Global warming will likely cross dangerous 1.5 C threshold within 5 years, UN report warns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Five years ago, they predicted that the earth would cool down by 2 degrees.

Who do you trust.

Global warming for millions of years has undergone changes upon changes.

Carbon trading, the billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smitz327
Oct 16, 2022
3
0
10
Visit site
The cat has been out of the bag for a while on this, this is nothing but another way for the governments to collect more taxes. This is nothing but the planet going through its natural changes which we cannot control. Now wth California getting all that rain and snow, they won't have nothing to talk about.
 
Jan 22, 2021
4
4
1,515
Visit site
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We must run to save the king.

Global Warming is a dooms day cult. Every year is the end of the world. How long will people fall for this nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murgatroyd
Dec 30, 2019
8
7
4,515
Visit site
Five years ago, they predicted that the earth would cool down by 2 degrees.

Who do you trust.

Global warming for millions of years has undergone changes upon changes.

Carbon trading, the billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank.
'Five years ago, they predicted the Earth would cool down by 2 degrees.' No they didn't. Maybe try adding a 'zero' to that 'five'. Maybe 50 years ago they were predicting an new ice age. A lot has changed since the 1970's. The science of Climatology has vastly improved with new technologies. We now know and understand things we did not back then. In our planet's geological history, there is undeniable evidence of massive climate change that goes both ways. That is correct. However, there is no such evidence that indicates such a rapid rate of change as we are experiencing today, outside of rapid climate change due to some type of natural event such as an asteroid impact or volcanic eruption event.

There is no denying the fact that humans have impacted this planet in ways that go beyond a natural event. Pumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere on a yearly basis has altered the climate of this planet in ways that we are now beginning to understand.

As I sit here on the West Coast of British Columbia, Canada, I can look outside and see that the view is obscured by the haze and smoke particulates from the numerous wildfires burning in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. Growing up here, this was unheard of. Ten, twenty years ago, we never experienced this. Today, we are experiencing this on an almost daily basis.

You can deny that human caused climate change is happening as we speak. I can simply look outside and see the evidence.
 
I struggle to understand how people can so confidently reject decades of top level science based advice - or why so many space enthusiasts encountered here are so willing to do so. Well over 100 satellites are now making climate related observations and every one shows changes consistent with global warming occurring. Every means we have of observing and measuring change shows global warming, from evolution of global average surface temperature to icesheet mass loss to ocean heat content.

A lot has changed since the 1970's. The science of Climatology has vastly improved with new technologies
Good to know there are some readers here who do take the science on climate seriously and yes, the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences report "Understanding Climatic Change: a Program for Action" called for science programs specifically to remedy the gaps that were making it impossible to predict climate change with any confidence. The response of the greater, professional science community to 1970's media global cooling hype was to make clear that climate science was not up to making such a call and the proper response was to call for better science - eg -
We have an urgent need for better information on global climate. Unfortunately, we do not have a
good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what deter-mines its course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate — neither in its short-term variations nor in its larger long-term changes

Although we have considerable knowledge of the broad characteristics
of climate, we have relatively little knowledge of the major processes
of climatic change. To acquire this knowledge it will be necessary to
use all the research tools at our disposal. We must also study each com-
ponent of the climatic system, which includes not only the atmosphere
but the world's oceans, the ice masses, and the exposed land surface
itself. Only in this way can we expect to make significant advances in
our understanding of the elusive and complex processes of climatic
change.

Even then the considered view was that the world was seeing more warming from raised CO2 than cooling from sulfate aerosols, but so far as I am aware the media outlets that promoted global cooling fears never published a word about what the National Academy of Sciences said, nor interviewed any lead authors. Or they would have encountered Wally Broecker and perhaps his 1975 paper - "Are We On The Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming".

Meanwhile -

escalator_3_hr.gif

And this -
heat_content2000m.png



And of course there is all the science on climate from around the world, summarized in the IPCC reports.
 
Stephen Hawking said that at most humanity had about 1,000 years left on Earth if life didn't begin expanding from the Earth now, and not later. As a lifelong student of history, I agree and it has nothing to do with global warming which has been through many ages of the Earth before humanity. Ice Age is the norm over the last two million years with global warming just the interludes of a few tens of thousands of years before sudden crashes into Ice Ages that no one seems to know how or why such crashes occur and why the Ice Ages last so much longer than the interludes of global warming now. It either has to be something outside in or inside out Earth's surface crust, or both.

But that is just of the things Hawking warned about, and life on Earth is facing. The other is people like the environmentalists whose fanatical tyrannies and radical anarchies are destroying Civilization and taking all humanity, and thus all life on Earth, to World War III. That is the direct threat that a new Exodus from the womb of Earth is going to solve. Nothing else will and that is why such visionaries as Hawking, among others, have fought so hard for it.

Environmentalism without Frontier expansion from the Earth first and foremost is Utopia Earth and the coffin of Mankind and the rest of Earth life. Breakout, birth from Earth, is the imperative. Civilization is already taking the path of extinction and it isn't going to help the environmentalist tyranny / anarchy over Mankind succeed in the least. Environmentalism's Utopia Earth (Dystopia Earth in fact, short a frontier of new 'Exodus') is a death wish and a death watch for all life on Earth as Hawking, again for just one, realized. Everything Environmentalism will plan and do for Mankind, life on Earth, and the Earth, will be exactly the wrong thing . . . a go in exactly the wrong direction.

Sometimes there is no choice of paths. Sometimes there is only one path for a continued survival and prosperity across the board and it isn't totalitarian police state environmentalism and a payment for it in all-out war . . . the real payment for closed systemic Earth promises, plans, and actions, that aren't going to come to any benign fruition whatsoever!

I really thought I was on a website that strongly advocates for the imperative of breakout, giving the reasons why it is such an imperative, and doesn't cry over poor Earth. That is no way, no way at all, to save it . . . to save Earth life (including Mankind's Civilization and Mankind itself)!!!!

If life survives Environmentalism and Mankind's extinction it will impose, and has the time, the life it replaces such a stupid and weak species with will ruthlessly take life out into the frontier universe, and through that ruthlessness will do the job of energizing, saving and prospering life.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Hawking said that at most humanity had about 1,000 years left on Earth if life didn't begin expanding from the Earth now, and not later. As a lifelong student of history, I agree and it has nothing to do with global warming which has been through many ages of the Earth before humanity. Ice Age is the norm over the last two million years with global warming just the interludes of a few tens of thousands of years before sudden crashes into Ice Ages that no one seems to know how or why such crashes occur and why the Ice Ages last so much longer than the interludes of global warming now. It either has to be something outside in or inside out Earth's surface crust, or both.

But that is just of the things Hawking warned about, and life on Earth is facing. The other is people like the environmentalists whose fanatical tyrannies and radical anarchies are destroying Civilization and taking all humanity, and thus all life on Earth, to World War III. That is the direct threat that a new Exodus from the womb of Earth is going to solve. Nothing else will and that is why such visionaries as Hawking, among others, have fought so hard for it.

Environmentalism without Frontier expansion from the Earth first and foremost is Utopia Earth and the coffin of Mankind and the rest of Earth life. Breakout, birth from Earth, is the imperative. Civilization is already taking the path of extinction and it isn't going to help the environmentalist tyranny / anarchy over Mankind succeed in the least. Environmentalism's Utopia Earth (Dystopia Earth in fact, short a frontier of new 'Exodus') is a death wish and a death watch for all life on Earth as Hawking, again for just one, realized. Everything Environmentalism will plan and do for Mankind, life on Earth, and the Earth, will be exactly the wrong thing . . . a go in exactly the wrong direction.

Sometimes there is no choice of paths. Sometimes there is only one path for a continued survival and prosperity across the board and it isn't totalitarian police state environmentalism and a payment for it in all-out war . . . the real payment for closed systemic Earth promises, plans, and actions, that aren't going to come to any benign fruition whatsoever!

I really thought I was on a website that strongly advocates for the imperative of breakout, giving the reasons why it is such an imperative, and doesn't cry over poor Earth. That is no way, no way at all, to save it . . . to save Earth life (including Mankind's Civilization and Mankind itself)!!!!

If life survives Environmentalism and Mankind's extinction it will impose, and has the time, the life it replaces such a stupid and weak species with will ruthlessly take life out into the frontier universe, and through that ruthlessness will do the job of energizing, saving and prospering life.

If we don't stabilise Earth's climate and prevent the more extreme global warming outcomes the global economy will be unable to support any longer term expansion into space. Not that I agree with Hawking; Earth is still the best place for humans, by a long shot and preserving human viability here is far more important than chasing dreams of how you want the far future to play out.

Climate concerns are not principally environmentalist ones or confined to environmentalists, they are economic and social and the solutions only appear to be coming primarily from them because of the long running failures of mainstream politics to face up to it and address it. "You care so much, you fix it" like it is a hot potato, followed by "not like that" isn't the fault of climate activism, it is the failure of those holding the very Offices where policy choices are made.
 
I understand that pollution:
Oceans
Land
Air
Trees
Space
Is a massive problem.

Look at the air content, the rubbish tips, the forest DE pleaded.
The solution is slowly changing to natural resources that do not pollute.
There is a balance so that man survives.

Carbon Trading has been corrupted by the billionaires.
 
First, I am not a "global warming denier", but rather a skeptic of the accuracy and uncertainty levels being ascribed to global climate models - especially in their extrapolations beyond a decade or two. I am not even confident that thing won't turn out to be better or worse than currently predicted.

That said, I just found a paper (which I have not had a chance to fully read), that seems to have at least advanced our understanding of the astronomic drivers of the ice age cycles. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00765-x . This seems to answer one of the questions, but we still have a long way to go to understand how the global circulation patterns change and affect local climates to produce ice sheets, etc. That is what we need to understand to better predict the rates of changes and their locations.

It still seems like we have a long way to go to make predictions of the future climate that are very reliable. That should not be any surprise to those of us who have been around for several decades and watched the evolution of our daily/weekly/seasonal weather prediction capabilities - they have improved tremendously, but still can't tell us with much accuracy a lot of the things we would like to know in our daily lives.

The problem is that we don't have time to make our models of future climate accurate enough that nobody can argue with the results. We do already have enough information to know that humans are affecting the climate, and what general directions those effects will have for the future, and that those effects will have negative consequences for a lot of humans, if not all of us.

And, that is just part of how human population has changed our environments and ecosystems. We are also losing species in another mass extinction, mainly due to habitat destruction by us, and polluting with all sorts of chemicals, that have lasting biological and ecological effects, much faster than we are realizing that those effects are occurring.

But, more significantly, humans are reacting badly to the increased population density of humans. (And, that was also a prediction made in the 1950s, with the first quarter of the 21st century predicted to become much more confrontational than usual.) That is a big part of the reason that we cannot control our effects on our environment. We are in conflicts with each other at many levels, and that blocks the trust that is needed not so much in science, but in each other, in order to form and execute the policies that we need to ensure our well being, and maybe even survival as a technological species.

Those who are thinking that soon enough, we will gain the ability to travel to other planets that can sustain life without support from Earth are almost certainly wrong - for several reasons. Beyond the realities that there are no apparently suitable planets within the region that we have any hope of reaching with our knowledge about basic physics, we have the underlying problem of human nature, itself. That goes with us even if we could find a "second Earth" and manage to transport a seed population of humans there. We would simply do there what we are doing here, with similar consequences. Even sustained "outposts" on Mars would, in multiple generations, eventually develop similar conflicts to those now on Earth, but in a much less forgiving and supporting set of environment conditions.

So, our only real hope for survival in the form we are currently accustomed to is to change us so that we behave in ways that are sustainable here on Earth. That means reduce our global population, and find ways to sustain the reduced population that at least allow the Earth's climate and natural ecosystems to be insignificantly affected by our presence.

Yes, we would still be affected by climate changes that occur naturally. All life on Earth has to do so, and we are never going to be able to find ways to control the climate exactly to our specific desires. Even if we had not already changed the global climate into a major warming period, we would then be expecting a global cooling period that we would have needed to adapt to.

In the not so distant past, humans adapted by migrating to different areas when the areas they were occupying became unsuitable, or even just the local resources were use-up. But, as human populations expanded to fill the whole habitable parts of the globe, humans who needed to move found that they had nowhere to move to without overpopulating other areas, and getting into conflicts with those humans already there. Since we have gained the ability to record our history, it is full of conflicts between groups of people who have different life-styles and fight over access to land and water (and now, other resources like fossil fuels and minerals).

So, as a species, we are going to have to adapt to the concept that our environment has limitations that we need to accept to prevent our species' population crashing. (Population crashes in other species that have experienced large population spikes are normal ecological occurrences, and are expected.) The only way we should have any hope of avoiding such a collapse of our own population is that we are unusually "intelligent" compared to other species. But, are we "intelligent" enough? I hope so, but, right now, it doesn't look like a good bet.
 
The crisis isn’t quite what it used to be.

Models are improving, but variables including solar flux, multidecadal ocean oscillations, volcanoes, etc. have yet to be integrated in the modeling.

From “Climateetc”:

“The most important finding of the past 5 years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as “business-as-usual” scenarios, are now widely recognized as implausible. These extreme scenarios have been dropped by UN Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Agreement. However, the new Synthesis Report continues to emphasize these extreme scenarios, while this important finding is buried in a footnote:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”
The extreme emissions scenarios are associated with alarming projections of 4-5oC of warming by 2100. The most recent Conference of the Parties (COP27) is working from a baseline temperature projection based on a medium emissions scenario of 2.5oC by 2100. Since 1.2oC of warming has already occurred from the baseline period in the late 19th century, the amount of warming projected for the remainder of the 21st century under the medium emissions scenario is only about one third of the warming projections under the extreme emissions scenario.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: murgatroyd
A crude calculation shows a solar flux drop of ~ 1% (2E14 watts) if roughly the production of the world’s foil rolls for 60 to 90 days are placed at L1.

A roll of foil production from one line might average about 200 miles per day. The world has many of these.

The engineering would be difficult, no doubt, but there are ways to mitigate warming.

Since the trend is very much downward for those who die due to climate heat, and the deaths due to cold exposure is much greater, and greening has increased by 15%, including new growth in the Sahara, apparently, to what temperature do we mitigate to?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: murgatroyd
Are we intelligent enough to break out?! To birth Earthlife from the womb into the universe outside the womb, the nest?!

We are advanced enough along in energies, complexities, structure, infrastructure, reaches, needs and wants as is any unborn in a due time of beginning birthing to new outland womb, outland home world, frontiers. Are we intelligent enough to know it is time to get it done, to grow up and out of the womb or die?! To birth and grow in the universe . . . or die in the womb, the world, that is no longer enough!
 
If there is any doubt about my view on this matter - the policy responses should be based on the science based advice that the world's leading agencies governments have commissioned to provide.

I think I'll leave this discussion to the pseudonomous faux experts who rate their assessments of climate science as superior to those of the world's leading science agencies - who imagine somehow our future will be better if we dismiss the decades of persistent, consistent science advice saying we have a global problem of unprecedented scale and act like it isn't true.
 
Sep 11, 2022
97
26
110
Visit site
I am going with the 1000+ scientists who signed this Climate Declaration: https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

There is no climate emergency. Of course the fearmongers still have superior numbers on their side. Wholly unsurprising that they have their troughs in the snout, as even utter mediocrities can steal a living by obtaining grants from taxpayer funds as long as they toe the line.

I feel nothing but utter contempt for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts