World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam

submitted by Pis-dur from theguardian.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

So what? Co2 has skyrocketed while global temperatures have not, proving that the graph which showed a correlation between Co2 and temperature does not show a causal relationship.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Co2 has skyrocketed while global temperatures have not

CO2 has gone from an average of 250-280ppm to over 400ppm as of 2016.

Global temperatures have increased by an average of 1C, with the majority of that rise being in the last few decades when CO2 levels and emissions were the highest.

If you believe that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, then show me a climate model that explains the current warming trend we've experienced over the last century that assumes a negligible climate forcing value for CO2.

[–]Canbot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you were interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation you wouldn't be accusing me of thinking co2 is not a greenhouse gas. That is a straw man argument. Stop being a sheep bleeting out propaganda.

Nearly double the Co2 and only 1* temperature change. Not only that but there is a diminishing return on any insulation including greenhouse gasses, meaning that doubling the Co2 again would lead to less than 1* further increase. So your claim that the rise in temperature is entirely caused by the last few bits of Co2, and insinuating that the next few bits will be worse, is utter bullshit. Global temperatures have absolutely not risen mostly "in the last few decades". The global temperature has been rising since the ice age ended. The ice has been receding since the ice age ended.

I don't need to prove an alternative theory to prove that the one you are pushing is bullshit.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you were interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation you wouldn't be accusing me of thinking co2 is not a greenhouse gas. That is a straw man argument.

To be able to have an intelligent conversation would require that both parties actually know what they are talking about, and if you believe that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, then by definition you believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. If you think I was forming a straw man argument and that your actual statement wasn't implying that, then either you don't understand what a causal relationship is, or you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is.

Nearly double the Co2 and only 1* temperature change

You should really learn the actual science before trying to make inferences. Do you know what thermal mass is? I assume not, or at least you don't understand how that would play into the climate. Even if we drastically reduced emissions to the point where we kept CO2 levels at the current 400-420ppm range, we would still see more warming and more sea level rise over the next several decades.

An actual doubling of CO2, which would be well into the 500+ppm range, would result in global temperature averages of +3C as well as massive amounts of sea level rise over the next few centuries, and that would be catastrophic. Not at all trivial.

Not only that but there is a diminishing return on any insulation including greenhouse gasses,

True.

meaning that doubling the Co2 again would lead to less than 1* further increase

Not even remotely true. This is what happens when you build a model based off of bad assumptions.

So your claim that the rise in temperature is entirely caused by the last few bits of Co2, and insinuating that the next few bits will be worse, is utter bullshit.

I would cite this as an actual straw man, but based on what you've already written it's more likely that you just genuinely didn't even understand what I wrote, or how it relates to what you already said.

I was refuting your claim that there isn't a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, and supporting this argument by pointing out that as the difference in current and historic CO2 levels has risen, so has the rate of temperature increase. In a climate system which takes decades to centuries to reach the new equilibrium point, you would expect a higher rate of change as the difference increases while the system is still in a state of flux.

Global temperatures have absolutely not risen mostly "in the last few decades". The global temperature has been rising since the ice age ended. The ice has been receding since the ice age ended.

I was talking about the 140 years of direct observational temperature data we have to work from. In the first 100 years from 1880 to 1980, global temperatures only rose by about 0.5C. In the last 40 years, global temperatures have risen by nearly 1C on top of that.

You know what the difference between global temperatures 40 years ago and global temperatures during the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago are? 5C.

I don't need to prove an alternative theory to prove that the one you are pushing is bullshit.

I wasn't asking you to prove anything. I was asking you to provide a climate model that explains the rising temperatures we're observing and that assumes a negligible value for the forcing of CO2. The reason I was asking you to provide one is because I knew you couldn't, and unsurprisingly you didn't.

By the way, temperatures from the peak of the last ice age rose by about 5C from that peak, but did so during the period from about 20,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. That's a 1C increase....every 2,000 years. Global temperatures over the last 10,000 years have been comparatively flat, and a 1C rise over 40 years is absolutely a big fucking deal.

And it's always the same when I talk to AGW deniers. They'll distort the data, throw out red herrings, and act upset when I call them AGW deniers even when that's exactly what they are. Even the racists on this site tend to be more honest with themselves.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you know what thermal mass is? I assume not, or at least you don't understand how that would play into the climate.

It is the ability of a SOLID object to retain heat. It has absolutely fuck all to do with climate change. The temperature is the result of energy in minus energy out. Energy in is solar+nuclear (center of the earth produces heat)+chemical (heat generated by burning fuels and nuclear fission). Energy out is reflected sunlight + blackbody radiation.

You are literally talking out of your ass.

An actual doubling of CO2, which would be well into the 500+ppm range, would result in global temperature averages of +3C

Bullshit. That is simply not true. Every single global warming estimate that has come to pass has over estimated. Every. Single. One. Yet it doesn't faze you sheep one iota. Why not? What would it take to get you to stop blindly believing everything you are told?

so has the rate of temperature increase.

This is something you literally pulled out of your ass. No one ever, in the history of the planet, ever showed any evidence that Co2 concentration controls temperature change in that way. As if it were an accelerator peddle and the temperature would keep going up infinitely so long as the concentration is over a certain amount. That is not how any of this works.

Temperature increase is absolutely not compounding over time, as it would in your theory. In fact there was a measured decrease in temperature for about 15 years since 1997.

If you want to cool the earth reflect more sunlight. Simple. Except it doesn't enrich the people who will control the carbon credit exchanges. It doesn't saddle everyone with new regulations, requiring more government control over everyone's life. It doesn't necessitate government inspections, taxes, and permits. Why is no one ever interested in solutions that don't fuck everyone over?

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is the ability of a SOLID object to retain heat. It has absolutely fuck all to do with climate change.

All mass, regardless of its state, retains heat. The more mass you have, the more energy must be gained to result in the same change in temperature. This is true whether it is a solid, liquid, gas, plasma, or any other state. That you believe the concept of thermal mass has nothing to do with climate change explains why you believed that the ~1C of warming we've experienced over the last 40 years is all there is to it, but it also highlights the fact that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of a lot of the topics we're discussing.

If you still don't understand why I was asking if you understood what thermal mass was, let me explain. Over 90% of the net thermal energy gain since the start of the industrial revolution isn't accounted for in the air or ground, but in the ocean. Having over 20x the thermal conductivity and 250x the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean is where the vast majority of the extra energy ends up, and it will take centuries for ocean temperatures and levels to reach their new equilibrium. But as ocean temps rise, so will the atmosphere. It's not like the earth is just a piece of metal that heats and cools rapidly according to its surroundings.

This is something you literally pulled out of your ass. No one ever, in the history of the planet, ever showed any evidence that Co2 concentration controls temperature change in that way. As if it were an accelerator peddle and the temperature would keep going up infinitely so long as the concentration is over a certain amount. That is not how any of this works.

How could you possibly read what I was saying and interpret it to mean that I was claiming that temperature could increase infinitely when I told you that the result of a doubling of CO2 would be +3C?

Temperature increase is absolutely not compounding over time, as it would in your theory.

You're really far off here bud, and I still don't understand how you're putting together these nonsensical claims. I wasn't saying that the rate of change would compound, I was pointing out that the observed rate of change was higher over the last few decades compared to previous decades, at the same time that CO2 levels are reaching record highs and increasing more rapidly than ever. I pointed this out because what started this whole conversation was your incorrect claim that there is no causal relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature.

In fact there was a measured decrease in temperature for about 15 years since 1997.

1997 wasn't even a particularly warm year. 1998 was, though. In fact, it broke the previous record that was set in 1990. But then next year, 1999 broke that record by a significant margin. The outlier that was 1999 didn't have its record handily broken for about 15 years, but it was broken in several years during that interval . And no, there wasn't a "measured decrease in temperature".

Bullshit. That is simply not true. Every single global warming estimate that has come to pass has over estimated. Every. Single. One. Yet it doesn't faze you sheep one iota.

Anyone can point to alarmist predictions that weren't based on science that of course didn't come true, but if you believe there isn't a wide body of climate science based in real data and detailed models that come up with reasonable predictions, it's just because you've chosen not to familiarize yourself with it.

Do you know what the most authoritative org in this space is? The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, or IPCC. They were formed about 30 years ago, and over the course of several years they analyze all the latest available data and science to compile an "Assessment Report". And so far their future predictions have been pretty accurate. For instance in the 2000s they estimated that we'd average about +0.2C per decade for the next 2 decades. As of 2020 we are averaging...slightly over +0.2C per decade.

If you want to see what the actual state of the science is, check out the AR5 Technical Summary. It's way more detailed than the Policymakers Summary, but it's still fairly accessible to those that aren't professional climate scientists but still want to understand what the state of the science is.

[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, we've seen this establishment wall of text conceptual copy pasta before. This is why people think you're a shill, Fedi.