Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

These are some of the REAL problems we should discuss about Climate Change politics. I won't lie to that, as long as you are smart enough to keep the scientific discussion about proof and it happening separate from the silly politics that surround it, then I'm game.

But that's just it... the scientific method cannot prove and/or quantify man's impact as opposed to nature's impact, much less the combination thereof, and at this point it is ALL about politics which benefits the few at the expense of the many, with little to no positive effect on the problem. Everyone knows that pollution of all kinds is a problem, from the micro to the macro level, but Carbon credits/taxes are just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Sure it can look like a con if you spin it correctly, but that only plays to the fact that humans will try to profit off any situation they can. Even situations that are horrifying. Just look at Martin Shkreli.

Exactly. But who's doing the spinning? The conning? It's the ones who stand to profit most who are also screaming loudest and making demands from the rest of us while they also contribute most to the problem they're screaming about.

But for every dupe trying to game the system or not take it seriously, there is another advocate that IS taking it seriously.

Yes, and I thank our lucky stars for them, because they are the ones who actually want real solutions. Unfortunately, they're not getting the attention they -- scratch that, that WE ALL -- deserve. Offer real solutions, and I believe most people would back them up whether or not they believe in AGW or not, because everyone knows we can and must do better in terms of the many many ways we are fouling our environment. And that's exactly what I intend to do.

a reply to: pikestaff

In the last 2,000 years volcanic activity has gone up 300%

Citation? And, if true, so what?

the sun has been 'quiet' for some time now, affecting the earth's weather, is that humans fault too?

It that what's making the global average temperature increase?

the earth continues in its 24,000 years tilt, affecting the earth's weather, is that humans fault too?

The Earth's tilt changes by about 2º over a period of 46,000 years. How much has it changed in the past 100?

400 parts per million, not yet half of one percent, good for plant life? yes? good for food crops? yes?

One's good, two's better?

originally posted by: mikell
Part of the issue is the reporting stations are generally at schools instead of the old days they were in farmers yards. Our local station went from a green lawn in the farmers yard to hanging on the outside of the public library. Where do you think it would be warmer?

How "warm" a station is doesn't really matter. What matters is that the temperatures they are showing are rising. Including the stations in farmers' fields.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Is the Earths gravity field changing?Are the oceans going down elsewhere?

I'd be interested if anyone knew the answer.

Climate change is not a 'theory' in which people may choose to 'believe' or 'not believe', it is a science. Based upon extensive research by many teams of professional scientists who produce verifiable facts.

I really don't care if Some Guys On The Internet Don't Believe It, it's true, it's verifiable, and we're all in a lot of trouble.

And honestly the disbelievers are propagating willful dangerous ignorance that could result in an awful lot of us dying.

a reply to: Shiloh7
The ocean is not like a bathtub, it doesn't have a nice flat surface. Ocean currents, the Earth's rotation (and therefore, latitude), thermal expansion, and even variations in local gravity have an effect on sea levels in various locations.

I live on the waterfront. I have seen indications of a rise in sea level over the twenty years I've lived here. Mostly in the past 5.

www.ice2sea.eu...

Something I find interesting is despite the almost constant media stories of studies and reports of impending doom strong action to decrease global greenhouse gas emissions seems to be less of a concern for the general public.

Public support for strong action on climate change has declined in six years, says a poll carried out in 20 countries. While more people are aware of climate change and blame humans for extreme weather events, concerns about the economy and terrorism were bigger. Harsh climate action that could impact the economies is not as welcome as six years ago before the Copenhagen climate meet.

"The public are less concerned about climate change, and when you put that in the context of the climate conference in Paris, the findings show less support for an ambitious and binding agreement at a global level than there was ahead of COP15 in 2009 in Copenhagen," Lionel Bellier, from GlobeScan told the BBC. "It's not an abrupt change of views, the trend seems to be now towards a softer approach."

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Personally I think it's certainly an issue but maybe not that bad because 1 or 2 or 3 degrees C of warming may not be quite the predicted doomsday and in 20 or 30 years we'll probably have new technology and fix it right up. A lot of the computer models for future predictions are way off and so are a lot of past doomsday predictions.

a reply to: JimTSpock
At the current rate of burning fossil fuels, there will be a hell of a lot more to clean up in 20 or 30 years than there is now.

But sure, let the kids worry about it.

a reply to: Phage

Realistically the world isn't going to suddenly or significantly decrease global emissions anytime soon, fossil fuels will continue to be used around the world. IMO new technology will be the only way to significantly reduce emissions and effectively address this issue.

a reply to: JimTSpock
The US has reduced emissions, as have other countries.

Any reduction is good as it will slow the rate of change, allowing more time for mitigation and adaptation.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: cuckooold

Sorry, I can't accept this theory. I propose a different theory; maybe if we didn't use and pollute the environment with radioactive materials so much, we wouldn't have so many problems. Somehow all of our corporately paid for scientist 'geniuses' lay claim that humans account for the global changes since the industrial age or that 'we haven't been in a scenario like this since 1 million years ago...' and everyone accepts this unanimously. We do not have records for most of the industrialized society that are accurate nor do we have any for the past million years save for core samples and tree rings. C'mon folks, really?!

So we be Baaaaaad Humans and we burn stuff (sorta like what happens in nature) but we are responsible for global calamity in the short timeframe of 100+- years against a 4.5 billion year old planet....

Pfffft.

this is the first reply.
bolded is the usual guff thrown by deniers, blaming corporate funded scientists.
funny they never mention that the independent experts that refute fact based evidence are,
corporate funded.

while the biggest funding deniers include exxonmobil, bp, koch brothers, every global tobacco firm and the world's largest co2 polluter american electric, then surely some skepticism is needed.

didnt this site once use the moniker 'deny ignorance'.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

...and your point is? Yes they come and go. The fact that humans living on this rock for a very minuscule period of time seem to think that we are the masters of disaster and cause anything on a planetary scale by burning stuff is foolish. Nuclear pollution is far more dangerous than burning coal but somehow no-one is talking about that.

....silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

No, hold it right there. You responded to a cite that mentioned rising sea levels overwhelming islands with a list of islands that were born from volcanic eruptions and then eroded below sea level by the waves because they were basically made from volcanic gravel. There was no equivalence whatsoever. Your list was meaningless and don't pretend otherwise.

Firstly, just because I do not share your and Al Gore's views does not mean that my argument is invalid (which is more than I can say for Al Gore's predictions). You mentioned that rising sea levels is causing island to disappear and I pointed out that new island are also being formed. Yes they are formed by volcanoes; how else do you think land masses are formed? Do you think the drop from the sky?

You can stay in the cult of global warming and you can say that the 'end is nigh' however I simply think that that is not the case. That does not mean that I do not advocate using renewable energy nor does it mean that I don't think humans do not respect the environment enough. As a matter of fact, I own the patent for a waste to product technology that releases NOTHING to the atmosphere and produces activated carbon and diesel fuel (all from waste). I am doing my part; what are you doing besides claiming that the sky is falling and trying to force your new religion on everyone. Solutions walk pontificating about it runs a marathon.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Okay hero, what are you doing about it?

...anything..?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Sremmos80

Deforestation could be a real factor in co2 levels because of the destruction of the rain forests and all the large fires over the last decade alone... And of course all the forestry that has been producing the world's wood supply...
There just is not as much co2 being converted to oxygen...
If this is the real reason then we are in huge trouble because the effects will multiply until balanced again through regrowth...

While this could be a real possibility I still believe it is more likely we are entering a mini ice age that will last around 40 years...

While deforestation is a contributing factor, a great deal, if not more, of that carbon release is mitigated through cropland activities in the US namely, vegetative growth of corn.

AS regards earth's forests, just googled that 30% of the earths land surface is forest, quite a large chunk.
Volcanoes, quoted on QI bbc america.
I have adblocker, no way to post anything except emails, sorry to come down rather hard on your toes Mr Phage, as far as I'm worried, if people do not believe me, fair enough, as far as I remember, I have never typed that I am 100% right, and everyone else might just be not quite right.
I don't watch football, soccer, any other sport, soaps, comedies (except BBT, must get my weekly does of penny!)
History and science is what I watch, nothing showing the idiot box? explore Youtube!
My daily updates:- rantburg, atlas shrugs, france 24, news with views, the daily galaxy, universe to-day, gatestone institute, lots more, cannot remember, several medical sites.
Back to volcanoes, billions of tons of crap thrown into the atmosphere would, I humbly presume, might make some sort of effect? hydrogen sulphide, CO2, particulates, sulphide gases, lord knows what else.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Well I believe the rain forest and a large area of trees in the United States that share their root system over the entire forest produce more oxygen then crops...
But really phytoplankton produces more than half of the Earth's oxygen... This too is being harmed by increased co2 levels because the co2 is changing the pH levels of the ocean and killing the coral reefs... Which phytoplankton have a direct relationship with...
I think it's time to grow more trees and crops everywhere...
We are of course a gigantic ecosystem there is a symbiotic relationship between all living things.... Everything needs to be maintained or everything will fail...
And as the dominant species on Earth it is our privilege and responsibility to take care of it... Mankind is lost in greed and lazy and yes we are fools as well... The condition of the Earth is a result of Mankind's doings no matter which way the finger is pointed...
And if we ate being honest because of the symbiotic relationship of all things the cause of the problems is of course all the things that have been mentioned and more...
But new plant life and ensuring the ocean is taken care of seems to be the easiest most beneficial path to turning around this process for a positive future for mankind...

a reply to: cuckooold

Well, if the world has passed the point of no return....................there's nothing more to worry about!

May as well party while you can and enjoy yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Sremmos80

It's not, LOL!!
We are putting SOME in, but more comes from natural processes and also, like mentioned, deforestation.

Deforestation is man caused though. So admitting that deforestation is effecting the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is pretty much admitting that you believe in man made climate change.

We have to get rid of the word climate change, it's like saying two times the same thing, just climate will do (we know climate is ALWAYS changing).

There is no proof man made deforestation will cause major catastrophes to the earth, at least it's nothing the earth can't handle.
When the last ice age occurred for example, how many millions off acres forest were destroyed by growing glaciers? Or when the ice melted, how much was destroyed by flooding? This happened very recent and look how nature is thriving in those areas.
Don't get me wrong I do not support man made deforestation, on the contrary, I have a food forest garden and i get totally disgusted when i see acres upon acres of monoculture and the abuse of land.

a reply to: Phage

The ocean is not like a bathtub, it doesn't have a nice flat surface. Ocean currents, the Earth's rotation (and therefore, latitude), thermal expansion, and even variations in local gravity have an effect on sea levels in various locations.

So how is it possible to measure sea levels as accurate as cm or even mm?
Are sea levels rising because of the melting ice or is the land sinking because of the glacial rebound effect? Which one will have the highest impact?
Models can say whatever you want them to say, it's just a matter of what you put into them, how complex they might be.

a reply to: cuckooold

As the records keep tumbling, and after the shocking milestone reached in February, it looks like more bad news coming as it seems we are about to pass another major climate change marker.

It is funny how the AGW crowd has jumped on this, let's wait a couple months until the effects of el niño start to wear off.
That same data came from the satellites that shows no warming for almost 20 years, but when you show this data they say satellite measurements are inaccurate and problematic.

So what is the significance of 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

That's a good question and difficult to answer.

We already have coral reefs dissolving due to high amount of carbon dioxide in the water causing acidification.

Sea water is fairly alkaline and ranges between pH 7.9 and 9.0. depending on where and what time you measure. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units, so it's still very alkaline and far from acid.
There is no proof these dissolving coral reefs were caused by an increase in co2. The first corals began to appear during the Devonian when co2 levels were around 3000ppm. I have a feeling they can well handle 400ppm.
Some corals are dying while others are growing, what's the explanation for this?

Of course there are those who will continue to deny climate change until they are blue in the face. Interestingly, it seems that climate change deniers are in the minority these days.

Let's hope they are a minority, these same deniers simple deny the existence of climate.