seas will rise by at least 5 metres. Most of Florida and many other low-lying areas and cities around the world are doomed to go under. If that weren’t bad enough, without drastic cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions–more drastic than any being discussed ahead of the critical climate meeting in Paris later this year—a rise of 20 metres will soon be unavoidable.

The arithmetic is pretty depressing (chart from New Scientist article): 0.4 metres for mountain glaciers, plus 0.8 metres for ocean thermal expansion, plus 3.5 metres for the West Antarctic ice sheet (the areas in orange in the chart below). If we go past 2 degrees Celsius of warming and get to 4 degrees, then we add all the blue bars as well.


http://therationalpessimist.com/tag/ipcc/

IPCC HAPPY (i.e. move along, this is no "big deal" - don't worry your GDP about it. ;)) SEA LEVEL TINY INCREASE GRAPHS:


Agelbert NOTE: ANYONE, especially Palloy, who claims that "equilibrium" sea level increase time for CO2 concentration PPM effects to fully apply is "properly" modeled in CENTURIES, not decades, also believes the IPCC model(S) (ALL OF THEM as averaged) of ice retreat level for 2060 that occurred in 2012 were "strictly correct".   



Palloy SAID:
Quote
The IPCC models (there are 31 approved models in AR5) DO take Methane into account - how else could they arrive at the conclusion that Methane is 32% of Total Net Radiative Forcing? What differs between RCP8.5 and Dutton is the quantity of Methane to be fed in to the models.  But RCP8.5 is already a way too high scenario, even RCP2.6 is way too high, so Dutton is even more way too high.


So, is Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes an "alarmist" too. Palloy?  ;)

Quote

"It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror." --  Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes



Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming


 
A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesn’t adequately account for a methane warming feedback

SNIPPET:


To put this in perspective, permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere. In the rapidly warming Arctic (warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole), the upper layers of this frozen soil begin to thaw, allowing deposited organic material to decompose. The plant material, which has accumulated over thousands of years, is concentrated in to upper layers (half of it is in the top 10 feet). There is a network of monitoring stations that are measuring ground temperatures have detected a significant heating trend over the past few decades and so has the active layer thickness.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming

You would save a lot of electrons if you would just humour me and tell me if you believe in Peak Fossils, and whether you think my charts of FF production for RCP2.6 are too high or not.

Yes I believe in Collapse, I admitted that in my last post, and all my DD posts.  But I only believe in it because I am sure about Peak Fossils.  I am sure RCP2.6 can't happen. Even more so all the higher scenarios.  I DON'T think IPCC's scenarios are "happy happy" - they are catastrophic, but they won't happen because they CAN'T happen because of Peak Fossils.

You seem to be studious avoiding answering the question about what YOU believe about Peak Fossils.  If you could just answer that, we would be one step away from sorting this out.

Palloy questions:
Quote
Do you really imagine that the amount of oil extracted in 2050 is going to be 70% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of gas extracted in 2070 is going to be 310% of 2010 levels?
Do you really imagine that the amount of coal extracted in 2090 is going to be 155% of 2010 levels?

Your questions on fossil fuels use are irrelevant. That's why I didn't answer them. I told you that the AMOUNT of fossil fuels we use in the future IS NOT RELEVANT to the baked in temperature rise and sea level rise at the PRESENT CO2 400PPM concentration. But I will humor you and say, NO, I do NOT believe the percentage use in your three questions about fossil fuel use will be anywhere near those percentages. SO WHAT!!!? You believe the incredibly ignorant correlation/causation temperature and sea level rise projections in those IPCC scenarios. I've told over and over again that  the models are wishful thinking. I've explained why. It's like talking to a wall.   

As for Peak Fossil Fuels, Read for comprehension. I said I agreed with MKing that we will NEVER run out of fossil fuels. THAT MEANS, that NO, there ain't NO SUCH THING as "peak" fossil fuels!

What part of that did you not understand? Are you stupid or do you like to play at being a close minded, irrational stuffed shirt?

I countered your "methane is accounted for in the models" wishful thinking and you are quiet as a mouse.   

You have no interest in logical discourse. This conversation is over.

Part three will be published today or tomorrow.

SNIPPET:



Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity

PART THREE OF THREE PARTS

Whatever is finally determined by scientists as the exact combination of factors that forms these monster waves, it is well known that wave height and ferocity is a function of the ferocity and duration of the winds.

ΔT = plus 2C or greater guarantees ferocious winds of long during over wide areas in a consistent direction.
____________________________________________________________________________

I'm sure it will provide you with a lot of good laughs and plenty to scoff about. It really doesn't matter what you invent out of whole cloth in your feverish little brain. The sad human experience of the next quarter century will teach people like you how fu cked up their "strictly correct" modeling happy talk IN and Happy talk OUT is, despite its utility as a corrupt, GDP defending, empathy deficit disordered fig leaf for PERPETUATING the dirty energy status quo.       
THIS is what those IPCC modeling happy talk scenarios Palloy defends, if they are taken seriously, will visit on future generations:


Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm