*Promote for the greater good.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 23rd, 2019 6:39pm PDT - promote requested by BSR.

Republicans have chosen to attack this teenage girl personally because they can't attack her facts....calling her a mentally ill child being exploited by the left.
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Michael-Knowles-Calls-Greta-Thunberg-Mentally-Ill
*doublepromote a passionate speech by an intelligent and knowledgeable future leader.

Post cannot be double-promoted by newtboy because newtboy is the original submitter.

I find meatbag newtboy to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by newtboy.

Fine Sifty....

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Michael-Knowles-Calls-Greta-Thunberg-Mentally-Ill

Michael Knowles Calls Greta Thunberg Mentally Ill has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

And the attacks are inexcusable.

To be totally upfront though, Gretta's role is meant to be emotional as opposed to scientific or factual. She's not meant to fill the gap of proving or providing facts, but rather to appeal on emotional level to get people to listen who maybe wouldn't other wise listen.

The criticism that such an angle is apart from 'science' isn't entirely invalid in her case. Right or wrong facts, using emotion to appeal to people and change their minds is entirely a non scientific approach to argument/persuasion.

I say it's both.
It's appeal on an emotional and moral level to get people to listen to the facts that she presents more clearly and honestly than the U.N. scientists or that other less political scientific organizations have published.

Not true. Using an emotional delivery to get people interested enough to listen to the factual science is basic psychology, and could be considered the science of selling science to humans....or applied behavioral science.

There's also what's known as psychology of science - The psychology of science is a branch of the studies of science that includes philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science or sociology of scientific knowledge. The psychology of science is defined most simply as the scientific study of scientific thought or behavior.

I'm just saying I like being clear/careful to distinguish between emotional, moral and factual argumentation.

If the subject were instead vaccinations, you could as easily have a child pitching an anti-vax message and pleading with the world to listen to the 'facts' that they present. It might make people more willing to listen, but it should NOT change our assessment of the accuracy of the facts.

Supplanting argument from emotion, authority and various other subjective/flawed approaches is THE defining advantage of the scientific method. Blurring that line is damaging, regardless of the intentions or goals.

Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct.

Yes, I agree, but the point was getting people to listen, read, and fully examine the facts rather than accept the, also emotional, arguments without fact or with incorrect, cherry picked, or misrepresented facts that dominate the discussion on both sides, but mostly on the denier side since facts and data do not support them.

That line isn't blurred, it's been pressure washed away. The emotional arguments are nearly all that's out there, the facts are so misrepresented by both sides...oddly both sides minimizing the problem, the right to ignore it for profit, the left to not overwhelm those wanting to make progress by admitting it's too late.
Note, she mentions the thoroughly reported study that said we must stop emissions in 12 (now 10?) years to stay below 1.5c rise actually said we must make that sacrifice to have a 50% chance at that (and goes on to explain why even that is outrageously optimistic since it doesn't take feedbacks and other factors into account and relies on future generations to make not only the sacrifices we aren't willing to make, but also to clean up/sequester the emissions we continue to emit at faster rates daily).
I have zero problem with the emotion of the delivery if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly.

I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring her hysteria. First time I listened to her is this video.
What is her impact in China? Russia? India? Brazil? Indonesia? On people who make decisions?
Perhaps in the USofA hysteria can have an impact on future elections (I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring the current administration) but will global ecology really be a big (or medium..) election theme in the USofA in the near future, like 20 years?

Im washing out those plastic bottles and sorting trash and keep my car serviced properly and fly rarely. But if this type of hysteria is randomly aimed against nuclear power, attempts to talk to women in the workplace, and eating meat regularly on other days, could we please not go that way... too late.

What can be done to move the 6 countries mentioned at least slightly in the direction of Europe on pollution? To stop China building coal power stations all over Africa? Brasil and Indonesia deforesting? What has (or can) Grrreta really do to help there? This is like trying to shame Saddam Hussein to give up those WOMD he hid so well. How dare you Saddam? Bad boy!

Also how dare three quarters of us not just lie down and die without children to save the planet? Or are we evil and not mature enough to forego making money to buy food for our families? Which in most places on the Earth means polluting like hell. Vicious cycle. Maybe people should be more modest, maybe rich white kids should not be the ones saying that.

Grreta so reminds me of west european academic communism in the 60s. CND in the 70s. Greenpeace. And so on. Should find out more about people, now that she has read all those encyclopediae. Everyone has to eat and f*@k or we die out in one generation.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 23rd, 2019 7:13pm PDT - doublepromote requested by Lumm.

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

@newtboy,
" Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome"

Here we disagree. When you have a high degree of unknowns in your modelling, you don't always just go off the worst case. Let me argue from the extreme to demonstrate that in principle.

If we are looking to mitigate the risk of an extinction level asteroid strike, we don't solely look at the worst case. The worst case is at a minimum assuming another KT extinction level asteroid out there on it's way to us. Space is big enough that it's still possible one is out there undetected on it's way here in our lifetimes. The probability of that may be low, but it's still a worst case not impossible outcome.

With that known worst case, should we bankrupt the global economy building either a defensive capability to detect and destroy/redirect it, or the capability to abandon the planet in our lifetimes because of this worst case risk?

The answer to me is of course not, you must ALSO take into account other variables like the probability of it happening, the unknowns in the equation that prevent us picturing the problem with full accuracy, and other factors.

Grreta Thunberg is a TOOL - a useful tool to be an icon for children to push a false ideal that is not or will no happen any time soon.

Ahhh....but bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system. What we haven't done is just say "It not certain we'll be hit, so wait until it's a certainty to make any preparations."

In this case, the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations. We aren't just driving our Cadillac off the cliff, we're accelerating as if we hope to jump the canyon. Even Evil couldn't pull that off with a rocket.

You do know about being a tool....I'll take that part under consideration.
What you don't know about is ideals....or ideas. Those I'll leave to learned professionals, who disagree with you.

As an aside, way to derisively and dismissively denigrate a child. Give yourself a nice pat on the back for being so clever.

A 14 year old is no professional and has no place on world stage spouting fear with out a wisp of knowledge of the subject.

The tool deserve any and all criticism as she put herself out there in public space.

Guess you a fool also for buying into her space.

Jealousy. You're soaking in it.

She is "no professional" by definition.

2. engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.

In other words, she is not doing this for the money as does your hero.

But you love Trump for exactly that reason, he's an emotional 14 year old who is no professional and who has no place on the world stage spouting fear with out a wisp of knowledge of almost any subject excepting swindle and con.

She, on the contrary, has a decent grasp of this subject....both the science and the politics driving the science. Probably why she won the Alternative Nobel prize....https://videosift.com/video/Greta-Thunberg-Wins-Alternative-Nobel

That's the morality and ethics of the right, if you don't like but can't debunk the message, personally attack the messenger and give no quarter, even if they're young children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA

Can you ask the Bob that speaks english to start his shift please?

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

Says THE biggest TOOL on this site, grow up Trumpanzee and get off Dump's orange nut sac... Edit: You and Trumps IQ combined are not even in the same league as this little girl...

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

Lol. Their chart predicts below .5C by 2020, we reached .83C last year. Stopping there.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

You are correct, I was using NOAA numbers, not realizing they use a different start point to compare from. I honestly thought both would use 1890, pre industrial era start points, since that's what the 1.5C limit is based on. Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic.

No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report. You can accept their current estimate, that's better than the average person. I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine.

I have no horse in this race. I hit my best by date next year, and don't have kids...got fixed in my 20's. What happens after 2050 isn't my concern, and I have no problem if humanity goes extinct. It's all the other life we will take with us, or worse, that we survive as the last species standing, that gets me upset.

Hmmmm. According to
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements.

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

I don't have time today, but if memory serves, ar4 temperature/ sea level prediction was 30-60% higher than ar3, ar5 less of a change, but still higher than ar4, and yesterday it went up another 10% with the intermediate report, expected to rise again in the 2021 report. I found it by accident and can't find it this morning, and I'm out of free time already today.

It's the factual, scientifically likely outcome. There is no "right" approach, indeed there's no working solution at all.

Yes, different again on two NOAA sites. They don't make it easy to find and compare accurately reported data.

I meant it was odd because they listed the 2018 data as if it was the highest readings, I understand it's not a constant rise.

Great argument about temperatures. Now have one about nation-state economies and government systems.

Its less like what can we do about asteroids, more like what can we realistically do to help the people in Ukraine or Hong-Kong.

Greta is a marketing tool. Her science and tears may be genuine, she may not realize it, but she is a marketing tool in the hands of adults around her.

I totally disagree. Hong Kong and Ukraine are 1) issues that would be easily solved with comparatively little effort and mostly just the will to stand against our enemies and with our allies, and 2) are both issues that directly effect only a small human population.

She's a marketing tool in the same sense that the entire Republican party is nothing more than a tool of the fossil fuel industry, except their science and tears are totally fraudulent and only self serving.

Have you considered that the adults around her may be tools in her hands?

When it comes to tools, you can't drive a nail with a screwdriver. Right tool for the right job. And if you're marketing a better world I don't see a problem.

How do you easily solve something thats going apeshit in another country, big or small? There is next to nothing the west can do to help other than alleviate the symptoms. Remember the cold war? What could the west do to help the people beyond the dividing line in countries that used to be democracies before WW2? Next to nothing.

Hong-Kong is currently part of the largest... just kidding.

What is her impact in China? Russia? India? Brazil? Indonesia? On people who make decisions? This is a real question.

I dont doubt her content, she seems well prepared and I have nothing to point out as obvious propaganda. Her delivery is off-putting. unpleasant, distracting and weird. Petulant child. Also she is pointing out the obvious without thinking of implementation. Normal millenial, just wants something.

The Republican party has been a good marketing tool for the fossil fuel industry so far, yes.

Adults tools in her hands? Seriously? I havent considered that and it frightens me.

Greta is more of a hammer to a screw for me. I get the message but have to cringe intensely.

Youre asking people who dont have a lot to give up something. And not actually promising them anything in return, except a generally "better world". Tough sell.

Oh and I totally forgot to mention the Kurds. Because they will be forgotten again in all this mayhem.

How do you solve something that's going apeshit in another country? For starters, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, we keep our obligations we agreed to and support them with the U.S. military from day one when Russia invaded Crimea, and again in Ukraine proper. Had we done that as we specifically and unambiguously agreed to do when they gave up their nukes in return, the "civil war" (that's clearly a foreign invasion) wouldn't have occurred. That's an Obama administration failure, one that seriously harmed our international standing and trustworthiness, imo. If we had just put 100 Marines on the borders, Russia wouldn't have risked WW3 to invade either country.
My point is human political or boundary issues are nothing compared to intentionally reengineering the makeup of the atmosphere and getting enough cooperation to implement the desired (required) changes.

If she changes policy in the west, that will impact the East....and South. What America does is more often than not mirrored, especially when we're successful.
Her impact is more for the public than governments. Sway enough of the public, get them to vote on your issue, and politics will evolve at light speed.

Her delivery is exactly what's needed. An angry, educated young woman (they called me young man at 14, so don't balk), being unpleasant about having her future stolen makes exponentially more impact to the audience she targets than a thousand dry, factual, statistic rich talks by scientists. (Those are a dime a dozen today) Kids telling their parents that when the shit hits the fan, the kids are tossing them in the swollen river, not supporting them through their old age, is exactly the kick in the face many need. Kids of today will blame adults of today for the future they live in. Adults of today clearly don't consider that enough.

Something is better than nothing, she's demanding something. She's 16, do you expect her to have all the answers? (Some feasible solutions would be nice) She's well ahead of the curve just understanding the severity of the problem. I'm sure if we listened to all her speeches she gives some suggestions of action we could take to move in the right direction, but I doubt any one person has answers that solve every major effect of climate change, much less all the secondary and tertiary effects. I certainly don't expect her, at that age, to do more than demand those in power take it seriously and find solutions....and act. Chastising a major polluter who walked away from the weak, insufficient Paris agreement is a good start if it works, but I agree it's only barely a start.

You should consider it, she got millions to March for her cause worldwide. Even if she is a willing tool for some adults, it's clear more adults are tools for her. Consider, she isn't talking to kids, she's talking to adults, and some at least are listening to her, not her parents.

Personally it disturbs me that emotional delivery like this is required for many to even consider the issue beyond "what does my political party say on this issue, that's what I say too." I wish scientific issues like climate change were immune to politics, propaganda, and emotion, but they aren't. That's why we're hosed imo, humans are too willing to be deceived if the lie is more pleasant than reality, and denying there's a problem or need for change is quite pleasant to lazy Americans, far easier than facing facts and implementing difficult solutions....until it's not at least, by which time it's far too late.

What I hear is, she is pissed that those who came before her have everything and have taken away her share and left her with crumbs.

It's not that complicated.

No its not, if you reduce the problem to one hysterical angry spoilt entitled rich white kid it becomes really simple.

The complicated part is that for some people her hysterical delivery is somehow more trustworthy than.. Than what? Where do people get information these days? A wikipedia article perhaps?

Maybe I am slightly coming around to tolerating Grreta if her act gets more people interested in the problems that lie ahead. I will still avoid her if possible.

THNX

I do believe it is.

If my world is not very habitable in the first place and I have the option of setting fire to some rainforest to build a farm, sell me some clean air and Orangutang habitat in exchange for good karma and poverty, please.

On the other hand if I make decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis without much recourse to anything in particular (party line? military commanders? local clans? religious leaders?) what does a teenagers speech on the opposite side of the planet change for me? Its just completely off the playing field of making important decisions.

I hear her cry, now calm down and look for ways to actually improve the situation, please.

Suing Argentina for breaking childrens rights? Not bad, human rights cases were actually a good method to fight communist regimes in the 70s and 80s. Just a very slow grinding method.

We can still steer between the different possible future realities.
Like that large scale famine or water shortage is preferable to nuclear war or global deadly disease outbreak. Which will it be, food or water? Reality will get more unpleasant before it has a chance to improve. Can we outrun the population and ecosystem gun with science? Possibly. Problem is society and morals cant keep up.

We have resources to do ANYTHING. Send people to Mars. Make water out of thin air and grow tomatoes in the desert. The only thing in the way are nation states and their institutions, and human instincts. The only thing that keeps those in check is culture and morals. There is no such thing as international law unless you are willing to go to all out war to enforce it (not possible since WW2).

And the "leader of the free world" is busy building a wall around his office.

So we probably need to be deceived or else we would all be hysterical without antidepressants.

Still a hysterical voice is not the voice of reality for me.

That's exactly what I thought YOU were doing.

? Are you implying that famine and/or water shortages somehow preclude war and disease? I think they're major causes.

No, that's a myth. We have resources enough to do some amazing things if we properly apply them, not anything, and without the will to apply them, almost nothing. Having everything you need for success besides direction is a guarantee of failure.

Depends, if you remove the human factor and look only at total resources vs global need, there are still major logistic hurdles to just feeding everyone, not to mention resource problems if we want the biosphere to be healthy and not homogenized down to humans and our farm animals.

Odd, international law has been enforced since ww2 with only few exceptions with no WW3, only sanctions, bribes, and relatively minor skirmishes. I don't know where you get the idea that only a gun to the head might be coercive when a gun to the economy has worked so well for so long.

You should be hysterical. If you aren't shitting your pants over the state of the world, you aren't paying attention or you're absolutely delusional. Civilization and the habitatability of the planet are both on a clear path to collapse and people are busying themselves with arguments over will it be 50 years out or 100, or maybe 150 instead of making substantive changes to mitigate what's now unavoidable....or even prepare.
A hysterical voice is the only one I think indicates an understanding of the problem and total lack of a working solution.

If you have the option of burning rainforest to build a sad farm (they are poor, temporary farms created from rainforests), then you already have the clean air and orangutan habitat. Sell it as carbon offsets to existing polluters until a better system is created, don't destroy it permanently to make far less money for a short time. Duh.
Again, this bullshit idea that thoughtful conservation is antithetical to economic gains is pure, utter bullshit. Not destroying and polluting is almost always better economically if you force polluters to pay for cleanup, or if you look at the big picture. Burn the Amazon or starve aren't our only choices.