Global warming cannot be stopped, per UN

[Patented Phil 1,469]

This is why we are going to be focked when computers become sentient.  They’ll fix things.  And it will probably mean shutting us down, whether we like it or not.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

31 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

I do have a fishing buddy who is project manager of carbon capture research for one of the super majors. However, that technology is at best 20-30 years away from even starting and would be 50 years away from working on scale. The reason this is so far away is two reasons.

To pump carbon dioxide back into the earth you have to first convert it into a super critical fluid, this is an extremely energy intensive process when you are talking about needing to compress 8 billion tons of CO2 to reduce the carbon dioxide footprint by 1 part per million. We would need to reduce CO2 by ~200ppm, so we are talking about compressing 1.6 trillion tons.

However, while this is a hurdle we need to overcome it is not the major hurdle. We have the technology to today, they convert CO2 to a supercritical fluid before using that fluid to remove caffeine from coffee. Also, luckily for us, many depleted oil fields where we would inject the carbon dioxide are located in places where we can easily produce an excess of renewable energy: west texas/north dakota for wind, Saudi Arabia/Algeria for solar, etc.

The major technology hurdle we have to overcome is that carbon dioxide only makes up 416 ppm of our atmosphere. We need to pull that very small amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and convert it into a gas that is 100% carbon dioxide prior to converting the CO2 to a super critical fluid. To do this we need to invent a material that only lets CO2 through it and only in a single direction. This material will have to be one we can manufacture at scale and will need to have durability to stand up to industrial processes.  Our materials technology is pretty amazing today, however this new material we need is multiple technology breakthroughs away.

 

Long story short, carbon capture is not the reason I am less pessimistic about MMGW than the majority of people that believe it is happening.

Thanks for that breakdown but it just makes me even more pessimistic. They say 3 billion will be in an unlivable zone due to average daily temperatures by 2070. By 2090 that’s double. And temperatures would still rise from there. The thing about it is, global climate change will speed up and become exponential after we hit a certain “tipping point” that we’ve pretty much already done. Scientists say 2030 but they probably undershot it. Even if it is 2030, we aren’t doing sh1t by then, certainly not on a global scale. Yes I am very deeply pessimistic indeed

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

17 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Thanks for that breakdown but it just makes me even more pessimistic. They say 3 billion will be in an unlivable zone due to average daily temperatures by 2070. By 2090 that’s double. And temperatures would still rise from there. The thing about it is, global climate change will speed up and become exponential after we hit a certain “tipping point” that we’ve pretty much already done. Scientists say 2030 but they probably undershot it. Even if it is 2030, we aren’t doing sh1t by then, certainly not on a global scale. Yes I am very deeply pessimistic indeed

Yes, this is "true" in the sense that you assume people will remain where they are today, however there will need to be major population migrations for GDP reasons, completely unrelated to global warming. The areas most at risk unlivable conditions are south Asia: india, bangledesh, and the middle east.

India is one of the largest risks, however the population decline is expected to start shortly and they are predicted to a third of their population by 2100. Once again, these are driven by factors completely unrelated to MMGW.

Japan, Korea, China, much of europe, etc will need to start importing people or their economies are going to collapse, you need young workers to help support aging populations and some of the most populous countries in the world are not reproducing at a replacement rate. These countries will need immigrants and will not be negatively effected by global warming based on the majority of models.

Africa is the only place in the world where population growth is expected to occur, however they are the big winner in global warming. Historically during every warm period in history the sahara turns from a desert into a habitable grassland with great potential for food growth.

https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/17/the-countries-where-population-is-declining

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024898118

 

TLDR: Population migrations would occur regardless of global warming and population growth is expected where food production is expected to increase.

 

[jerryskids 6,567]

23 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Yes, I believe in data and thermometers.  I know, that makes me a leftist.  Do I believe that 3 days is a timeframe to prove climate change?  Of course not.  Does this all time high prove climate change?  Of course not.

Also I see you got your graph reading skills from Bill Maher.  Hate to break it to you but he wasn't serious when he said everyone will be gay in a few years.

Let's get a few things straight.  One, I've forgotten more science than you've ever known.  I was being facetious with the earth boiling in a few weeks, I thought that was obvious, apparently not.  The Maher thing though is real; I'm actually something of a systems expert within the engineering realm, and without a major change to the system inputs you can't turn that ship around on a dime.  We won't get to 100% gay of course, but it will go up before down.  Not real of course, but that's how people will report.

 Two, I believe the earth is warming and that mankind contributes to it.  Where I differ is how much the impact is, and more importantly, how much the powers that be actually believe it.  As I've said here a thousand times, if they did, we'd be pushing nuclear super hard, and we'd embrace natural gas as a stop gap while we improve.

I 100% believe it is a cult of the Left, with dedication which rivals any God-based religious cult.  It is not about solving a climate problem, it is about flagellating humankind.

16 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Everything. Food supply, fresh water supply, disaster, famine, disease, on and on. I mean are you seriously saying we can completely destroy our own habitat and suffer no significant consequences?

Case and point.  The climate priests have finally hit on a message that is fact-proof and rallies the congregation:  "extreme weather."  That way they avoid that pesky warm/cold dilemma and can attribute any weather to bad climate change.  Drought?  That's climate change.  Rains and flood down the street?  Also climate change, whee!  Too windy, too still, climate change!  Not el nino or la nina, even though they've been around forever.  It's all your fault$#@!  Now eat some bugs and love it!

As a scientist, I would find their concern more credible if they would work in a few benefits, like increased forestation.  I would also believe their concern if they invested more in ways to adapt to warmer temperatures, which are happening whether we change our behaviors or not.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Let's get a few things straight.  One, I've forgotten more science than you've ever known.  I was being facetious with the earth boiling in a few weeks, I thought that was obvious, apparently not.  The Maher thing though is real; I'm actually something of a systems expert within the engineering realm, and without a major change to the system inputs you can't turn that ship around on a dime.  We won't get to 100% gay of course, but it will go up before down.  Not real of course, but that's how people will report.

 Two, I believe the earth is warming and that mankind contributes to it.  Where I differ is how much the impact is, and more importantly, how much the powers that be actually believe it.  As I've said here a thousand times, if they did, we'd be pushing nuclear super hard, and we'd embrace natural gas as a stop gap while we improve.

I 100% believe it is a cult of the Left, with dedication which rivals any God-based religious cult.  It is not about solving a climate problem, it is about flagellating humankind.

Case and point.  The climate priests have finally hit on a message that is fact-proof and rallies the congregation:  "extreme weather."  That way they avoid that pesky warm/cold dilemma and can attribute any weather to bad climate change.  Drought?  That's climate change.  Rains and flood down the street?  Also climate change, whee!  Too windy, too still, climate change!  Not el nino or la nina, even though they've been around forever.  It's all your fault$#@!  Now eat some bugs and love it!

As a scientist, I would find their concern more credible if they would work in a few benefits, like increased forestation.  I would also believe their concern if they invested more in ways to adapt to warmer temperatures, which are happening whether we change our behaviors or not.

What’s the point of highlighting fringe benefits for worldwide devastation? That’d be like having a brochure for Auschwitz touting its positive affect on weight loss

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Weeks of scorching summer heat in North America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere are putting July on track to be Earth’s warmest month on record, the European Union climate monitor said on Thursday, the latest milestone in what is emerging as an extraordinary year for global temperatures.

Last month, the planet experienced its hottest June since records began in 1850. July 6 was its hottest day. And the odds are rising that 2023 will end up displacing 2016 as the hottest year. At the moment, the eight warmest years on the books are the past eight.

“The extreme weather which has affected many millions of people in July is unfortunately the harsh reality of climate change and a foretaste of the future,” Petteri Taalas, the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, said in a statement. “The need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is more urgent than ever before.”

[GutterBoy 2,898]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Let's get a few things straight.  One, I've forgotten more science than you've ever known. 

You tried to explain that a temperature reading is wrong in a Florida waterway using the temperature of your pool.  Stop it.

 

[League Champion 1,896]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

You tried to explain that a temperature reading is wrong in a Florida waterway using the temperature of your pool.  Stop it.

 

STUPID GAS GRILLS 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Weeks of scorching summer heat in North America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere are putting July on track to be Earth’s warmest month on record, the European Union climate monitor said on Thursday, the latest milestone in what is emerging as an extraordinary year for global temperatures.

Last month, the planet experienced its hottest June since records began in 1850. July 6 was its hottest day. And the odds are rising that 2023 will end up displacing 2016 as the hottest year. At the moment, the eight warmest years on the books are the past eight.

“The extreme weather which has affected many millions of people in July is unfortunately the harsh reality of climate change and a foretaste of the future,” Petteri Taalas, the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, said in a statement. “The need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is more urgent than ever before.”

 

Heres a fun fact -

“The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn’t yet warm enough for wine grapes in today’s Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today’s warming is not unprecedented.”

[jerryskids 6,567]

11 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

You tried to explain that a temperature reading is wrong in a Florida waterway using the temperature of your pool.  Stop it.

 

I mistakenly thought it was out in the ocean; if it is a very shallow area with little water movement, I presume it can happen.  And not be indicative of some global catastrophe.

Meanwhile you show a graph which shows a 8 degree difference over 2 days and think that shows a consistent pattern of climate change.

The Left:  "101 degrees on 7/25 is a record, climate change!!!  It's science!"

Also the Left:  "93 degrees on 7/23 is just weather.  It's science.  You Magaturds always conflate weather with climate change."  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I mistakenly thought it was out in the ocean; if it is a very shallow area with little water movement, I presume it can happen.  And not be indicative of some global catastrophe.

Meanwhile you show a graph which shows a 8 degree difference over 2 days and think that shows a consistent pattern of climate change.

The Left:  "101 degrees on 7/25 is a record, climate change!!!  It's science!"

Also the Left:  "93 degrees on 7/23 is just weather.  It's science.  You Magaturds always conflate weather with climate change."  

Mistakenly, ok.  Presume it could happen, whatever dude.

And no, Captain Science, I didn't share the chart as a pattern of climate change, I showed it because you said water can't heat that fast, because your pool.

I specifically said, that 2 days is not a climate change pattern, so cut your BS.  When you lie about what I'm saying, it only discredits yourself.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

20 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Last month, the planet experienced its hottest June since records began in 1850. July 6 was its hottest day. And the odds are rising that 2023 will end up displacing 2016 as the hottest year. At the moment, the eight warmest years on the books are the past eight.

I would expect to see these type articles every 5-10 years for the rest of our lives. The planet is warming up, where we differ is what that means.

[Baker Boy 1,688]

It’s an El Niño year, nobody has mentioned that. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 hour ago, MTSkiBum said:

I would expect to see these type articles every 5-10 years for the rest of our lives. The planet is warming up, where we differ is what that means.

I would submit that it is insane to think that it ends in anything other than calamity (no offense)

[Baker Boy 1,688]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Last month, the planet experienced its hottest June since records began in 1850. July 6 was its hottest day. And the odds are rising that 2023 will end up displacing 2016 as the hottest year. At the moment, the eight warmest years on the books are the past eight.

But the earth is 5 billion years old and it has been hotter and colder. CO2 is not the problem.

The Green New Deal is actually causing an increase in global temperatures. Look at the data, it backs this up. 

[supermike80 1,804]

1 hour ago, MTSkiBum said:

I would expect to see these type articles every 5-10 years for the rest of our lives. The planet is warming up, where we differ is what that means.

Where I differ, consistently, is how we react to it?  STOP focusing on the fossil fuel situation.  Aint ever going to make a dent into it.   We need to focus on adaptation.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

21 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

But the earth is 5 billion years old and it has been hotter and colder.

And? All that really matters is the period since we invented agriculture. That’s 12,000 years ago at most and the planet has never been hotter since 

[Strike 5,186]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

And? All that really matters is the period since we invented agriculture. That’s 12,000 years ago at most and the planet has never been hotter since 

This is a very simplistic view. 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

And? All that really matters is the period since we invented agriculture. That’s 12,000 years ago at most and the planet has never been hotter since 

You don’t want to touch the documented periods where the earth was a lot warmer than it is now or provide any scientific evidence that excess atmospheric carbon has cause climate events in the past. You just want to scream like a raging lunatic cultist leftist. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

You don’t want to touch the documented periods where the earth was a lot warmer than it is now or provide any scientific evidence that excess atmospheric carbon has cause climate events in the past. You just want to scream like a raging lunatic cultist leftist. 

No he doesn't. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

This is a very simplistic view. 

How is that?

I don’t really care if a mastodon could survive during an ice age or if some species could survive 130 degree average temperatures.

We’re talking about modern human society, and that goes back 12,000 years at most. Anything else is irrelevant.

I mean if you want to say hey, sometime in the next 100 million years we’re going to have a significant warming event anyway, alright that might be fair. But what we’re talking about here is in the next few decades. That is the issue

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

How is that?

I don’t really care if a mastodon could survive during an ice age or if some species could survive 130 degree average temperatures.

We’re talking about modern human society, and that goes back 12,000 years at most. Anything else is irrelevant.

I mean if you want to say hey, sometime in the next 100 million years we’re going to have a significant warming event anyway, alright that might be fair. But what we’re talking about here is in the next few decades. That is the issue

Yeah, the history of how the earth, the galaxy, and the universe works is "IRRELEVENT".

Good one. 

[weepaws 3,157]

7 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Yeah, the history of how the earth, the galaxy, and the universe works is "IRRELEVENT".

Good one. 

Liberals are so stupid.  

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, weepaws said:

Liberals are so stupid.  

Agreed. 

[BuckSwope 654]

Earth was hotter 100s of millions of years ago when Pangea was at the equator - proof we aren't influencing Earth's temperature because it was hotter back then!! 

[Baker Boy 1,688]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

And? All that really matters is the period since we invented agriculture. That’s 12,000 years ago at most and the planet has never been hotter since 

I thought you were a fake lawyer, now you’re claiming to be a fake scientist.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

23 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Agreed. 

Glad I could bring you guys together

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I mistakenly thought it was out in the ocean; if it is a very shallow area with little water movement, I presume it can happen.  And not be indicative of some global catastrophe.

Meanwhile you show a graph which shows a 8 degree difference over 2 days and think that shows a consistent pattern of climate change.

The Left:  "101 degrees on 7/25 is a record, climate change!!!  It's science!"

Also the Left:  "93 degrees on 7/23 is just weather.  It's science.  You Magaturds always conflate weather with climate change."  

 

I think you are being a little hard on gutter.

 

Below is the link to the buoy in question, if you scroll down to July 24, you can see the 38 degrees celsius, ie 101, which caused these news articles. However if you go to the most current reading you can see it is reading 29.85 celsius which is 85 degrees fahrenheit. There are no news articles on how the temperature returned to normal so quickly.

This drop in localized sea temperatures happened even though it is still really hot in the Florida.

The waves, wind, and local weather patterns have a large effect on these localized surface warming trends.

https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/realtime2/MNBF1.ocean

[supermike80 1,804]

Cant wait till hurricane SEASON.   Where every hurricane will be blamed on global warming.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

Earth was hotter 100s of millions of years ago when Pangea was at the equator - proof we aren't influencing Earth's temperature because it was hotter back then!! 

You don’t have to be a total hack all the time.  I don’t take you for one of the foam at the mouth leftists but you could at least be honest every once in a while.

“The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn’t yet warm enough for wine grapes in today’s Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today’s warming is not unprecedented.”

 

 

 

 

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I would submit that it is insane to think that it ends in anything other than calamity (no offense)

 

I understand that everyone you turn, that is the headlines. This was evident recently with the study about how the gulf stream collapse study was covered. Every news site was doom and gloom.Take the below article for example.

A crucial system of ocean currents is heading for a collapse that ‘would affect every person on the planet

Then if you scan through the article it has very alarming sentences with extreme confidence, like the below sentence which can be found 3/4 of the way down the article.

 They found “early warning signals” of critical changes in the AMOC, which led them to predict “with high confidence” that it could shut down or collapse as early as 2025 and no later than 2095. The likeliest point of collapse is somewhere between 2039 and 2070, Ditlevsen said.

“It’s really scary,” he told CNN. “This is not something you would lightly put into papers,” he said, adding, “we’re very confident that this is a robust result.”

 

Now compare this to a science journal and this is just the most recent example. However similar coverage of studies can be found in almost all climate stories covered by the major news networks. If you were to read the CNN quote and the live science quote you would assume they were talking about two different studies, but that is not the case. They are both talking about the same study.

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/gulf-stream-current-could-collapse-in-2025-plunging-earth-into-climate-chaos-we-were-actually-bewildered

Quote

Oceanographers and climate experts have said that while the study provides a worrying warning, it comes with some big uncertainties.

"If the statistics are robust and are a correct/relevant way to describe how the actual modern AMOC behaves, and the changes relate (solely) to changes in the AMOC, then this is a very concerning result," David Thornalley, a professor of ocean and climate science at University College London, told Live Science in an email. "But there are some really big unknowns and assumptions that need investigating before we have confidence in this result." 

Other climate scientists have gone so far as to pour cold water on the findings, suggesting it is "wholly unclear" that observed surface temperature evolution of AMOC can be linked to the strength of its circulation. 

"While the mathematics seem expertly done, the physical foundation is extremely shaky: It rests on the assumption that the collapse shown by simplified models correctly describes reality — but we simply do not know, and there is no serious discussion of these simplified models' shortcomings,'' Jochem Marotzke, a professor of climate science and the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, told Live Science in an email. "Hence, while the paper might be a valid 'what if' exercise in time series analysis in a specialized journal, it falls way short of its self-proclaimed goal of estimating the evolution of the circulation solely from observations."

 

 

[BuckSwope 654]

54 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

You don’t have to be a total hack all the time.  I don’t take you for one of the foam at the mouth leftists but you could at least be honest every once in a while.

“The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn’t yet warm enough for wine grapes in today’s Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today’s warming is not unprecedented.”

 

 

 

 

I'm honest most of the time.  Sorry I thought suggestions of it being hotter throughout the Earth's history a little funny.  

[seafoam1 2,803]

The sun will grow and swallow or nearly swallow the Earth. 

You fags worried about using a gas stove will all burn to a crisp along with everyone else if you think you'll live that long. 

Get over it. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

8 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

The sun will grow and swallow or nearly swallow the Earth. 

You fags worried about using a gas stove will all burn to a crisp along with everyone else if you think you'll live that long. 

Get over it. 

Sun doesn't go supernova for another 7 or 8 BILLION years you focking dumb ass.

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Sun doesn't go supernova for another 7 or 8 BILLION years you focking dumb ass.

Yep. And the earth will still be here in the mean time focking dumbass. Thanks for making my point.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

9 hours ago, Patented Phil said:

This is why we are going to be focked when computers become sentient.  They’ll fix things.  And it will probably mean shutting us down, whether we like it or not.

That was the plot of Cleopatra 2525.  A crazed environmentalist named Kreegan built these massive flying droids named Baileys to protect the environment and in the process drove humanity underground.

[thegeneral 2,910]

So we agree that man’s action impact the climate right?

Now it’s just various disagreements on if we should do anything, if there is any point, we should adapt, that this is all over blown, etc? 

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

So we agree that man’s action impact the climate right?

Now it’s just various disagreements on if we should do anything, if there is any point, we should adapt, that this is all over blown, etc? 

I do not think that at all, most posters here do not believe in MMGW. There are only a few of us.

And contrary to what I have been posting with worms, I do believe we should take action.

[thegeneral 2,910]

2 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

I do not think that at all, most posters here do not believe in MMGW. There are only a few of us.

And contrary to what I have been posting with worms, I do believe we should take action.

My perception was most of the arguments went straight to the economics, that we can’t do this alone, our impact is trivial, etc. Essentially the politics of the issue rather than that fossil fuels are a problem. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

My perception was most of the arguments went straight to the economics, that we can’t do this alone, our impact is trivial, etc. Essentially the politics of the issue rather than that fossil fuels are a problem. 

Mostly that is true. There are still a few denialists holding on to yesterday’s propaganda, but not many. At this point it’s some variation of it’ll kill jobs, cost too much, inhibit too much freedom, but China and India will do it even more!, etc etc