Environment & Energy

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)

48. Not quite 100% probability.

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:16 AM

Nov 2012

I'm not much of a betting man, GG, but, realistically, I'd say there's about a 25-30% chance of nothing getting done by 2050, and about 15% by 2100. Those aren't really good odds at all, IMO, but it's still not inevitable by any means. Though I can say this about Jim from RealClimate's last statement:

In other words, seven years of inaction, even if we immediately begin implementing the strategy now and fully carry it out over the next century, have larger climatic consequences over the next century than one might expect.

This may very well be true........

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"It's worse than we thought." Sound familiar? [View all] wtmusic Nov 2012 OP

Kinda. However, the main problem seems to have been..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #1

carbon sequestration from you again? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #2

The main problem seems to have been GliderGuider Nov 2012 #3

I think you nailed it cprise Nov 2012 #9

Dayum. joshcryer Nov 2012 #11

What negative feedbacks, exactly? NickB79 Nov 2012 #4

I'm no scientist, but they are out there. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #5

So you personally don't know of a single specific negative feedback mechanism? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #6

Yeah, sure, uh-huh. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #7

I'm much less skeptical than he, and I know of several... cprise Nov 2012 #8

I can agree that negative feedbacks are probably still somewhat poorly understood, but..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #10

Then why are positive feedbacks so much better known? nt cprise Nov 2012 #12

Because there's been a lot more research done on them, that's why. n/t AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #13

If you think scientists are biased, just say so. cprise Nov 2012 #14

Frankly, I don't believe there is bias involved. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #15

So its just bad luck that a whole scientific field for several decades at least cprise Nov 2012 #16

Well..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #17

You've never seen any proof that they've been doing research into negative feedbacks? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #18

No, I didn't say that research hadn't been done(duh!). I did say NOT ENOUGH research. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #19

So we're back to this old schtick-- cprise Nov 2012 #20

At least I'll admit when I was wrong. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #27

Yeah, and the fucking models "need more data." joshcryer Nov 2012 #21

Well, as I said I could be wrong. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #23

Not "could be." "Are." You are 100% wrong. joshcryer Nov 2012 #25

I never said that the science "wasn't good", as you claim. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #26

The trend is scientific reticence. They're downplaying the effects. joshcryer Nov 2012 #29

They did downplay it a while back, but not nearly so much anymore. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #32

"Awhile back?" The fucking NSIDC head said that sea ice won't melt until the 2030s! joshcryer Nov 2012 #33

*Sigh*. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #36

If I drop a weight, it will fall to the ground. joshcryer Nov 2012 #41

Well, but the problem is, AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author XemaSab Nov 2012 #47

So, would you like us to lie about what's going on? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #46

If you'd looked at the research, you'd see that plenty has been done. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #22

"You are casting uncertainty and doubt on the whole AGW awareness effort through your presence here" AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #24

Redirection of the criticism is a time-honoured technique. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #28

I certainly am. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #30

OK, Mr. Average GliderGuider Nov 2012 #31

I got answers for that. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #34

So your solution is to keep diddling because you don't fucking know. joshcryer Nov 2012 #38

No, I'm actually for action whenever possible. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #44

The Cold War is a lousy comparison GliderGuider Nov 2012 #40

I'm not a doomer either. I'm a goddamn alarmist. joshcryer Nov 2012 #35

Again, Josh, the worst case may happen. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #37

The time frame is short, Joe. joshcryer Nov 2012 #39

Yeah, as if the US is going to leave its shale oil in the ground. joshcryer Nov 2012 #87

If enough people stand up, there is hope for change. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #88

Wildly optimistic. Most people don't want to pay higher energy prices. joshcryer Nov 2012 #91

Well..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #93

Depends where you're asking. joshcryer Nov 2012 #98

You think I don't get it. You THINK. But I do. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #103

I'm not saying things can't change, I am saying they are unlikely to change. joshcryer Nov 2012 #112

Hey Joshcryer, As a technologist, ... CRH Nov 2012 #55

As far as my prediction, it's going to be geoengineering. joshcryer Nov 2012 #90

Thank you joshcryer for your post, ... CRH Nov 2012 #122

You want us to worry more about someone exploring positive feedbacks to their logical conclusion cprise Nov 2012 #42

RealClimate has some interesting articles (radical understatement) GliderGuider Nov 2012 #45

Not quite 100% probability. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #48

Check my edit above about Martin Hoffert's paper. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #49

TBH, having read the paper, 25 does seem to be a tad on the high side........ AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #54

By what analysis do you arrive at those 15% and 25% to 30% figures? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #50

True to a point, but so does your assertion of near 100% probability as well. n/t AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #51

Sure, but at least mine has historical precedent to back it up. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #52

Not quite. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #53

Was the Clean Air Act like telling an entire nation they will have to be 10% poorer? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #56

No, and look at what happened when CFC production stopped in the mid-'90s. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #57

Then its incomparable NoOneMan Nov 2012 #59

It's not just that. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #61

This is false, as observed in objective reality NoOneMan Nov 2012 #62

There's just one problem with your argument: Alternative fuels have been barely implemented at all. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #63

Its pretty clear with some logic NoOneMan Nov 2012 #65

Economic rules aren't the only factor, though. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #72

"And we can keep building & developing. We just need to do it in a smarter way," NoOneMan Nov 2012 #74

You don't have to chop down every forest to grow hemp...... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #75

I guess we can leave a forest or two to stroke our greenie-ego. NoOneMan Nov 2012 #76

Hemp can be grown on most farmland, btw. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #77

You mean the places we use for food now? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #78

BTW, philosophically speaking, what is so good about the growth you think we need? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #80

I can see the argument with population growth....... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #82

Again, what's so "good" about this growth we must continue? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #84

Well, it IS true that curbing population growth wouldn't solve this problem alone........ AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #106

So this infinite "growth" is good because of what again? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #108

Well, if you want my honest opinion, it isn't so much "good"..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #109

Im glad we agree that growth isn't good NoOneMan Nov 2012 #111

Regarding finite carrying capacity: NoOneMan Nov 2012 #89

Why do you believe that I think it SHOULD support "infinite" growth? AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #97

No, hydrocarbons are from solar energy NoOneMan Nov 2012 #100

"Ah, you are only thinking in terms of human life and locally." Not really. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #104

A good question NoOneMan Nov 2012 #107

Well, again, that's why I advocate for smarter growth. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #110

The funny thing about all this is... NoOneMan Nov 2012 #117

Yes they do exist, and I acknowledge that. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #119

What room do we have for reforestation? Where are we going to plant the hemp? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #120

Re: "I really wonder if you have taken time to step back and look at the entire system..." AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #121

Regarding carbon intensity, that graph painted an incorrectly rosy picture GliderGuider Nov 2012 #67

Okay. But is failure really inevitable? AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #86

There are a number of fundamental problems with your argument. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #58

Well..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #60

I am one of those who think that the worst-case scenarios are the dominant probability. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #64

Okay, here's one scenario. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #73

Replacing the world's oil supply with hemp oil at 1.75 bbl/acre/year GliderGuider Nov 2012 #79

*Some* of this may be true, but hemp can be grown with food crops, and in fact, is a food crop...... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #81

Can hemp be grown in the Canadian Tundra? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #85

Not in the Tundra itself, but definitely to some extent in the SubArctic north, right around........ AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #92

So 40%-50% of Sweden's GDP comes from exporting to countries who also cut their emissions? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #95

And? Your point is? AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #101

The point is that your example does not illustrate energy reduction resulted in a GDP increase NoOneMan Nov 2012 #102

Trade in hemp won't make the global situation better GliderGuider Nov 2012 #96

There's a big problem with powering down, though: It's still a "silver bullet" type situation. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #105

So we keep growing, we just nibble at the edges a bit? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #114

Let's hope this report sticks with the science as the others have done..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #115

Of course it will stick with the science. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #116

I would certainly hope so. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #118

Many feedbacks are those we can't predict AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #71

This is why we NEED nuclear energy XemaSab Nov 2012 #66

Shit-disturber... GliderGuider Nov 2012 #68

You ever notice that the rabid antinukes XemaSab Nov 2012 #69

Yes, but being Canadian I'm too polite to mention it... nt GliderGuider Nov 2012 #70

The irony, of course, being that coal is more radioactive. joshcryer Nov 2012 #83

While we're pointing fingers cprise Nov 2012 #94

I call 'em diminishers. joshcryer Nov 2012 #99

The biggest pro-nuke figures were also the biggest coal figures? wtmusic Nov 2012 #113