Godstud wrote:1] What bullshit. Tipping points are just fear-mongering nonsense, and fabricated out of thin air. Every year there's a new prediction that turns out to be completely false.
2] What is the preferred CO2 level for the earth,
3] given that it used to be far higher than it is now, and for some reason the world didn't end?
4] The CO2 level predictions do not see the earth's temperatures rising 1.5 C in a year. That would require the earth's current CO2 levels to increase by 50% in a year. That's nonsense given that predictions are 20 PPM per year, which would set it at about 10 years to get there.
5] The tipping point crap is unscientific.
6] Note: At one time the earth's CO2 levels were over 10 times what they are now(about 4,000 ppm) and the earth was 20C hotter. The math does not add up when you consider this scientific fact.
I thought I did respond to most of your points. I'll try again.
1] I didn't make the tipping points threat up, the experts did. That tipping points are there is pretty clear. When they will be tipped is nowhere near as clear. OK, evert year several predictions are made, but almost all of them are not for next year, they are for years n the future. Studies have been done on really old CC predictions based on computer models and estimates of GHG concentrations in the air. The new studies use the actual data of the concentrations that are now available. The results are that the models do a good job of predicting the ave, temp now, that is within the error bars that were originally published. That is, when they were wrong it was because they got the estimate of GHGs wrong.
2] The preferred level of CO2 in the air and oceans is the one we had in 1900. This is because we build our infrastructure and breed our crops for that climate.
3] As I said above, there are 2 reasons that the world didn't end. a] Sometimes it did end, for example the End-Permian mass extinction. b] Other times there was no complicated life yet, or the changes happened so slow that organisms were mostly able to evolve fast enough to adapt to the changes. Now the rate of change is 10 to 100 times faster than organisms can evolve to adapt.
4] I'm not basing my predictions on near term temp increases on the CO2 levels. So, you are right that basing them on CO2 levels would be stupid.
. . . I'm basing them on the El Nino that I think you don't understand. During a La Nino the Pacific Ocean water is absorbing more heat and getting warmer. Then, during an El Nino the heat is released into the air, cooling the water and heating the air.
. . . I'm also basing my prediction on increases in the Methane level, and methane is 100 times worse than CO2 in the 1st year after it gets into the air.
5] Yes, when tipping points will be tipped is impossible to predict scientifically. This is because we have never seen them be tiped before. So, we have no data. I don't know the details about why experts think they exist aand neither do you. I assert that your ignorance about them makes your uninformed opinion pretty much worthless compared to the experts' opinions.
6] I did respond to this point in my 1st reply above. The specific time you are talking about matters. Was there any life at all then? Alos, the specific initial conditions of the life and geology and the rate of change of the CO2 levels and therefore temps matters. Without those I can't tell you why life went on sort of fine as you sort of claim.
- By wat0n
- By Tainari88
- By Skynet