[BigSteve]

This isn't to debate global warming; whether or not it's real or what can be done about it. It's just a simple question.

If we (the earth's population) were to take no action whatsoever to address global warming, and just continued on our merry way, how much higher would the earth's average temperature be 100 years from now?

[Sivad]

This isn't to debate global warming; whether or not it's real or what can be done about it. It's just a simple question.

It's not a simple question because climate sensitivity is central to the alarmist narrative. You question climate sensitivity and you're calling the whole thing into question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

The alarmists would have us believe that the climate system is extremely sensitive to increasing levels of a trace gas, that a doubling of co2 will create positive feedbacks like reduced albedo and more water vapor which will run out of control and doom us all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate ... _feedback#

But there are many good reasons for thinking that's all just alarmist hysteria and that we're probably not going to be roasted to death by a runaway greenhouse effect:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/ ... n-dioxide/

[BigSteve]

It's not a simple question because climate sensitivity is central to the alarmist narrative. You question climate sensitivity and you're calling the whole thing into question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

The alarmists would have us believe that the climate system is extremely sensitive to increasing levels of a trace gas, that a doubling of co2 will create positive feedbacks like reduced albedo and more water vapor which will run out of control and doom us all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate ... _feedback#

But there are many good reasons for thinking that's all just alarmist hysteria and that we're probably not going to be roasted to death by a runaway greenhouse effect:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/ ... n-dioxide/

Seriously, there's no reason to over-think this.

With all of the scientific research done, it would seem logical that the data might predict an approximate temperature rise.

One degree? Five?

I'm not interested in discussing the "how" or the "why". I'm interested in discussing the "how much".

[Sivad]

Seriously, there's no reason to over-think this.

With all of the scientific research done, it would seem logical that the data might predict an approximate temperature rise.

It's not that simple, the climate is a complex system with both positive and negative feedbacks. If you don't want to put any thought into it then just go believe whatever makes you happy but if you want to understand the issue then you're gonna have to do some thinking.

[Pants-of-dog]

About 3 degrees Celsius, according to models.

But @Sivad is correct that the reality is so complicated that this number should not be considered anywhere near certain.

[BigSteve]

It's not that simple, the climate is a complex system with both positive and negative feedbacks. If you don't want to put any thought into it then just go believe whatever makes you happy but if you want to understand the issue then you're gonna have to do some thinking.

No, I don't. I'm simply looking for a number. Clearly, you're not the guy to come to for answers.

It's okay to admit that you don't know...

[BigSteve]

About 3 degrees Celsius, according to models.

Thanks...

But @Sivad is correct that the reality is so complicated that this number should not be considered anywhere near certain.[/quote]

Well, predictions 100 years into the future are rarely certain...

[Sivad]

About 3 degrees Celsius, according to models.

That's the sensitivity estimate. The IPCC "business as usual" projection is north of 4c:

"The scenario with the most warming is the ‘business-as-usual’ RCP8.5, in which global mean temperature could be 4°C or more above pre-industrial times."



http://climatica.org.uk/ipcc-long-term- ... rojections

[Sivad]

No, I don't.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckking pofo.

[BigSteve]

The IPCC "business as usual" projection is north of 4c

You could've just said that, instead of marking yourself as someone who is worthy of being ignored...

[Sivad]

You could've just said that,

No I couldn't have just said that because that projection is bullshit. That's the mainstream babbitt projection and to understand why it's most likely wrong you have to know a few things about the science. There are other projections, some are more pessimistic than the IPPC and some are less, you have to take the time to understand the basics in order to assess them for yourself.

instead of marking yourself as someone who is worthy of being ignored...

Whatever, ignore away.

[BigSteve]

No I couldn't have just said that because that projection is bullshit. That's the mainstream babbitt projection and to understand why it's most likely wrong you have to know a few things about the science. There are other projections, some are more pessimistic than the IPPC and some are less, you have to take the time to understand the basics in order to assess them for yourself.

Well, seeing as I'm not a scientist studying global warming, I'm not looking to "assess" anything. I'm sure you're quite pleased with how you've presented your "scientific" answer, despite the fact that a scientific answer isn't really what I was looking for.

I even said I wasn't interested interested in the "how" or the "why". So, what do you do? You respond with the "how" and the "why", oblivious to the fact that neither answered the question.

How silly of you.

PoD gave the type of response which was (obviously) being sought...

[quetzalcoatl]

Seriously, there's no reason to over-think this.

With all of the scientific research done, it would seem logical that the data might predict an approximate temperature rise.

One degree? Five?

I'm not interested in discussing the "how" or the "why". I'm interested in discussing the "how much".

5 °F minimum, for sure. This is written in concrete, no matter what changes we make now. Depending on unpredictables, it could be more.

Note the above assumes there's a linear relation across the entire spectrum of CO2 concentration. If OTOH we are pushing the boundary limits of a homeostatic complex system, then all bets are off. There could be a rapid change to a new climate set-point at any time. Indeed, there's a lot of evidence of punctuated equilibria in the climate history data.

[BigSteve]

I found this, which I thouoght was interesting:

According to the most recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global temperatures will likely rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052 if warming continues at the current rate. Staying under that threshold was the optimistic goal set in the Paris climate agreement.

But even if carbon emissions were to drop to zero tomorrow, we'd still be watching human-driven climate change play out for centuries.

"There's no stopping global warming," Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist and the director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, previously told Business Insider. "Everything that's happened so far is baked into the system."

https://www.businessinsider.com/paris-climate-change-limits-100-years-2017-6

[Rancid]

I have to think about this some more, but there's something that feels flawed about "It's gonna happen anyway, so we shouldn't worry about CO2 output and pollution in general."

[BigSteve]

I have to think about this some more, but there's something that feels flawed about "It's gonna happen anyway, so we shouldn't worry about CO2 output and pollution in general."

I don't think anyone's said that...

[Rancid]

I don't think anyone's said that...

fair enough, but I have come across people outside of pofo that had that attitude.

[Sivad]

5 °F minimum, for sure. This is written in concrete

More like smeared on the concrete in bullshit.

[JohnRawls]

I have to think about this some more, but there's something that feels flawed about "It's gonna happen anyway, so we shouldn't worry about CO2 output and pollution in general."

It is not an invalid assumption actually. Earth has been hotter and colder in the past. The key question that we should be asking ourselves is IF the earth can self calibrate better than we throw things at her and are we doing irreperable damage or just changing things within the margins of earth coping with it if needed. Yes this can bring out a new normal but it doesn't mean that new normal will be worse compared to what we have now.

Humans have had an impact on the climate but the climate was devastated far worse in the past by massive volcano eruptions and large asteroids and it recovered.(More CO2 and other things)

I think we need far more research on the subject to understand it better. What we see as a bad thing can be actually channeled for good. Instead of concentrating on constantly maintaining the present or recent past(Pre-industrial era), we can try to figure out if we can change things for the better if we understand the mechanisms.

[Rancid]

It is not an invalid assumption actually. Earth has been hotter and colder in the past. The key question that we should be asking ourselves is IF the earth can self calibrate better than we throw things at her and are we doing irreperable damage or just changing things within the margins of earth coping with it if needed. Yes this can bring out a new normal but it doesn't mean that new normal will be worse compared to what we have now.

Humans have had an impact on the climate but the climate was devastated far worse in the past by massive volcano eruptions and large asteroids and it recovered.(More CO2 and other things)

I think we need far more research on the subject to understand it better. What we see as a bad thing can be actually channeled for good. Instead of concentrating on constantly maintaining the present or recent past(Pre-industrial era), we can try to figure out if we can change things for the better if we understand the mechanisms.

Fair enough, but better the devil you know, than the one you don't know. It's also not unreasonable to try and remove humanities impact on the natural progression on earth. Since we don't know where things are going, we're better off not accelerating it in any direction.