Accurate Predictions About Climate Change

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Jubei42

It varies depending on the car and the fuel. And it varies depending on the volcano and the severity of the eruption.

The volcano erupted for about five weeks. I meant the same amount of time for the cars. Its not really fair to compare a 5 week incident with a year-long statistic, now is it?

And I said one major eruption, not one like Hawaii had.

Nice try though.

Volcanos are the anti global warming system. Our mini ice age that lasted over 500 years 1300 to 1850 was a mixture of 3 massive volcano eruptions with a grand minimum 1200s and later a Maunder Minimum in the 1600 -1700s. We are still in the great ice age, so what is normal we do not know.

As to cars it is a lot like the horse that was a massive environmental challenge too just before the car was invented. It took about 25 years for cars to replace the horse and so we can expect the electric car to replace most all cars by 2030s. Give me a car that cost the same as a gas car, gets 400 miles on a charge does 0- 60 in 3 seconds and take 20 mins to recharge and the gas car will go very quickly to the museum.

It is hard to rush technology when it is not ready, it is very expensive and most of the time sucks. Just like now they are talking about replacing meat with non-meat that tastes as good as beef and is healthy, go back 10 years and meat replacements tasted horrible and were expensive. This new non-meat is at least 2x the cost of real meat but it would easily become 1/2 the cost or less within a short period of time.

We can't rush things and expect good results, but we humans have a tendency to overcome challenges extremely well as they come up. The global warming/climate change/green socialist people want to make drastic changes NOW...Now when it is extremely painful and expensive and not very effective.

The "now" would be to reduce all the people in the world down to 200 sqft foot print per person, and anything above that is carbon taxed while reducing the population along the way to. Push people to Government sponsored food program for a socialized healthcare system and to force everyone to electric transportation when it is not affordable yet or efficient enough.

All of this would be extremely expensive with massive quality of life reductions that if you just let things happen will all happen anyways in a natural process in the next 25 years or so.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So, you have no Idea either, thanks


I figured as much

a reply to: Xtrozero

You make some very good points and I agree with most of them. But the great challenge in AGW is to distinguish between normal changes and man made changes. There are so many factors in play that result in complex models and vasts amount of data, which in turn makes it very hard to make reliable predictions. And we need to predict accurately because we cannot wait for the real outcome to tell us.

Thats the whole problem in a nutshell; changes take place very slow and it very hard to tell what is causing what.
So the last thing we need is us actively adding to the chaos. And I just want to add, for me personally this is not about politics or money. It really isn't, this isn't even about us. This is about the future survival of mankind on planet earth. That is what this is about, for me. There are not a lot of things I believe in, but in one thing I do. And that is that everybody deserves a shot at life. And I'll be no part of those that ruined it for every future generation to come. It's the absolute most selfish absurd thing imaginable, a highly developed intelligent species that has no regard for its only habitat. A planet that is unreplaceable, the only place we can go. Where we are in heavy symbiosis with the oxyen producing lifeforms, and just about every species we can put in our mouths. Let that sink in, we need other species to breathe and eat. And those others species we need are even more so than us affected by climate change. Despite it not happening tomorrow or any time soon, once it does there's no turning back.

I understand that drastic measures now are not the best way forward. But I do applaud any efforts made if only for awareness and recognition. For even if there is no real AGW we've atleast gotten alot smarter in predicting future climate and potential dangers.

originally posted by: Jubei42

I understand that drastic measures now are not the best way forward. But I do applaud any efforts made if only for awareness and recognition. For even if there is no real AGW we've atleast gotten alot smarter in predicting future climate and potential dangers.

Unfortunately those drastic efforts are more based on politics and money and not real desire for change. Things like China is the massive polluter that pretty much outdistance the rest of the planet. Things like the Paris accord would still be successful if they did nothing, so no matter what they do they can say it was a success whether they get 10s of billions or nothing at all.

No matter what we do the human race will plateau at 11 billion in 100 years with no really effort on our part but to see the world out of extreme poverty. To reduce that we would need drastic human population reduction in terms of getting rid of people at earlier ages than 70 to 80 that is now the world average with 80s the world averages in 100 years.

Looking at the numbers liquid (cars etc) is 12 billion tons of Co2, gas 7 billion and coal is 15 billion. Many coal plants around the world are shutting down as most are reaching 40 years in life, well except for China where theirs only average about 12 years old and they are continually building new ones we speak.

Don't even get me started on the plastics China alone dumps into the oceans every year, or that about 100 of the top 200 polluted cities are in China...

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Grimpachi

So, you have no Idea either, thanks


I figured as much

I actually looked it up the first time I heard about it. Which was years ago. So yes I do know. Do you need help finding one of the many articles on it or are capable of using the search browser yourself?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: M5xaz

It was millions of years ago that we had the CO2 concentration we have now, and the main sea levels were 30m above our heads. Go and figure?

I couldn't care less about hickups in your little timeframe. Look into the last 800K years of ice core data and tell me what you found.

Kinda funny how you follow ExxonMobiles PR idiots blindly here. Or was it a former coal giant paying the bills? Who knows!

You are clearly a non-scientist, unable to get the point of the graph I gave you which is that recent temperature fluctuations INCLUDING PRESENT TIME is MINIMAL .....The hysteria over "global warming" is exactly that, HYSTERIA.

Minimal - Capiche ?
The present FRACTION OF A DEGREE rise in temperature is nothing compared to the much larger sudden rise in temperature over a few decades in the Medieval warm period and the much larger drop over a few decades that led to the "mini ice age"

You are unable to read a simple graph and so are easy prey to swallow propaganda for the mindless produced by the MSM.

And regarding your 800 000 years time frame:


Notice the regular, almost periodic ( e.g. natural) every 100 000 years or so


And regarding an even larger time frame then your 800K years:



Same story - nature produces much larger variations than man ever could.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: M5xaz

It was millions of years ago that we had the CO2 concentration we have now, and the main sea levels were 30m above our heads. Go and figure?

I couldn't care less about hickups in your little timeframe. Look into the last 800K years of ice core data and tell me what you found.

Kinda funny how you follow ExxonMobiles PR idiots blindly here. Or was it a former coal giant paying the bills? Who knows!

You are clearly a non-scientist, unable to get the point of the graph I gave you which is that recent temperature fluctuations INCLUDING PRESENT TIME is MINIMAL .....The hysteria over "global warming" is exactly that, HYSTERIA.

Minimal - Capiche ?
The present FRACTION OF A DEGREE rise in temperature is nothing compared to the much larger sudden rise in temperature over a few decades in the Medieval warm period and the much larger drop over a few decades that led to the "mini ice age"

You are unable to read a simple graph and so are easy prey to swallow propaganda for the mindless produced by the MSM.

And regarding your 800 000 years time frame:

Notice the regular, almost periodic ( e.g. natural) every 100 000 years or so


And regarding an even larger time frame then your 800K years:

Same story - nature produces much larger variations than man ever could.

I have an accurate prediction to make: your post will be ignored by these gullible AGW pushers.

Conservatives and Climate Change

a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

That reminds me of Hurricane Katrina.

Some people were like: "Hey, I had my helicopter come pick me up and take me to the airport so I could take my jet to my home in Aspen. I don't know why these people stayed in New Orleans. Their choice, I guess."

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

That reminds me of Hurricane Katrina.

Some people were like: "Hey, I had my helicopter come pick me up and take me to the airport so I could take my jet to my home in Aspen. I don't know why these people stayed in New Orleans. Their choice, I guess."

If you live in a flood zone, it would be really easy to just maintain a cheap inflatable raft, or at least some life jackets, in your emergency kit. Or you can buy more booze and cigarettes and all the other non-essentials people waste their money on.

The books i read in the early 90s told that the life of the world is too long to predict weather patterns during human life.

Meaning the world has been. Around a long time, billions of years.

There have been periods of ice ages and extreme heat and draught without human interaction.

Its naive and arrogant to think humans could predict or control weather.
If the time line of the world was a foot long humans would represent less then a quarter inch.

Now of course humans can do damage, but to put it on the scale liberal Democrats are is just another example of how stupid they are.

The world is a living organism and if it feels unhealthy because of humans it can do things to heal itself by wiping out the diseased areas.

Its physically impossible to compare temperatures of the earth in the short time humans have been around

Newsflash:

Even by the standards of the dire predictions given in climate studies, this one’s extreme: civilization itself could be past the point of no return by 2050.

That’s the conclusion from Australian climate think tank Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, which released a report (pdf) May 30 claiming that unless humanity takes drastic and immediate action to stop the climate crisis, a combination of food production instability, water shortages, and extreme weather could result in a complete societal breakdown worldwide.

“We must act collectively,” retired Australian Admiral Chris Barrie writes in the foreword to the new study. “We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind.”

Climate Change Threatens Societal Collapse Within Decades: Report

Meanwhile on ATS: the League of Extra-ordinary Debunkers found some data on the increased temperature, hoooray! It's a pity they wont ask why the climate is changing cuz "it always did so". Impressive leg work right there! That's the walking dead spirit of ATS, kinda alive and barely kicking a fcking can!



Maybe you should meet up with those ExxonMobile communists to discuss the concept we call context? Things escalated quickly, gotta give you that. I'll file that under "Exhibit B - PR idiots at work".

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln

Funny story though. Presented with a solid conspiracy, a bunch of literal fools jumped to it's defense. Well. Thanks?

Good day!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Australian climate think tank Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration

You don't think they have a financial angle in this fight?

Something that's been bugging me while reading this thread: Doesn't AGW mean Anti-Global Warming? In this thread is seems to be meaning something else. Did the term change to something else here?

a reply to: Guyfriday

Capitalists are naturally going to exploit the alternative energy sector if they didn't start to do so already, that's predictable. So what? Even if said Australians are paid trolls, which they probably aint, they would still have some data to go through. Right? Why shoot the messenger already?

AGW - Anthropogenic global warming, aka the human influence on climate change. It never meant anything else in my book, and it's the running gag of threads like this. We can make a dent with plastic in our oceans, but it's somehow impossible that we do the same with our atmosphere... ya know.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

But we in the U.S. don't have anything to worry about, because Trump's appointed director for the US Geological Survey, James Reilly, issued a decree:

James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

The Trump administration, Yumashev says, “essentially wants to use a bit of a creative accounting to claim that ‘whatever we do, the temperature in 2040 is going to be more or less the same anyway,’ and that ‘the increase of several tenths of a degree C from present by 2040 is not that big —annual temperatures fluctuate by as much.’ With this perspective, it is easier to justify making no changes to our emissions and consumption patterns now.
…
Several factors contribute to climate inertia. Foremost is the fact that the Earth does not respond to increased heat instantaneously. Just as ice cubes take time to melt but will inevitably leave a puddle if a certain heat threshold is met, the ice sheets and permafrost may not leave their puddle by 2040 — but that doesn’t mean they won’t eventually.
…
The USGS argument that climate models past the year 2040 are “inaccurate” is “highly flawed and is clearly politicized,” says Yumashev, who warns that the results of modeling “should not be taken out of context for political reasons.” Independent assessments by other scientists have verified the predictions of previous models. The 2013 IPCC report, for one, showed that predictions made in 1990 were correct, noting: The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 … the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections.

Trump's Ban on Climate Predictions Beyond 2040 Forgets About One Key Factor

a reply to: pthena

Oh noes! Not another model that turned out to be spot on!

However. There's a twist: you can't win WW3 without some nuclear winter for dessert, those climate models really will be null and void once they're nuking the sh!t out of this planet for freedamns and demoncrazy.
Talking about political climate inertia... most honest Mr. Presents ever!

[...]
But the angst of the American bourgeoisie is demonstrated more by what it doesn’t speak about than what it does. It is a disquiet which is at once terrified of the collapse that looms ahead and horrified at the idea of losing the status quo arrangement, even though that status quo is benefiting fewer and fewer people. It stands simultaneously aghast and paralyzed before the obvious madness of its rulers, and yet continually grasps at failed “lesser evilism” as a solution. And it largely still buys into the noxious mythology of it being the “greatest country on earth.” The corporate elite, having stripped down civic education over decades, robbed them of their political agency and resistance and replaced it with a sanitized history and demoralizing optimism, or “positive thinking,” which places all blame for their collective state and its inadequacies on the individual. That it has been so lauded by Wall Street should cause anyone to wonder why it has been so internalized by the disenfranchised masses.
[...]

Angst and Madness at the End of Empire

“Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence.”

H. Arendt