IPCC Report Shows With Certainty Humanity Is A Major Factor In Climate Change

[Vaskadar]

Four more meters of sea levels? Florida completely underwater by 2050? Yeah, okay. The IPCC reports sea levels rising by as much as 17 inches by 2100, not four meters.

Ok, so I read that part of the report incorrectly. I'll own up to mistakes. I do understand that Al Gore has no fucking clue what he's talking about, so I don't understand why you're insinuating that I believe his J-curve exponent bullshit that he espouses. Maybe I got the information mixed up somewhere along the road? But what it does show that the temperature increases in the top 700m have caused some expansion, and the acceleration of expansion is between -0.002mm and 0.019mm, with an elevation increase of 0.8mm/yr.

Also: Leo, get a fucking clue. The report shows with information verified by the scientific community that human activities have been causing temperature increases. Granted, it's not the rate that 'no-clue-gore' has thrown out there, but it's still a very real increase.

 

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

One who shouts to get a clue is usually the one who has none.
I saw so many lies being presented as truth and verified during my life that I tend to be sceptical over lots of things. So many times have people doubted me even though it often turned out to be true. I tend to look at things from a broader angle. As I said I do not deny effects on environment but I am sure the greenhouse effect is bs, because I saw evidence to the contrary and done by various tests too. Just because some scientists say something who have power does not mean it's the truth, just because a government guy who's in power says something does not mean it's true either.
Power corrupts on many levels and misinformation is common and I know that so much by experience.
I have to again agree with Firefly btw.

EDIT: Also, you think humans really understand climate better than vitamins? lmao. Most vitamins are not any helpful especially if comng in forms of ineffecient tablets and stuff. There's so much everyone just falls for hook and sinker. I used to as well, until I got burned up eventually.
And as someone coming from perhaps the most polluted industrial area of europe, you think I don't hate factories and stuff? Yes I do, the air was unbreathable for most of the year there often. And yes I do acknowledge that some things do heat up their environment too, but that has nothing to do with the global warming as it is presented and certainly co2 is not doing that.

 

[N1ghtmare]

All-electric cars are nice and will come in due time, only problem is that the electricity powering them (from your socket) is just as efficient as your engine is.

IE, the coal burning to provide electricity is about 33% efficient. A standard combustion engine is also about 33% efficient when burning fuel, so there are no real immediate savings (aside from your wallet) with electrical cars.

What we need is clean energy at the source. While wind and solar are slowly picking up, a lot more science in those fields is required. The best option is nuclear (dropped the n-bomb). Fusion just got a recent jump in potentia (linked earlier), but fission still is a good option that is perfectly applicable. Sure, it has decaying rods, but if you look at the total amount of spent rods versus the amount of waste spewed into the air through burning coal, it is a great step forward in reducing waste. Fission plants generate a huge yield for what there cost is.

On the other hand, hippie liberals need to stop whining about the dangers of nuclear plants. If done with proper regulations and standards there is very little danger. Chernobyl happened because they left the cooling water chamber empty for a week (USSR = no regulations/standards). Three mile island was a minor incident that did not even cause any deaths (just one injury), yet everyone freaked the fuck out. Until nuclear fusion science becomes prominent, we should be investing in more fission plants.

What I hate even more is the misinformation. You get more radiation from eating a banana than living next to a nuclear plant for a year. It's like your mother telling you not to stand next to a microwave; physics does not work that way. There are even people who think high-voltage cables and smart grid meters emit dangerous magnetic radiation.

To sum, we put nuclear plants, dams, and turbines wherever we can so that when electric vehicles become more feasible their source energy is not inherently still causing greenhouse gasses. Hydrogen cars soon would also be a welcoming sight. Farther into the future, wireless power transfer would make electric vehicle charging even more dominant. Korea has already implemented this for buses (because bus routes are circular and planned), but expect to see this in the next few decades. Other nations are leaps and bounds ahead of us. We can make it happen.

http://www.asiaconnectmiami.com/?p=812

 

[Crotale]

"I swear to you that I'm not Al Gore."

While I can appreciate your zeal to some extent, the scientific community has not exactly always acted in good faith. I recall in recent years, some fishy emails were exposed that showed what would be considered a massive coverup by the climate study community. Top that off with politicians who never pass up an opportunity to use "facts" to propel an agenda (doesn't matter which side of the aisle, as they all do it at one time or another). You know, the politicians who pass new laws and regulations that directly impact the rest of us.

Americans aren't that different than most other people in the world. We only pay attention to what directly affects us, for the most part. And the majority of us aren't climate experts, so we have to take what the "real" experts tell us is factually correct, true and without bias.

 

[dragonfliet]

While I can appreciate your zeal to some extent, the scientific community has not exactly always acted in good faith. I recall in recent years, some fishy emails were exposed that showed what would be considered a massive coverup by the climate study community. Top that off with politicians who never pass up an opportunity to use "facts" to propel an agenda (doesn't matter which side of the aisle, as they all do it at one time or another). You know, the politicians who pass new laws and regulations that directly impact the rest of us.

Americans aren't that different than most other people in the world. We only pay attention to what directly affects us, for the most part. And the majority of us aren't climate experts, so we have to take what the "real" experts tell us is factually correct, true and without bias.

But it HAS acted in good faith. You'll remember that in the emails, the scientists discussed the best way to present the science. These emails got hacked and released in VERY SMALL sections to "prove" the science wasn't good (because, you know, the science had been replicated numerous times and found to be sound). Of course, multiple investigations have shown--yep, no cover up, just people talking about science, and yep, the science is sound. It was just deniers grasping for straws, coming up short and manufacturing a controversy. While yes, politicians will certainly always try to twist things for their own good, the fact of the matter is ALMOST ALL climate scientists agree that we are instrumental in global warming. Don't be distracted by the politicians pushing for green energy so that you forget about all of the other politicians, backed by the oil industry which has been directly under attack with the irrefutable, insurmountable evidence that their industry is directly leading to climate change.

Despite overwhelming evidence, people are still trying to find things wrong, they're looking as hard as they can to try and ignore things. You just dismissed the work of a number of scientists with work that has been proven because you haphazardly remembered a controversy, which turns out to be entirely manufactured. There is being skeptical and then there is being ridiculous. When the science is overwhelmingly for something, maybe we should be a LITTLE less skeptical and start acting. Sure, we should listen to any actual evidence to the contrary WHILE TAKING ACTION that supports the overwhelming evidence.

Nightmare: I'm not sure why you want hydrogen cars. It has to be manufactured, which needs energy (just like electricity), but then it has to be physically transported, requiring more energy, it's wildly inefficient of a fuel which requires that MORE of it must be transported, and it's wildly expensive. Electric cars are also quite expensive, but less so and without the wasted energy. They have the problem of speed of refueling, but that's already well on its way to being solved with 30 minute recharges already in the wild. I wouldn't doubt that we'll have that licked before a hydrogen car could even be mass manufactured and new carbon batteries well on the way then as well.

 

[N1ghtmare]

Mostly because its exhaust is only heat and water. Proper implementation is not around now, sure, and electricity will be viable shortly. But it may have a place in the future. I may be wrong, it may amount to nothing. I see it in the same vein I see solar panels; at the moment they are very expensive, hard to produce, and generate little energy...but I am not ready to rule out either as viable.

 

[Gir]

What's the most damage a single person can do to the environment? Because alll this bitching about humanity killing environment thing is starting to get on my nerves. It's taking too much time! We need to speed up the inevitable. We need a PLAN.

There's only so many cans of environmentally unfriendly spray paint I can buy / open before my bank account runs out..
There's only so many hectares of forest I can burn down before I get caught..
There's only so much radium I can extract from crude oil before I poison myself..

Come on, I got this! I should get this! I've watched enough disaster movies! Raargh!

 

[Vaskadar]

What's the most damage a single person can do to the environment? Because alll this bitching about humanity killing environment thing is starting to get on my nerves. It's taking too much time! We need to speed up the inevitable. We need a PLAN.

There's only so many cans of environmentally unfriendly spray paint I can buy / open before my bank account runs out..
There's only so many hectares of forest I can burn down before I get caught..
There's only so much radium I can extract from crude oil before I poison myself..

Come on, I got this! I should get this! I've watched enough disaster movies! Raargh!

I needed that.

 

[Crotale]

Text.

Firstly, I did not deny that we have affected our environment, but I do maintain that conclusive evidence directly linking human activity to all global climate change does not exist. The latest IPCC report claims humans are responsible for ay least 50% of global warming. Well, 95% sure, anyways. How nice of those science types to leave themselves some wiggle room. Anyhow, even if we didn't contribute, the warming trend would still occur at a noticeable level, just not as much.

Global warming did not reach real consensus until the 1970s as the global cooling theories were being debunked and denied. Even at that point, it (warming) was not as widely supported as it is now, so the public did not know if the planet was cooling or warming due to human activities. Global warming did not take off in the public eye for many years.

As I said, I am not a denier that we have affected our world with our activities; I am skeptical of the scale of danger and the alarmism that is running rampant with groups who receive funding via grants and others means to continue research.

So, even though overall CO2 levels are rapidly increasing in America, we individually are contributing less over the last decade. That, in and of itself, is progress. So, please don't preach to me about putting my head in the sand unless you are doing everyone everything you can personally to not contribute ANY harmful emissions into our world. If you use the internet and commercial energy, you are contributing.

 

[Vaskadar]

I personally am grateful I don't have to resort to using motor transportation for work transit. I can walk for 5 minutes to get where I need to be and that's it. I'm also pretty sure that miami-dade and st. lucie county are all powered by nuclear plants (which are at very low risk), but still... The sooner we can get access to more efficient (and reliable) methods of green energy production, the better.

Unfortunately, my county shot down a proposition to build a nuclear plant (which could have aided in the shaky power grid here).

I am going to maintain my stance that humans have a profound effect on their surroundings. Take a look at Fukushima 2011-present, or the melting alps from the industrial revolution's black soot. Those are just two examples of profound negative effects on the world around us.

Now, another thing to look out for (or at least keep an eye on) is permafrost melting, due to the trapped methane gases (which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2) inside the permafrost, and the methanogenesis in the rotting biomass (peat, etc.).

 

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

But it HAS acted in good faith. You'll remember that in the emails, the scientists discussed the best way to present the science. These emails got hacked and released in VERY SMALL sections to "prove" the science wasn't good (because, you know, the science had been replicated numerous times and found to be sound). Of course, multiple investigations have shown--yep, no cover up, just people talking about science, and yep, the science is sound. It was just deniers grasping for straws, coming up short and manufacturing a controversy. While yes, politicians will certainly always try to twist things for their own good, the fact of the matter is ALMOST ALL climate scientists agree that we are instrumental in global warming. Don't be distracted by the politicians pushing for green energy so that you forget about all of the other politicians, backed by the oil industry which has been directly under attack with the irrefutable, insurmountable evidence that their industry is directly leading to climate change.

Despite overwhelming evidence, people are still trying to find things wrong, they're looking as hard as they can to try and ignore things. You just dismissed the work of a number of scientists with work that has been proven because you haphazardly remembered a controversy, which turns out to be entirely manufactured. There is being skeptical and then there is being ridiculous. When the science is overwhelmingly for something, maybe we should be a LITTLE less skeptical and start acting. Sure, we should listen to any actual evidence to the contrary WHILE TAKING ACTION that supports the overwhelming evidence.

Nightmare: I'm not sure why you want hydrogen cars. It has to be manufactured, which needs energy (just like electricity), but then it has to be physically transported, requiring more energy, it's wildly inefficient of a fuel which requires that MORE of it must be transported, and it's wildly expensive. Electric cars are also quite expensive, but less so and without the wasted energy. They have the problem of speed of refueling, but that's already well on its way to being solved with 30 minute recharges already in the wild. I wouldn't doubt that we'll have that licked before a hydrogen car could even be mass manufactured and new carbon batteries well on the way then as well.

This post is a joke, right? Right?!
You're not telling me you believe in all that propaganda in the upper half of your post.

 

[N1ghtmare]

How nice of those science types to leave themselves some wiggle room.

You really do not understand science.

 

[Crotale]

You really do not understand science.

I was being facetious.