General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

I didn't not assumed, i specifically calculated with out it. Also to show how little of an increase has happend so far in our lifetime.

What this people do, is just want for you to be scared. They put this false prediction oh how it will be in 2100 just to scare you. But what they don't tell you is that our rapid increase in technology development will solve this problem in the future.

This whole Climate Changes/ Sea level rise is not science anymore it's a cult, and just like in every other cult, they scare you with their false prophecies of doom. And they will keep on doing it, until you are scared and become easy to fall under their control. But in reality there is nothing to fear!
Let me see your calculations then.
 
So how much methane did you release at 6 degrees?
At what point did you melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice and how much effect did that have?
But hey the bus you're on is speeding, has missed the turn off, is drifting across the lanes and drivers are leaning on the horn 'cause the guy at the wheel is too busy insulting people on twitter, but I'm sure nature will have a way of stopping it...

 
Let me see your calculations then.
I'll go one better - read the actual science, where the calculations I presume you'd accept are. Don't rely on the media, don't rely on the Summary for Policy-Makers. Read the actual science.

All of the truly scary scenarios are based on RCP8.5 - which is pure fantasyland stuff.
 
I'll go one better - read the actual science, where the calculations I presume you'd accept are. Don't rely on the media, don't rely on the Summary for Policy-Makers. Read the actual science.

All of the truly scary scenarios are based on RCP8.5 - which is pure fantasyland stuff.
I'll go one step further, he is the one making the claims, he is the one responsible to research on it.
 
It seem like its natural accurance, and somewhat to do with Human effect in my opinion, even though they try to spin it like it's all our fault, yet the graph shows it's has been rising for decades prior. The effect is minimal, as it would have happen anyway - is my conculusion.
You need to look further back when trying to do good analysis on events that have global effects, you really need to snapshot on the geological timescale (like 10 of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years). Still you might know that already, and why it is important and 100% applicable to the graphs for CO2 levels.

-----------------

'Rise in global sea levels could have 'profound consequences':


Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica. The long-held view has been that the world's seas would rise by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100. This new study, based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be around double that figure. This could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.
Poor London! (and lots of other places too).
 
You need to look further back when trying to do good analysis on events that have global effects, you really need to snapshot on the geological timescale (like 10 of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years). Still you might know that already, and why it is important and 100% applicable to the graphs for CO2 levels.

-----------------

'Rise in global sea levels could have 'profound consequences':




Poor London! (and lots of other places too).
Cultist are recruitng with their typical doomsday prophecies - Is the best way i can describe that article.

You seem to have already made up your mind , so no point in making an argument, other than have fun being scared and manipulated for the rest of your life
 
I'll go one better - read the actual science, where the calculations I presume you'd accept are. Don't rely on the media, don't rely on the Summary for Policy-Makers. Read the actual science.

All of the truly scary scenarios are based on RCP8.5 - which is pure fantasyland stuff.
How's about you actually identify which peer reviewed scientific papers you are basing your claims on.
Or is this just a rerun of the Dover Trial?
 
How's about you actually identify which peer reviewed scientific papers you are basing your claims on.
Or is this just a rerun of the Dover Trial?
I'm basing it on the IPCC's own science. Don't take my word for it; go read about the assumptions that make up RCP8.5. If you want a detailed review see here.

In short, it is a scenario specifically designed to reach a total proposed forcing of 8.5w/m2 by 2100 based on the CMIP5 models (which are demonstrably too sensitive to CO2 emissions compared to observational data). It requires the following to be true between now and 2100:

the climate to be sensitive to CO2 at the upper-levels of estimates
a doubling of population growth
a massive slowdown in GDP growth
a massive increase in primary energy consumption
zero improvement in energy efficiency
complete technological stagnation
an eightfold increase in the use of coal in the global primary energy mix

It is a nightmare scenario, but simply isn't credible or useful. When projections and calls to action are made against RCP8.5 scenarios, I would suggest that they are ideological, not scientific. This is Chicken-Little stuff.

And, frustratingly, they get in the way of more measured and productive discussions on the sensible stewardship of our environment.
 
If you think the IPCC report isn't credible why do you cite it and not a different paper?
I think it's important that people understand what drives these media stories and accompanying calls for change and how unlikely some of these attention-grabbing scenarios are. You shouldn't take my position as one of "we can continue as we are", or that I don't give a fig about the topic. In fact, I argue precisely because I do.

So, to understand and describe how these scenarios are reached why would I refer to anything else but the IPCC?
 
I'm basing it on the IPCC's own science. Don't take my word for it; go read about the assumptions that make up RCP8.5. If you want a detailed review see here.

In short, it is a scenario specifically designed to reach a total proposed forcing of 8.5w/m2 by 2100 based on the CMIP5 models (which are demonstrably too sensitive to CO2 emissions compared to observational data). It requires the following to be true between now and 2100:

the climate to be sensitive to CO2 at the upper-levels of estimates
a doubling of population growth
a massive slowdown in GDP growth
a massive increase in primary energy consumption
zero improvement in energy efficienc
complete technological stagnation
an eightfold increase in the use of coal in the global primary energy mix

It is a nightmare scenario, but simply isn't credible or useful. When projections and calls to action are made against RCP8.5 scenarios, I would suggest that they are ideological, not scientific. This is Chicken-Little stuff.

And, frustratingly, they get in the way of more measured and productive discussions on the sensible stewardship of our environment.
You are exaggerating the conditions of RCP8.5:

1º "Certain characteristics of individual RCPs may play a role in interpreting their results. Further research is needed to explore sensitivity of results to these characteristics." It is not stated how sensitive each scenario is.
2º No doubling of population growth (or population for that matter) is claimed:

As you can see, even in RCP8.5 there is a constant decline in the population growth.
3º Referring to the graph above, we can see that RCP8.5 is indeed on the low side of GDP estimation but I do not consider it massive, as a matter of fact, RCP6 is even lower.
4º Although true, we must not forget that we are handling the scenario with the highest population (out of the 4 RCPs, other scenarios are worse yet). The ratio of fossil fuels to renewables in RCP8.5 is not too different than other scenarios, in the case of RCP6 and the year 2000, it was even higher.
6º I presume that you meant energy intensity (energy per unit of income), if so then I agree, it is at times above the 98th percentile (light gray) of estimations:

That however, is not "zero improvement".
7º "The RCP8.5, in contrast, is a highly energy-intensive scenario as a result of high population growth and a lower rate of technology development." Lower rate =! stagnation
8º Although not explicitly stated, the graph of primary energy use does show a high increase in coal usage, 8 fold? That depends on what you compare it.


Who's the Chicken Little now?
 
The last time we had this level of CO2 in the atmosphere Lucy was walking around.
The effects of climate change then had a profound impact on our ancestors forcing them to evolve and adapt to the conditions with the rain forests retreating due to the rise in average global temperatures of ~3 degrees and sea levels 75' higher than today.



Greenland 3MYA
Antarctica 3MYA
Africa 3MYA
 
Last edited:
The last time we had this level of CO2 in the atmosphere Lucy was walking around.
The effects of climate change then had a profound impact on our ancestors forcing them to evolve and adapt to the conditions with the rain forests retreating due to the rise in average global temperatures of ~3 degrees and sea levels 75' higher than today.



Greenland 3MYA
Antarctica 3MYA
Africa 3MYA
Good graph showing we are living in a long periode of global cooling for milion of years and if we go farther, it will be even more visible.



You might note that at 4400 ppm, the earths temperature was roughly the same as it is today! AND an ice age occurred while CO2 was over 4,000 ppm!

As i said the whole CO2/Climate Change/ Sea Level rise - it's a Cult movement with their 2100 Doomsday prophecies.
 
Last edited:


Epic Fail
Obviously you didn't watch the video in post #972 or you wouldn't have stepped in this heffalump trap but I'll post it again at the relevant point...

Remember to watch which sources your using and you won't make these errors.
Before you try copy pasting anything from Christopher Monckton again you might consider that his diploma in journalism no more qualifies him in paleoclimatology than it does nuerosurgery.
 
Last edited:
Obviously you didn't watch the video in post #972 or you wouldn't have stepped in this heffalump trap but I'll post it again at the relevant point...

Remember to watch which sources your using and you won't make these errors.
He shows 0 evidence to support what you think he was saying.
His argument is that Solar activity was lower in the past hence CO2 ppm must have been bigger in order to sustaine same tempreture. But he shows no calculations for relationship between changes of CO2, Tempreture and Solar Activity. So there is no basis to support his argument.

Second he is pointing at general picture, my argument was for specific drop in temperature that lasted for millions of years. While CO2 remained extremly high. Let me point out to you - Millions of years, not 1 year, 5 years, 1000 years, but millions. You can not tie it to any Solar activity - because they do not last that long.

Third if you actually look at the graph of temperature and CO2 - you will see very little correlation between the 2 grapth.

Fourth, his argument for Earth coming out of fully covered in Ice, was Volanic Acivity which increased CO2 ppm - but again if we look at the grapth there is no Evidence to support it, because the grapth shows the opposite on many accasion, where increase of Tempreture is followed by decress of CO2 ppm.



So i'd say, use your own analysis, instead of relying on this phony Youtube bloggers which just in to for fame and money, by repeating this Climate Cultist agendas.
 
Top Bottom