Climate Change(d)?

[Loren Pechtel]

Humanity has only two years left “to save the world” by making dramatic changes in the way it spews heat-trapping emissions and it has even less time to act to get the finances behind such a massive shift, the head of the United Nations climate agency said.

AP News

TWO YEARS TO SAVE THE WORLD!!!11!!!1!!!11!!!!

A rapture like cult.

Quit listening to mainstream reporters on scientific matters. At best they can show you want you should be looking up, but they're never going to get the science right. Nor are they going to get any other technical matter right.

 

[Elixir]

At best they can show you want you should be looking up

At best (on the conservotard scale) is that MSM mangles science so badly that it becomes a laughingstock that RW voting fools can ignore. As we see happening here.

 

[TSwizzle]

1. You acknowledge we are witnessing climate change.

I acknowledge that earth’s climate is always changing and has natural variations.

I reject that we are in the midst of a climate apocalypse due to human influence. The reason I reject that notion because there is no evidence that proves it. You can bang on about backyard greenhouses all you like but that is not evidence.

You and the rest of the extremists are claiming the planet is fucked and humanity is screwed based on an imperceptible increase in global average temperature. This is nonsense.

Why do you keep using the word 'apocalypse?' We probably do have a climate driven crisis in our future, but even a major crisis is not an 'apocalypse.'

The era of global warming has ended and “the era of global boiling has arrived”, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said after scientists confirmed July was on track to be the world’s hottest month on record. “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres said.

The Gruaniad

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Teh Gruaniad

etc.

 

[TSwizzle]

And yet you are so certain you will not tolerate dissent. That is religion.

"Dissent"? This word is used for scientists who post argumentation contrary to another's scientific viewpoint.
It's rather vainglorious to apply this word to whimpering memes one is repeating from some stupid corner of Facebook.

... an imperceptible increase in global average temperature. This is nonsense.

"Imperceptible"? Did you ever make that field trip to Edwards Air Force Base?
Do you still need a GoFundMe to get a tankful of gasoline for the trip?

Why not try out another ignorant meme? "At 430 ppm, CO2 is just a trace chemical in the atmosphere."
While you're at it, inform the medical community that 3 ppm of lead in blood is too tiny to worry about.

Gibberish.

 

[steve_bank]

Humanity has only two years left “to save the world” by making dramatic changes in the way it spews heat-trapping emissions and it has even less time to act to get the finances behind such a massive shift, the head of the United Nations climate agency said.

AP News

TWO YEARS TO SAVE THE WORLD!!!11!!!1!!!11!!!!

A rapture like cult.

Quit listening to mainstream reporters on scientific matters. At best they can show you want you should be looking up, but they're never going to get the science right. Nor are they going to get any other technical matter right.

Sm,e of the mainstream science reporting is pretty bad.

 

[steve_bank]

It is like TSwizzle is arguing baseball pitching without knowing the deference between a curve ball and a sinker.

He quotes net links on baseball to make an argument.

 

[TSwizzle]

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop.

Then we could talk about methane, another cause of warning temps.

You could but you won't because it doesn't fit in with the evil "fossil fuel/big oil" narrative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop.

Then we could talk about methane, another cause of warning temps.

You could but you won't because it doesn't fit in with the evil "fossil fuel/big oil" narrative.

Except Exxon studies into climate change between the '70s and '00s were pretty accurate. They misled the public about climate change anyway.

Researchers at Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research analyzed Exxon's climate studies from 1977 to 2003. The researchers show the company, now called ExxonMobil, produced climate research that was at least as accurate as work by independent academics and governments — and occasionally surpassed it.

"Specifically, what we've done is to actually put a number for the first time on what Exxon knew, which is that the burning of their fossil fuel products would heat the planet by something like 0.2 [degrees] Celsius every single decade," Supran says.

As far as methane, that'll be a feedback issue in the next decade and onward as the arctic continues to warm up more on average than elsewhere.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop.

Then we could talk about methane, another cause of warning temps.

You could but you won't because it doesn't fit in with the evil "fossil fuel/big oil" narrative.

Really? Where do you think methane comes from?

More proof you don’t know the facts on the subject.

 

[Shadowy Man]

you can roll your eyes all you want but you’re the who said “[methane] doesn’t fit in with” rhe big oil narrative. Why don’t you think it fits? These are your words. If you can’t explain your positions then you’re just a naysayer for no apparent reason.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, you’re happy to post your words here but unwilling to defend them? And we are the ones who behave cult-like? indeed. Sheesh…

 

[steve_bank]

As we all know it is political propaganda that smoking cigarettes is bad for you.

There really is no link between smoking and lung cancer. I know it is true because I know people who smoke who do not have cancer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Shell

The balance of scientific evidence suggests a link between human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels - and climate change....

the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to levels far above any seen in the last 150,00 years or more. We don't know whether this will be catastrophic, or whether it might on balance be slightly beneficial. But we do know that it is in effect irreversible.

Or maybe these Oil Exec folks.

Global averaged 2.5 degree C rise expected by 2038 at a 3% p.a. growth rate of atmosphere CO2 concentration

Large error in this estimate - 1 in 10 chance of this change by 2005

No regional climate change estimates yet possible

Likely impacts:

• 1 degree C Rise (2005): Barely noticeable
• 2.5 degree C rise (2038): Major Economic Consequences, strong regional dependence
• 5 degree C rise (2067): Globally catastrophic effects

Luckily these religious cult Oil Exec's conclusions in 1980 weren't completely right as they concluded "World economic growth to a halt in about 2025." Computers are better today for modeling, and we are about 1 degree at this point in 2025 instead of 1.8 or so.

The fact is, the oil industry knew there was potential trouble, and that if unchecked, could become "catastrophic", their words, not mine, in about 90 years (from 1980).

 

[TSwizzle]

As we all know it is political propaganda that smoking cigarettes is bad for you.

There really is no link between smoking and lung cancer. I know it is true because I know people who smoke who do not have cancer.

Wrong thread?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop.

Then we could talk about methane, another cause of warning temps.

You could but you won't because it doesn't fit in with the evil "fossil fuel/big oil" narrative.

You realize methane is natural gas?

Oil operations do release it. That's not the main reason it's an issue, though--people are more worried about methane hydrates on or beneath the sea floor. Stable under the right conditions, but if you lower the pressure--that's what happened to Deepwater Horizons, they ended up lowering the pressure on buried methane hydrate and it released it's methane. A known hazard that the safety systems that were supposed to keep it under control didn't.

The climate predictions completely ignore this because we have insufficient data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As we all know it is political propaganda that smoking cigarettes is bad for you.

There really is no link between smoking and lung cancer. I know it is true because I know people who smoke who do not have cancer.

Obvious. My mother never smoked, she died as a consequence of lung cancer. My grandfather smoked and didn't die of lung cancer.

That's what happens when you try to do "science" with a small n.

 

[southernhybrid]

Of course, we all know that scientists who have advanced degrees in things like engineering and climate science know far less than a climate denialists, but I'll pos a link about methane for shits and giggles. /s

https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2023/02/methanes-role-climate-change

Funded by the Harvard Climate Change Solutions Fund, which was started by the University in 2014 to support research and policy initiatives battling climate change, the project is using observations from recently deployed satellites to create a clearer picture of precisely where and how methane is being emitted.

2019 TROPOMI satellite observations of atmospheric methane concentrations and emissions for the Middle East and parts of North Africa.
At COP 27, the global climate change summit, which was held in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in November, Jacob and Stavins publicized their work and offered their data to eager global policymakers. Over the coming year, the Harvard team will continue to gather and disseminate more data.

Data on methane emissions has historically been problematic. It was based exclusively on a bottom-up approach, which estimates emissions according to certain activity levels on the ground rather than on actual atmospheric data. So a country would count the head of cattle it has or the number of gas wells or coal mines, and estimate their methane emissions from there.

Jacob’s laboratory at SEAS adds an invaluable layer of top-down information. His team takes data collected by satellites—the two most important ones were launched by Europe and Japan—that orbit the earth and collect data on methane concentrations in the atmosphere. Then, using inventories of methane emissions that countries provide, they calculate backwards to correct those inventories and understand where the emissions actually originated, yielding a near real-time and spatially accurate map of the emissions.

“What we can do uniquely from satellite is look at recent changes in emissions, because the emission inventories that are coming out of individual countries are based on statistics that are typically two or three years old,” Jacob says. “But if we’re going to try to change the emissions rapidly, and to verify those changes in emissions, the only way that I can think of is to do it from satellites.”

Stavins, whose work through the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements has made him an invaluable resource both to the United Nations body overseeing the Paris Agreement and to individual countries’ negotiating teams and NGOs, is working to help disseminate the new data and also receiving input from policymakers and relaying that back to Jacob’s team—indicating what data would be most helpful to particular countries, whether in terms of emissions by sector or geographic region or time scale.

The new, more accurate emissions information comes at a crucial moment as countries work to calculate their greenhouse gas reduction targets in accordance with international agreements and national policies, and as industry groups also work to reduce emissions. Under the Paris Agreement, signatories produce nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which are reduction pledges for pollutants including methane. Under the Global Methane Pledge, coauthored by the United States and the European Union in 2021, 125 countries have now agreed to help reduce aggregate global methane emissions by nearly a third from 2020 levels by 2030. The countries participating in this pledge account for nearly 50% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and about two-thirds of global gross domestic product. If they maintain their pledges that could reduce warming by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2050.

We used to think about climate change as something that’s way off in the future. But now we think of climate change as associated with the floods in Pakistan, droughts in Africa, and forest fires in California. In other words, it’s here now and increasing over future years,” Stavins says. “And that means that a focus on the next few years is exceptionally important, and in the next 20 years, methane is incredibly important.”

 

[pood]

Does this look like a natural variation?

Swizzle, did you see this? It has been shown to you several times. Would you care to comment on it?

 

[TSwizzle]

Of course, we all know that scientists who have advanced degrees in things like engineering and climate science know far less than a climate denialists, but I'll pos a link about methane for shits and giggles. /s

And we all know that scientists can be activists and will publish papers accordingly.

Funded by the Harvard Climate Change Solutions Fund, which was started by the University in 2014 to support research and policy initiatives battling climate change,

Yeah, not biased at all!

We used to think about climate change as something that’s way off in the future. But now we think of climate change as associated with the floods in Pakistan, droughts in Africa, and forest fires in California. In other words, it’s here now and increasing over future years,” Stavins says. “And that means that a focus on the next few years is exceptionally important, and in the next 20 years, methane is incredibly important.”

The vast majority of forest fires in California are caused by human interactions, not climate change. The most recent wildfire was caused by some dimwit setting their car on fire, not climate change.

It really is a religion for you. I think a Christian could persuade you into believing that miracles are real, the resurrection did happen and Mary was a virgin.

 

[pood]

One can easily see from this SCIENCE chart that there have indeed been “natural” variations in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the millenniums. Suddenly — hey, presto! — the stuff shoots up! WAY, WAY up, Swizzle, even you can see that. Why does it do that?? Because it started shooting up at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began pumping exponentially greater amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere, and since carbon dioxide TRAPS HEAT, and right now it’s getting HOTTER and HOTTER — is it really so hard to figure out, Swizzle? I put “natural” in quotes in first reference because what’s happening now is also natural, humans being part of the natural world. But this time humans are the natural cause of carbon dioxide increase, and as the chart shows, it’s a doozy!