Climate Change

jaxadam

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
4,961
Reaction score
6,090
Location
Jacksonville, FL
How long have you been saving that? :lol:

The real jewels I drop around here seem to mostly go unnoticed, so I get to use them more than once! I thought my "mass confusion" one earlier today was pretty good but I think it might have flown over some heads.
 

lost_horizon

SS.org Regular
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
161
Reaction score
228
Location
Adelaide Australia
That's just theoretical though. We have maybe 10 "good" years left at this rate, and we're clearly not getting to that utopia with the current incentives, so it's all a moot point :)
(resets doomsday clock that was meant to destroy us all in 2013)

JUST 10 MORE YEARS GUYS!!

"The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

... Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature."

I think what people forget is a system will always settle to the lowest energy state possible. The amount of methane in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing but we haven't seen as large an increase in temperature as expected. Methane is volatile and behaves differently in different parts of the atmosphere. It has chosen the state that has the lowest energy footprint. There is a high potential for warming physically but observations just don't match expectations.

The models suck.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,409
Reaction score
22,682
Location
Tokyo
All the models suck but guy on guitar forum (who doesn't provide a model) has it all figured out? Doesn't sound very plausible. And of course there will be many victories for the environment in the future. Will they be enough to leave the earth with a sustainable and enjoyable environment? Is it worth trying to cut it as close as possible?
 

AMOS

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
887
Reaction score
535
I don't understand this....
if you have a peaceful community, then that sense of community is probably built on some form of sharing, which would form a market, and they'd need rules to keep that system from breaking down, or to "govern" it, so to speak. If you have no rules, you have no market, you have no community, you have no incentive to be peaceful. "Peace" doesn't just happen because people agree to be nice to eachother.
It's never been tried with gigantic populations where we already have advanced technology, it's only been applied in the days of the clans. We have no idea how it'll work until it happens, and see how the populace reacts to it. When the planets resources are depleted we'll find out.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,378
Reaction score
9,234
Location
Somerville, MA
At this time of year?

At this time of day?

In this part of the country?

Localized entirely within your kitchen!?
:lol:

I mean, I don't see how there can be any serious discussion about whether or not climate change is happening at this point - it is. We've had some of the worst droughts on record in the US in the last decade, something obscene like one third of Pakistan is currently underwater after record-breaking flooding, after the massive European floods of the last couple years, and Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity has increased measurably since the 80s when we had reliable enough sattelite data to start capturing them, despite whatever sort of article lost horizon just shared that seems to argue that it's not actually increasing because we were just missing a lot more hurricanes before that. :lol: Meanwhile, the seven warmest years on record, with history going back to the 1800s, have all occurred since 2015, and each decade has been warmer than the one before it from the 1980s onwards.

Like, maybe if you've been living under a rock, and that rock hasn't happened to be involved in a flood, a hurricane, or a wildfire, it's possible you somehow haven't noticed this... but even the GOP is grudgingly adopting climate change policies as part of their platform, if only so far that we ensure adequate access to fossil fuels while we figure something else out. But there's no serious room left to debate whether it's happening, the discussion is moving on to how we react to it. :lol:
 

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
21,030
Reaction score
12,754
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
(resets doomsday clock that was meant to destroy us all in 2013)

JUST 10 MORE YEARS GUYS!!

"The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

... Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature."

I think what people forget is a system will always settle to the lowest energy state possible. The amount of methane in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing but we haven't seen as large an increase in temperature as expected. Methane is volatile and behaves differently in different parts of the atmosphere. It has chosen the state that has the lowest energy footprint. There is a high potential for warming physically but observations just don't match expectations.

The models suck.
Methane has increased about 700 parts per billion since 1950. That's actually a very tiny absolute amount. The expected greenhouse effect from that is not insignificant, but pretty small in comparison to other gases which have had so much more increase in concentration.

Could you be more specific about how is has "chosen" the lowest energy footprint?

Which models are you criticizing? Are you looking at the rough model for how one vaguely defined aspect of agriculture would be affected by climate change and using that as evidence for your disbelief in the models for climate change itself? Because that's the way your message comes off.
 

lost_horizon

SS.org Regular
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
161
Reaction score
228
Location
Adelaide Australia
Methane has increased about 700 parts per billion since 1950. That's actually a very tiny absolute amount. The expected greenhouse effect from that is not insignificant, but pretty small in comparison to other gases which have had so much more increase in concentration.
Methanes in their models are predicted to have 13x the warming vs C02 from methane, it has not shown up, why? Please stop asking me questions, I didn't write the models, I didn't write the papers based upon modelling (not real world data), I didn't say it was going to happen. Your questions should be directed at people who made these predictions. This is the whole basis for the 'Cow farts - stop eating meat' fallacy. We paid these people billions of dollars, hold them accountable.
Could you be more specific about how is has "chosen" the lowest energy footprint?
Yes, methane is very volatile and spontaneously combusts or is oxidised all on it's own after about 12 years. It will do whatever is easiest for it not the behaviour that will result in the most warming. Methane will break down ASAP, in fact the more energy methane absorbs it makes it break down even faster into less warming compounds.
Which models are you criticizing? Are you looking at the rough model for how one vaguely defined aspect of agriculture would be affected by climate change and using that as evidence for your disbelief in the models for climate change itself? Because that's the way your message comes off.
All of the models, Sea level, ocean warming, temperature, agriculture. They are consistently wrong and the behaviour is to double down on them, reset the clock and say 'in x years' according to the same models, that thing will now change x by year x. They should be honest and say 'We got it wrong' or 'we don't know' because if they were honest they would.

The methane stuff affects food production, taxes, company accounts and peoples lives. They need to be honest about it.

As an instrument technician the tolerances these people put on things is insane. When i am weighing a gram of material in front of me I am not even sure of the weight of something due to the tolerance of the equipment, using the most accurate balance in the world. When people are measuring the temperature from space, from a variety of different sources and equipment, in particular locations and not in other locations and modelling it and averaging for the entire year there is only one way your tolerance goes up, vastly. When someone shows you a heatmap of the earth, know that there is no measurements for a majority of the earth and it is inferred. NOAA saying the earth in 2021 was 0.13 Degrees cooler than 2020 is impossible to say and riddled with errors and uncertainty.

Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century​


Forecasting global climate change​



I don't doubt the climate is changing, I don't doubt humans are responsible. I believe we need to lessen our use of carbon based fuels and go nuclear. When the models are 8 x worse than a model that just says it would be the same temperature forever how can people or the public trust them? These models do not model the past, let alone the future. It shouldn't be controversial to say when there is now so much evidence for the uncertainty and failure of the models.
 

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
21,030
Reaction score
12,754
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
@lost_horizon

I ask you questions because you are the only one trying to argue that everything else is wrong. If no one is allowed to ask for clarification, it's a huge red flag that you are just talking out of your ass.

I'd suggest reading that first source more carefully. Or just generally either do research more carefully or else choose your arguments better. It's about how to improve the models, and it even makes it clear that it's not calling any of them out for being wrong.

As for methane... if it's 13x worse, but the increase in concentration is tens of thousands of times less, what does that mean? What is your point? Do you know what methane becomes when it oxidizes?

Much of what the earlier models predicted was based on the industrial practices at the time, and I recall the majority of them stating such. Even the idiotic sensationalist mainstream media at the time reflected that. Blaming scientists for getting that wrong is dumb. If your mom told you, as a kid, that you'd flunk out of school if you didn't do your homework, you can't do your homework and then say "I told you I wouldn't flunk out!"
 


Top