Reply With Quote
That is a good indicator of how people dig in when confronted with new information. "Years".
Geez.
Atmospheric CO2 Reaches Highest Level in Nearly a Million Years
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4...-million-years
That is a good indicator of how people dig in when confronted with new information. "Years".
Geez.
The Ecosystem is Breaking Down
Although unannounced by authorities or professional orgs, it is already becoming evident that the ecosystem is breaking down. Alas, it’s our only ecosystem.
The evidence is too prevalent to ignore.
For example, when
(1) abundance of insects plummets by 75%, and
(2) tropical rainforests mysteriously emit CO2, and
(3) Mt Everest’s snow is too toxic to pass EPA drinking water standards, and
(4) squid at 1,000 fathoms carry toxic furniture protection chemicals, and
(5) ocean oxygen production plummets,
then something is wrong, horribly, horribly, horribly wrong. But, nobody has announced it. Global warming gets all of the attention.
All of which begs the question:
What does it take to determine when the ecosystem is losing it?
After all, it surely looks like it is doing exactly that.
For example, the loss of 75% of insect abundance in a landmark study in Germany (referenced in prior articles) released only last month is enough, all by itself, to indicate an extinction event is in the works. That is a monstrous wake up call.
Equally horrifying, recent studies show tropical rainforests emitting more CO2 than automobiles, which is kinda like getting hit repeatedly in the head with a wooden two-by-four, a deadly serious wake up call that says the planet is breaking down.
As for the rainforest research: A 12-year study claims the world’s tropical rainforests have reversed gears. Instead of absorbing CO2, as they have forever and ever and ever, serving as a carbon sink, they are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s not supposed to work that way.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11...breaking-down/
Complementing the German study about insect loss, there was another study where a scientist had decades of records of forest sounds. Over the decades, the caucaphony from insects, birds, and other animals was was down.
no worries, mon, the oligarchy must increase its wealth and power to keep increasing its wealth and power.
I don't know about the insects. Probable because we leave less waste type of food for them to consume that the past.
The biosphere is about equal in sinking and sourcing, globally. However, like anything else natural, there is a cyclical pattern.
Mt Everest's snow doesn't only ac ulate the the poisonous aerosols from less modern coal plants, but is potentially dangerous from the feces left every year by climbers.
I would like to see some reference to the chemical/squid thing. I would venture a guess that water chemistry a those pressures may be creating the toxins, rather than "furniture polish" actually making it that deep.
Ocean oxygen is also a natural cyclical event. We have not monitored long enough time periods to know how much of the measurements are from such cycles.
I would like to see the study justifying the claim of the furniture protection chemicals. Shazbot... Do you ever link material that sources their claims?
Responding to boutons is as useless as responding to you. Don't bother.
jeez. took 2 seconds to google that .
I was going to link it here, but you can do your own ing work.
what the AGW deniers love to say in defense of their bad-faith, 'd ignorance, is that they adore, must protect "economic growth" at all costs, even at the costs of diseased and dead Americans
European Union Cut Emissions 23% As Economy Grew 53%
Between 1990 and 2016 the European Union has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 23% while at the same time growing its economy by 53%, proving again that environmental action need not negatively affect the financial bottom line.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/08...eanTechnica%29
Sorry. You must have a better googlerer than I have I did look.
hes a better problem solver. doesn't even have to slow down like a normal person etc
It just goes to show that they are disingenuous.
WC's whole thing used to be to bring up some stupid about ocean as a soda, the heat coming from ocean cycles, climate scientists being paid off, or harebrained thermodynamics and either let it ride or bring it back out a few months after being shamed.
He cannot do that anymore. We anticipate the stupidity now and he has no room. Even his new he doesn't try to explain or defend. Instead he does for this new passive aggressive adolescent routine of calling people's loser and the like as he is doing here.
He knows that he is full of ; it's been rubbed in his face so many times he cannot but help it. At the same time it is a waste of time trying to figure out if it is cognitive dissonance, shilling, or the underlying stupidity he displays in everything. Having him behave like a scientologist in a room full of skeptics is the best we are going to get.
Not, sure if you have, but I haven't kept up with the science. If you want, it may be good to sort of do some reading, and post a few things here that "make the case".
Ok then.
One key to finding things in searches is thinking through what you are looking for and finding unusual words, especially combination of words. "furniture" while common is not often found in combination with "squid".
That might almost be enough, but you end up with stuff like this:
While it is ing cool, it isn't what you need.
The other part of it, is "study".
squid furniture chemical study
Is the character string I came up with. By adding the word "study", it prioritizes academic research.
Shockingly enough, an article en led:
"Persistent Man-made Chemical Pollutants Found In Deep-sea Octopods And Squids"
pops out of the results.
That provides pretty good evidence that yes, the claim is likely true.
The science is mostly about calibrating the various measurement devices and normalizing the record and refining the models. The vast majority of the underpinning science and math has been empirically proven for decades to centuries at this point. Unless someone comes up with a way of modeling non deterministic flow without having to slug through 10^12 samples in a 3 dimensional matrix then its going to be slow going.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
For those who still don’t believe in global warming, the science has had it right for half a century now.
the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald.
50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper,
the science can be robustly evaluated, and
they got almost everything exactly right.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ban...y-3c0854932a4a
LOL...
Great paper from the few pages I have read. It is 19 pages.
It gives sensitivity of CO2, 2 degrees.
Yes, we have followed what appears to be a sensitivity of around 2 degrees per doubling of CO2. No views of alarmism in this paper. Still, the paper does actually take other factors into account, and not only CO2.
The paper isn't what you think! This two degrees is the ECS, including feedback systems of clouds and H2O.
Under conclusions, it speaks of a 1.3 C for a CO2 doubling using realistic distribution of H2O feedback on absolute humidity. It speaks of the stratospheric H2O changes of five times increasing surface equilibrium more, at 2C, and in the body of the paper speaks of high stratospheric increase of H2O due to jet flights.
This paper is gold!
It does not give the alarmist community anything to bite their teeth on.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-12-2017 at 07:17 PM.
You really should read the source material, rather than what someone claims it says.
Right at the end of the abstract, it says "Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller."
That is why the modelling is more accurate than anything the IPCC et. al. introduces. It represents a low sensitivity of CO2.
of course dip . The sensitivity has always taken feedback into account. Idiots like monckton never acknowledge feedback as an effect
But they are claiming ECS becomes much higher numbers.
"It's more accurate, because it [shows a data point that I agree with already]".
That isn't how "accuracy" works.
As a result of said feedback mechanisms
15,000 Scientists From 184 Countries Are Warning Humankind We Are Screwed
Current and future human health and wellbeing are at serious risk from climate change, deforestation, loss of access to freshwater, species extinctions, and human population growth.
The “Second Notice” article updates the original “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” do ent released in 1992, 25 years ago this month.
“Since 1992, CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions have jumped 62 percent and the global temperature is up 29 percent, while the abundance of vertebrate wildlife has plunged 29 percent,” Ripple told Motherboard.
The data compiled by the researchers revealed that in the past 25 years, there has been:
- A 26 percent reduction in the amount of freshwater available per capita
- A 75 percent increase in the number of ocean dead zones
- A loss of nearly 300 million acres of forestland
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...term=Read+more
No, its more accurate because it shows what the current state of the planet has become in those 50 years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
