World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state

[Jonah Tenner]

On 8/7/2018 at 7:58 PM, Cadbury said:

Yes I agree with you. With "carbon emissions" she is loosely referring to carbon dioxide. 

Also methane and other gaseous chemical compounds containing carbon.

[Jonah Tenner]

On 8/8/2018 at 9:47 AM, Scott said:

This is slightly off-topic but close enough to warrant a read:

 

One of the world's largest banks issued an alarming warning that Earth is running out of the resources to sustain life

If they had said human life, I would agree. Humanity is, like all other species transient inhabitants on this globe. If humans want to be a permanent species we have to go live off the planet.

[ELVIS123456]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, cold in one place doesn't disprove global warming any more than putting my arm in the freezer does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems. 

In fact, climate change will inevitably result in some places becoming cooler, this being the macro-level impacts on weather systems. The key issue is "change", and the driver is the "climate" which is becoming on a global scale "warmer". Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just taking inspiration from this doofus? 

http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/

Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, hot in one place doesn't prove global warming any more than putting my arm in the oven does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems. 

Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just another doofus? 
 

[canuckamuck]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

False:

"It is thought that between c. 950 and c. 1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was only in the 20th and 21st centuries that the Northern Hemisphere experienced warmer temperatures. Climatic Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a globally uniform event.^[8]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period}

Yes I have heard before that the alarmist's believe that the medieval warm period was only in one area. Personally I think this is another hocus pocus, hide the decline sort of manipulation. I find it very unlikely that a certain large area of the globe would become considerably warmer for a couple of centuries while the rest of the world maintained a steady cooler temperature.

I think they like that theory because the fact that the medieval warm period happened is quite difficult to explain away when they are trying to pin the warming on humans. So they invented the theory that it was only a local anomaly.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes I have heard before that the alarmist's believe that the medieval warm period was only in one area. Personally I think this is another hocus pocus, hide the decline sort of manipulation. I find it very unlikely that a certain large area of the globe would become considerably warmer for a couple of centuries while the rest of the world maintained a steady cooler temperature.

I think they like that theory because the fact that the medieval warm period happened is quite difficult to explain away when they are trying to pin the warming on humans. So they invented the theory that it was only a local anomaly.

So, on the one hand, you believe that there was a medieval warm period and the temperature data derived by climatologists but you don't believe what doesn't suit you. 50 percent science as espoused by an ACC denier.

Edited August 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[micmichd]

16 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes I have heard before that the alarmist's believe that the medieval warm period was only in one area. Personally I think this is another hocus pocus, hide the decline sort of manipulation. I find it very unlikely that a certain large area of the globe would become considerably warmer for a couple of centuries while the rest of the world maintained a steady cooler temperature.

I think they like that theory because the fact that the medieval warm period happened is quite difficult to explain away when they are trying to pin the warming on humans. So they invented the theory that it was only a local anomaly.

But it happens what you find "very unlikely" 

The gulf stream is one example. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, JCauto said:

Yes, I understand the mindset you espouse. It's called cynicism and I refuse to embrace it.

And yes, you have had individually a large impact by not having kids. I rather doubt you did that in response to climate change, but it is still valid.

Ah cynicism- to be frank, I believe mankind has destroyed, exterminated and abused the planet so much in the historically insignificant time humans have existed that our demise is as inevitable as the extinction of the dinosaurs. The only thing humans appear really good at is killing other species and ourselves.

If we don't kill ourselves off with pollution or antibiotic resistant diseases, Gaia will.

Re children, when I realised what the future holds, I decided not to have any as I didn't want them to suffer, so not in response to C C per se.

[JCauto]

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah cynicism- to be frank, I believe mankind has destroyed, exterminated and abused the planet so much in the historically insignificant time humans have existed that our demise is as inevitable as the extinction of the dinosaurs. The only thing humans appear really good at is killing other species and ourselves.

If we don't kill ourselves off with pollution or antibiotic resistant diseases, Gaia will.

Re children, when I realised what the future holds, I decided not to have any as I didn't want them to suffer, so not in response to C C per se.

We are in concurrence in respect to your first paragraph, that is also what I expect to ultimately happen.

 

Cynicism is accepting that this is inevitable and doing nothing to combat it. That's what I refuse to accept. The cynical, as is their tendency, are also moving further into climate change denial such that they can avoid having any social or material sanction or discomfort while they watch the world (literally) burn. That's beyond cynical and is getting in the way of those of us who are fighting the good fight (whether we're ultimately doomed or not).

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, JCauto said:

We are in concurrence in respect to your first paragraph, that is also what I expect to ultimately happen.

 

Cynicism is accepting that this is inevitable and doing nothing to combat it. That's what I refuse to accept. The cynical, as is their tendency, are also moving further into climate change denial such that they can avoid having any social or material sanction or discomfort while they watch the world (literally) burn. That's beyond cynical and is getting in the way of those of us who are fighting the good fight (whether we're ultimately doomed or not).

You don't have to convince me. The people that need convincing are the poor in India, Africa, the middle east and China ( now they can have more than one child ). I know a lost cause when I see it.

However, the one thing that could literally change everything, is the invention of functioning, affordable fusion energy, or an equivalent.

Such unlimited availability of electrical energy would indeed save the human race from itself.

[JCauto]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You don't have to convince me. The people that need convincing are the poor in India, Africa, the middle east and China ( now they can have more than one child ). I know a lost cause when I see it.

However, the one thing that could literally change everything, is the invention of functioning, affordable fusion energy, or an equivalent.

Such unlimited availability of electrical energy would indeed save the human race from itself.

We're again in agreement. But you'll never "convince" the poor not to reproduce, there's only one thing that has proven to work - raise their incomes so that they have less kids and put the ones they have in school rather than continuing the poverty cycle of more kids for more labour for less productivity and another large group of poor families for the next generation to repeat.

[JCauto]

18 hours ago, RickBradford said:

And so we circle back to an earlier point; that climate "change" of any sort, in any direction, is claimed by activists to be driven by, or at the very least "consistent with", catastrophic man-made global warming.

 

Hot, cold, wet, dry, it's all man-made global warming, according to the activists. It's a living demonstration of the saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When all you have is a hatred of capitalist industry, or humanity in general, everything looks like a greenhouse gas-driven crisis.

 

On the face of it, it looks like a good strategy, but the problem is that everyone has now seen through it, and the activists have no Plan B. The climate alarmism ship still floats in the ocean, but very few people remain on board.

 

No, no we haven't, and yes, yes you know this. My point was a lazy one, but then again it was a reaction to the sort of silly comments that drag a debate into banality. You eating a burrito doesn't mean you've solved world hunger.

 

You have already acknowledged that there is anthropogenic climate change, but that we disagree on the extent and scale. We don't need to continue to "debate" the point with respect to the overwhelming scientific consensus. That's over and anyone who wants to have a go needs to get thee to a university to demonstrate your research. There's lots of folks who are looking for a champion to disprove the science, have a go! But to pretend that it's still not known is disingenuous. 

[JCauto]

18 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, hot in one place doesn't prove global warming any more than putting my arm in the oven does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems. 

Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just another doofus? 
 

Except that one has the overwhelming support and consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists. The other has a bunch of contrarians with no evidence.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, JCauto said:

We're again in agreement. But you'll never "convince" the poor not to reproduce, there's only one thing that has proven to work - raise their incomes so that they have less kids and put the ones they have in school rather than continuing the poverty cycle of more kids for more labour for less productivity and another large group of poor families for the next generation to repeat.

Actually, if it's the environment you are concerned about, then it makes much more sense to reduce the numbers of the rich and middle class, since they consume a disproportionate amount of Earth's resources.

[micmichd]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if it's the environment you are concerned about, then it makes much more sense to reduce the numbers of the rich and middle class, since they consume a disproportionate amount of Earth's resources.

If you agree that something has to be changed then you'd probably find out that it takes intelligence, long-time investments, and skilled labour to let the change happen.

If you kill the rich, then there'll be no money left for those investments. If you kill the middle-class, then there'll be no intelligence and no technical skills left. You would only have bums left. Like in Germany where half of the population isn't able to think or work anymore, and these bums now cry out for a national movement again. 

 

The main mistake is probably the Western paradigm of exponential growth. But now there is AI, and that might be a medium for a change. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by micmichd
Add-on

[JCauto]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if it's the environment you are concerned about, then it makes much more sense to reduce the numbers of the rich and middle class, since they consume a disproportionate amount of Earth's resources.

Except that by removing the people who are the best hope of changing their behaviour and adapting to the new situation in favour of the least educated and most likely to continue destructive practices, you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Certainly we need to re-orient the economy towards recycle and reuse and enlist those people to lead that battle, rather than discarding them in some misguided attempt to punish what has not been illegal behaviour. After all, they're the ones holding the political power and who will determine what happens.

[RickBradford]

^^ Spot on.

 

Another problem with the climate change crusade is that it has become thoroughly entwined with all the other "social justice" movements, which are against anything capitalist, anyone rich, and almost anything which hints at competence or established wisdom.

 

Their only game is the "victim" v "oppressor" narrative, and these types always want to identify with the perceived victims.

 

It would have been a good thing if the climate debate had been able to rise above this, but it hasn't, and so it has descended into the same kind of pointless political power struggle as the Occupy Wall Street, Antifa and Gays for Palestine, probably staffed by many of the same people.

 

Turning the climate debate into a zero-sum Manichaean power struggle, is another reason the debate is stalled, probably irretrievably. Nothing has been done, and nothing will be done.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:16 PM, JCauto said:

We're again in agreement. But you'll never "convince" the poor not to reproduce, there's only one thing that has proven to work - raise their incomes so that they have less kids and put the ones they have in school rather than continuing the poverty cycle of more kids for more labour for less productivity and another large group of poor families for the next generation to repeat.

Agreed, but the poor reproduce at a rate that exceeds the ability of their states to educate them, so they can get better paying jobs, even if such jobs exist. The migrant flight is caused by insufficient jobs for the population numbers, and it's going to get worse as automation increases. Tellers just disappeared at my bank to be replaced by a machine. Mass unemployment is not a science fiction theory any more.

The great unemployable masses from Africa may head to Europe for work, but the jobs won't be there for much longer.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:46 PM, RickBradford said:

Nothing has been done, and nothing will be done.

Pretty much sums it up.

I recently saw Gore's "An inconvenient sequel", which had much of him and his team travelling on fossil fuelled transportation to tell us that we need to do "something", though he does not spell out what something is and how it shall be done.

None of the climate change crusaders ever say what they want to change the weather to. Even if they removed all the CO2 to the level of 1950, it does not mean that weather will revert to that of 1950. It might even precipitate a glacial period.

I'm all for stopping and cleaning up pollution ( they can start in Pattaya Bay ), but I doubt building windmills in rich countries is going to do much globally.

 

PS, the only result of Gore's new movie is that he'll get richer. It's not going to change anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:24 PM, JCauto said:

Except that one has the overwhelming support and consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists. The other has a bunch of contrarians with no evidence.

Unless you can prove that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree, I think you should not use that as evidence of anything. I've known scientists that were as dumb as a rock, so I wouldn't agree that they actually "know" anything.

I don't think there was any dispute as to the destruction of the ozone layer, and a solution was found and implemented. No such agreement exists either that man is the primary cause of climate change, or how to deal with it, whatever caused it.

The dinosaurs didn't cause the asteroid to strike the planet, and CC may just be a natural event, not to our benefit. Personally, I think Gaia has had enough of our destruction and is going to get rid of us, by one way or another.

[bristolboy]

On 8/11/2018 at 5:46 AM, RickBradford said:

^^ Spot on.

 

Another problem with the climate change crusade is that it has become thoroughly entwined with all the other "social justice" movements, which are against anything capitalist, anyone rich, and almost anything which hints at competence or established wisdom.

 

Their only game is the "victim" v "oppressor" narrative, and these types always want to identify with the perceived victims.

 

It would have been a good thing if the climate debate had been able to rise above this, but it hasn't, and so it has descended into the same kind of pointless political power struggle as the Occupy Wall Street, Antifa and Gays for Palestine, probably staffed by many of the same people.

 

Turning the climate debate into a zero-sum Manichaean power struggle, is another reason the debate is stalled, probably irretrievably. Nothing has been done, and nothing will be done.

More evidence free characterizatons. For someone who claims to believe and understand the scientific method, your comments are remarkably free of data. Basically it's just pejorative comments and character assassination.

Your kind of comments at best rises to the level of graffiti.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by bristolboy

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:23 PM, micmichd said:

If you agree that something has to be changed then you'd probably find out that it takes intelligence, long-time investments, and skilled labour to let the change happen.

If you kill the rich, then there'll be no money left for those investments. If you kill the middle-class, then there'll be no intelligence and no technical skills left. You would only have bums left. Like in Germany where half of the population isn't able to think or work anymore, and these bums now cry out for a national movement again. 

 

The main mistake is probably the Western paradigm of exponential growth. But now there is AI, and that might be a medium for a change. 

AI will certainly change things, but not many of us will like it. With most of the population on a "universal benefit" that can't buy much, it'll certainly cut down on packaging pollution, but it'll be a miserable existence.

Next thing will be the cashless society, and then most of us really will be screwed.

Never mind, once they start implanting smart phone technology directly into our brain, most won't care. Think the Matrix.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:47 PM, JCauto said:

Except that by removing the people who are the best hope of changing their behaviour and adapting to the new situation in favour of the least educated and most likely to continue destructive practices, you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Certainly we need to re-orient the economy towards recycle and reuse and enlist those people to lead that battle, rather than discarding them in some misguided attempt to punish what has not been illegal behaviour. After all, they're the ones holding the political power and who will determine what happens.

It's worth noting that governments could have already done the recycling thing had they chosen to. That they haven't, and are only messing around with plastic shopping bags while the world's oceans die, inclines me to believe they don't really care much, if at all. It's certainly true there are no poor politicians, and none of them are sleeping in their cars because they can't afford to rent. I doubt many, or any, know what it's like to be poor.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

are only messing around with plastic shopping bags while the world's oceans die,

I've never understood why a couple of organizations (or countries) don't clean up the plastic in the oceans.

A couple of scoop ships with garbage compressors could do the work fairly easily, cruising around 24/7.

Sometimes I think the agenda isn't to clean up but to collect taxes and control the population.

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Never mind, once they start implanting smart phone technology directly into our brain, most won't care. Think the Matrix.

I'm ready!

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agreed, but the poor reproduce at a rate that exceeds the ability of their states to educate them, so they can get better paying jobs, even if such jobs exist.

You are assuming 'the poor' are educatable. If you read Stoddard Lothrop, "The revolt against civilization" you will see he thinks  many of the underclasses are incapable of being anything except opposed to all civilized standards and behaviours.

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I've never understood why a couple of organizations (or countries) don't clean up the plastic in the oceans.

A couple of scoop ships with garbage compressors could do the work fairly easily, cruising around 24/7.

Sometimes I think the agenda isn't to clean up but to collect taxes and control the population.

Right . 360 million square kilometers can be cleaned up by a couple of scoop ships.

[BritManToo]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right . 360 million square kilometers can be cleaned up by a couple of scoop ships.

Wiki says 1.6 million square kilometres, but the centre has the highest concentration.

Better to try and do something, than just sit and whine while doing nothing.

Unlike endless climate change discussions, this problem has a simple solution.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I've never understood why a couple of organizations (or countries) don't clean up the plastic in the oceans.

A couple of scoop ships with garbage compressors could do the work fairly easily, cruising around 24/7.

Sometimes I think the agenda isn't to clean up but to collect taxes and control the population.

The amount of plastic in the Pacific would be too much for 2 thousand ships, and the most destructive particles are too small to be collected. However, large enough for fish to eat and die.

Mankind has tried to kill the oceans because no one in a position to do anything about it cared enough to do anything to stop it.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless you can prove that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree, I think you should not use that as evidence of anything. I've known scientists that were as dumb as a rock, so I wouldn't agree that they actually "know" anything.

I don't think there was any dispute as to the destruction of the ozone layer, and a solution was found and implemented. No such agreement exists either that man is the primary cause of climate change, or how to deal with it, whatever caused it.

The dinosaurs didn't cause the asteroid to strike the planet, and CC may just be a natural event, not to our benefit. Personally, I think Gaia has had enough of our destruction and is going to get rid of us, by one way or another.

 

Well, there's this.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Sure, it's only the consensus amongst those who study climate, but you know, if I want to know what is going on with the Large Hadron Collider I'm not going to ask a Biologist.

 

What, it's only NASA? Can we get a broader consensus? How about if we review the opinions of only the people who have studied and published climate papers? How about if we review the 12,000 or more climate papers and see what their results are? Yep. Same, somewhere between 90 and 100% with most settling at 97%. That is what we call "broad scientific consensus" of the sort that you only get when you usually deal with questions like "does smoking cause cancer".

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

Your previous posts have been quite reasonable. I don't understand why you're suddenly veering into invention of facts that are easily debunked. Does acknowledging that human activity is having major detrimental results on the planet something that disturbs you? It's so obvious that it calls into question your previous judgments and sincerity in engaging in discussion.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless you can prove that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree, I think you should not use that as evidence of anything. I've known scientists that were as dumb as a rock, so I wouldn't agree that they actually "know" anything.

I don't think there was any dispute as to the destruction of the ozone layer, and a solution was found and implemented. No such agreement exists either that man is the primary cause of climate change, or how to deal with it, whatever caused it.

The dinosaurs didn't cause the asteroid to strike the planet, and CC may just be a natural event, not to our benefit. Personally, I think Gaia has had enough of our destruction and is going to get rid of us, by one way or another.

“Unless you can prove that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree, I think you should not use that as evidence of anything.”

 

Will ‘over 97%’ of published climate science do or are you looking for something more absolute in you quest to deny the ‘precautionary principle’?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/