Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 830544 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3290 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:05:25 AM »

http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422

This is if every Paris Accord target is met, which is VERY unlikely to happen of course.

Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases. Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053, and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #3291 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:07:08 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 17, 2020, 10:05:25 AM

http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422

This is if every Paris Accord target is met, which is VERY unlikely to happen of course.

Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases. Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053, and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal.

All of that looks like measurable impact to me.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3292 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:09:24 AM »

You are hopeless, it's entertaining.

You think a reduction in SAT of 0.1°C is measurable?

It isn't. At all. Period.

You should have taken a couple more science classes, maybe, back in the day. Maybe not.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3293 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:13:51 AM »

So, it's basically moot whether countries actually meet the woefully inadequate Paris targets of course, but it's interesting to see how few are on tract to do even that.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/few-countries-on-track-to-meet-paris-climate-goals/

Bill Hare of the research think tank Climate Analytics says most countries are not on track. Climate Analytics partners on a project called the Climate Action Tracker. It analyzes the impact of climate policies in 32 countries that produce about 80% of global emissions.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions/

MaximumSam · « **Reply #3294 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:14:05 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 17, 2020, 10:09:24 AM

You are hopeless, it's entertaining.

You think a reduction in SAT of 0.1°C is measurable?

It isn't. At all. Period.

You should have taken a couple more science classes, maybe, back in the day. Maybe not.

I took just enough to realize that measuring something means you end up with a measurable result.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #3295 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:19:32 AM »

Reposted:

Worldwide coal-power capacity grew by almost 35 gigawatts from 2018 through June 2019 as an increase in China’s fleet offset a decline of 8.1 gigawatts in other countries.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3296 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:23:41 AM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on August 17, 2020, 10:14:05 AM

I took just enough to realize that measuring something means you end up with a measurable result.

We cannot measure mean global temperature within plus or minus 0.1°C, ergo, that difference is not measurable. Maybe you did not know that.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3297 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:30:59 AM »

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/even-climate-progressive-nations-fall-far-short-of-paris-agreement-targets/

MADRID (SPAIN): Scientists at the World Meteorological Organisation warn that the world is no where near meeting the Paris Agreement target of keeping temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C. Instead the projections show that global temperatures are on track to increase by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius.

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/world-nowhere-near-meeting-paris-agreement-targets-experts/articleshow/72353492.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

The reason countries sign these agreements is that it avoids having to DO something in reality. They hope later it's someone else's problem. And the Paris targets are not sufficient of course.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224539-un-report-reveals-how-hard-it-will-be-to-meet-climate-change-targets/

UNEP says existing Paris pledges will see 3 to 3.2°C of warming, and the plans will have to be five times stronger to hit 1.5°C, and three times stronger for 2°C.

One bright spot is the decline of coal power, which is set for a 3 per cent fall in 2019 – the biggest drop on record – according to analysts CarbonBrief. UNEP cites protests by schoolchildren and the falling costs of green technologies as other reasons for hope, but concedes there is “no sign of greenhouse gas emissions peaking in the next few years”.

Each year of postponement leaves the world with an increasingly quixotic task. If emissions keep rising to 2025, Olhoff calculates we would then need annual emissions cuts of 15.7 per cent to meet 1.5°C. “By then it’s definitely too late,” she says.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224539-un-report-reveals-how-hard-it-will-be-to-meet-climate-change-targets/#ixzz6VO0FZRG5

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #3298 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:34:27 AM »

Quote from: CWSooner on August 16, 2020, 02:03:26 PM

I read that some on-line entity (Google? Facebook? Snapchat? IDK) was ready to recognize differentiated pronouns for 51 genders.
That would put your measly 3 dozen genders in the shade.

Wow, more than four dozen. Over half a hundo.

How much science exactly would a fella have to deny in order to reach such a conclusion?

MaximumSam · « **Reply #3299 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:38:52 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 17, 2020, 10:23:41 AM

We cannot measure mean global temperature within plus or minus 0.1°C, ergo, that difference is not measurable. Maybe you did not know that.

That's kind of conflating different concepts into a mishmash. It is true we wouldn't have confidence in small measurements of the atmosphere, because it's very difficult to measure. The authors of your citation are very clear that there won't be much change in the short term. But thankfully, (1) that doesn't mean they still can't measure it and (2) time hopefully doesn't stop in 2050. The longer you go the higher diversion in global temperatures and we do become more confident in the measurements and the difference between them.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3300 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:45:17 AM »

https://www.courthousenews.com/drastic-action-on-emissions-needed-to-meet-paris-climate-targets/

Using seven different computerized simulations, the researchers found around 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide will be in the atmosphere even if all the nations that signed the Paris accord met all their stated contributions.
“This seems to be a lower end of what can be achieved with even the most stringent climate policies, because much of the residual emissions are already locked into the system due to existing infrastructures and dependencies on fossil fuels,” said Luderer.
“To aim for the ambitious 1.5 degree Celsius target for end-of-century warming would mean that an incredibly huge amount of at least 600 gigatons of CO2 removal was required.”

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3301 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:46:56 AM »

What we will get is more meetings, more hand wringing, more apocalypse hollering, more spending, and very little meaningful action.

This is a political issue entirely now, not a technical one, as the technical issue is over. Done. Finis.

We're going to experience considerable warming IF the models are roughly correct. It's baked in, and not changing, except minimally at the margins.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3302 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:49:19 AM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on August 17, 2020, 11:34:27 AM

Wow, more than four dozen. Over half a hundo.

How much science exactly would a fella have to deny in order to reach such a conclusion?

I don't know why gender is such a fight for so many people.

I view someone's gender the same way I view someone's religion. I generally find it impolite to ask about it, but if offer the information, I accept their answer as their truth because it doesn't really affect me in any way.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:

Quote

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty ~~gods~~ genders, or ~~no god~~ only two genders. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #3303 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:51:57 AM »

The do nothing idea is an attractive position - it effectively takes the decision off the table, as the idea that "there's nothing to be done" shields us from criticism. What did you want us to do - there were no options.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment