Few Remaining Paths Lead to a Tolerable Amount of Climate Change

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Few Remaining Paths Lead to a Tolerable Amount of Climate Change

Few Remaining Paths Lead to a Tolerable Amount of Climate Change13-03-2019 01:44
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/03/11/a-tolerable-climate-for-future-generations-requires-immediate-action/#.XIhEKoUpB-k
13-03-2019 02:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	Climate change is riddled with questions that have uncertain answers. Do you think maybe they should taking the science route instead of the religion route? One of the major problems when estimating global climate change over the course of centuries, is that the future is unknown, says Jonathan Lamontagne, a systems analyst at Tufts University in Massachusetts, who led the new research Is the problem of the future being unknown unique to Climate Change? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-03-2019 17:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3322)	Climate change is riddled with questions that have uncertain answers. My question is "Can you define 'climate change' in a non-circular manner? How fast will Earth's population grow? Who knows for sure... One of the major problems when estimating global climate change over the course of centuries, is that the future is unknown, says Jonathan Lamontagne, a systems analyst at Tufts University in Massachusetts, who led the new research. And this is unique only to climate change?? confused Plus, climate change isn't defined in a quantifiable and non-circular way... there is no way to accurately measure global temperature... These twits deny statistical mathematics. The team modeled more than 5 million possible futures that take into account two dozen uncertainties about the climate and human activity. The model uses a strategy that can handle these uncertainties to reach a target future by 2100 where warming is limited to just 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farhenheit) above preindustrial levels, and costs less than 3 percent of gross world product (GWP) and keeps climate change-induced damages below 2 percent GWP. Science is not models, nor is it gambling... If our climate turns out to be highly insensitive, meaning it's resilient to rising CO2 levels, then there's a 50-50 chance we have until mid-century to achieve a tolerable future, the researchers found. And if the climate's sensitivity is mild, then we've got about the next decade or so — by 2030 — to change course and have a 50-50 chance of success. But if the climate ends up being any more sensitive than that, then we've already closed the window to achieving a tolerable future with a 50-50 chance of success. Science is not guesswork. Science is not religion. Science is not random numbers. Simple Solution Since we can't control how sensitive the climate is to emissions, the only strategy left is to reduce emissions "as much as possible as soon as possible," Montagne said. "It's the only lever we have." Surprise, surprise!! But if we continue on our current trajectory, a tolerable future is out of the question. Still, Lamontagne takes an optimistic outlook. "Even if achieving 2 degrees C by the year 2100 is impossible, the world would be better off for having tried," he added. "2.5 degrees C (4.5 degrees F) of warming is surely going to be better than 4 degrees C (7.2F) or 5 degrees C (12.96F) or 6 degrees C (10.8F)." More random meaningless numbers from them (also, a 5deg C increase would be a 9deg F increase, NOT a 12.96deg F increase). There is no way to accurately measure global temperature as of right now. We don't have NEAR enough thermometers... Edited on 13-03-2019 17:06
13-03-2019 20:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	[quote]gfm7175 wrote: Science is not models, nor is it gambling... [quote] I would disagree with you regarding models The body of science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature (i.e. given a cause predict the effect). I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-03-2019 22:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]gfm7175 wrote: Science is not models, nor is it gambling... [quote] I would disagree with you regarding models The body of science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature (i.e. given a cause predict the effect). More of a collection of falsifiable theories. Models are simply part of a theory, if they are used at all. Theories explain, they don't predict. Neither does any model. To gain the power of prediction, science must turn to a closed system like mathematics. Only an equation based on a theory (or model a theory uses) has the power of prediction. As far as 'nature', just what IS nature? Is there something that is 'supernatural' or outside of 'nature'? Isn't something that is 'supernatural' only some part of 'nature' we can't explain yet? How can one describe 'nature' if one does not know all of it? Let's take a simple one: If we drop a hammer, will it fall? We see it fall, but that is an observation, not a prediction. We can develop a theory of hammers (and other things falling), and such a theory explains what we observe, but it does not predict it. We can formalize the theory into mathematical form and develop an equation. Using this equation, it can predict that the hammer will fall and exactly how fast. It can do that for other objects too. Without that math formula, there is no prediction possible...just a theory that explains the reason a hammer falls. A theory that states it has something to do with masses and their distance from each other, and that this is true even in a vacuum. Only with the equation itself do we get a predictable version of Newton's theory of gravitation. Does this theory have a model? No. It is just the equation itself and the theory behind it that explains falling hammers and predicts how fast they will fall. When Karl Popper was developing his philosophies to define science, he worked with theories, not models, for this reason. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-03-2019 22:22

Join the debate Few Remaining Paths Lead to a Tolerable Amount of Climate Change:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	442	15-07-2024 19:11
Send Me Any Amount Of Donation So I Can Try Lottery Luck Method On My Own	0	15-07-2023 19:07
The Rebirth Of Soviet Union Under A Better Version Brand Will Lead To World Peace	5	24-01-2022 04:11
The New Special Happiness Money Will Lead The Life Evolution On Earth	3	19-09-2021 05:44
Climate Change Will Lead To A Super Volcano Will Erupt Very Soon	9	19-01-2020 21:25