UN panel: Global warming human-caused, dangerous

originally posted by: cavedweller88

looking at that picture, i WOULD drive on that bridge. looks rather stable and fresh to me. if i was there i might look at it a bit first but, yeah i think it's safe to drive on.

climate change is natural, more than enough evidence to prove it from history. or have they decided there was no ice age now? humans may slightly help it, but we don't know because they are working with far too little data from far too short a time span.

but human influenced or not, they should be working to deal with the change. not just go on and on about something we can not (and should not try) to "fix'. taxes are certainly not going to change anything other than hurting those at the bottom level of consumers. it's coming prepare for it. spending time and energy whining about it is just a waste of time and money.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

The UN's solution to this bridge crisis would be to set up toll booths and charge $50 for every vehicle to cross it. Problem solved!.

My opinion is this

If the UN says it. How can anyone take it seriously?

I know that sounds like a brush off but seriously...when has the UN been on point with anything? Since when have we trusted the UN?

This should scream red flag

What gets me is the people who denounce the UN as inept and untrustworthy. But then jump on board with then under this issue....

originally posted by: mbkennel
Yeah, like reducing emission of greenhouse gases as soon as possible.

Meanwhile Fukushima has been pumping death into the Pacific daily for three years and there is no end in sight. I went to the link in the OP and looked for every reference I could find. It is mentioned in terms of impact to the nuclear industry in a few places but not mentioned in a way that sounds as if they consider it a threat to climate!

This was just released the 26th:
TEPCO Drops Bombshell About Sea Releases; 8 Billion Bq Per Day!

TEPCO made the startling admission today at a press conference that the plant is leaking 8 billion bequerels per day. (8 gigabequerels)

5 billion bq of strontium 90
2 billion bq of cesium 137
1 billion bq of tritium * (later corrected to 150 billion bq)

This is the ongoing daily release to the Pacific. These release numbers are also within the realm of what some oceanographers have been warning about since last year, that there was an ongoing and considerable leak to the sea. According to journalist Ryuichi Kino TEPCO said this may be due to failings of some sort within the “glass” wall at the sea front. This is an underground wall made in the soil by injecting a solidifying agent to block water flow.

This daily release would add up to 11,680,000,000,000 = 11 terabequerels over 4 years time in addition to the initial sea releases during the meltdowns.

It was pointed out last night that the tritium number quoted by TEPCO in the press conference does not match the graph they released to METI. The TEPCO rep gave the verbal reading of 1 billion bq per day. The chart shows 150 billion bq per day of tritium. The other numbers stated by the TEPCO rep seem to match the chart. This change increases the total numbers to 4710 billion bq per month at the current 2014 rate. The bulk of this is tritium. This number change would make one year at the 2014 rate 1,719,150 billion bq for an annual total 1.7 Petabecquerels in a year at this rate.

It won't matter what the temperature is if there is nobody around to notice. Seems to me that their priorities are severely misplaced.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My opinion is this

If the UN says it. How can anyone take it seriously?

I know that sounds like a brush off but seriously...when has the UN been on point with anything? Since when have we trusted the UN?

There is a major difference between the "UN" as a political organization and in this scientific sense.

There are no UN scientists on climate. These reports are all written by scientists who work mostly at diversified universities and labs throughout the world and have substantial independence and uncorrelated funding. The UN provides a very thin and limited administrative support, like setting up conferences and other infrastructural things. They don't pay salaries of the scientists.

The primary political interference is from national representatives (NOT scientists) who push to downplay the significance and culpability of human influence.

The UN as a political organization through diplomatic and government channels is ineffective. The scientists could produce exactly the same report without UN, it just happens that it is a convenient and supposedly neutral international organization to write stamp.

Back to the scientific issue.

The latest results, as I heard directly from an expert in the field, are that there is no 'pause' in global warming when you consider the ocean heat content, which overwhelms the land and atmospheric heat content whose temperatures were measured and show a slight slowdown.

This is the physically correct formula and there is increasing interest from the scientific community to move policymakers away from goals based on only surface temperature which is a less reliable measurement more susceptible to fluctuation from natural behaviors.

In addition, ocean acidification, which is also a sort of climate change, continues unabated.

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: mbkennel
Yeah, like reducing emission of greenhouse gases as soon as possible.

Meanwhile Fukushima has been pumping death into the Pacific daily for three years and there is no end in sight.

What is the scientific evidence in favor of large harm from Fukushima?

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

The UN's solution to this bridge crisis would be to set up toll booths and charge $50 for every vehicle to cross it. Problem solved!.

Set up toll booths on dangerous bridges, yes. People would find a way to afford a safe bridge.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Latest report from climate depot states that the Antarctic sea is at its coldest since record keeping began, and Antarctic sea ice is at its largest extent also since record keeping began, that's from an American satellite, so the globe is warming?
The UN has already forgotten the record freeze at the beginning of this year? \

Yes, it's possible for all of that to happen when you don't consider the entire global system.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

AS CO2 is less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere, just how does human CO2 make any difference? ( A question I never get an answer to).

You could take a class in physical oceanography and atmospheric science and learn the answer.

The answer has been there all along in science for many decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and a relatively small change in infrared emissivity can influence climate significantly. The changes in Ice Ages from astronomical perturbations were also very small on a fundamental physics scale (maybe 1% or less), and they caused profound changes in climate. How much colder was an Ice Age, globally, than now? 5 degrees C. Yes, that's it. 5 degrees out of ~280 kelvin on an absolute scale. And that is enormous climate change from a human scale: there were ice sheets more than a mile thick in New York. Globally, agriculture was impossible almost everywhere. We are heading to a Heat Age of that magnitude in the other direction in 150 years---a mucn more rapid onset than Ice Ages.


The CFC's made up a much much smaller fraction of the atmosphere and yet they had clear global effects on the ozone hole, which is being slowly fixed due to international action against the offending chemicals.

originally posted by: mbkennel
What is the scientific evidence in favor of large harm from Fukushima?

Are you serious??

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: mbkennel
What is the scientific evidence in favor of large harm from Fukushima?

Are you serious??

Yes.

Obviously Fukushima is very serious locally (economically, mostly), but that's not large harm globally. There's claims that the radioisotopes are poisioning the Pacific Ocean etc.


science.time.com...

Germany is foolishly moving from nuclear to coal, and telling themselves that they're being environmental. It's bull#.

a reply to: ImDaMan

Humans are funny.... just like we think perpetual growth is possible, we expect Earth.... strike that, the solar system... strike that.... the galaxy.... strike that, the universe to be a constant balance.

The problem we face is in fact that balance will be present forever.

But what we don't understand is that since we have been craving and craving and progressing and progressing and tottering and torturing the Earth, then what MUST come next is the diametral opposite.....

We are a race of a constant need for contrast... possibly because we are bored otherwise. And so, since we have been pillaging the Earth for thousands of years there HAS TO be a period where this pillaging is impossible.

There HAS TO be an opposite reaction.

Humans are not the masters of anything except the species that occupy this planet. Well, we shouldn't really be master of them either because we are all here on the same premise. So if they suffer so will we.

We have NO control of the totality of the planet, even less over the sun, even less over the solar system and infinitely less over the galaxy and universe.

There's is only one way to achieve perpetual balance, and that is to NOT seek this extreme ends of progress, technology and growth.

Consume of the Earth only what we need.... remove money as a currency. Perform a form of work because it is needed for the community to survíve, not because you want to berich yourself.
If you have more than you need, offer it to someone who is lacking what they need.

That way, we wouldn't need a whole lot of the things we have today, we wouldn't over produce food which is then destroyed because some ill-minded in-human being talks about it destroying "prices".
Pieces of paper with numbers written on it is not worth anything. "Precious" metals is not worth anything.... you cannot eat them.
What is worth something is the food that we eat, which we don't need big companies to provide to us. We can grow them ourselves, and if you fear having bad crops, then keep in mind that if you have bad crops, then someone else is probably having good crops and if they have more than they need they can share this with you.

If you insist on remaining in the game of "I MUST HAVE an iPad.... I MUST HAVE two cars.... I MUST BUY this piece of clothing because some money hungry "celeb" made the brand.... then yes, I guarantee that Earth will become a much worse place to live. And it won't be because "the gods" are punishing you for your sins, but because we are straining the resources that has gathered into this matter we have named Earth.

Living in balance comes with great sacrifice. You have to ask yourself if it's more important to eat processed foods, have a tv and a live in a home that has more rooms than you need, that it is to live at all (as a human being ).

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: mbkennel
What is the scientific evidence in favor of large harm from Fukushima?

Are you serious??

Yes.

Obviously Fukushima is very serious locally (economically, mostly), but that's not large harm globally. There's claims that the radioisotopes are poisioning the Pacific Ocean etc.
-- snip --
Germany is foolishly moving from nuclear to coal, and telling themselves that they're being environmental. It's bull#.

My intention is NOT to derail the thread. You do, however, seem to have missed my point...

Criticize Germany all you want, but Fukushima will be a turning point for nuclear power and there is NO disputing that the damage done is MAN-MADE.

While the Climate Change Debate goes on, the disaster that is coming continues to grow in scale. Since there's no known way to fix it and nobody has figured a way to make money from it, it is being ignored. All too soon, that will no longer be an option...

Btw, you are aware that the seas are all connected, aren't you?

Gyres in White, Polar Gyres in Yellow.



Suddenly the ecosystem off Alaska & B.C. has begun to disappear.



Source

Sept. 2014: Scientists across NOAA Fisheries are watching a persistent expanse of exceptionally warm water spanning the Gulf of Alaska that could send reverberations through the marine food web. The warm expanse appeared about a year ago and the longer it lingers, the greater potential it has to affect ocean life… “Right now it’s super warm all the way across the Pacific to Japan,” said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with NOAA… “it’s a very interesting time because when you see something like this that’s totally new you have opportunities to learn things you were never expecting.” Not since records began has the region of the North Pacific Ocean been so warm for so long… The situation does not match recognized patterns in ocean conditions such as El Niño Southern Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation… “It’s a strange and mixed bag out there,” Mantua said… warm temperatures are higher and cover more of the northern Pacific than the PDO typically affects… cold near-shore conditions in the Pacific Northwest also don’t match the typical PDO pattern.

North Pacific Marine Science Organization (pdf), Summer 2014: In March 2014 there was something very unusual occurring in the Northeast (NE) Pacific that might have substantial consequences for biota in the Gulf of Alaska and southward into the subtropics… we see SST departures of 4.5 standard deviations… The anomaly field covers a large region of the N.E. Pacific… The authors of this article have never seen [such] deviations… Something as extraordinary as a 4.5-sigma deviation requires corroboration… Argo data verify the very large temperature departures… and similar large deviations in salinity… the event is primarily restricted to the upper 100 metres of the water… In most years, a winter region of high productivity is created by this Ekman transport… Without nutrients from the subarctic, the productivity of subtropical waters must decline… Between 30–40°N, surface chlorophyll dropped to 60% of the average values… weakened nutrient transport from the subarctic into the subtropics this past winter will dramatically reduce the productivity of the eastern subtropics over an area of ~17,000 km² [~6,500 miles²]. Productivity refers to “the rate of generation of biomass in an ecosystem. Productivity of autotrophs such as plants is called primary productivity… Almost all life on earth is directly or indirectly reliant on primary production… the base of the food chain.”

Radioactivity can't be diluted, only dispersed. Here's a little vid that shows (if you read between the lines) why so many sea creatures not normally seen except at considerable depths are being seen. Logic would appear to be that they are either trying to escape something or following food sources that are fleeing toward the shoreline. In time the currents will bring that up to our shores, also.

And I say again, it's totally anthropogenic, nothing to debate.



ETA:
R.I.P. Jimi