I don't believe that is a consensus among climate modelers; wouldn't mind seeing some stuff on that though. I think I have missed those claims think I've missed these claims also haven't seen these claims at all. You do realize that scientists disagree on various matters, yes? fortunately it's her arguments that will either win out or be refuted in the end. I know she managed to make it to Michael Mann's **** list (which I'm also on btw), so I count that as a stroke in her favor
I don't think one needs a college course in Dynamic system analysis to understand how the math works here at the very basic level where you understand it's about balances and ratios. Yes a certain amount of CO2 is good for plant life. Also more heat and higher temperatures are good for a lot of living organisms. Our society though is designed with the current climate constraints. As humans we will suffer. Life overall on the planet will move on.
We've been through this - this thread alone is 7 years old and thousands of posts. Disagreement yes, but not without evidence or at the very least a strong rationale. Consensus? 97% of climate scientists is consensus. The models 30 years ago have been spot on for today. If anything they are underpredicting warming. I'm not really sure what people are looking for anymore other than making the science political.
no--the Pielke video again mentions how a number of IPCC reviewers have tried to get IPCC to remove previous off-the-chart predictions that are no longer valid; and IPCC's response is "what if by keeping them in the reports we can inspire the public via now-non-existent-worst-case-scenario predictions?" so I disagree 100% that "The models 30 years ago have been spot on for today." That claim is almost laughable. I respect you, but I do not respect these types of claims coming from your keyboard. I will dig out the timestamp of the Pielke section a little later when I have time.
I think the general consensus going forward is damage mitigation. A full thrust into continuing to let O&G pollute the world would only exacerbate the impacts of climate change going forward even more than it already is. That said, and contrary to what Commodore says about how easy it is to get federal funding to combat these issues, which he's full of **** on that by the way, it's still worth putting in effort. So there a few non-profits around Austin that I really respect a lot. One of them is Treefolks, the other is Fruitful Commons and lastly Central Texas Mycological Society. Treefolks plant thousands of trees around the Austin area every year. In particular they try to plant them in areas considered disadvantaged where human made development is most prevalent. All the factories, warehouses, storage areas, and buildings where pollution comes from is typically designated to the poor side of town. Subsequently, not as many trees still exist around these areas where poor communities live. In turn the energy usage of poor communities that have reliable electricity to count on, pay on average a higher utility bill than someone that lives in a neighborhood where trees are very populated and established. So if you're poor and your average income is fixed and you're paying an extra $150/year on electricity compared to if you just had trees with a wide enough canopy to lower the temperature of your home by as much as 10 degrees, that's going to impact you more than living in a neighborhood surrounded by trees. Not only that, people that live in shady areas even when heat is really bad, still tend to spend more time outside since they can rest under the shade and in turn are healthier than people who don't have that basic luxury. Not to mention when disasters like flooding come, they aren't as impacted since trees and habitat help mitigate soil erosion better compared to developed areas that are heavily disturbed. And Treefolks tries their best to address that. They do tree giveaways in the Fall and Winter, which is the best time of the year to put trees into the ground and they host a lot of those events in areas of Austin considered disadvantaged. They do impressive work. They also did tree planting in the Bastrop area after those fires impacted them as well as around the Hornsby Bend area. Also Onion Creek / Dove Springs area since the 2013 and 2015 floods. The second non-profit mentioned is Fruitful Commons. They operate the Festival Beach Food Forest near downtown Austin and that food forest is located near government provided assisted living for senior citizens. When that big freeze hit in 2021 and it snowed heavily around Austin for days and people were without power for days, that assisted living community was impacted by it too. The building itself goes up 8 or 9 flights and senior citizens that lived up on the highest parts of the complex couldn't safely go down stairs and back up them. So that Food Forest was used as a place of community gathering where volunteers coordinated to make sure food and water needs were met for the senior citizens living at the highest up floors of the complex. Did that project with all the trees and food resources available make the snowstorm any less impactful? Of course not, but it did provide a central location, where people collectively in crisis from an extreme weather event could gather and come up with solutions. And since this place was established and has very active community participation, people that live in that area were already familiar with each other and that too made it easier to coordinate in times of crisis. Besides being a food source that also feeds the homeless that live nearby that location, which they don't steal or deface the food forest for all the years its been there, it's a place for community gathering for locals in times of celebration and crises like natural disasters. Since natural disasters like that will be more commonplace, it's more important now than ever to have places for healthy community gathering that's in service of people that live locally among you. We are social creatures. We need each other, especially in times of crisis. Communities that already work with each other and are familiar with each other are more likely to come up with solutions to their crisis than populations absent that community presence. The third non-profit I respect a lot, works in collaboration with both the non-profits mentioned above. Central Texas Mycological Society has one program called the Mushroom Block Giveaway Program among other really interesting community oriented programs. They coordinate with two professional gourmet mushroom growing warehouses around Austin, who have contracts with local grocery chains like Central Market, Whole Foods, high end restaurants and local farmer markets to sell gourmet edible mushrooms. In order to grow these mushrooms, they grow them from mushroom blocks made of sawdust, seeds and other nutrients that mushrooms like to consume. Once they get a harvest or two out of these blocks, they dump them outside of their warehouses, typically for privately hired waste collectors to come and manage. Where CTMS comes in, they coordinate with volunteers all over the Central Texas area to collect thousands of mushroom blocks every week and distribute them to permanent residences that consent to host blocks outside their property for people to collect. Some of these residences are people's homes. Some are elementary schools. Some garden nurseries. Some are farms or ranches. These mushroom block host sites are located in San Antonio, New Braunfels, Canyon Lake, San Marcos, Buda, a dozen Austin locations, Onion Creek, Pflugerville, Cedar Park, Round Rock, Georgetown, Dripping Springs, Bastrop and Johnson City and have people that come and collect blocks from these warehouses as far as out as DFW and College Station too. Last year alone, CTMS, through it's volunteer support diverted over 20,000 tons of mushroom block waste from going to the landfill near Buda, Texas to make available to mycology and gardening enthusiasts that see value in the blocks for composting. It costs roughly $21 per ton of waste that's offloaded to the landfill. Landfills typically have an expected lifespan of 30 years. With the goal of increasing the lifespan of that landfill, TDS tries to separate waste that can be composted that's taken to the landfill from waste that can't be composted. By removing the waste that can be composted, they lessen the amount of waste just sitting there in the landfill, thereby extending the lifespan to greater than 30 years. That cost of separating waste that's compostable vs waste that isn't is timely and expensive. The cost per ton of compostable waste that needs be separated goes from $21 per ton of waste to as high as $96 to $111 per ton. So doing that basic math, CTMS saves cities and counties in addition to the two warehouses mushroom blocks are collected at, millions of dollars every year and none of these non-profits, or the many others with similar causes are collecting anywhere close to $800,000 to a million dollars a month for their efforts. And CTMS uses that waste to divert it to communities that could get an edible harvest of mushrooms from these blocks or instruct how to use them as a compostable amendment around the vegetable garden or general landscape. They host lotek mushroom cultivation events at public venues like all the Austin Public Libraries for example year round. They also emphasize block distribution to disadvantaged communities but the blocks are made available to everyone. They also do mushroom block giveaways in conjunction with Treefolks in the Fall and Winter when they do tree giveaways. They coordinate with black owned farms and non-profits and do bulk mushroom block drop offs and have host sites in areas considered disadvantaged where locals can come and collect blocks. And these mushrooms are expensive in the grocery store. Blue Oysters are $10/lb at Central Market. Lion's Mane is $23/lb. You can grow those mushrooms from these blocks when it's not consistently above 80 degrees outside in Austin. Or you can grow them year round in a controlled environment where you can control the humidity, lighting and temperature exposure to the blocks. Since ordering a single mushroom block online can be as expensive as $30 or more plus S&H, the fact you can collect these blocks in bulk, and it's free with the option to donate, is incredible to me. Point being though, is it's all centered around fostering a strong sense of community. All of these non-profits do real work and they have a strong community presence that is to the direct and indirect benefit of residents that live around the Central Texas area. So even if it is a losing fight in combating climate change, it's still worth fighting, if only to foster communities in areas that need it the most, especially in times of crisis from events like natural disasters.
Give a man a candle he will have light for a night. Catch a man on fire and he will have light for the rest of his life.
Me, a dinosaur dying a slow death in a tar pit while flaming asteroids crash around me: thank goodness we've suddenly got more fuel
at 1:06:50 Well I'll give you an example. So I've been writing with colleagues on the RCP 8.5 as an extreme outdated scenario, and one of the critiques, one of the pushbacks we get from our colleagues is "Yeah, but what if that was helpful and getting people concerned about climate change?" And my response is, "Science is not designed to be helpful to a political cause. Science is there to call it like we see it, and then, you know, let the politicians figure out how they turn the facts the science into policy options, because it next time they won't trust us."
I can't speak to the IPCC as I don't go by what they say but rather follow the actual studies. But yes, the models have been spot on: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
This is a good reference, and I appreciate the point as far as hind-casting goes. I believe the Hausfather study still has a few critics, but every study does. Whether the descriptor "spot-on" is accurate or not, though . . . I think even Hausfather himself concedes that observed warming was usually below the most optimistic model scenarios until about 2015 or so. I also think Hausfather's conclusions are at odds with other similar meta-analyses such as Lewis and Curry's 2018 paper (https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/15/jcli-d-17-0667.1.xml ), but for the most part Hausfather's analysis seems generally to have been accepted. You won't like this reference I suspect, but Ross McKitrick comes to somewhat different conclusions, but part of the problem here is apples to oranges comparisons between studies: New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming https://judithcurry.com/2020/08/25/...climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming/ At any rate, I appreciate the reference to the Hausfather 2019 study.
one last note about the "spot-on" claim . . . here is figure S4 from Hausfather's study--buried as these things sometimes are among the online supplementary materials on the publisher's website. I think the graphical expression of the data better illustrates the criticism of the spot-on claim than what I said above. Recall the original statement I disagreed with was "The models 30 years ago have been spot on for today." I think this graph shows that models from 30 years ago (the 1990s) were still not as good as more recent models--which should not be surprising of course.
I am happy to share and discuss as always - I was just saying I've shared this study before, a while back. In any case - it's important to note that the models don't forecast Co2 increases as accurately because they can't focus human development and behavior - no one really can. What they do forecast is the relationship between CO2 and climate change very well. That's what I mean by spot on. But yes, we can always parse phrases and words in multiple ways but the jist of what I am saying this should be accepted science at this point. We should be having policy debates, not scientific ones.
Not when you have to spend a bunch of that energy dealing with the cost of extracting and burning that energy
