What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. 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!

Study finds 4C increase will put 1/3rd of all Antarctic shelves at risk of collapse

OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,747
Points
290
Location
N/A
Wow ... simply an amazing string of horseshit yesterday afternoon ...

No one blames it on human activity. They blame it on the Milankovich cycles

No one thinks that who has actually looked up what Milankovich cycles are ... none of the periods match the glacial/interglacial cycle ... 0% correlation ...

... Is it possible that the Fukishima earthquake that shifted the North Pole a couple of degrees is responsible for the polar vortex that seems to be plaguing the U.S. this year ...

Is Polaris four Moon-diameters away from the North celestial pole now? ... did you personally lurch 140 miles in 10 minutes during the earthquake and how is it we're all still alive? ... note when a figure skater pulls her arms in during a spin, her angular velocity increases, but her axis of rotation remains the same; both are required by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum ...

Rossby Waves are caused by a reduction in the temperature difference between the poles and the equator.

Rossby waves (aka planetary waves) occur along the Polar Front ... where cold polar air meets warm temperate air and rises in the air column forming the other convergence zone along with the ICZ near the equator ... the causes for the waves is poorly understood ... sometimes the amplitude of these waves is near zero, and the Polar front forms an near perfect circle around the pole; other times the amplitude is high and troughs can reach as far away as the Gulf Coast ... it is a well documented fact that these Rossby waves form near perfect hexagons on Saturn ... one of the many many many things that baffle scientists ...

You're confusing your claim with the emerging theory that because the poles are warming faster than the equator, and average power in the atmosphere is decreasing ... these Rossby waves with be propagating more slowly and have higher amplitude ... "bad" weather will last a few hours longer and be a couple degrees cooler ... and "good" weather will also last a bit longer and be a couple degrees warmer ... and will "average out" over our climatic time intervals ...

=====

All three of the above errors are errors of the basic science ... the things taught to students their first two years of college ... and one of the main reasons that curricula in climatology is started in the third year of college ... Climatology 301 as it were ...

If your claim violates any of the Laws of Nature ... you're wrong ... you need to take the time and learn these laws or be more circumspect with your wild and crazy predictions ... your local community college should offer core physics and calculus, however universities that offer core meteorology are few and far between ... at least sign up for ground school, anything would help your cases ...

Let's see a link to a good reference stating that "the average power in the atmosphere is decreasing". You might also explain what you mean by "power *in* the atmosphere".
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,590
Reaction score
11,589
Points
2,030
I accept anthropogenic global warming as a valid description of the current behavior of Earth's climate.
I do struggle with understanding how people like you think you understand mother nature. I would expect you'd be a trillionaire saving people from tornadoes and hurricanes, volcano eruptions and typhoons. Why haven't you reached out and saved the planet, you got it all figured out.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...
View attachment 480594
Using the radiative forcing equation and converting to deg C with a starting concentration of 400 ppm and a final concentration of 580 ppm calculates to a 1.7 deg C increase in the year 2100.

Which would put us just below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.
 
Last edited:

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,590
Reaction score
11,589
Points
2,030
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...
View attachment 480594
why do the two arctics still have ice?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,590
Reaction score
11,589
Points
2,030
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...
View attachment 480594
Using the radiative forcing equation and converting to C with a starting concentration of 400 ppm and a final concentration of 580 ppm calculates to a 1.7 deg C.
I've been waiting for almost four years now for crick to provide evidence of the dangers of 100 PPM of CO2 is bad.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...
View attachment 480594
Using the radiative forcing equation and converting to C with a starting concentration of 400 ppm and a final concentration of 580 ppm calculates to a 1.7 deg C.
I've been waiting for almost four years now for crick to provide evidence of the dangers of 100 PPM of CO2 is bad.
If I were you I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Sure gradients are continuous but there will be different gradients for different climates / temperatures. There will naturally be a larger temperature difference between the poles and the equators when the planet is colder. Hence a "steeper" gradient and greater delta between the equator and the pole temperatures. So when warming occurs, it will naturally warm more first where it is cooler than where it is warmer. This seems pretty obvious to me. People can get so easily lost trying to figure out the how when the why is obvious.

What do you mean with "naturally"? ... is this based on a natural law, and if so which law may that be? ... or are you using it to mean this is intuitively understood, it "feels like" it should be this way ...

Most of the warming is along the equator, and this is the warmest area on Earth ... any more warming will occur here first ... and then move towards the poles ... the Sun never rises above 50º off the horizon in these polar regions, I wouldn't think it warms there faster under any circumstances ...
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Let's see a link to a good reference stating that "the average power in the atmosphere is decreasing". You might also explain what you mean by "power *in* the atmosphere".

Any decent textbook on Physics will explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... as the temperature difference between equator and poles decreases, due to Arctic Amplification, the flow of energy between the two will decrease ... that same textbook will define this "flow of energy" as power ...

Do you not understand that energy flows through the atmosphere? ... temperatures change all the time, this is energy moving in or out of our air parcel ... by definition, that's power ...
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,949
Reaction score
3,479
Points
1,130
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Sure gradients are continuous but there will be different gradients for different climates / temperatures. There will naturally be a larger temperature difference between the poles and the equators when the planet is colder. Hence a "steeper" gradient and greater delta between the equator and the pole temperatures. So when warming occurs, it will naturally warm more first where it is cooler than where it is warmer. This seems pretty obvious to me. People can get so easily lost trying to figure out the how when the why is obvious.

What do you mean with "naturally"? ... is this based on a natural law, and if so which law may that be? ... or are you using it to mean this is intuitively understood, it "feels like" it should be this way ...

Most of the warming is along the equator, and this is the warmest area on Earth ... any more warming will occur here first ... and then move towards the poles ... the Sun never rises above 50º off the horizon in these polar regions, I wouldn't think it warms there faster under any circumstances ...
So you are saying the poles aren't warming at a faster rate than the equator?
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,747
Points
290
Location
N/A
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
So you are saying the poles aren't warming at a faster rate than the equator?

You used the word "first" ... I'm not addressing "rate" ... the equator is warmed first, why is it "natural" the poles should warm faster ... where's the cause-and-effect? ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
So you are saying the poles aren't warming at a faster rate than the equator?

You used the word "first" ... I'm not addressing "rate" ... the equator is warmed first, why is it "natural" the poles should warm faster ... where's the cause-and-effect? ...
The word first wasn't meant like that. Maybe it was a poor choice. I am talking about the rate of change. Due to natural heat transfer - high energy to low energy - it should be expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator. Hence my comment about polar warming versus global warming.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,949
Reaction score
3,479
Points
1,130
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,747
Points
290
Location
N/A
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?

About 1.5C lower than the present. Did you actually think that was a difficult question? Have you not seen graphs like this before?
1618664344007.png


Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Do you not understand what it had to do with the combustion of fossil fuels?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
The word first wasn't meant like that. Maybe it was a poor choice. I am talking about the rate of change. Due to natural heat transfer - high energy to low energy - it should be expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator. Hence my comment about polar warming versus global warming.

Yes ... there's no "maybe" about your word choice ... "rate of change" is power ... "high energy to low energy" is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

The 2nd Law predicts that power will decrease as the temperature difference decreases ... this forms a negative feedback mechanism ... the more the poles warm, the slower this warming will proceed ... whereas what we observe is pretty much a steady increase roughly twice as fast as at the equator ...

We'll need some other factor involved for your theory to be true ... either another force developing power, some agency effecting our equilibrium state ... or that Arctic Amplification is just a short term event, and simply dynamic contamination and of no climatic relevance at all ... we could both be wrong after all ...

We don't know how much power is in our atmosphere ... hell, we don't even know how to measure this ... we're decades away from answering these question ... by which time the solar/wind/hydro sources will be much cheaper, cheaper than fossil fuels ... and (hopefully) our new generation of nuclear power plants will start coming on line ... fossil fuels are very useful, I just think it's a waste to just burn them if other sources of energy are available ... there's better reasons to start moving away from our current oil economy than some fantasy about climate change ...
 
Last edited:

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?

About 1.5C lower than the present. Did you actually think that was a difficult question? Have you not seen graphs like this before?
View attachment 480892

Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Do you not understand what it had to do with the combustion of fossil fuels?

Why only go back 2,000 years? ... does going back 20,000 years show an earlier "industrial revolution" when temperatures were even higher than what is predicted in our future? ... go back further and we'll find "industrial revolutions" from before modern humans emerged ... go back even further we'll find the biggest "industrial revolution" from before the dinosaurs ...

... or are you limiting your sample pool to drive up probabilities? ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
The word first wasn't meant like that. Maybe it was a poor choice. I am talking about the rate of change. Due to natural heat transfer - high energy to low energy - it should be expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator. Hence my comment about polar warming versus global warming.

Yes ... there's no "maybe" about your word choice ... "rate of change" is power ... "high energy to low energy" is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

The 2nd Law predicts that power will decrease as the temperature difference decreases ... this forms a negative feedback mechanism ... the more the poles warm, the slower this warming will proceed ... whereas what we observe is pretty much a steady increase roughly twice as fast as at the equator ...

We'll need some other factor involved for your theory to be true ... either another force developing power, some agency effecting our equilibrium state ... or that Arctic Amplification is just a short term event, and simply dynamic contamination and of no climatic relevance at all ... we could both be wrong after all ...

We don't know how much power is in our atmosphere ... hell, we don't even know how to measure this ... we're decades away from answering these question ... by which time the solar/wind/hydro sources will be much cheaper, cheaper than fossil fuels ... and (hopefully) our new generation of nuclear power plants will start coming on line ... fossil fuels are very useful, I just think it's a waste to just burn them if other sources of energy are available ... there's better reasons to start moving away from our current oil economy than some fantasy about climate change ...
You mean we can't just accept the data that the temperatures of the polar regions are rising faster than anywhere else?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
You mean we can't just accept the data that the temperatures of the polar regions are rising faster than anywhere else?

Is that how science works for you? ... an apple falls straight down, we should accept that and not bother to explain why? ...

Is this a round-about way of withdrawing your claims in your post #43? ...
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
4,250
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?

About 1.5C lower than the present. Did you actually think that was a difficult question? Have you not seen graphs like this before?
View attachment 480892

Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Do you not understand what it had to do with the combustion of fossil fuels?

This exact argument has been being made by the green community for many, many years. But to what end? What has changed? Where has it impacted world governments in terms of energy production?

The whole temperature argument...........is moot. For 25 years, it hasnt impacted dick.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top