A dire climate warning for the Arctic

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

You can't see or understand the points of this post because someone went in after  me and took a hatchet to what I had written, along with the links I has included... using the excuse "edited for Fair Use"

I then was stunned to see only a partial listing of what was initially said, and had not gone back far enough to see the original.

That original comment in full is post # 52  http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/956007-a-dire-climate-warning-for-the-arctic/?page=3#comment-11379405

The original argued on net mass of Antarctic ice, not the height alone. What is missing entirely is the topography of Antarctica and the updated realization that large portions of ice shelf are at risk of calving at some point as the sea floor slopes downward into areas of the interior - allowing warmer sea water to enter under the ice shelf and destabilize it. That gets into the concept of rapidity of sea-level rise, but What I was striving to communicate is that the US GOP assault on satellite funding and gathering of data will result in simply not having measurements to analyze. It appears that both polar regions (at least for now) are simultaneously losing ice due to warmer seas, and that has many reasons to become a self amplifying pattern, one that my post #136 conveys as to thereat impact.
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/956007-a-dire-climate-warning-for-the-arctic/?do=findComment&comment=11385233

As to why politicians don't do more? I see it as a combination of enough being funded by donors heavily entrenched in coal, oil and gas such that they can block action. Most (even Obama) are too aware that to truly spell out the actions needed would be to not get enough votes by people addicted to access to energy.

So, is it your opinion is that Obama knows his children or grandchildren will die due to G W, but won't do anything to save them because he wants donor money to continue?

[boomerangutang]

18 hours ago, fasteddie said:

NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have been cooking the books for years......

http://yournewswire.com/climate-change-hoax-exposed-scientists-admit-no-warming-for-58-years/

 

I looked closely at the link, and it's fake news.  Or, at best, it's stats, desperately twisted to try and discredit climate studies.  It's right of right wing and perpetuates the lies and misinformation of the cabal who are dead set against any reasonable climate science.   Agenda-driven, and a sad disservice, particularly to youngsters, who are interested in finding what's real about the climate situation.

 

It would be like going to a KKK rally and asking about gay marriage prospects for a black man wanting to marry a white man.   

 

Or going to a Jerry Falwell's University and asking around for opinions on getting an abortion.

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, Humberstone said:

 

That's incorrect. China produces 20% of its power through renewables which will rise greatly over the next decade. It is the world's largest producer of solar calls and has the largest wind farms on the planet.

 

A bit of basic research could have informed you of this.

 

 

China is also current building 20 nuclear power plants in addition to the 32 that are currently operational. Plans for many more are on the drawing board.

[Andreas2]

Maybe the Arctic is moving towards the US?

Frigid air mass building in Alaska, poised to spill into Lower 48 next week

As the cold continues to build over Alaska and western Canada over the next week, some of it will begin to bleed south.

Computer models are unanimous in bringing a significant blast of cold air to the western half of the United States in about six to eight days. On Wednesday afternoon next week, temperatures are forecast to be 20 to 30 degrees colder than normal in much of the Rockies and western Plains.

 

Disclaimer: Link refers to a leading Fake News outlet.

[RPCVguy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, is it your opinion is that Obama knows his children or grandchildren will die due to G W, but won't do anything to save them because he wants donor money to continue?

No, my opinion of Obama, Clinton and many of the Democrats is they are willing to accept economists stories of maintaining growth while "transitioning to a green economy.
This is a myth. They see a problem from greenhouse gases, but are surrounded by corporate offers to fix it without rocking the economic boat. Mathematically impossible. The low hanging mineral assets of the planet were tapped and consumed, and the energy to extract and refine for use the remaining lower grade materials is in opposition to affording the cost of that energy. Then, down the road a little further, the energy needed to extract energy will begin to match the net energy (for all flows) needed to produce the energy - meaning it become a zero gain process. At that point, everything shuts down. Short term there are alternatives that can be accessed, but the global manufacturing economy upon which foundation the manufacturing of huge wind-turbines, or the powering of solar pv cell production is coal, oil and gas. Society thrives off the energy excess above what it takes to produce the energy needed to run things. In the early 1900s that excess was 99 times what it took to extract oil from shallow wells. 

They understand the climate issues of Greenhouse Gasses, but also WANT to believe these transition options exist. To face the alternative is political suicide. This is different from those politicians who bought into the propaganda pitch paid for by the Fossil fuel industry. This second class of politicians find they can get donations and votes by denying that humans have any causal relationship to the net planetary warming now underway. The political structure of the USA is such that a minority of the population, even a minority of the Senate, has the power to block legislation that science indicates is needed, and there have long been enough senators and house members to maintain such a stalemate.  Not a problem for those in DC. They get paid whether they solve problems or not, in fact many get paid more for being effective roadblocks.

That is the basic background. It gets worse. Some things that Obama could have done more boldly he has not done. A current case is the 3.7 billion dollar pipeline DAPL project for a Bakken field already showing high rates of well depletion. Morally he has the legal excuse- the Treaties, the designation of Treaties as the Supreme Law of the land, AND past Supreme Court rulings on Sioux land ALL say the first right of denial of pipeline passage is the Sioux Nation's right. Yet, Obama has said he'd wait a bit longer for things to unfold. That was a coward's response, and a direct betrayal of promises he made when he had visited Standing Rock. Why are we (humanity) wasting energy on projects that add to our rate of fossil fuel consumption?
I believe we knew enough on the 70's to have had a decent chance of avoiding the human suffering and die off ahead, but kept kicking the can down the road because there was so much money to be made by extracting and processing the crude. Jimmy Carter asked people to cut back on the amount of AC or heating used in homes and offices and the corporations found an actor to sell the public on going for more consumption. Bernie Sanders had some of the same platform ideas and the neo-liberal (corporate) wing of the Democrats sabotaged him in every way they could. In the end, the electoral college looks to have again given the controls to an actor - a Reality TV star who has conned many as a businessman, and now will (like the Clintons) use his office to help his buddies.
Like the movie Armageddon, where the asteroid is set to hit Earth. The longer the delay, the less hope of avoiding the very nasty results. We need to shut down the processes that release CO2 to the air AND we need to extract hundreds of Gigatons ASAP because at over 400ppm the planetary systems are already shifting in ways that accelerate the warming. We do NOT have the technology to capture and store enough carbon. Lower cost natural technology of enrichment and reforestation need be done everywhere. yet already the tide is turning and the trees we do have are dying from droughts already being experienced.

Bottom line I see humans as too disorganized and fractured to deal effectively with the mitigating the disaster ahead. THIS CENTURY, war, famine, disease and net localized effects of Climate Change will kill off/ cull half or more of human population - back from the 7.3 billion people now alive. Not a good century for any new babies being born.

What I've written here and in prior posts has been said many times, many ways. People though just DO NOT WANT to accept limits to growth


This is one graphic from one article that goes into our human dilemma in great detail - see
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-08/plundering-the-planet-a-report-to-the-club-of-rome

[Scott]

My apologies if it appeared that I did a 'hatchet job' on a post but we must follow the accepted rules on Fair Use Policy.   In general, an entire post is removed, however, some members do try to post informative material and thus we will try to edit it.   Members need to read the link.  

 

Here is the rule:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

 

I hope this helps with future situations which might occur.   Providing links does add to the credibility of the post.  

[thaibeachlovers]

28 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

No, my opinion of Obama, Clinton and many of the Democrats is they are willing to accept economists stories of maintaining growth while "transitioning to a green economy.
This is a myth. They see a problem from greenhouse gases, but are surrounded by corporate offers to fix it without rocking the economic boat. Mathematically impossible. The low hanging mineral assets of the planet were tapped and consumed, and the energy to extract and refine for use the remaining lower grade materials is in opposition to affording the cost of that energy. Then, down the road a little further, the energy needed to extract energy will begin to match the net energy (for all flows) needed to produce the energy - meaning it become a zero gain process. At that point, everything shuts down. Short term there are alternatives that can be accessed, but the global manufacturing economy upon which foundation the manufacturing of huge wind-turbines, or the powering of solar pv cell production is coal, oil and gas. Society thrives off the energy excess above what it takes to produce the energy needed to run things. In the early 1900s that excess was 99 times what it took to extract oil from shallow wells. 

They understand the climate issues of Greenhouse Gasses, but also WANT to believe these transition options exist. To face the alternative is political suicide. This is different from those politicians who bought into the propaganda pitch paid for by the Fossil fuel industry. This second class of politicians find they can get donations and votes by denying that humans have any causal relationship to the net planetary warming now underway. The political structure of the USA is such that a minority of the population, even a minority of the Senate, has the power to block legislation that science indicates is needed, and there have long been enough senators and house members to maintain such a stalemate.  Not a problem for those in DC. They get paid whether they solve problems or not, in fact many get paid more for being effective roadblocks.

That is the basic background. It gets worse. Some things that Obama could have done more boldly he has not done. A current case is the 3.7 billion dollar pipeline DAPL project for a Bakken field already showing high rates of well depletion. Morally he has the legal excuse- the Treaties, the designation of Treaties as the Supreme Law of the land, AND past Supreme Court rulings on Sioux land ALL say the first right of denial of pipeline passage is the Sioux Nation's right. Yet, Obama has said he'd wait a bit longer for things to unfold. That was a coward's response, and a direct betrayal of promises he made when he had visited Standing Rock. Why are we (humanity) wasting energy on projects that add to our rate of fossil fuel consumption?
I believe we knew enough on the 70's to have had a decent chance of avoiding the human suffering and die off ahead, but kept kicking the can down the road because there was so much money to be made by extracting and processing the crude. Jimmy Carter asked people to cut back on the amount of AC or heating used in homes and offices and the corporations found an actor to sell the public on going for more consumption. Bernie Sanders had some of the same platform ideas and the neo-liberal (corporate) wing of the Democrats sabotaged him in every way they could. In the end, the electoral college looks to have again given the controls to an actor - a Reality TV star who has conned many as a businessman, and now will (like the Clintons) use his office to help his buddies.
Like the movie Armageddon, where the asteroid is set to hit Earth. The longer the delay, the less hope of avoiding the very nasty results. We need to shut down the processes that release CO2 to the air AND we need to extract hundreds of Gigatons ASAP because at over 400ppm the planetary systems are already shifting in ways that accelerate the warming. We do NOT have the technology to capture and store enough carbon. Lower cost natural technology of enrichment and reforestation need be done everywhere. yet already the tide is turning and the trees we do have are dying from droughts already being experienced.

Bottom line I see humans as too disorganized and fractured to deal effectively with the mitigating the disaster ahead. THIS CENTURY, war, famine, disease and net localized effects of Climate Change will kill off/ cull half or more of human population - back from the 7.3 billion people now alive. Not a good century for any new babies being born.

What I've written here and in prior posts has been said many times, many ways. People though just DO NOT WANT to accept limits to growth


This is one graphic from one article that goes into our human dilemma in great detail - see
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-08/plundering-the-planet-a-report-to-the-club-of-rome

I agree with most of what you write except there is a proven technology to extract CO2 and store it safely that has been developed in Iceland. Yet nothing is being done to use that technology elsewhere, WHY NOT?

 

When the oil shock happened in early 70s they were going to go large to alternatives, but the Saudis turned the oil back on and it was all quietly forgotten.

Are humans too ignorant to survive?

 

I agree that this century will see war and/ or Gaia cull the human race. I am thankful indeed I brought no children into this world to suffer, but it irks me to see those that did carry on in willful ignorance of the problems posed by overpopulation and pollution.

[thaibeachlovers]

This is why I think people are too ignorant to ever escape the pollution they say is going to kill us all.

This applies to all countries that think cars are special. It just happens to be the first VDO I could find about insane traffic

 

 

[RPCVguy]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree with most of what you write except there is a proven technology to extract CO2 and store it safely that has been developed in Iceland. Yet nothing is being done to use that technology elsewhere, WHY NOT?

 

When the oil shock happened in early 70s they were going to go large to alternatives, but the Saudis turned the oil back on and it was all quietly forgotten.

Are humans too ignorant to survive?

 

I agree that this century will see war and/ or Gaia cull the human race. I am thankful indeed I brought no children into this world to suffer, but it irks me to see those that did carry on in willful ignorance of the problems posed by overpopulation and pollution.

Pleasantly surprised we agree so well, including your last two points. Like you I sired no children,but the woman I chose when I retired here came complete with children,a niece she raised as a daughter, and within a few years we took in the granddaughter as a marriage failed. Add in  a few more this past year and I've a loving household who I know are in for a very rough ride as society contracts this century.

On the first point, yes there are technologies that can sequester Carbon / CO2 from the air. The issue is the scale needed AND the energy needed to power that technology. The best concise statement of the conundrum I've seen is:

Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction - the reality is much worse ~ Nick Breeze 2/27/2015

The issue is the magnitude of what MUST be done to halt the warming the current layer of insulation from excess Greenhouse Gases will already generate. I will quote Dr Hunt - who is in the video at this link:
"10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don't do anything on this planet on that scale. We don't manufacture food on that scale, we don't mine iron ore on that scale. We don't even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?"

It is the scale, energy requirements, and raw material needed for this task that people can barely imagine. ALL of human economic activity over decades, generating tens of gigatons of CO2/year is the folly that must be undone. First step - stop making the problem bigger. Stop all but the most essential use of carbon based energy. This transition was experienced by Cuba - when they lost their fuel supply at the fall of the USSR. People were encouraged to grow gardens on vacant lots everywhere. Cars lacked fuel to drive them, stairs instead of elevators, ... yet people did survive. They did not choose that path, recycling and reuse in new ways - along with natural exercise just to survive all are part of what happened.
Political "leaders" have not prepared, media has not informed the people of what is ahead. That is why effective action will not be attempted.
How Cuba Survived Peak Oil  is a short trailer video linked to a playlist about what lies ahead - though it is framed as "Peak Oil" the reality is ENERGY SUPPLY at an EROEI that is sufficient within the ability of people to buy... which does not cook us through CO2 in the air. Again and again, that last condition throws a huge kicker into the equation of "a future." By the time consequences of Climate Change compound the problems of population doubling since the early 70s, and loss of accessible minerals and energy - it will be a bleak century. On that - we both agree.

[Humberstone]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You miss the point I was making. I was saying that if China can't take cars off the road, no country can.

Cars are the biggest waste of oil and treasure ever to blight the planet and are destroying cities. They need to be banned, but that is not politically possible in the west.

 

I was answering the wider point you made re; 'GW must be untrue, look at China an autocratic country that can make the populous bow to their demands'. The fact that the CCP is investing so heavily in renewables means they recognize the impact pollution has and a hydrocarbon based energy plan is no longer sustainable.  

 

I agree with you on cars. I'd love to see them banned/restricted from use in major cities.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Humberstone said:

 

I was answering the wider point you made re; 'GW must be untrue, look at China an autocratic country that can make the populous bow to their demands'. The fact that the CCP is investing so heavily in renewables means they recognize the impact pollution has and a hydrocarbon based energy plan is no longer sustainable.  

 

I agree with you on cars. I'd love to see them banned/restricted from use in major cities.

 

I have never, to my knowledge, said GW is UNTRUE ( I do get tired of people saying I said things I didn't ). I ACCEPT that G W IS HAPPENING!!!!!!! I have pointed that out MANY times.

What I have said, is that governments are not doing anywhere near enough to ACTUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING. Leaders are doing nothing by example to encourage their people. There are sod all solutions out there that would work and are politically acceptable.

Good luck to the people that are stressing about it, but get out there, start a political movement to ban cars in cities, stop population growth, eliminate jet based mass tourism, etc etc etc.

Just wringing hands and saying something must be done isn't going to change anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

On the first point, yes there are technologies that can sequester Carbon / CO2 from the air. The issue is the scale needed AND the energy needed to power that technology. The best concise statement of the conundrum I've seen is:

Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction - the reality is much worse ~ Nick Breeze 2/27/2015

The issue is the magnitude of what MUST be done to halt the warming the current layer of insulation from excess Greenhouse Gases will already generate. I will quote Dr Hunt - who is in the video at this link:
"10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don't do anything on this planet on that scale. We don't manufacture food on that scale, we don't mine iron ore on that scale. We don't even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?"

This transition was experienced by Cuba - when they lost their fuel supply at the fall of the USSR. People were encouraged to grow gardens on vacant lots everywhere. Cars lacked fuel to drive them, stairs instead of elevators, ... yet people did survive. They did not choose that path, recycling and reuse in new ways - along with natural exercise just to survive all are part of what happened.
Political "leaders" have not prepared, media has not informed the people of what is ahead. That is why effective action will not be attempted.

 

Again and again, that last condition throws a huge kicker into the equation of "a future." By the time consequences of Climate Change compound the problems of population doubling since the early 70s, and loss of accessible minerals and energy - it will be a bleak century. On that - we both agree.

Edited for saving space.

 

I agree with the above. Cuba has led by example.

Too much carbon, but they still cut down the rainforest. Why haven't all the governments of the planet started a massive tree planting project years ago?

 

There is no excuse that if governments actually believe the planet is at the risk of doom they say it is, that they don't get together and pool resources to build the technology needed to remove CO2 in sufficient quantities, replace oil based transportation with hydrogen fuel cells, replace jet planes with airships, hi speed passenger ships and hi speed trains, build a functioning and affordable city public transport system to replace cars and all the other things that could be built with co operation and pooled resources.

What they are actually doing is building more warships and planes that destroy things. The pitiful attempts they are doing to change G W like windmills and wave machines are just to pretend that they are "doing something" to keep the sheeple pacified as they are engrossed in their "social media" BS.

What is IMPORTANT to the sheeple? Is it not using oil, or is it what the Kardashians did last night, via their stupid phone? What's big in the public consciousness? Is it using public transport, or taking selfies?

Bah humbug. People will get what they deserve, in the end.

[jrward42]

 

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Edited for brevity.

China is the one country in the entire world that could do something about smog. They could just ban all cars and make everyone ride bicycles like they used to. Problem solved.

The fact that they won't or can't exposes the whole G W scam for the fraud it is. Does anyone think the Chinese leaders wouldn't know if pollution was going to destroy humanity? That they don't do anything to change it signifies to me that it is just BS.

 

I'm all for anything that stops pollution, and improves lives though.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have never, to my knowledge, said GW is UNTRUE ( I do get tired of people saying I said things I didn't ). I ACCEPT that G W IS HAPPENING!!!!!!! I have pointed that out MANY times.

What I have said, is that governments are not doing anywhere near enough to ACTUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING. Leaders are doing nothing by example to encourage their people. There are sod all solutions out there that would work and are politically acceptable.

Good luck to the people that are stressing about it, but get out there, start a political movement to ban cars in cities, stop population growth, eliminate jet based mass tourism, etc etc etc.

Just wringing hands and saying something must be done isn't going to change anything.

To be fair, you did say it was a scam and a fraud. 

 

I also think you are looking at the issue in quite a black or white way. You seem to think that everyone will die if GW is true - they won't. Millions, possibly billions will die, but they will mostly be poor and in third world countries. So all the deniers on this board will probably be ok.

 

You seem to think that it has to be all or nothing. That if someone like China doesn't outright ban all cars and go all green then that is proof that they don't believe in the 'scam'. Such a drastic move would cripple their economy and they are also aware that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Increasing greener alternatives, which they are doing,  will help. 

 

GW is a gradual thing and people are just hand wringing. It isn't a case that we are fine one minute and will all be dead the next. As you say, people are cars are a massive problem, so cycling is a good alternative. Try and use solar panels. Developed countries are already experiencing population slowdown, some cities are imposing congestion charges for central cities and setting up bike schemes, etc. For example.

 

In the UK half of energy now comes from renewable energy. People are doing things.

 

Just because governments are implementing gradual changes as opposed to all out bans isn't proof that they all think it is a scam. It is proof that they see a problem and they are doing what they are able to do within the confines of the political system. As shown in this thread, no matter how much evidence is presented, some will just refuse to admit there is a problem - this makes it harder.

[jrward42]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Edited for saving space.

 

I agree with the above. Cuba has led by example.

Too much carbon, but they still cut down the rainforest. Why haven't all the governments of the planet started a massive tree planting project years ago?

 

There is no excuse that if governments actually believe the planet is at the risk of doom they say it is, that they don't get together and pool resources to build the technology needed to remove CO2 in sufficient quantities, replace oil based transportation with hydrogen fuel cells, replace jet planes with airships, hi speed passenger ships and hi speed trains, build a functioning and affordable city public transport system to replace cars and all the other things that could be built with co operation and pooled resources.

What they are actually doing is building more warships and planes that destroy things. The pitiful attempts they are doing to change G W like windmills and wave machines are just to pretend that they are "doing something" to keep the sheeple pacified as they are engrossed in their "social media" BS.

What is IMPORTANT to the sheeple? Is it not using oil, or is it what the Kardashians did last night, via their stupid phone? What's big in the public consciousness? Is it using public transport, or taking selfies?

Bah humbug. People will get what they deserve, in the end.

Totally agree that governments could do more and that people are idiots. I think that is why it is important that people are aware of the problem though. If it was the selfie-obessessed idiots watching the Kardashians who would suffer the most, then that would be fine. Sadly, that probably won't be the case. 

 

More could definitely be done.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, jrward42 said:

 

To be fair, you did say it was a scam and a fraud. 

 

I also think you are looking at the issue in quite a black or white way. You seem to think that everyone will die if GW is true - they won't. Millions, possibly billions will die, but they will mostly be poor and in third world countries. So all the deniers on this board will probably be ok.

 

You seem to think that it has to be all or nothing. That if someone like China doesn't outright ban all cars and go all green then that is proof that they don't believe in the 'scam'. Such a drastic move would cripple their economy and they are also aware that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Increasing greener alternatives, which they are doing,  will help. 

 

GW is a gradual thing and people are just hand wringing. It isn't a case that we are fine one minute and will all be dead the next. As you say, people are cars are a massive problem, so cycling is a good alternative. Try and use solar panels. Developed countries are already experiencing population slowdown, some cities are imposing congestion charges for central cities and setting up bike schemes, etc. For example.

 

In the UK half of energy now comes from renewable energy. People are doing things.

 

Just because governments are implementing gradual changes as opposed to all out bans isn't proof that they all think it is a scam. It is proof that they see a problem and they are doing what they are able to do within the confines of the political system. As shown in this thread, no matter how much evidence is presented, some will just refuse to admit there is a problem - this makes it harder.

I said that the government option of taxes while not doing anything that would work is a scam and a fraud, not G W which is obviously happening.

I do think most, if not all will die. City dwellers wouldn't last a week without the vast infrastructure that supports them. Without the machinery that feeds them, what would they do?

The people that would survive, ironically, are the poorest, that already survive with almost nothing but a determination to live. So I disagree that most deaths would occur in poor countries. Could the Kardashians survive on their own, LOL?

 

You misinterpret my China comment. I said that if China, a dictatorial country, can't make people stop using cars and go back to bicycles, no western country could.

 

My point, which you either ignore or miss, is that the supposed 97% of scientists that support GW say that we must change or die. It is my contention that if the politicians believed that it was a choice between change or death they would do more than they are. They are not doing much, if anything, meaningful. Therefore, I believe that they know it is either not true, or it is too late to do anything.

 

The actions that western politicians are taking are so meaningless in the context of the whole world, that I think it is pointless even worrying about it. Either it is a government fraud and everyone survives on a polluted world where most species are extinct and people eat seaweed to live, or it is true and human life is exterminated in the methane storms.

 

In the UK half of energy now comes from renewable energy.

Have you ever stood on the overbridge of a London motorway at rush hour? I have and I realised at that moment that humans are crapping in our own nest because we are a species intent on destroying our environment.

[maewang99]

yeah, it goes on and on.  and also one could easily take a view that the real problem is simply 7.5 billion people on the planet.  easily.  I mean, it's what will stop renewables from being anything of a solution for aviation.... and aviation was only temporarily exempted at COP21...

7.5 billion people.

but it's a very real problem based in quantum physics (chemistry). that's the mechanical aspect of this, what brings the issue up front.  at some point the b.s. will be blown away by a superstorm headed for Poughkeepsie along the Hudson.... the NY Transit police is what, the 2nd or 3rd largest police force in the USA? bigger than even the Chicago police dept or San Francisco.  why?  and all you have to have ever done is take a scenic boat to the Statue of Liberty or around Manhattan and seen how that beautiful city is perched just above salt water level and what makes it tick is in underground passageways bored into granite rock that cannot be 100% sealed off from a storm surge... let alone a couple of Larsen B's at Larsen C.... and that's ****just**** New York.
 

[jrward42]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I said that the government option of taxes while not doing anything that would work is a scam and a fraud, not G W which is obviously happening.

I do think most, if not all will die. City dwellers wouldn't last a week without the vast infrastructure that supports them. Without the machinery that feeds them, what would they do?

The people that would survive, ironically, are the poorest, that already survive with almost nothing but a determination to live. So I disagree that most deaths would occur in poor countries. Could the Kardashians survive on their own, LOL?

 

You misinterpret my China comment. I said that if China, a dictatorial country, can't make people stop using cars and go back to bicycles, no western country could.

 

My point, which you either ignore or miss, is that the supposed 97% of scientists that support GW say that we must change or die. It is my contention that if the politicians believed that it was a choice between change or death they would do more than they are. They are not doing much, if anything, meaningful. Therefore, I believe that they know it is either not true, or it is too late to do anything.

 

The actions that western politicians are taking are so meaningless in the context of the whole world, that I think it is pointless even worrying about it. Either it is a government fraud and everyone survives on a polluted world where most species are extinct and people eat seaweed to live, or it is true and human life is exterminated in the methane storms.

 

In the UK half of energy now comes from renewable energy.

Have you ever stood on the overbridge of a London motorway at rush hour? I have and I realised at that moment that humans are crapping in our own nest because we are a species intent on destroying our environment.

You said that China should make everyone quit their cars and "The fact that they won't or can't exposes the whole G W scam for the fraud it is." You can see why that was hard to apparently misinterpret.

 

I agree that people's innate desire to own a car and drive is a huge factor. I lived in London for 20 years, so yes, it is a nightmare. The congestion charge improved things a bit. I also lived in Hong Kong for 20 years and am now in Bangkok. Public transport is essential.

 

I like that you mention the 'supposed' 97%, even though that figure is fairly well documented - I would link to proof of how well that is documented and how they believe that GW is a result of humans but it seems pointless. You seem to agree that it is bad and as this thread has admirably proved - deniers (not saying you) are happy to ignore any source, no matter how credible, as there are articles from people like the Mail and 'watthatabout ' arguing the other way. I mentioned that figure because I had read about it in an article in New Scientist. I have not read many scientists saying everyone would die in a methane storm except for when talking about the ultimate extremes of what could happen. Most I have read seem to think that billions would die but there would be survivors. (Probably not Kardashian!)

 

I guess where we fundamentally differ is that I think it would be nice to try and limit pollutants but you think that humans deserve what's coming to them. As I am sure your own research has revealed, if we manage to keep the rising temperatures to under certain limits, further more major problems can be avoided. I think it would be nice to try for future generations, you seem to think they deserve it because people currently driving everywhere are idiots. That seems unfair but I get where you are coming from and agree with what governments SHOULD be doing.

 

This has been a fun and interesting debate that I think has proven why politicians are unsuccessful in persuading people to change their ways. I'm regretting posting here a little as it seems pointless. Fun in a way but also a bit frustrating. I guess we can beg to differ and move on with fingers crossed.

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/1/2016 at 7:22 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

So, is it your opinion is that Obama knows his children or grandchildren will die due to G W, but won't do anything to save them because he wants donor money to continue?

Why do you bother commenting on the US situation when it's clear you know nothing about it. Obama recently did try to control pollution via executive order but the court overruled it. Otherwise he's stuck with a Republican congress who overwhelmingly deny that there is such a think as human caused global warming. Such ignorance.

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/1/2016 at 7:18 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. You obviously missed the point I was making.

Frankly, when I look at the car insanity of every country on the planet I don't know if humans deserve to survive, or die of self inflicted pollution.

I have no doubt that sometime in the future, if mankind is facing extinction on a polluted planet, the politicians will be wailing and saying that "if only someone had told us what was going to happen we would have done something, but it's not our fault".

 

No you missed the assumption that your point was based on. You asserted that if the chinese leadership believed global warming was real they would take strong action to massively change the Chinese economy. Such naivete.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No you missed the assumption that your point was based on. You asserted that if the chinese leadership believed global warming was real they would take strong action to massively change the Chinese economy. Such naivete.

This is what I said

China is the one country in the entire world that could do something about smog. They could just ban all cars and make everyone ride bicycles like they used to. Problem solved.

The fact that they won't or can't exposes the whole G W scam for the fraud it is. Does anyone think the Chinese leaders wouldn't know if pollution was going to destroy humanity? That they don't do anything to change it signifies to me that it is just BS.

I'm all for anything that stops pollution, and improves lives though.

 

So, I guess you must believe that if the Chinese leadership were convinced that GW was real and by inference was going to kill us all, they would just carry on as usual.

I stand by my statement and my version has as much validity as yours. You don't know any more than I as to the mindset of the Chinese leadership. However, I don't think they want to see every Chinese die along with all the rest, but you must do so.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, jrward42 said:

You said that China should make everyone quit their cars and "The fact that they won't or can't exposes the whole G W scam for the fraud it is." You can see why that was hard to apparently misinterpret.

 

I agree that people's innate desire to own a car and drive is a huge factor. I lived in London for 20 years, so yes, it is a nightmare. The congestion charge improved things a bit. I also lived in Hong Kong for 20 years and am now in Bangkok. Public transport is essential.

 

I like that you mention the 'supposed' 97%, even though that figure is fairly well documented - I would link to proof of how well that is documented and how they believe that GW is a result of humans but it seems pointless. You seem to agree that it is bad and as this thread has admirably proved - deniers (not saying you) are happy to ignore any source, no matter how credible, as there are articles from people like the Mail and 'watthatabout ' arguing the other way. I mentioned that figure because I had read about it in an article in New Scientist. I have not read many scientists saying everyone would die in a methane storm except for when talking about the ultimate extremes of what could happen. Most I have read seem to think that billions would die but there would be survivors. (Probably not Kardashian!)

 

I guess where we fundamentally differ is that I think it would be nice to try and limit pollutants but you think that humans deserve what's coming to them. As I am sure your own research has revealed, if we manage to keep the rising temperatures to under certain limits, further more major problems can be avoided. I think it would be nice to try for future generations, you seem to think they deserve it because people currently driving everywhere are idiots. That seems unfair but I get where you are coming from and agree with what governments SHOULD be doing.

 

This has been a fun and interesting debate that I think has proven why politicians are unsuccessful in persuading people to change their ways. I'm regretting posting here a little as it seems pointless. Fun in a way but also a bit frustrating. I guess we can beg to differ and move on with fingers crossed.

The reference to methane storms is because if temperatures rise sufficiently, methane will be released from the tundra. If sufficient methane is released it will cause catastrophe.

 

the consequences of methane release alone threatens all life on Earth.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/global-weather-modification-assault-causing-climate-chaos-and-environmental-catastrophe-2/

 

If scientists really believe that is the threat, they should be convincing the politicians to do more.

[ilostmypassword]

 

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The reference to methane storms is because if temperatures rise sufficiently, methane will be released from the tundra. If sufficient methane is released it will cause catastrophe.

 

the consequences of methane release alone threatens all life on Earth.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/global-weather-modification-assault-causing-climate-chaos-and-environmental-catastrophe-2/

 

If scientists really believe that is the threat, they should be convincing the politicians to do more.

Yes, it's the scientists' fault.  What more could they do? They present overwhelming evidence. It's actually not 97% of all scientists but 98% who stand behind the evidence for human caused global warming.  Maybe they should invent a hypno ray?

[ilostmypassword]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This is what I said

China is the one country in the entire world that could do something about smog. They could just ban all cars and make everyone ride bicycles like they used to. Problem solved.

The fact that they won't or can't exposes the whole G W scam for the fraud it is. Does anyone think the Chinese leaders wouldn't know if pollution was going to destroy humanity? That they don't do anything to change it signifies to me that it is just BS.

I'm all for anything that stops pollution, and improves lives though.

 

So, I guess you must believe that if the Chinese leadership were convinced that GW was real and by inference was going to kill us all, they would just carry on as usual.

I stand by my statement and my version has as much validity as yours. You don't know any more than I as to the mindset of the Chinese leadership. However, I don't think they want to see every Chinese die along with all the rest, but you must do so.

 

 

Maybe for the same reason the Republicans in the USA oppose taking strong measures. There's a saying from Sinclair Lewis to the effect that it's awfuly difficult to get a person to believe something if it threatens his or her paycheck. Or in the case of the Chinese leadership, their power.

 

[ilostmypassword]

22 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

Maybe the Arctic is moving towards the US?

Frigid air mass building in Alaska, poised to spill into Lower 48 next week

As the cold continues to build over Alaska and western Canada over the next week, some of it will begin to bleed south.

Computer models are unanimous in bringing a significant blast of cold air to the western half of the United States in about six to eight days. On Wednesday afternoon next week, temperatures are forecast to be 20 to 30 degrees colder than normal in much of the Rockies and western Plains.

 

Disclaimer: Link refers to a leading Fake News outlet.

If I were you, I would run, not walk, to the nearest dictionary. From it you can learn the difference between "weather" and "climate".

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe for the same reason the Republicans in the USA oppose taking strong measures. There's a saying from Sinclair Lewis to the effect that it's awfuly difficult to get a person to believe something if it threatens his or her paycheck. Or in the case of the Chinese leadership, their power.

 

OR, perhaps they just aren't convinced that it's true. If all the scientists are doing is running around like Chicken Little and saying that "something must be done" without giving any realistic solutions, I'm not surprised.

The science appears to consist of a lot of computer modelling that may or may not be correct ( rubbish in rubbish out ), a lot of doomsday talk, and very lacking in realistic solutions.

[Andreas2]

On 02/12/2016 at 9:25 PM, ilostmypassword said:

 

Yes, it's the scientists' fault.  What more could they do? They present overwhelming evidence. It's actually not 97% of all scientists but 98% who stand behind the evidence for human caused global warming.  Maybe they should invent a hypno ray?

 

On 02/12/2016 at 5:27 PM, jrward42 said:

...

I like that you mention the 'supposed' 97%, even though that figure is fairly well documented - I would link to proof of how well that is documented and how they believe that GW is a result of humans but it seems pointless.

...

 

Just in case your "97%" (or even 98%?) are referring to John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, this hoax was debunked royally.

We all love statistics and their interpretation, don't we?

 

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

forbes.com

 

97% consensus? No! Global warming math, myths & social proofs

As this report shows, there’s no 97% consensus on global warming in these surveys. Not even close. They’re fooling you.

friendsofscience.org

 

The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked! (Youtube video, Stefan Molyneux) for those, who prefer listening.

... the paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it only counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

Of course, if your "97% / 98% of scientists" agreement refers to another study, evidence or even proof, please feel free to clarify.

Yes, I agree with the title of the OP, it looks dire. Mother nature just doesn't honour these bloody, faulty models.

Let's celebrate, this is good news!

 

PS: And for those, who can stomach even more good news: Christopher Monckton just presented evidence (scientific proof?) that there is a substantial error regarding the climate feedback multiplier. Let's see how the peer reviewers are going to react within the next four to five months.

[RPCVguy]

I saw this WEATHER CHANNEL rebuttal to a Breitbart Climate Change Story and thought I'd share it. Getting here and seeing the post above this, I've decided to elaborate a bit more.
 

 

 

Evidence! Look at the Sea Surface Temperatures as an indicator. No, not necessarily the current temperatures shown in the video (equatorial regions WILL be warmer than polar regions, at least while ice remains.) Instead look at the temperature anomalies. Mapping that from real time observation and seeing it yourself is available at

Current Global Map of Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly 

[ NOTE: Ocean surface temperatures and anomaly from daily average (1981-2011) updated daily] In the map linked above, most of the world is showing as warmer than usual, ... and water holds energy more densely than does air at a similar temperature. THE NEXT El Nino will ratchet up the temperatures of the air around us even more than the past one... simply because the oceans are still absorbing 90+% of the heat energy imbalance 24/7/365.

The colder waters around the Antarctic are due to more than usual runoff from Antarctic Ice Melt. The warmer waters swirling into the Arctic are now delaying Winter Ice formation.

These are current and historical readings that add to the evidence that the inherent physical property of the molecular bond in CO2, H2O, CH4 and, NOx makes them absorb, then later re-radiate infra-red wavelength (heat) energy. These gases are opaque to the generally upward directed surface energy that they first absorb, then release omnidirectionally. Bottom line, these gases act as a blanket that is insulating the Earth at levels not experienced for millions of years. The Earth will continue to warm due to the greenhouse gases already released, experiencing regional droughts or, when it rains/ snows extremely heavy precipitation events. It takes 40 years for half the warming, centuries and longer for the other half. (Always the most rapid warming when the equilibrium is initially broken, far slower as the balance gets restored.) Humans are STILL adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than the planetary systems of ocean and photosynthesis can process. In 2015, the HUMAN EMISSIONS leveled off, but the rate of CO2 increase in the air accelerated. This indicates the Carbon sinks are losing their prior ability AND/OR warming of soils and waters are allowing bacteria to more efficiently compost (digest dead plant and animal matter) and release MORE CARBON (CO2 & CH4) into the air. Recent studies indicate BOTH processes are happening (forests are dying from droughts, northern soils are warming and releasing carbon)

Historically, past civilizations have fallen because those at the top of the hierarchy making the laws, assessing the taxes, and enjoying most the benefits of their society - are LEAST WILLING to modify systems that support their lifestyles. [Historical Study] Energy extracted from fossilized carbon is precisely such a system. It historically benefited some nations far more than others, and it surely has benefited some individuals in each nation, especially those who make their wealth by extracting coal, oil and gas. The Fossil Fuel industry, starting with Exxon in the 70s and joined by the rest, adopted the Tobacco Industry's techniques of denial and marketed propaganda, funding of "Think Tanks" and assorted front groups to give what has become the denial message that the USA's GOP and religious groups found useful to promote.

The scam was revealed in 2015 via a series of investigative reports - accessing internal documents and interviews with retirees from that era. See a few of the expose articles at
http://www.climateinvestigations.org/former-dept-of-justice-exxon-climate-change and
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models

EARLIER IN THIS THREAD I stated that politicians won't do what is needed.   Post A  outlined the basic parameters  and  Post B added in some of the hard facts for those seeking alternatives.  How bad is it? I spotted this image under a search for "The Long Emergency" that paints a nasty future as it combines population, consumption and mentions climate. Human society can not continue the course attempted. Physical constraints limit human population demands. The century ahead will be a painful contraction. ...and that's if it stops as merely a contraction.

[thaibeachlovers]

I was reminded of this thread when I went to a popular temple in Chiang Mai today and noticed that all the vans waiting for the tourists to walk around were running their engines to keep the interiors cool.

With that sort of attitude, what hope is there?

[Ahab]

If CO2 emissions are actually a threat to human existence on planet Earth as claimed by some, why isn't the threat of war with China, India, USA on the table? Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan never threatened the continued existence on human kind?

 

Is this threat as serious as depicted by some, or not?  If it really is a big threat why are cars, planes, power plants, and cows not completely banned worldwide? I have heard that even if CO2 emissions were cut by 90% today (which is not possible) a 3 degrees C rise in temperature is already locked in according to prediction modeling.