A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us.
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Whatever you need to think so you can keep living a carbon burning life yet grandstand like you care.
It’s like saying this “ some of you think if half the people thst committed murder didnt the murder rate would drop in half “
The old go to BS line that justifies you doing nothing to lower your carbon emissions.
Here's an interesting - if that's the right word - interactive atlas that lets you look at all kinds of different scenarios. The link to the atlas is in the article as well as the directions on how to navigate it but you can display regions of the world and get all kinds of projected info for different conditions. There's a learning curve to the navigation. None of the news is good, of course, unless you're incredibly optimistic or just don't believe global warming is an actual thing..
Anyone wanna guess what happens when CO2 levels are higher AND the sun returns to a more baseline/higher level of activity?
It's been declining in output since the 1950s, and temperatures are rocketing in the opposite direction.
It's been declining in output since the 1950s, and temperatures are rocketing in the opposite direction.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
woodfortrees.org
Wow...you think coal plants are the only source for CO2. That's pretty amazing.. Maybe you should change that nickname - onlyTheOblivious. Has a nice ring and has the benefit of being accurate.
🤣😂🤣😂
Your turn, genius. Anyone who doesn't live their life based on "projected info" is a fvckin' moran.
Oh, I make projections all the time. I don't lie and call them science though.
The two maps below show the change in very hot days (above 35°C, or 95 degrees Fahrenheit). The one on top is a world where we cut carbon emissions relatively quickly, and the one below shows a high-emissions scenario. The darker the red, the more hot days.
(edit - if the graphic isn't showing, go here and scroll down)
So even if we accomplished what we won't accomplish, the Earth will continue to warm for the rest of our lives and into the lives of our children. That's simply fact. The atmosphere will take decades to reach an equilibrium with the GHGs that are already there. We could stop putting ANY GHGs into the atmosphere TODAY and the warming would continue for decades although at a greatly reduced rate.
The only ways to avoid it would be to develop some as-yet unknown tech that could suck CO2 and CH4 out of the atmosphere on a massive, planetary scale. Or we could inject millions of tons of sulfuric acid into the lower stratosphere and hope that doesn't have disastrous consequences like wrecking the ozone layer. Or we could put a gigantic parasol between the sun and the Earth to give us some shade.
And ALL of those would still require that we drastically cut our use of fossil fuels.
So if we construct a climate model and then run it backwards and check it against KNOWN climate conditions of the past and the model is spot on...is that not science?If it diverges from or excludes any of the following steps it isn't science.
FWIW: Exxon scientists kind of "nailed it" back in 1982....
xkcd.com
www.climatefiles.com
Their graph of this is on p. 14 of the pdf. And it's pretty much exactly where we are at today.
Global Temperature Over My Lifetime
1982 Memo to Exxon Management about CO2 Greenhouse Effect - Climate Files
November 12, 1982 Exxon’s M.B. Glaser, manager of the Environmental Affairs Program, sends a memo to Exxon management on the CO2 greenhouse effect intended for the management staff to familiarize themselves with the subject. Glaser includes the April 1, 1982 “CO2 Greenhouse Effect: Technical...
www.climatefiles.com
Their graph of this is on p. 14 of the pdf. And it's pretty much exactly where we are at today.
If it diverges from or excludes any of the following steps it isn't science.
I don't think you understand what an "experiment" is here.
LOL...it's not predicting ANY possible outcomes. Perhaps you failed to comprehend the question. Care to try again?
We're interacting with someone who's never taken a science class outside of junior high here....
Excellent response. My own credentials are modest - BS in biology with a chem minor. And that was 40 years ago but I try to keep current. Joe can be an ass hat (sorry Joe
I do suffer the same affliction) but his educational background - especially in this field - dwarfs mine.
I quit getting into pissing contests over credentials years ago. If you can point out where I'm factually incorrect then do so. If not...
You still haven't responded to my earlier question. Explain how it isn't science if you don't mind.
LOL I'm going to rate Sagan's scientific knowledge - established through evidence and experiment - over Billy Joe Bob from the trailer park (you?) on matters of science and especially in fields like astrophysics and cosmology unless BJB (you?) can establish his own expertise.
Building scientific knowledge is different form imparting that already established knowledge.
BTW, in case you missed it...your post is a direct "appeal to authority" so you've got that going for you.
Already did that. You don't understand what constitutes an "experiment". You are running on the fallacy that global heating can "only" be proven by using "another earth" as the experimental lab to test it, and you could not be more wrong on that.
We've never "created a star" or "supernova", either, yet we know how nuclear fusion works, and how EVERY heavy element above hydrogen is created by them. And that work ALSO involves "modeling", theory, and experiments.
FUNFACT: The recognition of "greenhouse gases" and CO2 as an infrared absorber has been known since the 1800s. Google up Svante Arrehnius and the "experiments" he conducted back then on the greenhouse effect.
Not a strawman; your premise is. That we cannot understand climate change w/o "an experiment". Implying we need "another Earth" to experiment on.
We've never "created" a supernova, but we know how they work. Same thing, buddy.
Did you Google Svante Arrenhius, to learn about when the Greenhouse Effect became known?
How about reading the Exxon report, that predicted the warming we've actually seen. That wasn't some "wild guess", it was a prediction based upon science and theory, applying it to real world observations.
#Science
My premise is that science requires experimentation and observation. Models may be predictive and/or useful but by definition they are NOT science.
BOTH of which are vastly studied elements of climate change science.
Ignorance of those studies doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're operating under the middle school delusion that the only thing that counts as "science" is the rigid "scientific method"involving hands-on experimentation with physical matter. That's simply incorrect. Modeling is a long-established and critical aspect of scientific investigation and experimentation. To deny that is ignorant, at best. I won't give you anything to establish that fact as I don't want to "appeal to authority" but you can google scientific modeling (yeah, it's literally called that for a reason) and educate yourself.
I'm assuming nothing. You're denying the science and experimentation that exists and is accepted by the mainstream science community.
