IPPC published new climate report and not looking good

Of all of the things liberals tell conservatives to accept in the name of progress, this one is the most backward.

A hotter earth is BETTER FOR LIFE. The true danger is a cold planet!

Sure, the CURRENT life will change, but the planet will have more of it.

Just as the racial makeup of America is changing, and liberals tell whites that race doesn't matter, neither do species in the grand history of the earth.

More species have went extinct in our planets history than are even alive today. The makeup of the planets' species doesn't matter. In the long-term the best goal should be to progress the diversity of the planets life. 🧬

And since life will progress with a hotter planet, this "conservative" stance by liberals confuses me.

Remember, most species will adapt. Most species can withstand temperature swings of 80-100 degrees in a single day.

"Well Tempter, you say, that doesn't mean their environments won't be destroyed or change," ignorantly.

Yes, that's true, and some animals are literally dependant on their very specialized and local environments and may not exist at all without them.

But those animals were never fit to survive.

Humans dominate this planet in the most natural way possible. Any change we make is natural destiny.

Who are you to say otherwise?

originally posted by: face23785

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.

No I read your stuff and don't be so sensitive I'm not angry or perturbed at all just didn't realize it was your time of the month.

LOL okay talk about semantics so just cause something doesn't wipe everybody immediately it doesn't count? You sound like it's okay if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age as long as there are few of us left.

So many holes in your answering diatribe there are too many to list, such as we will know an asteroid is coming? We were discussing how humans could destroy itself not some half-assed Armegedon movie with Bruce Willis. Though I imagine you enjoyed the realism and science behind that film's adaptation.

Regardless Stephen Hawkins (RIP) would disagree with you.

Stephen Hawking has warned that humanity is in danger of destroying itself in the next 100 years as we rapidly progress in the realms of science and technology.

Speaking to the BBC, he said that while progress was good, it creates “new ways things can go wrong.” He highlighted nuclear war, global warming, and genetically engineered viruses as possible harbingers of doom of our own creation.

This is not the first time Hawking has warned that we face a self-made disaster; in 2014, he said that artificial intelligence could “spell the end of the human race.”


BTW

As nouns, the difference between disease and pestilence is that disease is (pathology) an abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort or dysfunction; distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired while pestilence is any epidemic disease that is highly contagious, infectious, virulent and devastating.

and because I enjoyed the link and agree we are adaptable as hell, but it is folly to believe we couldn't kill ourselves. So I'm adding this link

bigthink.com...

Where this man thinks there are only 2 paths for humanity... I don't know if he is qualified enough for you however

In the end, we are just discussing the distinction between total annihilation and wiping up 90% of the population.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
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

Pesky facts...

originally posted by: putnam6

BTW

As nouns, the difference between disease and pestilence is that disease is (pathology) an abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort or dysfunction; distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired while pestilence is any epidemic disease that is highly contagious, infectious, virulent and devastating.

And the way you were using them, they were the same. Context matters with words. You were talking about "disease" and "pestilence" in the context of things that could wipe out humanity. A definition about common, benign diseases isn't gonna save you. Diseases that you think can wipe out humanity are not different from pestilence in the context in which you were using them. The way you're bending over backwards to pretend you didn't get that wrong makes you appear incredibly dishonest and untrustworthy. You also seem very worried about it, since you can't let it go. You were wrong. Just be an adult about it and stop being dishonest. You were wrong. Time of the month? Do I have cooties too? What are you, 12? You were wrong, accept it and move on. I won't discuss it further.

On to the actual topic of our side discussion here:

LOL okay talk about semantics so just cause something doesn't wipe everybody immediately it doesn't count? You sound like it's okay if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age as long as there are few of us left.

That's not semantics. You might want to look that word up next, because you don't appear to know what that means either. You also appear to have lied about having read what I wrote, because I noted that nuclear war wouldn't affect some parts of the Earth. The population in those areas wouldn't be back to the stone age. That's not a semantic difference between what I said and extinction, it's a profound difference. So you either didn't read what I wrote, or you attempted to misrepresent it. Either way, again, it makes you look dishonest.

So many holes in your answering diatribe there are too many to list, such as we will know an asteroid is coming? We were discussing how humans could destroy itself not some half-assed Armegedon movie with Bruce Willis. Though I imagine you enjoyed the realism and science behind that film's adaptation.

Yes, we will know years in advance such an asteroid is coming. The fact that you think that is so crazy shows you have zero knowledge about this subject. Astronomers have identified hundreds of thousands of objects in our solar system, the overwhelming majority of them being too small to even worry about. The bigger objects are easier to detect, and they are detected when they're so far away that the time before any potential collision is measured in years, if not decades.

And no, intercepting and deflecting asteroids isn't a movie myth. The way it was done in that movie was wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't do it. There are a number of methods astrophysicists have been working on, and most of them don't require any kind of advanced technology. We have the technology available already. The biggest thing it requires is time and money. If such an object were detected, it's a sure bet the money would be scrounged up. There is a size/time threshold beyond which we wouldn't be able to deflect it with current technology.

So, with all the places you could supposedly poke holes in what I said, you decided to go with a subject about which you know nothing and pretty much everything you said was wrong. I'd love to know what other "holes" you saw...

Regardless Stephen Hawkins (RIP) would disagree with you.

Stephen Hawking has warned that humanity is in danger of destroying itself in the next 100 years as we rapidly progress in the realms of science and technology.

I have great respect for Hawking, but he's no god. He was a human, which means he makes mistakes. Einstein, who was similarly regarded by laymen as knowing everything about everything, got plenty of things wrong, even about his own theories and equations. Since you're such a big Hawking fan, you must know that he was notorious for flip-flopping on predictions throughout his career. In fact, Hawking radiation, named after him, was something he thought was impossible.

On the prediction you cited, it's vague and meaningless. Why 100 years? Why not 80 or 110? What data or even hypotheses was his prediction based on? There's zero scientific basis for it. When scientists throw out nice round numbers that are coincidentally well beyond their life span so they can never be proven wrong, you should know to take them with a grain of salt.

Speaking to the BBC, he said that while progress was good, it creates “new ways things can go wrong.” He highlighted nuclear war, global warming, and genetically engineered viruses as possible harbingers of doom of our own creation.

This is not the first time Hawking has warned that we face a self-made disaster; in 2014, he said that artificial intelligence could “spell the end of the human race.”

To my knowledge, Hawking had no expertise in any of those areas. Again, what were his predictions based on? Nothing. Since we're on the subject of climate change, perhaps you could point me to the part of this 4,000-page IPCC report where the actual experts on climate change predict how long it will be before climate change causes our extinction? You won't be able to, because no such prediction will appear in that report. No serious climate scientists think climate change will end our species.

Remember when CERN started doing their experiments that they said might possibly produce microsingularities and non-physicists freaked out about them eating the Earth? Physicists hate when people who have no clue what they're talking about wade into their realm, but astrophysicists like Hawking or Neil degrasse Tyson love to wade into subjects that they don't know anything about. I follow NDT on Twitter and was amused a few years ago when he was pontificating about climate change before he got corrected by a climatologist for not even getting the basics right.

Answer like an adult and try honesty this time. You're only getting one more chance. I'm not gonna clutter and derail this thread on a side conversation with someone who appears to be completely out of his element. You should stick to what you know.

originally posted by: Tempter

Humans dominate this planet in the most natural way possible. Any change we make is natural destiny.

Who are you to say otherwise?

This is one of my favorite things with these environmentalist nuts. They try to pretend humans aren't part of nature.

Really? So where did we come from? God just placed us here, as we are, completely independent from nature? Or did we evolve naturally, including evolving all of the abilities we have, such as how to come up with technology.

They need to pick a narrative, we either naturally evolved to do everything we're presently doing, or we didn't.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
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

Yes. They have been doing so for a very long time. But do they produce methane and CO2 from sources which have been buried underground for millions of years?

The termites recycle atmospheric CO2. Eating plant material which took the carbon out of the air. They are net zero. Burning coal and petroleum is not, we are continually increasing the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (and methane). Termites are not.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, it breaks down quite rapidly so its overall effect is less than that of CO2.

a reply to: face23785

Yes, we will know years in advance such an asteroid is coming. The fact that you think that is so crazy shows you have zero knowledge about this subject.

Funny you should say that. A couple of years ago, there was one passed the Earth less than half the distance of the orbit of the Moon. It was found two weeks after it passed when the images that were taken that night were examined. There are many, many objects out there in orbit within the Solar system that no one knows about. Some big enough to wipe out all life on this planet.

And no, intercepting and deflecting asteroids isn't a movie myth.

Could you please tell us all exactly how you attach an engine to a clump of loose gravel, similar to a rocky beach, that is going many thousands of miles per hour and is several miles in diameter? Big butterfly net? Huge glob of superglue?

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Some big enough to wipe out all life on this planet.

And if they are big enough to do that, they are big enough to be detected a long while out.

Could you please tell us all exactly how you attach an engine to a clump of loose gravel, similar to a rocky beach,

This does not describe many asteroids.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: putnam6

BTW

As nouns, the difference between disease and pestilence is that disease is (pathology) an abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort or dysfunction; distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired while pestilence is any epidemic disease that is highly contagious, infectious, virulent and devastating.

And the way you were using them, they were the same. Context matters with words. You were talking about "disease" and "pestilence" in the context of things that could wipe out humanity. A definition about common, benign diseases isn't gonna save you. Diseases that you think can wipe out humanity are not different from pestilence in the context in which you were using them. The way you're bending over backwards to pretend you didn't get that wrong makes you appear incredibly dishonest and untrustworthy. You also seem very worried about it, since you can't let it go. You were wrong. Just be an adult about it and stop being dishonest. You were wrong. Time of the month? Do I have cooties too? What are you, 12? You were wrong, accept it and move on. I won't discuss it further.

On to the actual topic of our side discussion here:

LOL okay talk about semantics so just cause something doesn't wipe everybody immediately it doesn't count? You sound like it's okay if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age as long as there are few of us left.

That's not semantics. You might want to look that word up next, because you don't appear to know what that means either. You also appear to have lied about having read what I wrote, because I noted that nuclear war wouldn't affect some parts of the Earth. The population in those areas wouldn't be back to the stone age. That's not a semantic difference between what I said and extinction, it's a profound difference. So you either didn't read what I wrote, or you attempted to misrepresent it. Either way, again, it makes you look dishonest.

So many holes in your answering diatribe there are too many to list, such as we will know an asteroid is coming? We were discussing how humans could destroy itself not some half-assed Armegedon movie with Bruce Willis. Though I imagine you enjoyed the realism and science behind that film's adaptation.

Yes, we will know years in advance such an asteroid is coming. The fact that you think that is so crazy shows you have zero knowledge about this subject. Astronomers have identified hundreds of thousands of objects in our solar system, the overwhelming majority of them being too small to even worry about. The bigger objects are easier to detect, and they are detected when they're so far away that the time before any potential collision is measured in years, if not decades.

And no, intercepting and deflecting asteroids isn't a movie myth. The way it was done in that movie was wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't do it. There are a number of methods astrophysicists have been working on, and most of them don't require any kind of advanced technology. We have the technology available already. The biggest thing it requires is time and money. If such an object were detected, it's a sure bet the money would be scrounged up. There is a size/time threshold beyond which we wouldn't be able to deflect it with current technology.

So, with all the places you could supposedly poke holes in what I said, you decided to go with a subject about which you know nothing and pretty much everything you said was wrong. I'd love to know what other "holes" you saw...

Regardless Stephen Hawkins (RIP) would disagree with you.

Stephen Hawking has warned that humanity is in danger of destroying itself in the next 100 years as we rapidly progress in the realms of science and technology.

I have great respect for Hawking, but he's no god. He was a human, which means he makes mistakes. Einstein, who was similarly regarded by laymen as knowing everything about everything, got plenty of things wrong, even about his own theories and equations. Since you're such a big Hawking fan, you must know that he was notorious for flip-flopping on predictions throughout his career. In fact, Hawking radiation, named after him, was something he thought was impossible.

On the prediction you cited, it's vague and meaningless. Why 100 years? Why not 80 or 110? What data or even hypotheses was his prediction based on? There's zero scientific basis for it. When scientists throw out nice round numbers that are coincidentally well beyond their life span so they can never be proven wrong, you should know to take them with a grain of salt.

Speaking to the BBC, he said that while progress was good, it creates “new ways things can go wrong.” He highlighted nuclear war, global warming, and genetically engineered viruses as possible harbingers of doom of our own creation.

This is not the first time Hawking has warned that we face a self-made disaster; in 2014, he said that artificial intelligence could “spell the end of the human race.”

To my knowledge, Hawking had no expertise in any of those areas. Again, what were his predictions based on? Nothing. Since we're on the subject of climate change, perhaps you could point me to the part of this 4,000-page IPCC report where the actual experts on climate change predict how long it will be before climate change causes our extinction? You won't be able to, because no such prediction will appear in that report. No serious climate scientists think climate change will end our species.

Remember when CERN started doing their experiments that they said might possibly produce microsingularities and non-physicists freaked out about them eating the Earth? Physicists hate when people who have no clue what they're talking about wade into their realm, but astrophysicists like Hawking or Neil degrasse Tyson love to wade into subjects that they don't know anything about. I follow NDT on Twitter and was amused a few years ago when he was pontificating about climate change before he got corrected by a climatologist for not even getting the basics right.

Answer like an adult and try honesty this time. You're only getting one more chance. I'm not gonna clutter and derail this thread on a side conversation with someone who appears to be completely out of his element. You should stick to what you know.

Suffice it to say the only use I can remember of pestilence was from church when I was a kid, pestilence was used to describe the 7 plagues this might be why the definition has stuck with me as something broader than just disease.

Miriam Webster does allude to this distinction in its definition.

pestilence noun

pes·​ti·​lence | ˈpe-stə-lən(t)s

Definition of pestilence

1: a contagious or infectious epidemic disease that is virulent and devastating
especially: BUBONIC PLAGUE

2: something that is destructive or pernicious

I'll pour this pestilence into his ear
— William Shakespeare


FWIW

Where did I even mention climate change?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

Funny you should say that. A couple of years ago, there was one passed the Earth less than half the distance of the orbit of the Moon. It was found two weeks after it passed when the images that were taken that night were examined.

Yeah that happens all the time. The small ones that, at best, could cause localized damage, are hard to detect. I said that.

There are many, many objects out there in orbit within the Solar system that no one knows about. Some big enough to wipe out all life on this planet.

I also said that.

Could you please tell us all exactly how you attach an engine to a clump of loose gravel, similar to a rocky beach, that is going many thousands of miles per hour and is several miles in diameter? Big butterfly net? Huge glob of superglue?

These are what astronomers call a "rubble pile" asteroid. As Phage noted, there's not a lot of them, and the type of extremely large asteroids that can actually wipe out our species are never rubble piles.

originally posted by: putnam6

Where did I even mention climate change?

Are you for real? So not only do you not read what I wrote, you don't even know what you wrote.

originally posted by: putnam6

Speaking to the BBC, he said that while progress was good, it creates “new ways things can go wrong.” He highlighted nuclear war, global warming, and genetically engineered viruses as possible harbingers of doom of our own creation.

Or maybe you just don't know what anything you're writing actually means. Maybe you're not aware that global warming is a form of climate change. Also, climate change was a natural extension of the nuclear war discussion because the theoretical nuclear winter is akin to global cooling, another form of climate change. Additionally, climate change is the subject of the thread, so I was trying to make our side discussion at least relate to it so it doesn't get flagged as off topic.

Look, you can have the last word. You don't know anything about these topics so it's impossible to have a decent discussion about them. It's okay to not know things. There are subjects I don't know much about. But I don't come into threads about subjects I don't know anything about and try to argue with people who know more than me. You might want to try a little humility and open-mindedness. You could have learned a lot here.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

Could you please tell us all exactly how you attach an engine to a clump of loose gravel, similar to a rocky beach, that is going many thousands of miles per hour and is several miles in diameter? Big butterfly net? Huge glob of superglue?

And to follow up on this, it's also worth noting that size is not the only important factor when it comes to astronomical collisions. Density is super important as well, and rubble pile asteroids are not very dense. A low-density 5km impactor will cause less damage than a high-density 5km impactor.

Not to mention I acknowledged that a very large collision was the most plausible scenario to cause our extinction. Not sure why you're making it out like I don't think it's possible for us to be hit by an extremely large asteroid. It's just extraordinarily unlikely. The object would have to be much larger than 5km.

Sun activity cycles play a bigger role than human activity in regards to the temperature of Earth.

The distance between the Earth and the sun plays a bigger role than the sun activity cycles.

Yes, the distance between the sun and Earth fluctuates.

youtu.be...

There is no doubt in the scientific community that human activity is causing a change in the climate. Anyone who tries to deny this is willfully ignorant or has an agenda.

The problem we have is this has been politicized. The 'alt-right' which this board has a majority of see this as a liberal issue therefore against it. This is a problem with many so called conservatives. Instead of looking at an issue objectively, they are either for something or against it based on political beliefs.

What we see on this board is not conservatism, it is anti-liberalisms and the ignorance associated with it is a problem.

a reply to: GenerationGap

It's not the sun...it is as if you guys have a list of other explanations when the real answer it is clear. The problem is you want to be against anything liberal therefore you have to find a reason to be against the actual science of man made climate change.

This sums up the alt-rights arguments against the reality of human induced climate change:

originally posted by: jrod
There is no doubt in the scientific community that human activity is causing a change in the climate. Anyone who tries to deny this is willfully ignorant or has an agenda.

The problem we have is this has been politicized. The 'alt-right' which this board has a majority of see this as a liberal issue therefore against it. This is a problem with many so called conservatives. Instead of looking at an issue objectively, they are either for something or against it based on political beliefs.

What we see on this board is not conservatism, it is anti-liberalisms and the ignorance associated with it is a problem.

Can you point me to the proof that humans are the primary cause of climate change?

a reply to: face23785

No, he can't. There is an overwhelming amount of science which points to the fact this is NOT man made, but the Taxonomitsts want to make it a thing, they want to make you feel guilty for something you have exactly zero power to change...unless you whip out your wallet or checkbook! Then it's okay.

Is climate change a thing? Well, sure it is...but it's not caused by man.

Silly humans!

a reply to: face23785

Look at the CO2 levels that are rising as a direct result to our fossil fuel addiction.

You can not deny 1. The CO2 levels are rising, and 2. This is a result of us burning fossil fuels.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There is zero credible science that's says human activity is NOT having an impact on the world's climate. Using your reasoning, you would say human activity was NOT responsible for the Aral Sea drying up.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: face23785

Look at the CO2 levels that are rising as a direct result to our fossil fuel addiction.

You can not deny 1. The CO2 levels are rising, and 2. This is a result of us burning fossil fuels.

The connection between the 2 is the problem. CO2 levels were not constant before we started burning fossil fuels. They've risen and fallen throughout geologic history. Where is the proof that the ONLY reason CO2 levels are rising now is because of us? None of you can ever answer that. Your answer is always "but we're burning fossil fuels." That doesn't prove that's causing the changes. Surely you can understand that. It's not a difficult concept.