FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Record c02 and methane!
Record c02 and methane!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years "And they still will not stop chopping down the rain forests, digging up and drilling for more fossel fuels to burn creating even more 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
And they still will not stop chopping down the rain forests, digging up and drilling for more fossel fuels to burn creating even more
"Humans are short sighted and greedy. Despite technological advances etc we ignore the environment as it's uncool. We aren't as clever as we think we are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Civilisation will continue.We could quite easily live on a scorched earth.If we can live on mars we can survive here for another few centuries or millenia." I think you would be correct if we could live on Mars. But we can't, nor are we anywhere close to being able to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70%" I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny "We are controlling it....all the way to self-destruction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny ". Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
"Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago.". That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making"I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making"If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early. Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. "pmsl  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny
We are controlling it....all the way to self-destruction." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling.". Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science. Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included). When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. ". You've noticed the big rush to get off this planet all of a sudden!. Coincidence? I think not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling..
Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science.
Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included).
When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule "Self aggrandising jerking off is all it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. .
You've noticed the big rush to get off this planet all of a sudden!.
Coincidence? I think not
"Not really its a technological solution to a problem.Necessity is the the mother of invention and all that. London in the 1890s was drowning in horse shit there was a prediction that within 50 years it would be 9 ft deep everywhere .Fortunately the automobile was invented solving the horse shit problem and creating another.We will solve our climate change issue some way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. .
You've noticed the big rush to get off this planet all of a sudden!.
Coincidence? I think not
Not really its a technological solution to a problem.Necessity is the the mother of invention and all that.
London in the 1890s was drowning in horse shit there was a prediction that within 50 years it would be 9 ft deep everywhere .Fortunately the automobile was invented solving the horse shit problem and creating another.We will solve our climate change issue some way. "Blind faith in technology eh? How about mending our ways before it's too late? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. .
You've noticed the big rush to get off this planet all of a sudden!.
Coincidence? I think not
Not really its a technological solution to a problem.Necessity is the the mother of invention and all that.
London in the 1890s was drowning in horse shit there was a prediction that within 50 years it would be 9 ft deep everywhere .Fortunately the automobile was invented solving the horse shit problem and creating another.We will solve our climate change issue some way.
Blind faith in technology eh?
How about mending our ways before it's too late? "I do think technically we can fix the climate change problem - the question is do we have the will to fix it fast enough? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making I think we will spread humanity throughout the galaxy creating dystopian shit holes as we go until we get it right. .
You've noticed the big rush to get off this planet all of a sudden!.
Coincidence? I think not
Not really its a technological solution to a problem.Necessity is the the mother of invention and all that.
London in the 1890s was drowning in horse shit there was a prediction that within 50 years it would be 9 ft deep everywhere .Fortunately the automobile was invented solving the horse shit problem and creating another.We will solve our climate change issue some way. ". 9ft of horse shit in London is not the end of the human species, it's just the end of London, which frankly most of us are hoping for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling..
Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science.
Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included).
When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule
Self aggrandising jerking off is all it is.". I like it when idiots troll me, it shows me that they don't like what I'm saying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling..
Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science.
Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included).
When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule
Self aggrandising jerking off is all it is..
I like it when idiots troll me, it shows me that they don't like what I'm saying"You're not saying anything though. I mean, sure, cookie cutter whining about how everything is shit and we're all doomed, sure. You're definitely making a lot of noise. But it's hardly interesting or novel, I'm afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling..
Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science.
Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included).
When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule
Self aggrandising jerking off is all it is..
I like it when idiots troll me, it shows me that they don't like what I'm saying
You're not saying anything though.
I mean, sure, cookie cutter whining about how everything is shit and we're all doomed, sure. You're definitely making a lot of noise.
But it's hardly interesting or novel, I'm afraid.
". Your trolling is even more farcical then your debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? " i'll stop brewing quite as much wine and beer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling..
Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science.
Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included).
When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule
Self aggrandising jerking off is all it is..
I like it when idiots troll me, it shows me that they don't like what I'm saying
You're not saying anything though.
I mean, sure, cookie cutter whining about how everything is shit and we're all doomed, sure. You're definitely making a lot of noise.
But it's hardly interesting or novel, I'm afraid.
.
Your trolling is even more farcical then your debate "Of course, what else could someone not believing you be, but 'trolling'. Try a little harder, would you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? " Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? " . I think you'll find they said this rise puts paid to the Paris targets of 1.5 degrees | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can." . Try reading what they actually fucking say at least.... We will not get under the Paris targets regardless of anything Donald trump does or doesn't do. That was the advice in 1989 ... Hello mcfly, where's my homework | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can.. Try reading what they actually fucking say at least.... We will not get under the Paris targets regardless of anything Donald trump does or doesn't do. That was the advice in 1989 ... Hello mcfly, where's my homework" There are two sets of targets, 1.5 being the stretch goal, 2 degrees being the base target. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can.. Try reading what they actually fucking say at least.... We will not get under the Paris targets regardless of anything Donald trump does or doesn't do. That was the advice in 1989 ... Hello mcfly, where's my homework There are two sets of targets, 1.5 being the stretch goal, 2 degrees being the base target." . Wrong again demon John. 1.5 is the target, 2 degrees is what we shouldn't go over unless you want.... Shit to happen in a large scale | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
.
Sadly were still to get the warming that will occur under the Tories and Bush's. 
Still don't panic, we've only set in motion 27 self reinforcing feed back loops since 1997 so all is not lost.... Apparently  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And by the way... Both of those figures were set by Economists on the IPCC, no science has ever shown that a 1.5 degree rise would be livable with let alone 2 degrees" How do you even propose such a premise would be tested? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were in a twenty year lag on c02, the current warming were experiencing was done under labour and Bill Clinton... That's just science .
Sadly were still to get the warming that will occur under the Tories and Bush's.
Still don't panic, we've only set in motion 27 self reinforcing feed back loops since 1997 so all is not lost.... Apparently "Then by all means, just lie down and quit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And by the way... Both of those figures were set by Economists on the IPCC, no science has ever shown that a 1.5 degree rise would be livable with let alone 2 degrees How do you even propose such a premise would be tested?" . #climatehistory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were in a twenty year lag on c02, the current warming were experiencing was done under labour and Bill Clinton... That's just science .
Sadly were still to get the warming that will occur under the Tories and Bush's.
Still don't panic, we've only set in motion 27 self reinforcing feed back loops since 1997 so all is not lost.... Apparently
Then by all means, just lie down and quit.". Yes... That's just what everybody who had terminal cancer does.. Isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And by the way... Both of those figures were set by Economists on the IPCC, no science has ever shown that a 1.5 degree rise would be livable with let alone 2 degrees How do you even propose such a premise would be tested?. #climatehistory" Yeah, no. We can't accurately predict how the worlds climate will react to changes in temperature on that scale, because it's an amazingly complex system we can't model. The reason "no science has ever shown" what you're talking about is we know we can't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And by the way... Both of those figures were set by Economists on the IPCC, no science has ever shown that a 1.5 degree rise would be livable with let alone 2 degrees How do you even propose such a premise would be tested?. #climatehistory Yeah, no. We can't accurately predict how the worlds climate will react to changes in temperature on that scale, because it's an amazingly complex system we can't model. The reason "no science has ever shown" what you're talking about is we know we can't." . Your just making yourself look stupid now, stop typing and get some sleep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were in a twenty year lag on c02, the current warming were experiencing was done under labour and Bill Clinton... That's just science .
Sadly were still to get the warming that will occur under the Tories and Bush's.
Still don't panic, we've only set in motion 27 self reinforcing feed back loops since 1997 so all is not lost.... Apparently
Then by all means, just lie down and quit..
Yes... That's just what everybody who had terminal cancer does.. Isn't it? "Then I cannot fathom the point of you. If Cassandra wants some validation then you're looking in the wrong place. Go, stop spending what little time you have left screeching about "manginas" whatever they are, and live whatever you imagine a full life to be. Don't waste it here, being my punchbag. Or, y'know, don't. Because you don't really believe this shtick either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were in a twenty year lag on c02, the current warming were experiencing was done under labour and Bill Clinton... That's just science .
Sadly were still to get the warming that will occur under the Tories and Bush's.
Still don't panic, we've only set in motion 27 self reinforcing feed back loops since 1997 so all is not lost.... Apparently
Then by all means, just lie down and quit..
Yes... That's just what everybody who had terminal cancer does.. Isn't it?
Then I cannot fathom the point of you.
If Cassandra wants some validation then you're looking in the wrong place.
Go, stop spending what little time you have left screeching about "manginas" whatever they are, and live whatever you imagine a full life to be. Don't waste it here, being my punchbag.
Or, y'know, don't.
Because you don't really believe this shtick either. ". Again, it's not what I believe or don't, it's just best guess science, like when the doctor tells you, you've got three months before your cancer kills you... They could be wrong, they could be wrong on the timing, they could be right. Which ones most likely do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were in a twenty year lag on c02, the current warming were experiencing was done under labour and Bill Clinton... That's just science .
Sadly were still to get the warming that will occur under the Tories and Bush's.
Still don't panic, we've only set in motion 27 self reinforcing feed back loops since 1997 so all is not lost.... Apparently
Then by all means, just lie down and quit..
Yes... That's just what everybody who had terminal cancer does.. Isn't it?
Then I cannot fathom the point of you.
If Cassandra wants some validation then you're looking in the wrong place.
Go, stop spending what little time you have left screeching about "manginas" whatever they are, and live whatever you imagine a full life to be. Don't waste it here, being my punchbag.
Or, y'know, don't.
Because you don't really believe this shtick either. .
Again, it's not what I believe or don't, it's just best guess science, like when the doctor tells you, you've got three months before your cancer kills you... They could be wrong, they could be wrong on the timing, they could be right.
Which ones most likely do you think?"Its not really like that at all, is it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can." . Let's go through the only thing you've actually wrote on here about the subject other than an a personal attack on me. . . Err yeah, everything you wrote is bollocks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can.. Let's go through the only thing you've actually wrote on here about the subject other than an a personal attack on me. . . Err yeah, everything you wrote is bollocks "Report personal attacks, if you feel so aggrieved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. " . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can.. Let's go through the only thing you've actually wrote on here about the subject other than an a personal attack on me. . . Err yeah, everything you wrote is bollocks
Report personal attacks, if you feel so aggrieved.". Water off a ducks back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, before the shit slinging match starts, anyone got any actual ideas to solve the issue at hand? Hitting the targets set by the Paris accords would be a good way to attempt to limit the damage, which is the stage we're at now. Doing that will require significant political will, but as a species we're pretty adept at doing things once we set our minds to it. We can't "solve" it, so much as we will need to find how to live with the damage we've done and limit further damage as best we can.. Let's go through the only thing you've actually wrote on here about the subject other than an a personal attack on me. . . Err yeah, everything you wrote is bollocks
Report personal attacks, if you feel so aggrieved..
Water off a ducks back "I'm encouraging you to. Don't bring things like that up, unless you're willing to follow through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2" I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Civilisation will continue.We could quite easily live on a scorched earth.If we can live on mars we can survive here for another few centuries or millenia." Lol in your lifetime it could all end,no good just thinking it will be ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Further damage.... That's like saying I've just burnt to death but if only somebody turned the dial down I might not cremate to dust. . . Hello mcfly, where's my homework!. " Last I checked, were all still here, maybe you should take the hysterics down a notch, yeah? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. " . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Further damage.... That's like saying I've just burnt to death but if only somebody turned the dial down I might not cremate to dust. . . Hello mcfly, where's my homework!. Last I checked, were all still here, maybe you should take the hysterics down a notch, yeah?" . That's because only 8 hours have elapsed since... Not fifteen years, I know you struggle with stuff like this but come on, even you must grasp that bit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're convinced we're all doomed. Fine. It's stupid, but let's pretend otherwise. If so, why are you here? Why aren't you squeezing as much living into your remaining days as you can? Is being wrong on the internet something you should be spending precious minutes on? I know I wouldn't. " . You clearly are, you just don't realise it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there "We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage. We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Further damage.... That's like saying I've just burnt to death but if only somebody turned the dial down I might not cremate to dust. . . Hello mcfly, where's my homework!. Last I checked, were all still here, maybe you should take the hysterics down a notch, yeah?" Just to clarify demon John, ; You think the climate change is nonsense and the vast amounts of carbon realeased since the industrial revolution isn't a problem and we can carry on burning more fosil fuel without a care? Just asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're convinced we're all doomed. Fine. It's stupid, but let's pretend otherwise. If so, why are you here? Why aren't you squeezing as much living into your remaining days as you can? Is being wrong on the internet something you should be spending precious minutes on? I know I wouldn't. . You clearly are, you just don't realise it "I'll ask again, why are you here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Further damage.... That's like saying I've just burnt to death but if only somebody turned the dial down I might not cremate to dust. . . Hello mcfly, where's my homework!. Last I checked, were all still here, maybe you should take the hysterics down a notch, yeah? Just to clarify demon John, ; You think the climate change is nonsense and the vast amounts of carbon realeased since the industrial revolution isn't a problem and we can carry on burning more fosil fuel without a care? Just asking. " What? No. What on earth gave you that idea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it.". What!!! Are you serious. How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?. Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're convinced we're all doomed. Fine. It's stupid, but let's pretend otherwise. If so, why are you here? Why aren't you squeezing as much living into your remaining days as you can? Is being wrong on the internet something you should be spending precious minutes on? I know I wouldn't. . You clearly are, you just don't realise it
I'll ask again, why are you here?". Coz it's part of life? Why wouldn't I be here?. You'll notice I've actually made use of this site unlike yourself who's been here a year and made no use of it at all.. I'll ask you, why are you here?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain "I am serious. Let's say you're right. Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're convinced we're all doomed. Fine. It's stupid, but let's pretend otherwise. If so, why are you here? Why aren't you squeezing as much living into your remaining days as you can? Is being wrong on the internet something you should be spending precious minutes on? I know I wouldn't. . You clearly are, you just don't realise it
I'll ask again, why are you here?.
Coz it's part of life? Why wouldn't I be here?.
You'll notice I've actually made use of this site unlike yourself who's been here a year and made no use of it at all..
I'll ask you, why are you here??"You believe that we're all doomed, is this really the best use of your limited time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?". I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're convinced we're all doomed. Fine. It's stupid, but let's pretend otherwise. If so, why are you here? Why aren't you squeezing as much living into your remaining days as you can? Is being wrong on the internet something you should be spending precious minutes on? I know I wouldn't. . You clearly are, you just don't realise it
I'll ask again, why are you here?.
Coz it's part of life? Why wouldn't I be here?.
You'll notice I've actually made use of this site unlike yourself who's been here a year and made no use of it at all..
I'll ask you, why are you here??
You believe that we're all doomed, is this really the best use of your limited time?". What would you suggest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?"You're avoiding the question. Why stop working towards reducing emissions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think I should be spending my time doing?" I neither know nor care. I'm just wondering if this is how you should spend what little time you've got left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coz I've got news for you... Whether science is right or wrong yours and my time is limited. I'm only giving you a death date, no different than any cancer patient is given. " You'll forgive me if I decline to take your prognostication seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?". The serious answer?. Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees. As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly"Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly"Those mostly come from volcanos, and deserts. We only account for 10% or so. We could counteract that 10% shortfall by releasing aerosols ourselves, but it's not a viable long term plan, and reducing emissions overall is preferable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? ". As a short term solution, it's the best we've got | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there's still the problem that we don't actually, really, 100% understand how those aerosols affect climate, and from what we do know their effects tend to be regional." . You've not read any science at all have you?... Were back to that best guess science shit again aren't we. We don't 100% know why smoking causes cancer... So smoke on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there's still the problem that we don't actually, really, 100% understand how those aerosols affect climate, and from what we do know their effects tend to be regional.. You've not read any science at all have you?... Were back to that best guess science shit again aren't we. We don't 100% know why smoking causes cancer... So smoke on "Hardly. The study of the affects of aerosols on climate is an immature one, you might want to take it easy there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there's still the problem that we don't actually, really, 100% understand how those aerosols affect climate, and from what we do know their effects tend to be regional.. You've not read any science at all have you?... Were back to that best guess science shit again aren't we. We don't 100% know why smoking causes cancer... So smoke on
Hardly.
The study of the affects of aerosols on climate is an immature one, you might want to take it easy there. ". It's not climate you Wally, it's energy in energy out, aerosols block the energy in bound but alas there baby brother traps the energy out bound. It's been calculated quite successfully how much energy they stop entering on the in bound cycle... We did it 50 years ago on paper, turns out they were pretty accurate in the real world. Now how that excess energy effects climate is a different kettle of fish. Best guess is it's not great news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got "And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there's still the problem that we don't actually, really, 100% understand how those aerosols affect climate, and from what we do know their effects tend to be regional.. You've not read any science at all have you?... Were back to that best guess science shit again aren't we. We don't 100% know why smoking causes cancer... So smoke on
Hardly.
The study of the affects of aerosols on climate is an immature one, you might want to take it easy there. .
It's not climate you Wally, it's energy in energy out, aerosols block the energy in bound but alas there baby brother traps the energy out bound.
It's been calculated quite successfully how much energy they stop entering on the in bound cycle... We did it 50 years ago on paper, turns out they were pretty accurate in the real world.
Now how that excess energy effects climate is a different kettle of fish.
Best guess is it's not great news"Things don't exist in a vacuum, pretending its just "about energy" is a waste of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?". Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And we've not even talked about the record methane that they can't even account for??. It's like it's just bubbling out of the ground in the melting permafrosts or summit...#demonjohnsaywerestillhere" We are. You might want to leave though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there's still the problem that we don't actually, really, 100% understand how those aerosols affect climate, and from what we do know their effects tend to be regional.. You've not read any science at all have you?... Were back to that best guess science shit again aren't we. We don't 100% know why smoking causes cancer... So smoke on
Hardly.
The study of the affects of aerosols on climate is an immature one, you might want to take it easy there. .
It's not climate you Wally, it's energy in energy out, aerosols block the energy in bound but alas there baby brother traps the energy out bound.
It's been calculated quite successfully how much energy they stop entering on the in bound cycle... We did it 50 years ago on paper, turns out they were pretty accurate in the real world.
Now how that excess energy effects climate is a different kettle of fish.
Best guess is it's not great news
Things don't exist in a vacuum, pretending its just "about energy" is a waste of time.". Err yes we actually do exist in a vacuum, I learnt that in borstal,I don't know which school you went | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same"Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?". Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities"Quote me where I have done that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
Quote me where I have done that. ". So reducing c02, run me through your policy that will save us from hitting 2 degrees warming.?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities"With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court. FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total. Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago."It's better than you thought...it's 70 Million. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
And they still will not stop chopping down the rain forests, digging up and drilling for more fossel fuels to burn creating even more
"the strong will still survive, not too sure about your chances though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not humans that can't adapt, it's habitat, and all mammals need habitat. Only yesterday there was a scientific survey showing insects down 70% I fully agree the various ecosytems around the globe are doomed.We i believe will survive and so we should as we are the pinacle of 4 billion years of evolution.Unlike all other life on the planet we can control our destiny .
Some of us will survive into the apocalypse no doubt but probably less than 1%.
Thats still 7 million people.That's a fair size gene pool.Enough to prevent extinction.Consideeing our species on more than one occasion dropped to a few thousand survivors in the past .We almost went extinct long ago..
That's why I said civilisation won't exist in 15 years and not humans, there'll linger on for awhile in the apocalypse before slowly dying out in a dystopian shit hole of their own making
If things are that bleak, I'm surprised you've not checked out early.
Far be it from me to suggest you don't actually believe what you're selling..
Dear John, I'm not selling nothing, I'm just telling a story of human catastrophe based upon climate history and science.
Dealing with ones demise is most humans weakness (me included).
When I told this story on here a few years back, many scoffed, alas my doom mongering is bang on schedule
Self aggrandising jerking off is all it is..
I like it when idiots troll me, it shows me that they don't like what I'm saying
You're not saying anything though.
I mean, sure, cookie cutter whining about how everything is shit and we're all doomed, sure. You're definitely making a lot of noise.
But it's hardly interesting or novel, I'm afraid.
.
Your trolling is even more farcical then your debate "He a running out of put downs... I've seen "it's not interesting and novel" about 10 times now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there's still the problem that we don't actually, really, 100% understand how those aerosols affect climate, and from what we do know their effects tend to be regional." You are the last person I expected to be a climate change denyer
Trumpian | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
Quote me where I have done that. .
So reducing c02, run me through your policy that will save us from hitting 2 degrees warming.??"That's not a quote from me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3.". #demonjohnsays Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets. You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3..
#demonjohnsays
Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets.
You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3.
"There is always the option of geo enginering the atmosphere be realeasing aerosols in the stratosphere.Cooling the planet.Of course this would have to be combined with co2 reduction and reducing aerosols in the troposphere .Its relatively cheap and technically do able and allows us to manage the problem.Although some consequences like altering rainfall patterns could be problematic. Its an interesting trade off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3..
#demonjohnsays
Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets.
You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3.
"404 page not found. Funny that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3..
#demonjohnsays
Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets.
You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3.
404 page not found.
Funny that."I get the same message. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3..
#demonjohnsays
Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets.
You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3.
404 page not found.
Funny that.". Well just go to the national centre for atmospheric research website and look at their figures, on their website you'll see they give a good bit of research on the global dimming effects of aerosols... Or just carry on looking at whatever bullshit website you ripped the 10% figure off?.... Either way like I told you first time you said it, your completely wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all of it but we have had a record number of volcanic eruptions this year.... of which all has to add to it. " Volcanism cools the planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all of it but we have had a record number of volcanic eruptions this year.... of which all has to add to it. Volcanism cools the planet. "So to sum up the thread, we need to increase co2 emissions and volcanic activity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all of it but we have had a record number of volcanic eruptions this year.... of which all has to add to it. Volcanism cools the planet.
So to sum up the thread, we need to increase co2 emissions and volcanic activity. "We need to decrease co2 and we cant do fuck all about volcanoes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all of it but we have had a record number of volcanic eruptions this year.... of which all has to add to it. Volcanism cools the planet.
So to sum up the thread, we need to increase co2 emissions and volcanic activity. ". Both would counteract each other, the trouble with volcanoes unfortunately is you can't rely on them to keep erupting on a daily basis and as I pointed out way up there at the beginning, they only take a few days to fall out from the atmosphere, big volcanoes have the ability to shoot the particulates higher into the stratosphere thus taking longer to fall out..... However man made aerosols, mainly sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel usage do get used daily so we have a constant dimming effect from them (roughly 3 degrees) as you reduce the usage of fossil fuels you'll get a rise from less particulates. . I asked you ages ago what you'd implement policy wise to stop anything, you seem to be short on detail and long on sarcastic comments | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all of it but we have had a record number of volcanic eruptions this year.... of which all has to add to it. Volcanism cools the planet.
So to sum up the thread, we need to increase co2 emissions and volcanic activity. We need to decrease co2 and we cant do fuck all about volcanoes. "Sick boi says we need to increase co2. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all of it but we have had a record number of volcanic eruptions this year.... of which all has to add to it. Volcanism cools the planet.
So to sum up the thread, we need to increase co2 emissions and volcanic activity. We need to decrease co2 and we cant do fuck all about volcanoes.
Sick boi says we need to increase co2.". Why not? The outcome is exactly the same as doing what we're doing now, in fact it will be the same as reducing it by a small margin, we'll just all live a little bit better for the 15 years we've got left! .
Anyhow, I'm still waiting to hear your expert analysis of detail on policy to avoid the worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We wont all be dead by the end of the century.How will increasing co2 help people in the 22nd century.There is always a solution.Its going to have to be a long term one.Its not the end of civilastion but the beginning of a new civilastion with less people and plants and animals." . That's just wishful thinking I'm afraid Bob, I can't imagine a single mammal being alive by 2100 let alone a human. This isn't uncommon, historically there's been several extinction events the last great die off was caused by rapid climate change, although it was sizeably slower than this current one were in, in that one 96% of all life on the planet went extinct, the smallest ones tend to fair best, deep sea.. If it follows the last five events, By 2100 the only things left on earth will be microbes, algae, ferns and bacteria for about 5 million years or thereabouts  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We wont all be dead by the end of the century.How will increasing co2 help people in the 22nd century.There is always a solution.Its going to have to be a long term one.Its not the end of civilastion but the beginning of a new civilastion with less people and plants and animals.. That's just wishful thinking I'm afraid Bob, I can't imagine a single mammal being alive by 2100 let alone a human. This isn't uncommon, historically there's been several extinction events the last great die off was caused by rapid climate change, although it was sizeably slower than this current one were in, in that one 96% of all life on the planet went extinct, the smallest ones tend to fair best, deep sea.. If it follows the last five events, By 2100 the only things left on earth will be microbes, algae, ferns and bacteria for about 5 million years or thereabouts "Theres never been an event that left only microbes and and ferns.Species will migrate towards the poles as will humans.Those that cant migrate or adapt quick enough wont survive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We wont all be dead by the end of the century.How will increasing co2 help people in the 22nd century.There is always a solution.Its going to have to be a long term one.Its not the end of civilastion but the beginning of a new civilastion with less people and plants and animals.. That's just wishful thinking I'm afraid Bob, I can't imagine a single mammal being alive by 2100 let alone a human. This isn't uncommon, historically there's been several extinction events the last great die off was caused by rapid climate change, although it was sizeably slower than this current one were in, in that one 96% of all life on the planet went extinct, the smallest ones tend to fair best, deep sea.. If it follows the last five events, By 2100 the only things left on earth will be microbes, algae, ferns and bacteria for about 5 million years or thereabouts Theres never been an event that left only microbes and and ferns.Species will migrate towards the poles as will humans.Those that cant migrate or adapt quick enough wont survive.". There's never been an event of this speed and severity. The Permian Triassic for instance is thought to have occurred over a ten thousand year period, this one will be 50 years long... The exponential change will be enough to kill everything except microbes and bacteria, deep ocean life will probably fair best I suspect but everything on the surface will be toast | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's never been an event of this speed and severity. The Permian Triassic for instance is thought to have occurred over a ten thousand year period, this one will be 50 years long... The exponential change will be enough to kill everything except microbes and bacteria, deep ocean life will probably fair best I suspect but everything on the surface will be toast" Well as we are all fucked lets have a massive orgy and fuck ourselves silly! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's never been an event of this speed and severity. The Permian Triassic for instance is thought to have occurred over a ten thousand year period, this one will be 50 years long... The exponential change will be enough to kill everything except microbes and bacteria, deep ocean life will probably fair best I suspect but everything on the surface will be toast Well as we are all fucked lets have a massive orgy and fuck ourselves silly! "Im off to Hawaii long haul flights and more emissions, but a good time to be had | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's never been an event of this speed and severity. The Permian Triassic for instance is thought to have occurred over a ten thousand year period, this one will be 50 years long... The exponential change will be enough to kill everything except microbes and bacteria, deep ocean life will probably fair best I suspect but everything on the surface will be toast Well as we are all fucked lets have a massive orgy and fuck ourselves silly! ". I'm trying too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's never been an event of this speed and severity. The Permian Triassic for instance is thought to have occurred over a ten thousand year period, this one will be 50 years long... The exponential change will be enough to kill everything except microbes and bacteria, deep ocean life will probably fair best I suspect but everything on the surface will be toast Well as we are all fucked lets have a massive orgy and fuck ourselves silly!
Im off to Hawaii long haul flights and more emissions, but a good time to be had "In your case there are probably less emissions when you are on holiday than when you are at work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3..
#demonjohnsays
Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets.
You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3.
404 page not found.
Funny that..
Well just go to the national centre for atmospheric research website and look at their figures, on their website you'll see they give a good bit of research on the global dimming effects of aerosols... Or just carry on looking at whatever bullshit website you ripped the 10% figure off?.... Either way like I told you first time you said it, your completely wrong"I took the time to wade through that site, and there's nothing there that backs up what you said. Strange. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? .
As a short term solution, it's the best we've got
And INCREASING CO2 is what scientists are telling us to do? Or just what you are telling us?.
Ok decrease it and get the three degree rise that science has shown we'll get!...I mean it doesn't really make much difference, the outcome is the same
Right, so it's just your word for it then? Let's just say I wouldn't base a policy on it. Have you got any kind of qualifications or experience in climate science that means we should take your advice over everyone else's?.
Nobody in here is giving climate policy, were giving opinions, mine are based on science papers that I've read.... Like reducing c02, it sounds good but you'll need to be more accurate on detail if you want me to give it credence, how much, how quickly, how will you do it, what effects will that have, is there a point in limiting it if we're heading over a threshold anyhow... All your doing is parroting a widely held misconception on probabilities
With your incorrect talk about a 3 degree temperature change, you're in no position to try and hold court.
FYI - if we accept your premise that these aerosols are responsible for a 3 degree cooling effect, then you'd know that man made sources only account for 10% of the total.
Therefore if we stopped, the temperature increase would be 0.3, not 3..
#demonjohnsays
Try actually reading something instead of just repeating crap that's completely untrue.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets.
You notice that human made aerosols currently outnumber naturally occurring as it says in paragraph 3.
404 page not found.
Funny that..
Well just go to the national centre for atmospheric research website and look at their figures, on their website you'll see they give a good bit of research on the global dimming effects of aerosols... Or just carry on looking at whatever bullshit website you ripped the 10% figure off?.... Either way like I told you first time you said it, your completely wrong
I took the time to wade through that site, and there's nothing there that backs up what you said.
Strange.". The only thing that's strange is you can't find commonly known climate research data and instead search through bullshit websites and regurgitate nonsense that you've read | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's never been an event of this speed and severity. The Permian Triassic for instance is thought to have occurred over a ten thousand year period, this one will be 50 years long... The exponential change will be enough to kill everything except microbes and bacteria, deep ocean life will probably fair best I suspect but everything on the surface will be toast Well as we are all fucked lets have a massive orgy and fuck ourselves silly!
Im off to Hawaii long haul flights and more emissions, but a good time to be had
In your case there are probably less emissions when you are on holiday than when you are at work."Just retired, no longer create havoc from the control room or outside | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When faced with the unknown almost everybody chooses the known.... Even if it kills them ". Bumping this as nobody seems to get it applies to more than just global warming | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When faced with the unknown almost everybody chooses the known.... Even if it kills them .
Bumping this as nobody seems to get it applies to more than just global warming "I get it.. Human nature, creatures of habit etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When faced with the unknown almost everybody chooses the known.... Even if it kills them .
Bumping this as nobody seems to get it applies to more than just global warming
I get it.. Human nature, creatures of habit etc". It's the frog in the pan of boiling water to an extent combined with humans inbuilt fear of the unknown | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When faced with the unknown almost everybody chooses the known.... Even if it kills them .
Bumping this as nobody seems to get it applies to more than just global warming
I get it.. Human nature, creatures of habit etc.
It's the frog in the pan of boiling water to an extent combined with humans inbuilt fear of the unknown"Well were goung to get a big kick in the arse from climate change. Prince William telling us about over population after bashing out three sprogs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years "To be honest through, it's bullshit comments such as this that turn people away from the whole climate change issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A closer analogy might be giving up smoking, or undergoing a dramatic diet change to avoid diabetes. Both will kill you if left untreated, and both mean you've already done significant damage to yourself already. But there's two options, try and limit further damage and try to undo the existing damage as best you can. Or Just keep going. I'm not a fan of option B, personally. . Or you could read what they actually fucking said today which was whether you give up smoking or sugar is irrelevant, your not going to hit the Paris targets, 1.5... Or 2 I have. I see no reason to join you in just throwing my hands up and going "we're all doomed, innit" It's a dull and useless attitude. . And your solution is.... You just said it before!!. Sticking to a limit that they just said today can't be reached, oh yeah, that's rocket science stuff right there
We should still work towards that limit, we should do all we can to limit further damage.
We probably shouldn't just quit and whine about it..
What!!! Are you serious.
How the fuck do you work towards a limit that's already gone, are being deliberately stupid now?.
Should I take you through the science of c02 lag again or is it pointless as it will not sink into your brain
I am serious.
Let's say you're right.
Let's say we can't hit the 1.5 target, why stop working towards reducing emissions? What possible purpose would that serve?.
I don't say we can't hit 1.5 science says we can't hit 2... Those days are long long gone, the IPCC clearly said in 1989 we have a ten year window to sort this problem out.... We didn't do shit about it, in fact we just increased the output year on year... What did you think would happen?
You're avoiding the question.
Why stop working towards reducing emissions?.
The serious answer?.
Because right now sulphate aerosols are lowering the temperature by around 3 degrees.
As we lower the emissions the temperature will increase rapidly
Are you saying we should INCREASE CO2 emissions? "Yea it makes tango fizzy! i like fizzy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
To be honest through, it's bullshit comments such as this that turn people away from the whole climate change issue"True.. Stop using scare tactics it doesn't work.Stay away from science it's a filthy word for the rest of humanity. Don't mention experts.Keep it simple.Tell them cuddly polar bears will die.Infact a polar cub floating on a chunk of ice in the middle of nowhere is all the mental imagery required to save our mother. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
To be honest through, it's bullshit comments such as this that turn people away from the whole climate change issue
True..
Stop using scare tactics it doesn't work.Stay away from science it's a filthy word for the rest of humanity. Don't mention experts.Keep it simple.Tell them cuddly polar bears will die.Infact a polar cub floating on a chunk of ice in the middle of nowhere is all the mental imagery required to save our mother.
"sounds like a nice rug | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
To be honest through, it's bullshit comments such as this that turn people away from the whole climate change issue
True..
Stop using scare tactics it doesn't work.Stay away from science it's a filthy word for the rest of humanity. Don't mention experts.Keep it simple.Tell them cuddly polar bears will die.Infact a polar cub floating on a chunk of ice in the middle of nowhere is all the mental imagery required to save our mother.
sounds like a nice rug"The cubs can be made into great under wear for those men who like to wear skirts on a winter's day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
To be honest through, it's bullshit comments such as this that turn people away from the whole climate change issue". To be honest though... Who cares wether your "turned away" from science by my comments, if your that easily "turned away" I doubt you were ever going to do anything substantial anyhow!!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years "Perhaps they should bring the ban of petrol and diesel cars forward  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
Perhaps they should bring the ban of petrol and diesel cars forward ". I don't think it would make an actual difference to the outcome, just the timeline to getting there!. Civilisation is a heat engine as Tim garret showed in his 2009 paper!. The vast majority of climate scientists come from an engineering background,I think this gives them a pre programmed method in the idea of "fixing things" or the idea that everything can be fixed. Now if you ask and read the stuff by climate scientists from a biology background there a bit more pessimistic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
Perhaps they should bring the ban of petrol and diesel cars forward .
I don't think it would make an actual difference to the outcome, just the timeline to getting there!.
Civilisation is a heat engine as Tim garret showed in his 2009 paper!.
The vast majority of climate scientists come from an engineering background,I think this gives them a pre programmed method in the idea of "fixing things" or the idea that everything can be fixed.
Now if you ask and read the stuff by climate scientists from a biology background there a bit more pessimistic "I am sure it was on the news this morning saying "we are to late" to prevent global warming | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
Perhaps they should bring the ban of petrol and diesel cars forward .
I don't think it would make an actual difference to the outcome, just the timeline to getting there!.
Civilisation is a heat engine as Tim garret showed in his 2009 paper!.
The vast majority of climate scientists come from an engineering background,I think this gives them a pre programmed method in the idea of "fixing things" or the idea that everything can be fixed.
Now if you ask and read the stuff by climate scientists from a biology background there a bit more pessimistic
I am sure it was on the news this morning saying "we are to late" to prevent global warming". Too late to prevent the 2 degree rise that the Paris accord was meant to ascribe to.... Yes, it was probably never true to begin with. There's an awful lot of politics and dishonesty on climate change from both sides... That's not meant to mean one sides dishonesty is better than the others, one side is basically just lying about facts, the other side is just not being truthful about the outcomes and the solutions!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly "So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear oh dear.... Looks like it's an exponential disaster. Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a civilisation left within 15 years
Perhaps they should bring the ban of petrol and diesel cars forward .
I don't think it would make an actual difference to the outcome, just the timeline to getting there!.
Civilisation is a heat engine as Tim garret showed in his 2009 paper!.
The vast majority of climate scientists come from an engineering background,I think this gives them a pre programmed method in the idea of "fixing things" or the idea that everything can be fixed.
Now if you ask and read the stuff by climate scientists from a biology background there a bit more pessimistic
I am sure it was on the news this morning saying "we are to late" to prevent global warming.
Too late to prevent the 2 degree rise that the Paris accord was meant to ascribe to.... Yes, it was probably never true to begin with.
There's an awful lot of politics and dishonesty on climate change from both sides... That's not meant to mean one sides dishonesty is better than the others, one side is basically just lying about facts, the other side is just not being truthful about the outcomes and the solutions!.
"In the meantime my friends will continue producing oil and I will continue running diesel 4x4's and jetting off on long haul vacations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? ". What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?. There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years. It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
"Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane ". That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees). Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02"So you are denying that climate change is man made? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02
So you are denying that climate change is man made? ". Well errr yes obviously, unless we're talking about anthropogenic climate change which is the bit that's human induced... See that's the difference between clathrates (what I was talking about) and farming produced methane (what you butted in with). What the danger is speeding up vastly the natural climate change by increasing the human induced climate change.... You wimme so far | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02
So you are denying that climate change is man made? .
Well errr yes obviously, unless we're talking about anthropogenic climate change which is the bit that's human induced...
See that's the difference between clathrates (what I was talking about) and farming produced methane (what you butted in with).
What the danger is speeding up vastly the natural climate change by increasing the human induced climate change.... You wimme so far
"Well I think scientific opinion disagrees with you there. By the way, you said "The methane is not getting much mention for a reason." So I mentioned methane, now you're not happy about it. Like I said, funny for a farmer not to want to talk about their role in it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02
So you are denying that climate change is man made? .
Well errr yes obviously, unless we're talking about anthropogenic climate change which is the bit that's human induced...
See that's the difference between clathrates (what I was talking about) and farming produced methane (what you butted in with).
What the danger is speeding up vastly the natural climate change by increasing the human induced climate change.... You wimme so far
Well I think scientific opinion disagrees with you there.
By the way, you said "The methane is not getting much mention for a reason." So I mentioned methane, now you're not happy about it. Like I said, funny for a farmer not to want to talk about their role in it. "... I'm afraid that's exactly how climate change occurs... Unless you think climate was completely stable for the last 2.2 billon years .
Honestly if you don't know anything about the subject just ask | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02
So you are denying that climate change is man made? .
Well errr yes obviously, unless we're talking about anthropogenic climate change which is the bit that's human induced...
See that's the difference between clathrates (what I was talking about) and farming produced methane (what you butted in with).
What the danger is speeding up vastly the natural climate change by increasing the human induced climate change.... You wimme so far
Well I think scientific opinion disagrees with you there.
By the way, you said "The methane is not getting much mention for a reason." So I mentioned methane, now you're not happy about it. Like I said, funny for a farmer not to want to talk about their role in it. ... I'm afraid that's exactly how climate change occurs... Unless you think climate was completely stable for the last 2.2 billon years .
Honestly if you don't know anything about the subject just ask"Ok, well you have previously quoted NASA as an expert in the field. They say "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia." Maybe you should email them and let them know they've got it wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02
So you are denying that climate change is man made? .
Well errr yes obviously, unless we're talking about anthropogenic climate change which is the bit that's human induced...
See that's the difference between clathrates (what I was talking about) and farming produced methane (what you butted in with).
What the danger is speeding up vastly the natural climate change by increasing the human induced climate change.... You wimme so far
Well I think scientific opinion disagrees with you there.
By the way, you said "The methane is not getting much mention for a reason." So I mentioned methane, now you're not happy about it. Like I said, funny for a farmer not to want to talk about their role in it. ... I'm afraid that's exactly how climate change occurs... Unless you think climate was completely stable for the last 2.2 billon years .
Honestly if you don't know anything about the subject just ask
Ok, well you have previously quoted NASA as an expert in the field. They say "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."
Maybe you should email them and let them know they've got it wrong. ". No they've got that warming right, as I said that's anthropogenic (man-made)... So positive feed back loops like I mentioned before, there not man made, their natural climate changing processes brought on by man made warming, hence why you wouldn't call clathrates man made but natural positive feed backs that with prompting by anthropogenic warming can be a nightmare scenario. . Now like I said, if you don't know anything about the science of climate change just ask, but try not to be to an arsehole about it or I won't explain it to you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Record c02 and methane!. The methane is not getting much mention for a reason. Sure where not absolutely positive where the record increase is coming from but.... They have bloody good observations and science to at least say we highly suspect it's from clathrates being thawed!. That of course is a message neither side want to mention because the conversation ends badly
So the farmer doesn't want to talk about farming and methane? .
What's farming got to do what clathrates frozen since the hot House climate being deforested by the already warming we've produced?.
There's approx 14 gigatons of methane frozen this way, just a release of 3-4% is enough to send the climate spiralling back to a hot House it made it before being frozen by nature, this isn't new, it's been known about for decades, studied for decades and verified by observation for 10 years.
It's part of the reason the IPCC stated in 1988 "we have a ten year window to make in roads into the problem before it's too late".
Yeah, no, you're totally right, no link between farming and methane .
That's human produced methane, we at least had the ability to control that, we haven't like but we could have, it's entirely different to clathrates which we knew decades ago was a serious risk with just a small rise ie over 1.5 degrees (hence why the Paris accord was actually 1.5 degrees not 2 degrees).
Conflating the two is like talking about naturally occurring c02 when the subject is anthropogenic c02
So you are denying that climate change is man made? .
Well errr yes obviously, unless we're talking about anthropogenic climate change which is the bit that's human induced...
See that's the difference between clathrates (what I was talking about) and farming produced methane (what you butted in with).
What the danger is speeding up vastly the natural climate change by increasing the human induced climate change.... You wimme so far
Well I think scientific opinion disagrees with you there.
By the way, you said "The methane is not getting much mention for a reason." So I mentioned methane, now you're not happy about it. Like I said, funny for a farmer not to want to talk about their role in it. ... I'm afraid that's exactly how climate change occurs... Unless you think climate was completely stable for the last 2.2 billon years .
Honestly if you don't know anything about the subject just ask
Ok, well you have previously quoted NASA as an expert in the field. They say "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."
Maybe you should email them and let them know they've got it wrong. .
No they've got that warming right, as I said that's anthropogenic (man-made)...
So positive feed back loops like I mentioned before, there not man made, their natural climate changing processes brought on by man made warming, hence why you wouldn't call clathrates man made but natural positive feed backs that with prompting by anthropogenic warming can be a nightmare 'mto 2.
.
Now like I said, if you don't know anything about the science of climate change just ask, but try not to be to an arsehole about it or I won't explain it to you"Right, so it's not man made, it's brought on by man.....
And still no link between farming and methane I presume???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" " . No red diesel is just diesel with a red dye.... And to CLCC ... No it's not man made, it's naturally occurring positive feed backs, the same ones that have changed the climate for 4 billon years, the point being there's no evidence that they would have reoccurred naturally for at least 25,000 years without man made (anthropogenic) warming prompting there early arrival. So like I said originally NOBODY wants to talk about clathrates (nothing to do with fucking farming methane) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
