Page 46 of 49 FirstFirst ... 213637383940414243444546474849 LastLast
Results 901 to 920 of 966

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #901
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,294

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Now we find out that over 2500 articles supporting the man made global warming theory were based on a computer model RCP8.5 that used as its basis a 500% increase in the use of coal and had a probability outcome of 3%. Many of those articles were posted here in this thread to support the global warming theory.

    2500 articles supporting a flawed theory and they had a probability outcome of 3%. Think about it!
    Don't have too because I tracked down the new revised models via their source papers and the grossly misleading American rag you love so much. And the outcome is still basically as bleak and change is is based on only reexamining one vector of human caused climate change so the suggests a different set of parameters. For an actual thoughtful discussion of the new developments try this...


    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...realistic.html

    ------

    Hey Pheir I bet back in the day you probably though concern about Ozone depletion was just a theory right?

    -------------




    Safer, not safe.The reality is that this technology is safe, indeed, but only outside of some high-profile disasters.It's not completely safe.
    Nothing is safe. Even a grid build out a massive amount of batteries and wind and solar is based on a really nasty polluting rare earth production and similarly exotic resources, hell even the gold and silver and copper you need is not exactly refined with tap water.
    Last edited by conon394; February 11, 2020 at 02:24 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  2. #902
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Don't have too because I tracked down the new revised models via their source papers and the grossly misleading American rag you love so much. And the outcome is still basically as bleak and change is is based on only reexamining one vector of human caused climate change so the suggests a different set of parameters. For an actual thoughtful discussion of the new developments try this...


    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...realistic.html

    ------

    Hey Pheir I bet back in the day you probably though concern about Ozone depletion was just a theory right?

    -------------



    Nothing is safe. Even a grid build out a massive amount of batteries and wind and solar is based on a really nasty polluting rare earth production and similarly exotic resources, hell even the gold and silver and copper you need is not exactly refined with tap water.
    Here's the operative sentence from that article (aside from the fact that it basically says the same thing as the AT article):

    Honestly, this surprised me; while objections to RCP8.5 have been around for a decade or more, those who view it skeptically now seem to outnumber those who see it as useful — at least as a vision of a “business as usual” future.

    The one thing your article failed to note is that 2500 climate alarmist articles were based on the RCP8.5 model which had a probability of just 3%...meaning it was all garbage.

  3. #903
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,294

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Here's the operative sentence from that article (aside from the fact that it basically says the same thing as the AT article):

    Honestly, this surprised me; while objections to RCP8.5 have been around for a decade or more, those who view it skeptically now seem to outnumber those who see it as useful — at least as a vision of a “business as usual” future.

    The one thing your article failed to note is that 2500 climate alarmist articles were based on the RCP8.5 model which had a probability of just 3%...meaning it was all garbage.
    No you miss construe because did not actually read the paper just skimmed my article.

    If I model the likely deaths from allowing every toddler in a classroom to play with and have loaded revolver based on the data at hand I will get one result. If over the course of a couple years you decided that only half of them should have loaded revolver the parameters will change. That does not invalidate the original model. Just as the models of what would happen in their was no change in CFC use are valid thay are simply superseded by the fact people acted on them. The key paper that spiked this change in thinking/reporting now about the extreme version RCP8.5 is that people actually acted on the worst case . That being the point of worst case estimations and that being science that it reversals itself and adds new data and makes new estimates and wow look governments all over the world did in choose to alter their carbon production from fossilize use for their power grids and wow it looks maybe things might not turn out so bad. But that does not imply that no action was needed.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  4. #904
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    2500 articles supporting a flawed theory and they had a probability outcome of 3%. Think about it!
    Actually if you were an honest skeptic you should have verified the claim simply by clicking the link and checking the information. Sadly you are simply a denier and you are applying your double standard as always.

    The claim of 2500 articles using the RCP8.5 is wrong according to his own demonstration. The link from Anthony Watts blog post is this:
    https://citations.springer.com/item?...584-011-0148-z

    What does this tell us? That there are 2521 publications quoting the article "The representative concentration pathways: an overview".

    What is the article "The representative concentration pathways: an overview" ?

    This paper summarizes the development process and main characteristics of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), a set of four new pathways developed for the climate modeling community as a basis for long-term and near-term modeling experiments.
    So this is about the four RCP scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5), not only the RCP8.5.

    Nothing tells you that the RCP8.5 is the most used scenario.
    Last edited by Genava; February 11, 2020 at 04:21 PM.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  5. #905
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    For those interested, the IPCC has started to use “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” (SSPs), with 5 pathways:
    - SSP1: Sustainability (Taking the Green Road, Low challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
    - SSP2: Middle of the Road (Medium challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
    - SSP3: Regional Rivalry (A Rocky Road, High challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
    - SSP4: Inequality (A Road divided, Low challenges to mitigation, high challenges to adaptation)
    - SSP5: Fossil-fueled Development (Taking the Highway, High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation)

    And each one will be used in combination of different Integrated assessment modelling (IAM).

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...climate-change
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-i...climate-change
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  6. #906
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post

    Nothing tells you that the RCP8.5 is the most used scenario.
    Not true:

    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...ming-scenario/

    This is known as the "backtracking we have to cover our ass scenario"

  7. #907
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Not true:

    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...ming-scenario/

    This is known as the "backtracking we have to cover our ass scenario"
    Again, let's see the evidence. They give this link:
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?s...,6&as_ylo=2015

    They looked up for papers citing RCP8.5 as a business-as-usual scenario since 2015, that's it. But most papers in the list actually used several RCP scenarios and do not ground their claims exclusively on the RCP8.5 scenario.


    So your claim:
    Now we find out that over 2500 articles supporting the man made global warming theory were based on a computer model RCP8.5 that used as its basis a 500% increase in the use of coal and had a probability outcome of 3%. Many of those articles were posted here in this thread to support the global warming theory.
    is absolute BS.

    Moreover, this is nonsense, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios have been introduced in the assessment report of the IPCC in 2014. It has nothing to do with "man made global warming theory" or its scientific evidences.
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; February 12, 2020 at 12:23 AM. Reason: Insulting part removed
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  8. #908
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Nothing in life is completely safe. You could slip while getting out of the bath tub and break your neck.

    The ironic thing is, if it hadn't been for the anti-nuclear action of many of the same people who are now thr most active against climate change, the US electric production would most likely be producing less CO2 today. US nuclear plants produce 20% of its electricity, and thr additional nuclear plants would almost certainly pushed it up.to 25%, likely 30%, more than solar's contributiion as perhaps as much as wind today.
    1- Do not neglect the role of fossil fuel industries on this topic. They were actively lobbying against nuclear energy in the US and in Australia. Even by giving funds to environmental groups advocating an anti-nuclear policy.
    2- Do not forget most of the anti-nuclear movement started about nuclear weapons. The debate was quite complicated because of the two topics involved in the public opinion.

    However, I agree it is a shame that the Greens do not change their mind.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  9. #909
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Again, let's see the evidence. They give this link:
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?s...,6&as_ylo=2015

    They looked up for papers citing RCP8.5 as a business-as-usual scenario since 2015, that's it. But most papers in the list actually used several RCP scenarios and do not ground their claims exclusively on the RCP8.5 scenario.


    So your claim:


    is absolute BS.

    Moreover, this is nonsense, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios have been introduced in the assessment report of the IPCC in 2014. It has nothing to do with "man made global warming theory" or its scientific evidences.
    After briefly going through your list, I noted that the RCP8.5 model has been used in more than any of the other models in submitted papers. That pretty well says it all.
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; February 12, 2020 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Off-topic part removed

  10. #910

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Now we find out that over 2500 articles supporting the man made global warming theory were based on a computer model RCP8.5 that used as its basis a 500% increase in the use of coal and had a probability outcome of 3%. Many of those articles were posted here in this thread to support the global warming theory.

    2500 articles supporting a flawed theory and they had a probability outcome of 3%. Think about it!

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._scenario.html
    I don't think most Climate Change proponents were predicting a 6 degree rise, most were predicting just a 3 degree rise, so the 6 degree is a strawman argument. And even 3 degrees rise could have severe consequences. Although the article might be right, a warming of just 3 degrees or less might not be as bad as many Clinate Change proponents predict.
    U
    And while a 500 % rise in coal is unlikely, economies lime India and especially China have grown much faster than anyone expected, so that offset the the lower coal use. As to expecting the CO2 ppm to level off to 541 ppm might not be the case. In a mere 10 years or so, CO2 levels have gone from 380 to 400 ppm, and as human population expands and living standards in places like China and India rise, CO2 level would seem to rise also unless action is taken.

    While I suspect that some, many Climate Change proponents are Alarmist, and their prediction seem to get ever more dire (I am.waiting for them to claim extinction of the dinosaus was due to Climate Change, it is only a matter of time), still there is a possbility they could be correct, and human produced CO2 could have adverse effects. Just in case, we should work to reduce our emission of CO2.

    The fact is, there is a variey of independant data that seems to indicate rising levels ot CO2 produced by humans is causing a warming effect. Sure, all the climatologist who spent their lives studying climate who support Climate Change could be wrong, but wouldn't the prudent thing be to act as if the experts were actually right? Instead of pointless debating the issue, we should concentrate on the best way to reduce the rising CO2 levels.

    Think of it this way - we all buy insurance even though we hope to never need it. The higher costs to reduce rising CO2 could be considered a kind of insurance. Maybe we don't really need it, but we don't want to be without it just in case.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; February 12, 2020 at 03:14 AM.

  11. #911
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Although the article.might be right, a warming of just 3 degrees or less might not be as bad as many Clinate Change proponents predict.
    The issue was not really about +3°C scenario having more or less impact on humans' lives. The issue was about using the RCP8.5 as a business-as-usual scenario because people say it is unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    And while a 500 % rise in coal is unlikely, economies lime India and especially China have grown much faster than anyone expected, so that offset the the lower coal use. As to expecting the CO2 ppm to level off to 541 ppm might not be the case. In a mere 10 years or so, CO2 levels have gone from 380 to 400 ppm, and as human population expands and living standards in places like China and India rise, CO2 level wod seem to rise also unless action is taken.
    Indeed, the idea of an only 3% chances is solely based on the four IAM models used to produce the selected RCP pathways. These RCP pathways are labelled simply with the radiative forcing they produce at the end, so +8.5W/m2 in this case. Indeed, the IAM model used for this pathway is very unlikely. However, they failed to account in their critic that "RCP8.5 leads to a forcing level near the 90th percentile for the baseline scenarios, but a recent literature review was still able to identify around 40 scenarios with a similar forcing level" as it is reported in the article they quote. So if indeed the "pathway" is unlikely, the possibility to have this radiative forcing at the end of the century is not that much unlikely.

    Moreover, the original pathway for RCP8.5 is a case of absolute no-policy, with high population growth and developing countries relying mostly on coal. It has clearly been inspired by China recent history:



    Honesty, how is it easy to predict this kind of behavior?

    The only thing that says it is unlikely to reach the +8.5 W/m2 forcing is that recent reports suggests smaller recoverable coal reserves. The concept of recoverable reserves is quite problematic since it strongly depends on the price. So these reports include economic modelling. And they have been displaying quite strong divergence with reality in the past, for example about shale gas.
    Last edited by Genava; February 12, 2020 at 05:44 AM.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  12. #912
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    The issue was not really about +3°C scenario having more or less impact on humans' lives. The issue was about using the RCP8.5 as a business-as-usual scenario because people say it is unlikely.



    Indeed, the idea of an only 3% chances is solely based on the four IAM models used to produce the selected RCP pathways. These RCP pathways are labelled simply with the radiative forcing they produce at the end, so +8.5W/m2 in this case. Indeed, the IAM model used for this pathway is very unlikely. However, they failed to account in their critic that "RCP8.5 leads to a forcing level near the 90th percentile for the baseline scenarios, but a recent literature review was still able to identify around 40 scenarios with a similar forcing level" as it is reported in the article they quote. So if indeed the "pathway" is unlikely, the possibility to have this radiative forcing at the end of the century is not that much unlikely.

    Moreover, the original pathway for RCP8.5 is a case of absolute no-policy, with high population growth and developing countries relying mostly on coal. It has clearly been inspired by China recent history:



    Honesty, how is it easy to predict this kind of behavior?

    The only thing that says it is unlikely to reach the +8.5 W/m2 forcing is that recent reports suggests smaller recoverable coal reserves. The concept of recoverable reserves is quite problematic since it strongly depends on the price. So these reports include economic modelling. And they have been displaying quite strong divergence with reality in the past, for example about shale gas.
    This is exactly the type of response I would expect from someone who spent the last 15 years being willfully gaslighted. You're trying to self rationalize that you didn't make a mistake and couldn't have been wrong by reinterpreting data that you once claimed to be proof of an imminent climate catastrophe.

    The climate predictions were wrong. Period. They were based on a computer model that had a 3% outcome probability. Now you're trying to say none of that ever happened.

  13. #913
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    This is exactly the type of response I would expect from someone who spent the last 15 years being willfully gaslighted. You're trying to self rationalize that you didn't make a mistake and couldn't have been wrong by reinterpreting data that you once claimed to be proof of an imminent climate catastrophe.

    The climate predictions were wrong. Period. They were based on a computer model that had a 3% outcome probability. Now you're trying to say none of that ever happened.
    Thank you for ignoring my points. Once again.

    RCP8.5 is really in use since 2014 and most of the work done in impact assessment do not rely on this scenario.

    Actually the debate is quite interesting and indeed, there was a confusion around RCP8.5, interpreted wrongly as being a "business-as-usual" instead of a "worst-case" scenario.

    And this debate rises the interesting question: does a "business-as-usual" scenario really exists timelessly? The actual business-as-usual is including emission reduction projection from the recent climate policies worldwide. Business-as-usual from a decade or another are not the same. There is no way that the economy won't react a bit to the climate question by itself. This is why personally I am not thinking the worst-case scenarios can happen. Humanity can be st*pid but not that much st*pid.

    I think it is really important to assess the impacts of these worst-case scenarios to illustrate why climate change can be a threat, the only problem was to call them "business-as-usual".

    The only problem is with people reacting childishly and saying "global warming is wrong" because of this. I don't see how it would question the evidences or our understanding of the physics of the greenhouse effect.

    In the end, it illustrates the major uncertainty in climate models: human decision.

    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  14. #914
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Moreover something make me laugh about the fact deniers are constantly saying there is no consensus while they can bring up stuff like "2500 papers supporting man made global warming published in 5 years are calling the RCP8.5 as business-as-usual".

    Seriously, 2500 papers in 5 years and they are probably a smaller part of the whole, it doesn't ring a bell in your head?
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  15. #915
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The truth about Climate Gate in 20 minutes:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ

    Nothing coming from the IPCC can be trusted.

  16. #916
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    By the way, the Hockey Stick has been reproduced by other research groups with different data:

    Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
    https://www.nature.com/articles/4411032a

    Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...imate_evidence

    Temperature trends over the five past centuries reconstructed from borehole temperature
    https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter...ure'00.pdf

    Reconstructing hemispheric‐scale climates from multiple stalagmite records
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...agmite_records

    Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
    http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/frae...05_science.pdf

    A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_11300_Years

    Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change













    I foresee your emotional reaction by seeing your favorite faces on the thumbnails
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  17. #917
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post












    I foresee your emotional reaction by seeing your favorite faces on the thumbnails
    I saw most of those years ago. The universities and people involved in the cover up were out in full force to protect their monetary baby. It reminds me of the early 1990s when Egyptologists were outraged that a geologist would re-date the construction of the Sphinx. Everyone of them had their reputation and livelihood at stake.

    The fact remains that there is nothing fake or untrue in the video I posted.

  18. #918
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    I saw most of those years ago. The universities and people involved in the cover up were out in full force to protect their monetary baby. It reminds me of the early 1990s when Egyptologists were outraged that a geologist would re-date the construction of the Sphinx. Everyone of them had their reputation and livelihood at stake.
    You mean the dating of the Sphinx around 7000 BC?
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  19. #919
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,834

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    You mean the dating of the Sphinx around 7000 BC?
    At least that early, but probably much older. It is a good example of how dogma and a lot of money can control the narrative. The debate on the age of the Sphinx still rages, as does this thread, regardless of how much data manipulation has taken place to support the AGW theory.

  20. #920
    irontaino's Avatar Sad ora oras
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    3,874

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Back to "all data that contradicts my beliefs is manipulated" and random YouTube videos as sources now?
    Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
    Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •