Moderator: Community Team
tzor wrote:Duk, my argument in a nutshell is that you can't decouple "Global Warming" from the false conclusion that minor limitations on industrial nation CO2 emissions is going to save the planet. We have a ton of problems with what we are doing on the planet. Just because one proposed solution might advance the globalist agenda is no reason to prioritize it above all others. In fact that is the worst thing we can do because we need to dedicate resources towards changes that can have the greatest immediate impact. Because resources are diverted that could have been used for changes that would have a more drastic impact we are actually making things WORSE.
I mean where can I begin with how we have FUBARed the planet ...
Even your sea salt is almost certainly contaminated with plastic
Here's How Your Contact Lenses May Be Polluting the Ocean
Clothing, Furniture Also To Blame For Ocean And Freshwater Pollution
Iron floating into the sea on aerosols is driving a loss of oxygen
Now, the oceans may be rising, but animals are already dying ...
Environmentalists: Long Island estuaries in water quality 'crisis'
5 Things You Should Know About the Florida Algae Crisis
Cutting down on meat consumption can drastically reduce both methane and the manure that winds up in the oceans causing these blooms.
Dukasaur wrote:When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more.
tzor wrote:Dukasaur wrote:When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more.
This type of paranoia panic is probably the number one reason why no one takes these things seriously anymore. Global warming is in terms of a tenth of a degree Celsius every decade.
a half degree averaged out over the whole world can mean much more of an increase in some locations and at certain times.
āMost of that temperature change may occur during a small fraction of the year, when it actually represents conditions that could be 5 or 10 degrees warmer than pre-industrial temperatures instead of just 1.5 or 2 degrees warmer,ā said Dave Schimel, who supervises JPLās Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems group.
tzor wrote: That's like 10 degrees a century. Most people will have died of old age before they noticed. Everyone else will just assume that the weather in New York was always like the weather in Florida used to be a hundred years ago. (Seriously, the "Overseas Railroad" was built across the Florida Keys because some winters in Florida were below freezing.)
tzor wrote:Dukasaur wrote:When the summer heat waves get so bad that perfectly fit and healthy people are choking like COPD patients, they'll finally figure out that this shit isn't funny any more.
This type of paranoia panic is probably the number one reason why no one takes these things seriously anymore. Global warming is in terms of a tenth of a degree Celsius every decade. That's like 10 degrees a century. Most people will have died of old age before they noticed. Everyone else will just assume that the weather in New York was always like the weather in Florida used to be a hundred years ago. (Seriously, the "Overseas Railroad" was built across the Florida Keys because some winters in Florida were below freezing.)
(By the way, due to other pollution there are in the present days "air advisory alerts" that are given out in New York City encouraging people on those days to take mass transit to reduce the problem of poor air quality in the city. It's that annoying habit of people to adapt.)
The real problem will be when New England tourism starts to fail because all those wonderful whales have moved further north because it is the cold water that is the source of food or when algae blooms become so common that no one goes to the beaches anymore. (But that's good because they won't be there when the ocean rises, right?)
jusplay4fun wrote:Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.
jusplay4fun wrote:And NOW YOU bring up "air advisory alerts"...?
jusplay4fun wrote:A little Chemistry for you: one main component of gasoline used to fuel automobiles is octane, C8H18. Here is the chemical reaction for it: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 and 18 H2O; for every 2 MOLES (molecules, if you prefer) of octane burned, the reaction releases 16 moles (molecules) of CO2, an 8:1 ratio of CO2 to octane. LOTS of CO2 is released as a result of driving cars. I can give you other chemical reactions, but let's see if you comprehend this one and not ignore the science here.
jusplay4fun wrote:The overall temperature increase in the past 50 years in particular has caused significant reduction in glaciers and polar ice. The rise in sea levels are concerns for those who live near the coast. What is more difficult to prove is the impact on weather. Can the increase in hurricanes and severe storms be caused by Global Warming? I already answered that: the causal link or even a statistical correlation would be difficult to prove.
tzor wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.
Bullshit. The Autumn leaves are far better in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
tzor wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Whales drive New England Tourism? REALLY? Ever hear of Fall Foliage; i.e., Autumn leaves? and why do you continue to cite minutia? Whales is really not a major point of Global Warming debates.
Bullshit. The Autumn leaves are far better in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
Hate to break this to you but as someone who hunted bear in Maine (and no I didn't hunt bare ... I had a ton of cammo on in the middle of a hot August) the state is a vast land of SWAMPS. If it wasn't for the lobster it would be dead, tourist wise.jusplay4fun wrote:And NOW YOU bring up "air advisory alerts"...?
Duk did, actually by mentioning weather that would make people think they had COPD.jusplay4fun wrote:A little Chemistry for you: one main component of gasoline used to fuel automobiles is octane, C8H18. Here is the chemical reaction for it: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 and 18 H2O; for every 2 MOLES (molecules, if you prefer) of octane burned, the reaction releases 16 moles (molecules) of CO2, an 8:1 ratio of CO2 to octane. LOTS of CO2 is released as a result of driving cars. I can give you other chemical reactions, but let's see if you comprehend this one and not ignore the science here.
Like whatever. I was a physics major. That meant I didn't have to take organic chemistry and have a good chance of breaking and paying for chemistry lab equipment. Let me give you the "science" here. The most densest energy reservoir for independent vehicles is still petroleum. Battery technology still can't get to the level of an ordinary tank of gas. So unless you want to see cars eliminated or you want to turn the entire highway system into a bumper car lot that's the only reasonable choice you have for a significant potions of the United States.jusplay4fun wrote:The overall temperature increase in the past 50 years in particular has caused significant reduction in glaciers and polar ice. The rise in sea levels are concerns for those who live near the coast. What is more difficult to prove is the impact on weather. Can the increase in hurricanes and severe storms be caused by Global Warming? I already answered that: the causal link or even a statistical correlation would be difficult to prove.
There are a lot of things here and you are leaping to a lot of conclusions. Polar Ice is interesting and complex (each pole has to be considered separately).
Let's take Antarctica. It's a good example of the effects of ... wait, what is this "lava" lake doing there? Antarctic Lava Lake Huffs and Puffs Like a Sleeping Dragon or just under the ice sheets Active Volcano Discovered Under Antarctic Ice Sheet so when the ice is said to be better or worse than the previous year is it because of a change in the air or just those sleeping giants being more or less sleepy.
Likewise I can't see any evidence for "increase in hurricanes and severe storms" whatsoever. We really should see it with the increase in ocean temperature along the tropics but the data doesn't really show it. Check out the list of Cat 5 Atlantic Hurricanes. Yes it sucks to be 2005, but it's far from increasing.
And none of this is going to matter when the real shit hits the fan. The Yellowstone Supervolcano could easily move to a danger state that would result in massive devastation in decades after that condition is reached. The timelines are similar for another super quake in California. Let's face it, there are a ton of doomsday situations for the next century. Modern technology may have some say in the results or it might just be like with the black death (at least the survivors are somewhat well off because of the drastic reduction in the labor market).
jusplay4fun wrote:You really do not get it, do you?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
tzor wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:You really do not get it, do you?
And you have never gotten anything so I am no longer responding to you because you think when I respond to someone else I am responding to you.
jusplay4fun wrote:Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
ā¢ What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
ā¢ Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. āDetectableā change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:
Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
ā¢ Very Likely: > 90%,
ā¢ Likely: > 66%
ā¢ More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%
ā¢ Sea level riseāwhich very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5āshould be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
ā¢ Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
ā¢ Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
ā¢ The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes
A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes
Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) āsee for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potentialāroughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).
Symmetry wrote:It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.
Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.
demonfork wrote:Symmetry wrote:It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.
Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.
You're just perpetuating a false narrative. A consensus does not exist, it just doesn't. What's depressing is seeing this same fucking tired consensus argument over and over and over and over again.
Symmetry wrote:demonfork wrote:Symmetry wrote:It's depressing when scientists from all manner of disciplines come to the same conclusion, but there's this weird guy on the internet who says that they're all wrong, but can't actually quote them. Just gives a dodgy link.
Sorry, Defo, but I won't buy it.
You're just perpetuating a false narrative. A consensus does not exist, it just doesn't. What's depressing is seeing this same fucking tired consensus argument over and over and over and over again.
Seeing as you're here, and online, and responding, what sort of evidence for a consensus would you accept?
demonfork wrote:I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.
Metsfanmax wrote:demonfork wrote:I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.
I have a Ph.D. in physics. I am alarmed about climate change.
demonfork wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:demonfork wrote:I honestly don't know a single scientist, engineer, Ph.D. that buys into the alarmism of climate change... and I know a lot of em from all over the planet.
I have a Ph.D. in physics. I am alarmed about climate change.
I don't know you
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur