Mathematical Formula Predicts Global Mass Extinction Event in 2100

[thejokker]

Not to mention, a study that found CREDIBLE contradictory evidence to climate change would be so much bigger news than yet another confirmatory study, that it would literally make that researchers career.

The incentives don't line up the way the conspiracy theorists think they do.

Actually there are several; they are just ignored by alarmists. Check out the work of Jan Esper: Esper et al 2012 and 2014 are my favorites. He identifies two extended per-industral warm periods over the last 2,000 years that were as warm or warmer than recent temperatures. This means that while recent temperatures are warming they still fall within the range of normal temperatures.

Normal = nothing to panic over...

 

[thejokker]

Oh yay, this line of thinking... AGAIN.

Without salt in your system you would die... so fuck it lets just put salt on everything!!!!!!!!

The logical informal fallacy of "misuse of analogy"... CO2 as a harmful compound is an unproven hypothesis promoted by alarmists as fact...

 

[Nafensoriel]

/tiptoes over flamethrowers
Just an interjection about scientist pay and where grant money tends to go from a scientist..

Most scientists do not actually have control over the money their lab spends. 95% of them are the grunt workers who process and create the data to solve a particular question. Going into the flaws in some outfits where these peoples work can be massaged by management to get a result management wants other than to say it does happen.. often.

Please understand that the majority of scientists actually believe in the scientific process but often don't have any control over their labs. We have managers. If that manager says "its not in the budget" then we have to find a way to dance around our contract and use lab equipment to prove it or fund the fork of research denied us. To be fair often this self-exploration pays off for the scientist.

Just to give a more basic example I happen to know of an environmental testing lab that occasionally executes adjustments beyond what would be considered "good science" to provide a result to its clients. True the nature of the tests is such that those judgement calls are often the correct ones but just let the reality of the situation sink in. They intentionally will bypass retesting to meet cost and client needs. This isn't because the scientists themselves are bad.. nor is it the business is bad(remember even sales is pressured to provide results and they flat out do not understand science 99% of the time). The entire situation prohibits good science from being executed every single time.

The same unfortunately happens with large research labs. The people are often awesome dedicated individuals. The people that run them often are as well. The trouble is they both have different focuses that end up derailing the science from time to time.

 

[ob1]

The Climate Research Unit of which Michael E. Mann is a member receives nearly half a billion dollars in research grants. Instead of debating the issue in Scientific Journals he sues people he disagrees with. I would suggest that is evidence of scientific corruption.

So one scientist is enough to discredit every other science research on the subject? So a cop shoots an innocent person so every cop on the planet shoots innocent people? Is this what you are trying to say? One? Or is the part about every other climate study coming to the same conclusion a problem for you? Since when did it become an issue when all scientific studies point in the same general direction become a problem about conspiracies? So going by that, I guess we can start smoking tobacco again, because all of the studies say it is bad so it must be good for us, cause they are hiding shit... Next time you find a lump in your breasts or get sick, don't go to a doctor, because whatever they tell you is most likely based on science... go to a fucking fish vendor from Louisiana...

 

[mesyn191]

Put it this way.

Where do you think the easier money is?

Screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Give me money to research it!"

The cigarette, lead, asbestos, meat, organo-phosphate (Agent Orange), insecticide, and believe it or not, milk industry all made similar arguments historically against whistleblowers and researchers who were pointing out problems with those products.

IOW the "logic" you're using here isn't actually logic at all, its BS.

Some of your solutions aren't unreasonable but they've been lobbied against heavily by the effected industries and GOP has been particularly open about shilling for those guys since at least the mid 90's so any attempts at regulations have been getting stone walled or stopped for years.

 

[5150Joker]

We'll all be long gone by then so who cares.

 

[mesyn191]

You entire premise is wrong, since that 97% number itself is a complete falsehood.

Nope.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

7 studies done over several years by multiple different people and most show that ~97-100% of scientists support the AGW theory with the 2 outlier studies still showing more than 90% consensus.

Try a little research into where that fake number comes from

That is a BLOG-esque post by a guy who runs a pro coal/oil for profit think tank and writes shill books for the industry. Considering you're a "follow the money" type I'm shocked, shooocked you'd post anything from him.

 

[mesyn191]

Check out the work of Jan Esper: Esper et al 2012 and 2014 are my favorites. He identifies two extended per-industral warm periods over the last 2,000 years that were as warm or warmer than recent temperatures.

The tree ring guys are pretty clear that isn't anti-AGW evidence though.

https://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html

However, the study actually does none of the above. "Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's complicated climate puzzle, he said. However, it is climate change deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]

You've seen that article too in a different thread, one not that long ago and which you didn't even try to refute, so for you to go making this statement about the tree ring studies' results is highly bad faith posting on your part.

 

[OnceSetThisCannotChange]

I'll agree with you on nuclear power being the only solution at this time, but the hate for nuclear is strong among the greens, so it's not going to happen.

Correction, "old oil" is the actual nuclear energy showstopper, the "greens" are just a useful patsy for public consumption. Lobbying dictates policy, in the west, so as long as the system does not change there will be no beating "oil&gas" in favour of nuclear.

Except in places where it already happened like France - 80% electricity created from nuclear, and they have plenty of "green" fanatics, but oil does not run the energy policy there.

 

[mesyn191]

The logical informal fallacy of "misuse of analogy"... CO2 as a harmful compound is an unproven hypothesis promoted by alarmists as fact...

Its been known for a long time CO2 can be harmful at given levels from a health perspective.

And AGW due to greenhouse gases like CO2 is neither a hypothesis or theory, its a confirmed observation at this point since we can see the temp response to stuff like volcanoes erupting and make projections based on that information to see what effect the CO2 we put in the atmosphere will do. The models need work for better predication which is the "theory" part of things but they keep improving all the time too.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Its been known for a long time CO2 can be harmful at given levels from a health perspective.

And AGW due to greenhouse gases like CO2 is neither a hypothesis or theory, its a confirmed observation at this point since we can see the temp response to stuff like volcanoes erupting and make projections based on that information to see what effect the CO2 we put in the atmosphere will do. The models need work for better predication which is the "theory" part of things but they keep improving all the time too.

No one disagrees with the observation that more CO2 = higher temps. It's a matter of how much. Currently CO2 is a trace gas occupying .04% of the atmpsohere. Yes, less than 100 years ago it was at .02%. No matter what your talking about something that's extremely small. Combine that with modeling the earth and it's a very complex problem to predict the change in temp and sea level because all the models so far have gotten it wrong.
Combine that with and extrapolate how much human activity (this is the key part) has changed the climate as opposed to natural forces and cycles that have also been recorded/observed to have taken place.

Historically speaking, it's been colder in the past and it's been warmer in the past. No one has a full understanding of consequences or benefits of higher temps and more CO2 vs lower temps and less CO2. This is the key point.

What if i said because of higher temps and more CO2 the human race has postponed the next ice age? Which is more deadly for the current human population?

 

[Kinsaras]

Next you're going to tell me the earth is round!?

 

[serpretetsky]

Building codes with regards to energy efficiency?

They are already excessive out here in California, and significantly increase the cost of housing, to the point that most people can no longer afford to buy a house.

I won't argue with you that energy efficiency codes may make additions to your house costly.
However, there are many reasons California housing prices are high, and energy efficiency is one of many reasons. It's not a particular signficant reason near coastal cities in California.

see Effect of Building Costs on Prices and Rents Varies Across Regions of the State.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx

 

[sfsuphysics]

The logical informal fallacy of "misuse of analogy"... CO2 as a harmful compound is an unproven hypothesis promoted by alarmists as fact...

Oh so you do believe research that has been shown that salt in great abundance is not health for you. Too bad the Morton's didn't hire the same group that the oil companies did.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

The cigarette, lead, asbestos, meat, organo-phosphate (Agent Orange), insecticide, and believe it or not, milk industry all made similar arguments historically against whistleblowers and researchers who were pointing out problems with those products.

IOW the "logic" you're using here isn't actually logic at all, its BS.

Simply because you disagree with it, or have counter-examples in other fields doesn't mean it's BS.

Might I be incorrect and thus slurring these scientists? Sure. I'll give you that.

Were it not for the near-religious pushing being done that this is "settled science".

And the fact that while there are claims of consensus, there are still those in the climate sciences who dissent. Plus there's the fact that science doesn't operate via consensus.

On top of the fact that we're not talking about scientists and whistleblowers pointing out problems with a "product".

We're seeing a community of scientists produce paper after paper and making proclamation after proclamation. Yet the only thing we've seen done about it is the implementation of a "credits" trading scheme that can be gamed, with no actual suggestions for amelioration beyond a broad "Don't do that".

So forgive me my skepticism and pessimism. I've come across too many snake oil salesmen and carnival barker wannabes in my life.

 

[mesyn191]

No one disagrees with the observation that more CO2 = higher temps.

Actually many of the anti-AGW'ers frequently do and nutzo/jokker are very firmly in that crowd.

Currently CO2 is a trace gas occupying .04% of the atmpsohere. Yes, less than 100 years ago it was at .02%. No matter what your talking about something that's extremely small.

And it only takes tiny doses of arsenic to kill you. Or make you sick. Point of that analogy is: tiny amounts of a given substance can have large effects. Its highly suspect thinking at a minimum to just point at the amount of CO2 and say "there is so little compared to other gases in the atmosphere, what harm can it do?". Particularly if they're persistent and stick around for ~100yr or more in the environment. If CO2 wasn't persistent and left the atmosphere at a quick rate, say a decade, no one would care very much.

the models so far have gotten it wrong.

Its worth pointing out that the models so far have tended to be more optimistic than actual temperatures observed so far too.

Historically speaking, it's been colder in the past and it's been warmer in the past. No one has a full understanding of consequences or benefits of higher temps and more CO2 vs lower temps and less CO2. This is the key point.

So because we don't know everything down to the tiniest detail we can't really know anything at all or some crap like that?? Come on.

I don't know how to really fix my car and I certainly can't manufacture much if any of the parts myself if something broke but I drive it every day without issue. Same thing goes for PC's. Or TV's. Or my shoes for that matter.

You don't have to know everything about everything OR even most everything about a single given thing to be able to make use of it or make useful, if imperfect, predictions of how it will perform.

What if i said because of higher temps and more CO2 the human race has postponed the next ice age? Which is more deadly for the current human population?

Hard to say which is more deadly but its worth pointing out humans have survived in ice age-like conditions before when we were far less advanced and the sort of extinction level events that seem triggered by excess CO2 can kill most everything bigger than a cockroach or mouse.

 

[mesyn191]

Simply because you disagree with it, or have counter-examples in other fields doesn't mean it's BS.

There are so many counter examples that are so similar that you can't reasonably put forth that sort of logic at all man. Its just flat out BS at this point.

Were it not for the near-religious pushing being done that this is "settled science".

If there were little to no evidence this sort of criticism would be valid but that just isn't true at all. It really is settled science at this point, that is why there is so much push back on the skeptics. Especially when the skeptics are frequently bought and paid for shills or show themselves to be fundamentally dishonest by mis-representing facts or just flat out ignoring quality rebuttals.

there are still those in the climate sciences who dissent. Plus there's the fact that science doesn't operate via consensus.

There are those that still dissent about the world not being flat or who think the moon landings were a host. Dissent alone doesn't do a thing to disprove anything. And yes consensus isn't proof but generally when the vast overwhelming majority of scientists agree that its a legit issue you can't just handwave it away or be contrarian about it for no good reason.

I've come across too many snake oil salesmen and carnival barker wannabes in my life.

Very few scientists involved with the research are selling anything at all though and most don't really earn all that great of a living either. These aren't naturopaths we're talking about here.

 

[Brian_B]

I'll be dead by then

*cranks up AC, munches on a bacon cheeseburger, and continues to surf for p0rn*

 

[M76]

CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. More CO2=Better crop yields=More food with less chemicals.

A plant can live off CO2 as much as you can live off oxygen alone. Shall we try that and see how long you'd last?
Plants use minerals and organic materials from the soil, or solution in case of hydroponics, without those no amount of CO2 will sustain your plants.

These "seeds" of misinformation are planted by the oil lobby, are getting tiresome, along with all their circular arguments and other 2 second debunkable reasonings they give. But they come up with them so fast and with the backing of the oil money spread the bullshit so efficiently that it's impossible to keep them down.
And they call their propaganda outlet an university. They mix just enough truth into their lies to make them seem sound to the uneducated lower classes. It's as if the roles of the leech and the host were reversed. There is a huge organism feeding off all the smaller ones still clinging to it and gobbling up the bullshit it spreads that how good is it for them to keep him around.

 

[mesyn191]

I won't argue with you that energy efficiency codes may make additions to your house costly.

He is wrong, they aren't the driving force behind costs in CA at all. CA and most coastal states are having a housing bubble again is all. Even land locked states are being effected by it too.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Actually many of the anti-AGW'ers frequently do and nutzo/jokker are very firmly in that crowd.


And it only takes tiny doses of arsenic to kill you. Or make you sick. Point of that analogy is: tiny amounts of a given substance can have large effects. Its highly suspect thinking at a minimum to just point at the amount of CO2 and say "there is so little compared to other gases in the atmosphere, what harm can it do?". Particularly if they're persistent and stick around for ~100yr or more in the environment. If CO2 wasn't persistent and left the atmosphere at a quick rate, say a decade, no one would care very much.


Its worth pointing out that the models so far have tended to be more optimistic than actual temperatures observed so far too.


So because we don't know everything down to the tiniest detail we can't really know anything at all or some crap like that?? Come on.

I don't know how to really fix my car and I certainly can't manufacture much if any of the parts myself if something broke but I drive it every day without issue. Same thing goes for PC's. Or TV's. Or my shoes for that matter.

You don't have to know everything about everything OR even most everything about a single given thing to be able to make use of it or make useful, if imperfect, predictions of how it will perform.


Hard to say which is more deadly but its worth pointing out humans have survived in ice age-like conditions before when we were far less advanced and the sort of extinction level events that seem triggered by excess CO2 can kill most everything bigger than a cockroach or mouse.

I'm not going to take the time to block quote at the moment, so i'll just respond in the order of your points:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. I'm not an whacko who doesn't believe in science.

Arsenic is a poison. Your body creates and excretes CO2. There's a huge difference in which you can't compare one to the other. It's like saying you can't live without water, however you can die from water by drinking too much too fast (not even going to go into drowning).
The point in which CO2 becomes toxic in the atmosphere is roughly 6%. We're at .04%. It becomes a safety hazard for prolonged exposure at 3%. We have a huge way to go before CO2 becomes a poison. Comparing it to poisons when it's a natural product of metabolism is kinda funny, especially at the current atmospheric levels.

On this particular subject of CO2, i have seen none to very few actual solutions which involves sequestering CO2. Most of the Global warming fanatics want to carbon tax people to death and make the standard of living for us common folk drop due to increased energy costs. I'm all for more nuclear to reduce emissions, but that doesn't seem to be on anyone's table.

Most of the hockey stick models are way off. They predicted 1 degree temp rise in the early 2000s. They also predicted catastrophic sea level rises that haven't been seen yet. That being said, people can move and can relocate. It's not actually a horrible thing that would be life threatening.

My point that we don't have a good handle on natural cycles let alone man made changes. If you consider that we are due for another ice age, isn't global warming to bypass that event which would undoubtedly lead to famine and starvation to many humans on the planet a good thing? Why not think of global warming as engineering the climate in one direction? Can't we develop the technology in the later years to swing the climate in the other direction and make the natural cycle and mass extinctions a thing of the past?

I mean the problem is one of scale, quite literally. When you say you more or less know how a car functions and to repair it should be something you can figure out, that's great. But if you get it wrong, how many people will you kill? Yourself? Maybe a few others if something goes horribly wrong? What if you make a mistake on a global scale? It certainly won't be just you who pays the price. In general i'm against geoengineering on planets that have people already on them. Since we're already stuck on this one, it may make sense to be a bit prudent as to what changes we're making. I disagree with the idea that we should go back to the stone age as to not affect the environment, i think we need to take small steps. It's not something that will change overnight, nor is any solution going to work overnight. There's not much to worry about here in general. If it gets warmer and sea levels rise, people will more more north and inland. If it gets more cold, people will move more south and seaward. Where's the big threat?

Well if you want to say humans have survived a previous ice age, let me just point out a few facts. One is that an extinction event happened 70,000 years ago in which no one knows for sure, but it's theorized about 40 people of the entire human race was left. This was caused by a super volcano in which the earth for years afterwards cooled in a cloud of ash. While it was a drastic change, it's probably easier for the human race to survive warmer temps than it is in a ice age.

i haven't seen any concrete evidence of CO2 being a trigger for anything.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

There are so many counter examples that are so similar that you can't reasonably put forth that sort of logic at all man. Its just flat out BS at this point.

Simply because you draw a couple points of similarity doesn't mean it's the same.

That's like looking at a peach and calling it an apple.

It really is settled science at this point, that is why there is so much push back on the skeptics.

Should I add an "Amen" and and a couple "Our Fourier"s?

What you're doing is essentially "cognitive bias". You're stating a BELIEF, then surrounding it with "facts" that support said belief and refusing to acknowledge anything that detracts in even the slightest possible way.

I'm not here to discuss your religion.

I will say again, I'm an utterly untrusting soul. And while I'm sure there's a lot of good research happening, there's also a lot of CRAP being put out there too.

 

[mesyn191]

[QUOTE="Gigus Fire, post: 1043227992, member: 93377"] I'm not an whacko who doesn't believe in science.[/quote]
Didn't say you were.

But you did say "No one disagrees with the observation that more CO2 = higher temps." and that isn't true. There are tons of people that do in the anti-AGW crowd and some of the people in this thread have even said as much.

Arsenic....There's a huge difference in which you can't compare one to the other......Comparing it to poisons

I was making an analogy not a comparison. You can tell because I even said I was doing that in that very post. I even explicitly typed out the take-away of the analogy you were meant to get as well as quoted the specific part of your previous post it was directed at in that same post so you can't reasonably claim I was being unclear or vague either. Your reply here pertaining to that particular part of my post comes off as absurd because of that.

If you would address the point I was making there with that analogy in your reply to this post, while keeping things in context of the post of yours I was replying to, that would be great.

Most of the Global warming fanatics want to carbon tax people to death and make the standard of living for us common folk drop due to increased energy costs.

Carbon credits will not result in you being taxed to death. Yes your taxes would be higher, or you would be effected by companies getting taxed higher, but that isn't the same as "taxed to death" and it would have a purpose (ie. funding cleaner energy sources/infrastructure) that would ultimately benefit you in the long run too.

Most of the hockey stick models are way off.

Most are also more optimistic currently than actual observed temperature changes. You're also not supposed to see catastrophic sea level rises yet so you're being misled or are banging on a strawman there. I also wouldn't be so blase about relocating. Look what happened to those who had to relocate due to Katrina. Many of them are still worse off than they were beforehand. The sort of coastal devastation predicted will be much worse and much more economically devastating. You're looking at trillions of dollars worth of property getting made uninhabitable over the span of decades. You can already see signs of it starting to happen in FL and LA.

My point that we don't have a good handle on natural cycles let alone man made changes.

Which doesn't address the point I was making. Its just a broad and meaningless platitude.

isn't global warming to bypass that event which would undoubtedly lead to famine and starvation to many humans on the planet a good thing?

You're doing that thing where you assume that global warming can't possibly have any negative effects like a extinction level event here.

Can't we develop the technology in the later years to swing the climate in the other direction and make the natural cycle and mass extinctions a thing of the past?

Why develop it later when we can, and are, developing it and implementing it to a degree now? You think it'll be any cheaper or easier to do or what?? Its all difficult and expensive materials science and fundamental engineering work that needs tons of resources and money no matter what. You're also making an assumption that we'll be able to swing it the other way. Part of the problem is that there is no readily apparent way to do so other than to stop or greatly mitigate release of greenhouse gases.

how many people will you kill? Yourself? Maybe a few others if something goes horribly wrong?

How will sustainable clean energy result in any more deaths than existing energy production means?? If anything it'll reduce it, not increase it.

It's not something that will change overnight, nor is any solution going to work overnight. There's not much to worry about here in general. If it gets warmer and sea levels rise, people will more more north and inland. If it gets more cold, people will move more south and seaward. Where's the big threat?

Hahahaha you completely don't understand the scope of the problem or what a extinction level event is I guess. And don't go saying you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be so blase about this problem. Look at all the destruction from Katrina or the more recent hurricanes and imagine something like that but effecting nearly all the coastal US. Permanently. That is a pretty big deal since most people near live the coast.

One is that an extinction event happened 70,000 years ago....While it was a drastic change, it's probably easier for the human race to survive warmer temps than it is in a ice age.

There has been some more evidence that looks like Toba didn't cause a extinction level event. They aren't sure what happened exactly back then but the ash levels weren't enough to cause a big enough temp change. This was backed up by another study done in 2015. Also its worth pointing out that the extinction level events associated with excess CO2 were way worse than a volcanic winter caused by a super volcano like Toba. Damn near everything on the planet died and stayed dead for a very long time.

i haven't seen any concrete evidence of CO2 being a trigger for anything.

You're probably not really looking, or worse, looking at anti-AGW sites for your information on this subject to have not seen "anything".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Suggested mechanisms for the latter include one or more large meteor impact events, massive volcanism such as that of the Siberian Traps, and the ensuing coal or gas fires and explosions,[16] and a runaway greenhouse effect triggered by sudden release of methane from the sea floor due to methane clathrate dissociation according to the clathrate gun hypothesis or methane-producing microbes known as methanogens;[17] possible contributing gradual changes include sea-level change, increasing anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

 

[mesyn191]

Simply because you draw a couple points of similarity doesn't mean it's the same.

I gave 7 not 2 points. And its worth pointing out that the similarity is, like, incredibly similar and not kinda-sorta-maybe type. Entrenched and monied interests throwing their weight around to suppress reform or information, even when doing so causes harm and even deaths, is nothing new at all here.

Should I add an "Amen" and and a couple "Our Fourier"s?

You got a high quality paper that punches some holes in AGW or what? Because so far everyone that has stepped up and said they have has been found to be either wrong or flat out full of it.

I'm not here to discuss your religion.

And yet you came into a thread about AGW to post your opinion and keep replying to me. If you don't want to discuss something then, protip here BTW, don't talk about it. Especially if the thread and OP story is about AGW, a subject you apparently don't really want to post on about at all.

there's also a lot of CRAP being put out there too.

If you spend a lot of time at anti-AGW sites or read tons of Right wing news sources you might think this but you're being played for a sucker if you do.

 

[Aireoth]

Everyone is still fixated on CO2 when Methane is a much larger problem, when you start to dig into it you find we really are F'd in the B.

 

[whiz187]

The little fat rat bastard in N. Korea will try to do it a lot sooner.

 

[jevans64]

Woo!! Hooo!!! I'm gonna celebrate by burning a huge pile of branches and twigs along with a huge dumpster of junk mail. Then I'm going to warm up 5 gallons of beans and boil 15 dozen eggs and let 'er rip for the rest of the weekend. See if I can push that up to 2099. Should be able to live that long if I can move my ghost in a shell.

 

[ob1]

And yet you came into a thread about AGW to post your opinion and keep replying to me. If you don't want to discuss something then, protip here BTW, don't talk about it. Especially if the thread and OP story is about AGW, a subject you apparently don't really want to post on about at all.

It wasn't an anti global warming post, it was a global warming post with an apocalyptic end. You came here to dispute the findings with your religion rather than science. All of these so called anti global warming people, which there must be thousands, are all scientists right? Like the websites that claim it is a hoax that are run by people that never even went to school.

Let me ask this, the following link is about a cartoon. A cartoon done by a scientist..

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Now go to that link and scroll to the bottom, see there has only been a 1 degree increase and this is based off actual measurements, not religion or beliefs.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I heard it will awaken Godzilla...

I think you just sold me on the 1972 Plymouth Barracuda. Fuck yea, Godzilla is awesome!

 

[Iching]

There are already too may people on this planet. We could do away with over 5 billion and we all would be better off. Cows cause more pollution than cars.

 

[Azphira]

Nope, everyone on earth could fit in LA, but that comment always makes me think, eat some poison and start the contribution...

 

[Gigus Fire]

Didn't say you were.

But you did say "No one disagrees with the observation that more CO2 = higher temps." and that isn't true. There are tons of people that do in the anti-AGW crowd and some of the people in this thread have even said as much.


I was making an analogy not a comparison. You can tell because I even said I was doing that in that very post. I even explicitly typed out the take-away of the analogy you were meant to get as well as quoted the specific part of your previous post it was directed at in that same post so you can't reasonably claim I was being unclear or vague either. Your reply here pertaining to that particular part of my post comes off as absurd because of that.

If you would address the point I was making there with that analogy in your reply to this post, while keeping things in context of the post of yours I was replying to, that would be great.


Carbon credits will not result in you being taxed to death. Yes your taxes would be higher, or you would be effected by companies getting taxed higher, but that isn't the same as "taxed to death" and it would have a purpose (ie. funding cleaner energy sources/infrastructure) that would ultimately benefit you in the long run too.


Most are also more optimistic currently than actual observed temperature changes. You're also not supposed to see catastrophic sea level rises yet so you're being misled or are banging on a strawman there. I also wouldn't be so blase about relocating. Look what happened to those who had to relocate due to Katrina. Many of them are still worse off than they were beforehand. The sort of coastal devastation predicted will be much worse and much more economically devastating. You're looking at trillions of dollars worth of property getting made uninhabitable over the span of decades. You can already see signs of it starting to happen in FL and LA.


Which doesn't address the point I was making. Its just a broad and meaningless platitude.


You're doing that thing where you assume that global warming can't possibly have any negative effects like a extinction level event here.


Why develop it later when we can, and are, developing it and implementing it to a degree now? You think it'll be any cheaper or easier to do or what?? Its all difficult and expensive materials science and fundamental engineering work that needs tons of resources and money no matter what. You're also making an assumption that we'll be able to swing it the other way. Part of the problem is that there is no readily apparent way to do so other than to stop or greatly mitigate release of greenhouse gases.


How will sustainable clean energy result in any more deaths than existing energy production means?? If anything it'll reduce it, not increase it.


Hahahaha you completely don't understand the scope of the problem or what a extinction level event is I guess. And don't go saying you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be so blase about this problem. Look at all the destruction from Katrina or the more recent hurricanes and imagine something like that but effecting nearly all the coastal US. Permanently. That is a pretty big deal since most people near live the coast.


There has been some more evidence that looks like Toba didn't cause a extinction level event. They aren't sure what happened exactly back then but the ash levels weren't enough to cause a big enough temp change. This was backed up by another study done in 2015. Also its worth pointing out that the extinction level events associated with excess CO2 were way worse than a volcanic winter caused by a super volcano like Toba. Damn near everything on the planet died and stayed dead for a very long time.


You're probably not really looking, or worse, looking at anti-AGW sites for your information on this subject to have not seen "anything".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Ok. You got me. No sane human being believes that more CO2 != higher temps. Of course there'll be some odd people that believe in flat earth theory out there, but this is such a small slice of the population it's not worth discussing them. For the purpose of my statement, can we just assume that most people believe in science and that they understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It's still a fraction of the atmosphere and even a change of 2x the amount from .02 to .04 will not have a drastic effect on anything. Most of the alarmists believe in the runaway greenhouse effect which i don't think can really happen here on earth. This isn't Venus.

Making analogies comparing two differently drastic things isn't worth considering.

Fairly sure CO2 is not a substance that "sticks around for 100 years" like CFCs and the ozone level. This is a biological byproduct as well as a byproduct of industrialization. It's also emitted naturally through sources like Volcanos. Fairly sure it gets recycled alot and created a lot through plants and animals. Typically there's a balance and it may look as if the balance is tilted in one direction, but plants do use more when there is more. There's also some sequestration having to do with deserts.

Where will this money go? To the unsustainable solar industry in the form of subsidies? They're not clean to make and they lose effectiveness in 20 years. If you want to say carbon tax credits will go towards building 4th and 5th generation nuclear power plants as well as fast reactors/breeders to get rid of waste I'm with you. But i have a feeling you don't want that. Taxed to death meaning more wealth being taken out by the working class and going into the wealthy as they invest in energy companies who will now start to live off the government's teat more than they already are. Because lets be real about this. People want the government to raise the cost of producing energy and at the same time tax them an extra tax that won't go to their benefit.

Look at katrina? Fucking new orleans is under water and you use an example of a place that shouldn't even exist but does so due to engineering that wasn't kept up to date as an example?
The people living in those areas got everything they deserve when the levees broke. You want to live in a house on the ocean and you don't maintain your supports/seawall/etc, don't come crying when it fails.

That whole area should have been de-zoned for habitation. I don't think engineering walls and barriers that are guaranteed to fail is a good idea and moving to higher elevation is the solution.

In fact, i would recommend when you go to buy a house to make sure it's several hundred feet above sea level so you don't have to worry about a sea rise of 1 meter (which is predicted by 2100). If you believe in global warming, this is just being prudent.

If you can't model/predict the natural cycles, then don't spout nonsense about climate change being 100% man made which has been a defacto answer from many believers. If you can't say how much of a change man has actually affected the natural climate change, then how can you effectively combat it? Throwing a dart on a dart board is probably more dangerous than doing nothing.

I haven't seen anything that related the two together besides this fluff piece. It doesn't explain the mechanisms behind the linking. In ancient times, what caused carbon to go into the oceans and over what rate? If the idea was volcanism (because clearly it wasn't humans in ancient times) then how does that relate to industrialization?

And you're assuming it's tied to extinction level events. If CO2 production is tied to meteor strikes or super volcanoes, i'll be ready to read about it.

There's many ways to affect the temperature of the earth in certain locations. I read about a proposal to create a fleet of spraying boats that could work (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5046852/a-f...hips-could-stop-global-warming-say-scientists). These are things that can be explored now but no one is. No body who wants to tax carbon credits leads any plausibility to fund something like this.

New oreleans (I assume you don't mean los angeles) is under water, that's a bad example. Most of florida is barely above sea level. Who's to say without man that florida wouldn't be under water in 500-5000 years. All we did is advance it's natural evolution. Are you suggestion we should somehow combat the natural evolution of a land?

Katrina happened overnight basically. The sea level is set to rise 3 feet in 100 years. Do you see the difference? People will have 2-3 generations to move to higher ground. If you can't do some basic planning, then maybe you deserve it.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event happened in ancient times. Man wasn't around then. Comparing that in any shape or form to CO2 production by man made activities doesn't relate.
I mean we can't even explain why vocanism seems to increase or decrease over the course of 1000 years. We can't predict when a part of california will break off and fall into the ocean. Because someone has an idea that green house gases raised the temperature at one time in the past that it will happen because of man again in the future.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Yet another prediction out past when nobody will be here that predicted it so they don't have to worry about being proven wrong.

Wouldn't they be more afraid of being proven right? That would be a pretty terrible disorder to be actually terrified of surviving the day.

 

[Krenum]

More human made climate change paranoia. Seems like its high time to make predictions, lots of money to be made off that now days.

 

[N4CR]

Lol the next try to push the failed zionist carbon tax on the sheeple.
Ever heard of taxes being removed or reduced? lol

 

[Burticus]

Perhaps bombing a tiny random northern asian country would help.

 

[cyclone3d]

Wouldn't they be more afraid of being proven right? That would be a pretty terrible disorder to be actually terrified of surviving the day.

No, because they can predict stuff way out that they know that won't matter to them personally after they are dead.

Weather cannot even be predicted reliably a few days out. What makes anybody think that they can predict the climate accurately years/decades/centuries out?

It is absolutely laughable if you actually think about it.

 

[nutzo]

Correction, "old oil" is the actual nuclear energy showstopper, the "greens" are just a useful patsy for public consumption. Lobbying dictates policy, in the west, so as long as the system does not change there will be no beating "oil&gas" in favour of nuclear.

Except in places where it already happened like France - 80% electricity created from nuclear, and they have plenty of "green" fanatics, but oil does not run the energy policy there.

Here in California, the "Greens" seem to hate nuclear even more than they hate oil.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Okay, had a longer, more involved answer to this. Accidentally killed the browser.

In short.

1. I don't deny that climate change is happening. I merely say that it's ALWAYS been happening.
   
   
2. I don't find determining if it's AGW (or whatever term they wanna use now) useful in any way, shape or form. It's basically virtue signaling and finger pointing.
   
   
3. We've been getting told "There is a problem" for most of the last 50 years now. And climate models have swung all over the place. So I don't find being told "There is a problem" for the umpty-gajillionth-and-third time useful. It's at the point where it's annoying in the way a 3 year old girl screaming (full volume) into a bullhorn into your ear is annoying.
   
   
4. I want to start diverting the money going towards climate RESEARCH into engineering projects designed to address the problem, rather than more "studies".
   
   
5. I want this fucking YESTERDAY.
   
   
6. I want planning for jobs programs in the industries we're going to be creating so we can retrain the people in the industries we're destroying.
   

And if I NEVER have to hear "WHATEVER*est *WHATEVER* EVER!" ever again, it'll be too goddamn soon.

As for my "pessimism" towards my fellow man, scientists, etc. You aren't ever changing my mind.
THEY have to do that.
And thus far, they're doing a job so bad they WISH it would classify as "piss poor".

 

[Deleted member 126051]

The logical informal fallacy of "misuse of analogy"... CO2 as a harmful compound is an unproven hypothesis promoted by alarmists as fact...

I look at it thusly.

If we can reduce or eliminate our country's man-made inputs, without destroying society, and we think it's problematic, why shouldn't we?

Boy Scout camping maxim. Leave it cleaner than you found it...