Climate Change

[gatchaman]

This is completely irrelevant with regards to the actual problem. The problem is the change caused by altering CO2 levels, not by CO2 levels themselves. A world with higher CO2 levels isn't necessarily a problem in of itself, its all the things that come along with it - radical changes to the climate, rising sea levels, changes in which parts of the earth can support large scale farming etc. If the CO2 levels had been

If sea levels had been 50 feet higher for the past million years, it wouldn't be an issue because humans would have settled where the beach lies with those sea levels. The sea level rising now is a problem, because it would require hundreds of millions of people to move, and would involve the loss of trillions of dollars worth of human infrastructure.

And, nowhere did you 'show' that the impact of fossil fuels burning is speculation - at least with regards to the big picture, at this point it is well established and settled science.

More speculation, give me numbers in this format: Humans burn fossil fuels and increase the CO2 by x ppm; this causes exactly y to happen.

It's stupid. According to you: Humans need to decrease the amount that they are increasing atmospheric CO2. How much? Irrelevant!

 

[dirtypablo]

There are hidden forces at work in the world, Voodoo...

Edit: LOL

Or in this case, obvious forces..

Spoiler

The fossil fuel industry who brainwashed you into believing nonsense

 

[lilelvis]

Or in this case, obvious forces..

Spoiler

The fossil fuel industry who brainwashed you into believing nonsense

Edit: LOL

 

[lilelvis]

Jesus christ you're hopeless.

Oops! Used the wrong gif...

Edit: LOL

 

[cooks1]

Excuse my interjection, but the impact of humans burning fossil fuels on climate is entirely speculation. I'll show you.

What is the safe level of atmospheric CO2 for humans to exist on the planet? What happens below this limit and above this limit? I think that you have no idea, so I don't see how you can be arguing that CO2 needs to be lower. How low? Zero? If you make an attempt at some hard numbers then I will give you mine.

You need to read what I wrote again. Slower this time.

I said humans impacting climate change can be true alongside the fact that there was climate change before humans.

Then I suggested what he really wanted to ask was- Even if human contribution to climate change is significant, does it really matter since climate change already happens? My assertion was that yes it matters, or at least should if you care.

Then I used an analogy to posit that in peoples own personal spheres, they have a much lower tolerance for obnoxious, reckless, and wasteful behavior than they expect the larger world to have of them.

At no point did I assert anything about global warming, CO2/Oxygen levels, or fossil fuel consumption/reduction. Personally, I think the more diversified our energy sources are, the better off we are. In fact I did not make a single suggestion about what should be done.

Despite the fact that I did not make make a single suggestion about what to do, you wretched immediately with what you inferred was a rebuttal.

There are at least 10 things everyone can do that have huge positive impacts on our environment and society regardless of where they come down on CO2 and fossil fuels. People just lurch violently against any suggested behavior modification.

 

[dirtypablo]

More speculation, give me numbers in this format: Humans burn fossil fuels and increase the CO2 by x ppm; this causes exactly y to happen.

It's stupid. According to you: Humans need to decrease the amount that they are increasing atmospheric CO2. How much? Irrelevant!

Um, what? I never said the amount is irrelevant. You asked about the safe level CO2 for humans to live on the planet, which is an irrelevant question with regards to the actual problem of climate change. There is a pretty wide range of CO2 levels that we could survive with. That isn't the issue - the issue is the change from where were at pre-industrial levels, to what the world looks like when it settles from the changes we are introducing. (And what that transition period looks like) If the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had been their current levels for the last million years the current levels wouldn't be an issue - increasing them would be.

And, as far as humans burn x amount of fuels results in exactly y happening, that's a nonsensical question that anyone with even a basic understanding of science and complex systems would understand is impossible to answer. Similarly, modern science can't tell you that if you start smoking cigarettes today, in 16 years, 4 months and 2 days you'll develop lung cancer. What it can tell you, is that if you start smoking today your risk for getting lung cancer as well as a whole host of other cancers is going to skyrocket. Would you start smoking today, just because we can't make an exact prediction about what disease you will get and when? We understand the system well enough to make broad predictions that should guide your behavior - I am going to guess you wouldn't encourage your kids to start smoking, right?

Similarly, no, we can't make exact predictions about what will happen to the climate, because there are an impossible number of variables to account for. What we can do, is make layers of predictions with ranges of confidence - increasing the CO2 this much will cause warming in this range, and we're this confident. That warming may cause this particular area to see an increase in some particular weather event over x timeline, etc. This is the basis of climate science, and so far the predictions have been incredibly accurate - where they're not, they are often wrong in the wrong direction we would want them to be wrong - they usually under prediction the effects, rather than over predict them.

 

[Queen B]

Here is Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib VICIOUSLY scolding Jamie Dimon on his stance on fossil fuels

 

[cooks1]

Um, what? I never said the amount is irrelevant. You asked about the safe level CO2 for humans to live on the planet, which is an irrelevant question with regards to the actual problem of climate change. There is a pretty wide range of CO2 levels that we could survive with. That isn't the issue - the issue is the change from where were at pre-industrial levels, to what the world looks like when it settles from the changes we are introducing. (And what that transition period looks like) If the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had been their current levels for the last million years the current levels wouldn't be an issue - increasing them would be.

And, as far as humans burn x amount of fuels results in exactly y happening, that's a nonsensical question that anyone with even a basic understanding of science and complex systems would understand is impossible to answer. Similarly, modern science can't tell you that if you start smoking cigarettes today, in 16 years, 4 months and 2 days you'll develop lung cancer. What it can tell you, is that if you start smoking today your risk for getting lung cancer as well as a whole host of other cancers is going to skyrocket. Would you start smoking today, just because we can't make an exact prediction about what disease you will get and when? We understand the system well enough to make broad predictions that should guide your behavior - I am going to guess you wouldn't encourage your kids to start smoking, right?

Similarly, no, we can't make exact predictions about what will happen to the climate, because there are an impossible number of variables to account for. What we can do, is make layers of predictions with ranges of confidence - increasing the CO2 this much will cause warming in this range, and we're this confident. That warming may cause this particular area to see an increase in some particular weather event over x timeline, etc. This is the basis of climate science, and so far the predictions have been incredibly accurate - where they're not, they are often wrong in the wrong direction we would want them to be wrong - they usually under prediction the effects, rather than over predict them.

Very Well said. I will definitely plagiarize some of this in future conversations.

What I would like is just for people to put the blame aside for just a moment, and acknowledge fundamental realities we are and will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. Large scale issues. Sea levels are rising. Everyone can agree on that. Nearly 40% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coast. 1/3 live within 100m of sea level. Regardless of the cause, the next centuries will be the 'great migration'.

Indonesia has 273 million people. 40% of Jakarta is below sea level. That's just 1 country. NYC is 33 feet above sea level. Miami is 6 feet above sea level. That's 25 million people in 2 cities.

Somebody mentioned Bangladesh earlier. That is 164 million people living 27 ft above sea level. Where do those people go if they have to leave? I'm sure the transition of 10's of millions flocking to nuclear powers China and India will be seamless and peaceful. After all, India and China are the best of friends right?

The world is going to be dealing with serious pain and change. Some of the pain change can be behavior change now and some will be strife down the line. We have a say in that.

 

[KeepingItReal]

Very Well said. I will definitely plagiarize some of this in future conversations.

What I would like is just for people to put the blame aside for just a moment, and acknowledge fundamental realities we are and will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. Large scale issues. Sea levels are rising. Everyone can agree on that. Nearly 40% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coast. 1/3 live within 100m of sea level. Regardless of the cause, the next centuries will be the 'great migration'.

Indonesia has 273 million people. 40% of Jakarta is below sea level. That's just 1 country. NYC is 33 feet above sea level. Miami is 6 feet above sea level. That's 25 million people in 2 cities.

Somebody mentioned Bangladesh earlier. That is 164 million people living 27 ft above sea level. Where do those people go if they have to leave? I'm sure the transition of 10's of millions flocking to nuclear powers China and India will be seamless and peaceful. After all, India and China are the best of friends right?

The world is going to be dealing with serious pain and change. Some of the pain change can be behavior change now and some will be strife down the line. We have a say in that.

When I searched this on Google the second article that mentions this also mentions the fact that the flooding in Jakarta isn't because of climate change, it's because the land is sinking.

"Forty percent of Jakarta is already below sea level, but the main reason why the city is sinking is not climate change. Instead, it’s a thirst for clean water. Less than half of the city’s population has access to piped water, leading to a proliferation of wells and pumps, often installed illegally. Over the decades, they’ve depleted the aquifers beneath the city, leading to land subsidence."

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/a...-and-land-in-the-worlds-fastest-sinking-city/

It's also noteworthy that while climate change has the fantastic ability to increase the speed at which sea levels rise it also simultaneously has the utterly amazing ability to make the fall 32 inches in the course of 70 years.

https://sealevelrise.org/states/alaska/

Is there anything climate change is NOT capable of doing? Well there probably is, but no government funded scientist would ever say it, for risk of losing their job.

Another interesting find is that when tectonic plates move, water in the ocean gets trapped beneath them. And scientists recently estimated that they have been off by a factor of three, that is three times more water gets trapped than previously though.

"If other old, cold subducting slabs contain similarly thick layers of hydrous mantle, then estimates of the global water flux into the mantle at depths greater than 60 miles must be increased by a factor of about three," said Wiens.

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=297133

So glaciers are melting but water is also being trapped beneath the mantle as tectonic plates move, but of course you will never hear about that second part in mainstream media, because you know, you don't want to give anyone hope for the future. Or cast any doubt that sea levels will inevitably rise, absolutely everywhere, even in places where they have been falling for the last 70 years.

 

[cooks1]

When I searched this on Google the second article that mentions this also mentions the fact that the flooding in Jakarta isn't because of climate change, it's because the land is sinking.

"Forty percent of Jakarta is already below sea level, but the main reason why the city is sinking is not climate change. Instead, it’s a thirst for clean water. Less than half of the city’s population has access to piped water, leading to a proliferation of wells and pumps, often installed illegally. Over the decades, they’ve depleted the aquifers beneath the city, leading to land subsidence."

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/a...-and-land-in-the-worlds-fastest-sinking-city/

It's also noteworthy that while climate change has the fantastic ability to increase the speed at which sea levels rise it also simultaneously has the utterly amazing ability to make the fall 32 inches in the course of 70 years.

https://sealevelrise.org/states/alaska/

Is there anything climate change is NOT capable of doing? Well there probably is, but no government funded scientist would ever say it, for risk of losing their job.

I see you completely ignored the part about deferring the blame and dealing with the problems. Over a billion people will be relocating. And most of them will have limited options about where to. And most of the 'where to's' are not going to be excited about the prospect of it. No amount of deflection is going to change that.

 

[KeepingItReal]

I see you completely ignored the part about deferring the blame and dealing with the problems. Over a billion people will be relocating. And most of them will have limited options about where to. And most of the 'where to's' are not going to be excited about the prospect of it. No amount of deflection is going to change that.

You're being too optimistic, a billion people aren't going to relocate, they are going to die, you know, because of climate change.

As for ignoring things, I definitely ignore people who consume other people pre though thoughts and let a whole forum of people know that they don't need to think, instead they will plagiarize other people's views. Yes I ignore most of what such people say.

 

[no fat chicks]

When I searched this on Google the second article that mentions this also mentions the fact that the flooding in Jakarta isn't because of climate change, it's because the land is sinking.

"Forty percent of Jakarta is already below sea level, but the main reason why the city is sinking is not climate change. Instead, it’s a thirst for clean water. Less than half of the city’s population has access to piped water, leading to a proliferation of wells and pumps, often installed illegally. Over the decades, they’ve depleted the aquifers beneath the city, leading to land subsidence."

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/a...-and-land-in-the-worlds-fastest-sinking-city/

It's also noteworthy that while climate change has the fantastic ability to increase the speed at which sea levels rise it also simultaneously has the utterly amazing ability to make the fall 32 inches in the course of 70 years.

https://sealevelrise.org/states/alaska/

Is there anything climate change is NOT capable of doing? Well there probably is, but no government funded scientist would ever say it, for risk of losing their job.

Another interesting find is that when tectonic plates move, water in the ocean gets trapped beneath them. And scientists recently estimated that they have been off by a factor of three, that is three times more water gets trapped than previously though.

"If other old, cold subducting slabs contain similarly thick layers of hydrous mantle, then estimates of the global water flux into the mantle at depths greater than 60 miles must be increased by a factor of about three," said Wiens.

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=297133

So glaciers are melting but water is also being trapped beneath the mantle as tectonic plates move, but of course you will never hear about that second part in mainstream media, because you know, you don't want to give anyone hope for the future. Or cast any doubt that sea levels will inevitably rise, absolutely everywhere, even in places where they have been falling for the last 70 years.

Ahh yes every climate scientist is terrified to speak the "truth" .

If data comes out in an overwhelming amount disputing the earth is warming it would make the career of any scientists who came forth with it.

You think governments and companies want to get off oil? They don't. If they found out it wasn't a problem for the planet and climate change wasn't driven by CO2 that research would be front and center

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

The planet will be fine, the people are fucked.

 

[dirtypablo]

When I searched this on Google the second article that mentions this also mentions the fact that the flooding in Jakarta isn't because of climate change, it's because the land is sinking.

"Forty percent of Jakarta is already below sea level, but the main reason why the city is sinking is not climate change. Instead, it’s a thirst for clean water. Less than half of the city’s population has access to piped water, leading to a proliferation of wells and pumps, often installed illegally. Over the decades, they’ve depleted the aquifers beneath the city, leading to land subsidence."

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/a...-and-land-in-the-worlds-fastest-sinking-city/

It's also noteworthy that while climate change has the fantastic ability to increase the speed at which sea levels rise it also simultaneously has the utterly amazing ability to make the fall 32 inches in the course of 70 years.

https://sealevelrise.org/states/alaska/

Is there anything climate change is NOT capable of doing? Well there probably is, but no government funded scientist would ever say it, for risk of losing their job.

Another interesting find is that when tectonic plates move, water in the ocean gets trapped beneath them. And scientists recently estimated that they have been off by a factor of three, that is three times more water gets trapped than previously though.

"If other old, cold subducting slabs contain similarly thick layers of hydrous mantle, then estimates of the global water flux into the mantle at depths greater than 60 miles must be increased by a factor of about three," said Wiens.

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=297133

So glaciers are melting but water is also being trapped beneath the mantle as tectonic plates move, but of course you will never hear about that second part in mainstream media, because you know, you don't want to give anyone hope for the future. Or cast any doubt that sea levels will inevitably rise, absolutely everywhere, even in places where they have been falling for the last 70 years.

Your comments regarding Jakarta don't change the fact that rising sea levels will effect them considerably. The city may not be sinking because of climate change, that doesn't change the reality that a city below sea level will be hit hard by rising sea levels.

Unsurprising, you make another incorrect claim with regards to Alaska and sea level change. Climate change didn't cause the sea level to rise in Alaska, plate tectonics driving the land upwards did.. did you even read the link you quoted?

Regarding the trapping of water in trenches, that might be relevant if we didn't have well over a hundred years worth of sea level measurements all showing a clear rise, with the rate at which the rise is occuring increasing rapidly over the past couple decades. This rate is projected to continue to increase in the coming decades. How is this relevant when the net result is an increase in sea level? Are you aware of some major plate tectonic changes that will be happening in the next couple decades that are going to offset the increase caused by warming? Because right now, that trapping isn't changing the reality of sea level rise - perhaps that, and not some grand conspiracy, is why you never hear about it?

 

[dirtypablo]

The planet will be fine, the people are fucked.

People, animals, and all sorts of plant life.

 

[dirtypablo]

Very Well said. I will definitely plagiarize some of this in future conversations.

What I would like is just for people to put the blame aside for just a moment, and acknowledge fundamental realities we are and will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. Large scale issues. Sea levels are rising. Everyone can agree on that. Nearly 40% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coast. 1/3 live within 100m of sea level. Regardless of the cause, the next centuries will be the 'great migration'.

Indonesia has 273 million people. 40% of Jakarta is below sea level. That's just 1 country. NYC is 33 feet above sea level. Miami is 6 feet above sea level. That's 25 million people in 2 cities.

Somebody mentioned Bangladesh earlier. That is 164 million people living 27 ft above sea level. Where do those people go if they have to leave? I'm sure the transition of 10's of millions flocking to nuclear powers China and India will be seamless and peaceful. After all, India and China are the best of friends right?

The world is going to be dealing with serious pain and change. Some of the pain change can be behavior change now and some will be strife down the line. We have a say in that.

It's why I don't have much faith we're going to get through it - look at how we're treating immigrants now. What's going to happen when the number of people showing up at the border increases 10 fold? Even within the country, there's a good possibility certain areas are going to become uninhabitable. For most middle class Americans, the bulk of their net worth is in the value of their home. What's going to happen when millions of Americans not only have to move, but went from being middle class to now poor because they couldn't sell their home?

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

People, animals, and all sorts of plant life.

Are human beings part of nature? If they are what's going on is natural and it suppose to happen. Just look at us like a parasite that devours the planet. But the planet will be fine in the long run.

 

[dirtypablo]

Are human beings part of nature? If they are what's going on is natural and it suppose to happen. Just look at us like a parasite that devours the planet. But the planet will be fine in the long run.

Do you have the same view towards all human problems? Who cares, the earth will be fine?

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Do you have the same view towards all human problems? Who cares, the earth will be fine?

I mean we're going to do what we're going to do to preserve us and keep us alive as long as possible. But the point I'm making is we're part of nature, everything in this universe is part of nature. So it's inevitable these things will happen. We are neither good or bad, on this planet. It is what it is. But the planet has gone through so much changes through its inception. The planet will be fine regardless what humans do imo.

 

[dirtypablo]

I mean we're going to do what we're going to do to preserve us and keep us alive as long as possible. But the point I'm making is we're part of nature, everything in this universe is part of nature. So it's inevitable these things will happen. We are neither good or bad, on this planet. It is what it is. But the planet has gone through so much changes through its inception. The planet will be fine regardless what humans do imo.

I know that we're part of nature.

What I'm asking is, if this was a thread about someone who had raped and murdered a hundred children, would you have the same cavalier attitude? It's natural, the earth will be fine, no biggie! Or would you want to see this person punished, perhaps to try and drive towards a world where that doesn't happen?

I'm not stressed about this - I fully agree whatever's going to happen is going to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards making what happens less painful for the beings currently living on earth.