What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Climate Change Affecting Polar Regions Worse.

OP
McRib

McRib

Diamond Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
10,308
Reaction score
8,195
Points
2,140
Location
Midwest - Trumplandia
Under the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, virtually all the world’s nations pledged to limit global warming to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels and also, if possible, “pursue” efforts to cap warming at 1.5C. At present, the world is not close to being on track to meet either target.

Our analysis shows that:

  • The world will likely exceed 1.5C between 2026 and 2042 in scenarios where emissions are not rapidly reduced, with a central estimate of between 2030 and 2032.
  • The 2C threshold will likely be exceeded between 2034 and 2052 in the highest emissions scenario, with a median year of 2043.
  • In a scenario of modest mitigation – where emissions remain close to current levels – the 2C threshold would be exceeded between 2038 and 2072, with a median of 2052.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
86,041
Reaction score
26,658
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Under the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, virtually all the world’s nations pledged to limit global warming to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels and also, if possible, “pursue” efforts to cap warming at 1.5C. At present, the world is not close to being on track to meet either target.

Our analysis shows that:

  • The world will likely exceed 1.5C between 2026 and 2042 in scenarios where emissions are not rapidly reduced, with a central estimate of between 2030 and 2032.
  • The 2C threshold will likely be exceeded between 2034 and 2052 in the highest emissions scenario, with a median year of 2043.
  • In a scenario of modest mitigation – where emissions remain close to current levels – the 2C threshold would be exceeded between 2038 and 2072, with a median of 2052.

Pledged to limit? Wow!
 

Cellblock2429

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
28,265
Reaction score
9,717
Points
910
Location
New York
You've only proven your illiteracy.
/——-/ Then, Mr Literate, what is the ideal climate? When was the climate not changing?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
4,715
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
... in the highest emissions scenario ...

This is the RPC8.5 scenario ... this and the RPC6.5 scenario are considered outliers ... the more rational extreme is the RPC4.5 scenario which gives us our 2ºC increase by 2120, and only another 0.5ºC by 2220 ... c.f. IPCC AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text ...

Keep in mind, we're currently at 1.8 W/m^2 forcing ... and we don't know how much carbon dioxide we have to emit to get to 4.5 W/m^2 ... just turning off your A/C may be enough to keep temperatures stable ... maybe not run heaters in winter so we can ice skate on the ponds and rivers again ...
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
30,265
Reaction score
19,500
Points
1,945
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Under the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, virtually all the world’s nations pledged to limit global warming to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels and also, if possible, “pursue” efforts to cap warming at 1.5C. At present, the world is not close to being on track to meet either target.

Our analysis shows that:

  • The world will likely exceed 1.5C between 2026 and 2042 in scenarios where emissions are not rapidly reduced, with a central estimate of between 2030 and 2032.
  • The 2C threshold will likely be exceeded between 2034 and 2052 in the highest emissions scenario, with a median year of 2043.
  • In a scenario of modest mitigation – where emissions remain close to current levels – the 2C threshold would be exceeded between 2038 and 2072, with a median of 2052.
Too Funny... a left-wing zealot site for BS propaganda... known as Carbon Brief. And it's all based on FAILED MODELING.... :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :spinner: :spinner: :spinner:

Who is paying you to post up debunked radical left-wing propaganda?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
104,875
Reaction score
17,031
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
You are in a cult, and it is called science denial.

Nothing to see here folks, the earth did all this six million years ago, don't be alarmed....

You and the other denialists are a minority, amongst Americans, and definitely the world.


Climate change presents a long-term threat. Humans’ burning of fossil fuels has let us chemically imitate large igneous provinces, through the injection of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other gases into Earth’s atmosphere each year. By total volume, these past volcanoes emitted far more than humans do today; the Siberian Traps released more than 1,400 times the CO2 than humans did in 2018 from burning fossil fuels for energy. However, humans are emitting greenhouse gases as fast as—or even faster than—the Siberian Traps, and Earth’s climate is rapidly changing as a result.

As mass extinctions show us, sudden climate change can be profoundly disruptive. And while we haven’t yet crossed the 75-percent threshold of a mass extinction, that doesn’t mean things are fine. Well before hitting that grim marker, the damage would throw the ecosystems we call home into chaos, jeopardizing species around the world—including us.




Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.



1632186412722.png



Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha
 
OP
McRib

McRib

Diamond Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
10,308
Reaction score
8,195
Points
2,140
Location
Midwest - Trumplandia
What scientists have concluded, without any mitigating evidence to prove otherwise, is saturating our atmosphere with CO2 is causing a rapidly warming planet. Your graph on the right, which dispute the causes of our rapidly warming planet compared to accepted wisdom, is instead attributing this to the sun and volcanoes.

They are contributors, but the reality is they don't produce what we humans emit, and more importantly, we have created a positive feedback loop, where the melting permafrost releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more potent than CO2 over 20 years, and over 30 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. There are lots of other examples of where one change creates another change, and this multiplies the rate of climate change.

All of these human caused contributions are massive, and contribute far more to a warming planet than any naturally occurring contributors. That is what science has proven. The severity of climate change, not only in its impacts but the rate at which it progresses, is something that one can't predict with any level of certainty, and the kicker is that its progression is usually more rapid than predictions forecast.

There is a lot we don't know, but there is also a lot we do know, and the findings are grim for the future of our planet.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
86,041
Reaction score
26,658
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
What scientists have concluded, without any mitigating evidence to prove otherwise, is saturating our atmosphere with CO2 is causing a rapidly warming planet. Your graph on the right, which dispute the causes of our rapidly warming planet compared to accepted wisdom, is instead attributing this to the sun and volcanoes.

They are contributors, but the reality is they don't produce what we humans emit, and more importantly, we have created a positive feedback loop, where the melting permafrost releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more potent than CO2 over 20 years, and over 30 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. There are lots of other examples of where one change creates another change, and this multiplies the rate of climate change.

All of these human caused contributions are massive, and contribute far more to a warming planet than any naturally occurring contributors. That is what science has proven. The severity of climate change, not only in its impacts but the rate at which it progresses, is something that one can't predict with any level of certainty, and the kicker is that its progression is usually more rapid than predictions forecast.

There is a lot we don't know, but there is also a lot we do know, and the findings are grim for the future of our planet.

We're killing the planet!!!

What's your top 5 list of what we need to do to fix it?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
4,715
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
What scientists have concluded, without any mitigating evidence to prove otherwise, is saturating our atmosphere with CO2 is causing a rapidly warming planet. Your graph on the right, which dispute the causes of our rapidly warming planet compared to accepted wisdom, is instead attributing this to the sun and volcanoes.

They are contributors, but the reality is they don't produce what we humans emit, and more importantly, we have created a positive feedback loop, where the melting permafrost releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more potent than CO2 over 20 years, and over 30 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. There are lots of other examples of where one change creates another change, and this multiplies the rate of climate change.

All of these human caused contributions are massive, and contribute far more to a warming planet than any naturally occurring contributors. That is what science has proven. The severity of climate change, not only in its impacts but the rate at which it progresses, is something that one can't predict with any level of certainty, and the kicker is that its progression is usually more rapid than predictions forecast.

There is a lot we don't know, but there is also a lot we do know, and the findings are grim for the future of our planet.

I think you paint with far too wide a brush ... scientists don't make conclusions without evidence ... the opposite of requesting "any mitigating evidence to prove otherwise" ... I'm sorry, the burden of proof rests with the claimant ... and your math will have to be right ... [smile] ... this is fundamentally physics ...

Methane's contribution to the greenhouse effect isn't thought to be great ... it only has a half-life of 15 years in our atmosphere ... the concern is it's continuing releases ... not just at wellheads and pipelines, but also ...

cows *

So we start fixing things by cutting our meat consumption by 90% ... good luck with that ... I'd rather have the 2ºC temperature increase for my great-great-great-grandchildren ... they won't care ...

* They belch methane, really really, it comes out of their mouths ...
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
11,066
Reaction score
3,361
Points
210
So we start fixing things by cutting our meat consumption by 90% ...
You paint with far too wide a brush ... processors don't just get meat from cows ...
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
86,041
Reaction score
26,658
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
You paint with far too wide a brush ... processors don't just get meat from cows ...

processors don't just get meat from cows ...

They don't get meat from plants.
 
OP
McRib

McRib

Diamond Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
10,308
Reaction score
8,195
Points
2,140
Location
Midwest - Trumplandia
cows *

So we start fixing things by cutting our meat consumption by 90% ... good luck with that ... I'd rather have the 2ºC temperature increase for my great-great-great-grandchildren ... they won't care ...

* They belch methane, really really, it comes out of their mouths ...
How about we change their diet? We have proven that their feed can be farmed in the ocean. There are so many things we can be doing, that we are not.

 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
4,715
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
You paint with far too wide a brush ... processors don't just get meat from cows ...

As a general rule ... it takes more farm land to grow a serving of meat than of vegetables ... but you're right, pigs and chickens aren't ruminants and thus not as much methane production ... and maybe chickens and turkeys aren't quite as wasteful as other meats ... and of course weasels and possums are varmints and eating them benefits the environment ...

Iowa is one entire corn field ... all for animals ... that's a waste ... well, maybe a quarter in beans ...
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
4,715
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
How about we change their diet? We have proven that their feed can be farmed in the ocean. There are so many things we can be doing, that we are not.


Genetically engineered? ... cows eat grass, that's why they have a ruminant stomach ... why change them to eat other thing when we can just eat the things that eat those other things ...

We're still left with burning fossil fuels trucking the algae to the cows ... then trucking and burning more fossil fuels to get the meat into cities ... why not grow vegetables in the city? ...
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,374
Reaction score
22,629
Points
2,180
CO2 doesn't magically segregate itself from the environment. If you are arguing that man's emissions don't affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then you must come up with an explanation for the rising CO2 levels. Throughout the geologic record that has been temperature and the rise in post industrial atmospheric CO2 doesn't correlate to that it correlates to emissions.
Naturally smoking volcanoes? The earth core is on fire.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,374
Reaction score
22,629
Points
2,180
As a general rule ... it takes more farm land to grow a serving of meat than of vegetables ... but you're right, pigs and chickens aren't ruminants and thus not as much methane production ... and maybe chickens and turkeys aren't quite as wasteful as other meats ... and of course weasels and possums are varmints and eating them benefits the environment ...

Iowa is one entire corn field ... all for animals ... that's a waste ... well, maybe a quarter in beans ...
Without the corn you have no meat
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,374
Reaction score
22,629
Points
2,180
And that proves what exactly? We continue to pump ever increasing amounts of it into the atmosphere, year after year. The oceans are not 'cooling', they are warming, you moron. And there is certainly not an increase in carbon sinks across the planet, deforestation is insuring that.

The amount of disinformation you pump out is staggering.
What’s it doing?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,374
Reaction score
22,629
Points
2,180
So your saying, on average the earth's oceans are getting cooler, or this region where the buoys are?

You see, that's kind of significant, as I already explained to you. You climate change denialists are always elevating outliers, that's all you have going for you. The other 97% of science confirms climate change.

But your fevered, conspiratorial mind will never rest.
97%? Who’s that?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,374
Reaction score
22,629
Points
2,180

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
20,210
Reaction score
3,215
Points
290
Location
N/A
Genetically engineered? ... cows eat grass, that's why they have a ruminant stomach ... why change them to eat other thing when we can just eat the things that eat those other things ...

We're still left with burning fossil fuels trucking the algae to the cows ... then trucking and burning more fossil fuels to get the meat into cities ... why not grow vegetables in the city? ...
The linked article was about adding small amounts of seaweed to a normal cow's diet. That would lead to a change in the cow's gut bacteria which would reduce methane production significantly. The article did mention the possibility of selective breeding (the sort of genetic engineering we've been doing on livestock for the last 5,000 years) as one of several measures that might help the cow fart problem; some cows fart more than others. But I saw no mention of genetic engineering in the modern sense in that article.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top