On alarmist crap, otherwise known as climate change...
-
Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles | The Independent[^] "The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world." That was in 2009. We just passed 96 months this week. Of course anyone who disagreed with him was a 'denier'. :) And people wonder why we dont take them seriously...
So, I recall reading an article some time ago about the planet already having crossed the point of no return with regard to 'devastating' climate change. I Googled, and this article seems like what I'm probably thinking of: The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold. Permanently[^] That was back in late September of 2016. The gist here is that, at this point, we can only keep things from getting worse. Those bad things that scientists have been warning everyone about for decades? They're going to happen. They're already happening. Even if we stopped all artificial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, coastal regions are still going to flood, coral reefs are still going to be damaged, and heat waves and droughts are going to get worse. We are past the point of being able to avoid any serious consequences. We're in the damage mitigation phase now. And our lovely denier 'President' Trump decided he didn't want any part of the Paris Climate Agreement. Good job. Guess he would prefer the White House to be beach-front property... :doh:
-
So, I recall reading an article some time ago about the planet already having crossed the point of no return with regard to 'devastating' climate change. I Googled, and this article seems like what I'm probably thinking of: The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold. Permanently[^] That was back in late September of 2016. The gist here is that, at this point, we can only keep things from getting worse. Those bad things that scientists have been warning everyone about for decades? They're going to happen. They're already happening. Even if we stopped all artificial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, coastal regions are still going to flood, coral reefs are still going to be damaged, and heat waves and droughts are going to get worse. We are past the point of being able to avoid any serious consequences. We're in the damage mitigation phase now. And our lovely denier 'President' Trump decided he didn't want any part of the Paris Climate Agreement. Good job. Guess he would prefer the White House to be beach-front property... :doh:
You know you have just opened Pandora's Box, don't you?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Ah, OK. :confused:
-
So, I recall reading an article some time ago about the planet already having crossed the point of no return with regard to 'devastating' climate change. I Googled, and this article seems like what I'm probably thinking of: The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold. Permanently[^] That was back in late September of 2016. The gist here is that, at this point, we can only keep things from getting worse. Those bad things that scientists have been warning everyone about for decades? They're going to happen. They're already happening. Even if we stopped all artificial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, coastal regions are still going to flood, coral reefs are still going to be damaged, and heat waves and droughts are going to get worse. We are past the point of being able to avoid any serious consequences. We're in the damage mitigation phase now. And our lovely denier 'President' Trump decided he didn't want any part of the Paris Climate Agreement. Good job. Guess he would prefer the White House to be beach-front property... :doh:
You see this is where we disagree. Everything you are saying sounds like nothing more than 'chicken little, the sky is falling' alarmism, which is based not in science, but in fantasy. There is nothing to worry about. A bit of sea level rise, a bit of warming, much more plant growth. Thats what science AND data actually say. Take a look out the window. What do you see thats a problem?
-
Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles | The Independent[^] "The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world." That was in 2009. We just passed 96 months this week. Of course anyone who disagreed with him was a 'denier'. :) And people wonder why we dont take them seriously...
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Of course anyone who disagreed with him was a 'denier'
Has nothing to do with him. And there was no scientific consensus about his statements. Just as there isn't for his contention that Complementary Alternative Medicine is viable. Deniers are those that ignore all of science and cherry pick the rare study that temporarily supports their position or worse rely on poor studies or even just commentary that is wrong.
-
You know you have just opened Pandora's Box, don't you?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Perhaps. But like religion, I welcome a calm, grounded, debate on the topic. You'd be surprised what people can learn from each other if they are just willing to behave like adults. ;P
-
You see this is where we disagree. Everything you are saying sounds like nothing more than 'chicken little, the sky is falling' alarmism, which is based not in science, but in fantasy. There is nothing to worry about. A bit of sea level rise, a bit of warming, much more plant growth. Thats what science AND data actually say. Take a look out the window. What do you see thats a problem?
Well, I'm not a climatologist. But like any rational person, I'm willing to defer to others that are more expert on a topic than I am. That said, I don't blindly trust everything an 'expert' claims; I still dissect the topic critically, and try to discern if what they are claiming passes the sanity test. So, when I am presented with historical data about how atmospheric CO2 has consistently risen (and fallen, as part of the natural recapturing process in the summer growing season, however less,) then it passes the sanity test. We keep burning fossil fuels, CO2 rises, planet gets hotter. Basic, historically supported, cause and effect. The planet is also much warmer than it should be, compared to historical data and models (the planet has had hot and cold periods, cyclically, for millions of years, but currently we're hotter than previous data shows we should be.) Now, are we past the point of no return? I'm not qualified to answer that question. To me it looks like we are. We're already seeing environmental issues related to the rise in the average temperature of the planet (coral bleaching, sea level changes, heat waves...) So if more CO2 makes the planet hotter, and the current heat level is causing problems... And we aren't actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere... To me, that says the problem is going to get worse before it gets better. If you have a measured argument to the contrary, I'm happy to listen.
-
Well, I'm not a climatologist. But like any rational person, I'm willing to defer to others that are more expert on a topic than I am. That said, I don't blindly trust everything an 'expert' claims; I still dissect the topic critically, and try to discern if what they are claiming passes the sanity test. So, when I am presented with historical data about how atmospheric CO2 has consistently risen (and fallen, as part of the natural recapturing process in the summer growing season, however less,) then it passes the sanity test. We keep burning fossil fuels, CO2 rises, planet gets hotter. Basic, historically supported, cause and effect. The planet is also much warmer than it should be, compared to historical data and models (the planet has had hot and cold periods, cyclically, for millions of years, but currently we're hotter than previous data shows we should be.) Now, are we past the point of no return? I'm not qualified to answer that question. To me it looks like we are. We're already seeing environmental issues related to the rise in the average temperature of the planet (coral bleaching, sea level changes, heat waves...) So if more CO2 makes the planet hotter, and the current heat level is causing problems... And we aren't actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere... To me, that says the problem is going to get worse before it gets better. If you have a measured argument to the contrary, I'm happy to listen.
Kyle Moyer wrote:
I'm willing to defer to others that are more expert on a topic than I am
And there are a lot of experts who say climate response to CO2 is on the low side. DO you pay any ayention to them? It seems not.
Kyle Moyer wrote:
So, when I am presented with historical data about how atmospheric CO2 has consistently risen (and fallen, as part of the natural recapturing process in the summer growing season, however less,) then it passes the sanity test. We keep burning fossil fuels, CO2 rises, planet gets hotter. Basic, historically supported, cause and effect
Ice core data you mean? You do know CO2 lags temperature in this data thus suggesting the cause and effect is backwards, and merely a case of warm water being able to hold less CO2? It is called outgassing. Many experts have discussed this, Carl Wunsh is one such expert. Have you heard of him?
Kyle Moyer wrote:
he planet is also much warmer than it should be, compared to historical data and models
Define 'should'. Who decides what it is? Taking a look at greenland ice core data (represents the norther hemisphere nicely): [^] you can see long periods where it was a degree or two warmer than today. As for comparing the earth to models and saying the earth is warmer than it should be, this is crazy. How can you say a thing that imperfectly models another has greater veracity?
Kyle Moyer wrote:
To me it looks like we are
Another past temperature graph going back much further: [^] Today we are a massive 11C colder than most of the earths history so for whatever reason, it has got a lot colder. This means that there is no 'tipping point', no 'point of no return'.
Kyle Moyer wrote:
We're already seeing environmental issues related to the rise in the average temperature of the planet (coral bleaching, sea level changes, heat waves...)
-
Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles | The Independent[^] "The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world." That was in 2009. We just passed 96 months this week. Of course anyone who disagreed with him was a 'denier'. :) And people wonder why we dont take them seriously...
What does an unemployed, spoonfed aristo with a poor degree in archaeology know? Maybe the plants he talked to told him?
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Of course anyone who disagreed with him was a 'denier'
Has nothing to do with him. And there was no scientific consensus about his statements. Just as there isn't for his contention that Complementary Alternative Medicine is viable. Deniers are those that ignore all of science and cherry pick the rare study that temporarily supports their position or worse rely on poor studies or even just commentary that is wrong.
jschell wrote:
scientific consensus
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You live in a dream world. Science is CONTENTIOUS, not CONSENSUS! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
jschell wrote:
scientific consensus
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You live in a dream world. Science is CONTENTIOUS, not CONSENSUS! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Science is CONTENTIOUS, not CONSENSUS!
First of course I was not referring to the entire field of science but rather one specific part of it. Second rather certain that many things in science are accepted by consensus. The consensus is that the world is round. There is no contention. This is because there are many different ways in which the facts support the theory. Scientists who specialize in studying the planet are specifically knowledgeable about how that is done and other people versed in technology such as biologists, doctors, engineers, etc accept the consensus. There are many things like that in many different branches of science. The only people that even touch upon the basic science are undergrads repeating experiments/proofs as part of basic science courses and even those do not repeat many of the tests.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Science is CONTENTIOUS, not CONSENSUS!
First of course I was not referring to the entire field of science but rather one specific part of it. Second rather certain that many things in science are accepted by consensus. The consensus is that the world is round. There is no contention. This is because there are many different ways in which the facts support the theory. Scientists who specialize in studying the planet are specifically knowledgeable about how that is done and other people versed in technology such as biologists, doctors, engineers, etc accept the consensus. There are many things like that in many different branches of science. The only people that even touch upon the basic science are undergrads repeating experiments/proofs as part of basic science courses and even those do not repeat many of the tests.
Actually it is an oblate spheroid... I am obviously talking about the frontier of science. But you knew that already.
-
Actually it is an oblate spheroid... I am obviously talking about the frontier of science. But you knew that already.
-
What part of the following is not clear to you? Or did you just choose to ignore that? I was not referring to the entire field of science but rather one specific part of it.
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
-
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
