No no no, it's you who refuses to countenance the Younger Dryas. If not industrialisation, what caused it?
We are currently experiencing mild warming that has more pros than cons for the planet.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
We are currently experiencing mild warming that has more pros than cons for the planet.
FFS now its the "warming is good" argument 
Which is it Lee, is the warming not happening, happening too slowly to worry about or a good thing? You're all over the place.
The Younger Dryas was 15,000 years ago, funnily enough I'm more focussed on the present. Unless you can provide some evidence that what caused the warming back 15,000 years ago is somehow the same cause as the current warming I'll keep ignoring this little diversion and continue to state what we do know:
DS
Which is it Lee, is the warming not happening, happening too slowly to worry about or a good thing? You're all over the place.The Younger Dryas was 15,000 years ago, funnily enough I'm more focussed on the present. Unless you can provide some evidence that what caused the warming back 15,000 years ago is somehow the same cause as the current warming I'll keep ignoring this little diversion and continue to state what we do know:
- There is an observed warming in the climate.
- The best and most credible explanation for the observed change is human activity leading to an alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere enhancing the greenhouse effect.
DS
This is what I'm leading to.
Are We on the Brink of a ‘New Little Ice Age?’
If you cannot account for the past, how can you presume to know the future?
Lee, a new little ice age?
That's off the deep end even for you.
This is the usual rubbish that, since the climate has changed in the past human activity can't possibly be the explanation for the current warming. This argument is so stupid it defies description.
I can't account for the 37 year premiership drought Richmond suffered and the way a well run club turned into a basket case, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the actions which led to the recent success.
DS
That's off the deep end even for you.
This is the usual rubbish that, since the climate has changed in the past human activity can't possibly be the explanation for the current warming. This argument is so stupid it defies description.
I can't account for the 37 year premiership drought Richmond suffered and the way a well run club turned into a basket case, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the actions which led to the recent success.
DS
It's not my theory but has support among solar scientists, as posted previously. Thought it was interesting that a very reputable organisation like Woods Hole had floated a similar possibility while invoking the Younger Dryas as an example.
The interesting thing about the YD event is that there is a lot of evidence that it wasn't global, but was localised. You don't mention that because you want to sell the fact that those extreme changes were global - they probably weren't. We know that ocean currents and heat distributions can have profound effects - a bit like the possibility that a change to gulf stream winds could actually turn Europe much colder than it is now. There are also theories that the YD event was caused by an asteroid strike affecting these other complex systems.
I believe that local factors like this are ultimately much more important than sun cycles - the climate is an incredibly complex system with various tipping points and interactions that we only understand in a limited fashion.
What we do know is that CO2 accumulation is a heat forcer and we've got all the measurements that prove that our recent increases are due to this accumulation. And our understanding of global historical change is pretty good.
It's the usual FUD though - science doesn't get everything 100% right so let's ignore science. Bonkers.
Yes, the changes were regional - as we're seeing now. Most of the rise is in the far north, with minimal rise at the equator. In the Younger Dryas, equatorial change was more like three degrees.
"There is no doubt that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does have some warming effect on the lower troposphere (about 0. 5 degrees Kelvin for a doubling from the pre-industrial revolution era), although it has not been proven that the warming effect actually results in a rise in the global mean surface temperature, because of the extremely complex processes operating in the real climate system, many of which are represented in perfunctory manner at best or ignored altogether in climate simulation models."
- Mototaka Nakamura
My summary.
It’s complicated.
You can’t hold every variable constant while you change just one in one ‘earth’ and don’t change it on another ‘earth’
We couldn’t prove cigarettes caused cancer but saw strong correlations and anecdotal evidence. We also saw exceptions of the 203 pack a day person who live to 257 (exaggeration). Much like we see extreme cold and heat still….
Not all strong correlations are correct. I can correlate recent global warming pretty well with richmond’s ladder position until this year. So my Martin-Hardwick global warming theory is now debunked.
Probably best to do a lot vs being wrong and ending life as we know it. Covid has shown we can do a lot.
Much of co2 production is invisible to most and people massively overweight how much transportation contributes because that is what you see every day. Farming / land use and heavy industrial energy (esp. concrete / aluminium etc) are much bigger contributors.
A price on carbon (well co2 equivalent to handle methane and others) will drive the best and most rapid changes. Personally I think you charge it at consumption and/or when it leaves/enters your country and then make it circular so that every tax payer gets a portion of what is collected less the costs of running it. So if you purchase fossil fuels that price is built in and so is any electricity made from coal. If you get it from a solar panel the co2 cost of producing the panel is built into the price. Price drives behaviour change at personal and in corporate decision making.
Setting a price is difficult but make it go up over time. Businesses can plan on this stuff. If fossil fuels have ccs built in to the way they are made then they will have less co2 price impost than ones that aren’t etc. and it becomes a pure spreadsheet analysis.
It’s complicated.
You can’t hold every variable constant while you change just one in one ‘earth’ and don’t change it on another ‘earth’
We couldn’t prove cigarettes caused cancer but saw strong correlations and anecdotal evidence. We also saw exceptions of the 203 pack a day person who live to 257 (exaggeration). Much like we see extreme cold and heat still….
Not all strong correlations are correct. I can correlate recent global warming pretty well with richmond’s ladder position until this year. So my Martin-Hardwick global warming theory is now debunked.
Probably best to do a lot vs being wrong and ending life as we know it. Covid has shown we can do a lot.
Much of co2 production is invisible to most and people massively overweight how much transportation contributes because that is what you see every day. Farming / land use and heavy industrial energy (esp. concrete / aluminium etc) are much bigger contributors.
A price on carbon (well co2 equivalent to handle methane and others) will drive the best and most rapid changes. Personally I think you charge it at consumption and/or when it leaves/enters your country and then make it circular so that every tax payer gets a portion of what is collected less the costs of running it. So if you purchase fossil fuels that price is built in and so is any electricity made from coal. If you get it from a solar panel the co2 cost of producing the panel is built into the price. Price drives behaviour change at personal and in corporate decision making.
Setting a price is difficult but make it go up over time. Businesses can plan on this stuff. If fossil fuels have ccs built in to the way they are made then they will have less co2 price impost than ones that aren’t etc. and it becomes a pure spreadsheet analysis.
oh, everybodywiki. I'm convinced now.
Except before you said we were going into an ice age, or the sun cycles will send the ocean levels higher than ever before. Or we are warming as the models predict but it's actually good because warmer is better.
Make up your *smile* mind dude.
Well where's his *smile* Wikipedia entry, smart *smile*?
Here's a link so you can buy his book: https://www.amazon.com.au/kikoukaga...apanese-Nakamura-Mototaka-ebook/dp/B07FKHF7T2
There you go again, wilfully misrepresenting me. I'm putting these disparate views up for discussion to show that experts can look at the same thing and interpret it differently.
Back on ignore you go.
You tell me.
Literally anyone with a laptop and an internet connection can publish an eBook on Amazon you tech-illiterate hack. Like I always tell you, peer reviewed journal articles are meaningful, not wacky blogsites, Russian propaganda mills and vanity published eBooks.
Sure, fringe wackjobs, oil shills and self-published eccentrics have a "disparate set of views". It's like I tell Lamby about Ivermectin studies - sh1t in, sh1t out.
You must have some dirt on Mototaka. Something. Anything.
He's a senior climate scientist with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. That's bad, isn't it?
I suspect I asked this a few years ago, but what level of proof that we are screwing up the planet do we need before we act?
There is so much evidence already yet some still want to question the evidence, at least around the edges, attempt to minimise the impact and generally post anything they can find to discourage taking action to stop the damage we are doing.
At what point do we act? When the island nations of the Pacific are under water, when the Great Barrier Reef is completely dead, when the bushfires start burning down whole outer suburbs? When?
DS
There is so much evidence already yet some still want to question the evidence, at least around the edges, attempt to minimise the impact and generally post anything they can find to discourage taking action to stop the damage we are doing.
At what point do we act? When the island nations of the Pacific are under water, when the Great Barrier Reef is completely dead, when the bushfires start burning down whole outer suburbs? When?
DS
Thought I was on ignore. It's a sign of mental weakness when you can't follow through on your promises.
He's actually very well qualified, I'm going to download his free ebook.
The reef will be gone at 1.5C. Visited it this year somehow in the midst of Covid. So unless we got the models completely wrong visit it now if you want to.
Interestingly this survey of Reef temperatures from top to bottom, taken in 1871, was recently used to conclude that sea surface temperatures have not risen.
People will rightly point to the problem with a single set of measurements being used as a baseline, and rightly so...
Last edited:
This really resonates with me.
Scottish climate expert Jim Skea warns 'clock is ticking'
Professor Jim Skea has called on world leaders to "step up to the plate" at the COP26 summit.
www.bbc.com
if the scientists are wrong what's the worst that can happen vs the alternative.
20% chance it’s all over anyway by 2100 according to Wikipedia. Climate change didn’t make it though. Looks like I,robot or T2
en.wikipedia.org
Risk Estimated probability
for human extinction
before 2100
Overall probability
19%
Molecular nanotechnology weapons
5%
Superintelligent AI
5%
All wars (including civil wars)
4%
Engineered pandemic
2%
Nuclear war
1%
Nanotechnology accident
0.5%
Natural pandemic
0.05%
Nuclear terrorism
0.03%
Global catastrophic risk - Wikipedia
Risk Estimated probability
for human extinction
before 2100
Overall probability
19%
Molecular nanotechnology weapons
5%
Superintelligent AI
5%
All wars (including civil wars)
4%
Engineered pandemic
2%
Nuclear war
1%
Nanotechnology accident
0.5%
Natural pandemic
0.05%
Nuclear terrorism
0.03%
Well that's pretty good compared with what Guy McPherson gave us five years ago.20% chance it’s all over anyway by 2100 according to Wikipedia. Climate change didn’t make it though. Looks like I,robot or T2
Global catastrophic risk - Wikipedia
Risk Estimated probability
for human extinction
before 2100
Overall probability
19%
Molecular nanotechnology weapons
5%
Superintelligent AI
5%
All wars (including civil wars)
4%
Engineered pandemic
2%
Nuclear war
1%
Nanotechnology accident
0.5%
Natural pandemic
0.05%
Nuclear terrorism
0.03%
Humans 'don't have 10 years' left thanks to climate change - scientist
