Global Warming And Climate Change A serious threat?

[Miktay]

sMASH, Miktay takes the bible literally and the concept that humans can alter the Earth that God created for mankind does not corroborate with his beliefs, that is the reason for his disbelief and denial of climate change and global warming due to man made causes, in his mind it is impossible that man can change the climate that God so perfectly made, so no amount of scientific data will make him "believe" differently, you need to address that first in order to start making sense to him.

Abducted: you are making guesses and assumptions. Where did i say or write anything about the Bible as it relates to AGW?

No evidence or experiments exist to support the catastrophe theory of global warming. Yet you claim that I act on belief. That iz not accurate. In fact its the opposite.

What I am doing iz using the scientific method. The scientific method has validated thousands of theories over the history of mankind. Many principles we now take for granted started as theories and became part of accepted scientific knowledge because they passed the test of skepticism.

Archimedes buoyancy theory, Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newtons laws of motion, Einsteins theory of general relativity all passed through the rigorous vetting of the scientific process.

Now you imply that we should bypass the scientific method for an unproven and untested theory. Why should we make an exception for the catastrophe theory of global warming?

If YOU ask people to believe in spite of an absence of evidence then that iz not science. That iz religion.

The Religion of Man Made Global Warming.

Faith and Logic= Oil and Water

[Miktay]

What u are taking about is ur gyul smiling and moving cool cool with ur bess bredrin. U picking up on some vibes but u ain't want to out ur padnahs jess so. The only way to know if ur gyul will horn yuh is after the fact... when she done ressons it on him.
What I talking about is preventing it from happeing, whether or not it will happen. I ain't want to know I'd throw likelihood high or low or seas slight to moderate. It looking like it might happen, well put things in place to avoid it.. take front REGARDLESS,

Smash: I have no problem with thiz. If you want to spend your time testing or fixing the catastrophe theory of global warming...all the best to you padna.

Let me know what you find.

What are the opportunity costs for either scenario?
If greenhouse cause it and u do nothing then we suffer. If it doesn't cause it and we do nothing, well YOLO.
If it causes it and we suppress it, then we save the earth. If it doesn't cause it and we try but fail, we extend the time we have fossil fuels.

We don't have much to loose by reducing greenhouse gases, but we have much to gain if it is a significant factor.

Thiz whey the global warming debate becomes more tangible.

The United Nation climate models imply that mitigating the effects of man made global warming to reduce global temperatures by 0.3 degree will cost $100 trillion dollars.

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact
Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: ‘We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/stat ... -no-impact

100 Trillion iz an unimaginably large number. Lets put that number into perspective.

The 2016 GDP of sweet T&T iz $21 billion The total nominal GDP of the world iz approx $76 trillion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

The $100 trillion cost of reducing global temperature by 0.3 degree iz more than the combined annual output of every man woman and child on planet Earth.

Now where iz that money going to come from?

[sMASH]

$100,trill. Over what time frame? 50 years, 100 years?
It may cost thst much, but spread over a great time.
It also would not be borne out of tax dollars completely, as many individuals would contribute.
I myself am spending to go solar and reduce my own Co2 emissions. Gonna get more off grid. Also keep plants around to off set the Co2 that is produced, to at least maintain the carbon budget.
Many more communities will go along that lines and way farther.

$100 trillion is a lot, but spread across many different people, and over a great time frame.


There is no such thing as a free lunch. And we accept that.

[matr1x]

If the temp raises by 3 degrees, 100 trillion will be the least of our problems

[Rovin]

so i guess all dem huge glaciers & giant icebergs that around for millions of years suddenly jes ketch ah vaps & feel to melt , same with ocean level rising & d overall temp rising

sounds like something d oil companies & other environmental destroyers wud have ppl believe ...

[Miktay]

$100,trill. Over what time frame? 50 years, 100 years?
It may cost thst much, but spread over a great time.
It also would not be borne out of tax dollars completely, as many individuals would contribute.
I myself am spending to go solar and reduce my own Co2 emissions. Gonna get more off grid. Also keep plants around to off set the Co2 that is produced, to at least maintain the carbon budget.
Many more communities will go along that lines and way farther.

$100 trillion is a lot, but spread across many different people, and over a great time frame.


There is no such thing as a free lunch. And we accept that.

$100 trillion most likely till 2100. That more than 1 trillion per year.

Whomever iz gonna pay for that based on an untested theory has money to burn.

[Miktay]

If the temp raises by 3 degrees, 100 trillion will be the least of our problems

Yuh glasses want cleaning. It’s 0.3 degrees.

[Miktay]

so i guess all dem huge glaciers & giant icebergs that around for millions of years suddenly jes ketch ah vaps & feel to melt , same with ocean level rising & d overall temp rising

sounds like something d oil companies & other environmental destroyers wud have ppl believe ...

Some glaciers recede. Other glaciers expand. Thiz iz the inherent variability and unpredictability of global climate.

If u think all glaciers melt at the same time then u smoking some serious crack.

What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

Are the Antarctic’s ice sheets shrinking or growing? And what does that mean for global sea-level rise?

Those questions are being hotly debated by the world’s climate scientists as global leaders prepare for the UN climate talks in Paris at the end of this month. Now, a new study by a team of NASA climate scientists has sparked controversy by reporting that “Antarctica is actually gaining ice.”

Scientists concluded in the Journal of Glaciology that the loss of glacier mass in Antarctica’s western region is being offset by thickening of glaciers on the continent’s eastern interior, which has experienced increased snowfall. The result: A net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year, according to the report.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... te-change/

[matr1x]

If the temp raises by 3 degrees, 100 trillion will be the least of our problems

Yuh glasses want cleaning. It’s 0.3 degrees.

I know what it said. I should have preface with the fact that the increase could be as high as 3 degrees

[sMASH]

That net gain could be because of increased humidity, not colder temperatures. The increased humidity would be because of hotter temperatures, vaporizing more moisture thsnks before.
The antarctic Temps would remain cold, but cause more freezing cause there is, more to,freeze.

The more pertinent shift is the internationally recognized thawing of arctic ice, so much so, that shipping routes are being planned.

[Miktay]

If the temp raises by 3 degrees, 100 trillion will be the least of our problems

Yuh glasses want cleaning. It’s 0.3 degrees.

I know what it said. I should have preface with the fact that the increase could be as high as 3 degrees

Based on what?

[matr1x]

Some positive loop models throw across this number

[Sundar]

So what does the increase in Co2/CO do to the environment? Since there are less trees and more vehicles burning fossil fuels there has to be an increase in something. Where does it go? Ozone layer?

[Miktay]

That net gain could be because of increased humidity, not colder temperatures. The increased humidity would be because of hotter temperatures, vaporizing more moisture thsnks before.
The antarctic Temps would remain cold, but cause more freezing cause there is, more to,freeze.

The more pertinent shift is the internationally recognized thawing of arctic ice, so much so, that shipping routes are being planned.

Smash: Climate and temperature iz notoriously difficult to predict. Mother nature...like women are unpredictable.

Many are been fooled into believing they know better.

[Miktay]

Some positive loop models throw across this number

English please.

[sMASH]

Hence, I looked at inputs and outputs.

[abducted]

That net gain could be because of increased humidity, not colder temperatures. The increased humidity would be because of hotter temperatures, vaporizing more moisture thsnks before.
The antarctic Temps would remain cold, but cause more freezing cause there is, more to,freeze.

The more pertinent shift is the internationally recognized thawing of arctic ice, so much so, that shipping routes are being planned.

Smash: Climate and temperature iz notoriously difficult to predict. Mother nature...like women are unpredictable.

Many are been fooled into believing they know better.

Climate is different from weather, that ship was stuck due to bad weather, not climate change, what does your bible say about sea ice?

[Miktay]

That net gain could be because of increased humidity, not colder temperatures. The increased humidity would be because of hotter temperatures, vaporizing more moisture thsnks before.
The antarctic Temps would remain cold, but cause more freezing cause there is, more to,freeze.

The more pertinent shift is the internationally recognized thawing of arctic ice, so much so, that shipping routes are being planned.

Smash: Climate and temperature iz notoriously difficult to predict. Mother nature...like women are unpredictable.

Many are been fooled into believing they know better.

Climate is different from weather, that ship was stuck due to bad weather, not climate change, what does your bible say about sea ice?

I ent need to read the bible to know that you are confused...as usual.

Weather iza short term component of climate. A very important one. And if scientists can't even predict the weather with any certainty more than two weeks out...how are they going to make accurate predictions of climate to the year 2100?

To quote Lenoard Nimoy: That iz illogical.

[Miktay]

Hence, I looked at inputs and outputs.

U need to splain what that means....

[sMASH]

What is put in, compared to what is taken out.
We put in the same sunlight but don't let it escape as easily as before

[matr1x]

A mixture of deforestation, increase in carbon footprint and other greenhouse gasses leads to climate change.

Think of it this way. The planet attempts to stabilize the system. Extreme heat countered by very cold. The dramatic swings will make a smooth regulating system not work

[adnj]

Time to bump this thread.

[maj. tom]

The current rainfall represents a tiny fraction the tremendous amount of solar energy that was stored in the Atlantic ocean this season. Energy released through rainfall during a hurricane far exceeds the energy released by the constant wind of even a Cat 5!

As for global warming as the cause? Yes, No? We won't know until 30 or 40 years from now after collecting much more data and compute a definite change in weather patterns. But I don't think we should wait until that day to find alternatives and more efficient sources of energy.

Heard from some old folks that this kind of rain and floods happened about 30 years ago in the late 1980's. And before that in the 1960s. That itself could be a 30 year pattern.

[sMASH]

^^ due to urbanization, the flood waters will have a worse effect, even if it is maintaining that 30 year cycle.

but, even self, the increasing intensity of storms telling u that it have plenty weather. its not going to get better, it will get worse.

so unless u want to go through the same thing 2 to 4 times every year, then u have to change sumting.

[meccalli]

Why is why I keep stressing the need for a focus on adaptation measures rather than greenhouse gas mitigation. The more they sit and bicker and cry about CO2, the less is actually being done to help persons facing the brunt of the actual effects of climate change.

[sMASH]

but the place does be too hot when it hot. we hadda reduce co2 emissions too.

[meccalli]

but the place does be too hot when it hot. we hadda reduce co2 emissions too.

https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopp ... ange-78882
What's remarkable is the fact that climate change is an integral part of earth's history, yet people still think that we're suddenly causing it and can subsequently stop it.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... -12098835/
It's a basic biological concept, you adapt or you die. But it's great that the establishments responsible for making sensible decisions based on science think it's a better option to try to stop a natural phenomenon rather than come up with ways to thrive in unfavourable climatic conditions. We can't stop natural disasters yet we're going to magically control one of the most complex natural phenomenons compounded by multiple physical principles of forcing and feedback systems we have only recently began to scratch the surface of?
http://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/teac ... daptation/
https://phys.org/news/2013-11-diatom-al ... imate.html

[redmanjp]

Why is why I keep stressing the need for a focus on adaptation measures rather than greenhouse gas mitigation. The more they sit and bicker and cry about CO2, the less is actually being done to help persons facing the brunt of the actual effects of climate change.

It's mitigation of HUMAN CAUSED greenhouse gas not natural caused. so reduction of emissions from vehicles, reduction from power plants by energy efficiency from the plant, distribution right down to the consumer, etc. Assuming scientists have done the math, it has been determined that we are worsening the situation (even if there is natural causes as well) and we are reaching (or have reached) a tipping point where afterwards it will be too late to do anything, something like 1 degree C more can cause, for instance the ice caps to melt, which causes a domino effect where there is methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, to be released, heating the planer even more, leading to more melting,etc and causing a vicious cycle that we can never control again.

[redmanjp]

Why is why I keep stressing the need for a focus on adaptation measures rather than greenhouse gas mitigation. The more they sit and bicker and cry about CO2, the less is actually being done to help persons facing the brunt of the actual effects of climate change.

It's mitigation of HUMAN CAUSED greenhouse gas not natural caused. so reduction of emissions from vehicles, reduction from power plants by energy efficiency from the plant, distribution right down to the consumer, etc. Assuming scientists have done the math, it has been determined that we are worsening the situation (even if there is natural causes as well) and we are reaching (or have reached) a tipping point where afterwards it will be too late to do anything, something like 1 degree C more can cause, for instance the ice caps to melt, which causes a domino effect where there is methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, otherwise trapped, to be released, heating the planet even more, leading to more melting, etc and causing a vicious cycle that we can never control again.

yes we have to adapt somewhat (only because we miss d first boat wrt earlier mitigation) but there;s only so much ppl could adapt. what's happens in a hot climate like ours if decades from now the avarage temp increases by 3-5C? EVERYDAY will be what we now consider to be a heat wave

[meccalli]

It's mitigation of HUMAN CAUSED greenhouse gas not natural caused.

Yes, it's called anthropogenic climate change. It's not only the fact that humans are sources of CO2 among other things, but we've have also maimed the capacity for carbon sequestration through deforestation etc.
My entire points rests on the fact that the popular consensus remains that a trace element in our atmospheric composition is solely responsible for the changes in weather over a particular period. Some of the most reputable physicists and qualified climate scientists have continued to be dissenters of that popular consensus. So while we're pouring resources into anyone who can bolster support of demonizing carbon dioxide, scientists who are saying, let's find ways to deal with the inevitable change are being deprived because of it's political nature.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/political-b ... adaptation
And just to throw in some reasonable doubt, are you willing to risk betting the whole stack on CO2? If that doesn't pan out, where are you left without any solid adaptation measures? Pieces of paper and worthless predictions.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... sunclimate
https://www.nap.edu/read/13519/chapter/1
http://sciencenordic.com/oceans-drive-climate-change