Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. altmiddle

    altmiddle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “Our research predicts that aridification would emerge over about 20 to 30% of the world’s land surface by the time the global mean temperature change reaches 2C. But two-thirds of the affected regions could avoid significant aridification if warming is limited to 1.5C.”

    So you expect one to believe that .5C makes that much difference? And Carter said we would be out of gas by now to.

    When science becomes politicized, it can no longer be objective.
     
    RichT2705 likes this.
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please, get it through your head.

    Venus is not being touted as a valid comparison to Earth. It is being used as an illustrative example of the science of greenhouse gas and its effect on global temperature.

    If your atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, then your planet will be warm. If you increase the amount of a greenhouse gas in your atmosphere, then your planet will be warmer.

    That's it.
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  3. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, we expect you to listen to scientists when they tell us there are significant differences in the impacts on our planet between a 1.5 C warmer planet and a 2.0 C warmer planet.
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since you have nothing to reply, everything I say stands true, GW idea is a total insanity.
     
  5. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? You won't. How do you know it just isn't you?
     
  6. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Well another poster had claimed that we do actually have expertise in Planetary Climates because we have 3 to study...one of which was Venus, which obviously you and I agree is not a valid comparison to our planet at all.

    So we're back to where I said we were...a species in it's infancy pretending to have expertise in a field of study without any real expertise in said field. We have 0 idea what a normal planetary Climate is for a planet like ours. We see numbers on a graph, (and much like the thermometer in the "sick" patient at 99.0 degrees) we just assume it has to mean something nefarious, and that we have to (or even can) fix it.

    Then we try and toss money at it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  7. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a vast difference between saying that the climates of Venus and Earth are not comparable and saying that we can learn nothing about Earth's climate by studying Venus.

    Venus is a similar size and shape to Earth. And yet it is hundreds of degrees warmer specifically because of the size and composition of its atmosphere (and the fact that it is closer to the Sun, obviously). An atmosphere comprised almost entirely of a greenhouse gas that we are currently emitting at a record pace and the concentration of which is rapidly increasing on a scale that is roughly 50-150x the natural rate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
    iamanonman and Zhivago like this.
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It does.

    People argue against insanity as you do,.

    It is the desirable result of GW/CC cult, because it is insane to argue against insanity.

    Why do people go insane?

    Because they have been brainwashed in schools for 12 years and colleges for another 4 years so, they cannot figure out basic procedure of calculating mean values of different measurements:

    http://www.radford.edu/~biol-web/stats/standarderrorcalc.pdf

    and to see that giving a result of .00C accuracy is already an insanity.

    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...year-on-record.517168/page-26#post-1068509777

    There is absolutely nothing to argue in GW/CC, it all is ignorance, obscurantism, insanity, in each and every move or turn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  9. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    We are?
    What exactly is the normal, defined Natural rate for a planet like ours?

    Water Vapor taxes coming next after you monetize.....errr "solve" the CO2 problem?
     
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Suit yourself. It doesn't lend any more credibility to your contributions so far...
     
  11. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
  12. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but men have been fishing for thousands of years and the fish are still there
    Where is proof that declining fish stocks are not the result of natural variation... where is the controlled experiment?

    Yes indeed. That raises the further question of the cause (s) of global warming
    I was only addressing a comment seemed to dismiss the suggestion of warming itself as laughable
    I am glad you agree that global warming is happening

    Apparently there is a global consensus that the agw hypothesis is a cause for concern
    Of course as with any hypothesis, some people continue to disagree

    Fwiw, it is common for people to be asked to pay for thing they personally disagree with
    I personally do not agree with the hypothesis that Mexico will pay for an expensive border wall, I do not agree that such a wall will turn out to be cost effective, I do not agree that we need massive increases in our nuclear stock arms stockpile, etc etc etc.




    “Normal” is not a scientific concept. Nor is it an objective reality.
    Normal is a subjective concept.. like hot
     
    MrTLegal and Zhivago like this.
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already presented you my evidence, i.e. roughly 400,000 years of ice core data and specifically pointed you to the last time period at which the CO2 concentration rose, naturally, by 80 points.
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  14. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    So what is the natural rate then? Surely with all that ice core data we can toss a number out right?
     
  15. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Get out of the way of what or who. What are you doing about it? Nothing - except a few posts. Like every other algorite - all talk no cattle.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  16. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't heard of one, but since the US isn't getting bilked out of it's resources to the globe over fish stocks, I'm not worrying about it.

    My belief is that there are periods of warming, and periods of cooling. I think the evidence bears out both. What I do not believe is that Man is the culprit. As stated times where Man didn't exist and the temps were higher, CO2 was higher. To me this points to Natural occurances, and normal planetary cycles of climate.

    When there's money in it, sure there will be concern.

    Lets take Turkey for example. They were onboard with the Climate Accords when they knew the US was going to be subsidizing them...once the US pulled out, Turkey now doesn't seem as concerned.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-climatechange-turkey/erdogan-says-u-s-stance-stalls-turkish-ratification-of-paris-climate-deal-idUSKBN19T11R



    Disagree on this. A norm is definitely a scientific concept. Any experiment worth it's salt will make it's comparisons against knowns, or norms to see variation. if you don't have any Norm or accepted baseline....you can't show a deficiency or excess of anything can you?

    Sorry to run back to the analogy again, but Science knows the Human body's "normal" state is approximately 98.6 degrees with some fluctuations.

    This is how we know when the thermometer reads 104 that this person is sick. Normal is not a subjective concept in this type of discussion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  17. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did some napkin math based on the data since the end of the last ice age and got a range of 0.22 - 6.33 per 100 years.

    And note that rate is positive or negative.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  18. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    None of the useful laws of natural sciences, none of the working theories of natural sciences, no invention we use have been ever having any use of evidence, have ever been having any use of proxy data..

    Nobody was sitting there for 400,000 years and measuring.

    It is all guesses, speculations and nobody should be forced to pay for guesses and speculations.
     
  19. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I'll take your word for it. Now why is that alarming? What is the number at which we have a problem?
     
  20. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Astronomy uses proxy data, medicine uses proxy data, geology uses proxy data, physics uses proxy data...literally every single natural science and social science uses proxy data in some form or fashion.

    Even your innane notion of a measurement (a thermometer filled with mercury, for example) is a proxy data point.
     
    iamanonman and Zhivago like this.
  21. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said that is the natural rate. Between 1900 and 2000, we went up 80 points in 100 years. And the rate was going faster in the later half of the century.

    We have a problem now.
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  22. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "HAMBURG (Reuters) - The U.S. decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement means Turkey is less inclined to ratify the deal because the U.S. move jeopardizes compensation promised to developing countries, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday."

    This seems to be the extent to which folks are willing to agree to the deal. The US mostly, promises to pay others based on a model that incentivizes those who invested in the carbon market to collect their codified, legislated annuity for ever. Oh, and third world nations get to use the funds available to improve their economies and infrastructure to, wait for it.... produce ever more CO2 as an outcome of their development. But SHHH>>>>> don't tell anyone...
     
    RichT2705 likes this.
  23. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  24. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I still don't understand why that's a problem? Are we still hovering around .038 ppm for total CO2, which we have no idea how much is man and how much is natural?
     
  25. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Freeman Dyson thinks that our warming up will offer us perhaps more positives than negatives. He also, being a man of science, and for a long ,long time, says the understanding of climate change is not sufficient enough to draw the doom and gloom conclusions. He also says the climate models do not contain enough factors to accurately predict the degree and effects of climate change, and they are being used to do this when being insufficient to do it. He also has an insider understanding of what goes on with these researchers. It ain't what you guys think it is, in other words. You keep what supports the hypothesis and discard what contradicts it.

    If we were really concerned about dooms day climate change, we would be adding flora worldwide to combat rising co2 levels. Since that is not happening what once was a farce is now a fraud. When science cannot tell you how much is man, and how much is natural, forget about it. They lack sufficient understanding to make any prediction, other than the 5 day weather forecasts Seems 5 days is as long as they can go. And yet, we expect climatologists to be accurate over decades, a hundred years? Not possible.
     

Share This Page