Sciencescience

Tue Oct 4, 2016, 10:20 PM

to boldly go...

The global temperature has increased to a level not seen for 115,000 years, requiring daunting technological advances that will cost the coming generations hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to the scientist widely credited with bringing climate change to the public’s attention.

A new paper submitted by James Hansen, a former senior Nasa climate scientist, and 11 other experts states that the 2016 temperature is likely to be 1.25C above pre-industrial times, following a warming trend where the world has heated up at a rate of 0.18C per decade over the past 45 years.

No fracking, drilling or digging: it’s the only way to save life on Earth

This rate of warming is bringing Earth in line with temperatures last seen in the Eemian period, an interglacial era ending 115,000 years ago when there was much less ice and the sea level was 6-9 meters (20-30ft) higher than today.

....

There’s a misconception that we’ve begun to address the climate problem,” said Hansen, who brought climate change into the public arena through his testimony to the US congress in the 1980s. “This misapprehension is based on the Paris climate deal where governments clapped themselves on the back but when you look at the science it doesn’t compute, it’s not true
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/03/global-temperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years

49 replies, 2417 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply to boldly go... (Original post)
orson Oct 2016 OP
oflguy Oct 2016 #1
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #15
oflguy Jan 2017 #21
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #22
oflguy Jan 2017 #23
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #24
oflguy Jan 2017 #25
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #27
oflguy Jan 2017 #28
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #30
oflguy Jan 2017 #33
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #35
oflguy Jan 2017 #36
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #38
oflguy Jan 2017 #39
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #41
Jack Burton Oct 2016 #2
orson Oct 2016 #3
Jack Burton Oct 2016 #4
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Oct 2016 #5
orson Oct 2016 #6
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #16
oflguy Nov 2016 #7
orson Nov 2016 #8
oflguy Nov 2016 #10
oflguy Jan 2017 #12
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #17
Mr Happy Nov 2016 #9
oflguy Jan 2017 #11
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #13
AZ0 Jan 2017 #14
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #18
oflguy Jan 2017 #19
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #20
oflguy Jan 2017 #26
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #29
oflguy Jan 2017 #31
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #32
oflguy Jan 2017 #34
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #37
oflguy Jan 2017 #40
ibtruthin Jan 2017 #42
marmot84 Jan 2017 #43
ibtruthin Jan 2017 #44
marmot84 Jan 2017 #45
ibtruthin Jan 2017 #46
marmot84 Jan 2017 #48
ibtruthin Jan 2017 #49
oflguy Jan 2017 #47

Response to orson (Original post)

Tue Oct 4, 2016, 10:40 PM

1. Hansen is a thug who has been arrested time after time after time

He has no respect for the law and apparently thinks his best venue to advocate his activism is with his hands in cuffs rather than with his spoken words.

I could not find a total on the number of times he has been arrested but it is often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 08:33 AM

15. Yes, nothing says "thug" quite like "Failing to disperse"

Oh, wait. You're serious. Allow me to laugh harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM

21. Do you concur with Hansen

in his call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:22 PM

22. If evidence is presented that they covered up the effects of burning FF...

...then, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with him. At this point, though, I'm not familiar with anything other than prima facie evidence that such a conspiracy happened. So, I'm all for investigating it and if the evidence warrants, prosecution.

I don't think that it is at all outrageous to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity, given that we lock people up for petty crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:33 PM

23. Is there anybody that you feel should be prosecuted

for the existence of the over 100 active volcanoes in the lower 48 states and Alaska?

They pollute too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:36 PM

24. I think you should be prosecuted for bum analogies...

...that are both irrelevant and misleading. Fortunately for you, (and probably the court system) no laws currently exist to allow such a legal action. Maybe there should be, though, since a certain level of incompetent analogizing might well be hazardous to yourself or others.

Hey, I'm thinking of you here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:41 PM

25. What is bum about that analogy?

Are there different types of CO2 emitted from volcanoes as there are cars? Volcanoes emit pollutants that cars do not emit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:48 PM

27. What is bum about that analogy is...

-volcanic CO2 production is a tiny fraction of what humans produce in any given year;
-volcanoes, as near as we can tell, neither make a profit nor have any other motivation for what they do. (Therefore, no reckless disregard is involved
-we cannot at this point do anything about volcanic eruptions

That short but important list excludes logical fallacies, which are more numerous but (imo) less important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:52 PM

28. Got any data that compares volcanic pollutants worldwide

to automobiles?

I'm thinking volcanoes have been around longer than cars also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:03 PM

30. I provided a link already.

Volcanoes produce on average a small percentage of the CO2 emitted into Earth's atmosphere,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:08 PM

33. Just the kind of answer I expected

no data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:14 PM

35. And that is why I rarely include data

Links to data are seldom read by those arguing against reality. Which part of " the lithosphere may emit directly into the atmosphere at least 600 Mt CO2/year", which was included in the linked abstract fails to qualify as "data?" :rolling:

But if that isn't enough for you (and it was the kindest to your hypothesis that I could quickly find), then feel free to read any of the scientific papers on this link. Get back to me with the paper(s) that show that volcanoes produce anywhere near as much CO2 as humans do currently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:15 PM

36. I rest my case

no data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:23 PM

38. None at all

Except these 61000 results:

Volcanoes climate change
About 61,100 results (0.08 sec

Now stop. You're being silly. Just because you put your fingers in your ears, doesn't mean there is no sound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:31 PM

39. It's obvious you didn't read any of them

I clicked on the first three links. I see you didn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:49 PM

41. Woah! That might mean something. Yikes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed Oct 5, 2016, 08:15 AM

2. James Hansen?

That hack?

Hansen may be a rabid idiot doomer, but he is quite the ladies man with the hat and goatee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 5, 2016, 09:20 AM

3. Kill the messenger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 5, 2016, 11:01 AM

4. ahh you recognize the tactic.

Liberal universal playbook page 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 5, 2016, 01:50 PM

5. Jury results:

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is uncivil, off-topic, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is hateful bigotry in addition to its incorrect nature

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of Discussionist members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 5, 2016, 12:46 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Blah blah blah, pathetic alert, blah blah blah.
Egészségedre
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you kidding me?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You guys have really decimated the bigotry card. It's worthless now. (Is "guys" sexist too?"")
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: .
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing hateful or bigoted about it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyMakesMeHappy (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 5, 2016, 05:06 PM

6. Weird alert

There's way too much butthurt on both all sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to orson (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 01:10 PM

7. Nobody has a clue what temperature the earth was 115,000 years ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 02:20 PM

8. one more ill-informed opinion noted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 09:14 PM

10. Speaking of ill-informed people

I noticed you can't answer any of my questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 11, 2017, 11:22 PM

12. How warm was the earth 115,000 years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 08:37 AM

17. They have more than a clue

They have a relatively small range on what the temperature could be.

One thing that they do know -the current global temperature is rising rapidly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 05:45 PM

9. On the other hand...

split infinitives are becoming more accepted than they used to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2017, 11:21 PM

11. Nobody knows how warm the earth was 115,000 years ago

And nobody knows how warm the earth is today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2017, 11:59 PM

13. That's a reasonably conservative estimate at that:



A case can easily be made that it's 1.5C warmer than the pre-industrial. Personally, I think it's game over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 02:08 AM

14. Yep game over.

We will all die when global temps increase 1.5C over the next 80 years, just like they did in the past without SUV spewing CO2 monsters. If you have kids do you try to scare them with this silly science non-sense? If you truly think it is game over, off your self as you spew 40,000 ppm CO2 by just breathing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 08:53 AM

18. Unsurprisingly, you misunderstand

Let's see if that misunderstanding is innocent or partisan.

When I say game over, I mean for civilization as we know it. Above 1.5C over pre-industrial, extreme events become common to represent a sporadic (but real) threat to agriculture and water supplies.

The best evidence indicates that at 2C above pre-industrial agriculture on the scale necessary to support >7 billion humans becomes somewhere between somewhat difficult and impossible. No one knows precisely. Hungry people tend to be...impolite, possibly violent. Starving people, even moreso. Frankly, I don't expect much starvation in America. We'll buy our way out for as long as we can. It's in our nature. However, I doubt that even the most partisan anti-science hack can logically deny the fact that (for example) $400/loaf bread and $3000/lb burger will have drastic effects on our way of life. Eventually, however, we'll run out of money -or worse yet, crops. Somewhere between that expensive food and heavy crop failure, society will crumble.

However, even after society crumbles the human race will go on, as will the planet. There won't be nearly as many of us and our standard of living will drop like a stone, but some of us will make it. There's no telling what sort of government we'll be living with, but we'll live on. Of course, that excludes the possibility of a nuclear precipitated by the crumbling of societies that possess nuclear weaponry. But even with a nuclear war, I expect that the human race will continue. We're very clever individually and have a rather perverse insistence on staying alive.

However, once that happens, it will probably be a very long time before the next iPhone comes out, or (perhaps happily) Windows unleashes a new operating system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 11:27 AM

19. I just love this forum

"However, I doubt that even the most partisan anti-science hack can logically deny the fact that (for example) $400/loaf bread and $3000/lb burger will have drastic effects on our way of life."

Thanks for the laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 11:44 AM

20. So, you don't think widespread crop failures will affect price?

Weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:48 PM

26. What widespread crop failures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:59 PM

29. The crop failures that are a predictable consequence

This happens to be a well-studied topic. Interestingly, many of the papers are probably too conservative in their assessments since they tend to look at what effects will occur due to climate. Since climate deals with averages such studies can only deal with when and where difficulties will occur on average.

Of course, on the whole our crops are the result of weather, not climate. Putting it rather pithily, we eat weather. When the probability of extreme, crop-destroying weather increases, we are at greater risk. So far, we have been relatively lucky in that some of the worst extremities have been in places where we don't grow crops. My own guesstimate is that by the later 2030s extreme weather will become a big problem. It could happen much sooner or slightly later, imo. But it's coming. Physics cannot be argued with, bargained with, and has no capacity for mercy.

Just to make it clear to those that don't know, the problem with AGW/CC isn't the temperature, per se. The problem is the way it will affect our food and water supplies, and the reactions of people and nations to those shortages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:04 PM

31. Wishful thinking

I'd bet against it though.

By the way, a degree is not a unit of heat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:07 PM

32. Yes, betting against it is wishful thinking.

It's akin to falling off a cliff and hoping gravity fails or that you evolve wings on the way down.

Your pedantry is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:09 PM

34. Do you understand what mean temperature data is?

And how it is used to determine global warming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:20 PM

37. For everyone's amusement...

...why don't you tell the whole class! That way we'll all be educated. Don't hold out on us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 01:35 PM

40. You mean you don't even understand how your mentors are pulling the wool over your eyes?

You have much research to do. Understanding how the temperature of a day is calculated is a good place to start.

Did you know that a degree is not a unit of heat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2017, 09:12 PM

42. The earth is fine. We should have had at level 1.5' of sea level rise since 1950.....

......and we haven't. I live by the coast. I'm not seeing it. Why? We are probably heading off a glacial maximum.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibtruthin (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 01:05 PM

43. saying it has been OK in the past so it will be OK in the future

is not a valid argument

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 04:12 PM

44. The earth is constantly changing. The Sarahhara desert was savannah with water 6000 Years ago

The earth is changing. The Sahara desert was savanna with water 6000 Years ago. 11,500 years ago we experienced 10 degree fluctuations in temperature over a couple of decades, not .5 degree over a century.

The world is not in a steady state, to think it is is pure fiction. The earth will keep changing, rapidly, as it always has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibtruthin (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 05:49 PM

45. that's pretty sad



Eventually you'll need to do much better than that but now that we are in the Trump era reasoning won't be needed so I'm sure your naively stupid argument will carry the day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 06:45 PM

46. No, it's the truth. The world will change as it always has. It's science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibtruthin (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 10:41 PM

48. Enjoy your fantasy

if people were rational it would already be long over but you are obviously beyond understanding the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to marmot84 (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 09:37 PM

47. That is exactly what your argument is marmot

Why can't others use it? Especially when your people have predicted the opposite outcome??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience