Cold kills way more than hot

[flogger]

No, I am afraid the change in temperature and the resulting slowing of the ocean currents will be too rapid for ecosystems that evolved over millions of years to adapt to in only a couple of centuries, leading to a decline in algae, the acidification of the oceans, and a critical loss of sea life. That combined with changing weather patterns creating more severe and longer lasting droughts over formerly arable land will result in global famine. Not to mention the increase in severe weather creating a constant barrage of human catastrophe in the third world.

But I suppose on the bright side most of the suffering will be in third world shithole countries, and it won't be for a few generations down the road, right? Why bother planning for that now?

The current modest temperature rise and rate of change are well within the normal natural norms of recent millennia ...... so no need to do as you are told by the shill MSM and panic

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

 

[vegas giants]

The current modest temperature rise and rate of change are well within the normal natural norms of recent millennia ...... so no need to do as you are told by the shill MSM and panic

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Nasa disagrees

 

[flogger]

The point is that we do not know if recent changes are unusual.

Well as my previous post illustrated we do and they arent

All the rest is just politics

 

[vegas giants]

Well as my previous post illustrated we do and they arent

All the rest is just politics

Except 200 science agencies disagree with you. Lol

 

[lwf]

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence!
We have had extinction events and the past and we have also had some quick climate swings,
what we do not know is if the extinction events were a result of the climate swings, of if other factors that
caused the extinction events also caused the climate swings.

No, you are ignoring the evidence. Severe and rapid climate disruption has caused documented ecosystem collapse in recorded history. This is undisputed. It doesn't matter how the climate disruption comes about. The climate disruption itself is what causes the damage. Whether the disruption is caused by human carelessness or a natural disaster, when the climate changes too rapidly it disrupts interrelated ecosystems and causes extinctions.

This is the fear of global warming. Human behavior is causing a rapid rise in global temperature. This is likely to cause ecosystem disruption, and humans are dependent upon earth's ecosystems. A disruption to the climate is a disruption to human civilization.

 

[lwf]

Almost no one including myself claim that added CO2 has no effect on the climate.
The question is how sensitive is the climate to added CO2, and the answer is highly subjective, and important.
Take the IPCC's most basic statement from the.

The 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 warming from added greenhouse gases is thought to be between 1.0°C to 2.0°C.
The NOAA AGGI shows that the CO2-eq level increased from 315 ppm to 500 ppm in that time frame.
This 1.0°C to 2.0°C range represents a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of between 1.5 °C and 3°C.
A 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of would 1.5 °C make added CO2 of almost no concern, and while a 2XCO2 sensitivity of
3°C might be a concern, it does not look possible.

But the earth is warming rapidly regardless. How much of it is caused by CO2 and how much is caused by other factors is a valid question, but it does not change the fact that we should be worried about the future impact of this, and work to mitigate it wherever possible. Determining where our efforts should best be spent is a good practice, but in the meantime we shouldn't refrain from taking action because we haven't yet reached a consensus on whether it will be more or less effective than another action. We do the best we can with the information we have, and then when more information comes in, we reevaluate and readjust our attention according to the facts in evidence.

 

[longview]

No, you are ignoring the evidence. Severe and rapid climate disruption has caused documented ecosystem collapse in recorded history. This is undisputed. It doesn't matter how the climate disruption comes about. The climate disruption itself is what causes the damage. Whether the disruption is caused by human carelessness or a natural disaster, when the climate changes too rapidly it disrupts interrelated ecosystems and causes extinctions.

This is the fear of global warming. Human behavior is causing a rapid rise in global temperature. This is likely to cause ecosystem disruption, and humans are dependent upon earth's ecosystems. A disruption to the climate is a disruption to human civilization.

When a asteroid strike blocks out the sun, yes that is a climate disruption, but changes in the climate were not the cause.
Same for massive volcanic events.
Have you got a citation that Human CO2 emissions are capable of such an extinction level event?
Basically if we burned all the hydrocarbons available, I think the max CO2 level would be about 2000 ppm,
but that is less than 3 doublings of CO2 away from where we are now.
I suspect if you actually have a citation, it combines a high CO2 sensitivity with a high emission scenario,
and assumes both to be true.

 

[lwf]

When a asteroid strike blocks out the sun, yes that is a climate disruption, but changes in the climate were not the cause.
Same for massive volcanic events.
Have you got a citation that Human CO2 emissions are capable of such an extinction level event?
Basically if we burned all the hydrocarbons available, I think the max CO2 level would be about 2000 ppm,
but that is less than 3 doublings of CO2 away from where we are now.
I suspect if you actually have a citation, it combines a high CO2 sensitivity with a high emission scenario,
and assumes both to be true.

Rapid changes in the climate were indeed the cause of those extinctions. The rapid changes in the climate were themselves caused by the asteroid strike or the volcanic events, but it wasn't falling debris or concussion that caused the extinctions. It was the rapid change in climate and the disruption of the ecosystem.

Now humans are causing the rapid change in climate instead of an asteroid or a volcano.

 

[longview]

But the earth is warming rapidly regardless. How much of it is caused by CO2 and how much is caused by other factors is a valid question, but it does not change the fact that we should be worried about the future impact of this, and work to mitigate it wherever possible. Determining where our efforts should best be spent is a good practice, but in the meantime we shouldn't refrain from taking action because we haven't yet reached a consensus on whether it will be more or less effective than another action. We do the best we can with the information we have, and then when more information comes in, we reevaluate and readjust our attention according to the facts in evidence.

The current plan is not going to impact much in the way of CO2 emissions.
A massive switch to nuclear power, and natural gas power stations, and man made carbon neutral fuels,
would get us very close to net zero emissions, but that does not seem to be the objective.
We need a 44% cut in emissions to reach Net Zero.
Switching all coal power plants to natural gas would produce about a 20% reduction on it's own,
switching to nuclear could perhaps get that to 25%. Changing transport fuels to carbon neutral fuels
would trim another 20% globally. Combined with more efficient housing and other energy savings, Net Zero is within reach.
Wasting money on windmills and battery electric cars, are feel good measures that will accomplish only minimal reductions.

 

[longview]

Rapid changes in the climate were indeed the cause of those extinctions. The rapid changes in the climate were themselves caused by the asteroid strike or the volcanic events, but it wasn't falling debris or concussion that caused the extinctions. It was the rapid change in climate and the disruption of the ecosystem.

Now humans are causing the rapid change in climate instead of an asteroid or a volcano.

A degree warmer in a century is not a rapid change, and our capability to do much more than that is very limited.
We might increase the CO2 level to 700 ppm, but it would take a lot more hydrocarbons than we have already burned.
We simply do not have enough oil and natural gas to change the CO2 level very much, and because CO2 forcing is a doubling effect,
it would be difficult to raise the level of CO2 even if we had to.

 

[lwf]

A degree warmer in a century is not a rapid change, and our capability to do much more than that is very limited.
We might increase the CO2 level to 700 ppm, but it would take a lot more hydrocarbons than we have already burned.
We simply do not have enough oil and natural gas to change the CO2 level very much, and because CO2 forcing is a doubling effect,
it would be difficult to raise the level of CO2 even if we had to.

One degree warmer in a century is an extremely rapid change. Far too fast for gradual adaptation in most ecosystems.

 

[flogger]

No, you are ignoring the evidence. Severe and rapid climate disruption has caused documented ecosystem collapse in recorded history. This is undisputed. It doesn't matter how the climate disruption comes about. The climate disruption itself is what causes the damage. Whether the disruption is caused by human carelessness or a natural disaster, when the climate changes too rapidly it disrupts interrelated ecosystems and causes extinctions.

This is the fear of global warming. Human behavior is causing a rapid rise in global temperature. This is likely to cause ecosystem disruption, and humans are dependent upon earth's ecosystems. A disruption to the climate is a disruption to human civilization.

Have you ever actually read any published peer reviewed study that has ever asserted this or that human activity is the primary cause of the current very modest warming ?

If you have please cite from it where it says so ?

 

[flogger]

One degree warmer in a century is an extremely rapid change. Far too fast for gradual adaptation in most ecosystems.

No it isnt . It has happened dozens of times since the last ice age and often at far greater rates

Who is Ben Gregory and why should we trust his graph ?

You,ll find far better referenced ones here based on actual data and observation

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Stop panicking because thats what the powerful anti human clique that push this crap for their own nefarious ends want you to do.

The climate is doing just fine and is well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia

 

[longview]

One degree warmer in a century is an extremely rapid change. Far too fast for gradual adaptation in most ecosystems.

Rather than some random blogger, how about we look at some of the peer reviewed literature.
Marcott et al 2013

Over the short term (2000 years) the climate is quite noisy, with the normal error bar being ~0.8C.
I know you want to imply that a 1C change in 120 year could wipe out ecosystems, but has it?
We do far more damage with land use changes. As for the ecosystem, the plant hardiness zones have expanded north
by about 100 miles, but that largely has had a positive effect on agriculture.

 

[lwf]

Have you ever actually read any published peer reviewed study that has ever asserted this or that human activity is the primary cause of the current very modest warming ?

If you have please cite from it where it says so ?

Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions​

How does climate change cause extinction?​

Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity​

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/
https://www.earth.com/news/climate-...rn-similar-to-earths-largest-mass-extinction/
https://www.washington.edu/news/201...ing-leaving-ocean-animals-gasping-for-breath/
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change

​

 

[lwf]

No it isnt . It has happened dozens of times since the last ice age and often at far greater rates

Who is Ben Gregory and why should we trust his graph ?

You,ll find far better referenced ones here based on actual data and observation

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Stop panicking because thats what the powerful anti human clique that push this crap for their own nefarious ends want you to do.

The climate is doing just fine and is well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia

You don't trust Ben Gregory, but you trust "John McLean?"

 

[lwf]

Rather than some random blogger, how about we look at some of the peer reviewed literature.
Marcott et al 2013
View attachment 67439876
Over the short term (2000 years) the climate is quite noisy, with the normal error bar being ~0.8C.
I know you want to imply that a 1C change in 120 year could wipe out ecosystems, but has it?
We do far more damage with land use changes. As for the ecosystem, the plant hardiness zones have expanded north
by about 100 miles, but that largely has had a positive effect on agriculture.

Of course it has. Arctic ecosystems are on life support. This isn't even debatable in reputable scientific circles. It is an axiom that drastic global temperature change wipes out ecosystems. Every mass extinction has followed a sudden change in climate.

I don't claim that 1 degree of warming in a century will kill 80% of life on earth. I do claim that drastic temperature change over a short period of time is a major stress on earth's ecosystems, and because ecosystems are symbiotic with one another and interrelated the impact of such a drastic change on human civilization is unpredictable and therefore dangerous. It is the height of irresponsibility to suggest that we don't have anything to worry about simply because "plant hardiness zones will expand north."

 

[longview]

Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions​

How does climate change cause extinction?​

Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity​

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/
https://www.earth.com/news/climate-...rn-similar-to-earths-largest-mass-extinction/
https://www.washington.edu/news/201...ing-leaving-ocean-animals-gasping-for-breath/
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change

​

I tried to tell you that catastrophic predictions are a result of combining high sensitivity with high emission scenarios.
In your first citation, Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions
let's consider what they are assuming.

Our findings predict that a temperature increase of 5.2 °C above the pre-industrial level at present rates of increase would likely result in mass extinction comparable to that of the major Phanerozoic events, even without other, non-climatic anthropogenic impacts.

So how do they arrive at a 5.2 °C of warming?

Nevertheless, global mean temperatures have already risen by ~1 °C since 185038, and the heavy fossil fuel use scenario trajectory of anthropogenic carbon emissions (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, SSP5-8.5) predicts that a temperature increase matching our geologically defined magnitude threshold for mass extinction (i.e. 5.2 °C above the pre-industrial level) would be reached by ~210039.

SSP 8.5 is a CO2 level in year 2100 of 1370 ppm, 950 ppm above the current level.
To get there in the next 77 years, would require an average growth rate of 950/77=12.33 ppm per year.
Since year 2000, the average growth rate has been 2.74 ppm per year.
One can easily see that a prediction based on 4 times the current level of emissions, might have a few errors.
We would have to be building refineries and coal plants, and finding new coal deposits and oil deposits at a crazy
rate to produce 4 times our current emissions.

 

[lwf]

I tried to tell you that catastrophic predictions are a result of combining high sensitivity with high emission scenarios.
In your first citation, Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions
let's consider what they are assuming.

So how do they arrive at a 5.2 °C of warming?

SSP 8.5 is a CO2 level in year 2100 of 1370 ppm, 950 ppm above the current level.
To get there in the next 77 years, would require an average growth rate of 950/77=12.33 ppm per year.
Since year 2000, the average growth rate has been 2.74 ppm per year.
One can easily see that a prediction based on 4 times the current level of emissions, might have a few errors.
We would have to be building refineries and coal plants, and finding new coal deposits and oil deposits at a crazy
rate to produce 4 times our current emissions.

It isn't either-or. There aren't just two possibilities here: Worst case scenario, or everything will be fine. It is a matter of degree. You are quibbling over where on the number line of ecological disaster the world will end up. This is a waste of time. We know that rapid climate change caused by AGW is bad for the planet. Therefore, we should be doing something about this. Arguing over which human activities contribute more and exactly what form this stress will take and how it will propagate through ecosystems may be interesting to you, but in the meantime, let's just make an effort to reduce our impact on the environment wherever we can, and not make excuses for companies who are not because "this one scientist over here who was hired by said company claims they can get a pass because their impact isn't really as bad as some other impacts are."

 

[longview]

It isn't either-or. There aren't just two possibilities here: Worst case scenario, or everything will be fine. It is a matter of degree. You are quibbling over where on the number line of ecological disaster the world will end up. This is a waste of time. We know that rapid climate change caused by AGW is bad for the planet. Therefore, we should be doing something about this. Arguing over which human activities contribute more and exactly what form this stress will take and how it will propagate through ecosystems may be interesting to you, but in the meantime, let's just make an effort to reduce our impact on the environment wherever we can, and not make excuses for companies who are not because "this one scientist over here who was hired by said company claims they can get a pass because their impact isn't really as bad as some other impacts are."

I am arguing that at lower climate sensitivities, (which appear to be correct) the Human capability of emitting CO2
has limits lower than something we should be concerned about.
Energy sustainability and fresh water are far more pressing concerns!

 

[lwf]

I am arguing that at lower climate sensitivities, (which appear to be correct) the Human capability of emitting CO2
has limits lower than something we should be concerned about.
Energy sustainability and fresh water are far more pressing concerns!

All the same, let's work to lower our CO2 emissions anyway, just in case you are wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions​

How does climate change cause extinction?​

Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity​

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/
https://www.earth.com/news/climate-...rn-similar-to-earths-largest-mass-extinction/
https://www.washington.edu/news/201...ing-leaving-ocean-animals-gasping-for-breath/
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change

​

Have you ever thought to quote valid passages of material instead of wasting people's time trying to decipher what is real and not real in agenda driven material?

I'll pass on reading that. I have better things to do than read propaganda. If you think anything is supported and real, by all means, quote some of the material.

 

[longview]

All the same, let's work to lower our CO2 emissions anyway, just in case you are wrong.

We are already lowering CO2 emissions, Emissions in the US are back down to 1992 levels, while our population has grown.
Anyone who is really concerned about CO2 levels should be pushing nuclear power.
Simply converting existing coal plants to natural gas would trim emissions by nearly half of what we need to get
to Net Zero.

 

[lwf]

We are already lowering CO2 emissions, Emissions in the US are back down to 1992 levels, while our population has grown.
Anyone who is really concerned about CO2 levels should be pushing nuclear power.
Simply converting existing coal plants to natural gas would trim emissions by nearly half of what we need to get
to Net Zero.

We seem to be on the right track in that regard then.

https://fortune.com/2023/03/07/firs...-southern-company-splits-first-atoms-georgia/

 

[Lord of Planar]

I find it amazing that so many people focus on the USA, when we are heading the right direction, and would be without the trillions in subsidies.

These AGW cult followers need to focus on the places not doing things right, like China, India, etc.