How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Sounder]

Frankly, Curry can go fuck herself.

Fancy that; direct verification of the substance of Curry's assertion of intolerance of dissent.

[DrEvil]

Frankly, Curry can go fuck herself.

Fancy that; direct verification of the substance of Curry's assertion of intolerance of dissent.

She can go fuck herself because she's peddling misinformation. Solar activity is accounted for in the science, and has been calculated to add about 0.1C in variation to the global temp since 1870.


Source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar- ... arming.htm

[BenDhyan]

Sure, what could go wrong....

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

November 23, 2018

(CNN) Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere.

The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half.

The technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. The scientists propose delivering the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns.

Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive."

They estimate the total cost of launching a hypothetical system in 15 years' time at around $3.5 billion, with running costs of $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period.

The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical. "We make no judgment about the desirability of SAI," the report states. "We simply show that a hypothetical deployment program commencing 15 years hence, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would indeed be technically possible from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive."

The researchers also acknowledge potential risks: coordination between multiple countries in both hemispheres would be required, and stratospheric aerosol injection techniques could jeopardize crop yields, lead to droughts or cause extreme weather.

The proposals also don't address the issue of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of global warming.

And despite the conviction of the report's authors, other experts were skeptical. "From the point of view of climate economics, solar radiation management is still a much worse solution than greenhouse gas emissions: more costly and much more risky over the long run," said Philippe Thalmann of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, an expert in the economics of climate change.

David Archer of the Department of Geophysical Science at the University of Chicago said, "The problem with engineering climate in this way is that it's only a temporary Band-Aid covering a problem that will persist essentially forever, actually hundreds of thousands of years for fossil fuel CO2 to finally go away naturally.

"It will be tempting to continue to procrastinate on cleaning up our energy system, but we'd be leaving the planet on a form of life-support. If a future generation failed to pay their climate bill they would get all of our warming all at once."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html

" Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive." " - See, chem trials is fake..

Ignoring climate change and pretending it doesn't exist while spreading doubt and disinformation.

Sure, what could go wrong....

Here's a thought: You are one of the reasons this is being considered in the first place.

No one can stop the climate from changing, it always has and always will. And I honestly don't understand why you think it's partly my fault?

[seemslikeadream]

12/07/2018

How to Convince MAGA Cretins to Fear Climate Change
Hey, you got friends or relatives who think Donald Trump is the greatest man in the history of forever (except, of course, for Jesus Christ because he's the Lord or some such shit)? You tired of their "climate change is fake news made up by Big Science for that sweet grant money" nonsense? You gotta learn to speak their language. You gotta learn to play on their fears. And you can do that pretty easily.

Let's do this shit quick and nasty.

1. Tell 'em that climate change is gonna make a whole lot more immigrants come to this country.

"Yeah, that's right, Cousin Skeeter. When there are droughts and hurricanes hitting El Salvador, the people aren't gonna just sit there and die. They're all gonna get the fuck outta el dodge-o and get somewhere that's safer. You think there are a lot of people caravanning now? You throw in some fires and floods and biblical shit, and you're gonna get a couple million people walking up north to escape it. So if you're mad about all them Messicans speaking Spanish down at the Piggly Wiggly, Skeeter, you better tell your congressman to get his ass out of Exxon's back pocket and start cleaning the air up or your little girl Liberty there is gonna have to learn to habla some espanol."

2. Tell 'em that climate change is bringing in tropical diseases.

"Hey, Aunt Jane-Bob, you better be careful when you're giggin' fer critters out there in the swamp to make your famous frog fritters for Christmas because climate change has made the mosquitoes and bitin' bugs able to make you even sicker. Yeah, there's gonna be more lyme disease and West Nile and all kinds of terrible illnesses. You tell Uncle Ricky-Bob to be care of the deer ticks when he's out huntin'. And because things have gotten so bad so fast, we're gettin' diseases from those shithole countries, things like malaria and Dengue fever and stuff that'll make you shit yourself for so long that you'll be praying for the Lord to take you."

3. Tell 'em that climate change is gonna get rid of their favorite places.

"You know how you like to take your family every year to Myrtle Beach, Lil' Brother Floyd? How you remember how our daddy took us and his daddy took him? Yeah, I miss those trips with the house right on the beach. And the best part is how you get to drive your truck up and down the shore. It don't get no better 'n that, right, Floyd? Well, if we don't turn things around, Myrtle Beach is gonna be fucked. Fucked bad. All those houses are gonna be washed away. Yeah, it ain't just liberals in California and New York and New Jersey gettin' ass-fucked by rising seas and wildfires. Daytona. Gulf Shores. They'll be underwater. The forest where you like to hunt wild boar in North Carolina? They're gettin' hit by fires. Some of your favorite spots ain't gonna be there anymore. Your son, Floydy-T, he won't be able to bring his family back to Myrtle Beach when he's all growed because there won't be a Myrtle Beach."

Now, you may ask how you get them to believe there is even such a thing as climate change. Well, after you lay out the immigrant-filled, disease-rampant, no Myrtle Beach future, you ask them, "If 98 people told you that if you just sit still and do nothing, a big ol' grizzly bear is gonna fuck you in the face, but 2 people said, 'Well, there is a grizzly bear, but we don't believe he's gonna fuck you in the face,' would you just sit still and wait to see if the grizzly bear fucks your face? Hell, no. You'd get the fuck out of there. Even if you wanna swallow grizzly bear jizz, it's not gonna go well because it's a grizzly bear. Fucking your face."

There you go, people. A handy guide to keep on your phones, in a message marked, "In case of moron, open."
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2018/12/ ... -fear.html

[seemslikeadream]

U.S., Russia, Saudis balk at endorsing key climate change report

AP December 10, 2018, 2:06 AM
KATOWICE, Poland -- A diplomatic standoff over a single word could set the stage for a bigger showdown during the second half of this year's U.N. climate summit.

Negotiators took time out Sunday to rest after the first week of talks ended on a sour note the previous night, when the United States sided with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in blocking endorsement of a landmark study on global warming.

"I think it was a key moment," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The fact that a group of four countries were trying to diminish the value and importance of a scientific report they themselves, with all other countries, requested three years ago in Paris is pretty remarkable."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on what would happen if average global temperatures rise by 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit), and how to ensure they don't go higher, was widely regarded as a wake-up call for policy-makers when it was released in October.

As diplomats wrapped up a week of technical talks Saturday, almost all 200 countries present in Katowice, Poland, had wanted to "welcome" the IPCC report, making it the benchmark for future action.

But the U.S. and three other delegations objected.

"The United States was willing to note the report and express appreciation to the scientists who developed it, but not to welcome it, as that would denote endorsement of the report," the U.S. State Department said in a statement. "As we have made clear in the IPCC and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report."

Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for the study to be "noted" but not "welcomed."

While none of the four-oil exporting countries spelled it out, their objection to the report likely included its suggestion that fossil-fuel use needs to be phased out by 2050. Oil, gas and coal are major sources of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the atmosphere.

The 2015 Paris agreement set a target of keeping global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), ideally 1.5 C by the end of the century.

"A 1.5 C and a 2 C worlds are very different in terms of mean climate, extremes, sea level rise, and climate-related risks," said one of the report's leading contributors, Valerie Masson-Delmotte.

The higher threshold increases the likelihood of "climate change hot spots challenging basic water, food, economic security and the risk of irreversible loss of wildlife," she said.

Observers at the talks said the two Gulf countries' objection to the IPCC report came as no surprise.

"The Saudis with their sidekicks the Kuwaitis have long been troublemakers in this in this process," said Meyer, who has followed international climate negotiations for many years.

Russia's intentions were unclear, he said, while the U.S. position appeared to be driven by what he called President Trump 's "cavalier attitude toward science in general and climate science in particular."

"It's really an embarrassment for the world's leading scientific superpower to be in this position of having to disbelieve a report that was written by the world's scientific community including a large number of pre-eminent U.S. scientists," Meyer said.

Saturday's floor fight casts doubt on whether countries will be able to reach consensus on important issues by Friday, including the need to step up national targets to curb carbon emissions.

While many countries are sending ministers or even national leaders to the talks, the U.S. and Britain are among the countries that will be represented only by bureaucrats.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-russia- ... onference/

[BenDhyan]

Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed

By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer | December 7, 2018 0

Australian scientists went snorkeling for shark eggs, then incubated those eggs in a special tank designed to simulate the hot, end-of-century temperatures expected to prevail if climate change continues unabated. Half of the sharks died within a month. The other half became right-handed.

The team of biologists from Macquarie University in Sydney knew from previous research that warming ocean temperatures alter the way fish grow and develop. The researchers wanted to find out whether these changes would also affect fish behavior — specifically, whether sharks raised in a tank warmed to projected end-of-century temperatures would show a preference for swimming one direction or another when faced with a Y-shaped pathway. Basically, could global warming make sharks right- or left-handed?

Sharks, you may be tempted to point out, don't actually have hands (they have fins, which are genetically not so far off from human arms). So, when scientists talk about the right or left "handedness" of sharks and other marine creatures, they're talking about lateralization: the tendency for one half of an animal's brain to automatically control certain behaviors. With simple, automated behaviors (say, your preference for writing with your right or left hand), this theoretically frees up mental energy for an animal to perform more-complex cognitive functions. In fish, lateralization might mean a default preference for swimming a certain way, which can help those fish forage for food or form schools. [On The Brink: A Gallery of Wild Sharks]

"Since behavioral lateralization is an expression of brain function, it can be used as a barometer of normal brain development and function in some contexts," the researchers wrote in a study published this summer in the journal Symmetry. "Namely, exposure or development under climate change conditions."
Right shark or left shark?

To test whether warmer waters could force a shark to become lateralized, the researchers collected a clutch of Port Jackson shark eggs from the waters off of eastern Australia. The scientists incubated 12 eggs in a tank warmed to the current ambient temperature of the bay (about 70 degrees Fahrenheit, or 20.6 degrees Celsius) and 12 others in a tank that was gradually warmed to 74.5 degrees F (23.6 degrees C) to simulate those predicted end-of-century ocean temperatures.

Five sharks incubated in the elevated temperatures died within a month of hatching. To test whether the remaining sharks had developed lateralization, the team placed each of those animals in a long tank with a Y-shaped partition at one end. Behind the partition was a food reward; sharks just had to decide whether to swim to the right or left side of the Y to reach their snack.

The authors found that sharks incubated in the elevated temperatures showed a strong preference for turning right. The sharks in the control group showed no preference one way or the other.

To the researchers, this sudden-onset "right-handedness" is an indication that the sharks raised in the hotter tank may have developed lateralized brains as a mental shortcut. This would help them compensate for other developmental hurdles posed by their environment. [Images: Sharks and Whales from Above]

"Elevated temperature significantly increased developmental rates and metabolism, with associated costs in terms of energy allocation to growth and physiological processes," the researchers wrote. "Therefore, stronger lateralization may arise as an energy-saving mechanism."

Sharks born in hotter waters may be forced to develop more quickly and may be left with physically smaller brains than sharks who develop under today's conditions, the team wrote. With less mental energy to spare, sharks might have to automate certain behaviors — like always turning right when faced with an obstacle.

Understanding the precise consequences of warming oceans on shark behavior will require lots of further study, the researchers said. For its part, the Macquarie University team has donated the brains of the sharks in its study to be examined in further research. Soon, we may have a better idea of what makes a right-handed shark tick.

https://www.livescience.com/64261-global-warming-makes-sharks-right-handed.html

[DrEvil]

Sure, what could go wrong....

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

November 23, 2018

(CNN) Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere.

The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half.

The technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. The scientists propose delivering the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns.

Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive."

They estimate the total cost of launching a hypothetical system in 15 years' time at around $3.5 billion, with running costs of $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period.

The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical. "We make no judgment about the desirability of SAI," the report states. "We simply show that a hypothetical deployment program commencing 15 years hence, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would indeed be technically possible from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive."

The researchers also acknowledge potential risks: coordination between multiple countries in both hemispheres would be required, and stratospheric aerosol injection techniques could jeopardize crop yields, lead to droughts or cause extreme weather.

The proposals also don't address the issue of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of global warming.

And despite the conviction of the report's authors, other experts were skeptical. "From the point of view of climate economics, solar radiation management is still a much worse solution than greenhouse gas emissions: more costly and much more risky over the long run," said Philippe Thalmann of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, an expert in the economics of climate change.

David Archer of the Department of Geophysical Science at the University of Chicago said, "The problem with engineering climate in this way is that it's only a temporary Band-Aid covering a problem that will persist essentially forever, actually hundreds of thousands of years for fossil fuel CO2 to finally go away naturally.

"It will be tempting to continue to procrastinate on cleaning up our energy system, but we'd be leaving the planet on a form of life-support. If a future generation failed to pay their climate bill they would get all of our warming all at once."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html

" Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive." " - See, chem trials is fake..

Ignoring climate change and pretending it doesn't exist while spreading doubt and disinformation.

Sure, what could go wrong....

Here's a thought: You are one of the reasons this is being considered in the first place.

No one can stop the climate from changing, it always has and always will. And I honestly don't understand why you think it's partly my fault?

I think it's partly your fault because you've been spending years posting denier bullshit. You've been doing your damnedest to convince people that it's no big deal and nothing we need to worry about.

And of course the climate changes all the time, that's never been the issue. The issue is the speed at which it is changing, and ours, and the biosphere's, ability to cope with that change (hint: very badly. Natural cycles take orders of magnitude longer than what's happening now).

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[BenDhyan]

Sure, what could go wrong....

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

November 23, 2018

(CNN) Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere.

The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half.

The technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. The scientists propose delivering the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns.

Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive."

They estimate the total cost of launching a hypothetical system in 15 years' time at around $3.5 billion, with running costs of $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period.

The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical. "We make no judgment about the desirability of SAI," the report states. "We simply show that a hypothetical deployment program commencing 15 years hence, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would indeed be technically possible from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive."

The researchers also acknowledge potential risks: coordination between multiple countries in both hemispheres would be required, and stratospheric aerosol injection techniques could jeopardize crop yields, lead to droughts or cause extreme weather.

The proposals also don't address the issue of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of global warming.

And despite the conviction of the report's authors, other experts were skeptical. "From the point of view of climate economics, solar radiation management is still a much worse solution than greenhouse gas emissions: more costly and much more risky over the long run," said Philippe Thalmann of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, an expert in the economics of climate change.

David Archer of the Department of Geophysical Science at the University of Chicago said, "The problem with engineering climate in this way is that it's only a temporary Band-Aid covering a problem that will persist essentially forever, actually hundreds of thousands of years for fossil fuel CO2 to finally go away naturally.

"It will be tempting to continue to procrastinate on cleaning up our energy system, but we'd be leaving the planet on a form of life-support. If a future generation failed to pay their climate bill they would get all of our warming all at once."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html

" Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive." " - See, chem trials is fake..

Ignoring climate change and pretending it doesn't exist while spreading doubt and disinformation.

Sure, what could go wrong....

Here's a thought: You are one of the reasons this is being considered in the first place.

No one can stop the climate from changing, it always has and always will. And I honestly don't understand why you think it's partly my fault?

I think it's partly your fault because you've been spending years posting denier bullshit. You've been doing your damnedest to convince people that it's no big deal and nothing we need to worry about.

And of course the climate changes all the time, that's never been the issue. The issue is the speed at which it is changing, and ours, and the biosphere's, ability to cope with that change (hint: very badly. Natural cycles take orders of magnitude longer than what's happening now).

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Perhaps your confidence in your personal understanding of the present status of climate science is not justifiable. You may say the same of me, but there it is.

Is it your view that there should be no skepticism wrt cagw climate science claims on RI?

[MacCruiskeen]

Is Guy McPherson right about the global dimming effect? I.e., that aerosols in the upper atmosphere are the only thing keeping the planet from heating up even more, and very quickly indeed? So that if we were to cease all industrial activity on earth tomorrow we'd be toast within weeks?

"I am almost completely half afraid to ask." Seriously. If he's wrong I would love to hear why.

[MacCruiskeen]

Report: Current Climate Policies Will Warm the World by 3.3˚C

Dec. 11, 2018 12:56PM EST

https://www.ecowatch.com/global-climate ... 65326.html

https://climateactiontracker.org/

[DrEvil]

Sure, what could go wrong....

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

November 23, 2018

(CNN) Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere.

The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half.

The technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. The scientists propose delivering the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns.

Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive."

They estimate the total cost of launching a hypothetical system in 15 years' time at around $3.5 billion, with running costs of $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period.

The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical. "We make no judgment about the desirability of SAI," the report states. "We simply show that a hypothetical deployment program commencing 15 years hence, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would indeed be technically possible from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive."

The researchers also acknowledge potential risks: coordination between multiple countries in both hemispheres would be required, and stratospheric aerosol injection techniques could jeopardize crop yields, lead to droughts or cause extreme weather.

The proposals also don't address the issue of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of global warming.

And despite the conviction of the report's authors, other experts were skeptical. "From the point of view of climate economics, solar radiation management is still a much worse solution than greenhouse gas emissions: more costly and much more risky over the long run," said Philippe Thalmann of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, an expert in the economics of climate change.

David Archer of the Department of Geophysical Science at the University of Chicago said, "The problem with engineering climate in this way is that it's only a temporary Band-Aid covering a problem that will persist essentially forever, actually hundreds of thousands of years for fossil fuel CO2 to finally go away naturally.

"It will be tempting to continue to procrastinate on cleaning up our energy system, but we'd be leaving the planet on a form of life-support. If a future generation failed to pay their climate bill they would get all of our warming all at once."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html

" Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive." " - See, chem trials is fake..

Ignoring climate change and pretending it doesn't exist while spreading doubt and disinformation.

Sure, what could go wrong....

Here's a thought: You are one of the reasons this is being considered in the first place.

No one can stop the climate from changing, it always has and always will. And I honestly don't understand why you think it's partly my fault?

I think it's partly your fault because you've been spending years posting denier bullshit. You've been doing your damnedest to convince people that it's no big deal and nothing we need to worry about.

And of course the climate changes all the time, that's never been the issue. The issue is the speed at which it is changing, and ours, and the biosphere's, ability to cope with that change (hint: very badly. Natural cycles take orders of magnitude longer than what's happening now).

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Perhaps your confidence in your personal understanding of the present status of climate science is not justifiable. You may say the same of me, but there it is.

Is it your view that there should be no skepticism wrt cagw climate science claims on RI?

My view is that I'm sick and tired of the same old bullshit talking points being repeated over and over by the same few people.
It's also my view that you can post what you want about climate change, and I can then post what I want in reply.

My understanding of the present status of climate science is pretty clear: they're all saying it's real and it's bad, going on worse.
Just look at the latest IPCC report. It's a summary of the current state of things, and it's pretty damn apocalyptic, and that's the conservative consensus view that has had political operatives crawling all over it to make the language palatable to all parties.

It's really simple: If 9 out of 10 doctors tell you you're seriously ill and need surgery right now or there's a good chance you'll die or end up with permanent and severe damage, what do you do? Take them seriously, or listen to the tenth guy (who is discreetly paid by the local funeral home) who is telling you that all the others are wrong and lying and fiddling with your sample results?

Is that a gamble you would take (yes, I realize who I'm asking. Just pretend that you're a rational person for a minute)? Then scale it up to planetary scale and ask again.

[DrEvil]

Is Guy McPherson right about the global dimming effect? I.e., that aerosols in the upper atmosphere are the only thing keeping the planet from heating up even more, and very quickly indeed? So that if we were to cease all industrial activity on earth tomorrow we'd be toast within weeks?

"I am almost completely half afraid to ask." Seriously. If he's wrong I would love to hear why.

I think he's safe to ignore. He seems to be a sort of anti-denier. He's arguing the opposite of the denier crowd (he thinks we're really, really doomed, probably extinct in a few years), but he uses the same cherry picking and distortion tactics as the deniers to get there.

Here's a decent overview (from 2014):
https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/201 ... -it-wrong/

[MacCruiskeen]

Thanks, Dr Evil. I'll read that tomorrow. McPherson himself keeps saying he hopes he's wrong.

Meanwhile, accelerating climate collapse is the unspoken background to every damn word we write here.

How are the insects doing in Finland? Asking for a German flower who is looking for a butterfly, or even a bee.

[BenDhyan]

Sure, what could go wrong....

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

November 23, 2018

(CNN) Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere.

The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half.

The technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. The scientists propose delivering the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns.

Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive."

They estimate the total cost of launching a hypothetical system in 15 years' time at around $3.5 billion, with running costs of $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period.

The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical. "We make no judgment about the desirability of SAI," the report states. "We simply show that a hypothetical deployment program commencing 15 years hence, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would indeed be technically possible from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive."

The researchers also acknowledge potential risks: coordination between multiple countries in both hemispheres would be required, and stratospheric aerosol injection techniques could jeopardize crop yields, lead to droughts or cause extreme weather.

The proposals also don't address the issue of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of global warming.

And despite the conviction of the report's authors, other experts were skeptical. "From the point of view of climate economics, solar radiation management is still a much worse solution than greenhouse gas emissions: more costly and much more risky over the long run," said Philippe Thalmann of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, an expert in the economics of climate change.

David Archer of the Department of Geophysical Science at the University of Chicago said, "The problem with engineering climate in this way is that it's only a temporary Band-Aid covering a problem that will persist essentially forever, actually hundreds of thousands of years for fossil fuel CO2 to finally go away naturally.

"It will be tempting to continue to procrastinate on cleaning up our energy system, but we'd be leaving the planet on a form of life-support. If a future generation failed to pay their climate bill they would get all of our warming all at once."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html

" Despite the technology being undeveloped and with no existing aircraft suitable for adaptation, the researchers say that "developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive." " - See, chem trials is fake..

Ignoring climate change and pretending it doesn't exist while spreading doubt and disinformation.

Sure, what could go wrong....

Here's a thought: You are one of the reasons this is being considered in the first place.

No one can stop the climate from changing, it always has and always will. And I honestly don't understand why you think it's partly my fault?

I think it's partly your fault because you've been spending years posting denier bullshit. You've been doing your damnedest to convince people that it's no big deal and nothing we need to worry about.

And of course the climate changes all the time, that's never been the issue. The issue is the speed at which it is changing, and ours, and the biosphere's, ability to cope with that change (hint: very badly. Natural cycles take orders of magnitude longer than what's happening now).

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Perhaps your confidence in your personal understanding of the present status of climate science is not justifiable. You may say the same of me, but there it is.

Is it your view that there should be no skepticism wrt cagw climate science claims on RI?

My view is that I'm sick and tired of the same old bullshit talking points being repeated over and over by the same few people.
It's also my view that you can post what you want about climate change, and I can then post what I want in reply.

My understanding of the present status of climate science is pretty clear: they're all saying it's real and it's bad, going on worse.
Just look at the latest IPCC report. It's a summary of the current state of things, and it's pretty damn apocalyptic, and that's the conservative consensus view that has had political operatives crawling all over it to make the language palatable to all parties.

It's really simple: If 9 out of 10 doctors tell you you're seriously ill and need surgery right now or there's a good chance you'll die or end up with permanent and severe damage, what do you do? Take them seriously, or listen to the tenth guy (who is discreetly paid by the local funeral home) who is telling you that all the others are wrong and lying and fiddling with your sample results?

Is that a gamble you would take (yes, I realize who I'm asking. Just pretend that you're a rational person for a minute)? Then scale it up to planetary scale and ask again.

I understand you believe in, and are concerned about the more extreme predictions of increase in global temperature, but my view takes into consideration the view of some respected climate scientists who are skeptical, and thus am not worried about the extreme claims.

Beyond that, I don't worry about climate at all, nor fwiw, any other of the prevailing possible doom and gloom end time scenarios of the world, I just use my time to enjoy the opportunity this life has provided me to experience the awesome wonders of existence. If some planetary disaster were to occur, so be it, bed wetting about these possible scenarios is not my way.

[BenDhyan]

.

Why greens are turning away from a carbon tax

By ZACK COLMAN and ERIC WOLFF 12/09/2018

Taxing carbon to tackle climate change is one of those big ideas that have long held a kind of bipartisan sway in Washington — endorsed by Al Gore and former members of Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, economists from both parties and even Exxon Mobil.

But environmentalists are increasingly ready to look elsewhere.

This month's fuel-tax riots in Paris and the defeat of a carbon-fee ballot measure in Washington state show the difficulty of getting people to support a levy on the energy sources that heat their homes and power their cars. Meanwhile, even the most liberal Democratic candidates this year gave carbon taxes scant if any mention in their climate platforms, focusing instead on proposals like a phaseout of fossil fuels and massive investments in wind and solar power.

The story of the carbon tax’s fading appeal, even among groups that like it in principle, shows the difficulties of crafting a politically palatable solution to one of the world’s most urgent problems — including greenhouse gas levels that are on track to reach a record high this year.

“This aversion to taxes in the U.S. is high and should not be underestimated,” said Kalee Kreider, a former Gore adviser and longtime climate activist. “I have a lot of scars to show for that.”

“I fear that the idea of a carbon tax is turning out to be a heavier lift than people envision," said RL Miller, founder of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote. "As it is right now, starting from scratch, there is no constituency for it. ... And I think the climate movement needs to go through some rethinking."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/09/carbon-tax-climate-change-environmentalists-1052210?utm_source=Media&utm_campaign=de3d0f3cf4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_10_02_48_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-de3d0f3cf4-36424229