West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[One Brow]

Totally missed the point of the hypothetical. Let me rephrase. If we had a world where magic existed and we could just eliminate with a wand all sources of CO2 polution in the United States alone and leave everything else going the way it's going, exactly what impact would that have on global warming and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Would that be a guarantee that global warming would stop or reverse?

Over what time scale? It would not happen immediately, just as warming did not begin immediately in the 1850s. Even if it did not stop or reverse completely, isn't slowing it down also a worthy goal?

And you've got to be kidding about the bolded right? Carbon-neutrality is a huge farce, you do realize that right?

No, I don't realize that. Please expand on that. I'm sure you have "irrefutable objective scientific proof" that carbon neutrality is a farce, right? Becasue I would love to see what your standard is for "irrefutable objective scientific proof".

Also, there isn't a single "clean" industry right now. Petroleum comes into it somewhere even if it is just use of plastics. So to rephrase again, if we stopped producing all CO2 pollution in the US by magic or government/army mandate or whatever let's say by Monday you would have to shut down entire industries to do so, right now at this point in time.

I don't know anyone who is talking about Monday, and last I heard, plastics can be recycled.

 

[cowhide]

I refuse to be afraid of melting polar ice because I am one of the smart ones who chose NOT to live in a city adjacent to the ocean, yet built BELOW SEA LEVEL. Gonna need a lot of fingers in a lot of dykes to hold that place together, not to mention plugging the holes in the sea walls.

So if it doesn't affect you than screw everyone else?

 

[LogGrad98]

So if it doesn't affect you than screw everyone else?

It was all about the **** joke. Calm down.

 

[LogGrad98]

Over what time scale? It would not happen immediately, just as warming did not begin immediately in the 1850s. Even if it did not stop or reverse completely, isn't slowing it down also a worthy goal?

No one has proven whether it is or isn't a worthy goal. If it is undeniably devastating to mankind for it to get warmer, then yes we probably need to reach for it. If not, then why put much more effort into it than we are already, other than the need to get off fossil fuels in general. Still waiting for the proof that it is an unmitigated catastrophe actually.

No, I don't realize that. Please expand on that. I'm sure you have "irrefutable objective scientific proof" that carbon neutrality is a farce, right? Becasue I would love to see what your standard is for "irrefutable objective scientific proof".

I'm not surprised actually. Tell me how exactly does Al Gore and his private plane, multiple homes and vehicles stop emitting CO2 just because he pays for it? Enough money exchanges hands and the carbon credits save the planet. I find it funny that you can't see through this one.

Also, where is the irrefutable objective scientific evidence that "carbon neutrality" does anything at all to stem the tide of CO2 in the first place?

I don't know anyone who is talking about Monday, and last I heard, plastics can be recycled.

Now I think you are purposely being obtuse. If you have this hard a time answering a hypothetical without dancing around it like it will catch you on fire no wonder you still buy into the carbon neutrality/carbon credit farce.

 

[♪alt13]

No one has proven whether it is or isn't a worthy goal. If it is undeniably devastating to mankind for it to get warmer, then yes we probably need to reach for it. If not, then why put much more effort into it than we are already, other than the need to get off fossil fuels in general. Still waiting for the proof that it is an unmitigated catastrophe actually.



I'm not surprised actually. Tell me how exactly does Al Gore and his private plane, multiple homes and vehicles stop emitting CO2 just because he pays for it? Enough money exchanges hands and the carbon credits save the planet. I find it funny that you can't see through this one.

Also, where is the irrefutable objective scientific evidence that "carbon neutrality" does anything at all to stem the tide of CO2 in the first place?



Now I think you are purposely being obtuse. If you have this hard a time answering a hypothetical without dancing around it like it will catch you on fire no wonder you still buy into the carbon neutrality/carbon credit farce.

Bold is the only line in the entire post I take issue with. Agree with the rest 100%.

If we don't emit Co2 then we have done something to stem the tide of co2. It's just the way things are.

 

[LogGrad98]

Bold is the only line in the entire post I take issue with. Agree with the rest 100%.

If we don't emit Co2 then we have done something to stem the tide of co2. It's just the way things are.

The issue I have is that there is no fixed standardized system for measuring this, particularly for individuals. Various companies will come in and measure it for you, estimating largely based on your lifestyle for an individual, then either you can pay to offset your footprint, or take the steps the consultant recommends, which is still a dubious system. Mostly it comes down to money changing hands, and no real proof anything changed, unless you are an EPA regulated business that can actually show a measured decrease in CO2. Here is an example of shenanigans:

https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/carbon-c...-fake-supreme-court-finds-20140218-32yft.html

 

[♪alt13]

The issue I have is that there is no fixed standardized system for measuring this, particularly for individuals. Various companies will come in and measure it for you, estimating largely based on your lifestyle for an individual, then either you can pay to offset your footprint, or take the steps the consultant recommends, which is still a dubious system. Mostly it comes down to money changing hands, and no real proof anything changed, unless you are an EPA regulated business that can actually show a measured decrease in CO2. Here is an example of shenanigans:

https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/carbon-c...-fake-supreme-court-finds-20140218-32yft.html

I agree. I was just stating the obvious that less co2=less co2.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree. I was just stating the obvious that less co2=less co2.

Agreed. The concept of course makes sense and holds true. It is the application that has problems and doesn't always truly represent the intention of the concept.

 

[babe]

Wo there. We know that we are thus far mostly to blame for the current rise in atmospheric Co2 because we know how much we are emitting and how much deforestation we are causing. Of course we are not to blame for past increases. Other factors can cause an increase in co2 but right now during this time period we are clearly the culprit. The important bit of this is

Remember that the "fast increases of co2 and methane" from the holocene are much much slower and to a lesser degree than the increase we have seen over the last 100 years. Further it clearly links Co2 to increased temperature.

What am I missing? This seems to me to quite heavily support usgenic global warming.

Pretty sure our estimates, coming from theoretical assumptions or even mathematical applications of equations with some factual basis. . . . of "fast" changes in CO2 epochs ago, will be inadequate, so far as being a valid basis for measuring our "usgenic" impacts.

what don't we know? We don't know, we simply don't know.

We would need to look at a lot of things, perhaps some we haven't even considered or realized. . .

How well can we estimate even the things we can imagine about the past? We have some tools for making estimates, but no actual measurements. How do our methods and their correponding estimates vary from place to place? An ice core in the Antarctic or in Greenland? The ice in different places may give significantly different results. Antarctic ice covers no more than about fifty million years of our past, and obviously has a "bias" relating only the time when ice was accumulating, with lost info on the years when ice was being "lost". Our methods of dating ice are imprecise enough to leave some question about short intervals. . . .maybe a lot of them. . . .

same kind of questions about pollen cores in sediments anywhere. . . .

and then there are some large-scale issues like epochal volcanism, the fluxes in space "junk" including solar "wind" and whatever we may have been encourtering.. . .. which we have no possible way of measuring. We have local issues of hydrogen "clouds" in space, and maybe carbon dioxide or water or methane "clouds", as well as meteoric dusts or even larger meteors that could have caused catastropic impacts.. .. . atmospheric darkening. ... .

the volcanism we experience, along with perhaps our earthquakes, may be correlated to convection anomalies in the earth's core deriving from uranium and thorium "cycles" in concentrations. Or from changes in the plate tectonics on the surface. . . . here in the Great Basin, we have for some millions of years been "on the tectonic rack", being stretched out in a significant way, thinning the geologic "overburden" of huge masses of carbonate accumulations, resulting in a lot of volcanism, some of it fairly recent. Pretty certain there has been a lot of fixed carbonate deposits vaporized. . . .

still, the very idea that there has been a flux in dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans over geological epochs is for most people just "too much information" when we think of "usgenic climate change".

I don't think we have proven we are the only significant actors on the stage, or even the most important ones.

global photosynthesis is bigger, volcanism is bigger, space junk is bigger. . . . and have larger variances than what we have done in the past hundred or 150 years. We have yet to prove we are even ten percent of the problem.

 

[One Brow]

No one has proven whether it is or isn't a worthy goal.

Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol. We have plenty of evidence.

I'm not surprised actually.

Nor was I. I expected that, rather than offer any sort of evidence for your claim, much less something you could describe as "proof", you would divert into something completely unrelated, like the actions of a particular person.

Also, where is the irrefutable objective scientific evidence that "carbon neutrality" does anything at all to stem the tide of CO2 in the first place?

You made the claim that carbon-neutrality was a farce, it's up to yo uto provide evidence that this is true.

However, if you are looking for evidence that being carbon-positive is damaging, we have an abundance.

Now I think you are purposely being obtuse. If you have this hard a time answering a hypothetical without dancing around it like it will catch you on fire no wonder you still buy into the carbon neutrality/carbon credit farce.

No dancing. Petroleum industries would be redirected, not eliminated, by the recycling of old plastics and the creation of biological diesel. It's amazing how little you think of the free enterprise system's flexibility.

 

[One Brow]

The issue I have is that there is no fixed standardized system for measuring this, particularly for individuals.

When we start on a new paradigm, it's always confusing. The existence of snake-oil is not an argument against the use of medicine.

 

[LogGrad98]

When we start on a new paradigm, it's always confusing. The existence of snake-oil is not an argument against the use of medicine.

No, but the lack of a confirmed illness is reason to not take the medicine.

 

[LogGrad98]

I understand. I'm sure you're also waiting for irrefutable objective scientific proof that the earth is not a flat disc. Meanwhile, those of us who understand how knowledge works will go on talking about things we are 97+% sure of and react to them, unlike you flat-earthers.

So there is the core of the issue, to me. 97% is not good enough to make sweeping changes that may cripple the US or even world economy. But what exactly is the 97% evidence that warming in and of itself is a bad thing?

By the way, this starts to sound religious. The atheist asks for proof that God exists. The religious person says that the evidence they see makes them 97% certain and drives their belief, the atheist says that just isn't good enough, and will not even consider the possibility that God exists.

The global warming skeptic asks for proof that global warming is a bad thing. The global warming alarmist says that the evidence they see makes them 97% certain and drives their belief, the skeptic says that isn't good enough to create problems to try to fix one that isn't even certain.

The big difference in that example, imo? With personal belief, it is personal. Believe or don't believe and it doesn't really affect your neighbor (not of course taking the fanatics into account). But with global warming making knee jerk decisions when we cannot even clearly define the danger nor the probability of that danger the potential exists to do a lot of damage for what might amount to nothing.

I guess in that sense you could say that I am the atheist who views the global warming alarmists who want to change the world RIGHT NOW as religious fanatics just itching to send in that suicide bomber.

 

[PearlWatson]

I guess in that sense you could say that I am the atheist who views the global warming alarmists who want to change the world RIGHT NOW as religious fanatics just itching to send in that suicide bomber.

Liberals and Muslims are best buds.

 

[One Brow]

No, but the lack of a confirmed illness is reason to not take the medicine.

We have a confirmed illness. You have been asking for a "proof", which is categorically unavailable, but confirmation we have in abundance.

 

[LogGrad98]

We have a confirmed illness. You have been asking for a "proof", which is categorically unavailable, but confirmation we have in abundance.

Just to be clear, the illness in question is the danger to the human race posed by global warming. If no danger has been shown to exist, there is no disease. Global warming in and of itself is not an issue worth worrying about unless we can ascribe to it a danger factor. If this cannot be shown to exist beyond opinion and baseless claims, then it is not worth taking the medicine, at least not in the doses the panic-mongerers endorse.

 

[One Brow]

So there is the core of the issue, to me. 97% is not good enough to make sweeping changes that may cripple the US or even world economy. But what exactly is the 97% evidence that warming in and of itself is a bad thing?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

By the way, this starts to sound religious. The atheist asks for proof that God exists. The religious person says that the evidence they see makes them 97% certain and drives their belief, the atheist says that just isn't good enough, and will not even consider the possibility that God exists.

The global warming skeptic asks for proof that global warming is a bad thing. The global warming alarmist says that the evidence they see makes them 97% certain and drives their belief, the skeptic says that isn't good enough to create problems to try to fix one that isn't even certain.

The big difference in that example, imo? With personal belief, it is personal. Believe or don't believe and it doesn't really affect your neighbor (not of course taking the fanatics into account). But with global warming making knee jerk decisions when we cannot even clearly define the danger nor the probability of that danger the potential exists to do a lot of damage for what might amount to nothing.

I guess in that sense you could say that I am the atheist who views the global warming alarmists who want to change the world RIGHT NOW as religious fanatics just itching to send in that suicide bomber.

The difference here is that the religious person has no objective evidence. There are no predictions to be made, no observations that can be measured, no external validations. The religious person asks the atheist to accept a 97% assurance based on subjective, internal, immeasurable evidence. By contrast, climate scientists offer objective evidence; there are successful predictions, objective observations, and external validations.

Also, there is no suicide bomber equivalent being proposed by climate change realists.

 

[One Brow]

Just to be clear, the illness in question is the danger to the human race posed by global warming. If no danger has been shown to exist, there is no disease. Global warming in and of itself is not an issue worth worrying about unless we can ascribe to it a danger factor. If this cannot be shown to exist beyond opinion and baseless claims, then it is not worth taking the medicine, at least not in the doses the panic-mongerers endorse.

At the site I linked to in the previous response, check the "Intermediate" tab for some of the actual threats to humans.

At the very lest, we are talking about severe changes in our ability to produce food and about global migrations. We use medicine to alleviate pain and suffering, even when the disease is not fatal.

 

[Deleted member 848]

No, it would not be enough to "reverse global warming", or even the possible/likely anthropogenic portion of it, which I believe it not the major cause of it.

It would be better use of our time, energy, resources, and intelligence to do things on large scale that will help us to cope with it if not prosper with it. But hey, our leading "intellectuals", or as Franklin would put it, our "elite intelligentsia", are paid through the political influence if not the outright private money of our cartelists, and all they really care about is locking up the resources and shutting down the influences of all possible competitors. As Robert Redford with his little Sundance Ski Resort shows by his example, after having his little heaven, by opposing every other proposed development of Utah snow resources. . . .

Somehow, I hope folks like OB will eventually realize their caring is being diverted from actually beneficial action. . . . .

A very, very ill-informed post. Sorry, babe.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Just to be clear, the illness in question is the danger to the human race posed by global warming. If no danger has been shown to exist, there is no disease. Global warming in and of itself is not an issue worth worrying about unless we can ascribe to it a danger factor. If this cannot be shown to exist beyond opinion and baseless claims, then it is not worth taking the medicine, at least not in the doses the panic-mongerers endorse.

Not sure what is more embarrassing-- this post, "carbon neutrality is a farce", or the notiob of a country crippling when we stave off fossil fuel dependence.