How to fix Human Caused Global Warming.

[Sunsettommy]

Did you use them as a reference because you agree with them or disagree with them? From what I have seen you wholly reject the IPCC's conclusions.

I also quoted this the other day and you missed it lets see if you are with the IPCC about Climate Emergency:

"Let me begin with the fact that the IPCC itself doesn’t think that there is a “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency”. In the IPCC AR6 WG1, the single mention of a “climate emergency” is a far-too-gentle chiding of the media for using the term, viz:

Some media outlets have recently adopted and promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, including ‘climate crisis’, ‘global heating’, and ‘climate emergency’.

SOURCE

LINK

===

Here are many new ones for you to pass out on:

and,

"And here’s a quote from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

A recent analysis using the Global Fire Emissions Database v.4 (GFED4s) that includes small fires concluded that the net reduction in land area burnt globally during 1998–2015 was –24.3 ± 8.8% (–1.35 ± 0.49% yr–1) (Andela et al. 2017)

and,

"This should not surprise anyone—the intractability of climate predictions has long been recognized even by the IPCC, viz:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”
IPCC Third Assessment Report, The Scientific Basis 14 2 2 2, p.774

and,

DIRECT QUOTES FROM VARIOUS IPCC REPORTS

The impacts of changes in flood characteristics are also highly dependent on how climate changes in the future, and as noted in Section 3.5.2, there is low confidence in projected changes in flood magnitude or frequency.

There are inconsistent patterns of change in heavy precipitation in Africa and partial lack of data; hence there is low confidence in observed precipitation trends

There is medium confidence in projected poleward shifts of mid-latitude storm tracks but low confidence in detailed regional projections

There is thus low confidence in the level at which global warming could lead to very high risks associated with extreme weather events in the context of this report.

Low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the 1950s, due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends

Low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid20th century to human influence owing to observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long-term trends.

The IPCC AR5 (2013) stressed low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought, owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, as well as difficulties in distinguishing long-term climate change from decadal-scale drought variability

Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in frequency but with an increase in the number of very intense cyclones (limited evidence, low confidence).

There is thus low confidence in the level at which global warming could lead to very high risks associated with extreme weather events in the context of this report.

Observed global changes in the water cycle, including precipitation, are more uncertain than observed changes in temperature (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). There is high confidence that mean precipitation over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1951 (Hartmann et al., 2013). For other latitudinal zones, area-averaged long-term positive or negative trends have low confidence because of poor data quality, incomplete data or disagreement amongst available estimates (Hartmann et al., 2013). There is, in particular, low confidence regarding observed trends in precipitation in monsoon regions, according to the SREX report (Seneviratne et al., 2012) and AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013), as well as more recent publications (Singh et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2017; Bichet and Diedhiou, 2018; see Supplementary Material 3.SM.2).

Consequently, the current assessment is that there is low confidence regarding changes in monsoons at these lower global warming levels, as well as regarding differences in monsoon responses at 1.5°C versus 2°C.

The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale,

AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a)

Such contradictions, in combination with the fact that the almost four-decade-long period of remotely sensed observations remains relatively short to distinguish anthropogenically induced trends from decadal and multi-decadal variability, implies that there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.

Likewise, CMIP5 model simulations of the historical period have not produced anthropogenically induced trends in very intense tropical cyclones (Bender et al., 2010; Knutson et al., 2010, 2013; Camargo, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013), consistent with the findings of Klotzbach and Landsea (2015). There is consequently low confidence in the conclusion that the number of very intense cyclones is increasing globally.

AR5 assessed that under high greenhouse gas forcing (3°C or 4°C of global warming) there is low confidence in projections of poleward shifts of the Northern Hemisphere storm tracks, while there is high confidence that there would be a small poleward shift of the Southern Hemisphere storm tracks (Stocker et al., 2013). In the context of this report, the assessment is that there is limited evidence and low confidence in whether any projected signal for higher levels of warming would be clearly manifested under 2°C of global warming.

Collins et al. (2013) assessed low confidence in Antarctic sea ice projections because of the wide range of model projections and an inability of almost all models to reproduce observations such as the seasonal cycle, interannual variability and the long-term slow increase.

There was low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of floods. WGII AR5 also concluded that there is no evidence that surface water and groundwater drought frequency has changed over the last few decades, although impacts of drought have increased mostly owing to increased water demand (Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2014)

Reduced ocean upwelling has implications for millions of people and industries that depend on fisheries for food and livelihoods (Bakun et al., 2015; FAO, 2016; Kämpf and Chapman, 2016), although there is low confidence in the projection of the size of the consequences at 1.5°C

Evidence of a slowdown of AMOC has increased since AR5 (Smeed et al., 2014; Rahmstorf et al., 2015a, b; Kelly et al., 2016), yet a strong causal connection to climate change is missing (low confidence)

The magnitude of global sea level rise that could occur over the next two centuries under 1.5°C–2°C of global warming is estimated to be in the order of several tenths of a metre according to most studies (low confidence)

That is, although restraining the global temperature increase to 2°C is projected to reduce crop losses under climate change relative to higher levels of warming, the associated mitigation costs may increase the risk of hunger in low-income countries (low confidence)

Overall, no statistically significant changes in GDP are projected to occur over most of the developed world under 1.5°C of global warming in comparison to present-day conditions, but under 2°C of global warming impacts on GDP are projected to be generally negative (low confidence)

Moreover, daily rainfall intensity and runoff is expected to increase (low confidence) towards 2°C and higher levels of global warming

A collapse in permafrost may occur (low confidence); a drastic biome shift from tundra to boreal forest is possible (low confidence)

The number of investigations into how the tree fraction may respond in the Arctic to different degrees of global warming is limited, and studies generally indicate that substantial increases will likely occur gradually (e.g., Lenton et al., 2008). Abrupt changes are only plausible at levels of warming significantly higher than 2°C (low confidence) and would occur in conjunction with a collapse in permafrost

A single model projection (Drijfhout et al., 2015) suggested that higher temperatures may induce a smaller ice fraction in soils in the tundra, leading to more rapidly warming soils and a positive feedback mechanism that results in permafrost collapse (low confidence).

Given that scenarios of 1.5°C or 2°C of global warming would include a substantially smaller radiative forcing than those assessed in the study by Jiang and Tian (2013), there is low confidence regarding changes in monsoons at these low global warming levels, as well as regarding the differences between responses at 1.5°C versus 2°C of warming.

A tipping point for significant dieback of the boreal forests is thought to exist, where increased tree mortality would result in the creation of large regions of open woodlands and grasslands, which would favour further regional warming and increased fire frequencies, thus inducing a powerful positive feedback mechanism (Lenton et al., 2008; Lenton, 2012). This tipping point has been estimated to exist between 3°C and 4°C of global warming (low confidence) (Lucht et al., 2006; Kriegler et al., 2009), but given the complexities of the various forcing mechanisms and feedback processes involved, this is thought to be an uncertain estimate.

These changes may be classified as incremental rather than representing a tipping point. Large-scale reductions in maize crop yield, including the potential collapse of this crop in some regions, may exist under 3°C or more of global warming (low confidence)

Under 3°C of global warming, significant reductions in the areas suitable for livestock production could occur (low confidence)

Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in frequency but with an increase in the number of very intense cyclones (limited evidence, low confidence).

Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, and their interactions, than at the time of the AR4, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.

=====

You climate scaremongering gooks ignore this all the time,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

 

[Crick]

I also quoted this the other day and you missed it lets see if you are with the IPCC about Climate Emergency:

"Let me begin with the fact that the IPCC itself doesn’t think that there is a “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency”. In the IPCC AR6 WG1, the single mention of a “climate emergency” is a far-too-gentle chiding of the media for using the term, viz:





LINK

===

Here are many new ones for you to pass out on:

and,

"And here’s a quote from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):



and,

"This should not surprise anyone—the intractability of climate predictions has long been recognized even by the IPCC, viz:



and,

DIRECT QUOTES FROM VARIOUS IPCC REPORTS

The impacts of changes in flood characteristics are also highly dependent on how climate changes in the future, and as noted in Section 3.5.2, there is low confidence in projected changes in flood magnitude or frequency.

There are inconsistent patterns of change in heavy precipitation in Africa and partial lack of data; hence there is low confidence in observed precipitation trends

There is medium confidence in projected poleward shifts of mid-latitude storm tracks but low confidence in detailed regional projections

There is thus low confidence in the level at which global warming could lead to very high risks associated with extreme weather events in the context of this report.

Low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the 1950s, due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends

Low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid20th century to human influence owing to observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long-term trends.

The IPCC AR5 (2013) stressed low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought, owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, as well as difficulties in distinguishing long-term climate change from decadal-scale drought variability

Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in frequency but with an increase in the number of very intense cyclones (limited evidence, low confidence).

There is thus low confidence in the level at which global warming could lead to very high risks associated with extreme weather events in the context of this report.

Observed global changes in the water cycle, including precipitation, are more uncertain than observed changes in temperature (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). There is high confidence that mean precipitation over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1951 (Hartmann et al., 2013). For other latitudinal zones, area-averaged long-term positive or negative trends have low confidence because of poor data quality, incomplete data or disagreement amongst available estimates (Hartmann et al., 2013). There is, in particular, low confidence regarding observed trends in precipitation in monsoon regions, according to the SREX report (Seneviratne et al., 2012) and AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013), as well as more recent publications (Singh et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2017; Bichet and Diedhiou, 2018; see Supplementary Material 3.SM.2).

Consequently, the current assessment is that there is low confidence regarding changes in monsoons at these lower global warming levels, as well as regarding differences in monsoon responses at 1.5°C versus 2°C.

The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale,

AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a)

Such contradictions, in combination with the fact that the almost four-decade-long period of remotely sensed observations remains relatively short to distinguish anthropogenically induced trends from decadal and multi-decadal variability, implies that there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.

Likewise, CMIP5 model simulations of the historical period have not produced anthropogenically induced trends in very intense tropical cyclones (Bender et al., 2010; Knutson et al., 2010, 2013; Camargo, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013), consistent with the findings of Klotzbach and Landsea (2015). There is consequently low confidence in the conclusion that the number of very intense cyclones is increasing globally.

AR5 assessed that under high greenhouse gas forcing (3°C or 4°C of global warming) there is low confidence in projections of poleward shifts of the Northern Hemisphere storm tracks, while there is high confidence that there would be a small poleward shift of the Southern Hemisphere storm tracks (Stocker et al., 2013). In the context of this report, the assessment is that there is limited evidence and low confidence in whether any projected signal for higher levels of warming would be clearly manifested under 2°C of global warming.

Collins et al. (2013) assessed low confidence in Antarctic sea ice projections because of the wide range of model projections and an inability of almost all models to reproduce observations such as the seasonal cycle, interannual variability and the long-term slow increase.

There was low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of floods. WGII AR5 also concluded that there is no evidence that surface water and groundwater drought frequency has changed over the last few decades, although impacts of drought have increased mostly owing to increased water demand (Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2014)

Reduced ocean upwelling has implications for millions of people and industries that depend on fisheries for food and livelihoods (Bakun et al., 2015; FAO, 2016; Kämpf and Chapman, 2016), although there is low confidence in the projection of the size of the consequences at 1.5°C

Evidence of a slowdown of AMOC has increased since AR5 (Smeed et al., 2014; Rahmstorf et al., 2015a, b; Kelly et al., 2016), yet a strong causal connection to climate change is missing (low confidence)

The magnitude of global sea level rise that could occur over the next two centuries under 1.5°C–2°C of global warming is estimated to be in the order of several tenths of a metre according to most studies (low confidence)

That is, although restraining the global temperature increase to 2°C is projected to reduce crop losses under climate change relative to higher levels of warming, the associated mitigation costs may increase the risk of hunger in low-income countries (low confidence)

Overall, no statistically significant changes in GDP are projected to occur over most of the developed world under 1.5°C of global warming in comparison to present-day conditions, but under 2°C of global warming impacts on GDP are projected to be generally negative (low confidence)

Moreover, daily rainfall intensity and runoff is expected to increase (low confidence) towards 2°C and higher levels of global warming

A collapse in permafrost may occur (low confidence); a drastic biome shift from tundra to boreal forest is possible (low confidence)

The number of investigations into how the tree fraction may respond in the Arctic to different degrees of global warming is limited, and studies generally indicate that substantial increases will likely occur gradually (e.g., Lenton et al., 2008). Abrupt changes are only plausible at levels of warming significantly higher than 2°C (low confidence) and would occur in conjunction with a collapse in permafrost

A single model projection (Drijfhout et al., 2015) suggested that higher temperatures may induce a smaller ice fraction in soils in the tundra, leading to more rapidly warming soils and a positive feedback mechanism that results in permafrost collapse (low confidence).

Given that scenarios of 1.5°C or 2°C of global warming would include a substantially smaller radiative forcing than those assessed in the study by Jiang and Tian (2013), there is low confidence regarding changes in monsoons at these low global warming levels, as well as regarding the differences between responses at 1.5°C versus 2°C of warming.

A tipping point for significant dieback of the boreal forests is thought to exist, where increased tree mortality would result in the creation of large regions of open woodlands and grasslands, which would favour further regional warming and increased fire frequencies, thus inducing a powerful positive feedback mechanism (Lenton et al., 2008; Lenton, 2012). This tipping point has been estimated to exist between 3°C and 4°C of global warming (low confidence) (Lucht et al., 2006; Kriegler et al., 2009), but given the complexities of the various forcing mechanisms and feedback processes involved, this is thought to be an uncertain estimate.

These changes may be classified as incremental rather than representing a tipping point. Large-scale reductions in maize crop yield, including the potential collapse of this crop in some regions, may exist under 3°C or more of global warming (low confidence)

Under 3°C of global warming, significant reductions in the areas suitable for livestock production could occur (low confidence)

Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in frequency but with an increase in the number of very intense cyclones (limited evidence, low confidence).

Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, and their interactions, than at the time of the AR4, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.

=====

You climate scaremongering gooks ignore this all the time,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

View attachment 652755
The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

Someone obviously searched the thousands of pages of text for ocurrences of "low confidence". I think what would be telling would be the same search conducted on the work of the top 20 most prolific AGW deniers for every possible variation of "low confidence". It would be interesting to see if they are as 1) honest and 2) as certain of their conclusions as is the IPCC.

I would also like to see the results of the exact same IPCC text searched for occurrences of "high confidence".

 

[Sunsettommy]

Someone obviously searched the thousands of pages of text for ocurrences of "low confidence". I think what would be telling would be the same search conducted on the work of the top 20 most prolific AGW deniers for every possible variation of "low confidence". It would be interesting to see if they are as 1) honest and 2) as certain of their conclusions as is the IPCC.

I would also like to see the results of the exact same IPCC text searched for occurrences of "high confidence".

LOL, now you are in damage control because the existence of real IPPC quotes of LOW confidence upsets you.

Notice you ignore the chart completely since you are in denial of the facts behind it.

 

[Oddball]

It is hard to fix a problem that so many think doesn't exist. But when things start getting bad enough that not even they can deny it, that will change. Human caused global warming is possible to fix. The problem is that the cure is almost as bad as the disease. I can think of two fixes for human caused global warming. And seeing how those making money from causing it are the least likely to suffer, that makes it even more likely to happen.

One fix would be to set off a super volcano. Such as the one under Yellowstone. (But not necessarily that one) The other option would be a nuclear war. Causing a nuclear winter. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be a war. Just nuke the hell out of some desert area. I have heard that it would take 7 hydrogen bombs going off at once to alter the earth weather. I don't know how many it would take to actually cause a nuclear winter.

Though the nuclear option would cause a lot of radiation. But I have seen that in radioactive areas, larger animals have been doing surprisingly well. Even so, I would still prefer to stay away from anything like that. So I guess it would have to be the super volcano approach. What do you think.

There is a third option though. One that deals with the next worse problem to the world. Overpopulation. Obviously, humans are to blame for human caused global warming. So the third option would be genocide. Megadeath. When it comes to that option, who should be the ones to go. Obviously it would be those who are the most responsible for it. "Racist" or not, the FACT is that White people aren't responsible for overpopulation. The population levels of Whites isn't rising. In fact, in some areas it is even going down a bit. So in any genocide, in any megadeath, it shouldn't be Whites who need to be eliminated. I wonder if anybody around here is capable of seeing the logic in that.

How many trillions of dollars in increased taxation, levied on those least able to afford them, will all that cost?

 

[Oddball]

LOL, now you are in damage control because the existence of real IPPC quotes of LOW confidence upsets you.

Notice you ignore the chart completely since you are in denial of the facts behind it.

You didn't really think that those goalposts were going to move themselves, didja?

 

[Crick]

LOL, now you are in damage control because the existence of real IPPC quotes of LOW confidence upsets you.

Notice you ignore the chart completely since you are in denial of the facts behind it.

I have been aware of the IPCC's identification of various confidence levels since AR1 so don't be stupid. And what chart are you talking about? Downwelling radiation over time? What the chart tells me is that you're precisely as ignorant of science and math as all the rest of the deniers on this board. It's precisely as valid and knowledgeable an argument as those the idiots make that try to tell us that CO2 couldn't be doing anything because its concentration is so small.

 

[ding]

you're precisely as ignorant of science and math as all the rest of the deniers on this board.

That's rich coming from you.

 

[haveatit]

Nitwit, you and logic aren't even in the same zip code. ....

This coming from somebody of an ethnicity that is one of the worst overpopulaters in the world. Big surprise.

 

[haveatit]

How do you fix something that isn't happening?

Here. I have a video of it "not happening."

 

[Sunni Man]

This coming from somebody of an ethnicity that is one of the worst overpopulaters in the world. Big surprise.

What ethnicity would that be? ....

 

[haveatit]

Yeah, isn't funny how these asshole always want the other people to die. But never them.

Isn't it funny how the criminals never want to be executed? But the people they murdered, that doesn't matter.

 

[haveatit]

You are certifiable.

Feel free to tell me in what way. It should be good for a laugh.

 

[haveatit]

You are insane.

Feel free to elaborate as to why.

 

[haveatit]

The point isn't to 'save the earth'. The point is to save ourselves from what the earth appears to be doing to us.

The whole point is what we are doing to the Earth. Not the other way around.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Oh, human caused global warming is real enough. It will be interesting to see just how bad things will have to get before you see it as a problem. I guess that will depend on how much money you have.

Groom and Doom

Your fear-extortion is welcome in Hollywood. You've got a lucrative script and you'll need the money when we start suing Greenpeace and the rest of the nasty clowns for the damage they've done to the economy, just like their allies in the cronyvirus hoax are going down.

In fact, the corrupt degenerates in Hollyweird make those silly sensationalist disaster movies in order to groom us for the outrageous and predatory claims of the Unabomber Cult. It's the old Pascal's Wager fallacy.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Look at your fixes you proposed for something we cant control......rube

 

[haveatit]

What ethnicity would that be? ....

Muslim. That is what a Sunni is isn't it. And I'm not speaking of the negro muslims. Just the ones of the sand variety.

 

[haveatit]

Groom and Doom

Your fear-extortion is welcome in Hollywood. You've got a lucrative script and you'll need the money when we start suing Greenpeace and the rest of the nasty clown for the damage they've done to the economy, just like their allies in the cronyvirus hoax are going down.

In fact, the corrupt degenerates in Hollyweird make those silly sensationalist disaster movies in order to groom us for the outrageous and predatory claims of the Unabomber Cult. It's the old Pascal's Wager fallacy.

I started a thread called, "Global warming. Kiss your ass goodbye." In it I posted a number of graphs. Feel free to check them out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here. I have a video of it "not happening."

Red is scary!!!

How many trillions should we spend to end the red?

 

[haveatit]

Look at your fixes you proposed for something we cant control......rube

We can control it. The problem is we're not doing it.