Morning, boys. Ok, here we go. Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere. If something has been misrepresented, that's a completely valid point to bring up and I won't condone the behavior. Is this a case of something being misrepresented? Pulling up the article, I don't think so, and don't see what you're getting worked up about.
Here is the full quote.
Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.
What does "relatively quickly" mean?
I didn't read every word, but I scanned though the article reasonably well. It presents the results of several different models that forecast the warming effect of an emission over time. Different models yield different results.
For a 100 GtC pulse of CO2 released into the atmosphere with a background CO2 concentration of 389 ppm, R&C found the median time between an emission and maximum warming to be 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years
For pulse emissions of 1000 GtC, the double-peak shape remains but is less pronounced and the maximum warming occurs 31 years after the emission. For very large pulses (5000 GtC), the first peak disappears due to the decline in ocean heat uptake overwhelming the radiative forcing decline. In this case, the maximum warming occurs 785 years after the emission
A large fraction of the warming, however, will be realized relatively quickly (93% of the peak warming is realized 10 years after the emissions for the 1000 PgC pulse). This implies that the warming commitment from past CO2 emissions is small, and that future warming will largely be determined by current and future CO2 emissions.
So, at best, "relatively quickly" means ~decade after the emission. Now what did I say?
Isn't that convenient. A theory, output from a model, which cannot be tested or disproved. Something something, scientific method.
The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models. Models which remain untested, the excuse for which is a huge time lag. And that isn't to say this isn't the truth of the situation. The models could be accurate, although they can't all be accurate, but there could be an accurate one in the mix somewhere. But if there is no way to test the models until decades down the road, that's a problem. A big problem. It's not good science to base real-world decisions on faith. As an engineer, if I made decisions like that I'd be thrown in jail. The idea of upending the world's economy on the current body of work is patently irresponsible.
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethicsTell me, how many of these academicians would be willing to subject themselves to prison if wrong? Even in engineering disciplines, the answer is not many. Relatively few engineers in academics have PE licenses or do work that would be subject to such licensing restrictions. They are theoreticians. The'll come up with theories and spend decades nerding out together sussing through the results. I propose we create something like a PE licensing for climatologists, which imposes strict evidence-based standards. Moreover, that these people be held liable for damages they cause. Just like an engineer who designs an unsafe system that results in someone's death, or which results in monetary damages. If I design a control system that brings down someone's plant, oops, my ass is in big trouble. Just like a doctor, I have to maintain liability insurance. If we spend $XXX billions of dollars on "carbon credits" or whatever, because this person predicted that the earth's temperature would rise YYY degrees, but then it doesn't happen - who is held responsible? CO2 levels went up anyway, because China, and oops, temperature didn't rise, the tornados didn't happen, well well well, the person or people who made these predictions should be subject to the same penalties that a PE would. Which is CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
I'm happy to get into the weeds with you, we can turn this into a megathread and start going through the fine details of climate science from beginning to end if you'd like. But I'm not a climatologist. All I can do is state why I am or am not persuaded by a certain argument. My position can be changed, if the data is compelling. But I will not compromise my basic standards, which are high. Just like evolution, or theoretical physics such as string theory, a global warming apocalypse may be a "good" or even the "best" interpretation of the current body of climate science, but that doesn't mean it crosses a credibility threshold that justifies the sort of actions recommended by the IPCC.
honorentheos wrote:... the expection on the part of the committee is we will "overshoot" the 2% threshold given the political environment and technical challenges involved in preventing it but believe it's likely at some point the effects will force action so that the resulting forced action will hopefully result in a stabilizing...
This right here is precisely what needs to happen. This should not be a lamentation on the part of researchers. They should be pushing for this. They should WANT their work to be born our by empirical results. They should want huge life and death altering decisions to be based on actual knowledge rather than a highly theoretical inquiry.
Moreover, there is the matter of practicality. For sake of argument let's say the doom is real. The most apocalyptic of predictions is accurate. Does it make sense to march into Afghanistan and try to impose democracy? No, this is naïve and idiotic. If the apocalyptic doom is for realz, and we KNOW it to be for realz, our whole approach is wrong. Nobody else will comply. Period. Let's get real. We are better off making as much damn money as we can, throwing as much money towards research and tech as we can. Capping our carbon production is completely and totally idiotic.