The point you are trying to make was made and accepted years ago.What point am I trying to make?
The point you are trying to make was made and accepted years ago.What point am I trying to make? CC, the point I understand that you are trying to get across is that all most all the top scientists agree that man is contributing to the climate change. And that certain people disagree with these scientists. These people you call the deniers. If you had a dollar for every person that says man-kind does not contribute to the climate, you would go hungry. Am I correct? If so we can call this Stage One of the Climate Change. Then what I am seeing is that all most everyone agrees with stage one. For all general purposes Stage One is done and people should move on to Stage Two. Next, we have Stage Two. And that is how much is man-kind contributing to the climate change. That is where the list of all the companies, people and countries that you posted that all agree on stage one. Try that same list on stage two and you will find problems. Remember Al Gore used stage two to convince people of stage one. Then stage two fell apart and has never gotten back to the level of agreement that Al Gore had reach on bad data. What you are doing is saying if you don’t agree with stage two, then you are accusing them of not agreeing with stage one. Which is not the case. We are all waiting on the IPCC project computer models to establish the baseline so that we can answer the "HOW MUCH" question.
Until a baseline of the nature’s heat of the earth is available there is no legally accepted baseline.We've given you several baselines, and now you want a "legally accepted baseline." Your post makes no sense, but I've come to expect that from you. I'm beginning to think you either have some sort of mental illness or you're just stupid.Of course a “legally accepted baseline". One that will hold up in a court case. That should have been understood anytime the word climate baseline is being talked about. Otherwise you have junk science. What is your thinking? You want to make a point so all you have to do is pick the baseline that matches your thinking? What are we now less than five years from the computer models completing the baseline? I would expect the United States and World Courts to pass laws and rules before the baseline is released to hold back the flood of climate change lawsuits what will follow the baseline.
Until a baseline of the nature’s heat of the earth is available there is no legally accepted baseline.We've given you several baselines, and now you want a "legally accepted baseline." Your post makes no sense, but I've come to expect that from you. I'm beginning to think you either have some sort of mental illness or you're just stupid.Of course a “legally accepted baseline". One that will hold up in a court case. That should have been understood anytime the word climate baseline is being talked about. Otherwise you have junk science. What is your thinking? You want to make a point so all you have to do is pick the baseline that matches your thinking? What are we now less than five years from the computer models completing the baseline? I would expect the United States and World Courts to pass laws and rules before the baseline is released to hold back the flood of climate change lawsuits what will follow the baseline.Yeah Mike and you've got junk-self-deceptive thinking going on in your head. It's like trying to answer a wonderful string of a four year old's "WHY?" questions. It's fun with a four year old, it's disgusting with an intelligent adult. There will never be the detailed enough 100% accurate crystal ball you are demanding. You know what's 100% certain, that as a people and society we have our heads so buried up the place the sun don't shine - that you can bet we will be unprepared as the disasters keep ticking by. It's all a game of russian roulette - will that warm ocean water enhanced hurricane slide up the coast or will it meet a storm system that sucks it up the Rappahannock and hits Washington DC full force, during high tide or low tide. None of those questions can be answered. But you can be sure it's going to be like playing russian roulette and adding another bullet, every time you win. No way I can predict the exact outcome, but I know the healthiest choice is to stay away from the game altogether.
As for your feigned respect for the IPCC, here’s what they have to say. Mind you a world full of ruthless, powerful political interests have guaranteed it’s about as watered down, conservative and meek as statement as is possible to construct on the evidence. Point being, you can be sure the situation is worse than they are portraying.
Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers * http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdfBottomline, get prepared, society and our infrastructure are going to be radically changed with every accumulating decade. You know you're kind of crazy-making is down right criminal - Why? One example of thousands - right now there's millions of dollars being invested in building up the Florida's Coast, one last balloon for the money-men, in particular Fort Lauderdale. Building f'n highrises on places that are going to be flooded within two three decades. It's pure insanity the Republican/libertarian PR machine has made it all possible by confusing and dumbing down people when serious honest education is what's desperately needed. Christ - we're still arguing about the reality of CO2 and what that's doing to the atmosphere. You know IT'S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION STUPID??? and cascading consequence. The fucken game is afoot, and ass holes are still wanting to argue if the "game" even exists. It's real and it's serious and it's going to kick our asses over the next few decades like nothing none of us can imagine.Observed Changes in the Climate System Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.Drivers of Climate Change Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent ChangesFuture Global and Regional Climate Change Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform. Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions. The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets. Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. * Headline statements are the overarching highlighted conclusions of the approved Summary for Policymakers which, taken together, provide a concise narrative. The four statements in boxes here are those summarizing the assessment in the Summary for Policymakers, sections B-E. IPCC WGI TSU Page 2 30 January 2014
Why am I so damned sure. Because I’ve been around many states - a little of Europe, and I’ve paid attention to, and marveled at the whole complexity and interconnectedness of it all. The dependence on shipments arriving in time and going out in time, the weather that makes the growers and herders, and construction guys, etc., lives good or difficult. I’ve walked coasts and marshland, not much, sampling here and there, but enough to have a sense of it, inside. Most was decades ago, while there was still a bit more room and people were just starting to get scared.
Then recently, one of life’s amazing surprises enabled me to travel to and spend time at both oceans. I’ve been able to touch and walk slivers of coast with my inquisitive eyes and mind trying to drink it all in. I’ve been shocked at the general degradation of infrastructure.
{Want to shit your pants, take a boat ride up the Chicago River and look at the bottoms of those wonderful draw bridges.
To my eyes I can read the entire failure of my generation under those bridges.
We got so swept up in ME that we failed to hold up our end of the generational bargain - that being to hold and respect, meaning maintaining too.
But no, all the money went into facades and making it all groovy (I’m not knocking that, it’s a wonderful city and what’s been achieved is truly amazing, I love and have the deepest respect for it on certain levels.)
But then to see the incredible neglect and disrespect those once world wonders, the proud draw bridges that enable Chicago to become great.
I mean major structural Ibeams so rusted through, I could have stick my head through some of them.
What the fuck is up with that??
Regular maintenance, cleaning and painting (not so tough, check out the Golden Gate Bridge) so woefully neglected
While the city was building public wonders. So sad. So common. }
I walked the northern part of Miami beach. I was there for hurricane Sandy’s passage way offshore.
I saw with my own eye’s the gouge that minor (for Florida) event took out of that first line of vegetation anchored dunes.
One little storm. People talk about inches and think in terms of their bathtubs.
An inch on a real coastline is a whole different ball game -
and you nit-pickers are absolutely (and proudly) oblivious to such physical truths.
So disrespectful of the thing we depend on. So willfully ignorant.
A foot we can’t even imagine the cascading consequences flowing form that,
but it’s guaranteed and the idiots are still building like greedy kids.
Why does it seem like everyone takes all this so for granted?
No appreciation for the knife edge our society is on.
No appreciation for our dependence on the smooth operation of complex systems we aren’t even aware of.
Both in the natural world’s biosphere and in our societies infrastructure.
Disinterest and turf battles, and getting our rocks off continues to dictate all.
I mean we as Homo “Sapian” ain’t achieved one step past ancient tribalism.
This global-warming warning can’t be ignored]
Excuse me folks, I think there was a little postpartum venting going on there. :red:
What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: Step right up Mr. Steele, let the debate begin.
Venting is OK. What I was pointing out to you is that this whole problem will have to be worked out in stages. First, what is the problem? Ok, that first step is mostly done. Second, how much of a problem is there? That is where we are today. The next step is, who is to blame for the problem? That is the legal stage of program. Then the last stage is fixing the problem. The political stage.
One thing to remember, if the sea levels were going to drastically rise anytime soon. The military would be taking steps to deal with the rise of the ocean at military bases right now.
CC, I wrote a couple of posts but couldn’t get them posted a week ago. One was about gold mining with the professor and the other was about the Geysers and how it was like Woodstock only with a lot more nudity and most likely the most hippy spot ever in the United States. If you think you would be interested I would rewrite the posts.
CC, I wrote a couple of posts but couldn’t get them posted a week ago. One was about gold mining with the professor and the other was about the Geysers and how it was like Woodstock only with a lot more nudity and most likely the most hippy spot ever in the United States. If you think you would be interested I would rewrite the posts.Why couldn't you get them posted? CFI forums aren't censored. If you had a link that started with http/ it will sometimes trigger an automatic rejection. You can usually fix it by taking out everything before the www. Sometimes you even have to take out the www. If people copy and paste the link the browser will usually put in the http and www automatically. Lois
CC, I wrote a couple of posts but couldn’t get them posted a week ago. One was about gold mining with the professor and the other was about the Geysers and how it was like Woodstock only with a lot more nudity and most likely the most hippy spot ever in the United States. If you think you would be interested I would rewrite the posts.Why couldn't you get them posted? CFI forums aren't censored. If you had a link that started with http/ it will sometimes trigger an automatic rejection. You can usually fix it by taking out everything before the www. Sometimes you even have to take out the www. If people copy and paste the link the browser will usually put in the http and www automatically. Lois I don’t know why they would not post. I got some message that made me think the site was being maintenance. Busy week for me, and it was very late at night or you could say early in the morning. Then I got to thinking that it may have been the size, too big. If CC wants the stories I will retry. And thanks for the information on the postings. I do copy and paste, because I can’t spell worth a damn.
Search James Lovelock. He is one of the previously important voices for human caused climate change, and seems to have shifted his view. If I recall correctly: The sun may be heating up, contributing to global warming, or causing it outright, and it may no longer be possible to have confidence in the position that it is fully or even partially human caused.According to who, one man who thinks in terms of the Earth as singular living entity that he almost ascribes emotions to? No one has confounded the basic science that carbon dioxide is extremely well suited to moderating the global climate because it is able to absorb radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. If the incoming Solar radiation stays the same - or even decreases, we just came out of the lowest and most prolonged Solar minimum on record while still setting record warm years - but the outgoing terrestrial radiation is increasingly blocked then the global climate will continue to warm. We know with a very high degree of confidence that the addition of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the natural carbon cycle has fundamentally altered the radiative balance of the Earth's atmosphere.
I think a shift to focusing on human caused environmental destruction, which is in large part independent of rising global temperatures, makes the environment still a unarguably essential issue, and an issue for which global warming skepticism is irrelevant and can't be used against.Of course it is, the rate of species loss is several orders of magnitude higher now than it was in pre-industrial or earlier times. We're rapidly wiping out a significant proportion of the Earth's biosphere and nothing is doing it more efficiently than climate change where many habitats will eventually disappear. Like coral reefs.
There's far more to the problem than just temperature change and a greenhouse effect, that's just icing on the cake.Sure there is, but climate change on it's own has the potential to wipe out most life on the planet if taken far enough. It's becoming well understood that naturally forced climate change from things like the Siberian and Deccan Traps are probably far more dangerous than asteroid or comet impact. Think about that, an activity we're all taking part in is probably more dangerous than a huge rock falling out of the sky and creating a blast equivalent to thousands of H-bombs all going off at the same time. Climate change if taken far enough isn't icing on the cake, it's a human inserted needle in the veins of this planets biosphere, pumping in toxins that will likely kill most life here.
Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.Based on what, hunches? The basic physics hasn't changed since the mid 1850s when it was demonstrated that carbon dioxide was a strong absorber of EM radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. Svante Arrhenius went to the great effort of calculating what this would mean to the global climate in 1898 which is still within the current margin of error. All this before the development of Quantum Mechanics and a much deeper understanding of just what is going on to produce this effect. Certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are quantized to be absorbed by certain atoms and molecules. It's why you get spectrum lines when you look at the light coming from distant stars. Think of us pumping ever more gas into the Earth's atmosphere that has been exhaustively demonstrated to absorb then re-emit EM radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. It a stochastic process, which means that all that heat that simply would have transited unimpeded into space is suddenly being intercepted and re-emitted randomly. That means that about half this intercepted heat is being pumped back to the Earth's surface, it amounts to about the heat produced by 4 Hiroshima sized nukes a second. That's the heat equivalent from several billion atomic weapons being added to the global environment since the late 1990s alone. Explain in any kind of sane manner how we can do this and not have a profound affect on the global climate. Most of this is going into the oceans which have about 1,000 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. With what we've already added to the oceans there are probably centuries of climate instability coming until a new balance is established. If we keep pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year we're pushing the limit where catastrophic changes occur that will in fact result in the latest mass extinction event. It's all in the physics, people playing mind games with this need to go back to the science and not the fantasy that far too many are engaging in.
Well said!
Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.Based on what, hunches? The basic physics hasn't changed since the mid 1850s when it was demonstrated that carbon dioxide was a strong absorber of EM radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. Svante Arrhenius went to the great effort of calculating what this would mean to the global climate in 1898 which is still within the current margin of error. All this before the development of Quantum Mechanics and a much deeper understanding of just what is going on to produce this effect. Certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are quantized to be absorbed by certain atoms and molecules. It's why you get spectrum lines when you look at the light coming from distant stars. Think of us pumping ever more gas into the Earth's atmosphere that has been exhaustively demonstrated to absorb then re-emit EM radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. It a stochastic process, which means that all that heat that simply would have transited unimpeded into space is suddenly being intercepted and re-emitted randomly. That means that about half this intercepted heat is being pumped back to the Earth's surface, it amounts to about the heat produced by 4 Hiroshima sized nukes a second. That's the heat equivalent from several billion atomic weapons being added to the global environment since the late 1990s alone. Explain in any kind of sane manner how we can do this and not have a profound affect on the global climate. Most of this is going into the oceans which have about 1,000 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. With what we've already added to the oceans there are probably centuries of climate instability coming until a new balance is established. If we keep pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year we're pushing the limit where catastrophic changes occur that will in fact result in the latest mass extinction event. It's all in the physics, people playing mind games with this need to go back to the science and not the fantasy that far too many are engaging in.
Well said!Bravo!Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.Based on what, hunches? The basic physics hasn't changed since the mid 1850s when it was demonstrated that carbon dioxide was a strong absorber of EM radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. Svante Arrhenius went to the great effort of calculating what this would mean to the global climate in 1898 which is still within the current margin of error. All this before the development of Quantum Mechanics and a much deeper understanding of just what is going on to produce this effect. Certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are quantized to be absorbed by certain atoms and molecules. It's why you get spectrum lines when you look at the light coming from distant stars. Think of us pumping ever more gas into the Earth's atmosphere that has been exhaustively demonstrated to absorb then re-emit EM radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth's surface. It a stochastic process, which means that all that heat that simply would have transited unimpeded into space is suddenly being intercepted and re-emitted randomly. That means that about half this intercepted heat is being pumped back to the Earth's surface, it amounts to about the heat produced by 4 Hiroshima sized nukes a second. That's the heat equivalent from several billion atomic weapons being added to the global environment since the late 1990s alone. Explain in any kind of sane manner how we can do this and not have a profound affect on the global climate. Most of this is going into the oceans which have about 1,000 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. With what we've already added to the oceans there are probably centuries of climate instability coming until a new balance is established. If we keep pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year we're pushing the limit where catastrophic changes occur that will in fact result in the latest mass extinction event. It's all in the physics, people playing mind games with this need to go back to the science and not the fantasy that far too many are engaging in.
If anyone wonders about the amount of human contribution to pollution of our ecosystem, below is a real time counter, which started Jan 1 2016. Just to bring the scope of the problem in perspective.
Environment, 1,268,199 Forest loss this year (hectares) 1,707,339 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha) 9,001,879,643 CO2 emissions this year (tons) 2,926,318 Desertification this year (hectares) 2,387,968 tons Toxic chemicals released in the environment this yearhttp://www.worldometers.info/
Is there a consensus view on Planned Obsolescence producing unnecessary CO2 for the last 50 years?
psik
Is there a consensus view on Planned Obsolescence producing unnecessary CO2 for the last 50 years? psikYep, it's called (unrestricted) Capitalism.