IPPC published new climate report and not looking good

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: putnam6
We the people however are screwed, again not saying we should try and do better, but we will likely eradicate ourselves through war pestilence or disease long before climate change or global warming become immediate threats to our existence.

Not one of those things has the capacity to completely wipe out the human race.

Also, fyi, pestilence IS disease. You might want to update your apocalypse vocabulary.

Pestilence is being overwhelmed by one disease, I would theorize our actual demise won't be from one disease but from many like heart disease, liver, and kidney disease or our medical sciences will develop "cures" for diseases where the cures have their own negative side effects.

ergo having pestilence listed though much less likely in my estimation than just diseases in general and our quest to eliminate them. Of course instead of eliminating it Big Pharma actually cashes out on "treatments" and never-ending boosters

That was a long-winded way of saying "Oh, my bad." Points for the semantic gymnastics. You just missed out on Tokyo.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: putnam6

How many countries have navies? The US is pushing climate change is the biggest threat to the USA?

And there is no commitment to use naval operations to clean the oceans?

Ummm...why not instead tell China...India...Vietnam...etc...to not throw their plastic in the rivers...and therefore it wouldn't end up in the ocean...

Stopping the pollution at it's source is by far the better idea than turning aircraft carriers into garbage scows...

This excusing the developing nation status is a wrong headed approach to curtailing pollution...and needs to cease...

Those..."developing"...nations are predominantly responsible for the majority of pollutants in the world today...
[/quote]

plastic in the ocean is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to developing nations, and countries like china and India. something that i have yet to see even mentioned by the human caused climate change zealots, is probably a
far worse issue for their concerns. and that is the fact that those countries put out literally millions of tons of air pollution and CO2. and i would think far more per person than a country like the US. and it's not just from pollution belching vehicles. in a lot of cases due to those vehicles not being designed for use in their climates, or the road conditions, with too many vehicles on too few roadways which creates huge traffic jams (2 hours to go under 10km is not uncommon for example). made far worse by people unable to afford proper maintenance (with public transit being the worst offenders). nor is it pollution belching factories. although those two things add to the problem.

no, the real issue is the literally millions of poor people in each country. THEY are the worst problem and one that is seemingly, completely ignored. because for so many millions of people electricity is a very expensive luxury they can not afford, IF it is available at all. a problem made even worse by the environmental zealots. and that means that they rely on cheap coal and wood, open fires, for all their cooking, heating and lighting needs. literally BILLIONS of fires, many going 24/7/365. and if we want to fix it, that means we need to build thousands of CHEAP electricity production facilities. and that would be coal and gas power plants. it would also mean REDUCING the price of gas and coal. in fact it would even still be too expensive, since it would likely need to cost pennies per 100kwh or even 1,000kwh. plus really cheap appliances to use it. i have seen where a single light bulb (pay as you go/prepaid electricity is a real thing), is an expensive luxury, people can only afford to use occasionally since we are talking about people who may only earn a couple of bucks a day, if that. yet without fixing this one major problem, everything else is rather pointless.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: marg6043

Only another ice age can help earth and we still will die.

The Earth is just now ending the last ice age it went through. Why wold you want another one so soon?

Which is part of the reason why it's warming. We're coming out of a freaking ice age. Geologists have to be facepalming like crazy.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
Has this report taken into account the temperature rise on Mars, Jupiter, etc..? Look to the Sun if you want to find a cause.

It is called climate. That is just weather on a longer period of time. It gets warmer, it gets cooler, it gets wetter, it gets dryer, it changes.

The coastal land you speak of is always in change. People think of land as unchanging and solid. It is neather. It is a slow and some times not so slow flowing fluid.

Thats the problem with the debate...that constant sesrch for blame wether its the right or wrlng place to look.

The fact remains... things are changing and we need to adapt sooner than later.
If only those #ing loser politicians could get their gucking head out of reelection and actually take responsibility and care for their fellow humans.

Stop licking the balls of big ceos and companies.

originally posted by: flice

Thats the problem with the debate...that constant sesrch for blame wether its the right or wrlng place to look.

The fact remains... things are changing and we need to adapt sooner than later.
If only those #ing loser politicians could get their gucking head out of reelection and actually take responsibility and care for their fellow humans.

Stop licking the balls of big ceos and companies.

I agree and that's what worries me,
at one point everyone will need to adapt or die. Most here on ATS and related circles know that, the other 80% listens to the news on tv every day and trust that it won't come to that. (my own family included)

But like someone said on page 4, there is no way that humanity will change its ways in time, and there is no way that the media is going to admit to where we are at.... so that is very sad for those 80%. (80% is my number, might as well be 70 or 90)

and as I learned from all the flooding and fires lately: a government is never prepared and never has enough resources to help everyone.

a reply to: face23785

Well, at least the geologists have an excuse to wear those masks. To hide the embarrassment.

originally posted by: ressiv
simply cure for climate problems..

exterminate the couse! in this case the humans

moore growing means that for every earned dollar you need to pay 10 dollar for compensate the negative climate effect
so its an ratrace
just plaine stupid that no-one dares to speak about reducing the population witch has exploded since 1850 !
and is the main course of all climate problems
also for humans are the same nature laws as for the lemmings and rabbits aswell
see wat we did to the oceans ect..ect
as pigs we are soon rolling in oure own dirt and poluttion that we made oureself

WTF???

What, exactly, do you think covid and the vaccines is all about???

Hello??? Adolph, is that you???

a reply to: flice

Stop licking the balls of big ceos and companies

It is funny you should feal that way. I think the same thing about you but would never use such language. I feel that stooping to insults involving genitalia means you have no real argument left.

You are the one throwing away money, time and opportunity on something you can do nothing about.

Thanks for admitting defeat. Please play again on another subject.

a reply to: KindraLabelle2

The terms "low confidence," "medium confidence," "high confidence," etc. are IPCC terms. Are they defined anywhere? From what I've seen they're not defined anywhere in the report.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

what kind of a reply is that? it literally says nothing.

To answer your previous question:
The report has taken into account many things, including space weather.
If it interests you then you might want to read the FAQ section on the site that I linked in the OP. It saves you from reading through 4000 pages, but it gives good insight of what aspects they take into account while calculating the models , about what exactly they know with certainty and what aspects of the report are based on simulation models.

I find the report to be more honest then I expected regarding 'proof' and 'speculation'.
It also states that even if we go to zero submission levels, it will not help much

As to your statement about geologists, those are the people who provided a lot of the info for the report about natural causes, climate cycles, etc.... Geologists even say that an unpredictable natural disaster in the near future can change the entire model, even cool down the planet again. (and I seriously hope that this doesn't give anyone extreme ideas as means to a 'solution')

a reply to: face23785

Check the Technical Summary: www.ipcc.ch.... Its a pdf.

page 13 of pdf reader. page T-4 printed page.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: face23785

Check the Technical Summary: www.ipcc.ch.... Its a pdf.

page 13 of pdf reader. page T-4 printed page.

I saw that. That still doesn't define the terms. The best I could find was this author's guide to AR5 which contains a matrix for them to reference when making confidence level assessments. Even with that, it still seems vague, at best.

Guidance Note for Lead Authors of AR5 (pdf link)

ETA: There is this curious instruction to the authors in there though:

Presentation of findings with “low” and “very low” confidence should be reserved for areas of major concern, and the reasons for their presentation should be carefully explained.

This kind of language encourages authors to overstate the confidence level of their assessments. If they can't sufficiently justify giving something a "low" or "very low" confidence level, it (their work, and their name) will be left out of the report. Why shouldn't "medium," "high," or "very high" confidence levels have to be explained just as carefully?

Stuff like that is why people don't trust this.

a reply to: KindraLabelle2

When they can predict the weather next week with 90% accuracy, let me know. I might listen to their predictions of two weeks from now after that. Right now, they can’t predict two days from now accurately.

Computer modeling only works when they understand the system they make the model of. As of now, they are guessing a lot of it. Chaos is not just the bad guys on ‘Get Smart’.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: KindraLabelle2

When they can predict the weather next week with 90% accuracy, let me know. I might listen to their predictions of two weeks from now after that. Right now, they can’t predict two days from now accurately.

Computer modeling only works when they understand the system they make the model of. As of now, they are guessing a lot of it. Chaos is not just the bad guys on ‘Get Smart’.

This would explain why the predictions of their climate models always turn out to be wrong. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. And they just don't know enough to make accurate models. And what they do know, there's a lot of uncertainty in the data. That's why over half the assessments in this report are "medium confidence" or less.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: putnam6
We the people however are screwed, again not saying we should try and do better, but we will likely eradicate ourselves through war pestilence or disease long before climate change or global warming become immediate threats to our existence.

Not one of those things has the capacity to completely wipe out the human race.

Also, fyi, pestilence IS disease. You might want to update your apocalypse vocabulary.

Well if you are tired of gymnastics and semantics let's get back to your original reply.

That none of these could wipe out the human race?

So nuclear war couldn't wipe us out?

Disease? all it takes is something that makes us infertile....

but yea jump on the difference between pestilence and disease, you must be a hoot on the family night...

a reply to: face23785

Just an ex-politician (good thing that) that came up with an idea to make money.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: putnam6
We the people however are screwed, again not saying we should try and do better, but we will likely eradicate ourselves through war pestilence or disease long before climate change or global warming become immediate threats to our existence.

Not one of those things has the capacity to completely wipe out the human race.

Also, fyi, pestilence IS disease. You might want to update your apocalypse vocabulary.

Well if you are tired of gymnastics and semantics let's get back to your original reply.

That none of these could wipe out the human race?

So nuclear war couldn't wipe us out?

Disease? all it takes is something that makes us infertile....

but yea jump on the difference between pestilence and disease, you must be a hoot on the family night...

No need to get bent out of shape that you didn't know pestilence and disease were the same thing. You're the one who singled that out when you replied to me. You could have just said okay and stuck to the point of the discussion. Cry to someone else that you got something wrong.

As for your doomsday scenarios, there's a point where movies/video games just don't match up with reality. No, none of those things could wipe out the human race. I doubt you're gonna read all of this or be open to learning any of it, but here goes nothin:

Diseases, for example, peter out because once they kill a certain percentage of the population, they have a hard time spreading effectively. There are very isolated pockets of people on Earth. Not everyone lives in cities with thousand of people per square mile. Eventually this reaches a tipping point where it simply can't get to any more victims. It can be catastrophic and kill a large percentage of the population, but wiping us out? It's virtually impossible.

Nuclear war is another thing that has been overblown by the media, Hollywood, and in this case environmentalists. Nuclear fallout is incredibly dangerous, of course, but not end-of-humanity dangerous. It tends to remain concentrated near the areas of detonation. The amounts carried to far away places by winds get less and less lethal the further you go. If there was a nuclear war, there are vast areas of the planet that wouldn't be targeted because nothing of strategic value to destroy exists there. So fallout simply would not kill everyone.

Nuclear winter isn't going to cause human extinction either. Even if the entire world's arsenal of bombs was detonated (which wouldn't happen in a war. Some would be destroyed before they could be launched, a small percentage that were launched would fail, and some would be kept in reserve), they are incapable of lofting enough material into the atmosphere to cause human extinction via a nuclear winter.

The world nuclear arsenal is on the order of thousands of megatons. First of all, they wouldn't all be exploded at ground level. Some would be used for atmospheric explosions to cause EMPs, which affect a wider area when they're detonated at altitudes that won't eject any material from the ground into the atmosphere. Even if they were all exploded at ground level, there have been asteroid impacts on Earth with the energy of millions of megatons, which ejected way more material into the atmosphere than all of our bombs ever could. Those impacts caused effects similar to what you think of as nuclear winter, and some species were able to survive. Species with zero technology and limited adaptability compared to humans. If they could survive that, we could survive a much less severe effect. You forget that ancient hominids were around during the last ice age, with none of the technology that we have now. They survived.

Same argument would apply to supervolcanic eruptions (ancient hominids already survived a few) and even asteroid impacts up to a certain size. Beyond a certain size, a sufficiently large asteroid impact would sterilize the entire planet. Anything that big coming at us we'd know about years, maybe decades in advance, and we'd probably put all of our resources into either stopping it or getting a small percentage of us off the planet. Whether we could successfully do either of those things is debatable. An extremely large asteroid impact is the most likely thing to actually kill the entire species.

What's next?

ETA: You could give this a read. Humans are likely the most adaptable species that has ever existed on this planet. Ancient hominids survived conditions you can't even imagine, without all the technological advantages we have now.

The UK would welcome an extra 1.5 degress

Well time to tax everyone on everything. That should fight global warming.. tax per mile on cars, tax on smart bins that weigh your waste etc..

If the government really cares or thought the world was actually screwed then why have they not helped ? They just punish you, via your wallet. They could do stuff such as give incentives to move to electric cars etc.. or offer people free or very cheap electric motorbikes to get around in... they had billions for furlough but the world's health is less important ?

My understanding is that methane is the leading cause of global warming . The atmosphere can only take so much...and with all the live sock constantly being fed to keep up with the meat market, the methane levels are high. But they point the finger at cars and such. Plus I'm sure we have been recording the weather for the last 100 years or so. So there is that.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

My understanding is that methane is the leading cause of global warming . The atmosphere can only take so much...and with all the live sock constantly being fed to keep up with the meat market, the methane levels are high.

Actually, the biggest living producer of methane is termites. The way they digest the wood they eat and there being so many aroud the world, they beat anything else living including all livestock in makeing methane. They also produce a lot of carbon dioxide.

New York TImes

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Problem is we have superfund sites all over the country that the big corporations get to leave behind to poison our water and soil...and they continue to poison our skies. The carbon credit system was developed in the US and it is worthless to the planet but not to big pharma, ag, etc.