What climate change is not

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    And you think climate change rendering the top say, 25% of land mass (in the Arctic) unable to be built on is a good thing?
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    "Stupid is what stupid does"~FG
    Mutated 3 eyed fish here we come...lol
    Wonders how Australias barrier reefs will mutate...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    For the ecosystem? Definitely. Less people = healthier ecosystem. For the people there? Definitely not.

    However, keep in mind that even today, melting permafrost is causing building collapses and evictions. People are still there. (Google Norilsk for a city going through this right now.)
    Yep. Not good - but certainly better than mutated 3 eyed kids.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    old memory
    OK a russian born Dane (can't remember his name ---think people called him Si-- he may have coined the word permafrost)
    Loaned from the usgs to the army to help solve their alcan highway problem.
    Much of his knowledge on the subject was from reading russian texts---then some experimentation

    normal road construction involves digging ditches on either side of the roadbed and putting the material on the roadbed---ergo "highway"
    Ok until the permafrost begins to thaw---then it swallows machinery.
    So, that did not work well with permafrost
    first---after clearing the roadbed-- One needs to insulate the permafrost ---add brush, then logs laid perpendicular to the roadway then more brush and then more logs to create a corduroy roadbed then gravel.
    so far ok
    but still not good enough
    then you will need a berm on either side of the roadbed to prevent slumping. (No ditches!)

    if memory serves, only about 7% of the highway ran over permafrost.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Once again, as so often before - please reread:
    What the very conservative and politically timid IPCC presents as "scenarios" is far from exhaustive of the visible and significant threats.
    Again: You are not using the worst possibilities visible in the IPCC data, or even the IPCC's various analyses of factors, let alone the scientific literature in general. (These include such unlikely but nevertheless possible events as a "methane bomb" runaway, a sudden Gulf Stream current shutdown, a Siberian/Canadian wildfire apocalypse, etc. Your "worst case" is within the likelihood ranges of the published estimated futures - these are set at the standard 5% statistical likelihood, one in twenty chances based on very "conservative" assumptions and featured in more than twenty different factor analyses).
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I'm not interested in peddling bs in a silly attempt to manage the US Republican media feed's propaganda in advance, or pretend to negotiate some kind of understanding whereby if we all ignore the worst of the possibilities the Republican base will somehow become rhetorically reasonable and speak in good faith.

    Nothing and no one can prevent people (like you, right here) from misrepresenting the plain and sober discussions of the calmly informed. It's not worth trying.

    Look at this, for example:
    That's irrelevant to my quoted point.

    That's obvious, of course - the low confidence of the cloud effects is visible in the range of error etc. All you would have to do is read my posts (and the IPCC reports, etc) in good faith. Low confidence in reported estimates or assessments does not make all possibilities equally, or even comparably, likely.
    The only question is: Do you know that? You would, surely, on your job, in your accountable life. But this is a matter that illuminates the ongoing fascist takeover of the Republican Party.

    In other words: Since you are doubling down on the Republican media feed bs, joining the addled mob, we need to ask the standard question that always comes up when dealing with that barrage of garbage:

    Are they lying, or are they stupid?
    Nonsense. We assess risks based on unlikely but significant threats all the time - it's simple, standard, ordinary procedure. It's almost the definition of risk assessment.

    The odd thing is that the entire category involved - risk denial - seems to be invisible to the Republican (fascist) media feed addled. They don't recognize it in tobacco, leaded gas, GMOs, vaccinations, etc., either.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Then stop doing so. Simple.
    Ah, so you are going beyond the IPCC and into more speculative scenarios. That's fine. But that approach is every bit as valid as the approach that climate change deniers take, where they cherrypick scenarios where nothing much happens to the climate due to a lack of sensitivity to CO2 forcing.

    So far the IPCC has done a good job of predicting the actual climate change, back as far as 1990. It is unlikely that they will suddenly prove disastrously wrong, and have the actual climate exceed their worst case (or best case) scenarios. Indeed, the odds of both those cases - that climate change is much worse than predicted, vs. much more mild than predicted - are both small and similar.
    Correct. It means that the likelihood of those estimates being correct is low.
    There you go. You got the words fascist, garbage, BS and mob into a discussion of climate change. You can end the day on a high note, proud of your 'contribution.'
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Into a response to your deflection of a discussion of climate change.
    But not equivalently low, equally low, etc. There are large differences in the relative likelihood of various unlikely outcomes.
    It has been significantly (more than one standard deviation) underestimating the onset rate and scale of various major changes, including some specifically mentioned in these threads (glacial and permafrost melting, methane boosting, variability in temperature and precipitation distribution, oceanic warming, ecological alterations, etc).
    That is false.
    The probabilities of greater severity of many major features are much larger and growing - the mounting evidence of incoming greater severity, including both the trends of the various deviations from official predictions of the past, and the changing odds of outcomes exceeding the standard deviation range (error bars sometimes visible, etc), of the politically sensitive and influenced official predictions of the past (none of which present anything like an absolute limit or "worst case", in the first place. You invented that.).
    No. Explicitly the opposite.
    You are now trolling.
    "Cherrypicking"? Familiar abuse of that term - but in only one context: You have adopted the bullshit vocabulary of the Republican media feed.

    That is not plausibly a coincidence - such dishonesty and poor reasoning is far more likely to have been provided to you from the familiar sources than invented by you for this thread.

    In other words: On your job, in your life, you probably know what cherrypicking refers to - this post of yours, like a couple of others noted, presents to the public a basic error of reasoning that I imagine (from your other posting here, in less politically addled matters) would get you fired for incompetence in your normal life.

    My approach, clearly stated here in multiple posts you are invited to reread for yourself, involves no cherrypicking whatsoever. None. The concept does not apply.

    Almost the opposite, in plain fact - my approach is more inclusive of the entire range of IPCC data and report and analysis, the entire context, rather than less. And that is explicit - I explicitly, in the posts, in clear language, based my reasoning on that greater inclusiveness. It's central to my posting, a major point of differentiation between your approach (narrower, arbitrarily selective) and mine. There is no way for the competent and honest to miss that.

    That is a serious misrepresentation - and one typical of the Republican media operations, which are simply dishonest propaganda operations. You are now posting bald-faced Republican propaganda, complete with the familiar vocabulary in exactly the context and with apparently the same intentions we find in the spewings of James Inhofe, Lamar Alexander, the various hired Fox TV "experts", and the like.

    (Your attempted restriction to certain "scenarios" found in the media feed of the politically influenced IPCC is much closer to "cherrypicking" than my insistence on paying attention to the entire range of data, research, etc, published and used by the IPCC. In your attempted narrow focus on "scenarios" lifted from partial data and arbitrarily restricted aspects of research as reported, you even create and invoke such nonexistent features as "absolute worst case" estimates and the like - not just cherrypicking, but inventing the cherrypicked item).

    Again: the data and findings and research and so forth evaluated and employed by the IPCC, the published graphs and estimates of the IPCC, and so forth, inform my posts.

    Nothing "beyond" the IPCC. Just beyond the selected and restricted and politically vulnerable IPCC scenarios you chose to describe as "absolute worst case".
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020 at 5:46 AM
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    They have both underestimated and overestimated at times.

    In 1990, the IPCC's business-as-usual case had an expected temperature rise of .25C per decade. Actual has been .15C per decade. The issue was CO2 sensitivity; they thought the sensitivity was higher than it was.

    This is to be expected in any attempt at modeling a complex system like the climate. You are going to get it wrong initially before you understand all the factors that go into the model. Nowadays predictions are getting better.
    Great. So we're good.
    Michael 345 likes this.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    But not equivalently or equally or net/overall. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340

    The IPCC in its official, public, media feed has - net - significantly underestimated and/or lowball predicted both the severity of AGW, and the risks inherent in its continuing as it is, as visible in the data and research upon which the IPCC media feed is supposedly based.
    Air temperature. You are restricting your reference to air temperature.
    And you continue to deal in fixed numbers rather than ranges and probabilities. That conceals the differences in risk.

    The IPCC underestimated the temperature increase in deeper ocean waters, and the amount of absorbed energy that went to melting ice and thawing dirt, and a couple of other factors. The result was an underestimate of the severity of AGW over the decades since 1990, partly hidden (at least for those willing to cooperate in the deception) behind an overestimate of the short term air temperature increase.

    AGW refers to Anthropogenic Global Warming. The globe is not made of air.

    And the main issue is not climate "sensitivity", which is bedeviled by either its basis in equilibrium assumptions or the lack of data and capability for handling non-eq assumptions - the global climate is not going to be in equilibrium for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Share This Page