Yes or No: “climate change” is the most existential threat facing mankind

College Running

Page 4 of 5

1 year ago 11/02/2021 1:15pm EDT

Full Throttle Blip wrote:
No.
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

You have convincingly demonstrated your inability to understand the difference between pop culture and science.

Congratulations!

1 year ago 11/02/2021 1:18pm EDT

re: burt williams

Hard to determine what number 1 would be but in the top 5 for sure.

1 year ago 11/02/2021 4:41pm EDT

re: Real Obvi

Real Obvi wrote:
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
Was this supposed to prove my point? Look at the last 5 years. Basically a straight horizontal line.
Noted that they were also stabilizing for about 5 years or so centered around 1984.
And 1990.
And 2008.
And, well, would you look at that, they were RISING like crazy in the 5 years around 2013.
Hmmmm . . . what was your point again?

Anyone? Anyone? . . . will twerk for tip$? . . . Anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcvzlX_DoVc

1 year ago 11/02/2021 4:45pm EDT

re: Real Obvi

1 year ago 11/02/2021 5:09pm EDT

re: Timothy Foyle

1 year ago 11/02/2021 5:35pm EDT

re: overblown

No, climate change is not the most immediate danger, but it will be extremely costly in money and lives. All you tough right wingers in red states that are going to get crushed by climate change in the next 10 years, don’t come begging to the big bad scary federal government for a bailout. Pull yourself up by your bootstrap and don’t be freeloaders.

1 year ago 11/02/2021 5:52pm EDT

re: overblown

overblown wrote:
Remember this?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt
What about this?
https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/

Well, we've been wrong 9,535,389 times but we're 100% right about it now, trust us!

1 year ago 11/02/2021 6:01pm EDT

re: Timothy Foyle

Timothy Foyle wrote:
Full Throttle Blip wrote:
No.
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter
You have convincingly demonstrated your inability to understand the difference between pop culture and science.
Congratulations!

So let's make drastic policy changes, because we're tOtAlLy right this time and we believe in sCiEnCe.

Just take one of these examples...

How about: "46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018"

"James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

Here is his published paper:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341

Is Lower Manhattan under water little Timmy?

1 year ago 11/02/2021 6:04pm EDT

re: Full Throttle Blip

Climate "scientists" who arent even following a science have a great History of inventing scare models that are never validated with anything.

1 year ago 11/02/2021 6:05pm EDT

re: burt williams

I already died from climate change. So, yes.

1 year ago 11/02/2021 6:08pm EDT

re: sayyestonepotism

sayyestonepotism wrote:
Climate "scientists" who arent even following a science have a great History of inventing scare models that are never validated with anything.

Indeed.

And if you can't question the "science", it's not science. It's propaganda.

1 year ago 11/02/2021 6:17pm EDT

re: Timothy Foyle

Timothy Foyle wrote:
Full Throttle Blip wrote:
No.
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter
You have convincingly demonstrated your inability to understand the difference between pop culture and science.
Congratulations!

Go on then genius. Tell us the difference between pop culture and science?

1 year ago 11/02/2021 6:49pm EDT

re: Real Obvi

Real Obvi wrote:
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
Was this supposed to prove my point? Look at the last 5 years. Basically a straight horizontal line.
Noted that they were also stabilizing for about 5 years or so centered around 1984.
And 1990.
And 2008.
And, well, would you look at that, they were RISING like crazy in the 5 years around 2013.
Hmmmm . . . what was your point again?

"will twerk for tip$" is the kind of guy who calls the top/bottom of a stock based on 2 days of trading data. "It's bottomed out boys, time to pile in!"

1 year ago 11/02/2021 8:27pm EDT

re: Real Obvi

2600 Bro:

Also is it somewhat hilarious that the Shelby defender is also a climate change denier

Not a "climate change denier"; I am a climate change embracer. How can one study this graph (and the ice core science behind it) and then say the earth's climate doesn't change? It's obviously changing all the time, and drastically, with spikes in temperature and greenhouse gases at periodic intervals of about 100,000 years. Once one embraces the fact that, sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there will be a mile of ice over present-day Chicago in the not-so-very-distant future (1000 years? 10,000?), one's view about the relative danger posed by warming changes.

Citizen Runner:

https://southstcafe.neocities.org/Vosto_420ky_and_current.PNG

Real Obvi wrote:

As a "casual follower" of the climate science, that is one of the scariest graphs I have ever seen.

One of the great things about the Vostok ice core data is that it represents a (relatively) consistent source of data over a very long time frame. It is not a patchwork of data from different sources like we usually get. So, when you add a modern datapoint taken from some other source, as you've done here, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and put into context.

If you look at the original graph, there are dots to indicate the individual ice samples that the measurements have been derived from. However, each sample does not represent the atmosphere on the day the precipitation fell from the sky. Depending on the rate of precipitation, it can take a long time for it to turn into ice and for the atmospheric bubbles of gas to be trapped in the ice. Now, without googling, how much annual snowfall does the Vostok station near the south pole receive? (As a hint, Buffalo gets about 90 inches on average.)

Here is what Peter Neff, a PhD working on the ice core samples, wrote about them:

"For the gases contained in air bubbles in the ice, that continuity to today is somewhat complicated by the fact that bubbles don’t completely close and become isolated from the atmosphere until they are buried by 50-100 meters of snow and ice. The process of snow being compressed into more dense “firn” and eventually into ice takes anywhere from a few decades in places where snow accumulates quickly (lots of snowfall) to a few thousand years in places with very little snowfall. That means there is a bit of uncertainty around the exact age of the samples of atmospheric gas contained in the bubbles, as the upper few tens of meters of snow and firn is essentially open to the atmosphere."

In other words, the gas contained in the samples represents a kind of vague average over, possibly, up to thousands of years. Furthermore, the time between each of the samples is typically hundreds of years, so the measurement is not likely to capture extremes. Consider also that the average amount of snow, per year, at Vostok is only 22 millimeters, or less than an inch (! - is that what you guessed?), so we're talking about a very slow, even glacial, transformation of the samples over time.

Imagine you were from the future checking ice core samples from our time, each 350 years apart. You happen to check one from 1750 that captured the atmosphere from 1200-1600, and another from 2100 that contains bubbles from 1500-2000. By 2350 in the next sample, humanity has long replaced fossil fuels with other sources and used plants to sequester whatever extra amount greenhouse gases it felt threatened by, OR has completely adapted to dinosaur levels of CO2 at 2000ppm in hopes of keeping the Chicago Marathon alive and running.

In any case, what I can assure you with complete confidence is that, even if everything the climatologists and pundits say about global warming is true, politicians will only use those dangers and fears to manipulate and control you. They do not care about you, or the future, ONE IOTA and whatever solution(s) they offer will be cardboard cutouts of whatever real measures would actually be needed. They are misleading you every single day. I'm sorry. Government is a reactionary power structure, it does not exist for the public good, and is simply incapable of executing a real plan to prevent a catastrophe this far into the future.

1 year ago 11/02/2021 10:13pm EDT

re: moultonk

The North polar ice cap floats. It could melt completely and sea level would not rise an inch.

How fast is sea level rising? I'm glad you asked. In the last 140 years, sea level has risen... wait for it... a bit more than 9 inches... not 9 feet... 9 inches in the last 140 years.

But what about the increasing rate?! Well, remember when we had a 17-pause in global warming. The alarmists called that "natural variation." Now that temps are rising again, it's global warming. I wouldn't be too alarmed by sea level rise of a few feet over the next few hundred years. Mankind will adapt and move a few miles inland in a few places and not at all in many other places.

https://i2.wp.com/everythingclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image.png?w=624&ssl=1

1 year ago 11/06/2021 2:31pm EDT

re: moultonk

moultonk wrote:
In other words, the gas contained in the samples represents a kind of vague average over, possibly, up to thousands of years. Furthermore, the time between each of the samples is typically hundreds of years, so the measurement is not likely to capture extremes. Consider also that the average amount of snow, per year, at Vostok is only 22 millimeters, or less than an inch (! - is that what you guessed?), so we're talking about a very slow, even glacial, transformation of the samples over time.
Imagine you were from the future checking ice core samples from our time, each 350 years apart. You happen to check one from 1750 that captured the atmosphere from 1200-1600, and another from 2100 that contains bubbles from 1500-2000. By 2350 in the next sample, humanity has long replaced fossil fuels with other sources and used plants to sequester whatever extra amount greenhouse gases it felt threatened by, OR has completely adapted to dinosaur levels of CO2 at 2000ppm in hopes of keeping the Chicago Marathon alive and running.
In any case, what I can assure you with complete confidence is that, even if everything the climatologists and pundits say about global warming is true, politicians will only use those dangers and fears to manipulate and control you. They do not care about you, or the future, ONE IOTA and whatever solution(s) they offer will be cardboard cutouts of whatever real measures would actually be needed. They are misleading you every single day. I'm sorry. Government is a reactionary power structure, it does not exist for the public good, and is simply incapable of executing a real plan to prevent a catastrophe this far into the future.

Ok so your argument for being called out for posting a graph that grossly misrepresents historical atmospheric trends with respect to today... is to say -- 'well maybe the historical samples didn't really match the true atmospheric content, we can't really compare the graph to today."

All this graph shows is that there has been natural variation in the atmosphere within fairly consistent bounds over the last 500k years. Now we have blown right through the upper bound of natural variation in a few decades.

Sure, you can call into question the accuracy of the data you posted, the time resolution, etc, but if your argument is going to end up being "this graph is useless in making forward-looking arguments about climate change," why post it in the first place?

4 months ago 05/21/2023 12:30am EDT

re: TKTKTK

TKTKTK wrote:
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a 110 IQ looks like
My mistake. I keep thinking we might have a discussion of issues, and you keep reminding me that you don't have any interest in that. So I'm going to tap out, even though I hate ceding the forum to denialists, because continuing this little back-and-forth is just going to be sad.
But I'll say one more time, primarily so that young visitors to this site don't get the wrong idea: there are not "two sides" to the climate change "debate." You may have been led to believe that every issue has more than one side. You may even have been told that it takes greater intelligence, or demonstrates more wisdom, to see multiple sides of an issue. But, as hard as it may be to hear, there is not another side to the issue of human-caused (or anthropogenic) climate change. The fact of climate change doesn't have two sides. It is happening, humans are causing it, and it will result in vast human resettlement, huge redistributions of wealth, and profound shifts in global power and security. You might think that this is unbelievable, the stuff of science fiction--but that's only because you and I have never lived in a world with a broken climate before. There is no precedent in the modern human experience (which is the only relevant timeframe) for what is happening now, so of course the consequences seem implausible. We are, literally, in uncharted territory.
To the young visitors to this site, I'll also say that I don't know why people like "will twerk for $" are denying the enormity of the crisis. I don't know what's in it for them. But I will say that they are not arguing in good faith, and they are not proceeding with your interests in mind. The rest of the world is frightened about the next years and decades--but at least we have the integrity to tell ourselves, and the leaders of future generations, the truth, however unsettling it may be. As James Baldwin said, "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced."
The OP on this thread posed a question: "Yes or No," he asked. Wittingly or not, he posed a false question. Here are the only possible answers:
Yes, climate change is the single greatest threat to human existence as we know it--and we must think big, work together, and invest unstintingly, to preclude its worst effects.
OR
Yes, climate change is the single greatest threat to human existence as we know it--and I don't care.

There are not "two sides" to the climate change "debate."----I did not know God posts to forums

4 months ago 05/21/2023 1:22am EDT

re: burt williams

The only real solution for global warming is technology. I suspect carbon capture will loom large.

Developing nations still produce enormous amounts of CO2 and are not likely to change. China has 1800 coal plants and produces 27% of the world's CO2. The US is second at 11%. An agreement between China and the US is badly needed, but the relationship doesn't seem to be able to support one.

And although global warming scientists have given us a large amount of evidence, the science is not settled. See, .

sciencenews.org

Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

Katie Kanable

Methane absorbs both longwave and shortwave radiation, with competing effects on climate, a study finds. The gas remains a potent warmer of the planet.

Link:www.sciencenews.org/article/methane-wa...

The models need to be reworked.

4 months ago 05/21/2023 2:55am EDT

re: burt williams

Yes, indirectly. It has a range of increasingly evident social, economic and ecological consequences; billions of people aren't going to sit and do nothing while they lose access to food, water and livelihoods. The resulting social unrest/conflict makes all-out nuclear war (which is the more acute threat) more likely.

4 months ago 05/21/2023 2:59am EDT

re: Denying it doesn't make it go away

No, I don't believe so. There are other issues that are more pressing.

The earth will outlast the entirety of us either way.

Page 4 of 5

1 3 4 5

Next Last

Yes or No: “climate change” is the most existential threat facing mankind

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Yes or No: “climate change” is the most existential threat facing mankind

Jump To A Page

Follow Timothy Foyle

Block Timothy Foyle

Follow Real Obvi

Block Real Obvi

Follow Harambe

Block Harambe

Follow moultonk

Block moultonk

Follow fisky

Block fisky

Follow Harambe

Block Harambe

Follow BigPicture

Block BigPicture

Follow tlm1959

Block tlm1959

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.