7 F rise for planet built into US agency report (vehicle, cd, display)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You were earlier slamming people for not being scientists, or not good enough scientists for your purposes....
No that's not at all what did. I simply pointed out the fact that Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist (even though he pretends to be) and everything out of his ignorant mouth is nothing but climate misinformation or flat out lies.
This website is an excellent resource and I encourage anyone who is remotely interested in the truth and the actual data to take the time to go through this website.
If only so many people didn't protest nuclear power in the decades past. We could be building solar panels and wind turbines with clean electricity rather than that generated with CO2 producing sources.
If only so many people didn't protest nuclear power in the decades past. We could be building solar panels and wind turbines with clean electricity rather than that generated with CO2 producing sources.
I'm missing the connection. Why would building nuclear lead to solar and wind?
If only so many people didn't protest nuclear power in the decades past. We could be building solar panels and wind turbines with clean electricity rather than that generated with CO2 producing sources.
I'm not following you because I understand that nuclear power reactors do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating.
That’s true. You will note that humans evolved under a world-wide temperature regime that was relatively stable, but not typical. And also that humans developed agriculture under those same circumstances. What will happen when those circumstances change radically?
When humans developed agriculture, average global temperatures were warmer than present, the climate was wetter, and sea levels were higher.
Certain Sumerian cities were seaports. If you look at a map, you'll scratch your head, because those cities sit between the Tigris and Euphrates, and the Persian Gulf is a couple hundred miles away.
But that's now. At the time those cities were built, the Persian Gulf extended a couple hundred miles inland.
That's largely because the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet had been destroyed about 12,000 years ago.
It's only 8,000 years old now, and it started to reform around 6,000 BCE.
As the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet gained mass, the sea levels decreased. By the time the Akkadian civilization arose, they built their cities south of Sumer, but still on what was then the Persian Gulf coast, which encompassed most of the Basra Region.
The Persian Gulf has since receded to its current location, but the Basra Region is still largely salt-water marshes, with an icky mud that got all over my boots and my Bradley CFV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with pre-industrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.
The scientists are wrong.
For seven of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods, the average global temperatures were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present.
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 15.3°F warmer than present, and the entire Greenland Ice Sheet nearly melted in its entirety, leaving just a snow bank of ice that snaked along the western side of the mountains on the east coast of Greenland.
The only Inter-Glacial Period that does not fall in the 7.8°F to 15.3°F range ended abruptly after 8,000 years for reasons scientists do not understand.
If you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, the average global temperatures would still rise another 7.8°F to 15.3°F and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Global temperatures have risen an average of 1.4˚ F since 1880.
And average global temperatures have increased 20°F in a matter of years or decades, and scientists are clueless as to why that happened.
One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
Rising temperatures put more water vapor into the atmosphere. As sea levels rise, the surface area of the oceans expands. That does not increase the rate of evaporation, but it does increase the volume of water vapor evaporated.
Earth becomes much wetter and greener.
We know for a fact that there was a river that flowed from the Hijazz Mountains in western Saudi Arabia all the way across the Saudi Peninsula where it joined the Tigris, Euphrates and Karun Rivers creating a delta and flowing into the Persian Gulf.
That river is dead now, but it still existed as late as 5,000 BCE. A wetter climate may actually revive that river.
The only problem created by rising sea levels is flooding of coastal areas, but it's not my fault you built cities on coastal areas before you had a clue how the Earth might actually works.
Again, if you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, those coastal areas would still flood, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Temperatures rise during an Inter-Glacial Period, that's what's supposed to happen.
No doubt you have some misguided belief that temperatures are not supposed to rise higher than 58°F, and you have no evidence or scientific basis to prove your claims, because all of the evidence and science disproves your misguided beliefs.
Not hardly. You are wrong and I will step you through your wrong statements that appear to be cherry picked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
For seven of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods, the average global temperatures were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present.
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 15.3°F warmer than present, and the entire Greenland Ice Sheet nearly melted in its entirety, leaving just a snow bank of ice that snaked along the western side of the mountains on the east coast of Greenland.
The only Inter-Glacial Period that does not fall in the 7.8°F to 15.3°F range ended abruptly after 8,000 years for reasons scientists do not understand.
"Although the Earth has not yet exceeded the temperatures of the Early Holocene (5000 to 11,000 years ago), global temperatures have risen from cooler than 95% of the Holocene at around 1900 to warmer than 72% of the Holocene in the last 100 years.
This means that, in the last 100 years, the Earth’s temperature has reversed a long-term cooling trend that began around 5000 years ago to become near the warmest temperatures during the last 11,000 years.
Furthermore, climate models predict that the Earth’s temperature will exceed the warmest temperatures of the Holocene by 2100, regardless of which greenhouse gas emission scenario is used."
Additionally, the Epica ice core data that clearly show the extreme rise (accelerating to almost straight up) of the temp/CO2 that started about 200 years ago when we started burning fossil fuels...a massive change.
Till this time for 800,000 years that we can check, the temp/CO2 lines varied up and down a little but stayed closely together and fairly flat, relatively minor variations are seen and expected.
If you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, the average global temperatures would still rise another 7.8°F to 15.3°F and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
This is utter hogwash. I can post tons of data to debunk this claim. In the meantime can you please post anything credible that supports this claim?
You might want to read over this to better understand why your claims are not substantiated.
And average global temperatures have increased 20°F in a matter of years or decades, and scientists are clueless as to why that happened.
You have just stated 2 opinions that are not supported by any scientific data. In fact the data shows that since the industrial revolution the average global temperate has only risen by 0.7°C which is 33.26 °F and we know exactly what caused this.
First, based on NOAA data, the 2017 average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the twentieth-century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), making it the third-warmest year on record behind 2016 (warmest) and 2015 (second warmest). It was the warmest non-El-Niño year in the record. Source: Climate Change: Global Temperature
Not sure where you are getting 20°F from. Care to share your source?
Secondly, yes scientists do have a "clue" what's causing the current rapid warming trend. Anyone calling a majority of climate scientists "clueless" does not come across as a credible or scientifically literate person.
The global temperature has risen only about 0.7°C. The answer is the climate has not yet fully responded to our past emissions. We know this because the Earth is still gaining more heat than it is losing. There is further warming in the pipeline, and Hansen’s climate sensitivity implies there’s a lot more than in the models. If CO2 remains at or above 390 ppm long enough for the ice sheet feedback to kick in, the delayed warming would eventually reach 2°C (ie. 2.7°C above pre-industrial times). That would result in an Earth unlike the one on which humans evolved and a sea level rise of not one meter, not two meters, but 25 meters. Imagine waves crashing over an eight-story building.
Instead of stepping on or easing off the accelerator, we need to be slamming on the brakes. We must not only slow the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, but reverse it. We must reduce CO2 from 390 to 350 ppm as soon as possible. That should stop the planet’s accumulation of heat. Stabilizing the CO2 level will require rapidly reducing CO2 emissions until nature can absorb carbon faster than we emit it – in practical terms, cutting emissions to near zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
We know for a fact that there was a river that flowed from the Hijazz Mountains in western Saudi Arabia all the way across the Saudi Peninsula where it joined the Tigris, Euphrates and Karun Rivers creating a delta and flowing into the Persian Gulf.
That river is dead now, but it still existed as late as 5,000 BCE. A wetter climate may actually revive that river.
The recurring pattern that I see with climate deniers is their inability to understand that climate scientists understand that earths conditions constantly change. The thing you guys skip right over is the fact that the current rate of atmospheric CO2 is unlike any in our previous climate history.
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The only problem created by rising sea levels is flooding of coastal areas, but it's not my fault you built cities on coastal areas before you had a clue how the Earth might actually works.
You've just posted a lot of assumptions and misinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Again, if you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, those coastal areas would still flood, and there's nothing you can do about it.
It's too bad that all you want to do is spread cherry picked misinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Temperatures rise during an Inter-Glacial Period, that's what's supposed to happen.
Yes temps are supposed to rise during the interglacial states...that's why they are called interglacial instead of glacial states.
However the BIG point you are missing is this:
Although the Earth has not yet exceeded the temperatures of the Early Holocene (5000 to 11,000 years ago), global temperatures have risen from cooler than 95% of the Holocene at around 1900 to warmer than 72% of the Holocene in the last 100 years.
This means that, in the last 100 years, the Earth’s temperature has reversed a long-term cooling trend that began around 5000 years ago to become near the warmest temperatures during the last 11,000 years.
Furthermore, climate models predict that the Earth’s temperature will exceed the warmest temperatures of the Holocene by 2100, regardless of which greenhouse gas emission scenario is used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No doubt you have some misguided belief that temperatures are not supposed to rise higher than 58°F, and you have no evidence or scientific basis to prove your claims, because all of the evidence and science disproves your misguided beliefs.
It's no doubt that you just pulled this out of thin air and ran with it. I have never ever entertained the idea that temperatures are not supposed to rise higher than 58°F. That's about the most ignorant thing I've ever been accused of.
Not hardly. You are wrong and I will step you through your wrong statements that appear to be cherry picked.
This debate was exactly my point, no matter whether Matadora or Mircea is expressing the correct analysis of our current situation, mankind is pretty much farked, either he can't do anything about it in Mircea's scenario, or is unwilling to make changes drastic enough to significantly affect it in Matadora's scenario (rapid depopulation or abandoning fossil fuels at a great economic cost), which means that mankind is pretty much farked in his scenario as well.
Being an old barstard who has already lived out the best years of his life, I understand that the stakes are higher for young people since they will bear most of the cost and consequences of whatever changes are coming. But so far, I haven't seen young people willing to wear snowmobile suits in the winter, forego driving, A/C in the summer, and having kids, either.
So we're farked. Unless both sides are wrong, and even though it does get warmer, it's turns out to be a good thing for crop production, and we all get the benefit of cheaper food and get fatter, along with getting more diabetes and high blood pressure. In which case we're farked. Until some really smart guy invents fusion reactor containment and teleportation, in which case we're all going to be donking Lt. Uhuru on starships. But then forty years later when your promotion to Captain comes through, she'll come forward to say it was non-consensual, and then you'll be farked.
Yes we are farked. The humans species is a parasite on this earth. No other animal species is responsible for the damage caused by human activity. Just look at how long the earth has been around thriving with life and enjoying a relative stable environment for the past 800,000 years...up until modern humans evolved. Modern humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years. The last 200 of those years we have seen the damaging effects globally of what human activity has done to this earth.
Quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of naturally occurring greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)—have varied over the past 650 millennia as the Earth has cooled and warmed several times. Concentration units are parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb)—the number of molecules of the greenhouse gas per million or billion molecules, respectively, in a dry atmospheric sample.
Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800).
We are also farked because the US is full of folks who lack basic scientific understanding of the issues that plague the world that require science literacy in order to understand a solution. Instead of sitting around arguing about well established scientific facts we instead should be discussing and mapping a process to solve the issues humans have caused. We can overcome this mess but we need to start now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink
See where this is going? I sure do miss the 70's.
Me too! Some of the best days in US History was during the 70's.
I shudder to see what the world will be like when I'm a little old lady. At the rate we are going it's not going to be pretty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
