• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A New Explanation of Arctic Warming

Tim the plumber said:
So now go and read it and quote things from it that support your argument and see if there is any such thing as something close to science in there.
Click to expand...

No. I do not need to hold your hand. You can read it and tell me what you have a problem with
 
Tim the plumber said:
So now go and read it and quote things from it that support your argument and see if there is any such thing as something close to science in there.
Click to expand...

A bot will never read the spam they post.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So now go and read it and quote things from it that support your argument and see if there is any such thing as something close to science in there.
Click to expand...
I can quote the part in the opening statement, that does not support his argument!
Soil moisture (surface down to 30cm) from 1950 to 2095 based on a 10 year moving average of 17 CMIP5
models using a high future emissions scenario (RCP 8.5).
Click to expand...
All of the catastrophic predictions seem to trace back to RCP8.5, which appears to
be an upper limit place holder, and not a realistic scenario.
 
longview said:
I can quote the part in the opening statement, that does not support his argument!

All of the catastrophic predictions seem to trace back to RCP8.5, which appears to
be an upper limit place holder, and not a realistic scenario.
Click to expand...

The whole thing is simply projections of computer models that don't work 5 years into the future.
 
longview said:
I can quote the part in the opening statement, that does not support his argument!

All of the catastrophic predictions seem to trace back to RCP8.5, which appears to
be an upper limit place holder, and not a realistic scenario.
Click to expand...

If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent.*
 
Tim the plumber said:
The whole thing is simply projections of computer models that don't work 5 years into the future.
Click to expand...
Yes, to get to RCP8.5's 1370 ppm of CO2 by year 2100, would require 80 years
of emissions increasing by 12 ppm per year! The highest emission growth seen so far is about 3 ppm per year.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
and that trend is not really increasing.
2012 2.61
2013 2.01
2014 2.19
2015 2.99
2016 2.99
2017 1.89
2018 2.86
2019 2.46
We would have to be building refineries and mining coal at break neck speeds to even get up to emissions of 12 ppm per year.
 
longview said:
Yes, to get to RCP8.5's 1370 ppm of CO2 by year 2100, would require 80 years
of emissions increasing by 12 ppm per year! The highest emission growth seen so far is about 3 ppm per year.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
and that trend is not really increasing.
2012 2.61
2013 2.01
2014 2.19
2015 2.99
2016 2.99
2017 1.89
2018 2.86
2019 2.46
We would have to be building refineries and mining coal at break neck speeds to even get up to emissions of 12 ppm per year.
Click to expand...

Try RCP 4.5
 
longview said:
Yes, to get to RCP8.5's 1370 ppm of CO2 by year 2100, would require 80 years
of emissions increasing by 12 ppm per year! The highest emission growth seen so far is about 3 ppm per year.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
and that trend is not really increasing.
2012 2.61
2013 2.01
2014 2.19
2015 2.99
2016 2.99
2017 1.89
2018 2.86
2019 2.46
We would have to be building refineries and mining coal at break neck speeds to even get up to emissions of 12 ppm per year.
Click to expand...

Still would not get there as the rate of absorption would be vastly higher.
 
vegas giants said:
If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent.*
Click to expand...
So you can quote the section of that article that states that 60% number for RCP4.5?
 
longview said:
No it is not!
Click to expand...

Dude. Hete is the entire third paragraph

According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent. However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase along current trajectories throughout the 21st century, climate scenario RCP 8.5, there is an 80 percent likelihood of a decades-long megadrought in the Southwest and Central Plains between the years 2050 and 2099.
 
vegas giants said:
Dude. Hete is the entire third paragraph

According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent. However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase along current trajectories throughout the 21st century, climate scenario RCP 8.5, there is an 80 percent likelihood of a decades-long megadrought in the Southwest and Central Plains between the years 2050 and 2099.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what does it say?
According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent.
Click to expand...
Ambiguous at best! Is it 12%, or is it 60%, it cannot be both as the statement implies?
But let's see what else they say.
They imply that RCP4.5 will increase to 650 ppm by mid century and then level off to still be 650 ppm by 2100.
But how realistic is even RCP4.5, 650 ppm minus 410ppm equals 240 ppm by 2050, so 30 years.
240 ppm divided by 30 years is 8 ppm per year, nearly triple the highest rate we have seen.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
You also have to keep in mind that in the world of Benjamin I. Cook, he is likely expected to use
his Boss's CO2 sensitivity numbers. Gavin A. Schmidt is on record saying that 2XCO2 sensitivity,
is ~3°C, so any projections based on future CO2 level, likely have that sensitivity baked into it.
 
vegas giants said:
Dude. Hete is the entire third paragraph

According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent. However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase along current trajectories throughout the 21st century, climate scenario RCP 8.5, there is an 80 percent likelihood of a decades-long megadrought in the Southwest and Central Plains between the years 2050 and 2099.
Click to expand...
At least you have proven that you are not a bot, as a bot would not make a typing mistake!
" Hete is the entire third paragraph "
 
longview said:
At least you have proven that you are not a bot, as a bot would not make a typing mistake!
" Hete is the entire third paragraph "
Click to expand...

I am not sure you even read the reference if you missed the entire third paragraph
 
longview said:
Yes, and what does it say?

Ambiguous at best! Is it 12%, or is it 60%, it cannot be both as the statement implies?
But let's see what else they say.
They imply that RCP4.5 will increase to 650 ppm by mid century and then level off to still be 650 ppm by 2100.
But how realistic is even RCP4.5, 650 ppm minus 410ppm equals 240 ppm by 2050, so 30 years.
240 ppm divided by 30 years is 8 ppm per year, nearly triple the highest rate we have seen.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
You also have to keep in mind that in the world of Benjamin I. Cook, he is likely expected to use
his Boss's CO2 sensitivity numbers. Gavin A. Schmidt is on record saying that 2XCO2 sensitivity,
is ~3°C, so any projections based on future CO2 level, likely have that sensitivity baked into it.
Click to expand...

If greenhouse emissions stop it is 60%. There is virtually no chance of it stopping so it will be higher
 
vegas giants said:
I am not sure you even read the reference if you missed the entire third paragraph
Click to expand...
Here is the paragraph again, but actually read it.
"According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent."
So current emissions place the likelihood of a megedrought at 12%!

"If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, as in a climate scenario called RCP 4.5,
Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent."
This statement describes a scenario where the CO2 level reaches 650 ppm by 2050, or growth of 8 ppm per year.
So are they projecting based on current expectations, or on an unrealistic scenario?
The statement that the current likelihood of a megadrought is only 12%,
but RCP4.5 is 60%, implies that RCP4.5 is not lined up with current emissions!
 
vegas giants said:
If greenhouse emissions stop it is 60%. There is virtually no chance of it stopping so it will be higher
Click to expand...
Not at all, the article does not say that, it says if emissions stop increasing by mid century.
If greenhouse emissions stopped today, the CO2 level would be ~410 ppm, and no real concern.
A far greater threat of drought in the mid west, is our pumping down the aquifers, faster than they recharge!
 
longview said:
Not at all, the article does not say that, it says if emissions stop increasing by mid century.
If greenhouse emissions stopped today, the CO2 level would be ~410 ppm, and no real concern.
A far greater threat of drought in the mid west, is our pumping down the aquifers, faster than they recharge!
Click to expand...

There is almost no chance they will stop by mid century
 
vegas giants said:
There is almost no chance they will stop by mid century
Click to expand...
You are still not seeing all the assumptions in the projection.
They are assuming a CO2 climate sensitivity!
They are assuming a CO2 emission scenario, that their own statement says does not agree with the current emissions.
And lastly, you are assuming that we will not find a technical solution to our energy problem in the next 30 years!
 
longview said:
You are still not seeing all the assumptions in the projection.
They are assuming a CO2 climate sensitivity!
They are assuming a CO2 emission scenario, that their own statement says does not agree with the current emissions.
And lastly, you are assuming that we will not find a technical solution to our energy problem in the next 30 years!
Click to expand...

Yes. All valid assumptions
 
vegas giants said:
Yes. All valid assumptions
Click to expand...
But are they?
There is no empirical evidence to support a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C.
(There is evidence to support that feedbacks to CO2 warming are minimal.)
There is no evidence that future CO2 emissions will jump to the 8 ppm per year require under RCP4.5!
And lastly there is no evidence that one of the many energy solution projects currently in research, will not bear fruit!
Describe, why you think, the assumptions used are valid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom