Content_Date_318 t1_j3rbwru wrote
Reply to comment by Gemini884 in Deep overturning circulation collapses with strong warming, which could cause a "disaster" in the world's oceans. by sibti
Yes, I treat the models like they're supposed to be treated, as a good reference and solid idea on how things turn out. They don't perfectly simulate reality for the reasons I have outlined.
​
I do not listen to climate panel agreements anymore because they have been shown to be worth less than the paper they are written on outside of a few cases. I've been following climate panels since the 90s and we've nearly doubled CO2 emissions since then. There is no meaningful interest in reducing emissions for a myriad of factors which can be boiled down to, we will not ignore cheap energy when its so vital to economic growth.
[deleted] t1_j3rgedp wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j3rhxw1 wrote
[removed]
Gemini884 t1_j3xjmsb wrote
Why are you spreading misinformation that's not in line with ipcc report scientific consensus? You know that it's an irresponsible thing to do.
Content_Date_318 t1_j3xmyn1 wrote
I am not spreading misinformation. I am making people aware of the limitations of our scientific modeling and stating clearly the present course we are on. I have given you more than enough to back up my statements which obviously is a bother to you, which is a personal problem I'm afraid. Have a nice life.
Gemini884 t1_j3xqmen wrote
I literally pointed out where you are wrong multiple times. You did not read all of the links I sent you which is your problem. You should listen to actual climate scientists instead of morons from r/collapse.
​
>I treat the models like they're supposed to be treated, as a good reference and solid idea on how things turn out.
I repeat, you literally made the assumption that warming is going to be worse than what models project when it can go both ways. There is little evidence that climate change is worse than we thought, nor that assessments are downplaying the risks.
You also claimed that models "don't account for permafrost thaw or dynamic vegetation feedback" which is not true because they do account for these things.
"climate panel agreements" Yeah, you totally can not read. I was talking talking about current policies(as in, policies that are already implemented, not pledges made at COPs).
"Also in those articles those scientists talk about how they have LOW CONFIDENCE" You just took words out of context. Point me to the article and paragraph where these words are.
Content_Date_318 t1_j3xsug8 wrote
I'm sorry, but we are going in circles. I will not be replying anymore. I literally linked you your own article with climate scientists saying what particulars in their simulations they have high and low confidence on which is predicated on our understanding of certain mechanics in earths system which we are still learning much about.. Not only that the lower pathways rely on us cutting emissions, which I am telling you isn't happening unless there are major changes to our growth based economic system as it is addicted to the cheap energy carbon based fuels provide.
​
Work on your reading comprehension and read your own stuff please.
Gemini884 t1_j3y0f2a wrote
Yes, models aren't 100% accurate and there are uncertainties, please answer how does that justify your assumption that they somehow underestimate future warming? It's not a fair assumption to make, since warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates, climate models in previous ipcc reports neither systematically overestimated nor underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120
Climate policy changes have already reduced projected warming from >4c to <3c by the end of century. That's a current policy scenario, it's even lower if you count in pledges and commitments.
​
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632#m
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671#m
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643#m
Gemini884 t1_j3y4jum wrote
>I will not be replying anymore
​
It's funny how you can just do that on the internet(on top of having no proper punishment or any consequences for disinformation whatsoever).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments