GLOBAL WARMonerging? Facts, Myths, Uncertainies and what's to come?

Reality Check Time: There's a lot we know about "global warming", and a lot we don't. The real truth is: nobody really knows exactly what it means, how bad it will or will not be, how hard it will or will not be to adapt to it, how to make a computer model that absolutely nails it decades in foresight, and so on. We know we're affecting the CO2 levels, and probably shouldn't be. What the actual doubling of CO2 will actually do, nobody even knows. Perhaps most importantly, there's not really anything we can do about it right this moment short of imploding the global economy while forcefully instituting a tyrannical global government which would surely trigger a world war. Either of those outcomes would surely be every bit as destructive as Al Gore's worst doomsday prophecy, without any certainty of at least stopping AGW. Every we could just show a bit of patience, and optimism, and compromise, technology is on the way to help us solve these problems sooner than you might think....

What Al Gore and his brand of 'Global WARMongers' don't like to talk about are realities such as dubious data, corrupted data, the Urban Heat Island Effect, the weakness of our instrumental temperature record, politically biased scientists, the flaws & limitations of the computer models, histories contrary to the IPCC assertions such as the Little Ice Age not, CERN's "CLOUD" findings, or other concepts such as the roles of sublimation & coal dust in glacier degradation. Now this isn't to insist that the earth isn't warming, nor is it to insist that humans have no cause in these effects. The fact is nobody knows what effects a hypothetical doubling of CO2 would cause, how fast a doubling will actually happen, while the reality is there really isn't much we can currently do about it short of imploding the world economy via hasty response in line with establishing the global dictatorship to enforce it. Never mind the world wars that would cause, just the economics bit alone is a big enough story in that hardly nothing destroys the environment and leads to explosive population increases like poverty. Yet we hear the the global warming alarmists push on about destroying capitalism, labeling climate change as "racist", putting climate skeptics in prison and setting up a world government.

COMPUTER MODELS
It's kind of hard to repeat a 'experiment' when it's actually a in house custom coded computer model simulation...

The thing with computer models and the people that make them:
-As if anyone alive is smart enough to design such a thing that would be both accurate & sophisticated enough to project much of anything of use past a year or so.
-As if any computational array short of being one of the best super-computer clusters in the world could even run such a simulation.
-As if humanity even understands enough about any single given factor to be able to achieve such a model, let alone even the complete list(s) of all given factors that would affect such a stellar/global/local model over a period of decades.
-As if none short of the most gifted human individuals could even be truly impartial to such a task in general, then factor in the fact that most scientists (in any field) self-identify as liberal's/Democrat's, while it's pretty safe to expect that a high portion of individuals whom enter environmental sciences have a strong emotional appeal towards such ends (which would be an increasing phenomenon given the rise of environmentalism and its often deliberately emotional driven propaganda campaigns; not to mention the increasingly strong appeal to groupthink & over-defensive mass social group self-identification inherent in modern liberal philosophy along with the rampant neo-marxist indoctrination happening on college campuses nowadays). Hell, nowadays we're even seeing liberals proclaim that science & math 'themselves' are sexist & racist; that global warming is racist.
-As if any of the available datasets are without flaws. Consider that even minor flaws would make for increasingly messier computations the longer they are projected outwards. Now factor that too many of them we know about have major flaws (such "fudge factors" know to be 'caused' by anything from human error, inherent data-set specific limitations, and even documented cases of malicious human intent).
-As if we could possibly account for unforeseeable events or trends, or could even be sure if we truly understand if we're even on a trend (and what that trend means to the future).
-As if environmentalists don't have a rather solid track record of ridiculously over-stating their case in essentially every juncture of the movement / important instance of debate.
-As if there isn't any conflict of interest in the way climate research funding is allocated (based on what climate scientists say about how important it all is).
-As if climate scientists don't tend to always speak in absolutes about this kind of stuff, as if anybody is smart & wise & ultimately omnipotent enough to actually know everything in absolutist terms.
-As if the community doesn't have a track record of being ruthless against dissenting or even just doubtful voices (note that some are already going as far as declaring a dictatorial global government needs to be installed to stop it; others assert that "deniers" (aka skeptics) should be locked away in prison to be silenced).
-As if the bulk of the reading materials the environmentally minded individual could possibly read doesn't overtly advocate environmental idealism and even advocacy (all of which would therefore be classified as proper propaganda). Google: "echo chamber".

COMPROMISE

We know that coal dust is a major element in melting glaciers, while nuke tech doesn't cause that. Sure we can't envision Fukushima nightmares when contemplating nuclear power plants, but even if we could feasbily shut down all reactors today, we still have 98% of all the processed ore ever set to task as waste that needs to be spent. Well next gen tech cleans all that old mess up, enough alone to power the entire planet for something like the next 100 years while providing plant saftey like doesn't yet exist today. Environmentalists, it's time to strike a compromise!

As I've pointed out the in past:

The Einstein's of today have numerous designs for Generation IV nuclear power plants. Over 95% of the potential fuel in uranium ore is wasted using today's less safe GenII and GenIII reactors. GenIV plants promise vastly more safety, and potentially less than 10% of the physical footprint of today's reactors. These reactors, coupled with next-gen pyrometallurgical processing, promise to utilize the vast 'reserves' of what we currently refer to as "spent" nuclear "waste". Just going by the stores of current waste, humanity could be powered for over a century, without having to mine more radioactive ores. The problem is environmentalists oppose anything to do with nuclear energy, and newer generation plants have been prevented since the 1970's. In the U.S. we're using plants built in the Three Mile Island era, and large funding of nuclear development has been thwarted. In the meantime, obscene amounts of nuclear waste has built up and has been ejected into the atmosphere via burning coal. -The Global Meltdown of FEAR

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
While we face serious existential threats as a species this Century from Emerging Technologies (such as 'Skynet' style AI scenario's), we also can see Green Tech coming in to save the world...

If people could get off the doomsday paranoia kick and cool their jets, the technologies we need to solve these problems are coming...

High-Powered Plasma Turns Garbage Into Gas
Energy Harvesting ‘Piezo-tree’ Concept
Jet Engines the Inspiration for New Wind Power Technology
MIT Breakthrough: Thermo-Chemical Solar Power
Bionic Leaf Makes Fuel from Sunlight, Water and Air
Zero Emission Power Plants Coming Next Year
Japan Closer to Harvesting Solar Energy from Space
Fusion Reactors Two Steps Closer to Reality
A Solar Roof That Will Cost You Less Than a Normal Roof Plus the Cost of Electricity
Carbon Capture Breakthrough in India Converts CO2 Into Baking Powder

And that's just a small handful of examples from the past few years I grabbed real quick.

Then there's the Law of Accellerating Returns to consider. Think "Moore's law", it turns out the effect applies to essentially every industry and technologies conceivable.

I propose a different route. Getting us off this rock.

Diversification has been a boon to civilization. It's not coincidence that civilization exists on just about ever continent around the globe.

Same Idea but go extra terrestrial.

Moon,Mars, 'Belt' for Expanse fans.

Less people on the planet more people elsewhere.

And it is that diversification that has let man flourish.

originally posted by: neo96
I propose a different route. Getting us off this rock.

Diversification has been a boon to civilization. It's not coincidence that civilization exists on just about ever continent around the globe.

Same Idea but go extra terrestrial.

Moon,Mars, 'Belt' for Expanse fans.

Less people on the planet more people elsewhere.

And it is that diversification that has let man flourish.

We would have to supply those colonies with all sorts of things. Increasing space travel would actually make things worse here on earth. That is not good for our environment. If this ecosystem crumbles, everyone on the other planets would be doomed.

It would be better to just reduce our populations here on earth, that is something that is already being addressed and is being done. Within ten years our population will be reduced by fifty percent minimum. I can see there are multiple things happening, which will lead to this reduction. It's ok with me I suppose, as long as I can keep my close relatives from being a part of the reduction.

Humanity was never meant to stay on Earth. We are destined to leave it. The sooner people realize this truth the more successful chance at saving the human race.

Regardless of the cost it takes to make such an effort. It all points in the best direction for the long term survival of the species past 1000 years.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Humanity was never meant to stay on Earth. We are destined to leave it. The sooner people realize this truth the more successful chance at saving the human race.

Regardless of the cost it takes to make such an effort. It all points in the best direction for the long term survival of the species past 1000 years.

Maybe you watched a little too much Star Trek when you were a kid. I would rather have an easier and less stressful life than have to work my butt off to support a bunch of people who want to go sit on Mars. I also do not like working to support a bunch of Warmongers that give the money to builders of expensive weapons. Most definitely any bases on the moon would be military bases with technology based there to rule the people.

But this is the reality we have created over the last couple of thousand years and we cannot get out of it except by death.....they won't even let you become a hermit.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There is no time for patience, it's time to act.

I might not know much but I do know a thing or two about meteorology and while the climate models are somewhat useful they cannot replace conventional observations. High pressure systems can interfere with low pressure systems and can create tornadoes so we don't need a computer to tell you why tornado alley is prone to tornadoes. When a low pressure system forms in a warm water current you can join the dots and predict where and when a hurricane will make landfall, no computers necessary.

However when it comes to retroclimatology (feel free to use that) the physical evidence and proof of a rise in atmospheric temperature is undeniable. We found the K/T boundary after soil and ice core samples and we don't need computers to tell us how the dinosaurs started to die out, as we don't need a computer to decide mankind's fate.

Causation, extrapolation and effect should be the basis of all science, however this is the rant of a madman.

a reply to: rickymouse

Or you can be like the other skeptics that think such an endeavor is impossible and continue to live in the past. Continuing to live on Earth waiting until the planet's natural resources run out or some planetary cataclysmic event to happen or you get annihilated by your own war toys thanks to your greedy corporate warmongers is dumb and foolish. Yeah I don't see where any of those choices are better than creating colonies on other planets eventually leading outside our own solar system.

Who knows it will not happen in our life time but it has to happen, it makes zero sense for any creation with so much intelligence to waste its own existence on one planet entirely, only to die out with nothing to show for it.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There is no time for patience, it's time to act.

And what do you propose that wont trigger global economic collapse (which could trigger a world war) and/or tyrannical global government (which could trigger a world war)?

You do realize that poverty is the most destructive force on the environment (short of world war)?

And did you miss all the angles of how we really dont know what effects our altering the CO2 will actually have? This is absolutely critically important when trying to figure out exactly how far policy should go. What effect will a policy even have, if any? Do the ends justify the means? What about the potential additional UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of acting in HASTE?!? Etc!

a reply to: rickymouse

You're so right in so many levels.

Even watching the show " Expanse " you can see that, it's the whole reason Mars and Earth are at war and the astroid belt folks ( belters ) are pissed at both.

Mars made earth strain for resources than the population to make and utilize said resources.

Earth ultimately rules over property on Mars and in the end governs most trade

Belters are basically the slaves for the two planet factions.

Kinda exactly what you would expect to happen in reality if such happened.

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Humanity was never meant to stay on Earth. We are destined to leave it.

Civilization is what 10,20 thousand years old, and we still haven't colonized space yet.

It's damn right disgraceful.

The only thing they want to do is run around and scream the planet is out ta git us.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Humanity was never meant to stay on Earth. We are destined to leave it.

Civilization is what 10,20 thousand years old, and we still haven't colonized space yet.

It's damn right disgraceful.

The only thing they want to do is run around and scream the planet is out ta git us.

If only people would put that much attention in making space travel a priority, no one would really care if we turned Earth into a dust bowl. Why? Because we would've had the ability to travel to another one similar to Earth or several planets we would have colonized. LOL. The universe is vast and offers so much more resources. We just have to get there.

Anyone have a time frame of when say a million people could be transported to any of the potentially habitable planets??

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Since carbon dioxide in the environment has doubled in our lifetimes, we know exactly what will happen.

According to Micheal Manns testimony to the house, the result was a mere 0.2 degrees of warming over the course of a century supposedly caused by man. The rest of the warming is by natural variability.

What we dont know at the moment is where the temperature sensetivity to carbon dioxide has ceiling cap preventing any more warming.

My environment varies in temperature from -50 C in the winter about +35 C in the summer. It also varies during the day and night by about +15 degrees. Somehow, I adapt. So do mammals, reptiles, birds, plants etc.

Someone who moves from New York to Miami also adapts to the climate change.

As for the earths resource going dry...please.....Malthusian has been predicting that very thing for the last 300 years. It has not happened yet! New farming techniques, improved yields due to increasing carbon dioxide in the environment means that there is more food available today then there has ever been. Starvation, where it exists, is normally the result of armed conflict and not the idea that we are running out of resources.

Remember we only occupy about 3 per cent of the earths crust!

I do like your support of nuclear energy. If environments weren't just talking out of their butt holes to raise funding, they would welcome nuclear energy with open arms.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Anyone have a time frame of when say a million people could be transported to any of the potentially habitable planets??

People stop fighting over petty reasons and stop killing each other and start focusing on the necessary right now? Less than 100 years.

With our current situation in the world. Never.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Since carbon dioxide in the environment has doubled in our lifetimes, we know exactly what will happen.

According to Micheal Manns testimony to the house, the result was a mere 0.2 degrees of warming over the course of a century supposedly caused by man. The rest of the warming is by natural variability.

What we dont know at the moment is where the temperature sensetivity to carbon dioxide has ceiling cap preventing any more warming.

My environment varies in temperature from -50 C in the winter about +35 C in the summer. It also varies during the day and night by about +15 degrees. Somehow, I adapt. So do mammals, reptiles, birds, plants etc.

Someone who moves from New York to Miami also adapts to the climate change.

As for the earths resource going dry...please.....Malthusian has been predicting that very thing for the last 300 years. It has not happened yet! New farming techniques, improved yields due to increasing carbon dioxide in the environment means that there is more food available today then there has ever been. Starvation, where it exists, is normally the result of armed conflict and not the idea that we are running out of resources.

Remember we only occupy about 3 per cent of the earths crust!

I do like your support of nuclear energy. If environments weren't just talking out of their butt holes to raise funding, they would welcome nuclear energy with open arms.

The good news is. You all including myself will make great museum pieces when someone decides to make this planet habitable again.

Just kidding. I honestly haven't a clue.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Anyone have a time frame of when say a million people could be transported to any of the potentially habitable planets??

What 4 said.

The invention of the plane was slow going at first.

Now there are thousands of flights daily all over the globe that moves billions.

a reply to: neo96

Except we cant even travel 1% of light speed yet........................................................................................................

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So they say.

Those same 'scientists' say were all gonna die if we don't do something to save the planet'.

So I don't put much stock in so called scientists playin more opinion than the scientific method.

And it says subject to change.