[Steve_American]

A Canadian Prepper thinks AGW is a problem.

Biologist Predicts how Civilization Collapses Soon: Guy Mcpherson
234,663 views

Canadian Prepper
Published on Apr 8, 2018
#climatechange #guymcpherson #globalwarming
In this video I interview Guy McPherson a biologist and professor emeritus of the University of Arizona. He currently resides on a homestead in Belize. Dr. Mcpherson believes that the biggest threat facing mankind is global warming, that the threat is being downplayed and that its long past the point of being resolved as a phenomenon called 'runaway climate change' has already been put in motion.

Check out Guy McPhersons Website here
https://guymcpherson.com/

Get a Bug Out Roll Here:
http://www.canadianpreparedness.com/

Get a Bug Out Roll Here:
http://www.canadianpreparedness.com/

Get Silky Saws Here
https://www.canadianpreparedness.com

OFFICIAL FACEBOOK PAGE HERE!
https://www.facebook.com/Canadianprep...


Steve_American says: I think Guy is an alarmist. I hope he is wrong. But, he is on the right track.
We need to go to emergency mode.

[SolarCross]

[Rich]

His predictions have already failed to come true. The Corn price has remained stable.

The biggest problems the world faces is the huge unsupportable expansion of the world's Black African and Muslim populations. Great noble and moral leadership in controlling and reducing world population has been taken by Whites and Japanese people. However notable efforts have been made by non Muslim Indians and South East Asians.

Individual rights are great. I love them. However in a sever crisis individual rights become an unaffordable luxury and people have to be at least partly dealt with as a group. We saw this with White Dixiecrats in the American Civil War, Japanese Americans in WWII, German nationals in Britain in WWII, Catholic communities in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, or Sunni Arabs in Syria and Iraq during their recent civil wars. Sunni Muslim occupants in Myanmar. Many other examples abound.

[Steve_American]

His predictions have already failed to come true. The Corn price has remained stable.

Great. That is a sign that this Guy fellow is being over alarmist.
And, still 97% of climate scientists are calling for humanity to get serious about AGW.
The time to start massive changes to fight AGW is right now.
However, 1st we have to elect Progressive Dems or Greens to all control all the Fed. Gov.; Pres., Senate, and House.
So, we have to wait for 2021.

[One Degree]

Great. That is a sign that this Guy fellow is being over alarmist.
And, still 97% of climate scientists are calling for humanity to get serious about AGW.
The time to start massive changes to fight AGW is right now.
However, 1st we have to elect Progressive Dems or Greens to all control all the Fed. Gov.; Pres., Senate, and House.
So, we have to wait for 2021.

When you think the solution is with Democrats, all you will accomplish is higher taxes with no significant action. They are actually the enemy of change because they divert you to meaningless shit that solves nothing so you think you are actually doing something. This deception diffuses your demand for change.
I have no idea if climate change is a serious problem. I doubt we are capable of doing anything about it if it is. I do know neither political party cares.

[Rancid]

AWG is Jewish lie!

[Sivad]

And, still 97% of climate scientists are calling for humanity to get serious about AGW.

Bogus statistic.

[SolarCross]

We should nuke China to save the environment.

[Truth To Power]

Great. That is a sign that this Guy fellow is being over alarmist.

He is a nincompoop.

And, still 97% of climate scientists are calling for humanity to get serious about AGW.

No they aren't.

The time to start massive changes to fight AGW is right now.

No, because more CO2 and higher global temperatures are beneficial. The only real issue -- rising sea level -- will be neutralized by the Transaqua project.

[Sivad]

Structure of scientific opinion on climate change

A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards — work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

The study’s key findings include:

97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
“There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
“When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
However, “scientists in academia were more likely than those in government or business to believe that global temperatures are likely to rise substantially in the future, and that the consequences will be particularly severe.”

https://journalistsresource.org/studies ... ate-change

[Sivad]

Major Findings

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.” 46% believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”


A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.

A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100111104 ... 23_08.html

[Rancid]

Personally, I think we should release more CO2.

[Sivad]

A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013
http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/CliSci2013.pdf

97% consensus debunked

[Sivad]

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost
surely has a major human-induced component. But
I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because
all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between
what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening,
is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical
excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on
being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements
are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for
which the observational record is so clear, that most
scientists would agree that they are almost surely true
(adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue
to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but
we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society
should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US
midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting
of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion
that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with
global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either
scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility
as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also
are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.
I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in
the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard
the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the
goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their
specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonl ... l4response

Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, known for his early work in internal waves and more recently for research into the effects of ocean circulation on climate.

[Ter]

The only real issue -- rising sea level -- will be neutralized by the Transaqua project.

Please explain how the Transaqua project will neutralise the rising sea levels.
Is it because less river water will reach the sea ?

[Steve_American]

Personally, I think we should release more CO2.

I would bet $500 that you are not a scientist.

I am not a scientist either, however I did almost get a degree in Materials Engineering back in 1970. So, I did study more science than most Americans.

I think this Guy fellow is wrong in that he says there is no hope, I say I hope there is still hope and we must act as if there is. That is, we should start ASAP to do everything possible to avoid the disaster I put forward below.

For those of you who need a summary of Guy's points, I offer this one.
1] Science has proven beyond doubt that Methane and CO2 do block the escape of heat from the earth.
2] Scientists have gotten very creative in finding ways to actually measure past conditions on earth.
. . . a] They measure the air trapped inside bubbles in ice cores. This seems very exact to me. The cores go back 800K years which is 4 advances of the Ice and 4 interglacials.
. . . b] They use the O2 isotope ratio in seashells from ocean bottom cores to estimate past temperatures. This sees more iffy. I don't known how they calibrated this. This goes back many millions of years.
. . . c] Scientists claim they can provide estimates of the CO2 and O2 levels in the air going back many 100s of millions of years.
3] Guy sees the following problems in our future.
. . . a] We have already put enough CO2 into the air to warm the planet beyond 2 deg.C from 1850 levels.
. . . b] This will raise sea levels but he doesn't seem to worry about this very much because we can just move to higher ground. He worries about other things.
. . . c] He thinks that we have or very soon will trigger the release of vast amounts of methane in the arctic in permafrost dirt and in methanehydrates on the seafloor. There is 500G to 5000G tons of methane on the sea floor off Siberia alone. Add in Alaska's and Canada's seafloor and the permafrost and we get way over a total of [being conservative] 1500G to 10,000G tons of methane. Now there is just 5G tons in the air and this is up from about 1.5G tons in 1850.
. . So, you see we are talking about a possible release of 300 to 2000 times more methane than there is now.
. . Methane starts out about 150 times worse than CO2, ton for ton. It decreases fairly rapidly in the air (by reacting with the O2 in the air to form CO2). After 10 years it has dropped to only 90 times worse than CO2.
. . So, it depends a huge amount just how fast the methane is being released. If it is slow it is not so bad, if it is released at a rate of a few Giga tons a year it is a disaster.
4] Guy looks at what will happen on earth for human life if the temp warms 6 deg.C and concludes that this will end civilization. Because food production by growing grain crops will come to a virtual end.
5] When civilization ends he sees 2 huge problems for the survival of the last millions of humans.
. . . a] Global dimming will kick in when we stop burning coal in power plants and stop flying jets around. This is because they release aerosols into the air. This will, he estimates, raise the temp by 2 deg.C in a week or 2. This would release more methane and make it even harder to grow crops.
. . . b] Unless all the unclear powerplants are shut down in a very safe way, it is likely that some of them will meltdown and breech their containment. This would spew tons of radioactive isotopes into the environment which would irradiate those nearby and poison those further away.

6] Once this stage has been reached, much of the methane would continue to be released and slowly converted into CO2. The resulting high levels of CO2 would take many 10s of thousands of years to be removed from the air to let the earth cool off. During this long time all humans would surely die.

[One Degree]

Disregarding science, I must wonder about the wisdom of living on a marble in the middle of a vast coldness and worrying about retaining too mush heat. It would seem the universe will naturally absorb our excess heat. We are not separate from it and are too small to overwhelm its coldness.

[Steve_American]

Disregarding science, I must wonder about the wisdom of living on a marble in the middle of a vast coldness and worrying about retaining too mush heat. It would seem the universe will naturally absorb our excess heat. We are not separate from it and are too small to overwhelm its coldness.

Disregarding science and the difficulty of getting there,
tell it to the dead bacteria on Venus.
Or maybe some still live 100 miles below the surface.

[One Degree]

Disregarding science and the difficulty of getting there,
tell it to the dead bacteria on Venus.
Or maybe some still live 100 miles below the surface.

I don’t understand the bolded part and you seem to have knowledge of Venus I was not aware we had.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Steve_American,

If climate change is real, I want it.

Even if we burned up ALL our fossil fuels at once, right now, it would not yield a "d-day" scenario type hot-house. In fact, most hot-house scenarios of the past with Co2 ppb much higher than our own, were basically paradisaical. Extinctions in climate-change transitions are normal and human migration will be expected, but we will get on quite nicely.

I look forward to my beach-front property here in western Pennsylvania.

For more on this, check out this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174394