Swampgator
Active Member
Comments of the chart I posted above?
I realize if CAGW becomes not an issue because of reduced emissions, it forces you to reconsider your lifestyle choices, and may be quite disruptive.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I realize if CAGW becomes not an issue because of reduced emissions, it forces you to reconsider your lifestyle choices, and may be quite disruptive.
Norbert
TSLA will win
The amount of warming is a result of the rate of warming. No goalposts have been moved. The rate of warming is related to the sensitivity, about which there are different views, but the current rate of warming is a known, as are a bunch of other variables. I have found no reason to distrust the scientific consensus, even though years ago I have read much from sceptics. The details of climate science are difficult, but the main thesis is well researched. However at that time I have found reasons to distrust several sceptics. That said, I don't know anything about Tony Seba, but the confidence in future predictions of a single person I find, to be honest, unconvincing.
Swampgator
Active Member
This is an error in your presumptions. While CO2 has some effect on temperature, it is not the control knob for global temperatures as most seem to believe.
Temperatures can and have moved independently of CO2 levels during earth's history. Milankovitch cycles control most of the major shifts in climate regimes. Then multidecadal shifts in ocean currents, driven by many variables. Co2 has a relatively small effect (I know I will be attacked for this basic statement of fact)
Another error most make is making the assumption that, absent man made CO2 emissions, earth exists in a state of energy balance.
In fact, this is the base assumption for ALL climate models. It is incorrect. The earth climate systems do tend to move towards a balance, but a static long term balance is a complete fiction.
2 degrees will cause a massive economic disruption and it will cost way more than fighting the increase. Massive dislocations of people, the loss of coastal cities and major political issues. Our military is very worried about global warming and it isn't because of some do-gooder mentality. Climate change will shift food supplies. Hungry people aren't nice. Mass migration leads to political instabilities. All of this leads to wars.
Unfortunately, 2 degrees may already be unavoidable. Increasing CO2 doesn't immediately change global temperatures. It is a process of slow increases until stasis is reached. We are not in stasis by any means. Worse, there may be positive feedback mechanisms. Decreased polar ice will decrease albedo which will increase warming. Release of methane hydrates is another potential problem.
Unfortunately, 2 degrees may already be unavoidable. Increasing CO2 doesn't immediately change global temperatures. It is a process of slow increases until stasis is reached. We are not in stasis by any means. Worse, there may be positive feedback mechanisms. Decreased polar ice will decrease albedo which will increase warming. Release of methane hydrates is another potential problem.
Where is the data set for that chart? It's a prediction but I'd like to know the methodology for the prediction. I agree with your general statement, which I believe, if I'm able to get the goalposts stable for a second, is that RCP 8.5 is responsible for the WORST of the predictions but by no means the BULK of the predictions. And that RCP 8.5 is business as usual, but if this chart comes true (which we do not know), then we are likely to come off of RCP 8.5 slightly. Let's make sure we have the context right, because I know from your past arguments that you like to pick one single issue and use that to fight against an entire body of evidence.
Regarding whether for some reason magic happens and we have no warming, it would be the greatest outcome for me. I don't understand the argument that I might WANT it to happen. That's complete and utter foolishness and a terrible argument.
Swampgator
Active Member
You should youtube his latest presentation.
He is not a climate guy BTW. He works at Stanford and studies tech disruptions. Man areas of focus are EVs solar, and autonomy. I read his book on clean disruption a few years back. Nearly every prediction he has made regarding the EV and disruption has come true.
But you don't need to take his word for it. Bloomberg has a whole division that forecasts these types of things. Good reading! New Energy Outlook 2019 | Bloomberg NEF
Milankovitch cycles occurred during the past 800,000 years and are taken into account. They are actually a driver of some of the CO2 variation due to changing ocean temperatures. This is why CO2 lags. CO2 is not the driver of the variations over the past 800,000 years but it does set the center point. Ocean current definitely affects local temperatures. Your point? For the past 800,000 years the earth has been in near stasis. The shifts in solar radiation and occasional volcanic activity have certain kept it for being in pure stasis. The Milankovitch cycle is a slow process. The earth stays close to stasis i.e. it is varying very slowly over time. Volcanic activity is different. It is an immediate disruption but things do settle back down.
I want to revert back to the basic fallacy and contradiction I see in the arguments of those who say do nothing. On the one hand they attack climate models. They then turn around and think it is OK to kick the present system out of the regime it has been in for the past 800,000 years because they are SURE it will all be just fine. When playing with the future of humanity you better have more than a gut feeling that it will all be OK.
Swampgator
Active Member
I never made that argument (strawman)
RCP8.5 is not business as usual. It has recently been snuck into climate papers and policy dicsussion as business as usual. It was never intended as that and in fact it's creators explicitly warned again doing so.
RCP8.5 assumptions are: #1 the switch to renewables will happen very slowly. #2 population growth will continue unabated. #3 income growth will be low, and #4 technological innovations will be slow to materialize.
The only one of those assumptions you could argue is likely, #4 (income growth could be slow.)
#1 switch to renewables is accelerating and as Bloomberg NEF reports point out is is already cheaper to install solar and storage than Fossils.
#2 Population growth is slowing or going negative in most developed countries. As China and India develop, their population growth will aslo slow. Every predicts this. See what I did there?
#4 Technology advances are accelerating and will continue to accelerate with AI and more tech getting into the hands of more of the global population.
So RCP 8.5 is most highly unlikely to ever happen, but most in the CAGW crowd do indeed present it as BAU.
I was trying to guess what your argument was, since you didn't make it clearly. It's not a strawman unless I'm arguing against it, so strike two on your logical fallacy identification. You're doing a little better at clarifying your position, which I appreciate.I never made that argument (strawman)
RCP8.5 is not business as usual. It has recently been snuck into climate papers and policy dicsussion as business as usual. It was never intended as that and in fact it's creators explicitly warned again doing so.
RCP8.5 assumptions are: #1 the switch to renewables will happen very slowly. #2 population growth will continue unabated. #3 income growth will be low, and #4 technological innovations will be slow to materialize.
The only one of those assumptions you could argue is likely, #4 (income growth could be slow.)
#1 switch to renewables is accelerating and as Bloomberg NEF reports point out is is already cheaper to install solar and storage than Fossils.
#2 Population growth is slowing or going negative in most developed countries. As China and India develop, their population growth will aslo slow. Every predicts this. See what I did there?
#4 Technology advances are accelerating and will continue to accelerate with AI and more tech getting into the hands of more of the global population.
So RCP 8.5 is most highly unlikely to ever happen, but most in the CAGW crowd do indeed present it as BAU.
There are a lot more assumptions than the four you outline, and a lot more to the model. Are you saying that those four are your problem areas? Do you want to argue about RCP 8.5 specifically for some reason? It is not the de facto model for climate predictions. It is used as a worst case in most of the literature. If you're merely trying to say "the worst things they're saying will happen are less likely than some other bad things," we can discuss that. But again, you need to provide clarity in your argument.
Also, I asked for the data set/methodology and I'd like to see you respond to why you felt the need to say that for some reason no climate issues would be a problem for me, or at least retract that statement.
I want to second the idea of watching Tony Seba. He has been a bit wrong. I have been watching him for several years and he has been off a little bit but overall pretty close. However, I guess I have a different take than Swampgator. Based on what Seba says, coal and even natural gas are lost causes. That means tax cuts for each are wasted money. The oil depletion allowance is dumb. Tax breaks on drilling equipment and other special drilling allowances are wasted money. It is time to focus on the future and leave the past behind. Money placed into renewables speeds up the future. Money placed into fossil fuels just serves to delay the inevitable.
Norbert
TSLA will win
You keep making the mistake of looking at earth's long history. This is about a problem in the relatively near future, not about the next 4 billion years.
That's your way of distracting us from the point that an increase of another 2 degrees is a problem of huge magnitude, and such an increase is directly related to the CO2 emissions (and absorption reductions) that we humans do have a control knob for.
Oh, yes that does sound inconvenient. Much better to confiscate, literally, trillions of dollars of wealth from humans around the world to spend it on emergency green projects, supervised of course by our benevolent overlords?
Yes, certainly even that, at the scale of the problems we are talking about, trillions wouldn't really be such a large amount, especially since we get something for it. It would mean we get away cheaply. Seriously.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Swampgator
Active Member
I must not have understood. I never meant to imply you wanted it to be warmer, if that's what you are saying.
Almost all of the histrionic predictions of future doom are using RCP8.5 as business as usual.
The assumption I outlined are the main ones that make up RCP8.5. Yes, it is multifactoral. But what drives the forcing implied in 8.5 is mainly those 4 factors.
Swampgator
Active Member
How about just let the markets take care of the issue? I agree that we should not be subsidizing fossils. But we shouldn't be subsiding soy farmers either. Or solar and wind manufacturers. They already are better than fossils without any help.
Stop taking money from one group of people to enrich another while skimming some off for the politicians.
Because markets alone don't set a level playing field that accounts for negative externalities. If markets "take care of the issue", they unfairly subsidize one group while poisoning another (or everyone).How about just let the markets take care of the issue? I agree that we should not be subsidizing fossils. But we shouldn't be subsiding soy farmers either. Or solar and wind manufacturers. They already are better than fossils without any help.
Stop taking money from one group of people to enrich another while skimming some off for the politicians.
SDRick
Active Member
Stopping all fossil fuels immediately is an interesting statement and sounds overly ambitious. I am curious on what you actually mean, how this would be accomplished and if there would be any immediate negative consequences?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Yes there will be negative consequences. Worse consequences if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.
Is your priority making money or keeping the planet habitable? How many species are you willing to sacrifice?
SDRick
Active Member
I believe most agree that we should stop burning fossil fuels. I was responding to your statement advocating stopping fossil fuels immediately. Did you really mean immediately?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Yes, immediately (or sooner).
In case you haven't noticed, we have a climate emergency. Anomalous weather disasters, species extinction, etc. (Read the news). CO2 is >400 ppm. It's been 300 for most of the past 100,000+ years. Life evolved on a planet that was never this warm. It's foolish to think that we can add even more CO2 (+methane, NOx, etc.) to the environment and not have more disastrous consequences.
Yes, it will cause fossil fuel assets and profits to go away. That's a good thing. Their money is just corrupting the world.
We need to replace everything with renewables.
I have stopped burning fossil fuels... have you?
SDRick
Active Member
How do you propose stopping burning immediately? An outright ban starting today? Would the ban be just US or worldwide?
Similar threads
