New report on climate change released today

[southernhybrid]

https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-approval-of-offshore-seismic-blasting-for-oil-and-gas-threatens-marine-life-972ea9c7046c/

The Trump administration authorized five companies on Friday to use seismic testing in the search for oil and gas deposits in waters off the U.S. East Coast, a decision that could harm tens of thousands of dolphins, whales, and other marine animals.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will allow the companies to use seismic airguns to explore for oil and gas in federal waters from Delaware to central Florida.

Along with the great harm caused to marine life, the approvals — known as incidental harassment authorizations — represent the next step to allowing offshore oil and gas drilling, environmental groups warned.

“Seismic testing is nothing but a precursor to offshore drilling that no one in the Southeast wants,” Catherine Wannamaker, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), said Friday in a conference call with reporters.

Is this asshole deliberately trying to destroy wildlife and the environment! Is this some type of revenge against those who have written the paper on climate change? I'm serious. The president is seriously deranged and he's acting as if he's taking glee in doing as much damage as he possibly can. Just when we think it can't get much worse.....

“It’s awfully ironic to see this a few days after the release of a report on why we need to stop drilling for fossil fuels at breakneck speed,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) said in a statement responding to the approvals. “There is nothing this administration won’t do for the fossil fuel industry, including destroying local economies and ruining endangered species habitats.”

The House Natural Resources Committee, which Grijalva will chair starting in January 2019, “is going to provide serious checks and balances on this behavior from day one in the next Congress,” he said.

I sure hope the Dems can stop some of his destructive shit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Greenland ice cores go back 110,000 years. Are you saying the Vikings were farther back in time than that??

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ry-ice-from-the-base-of-greenlands-ice-sheet/



The hottest time in Earth's history is all but devoid of fossils--little survived it. The coldest is even worse, probably the only survivors were near volcanic vents.

For fucks sake!!!! ......................http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

And what's that got to do with it? I didn't say the really extreme temperatures were a mere 100,000 years in the past. You'll need to add some zeroes to get back to the really extreme times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no point in looking further--you inadvertently cherry-picked countries that are not representative of what the world can do.

Yeah, but 'what the world can do' (my bold, above) is very different to 'what the world is and has been doing'. That the countries currently achieving the top figures are already using certain technologies that they adopted in the past because they were available in that country says nothing about the potential for huge increases from all sorts of other technologies, in every country on the planet. For example, the potential for solar power in the USA is massive. Unfortunately, there is not the political or individual will to switch to it (and other renewables) from fossil, or indeed to reduce energy consumption in the first instance, which is the other key component of the decoupling from fossil fuels that is needed.

As for the nuclear option, there is already a nuclear power plant currently generating more than the USA needs or will need in future, and it is already supplying it directly to the country. Best of all, the power plant is located at a relatively safe distance of 93 million miles away.

Do you have solar panels?

And where are you getting those miracle technologies, pulling them out of your ass?

The countries that have very high renewable percentages were gifted by geology with a lot of renewable sources. That doesn't mean we have technologies that can produce similar results elsewhere.

Solar is nowhere near the panacea you think it is because of the storage problem.

 

[RVonse]

For example, the potential for solar power in the USA is massive.

Where would that be? Pretty much everywhere I can think of that has good sunlight would precisely be the places that do not have any water, for that reason. I suppose the water can be imported but water is supposed to be a problem in the highly dense southern California communities already. Again, as I have been repeatedly trying to say, less people everywhere would certainly help.....

Do you have solar panels?

Like Loren says, most people in first world economies prefer to have energy during the night. And batteries suck. They have sucked since Henry Ford rejected their use in the automobiles in the 1920's....and they still suck today. Elon Musk is trying but even his batteries are an environmental disaster.

Perhaps flywheel storage could work someday. The point to be made is that nothing has been invented yet! Nothing. And until it is, I view electrical storage the same as I do fusion power. Always claimed by people like you to be a technology that is only 20 years away, and then when that 20 years goes by, they say the same for the next 20; like a broken record. Battery technology is not increasing anywhere near like world population is.

 

[repoman]

On earth there is no free confinement of the fusion fuel like there is in the core of gravity using gravity.

Only an "H-bomb" works, because it is so hot (~10x the sun's core) and dense, the reaction rate is quite fast. Also, a good concentration of directly reactive components and not lots of protons.

Looks to be there is not a goldilocks solution for fusion on earth.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

For example, the potential for solar power in the USA is massive.

Where would that be? Pretty much everywhere I can think of that has good sunlight would precisely be the places that do not have any water, for that reason.

Horseshit. Everywhere on the planet is a place that has "good sunlight."

most people in first world economies prefer to have energy during the night. And batteries suck.

A), they don't suck. B), the alternative is species extinction and when faced with that or a battery that doesn't quite hold a full load, guess what will happen? You won't play your xbox 10 hours a day.

A battery need not be 100% efficient for us to adapt our lifestyle--or die--to whatever efficiency it provides, let alone the fact that once our lives depend upon them, lo and behold, [insert Goldblum quote here].

The point to be made is that nothing has been invented yet! Nothing.

That's blatantly and demonstrably false and directly contradicted by your own statements. E.g.:

Battery technology is not increasing anywhere near like world population is.

So you're back to implying--never outright stating, of course--that we need to kill off billions of people. Why inconvenience yourself when mass extinction is just a red button away?

What's truly depressing about this is that, because people like you are typically just mouthpieces that dutifully regurgitate talking points from their controllers, this is emerging as the plan behind climate-denial all along. Just keep torpedoing any solution that isn't the "final solution," because what a handful of ruling parties really want is a reason to kill off billions of people.

It makes sense now. Why else would there be such a vested interest in undermining a near unanimous consensus from all of the world's best minds on the subject--from NASA to Exxon to the US military no less--when it would mean self-destruction? I always thought it was denial-based; that rich people just assumed out of ego that they would be safe or their wealth could protect them, but this now makes perfect sense.

It's a "pearl-harbor like" catalyst event, forcing global governments into conspiring to kill off their own people (or each other's) for the sake of the "greater good," when in fact it's just age-old, self-centered greed.

And the irony is, because of thinking like that, every fucking one of such people should be guillotined for the betterment of humanity, just as they all think we need to be killed for the betterment of themselves. And the cycle repeats itself.

Luckily, however, science and human ingenuity will prevail. Humanity will probably need to start living underground to do so, but if there is one constant that history proves, it is that our visions of the future are almost always radically wrong.

Case in point, no ubiquitous jetpacks.

 

[TSwizzle]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Except that it is.

Hmmm, not really. The “evidence” such as it is, is suspect. These prophesies of doom are based faith. It (AGW) really has become a rapture like cult.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Except that it is.

Hmmm, not really. The “evidence” such as it is, is suspect.

Like your opinion matters.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Except that it is.

Hmmm, not really. The “evidence” such as it is, is suspect. These prophesies of doom are based faith. It (AGW) really has become a rapture like cult.

What evidence would you need to convince you?

 

[Elixir]

Hmmm, not really. The “evidence” such as it is, is suspect. These prophesies of doom are based faith. It (AGW) really has become a rapture like cult.

What evidence would you need to convince you?

In about 1.7 billion years, the sun will consume the earth. That might do it.

 

[ZiprHead]

We broke down what climate change will do, region by region

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Horseshit. Everywhere on the planet is a place that has "good sunlight."

most people in first world economies prefer to have energy during the night. And batteries suck.

A), they don't suck. B), the alternative is species extinction and when faced with that or a battery that doesn't quite hold a full load, guess what will happen? You won't play your xbox 10 hours a day.

Batteries suck. And nuke is a far better option.

A battery need not be 100% efficient for us to adapt our lifestyle--or die--to whatever efficiency it provides, let alone the fact that once our lives depend upon them, lo and behold, [insert Goldblum quote here].

Of course they're not 100%. That's not the issue. A much bigger issue is they wear out--generally something like 500 cycle lifespan (in other words, maybe a couple of years.) The batteries to store the power for the night cost more than the power they deliver.

So you're back to implying--never outright stating, of course--that we need to kill off billions of people. Why inconvenience yourself when mass extinction is just a red button away?

The hidden effects of the green position are gigadeaths.

What's truly depressing about this is that, because people like you are typically just mouthpieces that dutifully regurgitate talking points from their controllers, this is emerging as the plan behind climate-denial all along. Just keep torpedoing any solution that isn't the "final solution," because what a handful of ruling parties really want is a reason to kill off billions of people.

We aren't torpedoing everything. We are torpedoing hopeless ideas. Just because it's green doesn't mean it works.

 

[angelo]

You are an embarrassment to rational thinking.

No you are! Like most activists alarmists you believe in the irrational thinking worse than a religious fundamentalist. By the way, why haven't you lot explained the Medieval warming, or the disgusting tampering by the infamous discreteted Michael Mann's Hockey Stick which tried to hide that trend plus the little ice age and falsely show a rapid rise of temperature in the 20th century? Funny how the IPCC after so much fanfare and two reports had the " Hockey Sticch " in a prominent front cover of two of their reports then suddenly it vanished in their third report and no mention has been made of it since.
Again I ask. What's to be done with the main cause of climate change. Water vapor, and the sun itself? Perhaps we could try to move the planet a little further out from the it's star? But then it may trigger a real threat to all life on planet earth: a devastating ice age.

No scientist bases their conclusions on this hand waving nonsense.

You don't know any of the science no less how all of it comes together.

You know the shit created by the people destroying the environment to convince a few morons that they not the scientists have predictive abilities.

You are saying you know better than the scientists about what the future holds.

And you base your conclusions on no science.

It is just shit pulled from thin air.

Shit like: The weather has always changed therefore any unusual patterns we see are meaningless.

Unless you're accusing National Geographic of being " climate change skeptics,'' here are their take on the matter. As I said in an earlier post. Climate change has many variables, not just human caused!

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/climate-change/

 

[angelo]

The Greenland ice cores go back 110,000 years. Are you saying the Vikings were farther back in time than that??

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ry-ice-from-the-base-of-greenlands-ice-sheet/



The hottest time in Earth's history is all but devoid of fossils--little survived it. The coldest is even worse, probably the only survivors were near volcanic vents.

For fucks sake!!!! ......................http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

And what's that got to do with it? I didn't say the really extreme temperatures were a mere 100,000 years in the past. You'll need to add some zeroes to get back to the really extreme times.

I must be that thick not to see the obvious! My point was and is that the F....g climate changes, it's done so for billions of year's of the earth's existence. The industrial age really got going around the early 1900's. So called climatologists begin to see a rapid rise in temperature from around 1870's, decades before this industrialization began. Proving that climate is a natural phenomena of the earth, it's always been so and always will be. As National Geographic says, " climate changes, species that don't adapt become extinct. A good example of adaption is the cactus that survives in the hottest of deserts, or the polar bears that adapted and are today thriving in the Arctic Circle.

 

[untermensche]

No scientist bases their conclusions on this hand waving nonsense.

You don't know any of the science no less how all of it comes together.

You know the shit created by the people destroying the environment to convince a few morons that they not the scientists have predictive abilities.

You are saying you know better than the scientists about what the future holds.

And you base your conclusions on no science.

It is just shit pulled from thin air.

Shit like: The weather has always changed therefore any unusual patterns we see are meaningless.

Unless you're accusing National Geographic of being " climate change skeptics,'' here are their take on the matter. As I said in an earlier post. Climate change has many variables, not just human caused!

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/climate-change/

It looks like that article is about 20 years old.

Things have gotten much worse.

Predictions I heard Carl Sagan talk about in the mid-80's are now starting to come true.

The massive storms, the continual rise in average temperatures, the melting of the ice caps.

It is all beginning to come true.

And we are just at the beginning and we have not slowed down the problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what's that got to do with it? I didn't say the really extreme temperatures were a mere 100,000 years in the past. You'll need to add some zeroes to get back to the really extreme times.

I must be that thick not to see the obvious! My point was and is that the F....g climate changes, it's done so for billions of year's of the earth's existence. The industrial age really got going around the early 1900's. So called climatologists begin to see a rapid rise in temperature from around 1870's, decades before this industrialization began. Proving that climate is a natural phenomena of the earth, it's always been so and always will be. As National Geographic says, " climate changes, species that don't adapt become extinct. A good example of adaption is the cactus that survives in the hottest of deserts, or the polar bears that adapted and are today thriving in the Arctic Circle.

The 1870s are decades before the industrialization began??

The railroad was invented in 1821. The steamship many decades before that. They burned coal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Except that it is.

Hmmm, not really. The “evidence” such as it is, is suspect. These prophesies of doom are based faith. It (AGW) really has become a rapture like cult.

Like the cult of gravity? Or the cult of germ theory of disease? The cult of round Earth? When the scientific community all change their minds about something together it's best to listen to them. So far they've always been right.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No scientist bases their conclusions on this hand waving nonsense.

You don't know any of the science no less how all of it comes together.

You know the shit created by the people destroying the environment to convince a few morons that they not the scientists have predictive abilities.

You are saying you know better than the scientists about what the future holds.

And you base your conclusions on no science.

It is just shit pulled from thin air.

Shit like: The weather has always changed therefore any unusual patterns we see are meaningless.

Unless you're accusing National Geographic of being " climate change skeptics,'' here are their take on the matter. As I said in an earlier post. Climate change has many variables, not just human caused!

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/climate-change/

It looks like that article is about 20 years old.

Things have gotten much worse.

Predictions I heard Carl Sagan talk about in the mid-80's are now starting to come true.

The massive storms, the continual rise in average temperatures, the melting of the ice caps.

It is all beginning to come true.

And we are just at the beginning and we have not slowed down the problems.

Meh. Before the 2001 IPCC report, all we had was hypotheses. An hypothesis isn't much to go on. BTW, Carl Sagan wasn't the pope of science. He wasn't an amazing scientist. He was so-so. He made loads of hypotheses about all kinds of things. What Carl Sagan was amazing as was a science communicator.

Once the 2001 IPCC report we had hard numbers and it was all settled. Making a cock-sure prediction before there's strong hard evidence and then be proven right doesn't mean shit. Everybody had access to the same data. Making any cock-sure prediction before there's strong hard evidence just means you're a loose cannon and should not be taken seriously.

 

[barbos]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Except that it is.

Hmmm, not really. The “evidence” such as it is, is suspect. These prophesies of doom are based faith. It (AGW) really has become a rapture like cult.

Actually, global cooling doom prophesies of the 70s were a result of media hype. Only 10% of climatologists were thinking cooling trend would continue. Also they were mostly correct about theory which was later confirmed numerically. Global cooling is really a part of Global warming. In short, climatologists were correct back then and they are correct now.

 

[angelo]

No scientist bases their conclusions on this hand waving nonsense.

You don't know any of the science no less how all of it comes together.

You know the shit created by the people destroying the environment to convince a few morons that they not the scientists have predictive abilities.

You are saying you know better than the scientists about what the future holds.

And you base your conclusions on no science.

It is just shit pulled from thin air.

Shit like: The weather has always changed therefore any unusual patterns we see are meaningless.

Unless you're accusing National Geographic of being " climate change skeptics,'' here are their take on the matter. As I said in an earlier post. Climate change has many variables, not just human caused!

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/climate-change/

It looks like that article is about 20 years old.

Things have gotten much worse.

Predictions I heard Carl Sagan talk about in the mid-80's are now starting to come true.

The massive storms, the continual rise in average temperatures, the melting of the ice caps.

It is all beginning to come true.

And we are just at the beginning and we have not slowed down the problems.

Were humanity to cease using all fossil fuels tomorrow and return to living in caves, the very most difference it would make to climate would be at best, around 0.5C to the turn of the next century. Like Iv'e said before. All pain for no gain!