Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
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.
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.
I'm not walking anything back. We can't be sure they actually believe their claims, but let's be charitable.
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"?
BeesKnee5 wrote:Do you think Vinnikov had access to more data in 1980 than Walsh in 2016?
Do you think showing 1m KM2 variation matches with today's trend?
What do you think Vinnikov research showed in 1999?
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.
Tell me, what evidence do you have that the research of Vinnikov in 1980 was more accurate than his research in 1999 and 2005?
You are nothing but a fool being spoonfed selected information to keep you blind.
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.
Truth To Power wrote:Don't worry. we'll stop the next Ice Age. Just not with CO2.
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?
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.
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.
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.The Milakovitch cycles do affect the climate but you are missing the point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.Again you miss the point,
You see? Anthropogenic global warming works!
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.
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.
Potemkin wrote:But huge numbers of SJWs are currently on a crusade to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. It's now or never!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.
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.
I've always admired Ayn Rand for one thing above […]
Will protesting resume after the corona virus thre[…]
Seasonality of viruses is discussed a few times i[…]
@late You should know that appeal to authority i[…]