A Climate Hero.

[ding]

No. I'm absolutely certain. I'm just not going to set myself on fire to prove it.

I don't know why. You don't seem to know anything about this subject.

 

[ding]

Orbital forcing? What in the hell are you talking about. On second thought, don't tell me.

Exactly. That you don't even know about orbital forcing makes your steadfast belief that life on earth will end in 30 years astonishing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am speaking to you. In that, I am speaking to a dead person. If you are planning on living past about 30 years from now, make other plans. Because you and most of the life on Earth is going to be dead. That inescapable fact is something worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to.

Is life on Earth so fragile that a fraction of a degree warmer is going to end it all?

 

[ding]

You would be that rarest of humans. There's an entire science of advertising that manipulates you in ways you don't even know.

I think you are vastly under estimating the distribution. If what you say were true that would mean almost everyone is under the control of media advertising. For that to be true we would see everyone buying the same product. We don't see that. We don't see anything close to that.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I think you are vastly under estimating the distribution. If what you say were true that would mean almost everyone is under the control of media advertising. For that to be true we would see everyone buying the same product. We don't see that. We don't see anything close to that.

No, advertising is extremely effective. Just keep thinking it isn’t and you do exactly what the advertisers want you to do: think you are making rational decisions based only on your intellect

 

[Orangecat]

In a protest against human caused global warming, Wynn Bruce set himself on fire on the steps of the Supreme Court.

How ironic, he contributed to MMGW by lighting himself on fire. What a fool.

 

[westwall]

Your idea off history is flawed at best. Next, what we are doing is the opposite of sustainability. Infinite growth is itself unsustainable. Such as population growth is unsustainable. The population growth of latino countries is unsustainable. They breed like bacteria. Like a cancerous growth. Letting them invade our country is no solution to that problem. Any "excess" we create they just eat up in order to breed more. Our world is dying. The oceans are dying. The catastrophe that is coming will kill just about everything. Unfortunately, those most responsible will have enough money and resources to be among the last to go.

There is no such thing as infinite growth. My knowledge of history is vastly superior to yours. That is obvious to anyone who has studied it.

Ahh, little racist you rears yiur ugly head. There is no population problem. In fact, the growth rate in those Hispanic countries you so despise has gone down.

Here's the deal, mr. Bigot, if you want to truly end environmental problems you must elevate everyone in the world to first world status. That eliminates almost every problem out there.

The problem is the elitist swine who want to control everything are greedy. Those are the people whose asses you are kissing.

You should stop.

 

[Orangecat]

The population growth of latino countries is unsustainable. They breed like bacteria. Like a cancerous growth.

Racist much?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How ironic, he contributed to MMGW by lighting himself on fire. What a fool.

No, I believe his immolation would technically be carbon neutral.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Is life on Earth so fragile that a fraction of a degree warmer is going to end it all?

Not even close. The earth will be fine. There's a possibility some ecosystem collapse could result in some animals going extinct. The real danger is how it will decimate our economies and societies.

Collapse your agricultural infrastructure (which is VERY climate dependent) and the wheels fall off pretty fast.

Create a humanitarian crisis due to resource issues and a huge movement of people will strain surrounding economies the breaking point.

What if we slow down or re-arrange the AMOC (the circulation in the Atlantic that is responsible for the Gulf Stream) and you drop the local temperatures in Europe leading to an economic collapse of our main trading partner.

There's a lot of heavy disasters that can happen and the earth will be A-OK in the long run. It's US that are not guaranteed a seat at the table.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Orbital forcing? What in the hell are you talking about. On second thought, don't tell me.

It's better known as "Milankovich Cycles". It is related to the obliquity of earth in relation to the sun. On very, very long time scales the earth's orbital conditions (eccentricity, obliquity and precession) shift such that it is thought to be a primary driver for the glacial advances we see in the Cenozoic Ice Age.

We are overdue to be heading back into another glacial advance but we aren't and that's probably primarily due to human activities.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Which is exactly why they need to show the calculation in two parts because they are separate phenomenon. Each component needs to be evaluated on it's own merit. Combing two separate phenomenon makes it difficult to see the predicted contribution of each, adds unnecessary complexity and confusion to the peer review process, can be seen as intentionally misleading and in short is not transparent. Science thrives on transparency.

No one is hiding anything from you. Science isn't lacking transparency so much as people who are not in a given field often assume their own ignorance of the technical details amounts to someone hiding something from them.


While I think the abstract had a bit of a weird comment about the nature of the greenhouse effect, this might help you.

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer

Absorption coefficient affected by carbon dioxide concentration and optical path length responsible for temperature or global warming across the troposphere layer, which is less than the altitude of 10 km in the atmosphere, is systematically presented ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[BackAgain]

I am speaking to you. In that, I am speaking to a dead person. If you are planning on living past about 30 years from now, make other plans. Because you and most of the life on Earth is going to be dead. That inescapable fact is something worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to.

 

[ding]

No one is hiding anything from you. Science isn't lacking transparency so much as people who are not in a given field often assume their own ignorance of the technical details amounts to someone hiding something from them.


While I think the abstract had a bit of a weird comment about the nature of the greenhouse effect, this might help you.

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer

Absorption coefficient affected by carbon dioxide concentration and optical path length responsible for temperature or global warming across the troposphere layer, which is less than the altitude of 10 km in the atmosphere, is systematically presented ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You mean intentionally, right? So what's the breakdown of the two components then? How much of the 2.9 W/m^2 is from the GHG of CO2 and how much is from the feedback of more water vapor?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You mean intentionally, right?

Correct. And if it is not intentional it is not "hidden".

 

[Orangecat]

No, I believe his immolation would technically be carbon neutral.

Believe what you'd like, but science says that lighting a fire adds more heat to any environment than not lighting said fire.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Believe what you'd like, but science says that lighting a fire adds more heat to any environment than not lighting said fire.

My comment was a bad taste joke. My apologies for not putting a tag on it.

 

[ding]

Correct. And if it is not intentional it is not "hidden".

And yet it seems you can't tell me what the value is for each component so it must be hidden from you. Unintentionally of course.

But yet it has the exact same effect.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And yet it seems you can't tell me what the value is for each component so it must be hidden from you. Unintentionally of course.

It is not hidden from me. I simply don't know what that value is. I'm not God. I don't know all science done everywhere.

I gave you a citation you can look through to better understand the absorption coefficient for CO2 with regards to IR so perhaps you can calculate it yourself.

Personally I'm not particularly hung up on this since I know that CO2 CAN absorb IR (I've seen it hundreds of times) so I know the energy goes somewhere. I'm more interested in how added CO2 affects the overall temperature which is the climate sensitivity.

I'm not a radiation physicist anymore than I am a climate scientist. At some point I have to accept that I do not know all things. That is part of the reason why I like having thousands upon thousands of experts worldwide independently studying this topic and coming a general conclusion that most of them agree with.

Anyone who tells you they understand everything should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Orangecat]

My comment was a bad taste joke. My apologies for not putting a tag on it.

All good. The best jokes are in bad taste,. For example: Magnus.