User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2022-03-03 at 2:14 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 2:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson I'm trying to get the information I asked for…it's very simple.
How much of global warming is due to human activity vs natural processes.
Rather than getting butt hurt by the SIMPLE question just post the relevant percentages…if you can.
It's just shows an incredible lack of understanding of the subject to expect something like the changing climate of the earth to he reduced to a percentage.
2020 was the second warmest year on record for the planet so feel free to search for exactly what percentage warmer it was and what impact billions of cubic tons of carbon would have on that. I know this is all very sciency but I know you can figure out these simple truths -
2022-03-03 at 2:17 PM UTCYou've got to be pretty re-re to believe global warming can be stopped or reversed at this point...China/India/Russia..and the US are NOT going to stop burning fossil fuels anytime in the next 50yrs.
It is what it is at this point.
All the carbon credits in the world isn't going to stop the enviable.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-03-03 at 2:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson You've got to be pretty re-re to believe global warming can be stopped or reversed at this point…China/India/Russia..and the US are NOT going to stop burning fossil fuels anytime in the next 50yrs.
It is what it is at this point.
All the carbon credits in the world isn't going to stop the enviable.
There are incentives to diversify though that pretty much every major economy acknowledges though. Damage can be mitigated but giving credence to people who deny obvious things is pretty detrimental to the current and future generations. There are definitely issues with the cap and trade system but it's a good way to set emission targets. Gotta lead by example and forgo the hypocrisy if there's going to be any positive impact on the damage we are doing to our planet -
2022-03-03 at 2:25 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 2:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo It's just shows an incredible lack of understanding of the subject
no it doesn't.
I think you miss the point of the question...IF we don't know the percentages of natural vs human climate change then addressing the problem from only 1 perspective could be a complete waste of time. -
2022-03-03 at 2:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo There are incentives to diversify though that pretty much every major economy acknowledges though. Damage can be mitigated but giving credence to people who deny obvious things is pretty detrimental to the current and future generations. There are definitely issues with the cap and trade system but it's a good way to set emission targets. Gotta lead by example and forgo the hypocrisy if there's going to be any positive impact on the damage we are doing to our planet
Again...first you need to know how much is due to human activity vs natural activity...
IF it turned out the human factor was only 10%...then it's not going to matter what we do.
KNOWING those percentages is pretty CRITICAL to the tackling the problem...until those percentages are known we are just "guessing" at a solution. -
2022-03-03 at 2:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny how so.
Well the main article is behind a pay wall but from the summation we have
The scientists would find that even the best tools at hand can’t model climates with the sureness the world needs as rising temperatures impact almost every region
The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model. “I think our higher sensitivity is wrong too. It’s probably a consequence of other things we did by making clouds better and more realistic. You solve one problem and create another.”
November 2021, as leaders met in Glasgow to negotiate limits on greenhouse gases under the auspices of the 2015 Paris Accords, there were more than 100 major global climate-change models produced by 49 different research groups, reflecting an influx of people into the field.
In its guidance to governments last year, the U.N. climate-change panel for the first time played down the most extreme forecasts
In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models—scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.
Dr. Gettelman, who helped develop CESM2, and his colleagues in their initial upgrade added better ways to model polar ice caps and how carbon and nitrogen cycle through the environment. To make the ocean more realistic, they added wind-driven waves. They fine-tuned the physics in its algorithms and made its vintage Fortran code more efficient.
Even the simplest diagnostic test is challenging. The model divides Earth into a virtual grid of 64,800 cubes, each 100 kilometers on a side, stacked in 72 layers. For each projection, the computer must calculate 4.6 million data points every 30 minutes. To test an upgrade or correction, researchers typically let the model run for 300 years of simulated computer time.
And I don't feel like copying and pasting any more of the article you posted that you should have read. Basically it's saying that because of the dynamic nature of clouds they are hard to model, and one lab in Colorado got some models wrong, which was in some ways directly correlated to climate change.
I know English isn't your first language but got dang, did you even read it? I feel if you did you wouldn't have posted it because your level of comprehension can't be this low -
2022-03-03 at 2:44 PM UTCYou've got to be pretty naive to believe humans can stop or are willing to stop doing what they are doing.
The self destructive behavior starts on an individual level right up to the global population level.
It's laughable to think people are going to effectively "overnight" change tens of thousands of years of behavior..it's not going to happen -
2022-03-03 at 2:45 PM UTCBtw...quit with the copy pasting bullshit, that's not a discussion...it's copy pasting crap that is PROVEN wrong.
"World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast"
^^^
Scientists admitting they were wrong... -
2022-03-03 at 2:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson You've got to be pretty naive to believe humans can stop or are willing to stop doing what they are doing.
The self destructive behavior starts on an individual level right up to the global population level.
It's laughable to think people are going to effectively "overnight" change tens of thousands of years of behavior..it's not going to happen
That's why cap and trade and incentives are important. Elon Musk became an oligarch from gaypal and the electric car boom and has taken advantage of billions in government subsidies for green energy. -
2022-03-03 at 2:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Btw…quit with the copy pasting bullshit, that's not a discussion…it's copy pasting crap that is PROVEN wrong.
"World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast"
^^^
Scientists admitting they were wrong…
O I thought u wanted to learn about the subject. I literally copied and pasted vinnys article, which you evidently didn't read either
Just kidding I know you're not trying to learn anything -
2022-03-03 at 3:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo O I thought u wanted to learn about the subject. I literally copied and pasted vinnys article, which you evidently didn't read either
Just kidding I know you're not trying to learn anything
No I don't read copy/pasted crap in a discussion...that's not a discussion.
As for learning, lol. You'll learn in 10yrs that all the good intentions in the world isn't going to help with the run away climate change...it's too late. -
2022-03-03 at 3:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Well the main article is behind a pay wall but from the summation we have
The scientists would find that even the best tools at hand can’t model climates with the sureness the world needs as rising temperatures impact almost every region
The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model. “I think our higher sensitivity is wrong too. It’s probably a consequence of other things we did by making clouds better and more realistic. You solve one problem and create another.”
November 2021, as leaders met in Glasgow to negotiate limits on greenhouse gases under the auspices of the 2015 Paris Accords, there were more than 100 major global climate-change models produced by 49 different research groups, reflecting an influx of people into the field.
In its guidance to governments last year, the U.N. climate-change panel for the first time played down the most extreme forecasts
In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models—scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.
Dr. Gettelman, who helped develop CESM2, and his colleagues in their initial upgrade added better ways to model polar ice caps and how carbon and nitrogen cycle through the environment. To make the ocean more realistic, they added wind-driven waves. They fine-tuned the physics in its algorithms and made its vintage Fortran code more efficient.
Even the simplest diagnostic test is challenging. The model divides Earth into a virtual grid of 64,800 cubes, each 100 kilometers on a side, stacked in 72 layers. For each projection, the computer must calculate 4.6 million data points every 30 minutes. To test an upgrade or correction, researchers typically let the model run for 300 years of simulated computer time.
And I don't feel like copying and pasting any more of the article you posted that you should have read. Basically it's saying that because of the dynamic nature of clouds they are hard to model, and one lab in Colorado got some models wrong, which was in some ways directly correlated to climate change.
I know English isn't your first language but got dang, did you even read it? I feel if you did you wouldn't have posted it because your level of comprehension can't be this low
well then dont copy paste.
tell me why im wrong. -
2022-03-03 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 3:37 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 3:56 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 4:52 PM UTCThey're going to change the weather by picking your pockets.
-
2022-03-03 at 4:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Always good advice.
I feel like stl ruined the concept of copy/paste with his thousands of them never followed up with any personal insight.
Let's be fair here, everyone still does it sometimes and it's not like it's automatically a bad thing. You do it, I've done it.
We're all getting our info somewhere and who gives a shit if we paste some information that explains what we mean?
There's so much conversation here that isn't even discussion it basically follows the format of a person making a claim then someone else saying that's bullshit, then the person pastes some article that backs them up then the other person says that article is bullshit, tell me in your own words, then the person tells them in their own words, and the other person says lol show me your source, then the person does and the other person says lol nice copy/pasta tell me in your own words.
Variations of that anyway.
That's why out of every 100 arguments here, you'll find maaaaybe one or two where a person says something like "ok, I'll give you that much," or "fair point, but...".
And all along I just have to sit back as the voice of reason, sighing continually as I contain my fountain of truth and knowledge on every matter and every subject because I could simply end entire careers with a few simple keystrokes.
For instance, as I stated earlier, global warming is real. That isnt debatable outside for the sake of being obtuse. Could we collectively as a global populus do things to help reduce the rate of it? Yes. That's also not debatable. Theoretically we could do lots and lots of things regarding lots and lots of different matters.
We could all everyone in the world just agree to stop using electricity and go back like we did in the OLDEN DAYS. Since we aren't gonna do that, we can at least look at plausible and realistic solutions to *hopefully* curb long-term issues. Of course we don't HAVE to do any of that just the same as we don't HAVE to flush our toilets or take showers or refrigerate our foods or properly dispose of our garbage.
I mean hell if the world is gonna be filled with waste eventually, it's inevitable, then why don't we just fucking litter everywhere all the time? Who gives a shit right? Leave it for the future generations to figure out, right?
We do it because it makes a difference, as small as it may be, and so every time you throw a piece of garbage into your garbage bin, you're helping to preserve mother Earth's lifespan, even as insignificant as it feels, and this can be applied to curbing global warming as well.
But also like I said it's completely understandable to not give a shit either. But if that's the case, at least just admit it. I think a lot of people absolutely don't give a shit, but since they wouldn't want to outright say that in fear of looking like a big piece of shit, they come up with reasons to justify their lack of shit giving, and that's where the talking in circles comes in, because ultimately we all know what's really going on.
Our buddy Steve who throws his litter out the car window every single chance he gets is a piece of shit, regardless of his copy/paste article he references every time he does it that basically explains how it doesn't REALLY matter on any significant level if he alone constantly litters.
I know what I mean, I think. -
2022-03-03 at 4:54 PM UTCJesus I didn't realize I typed that much on my magic phone. I'm sorry. 🙁
