Excellent insight.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Heat Wave
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Excellent insight.
Those are great sentiments and well presented, but in my view irrelevant. Your first paragraph was spot on, couldn't have put it better
problem is there are too many developing nations increasing emissions, and too much money to be made by Big Energy worldwide to make ANY significant decreases/progress
II.2 Annual CO2 emissions
If we forget the cumulative time dimension and focus only on annual emissions, how do more recent annual emission trends compare? In the chart below, we can view annual CO2 emissions by country. You can select a range of countries to compare through time in the "chart" tab, or alternatively click on a country on the "map" tab to see its time series. In support of the cumulative chart we explored above, we can see that the annual trends of European and North American nations have grown much earlier than in other regions.
Emissions from a number of growing economies have been increasing rapidly over the last few decades. Fast-forwarding to annual emissions in 2014, we can see that a number of low to middle income nations are now within the top global emitters. In fact, China is now the largest emitter, followed by (in order) the US, EU-28, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, Canada and Mexico. Note that a number of nations that are already top emitters are likely to continue to increase emissions as they undergo development.
In contrast to CO2 emissions growth in low to middle income economies, trends across many high income nations have stabilized, and in several cases decreased in recent decades. Despite this downward trend across some nations, emissions growth in transitioning economies dominates the global trend—as such, global annual emissions have continued to increase over this period.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
I'm saying spending a fortune buying Prius' or other EV's may keep mankind viable for a whopping decade or less....and am all for recycling and such, keep the place halfway clean til we adios
and yeah, I know, I'm a pessimist
I think you underestimate the VAST gulf between "everything is grand" and "humans are extinct." Even if we picture a hellish scenario where average global temperatures rises to Eocene levels or higher -- total melting of all glaciers, mass species extinctions, etc. -- there will still be lots of places on Earth that remain at hospitable temps for human life, some of which will have a good enough mix of flora and fauna and natural resources and decent weather for humans to cling on. Even if populations decline by 99.9%, there would still be seven million humans holding on to life in that world.
Given that vast gulf, my working assumption is humans, as a species, will be around for tens of thousands of years to come, barring a cosmic-level accident. In light of that, it's irresponsible to let ourselves off the hook with the idea that the worst case scenario is already locked in. It isn't. We can and should make a difference. We get to decide if the distant future involves a few million humans stubbornly clinging to a subsistence-level existence in a post-apocalyptic nightmarescape, or whether it involves billions of humans living a quality of life that --while not what it would have been if we'd acted sooner-- is still better off than what most humans have today.
I have nothing to disagree with you over what you're saying. But you'll have to excuse me from joining with you in any impassioned pleas to the people on this forum. It's just going to be lost to stupid people.
I will say though, that if you are expecting any substantial change happening, it's not going to be within the establishment or the two major parties. If we have anything in common on that then I'm sure we'll find something to talk about.
It may encourage you to know that I believe Canada's establishment will amend itself in line with what happens in America first. I think we have the right Prime Minister in place with the ambitions to make change but without the balls to do it in the face of US pressure. Understandably so if one appreciates the power of US sanctions, blackmail, etc.
So we'll see? I don't think Trump is going to be much of a negative factor after January when he has to proclaim his intentions on being the pres for another 4. I'm pretty convinced that he will be persuaded to not try. Mueller will apply the pressure he has and Trump will understand the big downside. Likely to his family members. The first sign will be the R's in congress leaving his side. There's not long to wait. Then climate change discussion can get back to being serious again.
I think if change is going to happen, it's going to need to come from the establishment of one or both of the parties, since that's where the power lies. If they won't do something, then the establishment needs to be changed for a new establishment. But I think we saw, in the Obama years, that the Democratic establishment was willing to make serious strides. It may be popular on the left to dismiss that, but at this point I'll take some real strides, however modest, over impotent dreams of the radicals.
Good. I'd rather have my eyes gouged out than live in CA.
Go for it!
Easy solution. Don't have children.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Incorrect. Obama didn't pay a penny.
Man you're very naive!
reagansghost
eternal
I think you underestimate the VAST gulf between "everything is grand" and "humans are extinct." Even if we picture a hellish scenario where average global temperatures rises to Eocene levels or higher -- total melting of all glaciers, mass species extinctions, etc. -- there will still be lots of places on Earth that remain at hospitable temps for human life, some of which will have a good enough mix of flora and fauna and natural resources and decent weather for humans to cling on. Even if populations decline by 99.9%, there would still be seven million humans holding on to life in that world.
Given that vast gulf, my working assumption is humans, as a species, will be around for tens of thousands of years to come, barring a cosmic-level accident. In light of that, it's irresponsible to let ourselves off the hook with the idea that the worst case scenario is already locked in. It isn't. We can and should make a difference. We get to decide if the distant future involves a few million humans stubbornly clinging to a subsistence-level existence in a post-apocalyptic nightmarescape, or whether it involves billions of humans living a quality of life that --while not what it would have been if we'd acted sooner-- is still better off than what most humans have today.
Heard that argument a thousand times, Son-in-Law has a degree in environmental sciences
We're all speculating.......your numbers are estimates based on current data, and irrelevant data IMO as greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continue to increase rapidly, and not at all in a linear fashion. also the current data doesn't factor in the mega release of the methane currently and temporarily trapped in permafrost around the globe.....and as I'm sure you know methane is a much more potent green house gas. that factor alone can and will flush your 99.9% survival number down the toilet. think planet Venus
Also outside of the US, very very few countries are AGW deniers like Trump and his knuckledraggin cult......again and I cannot stress this enough......MONEY is what will decide how far we go down that toilet. and if you know history you know it always wins, always
but then again I'm a pessimist on AGW, tired of 99.9% discussion/deliberation and one percent improvement, this cake was baked decades ago, way too late
*forgot to mention I'm all for a vigorous effort to stave off or diminish what's underway. it will actually increase economic growth and sure is better than gloomily awaiting the inevitable. no need to spoil the rest of our ride
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think you underestimate the VAST gulf between "everything is grand" and "humans are extinct." Even if we picture a hellish scenario where average global temperatures rises to Eocene levels or higher -- total melting of all glaciers, mass species extinctions, etc. -- there will still be lots of places on Earth that remain at hospitable temps for human life, some of which will have a good enough mix of flora and fauna and natural resources and decent weather for humans to cling on. Even if populations decline by 99.9%, there would still be seven million humans holding on to life in that world.
Given that vast gulf, my working assumption is humans, as a species, will be around for tens of thousands of years to come, barring a cosmic-level accident. In light of that, it's irresponsible to let ourselves off the hook with the idea that the worst case scenario is already locked in. It isn't. We can and should make a difference. We get to decide if the distant future involves a few million humans stubbornly clinging to a subsistence-level existence in a post-apocalyptic nightmarescape, or whether it involves billions of humans living a quality of life that --while not what it would have been if we'd acted sooner-- is still better off than what most humans have today.
Lol, even the IPCC is finally accepting that RCP 8.5 is practically in the realms of science fiction, didn't you get the memo? I give you your due, you do write some elegant bullshit.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/05/rcp-8-5-the-mother-of-all-junk-climate-science/?cn-reloaded=1u
Last edited:
Man you're very naive!
By all means: point me to any evidence that Obama paid any money for the report.
Heard that argument a thousand times, Son-in-Law has a degree in environmental sciences
We're all speculating
If so, isn't it more rational to act as if the Earth is a going concern, rather than just assuming we've already locked in a near-term doom? Your reasoning reminds me very much of what I've heard from morbidly obese people who want to excuse their continued gluttony and sloth. Many will claim they've already locked into the problems of obesity, so there's no point making the effort to improve. That fake fatalism is psychologically comforting, since if there's nothing they can do about it they may as well grab a tube of cookie dough and spend the next eight hours watching TV, right? But it's not true for them -- although morbidly obese people have, indeed, locked in all sorts of problems, and start the ball rolling on some self-reinforcing negative cycles they can't stop, they can still make an ENORMOUS difference with effort. And I think the same is true for humans and climate change. But a lot of people want to give themselves the excuse not to make the effort, and fake fatalism is their tactic.
MONEY is what will decide how far we go down that toilet.
If money were all that mattered for such things, we wouldn't have phased out CFCs in time to save the ozone layer, there'd still be widespread use of leaded gas, etc. Informed political activism can make a difference and has done so in the past. We are living in a time when we are enjoying huge improvements in quality of life due to reducing lead in the environment by way of regulation. Many believe, for example, that it has been a major factor in reducing violent crime. That didn't happen because unleaded gas is cheaper at the pump. It happened because political activists successfully pushed politicians to impose new rules, even at higher cost.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
By all means: point me to any evidence that Obama paid any money for the report.
Seriously??
Lol, even the IPCC is finallt accepting that RCP 8.5 is practically in the realms of science fiction, didn't you get the memo? I give you your due, you do write some elegant bullshit.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/05/rcp-8-5-the-mother-of-all-junk-climate-science/?cn-reloaded=1
The problem with getting one's science news from a non-scientist half-wit like Anthony Watts is that it leaves you really vulnerable to looking stupid. The IPCC laid out a whole range of scenarios, with RCP 8.5 being just one of them (one designed to model what happens if GHG emissions rise relatively quickly):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
By definition, any time you model a series of possible paths based on different assumptions, all but one will end up being "science fiction," because we're only going to wind up heading down one. RCP 8.5 was meant to be an "upper bound" scenario -- the worst of the RCP paths..... essentially, what would be expected to happen if we did nothing to control GHG emissions.
Anyway, your whole link went off the deep end from the start, when the non-climatologist guest blogger misread the scenario he was critiquing to assume a certain rise in CO2, rather than CO2 equivalents (which also factor in other GHGs). Like I said, when you get your science from people like that, you wind up really vulnerable to looking stupid.
Seriously??
Yes.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The problem with getting one's science news from a non-scientist half-wit like Anthony Watts is that it leaves you really vulnerable to looking stupid. The IPCC laid out a whole range of scenarios, with RCP 8.5 being just one of them (one designed to model what happens if GHG emissions rise relatively quickly):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
By definition, any time you model a series of possible paths based on different assumptions, all but one will end up being "science fiction," because we're only going to wind up heading down one. RCP 8.5 was meant to be an "upper bound" scenario -- the worst of the RCP paths..... essentially, what would be expected to happen if we did nothing to control GHG emissions.
Anyway, your whole link went off the deep end from the start, when the non-climatologist guest blogger misread the scenario he was critiquing to assume a certain rise in CO2, rather than CO2 equivalents (which also factor in other GHGs). Like I said, when you get your science from people like that, you wind up really vulnerable to looking stupid.
More bullshit, RCP 8.5 is pure fantasy designed specifically to scare people. The IPCC is planning to drop it in future. As for Anthony Watts, he's a meteorologist and you're what exactly? Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Nic Lewis, Roy Spencer, William Happer, Freeman Dyson and John Spencer, to name but a few, have the utmost respect for him, as I do. I know that you're a fool when you dismiss him as a non-scientist half wit, I just cannot take you seriously, sorry!!
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes.
Sorry not going to play, see you,!!
Yes. We have already "locked in" a lot of damage, and we're seeing it in the form of increased refugee issues, extreme weather, species decline, etc. It turns out the "soothsayers" were right. They went out on a limb with various predictions that were proven to be uncannily accurate. Meanwhile, none of the denialist cretins were on the record correctly predicting the warming, the sea level rise, etc., so why listen to them now? Why not listen to those who have been shown to know what they were talking about?
Can you cite the climate refugee numbers? 50 million was a number you alarmists repeated for several years back when you still called it global warming. When the pause in the rate of warming occurred in the 2000s the name got changed to climate change but you still only refer to warming. When skeptics question that humans are responsible for all of the climate changes since 1850, you alarmists dishonestly claim we doubt climate change. You folks are silly cultists.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Can you cite the climate refugee numbers? 50 million was a number you alarmists repeated for several years back when you still called it global warming. When the pause in the rate of warming occurred in the 2000s the name got changed to climate change but you still only refer to warming. When skeptics question that humans are responsible for all of the climate changes since 1850, you alarmists dishonestly claim we doubt climate change. You folks are silly cultists.
I agree with the IPCC that a doubling of CO2 concentration results in an increase of 3.7 Watts/m^2, which equates to a temperature increase of 1.2C. I do not agree that the feedbacks dreamed up by alarmists actually exist other than in their fevered imaginations and spurious CMIP5 climate models.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Can you cite the climate refugee numbers? 50 million was a number you alarmists repeated for several years back when you still called it global warming. When the pause in the rate of warming occurred in the 2000s the name got changed to climate change but you still only refer to warming. When skeptics question that humans are responsible for all of the climate changes since 1850, you alarmists dishonestly claim we doubt climate change. You folks are silly cultists.
Some of those bullshit figures come from the Syrian War and the equally fatuous notion that a drought caused by AGW started the war.
Sorry not going to play, see you,!!
Got to admit "fogcatcher" is a trip, "sorry not going to play, see you," too funny
He can't prove the point he made repeatingly above, so when it is established he can't substantiate what he claimed, his response is "see you," beautiful
"Oneuli," you just got yourself banned from "fogcatchers" future posts, he don't like to be embarrassed on a topic that he thinks he is an "expert"
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Got to admit "fogcatcher" is a trip, "sorry not going to play, see you," too funny
He can't prove the point he made repeatingly above, so when it is established he can't substantiate what he claimed, his response is "see you," beautiful
"Oneuli," you just got yourself banned from "fogcatchers" future posts, he don't like to be embarrassed on a topic that he thinks he is an "expert"
Well you certainly will always banned as you're a fool, pure and simple. Why do you imagine that I have to engage you anyway, what makes you think I should give you any credence?
Last edited: