Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
... LastLast
  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    He said the world would reach a point of no return in a decade, which would have been two years ago.
    By many accounts we reached a point of no return. So he may be right. The time to start doing anything about this was a long time ago.

  2. #242
    Dreadlord wunksta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightReveries View Post
    According to David Icke global warming is a lie.
    David Icke is the Alex Jones of the UK. He also claims there are lizard people living among us.
    Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Study touts planting 1 trillion trees as most effective climate change solution

    The cheapest way to halt the effects of climate change could be planting 1 trillion trees, according to a new study.

    The study in the journal Science, first reported by The Associated Press, found that planting trees could be the most effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but cautioned that it would have little effect without a reduction of emissions around the globe.

    “This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution” study co-author Thomas Crowther, an ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, said.

    “It’s certainly a monumental challenge, which is exactly the scale of the problem of climate change,” he added.

    Though, Crowther cautioned, “None of this works without emissions cuts."
    Time to fix the global unemployment rate. *cracks knuckles*

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Michh View Post
    Wow, now this is something I could totally get behind, even if just half of these were planted, according to the article, it would be a big win for everyone. Having grown up in the country in Ms, and now living in the Houston burbs, more trees would be welcome.

    https://apnews.com/8ac33686b64a4fbc991997a72683b1c5
    I have planted 109 trees and counting. My goal is to eventually reach 1000. It won't be fast, but I participate in every possible reforestation event I can

    That is the only thing I do for the environment and I don't have plans to do anything else anytime soon.

    1 billion people times 1000 trees each, and we are sorted

    Spread the word! just go for a few trees at a time. Even if we fail to plant enough trees, at least the areas around us will be greener!
    and the geek shall inherit the earth

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    What to do?
    Don't do anything. Climate models are wrong frequently because they place too much importance on CO2 (a relatively weak greenhouse gas) compared to hundreds of other factors that can change climates. The term "the climate" is ridiculous in and of itself, as if the Earth has one singular climate and not dozens of different regions that are unique to themselves. If warming occurs over the next 100 years, the worst that will happen is the need to change the crops that are grown in equatorial countries while areas like Siberia will actually become more habitable.

  6. #246
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,969
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    By many accounts we reached a point of no return. So he may be right. The time to start doing anything about this was a long time ago.
    What are you claiming can't be returned from? Try to be precise.
    -----------------
    Malthus was wrong - Let's avoid ad hominem - Occam's razor - Hanlon's razor: Never assume malice over lack of knowledge. Life = problem solving. Explanation > Prediction. (Critical)Rationalism, not empiricism. Deduction, not induction/Bayesianism.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by staresun View Post
    This is why this forum has essentially become Americans talking to themselves. No one else would really have the patience to talk someone this stupid.

    For the record in the unlikely event there is someone with a brain reading this, the criticism of climate models is completely valid...if the year were 1988 when that was all we had to go on.

    Since then we've had a multitude of evidence from multiple disciplines such as oceanology, naturalists etc etc as well as climatologists and meteorologists. Climate change has been more comprehensively proven than anything ever. But Jeb here knows better apparently.
    And there are plenty of climatologists and oceanlogists who continue to be skeptical of climate models, not to mention other scientists and economists who from the outside looking in would be skeptical of anything that attempts to localize a phenomenon onto a graph. The myth that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is an immediate existential crisis comes from a bad study called Cooke et al 2013 which looked at online climate research abstracts and attempted to deduce whether they supported or denied the consensus on AGW. This number was then repeated at length in the media by people who have no idea where it came from.

    Google Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg (A European), John Christy, Nir Shaviv, David D. Henderson. All respected in climatology or other scientific disciplines (except Henderson who is an economist) and all are skeptical of climate models.
    Last edited by Knadra; 2019-07-06 at 10:35 PM.

  8. #248
    Dreadlord wunksta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Richard Lindzen
    I just want to highlight this person in particular, as they have claimed there has been no warming since 1997 and no changes in Antarctica ice which is demonstrably false.
    Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    I just want to highlight this person in particular, as they have claimed there has been no warming since 1997 and no changes in Antarctica ice which is demonstrably false.
    Where did he say those things?

  10. #250
    Dreadlord wunksta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Where did he say those things?
    I really shouldn't have to do research for you but here you go
    https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia...s_2148505a.pdf
    Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

  11. #251
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    And there are plenty of climatologists and oceanlogists who continue to be skeptical of climate models, not to mention other scientists and economists who from the outside looking in would be skeptical of anything that attempts to localize a phenomenon onto a graph. The myth that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is an immediate existential crisis comes from a bad study called Cooke et al 2013 which looked at online climate research abstracts and attempted to deduce whether they supported or denied the consensus on AGW. This number was then repeated at length in the media by people who have no idea where it came from.

    Google Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg (A European), John Christy, Nir Shaviv, David D. Henderson. All respected in climatology or other scientific disciplines (except Henderson who is an economist) and all are skeptical of climate models.
    It wouldn't even matter if 100% of scientists agree with each other. Scientist as people don't actually matter at all. It's simply impossible to take predictions such as the future temperature and then convert it into agricultural or economic conclusions. Anything that uses a physics-based output to determine a human-endeavor is pseudoscience, because it would depend on what people choose to do. I've always asked them for their predictive methodology that a third-party could verify, I've never gotten one.
    Last edited by PC2; 2019-07-07 at 05:33 AM.
    -----------------
    Malthus was wrong - Let's avoid ad hominem - Occam's razor - Hanlon's razor: Never assume malice over lack of knowledge. Life = problem solving. Explanation > Prediction. (Critical)Rationalism, not empiricism. Deduction, not induction/Bayesianism.

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    I really shouldn't have to do research for you but here you go
    https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia...s_2148505a.pdf
    You shouldn't have to back up the claims you make? I explicity cited Lindzen in my post for his perfectly legitimate and IPCC-approved criticism of climate models biting off more than they can chew, that doesn't mean I suddenly know everything he has ever said about unrelated particulars like warming levels and Antarctic ice.

    That ppt doesn't seem to contain anything controversial in it. It even contains a widely used CO2 graph that I saw in college. He even admits that CO2 levels are rising and this alone will cause some temperature increases. One of the graphs (both from NASA) shows Arctic sea ice decreasing before returning to level and Antarctic sea ice staying consistent. As for temperature, he says there has been a clear 0.7 C increase over 150 years but localized climates are variable in their average temperatures. I'm not sure how anything in that is supposed to be an indictment of his work or even controversial.

  13. #253
    Dreadlord wunksta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    You shouldn't have to back up the claims you make? I explicity cited Lindzen in my post for his perfectly legitimate and IPCC-approved criticism of climate models biting off more than they can chew, that doesn't mean I suddenly know everything he has ever said about unrelated particulars like warming levels and Antarctic ice.
    How is that unrelated to the topic? You brought these names up, so why would we not assume you are familiar with their work and claims unless you just googled a bunch of names to drop in the thread?

    That ppt doesn't seem to contain anything controversial in it. It even contains a widely used CO2 graph that I saw in college. He even admits that CO2 levels are rising and this alone will cause some temperature increases. One of the graphs (both from NASA) shows Arctic sea ice decreasing before returning to level and Antarctic sea ice staying consistent. As for temperature, he says there has been a clear 0.7 C increase over 150 years but localized climates are variable in their average temperatures. I'm not sure how anything in that is supposed to be an indictment of his work or even controversial.
    "Looking at the above, one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. "
    This is wrong.

    "You have all heard about the arctic sea ice disappearing. Here is what is being spoken of. As you may have heard, nothing of the sort has been happening to Antarctic sea ice..."
    This is wrong.

    If you are going to name drop people, maybe do some research first because Lindzen constantly gets things wrong and is called out for it. He is not a good example of respectable scientists who disagree with climate models.
    Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    How is that unrelated to the topic? You brought these names up, so why would we not assume you are familiar with their work and claims unless you just googled a bunch of names to drop in the thread?

    "Looking at the above, one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. "
    This is wrong.

    "You have all heard about the arctic sea ice disappearing. Here is what is being spoken of. As you may have heard, nothing of the sort has been happening to Antarctic sea ice..."
    This is wrong.

    If you are going to name drop people, maybe do some research first because Lindzen constantly gets things wrong and is called out for it. He is not a good example of respectable scientists who disagree with climate models.
    It is unrelated to the topic because I was talking about climate models, not sea ice levels. I've read Lindzen's articles on climate models which, again, the IPCC has used themselves. I doubt they would acknowledge his criticisms if he was not respected or that he would be a tenured professor of meteorology at MIT if he as not respected. I'm not familiar with all aspects of his research because frankly climatology is not that interesting. What I do find interesting is the idea that a computer can take hundreds of poorly understood variables and compute that onto a graph which now becomes gospel to some people.

    Why are you saying those things are wrong when you have perfectly legitimate graphs in front of you in that powerpoint showing global average temperatures and the area of Antarctic sea ice? If those things are wrong that lies with NASA's measurements when they published those findings.

  15. #255
    Dreadlord wunksta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    It is unrelated to the topic because I was talking about climate models, not sea ice levels.
    Changes in the ice caps and increase in temperature over the decades is absolutely related to the main topic of this thread and used in climate models.

    Why are you saying those things are wrong when you have perfectly legitimate graphs in front of you in that powerpoint showing global average temperatures and the area of Antarctic sea ice? If those things are wrong that lies with NASA's measurements when they published those findings.
    It's omitting data by only using the changes in surface temperature to say that it's not significant. Compare that to the ocean temperature over the past few decades which shows drastic changes. As for antarctic sea ice, here is what NASA says. There's multiple points of data showing that temperature is increasing and having an effect.

    If you are just trying to argue that it's difficult for climate models to claim that agriculture in some areas of the globe will suffer due to changing weather patterns, then sure that's difficult. Increased CO2 isn't the only factor though. Ocean warming can potentially disrupt the ocean current and affect regional weather patterns. Just because it's difficult to predict future outcomes doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. People should prepare for potential climate related problems and we should make an effort to mitigate it if possible.
    Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    What are you claiming can't be returned from? Try to be precise.
    The warming trend. The point when we have enough time to stop CO2 emissions from rising or even lower them.

  17. #257
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,969
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    The warming trend. The point when we have enough time to stop CO2 emissions from rising or even lower them.
    Don't worry we can still stop and lower CO2 emissions in the future.
    -----------------
    Malthus was wrong - Let's avoid ad hominem - Occam's razor - Hanlon's razor: Never assume malice over lack of knowledge. Life = problem solving. Explanation > Prediction. (Critical)Rationalism, not empiricism. Deduction, not induction/Bayesianism.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Don't worry we can still stop and lower CO2 emissions in the future.
    When human numbers are severely diminished.

  19. #259
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,969
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    When human numbers are severely diminished.
    No the population is going up to 8 billion, it could even be up to 9 billion by 2070.
    -----------------
    Malthus was wrong - Let's avoid ad hominem - Occam's razor - Hanlon's razor: Never assume malice over lack of knowledge. Life = problem solving. Explanation > Prediction. (Critical)Rationalism, not empiricism. Deduction, not induction/Bayesianism.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    No the population is going up to 8 billion, it could even be up to 9 billion by 2070.
    Comment












    You.

    I know this. We are not fixing the issue. Things will correct itself once we start dying off in large numbers due to climate changes that fuck with sea levels, exacerbate extinction of important species, and the cause extreme droughts and famines. No tech, or green solution is viable now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •