Next Question for those Concerned about "Athropogenic Global Warming:" What can we do about it?

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, Equilibrium.

Hmmm, let's see. Here is the result of a text search for "equilibrium" in "The Physical Science Basis" of AR6

View attachment 897115

Here is the likely reason the term appears as often as it does here, from pg 49 of the Technical Summary of the above volume:

Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence). To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}​

As I thought, from even my brief search, the phrase is “equilibrium climate sensitivity” not “equilibrium temperature” which is an anbsurd idea.

Given your ignorance in this field, I'm pretty certain that damned near everything "that bunch" does or says would surprise you.

It is the global average temperature at which the outgoing LW radiation (the Stefan Boltzmann radiation) carries away to space energy equalling that of the incoming solar radiance, so that the planet is neither growing warmer nor cooler.

HAHAHAaaaa. Now, according to your Trumpian AGW Denier manual, is when you claim you were joking.

So what is that temperature that you claim the Earth is somehow “targeted “at?

I guess that's what I get for thinking you'd recognize a metaphor when you saw one. Thermodynamic systems always move towards equilibrium. Thus the equilibrium temperature is a 'target' of all thermodynamic processes.

The metaphors used by those seeking to politicize science, always try to anthropomorphize natural processes. The Earth does not desire to have a certain temperature, nor are genes “selfish” in a ddesire” to evolve, nor do means of production desire to be owned collectively. Yet when talking about climate change, evolution, and many other natural processes, that some people seek to politicize, they always speak as if natural processes, indeed have those desires. That’s because if it is just natural processes, acting on their own, the politicized pseudo/science fails.

I was not. I'm quite certain that almost EVERY other poster in this forum knew precisely what I was talking about. You have a great deal of catching up to do.

I don’t have your psychic talents to know what other posters know about your metaphorical gibberish. I do see from their posts that the majority on the Environment Forum know how full of shit you are.

We don't care about natural emissions and never did. There is no reason to be concerned with them.

Here is what I was responding to:

that will neverbe achieved until and unless all GHG emissions are effectively stopped.

You said “all.” You underlined “all.”

Backpedaling?

By ceasing our use of fossil fuels, stop leaking methane and do our best to reforest wherever we can.

When are we going to cease using fossil fuels? Does that include the huge amount of fossil fuels used to produce EV batteries, and to charge them?

That depends on how soon we get it done. If we get it done rapidly enough, the world will look very similar to what we have now.

How soon is that, best case scenario? How much will it cost to get it done?

If we take our time about it, the oceans will have flooded coastlines around the planet, the Poles and Greenland will have lost large amounts of ice mass, glaciers and snowpack will have shrunk or disappeared all over the planet, The AMOC and PMOC will have ceased, there will be crop failures, drinking water shortages, mass fish kills, enormous methane blooms from melting tundra and methane clathrates, likely new diseases raging among hundreds of millions of climate refugees, likely new wars over shrinking critical resources and in a lot of the world, summer heatwaves will have reached biologically intolerable temperatures.

I’m laughing because you’re serious.

I hope you've learned that being an OP is not the joyride you seemed to think it was.

So, shove it all up your ass and jump high, Seymour, jump really high. ; - )

Oh, that’s what this is about?

Yes, many posters came on your thread to point out the flaws in your logic. They didn’t try to de-rail your thread by changing the subject.

But you do you. You make it fun.

 

[beautress]

Making the assumption that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than "normal" warming due to human industry, and also the assumption that this increased rate of warming will bring harm to humans and other life on Earth,* what can we do about it?

Please be very specific. Don't just say "reduce carbon emissions!"

Name who must reduce emissions and how they will be influenced to do so. Which industries must stop producing carbon, or produce less carbon? Just as important, which countries must stop producing or produce less carbon?

What must individuals be required to do, and how will they be required. Fines? Prison? Confiscation of offending carbon producing items, like outdoor grills and gas home heaters? What will companies be required to do? Will they be provided subsidies if the requirements turn out to be bankrupting?

Again, specifics. "Everybody should do what the can" is not an answer. Be prepared for follow-up questions, as are common on a message board.

Thanks in advance.

*That part is very, very hypothetical, since no one on this forum was willing to answer questions about it.

What can we do about it? Call Cable TV and cancel all stations. Purchase ear plugs in the homeopathic section of Wallmart pharmaceutical area. And get a copy of the song below:

​

 

[ding]

Here is the likely reason the term appears as often as it does here, from pg 49 of the Technical Summary of the above volume:

Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence). To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}

The climate is not sensitive to CO2.

1. If it were the planet would not have cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 levels 50% greater than today.
2. Their models amplify the theoretical GHG effect of CO2 by 450% which is ridiculous. No wonder they hide this in their reports.
3. The entire atmosphere of GHG's only traps 44% of its theoretical GHG temperature at the surface because convective currents whisk the heat away.

 

[ding]

Making the assumption that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than "normal" warming

Is a claim they have never even tried to prove using data. I've looked into it and I don't see it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What can we do about it? Call Cable TV and cancel all stations. Purchase ear plugs in the homeopathic section of Wallmart pharmaceutical area. And get a copy of the song below:

​

Makes more sense than any of their other suggestions.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Making the assumption that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than "normal" warming due to human industry, and also the assumption that this increased rate of warming will bring harm to humans and other life on Earth,* what can we do about it?

Please be very specific. Don't just say "reduce carbon emissions!"

Name who must reduce emissions and how they will be influenced to do so. Which industries must stop producing carbon, or produce less carbon? Just as important, which countries must stop producing or produce less carbon?

What must individuals be required to do, and how will they be required. Fines? Prison? Confiscation of offending carbon producing items, like outdoor grills and gas home heaters? What will companies be required to do? Will they be provided subsidies if the requirements turn out to be bankrupting?

Again, specifics. "Everybody should do what the can" is not an answer. Be prepared for follow-up questions, as are common on a message board.

Thanks in advance.

*That part is very, very hypothetical, since no one on this forum was willing to answer questions about it.

Slow change. Fast change will collapse the Ponzi scheme. Without crude oil they won't have tires for their EV, dashboards, seat foam and covers or steering wheels. As well as no asphalt to run the EV's on. All are made from crude oil. Forget energy for a moment, we need crude oil for petrochemical use...which is massive.

 

[ding]

Slow change. Fast change will collapse the Ponzi scheme. Without crude oil they won't have tires for their EV, dashboards, seat foam and covers or steering wheels. As well as no asphalt to run the EV's on. All are made from crude oil. Forget energy for a moment, we need crude oil for petrochemical use...which is massive.

View attachment 897445

You are correct. They have no thought this out.

 

[ReinyDays]

You are correct. They have no thought this out.

Have you? ... these fossil fuels are very useful in many many ways ... seems thoughtless to just burn it ... why not makes plastics first, ship our foods around contamination-free ... and then burn the crap ... with paper ...

A warmer and wetter Earth is good for plants, the things that eat the plants and the things that eat the things that eat the plants ... like us ... tires are made of rubber, which is a natural product grown on trees, like paper ... it's carbon-neutral to burn them ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that China is the world’s leading emitters of CO2 and has lifted probably a billion humans out of poverty and suffering in the process. Not sure why the AGWCult wants to undo that— seems Satanic, almost like Bill Gates

 

[Flash]

Reduce Carbon Emmissions. This isn't complicated.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Except there in absolutely NO scientifically defensible data to say conclusively that CO2 emissions, emitted at the rates we have now, are causing unnatural warming.

All we have are one stupid unscientific correlation, a whole lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data by so called scientists that admitted they were lying and have been caught several times doing it and some worthless shit in shit out computer models paid for by the Environmental Wackos based upon very questionable proxy data.

Nothing substantial enough to say that we should do all these idiotic things that the Wackos say we should be doing like giving up gas stoves and lawn mowers and artificially driving up the cost of fossil fuels, that destroy American families trying meet ends in Potatohead's inflationary and debt ridden economy.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Making the assumption that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than "normal" warming due to human industry, and also the assumption that this increased rate of warming will bring harm to humans and other life on Earth,* what can we do about it?

Please be very specific. Don't just say "reduce carbon emissions!"

Name who must reduce emissions and how they will be influenced to do so. Which industries must stop producing carbon, or produce less carbon? Just as important, which countries must stop producing or produce less carbon?

What must individuals be required to do, and how will they be required. Fines? Prison? Confiscation of offending carbon producing items, like outdoor grills and gas home heaters? What will companies be required to do? Will they be provided subsidies if the requirements turn out to be bankrupting?

Again, specifics. "Everybody should do what the can" is not an answer. Be prepared for follow-up questions, as are common on a message board.

Thanks in advance.

*That part is very, very hypothetical, since no one on this forum was willing to answer questions about it.

Oh God, you're whacking the climate alarmists hornets nest with a big stick there. Their criteria and beliefs are -

1 - The climate evil ones are only those in my own country

2 - Everyone but me needs to stop producing co2 and at everyone else's cost

3 - My predictions have to be vague, direct specific ones always fail

4 - I find my own everyday life too tricky to deal with, so to impress my friends and family, I must be on the pseudo moralistic stance climate bandwagon

5 - Four things will save us, change our cars to electric, pay more tax, stop oil, shoot farting cattle

6 - Despite the blame being put on the industrial age, I'm gonna scream my face off at everyone today that weren't around in the industrial age, you racist faggot climate denier

I'm there's more to add about them but that's what they believe and follow

 

[ding]

Have you? ... these fossil fuels are very useful in many many ways ... seems thoughtless to just burn it ... why not makes plastics first, ship our foods around contamination-free ... and then burn the crap ... with paper ...

A warmer and wetter Earth is good for plants, the things that eat the plants and the things that eat the things that eat the plants ... like us ... tires are made of rubber, which is a natural product grown on trees, like paper ... it's carbon-neutral to burn them ...

I've tried. What else is it that you think they can use the gasoline and diesel they refine from the crude oil stream?

 

[ReinyDays]

I've tried. What else is it that you think they can use the gasoline and diesel they refine from the crude oil stream?

Railroads and long haul trucking ... so only have to burn less than a tank a month in my own rig ... or better, just leave the stuff in the ground ... are you unclear about flushing industry down the drain? ... the Oil Economy can't endure ...

NOW is a good time to start researching alternatives ... like burning plastics instead of having China dump it all in the ocean ...

You tell me how long the fossil fuels will last ... and I'll tell you how we can use that time productively ...

 

[ReinyDays]

... farting cattle ...

<nitpick> Cows belch methane ... from their ruminate stomach </nitpick>

 

[Captain Caveman]

<nitpick> Cows belch methane ... from their ruminate stomach </nitpick>

What are the alarmists going to do with the other 199 species of ruminants, or are just farting agriculture cattle in their sights?

 

[ReinyDays]

What are the alarmists going to do with the other 199 species of ruminants, or are just farting agriculture cattle in their sights?

What about the other 199 species of ruminants ... 100,000 giraffes compared to a billion cattle ...

... and it's belching ... the greenhouse gases come out of their mouths ... not their assholes ... sheesh ...

 

[Captain Caveman]

What about the other 199 species of ruminants ... 100,000 giraffes compared to a billion cattle ...

... and it's belching ... the greenhouse gases come out of their mouths ... not their assholes ... sheesh ...

Camels, deer, antelope, bison, sheep, goats, yak, buffalo, giraffe, zebra in fact.....here's a list -

Ruminant Animals: Full List and Fun Facts

Ruminant animals are polygastric, meaning their stomach is divided into compartments. Ruminant animals are herbivores and fun facts about our full list...

www.animalwised.com

What about sheep in New Zealand and Australia, are the alarmists freaking out over them, or just beef. Yes they belch, but saying they fart winds the alarmists up.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What about the other 199 species of ruminants ... 100,000 giraffes compared to a billion cattle ...

... and it's belching ... the greenhouse gases come out of their mouths ... not their assholes ... sheesh ...

They are so. Rude!

Next one belches, hit 'em over the head, skin 'em, slice 'em up and cook 'em, and I bet the others will learn to say "excuse me."

 

[ReinyDays]

Camels, deer, antelope, bison, sheep, goats, yak, buffalo, giraffe, zebra in fact.....here's a list -

Ruminant Animals: Full List and Fun Facts

Ruminant animals are polygastric, meaning their stomach is divided into compartments. Ruminant animals are herbivores and fun facts about our full list...

www.animalwised.com

What about sheep in New Zealand and Australia, are the alarmists freaking out over them, or just beef. Yes they belch, but saying they fart winds the alarmists up.

Are there a billion of each species? ... surprisingly, there's math involved here ... try some ...