Akrasia wrote: » Even the lower percentile is still more than you're prepared to acknowledge, and even the lower percentile is still something we need to be very very concerned about.
Absolutely not, nowhere did i even suggest such a thing. What I said was that you ignore nonsense posted on the denier side, but respond to everything that suggests that global warming is a serious issue that we need to deal with. For example, Dense earlier on posted a big long rant claiming that NASA have shown wildfires are down globally and then used this as evidence that global warming doesn't cause additional wildfires, but from is own link the entire point of the study was that wildfires are reduced because of farming on the Savannah. That wildfires are down because the african people aren't starting as many fires as before because they're converting the savannah into farmland. It was blatantly obvious that Dense's source didn't support his argument but you didn't challenge it. if Dense was on the other 'side' and posted a link saying fires were more frequent and attributed it to global warming, but that link said the cause was humans starting more fires, you would have picked up on that straight away. BTW, this is denses' modus operandi. he either uses terrible sources from blogs like 'notrickszone' that have been shown to repeatedly distort the science up to and including doctoring graphs and faking data, or he posts links to reputable sources but takes the exact opposite conclusion from what the source actually says.
Akrasia wrote: » I don't have the full article, there is a good discussion about it on realclimate with some criticisms of the conclusions if you're interested.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-claim-of-reduced-uncertainty-for-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-is-premature/
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Em, no, I did acknowledge it. You've just quoted my acknowledgement... I'm not concerned at all. If observations were in the upper percentile then I'd be saying hmm, these models are underplaying the warming a bit and RCP 8.5 is more likely, but so far it's the opposite, and the horror scenarios look that little bit less likely. We still do need to get off fossil fuels, though, and use renewables. I don't agree with some of what dense posts, but do agree with a lot of it. You yourself are quick to post evidence of what you claim to be very concerning trends (e.g. on wildfires), but these too turn out to be more speculative rather than factual. You claim MT takes individual events as evidence for his opinion, yet you do the same yourself.
"Across the grasslands of Asia, the tropical forests of South America, and the savannas of Africa, shifting livelihoods are leading to a significant decline in burned area. Using NASA satellites to detect fires and burn scars from space, researchers have found that an ongoing transition from nomadic cultures to settled lifestyles and intensifying agriculture has led to a steep drop in the use of fire for land clearing and an overall drop in natural and human-caused fires worldwide.
The changes in savanna, grassland, and tropical forest fire patterns are so large that they have so far offset some of the increased risk of fire caused by global warming, said Doug Morton, a forest scientist at NASA Goddard and a co-author of the study. The impact of a warming and drying climate is more obvious at higher latitudes, where fire has increased in Canada and the American West. Regions of China, India, Brazil, and southern Africa also showed increases in burned area.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=90493
Akrasia wrote: » For example, Dense earlier on posted a big long rant claiming that NASA have shown wildfires are down globally and then used this as evidence that global warming doesn't cause additional wildfires, but from his own link the entire point of the study was that wildfires are reduced because of farming on the Savannah. That wildfires are down because the african people aren't starting as many fires as before because they're converting the savannah into farmland. It was blatantly obvious that Dense's source didn't support his argument but you didn't challenge it. if Dense was on the other 'side' and posted a link saying fires were more frequent and attributed it to global warming, but that link said the cause was humans starting more fires, you would have picked up on that straight away. BTW, this is denses' modus operandi. he either uses terrible sources from blogs like 'notrickszone' that have been shown to repeatedly distort the science up to and including doctoring graphs and faking data, or he posts links to reputable sources but takes the exact opposite conclusion from what the source actually says.
Humans have, and always have had, a major impact on wildfire activity, which is expected to increase in our warming world. Andela et al. use satellite data to show that, unexpectedly, global burned area declined by ∼25% over the past 18 years, despite the influence of climate. The decrease has been largest in savannas and grasslands because of agricultural expansion and intensification. The decline of burned area has consequences for predictions of future changes to the atmosphere, vegetation, and the terrestrial carbon sink.
Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Do you read dense? There is no statistic he won’t manipulate.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » That’s one poster in particular who thinks that AGW is a “religion”.
Religious leaders unite in support of climate action, special summit planned for Climate Week NYC
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Atomic clocks, religious climate conferences.. Jesus, what is the world coming to? For me the real worry is how stupid the human race has become spouting nonsense like that. That's the threat, not the 1-4 degrees.
gabeeg wrote: » I've enjoyed MT and his input here for almost a decade. He's not always right, but he's invariably a good read and a good insight. Funny too. I've hated seeing him use his vaunted position to express his own doubts. He's entitled to his opinion. In another context it could be a really illuminating input. But here, where he is a demigod, its just reckless.
One of the questions I struggle with on a daily basis as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC is this: how can we scale up and speed up the transformational change needed to tackle climate change? By “we” I mean all of us. And by “transformational” I mean radical. This is not hyperbole. The world’s top scientists tell us that we need to transform the way we use the planet’s natural resources – from forests to soil to oil – to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
Danno wrote: » Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks. Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The atomic clock is not terribly scientific but it’s probably true that we are closer to a nuclear war now than we have been for a while. And the world barely survived the Cold War. As for religious groupings protesting climate change, they are part of civic society. Why wouldn’t they? Protests in New York are worse than a 4 degree temperature rise. Really? Although you present yourself as rational on the issue, and say you believe in AGW, and believe we should decarbonise you tend to quote approvingly the posts of someone who thinks it all a giant anti capitalist conspiracy to defraud the west.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Which quotes are you talking about? I have no time for conspiracy theories, so if you can show me where I have stated otherwise, or quoted someone who does, then fair enough. Bringing the notion of nuclear war into a discussion on climate just shows that some people will grasp at anything to try to come up with evidence to back up their hyperbolic horrific end-of-the-world stories. Of course religious groups are free to protest at whatever they like, but I wonder if they were protesting the other way would they get the same column inches.
gabeeg wrote: » So can we try to nail down your position on climate change? You don't believe there is a conspiracy, as your chum Dense believes. Good. But you don't believe the science and the overwhelming majority of scientists who are warning of impending disaster. Why not? How do you find yourself in a position to second guess an enormous amount of highly intelligent people across an array of scientific fields?
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » I've stated my opinion over and over. I never said I don't "believe the science". I said I disagree with some of the numbers. That's a big difference. Nice attempt at trying to distort the facts
gabeeg wrote: » I'm not trying to distort anything. You've claimed you don't deny mmcc. But then you say it's overblown and full of hyperbole. And then you show sympathy with dense and his wacky position. So no, I don't know what your position is
Akrasia wrote: » The magic sauce is that the more expensive it is to heat your house using fossil fuels, the more attractive it is to spend money to put in more insulation, and/or change your heating system from coal, to a more efficient heating system.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking. I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I assume if they protest against abortion they will get the column inches. If you have been reading dense then you should know he believes this is all eco fascism or eco socialism, something something the UN, something something anti capitalism, a general worldwide conspiracy to distort facts led by the UN. This is all from the far right American playbook. There’s a disquieting number of people who still think you can dispute AGW, not just dispute the accuracy of the models. Not saying you are in that camp. The fact there is a cost to be borne now, like the guy with the more expensive coal, makes people act selfishly and support a status quo which could be disasterous going forward. I get why people interested in metrology don’t particularly like some of the lay discussion on climate change and weather, since there is definitely a tendency to blame all weather events on warming or climate change. However the planets definitely warming.
