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

[WalkingOrders]

55 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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/

Stop accusing me of falsifying anything. And please be more specific as to what exactly you are advocating here.  What do you mean " A drastic reduction" can you quantify that please in percentage terms?  Also 2030, that is exactly 10 years away, so can you also please be specific on what you mean by  "consequences will be a lot worse for humanity"? Thank you

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

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/

Are you debating with Judith Curry? You can do that you know, over here, she responds: Judithcurry.com

[bristolboy]

14 hours ago, brokenbone said:

no, and no.

reefs are recovering, they go in cycles of death and recovery,

they need co2 to build their shells in the first instance,

and wouldnt even have evolved the way they did without the high levels of co2 that was

https://www.calacademy.org/educators/how-do-corals-build-reefs

http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/page/evolution/

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-drivers-coral-reef-recovery-long-term.html

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/remarkable-coral-recovery-on-southern-great-barrier-reef-island-20190626-p521kv.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpDngGm5cQ

 

This is like saying that because phosphorus is necessary for freshwater life, therefore more phosphorus is better. Remember the bubbling rivers of the 70's and the algal blooms which resulted in massive fish die-offs? Which was the consequence of too much phosphate in the water. We're seeing it again in massive dead zones in the ocean  now thanks to huge runoffs of fertilizer. It's only the most primitive and simplistic standard that holds that more is judged to be better.

[WalkingOrders]

49 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

 

Get the source document please direct from JP Morgan Chase.

[WalkingOrders]

36 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.

Have a chat with her. Judithcurry.com

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Stop accusing me of falsifying anything. And please be more specific as to what exactly you are advocating here.  What do you mean " A drastic reduction" can you quantify that please in percentage terms?  Also 2030, that is exactly 10 years away, so can you also please be specific on what you mean by  "consequences will be a lot worse for humanity"? Thank you

I gave you a link to the IPCC report. What more do you want?

[WalkingOrders]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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

 

Thank you. Now you have just admitted you have no idea what we are talking about here.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:

Have a chat with her. Judithcurry.com

Because why? She's on record as being massively wrong and obviously being misleading. For instance her claim that global temperatures hadn't risen since 1998. I hope she was lying about that one. Because if not, it would mean that she didn't know that a huge el nino had resulted in a big rise in average global surface temperature. And that would mean she's utterly incompetent.

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Because why? She's on record as being massively wrong and obviously being misleading. For instance her claim that global temperatures hadn't risen since 1998. I hope she was lying about that one. Because if not, it would mean that she didn't know that a huge el nino had resulted in a big rise in average global surface temperature. And that would mean she's utterly incompetent.

Because you are sitting here badmouthing her with articles from Leftist alarmist websites and groups, and then trying to debate us over her viewpoint like a smart guy, but she is literally two clicks away from you. If you think you know more then her, or perhaps would like details of her current positions, go over there and have at it. The point we have in following her is that Science is NOT settled. Now stop arguing her points with us and go over there and see what is going on. but warning to you. Fools are not suffered well over there, and that goes for EITHER SIDE of any argument you wish to present.  It's rather daunting over there, and you can get your ass handed to you rather quickly if you go in trying to claim you know what you do not know. And I learned that from personal experience. 

[fruitman]

On 2/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, Wullie Mercer said:

With reference to the last paragraph.

I worked in deep coal mining and was of the belief that when fossil fuels burnt, bushfires in Australia, the gas given off was Carbon Monoxide not Carbon Dioxide, hence the need for canaries as detectors of Carbon Monoxide when we had underground fires???

Only when there isn't enough oxygen carbon monooxide can form and that's very poisonous hence they had the canaries.

 

But by burning fossil fuels there is only CO2 given that there's plenty of oxygen around.

[WalkingOrders]

31 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

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

That requires the ability to be humble, and to have a mind that desires to search for truth rather then be told. It requires the ability to admit to what one does not know, and again, the desire to learn; To not be afraid of what may be found in the search.

[brokenbone]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is like saying that because phosphorus is necessary for freshwater life, therefore more phosphorus is better. Remember the bubbling rivers of the 70's and the algal blooms which resulted in massive fish die-offs? Which was the consequence of too much phosphate in the water. We're seeing it again in massive dead zones in the ocean  now thanks to huge runoffs of fertilizer. It's only the most primitive and simplistic standard that holds that more is judged to be better.

my reasoning is: the corals evolved to use the co2 because of the abundance

of co2, over 3000 ppm in air and whatever the chemical equilibrium that corresponds to in the seas, and the plants evolved when co2 was 2000 or so ppm, and so that is what they thrive in. im not saying more is better, im saying more is better until co2 hit the

corresponding spot when these species respectively evolved, 3000 ppm for the corals and 2000 ppm for the plants http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

[Krataiboy]

Just now, WalkingOrders said:

That requires the ability to be humble, and to have a mind that desires to search for truth rather then be told. It requires the ability to admit to what one does not know, and again, the desire to learn; To not be afraid of what may be found in the search.

Probably a bridge too far, then.

[WalkingOrders]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I gave you a link to the IPCC report. What more do you want?

Do you think, that i have not read, or need you to provide me links to the IPCC reports? If you do not know what you are advocating then what are you doing here? You cannot provide a specific of what YOU think should happen? Quantified into terms that make sense in reality? As in I need 150 bricks to build a wall? Not potentially some bricks at some point?

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

whatever the chemical equilibrium that corresponds to in the seas,

mmol/L (Millimole per liter)...?

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Because you are sitting here badmouthing her with articles from Leftist alarmist websites and groups, 

WRONG! The quotes and info about her I got from climatedepot.com which is a major denialist website.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

my reasoning is: the corals evolved to use the co2 because of the abundance

of co2, over 3000 ppm in air and whatever the chemical equilibrium that corresponds to in the seas, and the plants evolved when co2 was 2000 or so ppm, and so that is what they thrive in. im not saying more is better, im saying more is better until co2 hit the

corresponding spot when these species respectively evolved, 3000 ppm for the corals and 2000 ppm for the plants http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

Wow! If anybody has ever demonstrated an ignorance of how evolution works it's you here. Through natural selection organisms adapt to changing conditions. They don't remember or retain adaptations to what conditions were hundreds of millions of years ago. This is utter nonsense.

[brokenbone]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

WRONG! The quotes and info about her I got from climatedepot.com which is a major denialist website.

i have seen plenty of scientists maintain we are entering a colder era now,

this site show a cooling trend 2015-2919 using the exact data that NOAA did

 

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Get the source document please direct from JP Morgan Chase.

Right. That's the way it works with leaks. You wait for the official body to release the text to confirm.  Please, even the Telegraph which is about as right wing and denialist a publication as any out there accepts the factuality of this. What's more, Morgan hasn't made any denials.

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wow! If anybody has ever demonstrated an ignorance of how evolution works it's you here. Through natural selection organisms adapt to changing conditions. They don't remember or retain adaptations to what conditions were hundreds of millions of years ago. This is utter nonsense.

professional greenhouse operators begs to differ with your analysis

there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

[Forethat]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wow! If anybody has ever demonstrated an ignorance of how evolution works it's you here. Through natural selection organisms adapt to changing conditions. They don't remember or retain adaptations to what conditions were hundreds of millions of years ago. This is utter nonsense.

So what YOU are saying is that the ability to adapt through natural selection is an ability that is now lost, and if the conditions will change to what they were hundreds of million years ago they wont adapt?

 

Did you say utter nonsense?

[WalkingOrders]

Early on I posted this but I will again but this time I will be more specific.

 

This is the Headline of the Article we are discussing in this thread. Read it carefully:

 

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

 

A Reuters summary reads:

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Global warming was leading to an “irreversible” mass melting of the Antarctic ice and purging carbon from the atmosphere was the only solution to slow the process, an Australian climate scientist told Reuters on Wednesday.

 

 

Inside of the article, however, we find this: (My bolds for emphasis)

 

“Recent human activity has intensified global warming, which could result in a mass melting...”

 

“The study showed the world could lose most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed and is fringed by floating ice, in a warmer world. “

 

“What we’re seeing with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that this starting of the melt, once we reach a certain threshold, will continue despite our efforts to stop it,” she told Reuters.

 

“The team hopes to continue the research to determine how quickly the ice sheets responded...”

 

“If hotter temperatures were to sustain they could cause an extreme global sea level rise. “

 

The Rest of the article contains a series of unsupported assumptions. Obviously political and aimed at the Australian Government.

 

Now I ask you, to please read the bolds above and ask yourself these questions what does COULD mean?

 

What is the certain threshold?

 

What have they determined? Anything? How fast?

 

What does IF...were to sustain mean? For how long? What temperatures? Do you see the smoke and mirrors here?

 

I am not claiming that the research pointed to in this article is not valid, and even perhaps correct, it could very well be, but the article that is using this research is absolute garbage designed to instill fear and present the research in a manner which is simply untrue.

 

I direct your attention again to the articles title and summary. Remember – this article – is NOT the research. You would have to read the paper directly.

[brokenbone]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. That's the way it works with leaks. You wait for the official body to release the text to confirm.  Please, even the Telegraph which is about as right wing and denialist a publication as any out there accepts the factuality of this. What's more, Morgan hasn't made any denials.

stop the frothing around the mouth for a few seconds and THINK:

is it reasonable for any human , with the exception of extinction loonies,

to, using logic, think that the end is nigh for all life on earth if

conditions makes a comeback when complex life evolved in the first instance ?

'ohh, ohhhH' !!!? plants will thrive on greenland, were all doomed !!!!?"

[bristolboy]

Just now, Forethat said:

So what YOU are saying is that the ability to adapt through natural selection is an ability that is now lost, and if the conditions will change to what they were hundreds of million years ago they wont adapt?

 

Did you say utter nonsense?

No, that's not what I wrote at all. I wrote that through natural selections organisms adapt to current conditions. Since the present is a moving target therefore organisms are always adapting. When environmental change is gradual from an evolutionary aspect, change is gradual. When environmental change is drastic on an evolutionary time scale, there will be mass extinctions followed by rapid (from an evolutionary viewpoint) speciation. .  Admittedly there can be a bit of a lag time since species can be playing a bit of catchup but not 100s of millions of years. In highly complex systems like coral reefs or ancient rain forests, full recovery to a comparable complexity can take millions of years.

[brokenbone]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, that's not what I wrote at all. I wrote that through natural selections organisms adapt to current conditions. Since the present is a moving target therefore organisms are always adapting. When environmental change is gradual from an evolutionary aspect, change is gradual. When environmental change is drastic on an evolutionary time scale, there will be mass extinctions followed by rapid (from an evolutionary viewpoint) speciation. .  Admittedly there can be a bit of a lag time since species can be playing a bit of catchup but not 100s of millions of years. In highly complex systems like coral reefs or ancient rain forests, full recovery to a comparable complexity can take millions of years.

dude, cum off it, the plants that goes from a starvation diet of 400 ppm

to 1500 ppm in 2 seconds when the professional greenhouse operators put them

in the breeder dont show any sign of fainting, they just grow like weed

in a warm bath of fluffy co2 bubbles.

i may also note that my spirit went up by quite a margin

when i adjusted from -25c in the lands of the ancient vikings

to +25c in the land of smiles, it just wasnt an issue,

but it would have been if i had made a reverse on taht i suspect,

much like how a plant would feel like if it is taken from 1500 to 180,

which actually happened and plants began to die at higher elevations

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[WalkingOrders]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. That's the way it works with leaks. You wait for the official body to release the text to confirm.  Please, even the Telegraph which is about as right wing and denialist a publication as any out there accepts the factuality of this. What's more, Morgan hasn't made any denials.

read my post below about this article we are discussing and you will learn a bit more about the way this works

[WalkingOrders]

Bottom line, as can be viewed in my post above regarding this article, is that non-alarming research papers, are used by alarmist writers to effect public policy and to fundraise, a whole slew of party platform positions, all tied to "you must vote for us to save the world!"

[bristolboy]

Just now, brokenbone said:

stop the frothing around the mouth for a few seconds and THINK:

is it reasonable for any human , with the exception of extinction loonies,

to, using logic, think that the end is nigh for all life on earth if

conditions makes a comeback when complex life evolved in the first instance ?

'ohh, ohhhH' !!!? plants will thrive on greenland, were all doomed !!!!?"

Who says all life would be at an end? And if there are a few who say so, they're wrong. Life would not end. Millions of species die in major extinction events but life survives. 

But what you claimed is that adaptations from the distant past when conditons were very differenet somehow survive into the present. And that is flat out wrong.

[brokenbone]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Who says all life would be at an end? And if there are a few who say so, they're wrong. Life would not end. Millions of species die in major extinction events but life survives. 

But what you claimed is that adaptations from the distant past when conditons were very differenet somehow survive into the present. And that is flat out wrong.

no it aint, the plants wants 1500 ppm co2 to this day,

ask a professional greenhouse operator.

i havnt read about aquarium operators but i would suspect at least some has experimented with pumping in co2, with positive effects

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no it aint, the plants wants 1500 ppm co2 to this day,

ask a professional greenhouse operator.

i havnt read about aquarium operators but i would suspect at least some has experimented with pumping in co2, with positive effects

The ocean acts as a sink for CO2 and I think this is an equilibrium issue. Without going back over the research acidification is linked, but there are other mechanisms at play in the oceans in that dying animals release CO2, and debate of how much CO2 the oceans can store etc. I am not weighing in to state anything other then there are lots of unknowns on this.  I have also read that high CO2 leads to death of certain sea life like Oysters, and other shellfish for example.