Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, thaicurious said:

Well, my first suggestion would be that you stop being so damned presumptuous. After you've regained some self control, I'd refer you back to a post you put your heart on wherein I laid out a general parameter of what I think reasonable (the specifics of which I might speculate but don't know that I can speak to well enough without further seeing some considered studies) :

 

 

Regardless, it seems silly if not futile to discuss solutions to climate change with climate deniers.

 

Not sure as to your thinking processes but you seem to be confusing some things. Besides that you had asked in two places what might be my position about which I'd already answered in a post you hearted, what you are commenting on here was my response to your prior complaint about no bylines, if I recall that conversation correctly. I was offering from the website about which you complained the approving voices of scientists and their identifications, their bylines, showing the website not devoid of these about which you complained. If you need further bylines, you can find them on the link I had provided for your review. Also you can search info on authors of posted articles on their search window.

 

For future reference, as to how I decide to answer a comment, be that by my own words or by words said by others, that's sort of entirely my decision, not at all yours.

 

Particularly in these ridiculous climate denial discussions I see no reason to reinvent the wheel on revolving disinformation for which the dubunking response is easily copy/pasted from better knowing others.

My Country IS doing the best it can  what more do you want? I am neither a denialist or an alarmist, except to say I deny the alarmist position. I deny scare tactics, I deny the science is settled, and view intense debate is demanded by science.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Of course it matters, because that is the only Govt you have any control over via your participation. The only Gov you have any policy influence over. 

 

Are you here trying to influence other country's policy?

 

Some Govts are meeting IPCC recommendations. I for one do not believe that I should support offering carrots to Nations that do not, nor do I wish to interfere in those Nations to force them to do what should be voluntary.

 

I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world right now. Bangkok Thailand. All of South East Asia is covered in a sick cloud. Who do you wish to address your concerns to? The Paris accords are primarily about money, given, to somehow cause countries to do what they should already do. They are using climate as an extortion tool and I am not buying.

I state my views when and where it is appropriate. 
 

One is I would like those in government to enact changes that meet the necessities outlined in the ipcc reports.

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, thaicurious said:

I understand what you say but while greed can cause and does worsen problems, there's plenty of billionaires trying to help the planet and its people. Besides the relatively recent wonderful https://givingpledge.org/ , millionaires and billionaires through philanthropies have probably done more good than harm though I don't have that quantified. 

 

I do not agree that greed caused this particularly. I think the more likely reason is that we simply didn't know any better. Even the data and connection on carbon only came in around 2007 I think. And projections are still being tweeked. So, sadly, even if there was speculation earlier before all the data was in, we only had the very hard evidence too late in the game.

 

Also I'd not blame greed for not stopping the world on a dime. Because that also would cause wars and famine and dislocations and great suffering now. So we need to reduce as best we can suffering later without causing too much suffering now. How to accomplish that ought be the legitimate political argument du forum.

If you look at the foundations of the vast majority of fortunes, they have been commenced with piracy, murder, theft and deceit. The older the fortune, the more likely that is. I find it amusing to be attacked as a leftist or socialist, it's like the Pope defending pedophiles. Not that socialism has not got its own flaws, planned economies have shown that.

Current charitable efforts by very rich people may be genuine, or window dressing. Some is a nice tax deduction.

I agree the process has to be gradual. However, it is being resisted by the fossil fuel industry, aided by right-wing media such as Murdoch. It's ironic scientists get accused of brainwashing, when it is guys like Murdoch that are the brainwashers-in-chief.

As an example, the current Prime Minister of Australia was video'd some time ago waving a lump of coal in Parliament. His chief advisers are all from the coal industry. No doubt they have juicy consultancies awaiting them post-politics. Of course, that's nowhere near as reprehensible as getting research funding for climatology, is it?

It's probably human nature to happily accept the good things science and engineering give, such as extended life spans, travel, and entertainment. Not so palatable when it is bad news.

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

My Country IS doing the best it can  what more do you want? I am neither a denialist or an alarmist, except to say I deny the alarmist position. I deny scare tactics, I deny the science is settled, and view intense debate is demanded by science.

Are you American? If so, your post is the most ridiculous I have ever seen on TV.

Item: Withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Item: Appointment of an oil executive to the post of EPA Secretary

Item: The Red Queen's race of shale oil fracking.

 

Australians call it coming the raw prawn.

[WalkingOrders]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I state my views when and where it is appropriate. 
 

One is I would like those in government to enact changes that meet the necessities outlined in the ipcc reports.

As example, I have no control over Thai, Lao, India, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Cambodian, or Chinese decision making. It does not matter what I say, or what I think. 

 

Likewise  I worry greatly when a Presidential candidate, uses Climate as a vote getting fundraising tool, and theatens - literally - to Nationalize the entire fossil fuels industry  and immediately cutail American fossil fuels production.

 

The result which would be an immediate hike in the price of oil to well above $100.00 a barrel, causing a likewise spike in the price of commofities like grain, and causing immediate suffering to those at the poorest margins, and tanking the global economy.

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Are you American? If so, your post is the most ridiculous I have ever seen on TV.

Item: Withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Item: Appointment of an oil executive to the post of EPA Secretary

Item: The Red Queen's race of shale oil fracking.

 

Australians call it coming the raw prawn.

The Paris accord? Right, I am not for carrots given to anyone. Fracking? Has resulted in the lowest price of oil in years. The world's poor can afford bread! Remember $107 a barrel?

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

As example, I have no control over Thai, Lao, India, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Cambodian, or Chinese decision making. It does not matter what I say, or what I think. 

 

Likewise  I worry greatly when a Presidential candidate, uses Climate as a vote getting fundraising tool, and theatens - literally - to Nationalize the entire fossil fuels industry  and immediately cutail American fossil fuels production.

 

The result which would be an immediate hike in the price of oil to well above $100.00 a barrel, causing a likewise spike in the price of commofities like grain, and causing immediate suffering to those at the poorest margins, and tanking the global economy.

According to who?

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

My Country IS doing the best it can  what more do you want?

I've no idea what is your capital C country. I didn't ask for anything. I've no idea what you are talking about. But right now I am questioning your stability.

 

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

I am neither a denialist or an alarmist, except to say I deny the alarmist position. I deny scare tactics, I deny the science is settled, and view intense debate is demanded by science.

This is my first encounter reading some of your material so I've not yet formed a judgment as to how you think about climate change. I did not call you a denialist. I purposely used the plural "deniers", referring to the evident (if not mere sock account) abundance of whom participate in these and similar forums.

 

Questioning science does not determine denialism. Misrepresenting data does. Laying out facts is not being an alarmist.

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

According to who?

According to history my friend. Go back in time, and research what happens to the price of commodities when the price of oil spikes, and imagine what would happen to the price of oil if American oil and gas went off the market. 

 

You see that is the problem here, no one needs an "according to who" sometimes. Some things require someone to study and develop an opinion of how they see the objective realities of their world through their own intellect.

 

if you decrease production - price goes up - and a complete shutdown of the US fossil fuels industry would result in a price spike like the world has never seen.  Such a hike would then result in a equally insane hike in commodities which are shipped around the world, and priced in direct relation to the cost of that shipping.

 

Such a price hike in commodities would be shown immediately in the price of grain (bread), remember the Egyptian bread riots? 

 

But don't forget oil based fertilizers are also used around the world. Oh man it could get even uglier.

 

The spikes could then cause unrest as the poorest countries with the weakest Governments , or most corrupt begin to teeter. This becomes an out of control spiral. Now the richest of Nations would survive the storm, despite being hurt significantly, but the poorest, well you can figure it out.

 

But don't take my word for it....I am just giving an opinion based upon a broad knowledge of how things work. I mean I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Not in this case.

Edited February 24, 2020 by WalkingOrders
spelling

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

According to history my friend. Go back in time, and research what happens to the price of commodities when the price of oil spikes, and imagine what would happen to the price of oil if American oil and gas went off the market. 

 

You see that is the problem here, no one needs an "according to who" sometimes. Some things require someone to study and develop an opinion of how they see the objective realities of their world through their own intellect.

 

if you decrease production - price goes up - and a complete shutdown of the US fossil fuels industry would result in a price spike like the world has never seen.  Such a hike would then result in a equally insane hike in commodities which are shipped around the world, and priced in direct relation to the cost of that shipping.

 

Such a price hike in commodities would be shown immediately in the price of grain (bread), remember the Egyptian bread riots? 

 

But don't forget oil based fertilizers are also used around the world. Oh man it could get even uglier.

 

The spikes could then cause unrest as the poorest countries with the weakest Governments , or most corrupt begin to teeter. This becomes an out of control spiral. Now the richest of Nations would survive the storm, despite being hurt significantly, but the poorest, well you can figure it out.

 

But don't take my word for it....I am just giving an opinion based upon a broad knowledge of how things work. I mean I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Not in this case.

Believe me, I’m not taking your word for it. Nor am I being swayed by your words. 
 

I’ll keep to what I believe we need to do if we are to reverse the damage caused by man made climate change.  

[WalkingOrders]

21 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

I've no idea what is your capital C country. I didn't ask for anything. I've no idea what you are talking about. But right now I am questioning your stability.

 

This is my first encounter reading some of your material so I've not yet formed a judgment as to how you think about climate change. I did not call you a denialist. I purposely used the plural "deniers", referring to the evident (if not mere sock account) abundance of whom participate in these and similar forums.

 

Questioning science does not determine denialism. Misrepresenting data does. Laying out facts is not being an alarmist.

I am from the United States. I live in Thailand. I have posted no material but have given you a website. The website is run by Judith Curry who you have labled as a denier., or posted materials I should say labeling her as a denier, someone worthy of ridicule. In fact, she is a bright academic now retired from that field who now is CEO of a Company which provides risk analysis to corporations on the subject of changing climate. 

 

The website, which I take you have found , provides a place for those with like minded views, as well as those who do not to provide material for debate on the subject of the Climate. It is very scientific, difficult to understand unless you are a professional in the field, but none the less is a great source for listening to both sides of debate on the minutia, as well as the big picture of the climate. I hope you find something constructive over there. If you post questions, you will get answers or posted in the right direction. There are materials there which are numbers based, and otherwise. judithcurry.com

Edited February 24, 2020 by WalkingOrders

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Believe me, I’m not taking your word for it. Nor am I being swayed by your words. 
 

I’ll keep to what I believe we need to do if we are to reverse the damage caused by man made climate change.  

It's economics 101

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If you look at the foundations of the vast majority of fortunes, they have been commenced with piracy, murder, theft and deceit. The older the fortune, the more likely that is. I find it amusing to be attacked as a leftist or socialist, it's like the Pope defending pedophiles. Not that socialism has not got its own flaws, planned economies have shown that.

Current charitable efforts by very rich people may be genuine, or window dressing. Some is a nice tax deduction.

I agree the process has to be gradual. However, it is being resisted by the fossil fuel industry, aided by right-wing media such as Murdoch. It's ironic scientists get accused of brainwashing, when it is guys like Murdoch that are the brainwashers-in-chief.

As an example, the current Prime Minister of Australia was video'd some time ago waving a lump of coal in Parliament. His chief advisers are all from the coal industry. No doubt they have juicy consultancies awaiting them post-politics. Of course, that's nowhere near as reprehensible as getting research funding for climatology, is it?

It's probably human nature to happily accept the good things science and engineering give, such as extended life spans, travel, and entertainment. Not so palatable when it is bad news.

I don't know the percent of fortunes made by misdeed nor do I know that older fortunes which might have been made by misdeed are used badly today. I don't know how to make a meaningful statement on that without knowing the stats.

 

If you are saying that you think I attacked you personally, I did not. I simply offered my view of things.

 

Nor did I say that greed is not a problem now or even then in exacerbating a problem, nor in the future delaying a solution. I said I didn't view that as a valid cause of what got us where we are because even if greed was at play all along, doing its own thing, we hadn't the science then to know better whether or not we were affected by that greed. To a cause, which I believe was the question served up, greed was a side dish. Our own ignorance was the main course.

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by thaicurious

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

It's economics 101

Not really, no it isn’t. 
 

Economics 101 is we only have one habitual planet and unless we act it will no longer be fit for purpose. 

[Jane Dough]

On 2/20/2020 at 9:46 AM, NCC1701A said:

One and a half years and counting since I got on one. With each passing year I intend to get more and more intolerable in shaming the people who keep on doing it when they don't need to! #flygskam

 

Rooster

[bristolboy]

38 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I am from the United States. I live in Thailand. I have posted no material but have given you a website. The website is run by Judith Curry who you have labled as a denier., or posted materials I should say labeling her as a denier, someone worthy of ridicule. In fact, she is a bright academic now retired from that field who now is CEO of a Company which provides risk analysis to corporations on the subject of changing climate. 

 

The website, which I take you have found , provides a place for those with like minded views, as well as those who do not to provide material for debate on the subject of the Climate. It is very scientific, difficult to understand unless you are a professional in the field, but none the less is a great source for listening to both sides of debate on the minutia, as well as the big picture of the climate. I hope you find something constructive over there. If you post questions, you will get answers or posted in the right direction. There are materials there which are numbers based, and otherwise. judithcurry.com

Judith Curry endorsed the view that the period from 2000 to 2030 would be one of global cooling. instead so far the 2 completed decades have turned out to be the warmest on record. She's a crank.

Curry warned of possible global cooling. “We also see a cooling period starting around the turn of the (21st) century.” She also suggested that the “current cool phase will continue until the 2030s.” [Also see: Scientists and Studies predict ‘imminent global COOLING’ ahead – Drop in global temps ‘almost a slam dunk’]

https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

Edited February 24, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

21 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Sorry I thought you were defending a position on being passive and doing nothing while allowing the planet to come to a horrible end inside the next 10 years. one that is going to immediately end all life on earth. That little girl Greta... she is a true believer! She is coming after everyone! Me I don't believe it.

Stop falsifying what most activists are saying. What they are saying is that if we don't drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption by 2030 the consequence will be a lot worse for humanity. This is also the view of the IPCC which has called for drastic reductions in fossil fuel use in order to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees centigrade and mitigate the damage that will be caused by global warming.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Edited February 24, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

On 2/23/2020 at 4:10 PM, Krataiboy said:

AFAIK. . .  kind of says it all, really, about the validity your ludicrous, unsupportable libel on the tens of thousands of reputable scientists who dissent from the official climate change orthodoxy.

 

Judith Curry did not "choose", as you disingenuously suggest, to be a dissenter. As an ethical scientist her only "choice" was to follow wherever the empirical evidence led, which is exactly what she did.

Which is why she predicted global cooling for the first 2 decades of the 20th century. And now that she's gotten that wrong, like the good and honest scientist she is, she has acknowledged her error. 

[Krataiboy]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Which is why she predicted global cooling for the first 2 decades of the 20th century. And now that she's gotten that wrong, like the good and honest scientist she is, she has acknowledged her error. 

Are you sure you mean the first two decades of the 20th Century?

[bristolboy]

On 2/22/2020 at 12:11 PM, Krataiboy said:

 

Well, for starters, the inconvenient truth (sorry, Al) that the the climate apocalypse scenario has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with reshaping our existing way of life under a socialist-style new world order of "sustainable development" run by an unelected scientific technocracy. 

 

You don't have to take my word for it. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to bring crash capitalism.

 

She let the cat out of the bag at a UN news conference in Brussels, when she declared, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution".

 

And foremost amongst these would-be destroyers of the capitalist system is none other than J.P. Morgan, the global investment house which is quite possibly the single biggest capitalist investor in and lender to fossil fuel companies. And here is what a recently written leaked report of theirs said:

JP Morgan warns of end to human life in climate report

An explosive new report sees economists at the bank calling for a global carbon tax

 

The human race could cease to exist without massive worldwide action to tackle global warming, economists at JP Morgan have warned in a hard-hitting report on the "catastrophic" potential of climate change.

In an alarming document sent to clients, they said that deaths, immigration and conflicts will soar as the planet heats and water supplies dry up. Famines will increase and species will be wiped out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/02/21/jp-morgan-warns-end-human-life-leaked-climate-report/

 

World's Biggest Investor in Fossil Fuel Says Climate Change May End 'Human Life as We Know It'

The leaked report from JPMorgan Chase argues that the use of fossil fuel, which it funds, is causing climate change.

The world's biggest fossil fuel funder — JPMorgan Chase — has noted in an internal report leaked to Extinction Rebellion that the company "cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened."

https://interestingengineering.com/worlds-biggest-investor-in-fossil-fuel-says-climate-change-may-end-human-life-as-we-know-it

 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Are you sure you mean the first two decades of the 20th Century?

The first 2 decades of the 21st century. My error was a typo. Hers was a whopper. But she shamelessly persists in spreading her nonsense to the unwitting.

[Krataiboy]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The first 2 decades of the 21st century. My error was a typo. Hers was a whopper. But she shamelessly persists in spreading her nonsense to the unwitting.

To err is human. You are forgiven.

[bristolboy]

Just now, Krataiboy said:

To err is human. You are forgiven.

Mine was easy to forgive. After all, I acknowledged the error and corrected it. But even though Judith Curry won't even acknowledge she was massively wrong, I wouldn't put it past you to not just forgive her, but to forget that she ever got it so wrong in the first place.

[Krataiboy]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And foremost amongst these would-be destroyers of the capitalist system is none other than J.P. Morgan, the global investment house which is quite possibly the single biggest capitalist investor in and lender to fossil fuel companies. And here is what a recently written leaked report of theirs said:

JP Morgan warns of end to human life in climate report

An explosive new report sees economists at the bank calling for a global carbon tax

 

The human race could cease to exist without massive worldwide action to tackle global warming, economists at JP Morgan have warned in a hard-hitting report on the "catastrophic" potential of climate change.

In an alarming document sent to clients, they said that deaths, immigration and conflicts will soar as the planet heats and water supplies dry up. Famines will increase and species will be wiped out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/02/21/jp-morgan-warns-end-human-life-leaked-climate-report/

 

World's Biggest Investor in Fossil Fuel Says Climate Change May End 'Human Life as We Know It'

The leaked report from JPMorgan Chase argues that the use of fossil fuel, which it funds, is causing climate change.

The world's biggest fossil fuel funder — JPMorgan Chase — has noted in an internal report leaked to Extinction Rebellion that the company "cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened."

https://interestingengineering.com/worlds-biggest-investor-in-fossil-fuel-says-climate-change-may-end-human-life-as-we-know-it

 

It's called "If you can't beat 'em, join em". Who do you think is pouring big money into environmental protest groups like Extinction Rebellion - and why? Here's a chance to educate yourself. I know, from the tome on the Arctic you sent me earlier, you enjoy long reads!

 

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

[bristolboy]

Just now, Krataiboy said:

It's called "If you can't beat 'em, join em". Who do you think is pouring big money into environmental protest groups like Extinction Rebellion - and why? Here's a chance to educate yourself. I know, from the tome on the Arctic you sent me earlier, you enjoy long reads!

 

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

I guess you can find a loon to support all sorts of nonsense. But tell me, how could Morgan ever find in non profits kind of profit it has been making from the fossil fuel industry? Such conspiratorial nonsense.

[Krataiboy]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Mine was easy to forgive. After all, I acknowledged the error and corrected it. But even though Judith Curry won't even acknowledge she was massively wrong, I wouldn't put it past you to not just forgive her, but to forget that she ever got it so wrong in the first place.

I suggest you take up your grievance with Ms Curry, via her website. Let me know how you get on.

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

If alternative sources are available, then they are used, a natural progression which the markets bring into play, one fuel source replaces another. This is simple economics. So if this is the case, then why are you on the left always screaming? You are screaming because you wish, correct me if I am wrong, to not follow this market mechanism you claim is already in play, and instead wish to force an abolition of fossil fuels. My contention here would be that alternatives to replace such a ban currently do not exist. You contend that they do, but if that were the case, then a transfer away from fossils would already happening. I agree that to certain degree this is happening, but no such replacement to support a fossil fuels ban exists.

 

If you believe otherwise, stop screaming at the rest of us and let the market do its job, just like it replaced whale oil.

One of the big problems with your model of the economy is that it doesn't account for what economists call externalities. For instance, the IMF has a report showing that roughly 6 percent of the world economy was devoted to subsidizing fossil fuels. Much of that is in the form of externalities. In this case damage to human health from the burning of fossil fuels. Also damage to agriculture from said burning.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

[brokenbone]

' the stakes against fossil fuel are human survival. '

lol

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world right now. Bangkok Thailand. All of South East Asia is covered in a sick cloud. Who do you wish to address your concerns to? The Paris accords are primarily about money, given, to somehow cause countries to do what they should already do. They are using climate as an extortion tool and I am not buying.

First off, where in the Paris accords is there any specification about giving money to certain nations? Stop making things up.

 

[Krataiboy]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I guess you can find a loon to support all sorts of nonsense. But tell me, how could Morgan ever find in non profits kind of profit it has been making from the fossil fuel industry? Such conspiratorial nonsense.

The answer to your question reposes in the material I referenced. I took the time to read the lengthy and detailed document you referred me to during our initial exchanges about the arctic.

 

If you cannot at least extend to me the same courtesy, then I have no wish to correspond any further on this or any other subject upon which you may wish to demonstrate your ignorance.

'Bye.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Krataiboy