• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
That Eric guy on Twitter is sure making the climate change community look bad. His tweets get worse and worse.
 
The deniers aren’t helpful. They’re no better than the flat earthers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Where’s all the deniers now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I'm not a 100% denier but I'm certainly not sold on GW either. We only have weather records for the last 150 yrs or so, anything before that, especially thousands of years, is speculative imho. The article you posted earlier today focused on the last 2k yrs, which if the world has been here for millions of years, is a small sample size. Way too small to be scientifically conclusive. And "the world is ending' rhetoric doesn't help either

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Well lets see we got massive back to back heatwaves breaking records by several degrees. The sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets are melting at record levels due to extreme temperature anomalies. We got massive fires in the arctic burning through the peat moss throwing up even more co2. We are just getting started. I can’t even imagine what the next few decades will be like much less next year. Even if the government buckles down hard and moves to cut emissions drastically all it will do is delay the inedible as feedbacks are already kicking in. All Trump has done is add a few more nails to the coffin. This issue should have been handled long ago but greedy oil companies did us in. Burning fossil fuel for energy is dirty and extremely inefficient. We should have dropped it decades ago in favor of electric power from renewables, nuclear ie fission at first then later antimatter and fusion reactors and better batteries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Well lets see we got massive back to back heatwaves breaking records by several degrees. The sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets are melting at record levels due to extreme temperature anomalies. We got massive fires in the arctic burning through the peat moss throwing up even more co2. We are just getting started. I can’t even imagine what the next few decades will be like much less next year. Even if the government buckles down hard and moves to cut emissions drastically all it will do is delay the inedible as feedbacks are already kicking in. All Trump has done is add a few more nails to the coffin. This issue should have been handled long ago but greedy oil companies did us in. Burning fossil fuel for energy is dirty and extremely inefficient. We should have dropped it decades ago in favor of electric power from renewables, nuclear ie fission at first then later antimatter and fusion reactors and better batteries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What they should have done is created undersea tunnels that funnelled CO2 from the atmosphere into a man made black hole that warped it to Mars.
 
BHS1975 said:
Well lets see we got massive back to back heatwaves breaking records by several degrees. The sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets are melting at record levels due to extreme temperature anomalies. We got massive fires in the arctic burning through the peat moss throwing up even more co2. We are just getting started. I can’t even imagine what the next few decades will be like much less next year. Even if the government buckles down hard and moves to cut emissions drastically all it will do is delay the inedible as feedbacks are already kicking in. All Trump has done is add a few more nails to the coffin. This issue should have been handled long ago but greedy oil companies did us in. Burning fossil fuel for energy is dirty and extremely inefficient. We should have dropped it decades ago in favor of electric power from renewables, nuclear ie fission at first then later antimatter and fusion reactors and better batteries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
What you're saying is that this is the first time we've had back to back record breaking heatwaves, this is the first time we've had massive Arctic wildfires, and that sea ice and glaciers are melting at the fastest rate in the history of the world.

Let's stipulate for a second that is 100% true.

What is the expected outcome (and for the sake of being in the ballpark of reality, let's take "the world will end" off the table)?
 
BHS1975 said:
Well lets see we got massive back to back heatwaves breaking records by several degrees. The sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets are melting at record levels due to extreme temperature anomalies. We got massive fires in the arctic burning through the peat moss throwing up even more co2. We are just getting started. I can’t even imagine what the next few decades will be like much less next year. Even if the government buckles down hard and moves to cut emissions drastically all it will do is delay the inedible as feedbacks are already kicking in. All Trump has done is add a few more nails to the coffin. This issue should have been handled long ago but greedy oil companies did us in. Burning fossil fuel for energy is dirty and extremely inefficient. We should have dropped it decades ago in favor of electric power from renewables, nuclear ie fission at first then later antimatter and fusion reactors and better batteries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The US government alone can't change a large portion of the emissions. China and many countries like it that rely on manufacturing and choose cheaper options like coal can't be stopped because their massive populations. In 2015 China was almost emitting double the CO2 of America. What's the world going to do? Fight China and cause a global economic catastrophe by shutting a large chunk of manufacturing down in an instant? You can shift it to more efficient options over time, but going by the "alarmists" standards like yours there isn't any.

Also, fission doesn't exist in modern powerplants and would cost trillions to research and create, which is why we haven't done it sooner. Antimatter reactors? You know how powerful antimatter is right? That stuff can be more dangerous than nukes, costs a fortune, and the tech isn't there for its energy to be harnessed yet. If you think we are going to have that in your lifetime you're wrong.

I see you're also cherry picking the worst disasters just to prove a point. Also don't act like America is the only one at fault, as I mentioned. Yes, the US in it's life time has produced more CO2 than any other nation, but that's history and it can't be changed. But is the world going to end because of it? No. Fear mongering isn't going to cause action.
 
It has to be treated like the crises it is and massive mobilization implemented. We can’t just let the world fall apart around us. Denying the urgency of the issue will only make things worse in the long run due to the lag in the climate system and feedbacks that are poorly understood but are now being observed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
It has to be treated like the crises it is and massive mobilization implemented. We can’t just let the world fall apart around us. Denying the urgency of the issue will only make things worse in the long run due to the lag in the climate system and feedbacks that are poorly understood but are now being observed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Listen to what I'm going to say here. This is a sad and hard, but stone cold truth: The world will NEVER EVER unite around anything unless it is universally being profoundly negatively affected. That in itself virtually assures us that we will cross the event horizon/point of no return. Does it make sense to seek out new and better energy forms? Absolutely. Will it happen before it's too late? No. So that leaves us with my question from before: What do you expect the outcome(s) to be? We're 100% guaranteed to have to face it. So what is it?
 
Rain Cold said:
Listen to what I'm going to say here. This is a sad and hard, but stone cold truth: The world will NEVER EVER unite around anything unless it is universally being profoundly negatively affected. That in itself virtually assures us that we will cross the event horizon/point of no return. Does it make sense to seek out new and better energy forms? Absolutely. Will it happen before it's too late? No. So that leaves us with my question from before: What do you expect the outcome(s) to be? We're 100% guaranteed to have to face it. So what is it?
Click to expand...

Heck we can't even do that in America. Last Ive noticed amoung those who are screaming about Climate change; the politicans are still living in massive houses they do not need, movie stars are still going on elaborate vacations on private jets, and billionaires who tell government to tax them have not bought people in their states solar panels or electric cars.

You hear nothing about moving out of cities where you smog up the air by sitting three hours in rush hour traffic or trying to grow your own food to reduce carbon footprint.

The science may be solid, but the reaction is a farce.
 
Rain Cold said:
Listen to what I'm going to say here. This is a sad and hard, but stone cold truth: The world will NEVER EVER unite around anything unless it is universally being profoundly negatively affected. That in itself virtually assures us that we will cross the event horizon/point of no return. Does it make sense to seek out new and better energy forms? Absolutely. Will it happen before it's too late? No. So that leaves us with my question from before: What do you expect the outcome(s) to be? We're 100% guaranteed to have to face it. So what is it?
Click to expand...
How can anyone model what the outcome will be with any degree of accuracy? The models can't even get the degree of warming correct. The problem is that imagination runs wild with future possibilities depending on your world-view. What if increased CO2 brings methodical warming of otherwise frozen land that we can farm effectively? What if the added CO2 supports faster and more widespread plant growth? What if the Sahara desert becomes a new bread basket? You can play the "what if" game forever with positive and negative outcomes. The wisest response is to adapt to whatever seems likely to occur in the near future without sacrificing freedom and turning over control to more government entities.

And all of this while we take the focus off more immediate, severe and systemic problems like biosphere toxicity.
 
weatherfide said:
How can anyone model what the outcome will be with any degree of accuracy? The models can't even get the degree of warming correct. The problem is that imagination runs wild with future possibilities depending on your world-view. What if increased CO2 brings methodical warming of otherwise frozen land that we can farm effectively? What if the added CO2 supports faster and more widespread plant growth? What if the Sahara desert becomes a new bread basket? You can play the "what if" game forever with positive and negative outcomes. The wisest response is to adapt to whatever seems likely to occur in the near future without sacrificing freedom and turning over control to more government entities.

And all of this while we take the focus off more immediate, severe and systemic problems like biosphere toxicity.
Click to expand...

The problem is cities where built under the assumption that the climate would remain stable and now it’s destabilizing rapidly. People won’t be able to adapt in time. They will migrate in mass causing huge disruptions to society.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Look more good news

2e17075ff605196db561ddf9f03363a5.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Looks like Tom Steyer has the right idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sure it sounds good on paper, but implementation and the timeline plus a divisive political atmosphere would crush it before it could even take ground. Not to mention when the economy goes downhill again it'll stop anything that doesn't address the basic needs of the people. At least a by 2045 goalpost is more attainable than by 2025 or 2030 one.
 
BHS1975 said:
The problem is cities where built under the assumption that the climate would remain stable and now it’s destabilizing rapidly. People won’t be able to adapt in time. They will migrate in mass causing huge disruptions to society.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Where is the proof that the climate is destabilizing rapidly? What is considered rapid for climate changes? Are you talking about sea rise or just general weather norms? People live in Phoenix, AZ, one the most inhospitable places in North America - how do they do it?? How fast is the sea rising? Can you predict how fast it will rise? What if it doesn't? People should start leaving all of Florida and the coasts, now. Look at this Forbes article, Florida is 100% submerged in a 1,000 years. Why not just prepare for a bail-out of property lost to the sea? Would that be less expensive? Of course we just keep running huge deficits on welfare to keep people voting for whoever is in office, so we probably can't afford that either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted/#c8ac2cbc4959

Once you turn over control to a centralized government, good luck ever getting anything close to "freedom" again. Once you turn it over to an oligarchy, they are going to snap back and reverse any policies that got them the power they wanted. People, in general, are NOT altruistic in government. We likely have generations to adapt. There will be losers and winners. We need to start planning on being one of the winners. Let the free market work for us.
 
lol saying the world would end from GW ? I’d be wayyyyyyyy more worried over a cosmic event for example a asteroid/comet, shoot even Yellowstone even tho it’s likely it won’t explode in are lifetime, a asteroid that could take out a city passed by earlier
 
Eric Holthaus is a complete nut job and has destroyed any reputability he once had. The same could also be said for our beloved Joe Bastardi who spews out utter bull crap on a daily basis like it’s going out of style. It’s important for everyone to understand that Holthaus doesn’t represent even a modest morsel of the sentiment held by actual scientists in the field & is being rightfully called out for his nonsensical alarmist -------- by those who actually know what they’re doing. This Holthaus circus should not detract away from the fact that after hundreds and hundreds of studies, observations, etc, anthropogenic global warming is indeed real and playing a significant role in the climate. The anthropogenic influence on climate is only growing with time as greenhouse gas emissions increase and the earth progressively adjusts to the new underlying base state we’re incessantly pushing it to.

It’s an unfortunate reality, especially with social media, that the most extreme, completely unreasonable points of view like Holthaus’ become sensationalized and broad-brushed to represent a particular group of individuals opinion on a subject matter. In conjunction with politicians who are only concerned about protecting their own pocket books and actually have no expertise in atmospheric science, you wonder why climate change is so polarizing, because it really shouldn’t be. It’s pretty evident to most of those in my field including myself, that climate change is in fact real and we are mainly to blame for the changing base state since the industrial revolution. Natural variability only temporarily masks the very obvious long-term trend.

It’s a complete disgrace Holthaus even has a degree in meteorology to begin with. He is the martyr that fuels AGW denier garbage.

Also, I could really care less if your opinion differs appreciably from mine or were offended or appalled by anything I said in this post, including my usage of the term “denier”. This is an opinion I’ve formed after a) having about a decade of experience delving into this topic b) at one time being a denier myself c) reading hundreds and hundreds of pieces of literature on climate change d) working my butt off to get my degree and understand the science of climate change and e) interacting with experts in the field who have molded my view on the topic.

I.e. All of the above means I probably know what I’m talking about when it comes to climate change, but if you don’t want to listen to what I have to say you’re not going to hurt my feelings.
 
Webberweather53 said:
Eric Holthaus is a complete nut job and has destroyed any reputability he once had. The same could also be said for our beloved Joe Bastardi who spews out utter bull crap on a daily basis like it’s going out of style. It’s important for everyone to understand that Holthaus doesn’t represent even a modest morsel of the sentiment held by actual scientists in the field & is being rightfully called out for his nonsensical alarmist -------- by those who actually know what they’re doing. This Holthaus circus should not detract away from the fact that after hundreds and hundreds of studies, observations, etc, anthropogenic global warming is indeed real and playing a significant role in the climate. The anthropogenic influence on climate is only growing with time as greenhouse gas emissions increase and the earth progressively adjusts to the new underlying base state we’re incessantly pushing it to.

It’s an unfortunate reality, especially with social media, that the most extreme, completely unreasonable points of view like Holthaus’ become sensationalized and broad-brushed to represent a particular group of individuals opinion on a subject matter. In conjunction with politicians who are only concerned about protecting their own pocket books and actually have no expertise in atmospheric science, you wonder why climate change is so polarizing, because it really shouldn’t be. It’s pretty evident to most of those in my field including myself, that climate change is in fact real and we are mainly to blame for the changing base state since the industrial revolution. Natural variability only temporarily masks the very obvious long-term trend.

It’s a complete disgrace Holthaus even has a degree in meteorology to begin with. He is the martyr that fuels AGW denier garbage.

Also, I could really care less if your opinion differs appreciably from mine or were offended or appalled by anything I said in this post, including my usage of the term “denier”. This is an opinion I’ve formed after a) having about a decade of experience delving into this topic b) at one time being a denier myself c) reading hundreds and hundreds of pieces of literature on climate change d) working my butt off to get my degree and understand the science of climate change and e) interacting with experts in the field who have molded my view on the topic.

I.e. All of the above means I probably know what I’m talking about when it comes to climate change, but if you don’t want to listen to what I have to say you’re not going to hurt my feelings.
Click to expand...

Great post, I don’t believe man is the reason but I appreciate your hard work. The great thing about this country is that you can agree to disagree and still not want to kill that other person because we are adults on a weather board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We already have crazy weather from just 1C of warming. I can’t even imagine what 3C of warming will do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top