Congress to slash funding for Global Warming research at NASA

I already did that - your refusal to read the plan put forth by NASA is your problem.

Here's another for you to ignore... Now, support your damn claims or retract them (since we know they are bullshit anyway)

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/evaluating-climate-policy-options-costs-and-benefits

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you didn't. These are the only NASA links you posted:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/​

With only the second one including a very general overview of a response, with zero detail in implementation that could possibly be compared to real world costs. Devoid of those metrics, this doesn't support your claim that this plan is "viable". So quit being so disingenuous...or just failing to read and understand what you post. Hell, it doesn't look like you even read the very first paragraph/disclaimer:

NASA is a world leader in climate studies and Earth science. While its role is not to set climate policy or prescribe particular responses or solutions to climate change... - https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/​

Where are the actual cost figures? You can't just Google the first thing that mentions cost-benefit analysis and expect anyone to sift through the scores of links to find the supposed support for your own claim. Find a specific link and quote it. Don't send people on wild snipe hunts. Are you really that intellectually dishonest, or do you just believe whatever confirms your bias...without any actually supporting data?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No doubt you'll just continue to do what you've done above, and just proclaim things as support when they don't even speak to viability. Until you can back up your own claim, you have no grounds to demand anyone else...and you know it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All sounds reasonable

And like the example of the ice cubes in a pan of water

I'll take your word at face value as what you believe from your readings and understanding

And I will also take on board the rate of warming is faster than it has been in the past

Extinction I'm not so sure to take that at face value but I will grant a possibility it may have occurred as a result of global warming or climate change (thanks for the origin of that change)

However I am still trying to find the tip point temperature where the rate of warming turns from a Lada to a Lamborghini

I would have thought that would have been a focus point of any report

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, if you were debating honestly (which we know you aren't), you would admit that YOU made the initial claim, right here:

To which I replied:

You responded with:

To which I said:

Now, as any reasonable person would read it, YOU, Syne, made the claim that these plans would "require more than the world's GDP to slow the effects".

You made that assertion. You have to support it. My "claim" as you call it was simply that reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which have been done quite successfully, by requiring improvements to vehicle / transportation efficiency, landfill regulations, etc - read a bit and you may just learn something
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-regulatory-initiatives
https://www.epa.gov/air-pollution-t...ents-and-success-air-pollution-transportation
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/what-epa-doing-about-climate-change
) would help slow this runaway train we are one, and indeed, the links I provided from NASA et al support that statement.

You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but bluster and obfuscation and whinging... which is quite typical of you...

Either put up, or shut up.

Oh, and to address the rest:

You are the one professing to have "actual cost figures", yet you refuse to state them or source them... nope, not how this works.

Are you really so naive as to believe the entirety of global warming and how to combat it can be summed up in a single quotable paragraph?... no, of course you aren't - you are dropping a big, stinking red herring to try to cover up your absolute lack of supporting evidence.

Again with the childish emotes... actually, I think I'm going to start editing your posts just to remove them because of how much you rely on them (seriously, do you REALLY think you can stare someone into submission over the internet? I mean, you are about as intimidating as a guinea pig so... yeah, knock it off). And the only one being dishonest here is you - you claimed you have seen figures "exceeding the worlds GDP", now back it up.

Actually, I do, on several grounds:
1) It is a forum rule, and you will abide by it - this is not a pseudoscience section.
2) You made the claim that the plans you have seen exceed the worlds GDP, and are now refusing to back said claim up (most likely because you cannot). Ergo, the one being dishonest here is you.
3) You have a long history of demanding ever increasing amounts of evidence from others (which you promptly ignore or cherry pick sentences out of to make it appear it is actually supporting your position) - this is also against forum rules:

Now, I will say it one final time - back your arguments Syne, or I will remove you from this conversation for being in breach of several of SciForums established rules.

 

1) The various tipping points are all uncertain - probability calculations. They aren't temperatures per se, but combinations of CO2 concentrations and rates of temp increase and ice status and methane release and so forth. We seem to have passed the tipping point for near term loss of Arctic sea ice in summer, and long term loss of several major land ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, maybe. That's conventional - standard conservative number crunch. More troubling are the various calculations that indicate an increasing likelihood of something like touching off a positive feedback methane release loop - but that depends on the rate and manner of the warming, not just the absolute temp reached, and the current one is unprecedented, therefore less predictable in its effects.

2) The rate of warming is already a Lamborghini, geologically speaking. Afaik nobody has found a record of one demonstrated to have been even a quarter as fast, in the geological record, except possibly in the immediate wake of a meteor winter - the recovery from one of the global temperature drops caused by the dust etc from a very large meteor, returning to and past (because of the extra CO2 and lower O2 levels) the former equilibrium.

It can get even faster, of course - including the still apparently low but increasing and already far, far too high probability of a methane runaway - even just a short term one, a blip. (Worrisome for two reasons: one is that it would be really bad, the other is that human beings are notoriously incompetent at dealing with low probabilities of high-impact events - we buy lottery tickets, we drive without seat belts. Our characteristic error would be to underestimate what we should do, rationally, to head off this possibility. We are, in other words, probably, playing with matches next to a leaky gas tank.)

So "tipping point" numbers of various kinds have been the subject of many serious analyses - the IPCC tip number to avoid catastrophic disruption of human civilizations is equilibrium at +2C from the 1900 baseline within a century or so, which would mean ideally a stable 350 ppm CO2 and at worst 400 ppm. The consensus of most observers is that we blew past any good chance of that recently, and our foot's still on the gas - with more tipping points ahead.

 

So to sum up

The sky is falling

It has fallen in the past

It has been put back up in the past

No one really knows why it fell in the past

No one really knows why it got back up in the past

But this time it is falling faster

To stop it falling fast everybody must stop using everything

But even that might not be enough

No one can say what the tipping point temperature is but it must be close

Choices

Stop living a modern lifestyle and don't let those people who would like a modern lifestyle get it

Or

Continue as we are and in the spirit of Charles adapt

Not really a choice is it?

OK who is for adapt or die?

I make that 7 billion 900 thousand 438

The adapties have it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Eh... not quite.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fact that CO2 is so much higher than its previous levels (even accounting for deep freezes and intense thaws) is problematic. In 50 years, we have pushed it over 80 million parts per million beyond the historic maximum before things reverse and cool. We should, according to trend, be approaching a point of global cooling - instead, we have had a record number of "hottest years on record": as an example:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hottest-months-global-warming-20797

This simply isn't sustainable.

The biggest and "simplest" changes would be in mass energy production - away from coal fired or Natural Gas plants and towards more Solar, Wind, Hydro, or even Nuclear plants. This is doable:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sg=AFQjCNGeEltHu5yALSqIevzzNejs4UB4ng&cad=rja

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001269

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Simply put... not only is alternative energy becoming far more affordable, but the resulting damage to the environment from fossil fuel source is undeniable:
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/...could-cost-billions-epa-report-says.html?_r=0

So... the choice basically comes down to this:

Take action now, spend a lot of money now, potentially save the environment, potentially make things better for future generations, probably avoid large natural disasters later.

or

Do nothing now, destroy the environment, and shrug knowing that by the time the worst of the impacts come along, we (the current generations) will be dead and it is our descendants that will have to deal with a planet no longer suitable for supporting our growing population.

 

I see a few ' if' ' buts ' and 'may bes ' in there

And that's AFTER the ' if' ' buts ' and 'may bes ' have been done to save the planet

Darwin in effect adapt or die

Don't be so hard on yourself

As one comedian put it

To hell with the future generations what have they ever done for us

I understand the situation as some predict the outcome

However the solutions (which seem to be required yesterday or years ago) inflict as much damage as the problem

Yes let's take a leadership role and assist others to follow

Running around crying ' The Sky is falling ' does not help

Working to lift the sky up and showing the sky can be lifted and asking for assistance much better

Sadly to much ' crying falling ' and not much ' demonstrating lifting ' going on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If we do something and still fail, at least we tried. If we do nothing and fail... well, we don't get to complain.

Hard for humans to adapt to their cities being underwater

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We were making progress - the US had been leading in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions, and as of this past year, even China has gotten on board to an extent. Now... well, Trump and Co are reversing tack and removing as much of those regulations as possible... so, yeah. At this point, I think crying foul is pretty understandable.

 

In the past the sky did not fall, except for a few widely spaced and long ago times with big meteor impacts or massive volcanic eruption.

In this case as well, the sky isn't falling: it's being dropped or thrown down by deliberate human agency.What we are doing now is approaching - likely to become - the equivalent of dropping a meteor on our own heads. The recommendation, from everybody who has looked into the matter, is that we make the thing as small as possible, and drop it as gently as we can manage, and that the penalty for not taking those precautions has some possibility of being truly catastrophic.

No, they don't. In fact, much of the precautions and alterations of behavior indicated would be beneficial in their own right - not damage, but upgrade.

Of course it would have been better and cheaper and easier to have done these things years ago. And that is what we will be saying years from now, if we continue to not do them.

 

The only "damage" the processes that would mitigate and/or avert a climate disaster would inflict would be upon those people utterly beholden to the Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas industries... and honestly, after turning profits in the tens of millions to billions of dollars range, I don't give a fuck if they lose their money printing press... they have more than enough (or should, if they haven't wasted it on hookers and blow) and the future of the species is more important than them having yet another yacht or mansion or whatever.

 

So now you claim you didn't make an assertion...so you can weasel out of supporting it. You just quoted yourself as claiming there was a "viable plan." You do know what "viable" means, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not only does a viable plan have to show some indication that it may work, it has to be capable of being implemented. You can continue your little ploy of poisoning the well, with your aspersions to "debating honestly", but it's clear to everyone that this is just a distraction from your own intellectual dishonesty.
It's downright laughable that you've managed the mental gymnastics to convince yourself that "I haven't seen any credible predictions" and "If anyone ever comes up with a viable plan, then we can weigh the cost/benefits" are assertions. You've basically reduced your argument to the crank's "prove me wrong" nonsense. Good luck with that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What? Can't find anything in all that to quote that actually supports your claim of a "viable plan"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The onus is on you to support your own claims.

You don't know much about debate, do you? Unsupported assertions require no refute, and refuting bare assertions only lends them artificial credibility. This is a common ploy...to make a bare assertion, and then when challenged, demand that others prove your bare assertion wrong (shifting the burden to cover the fallacy). It's a common trolling trick.

Where? You're making shit up, mate. Again, do you even know what "viable" means?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nice try, but I'm not asking for an entire plan in one paragraph. I'm asking for any indication of viability (your claim), which includes cost metrics. Take any segment of the economy as an example, for christ's sake.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tone policing ("childish emotes") is just another ploy of trollers. It's a handy distraction and attempted discrediting by ad hominem. So long as you don't edit my quoted posts to change the meaning, I couldn't care less.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL! "Intimidating"? Sounds like he doth protest too much. What a fertile imagination to attribute to much to common Roll Eyes and Bugeye emotes.
Sadly, you claimed that you knew of a "viable plan", I expressed doubt, and you've yet to support your claim. Crying "prove me wrong" is not how honest debate works, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Then why haven't you supported your claim?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Only after a claim of yours you seemingly refuse to support. I have links ready and waiting for you to step up and be honest, but I'm not feeding trollish refusals to support your own claims. You don't get to cry foul when you've yet to provide what you demand.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet every time you make those particular accusations, and I ask you to quote instances, you suddenly clam up about it.

Yes, your refusal to support your own assertion ("viable plan") IS against forum rules. And you posting links without specific quotes amounts to a violation of:

"Do not expect members to do your homework for you."​

Me feeding your hypocritical demands would only abet you in continuing doing so.

Get another mods opinion, mate. You are projecting your own violations of these forum rules, and you taking action is a clear conflict if interest (not that you'd have any compunction against that).

You made your claim first...so you support your own claim before demand anything of others.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Fortunately, we have moved beyond that. We no longer say "can't farm yourself? Please die." We now have agriculture. We no longer say "sick? Please die." We now have medicine. Over the years, we have developed the intelligence to plan for future problems (like hunger, or illness, or climate change) so that we can mitigate those problems in the future.

My home and cars are powered by the sun. Doesn't seem to be much "damage" to me.

We've been doing that for decades, and renewable energy is now the fastest-growing energy sector there is.

Saying "it's too hard, we're too dumb, it's too expensive, I don't understand, it's hopeless anyway" - bad
Saying "we're doing it, we just have to continue in this direction, here's how" - much better.

 

Once again, wrong answer... three strikes, you're out.

 

It's ironic. Global warming is going to affect the US just as much as other nations -- maybe more so. Major US coastal cities like NYC, Boston, Tampa, New Orleans, Newark, and Miami are going to be hard hit by a sea level rise of a couple of feet.

 

Learn from the past:
The Eemian:

With polar temperatures ~3–5°C warmer than today, the last interglacial stage (~125kyr ago) serves as a partial analogue for 1–2°C global warming scenarios. Geological records from several sites indicate that local sea levels during the last interglacial were higher than today, but because local sea levels differ from global sea level, accurately reconstructing past global sea level requires an integrated analysis of globally distributed data sets. Here we present an extensive compilation of local sea level indicators and a statistical approach for estimating global sea level, local sea levels, ice sheet volumes and their associated uncertainties. We find a 95% probability that global sea level peaked at least 6.6m higher than today during the last interglacial; it is likely (67% probability) to have exceeded 8.0m

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html

OK
so without our help the seas rose, then fell many many times.
Why should this interglacial be any different?
If you do not know that, then you are guessing.

Rising sea levels would be an inconvenience, not a disaster nor catastrophe.

 

Because this time we are causing the heating by releasing GHG's.

For someone in Denver? They are a mere inconvenience.
For a farmer living in Bangladesh? A catastrophe that could easily kill him and his entire family.

 

Now, now. Don't you know that "real" Americans don't give a shit about poor people in coastal areas, especially in other countries.

 

sculptor said: ↑
so without our help the seas rose, then fell many many times.
Why should this interglacial be any different?

The point remains:
It seems most likely that you do not know the causal factor for the eemian highstand.(or for that of mis 11)
If you do not know that, then you are guessing.
And, you are guessing that any action you take will create a different result than experienced during the eemian.

And that, fellow poster, seems to be a bit of a wild guess.

 

The rate of change. Much faster than in the past, and faster than animals and plants can adapt.