It might be possible to save the world from the Climate Change Apocalypse as the permafrost melts.

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,140
4,248
0
Texas
Y'all make a lot of fun of @Hiphopster, because he's so intensely apocalyptic, but he's actually partially right about climate change, at least in my semi-scientific opinion. Hippy's just too caught up in the politics of over-hyping climate change scaremongering to think that maybe there are some answers that don't require the drastic measures of destroying Capitalism and Free-Market economies, killing billions of people, and returning humanity to the Stone Age. But people seem to enjoy predicting apocalypses or else just ignoring anything they don't want to believe. So they over react or under react, instead of getting on with finding cost-effective solutions. One part of the climate change problem where Hippy is actually right, (but naturally turns people off with his typical off-putting ways of hyping impending doom) is that the permafrost is indeed melting, and it's going to release a hell of a lot of methane and CO2. In this case the methane realease is particularly problematic because it is a much, much more effective 'greenhouse' gas than CO2. It's damn near as hot in Siberia right now as it is in Texas--this won't be the norm for a while, and Siberia isn't going to turn into a giant mudhole tomorrow, and don't cancel your plans for your next snow skiing vacation just yet, but there is no question now in my mind that the poles are warming rapidly.

But the article I cite below is some new research (new as in published April 23rd) that is the kind of thing my natural optimism tells me we may survive after all without TEOTWAWKI, either through climate change, or destroying the world economy. A part of that is CO2 mitigation in many relatively easy ways. The U.S. is going a long way toward that, farther than almost all the 'holier than thou' signatory nations of the Paris Accords. I think though that so many climate change scaremongers aren't serious about, you know, solving the problem, because they ignore potential solutions that don't involve authoritarian takeover by the"elite". And we know who they are. The ones with the private jests that fly around warning us that the only solution involves them taking control. The same people that would, never, ever allow another nuclear reactor to be built. Because that wouldn't mean they'd get their authoritarian elitist dystopia.

So maybe it's not all that hard to save the world. Maybe the world won't end as the permafrost melt releases all that methane after all.
This is a long article with a lot more biology than I want to wade through, but it's just one promising aspect of tackling the problem with proactive science and technology (in this case biotechnology). Solutions like this need a lot of study in order to put them into widespread use just yet (because of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences") but I think we can 'save the world' without AOC type draconian answers that are more about ending Capitalism and the hopes of a better life for all humanity than they are about, you know, realistic scientific solutions.

Conclusions
We have obtained a pure culture of an organism growing on ambient air containing an atmospheric methane concentration and named it M. gorgona MG08. M. gorgonaMG08 utilizes CH4 as a carbon and energy source and we have experimentally demonstrated that it can utilize at least three additional constituents of air: CO2 as an additional carbon source, N2 as a nitrogen source, and O2 as terminal electron acceptor. Furthermore, it carries and expresses the genes necessary to exploit two additional atmospheric components, CO and H2, as energy sources. Such metabolic flexibility may account for the enigmatic lifestyle of atmospheric CH4 oxidizers and explain how they can grow on air alone. However, M. gorgona MG08 also grows efficiently at high CH4 concentrations, but expresses only one pMMO, demonstrating that this enzyme is responsible for CH4 oxidation at high and low concentrations. In line with this, M. gorgona MG08 has the highest specific affinity (a0s) for CH4 of any known methane oxidizing bacterium, resulting from a high Vmax(app) despite a high Km(app). Furthermore, relatives within the genus Methylocapsa previously thought not to live on trace gases were shown to be able to grow on air as well, indicating that this ability is more widespread than previously believed. The isolation and characterization of a member of these recalcitrant organisms have direct implications for our understanding of the biological sink of atmospheric CH4 and how atmospheric trace gases support life on our and possibly other planets.
 

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
13,614
22,779
0
Fine. I’ll ask the question everybody’s thinking but nobody wants to ask...

How will this help the Siberian sinkholes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

Robert STRONG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 12, 2015
1,659
7,203
0

Seriously though, I'm trying to understand this and struggling. Is the thought that we could use this bacteria to neutralize CO2 and Methane?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn and bHero

Robert STRONG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 12, 2015
1,659
7,203
0
I have an idea: Let's use plants and trees to neutralize CO2.
I saw that planting 1 trillion trees over the next 100 years (could be off on my timeline) would effectively neutralize our CO2 output. We'd need to decrease CO2 greenhouse gases as well, but that's not out of the question with increased renewables. And 1 trillion sounds like a lot, but it's effectively 3 trees per year per person. Who doesn't like trees?
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,563
51,073
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
Y'all make a lot of fun of @Hiphopster, because he's so intensely apocalyptic, but he's actually partially right about climate change, at least in my semi-scientific opinion. Hippy's just too caught up in the politics of over-hyping climate change scaremongering to think that maybe there are some answers that don't require the drastic measures of destroying Capitalism and Free-Market economies, killing billions of people, and returning humanity to the Stone Age. But people seem to enjoy predicting apocalypses or else just ignoring anything they don't want to believe. So they over react or under react, instead of getting on with finding cost-effective solutions. One part of the climate change problem where Hippy is actually right, (but naturally turns people off with his typical off-putting ways of hyping impending doom) is that the permafrost is indeed melting, and it's going to release a hell of a lot of methane and CO2. In this case the methane realease is particularly problematic because it is a much, much more effective 'greenhouse' gas than CO2. It's damn near as hot in Siberia right now as it is in Texas--this won't be the norm for a while, and Siberia isn't going to turn into a giant mudhole tomorrow, and don't cancel your plans for your next snow skiing vacation just yet, but there is no question now in my mind that the poles are warming rapidly.

But the article I cite below is some new research (new as in published April 23rd) that is the kind of thing my natural optimism tells me we may survive after all without TEOTWAWKI, either through climate change, or destroying the world economy. A part of that is CO2 mitigation in many relatively easy ways. The U.S. is going a long way toward that, farther than almost all the 'holier than thou' signatory nations of the Paris Accords. I think though that so many climate change scaremongers aren't serious about, you know, solving the problem, because they ignore potential solutions that don't involve authoritarian takeover by the"elite". And we know who they are. The ones with the private jests that fly around warning us that the only solution involves them taking control. The same people that would, never, ever allow another nuclear reactor to be built. Because that wouldn't mean they'd get their authoritarian elitist dystopia.

So maybe it's not all that hard to save the world. Maybe the world won't end as the permafrost melt releases all that methane after all.
This is a long article with a lot more biology than I want to wade through, but it's just one promising aspect of tackling the problem with proactive science and technology (in this case biotechnology). Solutions like this need a lot of study in order to put them into widespread use just yet (because of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences") but I think we can 'save the world' without AOC type draconian answers that are more about ending Capitalism and the hopes of a better life for all humanity than they are about, you know, realistic scientific solutions.

Conclusions
We have obtained a pure culture of an organism growing on ambient air containing an atmospheric methane concentration and named it M. gorgona MG08. M. gorgonaMG08 utilizes CH4 as a carbon and energy source and we have experimentally demonstrated that it can utilize at least three additional constituents of air: CO2 as an additional carbon source, N2 as a nitrogen source, and O2 as terminal electron acceptor. Furthermore, it carries and expresses the genes necessary to exploit two additional atmospheric components, CO and H2, as energy sources. Such metabolic flexibility may account for the enigmatic lifestyle of atmospheric CH4 oxidizers and explain how they can grow on air alone. However, M. gorgona MG08 also grows efficiently at high CH4 concentrations, but expresses only one pMMO, demonstrating that this enzyme is responsible for CH4 oxidation at high and low concentrations. In line with this, M. gorgona MG08 has the highest specific affinity (a0s) for CH4 of any known methane oxidizing bacterium, resulting from a high Vmax(app) despite a high Km(app). Furthermore, relatives within the genus Methylocapsa previously thought not to live on trace gases were shown to be able to grow on air as well, indicating that this ability is more widespread than previously believed. The isolation and characterization of a member of these recalcitrant organisms have direct implications for our understanding of the biological sink of atmospheric CH4 and how atmospheric trace gases support life on our and possibly other planets.
My 2 main arguments are:

1) Why do we think saving the world means preventing the climate from changing?
2) Would neutralizing CO2 really do it? I mean, there are natural glaciation cycles, and as far as I know, the greatest factor on our climate over the last gillion years has been the sun, not CO2.

Personally, I'd worry a bit about trying to prevent glacial cycles when it's been a norm for the entirety of the Holocene Era. On the macro level, the climate is the most stable it's ever been, and us monkeying with the earth's soil to alter the course sounds a tad spooky. When I think of the Law of Unintended consequences on something like this, my mind goes to some of our other endeavors like feeding animal bones back to the animals, which results in massive death and diseases for cows (MCD), black bass (CWD), sheep (TSE) and deers (CWD). Similar catastrophic results occurred in china with poultry.

In short, I don't think we can possible ferret out all of the unintended consequences of this type of global action. I'm also pretty sure this is how Resident Evil starts.
 
Last edited:

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,140
4,248
0
Texas
My 2 main arguments are:

1) Why do we think saving the world means preventing the climate from changing?
2) Would neutralizing CO2 really do it? I mean, there are natural glaciation cycles, and as far as I know, the greatest factor on our climate over the last gillion years has been the sun, not CO2.

Personally, I'd worry a bit about trying to prevent glacial cycles when it's been a norm for the entirety of the Holocene Era. On the macro level, the climate is the most stable it's ever been, and us monkeying with the earth's soil to alter the course sounds a tad spooky. When I think of the Law of Unintended consequences on something like this, my mind goes to some of our other endeavors like feeding animal bones back to the animals, which results in massive death and diseases for cows (MCD), black bass (CWD), sheep (TSE) and deers (CWD). Similar catastrophic results occurred in china with poultry.

In short, I don't think we can possible ferret out all of the unintended consequences of this type of global action. I'm also pretty sure this is how Resident Evil starts.
How do I turn on spell check?

I don't have much time right now, but a couple of quick thoughts. I agree there's a danger of unintended consequences with just about anything we do at a large scale. some good, most probably bad, depending on who/what is affected when/where. We need to be careful. But we already are "momkying" in a drastic and large scale manner with the Earth's atmospheric composition, and there are efinitely consequences we can already see. Some good, many probably bad. Anothe quick thng, I agree that changes in the sun's output and fedback effects canand hae been major forcing factors in climate change for millions of years. So have other factors like major wiespread vulcansim and plate tectoni motions. But that's not the case today, or at least the whole case, or the major forcing event. We could work through that amthematically. I'm willing if you are, but it would not be a trivial exercsise for either of us.

So, one answer to your questions, I think it's very, very risky to continue with "'business as usual' and just allow the experiment to contiue unchecked. 'Saving the world' wasn't what I actually said, or meant. That's hyperbole. Saving the world as we know it wasn't. A point you make about glacial cycles is a case in point. Yes they've gone on for milllions of years, as with all climate change. Geologists, better than most, understand this. The big danger we face is the speed of current climate change. Now some major changes we see in geologic history do occur rapidly, but as far as we know these are mostly at a relitively small scale and the norm is for major changes to occur more slowly than we are seeing. Yes volcanoes can change the climate quickly...somewhat, for a generally short time (the Deccn traps might be an example of this. And, my goodness Chixclub type eveny can change the climate very drastically in a very, very short time. But believe me, we don't want to deal with a Chixclub type event. Yes glaciall cycles happen and rapidly on a geologic time scale, but as near as any reputable geologological study can determine, but not at the rapid human time scale we are seeing today. Yes individual glaciers can and have melted in short time frames in the past, we think. But that isn't like the galication and melting of one of the major Holocene ice sheets that covered large parts of the Norhtern henishere, miles thick in places. It's the time sacle time that is important. Sure reforestation will be a CO2 sink, and almost certainly someting we should (and are) working at. Can it cope with the rapid major rise in CO2 or what could, before long, be a drastic rise in Atmospheric methane as th peermafrost warms. No, it couldn't and we can go through the math of that. THat's not nearly as tricky as a large scale numerical climate model.

One unintended consequence of the huge and rapid demand growth for transport and energy that began in the first part of the 20th century was massive air and water pollution. Do you think the Environmental regulations the U.S. undertook with the Clean Air Act and the CLean water Act were, on the whole, good things? I'd say unquestionably yes, I was in college in 1970, and believe me, our air and water are much cleaner now, and the problems, without large scale government ntervention would have become much, much worse. You bring up the effects of feeding animal bone meal back to animals. Yes it resulted in a bad thing. But in a somehat realted vein, have GMO's as applied to food crops been, in general good things? Again unquestionably yes, or we reallly would be seeing some of the Malthusian predicitons of Paul Erhlich.

Look, we **** with Mother Nature on a large scale now. Almost always there are unintended consequeces and some can be bad. SO again we need to be careful. But mucking about with nature it saves live or at least makes lives better for billions of people. One quick final comment, you indicate that monkeying with the earth's soil (encouraging the growth of a naturally occuring microsopic organism already present) is too scary to comtemplate. As an imperfect, but I think useful, analogy, was the growing, harvesitn, and widespread use of the secretions of a common bread mold to treat infectious diseases in millions ofpeople a bad thing? Well, it did have the unitended consequence of producing penicillin resistant bacteria, but do you think anyone whose life was saved by its use thinks any problems outweighs the fact that they are alive? And we now have alternatives, but with with their own problems.

Do I think climate change mititgation is a good thing? Yes, because not just a gut feeling, but a lifetime interest and study of the earth, natural processess, and their timing and effects on the earth, leads me to believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and the bad effects will be very bad overall..in too short a time frame for us to adapt well. If we don't act to mitigate the rapid man forced changes. Yes there will almost certainly be problems with major attempts at mitigation, and we should be very, careful. But we are already "monkeying" with the composition of the entire Earth's atmosphere in a major way, and in an extremelly short time span...faster than most natural ecosystems can adapt. That is definitely and provably happening.

Gotta go for now, and please forgive mis typing errors without my spell and grammar checking.
 
Last edited:

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,563
51,073
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
How do I turn on spell check?

I don't have much time right now, but a couple of quick thoughts. I agree there's a danger of unintended consequences with just about anything we do at a large scale. some good, most probably bad, depending on who/what is affected when/where. We need to be careful. But we already are "momkying" in a drastic and large scale manner with the Earth's atmospheric composition, and there are efinitely consequences we can already see. Some good, many probably bad.

I think it's very, very risky to continue with "'business as usual'. A point you make about glacial cycles is a case in point. Yes they've gone on for milllions of years, as with all climate change. Geologists, better than most, understand this. The big danger we face is the speed of current climate change. Now some major changes we see in geologic history do occur rapidly, but as far as we know these are mostly at a relitively small scale and the norm is for major changes to occur more slowly than we are seeing. Yes volcanoes can change the climate quickly...somewhat, for a generally short time (the Deccn traps might be an example of this. And, my goodness Chixclub type eveny can change the climate very drastically in a very, very short time. But believe me, we don't want to deal with a Chixclub type event. Yes glaciall cycles happen and rapidly on a geologic time scale, but as near as any reputable geologological study can determine, but not at the rapid human time scale we are seeing today. Yes individual glaciers can and have melted in short time frames in the past, we think. But that isn't like the galication and melting of one of the major Holocene ice sheets that covered large parts of the Norhtern henishere, miles thick in places. It's the time sacle time that is important. Sure reforestation will be a CO2 sink, and almost certainly someting we should (and are) working at. Can it cope with the rapid major rise in CO2 or what could, before long, be a drastic rise in Atmospheric methane as th peermafrost warms. No, it couldn't and we can go through the math of that. THat's not nearly as tricky as a large scale numerical climate model.

One unintended consequence of the huge and rapid demand growth for transport and energy that began in the first part of the 20th century was massive air and water pollution. Do you think the Environmental regulations the U.S. undertook with the Clean Air Act and the CLean water Act were, on the whole, good things? I'd say unquestionably yes, I was in college in 1970, and believe me, our air and water are much cleaner now, and the problems, without large scale government ntervention would have become much, much worse. You bring up the effects of feeding animal bone meal back to animals. Yes it resulted in a bad thing. But have GMO's as applied to food crops been, in general good things? Again unquestionably yes,or we reallly would be seeing some of the Malthusian predicitons of Paul Erhlich.

Look, we **** with Mother Nature on a large scale now. Almost always there are unintended consequeces and some can be bad. SO again we need to be careful. But mucking about with nature it saves live or at least makes lives better for billions of people. One quick final comment, you indicate that monkeying with the earth's soil (encouraging the growth of a naturally occuring microsopic organism already present) is too scary to comtemplate. As an imperfect, but I think useful, analogy, was the growing, harvesitn, and widespread use of the secretions of a common bread mold to treat infectious diseases in millions ofpeople a bad thing? Well, it did have the unitended consequence of producing penicillin resistant bacteria, but do you think anyone whose life was saved by its use thinks any problems outweighs the fact that they are alive? And we now have alternatives, but with with their own problems.

Do I think climate change mititgation is a good thing? Yes, because not just a gut feeling, but a lifetime interest and study of the earth, natural processess, and their timing and effects on the earth, leads me to believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and the bad effects will be very bad overall..in too short a time frame for us to adapt well. If we don't act to mitigate the rapid man forced changes. Yes there will almost certainly be problems with major attempts at mitigation, and we should be very, careful. But we are already "monkeying" with the composition of the entire Earth's atmosphere in a major way, and in an extremelly short time span...faster than most natural ecosystems can adapt. That is definitely and provably happening.

Gotta go for now, and please forgive mis typing errors without my spell and grammar checking.
I'm definitely not advocating status quo. We've been terrible stewards of the planet and deserve another Ice Age if we trigger one. I'm with you there. I'm just leary about changing the dirt out globally.

We should reforest. We should clean up the oceans. And doing all of that, it won't prevent sea levels from rising, as they have been over the last couple hundred years. I think we're setting ourselves up for some drastic consequences if we don't do those thing. The earth operates in a way that resets itself and maintain homeostasis. If we go far enough I'm sure we'll trigger some mass disaster that'll kickstart the process (might just be the permafrost issue). Again, I think we're in alignment.

I'm not 100% sure the temperatures increases are understood. I do believe they are rising and the rate of increase looks to be out of alignment with what we've seen, but the damn IPCC seems to be crapping on the data. Every month or two I'm reading about admissions of alterations or assumptions outside the range of realistic expectations, all in the favor of acute anthropogenic theories. It's very frustrating how corporate the endeavor has gotten.

I'm a realist. I think there's things we should change that we will, some that we won't, and some that we can't. We won't change greenhouse emissions until the economics makes sense, and until then it'll only be a bully pulpit for power. We can't change glacial cycles because terraforming is a pipe dream in this generation. Other than that, we will change the rest, but it'll take several decades and some pretty painful events.

I use google chrome. Spellcheck is built into the browser.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,140
4,248
0
Texas
Yes we're in alignement. I don't think we should do thany majopr types of "geo-engineering" without a lot of study and testing. But I think that's what we're going to need to do. I''m used to ataccking problems scientifiacally, and by nature proactive in maintaning staus quo, if we can safely intervene to do that. That's all.

Hm I sometimes use Chrome because it works better for some things, but I actually prefer a Browser called Opera. I'm used to it, and while I've come to understand that my life is an open book nowdays, Opera is a bit more restricitve about collectiong personal data and using it. But now, it's mainly just habit. Possibly some 'switch' got reset, I'll look into it or use chrome here now. I'm afraid I actually like the new IT forms, but one of the things I hate about change is that it often forces me to expend effort I'd rather expend elsehwere.

****, I really do have to go. We can discuss later if you want. You are always worth discussing just about anything with. At least I find it so.
 

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,806
12,087
0
Yes we're in alignement. I don't think we should do thany majopr types of "geo-engineering" without a lot of study and testing. But I think that's what we're going to need to do. I''m used to ataccking problems scientifiacally, and by nature proactive in maintaning staus quo, if we can safely intervene to do that. That's all.

Hm I sometimes use Chrome because it works better for some things, but I actually prefer a Browser called Opera. I'm used to it, and while I've come to understand that my life is an open book nowdays, Opera is a bit more restricitve about collectiong personal data and using it. But now, it's mainly just habit. Possibly some 'switch' got reset, I'll look into it or use chrome here now. I'm afraid I actually like the new IT forms, but one of the things I hate about change is that it often forces me to expend effort I'd rather expend elsehwere.

****, I really do have to go. We can discuss later if you want. You are always worth discussing just about anything with. At least I find it so.
That because he is a insatiably curious geek who cannot resist the temptation of trying to completely understand something and then write essays on it.
Just like you.
My only problem is when you assholes get into all of the technodrivel and I have to actually start thinking intelligently in order to decipher and understand what the hell ya'll are talking about.
But I will also say that it is very welcome as compared to the usual Romper Room antics that discussions turn into.
I for one always enjoy these types of discussions.


Semper Fi
 
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn and bHero

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,960
4,279
0
Is it possible to save the world from Al Gore?

This headline caught my attention.


Pope backs carbon pricing to stem global warming and appeals to deniers
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,960
4,279
0
Yes we're in alignement. I don't think we should do thany majopr types of "geo-engineering" without a lot of study and testing. But I think that's what we're going to need to do. I''m used to ataccking problems scientifiacally, and by nature proactive in maintaning staus quo, if we can safely intervene to do that. That's all.

Hm I sometimes use Chrome because it works better for some things, but I actually prefer a Browser called Opera. I'm used to it, and while I've come to understand that my life is an open book nowdays, Opera is a bit more restricitve about collectiong personal data and using it. But now, it's mainly just habit. Possibly some 'switch' got reset, I'll look into it or use chrome here now. I'm afraid I actually like the new IT forms, but one of the things I hate about change is that it often forces me to expend effort I'd rather expend elsehwere.

****, I really do have to go. We can discuss later if you want. You are always worth discussing just about anything with. At least I find it so.
He knows so much it makes my head hurt sometimes. :)
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,493
1,865
0
You have me wrong. I'm no fear monger. Actually I'm the opposite. I'm -- for all intents and purposes -- in the "**** it" camp and have been for about a decade. I don't have much faith in people. We are comprised of a majority of simple minded animals that don't have much foresight. Technology is our only hope and it certainly won't be me that originates a Noah's Ark solution to our global problem.

Furthermore on the hype angle you leveled above, I'm almost never the person that starts these threads...odd for a overhyping scaremonger, wouldn't you say?

That said, when I do enter these threads, I do seem to end them with facts people don't like. People just sort of stop replying to my responses and fools like mcb attempt ridicule of well known danger signs. I often provide the most current scientific consensus on the topic and if that's percieved here as hype or scaremongering, I really don't give a hot ****.

Anyone that's been here for any length of time knows climate change is on the periphery of my educational background. I've been researching topics tangential and germane to climate change (specifically ENSO and NAO) for 20+ years going back to my graduate studies at UN

Sooo, let me try again, one final time to summarize my position and Earth's status:

The world is warming (~ 1.1C - 1.2C over the baseline pre-industrial temperatures -- and for anything over ~ 1.5C, there is widespread consensus we are increasingly headed toward a waterfall without a paddle). It is undoubtedly due to humanity's contribution, and is greater than 51% anthropogenic-induced at minimum (current scientific consensus pegs that at more than 90%). We have a narrow window to prevent the worst of the impacts that are undoubtedly coming with inaction. And those impacts will start occurring at an accelerated rate, known in climatological terms as a punctuated runaway cycle, if the warming is not mitigated. Yet, even if we do, we are headed for a different world given the amount of heat already trapped in the Earth's systems. And even that could still balloon out of control as there are simply still too many unknown impacts from the data set. How much methane will ultimately get released? (Here's your chance to make a fool of yourself mcb -- all the scientism think methane sink holes are hilarious and not red flags of an impending climate crisis, too) How much longer will the develping world continue its rate of CO2 release increases? How quickly will Greenland and Antarctica melt? How much heat and CO2 can the oceans ultimately sequester and still sustain human food needs? Etc.

You want a prediction? Within one generation, AGW will be undeniable by every person on Earth and those that tried to laugh it off or put it in a corner will be seen for the fools they were.

So let humanity act, or not act. I think we're ****ed 8 ways to Sunday on a host of issues anyway, so what's one more that'll just put a nice little bow on our little time in the sun?

I do find it humorous however, that you basically are telling this crowd precisely what I said, but because you aren't viewed as a threat to the board's political status quo, it's apparently being accepted.

Par for the course..the level of hackitude on this board is quite unbecoming.
 
Last edited:

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,556
281,666
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
So let humanity act, or not act. I think we're ****ed 8 ways to Sunday on a host of issues anyway, so what's one more that'll just put a nice little bow on our little time in the sun?
^^^^The only way you get the fear-mongers to mention the sun.

If that thing was taxable we’d probably get some good science.
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,493
1,865
0
^^^^The only way you get the fear-mongers to mention the sun.

If that thing was taxable we’d probably get some good science.
How predictable. And cute, too. You are aware science can measure the amount of incoming solar radiation, no?

So while you'd like to just pass it off as a solar thang, we know, concretely, that the sun is not responsible for the observed warming.

And I know that you're out of your element on this specific topic, Donny.

So perhaps instead of making a political swipe about taxes, try to make a scientific one next time.
 

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
13,614
22,779
0
Oh, I have lots of faith in you mcb. I know what you bring to the table. And you never fail to let me down. In fact, you're almost like Jesus.

Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and eodhorn

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,556
281,666
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
How predictable. And cute, too. You are aware science can measure the amount of incoming solar radiation, no?

So while you'd like to just pass it off as a solar thang, we know, concretely, that the sun is not responsible for the observed warming.

And I know that you're out of your element on this specific topic, Donny.

So perhaps instead of making a political swipe about taxes, try to make a scientific one next time.
It’s easier to understand the scientists than the science. Quit being activists, quit gaming the data, quit avoiding debate, don’t be so anti-capitalist (that’ll fix It!) and maybe don’t change the name of the supposed crisis and clowns like you will be taken more seriously.

Also, make a model that’s somewhat accurate Captain Science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and eodhorn

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,493
1,865
0
I like his quote. Clearly nobody understands ****.

View attachment 42233
Yes, that's pretty much the scientific method...lmao. What do you mean nobody understands his quote?

And if you're asserting that accurate predictions have not been made, you'd be correct. And you're also flat wrong.

Climate science is hands down the most difficult science mankind has attempted to grasp in real world applications. There are so many data sets and integers and any inconsistent input can throw off the results. And on those results...

Most models have under predicted glacial melting rates. Predicted sea level increases. Predicted ocean temperature increases. Predicted changes to ocean acidity. Predicted changes to air temperature increases. Etc.

Yes, the models have also over exaggerated a few features of the climate models as well, but on the whole, we are seeing faster movement toward the predictions than what was predicted.

Again, with a model as complex as the Earth , there are going to be offramps on the predictions. Thats valled science. That's the scientific method.

Consensus of scientific thought ought to be where you're focusing rather than political and tax policies. SMFH.
 

ttaghorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
11,846
3,260
0
Well the Aggies are trying to do their part on global warming by limiting the amount of methane produced in the Southern Hemisphere. They are working on growing a pfartless pinto bean. Since so many Hispanics use that for a staple diet food source, makes sense to limit the amount of methane produced by all those pfarts.
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,493
1,865
0
Not even in the IPCC. Carry on lying, though, you moron.
Hmm, I wonder why they reference it as the tipping point of known unknowns then?

Lying moron? Come on you speckled ****tosser, you can and should do better than this-
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,493
1,865
0
Probably because they’re steadfast to some rando, unproven theory from the 1800’s.

Also, probably not true.
It's not at all surprising you think the only basis for AGW is a random prediction from the 1800s. What, are Grover Norquist and Art Laffer telling you it's a 150 year old liberal tax scam attempt?
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,556
281,666
0
Thoreau'd on Walden

 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,820
44,081
0
Hmm, I wonder why they reference it as the tipping point of known unknowns then?

Lying moron? Come on you speckled ****tosser, you can and should do better than this-
Known unknowns! I stand corrected!

You never cease to surprise me with how dumb you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,563
51,073
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
You have me wrong. I'm no fear monger. Actually I'm the opposite. I'm -- for all intents and purposes -- in the "**** it" camp and have been for about a decade. I don't have much faith in people. We are comprised of a majority of simple minded animals that don't have much foresight. Technology is our only hope and it certainly won't be me that originates a Noah's Ark solution to our global problem.

Furthermore on the hype angle you leveled above, I'm almost never the person that starts these threads...odd for a overhyping scaremonger, wouldn't you say?

That said, when I do enter these threads, I do seem to end them with facts people don't like. People just sort of stop replying to my responses and fools like mcb attempt ridicule of well known danger signs. I often provide the most current scientific consensus on the topic and if that's percieved here as hype or scaremongering, I really don't give a hot ****.

Anyone that's been here for any length of time knows climate change is on the periphery of my educational background. I've been researching topics tangential and germane to climate change (specifically ENSO and NAO) for 20+ years going back to my graduate studies at UN

Sooo, let me try again, one final time to summarize my position and Earth's status:

The world is warming (~ 1.1C - 1.2C over the baseline pre-industrial temperatures -- and for anything over ~ 1.5C, there is widespread consensus we are increasingly headed toward a waterfall without a paddle). It is undoubtedly due to humanity's contribution, and is greater than 51% anthropogenic-induced at minimum (current scientific consensus pegs that at more than 90%). We have a narrow window to prevent the worst of the impacts that are undoubtedly coming with inaction. And those impacts will start occurring at an accelerated rate, known in climatological terms as a punctuated runaway cycle, if the warming is not mitigated. Yet, even if we do, we are headed for a different world given the amount of heat already trapped in the Earth's systems. And even that could still balloon out of control as there are simply still too many unknown impacts from the data set. How much methane will ultimately get released? (Here's your chance to make a fool of yourself mcb -- all the scientism think methane sink holes are hilarious and not red flags of an impending climate crisis, too) How much longer will the develping world continue its rate of CO2 release increases? How quickly will Greenland and Antarctica melt? How much heat and CO2 can the oceans ultimately sequester and still sustain human food needs? Etc.

You want a prediction? Within one generation, AGW will be undeniable by every person on Earth and those that tried to laugh it off or put it in a corner will be seen for the fools they were.

So let humanity act, or not act. I think we're ****ed 8 ways to Sunday on a host of issues anyway, so what's one more that'll just put a nice little bow on our little time in the sun?

I do find it humorous however, that you basically are telling this crowd precisely what I said, but because you aren't viewed as a threat to the board's political status quo, it's apparently being accepted.

Par for the course..the level of hackitude on this board is quite unbecoming.
This isn't true.

You think the rate of change is due to AGW, or 51%, why don't you tell us about all the other factors the "consensus" studied?

From the Charter:
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

So you think there's a consensus that 51% of temperature increases are due to AGW, to the exclusion of all other factors? And based on which study? Because the IPCC hasn't been reviewing anything except AGW publications. Same story on funding.

Also tell us about the sea levels and temperatures since the end of the "little ice age" a couple of hundred years ago when temps first started moving upward, almost 100 years before industrialization. You think it was BNSF building the first continental rail road? Civil War cannons? How on earth did temperatures start rising then in the absence of an industrialized world?

A) You should stop looking at 100 or even 1,000 year models and start looking at 10,000+ year models.
B) You should differentiate the temperature from the rate of change. Because it's not hot out there.
C) BUT WE'RE NOT SURE. BECAUSE MODELING NATURE ACCURATELY IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH CLASSICAL COMPUTING.

Until then, our best proxy is the greenland ice cores. And they say there's been over a dozen events over the last 10,000 years that have had more rapid warming, and far more years with higher temperatures than today vs lower. I trust this data about like the rest of the of modeling though. Iffy.

What you are missing, that @padrehorn11 and I were talking about, is the increase in the rate of change that's above anything expected. That's an anomaly that might have something to it. In other words, why is the acceleration accelerating more than expected even by conservative models (which might be crap also).

And what all the climate radicals like yourself need to realize, is that science isn't nearly as equipped to answer this question as it's marketed. I think there's something wrong, but we probably won't be able to figure it out until it's tool late due to all the "gerrymandering," and I am not sure we'll be able to stop it anyway.
 
Last edited:

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,563
51,073
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
We're DOOMED!





@Hiphopster - key on the dip and rise at the end of the second graph. This is where the AGW issue appears to have some merit.

We know it's not volcanic activity (tends to cool), and we know it's not just an increase in solar activity (tends to warm). CO2 Is likely playing a role in the overall system of equations. The size is tbd.

But from the first graph it should also be apparent that we're in a cycle that suggests we're nearing a cyclical glacial minimum and it's inevitable that temperatures and sea levels are going to rise as we approach it.

And unless someone around here is going to be proposing some Joe Rogan-esque model of ancient aliens industrializing earth to destruction every 100-300 thousand years, there's probably merit in considering some macro factors having a larger impact on the path we're on than humans.

TO BE CLEAR: Again, I believe that we are screwing up the world in some major ways, and CO2 isn't helping, but it's not some simplistic AGW thesis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: padrehorn11