Bad news for Climate Change.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

There's one gigantic problem with that theory. Measured in missions have not gone down so the models are wrong.

Jaden

a reply to: LiberLegit

Most childish response I have ever read.

It amazes me that there are people stupid enough not realize that pumping chemicals into the air and water daily and not to mention draining it's resources, would have a negative effect on Earth's environment.

Earth has never faced this kind of assault before and it is hard not imagine that something big is about to happen that will affect life on this planet due to the onslaught on its resources.

But hey, keep thinking man doesn't effect this planet, ignorance is bliss I guess.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

You said “still mean big problems” - like what? You care to validate that statement with some sort of fact?

Also 2020 election lol

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: network dude

It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.

But the study emerged as other scientists said winter waves pounding the Scottish and Irish coasts have grown grow by up to 5ft 6in (1.7metres) over the past 70 years.

Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts.

www.express.co.uk...

Bad News for Shorelines?

"Only" 1.66 (or 1.33)°C will still result in a rising sea-level due to global warming. Right? But this is a conspiracy site, so... can you imagine that they'll "play down" the numbers in order to make this Paris Agreement not look like a lost case of political fake-actionism to begin with?

What if the impact of global warming will actually be 45% more intense, and we're being lied to in order to delay revolts?

All we need is one climatologist and one mathematician to make it happen, any takers?

I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But in my very limited understanding of things, one thing has remained constant through out time, shore lines change and erosion is going to happen. This has been a reality long before climate change was a glimmer in anyone's eyes. Building at or below sea level on the beach is great for the views, but not great for the longevity of the building. And if they were building cities like Miami thousands of years ago, they would have the same fears they are having today, and all without man mucking anything up.

And I guess I have to re-iterate this, I am happy to see this article, but I realize it's not any smoking gun proof of anything. And I still feel like we need to stop using fossil fuels and engineer better mass transit, and stop polluting the rivers and oceans. Not because we are frightened or fearful of being taxed, but because it's the right thing to do.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not talking about erosion and the changing faces of shorelines. I'm talking about rising sea levels.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

Sea Level Rise

That't quite the significant rise and the correlation to our industrial revolution seems pretty obvious to me.

And I guess I have to re-iterate this, I am happy to see this article, but I realize it's not any smoking gun proof of anything. And I still feel like we need to stop using fossil fuels and engineer better mass transit, and stop polluting the rivers and oceans. Not because we are frightened or fearful of being taxed, but because it's the right thing to do.

We don't happen to agree on much these days, but you'll have my vote for that. It's a pity that you didn't address my little conspiracy theory for the Paris Agreement, but thanks for the reply nonetheless.

a reply to: network dude

You make an important point at the end of your post, and I want to address it.

You posit that we should stop using fossil fuels, invest in better, cleaner transport options, stop polluting rivers and oceans, and do these things because it is the right thing to do.

I most certainly agree that we should stop doing these things, and agree also that we should not do them because we fear being taxed for fossil fuels as much as we are. But there is more to it than that.

I think it is important to state, that the right reasons for getting rid of these ridiculous, outmoded methods of energy production, the reason that will matter to the greatest percentage of people on this planet, is that unless we do, in a few generations from now, this planet will not be as habitable as it is now, or was before. Within ten, maybe twenty or thirty generations, it may not be habitable at all, assuming nothing changes for the better. If even the least worst of the worst case scenarios comes about, our descendants will inherit a toxic hell. All the buried nuclear waste, all the spilled oil, all the gases in our atmosphere now, will eventually conspire to destroy the biome on which this species relies for its current continuity.

There are those who say that our best bet, to ensure our survival as a species, is to farm some of our population out to Mars, and try to develop methods of terraforming. Its a nice idea and all, but we have yet to see any evidence that it is possible, and frankly, until we are much better and a hell of a lot faster, in terms of our ability to get from Earth to Mars, I see that as a red (planet) herring, not to mention a compromise in a situation which can stand NO compromise whatsoever.

This planet, its lush forests, its rich wetlands, its reefs and its air, MUST be protected, and this planet MUST, short of cosmic calamity, remain fertile and life bearing, because right now, it is the only practical location to contain our human life, our species. Its all we have, and we are not going to have alternative locations to inhabit, soon enough to escape the potential consequences of our current methods of making power, getting around, and getting things done in industry. Things are in a delicate balance right now, with bee populations threatened, forests being eaten away by logging and clearance for grazing, sea life being threatened by nuclear waste leakage, oil spills, plastic waste just tossed in the damned ocean, and the acidification of the seas surrounding them causing damage to reefs, as well as temperature rises doing damage too, reefs which are the beginning of many of the primary food chains keeping our fish fed.

These things are ALREADY showing in our natural world. Without the bees, if they die off, fewer crops are pollinated, which means fewer grow, which in turn means that fewer mouths are fed, which leads to resource wars, chaos, more fire, more pollution from the use of weaponry, even the most mundane of which involves combusting volatile compounds, with the inevitable result of more heating, more pollution, and the cycle gets ever deeper.

Its not just that its the right thing to do, but that it is the right thing to do for our species, to stop these ridiculous, outmoded, and unfit for purpose methods of making power.

There are also political elements, like for example, if our nations no longer use oil and fossil products, gaining ALL energy from the infinite renewable sources on tap, then our various nations foreign policies no longer have to be about securing resources for themselves, as they have been of late. It also means that the massive corporate controls which have been placed on all notable national governments, by the companies and figures behind the oil and gas industries, will have no more power over those nations, freeing them, finally, from one of the strongest lobbies in the history of politics.

The more control is wrested from people who use money to do what ought be done by morals and ethics, the better for all of us.

Unfortunately, it is those who rely on oil money most, who are most against this move to renewable and clean energy systems, reliant on no burning, no chemical waste, no finite resource. They know that their power in the world would diminish almost to nothing, if they allow the world to move over to these new systems. So they purchase as many companies and patents on the subject as they can, quash what they can before it ever becomes public knowledge, and neuter the effectiveness of what they cannot hide, so that it is less useful than it would have been without their interference.

It is the right thing to do to end this cycle, to bring about energy abundance through ceasing all forms of fossil fuel use, or the use of any functionally finite resource for power production. It is the right thing to do for our survival as a matter of habitat, and the right thing to do as a matter of policy and liberty. As long as the world can be controlled by private citizens in small numbers, by way of threat of denial of resource in any one place, there can be no chance of a lasting peace anywhere on the earth. Whether we consider nuclear war and mutually assured destruction, or the slow destruction of our habitat as the main threat, both can be largely solved, by removing finite fuel sources from the equation.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: network dude

I'm not talking about erosion and the changing faces of shorelines. I'm talking about rising sea levels.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

Sea Level Rise

That't quite the significant rise and the correlation to our industrial revolution seems pretty obvious to me.

And I guess I have to re-iterate this, I am happy to see this article, but I realize it's not any smoking gun proof of anything. And I still feel like we need to stop using fossil fuels and engineer better mass transit, and stop polluting the rivers and oceans. Not because we are frightened or fearful of being taxed, but because it's the right thing to do.

We don't happen to agree on much these days, but you'll have my vote for that. It's a pity that you didn't address my little conspiracy theory for the Paris Agreement, but thanks for the reply nonetheless.

Rising sea levels have to do with melting glaciers if I understand things correctly, and ever since the end of the ice age, our glaciers have been receding and if the world works as it's supposed to, the seal levels have been rising since that event started. So it's not something that should catch anyone by surprise, unless I'm wrong and sea level rise isn't due to glacial melt.

a reply to: network dude

I wish we would just support people like Boyan Slat instead of bicker about what to do.

a reply to: luthier

I guess you just don't understand. Somebody HAS to be right, and subsequently, somebody has to be wrong. Even if instead of fixing things we all agree need to be fixed, we ignore that and fight like bitches.

If it was put forward in simple dollars and cents, we could just make environmentally energy cheaper, and everyone would let their inner greed override their need to be right. But we need to do that correctly and not by taxing existing energy. For us to achieve the things we have in our Short existence, it's hard to believe we can't figure out these relatively small issues.

a reply to: network dude

Unfortunately I do get it.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Fools

97% of them may have been wrong, that's a big percentage of mistakes.

97 percent? 30 percent of all scientist in the entire world who are actual climate scientist were polled in a way to make the 97 percent figure work.

In other words 97 percent of the small number of climate scientist out of the entire scientific body only make up 30 or so percent of all scientist. So a MINORITY dictating to the MAJORITY.

nevermind, I don't care

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: donnydeevil
It amazes me that there are people stupid enough not realize that pumping chemicals into the air and water daily and not to mention draining it's resources, would have a negative effect on Earth's environment.

I challenge you to cite one post in this thread that claimed this.

Well, two posts from different people, since you used the plural of 'person.'

Well of we went after pollution we would hit both sides donors and hypocrisy so they make political charades out of it.

a reply to: luthier

One of the big issues that I have, and I'm not going to get into a long drawn-out discussion over it, is that CO2 is not a pollutant, yet AGW activists and some governments claim that it is.

So, talking about "pollution" is a hard thing to do unless we have an agreed-upon list of pollutants.

In general, and like I noted earlier, I'm all about tackling pollution at more local levels and doing what we can as individuals to limit pollution, but I'm not an advocate of governments taking it upon themselves to force things via threats and intimidation.

On a side note, I tore my calf muscle last week--it never ends for me...all from doing knee drills.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: luthier

One of the big issues that I have, and I'm not going to get into a long drawn-out discussion over it, is that CO2 is not a pollutant, yet AGW activists and some governments claim that it is.

So, talking about "pollution" is a hard thing to do unless we have an agreed-upon list of pollutants.

In general, and like I noted earlier, I'm all about tackling pollution at more local levels and doing what we can as individuals to limit pollution, but I'm not an advocate of governments taking it upon themselves to force things via threats and intimidation.

On a side note, I tore my calf muscle last week--it never ends for me...all from doing knee drills.

I agree.

We need people creating tech to deal with the mis steps older technology made. Like the ocean cleanup project.

He could moan and complain but instead said why don't I solve the problem.

I just bought some sun glasses made from the Pacific garbage pile.

Man it sucks getting old. I hope you aren't doing crossfit. Those people are full of injury.

I accuse Donald J. Trump, and his people that he's hired, who use to usurp and deny EPA's rules to help prevent human caused climate change/global warming with environmental terrorism.

They are no better than the Daesh/Isis...imo.

originally posted by: Erno86
I accuse Donald J. Trump, and his people that he's hired, who use to usurp and deny EPA's rules to help prevent human caused climate change/global warming with environmental terrorism.

They are no better than the Daesh/Isis...imo.

which would be awesome if global warming started in 2016. But at this point, I blame you for pretending as if a little over year into the Trump presidency, any action, or inaction of his has any bearing at all on the direction the ecology might have on a 4.5 billion year old planet. It's fine to not like Trump, but when you go looking for things to blame on him, you may want to think a bit more, and type a bit less.

originally posted by: luthier

Man it sucks getting old. I hope you aren't doing crossfit. Those people are full of injury.

I'm barely even "fitting" at this point LOL

a reply to: network dude

Rising sea levels have to do with melting glaciers if I understand things correctly, and ever since the end of the ice age, our glaciers have been receding and if the world works as it's supposed to, the seal levels have been rising since that event started.

You do not seem to understand things correctly. I don't know about seal levels, but sea levels have not been rising since the end of the ice age (I assume that you mean glacial period). Had they been doing so, they would be quite a lot higher than they are now. They have (had), in fact, been quite static for the past 2,000 years.

www.researchgate.net...



Side note regarding the thread title: if the authors of the study in the OP are correct, wouldn't that be good news?