How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:17 pm

slimmouse » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:56 pm wrote:I sometimes wonder if were on the eve on destruction myself.

Probably yet another "advanced civilisation" that has fallen on this fair planet due to any amount of catastrophes, be they man-made or otherwise.

Never did replicate the Great Pyramid, this time around. Thus far this appears to have become a civilisation with different priorities, as are dictated to them.

Oh well.

Hey SRP

All of what you said. And I wouldnt hold us responsible. If everyone really fucking knew what was going on, their would be none of it.


So what's really going on? And why would the world be different if we knew?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm

Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:04 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:30 am wrote:
slimmouse » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:40 pm wrote:So we've had a 180 parts per million increase in CO2 emmissions over the last 54 years and this is going to send the climate out of control?

Or, to put this into another mathematical perspective, the evidently indisputable fact is that that we have had 0.000018% increase in CO2 (as a percentage of the entire atmosphere)

I fully appreciate that this is a whopping 50% increase.

Nonetheless Im having a hard time buying it

Because to me, thats a 50 percent increase in a Gas who 54 years ago apparently formed a total , constituent 0.0000 28 percent of our atmosphere..

Which actually equates to what?

Not very much.

Funny, that's what the frog in the pot of boiling water said too!

The frog can relax, the warming is in hiatus, and that the ongoing 17 year pause has occurred during a period of record increases in CO2 emissions...in fact one third of all human derived CO2 emissions have occurred since 1998..is causing all real scientists to question the 'A' in AGW climate science!!!


"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:28 pm

The great, Desmond Tutu - a plea for a social justice response to climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... eystone-xl


We need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet

We must stop climate change. And we can, if we use the tactics that worked in South Africa against the worst carbon emitters


Twenty-five years ago people could be excused for not knowing much, or doing much, about climate change. Today we have no excuse. No more can it be dismissed as science fiction; we are already feeling the effects.
This is why, no matter where you live, it is appalling that the US is debating whether to approve a massive pipeline transporting 830,000 barrels of the world's dirtiest oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Producing and transporting this quantity of oil, via the Keystone XL pipeline, could increase Canada's carbon emissions by over 30%.
If the negative impacts of the pipeline would affect only Canada and the US, we could say good luck to them. But it will affect the whole world, our shared world, the only world we have. We don't have much time.
This week in Berlin, scientists and public representatives have been weighing up radical options for curbing emissions contained in the third report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The bottom line is that we have 15 years to take the necessary steps. The horse may not have bolted, but it's well on its way through the stable door.
Who can stop it? Well, we can, you and I. And it is not just that we can stop it, we have a responsibility to do so. It is a responsibility that begins with God commanding the first human inhabitants of the garden of Eden "to till it and keep it". To keep it; not to abuse it, not to destroy it.
The taste of "success" in our world gone mad is measured in dollars and francs and rupees and yen. Our desire to consume any and everything of perceivable value – to extract every precious stone, every ounce of metal, every drop of oil, every tuna in the ocean, every rhinoceros in the bush – knows no bounds. We live in a world dominated by greed. We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth.
Throughout my life I have believed that the only just response to injustice is what Mahatma Gandhi termed "passive resistance". During the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, using boycotts, divestment and sanctions, and supported by our friends overseas, we were not only able to apply economic pressure on the unjust state, but also serious moral pressure.
It is clear that those countries and companies primarily responsible for emitting carbon and accelerating climate change are not simply going to give up; they stand to make too much money. They need a whole lot of gentle persuasion from the likes of us. And it need not necessarily involve trading in our cars and buying bicycles!
There are many ways that all of us can fight against climate change: by not wasting energy, for instance. But these individual measures will not make a big enough difference in the available time.
People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change. We can, for instance, boycott events, sports teams and media programming sponsored by fossil-fuel energy companies. We can demand that the advertisements of energy companies carry health warnings. We can encourage more of our universities and municipalities and cultural institutions to cut their ties to the fossil-fuel industry. We can organise car-free days and build broader societal awareness. We can ask our religious communities to speak out.
We can actively encourage energy companies to spend more of their resources on the development of sustainable energy products, and we can reward those companies that do so by using their products. We can press our governments to invest in renewable energy and stop subsidising fossil fuels. Where possible, we can install our own solar panels and water heaters.
We cannot necessarily bankrupt the fossil fuel industry. But we can take steps to reduce its political clout, and hold those who rake in the profits accountable for cleaning up the mess.
And the good news is that we don't have to start from scratch. Young people across the world have already begun to do something about it. The fossil fuel divestment campaign is the fastest growing corporate campaign of its kind in history.
Last month, the General Synod of the Church of England voted overwhelmingly to review its investment policy in respect of fossil fuel companies, with one bishop referring to climate change as "the great demon of our day". Already some colleges and pension funds have declared they want their investments to be congruent with their beliefs.
It makes no sense to invest in companies that undermine our future. To serve as custodians of creation is not an empty title; it requires that we act, and with all the urgency this dire situation demands.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:19 pm

Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room...there has been no increase in global temperatures in 17 years...,the only reason for the UN IPCC and the parasitic AGW climate industry continue to bang the can on AGW is that its very existence is based on the belief that humans caused the warming of the late 20th century...and its a lucrative business so long as it can be made to last.

The UN IPCC was set up to advise the world's governments, educational institutions, main stream media, etc. about how to deal with global warming caused by human CO2 emissions. If the anthropogenic factor in computer climate models was to be admitted to be unfounded or excessive, it would no longer have any cause to exist along with the whole scheme of AGW spawned science, government taxes, associated low carbon footprint industries and financial schemes, etc.. Greed has no bounds.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:23 pm

You're not an elephant, Bendy, and it's not that we're ignoring you, it's that you said you were gone and never to return.

I guess you lied about that too, just like you have with every other piece of oil funded disinfo you posted here.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:26 pm

BenD wrote:its a lucrative business so long as it can be made to last.


You mean, as opposed to business-as-usual? Don't be silly.

In 2012, the GWP totalled approximately US$84.97 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), and around US$71.83 trillion in nominal terms.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:31 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -fuels-oil

They aren't even denying it anymore - just saying 'we don't give a fuck'

Exxon Mobil says climate change unlikely to stop it selling fossil fuels

On the same day the world's scientists issued their latest report on climate change and the risks it poses to society, America's biggest oil and gas company said the world's climate policies are "highly unlikely" to stop it from selling fossil fuels far into the future.

Exxon Mobil issued a report on Monday on the risks that climate change policies could pose to the value of its assets and future profitability, by coincidence on the same day as the latest paper by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a Nobel Prize-winning United Nations group assembled to assess the science and risks of climate change.

Both Exxon and its critics used IPCC research to bolster their cases.

Exxon's report was in response to the contentions of some shareholders and environmental activists that the assets underpinning the value of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies will be worth less as society restricts consumption of fossil fuels to fight climate change.

The report, the first detailed response to these concerns by a major oil company, acknowledges the need to adopt policies to address climate change. But it concludes that because oil and gas are so critical to global development and economic growth, governments are "highly unlikely" to adopt policies that cut emissions so sharply that fossil fuel consumption would be severely restricted.

"We know enough based on the research and science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk," Ken Cohen, Exxon's government affairs chief, said in an interview. "But given the essential role that energy plays in everyone's lives, those steps need to be taken in context with other realities we face, including lifting much of the world's population out of poverty."

Natasha Lamb, director of equity research at Arjuna Capital, a sustainable wealth management group that filed the shareholder resolution with Exxon, called Exxon's report a "milestone." "It's a huge first step in the right direction and it shows a lot of leadership," she said.

Arjuna and As You Sow, a nonprofit that promotes environmental corporate responsibility, agreed to withdraw their resolution after Exxon agreed to issue a report on climate risks.

But Lamb said she was disappointed that Exxon declined to explain what would happen if society did in fact adopt policies that would lead to sharply lower emissions, something known broadly as a low-carbon standard.

"The question is not whether or not we'll face the low carbon standard, but whether they are prepared to address it. We need to know what's at stake," she said. "But at least now investors know that Exxon is not addressing the low carbon scenario and (is) placing investor capital at risk."

Exxon and the environmental groups agree that climate change is a risk and that society will take steps to reduce emissions from fossil fuels to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They differ, however, on how drastic society's response could be, and what would cost more severely restricting fossil fuel consumption or not doing so and allowing more carbon dioxide to build in the atmosphere.

Exxon, along with other private and government energy researchers, believes that demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow around the world as more people demand access to electricity, heat, and transportation. Exxon predicts that carbon dioxide emissions from energy sources will peak by about 2030 and then begin to decline as society becomes more efficient and switches to lower-carbon fuels.

The Irving, Texas-based company's report notes that its emissions predictions track closely with the IPCC's "intermediate" scenario considered in its last report.

Exxon says that renewable energy sources are not now cheap enough nor technologically advanced enough to meet growing demand for energy, let alone also replace oil and gas. Governments therefore face a choice between restricting access to energy or raising the cost of energy significantly. In Exxon's view, governments will chose to raise the cost of fossil fuels to encourage alternatives somewhat, but stop well short of enacting policies that will sharply curtail consumption, especially in developing countries, because populations would resist and social upheaval would result.

Arjuna Capital's Lamb disagrees. "There's greater risk of social upheaval from climate change itself," Arjuna Capital's Lamb says. "[Exxon's report] ignores the cost of inaction."

Lamb points to some of the conclusions in the latest IPCC report, which says climate change will worsen problems that society already has, such as poverty, sickness, violence and displacement.

The report also says climate change will slow down the benefits of a modernising society, such as regular economic growth and more efficient crop production exactly the types of things that Exxon argues are delivered now only by relatively cheap and available fossil fuels.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:55 pm

Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room...there has been no increase in global temperatures in 17 years...


That elephant was addressed by yours truly back on page 47. I wasn't the only one to refute it either.

Regarding the 'pause', Inigo Montoya would likely tell climate contrarians,

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:00 pm

Rory » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:28 pm wrote:The great, Desmond Tutu - a plea for a social justice response to climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... eystone-xl


We need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet

We must stop climate change. And we can, if we use the tactics that worked in South Africa against the worst carbon emitters


Thanks Rory. Tutu has the right idea. Or as DeNiro put it in Goodfellas, "DON'T BUY ANYTHING!"

User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:19 pm

Rory » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:23 am wrote:You're not an elephant, Bendy, and it's not that we're ignoring you, it's that you said you were gone and never to return.

I guess you lied about that too, just like you have with every other piece of oil funded disinfo you posted here.

Rory, the elephant I was referring to was not me but the seventeen year plus hiatus in global warming with all that extra human derived CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. One third of all human CO2 that has been pumped into the atmosphere has occurred since 1998, with no change in the average global temperature since...

On the accusation of lying....I'm like the climate...changeable.....but it's that damn lying climate that can't be trusted...it's supposed to have kept on warming...
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:27 pm

Yes, yes. 'It's the sun, stupid', we know the drill :tongout
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:31 pm

stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:55 am wrote:
Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room...there has been no increase in global temperatures in 17 years...


That elephant was addressed by yours truly back on page 47. I wasn't the only one to refute it either.


stillrobertpaulsen, anyone who takes the wacko SkS seriously deserves to be deceived...it's a AGW propaganda site.

Here is the actual Hadcrut4 global temperature data for the period since 1998.. Hadcrut4 is one of the global data sets used by the UN IPCC. Note that it has been relatively unchanged since 1998.

Image

Btw, if you want to to be taken serious, please use actual IPCC approved data in future....there is much rubbish in circulation.

ps....and note the CO2 levels rise during the same period...

Image
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:53 pm

And woodfortree.cherrypickers.org is a totally reliable site where totally non mendacious Bendy elephants can ignore the contradictions in their cherrypicking and present semi authentic looking graphs while hiding the sources, calculation steps and other reference way points to verify and repeat their hypothesis scientifically.

Great stuff - it's the sun, stupid, par rinse and repeat.


97% consensus of man made climate change.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:06 am

Rory » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:53 am wrote:And woodfortree.cherrypickers.org is a totally reliable site where totally non mendacious Bendy elephants can ignore the contradictions in their cherrypicking and present semi authentic looking graphs while hiding the sources, calculation steps and other reference way points to verify and repeat their hypothesis scientifically.

Great stuff - it's the sun, stupid, par rinse and repeat.


97% consensus of man made climate change.

Woodfortree.org site is used by climate scientists as it uses the UN IPCC relevant data. If anyone want to know how long the pause has been, thre is no other way to do it than work back wards from the present, though there are other data sets available if one has a preference.. No one except the AGW alarmist wackos deny the pause....it's already scientific history, get over it.

For your information, its the AGW alarmists who are suggesting the sun may be responsible, at least in part, for the pause...so to be clear, are you implying these scientists have no understanding of Solar science?

It doesn't matter if 100% of AGW scientists who were associated with the Lewandowsky paper believe man is the cause of 20th century warming, these same people can't explain to the real scientists why the pause keeps on going on...while the CO2 keeps building. There was a time when 97% of learned souls believed the Earth was flat....reality trumps conceptual models! At the end of the day, it's reality that trumps conceptual global climate model projections, the longer the pause, the greater disparity between predictions and actual temperature...how long can this farce continue?

Real scientists are beginning to think that climate science is more akin to astrology than science.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:35 am

Even the Irish think you're talking shite, Bendy

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environm ... -1.1757995

Climate change deniers “are lying to themselves and lying to the country and they need to be swept aside”, Minister of State Brian Hayes has said.
Mr Hayes, who has responsibility for the Office of Public Works, was speaking during a question-and-answer session at an OPW flood-risk management conference in Dublin Castle.
“The scientific evidence confirming climate change is compelling,” he told the 250 attendees, many of whom came from communities in the south and southeast badly affected by the past winter’s storms and flooding. “We must now accept the reality of climate change and prepare for the likely consequences.
“Coping with frequent flooding will, in some cases, mean working with nature, rather than controlling it.
“In some situations flood management may include the restoration of natural flood plains and a willingness to allow rivers to flood in a controlled manner in order to prevent greater damage.”
Dealing with the problems generated by climate change meant being “honest and realistic about what we can do”. Not every yard of coast or beach could be protected; “we cannot defend every field”.

Very local
He continued: The political system also needs to grow up. Because politics in Ireland is very local – it’s equally very short-term. We are not good at planning for the long-term and having to make tough choices especially when it comes to good planning and development. If ever we need a national response, it is on this issue.”
He criticised some planning decision of recent years that had seen building permitted on known flood plains, and warned that the State would not compensate, or underwrite, the financial consequences of such decisions in the future.
The conference heard from several senior staff at the OPW on the Cfram programme – the Catchment-based Flood Risk Assessment and Management project – under which the likelihood of flooding along the country’s major rivers and 90 coastal areas is being quantified scientifically. Based on this, maps will be published this summer showing where flooding is likely and what action, if any, needs to be taken.
The conference heard of the benefit of major flood defence works in Clonmel, Ennis, Kilkenny and on the rivers Dodder and Tolka in Dublin.
Flood defence schemes due to start this year include Claregalway, Bandon, Templemore, Bray and Skibbereen.
The conference also heard from speakers representing the insurance industry, agriculture and business.
Ian Talbot of Chambers Ireland spoke of the employment and financial costs of repeated flooding, and cited one small firm in Coothill that lost €15,000 a week over the past winter due to flooding.
Paul MacDonnell of Insurance Ireland said flooding correlated not to weather but poverty and bad planning. Adequate flood defences allowed insurers to assess risk.
Tom Turley of the IFA said the Shannon and other rivers should be dredged. “We can’t wait for reports and planning.”
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests