Do you believe in man made climate change ?
Patrick Moore doesn't strike me as a respectable person. He is heavily criticised. One of the more funny instances where he lied (funny, but still shows his hypocrisy): Canal+ interview. Calling a 16 year old girl evil and linking her to Nazi propaganda is also not a very nice thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, for arguments sake only, you can be an idiot in many ways and still be right about a lot of other things.
Comment has been collapsed.
I respect Moore because he has been part of movement to stop Nuclear tests when he was part of Greenpeace.
I also agree with him on some topic, including climate warming is positive change.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm... lets see more reliable data http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
Less CO2 = less efficient crop yield, less solar energy converted to biomass, = lees food :)
"Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level."
Comment has been collapsed.
You want more reliable data? Ok:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice one, I'll keep that bookmarked for similar cases.
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot more reliable source:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C1977%3ADLCIWA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Temperature change in Inland West Antarctic Temperature Records
The annual variability in these records and statistical strength of trends derived from them (0.9°C increase over 19 yr at AWS Byrd, a 0.9°C cooling over 12 yr at AWS Lettau, a 3°C cooling over 10 yr at AWS Lynn, and a 2°C warming over 19 yr at AWS Siple with only the Siple trend being statistically significant at the 95% confidence level) demonstrates the need for additional temperature data to ensure confident interpretation of temperature trends.
Comment has been collapsed.
You start with cherry picking with funny Earth Temperature Timeline ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
And then he showed you a basked with all "fruits", while you kept cherry-picking from the <2% that support you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I showed hard science evidence on cyclic temperature change get in response citizen science study. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
You're showing only the minority of evidence that supports your position, and ignoring the mountain of evidence that says otherwise.
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%
Source: 'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
You're picking from the <1% of studies that support your position, and completely ignoring the 99% of studies that say that yes, the climate is changing, we're causing that change, and it has changed faster in the past several decades than at any time in the past 2000 years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because only small amount of publication using reliable data, surface temperature measurement are not enough reliable.
I focusing on data that is reliable like ICE cores and sedimented records or Satellite.
You cannot focus only on last 2000 years this period when data from last 3mln years shows that climate cycle is around 100.000 years long
Anyway even NASA shows that we are currently 0.82 °C over *baseline
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
According to data from Vostok Ice Cores wee still not reached maximum +2.5 °C that is show in last three cycles before climate will start cool down.
Comment has been collapsed.
You cannot focus only on last 2000 years this period when data from last 3mln years shows that climate cycle is around 100.000 years long
My children will be relieved to hear that in 100,000 years, after we've killed off most, if not all, of the plants, animals, and people, the planet will become habitable once again.
Anyway even NASA shows that we are currently 0.82 °C over *baseline
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
And you don't find that alarming?
Take another look at the page you just linked. You see that chart? You see how the temperature stays roughly the same (within 0.5 °C) from 1880 to 1978, but 1978-2018 is basically a straight line climbing at a 45° angle resulting in a .82 °C increase in just those 40 years? And that 0.82 °C doesn't tell the whole picture as that figure is from 2018 which was itself an unusually cool year - 2015 was 0.86 °C, 2016 was 0.98 °C, and 2017 was 0.9 °C warmer.
18 of the 19 warmest years have all occurred since 2001 (except 1998).
Also take a look at the map at the bottom of that page. Use the slider and note how the greatest temperature rise has been in the arctic. The arctic is the ice in our glass, and it's warming faster than everything else. What do you think will happen once it's gone?
Actually, you can try this experiment at home: put some ice and water in a glass and check the temperature, wait for the ice to melt and check the temperature again, and then keep checking the temperature periodically - every few hours or so - and let me know how long it takes for the temperature to go back to what it was before the ice melted.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its not alarming still not Pass maximum 2.5 °C that we can see in past data, therefore is still in safe range .
About Ice is melting due current Axial precession this side facing sunlight more nothing than we can worry about.
In exchange Antarctic Ice sheet growing now :)
If you really worry about sea level focus on desertification, if we reverse it soil will re again ability to store water, and decreasing amount rainwater reaching sea.
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
In addition I more concern about 30meter sea rice cased probably by impact of comets fragment 12.5ka ago, and earth still passing this fragment stream 2 times per year.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y
Comment has been collapsed.
In addition I more concern about 30meter sea rice cased probably by impact of comets fragment 12.5ka ago
Or, you know, by our polar ice caps melting... as they're doing right now, at this very moment, even as you read this.
Its not alarming still not Pass maximum 2.5 °C that we can see in past data
The previous high was about 0.5 °C, and that went down as a result of the North American ice sheet melting and falling off into the ocean. We're already at twice the previous high. We have now doubled the previous maximum temperature, well beyond any safe range.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only one polar cap is melting second is growing.
Check your source ice core data shows clearly +2.5C
Comment has been collapsed.
Any reason why you're linking to this almost 2 decade old publication? Pretty sure there are more recent studies for this.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.”
Comment has been collapsed.
This study found decreased concentrations of four out of five measured elements in brown rice grains (N, on average, dropped by 14%, P by 5%, Fe by 17%, Zn by28%, but calcium (Ca) increased by 32%).
For example,vitamin C increased by 5% in orange juice harvested from optimally fertilized trees grown under-investment [CO2] [15]. If the overall content of elements (except C, O and H) decreases, then it is possible that levels of harmful heavy metals, such as lead (Pb) or mercury (Hg),
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.187.739&rep=rep1&type=pdf
This will depends to plant types.
Comment has been collapsed.
Real problem is too many people on this earth. And there is no end on the growth.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you think this really issue free some space for others ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Elon Musk trying to solve it with his Rockets, on interview he said One Way ticket to Mars only $500,000 ;)
But I personalty preferring live in O'neill cylinder
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha! But he's not entirely wrong. But greed is the bigger problem at the root of it all. If people weren't so fucking greedy, I'm pretty sure we could live in harmony with the natural world.
People want more and more, so they deliberately burn vital rainforests in order to gain more farmland. You kill off all the animals in an ecosystem, everything else dies too. The brainless twits don't seem to realise or care. If we killed off all the animals and insects, plant life would soon follow due to no pollination. Then we would soon die from lack of oxygen, since plants provide oxygen. Alt right-wing fuckers will continue to believe that we can just take take take from the planet and it will keep giving... but it won't. The Earth's resources are limited and we've probably done more damage in the last 50 years than anyone has done throughout history. Ironically, the more educated the human race has become, the more destructive and wasteful.
Comment has been collapsed.
Left wing is equally fucked ;)
They go for renewable without of second thoughts mainly solar and Wind but they do not like water dams for some reasons
For example going Solar is accepting that they leak cadmium when expose on rain also enrichment of your country with cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, enjoy not mention that china dumping most toxin by-product to sea during production :)
Wind is a bit better on land only decreasing bird and Bats population at Sea killing whales “researchers at the University of St. Andrews have found that the noise made by offshore wind farms can interfere with a whale’s sonar, and can in tragic cases see them driven onto beaches where they often die,”
Of course due need for battery to story energy you also need accept that you support Child labour
https://republicofmining.com/category/mining-slave-labour-historical-and-current/
From renewable I prefer Low head hydro power, but correctly placed water dam is also good nice ans stable power.
From not renewable I fully support Liquid fluoride thorium reactor :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh don't get me wrong, I equally despise the far left. Neither extreme is a good thing imo. But this undeniable greed and want for more and more is most certainly an alt-right thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Greed is evenly distributed between Left and Right ;)
Left side simply better at hiding it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
When it comes to natural resources and that particular brand of greed, it's pretty one-sided. Sure, there's plenty to go around in other ways, but here it's about denying climate change and destroying resources because you know "to hell with the planet, live for what money we can make today."
But, we're talking in extremes here, not simply whether someone is right or left. People tend to forget that most people regardless of their political leaning are pretty capable of doing research and looking at things from a realistic perspective. Many might be skeptical of what they are hearing or seeing, but keep an open mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's not true at all. You're literally in a place where there is no growth. Growth ended a long time ago for you. The population's estimated to plateau at 11 billion too considering the evolution of modern societies around the world.
Not sure why you try and assert that there can only be one single problem though. That climate change is a problem, but not a real one and that population's an issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes! There is man made climate change... But is it good or bad and how much does it influence the climate? Thanks for the topic!
Comment has been collapsed.
If I look at this chart looks positive I truly not want live in next Ice Age,
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
Comment has been collapsed.
You have now optimised trees, crop and all that were changed from the humans.
The water level is changed from the humans too because we us a lot more as sooooo long ago, when the trees were "great".
So you can't say "the old trees from million years ago were happy with the climate that was more "toxic"". You pick one thing/a few things and take them as it give nothing left or right from it.
When i grow my own vegetables it is something else as when a farmer at his very large areas grow his vegetables with a lot of chem. adds. Want more and more and more stuff from the earth = more and more win for somebody (in the end not really the farmer but the other ones above him in the food chain).
If you question "did you think Hairspray, Airconditioner (FCKW), plastic and all that stuff have a negative impact at the nature and us as a part of it ? Then
YES
Comment has been collapsed.
Heck older generation may have noticed climate change before anyone else.
Some of us have been around long enough to have "seen all this, before." What has changed is mostly the people, not the climate.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is not a recurring thing, it's an ongoing debate that started a few decades ago. People might have had fluctuating levels of ignorance about it over the years, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
The earliest I can remember the "ongoing debate" was 1971. If it was discussed before that, I was not around to bear witness to it. Suffice it to say that the threat of a nuclear war seemed more pressing at the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dunno, I remember a snowfall in May or June in Ireland during the 90s. I was a kid at the time, but I remember it well because it was super weird. I think weather anomalies like that just happen and are rare.
Comment has been collapsed.
Climate change is happening. That much is clear. Is human activity contributing to it? Surely. But to what degree is uncertain because the honest research keeps getting confounded by political factors.
But more important than that, the proposed solutions are even more questionable. Every political campaign in the last thirty years (ex Kyoto) has failed to make enough of an impact to reverse the damage. Electric cars/renewable energy even in the best case is just trading one set of problems for another. Nothing will get fixed until China develops an environmental conscience.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Nothing will get fixed until China develops an environmental conscience."
I see a lot of people with this idea - but it's a strawman argument. The reality is that, yes, China is a huge producer of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses - but that is largely because it has a huge population; per capita, China produces an enormous amount less CO2 than the US and many other countries. Also, unlike the US (and despite your assertion) China has shown that it is taking emissions seriously, and invested heavily in renewable and clean energy - China is now the world's largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines, the fastest growing nuclear power industry, and some of the heaviest restrictions on vehicle use and emissions.
The argument that China is the problem is a false one, used heavily in western countries (primarily the US) to deflect attention from the fact that countries like the US and Canada are producing 16 metric tons of CO2 per person annually, when China produces HALF that amount. The middle-east averages around 18-20 metric tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Comment has been collapsed.
Keeping in mind I haven't had to time to verify your claims with sources... Analyzing China's emissions per capita isn't really immediately convincing for the reason you just stated: the huge population. It dilutes the measurement. It's low because a huge portion of China's population still live an essentially pre-industrial existence. But that's changing rapidly. Very rapidly. As in I think it's inevitable that they're going to be the determining anthropic GHG source this century. Never mind per capita, China alone contributes almost as much GHG as the US and EU combined. And that ratio is only gonna rise drastically, especially since from your own link China's per capita emissions have been growing while the US's per capita actually shrank.
TL;DR My point isn't that 'China is the problem'. My point is that all the efforts of the rest of the world won't matter if China doesn't play ball, since the vast majority of balls are going to be in their court. There is no solution without them. And they're not playing the same ball game as we are, despite your (dubious) examples, and they won't for a long while.
Also maybe I was unfair for leaving India out of the discussion since they're in a similar boat: huge population, rapidly expanding economy, certainly going to overtake west in GHG emissions. Similar reasoning applies.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a very common misconception. Per capita, it's actually mostly the richest and developed countries that produce the most CO2. Yes, in total China would be leading in it, but you can't ignore the fact that there are over 1 billion people living there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
As you can see China is behind Germany or the Netherlands (and very much so US) in the CO2 emission per capita.
Comment has been collapsed.
I already responded to that retort. Current per capita, sure. Future per capita is a different beast. What happens when their standards of living finally match/exceed our own? Because they're getting there.
Comment has been collapsed.
If that happens, yeah, sounds like a big problem. But maybe that's where we (Western Europe and North America) come to play. If we manage to fix our unecological ways, maybe we can guide the countries who are catching up to us how to do that as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mentioned that the west has been complaining about global warming/climate change for decades now. I'm not expecting any shit to get pulled together soon. "Nothing will get fixed until China develops an environmental conscience." has a double meaning. The first is that, yes, they're gonna be a major part of the problem until they decide to be a part of the solution. The second is that they are likely going to be part of the solution when they finally industrialize to the point where environmentalism starts mattering to them. For better or worse the Communist Party Gets Shit Done when it comes to large national projects. They can probably fast-track their way to ubiquitous LFTR adoption (easily the most straightforward way to reduce GHG emissions) before the rest of us do.
Comment has been collapsed.
For all the morally decrepit things they do, they do get things done quickly. I do agree with what you wrote and I also think Chinese government in general is aware of the impact their country has on environment. These days I'm hearing about very futurological projects being realized in China more often than other countries of the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
Air Pollution in China is so bad that they are force to do it otherwise population will get angry ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone who doesn't believe in climate change, feel free to move to the midwestern US. We had 6 inches of snow on Halloween, then 60F temperatures in December. We're seeing record highs and lows every year, every season. This wasn't happening even 20 years ago, and it's accelerating.
TLDR: You don't need to be a scientist to see it happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
Climate change is science fact, but I not thing that humans emission of CO2 is playing major role in it.
Major factors in my opinion:
Earth Axial precession Cycle time approximately 25,772
Sun Radiation in particular " UV, EUV and X-ray radiation on the Earth's upper atmosphere is profound. Solar UV flux is a major driver of stratospheric chemistry, and increases in ionizing radiation significantly affect ionosphere-influenced temperature and electrical conductivity. "
Anyway Ice Cores data in my opinion shows this best
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
- More Ice Core data beyond 400K years
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/papers/pdfs/197.pdf
Comment has been collapsed.
people keep bringing up less and less snow, thats not always the case. its more about extreme weather. hotter hot, and colder cold. this can dry out some places causing larger and more dangerous fires and flood others killing plant life and in turn soil erosion. weather predictability is all over the place, even the atmospheric rivers are as foreseeable as they once were
Comment has been collapsed.
You might find this article humorous.
Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times.
Comment has been collapsed.
remember Obama kid president? i really want a trump kid president!!! just a tiny kid that says the same things word for word
Comment has been collapsed.
I just need to look outside my window. Have only seen snow for 3-4 days during Dec-Jan, and I live in Sweden. The difference from 10+ years ago is massive.
When I was young, we had 1-2 feet of snow, and -20C during this period. Today it's +4 and clear ground.
Nature has it's own course ofc, but it does not naturally change this quickly.
Not believing in man-made changes is folly.
Comment has been collapsed.
this is completely real, I'm from Northern Italy and I was born in the '80s - 15 or 20 years ago we used to have a lot of snow (that made often the streets impossible to walk or drive upon for weeks), the temperatures in general were way colder (right now that I'm writing we're at -1°, but we had minimum temperatures of 7-8° until the first week of the year, and still it's sunny/foggy so zero snow apart from the mountains) and all in all the difference is impossible to deny.
back in the '80s - '90s we really had snow for months and all my memories are filled with snowy fields and panoramas, for Xmas and during February and March too, and I was used to lower temperatures - not so low as in Sweden but we were often at -4° or so, while now it's extremely rare that we go below -1° or -2°. and it's been going for many years, I totally agree with you and it's visible from the top of Europe to the south where I'm from
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye.. I was also born in the early 80's. Playing around in the snow was part of life back then. Being able to see this change first-person is the only evidence I need. We used to have at least 4-5 months of heavy snowfall, somewhere between Nov-March, and even into April.
In 08-09 I used to live in a house with some friends. We had 1 meter Ice Spikes hanging from the roof, with a cozy -32C ❄❄❄
Can't say I miss that particular winter, but it will for sure not happen again.
Just a cpl days ago, my friend texted me "Oh well, having a smoke on my porch in the spring sun"
/Sweden in January
Comment has been collapsed.
what the hell.. =P that sounds really bad and weird for me as a Southern European, we are used to snow and low temperatures living between the Alps and the Appennines but obviously not so much as in North and Eastern Europe (I still remember some really cold winters in Poland or Ukraine too =P).. I thought climate change hadn't had such a huge impact on the North too yet, I thought that up there it was still very cold and snowy but it seems it's already changed.. I don't miss either those winters in which you had to wake up at 4 a.m. in order to clear the whole road and make a path for your car trying to get on the icy streets but nowadays it looks really like it's always spring.. let's see what happens in the next months but I don't expect some heavy snowfalls like in the '90s until late March =\
Comment has been collapsed.
From above listed video, in my opinion this idea can greatly affect climate at least locally.
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
And best thing this is cheaper in long term compared to send permanent food idea to 3th world, also improve livelihood and economy of countries affected by desertification included US ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
What exactly is your intention with this discussion?
It's an easy thing:
- Not man made and we don't do anything => we are fucked
- Not man made and we do something=> we are fucked
- Man made and we don't do anything => we are fucked
- Man made and we do something => we are maybe not fucked
At least we should have a plan how to react on the climate change (which you believe exists if I understand correctly) as I don't think mankind will change fast enough to prevent anything (in case there is anything we could prevent). And next to this we should stop turn our earth into Deponia (which has nothing to do with climate change of course but also destroys the planet we are able to live on)
Whatever we do or not, the earth will remain. with or without us is the question
Comment has been collapsed.
I cheeking what our community is thinking about this topic :)
I recommend satellite data o check temperatures change in last 40 years
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
I recommend check Global and South Polar also compare different heights.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/climate-reconstructions-3-million-years.gif
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently you don't want to hear the opinion of others but change it, that's a difference ;)
I will not try to change your opinion as it's your right to have another opinion than me. We both have to believe in the evidences which fit our opinion as we both didn't create them ourselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only believe in reliable data after I analyse it I make my conclusion.
According to data from Vostok Ice Cores wee still not reached maximum +2.5 °C that is show in last three cycles before climate will start cool down.
Anyway even NASA shows that we are currently 0.82 °C over *baseline
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the most weighed and cool-headed answer I've seen in this decade. Thank you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, how I love an open and unbiased thread about climate change.
Comment has been collapsed.
Open and unbiased threads are obviously a hoax created by and for the Chinese in order to make US forum threads unproductive.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that some of the doom-saying is exaggerated. I also agree that it's almost impossible to accurately predict long term climate change (though certain trends are identifiable, we identify them in ways that may not reflect a permanent, sustained change as much as a temporary adjustment). I think that the change in the climate is both natural and man made, with natural factors and human behavior impacting the climate.
On the other hand, I think people should respect the environment and their neighbors. Environmental contamination causes health issues, harms other people, and causes problems. I'm less concerned about carbon emissions as I am about toxic chemicals, manufacturing and extraction runoff, and other directly impactful pollution. Part of this is because I think the people concerned about carbon emissions most thoroughly are unwilling to make the changes necessary to meaningfully address short term and long term needs (nuclear power, changes in fundamental infrastructure and production methodology for energy and consumer goods, environmental accountability for manufacturing of sustainable technology). The environmental damage done by manufacture of solar panels, for example, is often greater than the environmental impacts of the same amount of fossil fuel based energy production over the lifespan of the solar panel. While improvements have been made in that regard, the fact that "environmentally sustainable" energy often isn't actually positive for the environment when introduced at a large scale is a problem.
I think that there are exceptions. People have made lots of innovation. But for every genius solving the problems, you have an armchair environmentalist who tosses all their garbage into the recycling because "it's good for the planet" while bogging up the recycling system with recyclable junk, or someone who buys solar panels or an electric vehicle "for the environment" when the production is actually just displacing environmental contamination to other places. If the hypocrites would admit their hypocrisy and do actually helpful things to address the issue, I'd be a lot less jaded, but every so-called "environmentalist" jetting around on private jets or driving gas guzzler SUVs because environmentalism is hip and cool but doing something puts a cramp in his/her style makes me lose the will to care.
TL;DR, mixed causes (both human and natural), things we can do (change power production and manufacturing infrastructure), people suck at doing the right things because they get too busy with doom and gloom to be helpful.
Comment has been collapsed.
I not sure if all "environmentalist" are like that but probably around 99.99% ;)
Here you have rare example he doing is best for people :)
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, in these years I'm doing my best in order to make my native region in Northern Italy more sustainable and green and I think we're on the right track, I'm doing what I can for climate and environment protection =)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thumbs up for you man 👍 I have also changed my ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is not much we can do unless we make 3/4 of the world population disappear or start living in caves without modern industry. I dont see that happening though. Instead we are getting increased tax rates and less plastic straws so we can pretend it helps. Earth can't support the current population.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wee still not overpopulated, do not worry upper Earth limit with curent technology is around 10 billion, and more if wee change all deserts to Farms :)
I personally see solution in moving all industry and most food production in to space this will increase upper limit to completely different level.
10 billion mark s achievable if wee get enough Phosphorus bur currently we are at production limit wee need some start mine it off earth in future.
Comment has been collapsed.
But can governments do that without it being a thinly veiled excuse to loot taxpayers of trillions, destroy their standard of living for generations, give that money to other rich people, like they will do with the carbon tax and green new deal, all so China and India can continue destroying the planet?
Comment has been collapsed.
Governments officials.
Who cares about other Countries we need think new ways to squishing our own citizens, the have money that wee want spend ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Fear is what drives many skeptics, if they are forced to accept the fact that the climate is changing- they might have to change their cushy, lazy lifestyle.
Some are just ignorant, they literally believe that when you burn something that it just disappears.
I am kinda surprised that Mother Nature has not self corrected (yet). The last global pandemic was over 100 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh wow I heard about this a couple days ago and they still weren't sure it could spread via human contact. Leave it to China to completely fuck up the response in effort to hide how bad it is.
People are so fucking dumb. Some idiot sent their kid to preschool with the flu, and now my kid is sick. We all got our flu shots but it's type B and the shot wasn't very effective against it this year.
There is a special place in hell for people who 'tough it out' and infect others by going to work/school/gym/etc while they are very sick. It's the same part of hell that people go to for not washing their hands after using the bathroom. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, here's a collection of links for people who want to know more about science and climate change.
NASA has compiled a handy list of American scientific organizations confirming climate change, with a link to a list of 200 global ones. It also lists multiple peer-reviewed sources for the 97% scientific consensus that it's due to human activities.
While we're at it, here's a peer-reviewed article debunking anti-climate change papers due to their methods, including inappropriate statistical methods or misunderstood/incomplete physics.
If you'd like to learn more about why people are panicking, try the IPCC report on 1.5 degrees of warming, which includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 different authors from 40 countries. That's about as close to unbiased international cooperation to find answers as you're going to get. Wading through the entire document takes hours, so I'd recommend just going to Chapter 3 and ctrl+Fing "Scenario 3" to see an illustrative example of what the current forecast is for us and the climate. (I'll attach it as an image for the lazy, too.)
And finally, for people who don't really want to sort through the facts themselves, or who appreciate when things are laid out as a story or piece of journalism, here's an article I like. n+1 has a whole collection of climate articles, actually, if you're in the mood for reading.
In closing, it is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy what will happen. The nature of science is that it pretty much always refuses to straight out state something is true. The example I've heard is a researcher saying, "I'm about as sure vaccines are safe as I am that if I walk off the top of this building, I'll fall instead of fly." But that's why climate predictions generally give levels of confidence and ranges, rather than bald facts. (e.g. we're currently facing between 2 and 4.5 degrees. No one's certain exactly how much warmer things will get, but it's a question of how much, not whether they will at all.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you very much for this comment. I just don't get the point of negationists of the climate change, when there is so much scientific evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Al Gore said Florida would be under water by now. You also have the predictions every five years of something bad happening and it never does. Remember the "97% of scientists believe in global warming"?
Evidence is worthless when backed by fake news.
Comment has been collapsed.
NASA has compiled a handy list of American scientific organizations confirming climate change, with a link to a list of 200 global ones. It also lists multiple peer-reviewed sources for the 97% scientific consensus that it's due to human activities.
You might have missed this part? Or simply not read my comment. I'm not entirely sure which.
In any case, the 1990 prediction of warming (i.e. by how many degrees global temperatures would rise overall) was actually pretty accurate. Their “best estimate” was that the world would warm by about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030, meaning that the halfway prediction would be about 0.55 degrees celsius by 2010. The world warmed by about 0.39 degrees Celsius, coming very close to the prediction despite several unforeseen historical events, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the rise of China.
And remember, that's 1990—before most people had internet in their homes. Science has come a long way in the intervening decades, in terms of both methods and tools. Sea levels may not have risen as much as Al Gore warned, but they are rising by 3.3 mm per year. NASA's also shows graphs of rising temperatures, the loss of ice sheets, increasing CO2 etc. on the same page, if you want to browse it yourself.
The pattern of warming is a "broad match" to the human-induced climate change one, so some people say they're skeptical because the models weren't perfectly accurate, as though any scientific prediction could be. But that ignores that global trends generally match human climate models and are completely different from the models for naturally induced change, if that's what this all was.
Comment has been collapsed.
Al Gore is truly a Hypocrite, he simply is good at selling convenient lies :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmqZoZs3J0M
About sea rise
Look at Meltwater Pulse 1a it is 30 meter sea lever rise case by comet fragment hit polar ice cape. Earth still passing this fragments stream 2 times per year.
Comment has been collapsed.
This isn't about Al Gore at all, really. Even if every single thing Al Gore said was wrong, that wouldn't erase the rest of the data we have now, which shows a consistent rise in sea levels alongside the loss of our ice sheets and Arctic sea ice.
And I'm sorry, I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say. Meltwater Pulse 1A was a geological event that occurred over 13,000 years ago. How is that relevant?
Comment has been collapsed.
Factor that cause Meltwater Pulse 1A still exist and can occur again. And currently wee not doing anything to countermeasure it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y
Comment has been collapsed.
The factor that caused Meltwater Pulse 1A...as in the giant meteor?
Er. Yes, I suppose we're somewhat unprepared for another giant meteor crashing into us. How is this linked to anthropogenic climate change again? I'm so lost.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meltwater Pulse 1A. and 1B cased by fragment disintegrated Comet that original size was around 100miles, comet pass sun around 30ka ago, fragments hit earth 12.8 ka and 11.5ka
This show that we need expand our point of view, because will be pathetic if after we focus only on earth we get wrecked by another 1-2 mile size rock.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're already testing different way to prevent us getting hit by an asteroid, a few examples are in this article: https://interestingengineering.com/a-look-at-earths-planetary-defense-systems-in-preparation-for-doomsday
Comment has been collapsed.
So we should ignore the imminent threat, allow the catastrophic events predicted within the next few decades to happen, and spend that time preparing for a hypothetical meteor strike instead?
Comment has been collapsed.
From my point of view wee are not in imminent threat, curent climate warming give me only positive outcome for my life.
If you still wan decrease C02 sensible solution that improve human life.
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Comment has been collapsed.
From my point of view wee are not in imminent threat, curent climate warming give me only positive outcome for my life.
You haven't given any compelling scientific evidence of that. Though depending on your age, you could be dead for the worst of it, so there is that.
And cool. Using roaming herds to reverse desertification is an interesting a theoretical option that hasn't been tested yet. I think it would be worth looking into, in conjunction with more straightforward initiatives like reworking our energy systems to function on 100% renewable energy, reforestation, and investing in carbon capture tech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depend to advance in genetics I will be probably in 100 year from now :)
In last year scientistic manage to reverse mouse age add 20-30 year and wee go to reverse age clinic :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Meltwater Pulse A1 (MWP1a) isn't an object, it's an event that lasted 1.2k years. The article about your asteroid impact is unrelated since the asteroid impact happened 700 years AFTER MWP1a ended.
And yes, we're trying to stop events similar to MWP1a to happen. But we're stopped by climate change deniers, and people who claim th current climate change isn't man made.
Comment has been collapsed.
1.3K after the asteroid struck? Seems a bit too late to be the trigger for MWP1b.
Comment has been collapsed.
12.8 ka and 11.5ka to not one but multiple hits in this time frame.
Comment has been collapsed.
The article only tells about 1 impact event, and that was 12.8ka. Literally the first sentence:
The Younger Dryas (YD) impact hypothesis posits that fragments of a large, disintegrating asteroid/comet struck North America, South America, Europe, and western Asia ~12,800 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read again
"The Younger Dryas (YD) impact hypothesis posits that fragments of a large, disintegrating asteroid/comet struck North America, South America, Europe, and western Asia ~12,800 years ago. Multiple airbursts/impacts produced the YD boundary layer (YDB)"
12,800-year-old sequence at Pilauco, Chile (40°S), that exhibits peak YD boundary concentrations of platinum,
Comment has been collapsed.
"The Younger Dryas (YD) impact hypothesis posits that fragments of a large, disintegrating asteroid/comet struck North America, South America, Europe, and western Asia ~12,800 years ago. Multiple airbursts/impacts produced the YD boundary layer (YDB)"
That's still 1 impact EVENT, since the fragments are from the same asteroid. And all those fragments hit the Earth in a short time span. NOT in a time span of 1,3k years like you claim.
12,800-year-old sequence at Pilauco, Chile (40°S), that exhibits peak YD boundary concentrations of platinum,
So you quote another part that also says it happened 12,8k years ago?
You know that with the "peak" they mean highest platinum concentration compared to their other investigation locations, don't you?
Full quote:
In the most extensive investigation south of the equator, we report on a ~12,800-year-old sequence at Pilauco, Chile (~40°S), that exhibits peak YD boundary concentrations of platinum, gold, high-temperature iron- and chromium-rich spherules, and native iron particles rarely found in nature.
Comment has been collapsed.
Look like I make misinterpretation here.
But this fragments most likely belong to taurids meteor stream.
https://youtu.be/nPOlomFhehQ?t=2320
Comment has been collapsed.
If carbon dioxide really is the villain, we should be binding the carbon up by making lots of thermoplastics.
How have our predictive scientific models performed when we've had data to check them?:
https://youtu.be/DR6wds_ly2s
Most of the climate hysteria seems to be based on the quaint Victorian notion that nature exists in a beautiful harmonious steady equilibrium, rather than a seething battle to the death with constantly moving battlelines. There is little regard for the fact that the earth has been warming since the last ice age and the Great Barrier Reef didn't even exist 20,000 years ago when it was dry land.
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe, maybe not.
there is change going on. you really can't deny that (imho).
question is: is it man-made and if so, how much of it?
however if you look at politicians and their agenda it seems like their goal is far from 'saving the planet'.
make people pay way more for things of everyday use to keep them poor(er) and under control.
at the same time you can be pretty sure some folks will get seriously rich with that so called 'green deal'.
also a lot of higher-up people make complete fools of themselves with their actions.
famous actors flying around the globe with their private jets to preach to ordinary people to use the train and bike more often.
fat fuck politicians tell regular jane & joe to eat less meat to save the planet.
pure hypocrisy everywhere. it's absolutely disgusting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the 'eat less meat' argument unfortunately still stands. The production is dependent on the demand.
I absolutely agree on the usage of private jets though.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
You can't go wrong with an explosion of plant growth under future climate changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I'm going to ruin things by being serious. Can't help it, it's in my nature.
-
There will be an increase in plant productivity! But eventually nitrogen limitations stop the fertilization boom. Plus, plants slowly adjust to higher CO2 levels and the fertilization effects wear off.
-
Even with the fertilization boom, once you get to 1-2 degrees of warming, you also get drought and heat stress, which kills plants off. Also, fires. Like the ones we're beginning to see now.
-
Plants might also be less pest resistant under high CO2 conditions.
-
When looking at agriculture specifically, global crop production could be reduced by 9% in the 2030s and by 23% in the 2050s. Crops are also less nutritious at higher CO2 levels. "In the largest study yet, Samuel Myers of Harvard University and colleagues report that the CO2 levels expected in the second half of this century will likely reduce the levels of zinc, iron, and protein in wheat, rice, peas, and soybeans. Some two billion people, the researchers note, live in countries where citizens receive more than 60 percent of their zinc or iron from these types of crops. Deficiencies of these nutrients already cause an estimated loss of 63 million life-years annually." x
Comment has been collapsed.
Developmental responses of soybean to elevated CO2 include increased number of leaf nodes and increased leaf size , increased root length, altered root depth distribution and nodulation , and increased pod number and seed yield.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160616302640
All deficiency can be covered by changing diet, or modifying plants.
Comment has been collapsed.
The study you linked doesn't contradict what I said: soy yields are positively affected by CO2 boosts in isolation, but with significant nutrient loss. The effects of drought and heat waves that accompany climate change then have an additional negative impact on yields.
The study I linked before covers more than just soy, and shows an overall decrease of worldwide yields in response to the full combination of those factors, which was why I chose it.
Nutritional deficiencies haven't yet been solved by "changing diets" or modifying plants in the present; I don't see how countries would be in a better place to do that in 100 years, when faced with frequent natural disasters, decreasing yields, and a refugee crisis. I imagine overall nutrition would be low on the priority list when mass starvation is a pressing issue. Bear in mind that these studies are looking at the effect of climate change worldwide, which means they have especial focus on the poor in developing countries, who will inevitably have the highest body count.
Comment has been collapsed.
But NASA study showing that crop more efficiently using water when Co2 is elevated due this crop yield do not decrease
Different crop react differently. some increase other decrease.
“For example, farmers may switch to crops where their improved photosynthesis and more efficient water use more than offsets losses due to the high temperatures that climate change will bring.”
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, let me be fair since you've brought real evidence to the table. It's possible to help mitigate the effects of climate change on crop yields. The IPCC report says as much, actually. But the report also reiterates that there have already been negative impacts on crop yields globally, and that losses are projected (and increase for every degree warmer we allow the planet to become).
I've attached the relevant part of the report (Chapter 3, Section 3.4.6) as images, because my comments already tend to be obscenely long without blockquotes. (Note that the IPCC 1.5 report came two years after the NASA study, and would have taken it into account.)
Also, is there a reason you're willing to listen to NASA about crop yields, but not when they firmly say climate change is man-made?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ice cores Data show that temperature maximum was +2.5C reached in last 3 climate cycles no affected by humans civilization, we currently reached +1C and according to pass data climate after rise will start to sharply cool down by -6C.
Check red temperature curve
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg/1200px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
Comment has been collapsed.
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
IPCC 2001"
Taking a single sentence out of context... https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1273
Won´t watch the youtube-videos.. if you start your argument with this, this will probably be a waste of time (ok, that´s the case with 99% of all youtube-videos)
Comment has been collapsed.
I like this sentence because still we not have working climate model after 19 years from it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's because climate prediction uses model ensembles.
In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
IPCC 2001 - Quote no longer popular due Political pressure
Few Videos of respectable people about this topic
Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies - Very great Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI
Patrick Moore – The Sensible Environmentalist - Co-Founder of Greenpeace left it after 15 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
Sun-Climate Connection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazGXAqgkds
If you still wan decrease C02 sensible solution that improve human life.
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
"Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level."
Comment has been collapsed.