Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

Because this (methane tripled since 1700):

1858 ppb now, literally off the chart.

And this (almost doubled since 1700):

408 ppm now so it's gone up 10 ppm in 4.5 years since that graph was made.

Methane has approximately a five year life span and decomposes into carbon dioxide which has 40+. Cut human output of both, the atmosphere won't return to 1700 conditions for a generation. The cat is already out of the bag. The only question is how much damage it does.

 

[StrayKAT]

I mean, the planet isn't much fun for humanity without humans.

Don't mind me.. I'm just joking about how some of this stuff is framed. The Earth is the most resilient and badass thing in our daily existence. Respect.

I think all of the drama needs to be canned, and instead, we get people to focus on immediate problems. Little by little, that will help the bigger picture.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For people that live on coasts, it's already an immediate problem. All of that Arctic ice water has to go somewhere:

If the ice caps completely melt, everything not dark green will be under water (good bye Florida):

We need fusion power plants and hydrogen powered vehicles and we needed it 30 years ago.

 

[StrayKAT]

Too bad. Coastal flooding is a good example of why I say most of the public messaging is more harmful than not. Case in point: Al Gore predicted that New York would already be flooding.

While advocates have legitimate concerns, they tend to overdo it and then lose people permanently because of it.

 

[Easy Rhino]

The thing is, all these politicans and scientists should have just stuck with the original findings that we are coming out of an ice age. They didn't need to blame humans and make up and distort data to prove their argument. Also, the jig was up when they started pushing carbon credits. This is all about money. Oh that and not a single prediction of theirs has even been remotely close. Their models suck.

 

[Caring1]

For people that live on coasts, it's already an immediate problem. All of that Arctic ice water has to go somewhere
If the ice caps completely melt, everything not dark green will be under water (good bye Florida):

Thank goodness only America is affected

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The thing is, all these politicans and scientists should have just stuck with the original findings that we are coming out of an ice age.

That's where we were in 1700. What we've seen since is something entirely different, unnatural.

Oh that and not a single prediction of theirs has even been remotely close. Their models suck.

Every passing year, we see all of the numbers rise together: more methane, more carbon dioxide, more measured surface temperature, and higher average sea level. The predictions 20 years ago were that they would continue to rise, and they did.

I was a skeptic three years ago when this thread was created but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the warming trend. The causes and effects are well known and understood. Sure, some models are overzealous in their predictions but the underlying principles are correct.

Theory has become practice in regards to AMOC:
2005: Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says
2017: Warming could disrupt Atlantic Ocean current
2018: Atlantic Ocean Current Slows Down To 1,000-Year Low, Studies Show

 

[StrayKAT]

The causes and effects are well known and understood.

I'm not sure how they are when it's been so muddied with politics and possible tax schemes. Or how can it be so understood when dissenting views aren't even allowed... and actively mocked. Even if such dissenting views may be incorrect, they deserve better than simple villainization and caustic responses. Or painting them all as Trumptards (or _insert vague Redneck reference here_).

Is she a Redneck?

 

[R-T-B]

I'm not sure how they are when it's been so muddied with politics and possible tax schemes.

That's the beautiful thing about both chemistry and science. They remain true irrespective of what politics are at play.

Even if such dissenting views may be incorrect, they deserve better than simple villainization and caustic responses.

I disagree. Parroting a actively disproven idea is outright dishonest, and mockery should be expected.

 

[StrayKAT]

That's the beautiful thing about both chemistry and science. They remain true irrespective of what politics are at play.

Not this kind. Apparently this type of science thinks something as complex as climate (I dare extend this to the whole solar system actually.. not just Earth in isolation) is "settled". What kind of science suddenly stops inquiry and demonizes people who want to keep unraveling info? The political kind. Or the kind with cranky Italian clerics in the Middle Ages. Either/or.

 

[R-T-B]

Not this kind. Apparently this type of science thinks climate/planetary sciences (I dare extend this to the whole solar system actually) is "settled". What kind of science suddenly stops inquiry and demonizes people? The political kind. Or the one with cranky Italian clerics in the Middle Ages. That's what we're dealing with now, in modern times.

Try making studies based on something other than questionable rheterioc and disproven science. 99% of what gets mocked is basically that.

 

[StrayKAT]

Try making studies based on something other than questionable rheterioc and disproven science. 99% of what gets mocked is basically that.

The fact that there's any mocking at all is the problem.. along with the drama and end-times whining. None of it belongs in science.

As for mocking, here's a gem:

 

[FordGT90Concept]

AMOC is one of the areas she was talking about. In 2016, AMOC's behavior in 2004-2015 was argued to be natural but come 2017, when the natural trend wasn't reversed as it should have been, it becomes clear something is wrong and that there's 30% less ice today in the arctic in September than there was in 1979.


Curry argues that politics have been influencing science and they no doubt have. There's been a plethora of studies on CO2 with few on everything else (clouds, CH4, ocean currents, jet streams, etc.) but virtually all subsequent studies link back to the elephant in the room: green house gasses are getting out of control. We measure these things on a daily basis (links above) and on a yearly basis, we see them rising. Curry nor any other peer reviewed scientist is going to argue it isn't.

The debate is in what to do about it which brings in politics. Carbon tax is an economic disincentive to use carbon. I hate the idea too because I strongly feel technology is the answer, not taxation.


Pretty much everything she said in that video I pointed out in the last day. "Thermal inertia in oceans" = AMOC. "50 years" = 40+ years. This video is two years old, Greenland's ice sheet had a little growth spurt but it's back average melting now.

A spike in surface melt extent occurred from June 2 to June 9, tying records set on June 4 and 6 in 2010 and 2016. The melt extent reached over 375,000 square kilometers (145,000 square miles), or just over 20 percent of the ice sheet. The main area of increased melting was along the southeastern side of Greenland, extending well inland to regions close to the ice ridge in the southern ice sheet.

Guess where AMOC hits Greenland:

"Trying to pull this off using wind and solar is not going to work." What did I say about fusion? It's the only completely environmentally friendly technology known to man. Even eliminates the strip mining (and associated carbon) required to fuel fission power plants.

I agree with her on all points.


I don't mean to sound alarmist because I don't know how Earth's environmental systems will respond to the pressures placed on it. All I know for sure is that the atmosphere is a tiny, thin layer of gas and human activity over the last three centuries has hugely and measurably changed its composition.

 

[StrayKAT]

AMOC is one of the areas she was talking about. In 2016, AMOC's behavior in 2004-2015 was argued to be natural but come 2017, when the natural trend wasn't reversed as it should have been, it becomes clear something is wrong and that something is that there's 30% less ice today in the arctic in September than there was in 1979.


Curry argues that politics have been influencing science and they no doubt have. There's been a plethora of studies on CO2 with few on everything else (clouds, CH4, ocean currents, jet streams, etc.) but virtually all subsequent studies link back to the elephant in the room: green house gasses are getting out of control. We measure these things on a daily basis (links above) and on a yearly basis, we see them rising. Curry nor any other peer reviewed scientist is going to argue it isn't.

The debate is in what to do about it which brings in politics. Carbon tax is an economic disincentive to use carbon. I hate the idea too because I strongly feel technology is the answer, not taxation.


Pretty much everything she said in that video I pointed out in the last day. "Thermal inertia in oceans" = AMOC. "50 years" = 40+ years. This video is two years old, Greenland's ice sheet had a little growth spurt but it's back average melting now.

Guess where AMOC hits Greenland:

"Trying to pull this off using wind and solar is not going to work." What did I say about fusion? It's the only completely environmentally friendly technology known to man. Even eliminates the strip mining (and associated carbon) required to fuel fission power plants.

I agree with her on all points.


I don't mean to sound alarmist because I don't know how Earth's environmental systems will respond to the pressures placed on it. All I know for sure is that the atmosphere is a tiny, thin layer of gas and human activity over the last three centuries has hugely and measurably changed its composition.

I don't think you really are alarmist. And I don't mean to sound dismissive myself. Despite you changing your original position in this thread, I basically agree with your very first post (which didn't sound too "skeptic" to me): It's best to simply take the high road on energy and the environment.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I should have said General Nonsense which predates this thread by a lot (not sure what year, it's gone now). I was 100% skeptic at General Nonsense which @magibeg can attest to. By the time this thread was created, I can't deny the raw trends anymore as attested to in my third post on this thread:

Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising and that's a provable fact. Everything that comes after that is postulation. We're heading into uncharted territory with only theory to shine a potential path.

Which sounds hilariously similar to that last paragraph above.

Two things happened between when this thread was created and now:
1) Lockheed Martin went all in with a radical, new compact fusion reactor design.
2) Air Force Research Laboratory created aluminum nanoparticles that efficiently separates hydrogen from oxygen in water. Couple that with GM's Chevrolet ZH2 concept and you have a mobile 25-50 kWh power plant, just add water.

If these technologies pan out over the next ten years and they're followed up with a massive push to roll it out worldwide over the 20 years following that, carbon as an energy source could be obsolete in our life times. It will still take decades or even centuries for greenhouse gases to return to 1700 levels but it should theoretically happen given enough time and forest conservation.

 

[qubit]

@FordGT90Concept Thanks for the links.

Thinking about it, I remember seeing climate articles saying that we're actually a bit overdue a mini ice age, going by the cyclical pattern that the planet goes through. If true, then global warming is actually a whole lot worse since it's completely swamped the ice age we're supposed to be sliding into. I don't know which is worse, hot or cold, as we need the planet to stay as temperate as possible.

 

[Ahhzz]

I should have said General Nonsense which predates this thread by a lot (not sure what year, it's gone now). I was 100% skeptic at General Nonsense which @magibeg can attest to. By the time this thread was created, I can't deny the raw trends anymore as attested to in my third post on this thread:

Which sounds hilariously similar to that last paragraph above.

Two things happened between when this thread was created and now:
1) Lockheed Martin went all in with a radical, new compact fusion reactor design.
2) Air Force Research Laboratory created aluminum nanoparticles that efficiently separates hydrogen from oxygen in water. Couple that with GM's Chevrolet ZH2 concept and you have a mobile 25-50 kWh power plant, just add water.

If these technologies pan out over the next ten years and they're followed up with a massive push to roll it out worldwide over the 20 years following that, carbon as an energy source could be obsolete in our life times. It will still take decades or even centuries for greenhouse gases to return to 1700 levels but it should theoretically happen given enough time and forest conservation.

Not a chance in hell. Not as long as the politicians remain in the pockets of oil and, to a minor extent, coal companies. The technologies that have been smothered and retarded due to these companies sitting on patents could have advanced us much more quickly. I don't see that changing any time in our lifetime. Still, nice to hope!

 

[dorsetknob]

Thinking about it, I remember seeing climate articles saying that we're actually a bit overdue a mini ice age, going by the cyclical pattern that the planet goes through.

This was the History/Geography that >(I and others)< was taught when i was at School (talking about the late 60's early 70's )
when it was just "Science"
Then Came the institutional Grants and funding for Research and hey >>>> Global Warming Pokes its head up

HINT "they Said with global warming the Atlantic Conveyer would be swiched off / Disrupted with all the cold Polar water pushing South and the Climate of Western Europe warmed (by that Conveyor) called the North Atlantic drift or as it is best known as the Gulf Stream, their weather would actually get colder and wetter.

Some links for further reading if you have time
https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlanti...lowed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44875508

 

[RejZoR]

I personally think it's all bull manure. Especially because everyone seems to only expect us regular Joes to "change", but the elite is chugging around in big V8 SUV convoys and private jets, not giving one F about it. Get lost. What especially gets on my nerves is all this "we must be more eco!!!!!111" and then everyone goes batshit insane over one thing (CO2) and entirely ignore the other(s). Like, obsessing over temperatures that were doing massive changes before humans or any of our tech even existed and ignoring all the chemicals that humanity pours into ground, rivers and oceans that for a fact affect us in far shorter term. Earth is a supermachine, we may affect it, but it'll do its own thing to achieve equilibrium. Nothing will ever remove massive deposits of toxic residues in ground and shit dissolved in water. If humanity actually cared about things that matter, we could have solved most of ecological issues. But no one is really interested, because this boogeyman "global warming" is on everyone's menu...

 

[bug]

Because the jet stream was way further south than it should be, likely because of all the polar ice melting in the Arctic. Same reason why Europe is getting warmer--the water coming south in the Atlantic isn't as cold as it used to be because there's less and less ice to counter the heat coming north.

Once the ice is mostly gone then everyone in the northern hemisphere gets hotter.

Just a few years ago I was reading the the jet stream is moving north, incurring significant additional costs to the aviation industry. Now it's south... This is why I have really lost interest in the subject.

 

[Vayra86]

This heatwave currently affecting the northern hemisphere is awful. The temperature is reaching 40C or more in places like Spain and the more vulnerable people are starting to die.

The weather is getting noticeably hotter here in England, without me even trying to notice it. I seem to remember the predictions reckoning that these unbearable heatwaves would start to really affect us in 30-50 years time, but with what I'm seeing and feeling with my own eyes, along with the often record-breaking weather reports, suggests that it's started already and perhaps the warming is gonna be much more marked than anyone thought. Even the winters now are just mildly cold weather. I'm currently sitting here writing this post at my PC at 1:25 in the morning with the fan on high and it's 31C. It would be totally unbearable without the fan, but is "just" hot and sticky with it on.

I think the world is in for a nasty shock. No way is this natural, climate change skeptics.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm really upset about this.

EDIT: wanna clarify that I've noticed the summers getting hotter year on year and winters getting milder year on year.

Yep. There is still a natural flow of hot summers and "bad" summers (depends on how you define bad...) but the overall climate is definitely changing. More extreme conditions every where. Rain isnt a drizzle but heavy rain more often than not. Heat waves are hotter and in between those mild winters we get an occasional extreme one as well, such as last year.

Honestly if youre still skeptical about this change... you just dont WANT to see it. Its common for people to run away from problems and this is no different... there is just no running from this.

 

[Easy Rhino]

There is literally no data showing humans are causing climate change that cant be explained by a thousand other possibilities far beyond our control. Funny that since this summer is so warm climate activists are backing calling it global warming and saying "see we said more extreme weather!" When just last summer which was mild they were calling it climate change and denying their earlier claims that it will create more extreme weather. Like, pick a position.

 

[qubit]

Yep. There is still a natural flow of hot summers and "bad" summers (depends on how you define bad...) but the overall climate is definitely changing. More extreme conditions every where. Rain isnt a drizzle but heavy rain more often than not. Heat waves are hotter and in between those mild winters we get an occasional extreme one as well, such as last year.

Honestly if youre still skeptical about this change... you just dont WANT to see it. Its common for people to run away from problems and this is no different... there is just no running from this.

Yes indeed, there's no way such rapid climate change is natural and all the scientists have the data to prove it now. People should definitely open their eyes and realize it's real and not believe certain politicians who go and hide the information from the official government websites.

 

[R-T-B]

The fact that there's any mocking at all is the problem.. along with the drama and end-times whining. None of it belongs in science.

As for mocking, here's a gem:

There is a difference between mocking uncomfortable ideas, and blatantly disproven ones.

There is literally no data showing humans are causing climate change that cant be explained by a thousand other possibilities far beyond our control. Funny that since this summer is so warm climate activists are backing calling it global warming and saying "see we said more extreme weather!" When just last summer which was mild they were calling it climate change and denying their earlier claims that it will create more extreme weather. Like, pick a position.

It's always been more extreme weather. Anyone who changes the narritave over one year is foolish.

This is why I have really lost interest in the subject.

Because the Jet Stream literally went from one extreme to another?

It's quotes like this that make me happy I didn't have kids, because frankly, how can we not be fucked with attitudes like that?

 

[Vayra86]

There is literally no data showing humans are causing climate change that cant be explained by a thousand other possibilities far beyond our control. Funny that since this summer is so warm climate activists are backing calling it global warming and saying "see we said more extreme weather!" When just last summer which was mild they were calling it climate change and denying their earlier claims that it will create more extreme weather. Like, pick a position.

You keep fooling yourself with those arguments, its clear you choose to blind yourself, nothing amyone says will change that. Just dont try to fool others with it because that just looks sad and infinitely stupid.

There is only one reason to deny climate change and that is because people are invested in something they might lose. That alone should tell you enough and if you cannot see that, all hope is lost.