• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Nut dies after lighting himself on fire outside Supreme Court

Too early into the year for Darwin Award candidates?

In all seriousness, we should be talking about climate change and our contribution to that but that avenue is closed when extremism is doing the talking. If one feels the need to set themselves on fire in front of the Supreme Court we already have an issue.

"This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to climate crisis." <-- quote from several sources.

www.nytimes.com

Climate Activist Dies After Setting Himself on Fire at Supreme Court

A friend described the actions of Wynn Bruce, of Boulder, Colo., as “a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to climate crisis.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
www.denverpost.com

Boulder climate activist dies after apparent act of protest outside U.S. Supreme Court on Earth Day

The Boulder man who set himself on fire in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Earth Day apparently acted in protest of inaction on climate change.
www.denverpost.com www.denverpost.com
www.independent.co.uk

Climate activist dies after setting himself on fire outside US Supreme Court

Devout Buddhist Wynn Alan Bruce, 50, appeared to foreshadow his death in 2021 Facebook post
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

No, it was not such an act. It was pure lunacy and did *nothing* to advance the debate.
 
Loulit01 said:
This seems like a joke now but if we continue to ignore climate change it will cause so much grief Mr. Bruce may be remembered as a martyr. Like this guy:

View attachment 67387244
Click to expand...
Just look at all that carbon going up into the atmosphere. The guy should have stuck his head in a bucket of water and drowned himself. That would be the "green" way to go.
 
longview said:
The real danger here is that there is a non scientific undercurrent in this concept of AGW,
that leads people to believe that Human caused global warming will cause Earth to be come uninhabitable.
There is speculation of unknown tipping points, but the reality is that if such a tipping point existed,
we would have never cooled down into any of the glacial periods in the last million years.
Several of the earlier interglacial periods were several degrees C warmer than we are now, without tipping anything.
As for CO2 emissions, The climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is mostly an educated guess.
It benefits no one to spread fear and panic about the future!
Click to expand...

sigh,... 'uninhabitable' is just another way of saying that humanity won't be able to adapt to a new climate (which BTW is a very real scientific possibility) given an interaction of factors

Existential-Threat-Venn-Diagram.png


New Climate Risk Classification Created to Account for Potential "Existential" Threats

A new study evaluating models of future climate scenarios has led to the creation of the new risk categories “catastrophic” and “unknown” to characterize the range of threats posed by rapid global warming. Researchers propose that unknown risks imply existential threats to the survival of humanity.
scripps.ucsd.edu scripps.ucsd.edu
 
PoS said:
The only one who displays antisocial behavior is you and your incessant trolling, so congrats on making an ironic post again.
Click to expand...

Sure, calling out abrasive right-wingers (mostly wannabe right-libertarians) explicitly saying that they want more "filthy leftists" to kill themselves, which is antisocial behavior, is antisocial behavior. T**** didn't start the 'post-truth' thing, but you're splashing in it with word/meaning abuse, and your climate science denial threads. By the way, the climate science denial crowd has mostly moved on to climate solutions denial commentary. When you (specifically) have nothing else, you just fall back on "You are!" combined with the weak conservative strategy of trying to put people on the defensive. Don't worry, you fit in well at DP. This place is a waste.

Note: This scathing comment has nothing to do with you personally; just your commentary, which is mostly right-libertarian nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Germinator said:
sigh,... 'uninhabitable' is just another way of saying that humanity won't be able to adapt to a new climate (which BTW is a very real scientific possibility) given an interaction of factors

Existential-Threat-Venn-Diagram.png


New Climate Risk Classification Created to Account for Potential "Existential" Threats

A new study evaluating models of future climate scenarios has led to the creation of the new risk categories “catastrophic” and “unknown” to characterize the range of threats posed by rapid global warming. Researchers propose that unknown risks imply existential threats to the survival of humanity.
scripps.ucsd.edu scripps.ucsd.edu
Click to expand...
I am familiar with hypothetical studies like this one.
if you read very far into the article, you understand the basis.
A temperature increase greater than 3°C (5.4°F) could lead to what the researchers term “catastrophic” effects, and an increase greater than 5°C (9°F) could lead to “unknown” consequences which they describe as beyond catastrophic including potentially existential threats. The specter of existential threats is raised to reflect the grave risks to human health and species extinction from warming beyond 5°C, which has not been experienced for at least the past 20 million years.
Click to expand...
Now let's discuss the possibilities of say a 3°C " increase from what they were before the Industrial Revolution."
The discussion starts with, how is the pre industrial temperature defined?
Most use the average instrument record before 1900.
The IPCC says that by 2020 the average temperature was 1.07°C above the preindustrial level.
Of that 1.07°C, in the modified HadCrut5 data set 0.31°C was pre 1950 warming considered natural.
So we have 0.76°C of warming from unknown sources, While the NOAA AGGI says the index increased from 280 ppm
to 504 ppm. That alone would tell us that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 would be,
0.76°C/ ln (504/280)=1.2929. so 1.2929 X ln(2) = 0.89°C.
But it is not that simple, the climate has a 10 year lag between emissions and maximum warming, so we have to evaluate
the 1.07°C based on emissions up to 2010, less any forcing warming between 2010 and 2020.
In 2010 the AGGI was 469 ppm, so the forcing warming between 2010 and 2020 is 5.35 X ln(504/469) X .3=0.115°C,
This would make the sensitivity 1.07°C - 0.115°C= 0.955°C/ln(460/280)= 1.9237, so 1.9237 X ln(2)=1.33°C.
Under a climate sensitivity of the high end of what we have observed so far, CO2 levels would need to be at ~1330 ppm
to achieve warming of 3°C above the pre industrial level.
To put this in perspective, that is 884 ppm above where we are now, and it has taken us 140 years of unregulated
CO2 emissions to increase the level by 136 ppm.
 
Classy thread, brought to you by the guy who thought leaving a leaflet in a windshield and minor vandalism is "terrorism".
 
Mr Person said:
Classy thread, brought to you by the guy who thought leaving a leaflet in a windshield and minor vandalism is "terrorism".
Click to expand...
What a lie. I never claimed in the previous thread that vandalism was terrorism. It's obvious you must resort to falsehoods in order to continue your moronic pro-criminal propaganda.
 
Glitch said:
If we could only get more leftist nutjobs to self-immolate this would be a much safer and far better planet. I fully support his actions and sincerely hope that more leftist filth follow his very fine example.
Click to expand...
And a nice day to you too, sir.
 
longview said:
I am familiar with hypothetical studies like this one.
if you read very far into the article, you understand the basis.

Now let's discuss the possibilities of say a 3°C " increase from what they were before the Industrial Revolution."
The discussion starts with, how is the pre industrial temperature defined?
Most use the average instrument record before 1900.
The IPCC says that by 2020 the average temperature was 1.07°C above the preindustrial level.
Of that 1.07°C, in the modified HadCrut5 data set 0.31°C was pre 1950 warming considered natural.
So we have 0.76°C of warming from unknown sources, While the NOAA AGGI says the index increased from 280 ppm
to 504 ppm. That alone would tell us that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 would be,
0.76°C/ ln (504/280)=1.2929. so 1.2929 X ln(2) = 0.89°C.
But it is not that simple, the climate has a 10 year lag between emissions and maximum warming, so we have to evaluate
the 1.07°C based on emissions up to 2010, less any forcing warming between 2010 and 2020.
In 2010 the AGGI was 469 ppm, so the forcing warming between 2010 and 2020 is 5.35 X ln(504/469) X .3=0.115°C,
This would make the sensitivity 1.07°C - 0.115°C= 0.955°C/ln(460/280)= 1.9237, so 1.9237 X ln(2)=1.33°C.
Under a climate sensitivity of the high end of what we have observed so far, CO2 levels would need to be at ~1330 ppm
to achieve warming of 3°C above the pre industrial level.
To put this in perspective, that is 884 ppm above where we are now, and it has taken us 140 years of unregulated
CO2 emissions to increase the level by 136 ppm.
Click to expand...


sigh,... real life actually gets lots, lots, lots more complicated,... given various nonlinear feedback loops

(for example) a simple nonlinear feedback I learned about decades ago WRT to climate change involving aerosols (is best understood as an illustration)


Man-made-climate-change-skeptics-blind-deaf-and-mute-about-feedback-loops.png



and this in turn generates knock on effects in the economic and political realms


Existential-Threat-Venn-Diagram.png



sadly as Einstein is said to have pointed out,... "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."


 
Germinator said:
sigh,... real life actually gets lots, lots, lots more complicated,... given various nonlinear feedback loops

(for example) a simple nonlinear feedback I learned about decades ago WRT to climate change involving aerosols (is best understood as an illustration)


Man-made-climate-change-skeptics-blind-deaf-and-mute-about-feedback-loops.png



and this in turn generates knock on effects in the economic and political realms
Click to expand...
The problem with that concept is that there are both positive and negative feedbacks, the net is weak positive feedback.
Consider that in your diagram the feedbacks are responding to warming, any warming, they cannot tell the difference between natural warming and man made warming, so any past warming would have to produce the same feedbacks as predicted. This means the the 2XCO2 forcing warming of 1.1C would require a feedback factor of 2.72 to become 2XCO2 warming of 3C.
If we look at the instrument temperature record,
There are no consistent feedback factors more than about 1.5, so doubling the CO2 level would produce total warming of about 1.65C.
This matches observed warming so far observed.
 
longview said:
The problem with that concept is that there are both positive and negative feedbacks, the net is weak positive feedback.
Consider that in your diagram the feedbacks are responding to warming, any warming, they cannot tell the difference between natural warming and man made warming, so any past warming would have to produce the same feedbacks as predicted. This means the the 2XCO2 forcing warming of 1.1C would require a feedback factor of 2.72 to become 2XCO2 warming of 3C.
If we look at the instrument temperature record,
There are no consistent feedback factors more than about 1.5, so doubling the CO2 level would produce total warming of about 1.65C.
This matches observed warming so far observed.
Click to expand...

the net is a 'weak' positive feed back???

looking at geological time, what has happen (so far) is akin to a blink of an eye (in a human lifetime)

one of the tells (of man made climate change) I was told decades ago was to be on the look out for increased water vapor,... looking at the data this box is check off

and going forward sadly the physics tells me the feed backs are only going to grow more intense

water-vapor-trend-map.png

FWIW looking at system models (over the years) another problem has come true,... basically demand has exceeded supply in the south western United States

www.12news.com/article/news/regional/scorched-earth/arizona-water-crisis-cutoff-drinking-water-supply-lake-powell-page/75-c2f25f52-bbdc-4adb-a427-3412ab90d84f

water-is-just-like-CO2-in-the-atmosphere.png
 
Germinator said:
the net is a 'weak' positive feed back???

looking at geological time, what has happen (so far) is akin to a blink of an eye (in a human lifetime)

one of the tells (of man made climate change) I was told decades ago was to be on the look out for increased water vapor,... looking at the data this box is check off

and going forward sadly the physics tells me the feed backs are only going to grow more intense

View attachment 67388380

FWIW looking at system models (over the years) another problem has come true,... basically demand has exceeded supply in the south western United States

www.12news.com/article/news/regional/scorched-earth/arizona-water-crisis-cutoff-drinking-water-supply-lake-powell-page/75-c2f25f52-bbdc-4adb-a427-3412ab90d84f

water-is-just-like-CO2-in-the-atmosphere.png
Click to expand...
You are arguing IF man made global warming exists, which is not a point in contention.
I am saying YES man made global warming exists, but the sensitivity is much lower than the simulations predicted.
 
longview said:
You are arguing IF man made global warming exists, which is not a point in contention.
I am saying YES man made global warming exists, but the sensitivity is much lower than the simulations predicted.
Click to expand...

jury IMHO is still out on that issue,... the prof that introduced me to the topic (as an undergrad) is known for among other things a quote in scientific paper

"Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

anyway since I double majored as an undergrad was also introduced to other ways of looking at the the issue,... not just the 'math' AND 'physics' of climate change but also the 'PoliSci' and 'economics' of the issue,...

basically in my mind, the political and economic problems humanity is seeing now is due to the boundary conditions

on-a-finite-planet-1-of-2.png


or looked at another way

on-a-finite-planet-2-of-2.png
 
Germinator said:
jury IMHO is still out on that issue,... the prof that introduced me to the topic (as an undergrad) is known for among other things a quote in scientific paper

"Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

anyway since I double majored as an undergrad was also introduced to other ways of looking at the the issue,... not just the 'math' AND 'physics' of climate change but also the 'PoliSci' and 'economics' of the issue,...

basically in my mind, the political and economic problems humanity is seeing now is due to the boundary conditions

on-a-finite-planet-1-of-2.png


or looked at another way

on-a-finite-planet-2-of-2.png
Click to expand...
Except that we do not have sufficient fossil fuels to move the global warming needle much, and certainly not enough to make Earth uninhabitable.
We do need a path to a sustainable energy future, but the current focus on CO2 emissions is not helping up to our goals.
The long pole in the tent is energy storage, without high density energy storage, with a long shelve life, we cannot get to a sustainable energy future. Thankfully nature has perfected a nearly perfect energy storage methodology, hydrocarbons!
 
longview said:
Now let's discuss the possibilities of say a 3°C " increase from what they were before the Industrial Revolution."

The discussion starts with, how is the pre industrial temperature defined?
Most use the average instrument record before 1900.
The IPCC says that by 2020 the average temperature was 1.07°C above the preindustrial level.
Of that 1.07°C, in the modified HadCrut5 data set 0.31°C was pre 1950 warming considered natural.
So we have 0.76°C of warming from unknown sources, While the NOAA AGGI says the index increased from 280 ppm
to 504 ppm. That alone would tell us that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 would be,
0.76°C/ ln (504/280)=1.2929. so 1.2929 X ln(2) = 0.89°C.
But it is not that simple, the climate has a 10 year lag between emissions and maximum warming, so we have to evaluate
the 1.07°C based on emissions up to 2010, less any forcing warming between 2010 and 2020.
In 2010 the AGGI was 469 ppm, so the forcing warming between 2010 and 2020 is 5.35 X ln(504/469) X .3=0.115°C,
This would make the sensitivity 1.07°C - 0.115°C= 0.955°C/ln(460/280)= 1.9237, so 1.9237 X ln(2)=1.33°C.
Under a climate sensitivity of the high end of what we have observed so far, CO2 levels would need to be at ~1330 ppm
to achieve warming of 3°C above the pre industrial level.
To put this in perspective, that is 884 ppm above where we are now, and it has taken us 140 years of unregulated
CO2 emissions to increase the level by 136 ppm.
Click to expand...
Warning
Not only is this statement full of falsehoods, bad math, and bad comparisons... it also completely ignores the man-made cooling effects of aerosols that if properly accounted for would show that the Earth's sensitivity to increasing amounts of GHGs is much higher than what longview wants to admit. And that is why the vast majority of climate science says that 3.0C is the likely best estimate of the earth's sensitivity to increases in GHG.
 
Buzz said:
Warning
Not only is this statement full of falsehoods, bad math, and bad comparisons... it also completely ignores the man-made cooling effects of aerosols that if properly accounted for would show that the Earth's sensitivity to increasing amounts of GHGs is much higher than what longview wants to admit. And that is why the vast majority of climate science says that 3.0C is the likely best estimate of the earth's sensitivity to increases in GHG.
Click to expand...
And that Buzz cannot invalidate with math!
 
longview said:
And that Buzz cannot invalidate with math!
Click to expand...
Actually, I can. And that math is discussed and referenced in the IPCC reports. I have cited it many times.

And math isn't the only method that can be used to invalidate long's denialist lies and misinformation. It doesn't take math to point out that long's ignoring of man-made aerosols is an invalidating factor when discussing climate sensitivities. Or the fact that long's calculations use NOAA's AGGI measurements of 1700 to 1750 when his calculations assume it is from 1950. Or the fact that his 10-year lag BS is not supported by any real climate scientists that he can cite.

When are you going to quit lying about the science of climate change??
 
Buzz said:
Actually, I can. And that math is discussed and referenced in the IPCC reports. I have cited it many times.

And math isn't the only method that can be used to invalidate long's denialist lies and misinformation. It doesn't take math to point out that long's ignoring of man-made aerosols is an invalidating factor when discussing climate sensitivities. Or the fact that long's calculations use NOAA's AGGI measurements of 1700 to 1750 when his calculations assume it is from 1950. Or the fact that his 10-year lag BS is not supported by any real climate scientists that he can cite.

When are you going to quit lying about the science of climate change??
Click to expand...
I cannot help but notice that while you claim the math is in the IPCC report, you did not cite and quote the report.
IPCC AR6 SPM
A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface
temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.
Click to expand...
So the 1.07C already included cooling from aerosols.
As for the AGGI, where do I assume 1950? I have used 1950 for other calculations, just not this one.
You may have a point about the AGGI covering more than the instrument record, But let's rerun the same calculation with the AGGI's 1850 level.
NOAA AGGI figure 4 is a graph, but the AGGI level in 1850 looks very close to 290 ppm.
The unknown warming of 0.76°C/ln (504/290) = 1.375. 1.375 X ln(2) =0.95C.

Also about the 10 year lag between CO2 emissions and maximum warming, you know there are two unrefuted studies on this topic.
The first made the finding and the second attempted to refute it but came to the same finding,
For Human size emissions, the lag between emission and maximum warming is about 10 years.
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
Note both studies are by real climate scientist, and published in peer reviewed journals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom