Cold kills way more than hot

[longview]

I never claimed that there is consensus that human caused global warming will cause mass extinctions. Science can't determine with any degree of certainty what will happen in the future.

There is scientific consensus that significant climate change causes disruptions in the ecosystems of the area which can lead to extinctions. This is established science and we have seen it happen.

So IF human caused global warming causes significant climate change in the future, (and it already has in the arctic) then in that hypothetical scenario it would be reasonable to be worried about subsequent future ecosystem disruptions that might result from this climate change.

So it is reasonable to include this likely scenario on our calculations about our environmental impact going forward. Better safe than sorry.

Yes you kind of did!
In post #103 you had several links to mass extinctions, and then in post# 113,
you defended the statement saying,

To reject the consensus of 99% of scientists in favor of 1% that you know nothing about requires an enormous amount of faith in a handful of people you've never met and an enormous amount of cynicism about the scientific method and the motives of humans in general.

If you think some other or additional scientific consensus exists besides the one spelled out by NASA, then you need to cite a source?

 

[lwf]

No, but the resulting movement when abnormally high will cause extinction level events by excessive volcanic activity.

How would an increase in volcanic activity cause entire species to go extinct?

 

[Glitch]

No, but the resulting movement when abnormally high will cause extinction level events by excessive volcanic activity.

Actually, there is evidence that excessive volcanic activity may have saved species from extinction.

After the last ice-age ended 270 million years ago Pangaea had created the largest desert the planet had ever known. Even with atmospheric CO2 levels in the 250 to 350 ppmV range, temperatures soared to more than double what they are today. This resulted in numerous major extinctions between 270 and 248 million years ago.

Then 248 million years ago the Siberian Traps began erupting for tens of thousands of years. Not only did this result in atmospheric CO2 levels increasing to between 900 and 1,100 ppmV, it also significantly increased the SO2 in the stratosphere, which had a cooling effect on the planet. Combined with the break-up of Pangaea during the Triassic, those Siberian Trap eruptions saved countless number of species from extinction by cooling down the planet.

 

[flogger]

Ha ha. Ok

So if more greening is bad and more desert is bad what is your definition for what is good ..... the collapse of capitalism ?

 

[Glitch]

How would an increase in volcanic activity cause entire species to go extinct?

It is possible. The Toba super volcano eruption between 70,000 and 75,000 years ago reduced the human population to fewer than 15,000 breeding females, according to mitochondrial DNA studies.

https://owlcation.com/stem/Did-Mount-Toba-Eruption-Almost-Wipe-Out-Humans

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

 

[Buzz]

Your Bolded quote,
"Halting global warming would thus require global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to become zero."
At which point does the NET anthropogenic CO2 emissions become ZERO?
Consider that the environmental uptake is ~55% of all emissions, that means the NET becomes ZERO at a 45% reduction!

Do you realize that the "net" in net zero is because man can offset some of our emissions with things like carbon capture and storage? Nobody is counting on the Earth's normal carbon cycle to achieve net zero emissions except you.

You can't show anyone saying that we only need to reduce emissions 45% to get to net zero, can you? None of the definitions of net zero, peer-reviewed papers, or other scientists say this anywhere.

That is because if we actually start lowering emissions then the Earth is going lower its absorption. The fact of the matter is that the Earth doesn't have a set amount that it absorbs. And your assumption that it will stay the same no matter what happens to emissions is just not based on anything other than your wishful thinking.

 

[longview]

Do you realize that the "net" in net zero is because man can offset some of our emissions with things like carbon capture and storage? Nobody is counting on the Earth's normal carbon cycle to achieve net zero emissions except you.

You can't show anyone saying that we only need to reduce emissions 45% to get to net zero, can you? None of the definitions of net zero, peer-reviewed papers, or other scientists say this anywhere.

That is because if we actually start lowering emissions then the Earth is going lower its absorption. The fact of the matter is that the Earth doesn't have a set amount that it absorbs. And your assumption that it will stay the same no matter what happens to emissions is just not based on anything other than your wishful thinking.

Getting Back on Track to Net Zero: Three Critical Priorities for COP27

Delivering on that by 2050 requires cutting emissions by 25‑50 percent by 2030 compared to pre-2019 levels.

Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years

Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans.

This study discusses the other side of the balance sheet the carbon uptake which has been steady at 55%,
leaving 45% of Human emissions not picked up.
What is net zero?

Put simply, net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) that's produced and the amount that's removed from the atmosphere. It can be achieved through a combination of emission reduction and emission removal.

 

[brianpatrick]

So if more greening is bad and more desert is bad what is your definition for what is good ..... the collapse of capitalism ?

More “greening” on its own is not good or bad in all circumstances. For some things it’s good, and some it’s not. My point is that this whole line of questions and answers here miss the point.

That being, the problem with climate change is the “change” part. It has little do do with whether humans can survive wholesale with a few degrees in temperature rise. That is really an utterly ridiculous question to begin with. The question is can we move enough people and infrastructure to the places they need to be and not collapse our whole system? Our businesses, economies, trade routes, and supply lines are all fairly fragile. Small disruptions cause big problems.

I’d prefer capitalism not just collapse, but that we transition to socialism more slowly.

 

[Deuce]

oh my god these people actually think when we talk about the dangers of heating up the world we're talking about ****ing heat stroke.

They're just so goddamned stupid.

 

[brianpatrick]

oh my god these people actually think when we talk about the dangers of heating up the world we're talking about ****ing heat stroke.

They're just so goddamned stupid.

They can’t really believe it. They just can’t. Irl I know some dumb people but they’re not that dumb.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why not? Heat stroke is real and measurable. The cities heat up much more than the global average, due to the land use changes.

 

[brianpatrick]

Why not? Heat stroke is real and measurable. The cities heat up much more than the global average, due to the land use changes.

Ha ha. Excellent!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ha ha. Excellent!

I'm not sure what you are laughing for, heat stroke, heat exhaustion, etc. are no laughing matter. I suspect you are laughing at me.

It makes sense that a rising temperature in a humid area will increase the cases of heat stroke. How real it is, I don't know and don't care. But to make fun of people who believe it increases the cases isn't a wise decision in my book. It is probably true.

 

[brianpatrick]

I'm not sure what you are laughing for, heat stroke, heat exhaustion, etc. are no laughing matter. I suspect you are laughing at me.

It makes sense that a rising temperature in a humid area will increase the cases of heat stroke. How real it is, I don't know and don't care. But to make fun of people who believe it increases the cases isn't a wise decision in my book. It is probably true.

If you really believe that is what this thread is about I can’t help you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you really believe that is what this thread is about I can’t help you.

I know it's not about heat, but the cold. And I agree cold kills more people that heat. I was just responding to a post.

 

[vegas giants]

oh my god these people actually think when we talk about the dangers of heating up the world we're talking about ****ing heat stroke.

They're just so goddamned stupid.

It's hilarious

 

[Lord of Planar]

oh my god these people actually think when we talk about the dangers of heating up the world we're talking about ****ing heat stroke.

They're just so goddamned stupid.

That is what is in the news every time we have heat waves. The common person thinks little of AGW.

 

[flogger]

More “greening” on its own is not good or bad in all circumstances. For some things it’s good, and some it’s not. My point is that this whole line of questions and answers here miss the point.

That being, the problem with climate change is the “change” part. It has little do do with whether humans can survive wholesale with a few degrees in temperature rise. That is really an utterly ridiculous question to begin with. The question is can we move enough people and infrastructure to the places they need to be and not collapse our whole system? Our businesses, economies, trade routes, and supply lines are all fairly fragile. Small disruptions cause big problems.

I’d prefer capitalism not just collapse, but that we transition to socialism more slowly.

Given that for most of the last 10,000 years the planet has been significantly warmer than today I'm sure we'll be just fine

archiv.klimanachrichten.de/temperatures-over-the-past-10000-years/

What is this ideal climate anyway and how would we know when we have reached it given by virtually every real world measurable statistic today the planet is doing great?

 

[brianpatrick]

Given that for most of the last 10,000 years the planet has been significantly warmer than today I'm sure we'll be just fine

View attachment 67440768archiv.klimanachrichten.de/temperatures-over-the-past-10000-years/

Some of us will do great, while others won’t.

What is this ideal climate anyway and how would we know when we have reached it given by virtually every real world measurable statistic today the planet is doing great?

We don’t have an “ideal climate” for humans. We have an ideal climate to maintain our current political, economic, supply chain, business, and real estate systems as they currently are. Changes in climate make for changes in these things. Change and upheaval are bad for business.

The planet will do fine. It doesn’t care about humans.

 

[flogger]

Some of us will do great, while others won’t.

We don’t have an “ideal climate” for humans. We have an ideal climate to maintain our current political, economic, supply chain, business, and real estate systems as they currently are. Changes in climate make for changes in these things. Change and upheaval are bad for business.

The planet will do fine. It doesn’t care about humans.

As I illustrated we easily survived far more dramatic changes in recent millennia without the benefit of modern technology to help us adapt. I expect us to thrive if the WEF elites driving the current anti human catastrophist narratives allow us to

Given too that deaths from climate and weather related events are at an all time low and continue to decline why all the pessimism ..... did Greta get to you ?

 

[longview]

Some of us will do great, while others won’t.

We don’t have an “ideal climate” for humans. We have an ideal climate to maintain our current political, economic, supply chain, business, and real estate systems as they currently are. Changes in climate make for changes in these things. Change and upheaval are bad for business.

The planet will do fine. It doesn’t care about humans.

I think the predictions of catastrophic changes are highly overplayed.
It starts with the range of assumptions used in the simulations, and is then magnified by the media only reporting the
high end of the predictions.
An example is when predicted warming by 2100 is placed by combining a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 3C ,
with an emission scenario like RCP8.5 which requires a 2100 CO2 level of 1370 ppm.
This combination would say it could be 6.7C warmer than the pre 1900 level by 2100,
and that likely would be catastrophic. If we look at a more realistic sensitivity and scenario,
where the CO2 level reaches 726 ppm by 2100, and the 2XCO2 sensitivity is like TCR at 1.7C.
That combination would be 2.33 C of warming by 2100. or a rate about what we have been living through.
P.S. there is no warming tipping point anywhere near our current temperature as the earlier interglacial periods
were several degrees warmer and no tipping point was crossed.

 

[brianpatrick]

I think the predictions of catastrophic changes are highly overplayed.

Ok

It starts with the range of assumptions used in the simulations, and is then magnified by the media only reporting the
high end of the predictions.

No doubt there are some doomsayers in the media.
It goes with their profit model.

An example is when predicted warming by 2100 is placed by combining a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 3C ,
with an emission scenario like RCP8.5 which requires a 2100 CO2 level of 1370 ppm.
This combination would say it could be 6.7C warmer than the pre 1900 level by 2100,
and that likely would be catastrophic. If we look at a more realistic sensitivity and scenario,
where the CO2 level reaches 726 ppm by 2100, and the 2XCO2 sensitivity is like TCR at 1.7C.
That combination would be 2.33 C of warming by 2100. or a rate about what we have been living through.
P.S. there is no warming tipping point anywhere near our current temperature as the earlier interglacial periods
were several degrees warmer and no tipping point was crossed.

That may be true for the planet as a whole, but we are not a single civilization cooperating to help each other out. We are a list of competitive entities, each country seeking to maximize profit, and limit losses.

The models are just models. Scientists don’t know what 2.5f rise would do to the entire system exactly, but they do know some places that are currently habitable will become NOT inhabitable.

The planet will be fine.

 

[longview]

Ok

No doubt there are some doomsayers in the media.
It goes with their profit model.

That may be true for the planet as a whole, but we are not a single civilization cooperating to help each other out. We are a list of competitive entities, each country seeking to maximize profit, and limit losses.

The models are just models. Scientists don’t know what 2.5f rise would do to the entire system exactly, but they do know some places that are currently habitable will become NOT inhabitable.

The planet will be fine.

Actually a 2.5 F rise would not make anyplace uninhabitable that is not already nearly uninhabitable.
The only way to get everyone moving in the same direction is to make that direction the one with the greatest potential and profits. This will happen on it’s own, but governments can slow down the process, by pushing battery electric cars that will do little for lowering emissions or making energy sustainable.

 

[brianpatrick]

Actually a 2.5 F rise would not make anyplace uninhabitable that is not already nearly uninhabitable.
The only way to get everyone moving in the same direction is to make that direction the one with the greatest potential and profits. This will happen on it’s own, but governments can slow down the process, by pushing battery electric cars that will do little for lowering emissions or making energy sustainable.

The effects are cumulative. It’s already too late. We might be able to slow it down, but politically that’s probably impossible. Polar ice is already melting and will continue to do so. It’s going to bring changes and disruption. We don’t have accurate models about exactly what will happen but it won’t really be good for anyone, because even if YOUR house/farm doesn’t get flooded, the guy you get your, eggs, vegetables, soy beans, gasoline, light bulbs, toilet paper, baby formula, natural gas, (pick one) from will be.

Look at the effects the pandemic had on supply chains, finance, everything.

So we may agree on some things just probably not for the same reasons. We need to be focused on being able to move large groups of people and infrastructure around, or acquiring the means and methods to do so.

 

[longview]

The effects are cumulative. It’s already too late. We might be able to slow it down, but politically that’s probably impossible. Polar ice is already melting and will continue to do so. It’s going to bring changes and disruption. We don’t have accurate models about exactly what will happen but it won’t really be good for anyone, because even if YOUR house/farm doesn’t get flooded, the guy you get your, eggs, vegetables, soy beans, gasoline, light bulbs, toilet paper, baby formula, natural gas, (pick one) from will be.

Look at the effects the pandemic had on supply chains, finance, everything.

So we may agree on some things just probably not for the same reasons. We need to be focused on being able to move large groups of people and infrastructure around, or acquiring the means and methods to do so.

Around 1900 two cities in the US were radically raised, Seattle up to 60 feet, and Galveston about 18 feet, with the technology of the day.
The sea level rise is about 1 foot per century, we can keep ahead of the rise in most places.
Also research with the same climate models shows the lag between emissions and maximum warming is about a decade, so there is almost no warming in the pipeline. We are not going to see the massive population shifts that some are concerned with, there will be changes but they will be gradual.