Climate Change Consequences

You said that scientists aren't studying the issue. I presented you with an article where scientists are studying the issue and your problem with my source is that it doesn't address the two specific questions that you want them to study?

That's the very definition of moving the goal posts.

 

The Permian extinction?! WTF.

Are you seriously using an extinction event where 95% of all species on Earth died as a standard for what you would deem to be the limit of a bad example of climate change? In other words, because we aren't currently loosing 95% of our species (even though we ARE currently in an extinction event), everything is OK?

 

Suddenly, fact based examples aren't attractive to you? Laughable. Typical though.

 

I am referencing the CO2 concentration. The last time that the CO2 concentration rose by 80 points, which is the amount that it increased from 1900 to 2000, the natural climate change took about 5000 years.

That is based on current measurements of CO2 and ice core data.

 

Is it though? Do you really think that the Permian Extinction is a relevant comparison to the current man-induced climate change?

 

We have engineered species of trees that grow fast. They would not remain a foot tall for that long. But if you are trying to maintain that if you add billions of trees this would not pull down co2, for you reach max co2 intake with only half a billion, I cannot accept that. It is illogical.

So, is any gov't really seriously concerned with addressing co2, other than lucrative carbon taxes? Obviously not, nor apparently any alarmist on this forum except myself. But I am not an alarmist, just a rational mind, who questions everything, which does not seem to be forte of alarmists.

 

Please, please do a modest modicum of research.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-cool-earth/

 

Yup. It serves as a scale that describes potential impact. In that context, the current threat seems, well, unlikely to demonstrate much of any real threat for folks to really worry about in comparison. Of course, that's inconvenient. Ooopsies..

 

I'm in full agreement with you, it's just that it is useless to try and argue with people who's beliefs are based on faith.

I also read an article recently about a new satellite imaging that showed an amazing phenomenon where the U.S. midwest's corn crop was putting out a huge plume of oxygen, never seen before. As technology improves, these so called climate change alarmists will have no choice but to admit they were wrong.

REAL science is based upon questioning, not faith.

Steve

 

The inconvenient truth is, bar something like a new clean energy source, like zero point energy, fossil fuel will continue to provide most of our energy needs. Suck it up, live with it, unless you want to crash world economies and starve humanity to death.

Other point is, if AGW is true, as well as their predictions, it is too late to do anything, as we have already past the point of no return.

 

So Climate Change is not a problem so long as we don't lose 95% of the currently existing plants and animals in a short span.

Got it. Perfectly rational.

 

I'm about 95% certain that you're talking about the show "What on Earth" where they used satellites to directly observe the amount of light that gets reflected by plants during photosynthesis, which is really tiny, but that it stood out because of the size of the midwest corn crop.

It has almost nothing to do with climate change and it did nothing to change the collective opinion of the relevant experts in this field of study.

 

WTF indeed. Are you seriously suggesting that a temp increase of 1 degree in 1 hundred years is meaningful? We are always in the midst of an extinction event of greater or lesser proportions, most of the critters that are going extinct today are doing so because they can't cohabit with human beings. We call this habitat loss. We are also finding that other creatures are more adaptable than we thought. Peregrine falcons for instance have moved into large cities where they nest on tall buildings and feed on pigeons. The destruction of the great barrier roof is a combination event having little to do with temperature and everything to do with agricultural run off triggering excessive numbers of crown of thorns star fish notorious coral predators.

 

Really? So man had nothing to do with ozone depletion, the consequences of which, if left unchecked, would lead to exponential increases in skin cancers, global crop failures, disruption of the oceanic food chain-all due to solar radiation. So what did we do? We enacted the Montreal Protocol, banned CFC usage and lo and behold, the hole in the ozone layer is slowly healing. Man caused the problem, man addressed it. We can do something about global warming, but convincing the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry with only short term profits in their gunsights, is the problem.

 

The so-called "collective opinion" has few kinks in it. Below is a link to scientists who disagree or say the data is flawed, whatever. I believe any data showing tiny temperature changes are simply based upon the Sun's activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

At least be open to the possibility climate change is wrong. REAL science, questions.

Steve

 

It is 1 degree celsius and yes, that is meaningful especially given that the driver of the temperature increase (CO2) has accelerated in recent years, the fact that there is a lag between CO2 increasing and temperature increasing (we are feeling the effects of CO2 increases from the 1970s), and the fact that once we hit a tipping point, we can unleash a massive amount of new greenhouse gases (methane lakes in permafrost).

As for the Great Barrier Reef, I have visited and studied the GBR personally. Massive Bleaching events are not caused by agriculture runoff. They are caused by increased sea temperatures.

 

I am open to that possibility. But I don't believe it is likely. I fully recognize that there are rational scientists who disagree, for valid reasons, with the notion of man-made climate change. With that said, there are zero recognized groups of national or international scientists which maintain dissenting opinions regarding AGW.

 

Just as it's not a significant problem today unless real demonstrable impact can be associated to it. Not "might could be", or "possibly could be", but real impact.

Al Gore promised that by 2016 Boston would be inundated by over 12 feet of ocean. Didn't happen. IPCC said that the Himalayas would be glacier free by 2015. Also didn't happen. Snowless winters in the UK. Didn't happen. Ice free Arctic, didn't happen. Miami under water. didn't happen. See the trend here?

So all of these predictions of future doom is all we have. What demonstrable impact is there today? Show us.

 

I know for a fact that you know those were never likely predictions and that the people you are quoting made it explicitly clear that those predictions were never likely.

 

Al Gore said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013 are they?

 

So then, based upon the POTENTIAL that climate change due to human activity might exist, are you willing to destroy our economic system? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.

Steve

 

No. And that's not required. At all. You asked a rhetorical question while presenting a false choice.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...uce-co2-emissions-and-grow-the-global-economy

 

As with everything that changes rapidly, there will be winners and losers.

Winners: Me and others living in the Northeast US, with lower heating costs and longer crop growing seasons.

Losers: Coastal real estate holders.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...could-cost-u-s-homeowners-close-to-1-trillion

There is more than $1 trillion on the line, of course mostly held by the rich. Once they see their beachfront property erode, you can bet that climate change will be addressed in a millisecond.

It's all about the money trail.

 

We hear a lot of folks say that but whenever I search ice core data sets and I pull out a typical example (like ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt ) it's just not there. If you've really found a data-set of ice core measurements that show a 80 ppm rise 1900 - 2000, no 80ppm rise per 100 years before, and the previous 80 ppm rise taking 5,000 years, then please share it and I'll learn something to tell others about.

 

You misunderstood the question. Politicians are using climate change to try and control the people with taxes and regulations, and both will further destroy our economic system.

Steve