Rush vs...uh, Stephen Hawking?

calamity · Jul 8, 2017

Limbaugh said, "Stephen Hawking blasted Trump's recent decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement in a new interview, saying it could push Earth over the brink. Hawking told the BBC that Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris agreement would lead -- not could -- would lead to disastrous consequences worldwide. He said, “We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”

"Folks, that is meteorological porn. We're on the way to 250 degrees and sulfuric acid for rain because of Donald Trump?" Rush said.

And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.

He continued, "We're living in dangerous times. The left has so succeeded in dumbing down people that they've even dumbed down themselves. They've dumbed down their professoriat, they've dumbed down their commentariat, they have dumbed down practically everybody in their ranks. They have filled them with paranoia and fear."

Limbaugh Attacks Stephen Hawking: Climate Change Is 'Meteorological Porn' | Crooks and Liars

I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.

Captain Adverse · Jul 8, 2017

calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.

I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.

Point of Information.

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. A brilliant man in his field of expertise. He is well-respected for both his intelligence, and strength of character in the face of terrible adversity.

Yet he has no special knowledge of climatology and has not published any research papers on the subject. In short, he is offering his personal opinion as any individual is entitled to.

Response to OP:

Now I also personally believe that over-population of Earth by the human species is having a negative effect not only on climate, but also all sorts of other aspects of the environment.

Still, citing Mr. Hawking reflects the fallacy of appeal to authority...and it is a false authority since my Hawking's opinion is based on research other than his own. Meaning it has no more validity to this argument than yours, mine, or Mr. Limbaugh's.

People in disagreement have not "lost their minds," they simply choose not to accept his word as fiat.

Jack Hays · Jul 8, 2017

calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.

I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.

Bjorn Lomborg has conclusively shown the Paris Accord is inconsequential.

Tim the plumber · Jul 9, 2017

There seems to be a very strong need for us humans to have some sort of doom scenario happening. Perhaps being in the condition the Stephen Hawkins is in makes this thing to worry about something other than his personal situation more important than ever.

Given the lack of any case for action being able to be made against CO2 why is there any sort of need for this other than human oddness?

ModerateRN · Jul 9, 2017

The problem with Hawkings definitive *would* is just because the US backed out of the Paris Accord; doesn't mean We are going full throttle backwards. Coal is still a dying energy source; renewable energy is still moving forward. Solar panels are cheaper than ever and making their way to cost effectiveness of the average American. We are still moving forward, just not as fast as the Paris Accord would like.

longview · Jul 9, 2017

ModerateRN said:
The problem with Hawkings definitive *would* is just because the US backed out of the Paris Accord; doesn't mean We are going full throttle backwards. Coal is still a dying energy source; renewable energy is still moving forward. Solar panels are cheaper than ever and making their way to cost effectiveness of the average American. We are still moving forward, just not as fast as the Paris Accord would like.

I am not sure one could safely say the rate of the US moving forward would be faster or slower than with the Paris Accord.
US CO2 emissions are down below the 1995 level, and falling.

Jack Hays · Jul 9, 2017

ModerateRN said:
The problem with Hawkings definitive *would* is just because the US backed out of the Paris Accord; doesn't mean We are going full throttle backwards. Coal is still a dying energy source; renewable energy is still moving forward. Solar panels are cheaper than ever and making their way to cost effectiveness of the average American. We are still moving forward, just not as fast as the Paris Accord would like.

As Bjorn Lomborg demonstrated a couple of years ago, the effect of the Paris Accord, even if fully implemented by all parties, will be negligible. It just doesn't matter.

Lord of Planar · Jul 9, 2017

calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.

I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.

I think instead of pulling out of it, president Trump should have sent level headed scientists who wanted to find the truth. Challenge the opinion of the indoctrinated politicians at the summit.

Mithrae · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.

I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.

Hawkings' claim was false, incredibly exaggerated alarmism, plain and simple. The absolute upper limit of even remotely plausible scientific projections - 8.5W/m^2 of added forcing, more than quadrupling the preindustrial CO2 concentrations - still fall well below 20 degrees Celsius of temperature increase (IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 12.5, below).

Even with the generous assumption that Hawking was thinking in Fahrenheit, his "250 degrees" is 121 Celsius. It was an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible claim, and he doesn't need to be a climate scientist to know that. At best, one might guess that he was hoping to "provoke discussion" and hadn't thought very carefully about his hyperbole, but given Hawkings' recent habit of promoting doomsday scenarios of all kinds, it looks more like a dishonest publicity stunt whose only real-world effect is besmirching the integrity of climate science. What else could you call it when Rush Limbaugh is the more reasonable of the two?

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

Mithrae said:
Hawkings' claim was false, incredibly exaggerated alarmism, plain and simple. The absolute upper limit of even remotely plausible scientific projections - 8.5W/m^2 of added forcing, more than quadrupling the preindustrial CO2 concentrations - still fall well below 20 degrees Celsius of temperature increase (IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 12.5, below).

Even with the generous assumption that Hawking was thinking in Fahrenheit, his "250 degrees" is 121 Celsius. It was an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible claim, and he doesn't need to be a climate scientist to know that. At best, one might guess that he was hoping to "provoke discussion" and hadn't thought very carefully about his hyperbole, but given Hawkings' recent habit of promoting doomsday scenarios of all kinds, it looks more like a dishonest publicity stunt whose only real-world effect is besmirching the integrity of climate science. What else could you call it when Rush Limbaugh is the more reasonable of the two?

He was referring to runaway global warming, which obviously both you and Rush let go whoosh over your heads.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
I think instead of pulling out of it, president Trump should have sent level headed scientists who wanted to find the truth. Challenge the opinion of the indoctrinated politicians at the summit.

Maybe he knew he wouldn't find any. After all, all of those PHD guys are brainwashed. Only the Highschool dropouts know the TRUTH!

ModerateRN · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
He was referring to runaway global warming, which obviously both you and Rush let go whoosh over your heads.

The problem with the runaway global warming is there have been periods in our plants past were the Earth was 15-20 degrees warmer than it is right now, and had far greater CO2 levels in atmosphere. The Venus analogy was poor; Venus having an atmosphere comprised of 90% CO2 and being far closer to the sun as opposed to our Nitrogen and oxygen based atmosphere.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

ModerateRN said:
The problem with the runaway global warming is there have been periods in our plants past were the Earth was 15-20 degrees warmer than it is right now, and had far greater CO2 levels in atmosphere. The Venus analogy was poor; Venus having an atmosphere comprised of 90% CO2 and being far closer to the sun as opposed to our Nitrogen and oxygen based atmosphere.

Who knows? I certainly don't. But, I do know the earth never had anyone intentionally burn all the sequestered carbon before. At the very least, we are eating up the wiggle-room.

There was a time when the earth had no ice. But, we didn't have an ice free planet and fossil fuel burning at the same time. Same applies to when the earth burped. I think Hawking was pointing to worst-case scenarios. Obviously.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

Here's a good article on this subject, call it the Hawking versus Rush doomsday debate.

When Will Climate Change Make the Earth Too Hot For Humans?

IMO, the people in the know, those of us with college degrees and beyond, will buy most of this. The high school grads and GED folks, not so much.

Mithrae · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
Who knows? I certainly don't. But, I do know the earth never had anyone intentionally burn all the sequestered carbon before. At the very least, we are eating up the wiggle-room.

There was a time when the earth had no ice. But, we didn't have an ice free planet and fossil fuel burning at the same time. Same applies to when the earth burped. I think Hawking was pointing to worst-case scenarios. Obviously.

There is quite literally no possible scenario in which Earth is "like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees." That kind of comment would be below expectations for a high school student, let alone a scientist of Hawking's stature. But as I said, given his recent habit of doomsday predictions it seems possible that his stature is the problem here: He's decided he enjoys the limelight and is doing whatever it takes to get some more publicity.

longview · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
Here's a good article on this subject, call it the Hawking versus Rush doomsday debate.

When Will Climate Change Make the Earth Too Hot For Humans?

IMO, the people in the know, those of us with college degrees and beyond, will buy most of this. The high school grads and GED folks, not so much.

The problem with the article, is they start throwing out numbers like 7 C or 11 to 12 degrees warmer.

At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat.

This century, and especially in the tropics, the pain points will pinch much more quickly even than an increase of seven degrees.

The ECS from doubling the CO2 level varies in the scientific papers between .8 C (Lindzen) and 4.5 C (the high end of the IPCC).
It may be possible that Humans can achieve the first doubling of CO2, the move from 280 ppm to 560 ppm,
but the second doubling is extremely unlikely.
It has taken an extraordinary effort by Humans extracting every form of hydrocarbon fuels available,
for 150 years to increase the CO2 level 46% of the first doubling.
The idea of temperatures mentioned in the article 7 C to 12 C (roughly 2 to 4 doublings of CO2),
not only is not likely, but may not be possible.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

longview said:
The problem with the article, is they start throwing out numbers like 7 C or 11 to 12 degrees warmer.

That is not the problem with the article. That is a problem.

The ECS from doubling the CO2 level varies in the scientific papers between .8 C (Lindzen) and 4.5 C (the high end of the IPCC).
It may be possible that Humans can achieve the first doubling of CO2, the move from 280 ppm to 560 ppm,
but the second doubling is extremely unlikely.
It has taken an extraordinary effort by Humans extracting every form of hydrocarbon fuels available,
for 150 years to increase the CO2 level 46% of the first doubling.
The idea of temperatures mentioned in the article 7 C to 12 C (roughly 2 to 4 doublings of CO2),
not only is not likely, but may not be possible.

You don't know that. You're just wishfully thinking.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

Mithrae said:
There is quite literally no possible scenario in which Earth is "like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees." That kind of comment would be below expectations for a high school student, let alone a scientist of Hawking's stature. But as I said, given his recent habit of doomsday predictions it seems possible that his stature is the problem here: He's decided he enjoys the limelight and is doing whatever it takes to get some more publicity.

Was it hyperbole? Probably. Was he coming closer to the truth than what is being pushed by Rush and the oil industries' many minions? Yes.

Mithrae · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
Was it hyperbole? Probably. Was he coming closer to the truth than what is being pushed by Rush and the oil industries' many minions? Yes.

Saying that there'll be zero degrees warming is "closer to the truth" than saying that there'll be over 200 degrees. Hell, saying that there'll be twenty degrees cooling is still closer to the truth, for crying out loud! Hawking's claim makes oil industry propaganda look reasonable by comparison - that's how irresponsible it was.

I suppose there's a third possible explanation we could add; maybe Hawking wanted to promote an image of ridiculous alarmism and wanted to discredit climate science. But I'd guess it's more likely that he was simply attention whoring, keen for headlines he knew his absurdity would generate.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

Mithrae said:
Saying that there'll be zero degrees warming is "closer to the truth" than saying that there'll be over 100 degrees. Hell, saying that there'll be twenty degrees cooling is still closer to the truth, for crying out loud! Hawking's claim makes oil industry propaganda look reasonable by comparison - that's how irresponsible it was.

I suppose there's a third possible explanation we could add; maybe Hawking wanted to promote an image of ridiculous alarmism and wanted to discredit climate science. But I'd guess it's more likely that he was simply attention whoring, keen for headlines he knew his absurdity would generate.

lol...we are already seeing a series of ill-effects from global warming. Countless things, actually.

From the NY Mag article above:

Malaria, for instance, thrives in hotter regions not just because the mosquitoes that carry it do, too, but because for every degree increase in temperature, the parasite reproduces ten times faster. Which is one reason that the World Bank estimates that by 2050, 5.2 billion people will be reckoning with it.

And, no. Saying 0-degrees is absurd.

longview · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
That is not the problem with the article. That is a problem.

You don't know that. You're just wishfully thinking.

Posting unrealistic scenarios is not science but alarm ism.
To say that in the next 83 years, Humans can find, extract, and burn four times as much
hydrocarbons as we have in the last 150 years is unrealistic, and may not be possible.
RCP 8.5 makes several assumptions that are not only unlikely, but may well have already been eliminated.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y

The RCP8.5 combines assumptions about high population and relatively slow income growth with modest rates of technological change and energy intensity improvements, leading in the long term to high energy demand and GHG emissions in absence of climate change policies.

Even without much regulation, US emissions are down below 1995 levels, and falling,
and the rate of technology change is accelerating.
We already have a viable carbon neutral replacement, waiting for oil prices to make it economically viable.

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

longview said:
Posting unrealistic scenarios is not science but alarm ism.
To say that in the next 83 years, Humans can find, extract, and burn four times as much
hydrocarbons as we have in the last 150 years is unrealistic, and may not be possible.
RCP 8.5 makes several assumptions that are not only unlikely, but may well have already been eliminated.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y

Even without much regulation, US emissions are down below 1995 levels, and falling,
and the rate of technology change is accelerating.
We already have a viable carbon neutral replacement, waiting for oil prices to make it economically viable.

Global emissions have more than tripled in the past 50 years. What makes you think they will not continue to do so?

Sure doesn't look to be slowing down. Now, does it?

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

As for runaway AGW, not even factoring in the methane issue with a thawing permafrost, we have this.

climate change has extended forest-fire season (in the U.S., it’s increased by 78 days since 1970). By 2050, according to the U.S. Forest Service, wildfires will be twice as destructive as they are today; in some places, the area burned could grow fivefold. What worries people even more is the effect that would have on emissions, especially when the fires ravage forests arising out of peat. Peatland fires in Indonesia in 1997, for instance, added to the global CO2 release by up to 40 percent, and more burning only means more warming only means more burning. There is also the terrifying possibility that rain forests like the Amazon, which in 2010 suffered its second “hundred-year drought” in the space of five years, could dry out enough to become vulnerable to these kinds of devastating, rolling forest fires — which would not only expel enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere but also shrink the size of the forest. That is especially bad because the Amazon alone provides 20 percent of our oxygen.

That's probably why the graph above is showing such a spike in carbon emissions from solids since 2000. Our forests are burning at an unprecedented rate. And, the fire are just getting started.

longview · Jul 10, 2017

calamity said:
Global emissions have more than tripled in the past 50 years. What makes you think they will not continue to do so?

Sure doesn't look to be slowing down. Now, does it?

What make me think emissions will not continue to increase?

Do you understand that fracking is used because they want to speed up well recovery, at the expense of reservoir life?
The faster they can extract the oil, the quicker the well runs dry.
The last 50 years have seen amazing technological advances in oil exploration and extraction,
but the easy oil has been found, as well as the difficult to impossible oil.
The easy has already been exploited, the difficult has been attempted, but has caused issues. (deepwater horizon)
Notice the red line on your chart appears to be a bit asymptotic.
That is because the supply of oil is leveling out, just as I said!

calamity · Jul 10, 2017

longview said:
What make me think emissions will not continue to increase?

Do you understand that fracking is used because they want to speed up well recovery, at the expense of reservoir life?
The faster they can extract the oil, the quicker the well runs dry.
The last 50 years have seen amazing technological advances in oil exploration and extraction,
but the easy oil has been found, as well as the difficult to impossible oil.
The easy has already been exploited, the difficult has been attempted, but has caused issues. (deepwater horizon)
Notice the red line on your chart appears to be a bit asymptotic.
That is because the supply of oil is leveling out, just as I said!

You're missing the long-view, Longview.

Everyone on earth, and I mean everyone, is striving for things which burn carbon. And, now, several billion more people actually have a shot at owning things like cars, refrigerators, washing machines and dryers, heating systems, air conditioners, stoves, televisions, computers, modern clothes, etc, etc and ****ing etc. Carbon emissions are only going to go up...at least until it all crashes and we have no choice but suffer as we watch it fall.

Rush vs...uh, Stephen Hawking?

calamity

Privileged

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Jack Hays

Traveler

Tim the plumber

ModerateRN

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

Lord of Planar

Mithrae

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

ModerateRN

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Mithrae

longview

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Mithrae

calamity

Privileged

longview

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

longview

calamity

Privileged