Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Merely reported in The Atlantic (& others).

The 2016 annual report by the Global Challenges Foundation estimates the risk that an average American is more than five times likelier to die during a human-extinction event than in a car crash.

The Foundation's annual report Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 is the result of the continued partnership between the Foundation and researchers at Future of Humanity Institute and the Global Priorities Project at Oxford Martin School at Oxford University.

The Report ➥ http://www.globalchallenges.org/repo...eport-2016.pdf

Executive Summary ➥ http://www.globalchallenges.org/repo...%20Summary.pdf

ar crashes daily.[/QUOTE]

Gord according to those statistics I should have seen at least 6 extinction level events by now. I have lost 5 family members to automobile accidents and I almost died in 2 . So I personally don't agree with the statistical bs they grind out.

[texasnielsen]

"How do we know fusion works? Answer: The sun comes up every morning."

LOL

Great post.

One more question regarding change. How much carbon di/monoxide does the average volcano spew during an eruption? How long have volcanos been active on this planet? Guess climate change has been around awhile, eh?
When we speak of the rest of the world (outside the US of A) what are their population projections? Are they in a situation today that will allow them to leapfrog technology and avoid fossil fuel consumption equivalent per capita to the rest of the first world planet?
I think about how one particular continent completely (almost) avoided the cost of copper transmission by going directly to cellular. I suspect a similar leap will take place when fusion is a reality. I don't see today's climate affects by mankind being linear in the sense of what was experienced by one country necessarily being repeated by most others as the planet works it way from third world majorities to one world majorities.

As someone else commented, I am way more concerned about general trash pollution than climate change. Humans are adaptive to temperatures; clean water or clean air is a much larger problem with the entire planet's population is contributing negatively to.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by texasnielsen

"How do we know fusion works? Answer: The sun comes up every morning."

LOL

Great post.

One more question regarding change. How much carbon di/monoxide does the average volcano spew during an eruption? How long have volcanos been active on this planet? Guess climate change has been around awhile, eh?
When we speak of the rest of the world (outside the US of A) what are their population projections? Are they in a situation today that will allow them to leapfrog technology and avoid fossil fuel consumption equivalent per capita to the rest of the first world planet?
I think about how one particular continent completely (almost) avoided the cost of copper transmission by going directly to cellular. I suspect a similar leap will take place when fusion is a reality. I don't see today's climate affects by mankind being linear in the sense of what was experienced by one country necessarily being repeated by most others as the planet works it way from third world majorities to one world majorities.

As someone else commented, I am way more concerned about general trash pollution than climate change. Humans are adaptive to temperatures; clean water or clean air is a much larger problem with the entire planet's population is contributing negatively to.

Very good post! I like the way you pointed out the possibility and practice of leapfrogging technology by the developing nations... the technology laggards.

More of this practice is certain to take place in the future. I ask my wife all the time... "Why do we still have this land line phone?" "The only calls we get on it are robo sales calls or wrong numbers." She has a difficult time letting go.

I prefer to use my iPhone 6 communicator..... "Beam me up Scotty."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by texasnielsen

One more question regarding change. How much carbon di/monoxide does the average volcano spew during an eruption? How long have volcanos been active on this planet?

According to the USGS, all volcanic activity emits less than 1% of the CO2 than humans emit.

Using carbon isotope analysis, the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 can be traced directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ar crashes daily.

Gord according to those statistics I should have seen at least 6 extinction level events by now. I have lost 5 family members to automobile accidents and I almost died in 2 . So I personally don't agree with the statistical bs they grind out.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to hear about your losses Newhaul, as well as your own close calls. No family should have to suffer so much loss.

Must admit I'm not quite clicking onto these "extinction" stats either, except maybe on a purely theoretical level. I'm sure there's a "message" in there or there wouldn't be much point to commissioning this type of work. Oh well, a bit of a sidetrack anyway . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Make sure you catch the last 2 minutes.

https://youtu.be/9UCdFbyL8y0

That vid was pretty funny Jack, and good to know there's a sense of humor behind that serious looking disciplinarian behind the helm. And yes, the last two mins. were all too unexpected and so added to the humor.

My only serious thought after watching it was that Jimmy Kimmel is, of course, a stand-up comic & entertainer. So it's concerning how many people may be getting all their info on the "science" of CC from such sources of pure entertainment & comedy. The gist of the entire skit was the same sort of appeal to authority/97% consensus mantra we've read & heard so many times before, and the skit only shows how much of it is permeating the popular culture. In fact, Kimmel's monologue sounded all too close to the same sort of patronizing lectures we've heard time & again from L-E -- without the name-calling, stereotyping, and anger that is.

Originally Posted by jackdale

According to the USGS, all volcanic activity emits less than 1% of the CO2 than humans emit.

Using carbon isotope analysis, the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 can be traced directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

Perhaps a more credible way for a 30-year teacher to answer the poster's question honestly might be to point out that, while a majority of the scientific community supports a direct link btwn. increased CO2 from fossil fuel emissions and warming, there remain important uninsured questions about correlating the two. And it is largely unknown how much CO2 is being absorbed -- and can be absorbed -- by the earth & oceans, and whether such negative feedbacks can explain problems with the modeling, as well as the temperature disparities btwn. the different datasets that do the measuring.

At best, merely stating that a 40% increase in CO2 is attributable to fossil fuel emissions leaves most of the issue unanswered. At worst, it implies only one conclusion which is obviously fallacious based on the totality of the science which you purport to accept. Frankly, much of your analysis throughout sounds more like Jimmy Kimmel and L-E as opposed to someone with your qualifications & background. So then it becomes hard to believe it's also not politics and personal agenda driving your train.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Perhaps a more credible way for a 30-year teacher to answer the poster's question honestly might be to point out that, while a majority of the scientific community supports a direct link btwn. increased CO2 from fossil fuel emissions and warming, there remain important uninsured questions about correlating the two. And it is largely unknown how much CO2 is being absorbed -- and can be absorbed -- by the earth & oceans, and whether such negative feedbacks can explain problems with the modeling, as well as the temperature disparities btwn. the different datasets that do the measuring.

I answered the question that was posed.


We do know how much CO2 is absorbed and emitted by the earth and the oceans.



This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon atoms 'flow' between various 'reservoirs' in the Earth system. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC). Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/yr). The values for human influences such as fossil fuel use and cement production represent the state of the carbon cycle in the mid-1980s, which according to the CDIAC have increased substantially, i.e. more than doubled..

Please remember that CO2 is not the only factor. GCM have numerous variables.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I answered the question that was posed.

Maybe so, but truncating it in such fashion distorted the information provided by your answer.

We do know how much CO2 is absorbed and emitted by the earth and the oceans.



This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon atoms 'flow' between various 'reservoirs' in the Earth system. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC). Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/yr). The values for human influences such as fossil fuel use and cement production represent the state of the carbon cycle in the mid-1980s, which according to the CDIAC have increased substantially, i.e. more than doubled..

Please remember that CO2 is not the only factor. GCM have numerous variables.

With regard to the bolded portion, then why isn't Mears' theory of ocean subduction you continually cite more measurable and thus settled? Why did a recent report detect no warming in the deep oceans? Why isn't ocean subduction then fully accepted as a way to reconcile the discrepancy btwn. sat & surface data? Why is mainstream science befuddled over recent modeling errors, supposedly attributed to more carbon sinking than anticipated?

According to information from the NASA site (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth):

Note the absence of qualifiers in the following statements.

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."

"Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth."

"Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect."

"Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. 'While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth.'"

But then we have a qualified statement, using precatory language:

"The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited . . . . 'Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.'"

Kinda makes one wonder if there are other studies which show more positive results from greening.

And now for the other side, notably not attributed to any outside studies but according to NASA itself:

"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."

Rebuttals & counters to these last comments have already been well covered, including the fact that

(i) warming itself can cause an increase in CO2 and did so in pre-industrial times;

(ii) our global warming trend is part of a long-term natural cycle, with human influence largely a given but the extent of that impact still debated;

(iii) rising sea levels are largely not measurable and not expected to occur in any event until sometime in the future (or so I thought);

(iv) glaciers have been melting since the end of the LIA, and melting sea ice is consistent with a long-term warming trend regardless of the amount of human impact; and,

(v) more severe weather events don't seem consistent with the recorded evidence, even from the warmists. (Why is NASA still citing this?).

My only point is not to argue nor suggest which of these opposing views from the scientific community is true or false, correct or incorrect. The debate instead should be centered around the weight of the evidence, not whichever theory fits someone's politics or personal agenda. Even trying to discount my own biases, it doesn't seem to follow that all of the evidence -- or even the weight of it at this point in time -- supports the conclusion preferred by so many of one political stripe. Unless they get all of their news & information from Jimmy Kimmel, that is.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The debate instead should be centered around the weight of the evidence, not whichever theory fits someone's politics or personal agenda.

Agreed.

The preponderance of the evidence supports AGW. Period.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

According to the USGS, all volcanic activity emits less than 1% of the CO2 than humans emit.

Using carbon isotope analysis, the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 can be traced directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

Great statistic.

On the other side of the coin, they've been emitting CO2 for about 45 000 000 times longer than humans have been spewing out industrial C02. Where's all that gas gone?

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Great statistic.

On the other side of the coin, they've been emitting CO2 for about 45 000 000 times longer than humans have been spewing out industrial C02. Where's all that gas gone?

That's all "natural" CO2... so it doesn't count.

MMGW alarmists said so.

How dare you try to present facts that discredit the MMGW religion!
That's racist!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Great statistic.

On the other side of the coin, they've been emitting CO2 for about 45 000 000 times longer than humans have been spewing out industrial C02. Where's all that gas gone?

For millions of years carbon was being sequestered in the form of coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
The debate instead should be centered around the weight of the evidence, not whichever theory fits someone's politics or personal agenda.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Agreed.

The preponderance of the evidence supports AGW. Period.

That is probably a fair statement, especially since it can mean anything from 51% on up. But it also begs the question why you have been presenting the evidence throughout this thread as entirely settled, when you can safely present it as "outweighing" the contrary scientific evidence. But to do that you have to at least acknowledge that contrary evidence.

I don't think science works the way you have presented it, especially when the skeptics in the crowd are automatically deemed "deniers" if they challenge any of the mainstream science which you present as inviolable. The first poster with a scientific or technical background who comes along then easily throws doubt onto your absolutist positions.

This doesn't sound consistent with someone who "agrees" that the debate should focus on the science and not politics or personal agendas. If you are honest about the latter it will actually lend some credibility to the former.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For millions of years carbon was being sequestered in the form of coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc..

Another true statement, but it doesn't answer why all the pre-industrial emissions from volcanoes, forest fires, etc. did not also bring the same sort of harm to the planet that mainstream science is warning us about now.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Posting MMGW Denying posts online...
Your freedom of speech is coming to an end when you speak against the Cult.

Conservative Groups Targeted in Climate Change Racketeering Suit