COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Good news!
    When anthropogenic global warming makes the oceans evaporate:
    We won't have to worry about coastal flooding from rising sea levels anymore.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    And think of all the new real estate available.... hee hee
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    An economic crisis in near time I expect too, but this has nothing to do with climate change.

    So, the climate change panic has also the side effect that people don't care about the really dangerous things.
    sculptor likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    same same when the glaciers begin to grow again, using up much of the ocean water to make fresh ice

    Continental shelves along the coasts of the United States alone cover an area of about 891,000 square miles (2,307,690 square kilometers).

    Globally: Continental shelves cover an area of about 27 million km2, equal to about 7% of the surface area of the oceans.

    As the oceans recede, every few years you could sell brand new oceanfront lots. (excepting, of course, in the higher latitudes)
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2019
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The complacency of ignorance.
    It does.
    The same financial policies boost both, and the one cripples the response to the other.
    The focus on the ignorant and feckless assessments of climate change, the hippie punching as they say,
    plus the outright lies of course,
    used to distract from the data and forecasts,
    certainly allows the standard wingnut Republican Party propagandists to deflect attention from their complicity in the real harm they are abetting, even to the point of refusing to fund research or publish information the public has already paid for.

    Look at the attention given to immigration vs recent climate change damage on the southern border of the US, for example. AGW is orders of magnitude more dangerous - uncontrolled immigration is a mere side effect of AGW.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Sure. Perhaps all the water will go to the Moon. Makes as much sense as anything else you've said.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    First, immigration is a real problem. And it happens actually.

    If AGW is a real problem, is a hypothesis. I doubt that it is, see
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    AlienProbesAreAssDotCom ?

    'if immigration was a real actually problem it would not even have its own hypothesis to deal with alien probing'... ?

    drunk posting... sheesh...
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Any argument? Or only cheap namecalling?
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The complacency of ignorance - Dunning-Kruger level, in this case.
    That immigration is a "problem" is a hypothesis - got any evidence?
    Most immigration seems to be more of a solution to a problem - such as danger from violence, or AGW's effects, or the need of market capitalism for cheap and vulnerable labor.
    You mean from this ignorant, namecalling putz?
    Nope. No argument visible, just cheap labels and namecalling, as is their usual post content.

    The funny part was the link - apparently we are looking forward to setting off hydrogen bombs in imitation of disastrous volcanos, to solve this "no problem" AGW.

    There is nothing - nothing at all - too stupid for a victim of US media propaganda to believe.
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    My beloved spouse once commented that if I had to tell people that that was a joke---it probably wasn't a good one...

  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    As a consequence of increased immigration, right-wing parties have reached much more support by the people than before. You probably like this, not?
    Not necessarily. But life is much more secure if there is an emergency stopgap if, for whatever reasons, AGW nonetheless becomes problematic.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    There seems to be a problem with the CO2 data.

    It is broadly recognized that atmospheric CO2 is lower at the poles than at the northern hemisphere's mid latitudes.
    The atmospheric CO2 is lower in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere.
    The atmospheric CO2 in the mid latitudes has a rather pronounced seasonality.
    The CO2 contained in the ice from antarctica is not necessarily from the year that the snow fell (snow--> firn ---> ice)
    There is little or no seasonal signature in the CO2 found in the air bubbles in the ice.
    the CO2 from the air bubbles trapped in the ice seems rather constant and unchanging---or slowly changing over centuries

    let us compare the CO2 from the ice to CO2 proxies derived from stomatal studies.(caveat:the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots---ergo stomatal index data may not be the able to precisely measure the atmospheric concentration .)
    The stomatal studies show wild variations in atmospheric CO2 during the same times that the CO2 from the ice shows none(or a small variation between 260-280 and 300 ppmv).
    eg: Circa 10.5 -11,000 years ago stomatal studies indicate atmospheric CO2 up to the 360 ppmv range while the ice indicates a rather steady 260-270 ppmv range.

    Perhaps we need a more detailed picture of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations and natural variability before we go making broad assumptions and draw erroneous conclusions.

    Leave us not to forget the desires/needs of the primary producers.............
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Meanwhile what we do know is that AGW is rapidly upon us, with very likely (to the point of certainty, in some cases) effects on the climate, driven by the global CO2 boost. That does not depend on the seasonal and geographic variations in CO2 concentration, or its "natural variability".
    We also will be dealing with ocean acidification, and a couple of other major changes in the global environment, driven by that boost.
    So while the experts fill in the corners of physical detail, the rest of us are faced with major events.
    1) Before when? Immigration to the US has slowed by some measures, for example.
    2) Recent immigration to the US - especially the problematic fraction - has been largely a consequence of the rise of rightwing politics (Reagan, drug wars, etc). Not the other way around.
    3) That's not an apparent consequence of increased immigration itself anyway, even outside the US - you are buying into the rightwing propaganda feed, as always.
    AGW has become problematic. Twenty years ago, it had become problematic.
    The stopgap posted is a bizarre folly whose mere possibility of enactment, mere suggestion by anyone able to launch it, would radically reduce our security. In particular, it would not help with the AGW consequences we now face - such as uncontrolled emigration from afflicted regions.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Or perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the difference between a longer term and global average and a temporary or local variation.
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Here I have in mind Europe. Given Trump's rhetorics, it seems it played some role in the US too, And I'm not buying some rightwing propaganda, I simply look what they say, and see that they have, quite objectively, success with these rhetorics. Right-wing parties in Europe have tried this all the time, given that there was some immigration they didn't like all the time, but they were never successful.

    There is, of course, also another factor which contributes - the mass media have overplayed openly distributing left-wing propaganda and become increasingly despised as propaganda media by the people. In this sense, it may not be the problems with immigration which are the problem, but the obvious propaganda affords of the media, which are full of lies, which try to present immigration as something positive.
    Actually, uncontrolled emigration is caused by political and economic factors which have nothing to do with climate change. I know that you like to attribute the Syrian war to problems caused by failed harvests in the years before, which are, as every weather which is not ideal, is attributed to climate change. The consequence was, similar to what I predict would be the consequence if harvests really fail because of climate change in some far future, local migration from rural to urban areas. This local migration increases the potential of conflict because of the cultural difference between rural and urban population, which is much greater in Arabic countries than usual. But without foreign support, this would not have lead to any civil war, and with foreign support for terrorists, a country has to be to very strong to avoid a civil war. So, don't blame the climate where Obama's administration and other Western criminal globalists have contributed much more.
    Similar to Libya, which is today the main route of illegal immigration to Europe from sub-Saharan Africa. Emigration from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe is not related to any climate problems, because of rural subsistence farmers are unable to afford it, so that it is mainly emigration from urban areas.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    For starters, there are no such "political and economic factors". No political or economic factors are unaffected by AGW, and many of them affect AGW.
    That never happened. And your source for that silly bs is completely obvious to an American - we are inundated with the rightwing corporate propaganda that dominates our mass media.
    You are completely vulnerable to even the crudest, silliest, least sensible rightwing authoritarian propaganda - you sucker for it every time, and you post it here as "objective" analysis, which is comical.
    You are as ignorant of the effects of AGW on Europe as anywhere else.
    But you didn't blame the "rhetorics", which were all lies and bs. You blamed the propaganda fantasy the rhetorics tried to instill. You bought the pitch. Again.

    That is a falsehood. Not all bad weather is attributed to AGW, and "failed harvests" is a dishonest description of the Syrian drought.
    Further, it contradicts your prior assertion that the political and economic factors involved have nothing to do with the weather.
    Yes, it is. Do your homework.
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I do not want to start to become a religious AGW believer.
    Of course, I know that you consider left-wing propaganda as Truth.
    The contradiction appears here because you lie (as usual) about what I wrote, "have nothing to do" was not about the weather, but about the climate change.
    And in this way, you have acknowledged in a Freudian way that, indeed, you attribute all bad weather to climate change.
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    It's a whole lot easier to quibble over the details of little-understood data than to deal with the facts.
    It's easier to shoot people - and they will have to shoot an awful lot of displaced people, some of whom will sooner or later start shooting back, not only on the southern border of the US, but in Alberta, in all the increasingly fascist states of Europe, not to mention Punjab, all those low-lying islands in the Pacific, and all the places where glacier-fed rivers dry up.
    A nice distraction, sure -
    but it's harder to ignore tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, mudslides, forest fires and tidal waves coming right at you.
    Once you've had the next economic crisis in a teapot, there will be no money to rebuild anything - seems there isn't enough for the less favoured US states now - or rescue anybody or evacuate anyplace.
    Cos that's what you need to save people from climate: money
    not common sense or common decency
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Irrelevant. You claimed inundation of mass media by leftwing propaganda about AGW, which is a silly claim you got from rightwing corporate authoritarian propaganda and never checked against reality. You bought the pitch.
    Then you should acquire information about physical reality, instead of swallowing silly propaganda feeds from US corporate sources.
    It was about both, of course. I merely refused your attempt to conceal the role of AGW in weather related problems.
    The changes in the weather, compiled globally, add up to the climate change. The one has to do with the other, directly. You were trying to reframe the issue by playing word games, in the familiar and easily recognized manner of your propaganda sources, for the purpose of concealing the role of AGW in such side effects as immigration, financial and political troubles, etc.
    Now you are attempting to bury the silly falsehood you originally posted - that all bad weather "is attributed" to climate change by some mythical leftwing mass media propaganda operation.

    This fantasy of a dominant leftwing mass media filling the ears of the public with leftwing AGW propaganda is one of the goofier and more obviously ludicrous memes of the US corporate rightwing media efforts, as it cannot survive even the most perfunctory reality check - but nothing is too stupid for you to believe, if it comes from the rightwing sources you take for granted. So you bought their pitch, swallowed it whole.

    In the matter of AGW, in particular, you have bought the rightwing corporate US Republican Party line in a matter of continuing and experienced physical reality, something impossible to escape or conceal for very long. That becomes a problem for any self-aware adult with pretensions to intellectual ability or prudence, since in light of that unavoidable physical reality the Republican pitch is absurd, self-contradictory, childishly irrational, amnesiac, venal, corrupt, and in general embarrassing to any educated person over the age of twelve. So you are reduced to these personal attacks, and the rewriting of history that enables them - your other choice would be the other US corporate mass media pundit standard: amnesia.

    You can flail around in denial of AGW, forget about AGW, ignore AGW, all you want - it will not grant you the same dispensation. Train's coming, you are on the track along with everybody else.

Share This Page