Jump to content
Laxtonto

The Climate thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Still makes me shake my head at that moron in Congress that used a snowball to demonstrate climate change is fake.    I don’t believe that even the most ardent believers in climate change believe that snow is going away over the next 100 years.  Even worse case scenarios doesn’t predict winter ending. 

If there's an average 7 degree change in temp. you can damn sure cross snow off a big portion of the continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Still makes me shake my head at that moron in Congress that used a snowball to demonstrate climate change is fake.    I don’t believe that even the most ardent believers in climate change believe that snow is going away over the next 100 years.  Even worse case scenarios doesn’t predict winter ending. 

If there's an average 7 degree change in temp. you can damn sure cross snow off a big portion of the continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WTF ?  Why don't we have a delete post button ??

Climate change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans' blood will literally be boiling and they'll still be online posting links to nonsense that purports to debunk global warming science to own the libs.

This country is too stupid to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This country  world is too stupid to survive.

I think we've about run our course.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think we are over taxing the carbon cycle and that this is impacting the planet in a way that will be problematic for humans in future generations.  I think conservatives need to be more open about this problem and that environmentalists need to be more pragmatic.  For example, coal is still used for a considerable amount of power gen across the globe and that power could be replaced with aprrox 40% less co2 output via natural gas combined cycle plants, but environmentalists block natural gas at every turn.  Also, nuclear plants were blocked for years by environmentalists and nuke plants have 0 carbon emissions.  They will even block hydro power because it effects fresh water ecosystems.  So the fact that we are swimming in co2 has plenty of blame to go around.  Human produced power will impact the environment in some way.  We need reasonable, scientific minded people on both sides of the political table to decide on reasonable solutions.  They do exist.  

Excess co2 does have some advantages, for example accelerated plant growth as mentioned above.  However, the problem is that there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to facilitate this extra vegetation long term.  We would need to routinely dump tons of synthetic ammonia into the soil across thousands of square miles of terrain to supercharge the nitrogen cycle to keep up (similar to how we already do with farm land).  That would not be practical.  Also, the primary method to synthesize ammonia is via natural gas and this process also produces co2, which would mean we would need to spend additional money on capture an sequester, which is prohibitively expensive at the moment.  So bottom line is that excess co2 in the atmosphere has some positive impact on vegetation growth, but it is not sufficient to offset the vast amounts of carbon we dump into the atmosphere.

Regarding "tipping points," I don't think we should use this alarmist rhetoric.  Earth's climate is a complex system with numerous variables, some of which have positive feedback and some have negative feedback.  Isolating one positive feedback mechanism variable and claiming there will be runaway temperature rise because of it is myopic, as many other negative feedback responses will kick in slow temp rise.  If the earth's climate was sitting on top of such an unstable steep hill that a single feedback mechanism could cause a runaway temp rise unabated, then we are boned anyway.  But thankfully this is not the case.  I think such alarmist scaremongering is counterproductive.

I know few people care, but there is an interesting unstated philosophical assumption on anthropogenic climate change.  It is a subject in which a sharp line is drawn between man and nature.  In many other academic subjects man is simply a part or product of nature.  If we view mankind as merely another product of nature, then the climate impact of excess co2 is a natural phenomenon.  If mankind and our decisions are at the mercy of natural laws as BrickHorn claims and all of our actions and decisions are what's producing the co2, then there is really no reason to draw any distinction between the impact of man vs the impact of nature on climate change.  It is all natural and so the earth is changing its climate via a perfectly natural process.  Of course, no one actually sees man in this way for pragmatic purposes and so such views are relegated to philosophical discussion.    

 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I think we are over taxing the carbon cycle and that this is impacting the planet in a way that will be problematic for humans in future generations.  I think conservatives need to be more open about this problem and that environmentalists need to be more pragmatic.  For example, coal is still used for a considerable amount of power gen across the globe and that power could be replaced with aprrox 40% less co2 output via natural gas combined cycle plants, but environmentalists block natural gas at every turn.  Also, nuclear plants were blocked for years by environmentalists and nuke plants have 0 carbon emissions.  They will even block hydro power because it effects fresh water ecosystems.  So the fact that we are swimming in co2 has plenty of blame to go around.  Human produced power will impact the environment in some way.  We need reasonable, scientific minded people on both sides of the political table to decide on reasonable solutions.  They do exist.  

Excess co2 does have some advantages, for example accelerated plant growth as mentioned above.  However, the problem is that there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to facilitate this extra vegetation long term.  We would need to routinely dump tons of synthetic ammonia into the soil across thousands of square miles of terrain to supercharge the nitrogen cycle to keep up (similar to how we already do with farm land).  That would not be practical.  Also, the primary method to synthesize ammonia is via natural gas and this process also produces co2, which would mean we would need to spend additional money on capture an sequester, which is prohibitively expensive at the moment.  So bottom line is that excess co2 in the atmosphere has some positive impact on vegetation growth, but it is not sufficient to offset the vast amounts of carbon we dump into the atmosphere.

Regarding "tipping points," I don't think we should use this alarmist rhetoric.  Earth's climate is a complex system with numerous variables, some of which have positive feedback and some have negative feedback.  Isolating one positive feedback mechanism variable and claiming there will be runaway temperature rise because of it is myopic, as many other negative feedback responses will kick in slow temp rise.  If the earth's climate was sitting on top of such an unstable steep hill that a single feedback mechanism could cause a runaway temp rise unabated, then we are boned anyway.  But thankfully this is not the case.  I think such alarmist scaremongering is counterproductive.

I know few people care, but there is an interesting philosophical unstated assumption on anthropogenic climate change.  It is a subject in which a sharp line is drawn between man and nature.  In many other academic subjects man is simply a part or product of nature.  If we view mankind as merely another product of nature, then the climate impact of excess co2 is a natural phenomenon.  If mankind and our decisions are at the mercy of natural laws as BrickHorn claims and all of our actions and decisions are what's producing the co2, then there is really no reason to draw any distinction between the impact of man vs the impact of nature on climate change.  It is all natural and so the earth is changing its climate via a perfectly natural process.  Of course, no one actually sees man in this way for pragmatic purposes and so such views are relegated to philosophical discussion.    

Plus, it doesn't matter one whit if man is an extant species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Plus, it doesn't matter one whit if man is an extant species.

Doesn't matter to who?  Mattering always requires a conscious perspective.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Non-human animals.

1. It matters to humans, which is sufficient for our purposes as humans. 

2. Neither of us have any idea what matters to non-human animals, so you are in no position to make this claim.  Even if some reasonable assumptions are granted, such as thriving/existence matters to non-human animals, then this problem would matter to many of them as well because this problem potentially threatens the viability of their species.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sun is not going to cool.
As it begins to run out of fuel it will expand and engulf the Earth and most of the other planets.


Mars is predicted to become the closest planet to the sun. So, based on my completely unscientific reasoning of inhabiting the third planet, humanity needs to set up shop in Uranus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Still makes me shake my head at that moron in Congress that used a snowball to demonstrate climate change is fake.    I don’t believe that even the most ardent believers in climate change believe that snow is going away over the next 100 years.  Even worse case scenarios doesn’t predict winter ending. 

Yeah, global warming isn't going to change the earth's axial tilt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so this is a matter of science that you don't understand. How do you go about learning about it and coming to an understanding of the subject? Do you approach it with respect to the scientific method? Or do you just consult with your favorite politician so they can tell you what to think?


I usually just go with whatever I’m told at my monthly old conservative white guy meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 


I usually just go with whatever I’m told at my monthly old conservative white guy meetings.

 

Are you the guy bringing the donuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, A Cellar Honker said:

He’s right.  The question is when and how?

I knew a man who once said, ‘Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda surprised at how much press this new UN report is getting.  Maybe I'm just jaded after seeing that we actually seem to have so many deniers in the world, including our own stupid president.  I think we are fucked and have been for a while, but damned if I'm not going to do my part to at least try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 11:26 AM, Aphelion said:

I think we are over taxing the carbon cycle and that this is impacting the planet in a way that will be problematic for humans in future generations.  I think conservatives need to be more open about this problem and that environmentalists need to be more pragmatic.  For example, coal is still used for a considerable amount of power gen across the globe and that power could be replaced with aprrox 40% less co2 output via natural gas combined cycle plants, but environmentalists block natural gas at every turn.  Also, nuclear plants were blocked for years by environmentalists and nuke plants have 0 carbon emissions.  They will even block hydro power because it effects fresh water ecosystems.  So the fact that we are swimming in co2 has plenty of blame to go around.  Human produced power will impact the environment in some way.  We need reasonable, scientific minded people on both sides of the political table to decide on reasonable solutions.  They do exist.  

8

If true, that would be a real surprise to me. Can you show us an example where that has occurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

If true, that would be a real surprise to me. Can you show us an example where that has occurred?

Sierra club attempts to block natural gas production, pipelines, and power plants.  Here is just one example of them doing so; they do the same for virtually every other type of facility. 

https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/stop-meadowlands-power-plant

They also are conducting a nation wide PR campaign to influence the public away from natural gas.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Sierra club attempts to block natural gas production, pipelines, and power plants.  Here is just one example of them doing so; they do the same for virtually every other type of facility. 

https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/stop-meadowlands-power-plant

They also are conducting a nation wide PR campaign to influence the public away from natural gas.  

Against NG or fracking to to get at NG ?  anything aisle is just immature pie in the sky wishful thinking. We're an industrialized nation and not utilizing fossil fuels until a cost effective alternative is developed is just idiocy.  I wonder how many of the Sierra club members live off the grid ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Sierra club attempts to block natural gas production, pipelines, and power plants.  Here is just one example of them doing so; they do the same for virtually every other type of facility. 

https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/stop-meadowlands-power-plant

They also are conducting a nation wide PR campaign to influence the public away from natural gas.  

1

It sounds like they're primarily against it due to its site and the fact they feel New Jersey is inordinately affected by pollution to support energy for NYC. That said, they are clearly against all gas-powered plants in their state. As a consequence, I must salute you for honestly addressing my question and refuting my skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Against NG or fracking to to get at NG ?  anything aisle is just immature pie in the sky wishful thinking. We're an industrialized nation and not utilizing fossil fuels until a cost effective alternative is developed is just idiocy.  I wonder how many of the Sierra club members live off the grid ?

They are against every link on the NG to electric power chain, including production, pipelines, and power plants.  They do not want NG as a power source.  Some years ago, they saw NG as an important intermediate step between coal and renewables and they supported NG power.  However, they changed their position several years ago and started to campaign heavily against NG.  Typically, the reasoning they give for this is that the NG to power production chain leaks too much methane.  Personally, I don't think this is good reasoning.  We can get better at minimizing leaks, but coal to co2 is fixed (unless we are going to capture and sequester, which is too cost prohibitive and isn't going to happen).  

 

22 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It sounds like they're primarily against it due to its site and the fact they feel New Jersey is inordinately affected by pollution to support energy for NYC. That said, they are clearly against all gas-powered plants in their state. As a consequence, I must salute you for honestly addressing my question and refuting my skepticism.

For each plant they will give specifics for why that particular plant should not be constructed, which often includes specific local concerns, but they are against NG as a power source across the board. 

“'Gas is part of the problem and not part of the solution,' says Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director."

http://time.com/4649649/natural-gas-renewable-energy-donald-trump/

They are also against nuclear power:

https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 11:26 AM, Aphelion said:

I think we are over taxing the carbon cycle and that this is impacting the planet in a way that will be problematic for humans in future generations.  I think conservatives need to be more open about this problem and that environmentalists need to be more pragmatic.  For example, coal is still used for a considerable amount of power gen across the globe and that power could be replaced with aprrox 40% less co2 output via natural gas combined cycle plants, but environmentalists block natural gas at every turn.  Also, nuclear plants were blocked for years by environmentalists and nuke plants have 0 carbon emissions.  They will even block hydro power because it effects fresh water ecosystems.  So the fact that we are swimming in co2 has plenty of blame to go around.  Human produced power will impact the environment in some way.  We need reasonable, scientific minded people on both sides of the political table to decide on reasonable solutions.  They do exist.  

Excess co2 does have some advantages, for example accelerated plant growth as mentioned above.  However, the problem is that there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to facilitate this extra vegetation long term.  We would need to routinely dump tons of synthetic ammonia into the soil across thousands of square miles of terrain to supercharge the nitrogen cycle to keep up (similar to how we already do with farm land).  That would not be practical.  Also, the primary method to synthesize ammonia is via natural gas and this process also produces co2, which would mean we would need to spend additional money on capture an sequester, which is prohibitively expensive at the moment.  So bottom line is that excess co2 in the atmosphere has some positive impact on vegetation growth, but it is not sufficient to offset the vast amounts of carbon we dump into the atmosphere.

Regarding "tipping points," I don't think we should use this alarmist rhetoric.  Earth's climate is a complex system with numerous variables, some of which have positive feedback and some have negative feedback.  Isolating one positive feedback mechanism variable and claiming there will be runaway temperature rise because of it is myopic, as many other negative feedback responses will kick in slow temp rise.  If the earth's climate was sitting on top of such an unstable steep hill that a single feedback mechanism could cause a runaway temp rise unabated, then we are boned anyway.  But thankfully this is not the case.  I think such alarmist scaremongering is counterproductive.

I know few people care, but there is an interesting unstated philosophical assumption on anthropogenic climate change.  It is a subject in which a sharp line is drawn between man and nature.  In many other academic subjects man is simply a part or product of nature.  If we view mankind as merely another product of nature, then the climate impact of excess co2 is a natural phenomenon.  If mankind and our decisions are at the mercy of natural laws as BrickHorn claims and all of our actions and decisions are what's producing the co2, then there is really no reason to draw any distinction between the impact of man vs the impact of nature on climate change.  It is all natural and so the earth is changing its climate via a perfectly natural process.  Of course, no one actually sees man in this way for pragmatic purposes and so such views are relegated to philosophical discussion.    

 

 

There are many potential positive feedback loops that we have already activated:

1) melting polar ice reflects less sunlight, causing more heat to be retained which causes more melting polar ice.;

2) thawing tundra releases lots of trapped methane, causing more heat to be retained which causes more thawing of tundra;

are only two simple examples. I'm sure there are others.

Can you tell me of any negative feedback loops that might counterbalance those? The only one I can think of is stuff like lots of hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc make people wake up an realize we are shitting where we eat, except that doesn't seem to be happening.

Discussing those possibilities is not scare mongering.

 

As for your "philosophical assumptions"-- so you are saying that if I kill someone, their death can be contributed to natural causes. Cool, good to know you feel that way. Idiot.

 

Also, laxtono claims to be some sort scientist, yet he posts shit that I wouldn't even expect from Onboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

There are many potential positive feedback loops that we have already activated:

1) melting polar ice reflects less sunlight, causing more heat to be retained which causes more melting polar ice.;

2) thawing tundra releases lots of trapped methane, causing more heat to be retained which causes more thawing of tundra;

are only two simple examples. I'm sure there are others.

Can you tell me of any negative feedback loops that might counterbalance those? The only one I can think of is stuff like lots of hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc make people wake up an realize we are shitting where we eat, except that doesn't seem to be happening.

Discussing those possibilities is not scare mongering.

 

As for your "philosophical assumptions"-- so you are saying that if I kill someone, their death can be contributed to natural causes. Cool, good to know you feel that way. Idiot.

 

Also, laxtono claims to be some sort scientist, yet he posts shit that I wouldn't even expect from Onboard.

There are many negative feedback mechanisms.  Here are just a few: 

  • Black body radiation or Planck feedback - the emission of infrared radiation back into space which increases with the 4th power of the earth's absolute temperature.  This has a very powerful slowing effect on temp rise as heat ejection into space varies by the 4th power of absolute temp.
  • Lapse rate - Hotter climate means taller troposphere, which leads to reduced greenhouse effect (see link).
  • Increase in cloud cover -  "Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate, reflecting about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth's atmosphere back into space. Even small changes in cloud amount, location and type could have large consequences. A warmer climate could cause more water to be held in the atmosphere leading to an increase in cloudiness and altering the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth. Less heat would get absorbed, which could slow the increased warming."
  • Increase in precipitation - "Global climate models show that precipitation will generally increase due to the increased amount of water held in a warmer atmosphere, but not in all regions. Some regions will dry out instead. Changes in precipitation patterns, such as increased water availability, may cause an increase in plant growth, which in turn could potentially removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

With a quick google search you can verify these and find many others.  Again, I believe in anthropogenic climate impact and I think we should do something about it.  I just don't think presenting earth on the verge of runaway temp rise is accurate or helpful.  Experts don't present such extreme scenarios, but the situation is sometimes presented in apocalyptic terms of unabated heat rise by folks who haven't looked into the details.  

Regarding the philosophical discussion, you completely misunderstood my position.  

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

There are many negative feedback mechanisms.  Here are just a few: 

  • Black body radiation or Planck feedback - the emission of infrared radiation back into space which increases with the 4th power of the earth's absolute temperature.  This has a very powerful slowing effect on temp rise as heat ejection into space varies by the 4th power of absolute temp.
  • Lapse rate - Hotter climate means taller troposphere, which leads to reduced greenhouse effect (see link).
  • Increase in cloud cover -  "Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate, reflecting about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth's atmosphere back into space. Even small changes in cloud amount, location and type could have large consequences. A warmer climate could cause more water to be held in the atmosphere leading to an increase in cloudiness and altering the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth. Less heat would get absorbed, which could slow the increased warming."
  • Increase in precipitation - "Global climate models show that precipitation will generally increase due to the increased amount of water held in a warmer atmosphere, but not in all regions. Some regions will dry out instead. Changes in precipitation patterns, such as increased water availability, may cause an increase in plant growth, which in turn could potentially removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

With a quick google search you can verify these and find many others.  Again, I believe in anthropogenic climate impact and I think we should do something about it.  I just don't think presenting earth on the verge of runaway temp rise is accurate or helpful.  Experts don't present such extreme scenarios, but the situation is sometimes presented in apocalyptic terms of unabated heat rise by folks who haven't looked into the details.  

Regarding the philosophical discussion, you completely misunderstood my position.  

Hmm, it doesn't seem like any of those are truly going to counter balance the forces he identified in any substantial way. From your own link (not using quotes because they are broken):

"Rapid release of methane. Deposits of frozen methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide lie beneath permafrost in Arctic regions. About a quarter of the Northern hemisphere is covered by permafrost. As the environment warms and the permafrost thaws, these deposits can be released into the atmosphere and present a risk of runaway warming."

At any rate, your statement "Experts don't present such extreme scenarios, but the situation is sometimes presented in apocalyptic terms of unabated heat rise by folks who haven't looked into the details." seems entirely wrong. The experts have presented consistently extreme scenarios if we do nothing to reverse anthropomorphic climate change. Again, the earth will be fine. We will not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 9:37 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Give us a summary of the plan. 

Enact an annually-increasing carbon fuel tax (starts at $40 per ton, 36 cents per gallon of gas), give American citizens a dividend based on the tax, roll back energy regulations (this part was a little fuzzy), add in carbon-content tarriffs against countries that don't have a carbon dividend plan. He says 223M Americans (bottom 70%) would come out ahead on the dividend vs rising gas prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Hmm, it doesn't seem like any of those are truly going to counter balance the forces he identified in any substantial way. From your own link (not using quotes because they are broken):

"Rapid release of methane. Deposits of frozen methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide lie beneath permafrost in Arctic regions. About a quarter of the Northern hemisphere is covered by permafrost. As the environment warms and the permafrost thaws, these deposits can be released into the atmosphere and present a risk of runaway warming."

At any rate, your statement "Experts don't present such extreme scenarios, but the situation is sometimes presented in apocalyptic terms of unabated heat rise by folks who haven't looked into the details." seems entirely wrong. The experts have presented consistently extreme scenarios if we do nothing to reverse anthropomorphic climate change. Again, the earth will be fine. We will not. 

I'm not claiming that the negative feedback mechanisms will completely eliminate the global temp rise due to the output of greenhouse gases.  The climate will get warmer.  But there are negative feedback mechanisms which will slow the temp rise and keep the temp from running away unabated (which is what a single unchecked positive feedback mechanism would cause).  These things are known and their effects are estimated and implemented into climate models. 

Experts predict impacts from climate change and provide models which attempt to quantify those results, e.g. "in the next 100 years, the global average temp will increase by 4 C."  I'm not taking issue with these types of claims.  My point is that some folks present us on the verge of crossing a point of no return where the temp will increase at an increasing rate until the earth transforms into Venus.  This isn't going to happen.  What will happen is that the earth will get less pleasant from our perspective and its overall capacity to support complex fauna will decrease.  

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not claiming that the negative feedback mechanisms will completely eliminate the global temp rise due to the output of greenhouse gases.  The climate will get warmer.  But there are negative feedback mechanisms which will slow the temp rise and keep the temp from running away unabated (which is what a single unchecked positive feedback mechanism would cause).  These things are known and their effects are estimated and implemented into climate models. 

Experts predict impacts from climate change and provide models which attempt to quantify those results, e.g. "in the next 100 years, the global average temp will increase by 4 C."  I'm not taking issue with these types of claims.  My point is that some folks present us on the verge of crossing a point of no return where the temp will increase at an increasing rate until the earth transforms into Venus.  This isn't going to happen.  What will happen is that the earth will get less pleasant from our perspective and its overall capacity to support complex fauna will decrease.  

Fair enough. Although I don't think saying "the global average temp will increase by 4 C" fully and accurately depicts the picture of what that means. And, there is actually a pretty big body of literature discussing "crossing a point of no return". It isn't just a claim from the hysterical, but actually based on the science that the climate may irreversibly change in many respects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not claiming that the negative feedback mechanisms will completely eliminate the global temp rise due to the output of greenhouse gases.  The climate will get warmer.  But there are negative feedback mechanisms which will slow the temp rise and keep the temp from running away unabated (which is what a single unchecked positive feedback mechanism would cause).  These things are known and their effects are estimated and implemented into climate models. 

Experts predict impacts from climate change and provide models which attempt to quantify those results, e.g. "in the next 100 years, the global average temp will increase by 4 C."  I'm not taking issue with these types of claims.  My point is that some folks present us on the verge of crossing a point of no return where the temp will increase at an increasing rate until the earth transforms into Venus.  This isn't going to happen.  What will happen is that the earth will get less pleasant from our perspective and its overall capacity to support complex fauna will decrease.  

Then why are you talking about scare mongering?

Who?

 

And honestly, the denial-ism is way worse than any scare mongering I've heard.

 

Anyway, thanks for the links posted earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

@Aphelion

Who is scare-mongering? Who is presenting us as being on the point of no return?

 

does Brisket count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Aphelion's wife goes to doctor, comes home. She tells Aphelion "doctor says I got cancer."

 

Is she scare-mongering? Or is she just reporting what the doctor said? Is Greenpeace scare-mongering, or are they just reporting what the climate scientists said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of it more as if a doctor told me that if I continue to drink heavily, I will get cirrhosis.  He can't tell me exactly which beer would put me over the top so the prescription is to drastically change my behavior now.  Of course, the doc could be wrong.   Maybe I want to get a second opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I think of it more as if a doctor told me that if I continue to drink heavily, I will get cirrhosis.  He can't tell me exactly which beer would put me over the top so the prescription is to drastically change my behavior now.  Of course, the doc could be wrong.   Maybe I want to get a second opinion.

Except that every liver doctor in world is telling you the same thing.

Edited by High Plains Drifter
sweaty fingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Aphelion's wife goes to doctor, comes home. She tells Aphelion "doctor says I got cancer."

 

Is she scare-mongering? Or is she just reporting what the doctor said? Is Greenpeace scare-mongering, or are they just reporting what the climate scientists said?

You asked "Who is presenting us as being on the point of no return" and I gave you an answer.  You don't know the first thing about this subject and you don't even bother with doing a cursory search to learn basics.  You don't even know the primary climate mechanisms involved.  You are a dog barking in the backyard because the other neighborhood dogs are barking.  Yet you feel perfectly justified in nitpicking an phrase I used because you think I am downplaying the impact of anthropogenic climate change (which I am not).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, whatever.

So, anyway, when your wife tells you that her doctor said she's got cancer, is she scare-mongering? Is greenpeace scare-mongering when they report what the climate scientists are saying?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zork said:

does Brisket count?

That dude makes Marvin the robot on The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy seem ebulliently enthusiastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...