Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists

[Crick]

Too bad it won't be just "a bit".

So Oh Great Karnak how warm will it get?

Warmer than you want it to be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Too bad it won't be just "a bit".

So Oh Great Karnak how warm will it get?

Warmer than you want it to be.

So you can't answer.

I thought not

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did Crick run away again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A little warmer will only cost us hundreds of billions. A lot warmer will cost us a great deal more. And with opinions like yours, the "lots warmer" is virtually guaranteed.

Again in 2030 we will start a 10 year mini ice age, according to your scientists.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I hope ranting like a lunatic makes you feel better Frank.

I make very little exaggeration when I say that EVERY SINGLE scientist on this planet accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere - even in the "wisp" domain - will cause the planet to warm. Do you actually believe they would all have accepted that point without experimental evidence?

The problem, as I've repeatedly stated, is that your science knowledge is so poor, you can't even see the experiment when its presented to you. Do America a favor and sign up for "Science for Ignorant Old Geeks" before you next vote.

Then post the experiments. If all these thousands of scientists did them where are they? Why when asked do you and they carp and moan and blather without EVER posting the experiments?

 

[frigidweirdo]

A little warmer will only cost us hundreds of billions. A lot warmer will cost us a great deal more. And with opinions like yours, the "lots warmer" is virtually guaranteed.

Again in 2030 we will start a 10 year mini ice age, according to your scientists.

And maybe this mini ice age won't happen because we'll have heated the planet too much.

 

[Crick]

It's not my scientists. It's ONE scientist, a mathematician at the UK's Northumbria University named Valentina Zharkova.

 

[Crick]

Too bad it won't be just "a bit".

So Oh Great Karnak how warm will it get?

Warmer than you want it to be.

So you can't answer.

I thought not

I don't live on this board like some here. I've got a life in the real world.

Can't answer what? There's been no question put forward.

Oh! How warm will it get. Well, in my humble opinion, by 2100 we will have surpassed the 2C margin. I think we'll probably peak 6-12C higher by about 2300 or so. I think the cost to human civilization will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. I think millions will die because of it. I think there will be an enormous amount of suffering that will stretch well over a hundred years. That's my answer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And when you are here you CAN NOT cite a single experiment that all your supposed scientists conducted that relates to proving heating is caused by man or that CO2 raises the temperature by x amount by z increase. What that means is NO ONE has done them. In fact the supposed warming is a lie too. Ask for the raw numbers.... get a blank stare. They ADMIT they adjust the raw numbers. They refuse to release the raw numbers. EVERY prediction they have made has failed to come true so far.

 

[mamooth]

And when you are here you CAN NOT cite a single experiment that all your supposed scientists conducted that relates to proving heating is caused by man or that CO2 raises the temperature by x amount by z increase.

We've cited hundreds of them. That you choose to ignore them only reflects badly on you.

Here, again, is the list of sources for the HITRAN database. There are over a hundred studies there in the CO2 section, a lot of them done by those pinkos at the Air Force.

HITRAN

What that means is NO ONE has done them.

I bet you can't show me a single experiment showing the half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years, or that the molecular weight of argon is 39.948. That means nobody has done them. Oops, wait, no it doesn't mean that. It just means the stuff is so long-established that the studies predate the digital age.

In fact the supposed warming is a lie too.

Conspiracy theories are for those too gutless to admit that all the data contradicts them.

Ask for the raw numbers.... get a blank stare. They ADMIT they adjust the raw numbers. They refuse to release the raw numbers.

Bullshit. Who fed you such stupid lies? And why did you fall for them? Anybody can get the raw data. Anyone can get the algorithms for the adjustments. Moreover, the adjustments make the warming look smaller, so your conspiracy theory is just plain stupid.

What, you mean your cult masters didn't tell you the adjustments made the warming look smaller? You mean they actually lied to your face and said the adjustments made it look like there was more warming? Looks like you have a choice to make now. You can ask your masters why they told you such lies. Or you can run back and kiss their keisters in gratitude for lying to you. We all know you'll choose the latter. Deniers always do. I know if I was lied to so flagrantly, I wouldn't trust those liars ever again, but then, I'm not a denier.

EVERY prediction they have made has failed to come true so far.

Again, bullshit. The predictions have been very good. Deniers just lie about them.

Speaking of failed predictions, when is that ice age that deniers have been predicting for decades going to get here?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Too bad it won't be just "a bit".

So Oh Great Karnak how warm will it get?

Warmer than you want it to be.

So you can't answer.

I thought not

I don't live on this board like some here. I've got a life in the real world.

Can't answer what? There's been no question put forward.

Oh! How warm will it get. Well, in my humble opinion, by 2100 we will have surpassed the 2C margin. I think we'll probably peak 6-12C higher by about 2300 or so. I think the cost to human civilization will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. I think millions will die because of it. I think there will be an enormous amount of suffering that will stretch well over a hundred years. That's my answer.

So now can you prove any of this stuff you think will happen?

Or is it just another prediction that will fail like all the other apocalyptic scenarios that you people put forth?

 

[Crick]

What can YOU prove will happen?

Why do SO many deniers think science needs to PROVE shit? Wait! I got it! Because there is a strong correlation between denying AGW and science ignorance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What can YOU prove will happen?

Why do SO many deniers think science needs to PROVE shit? Wait! I got it! Because there is a strong correlation between denying AGW and science ignorance.

Hey Sheep

I never denied that the climate is warming slightly and I never said people have nothing to do with it

All I have ever said is that all the dire predictions that have been made have not come to pass.

So why on earth should I believe any of the latest dire predictions such as the ones you make?

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer we'll be just fine.

 

[Politico]

Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists

Thursday 16 July 2015 18.23 BST

Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists

http://www.theguardi...y-us-scientists

Well, matter what we do this isn't going to be stopped.

Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists
Does that mean they'll stop their whining?

No the Leftytoon Millennnial treehugger hippies will not stop until every cow fart is silenced.

 

[Crick]

What can YOU prove will happen?

Why do SO many deniers think science needs to PROVE shit? Wait! I got it! Because there is a strong correlation between denying AGW and science ignorance.

Hey Sheep

Hey, asshole

I never denied that the climate is warming slightly and I never said people have nothing to do with it

Big whoop. You're still a denier.

All I have ever said is that all the dire predictions that have been made have not come to pass.

The world is still getting warmer, the ice is still melting, sea level is still rising. How have YOUR predictions fared?

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer we'll be just fine.

No, we won't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the OP, 90% of the imaginary warming is absorbed by the oceans.

If it takes 700 times the energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air, assuming a 120PPM addition of CO2 raised temperature .4 degrees, then you'd expect a lab experiment to show 120PPM of CO2 increasing air temperature 25 degrees.

Where is the lab work?

 

[Crick]

You've got it all figured out Frank. Who needs lab work.?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Animal the government got us to space, paved the highways and created the early internet.

The government created rockets that made satellites possible
The government built dams
The government has regulated our economy that made the middle class possible.

Now go back to Africa you fucking savage.

The government decided the mission. But Lockheed, McDonald Douglas, GE, and 100 different private companies got us to the moon. Govt doesnt design shit. They just set some goals and tossed out the money. Theres a lot of ways to make that more efficient and meaningful without the politics.

What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?

You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.

You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.

Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.

Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.

Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.

It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.

I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.

Eh? Aerobic being?

The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.

The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.

China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.

Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.

Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).

And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.

Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?

i like hydrogen

do you mean hydrogen combustion engine

or hydrogen/electric fuel cell

The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....

I'm sorry but yes there was a car run off of hydrogen gas, and im pretty sure it was combustion... Not positive , but it doesn't make sense to throw gas at a fuel cell to recharge it. So if have to say a combustible engine. And yes it was a real thing according to GM in 2007, but shortly after "something happend" and that car was no longer possible, despite it being driven on the road by many media personnel getting try to sell it as a environemtly friendly car .

2 different things.. There are fuel cells for buses and small buildings that use nat gas rather than hydrogen as the fuel. Then there are fuel cell cars. ALL the Korean car manufacturers are ev batteries and betting heavy on fuel cells. Europe BUILT the core of the Hydrogen hiway, that California just toyed with. I hear equal sales to EVs by 2030.. Which is great, because using solar and wind OFF THE GRID to make hydrogen is the best use of those technologies.

There are fuel cells for buses and small buildings that use nat gas rather than hydrogen as the fuel.

yes i really like the idea of the conversion hydrogen fuel cell

natural gas is one option

there are others

the real advancement is when

we can easily pull hydrogen from the water to power a electric vehicle

but it doesn't make sense to throw gas at a fuel cell to recharge it. So if have to say a combustible engine.

to me it depends on the bang for the buck

which is cheaper which gets further

which one can power all the creature comforts of modern vehicles

what really does make sense in the hydro/electric is the ability to draw hydrogen

from sources other then fossil fuels

as for ev batteries they just are not the future long term

they have several pitfalls

 

[Skull Pilot]

What can YOU prove will happen?

Why do SO many deniers think science needs to PROVE shit? Wait! I got it! Because there is a strong correlation between denying AGW and science ignorance.

Hey Sheep

Hey, asshole

I never denied that the climate is warming slightly and I never said people have nothing to do with it

Big whoop. You're still a denier.

All I have ever said is that all the dire predictions that have been made have not come to pass.

The world is still getting warmer, the ice is still melting, sea level is still rising. How have YOUR predictions fared?

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer we'll be just fine.

No, we won't.

Yeah and the UN Climate change panel has been saying that we are at the "tipping point" for 25 years

Or that we only had 8 years to "save the planet"

Let me clue you in on something

The planet has been here long before us and will be here long after we go extinct

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've got it all figured out Frank. Who needs lab work.?

Sucks when the science fails your theory.

Real scientists get a new theory, AGWCult just adjust the data

I still haven't heard an explanation from you. If the imaginary CO2 warming has cause a .4 or .9 degrees increase in temperature with 90% of the warming absorbed by the ocean, then should an experiment with only air cause a 25-50 degree increase in temperature?