Global Warming: WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

[Parliament 14239]

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/two-degrees-celsius-no-longer-seen-as-global-warming-guardrail

- Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released on Monday (April 2).

A world that heats up by 2 deg C - long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet - could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed.

Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions A.

"We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this," said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol.

 

[David Dennison 18847]

Yep. We are all gonna die.

[Kel Varnsen 8458]

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Better give more tax dollars to multi-national corporations so they can fix the issue.

[EastTexan 662]

4 hours ago, Parliament said:

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/two-degrees-celsius-no-longer-seen-as-global-warming-guardrail

- Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released on Monday (April 2).

A world that heats up by 2 deg C - long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet - could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed.

Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions A.

"We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this," said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol.

 

 

 

Is is this called goal post moving?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Better give more tax dollars to multi-national corporations so they can fix the issue.

My favorite part of the climate change debate is when one side accidentally says “I’m afraid of what you are going to do with the information, so I’ll just claim the information is incorrect.”

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

My favorite part of the climate change debate is when one side accidentally says “I’m afraid of what you are going to do with the information, so I’ll just claim the information is incorrect.”

Not really, just pointing out how ludicrous the "solution" to the problem is. 

Here is a good discussion. 

 

[Laxtonto 12078]

This was why I laughed at the Paris Climate Accords and the freakout by Trump pulling out of them. They were a farce that had no real teeth and no real funding outside of the US.

They were sitting on the 2C number, but no real justification of why or how they derived it. They new research now they state that the "Voluntary national pledges made under the Paris pact to cut CO2 emissions, if fulfilled, would yield a 3 deg C world at best." Which completely goes against the accords and how they were written and tells me that they dont really have a consensus on how they were calculating these estimates anyways. 

These accords were designed to do nothing and do it spectacularly. Now we have people that are upset that since the US pulled out, no one else wants to pay for it, they still arent remotely close to meeting the suggested values and they new researchers have revised that the actual impact would move the number from 2 to 3.

A global accord regarding climate with no real teeth and no real hard metrics is useless. Until everyone decides it is important enough to pay for it, so unilateral restrictions for all countries and not a piecemeal setup, it is worthless.

 

[Parliament 14239]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/slow-motion-ocean-atlantics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/

In recent years sensors stationed across the North Atlantic have picked up a potentially concerning signal: The grand northward progression of water along North America that moves heat from the tropics toward the Arctic has been sluggish. If that languidness continues and deepens, it could usher in drastic changes in sea level and weather around the ocean basin.

That northward flow is a key part of the larger circulation of water, heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans. Climate scientists have been concerned since the 1980s that rising global temperatures could throw a wrench in the conveyor belt–like system, with possibly stark climatic consequences. Sea levels could ratchet upward along the U.S. east coast, key fisheries could be devastated by spiking water temperatures and weather patterns over Europe could be altered.

[Trey3216 15343]

8 hours ago, Parliament said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/slow-motion-ocean-atlantics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/

In recent years sensors stationed across the North Atlantic have picked up a potentially concerning signal: The grand northward progression of water along North America that moves heat from the tropics toward the Arctic has been sluggish. If that languidness continues and deepens, it could usher in drastic changes in sea level and weather around the ocean basin.

That northward flow is a key part of the larger circulation of water, heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans. Climate scientists have been concerned since the 1980s that rising global temperatures could throw a wrench in the conveyor belt–like system, with possibly stark climatic consequences. Sea levels could ratchet upward along the U.S. east coast, key fisheries could be devastated by spiking water temperatures and weather patterns over Europe could be altered.

A slowing of the Gulf Stream would actually lead to an ice age.   That article is hilarious.   Convenient that about 600 years ago, the last time it showed this slow, we were in a mini-ice age.  

[OiU 0]

What ended that mini ice age?

What caused it?

How many times has the world had ice ages followed by melts followed by another ice age? This cycle is caused by cow farts and internal combustion engines.?

A good tv weather person has a batting average that would keep them in the minor leagues. 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

http://www.alphr.com/science/1009088/mutant-enzyme-eats-plastic

Quote

Scientists accidentally create mutant enzyme that eats plastic waste

Science

PET, the plastic patented in the 1940s, can be broken down by a mutated version of the PETase enzyme

Some good news - pollution and human ingenuity related. 

[kopp0e 1135]

On 4/2/2018 at 1:38 PM, Laxtonto said:

This was why I laughed at the Paris Climate Accords and the freakout by Trump pulling out of them. They were a farce that had no real teeth and no real funding outside of the US.

They were sitting on the 2C number, but no real justification of why or how they derived it. They new research now they state that the "Voluntary national pledges made under the Paris pact to cut CO2 emissions, if fulfilled, would yield a 3 deg C world at best." Which completely goes against the accords and how they were written and tells me that they dont really have a consensus on how they were calculating these estimates anyways. 

These accords were designed to do nothing and do it spectacularly. Now we have people that are upset that since the US pulled out, no one else wants to pay for it, they still arent remotely close to meeting the suggested values and they new researchers have revised that the actual impact would move the number from 2 to 3.

A global accord regarding climate with no real teeth and no real hard metrics is useless. Until everyone decides it is important enough to pay for it, so unilateral restrictions for all countries and not a piecemeal setup, it is worthless.

 

All the PCA did was restrict the United States, while doing virtually nothing of significance in making China compliant...

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I think tripling our energy prices and handing the cash generated to dictators in third world shitholes is the only way to fix this.

[Texas_Rocks 346]

Fuck yes!!!!!

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html

[Buzzrock 14902]

Time for the Paris Plastic Accords.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Thank god this thread is back up. It attracts the nut jobs like moths to a flame. 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11027]

15 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Thank god this thread is back up. It attracts the nut jobs like moths to a flame. 

 

 

Its like the Hillary thread. Makes it easy to separate the morons from the normals.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

23 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Thank god this thread is back up. It attracts the nut jobs like moths to a flame. 

 

[zork 629]

opinion piece from WSJ:

Quote

...

What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

 

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

[ScottishHorn 172]

On 4/2/2018 at 1:38 PM, Laxtonto said:

This was why I laughed at the Paris Climate Accords and the freakout by Trump pulling out of them. They were a farce that had no real teeth and no real funding outside of the US.

They were sitting on the 2C number, but no real justification of why or how they derived it. They new research now they state that the "Voluntary national pledges made under the Paris pact to cut CO2 emissions, if fulfilled, would yield a 3 deg C world at best." Which completely goes against the accords and how they were written and tells me that they dont really have a consensus on how they were calculating these estimates anyways. 

These accords were designed to do nothing and do it spectacularly. Now we have people that are upset that since the US pulled out, no one else wants to pay for it, they still arent remotely close to meeting the suggested values and they new researchers have revised that the actual impact would move the number from 2 to 3.

A global accord regarding climate with no real teeth and no real hard metrics is useless. Until everyone decides it is important enough to pay for it, so unilateral restrictions for all countries and not a piecemeal setup, it is worthless.

 

This