User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2022-03-02 at 5:36 PM UTC"Let's pick the last few dollars out of people's pockets, while we watch the greedy corporations make trillions polluting the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow."
"All in favor, say 'aye'."
"Aye!!" -
2022-03-02 at 8:22 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-03-02 at 8:34 PM UTCImagine not thinking climate change is real. It's like not believing in gravity or thinking the world is flat
-
2022-03-02 at 8:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe "Show me the report," he replies in response to the post containing a link to the report.
You posted reams and reams of reports...I'm asking for the bullet point.
Climate change due to humans
Climate change due to natural factors.
Presumably you know the answer if you've already read those copy/pastes you linked... -
2022-03-02 at 8:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Imagine not thinking climate change is real. It's like not believing in gravity or thinking the world is flat
No one thinks it's not real...just some don't believe it's all due to human activity...there's a difference billy.
Lets see the evidence...that being the simple figures (not 100,000 pages of back and forth).
Climate change due to human activity percentage?
Climate change due to natural processes percentage?
...should be easy enough to find for those of you who have read those 100,000 pages.
ETA: Ultimately it doesn't matter but it would be interesting to see. -
2022-03-02 at 8:59 PM UTCEarth used to be a molten ball of lava...2 or 3 degrees isn't going to be a problem long term...humans need to get over themselves.
-
2022-03-02 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson No one thinks it's not real…just some don't believe it's all due to human activity…there's a difference billy.
Lets see the evidence…that being the simple figures (not 100,000 pages of back and forth).
Climate change due to human activity percentage?
Climate change due to natural processes percentage?
…should be easy enough to find for those of you who have read those 100,000 pages.
ETA: Ultimately it doesn't matter but it would be interesting to see.
It would be worthless, because whoever does the studies would be on somebody's payroll. That makes any data they offer up not credible. Nobody needs any of that, when they already have common sense, logic and the ability to observe the world around them. -
2022-03-02 at 11:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
You posted reams and reams of reports…I'm asking for the bullet point.
No, you literally asked for the report (which was already given to you). I've also already posted reams and reams of bullet points. Bullet points alone aren't going to convince anyone of anything, though, so if you're being genuine here and are actually interested in the data you should really just read the report I've already linked you to, at least a few paragraphs, the relevant information can be found starting on page spm 5. You don't need to dig through the reams, it's right there at the beginning which you would already know if you had even bothered to open it up, which you probably haven't because you don't seem like someone who genuinely is interested in the data you're asking for which is literally right there in front of you, one click away. -
2022-03-03 at 12:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Life will flourish without humans…just as it did before humans were around. The warming of the Earth is good for life as a whole…just not for humans.
In the long term, maybe, but we are certainly taking out a majority of the life currently on earth with us.
Strong evidence shows sixth mass extinction of global biodiversity is now in progress as the other five were caused by extreme natural phenomena, this one is caused by human activity: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12816 -
2022-03-03 at 12:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe In the long term, maybe, but we are certainly taking out a majority of the life currently on earth with us.
Strong evidence shows sixth mass extinction of global biodiversity is now in progress as the other five were caused by extreme natural phenomena, this one is caused by human activity: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12816
Correction: some human activity. And very few, relatively speaking. -
2022-03-03 at 1:51 AM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 1:40 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 1:41 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 1:48 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 1:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe It literally exists in front of your face.
I've already spoon fed it to you, I'm not going to regurgitate it down your throat.
All you did were copy paste some links that you yourself haven't read ala STL1
The info I requested does not exist.
..ETA: Here is what I asked for..by how much? vs natural warming?
Show me a report on that..
You haven't provided that information... -
2022-03-03 at 2:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
…because the information doesn't exist…
% Climate change due to humans
% Climate change due to natural factors.
You're trying to make an objective with narrow parameters a la Ben Shacucko
Please just search "facts about climate change" because this is pretty simple stuff. Its proven there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than anytime in the last 650k years
It's useless to argue with someone who won't accept the facts plainly in front of their face because it's inconvenient (lol) to the narrative they like. It's funny the Climate change deniers on this website are all boomers with no children. Unsurprising but still funny.
The whole idea of Climate change denial is so incredibly dumb. "Durrrr the industrial revolution has had no effect on da erf hurrrr because I like going against obvious truths like an edgy little snowflake" -
2022-03-03 at 2:05 PM UTC
-
2022-03-03 at 2:08 PM UTCo also
https://mishtalk.com/economics/scientists-conclude-dire-climate-change-models-were-wrong-now-whatScientists admit they did not model clouds accurately and that they need a supercomputer 1000 times more powerful to accurately do that.
Mish
Feb 6, 2022
130 Comments
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah, image by Mish, quote by Judy Collins
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah, image by Mish, quote by Judy Collins
Climate Change Modeling Meets Limits of Science
The Wall Street Journal reports Climate Scientists Encounter Limits of Computer Models, Bedeviling Policy.
That is a non-paywalled, free-to-read link courtesy of the WSJ.
It's lengthy but an excellent read. I encourage everyone to take a look.
The dire predictions went out the window, seemingly unanimously. But there is plenty in the article for the fearmongers and the sceptics to both say "I told you so".
Italic emphasis in the snips below is mine.
Introduction
For almost five years, an international consortium of scientists was chasing clouds, determined to solve a problem that bedeviled climate-change forecasts for a generation: How do these wisps of water vapor affect global warming?
They reworked 2.1 million lines of supercomputer code used to explore the future of climate change, adding more-intricate equations for clouds and hundreds of other improvements. They tested the equations, debugged them and tested again.
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.
Dire Forecasts Wrong
When they ran the updated simulation in 2018, the conclusion jolted them: Earth’s atmosphere was much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than decades of previous models had predicted, and future temperatures could be much higher than feared—perhaps even beyond hope of practical remedy.
“We thought this was really strange,” said Gokhan Danabasoglu, chief scientist for the climate-model project at the Mesa Laboratory in Boulder at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR. “If that number was correct, that was really bad news.”
-
2022-03-03 at 2:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo You're trying to make an objective with narrow parameters a la Ben Shacucko
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.
There is a very obvious point here, if the info is unknown then the ability for humans to do anything about it is also unknown.
..not that they could or would do anything about it anyway. -
2022-03-03 at 2:12 PM UTCDid you read that article vinny? I feel like if you did you would not have posted it because it only hurts the argument for autistic climate change denial
