Your Extinction.

[Orangecat]

Yes. It sucks ass that I am basically forced to buy things made overseas. I wish it wasn't that way.

No one forces you to buy anything, dumbass.

 

[Yarddog]

If there is a need for urgency - and a great deal of science say there is - continuing to put off the mitigating measures that we could have startedon 25 years ago puts us at risk. And costs us a great deal more money. I haven't seen anyone suggesting the government is going to order the fossil fuel businesses to shutter themselves. It seems to be anticipated that supply and demand will do that for us.

the same science who receives government grants?

 

[Orangecat]

Nice! How many kilograms of toxic batteries do we need to build to power Chicago for
a cold, snowy week in January?

Without gas heat, too. These knuckleheads want to do away with that as well.
It’s really our own fault for letting LWNJs take over the school system decades ago. We are now reaping that idiot crop, as exemplified by the OP.

 

[San Souci]

Without gas heat, too. These knuckleheads want to do away with that as well.
It’s really our own fault for letting LWNJs take over the school system decades ago. We are now reaping that idiot crop, as exemplified by the OP.

True. And the Schools are now turning our Kids into Eunuchs ,Freemartins ,and Fags.

 

[multivita-man]

Global warming is a reality, but it probably hasn't been caused by humans.

Nope. Not what the science says.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nope. Not what the science says.

"science says".... science doesn't talk. Scientists talk.

You can't even discuss the topic, let alone try and figure out what scientists say.
I've brought up the Milankovich cycles and all you can say is "nope, not what OTHER PEOPLE say".
Well, some say some things, others say other things, I'm discussing with people on here, not with scientists who wouldn't bother coming on here.

 

[multivita-man]

"science says".... science doesn't talk. Scientists talk.

You can't even discuss the topic, let alone try and figure out what scientists say.
I've brought up the Milankovich cycles and all you can say is "nope, not what OTHER PEOPLE say".
Well, some say some things, others say other things, I'm discussing with people on here, not with scientists who wouldn't bother coming on here.

Has zero to do with the warming trend we are seeing now. I guess IPCC and NOAA are fake news in your view - I don't give a toss. You can believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories all you like. Nature does not give a fuck.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Has zero to do with the warming trend we are seeing now. I guess IPCC and NOAA are fake news in your view - I don't give a toss. You can believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories all you like. Nature does not give a fuck.

We've literally seen warming trends like this every 100,000 years or so.

So, if humans are doing it now, who did it 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 years ago? Humans and their industrialization? Seriously?

What has the IPCC and NOAA said that makes you think that what's happening now is only man made?

The reality is what I've done on this forum for a long time is I've looked at the evidence that's available, I've looked at the evidence that isn't available and I've tried to come to a conclusion. There really isn't much of one.

Here are some facts.
1) We don't know what the world temperatures would be like now if humans hadn't have industrialized.
2) We don't really understand why the temperatures on Earth were HIGH every 100,000 years or so than they are right now.
3) We do know temperatures have risen to higher than they are now every 100,000 years or so. We believe the Milankovich cycles play a part but we don't know why, we can make some guess but there's information that we simply do not have. Like, is there a big gas cloud that we're in for most of the time, and every 100,000 years we kind of move out of it and it warms things up? Does the Sun do things we're not aware of? So many questions.

Now, you can either have this conversation, or you can go around saying "but I'm right" and people will ask why and you'll say "you've got conspiracy theories" etc and you'll never actually learn anything ever.

 

[James California]

~ All the gas and Co2 coming from Capitola Hill Washington DC is the real cause of Global Catastrophe. AOC could cause a meltdown all by herself .. !
Get rid of most government/politicians and we will all live happily ever after ...

 

[westwall]

Has zero to do with the warming trend we are seeing now. I guess IPCC and NOAA are fake news in your view - I don't give a toss. You can believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories all you like. Nature does not give a fuck.

Yeah, they are. Your so called "science says" is entirely based on computer models.

Computer models aren't real.

They are fiction.

Do you understand that?

 

[Crick]

In fact, in the name of "climate change", we have seen billions of dollars doled out to companies claiming to provide (but rarely doing so) "green energy"

Can you name a few of these companies and for what they were funded?

add to that the almost total evisceration of our domestic oil and coal production and I would say that the green side has obtained quite a bit of power.

Eviscerated? Really?

---

U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart​

Interactive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Adminstration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day. The current level of U.S. crude oil production as of February 2022 is 11,600.00 thousand barrels per day.

U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart

Interactive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Adminstration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day.

www.macrotrends.net

The drop at @2019 is from the pandemic of course.

---

The decline of coal production is real and is the unavoidable result of a decline in demand as the energy industry shifted to natural gas and renewables..

Total US coal production, 1870–2018

Coal mining in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

---

U.S. natural gas production grew again in 2019, increasing by 10%

www.eia.gov

---

Latest Data Book Shows U.S. Renewable Capacity Surpassed 20% for First Time in 2018

New edition also shows continued growth in U.S. installed wind and solar photovoltaic capacity, energy storage, and electric vehicle sales.

www.nrel.gov

---

So, what we have actually experienced is massive growth in US oil production, a large decline in demand for coal as it is replaced by natural gas and renewables. None of those entities are owned, dominated or controlled by liberals. Your charge is unsupportable political paranoia.

The thing about power is, it will never be enough for them.

An ironic comment if I've ever heard one.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 765864

And has he?

(See first graphic in post immediately above)

 

[Crick]

How much risk?

What makes you so sure that the unforeseeable and unintended risks of your plan are any better of a deal?

Be specific and show your math.

You love that line, don't you. Trouble is, you are never specific and you never show your math.

Risks in the near term (2021–2040)

B.3 Global warming, reaching 1.5°C in the near-term, would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans (very high confidence). The level of risk will depend on concurrent nearterm trends in vulnerability, exposure, level of socioeconomic development and adaptation (high confidence). Near-term actions that limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected losses and damages related to climate change in human systems and ecosystems, compared to higher warming levels, but cannot eliminate them all (very high confidence). (Figure SPM.3, Box SPM.1) {16.4, 16.5, 16.6, CCP1.2, CCP5.3, CCB SLR, WGI AR6 SPM B1.3, WGI AR6 Table SPM.1}

B.3.1 Near-term warming and increased frequency, severity and duration of extreme events will place many terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems at high or very high risks of biodiversity loss (medium to very high confidence, depending on ecosystem). Near-term risks for biodiversity loss are moderate to high in forest ecosystems (medium confidence), kelp and seagrass ecosystems (high to very high confidence), and high to very high in Arctic sea-ice and terrestrial ecosystems (high confidence) and warm-water coral reefs (very high confidence). Continued and accelerating sea level rise will encroach on coastal settlements and infrastructure (high confidence) and commit low-lying coastal ecosystems to submergence and loss (medium confidence). If trends in urbanisation in exposed areas continue, this will exacerbate the impacts, with more challenges where energy, water and other services are constrained (medium confidence). The number of people at risk from climate change and associated loss of biodiversity will progressively increase (medium confidence). Violent conflict and, separately, migration patterns, in the near-term will be driven by socioeconomic conditions and governance more than by climate change (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.3) {2.5, 3.4, 4.6, 6.2, 7.3, 8.7, 9.2, 9.9, 11.6, 12.5, 13.6, 13.10, 14.6, 15.3, 16.5, 16.6, CCP1.2, CCP2.1, CCP2.2, CCP5.3, CCP6.2, CCP6.3, CCB MIGRATE, CCB SLR}

B.3.2 In the near term, climate-associated risks to natural and human systems depend more strongly on changes in their vulnerability and exposure than on differences in climate hazards between emissions scenarios (high confidence). Regional differences exist, and risks are highest where species and people exist close to their upper thermal limits, along coastlines, in close association with ice or seasonal rivers (high confidence). Risks are also high where multiple non-climate drivers persist or where vulnerability is otherwise elevated (high confidence). Many of these risks are unavoidable in the near-term, irrespective of emissions scenario (high confidence). Several risks can be moderated with adaptation (high confidence). (Figure SPM.3, Section C) {2.5, 3.3, 3.4, 4.5, 6.2, 7.1, 7.3, 8.2, 11.6, 12.4, 13.6, 13.7, 13.10, 14.5, 16.4, 16.5, CCP2.2, CCP4.3, CCP5.3, CCB SLR, WGI AR6 Table SPM.1}

B.3.3 Levels of risk for all Reasons for Concern (RFC) are assessed to become high to very high at lower global warming levels than in AR5 (high confidence). Between 1.2°C and 4.5°C global warming level very high risks emerge in all five RFCs compared to just two RFCs in AR5 (high confidence). Two of these transitions from high to very high risk are associated with near-term warming: risks to unique and threatened systems at a median value of 1.5 [1.2 to 2.0] °C (high confidence) and risks associated with extreme weather events at a median value of 2.0 [1.8 to 2.5] °C (medium confidence). Some key risks contributing to the RFCs are projected to lead to widespread, pervasive, and potentially irreversible impacts at global warming levels of 1.5–2°C if exposure and vulnerability are high and adaptation is low (medium confidence). Near-term actions that limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected losses and damages related to climate change in human systems and ecosystems, compared to higher warming levels, but cannot eliminate them all (very high confidence). (Figure SPM.3b) {16.5, 16.6, CCB SLR}

Mid to Long-term Risks (2041–2100)

B.4 Beyond 2040 and depending on the level of global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risks to natural and human systems (high confidence). For 127 identified key risks, assessed mid- and long-term impacts are up to multiple times higher than currently observed (high confidence). The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence). (Figure SPM.3) {2.5, 3.4, 4.4, 5.2, 6.2, 7.3, 8.4, 9.2, 10.2, 11.6, 12.4, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 14.6, 15.3, 16.5, 16.6, CCP1.2, CCP2.2, CCP3.3, CCP4.3, CCP5.3, CCP6.3, CCP7.3}

B.4.1 Biodiversity loss and degradation, damages to and transformation of ecosystems are already key risks for every region due to past global warming and will continue to escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence). In terrestrial ecosystems, 3 to 14% of species assessed33 will likely face very high risk of extinction34 at global warming levels of 1.5°C, increasing up to 3 to 18% at 2°C, 3 to 29% at 3°C, 3 to 39% at 4°C, and 3 to 48% at 5°C. In ocean and coastal ecosystems, risk of biodiversity loss ranges between moderate and very high by 1.5°C global warming level and is moderate to very high by 2°C but with more ecosystems at high and very high risk (high confidence), and increases to high to very high across most ocean and coastal ecosystems by 3°C (medium to high confidence, depending on ecosystem). Very high extinction risk for endemic species in biodiversity hotspots is projected to at least double from 2% between 1.5°C and 2°C global warming levels and to increase at least tenfold if warming rises from 1.5°C to 3°C (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.3c, d, f) {2.4, 2.5, 3.4, 3.5,12.3, 12.5, Table 12.6, 13.4, 13.10, 16.4, 16.6, CCP1.2, Figure CCP1.6, Figure CCP1.7, CCP5.3, CCP6.3, CCB PALEO}

B.4.2 Risks in physical water availability and water-related hazards will continue to increase by the mid- to long-term in all assessed regions, with greater risk at higher global warming levels (high confidence). At approximately 2°C global warming, snowmelt water availability for irrigation is projected to decline in some snowmelt dependent river basins by up to 20%, and global glacier mass loss of 18 ± 13% is projected to diminish water availability for agriculture, hydropower, and human settlements in the mid- to long-term, with these changes projected to double with 4°C global warming (medium confidence). In Small Islands, groundwater availability is threatened by climate change (high confidence). Changes to streamflow magnitude, timing and associated extremes are projected to adversely impact freshwater ecosystems in many watersheds by the mid- to long-term across all assessed scenarios (medium confidence). Projected increases in direct flood damages are higher by 1.4 to 2 times at 2°C and 2.5 to 3.9 times at 3°C compared to 1.5°C global warming without adaptation (medium confidence). At global warming of 4°C, approximately 10% of the global land area is projected to face increases in both extreme high and low river flows in the same location, with implications for planning for all water use sectors (medium confidence). Challenges for water management will be exacerbated in the near, mid and long term, depending on the magnitude, rate and regional details of future climate change and will be particularly challenging for regions with constrained resources for water management (high confidence). {2.3, 4.4, 4.5, Box 4.2, Figure 4.20, 15.3, CCP5.3, CCB DISASTER, SROCC 2.3}

B.4.3 Climate change will increasingly put pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions, undermining food security and nutrition (high confidence). Increases in frequency, intensity and severity of droughts, floods and heatwaves, and continued sea level rise will increase risks to food security (high confidence) in vulnerable regions from moderate to high between 1.5°C and 2°C global warming level, with no or low levels of adaptation (medium confidence). At 2°C or higher global warming level in the mid-term, food security risks due to climate change will be more severe, leading to malnutrition and micro-nutrient deficiencies, concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Central and South America and Small Islands (high confidence). Global warming will progressively weaken soil health and ecosystem services such as pollination, increase pressure from pests and diseases, and reduce marine animal biomass, undermining food productivity in many regions on land and in the ocean (medium confidence). At 3°C or higher global warming level in the long term, areas exposed to climate-related hazards will expand substantially compared with 2°C or lower global warming level (high confidence), exacerbating regional disparity in food security risks (high confidence). (Figure SPM.3) {1.1, 3.3, 4.5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 5.9, 5.12, 7.3, 8.3, 9.11, 13.5, 15.3, 16.5, 16.6, CCB MOVING PLATE, CCB SLR}

B.4.4 Climate change and related extreme events will significantly increase ill health and premature deaths from the near- to long-term (high confidence). Globally, population exposure to heatwaves will continue to increase with additional warming, with strong geographical differences in heat-related mortality without additional adaptation (very high confidence). Climate-sensitive food-borne, water-borne, and vector-borne disease risks are projected to increase under all levels of warming without additional adaptation (high confidence). In particular, dengue risk will increase with longer seasons and a wider geographic distribution in Asia, Europe, Central and South America and sub-Saharan Africa, potentially putting additional billions of people at risk by the end of the century (high confidence). Mental health challenges, including anxiety and stress, are expected to increase under further global warming in all assessed regions, particularly for children, adolescents, elderly, and those with underlying health conditions (very high confidence). {4.5, 5.12, Box 5.10, 7.3, Figure 7.9, 8.4, 9.10, Figure 9.32, Figure 9.35, 10.4, Figure 10.11, 11.3, 12.3, Figure 12.5, Figure 12.6, 13.7, Figure 13.23, Figure 13.24, 14.5, 15.3, CCP6.2}

B.4.5 Climate change risks to cities, settlements and key infrastructure will rise rapidly in the mid- and long-term with further global warming, especially in places already exposed to high temperatures, along coastlines, or with high vulnerabilities (high confidence). Globally, population change in low-lying cities and settlements will lead to approximately a billion people projected to be at risk from coastal-specific climate hazards in the mid-term under all scenarios, including in Small Islands (high confidence). The population potentially exposed to a 100-year coastal flood is projected to increase by about 20% if global mean sea level rises by 0.15 m relative to 2020 levels; this exposed population doubles at a 0.75 m rise in mean sea level and triples at 1.4 m without population change and additional adaptation (medium confidence). Sea level rise poses an existential threat for some Small Islands and some low-lying coasts (medium confidence). By 2100 the value of global assets within the future 1-in-100 year coastal floodplains is projected to be between US$7.9 and US$12.7 trillion (2011 value) under RCP4.5, rising to between US$8.8 and US$14.2 trillion under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). Costs for maintenance and reconstruction of urban infrastructure, including building, transportation, and energy will increase with global warming level (medium confidence), the associated functional disruptions are projected to be substantial particularly for cities, settlements and infrastructure located on permafrost in cold regions and on coasts (high confidence). {6.2, 9.9, 10.4, 13.6, 13.10, 15.3, 16.5, CCP2.1, CCP2.2, CCP5.3, CCP6.2, CCB SLR, SROCC 2.3, SROCC CCB9}

B.4.6 Projected estimates of global aggregate net economic damages generally increase non-linearly with global warming levels (high confidence).35 The wide range of global estimates, and the lack of comparability between methodologies, does not allow for identification of a robust range of estimates (high confidence). The existence of higher estimates than assessed in AR5 indicates that global aggregate economic impacts could be higher than previous estimates (low confidence).36 Significant regional variation in aggregate economic damages from climate change is projected (high confidence) with estimated economic damages per capita for developing countries often higher as a fraction of income (high confidence). Economic damages, including both those represented and those not represented in economic markets, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 3°C or higher global warming levels (high confidence). {4.4, 9.11, 11.5, 13.10, Box 14.6, 16.5, CWGB ECONOMIC}

B.4.7 In the mid- to long-term, displacement will increase with intensification of heavy precipitation and associated flooding, tropical cyclones, drought and, increasingly, sea level rise (high confidence). At progressive levels of warming, involuntary migration from regions with high exposure and low adaptive capacity would occur (medium confidence). Compared to other socioeconomic factors the influence of climate on conflict is assessed as relatively weak (high confidence). Along long-term socioeconomic pathways that reduce non-climatic drivers, risk of violent conflict would decline (medium confidence). At higher global warming levels, impacts of weather and climate extremes, particularly drought, by increasing vulnerability will increasingly affect violent intrastate conflict (medium confidence). {TS B.7.4, 7.3, 16.5, CCB MIGRATE }

33 Numbers of species assessed are in the tens of thousands globally.
34 The term ‘very high risks of extinction’ is used here consistently with the IUCN categories and criteria and equates with ‘critically endangered’.
35 The assessment found estimated rates of increase in projected global economic damages that were both greater than linear and less than linear as global warming level increases. There is evidence that some regions could benefit from low levels of warming (high confidence). {CWGB ECONOMIC}
36 Low confidence assigned due to the assessed lack of comparability and robustness of global aggregate economic damage estimates. {CWGB ECONOMIC}

From IPCC's AR6, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Not what the science says.

How many new nuke plants should we build?

 

[80zephyr]

This graph shows pretty clearly that the earth continues to warm until it falls into another glacial age.

 

[Crick]

This graph shows pretty clearly that the earth continues to warm until it falls into another glacial age.

Yes. But as you can see, we are at the top of the last peak. Temperatures for the last 5,000 years have been falling. And while those sharp rises may look impressive, they actually took 7,000-15,000 years or longer. The current rise is DESPITE falling glacial cycle temps and is taking place at a rate many times the rate at which we have historically come out of ice ages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Elsewhere, I have been seeing some crap about global warming. Global warming is a reality. And it is being caused by humans. It's hard to tell if those who deny it are stupid or evil. I have even heard the CEO of EXXON admit that global warming was a reality. Even the Pentagon recognizes it as a threat. And you would have to be pretty stupid or evil to go against what around 98% of the scientists say.

Also, CO2 has been measured to be on the increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Coincidence? I don't think so. Another point is that all the volcanoes on Earth release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. The activities of humans are responsible for around 32.3 BILLION tons of CO2 each year. Also, global warming is getting exponentially worse. Which means that the hotter things get, the faster they will get even hotter.

What all this means is that if you are planning on living past about the year 2050, make other plans. The chief cause of your fast approaching extinction isn't CO2. (Which is bad enough) It is methane. Methane is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. And like CO2, the rate at which it is being released is also increasing. I will show you a graph showing the rate at which it is increasing. Incredibly, despite all the evaporating methane hydrate ice in the oceans or that being released from thawing tundra, about 60% of what is shown is being caused by human activities. I will also show you what other CO2 graphs that I have. For the deniers, continue to deny at your own peril.

View attachment 765482
View attachment 765483
View attachment 765484
View attachment 765488
View attachment 765490
View attachment 765492
View attachment 765493
View attachment 765494
View attachment 765495

So, what will happen by 2050 that will end us?

Be specific.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes. But as you can see, we are at the top of the last peak. Temperatures for the last 5,000 years have been falling. And while those sharp rises may look impressive, they actually took 7,000-15,000 years or longer. The current rise is DESPITE falling glacial cycle temps and is taking place at a rate many times the rate at which we have historically come out of ice ages.

If global warming stops another ice age, count me in.

 

[dimensional]

Radiation is a bad thing.

But CO2 is worse.

But at what cost.

Reliable, carbon-free power. Just awful!

Not even nuclear energy can save you. So why not just go green

If reliable nuclear can't save us, why would unreliable green be better?

Probably not much.

Probably hundreds of tons. More! They should be ashamed.

1. I say we do without radiation and CO2.
2. Nuclear power plants are expensive as hell.
3. Left unattended, solar panels won't blow up and poison the surrounding countryside with dangerous radiation for centuries.
4. You don't create much CO2 just by spreading information.

 

[dimensional]

You can't tell me? Use the science.

How do I tell you what you don't want to know.