Joe Biden: "If our temperature rises another 1.5 degrees Celsius..."

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Really? Just that little bit? Where, Joe? Is the Earth of one single climate, and if anywhere, the temperature rises 1.5 degrees, the whole Earth is doomed? There's variation greater than 1.5 degrees all over the Earth, and has been for billions of years. What says now we are, all over the Earth, at the brink? Hell, there's more variation that that just in the various instruments we use to measure global temperature, humidity, or even the stink in our armpits. Anyone concerned about that?

Is anyone surprised this guy was elected? I sure am. The man has a one-track mind.... if only he could find it.

The self-imposed human extinction line is forming over there on the left. Where else?
#2
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... so you see - the rising of the temperature (specifically in Antarctica) the ice sheets begin to melt, and then there are a lot more water in the oceans - and we see more general flooding on the coastlines, we see more CO2 be released into the atmosphere, etc - but you know what that does? CO2 being released into the atmosphere causes more increases in temperature. You see - its not even the fact that the temperature is rising by 1.5 degrees celsius - its that the temperature has been rising over 10 times more in the last 100 hundred years than it did in any other 100 year interglacial period prior - the earth is heating up at a much more increased rate. 
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge

Mr Faux if just fine in his self-sufficient backwoods sanctuary....And too old to worry about the future.

And certain that salvation will come in the form of a Republican GOD.

Just jibing Mr F.


Since Mr Ethan departed, there has been a lack of a good, thick skinned jibe opponent......Most of these youngsters are far too sensitive.

Regards.
Topic's author
#4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Coastlines. I think there is greater landmass in the interior of continents than coastlines. And I do not see the calamities predicted by AlGore to have occurred well before now, and we are still here. And what does the holy Green New Deal have to say about our adaptability? Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. Get it? Adaptability does not fit the agenda of paying carbon credits, which do nothing to clean the clouds. It lines some peoples' pockets, but as long as you're aware of that, I guess its fine. Well, on this Earth Day, as over the past 18 years I've inhabited this house I built, now equipped with solar panels, every light inside and outside is on, celebrating my right to do so, and I am producing every watt of it, so I'm causing no drain on any grid.
Topic's author
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I know you're kidding. However, 

And certain that salvation will come in the form of a Republican GOD.
Not in the slightest. By politics, I am a Sermonist. It's my Party and  named it. To date, I think I am its only member. However, I firmly believe that is also God's party.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm a meist, by definition.
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw

That's not Joe Biden.  That is Joe Biden citing the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change which is the most comprehensive international scientific assessment on any subject ever conducted as well as the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers worldwide.

Really? Just that little bit? Where, Joe? Is the Earth of one single climate, and if anywhere, the temperature rises 1.5 degrees,
1.5 is the increase in GMST- the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature over pre-industrial GMST predicted by about 2050.  The GMST represents any specified ten year average.  Let's note that the increase in  GMST from the last ice age until pre-industry was less than 4 degrees celsius so by 2100CE, the rate of increase over the last 300 years will have increased  by half again over the increase of the previous 18,000 years.  Whatever changes are represented in the difference between say, miles deep sheets of ice over North America and the plains and forests of 1800 America, we've cranked that dial up by 25% again already and seem heading for maybe double that change- which is far warmer GMST than mammals have ever had to survive before.
the whole Earth is doomed?
No but much of life on Earth may be threatened.  Consider that most of that GMST does not represent land temperature but rather water temperature.  Many species of plankton, coral, bacteria, etc are adapted to live within a fairly narrow temperature range and are unable to adapt to temperature to swift increases on the scale of decades.  If much of this small stuff fails, many or most of larger sea life will fail with them.

The IPCC predicts

  • warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence).
  • Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence).
  • Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence).
  • By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).
  • Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C of global warming, 0.1 m (0.04–0.16 m) less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). A reduction of 0.1 m in global sea level rise implies that up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on population in the year 2010 and assuming no adaptation (medium confidence).
  • Sea level rise will continue beyond 2100 even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C in the 21st century (high confidence). Marine ice sheet instability in Antarctica and/or irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet could result in multi-metre rise in sea level over hundreds to thousands of years. These instabilities could be triggered at around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming (medium confidence).
  • Increasing warming amplifies the exposure of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to the risks associated with sea level rise for many human and ecological systems, including increased saltwater intrusion, flooding and damage to infrastructure (high confidence). Risks associated with sea level rise are higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C. The slower rate of sea level rise at global warming of 1.5°C reduces these risks, enabling greater opportunities for adaptation including managing and restoring natural coastal ecosystems and infrastructure reinforcement (medium confidence).
  • On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).
    • Of 105,000 species studied
      • 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 1
      • 8% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). Impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence).
      • Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1°C of global warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at 2°C (medium confidence). This indicates that the area at risk is projected to be approximately 50% lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence).
      • High-latitude tundra and boreal forests are particularly at risk of climate change-induced degradation and loss, with woody shrubs already encroaching into the tundra (high confidence) and this will proceed with further warming. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C is projected to prevent the thawing over centuries of a permafrost area in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 million km2 (medium confidence).
      • Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm-water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence).
      • There is high confidence that the probability of a sea ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence).
        • (That is, better than 99% chance that .5%  increase means the difference between an ice-free Arctic Summer or a continued (if diminished ice cap)
      • Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more (high confidence).
      •  The level of ocean acidification due to increasing CO2 concentrations associated with global warming of 1.5°C is projected to amplify the adverse effects of warming, and even further at 2°C, impacting the growth, development, calcification, survival, and thus abundance of a broad range of species, for example, from algae to fish
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
  • Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC. One global fishery model, for example, projected a decrease in global annual catch for marine fisheries of about 1.5 million tonnes for 1.5°C of global warming compared to a loss of more than 3 million tonnes for 2°C of global warming (medium confidence).
  • Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.
  • Populations at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences with global warming of 1.5°C and beyond include disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples, and local communities dependent on agricultural or coastal livelihoods (high confidence). Regions at disproportionately higher risk include Arctic ecosystems, dryland regions, small island developing states, and Least Developed Countries (high confidence). Poverty and disadvantage are expected to increase in some populations as global warming increases; limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050 (medium confidence).
  • Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences (high confidence). Lower risks are projected at 1.5°C than at 2°C for heat-related morbidity and mortality (very high confidence) and for ozone-related mortality if emissions needed for ozone formation remain high (high confidence). Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence). Risks from some vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are projected to increase with warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, including potential shifts in their geographic range (high confidence).
    • Think about how most new diseases come out of narrow band of very hot tropical geographies.  If global warming triples or quadruples the amount of area with the right tropical conditions, will the rate of new diseases born increase dramatically?)
  • Limiting warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat, and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America, and in the CO2-dependent nutritional quality of rice and wheat (high confidence). Reductions in projected food availability are larger at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the Amazon (medium confidence). Livestock are projected to be adversely affected with rising temperatures, depending on the extent of changes in feed quality, spread of diseases, and water resource availability (high confidence).
  • Depending on future socio-economic conditions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C may reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to a climate change-induced increase in water stress by up to 50%, although there is considerable variability between regions (medium confidence). Many small island developing states could experience lower water stress as a result of projected changes in aridity when global warming is limited to 1.5°C, as compared to 2°C (medium confidence).
  • Risks to global aggregated economic growth due to climate change impacts are projected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C by the end of this century (medium confidence). This excludes the costs of mitigation, adaptation investments and the benefits of adaptation. Countries in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere subtropics are projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase from 1.5°C to 2°C (medium confidence).
  • Exposure to multiple and compound climate-related risks increases between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming, with greater proportions of people both so exposed and susceptible to poverty in Africa and Asia (high confidence). For global warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, risks across energy, food, and water sectors could overlap spatially and temporally, creating new and exacerbating current hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities that could affect increasing numbers of people and regions (medium confidence).

there's variation greater than 1.5 degrees all over the Earth, and has been for billions of years. What says now we are, all over the Earth, at the brink? Hell, there's more variation that that just in the various instruments we use to measure global temperature, humidity, or even the stink in our armpits. Anyone concerned about that?
      • This demonstrates ignorance of elementary  level meteorology and climatology.  You are not up to speed on this subject.  Read up.


Topic's author
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
This demonstrates ignorance of elementary  level meteorology and climatology.  You are not up to speed on this subject.  Read up.
I am an ASQ certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Reliability Engineer, & Quality Engineering Manager, retired, all of which include a mastery level of education in GR&R. You don't know to whom who you're talking. Measurement accuracy is vital in gage repeatability and reproducibility. Climatology, to date, is woefully inadequate. Lots of wiggle room in the citation of your points of what "could" and "may" occur when the raw data is so weakly gathered and assembled. And combine that with what biology can do with adaptability when stressed by apparent extremes [that may not be extreme], after all. look, climatology is, at best, a 200 year-old science, The core sciences, physics, geology, etc., are ten times as old, and more. Not to mention, as I said, that money seems to be the engine driving this bus. How does throwing money at the clouds [when most of it is being pocketed!] actually clean the clouds. We know so little about clouds, we can't accurately predict the local weather with any dependable accuracy. And you're quoting eons?

Somebody best take a step back to look at the whole picture. The last ice age???? We're in an ice age, now, called the Quaternary, beginning 2.6M years ago. But even ice ages have cycling hot and cold periods. Yes, yes, there is an anthropogenic factor. How significant it is... well, the jury's out, and needs better measurement data collection in any event. 
#10
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Or you know... stopping the problem from getting worse - do you think we can just.... absorb all the CO2 from the sky? Seriously? Do you think we have a vacuum cleaner for our skies? The green new deal isn't trying to suck the CO2 out of the sky, its stopping any more from getting up there. 

Also.. the more coastline flooded, the more coastline there is.
#11
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Another reason carbon dioxide is important in the Earth system is that it dissolves into the ocean like the fizz in a can of soda. It reacts with water molecules, producing carbonic acid and lowering the ocean's pH. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean's surface waters has dropped from 8.21 to 8.10. This drop in pH is called ocean acidification.  
A drop of 0.1 may not seem like a lot, but the pH scale is logarithmic; a 1-unit drop in pH means a tenfold increase in acidity. A change of 0.1 means a roughly 30% increase in acidity. Increasing acidity interferes with the ability of marine life to extract calcium from the water to build their shells and skeletons.
Topic's author
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you think we have a vacuum cleaner for our skies?
No, but that is the GND argument with carbon credit charges. Like I said, GND says we can clean the clouds with money. Read; 13th century indulgences.  Not to worry, the devil made me do it.
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Increasing acidity interferes with the ability of marine life to extract calcium from the water to build their shells and skeletons.
You're looking at an incredibly narrow slice of time, and ignoring adaptation. De-frocking St. Darwin? Again?
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
To combat climate change, I think people should decide for themselves what energy source they want.  If you like solar power, buy solar panels.  If you like wind power, buy wind turbines.  If you want cheap energy, buy your energy where it is cheapest.  We live in a country where most of the advocates for renewable power don't have it themselves.  I think it's hypocritical.
#15
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagi
This demonstrates ignorance of elementary  level meteorology and climatology.  You are not up to speed on this subject.  Read up.
I am an ASQ certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Reliability Engineer, & Quality Engineering Manager, retired, all of which include a mastery level of education in GR&R. You don't know to whom who you're talking.
Well, you've claimed this popular quality assurance certification before so I guess I do.  Nevertheless, ignorance has been objectively demonstrated.  You can claim to have a Black Belt in karate but if you wear that belt on your head like a turban while a five year old kicks you in the nuts, nobody is going to be impressed.  Likewise, if you think the POTUS is the source of climate science claims, if you don't understand how Global Mean Surface Temperature accounts for local variation, if you characterize the detailed consensus of climate science as "Earth is doomed" as you have demonstrated in OP, nobody needs to take your opinion seriously on this subject.

Measurement accuracy is vital in gage repeatability and reproducibility. Climatology, to date, is woefully inadequate. Lots of wiggle room in the citation of your points of what "could" and "may" occur when the raw data is so weakly gathered and assembled. And combine that with what biology can do with adaptability when stressed by apparent extremes [that may not be extreme], after all. look, climatology is, at best, a 200 year-old science, The core sciences, physics, geology, etc., are ten times as old, and more.

Rival quality assurance certifiers point out that Six Sigma is stagnant, that it is "narrowly designed to fix an existing process, allowing little room for new ideas or an entirely different approach. All that talent - all those best and brightest - were devoted to, say, driving defects down to 3.4 per million and not on coming up with new products or disruptive technologies."  Perhaps that accounts for why of the 58 large companies that adopted Six Sigma, 91% have trailed behind average S&P500 performance since.  I suppose we are both fallaciously appealing to authority but on the subject of climate change I'll prefer the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists over Jack Welch any day.

. We know so little about clouds, we can't accurately predict the local weather with any dependable accuracy. And you're quoting eons?
In fact, the average local weatherman's 24 hr forecast is better than 95% accurate and five days are accurate better than 90% of the time.  That's certainly more accurate than any business or political or sports forecasting I've ever seen.

Somebody best take a step back to look at the whole picture. The last ice age???? We're in an ice age, now, called the Quaternary, beginning 2.6M years ago. But even ice ages have cycling hot and cold periods. Yes, yes, there is an anthropogenic factor. How significant it is... well, the jury's out, and needs better measurement data collection in any event.
Well, we were in an ice age before the Industrial Revolution.  If we lose the Northern Ice Cap in decades as is currently projected, I don't think any serious climatologist will continue to call our time a cycle in the Quaternary since that was one of the most defining features of that Ice Age.  If you believe the scientists who tell you that we are in a 2.6M yr old ice age, then you should also believe them when they tell you that we are facing something new and uncertain in the present age- because just about all of them are saying just that.  Another example of overfocus on minor defects in the face of disruptive new paradigms, perhaps?
Topic's author
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
My Egyptian Grammar professor once told me [he being, effectively an historian, and knowing I was a published poet - so I know you understand the distinction], "A poet holds your head while you puke. A historian examines the remains." At times, exhaustively 
#17
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2005, and 7 of the 10 have occurred just since 2014. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.
By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows. This similarity in temperatures regardless of total emissions is a short-term phenomenon: it reflects the tremendous inertia of Earth's vast oceans. The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn't react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases. By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans' thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.
Topic's author
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2005, and 7 of the 10 have occurred just since 2014. 
Since when recorded? If you're talking within my lifetime [72 years] you're looking at less than a blink in geologic time. So what?

We happen to still be in an ice age [the Quaternary] that is 2.6M years in the making, meaning that, if typical, in excess of 90M years remain before its end. And, yes, heat spells do occur within ice ages. Why are we in an ice age? Because there are still glaciers [ice, you know], even though some are melting. Others are growing. Depends on where on hte planet one happens to be. Everybody focuses on the areas of melt, ignoring the growth. There are both melt and growth just in Antarctica. And Greenland. But, these areas do not fit the agenda, so are ignored. Gee-whiz, some science!
Topic's author
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10

I thought Biden said Putin was a killer. I thought Biden slammed Trump for summits with a killer.

Oh, but they happen to see eye-to-eye on climate, ,so, it's all good.

Maybe, but it's surely more of the same Biden vacillation.
#20
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
More than 40 billion tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere annually and it will get worse with receding permafrost.

Take Venus for example. With an atmosphere of 96% CO2 and a temperature of almost 500 degrees celsius, you can look at it as a runaway greenhouse effect, because that’s what it is.
Topic's author
#21
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Show me the oceans, lakes, rivers and wetlands on Venus, all of which function, among other benefits, as  very effective CO2 sinks. And, so climatologists, those brilliant, age-old scientists [all of 200 years], are claiming the oceans are rising. Becoming greater, even more efficient CO2 sinks, yeah? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/oceans-absorb-carbon-seas-climate-change-environment-water-co2/

Yes, as with any change effect of the environment, amassing CO2 in the oceans [and other water] has an effect on the eco-system, but, what cannot be immediately observed is the amazing capacity of life to adapt to changing condition. In fact, one paper, specifically directed to the study of climate change, and its effect on biodiversity, suggests that inspite of the claimed extinction increase specifically blamed on climate change, biodiversity [adaptation] is increasing. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pala.12057
#22
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Show me the oceans, lakes, rivers and wetlands on Venus, all of which function, among other benefits, as  very effective CO2 sinks.
They all dried up. CO2 sinks are limited by how much they can hold. What happens when those sinks start to recede. That trapped CO2 will go back into the atmosphere. 

And, so climatologists, those brilliant, age-old scientists [all of 200 years], are claiming the oceans are rising. Becoming greater, even more efficient CO2 sinks, yeah?
We produce more CO2 than oceans and other bodies of water can absorb. By the way, CO2 makes oceans acidic. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

Yes, as with any change effect of the environment, amassing CO2 in the oceans [and other water] has an effect on the eco-system, but, what cannot be immediately observed is the amazing capacity of life to adapt to changing condition. In fact, one paper, specifically directed to the study of climate change, and its effect on biodiversity, suggests that inspite of the claimed extinction increase specifically blamed on climate change, biodiversity [adaptation] is increasing. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pala.12057
That link doesn’t discuss anthropomorphic climate change. It refers to the past couple million years. 
The fact is more species are going extinct today due to ACC. 
Topic's author
#23
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
They all dried up. 
Did they? What credentials affirm that consequence, let alone the original condition? Meanwhile, according to NASA, Venus may have had water. No certainty. Even if it did, was there a humanoid population causing climate change? On that, NASA says naught. So, your conjecture is not accepted.

We produce more CO2 than oceans and other bodies of water can absorb. 
If the waters of Earth are filled with CO2 to capacity, why do we still call them "sinks?"

By the way, CO2 makes oceans acidic. 
I already admitted that in my #21:  
Yes, as with any change effect of the environment, amassing CO2 in the oceans [and other water] has an effect on the eco-system
So, why belabor the point? No points awarded for belaboring in the Forum.

That link doesn’t discuss anthropomorphic climate change. It refers to the past couple million years. 
That link's article subject is not about climate change of any source; anthropo- or by gazelles. You're expecting apples from an orange tree? Go fish.

The fact is more species are going extinct today due to ACC. 
Fact according to whom? Your sock puppet? Sorry, credibility. At least I cited an article supporting the idea of in creased speciation, in spite of extinction. Your source? And if you have one, define why your source is any more correct than mine. That's part of research responsibility.
#24
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Did they? What credentials affirm that consequence, let alone the original condition?
Credentials? It’s a wide held theory in the astronomy community. Are you asking for PhDs?

Meanwhile, according to NASA, Venus may have had water. No certainty. Even if it did, was there a humanoid population causing climate change? On that, NASA says naught. So, your conjecture is not accepted.
I’m showing that CO2 creates a greenhouse effect that warms the planet.

If the waters of Earth are filled with CO2 to capacity, why do we still call them "sinks?"
Imagine the drain as storing CO2 and the sink as absorbing CO2. There’s an excise amount of CO2 that is overflowing that humans are producing.
Do you understand?


Yes, as with any change effect of the environment, amassing CO2 in the oceans [and other water] has an effect on the eco-system
So, why belabor the point? No points awarded for belaboring in the Forum.
I didn’t type that. You’re quoting yourself. 

That link's article subject is not about climate change of any source; anthropo- or by gazelles. You're expecting apples from an orange tree? Go fish.
You did say there were apples though. 

Fact according to whom? Your sock puppet? Sorry, credibility. At least I cited an article supporting the idea of in creased speciation, in spite of extinction. Your source? And if you have one, define why your source is any more correct than mine. That's part of research responsibility.
Please keep your anti-Semitic dog whistles in check. 




Topic's author
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
It’s a wide held theory in the astronomy community
A theory, my friend, that NASA will not confirm. That CO2 [although, it appears, by the science, that CH4 is a more efficient GHG-producing effect] is a GHG agent is certainly a plausible cause of Venus' current status, notwithstanding, it does not discount the possibility, n o, the probability of species adaptation.

Imagine the drain as storing CO2 and the sink as absorbing CO2. 
You're in a circular argument. Storage is absorption. And there's a tax somehow involved? Yeah, there is; it's called charging carbon credits. That's an excise. Sure that's what you meant?

Please keep your anti-Semitic dog whistles in check. 
What anti-Semetic dog whistle? Reaching for a slur that isn't there.  I mentioned nothing about Semites, or dogs, or their whistles. You're ging to have to explain that comment.

Curious that we count death with greater apparent accuracy than life. Your cited article regarding mass extinction says nothing of biodiversity; the article I cited, as if biodiversity is a myth to be ignored. Your extinction article does not give biodiversity, or speciation, a mention. Gee, why not? I see agenda warnings all over. I will acknowledge that the website you cite does have a biodiversity section in the menu, but, what is the current top story? Food systems [showing cows as a graphic] causing 30% of GHG emission. Take a guess what takes most of that pie: wetlands. And a big contributor: rice production: all told, over 50% of GHG's, in particular, CH4. So, eat your rice, but leave my steak alone.
#26
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
A theory, my friend, that NASA will not confirm. That CO2 [although, it appears, by the science, that CH4 is a more efficient GHG-producing effect] is a GHG agent is certainly a plausible cause of Venus' current status, notwithstanding, it does not discount the possibility, n o, the probability of species adaptation
Although NASA confirms climate change is an issue. And what are you saying about methane and species adaptation on Venus?...

You're in a circular argument. Storage is absorption. And there's a tax somehow involved? Yeah, there is; it's called charging carbon credits. That's an excise. Sure that's what you meant?
Storage and absorption are linked just as a drain and sink are, but they’re not the same thing. Anyway there’s excess amount of carbon that isn’t being absorbed because there’s too much being produced. 

What anti-Semetic dog whistle? Reaching for a slur that isn't there.  I mentioned nothing about Semites, or dogs, or their whistles. You're ging to have to explain that comment.
It’s a joke. It was in response to your sock puppet comment. 

Curious that we count death with greater apparent accuracy than life. Your cited article regarding mass extinction says nothing of biodiversity; the article I cited, as if biodiversity is a myth to be ignored. Your extinction article does not give biodiversity, or speciation, a mention. Gee, why not? I see agenda warnings all over. I will acknowledge that the website you cite does have a biodiversity section in the menu, but, what is the current top story? Food systems [showing cows as a graphic] causing 30% of GHG emission. Take a guess what takes most of that pie: wetlands. And a big contributor: rice production: all told, over 50% of GHG's, in particular, CH4. So, eat your rice, but leave my steak alone.
Alright, so you’ve moved on to methane.
Microscopic organisms in rice fields and other wetlands respire CO2 which in turn creates methane. The melting of permafrost also creates wetlands which further fuels GHG.
Topic's author
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
there’s too much being produced. 
Of CO2, I presume you mean.

You maintain there is too much, based on what measure? Yes, I acknowledge that we see historic levels of CO2 in the environment, whether on the ground, in the water, or in the atmosphere. But, what says that "too much" is, indeed, excessive? Simply because it's historic? I have a glass. I fill it to half it's containable volume. Then, I declare, because it has been at a half-glass level for a long time [and we suspend evaporation for purposes of argument], that the half-glass condition is "normal." Then , for reasons that can be discussed [but are not yet hard science], I add half again in volume; an additional 1/4 of the glass's total containable volume, but I declare, again for reasons that can be discussed [but are not yet hard science], that if another ml. of water is added, we will overflow the glass. Again, I ask, based upon what measure is my latter statement justified? As I look at the volume potential of the glass, and the measured amount of water in it, I can see clearly that we are not yet at any threshold that would overflow the glass. Our problem with climate change alarm is that we have no idea what the potential volume of the Earth is that exhibits a hardline threshold, over which the containment of CO2 is truly excessive. We're guessing, strictly based upon the fact that the measurable past of CO2 containment has never been as high as now. What levels have we seen in pre-history? We don't know.

Not to mention that you keep mentioning CO2 in ignorance of the mention of CH4. Is that by agenda, that CO2 can be targeted as having its worst affect by anthropogenic cause, but that natural wetlands produce more CH4 into the water, land and atmosphere, and is worse than CO2 by effect by a factor of 24x, than CO2, and that anthropogenic cause of CH4 is less than half [more like 1/3] of total CH4 levels in the environment, and that natural, and cultivated [like rice] wetlands contribute close to 65%, but nobody who is a GND proponent will admit that? That's wehat I mean by an agenda.

Okay, you argue, we are in our sixth period of mass extinction. So? Tell me how many of those other five periods included anthropogenic cause of alarm? And I challenge a denial that adaptation occurs in response to climatic events. Show me that biodiversity is merely theory; that we do not, in fact, observe its occurrence. 

It’s a joke. It was in response to your sock puppet comment. 
The forgoing is your sock puppet telling you were are at a crisis level of CO2 containment. That is no joke.
#28
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Of CO2, I presume you mean.

You maintain there is too much, based on what measure? Yes, I acknowledge that we see historic levels of CO2 in the environment, whether on the ground, in the water, or in the atmosphere. But, what says that "too much" is, indeed, excessive? Simply because it's historic? I have a glass. I fill it to half it's containable volume. Then, I declare, because it has been at a half-glass level for a long time [and we suspend evaporation for purposes of argument], that the half-glass condition is "normal." Then , for reasons that can be discussed [but are not yet hard science], I add half again in volume; an additional 1/4 of the glass's total containable volume, but I declare, again for reasons that can be discussed [but are not yet hard science], that if another ml. of water is added, we will overflow the glass. Again, I ask, based upon what measure is my latter statement justified? As I look at the volume potential of the glass, and the measured amount of water in it, I can see clearly that we are not yet at any threshold that would overflow the glass. Our problem with climate change alarm is that we have no idea what the potential volume of the Earth is that exhibits a hardline threshold, over which the containment of CO2 is truly excessive. We're guessing, strictly based upon the fact that the measurable past of CO2 containment has never been as high as now. What levels have we seen in pre-history? We don't know.
“You maintain there is too much, based on what measure?“ Of experts who say there will be mass migrations and wars over water within a lifetime, among other things.

”We're guessing, strictly based upon the fact that the measurable past of CO2 containment has never been as high as now. What levels have we seen in pre-history? We don't know.” I’m pretty sure scientists take ice samples to find out what the CO2 levels have been. Do some basic research.

Not to mention that you keep mentioning CO2 in ignorance of the mention of CH4. Is that by agenda, that CO2 can be targeted as having its worst affect by anthropogenic cause, but that natural wetlands produce more CH4 into the water, land and atmosphere, and is worse than CO2 by effect by a factor of 24x, than CO2, and that anthropogenic cause of CH4 is less than half [more like 1/3] of total CH4 levels in the environment, and that natural, and cultivated [like rice] wetlands contribute close to 65%, but nobody who is a GND proponent will admit that? That's wehat I mean by an agenda.
“Not to mention that you keep mentioning CO2 in ignorance of the mention of CH4.” You do realise CH4 is methane right? Higher production of CH4 is downstream from CO2. The more CO2 there is, the more nutrients organism have to produce CH4.

“Is that by agenda”. It might just be by your ignorance.

You also talk about wetlands which I’ve discussed. 

Okay, you argue, we are in our sixth period of mass extinction. So? Tell me how many of those other five periods included anthropogenic cause of alarm? And I challenge a denial that adaptation occurs in response to climatic events. Show me that biodiversity is merely theory; that we do not, in fact, observe its occurrence. 
Does it matter if they were anthropogenic or not? Yes, biodiversity is a thing such as viruses becoming more prominent because they transmit more easily with warmer body cores of hosts. Yeah, adaptation will occur, but not necessarily for the better.
Topic's author
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Of experts who say there will be mass migrations and wars over water
You ignore that I am old enough to have listened to "experts" say:

Communism will sweep the nation unless we eradicate commies from our shores. Nope, didn't happen.
Peak oil will occur by the seventies, and we will shortly thereafter run out. Nope, didn't happen.
Our world population will reach a critical threshold, depleting our resources, including food. Nope, did't happen.
The oceans will die by 1980. Nope, didn't happen.
Entire nations will be decimated by 2000 by global warming. Nope, didn't happen.
Lower Manhattan will be underwater by 2018. Didn't happen.
50M climate refugees by 2020. Nope, didn't happen.
Cheery blossoms will bloom in winter in D.C. by 2020. Nope, didn't happen.

There are about 2 dozen other predictions by "experts," based on climate, all to have occurred by now, 2021, that didn't happen.

So, how jaded do you think I am when all these "experts" are 0 - for a lot of failed predictions, yet someone gullible is in every crowd. They're all based on science? Funny thing, science is supposed to depend on empiric evidence, not some cloud-cleaner's crystal ball.

#30
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
You ignore that I am old enough to have listened to "experts" say:

Communism will sweep the nation unless we eradicate commies from our shores. Nope, didn't happen.
Wait, do you think Climate change is a communist conspiracy? If not, why did you mention it? when I said experts, I wasn’t referring to Cold War news and political pundits.

There are about 2 dozen other predictions by "experts," based on climate, all to have occurred by now, 2021, that didn't happen.
Could you give me sources of the predictions you’ve mentioned, although 3 or 4 of them aren’t to do with climate change. 
I want to see if they were widely held beliefs in the science community. I typed in “The oceans will die by 1980.” but couldn’t find anything. 

So, how jaded do you think I am when all these "experts" are 0 - for a lot of failed predictions, yet someone gullible is in every crowd. They're all based on science? Funny thing, science is supposed to depend on empiric evidence, not some cloud-cleaner's crystal ball.
Sounds to me you were duped by legacy media. If it bleeds it leads.