We don't have 12 years to stop climate change, we have 12 years to be
- Thread starter Ardeus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Muttley000
Valuable Member
As you have missed the main point of my posts. I was not trying to convey I blindly follow a belief, merely that the evidence has not been payed out in a way to convince me. I also was not bragging about anything, you spend 25 years in a small company you work your way towards the top. Congrats, your feigned personal attack has earned you the second spot on my ignore list, I'm sure R2R is plenty big for each of us to get along fine without each other.
Humble brag redux, and again, I’m quite happy for your work ethic, and for the assists you’ve received from serendipity along the way; however, your personal success in an unrelated field has absolutely no bearing on this argument, so as long as you find ways to insert the details of your career here, I’ll point that out. I didn’t feign a personal attack (although I’m admittedly not sure what a “feigned” personal attack on a web board would resemble, exactly), nor did I make a personal attack of any stripe. I’m merely highlighting that you don’t know what your talking about with regard to anthropogenic climate change, and you (and as I’ve said, too many others, as well) know it, yet still profess beliefs that would require a very special knowledge that escapes the world’s climate scientists.
And if you’ve truly ignored me, that’s perfectly predicable, but it’s sad and precisely the problem. Cognitive dissonance is the primal beast that led us into this gulch in the first place.
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
Bummer.
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
I got 10 dendronephthya coming. When here, it's on again. My last ones, (they were actually Scleronephthya, yellow ones ) had to relocate to "Backwoods Lab " project X. They didn't make it.
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Ok but can we all agree to reduce our consumables usage this year to help keep our environment (especially oceans) cleaner?
I like this idea, but I would take it to the next level. Stop buying bleach and glass cleaner. Stop voluntarily using harmful chemicals in your home. Protect yourself and your families. You wouldn't use then to clean the glass of your reef tank...
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
And it quickly depleted its battery doing so and immediately needed a charge...
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Who in the heck are these people??? "universetoday"
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
I have been catching up after being off the grid for a couple days.
Reading comments like:
1. "There's a lot of data of climate changes"
2."Where is the evidence for that?"
3."no empirical support"
I am reminded that people do not know science from a hole in the ground, especially most of the scientists, despite being taught the scientific method in the 6th or 7th grade. If you Google "scientific method", you will be fed a line of propaganda invented to falsely support the radical suppositions that the internet super powers wish you to believe.
1. Data is plural. It should read "There are a lot of data of climate changes", but that is still not a correct appliance of the term data. Data don't do that. They are observations and inputs.
2. Evidence is for a crime scene, not science.
3. Data can be empirical, support is an opinion about the results of an experiment.
So, to review and hopefully refresh:
Reading comments like:
1. "There's a lot of data of climate changes"
2."Where is the evidence for that?"
3."no empirical support"
I am reminded that people do not know science from a hole in the ground, especially most of the scientists, despite being taught the scientific method in the 6th or 7th grade. If you Google "scientific method", you will be fed a line of propaganda invented to falsely support the radical suppositions that the internet super powers wish you to believe.
1. Data is plural. It should read "There are a lot of data of climate changes", but that is still not a correct appliance of the term data. Data don't do that. They are observations and inputs.
2. Evidence is for a crime scene, not science.
3. Data can be empirical, support is an opinion about the results of an experiment.
So, to review and hopefully refresh:
- Formulate a hypothesis.
- Test the hypothesis.
- The results of the test will either support, or not support the hypothesis.
- Repeat.
Agreed and already have
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
I had forgotten about this show
These kind of talks may well have happened in many governments. At some point in time they could have been plotting on the assumption that climate change wasn't a big deal, but not now. If these talks happen now, the people involved are well aware of what's coming... and keep going.
We don't have 12 years to stop climate change, we have 12 years to be ?????
Alas dear Ardeus, it is but too late, my friend. Too late to save the planet. We missed our only chance 18 years ago.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year >>>>> 2000.
Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
====================================================================
Noel Brown goes onto say “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees (C) in the next 30 years”.
Let’s check Noel’s ‘Best Case Scenario’, a 1C rise in 30 years. That equals a rate of 0.33C per decade.
The actual rate of warming per decade, measured by satellite over the last 40 years, is only 0.13C per decade. So Noel’s ‘Best Case Scenario’ was over two & a half times higher than reality.
His ‘Worst Case Scenario’ of 2.33C per decade is an astonishing 18 times higher than reality, & absolutely preposterous!
Thinking about the most recent UN prediction, that we will add another 0.5C of warming in the next 12 years, it seems they haven’t learnt anything at all after making so many flawed & discredited alarmist predictions previously. They just carry on as usual. Why ?????
This latest UN prediction is equal to a decadal rise of 0.42C per decade when the satellite data has constrained the rise over the last 40 years to 0.13C per decade.
In reality it will take at least 40 years to reach their new arbitrary figure of a further 0.5C. In fact it will take longer because of the logarithmic effect of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 has increased by 130ppm. Whatever effect this increase has had (or hasn’t had) on the climate, it will now take a further increase of twice that, 260ppm, just to get an equal effect.
Relax Ardeus, & enjoy the interglacial.
U
User1
Guest
Well, NASA is not perfect or need I remind you of the Mars Probe. Granted that was a combed cluster of JPS, Lockheed, and of course NASA.
Just throwing that out there.
U
User1
Guest
You could also bring back the 70's scare that we would be out of fossil fuels by the 2000's but they also got that wrong. If money, activist, and politicians then all you need to do is follow the money trail. Take Ca for example and possibly NY who both want to phase out fossil fuels by 2045. That is all fine and dandy but what do you presume to replace said fossil fuels with? Commercial solar panels are still not cost effective and produce a net positive for homes. Wind? Not everywhere can put up a wind farm let alone its own environmental impact. Nuclear? Yeah - clean has all hell but everyone is too scared to use it (still most energy efficient for the masses). Water/hydro? Ca can't even finish the dang they have been trying to build for years now.
This isn't directed at you Scrubber just more of a oh no the sky is falling and we have to act now crowd. It is a fact and we all know that growing population and the amount of energy used to create food to feed said people is not helping any. Same has all of the carbon waste and other crap. However, if everyone - meaning you, me, and everyone else on this board, does their part to recycle and conserve energy to the best of their ability they we are in a better place.
What you can't do is expect starving 3rd world countries to play by the same rules or those that are not of a democratic nation (Russia, China, to name a few).
OP
OP
At that time I was paying even less attention than now to politicians, so these predictions passed me by
Around that time we had much more ice in the arctic than we have now, the circumstances have changed.
Here's what happened since that time until now:
I guess that I don't need to remind you that the melting of the ice causes more solar radiation to be absorbed (ice reflects 90% of the radiation back to space and the open ocean only reflects less than 10%).
It's a clear positive feedback loop.
Taking that into account and the data available on arctic ice volume, it will be very surprising if the ice lasts another decade. And unlike Vegas, what happens in the arctic doesn't stay in the arctic.
The arctic is a peculiar ocean with cold water on top of warmer water due to the difference in salinity. The ice contains less salt than the water around and when it melts during summer, this "brackish" water therefore stays on top of the warmer and saltier water.
After the ice is gone, there's nothing preventing wind and waves from mixing up these 2 layers, which will make the freezing during winter much more difficult to happen.
Furthermore, a warmer sea surface in the arctic means more evaporation. More water vapour means -> more trapped heat -> warmer arctic. And there you have it: another positive feedback loop.
Last year we had wildfires in the arctic circle, with Sweden asking for help.
The circumstances have changed.
IPCC by its own structure is not well prepared to deal with this problem because it takes around 10 years to analyse the data and produce results that include parsing by politicians in the final stage. By the time they release their reports, reality has surpassed them.
You can clearly see that in what they say about the arctic (my first post).
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
Don't stop there on failed predictions. Just look into Paul Erlich's predictions, what a joke. And people still listen to the fool.
Typically imported fossil fuel energy from other states,, LOL
Multi-national, Billion dollar conglomerate Environmental groups, with vast influence, are anti hydrocarbon energy, hydro energy, nuclear energy, any energy that is cheap & reliable, because it benifits mankind. Soon they'll be acting against panels & windmills & Elon Musk batteries when the're filling up waste disposal depots.
Only scared by the propaganda from the enviro groups.
Well I don't waste energy now, so I can't conserve any. I just use what I need.
Recycling?
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
At that time I was paying even less attention than now to politicians, so these predictions passed me by
Around that time we had much more ice in the arctic than we have now, the circumstances have changed.
Here's what happened since that time until now:
I guess that I don't need to remind you that the melting of the ice causes more solar radiation to be absorbed (ice reflects 90% of the radiation back to space and the open ocean only reflects less than 10%).
It's a clear positive feedback loop.
Taking that into account and the data available on arctic ice volume, it will be very surprising if the ice lasts another decade. And unlike Vegas, what happens in the arctic doesn't stay in the arctic.
The arctic is a peculiar ocean with cold water on top of warmer water due to the difference in salinity. The ice contains less salt than the water around and when it melts during summer, this "brackish" water therefore stays on top of the warmer and saltier water.
After the ice is gone, there's nothing preventing wind and waves from mixing up these 2 layers, which will make the freezing during winter much more difficult to happen.
Furthermore, a warmer sea surface in the arctic means more evaporation. More water vapour means -> more trapped heat -> warmer arctic. And there you have it: another positive feedback loop.
Last year we had wildfires in the arctic circle, with Sweden asking for help.
The circumstances have changed.
IPCC by its own structure is not well prepared to deal with this problem because it takes around 10 years to analyse the data and produce results that include parsing by politicians in the final stage. By the time they release their reports, reality has surpassed them.
You can clearly see that in what they say about the arctic (my first post).
Looks like i'll have to repeat myself
40 years. Thats when satellite monitoring started & they could only then get full & reliable visuals on ice coverage.
Of course ice has diminished slightly since then. Fourty years ago was the end of a period of increasing arctic ice, back when the mainstream scientific view was of a comming ice age, a view that lasted a decade.
How about back in the early 20th century?
Historic Variations in Arctic Sea Ice
Section Five Data from Contemporary sources-1920-1940 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/
Arctic researcher Hans Ahlmann noted in 1952 that;
“The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades. According to information received in the U.S.S.R. in 1945, the area of drift ice in the Russian sector of the Arctic was reduced by no less than 1,000,000 square kilometers between 1924 and 1944.”
“The thickness of the ice forming annually in the North Polar Sea has diminished from an average of 365 centimeters at the time of Nansen’s Fram expedition of 1893-96 to 218 centimeters during the drift of the Russian icebreaker Sedov in 1937-40. The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades.”
“ The shipping season in West Spitsbergen has lengthened from three months at the beginning of this century to about seven months at the beginning of the 1940s.”
“ The Northern Sea Route, the North-East Passage, could never have been put into regular usage if the ice conditions in recent years had been as difficult as they were during the first decades of this century.”
“The same influences that have affected the drift ice have affected the animal life of the North Polar Sea. Various kinds of fish, especially cod, have migrated northwards. Now for the first time cod is available to many Greenland Eskimos who previously had to rely on seal for food.”
“Is it getting warmer at the North Pole? Soundings and meteorological tests taken by the Soviet explorers who returned this week to Murmansk, Russia’s sole ice-free Arctic port, concluded that near Polar temperatures are on average six degrees(C) higher than registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet. The return of the Soviet icebreaker Sedoff (note variations in spelling) brought to a close a Polar expedition, involuntarily undertaken which led to important discoveries. For 2½ years she had drifted while trapped in Polar ice. Fifteen men volunteered to stay on board until relief came. In the drift to the north-west these men passed nearer to the North Pole than any other ship. Their highest latitude was 86 degrees 56min North. They discovered by soundings a near Polar sea pocket, 17,260 feet deep.”
“One of the riddles which is puzzling geologists all over the world is the continuous retreat of the ice glaciers. Does this phenomenon indicate that the sun is getting hotter … or is it dependent upon comparatively unimportant changes in the earth’s atmosphere?
…these were discussed by Professor R. Speight, formerly professor of geology at Canterbury College, Christchurch, New Zealand in his presidential address to the …Science Congress to-day.
The steady retreat of the glaciers in New Zealand …had been observed during the last 70 years. Photographs taken in 1896 and 1935 showed several glaciers had retreated distances varying from 100 yards to half a mile in 40 years.
The phenomenon, however, was world-wide. Equally impressive records were obtainable from Switzerland, Scandinavia, Iceland and the United States. In Alaska glaciers had been retreating from 100 to 200 years, the average rate of recession being about 50 feet a year. The Antarctic ice- sheet also showed signs of recent retreat.
Professor Speight said, ” (no) region of the world (shows) present signs of an advance. This is quite apart from the general retreat since the pleistocene age and may be merely a pacing phase. Its precise significance can only be determined by continued observation.”
“Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range. By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier- the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.” http://www.glacierbay.org/geography.html
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
LOLAt that time I was paying even less attention than now to politicians, so these predictions passed me by
That politician as you put it Ardeus was director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. You know, the mob that run the IPCC & give out these dire warming nonsense projections to politicians.
You really should read more carefully, & widely.
- Status
Similar threads
