Ipcc Says Global Warming

i have a pretty good feeling that all that C02 has to end up somewhere, if it's not part of the carbon cycle then it's just gonna stay there and levels will rise. whether the effects are noticeable now, 10 years from now or whatever, the fact is that we are altering our atmosphere and environment.

 

CO2 levels have been 2000ppm in the past, they've been 4000ppm in the past and even higher. Historically warming comes first, then CO2 release from oceans. Then as the planet cools, CO2 returns to the oceans.

 

how much C02 does a typical car produce? what about a typical power plant?

how much CO2 would it take to raise the atmospheric concentration by 1ppm?

 

OK, couldn't resist one more.

Neanderthal apparently is discrediting the IPCC for high estimates. I haven't been able to verify what that Powerpoint shows, but I do know that glaciers and ice caps have been melting at a much, much higher rate than predicted. And weather is certainly getting more extreme. So, in the real world, there is evidence that global warming is worse than predicted.

 

I am a little confused as to where is this attitude....

What can I do to make this a better planet to live on?

No, instead, it is

nothing I do is wrong, so i will just keep on doing what i am doing.

I knownot everyone has that attitude.....but I guess it just isn';t enough yet to make any difference.

 

Yes and I grew up(?) there. I have personally helped to dig a well in a friends back yard there in the 40s. We hit water digging with A SHOVEL at about 3.50--4.00 feet. Those days are GONE.

There used to be the largest fresh water lake west of the Mississippi and in the old days, my gramma could row from my hometown (in the wet years) to other small towns. Tulare lake. Gone. Aquifer--going-going--

 

Skip you continue to post claims without sourcing anything at all. Provide any evidence of your conclusions before you criticize others for not fact checking.

Could you possibly be any more wrong on coral? Falling temperatures and lowering sea levels both prevent coral growth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI#t=4m59s

As far as "Ocean Acidification" goes,

First, let's deal with this persistent misnomer. I don't know if you were aware, but the ocean is rather alkaline. Pure water has a PH of 7.0, our oceans are 8.1, what we're talking about is the ocean getting less alkaline. How much less alkaline?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgdlAt4CR-4#t=68

Worst case scenario, in about 100 years, we'll see the ocean at a significantly alkaline level of 7.8
Basically, the oceans will always be alkaline, and it's worth remembering that when the earth naturally developed CO2 levels of 4000ppm, ocean life thrived and the planet proved to be much less prone to cataclysmic runaway greenhouse effects than the modern day hysteria would have one believe.

Do you have access to any data that demonstrates a 7.8ph to be dangerous for any marine life? What is the ideal ph level, on balance, for marine life?
ph - 9
ph - 8
ph - 7
or ph - 6?

 

" basically the oceans will ALWAYS be alkaline." Basically the only thing that will ALWAYS be anything is ---NOTHING. Entropy rules, accept it or not.

 

To save time, your best response will of course, be pteropods. If you can find an area where they've struggled without being flooded by Fukushima fallout, you might have a case.

Think about this, it would be incredibly easy to set up a study showing how much they struggle in water with ph 7.8 or 7.6
We haven't seen any of those studies, and I'll bet you $100 they'll plug right along in ph 7.6 water.

 

Indeed as my economics professor pounded into us, in the long run, anything is possible.

It's a useless endeavor to try to forecast that far ahead though, and we certainly shouldn't be keen to encourage such a huge setback to poor people all over the world.

For whatever it's worth, I live a very minimalist lifestyle. Almost everyone I know has a bigger carbon footprint than me. My diet is mostly rice, beans, and potatoes. I get as disgusted by huge trucks and SUVs as anyone. I fully embrace encouraging wealthy people to do their part, but whether you like it or not, sadly these taxes will have the most impact on the very poor.

 

Arctic shrinking, Antarctic setting record highs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DeNpAg6Reg

Weather is getting more extreme? By what metric do you judge this? What stories the news covers? Weather will always have extreme elements in different parts of the world. What's the most extreme weather event we've endured lately?

The carbon tax peddlers are being reduced to bad fortune tellers, declaring that bad things will happen. When bad weather happens, looky there nukka! Toldja.

and you guys are buying it. Stawwwwp

 

If you guys are at all interested in my method of truth seeking, I think a key element most people neglect is playing devil's advocate with one's self.

I never try to prove something without first trying to disprove it. It sets a much higher bar for evidence gathering than most people are accustomed to. It encourages setting any equitable burden of proof for both sides. It helps alleviate cognitive biases. It exposes you to any obvious flaws on both sides of the argument.

If you're playing chess, and you're only looking at one side of the board, you're doing it wrong. You need to be willing and able to rotate the board and see both sides. If you don't, you're exposing yourself to huge blind spots and leaving yourself vulnerable to puppeteers.

 

The industrial age has been extracting resources on a massive scale for only a few hundred years. There is now a relentless taking of resources to change them from what they were/are in their natural state, to the reduction of them into objects that some would consider useless artifacts. These artifacts are marketed with FALSELY CREATED NEEDS for individuals and societies around the globe. Now. To understand a proposition, reduce it to it's simplest form. For example: Pile a table with as many items as will stay on it. Begin to remove one item at a time. Will the table eventually be bare of items? The answer is obvious. Let's try another one: Are there presently around 6 billion people on the earth? Yup.
Let's extrapolate some. Can the earth comfortably contain 10 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion? Obvious again? Now let's go back to the aforementioned table: We, I think, agreed that eventually the table WILL be bare. Now, without graphs, pie charts,etc, "we" can maybe begin to see that this simple idea can ALSO be extrapolated into a general, and to my way of thinking, frightening conclusion. That is, since the whole capitalist rig is predicated on CREATED needs that MUST continue to be created in order to preclude the complete, contemporary collapse of societies SOON--think about where our refuse goes. Think about where the smoke from natural fires goes. Volcanoes. The MILLIONS of pounds of chemicals that"WE" RELEASE INTO THE AIR AND WATER. ( want some fun? Check out the chemicals released in the "bread basket of the world"-the San Joaquin Valley. Laugh a minute!) Where does all this stuff go? Well, excuse me if I'm wrong--but I think it stays HERE on the earth. Eventually---the figurative table will be empty. BUT--before its eventuality----there will pain. And blood. And starvation. ( What? You say 30,000 children a day die from this and that? Ahhhhh---don't believe it. Surely humans wouldn't---------never mind. Not my fault.) So. My conclusion, without graphs, pie charts, etc, is that "we" are short on long term thinking and those alive some years from now will reap what "we've" sown. Short term thinking for short term results will get tits firmly inserted in wringer. Just keep pumping the good stuff (must be good--it's still being done-right?) into the only environment we have. All is well. And remember-------

BLESSING OF THE MASSES BE UPON YOU AND----- BUY MORE. BUY MORE NOW

 

Look, you're preaching to the choir in regards to your critiques of consumerism. Allow me to add the biggest conundrums we face in...the face... of a freemarket system.

1. Planned Obsolescence. The intentional structural deficiencies built into most products to ensure more cyclical consumption, and less durable possessions. Landfills
2. Technological Unemployment.

I'm not going to go terribly in depth with this train of thought. Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement probably articulate these arguments better than I could. I've spent a lot of time lately exploring the pit falls of libertarianism vs. anarchocommunism. I'm totally split down the middle on the dichotomy. This is largely the root source of my dysgenics pronouncements. It seems to me if everyone were enlightened enough philosophically, either would work. There's a certain brain power prerequisite that is required to be that philosophically enlightened. You have to be able to reason quickly and effectively, not everyone is built for this, and it's only getting worse in all likelihood.

Most people today can't for the life of them see that governments right now are a tool of Oligarchs. All governments bend to the whims of corporations and banks. Suffice it to say surrendering to the idea of bullshit taxes by governments for the benefit of corporations and banks is a bad play, and not directly related to consumerism.

Quick last point, there is a LOT more uninhabited land in the world than people tend to realize.
http://www.populationlabs.com/maps/World_Population_Map.png
There's 7 billion people on the planet, yes. The planet is technically finite, yes, but we're not destroying matter here. The elements and molecules and atoms stay here on earth, as you rightly say. They are not unsalvagable in theory, whether or not we're capable of recycling all of them now. If you're one of the people who is scared by the prospect of people running out of water one day, or you know someone who is, console yourselves. There is zero chance of us running out of pure water. Distilling water is a simple matter of catching the evaporation. You don't need heavy machinery, you don't need electricity, you just need a solar still. Some combination of plastic, or glass, or metal, properly arranged, will net you a significant amount of pure water on a sunny day. Swamp water, sea water, sewer water, doesn't matter. The only thing that evaporates from these sources is pure water. In a time of need we could all learn how to efficiently extract distilled water.

 

I am about to be flooded out by the Ohio river.. I can give a fuck less about some cancerous isotope from Fuckashemale ..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p99a6K81zqM&index=11&list=PLh6JwyMVbfEN1sdNPjf9mpw47hcjdNaYE

 

It's seasonal sea ice, which doesn't reflect heat as much as the permanent land ice does.
The land ice is collapsing into the sea.
And it doesn't make up for the loss of Arctic sea ice.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/clarity-on-antarctic-sea-ice/

Of course, it won't bother you that the people feeding you this BS about sea ice cancelling AGW are selling you a fiction... because there is always more confusion and lies where that came from. The thing about truth is there's only one, and Marc Morano has 6 lies he can offer you and all of them will make you feel better about yourself than the truth.

Though I have to say, I haven't run into too many deniers who cycle through the arguments as quickly as you do. You seem to throw them at the wall, looking for one that actually sticks... and not because you want to know the truth, but because you want to win the game.

You don't win by picking a side, you win by caring about what's really going on.

Skip the denier blogs and youtube videos and look to NatGeo, ArsTechnica, New Scientist and ScientificAmerican.
They will tell you what's up.