[ralfy]

Related:

"Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/1 ... 29382.html

[Pants-of-dog]

So what is the range then? How inaccurate are you guys?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... s10-5.html

The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the TAR (Technical Summary, Section F.3; Cubasch et al., 2001) to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C. The range was the same as in an early report of the National Research Council (Charney, 1979), and the two previous IPCC assessment reports (Mitchell et al., 1990; Kattenberg et al., 1996). These estimates were expert assessments largely based on equilibrium climate sensitivities simulated by atmospheric GCMs coupled to non-dynamic slab oceans. The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models).

[Kman]

^Ok so only a 3 degree margin for error, quite the science you have going there!

[ThereBeDragons]

^Ok so only a 3 degree margin for error, quite the science you have going there!

Confidence intervals are a part of science. If you do not like them, perhaps you shouldn't view results from the field.

[Kman]

Confidence intervals are a part of science. If you do not like them, perhaps you shouldn't view results from the field.

Yeah I am aware of those but 3 degrees is fucking huge, it is like an engineer saying ''my cannon will shoot this ball anywhere from 1m out to 4000m out''.

I am also still waiting on the answer as to what effect a 50% reduction in Co2 would have on the degrees, Pants seemed unable to answer so maybe you can TBD? How much in effect would such a huge reduction have? I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would only have a tiny effect, much less of an effect than your 3 degree margin for error.

[ThereBeDragons]

Yeah I am aware of those but 3 degrees is fucking huge, it is like an engineer saying ''my cannon will shoot this ball anywhere from 1m out to 4000m out''.

It's more like he predicted that the ball would be shot anywhere from 150m to 450m out.

[ThereBeDragons]

I am also still waiting on the answer as to what effect a 50% reduction in Co2 would have on the degrees, Pants seemed unable to answer so maybe you can TBD? How much in effect would such a huge reduction have? I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would only have a tiny effect, much less of an effect than your 3 degree margin for error.

It depends on what you mean by a 50% reduction in CO2. An immediate reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 50%? A flat 50% reduction in the human contributions to said total CO2 concentration? A flat 50% reduction in all future emissions? With what projection of future emissions?

Based on a half-assed reading of IPCC AR4 Group III report Table SPM.5

The first, maybe... three degrees? Turning off industry forever wouldn't achieve this, only a divine power could.
The second, assuming an immediate cut and immediate stabilization of atmospheric levels... looks like a little over half a degree.
The third depends on your emissions projections.

Nevertheless, just because the projected change is smaller than the error bar doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. A political poll may estimate a candidate's support at 53% +/- 5%, but how much would that candidate pay for a guaranteed one percent swing in the polls? A shitload, I imagine.

[Kman]

It depends on what you mean by a 50% reduction in CO2. An immediate reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 50%? A flat 50% reduction in the human contributions to said total CO2 concentration? A flat 50% reduction in all future emissions? With what projection of future emissions?

For the sake of argument lets say starting from tomorrow and into eternity we have a 50% reduction in Co2 levels and it stays that way, how would that influence temperatures 10 years in the future? 20 years? 50 years?

The second, assuming an immediate cut and immediate stabilization of atmospheric levels... looks like a little over half a degree.

Yeah I was referring to the second one type of scenario and just like I suspected the margin for error is 6 times larger than the difference in temperature that an enormous 50% cut in Co2 emissions would make IE there would be a very large chance that doing this gigantic project would do exactly diddly squat. Even when I am being extremely generous and actually taking your models seriously this whole Co2 crusade still makes no sense.

And the politicians in my town have installed electric car stations Yeah that is gonna make a big difference, pissing in the wind.....

[ThereBeDragons]

For the sake of argument lets say starting from tomorrow and into eternity we have a 50% reduction in Co2 levels and it stays that way, how would that influence temperatures 10 years in the future? 20 years? 50 years?

Ten or twenty years? Not much. Fifty years, more. The IPCC seems to be focusing on equilibrium temperatures based on an equilibrium CO2 concentration. The difference between the two scenarios might be a quarter degree in fifty years. People aren't really talking about a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions and leaving them there, though. They're talking about differences in scenarios where

- CO2 emissions grow exponentially
- CO2 emissions stay constant / don't change much
- CO2 emissions drop off exponetially / to zero

The difference there won't be "50%," it'll be in factors of five and growing as time goes on.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this image as I just found it with a Google search, but it seems to be qualitatively right to me.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092019.htm

Yeah I was referring to the second one type of scenario and just like I suspected the margin for error is 6 times larger than the difference in temperature that an enormous 50% cut in Co2 emissions would make IE there would be a very large chance that doing this gigantic project would do exactly diddly squat. Even when I am being extremely generous and actually taking your models seriously this whole Co2 crusade still makes no sense.

Half a degree is half a degree. If 3 +/- 3 goes down by 1, you are left with 2 +/- 3. Again, suppose I have a bag of marbles with a hundred marbles in it, and I tell you that between 40 and 60 of them are white. At the end of the day, if you're getting paid an amount of money equal to the number of white marbles, you would pay me around five dollars to reach into the bag, pull out five black marbles and put in five white ones, despite the fact that the change in the number of white marbles is still much less than the margin of error involved.

[ralfy]

Yeah I am aware of those but 3 degrees is fucking huge, it is like an engineer saying ''my cannon will shoot this ball anywhere from 1m out to 4000m out''.

I am also still waiting on the answer as to what effect a 50% reduction in Co2 would have on the degrees, Pants seemed unable to answer so maybe you can TBD? How much in effect would such a huge reduction have? I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would only have a tiny effect, much less of an effect than your 3 degree margin for error.

You won't know what will happen, and by then it will be too late. In which case, it's logical to assume that it won't have "a tiny effect," especially given peak oil.

[Kman]

You won't know what will happen, and by then it will be too late. In which case, it's logical to assume that it won't have "a tiny effect," especially given peak oil.

Yeah that is really logical..... If you assrape logic in the ass with a broomstick.

[ralfy]

Yeah that is really logical..... If you assrape logic in the ass with a broomstick.

Not really, because deniers give the same argument, remember? The science is too "complex" which is why it's possible that CO2 will have only "a tiny effect." The problem is that the argument works both ways.

So much for ass-raping.