Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 45 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15059296
jimjam wrote:The heat in the world’s oceans reached a new record level in 2019, showing “irrefutable and accelerating” heating of the planet.

The world’s oceans are the clearest measure of the climate emergency because they absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by the greenhouse gases emitted by fossil fuel burning, forest destruction and other human activities.

The new analysis shows the past five years are the top five warmest years recorded in the ocean and the past 10 years are also the top 10 years on record. The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night.

That is nonsense. There in no climate emergency.
#15059370
Truth To Power wrote:No, it is science. What is really bull$#!+ is claiming that anyone could understand what's happening without comparing it to historical changes in climate.

That is called "spin". Of course present conditions must be examined in context. So maybe it would have been better if I had said "equating" instead of "comparing".

I'm not walking anything back. We can't be sure they actually believe their claims, but let's be charitable.

This is about your statement that "Every informed person is aware that climate changes and always has, so the use of the propaganda term, "climate change denier" merely proves deceitful intent..."
So the claim which you say we can't be sure they believe, is represented by the expression "climate change deniers". You're saying we can't be sure those who use that term actually believe their claim, which is that a "climate change denier" actually denies climate change. That's a ridiculous assertion on the face of it. ARE THE "DENIERS" actually denying climate change, or are they denying it is human-caused? That is a different question, but those are still "deniers". And there is no doubt that people who use the term "climate change deniers" actually believe that's what they are. But I have to give you credit. You are a very good spinner.

If it doesn't mean "change in climate," why use the term, "climate change"? Why not use an accurate term like, "hysterical, anti-scientific, anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda"?

Ah. So you did lose track of the conversation and so have switched from a discussion/argument about "climate change deniers" to one of "climate change". Ok. Let's go that way.

So here's the reality on it: The vast majority of people IN THE WORLD agree with the vast majority of climatologists and related scientists IN THE WORLD who have confirmed by using the scientific method of peer review and independent study, that we are experiencing climate change that is almost certainly caused by human activity of various kinds. There is no hysteria involved in the studies which are entirely scientific. The hysteria is revealed as a characteristic of those who would refer to "anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda". Such wording is most hysterical. The connection of fossil fuels to climate change was documented in 1977 by the Exxon-Mobil Corporation.
#15059386
BeesKnee5 wrote:Do you think Vinnikov had access to more data in 1980 than Walsh in 2016?

No, just access to research funding independent of genuflection to anti-CO2 hysteria.
Do you think showing 1m KM2 variation matches with today's trend?

Cycles have phases, not trends.
What do you think Vinnikov research showed in 1999?

That research funding and publication had become dependent on genuflection to anti-CO2 hysteria.
Image

Models. Hello?
Maybe we should look at Vinnikov 2005 as well. Linear trend shows ice extent falling 320,000km2 per decade from 1972 to 2004. We are currently 613,000km2 lower than 2004 which equates to a fall of 383,000km2 per decade, suggesting the rate of fall is accelerating.

That is just a phase of a cycle, not a linear trend.
Image
Tell me, what evidence do you have that the research of Vinnikov in 1980 was more accurate than his research in 1999 and 2005?

It was conducted before the requirement to genuflect to anti-CO2 hysteria.
You are nothing but a fool being spoonfed selected information to keep you blind.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
#15059389
Potemkin wrote:AGW is real, and it will likely be irreversible, and it will likely have devastating effects on human civilisation. But in the long term, it will probably be a good thing for humanity....

Fossil fuel burning is postponing the next ice age.

Personally, I would rather see London and New York flooded than see the whole of the UK under two miles of ice for the next 100,000 years. Dunno about you.

Don't worry. we'll stop the next Ice Age. Just not with CO2.
#15059411
Truth To Power wrote:Don't worry. we'll stop the next Ice Age. Just not with CO2.

Actually, all we need is CO2. :)

Incidentally, the last interglacial period only lasted about 15,000 years. Our own present interglacial period began about 11,700 years ago. Rather concerning, no? This is why there was a big scare in the 1970s that there would soon be another ice age, which now seems rather absurd. In fact, it's not absurd at all. Anthropogenic global warming is true, and the fact that another ice age is imminent is also true. Hopefully, the AGW will get severe enough to delay the onset of the next stadial.
#15059459
Potemkin wrote:Actually, all we need is CO2. :)

Incidentally, the last interglacial period only lasted about 15,000 years. Our own present interglacial period began about 11,700 years ago. Rather concerning, no?

What is concerning to me is that you seem to actually believe this crap.
#15059465
Potemkin wrote:Actually, all we need is CO2. :)

Incidentally, the last interglacial period only lasted about 15,000 years. Our own present interglacial period began about 11,700 years ago. Rather concerning, no? This is why there was a big scare in the 1970s that there would soon be another ice age, which now seems rather absurd. In fact, it's not absurd at all. Anthropogenic global warming is true, and the fact that another ice age is imminent is also true. Hopefully, the AGW will get severe enough to delay the onset of the next stadial.


This argument is the equivalent of sticking your head in the oven because it might get a bit cold.

We don't need to overheat the planet to stop an ice age, maintaining pre industrial temperatures would be enough.
#15059510
BeesKnee5 wrote:This argument is the equivalent of sticking your head in the oven because it might get a bit cold.

We don't need to overheat the planet to stop an ice age, maintaining pre industrial temperatures would be enough.

That's not true. We are already in an Ice Age, which began about 2.58 million years ago. It is highly unusual for both Poles to be ice-bound; for something like 80% of its existence, the Earth has been ice-free at both Poles. During ice ages, the glaciers periodically advance and retreat, triggered by the Milankovitch cycles. We just happen to be in the tail-end of one of the periodic retreats of the glaciers. But they will come again.

No, keeping CO2 and temperatures at pre-industrial levels is not enough - the Milankovitch cycles will ensure that the glaciers will return, and probably pretty soon. We need to pump that shit out there to push the temperatures up; it's the only way to delay the onset of the ice. Winter is coming. Seriously.
#15059516
Potemkin wrote:That's not true. We are already in an Ice Age, which began about 2.58 million years ago. It is highly unusual for both Poles to be ice-bound; for something like 80% of its existence, the Earth has been ice-free at both Poles. During ice ages, the glaciers periodically advance and retreat, triggered by the Milankovitch cycles. We just happen to be in the tail-end of one of the periodic retreats of the glaciers. But they will come again.

No, keeping CO2 and temperatures at pre-industrial levels is not enough - the Milankovitch cycles will ensure that the glaciers will return, and probably pretty soon. We need to pump that shit out there to push the temperatures up; it's the only way to delay the onset of the ice. Winter is coming. Seriously.
The Milakovitch cycles do affect the climate but you are missing the point.

An ice age requires global temperature to fall, if they stay the same or rise then an ice age cannot occur. The effect of human induced warming is 110% of the actual warming observed, that means that if you remove all our impact temperatures would've fallen by 0.1C.

We don't need to induce 3-4C warming to stop an ice age. Temperatures plunge due to a feedback loop of more ice reflecting more energy. We are heading in the opposite direction, less ice, more heat absorption and lower heat loss.
#15059519
BeesKnee5 wrote:The Milakovitch cycles do affect the climate but you are missing the point.

An ice age requires global temperature to fall, if they stay the same or rise then an ice age cannot occur. The effect of human induced warming is 110% of the actual warming observed, that means that if you remove all our impact temperatures would've fallen by 0.1C.

As I said, we are already in an ice age. The Milankovitch cycles simply determine the periodicity of the advancing and retreating glaciers during that ice age. The drop in temperatures which will trigger another glacial period will occur inevitably due to the Milankovitch cycles. In the normal course of events, absent anthropogenic global warming, this is due to happen quite soon (and by 'quite soon', I mean something on the order of a few thousand years). It is in our interests to prevent this from happening.

We don't need to induce 3-4C warming to stop an ice age.

Actually, we do if we want to beat the Milankovitch cycle. And we're already in an ice age. That's why there are any glaciers at all to advance or retreat.

Temperatures plunge due to a feedback loop of more ice reflecting more energy. We are heading in the opposite direction, less ice, more heat absorption and lower heat loss.

That's exactly my point, and I'm saying that it's a good thing.
#15059524
Potemkin wrote:As I said, we are already in an ice age. The Milankovitch cycles simply determine the periodicity of the advancing and retreating glaciers during that ice age. The drop in temperatures which will trigger another glacial period will occur inevitably due to the Milankovitch cycles. In the normal course of events, absent anthropogenic global warming, this is due to happen quite soon (and by 'quite soon', I mean something on the order of a few thousand years). It is in our interests to prevent this from happening.


Actually, we do if we want to beat the Milankovitch cycle. And we're already in an ice age. That's why there are any glaciers at all to advance or retreat.


That's exactly my point, and I'm saying that it's a good thing.


We are not already in an ice age. Milankovitch cycles determine the solar angle and variability in our summer and winter. Ice ages occur when ice doesn't melt in the summer as much as is frozen in the winter.

Current estimates are that this interglacial has another 30-40,000 years to go and our impact has pushed that out to 100,000 years. As a glacial period lasts 100,000 years it means we have already forced the next ice age to be skipped.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-r ... xt-ice-age
#15059531
BeesKnee5 wrote:We are not already in an ice age. Milankovitch cycles determine the solar angle and variability in our summer and winter. Ice ages occur when ice doesn't melt in the summer as much as is frozen in the winter.

What you call an 'ice age' is merely a glacial period within an ice age. The current ice age began about 2.58 million years ago and is still ongoing.

Current estimates are that this interglacial has another 30-40,000 years to go and our impact has pushed that out to 100,000 years. As a glacial period lasts 100,000 years it means we have already forced the next ice age to be skipped.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-r ... xt-ice-age

You see? Anthropogenic global warming works! :up: :D
#15059536
Potemkin wrote:What you call an 'ice age' is merely a glacial period within an ice age. The current ice age began about 2.58 million years ago and is still ongoing.


You see? Anthropogenic global warming works! :up: :D
Again you miss the point,
We do not need to increase global temperatures by 4C now to delay a glacial period that is 40,000 years away.
#15059537
BeesKnee5 wrote:Again you miss the point,
We do not meet to increase global temperatures by 4C now to delay a glacial period that is 40,000 years away.

But huge numbers of SJWs are currently on a crusade to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. It's now or never! :excited:
#15059544
Potemkin wrote:But huge numbers of SJWs are currently on a crusade to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. It's now or never! :excited:
If we allow global temperatures to increase by 4C in the next century then what happens in 40-50,000 years really isn't going to matter very much for those living within 10 metres of current sea levels.
#15059546
BeesKnee5 wrote:If we allow global temperatures to increase by 4C in the next century then what happens in 40-50,000 years really isn't going to matter very much for those living within 10 metres of current sea levels.

They have legs, haven't they? Why don't they just, you know, walk to higher ground...? :eh:
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 50

DR. DEBORAH BIRX: "we've taken a very liber[…]

Einstein was a mathematician that was raised in t[…]

So how deadly is it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.[…]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.[…]