Climate change tipping points are upon us, draft U.N. report warns: 'The worst is yet to come'

[ColonelAngus]

The sun will eventually supernova and the earth will turn into a piece of charcoal.

100% guaranteed global warming.

 

[ColonelAngus]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

 

[WEATHER53]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

The Only possibility is that mankind by products could be over stimulating the canopy which could have enough vast coverage to cause something. Mankind via solely mankind is far too puny. Mankind is like dimples on a basketball, 4% missing dimples has no effect. Oceans are the basketball

 

[Lesh]

Kinda reminds me of the Global Change Deniers saying that Gore was a hypocrite if he didn't SWIM to Iceland for a conference

Wrong. We said Algore is a hypocrite because he flies around in private jets and maintains 3 Massive homes year round. Just like horse face climate czar John Kerry does.

Pretty much what I said minus the bullshit exaggeration

 

[FA_Q2]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

Facts say otherwise. The Vostock Ice Core data shows that there is a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise AFTER warming has occurred. Thus, the CO2 increase we are seeing now is directly attributable to the Medieval Warming period, which, amazingly enough, occurred 800 years ago. Add to that the fact that mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget and it is hard to believe that that small contribution is somehow significant.

Sure, it shows historically that warming precedes carbon increases. However, current AGW theories take this into account and the effect is understood, mainly heat releases the CO2 from the ocean. It has also been shown that the released CO2 had a feedback effect because the increased energy from the sun is not thought to be enough to account fully for the added temperature. Just because CO2 was preceded by increasing temperatures prior to factories does not mean that it does not cause warming or that increasing those temperatures will have outsized effects on our existence. Not even the authors of the paper you reference come to the conclusion that you do from it.

 

[DukeU]

That dipshit Obama can't be too concerned about climate change melting the ice and causing increasing ocean levels. He bought a mega mansion literally a hundred yards from the ocean.

Maybe that is why he changed his mind that White Supremacists are the biggest threat now instead of climate change.

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From ...​

Officials in Honolulu have granted the developers of a luxury, oceanfront estate tied to Barack Obama a major exemption from environmental laws designed to protect Hawaii’s beaches.

 

[FA_Q2]

Kinda reminds me of the Global Change Deniers saying that Gore was a hypocrite if he didn't SWIM to Iceland for a conference

Wrong. We said Algore is a hypocrite because he flies around in private jets and maintains 3 Massive homes year round. Just like horse face climate czar John Kerry does.

Pretty much what I said minus the bullshit exaggeration

Seems like you were implying that he was not a hypocrite though?

It is pretty clear that he is. Virtually all the politicians that are trying to cash in on AGW are massive hypocrites - they all think that changes living are for the little people but not for them because they are important.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

Burning trees has a zero sum effect because the trees only released carbon it has pulled out of the atmosphere and ground during it's life. We too are part of the carbon cycle.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[FA_Q2]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

The Only possibility is that mankind by products could be over stimulating the canopy which could have enough vast coverage to cause something. Mankind via solely mankind is far too puny. Mankind is like dimples on a basketball, 4% missing dimples has no effect. Oceans are the basketball

We have a massive effect on the planet. Mankind regularly makes entire species go extinct. Pretending that what we do does not effect things is silly.

 

[westwall]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

Facts say otherwise. The Vostock Ice Core data shows that there is a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise AFTER warming has occurred. Thus, the CO2 increase we are seeing now is directly attributable to the Medieval Warming period, which, amazingly enough, occurred 800 years ago. Add to that the fact that mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget and it is hard to believe that that small contribution is somehow significant.

Sure, it shows historically that warming precedes carbon increases. However, current AGW theories take this into account and the effect is understood, mainly heat releases the CO2 from the ocean. It has also been shown that the released CO2 had a feedback effect because the increased energy from the sun is not thought to be enough to account fully for the added temperature. Just because CO2 was preceded by increasing temperatures prior to factories does not mean that it does not cause warming or that increasing those temperatures will have outsized effects on our existence. Not even the authors of the paper you reference come to the conclusion that you do from it.

There has NEVER been evidence for feedback. A cute term that was invented by the climate propagandists. Nor has there EVER been a single bit of empirical data to support the claim. In fact, it is the opposite. There actually IS empirical data to show that there is no feedback at all. Current AGW theory has failed every test. They have failed so miserably that now they are very careful to NEVER make a prediction, because they have all failed.

 

[westwall]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

The Only possibility is that mankind by products could be over stimulating the canopy which could have enough vast coverage to cause something. Mankind via solely mankind is far too puny. Mankind is like dimples on a basketball, 4% missing dimples has no effect. Oceans are the basketball

We have a massive effect on the planet. Mankind regularly makes entire species go extinct. Pretending that what we do does not effect things is silly.

Mankind can certainly have a devastating affect, at the local level. Globally we can do nothing. This has been proven over and over.

 

[Flash]

That dipshit Obama can't be too concerned about climate change melting the ice and causing increasing ocean levels. He bought a mega mansion literally a hundred yards from the ocean.

Maybe that is why he changed his mind that White Supremacists are the biggest threat now instead of climate change.

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From ...​

Officials in Honolulu have granted the developers of a luxury, oceanfront estate tied to Barack Obama a major exemption from environmental laws designed to protect Hawaii’s beaches.

He be Big Negro.

 

[Flash]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

The Only possibility is that mankind by products could be over stimulating the canopy which could have enough vast coverage to cause something. Mankind via solely mankind is far too puny. Mankind is like dimples on a basketball, 4% missing dimples has no effect. Oceans are the basketball

We have a massive effect on the planet. Mankind regularly makes entire species go extinct. Pretending that what we do does not effect things is silly.

Mankind can certainly have a devastating affect, at the local level. Globally we can do nothing. This has been proven over and over.

I'm an Environmental Engineer. 30 year career. Taught some Environmental Science college courses in retirement. Remediated a lot of pollution in my career. Not a climate expert but I am well read on the subject.

My opinion is that Man is great at pollution. We have done tremendous damage to the Biosphere because of our numbers. Seven billion is too many humans. However, there is no real proof of man made climate change. None at all. Just some unscientific correlations and really bad computer models. Because there is no real proof the Environmental Wacko scammers have to create fraudulent data and they have been caught doing it many times.

 

[westwall]

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

Bjorn Lomborg agrees. He disagrees with that fact being the justification for reordering world wide society
and turning over authority and our economies to the socialists in the UN, the main driver of
anthoprognic global warming and redistribution of world wide wealth.

That's nice.

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

Facts say otherwise. The Vostock Ice Core data shows that there is a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise AFTER warming has occurred. Thus, the CO2 increase we are seeing now is directly attributable to the Medieval Warming period, which, amazingly enough, occurred 800 years ago. Add to that the fact that mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget and it is hard to believe that that small contribution is somehow significant.

The ratio of carbon isotopes proves that it is the burning of the fossil fuel that is increasing the concentration not a natural variation from the warming of the Medieval Warming period.

That doesn't mean I accept this new tipping point theory. It's like peak oil, a moving target.

No, it doesn't. Plus the Residence Time of CO2 is measured in 7 to 10 years. Thus the buildup, if any, is temporary. The claim that the RT for CO2 is 200 years was proven false years ago. So, ultimately you have to ask yourself, "how does the planet stay warm?" The goal of space is too cool this planet to absolute zero. What prevents it from doing so? The oceans. The oceans are the heat sink of the world. So, what heats the oceans? Ultra violet radiation can penetrate about 500 meters deep into the ocean, and NO Sunlight can pass the 1,000 meter mark. Below that depth the temperatures remain fairly constant globally.

So, let us look at the AGW theory, it claims that Long Wave Infra Red radiation is reflected back from the atmosphere, by the CO2, and reheats the world. There's a critical flaw with that theory though. And that is the nature of IR interaction with water. Namely, it doesn't. UV penetrates five hundred meters deep. IR can't make it more than a few microns into the water. In other words, it simply can have no effect at all.

 

[westwall]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

The Only possibility is that mankind by products could be over stimulating the canopy which could have enough vast coverage to cause something. Mankind via solely mankind is far too puny. Mankind is like dimples on a basketball, 4% missing dimples has no effect. Oceans are the basketball

We have a massive effect on the planet. Mankind regularly makes entire species go extinct. Pretending that what we do does not effect things is silly.

Mankind can certainly have a devastating affect, at the local level. Globally we can do nothing. This has been proven over and over.

I'm an Environmental Engineer. 30 year career. Taught some Environmental Science college courses in retirement. Remediated a lot of pollution in my career. Not a climate expert but I am well read on the subject.

My opinion is that Man is great at pollution. We have done tremendous damage to the Biosphere because of our numbers. Seven billion is too many humans. However, there is no real proof of man made climate change. None at all. Just some unscientific correlations and really bad computer models. Because there is no real proof the Environmental Wacko scammers have to create fraudulent data and they have been caught doing it many times.

I am an environmental geologist, so the bulk of my career was spent cleaning up that pollution. I agree with everything you say except for the number of humans. The planet as it is can support 10 billion. The problems are not because of the numbers of people, but the corrupt evil people who control things.

 

[Flash]

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

What about the CO2 released from volcanos and forest fires?

The Only possibility is that mankind by products could be over stimulating the canopy which could have enough vast coverage to cause something. Mankind via solely mankind is far too puny. Mankind is like dimples on a basketball, 4% missing dimples has no effect. Oceans are the basketball

We have a massive effect on the planet. Mankind regularly makes entire species go extinct. Pretending that what we do does not effect things is silly.

Mankind can certainly have a devastating affect, at the local level. Globally we can do nothing. This has been proven over and over.

I'm an Environmental Engineer. 30 year career. Taught some Environmental Science college courses in retirement. Remediated a lot of pollution in my career. Not a climate expert but I am well read on the subject.

My opinion is that Man is great at pollution. We have done tremendous damage to the Biosphere because of our numbers. Seven billion is too many humans. However, there is no real proof of man made climate change. None at all. Just some unscientific correlations and really bad computer models. Because there is no real proof the Environmental Wacko scammers have to create fraudulent data and they have been caught doing it many times.

I am an environmental geologist, so the bulk of my career was spent cleaning up that pollution. I agree with everything you say except for the number of humans. The planet as it is can support 10 billion. The problems are not because of the numbers of people, but the corrupt evil people who control things.

It will soon be ten billion. Humans like to have a high standard of living and that creates pollution. We are seeing tremendous damage to the oceans and to large amounts of land. Every year we lose the area the size of North and South Carolina combined to deforestation.

Earth would be fine with a couple of billion but we have too many now.

You can blame a lot of the damage to mismanagement but at the end of the day it is a numbers problem.

That is my opinion.

 

[wamose]

Sorry Charlie but we can only have one catastrophic reckoning at a time. Having elected Biden is the only catastrophe we can deal with at this time.

 

[Crepitus]

Want to bet Florida isn't going anywhere? I live along the water and not one inch has washed away

Yet

 

[CowboyTed]

Sorry but you first brought up race... So don't blame me for that...

If you would stop seeing everything is race and just looking at Martha Vineyard. It is a nice place to live and because it is a nice place to live wealthy people want to live there... The Obama have a bit of money and they like to live in nice place...

You are the one that want the nice places to be whites only... You even get angry at the thought of black people living in nice places..

Again how South Africa in 1980's is that...

Then you just go on a rant about black people you don't like... Tom Brady doesn't live in his old neighbourhood too... You seem to have a problem with Black people who get rich and move to rich areas but have no problem with white people doing it...

This isn't about where black folks live (though you try and derail the thread).
It's about people that claim to believe in Antrhropogenic Global Warming living in a spot
that is precisely the worst place one would live IF they really believed their own bullshit!

Obviously Barack Obama does NOT believe his own bullshit! He might as well build a giant multi million
dollar mansion at the bottom of an active volcano in Hawaii.

Actually you are talking bullshit...

The sea level would have to rise by 8-9 ft to flood his house...

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts

Sea Level Rise Viewer: Visualize community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides) at U.S. coastal locations.

coast.noaa.gov

In 2019, a study projected that in low emission scenario, sea level will rise 30 centimeters by 2050 and 69 centimetres by 2100, relative to the level in 2000. In high emission scenario, it will be 34 cm by 2050 and 111 cm by 2100.

So he is pretty safe... Well thought out buy... Nice try...

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

Bjorn Lomborg agrees. He disagrees with that fact being the justification for reordering world wide society
and turning over authority and our economies to the socialists in the UN, the main driver of
anthoprognic global warming and redistribution of world wide wealth.

That's nice.

There is NOTHING happening that isn't 100% natural.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels, That is not natural.

Facts say otherwise. The Vostock Ice Core data shows that there is a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise AFTER warming has occurred. Thus, the CO2 increase we are seeing now is directly attributable to the Medieval Warming period, which, amazingly enough, occurred 800 years ago. Add to that the fact that mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget and it is hard to believe that that small contribution is somehow significant.

The ratio of carbon isotopes proves that it is the burning of the fossil fuel that is increasing the concentration not a natural variation from the warming of the Medieval Warming period.

That doesn't mean I accept this new tipping point theory. It's like peak oil, a moving target.

Going to have to see some evidence of your claim.