General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Earth is at an equilibrium temperature wise.

Energy goes in (sunlight), and energy goes out (IR).

The internal energy of the closed (not isolated) system has been roughly constant on longer time scales, even though the temperature has varied considerably more than it has done the last 100 years.

If fx. the ice sheet reaches the Albedo tipping point, it will not necessarily cause Venus like runaway climate. Likewise if the permafrost releases the methane. The temperature will always reach a new equilibrium, but if the new equilibrium is 10 deg K higher than the old one, then it takes a long time for the biosphere to adapt. Through Earths history life has adapted, but not at the present rate of change.
I've struck out all the bits I know to be wrong. You need to read up on and understand basic gas law. And note that you didn't answer the question.

Even though CO2 itself doesn't cause much warming, the little warming it does cause produces more warming on other processes like the decrease of albedo by the melting of glaciars and the release of methane from the tundra.
Yes, you don't have to explain a tipping point to me. The question remains; why is there no evidence of the tipping point being triggered when temperatures were known to be considerably higher in the past?

At the same time, don't go down a rabbit hole. The relevant point was that there are vast elements of the topic which are making their way into the public discourse and corresponding responses but really little more than theory. That isn't appropriate in my view.

Exactly. That is the challenge facing us in dealing with AGW. If we carry on allowing those that seek short term profits (or want to protect investments etc) to confuse the debate, or slow down the global changes we need, then we simply will have a world changing too fast for life to adapt too, extinctions and the eventual total collapse of what we know as human civilization.

And off course i would add that not changing how we do business (ie carrying on as before) will actually be an 'end game' scenrio for modern human civilization over the next few centuries. It probably is better to start the changes required to reduce the hit the world economy and environment is starting to feel due to AGW.
Sorry, but just no. There is zero evidence that the world is changing, or will change, too fast for life - or even mankind alone - to adapt to. That's pure fantasy. Or "Climate-Pron" (deliberate mispell) as I occasionally refer to it. The quoted isn't a rational statement by any stretch.

The discussion needs to be more nuanced than these apocalyptic prophecies of doom. Predictions need to be properly weighted, tested and challenged. Those predictions that are shown to be skillful need to result in actions and corresponding cost/benefit analysis needs to be parsed into what's evidenced, what's likely, what's possible and what's just ridiculous. That doesn't happen now, at least in the public discourse, and that's the enemy of the change that you want.
 
Yes, you don't have to explain a tipping point to me. The question remains; why is there no evidence of the tipping point being triggered when temperatures were known to be considerably higher in the past?

At the same time, don't go down a rabbit hole. The relevant point was that there are vast elements of the topic which are making their way into the public discourse and corresponding responses but really little more than theory. That isn't appropriate in my view.
The starter of warming can be something else than CO2.
 
The starter of warming can be something else than CO2.
Still not answering the question. Really, it's okay to say "we/I don't know". And the truth is that we don't. That's why I asked the question in the context of uncertainty not being properly considered/discussed or worse - underplayed - in the public discourse.
 
Still not answering the question. Really, it's okay to say "we/I don't know". And the truth is that we don't. That's why I asked the question in the context of uncertainty not being properly considered/discussed or worse - underplayed - in the public discourse.
If the starter of warming in the past was not CO2 (I said it could not that it was) then talking about tipping points with it is useless simply because it's not the component or process creating the inbalance in the first place.
 
Sorry, but just no. There is zero evidence that the world is changing, or will change, too fast for life - or even mankind alone - to adapt to.
Wow. just wow. Sure you carry on with that ostrich manoeuvre while the rest of mankind tries to work out a solution to the OBVIOUS problems being talked about here! Like how many posts is this thread (just as a quick example), how many links to the 'evidence' you just claimed does not exist?!!!! I'm sure if we were all 100% paid professionals in relevant fields this thread could be at least 100% bigger and full of much more of this apparently missing evidence for AGW and the whole worlds living systems difficulty to adapt to those fast changes.

You do realize what you just said? You have 'evidence' to prove your opinion? If so you better send some emails out post-hast to warn all those banking and economic institutions that are putting in place systems to help them deal with (just) the economic fallout of AGW related problems? Or all those governments pushing towards green energy solutions and aiming to limit CO2 emissions etc. If all this is not needed and you have the proof to counter everything this thread has dipped into, please let people know asap, that kind of info is too important not to share on the global scale imho.

Oh and here is some info on new 'evidence' about AGW effects:

'Climate crisis may be disrupting the 'great orgy' of coral spawning':


Study finds breakdown in annual spawning synchrony in Red Sea, threatening some species with extinction
Seascape: the state of our oceans is supported by
About this content

Karen McVeigh
@karenmcveigh1

Tue 10 Sep 2019 08.00 BST
Last modified on Tue 10 Sep 2019 08.44 BST

Shares
62
A coral spawns pinkish bundles of eggs and sperm, in the Red Sea, off the coast of Eilat
A coral spawns pinkish bundles of eggs and sperm, in the Red Sea, off the coast of Eilat. Photograph: Tom Shlesinger/via Reuters

It has been described by scientists as “the greatest orgy in the world”; an annual gamete-fest, where entire colonies of coral reefs release their sperm and eggs simultaneously in a slick on the ocean surface that has been seen from space. But now scientists fear the climate crisis may be disrupting the ability of corals to synchronise this marine phenomenon, threatening them with extinction.

A Tel Aviv university study, published in Science, has found the release of eggs and sperm in certain reef-building corals in the Gulf of Eilat in the Red Sea have changed over time and have lost their synchronicity. For a coral, reliant on a chance encounter, timing is everything. But researchers have found some are spawning “out of tune” with normal patterns, with the result that fewer baby corals are forming.
I'm sure all the scientists involved in such studies will be relieved to get your call telling them everything is fine ;)

--------

'Shocking news: world's most powerful electric eel found in Amazon':


Just for fun and interest, and in part due to the out of control wildfire situation in the Amazon, but also for the link these animals have to boosting modern human civilization. We can thank the electric eel for leading the first research into electricity and all that helped evolve into in our lives (electric lights, laptops EV's etc). Oh and an 860 volt shock from this newly discovered eel is quite crazy, i wonder why they evolved to deliver such a powerful kick (i mean it could kill you as easily as scare you?).
 
Last edited:
The President of the World Bank advocates :

142656


An action plan always useful but all these people can’t avoid talking about financial benefits.

However talking about financial benefits can be an incentive to understanding for people who are constantly in denial, as these people see only the overconsumption and the overproduction, and the climate and the future of their children are their last concerns.
 
Guadeloupe suffers "a general degradation of the water masses", according to Hugues Delannay, deputy director of the Office of the water of Guadeloupe

The most 'alarming' finding of the report, according to Hugues Delannay, is the increase in the salinity of the groundwater table under the Great Earth. Involved 'the intensity of groundwater use, particularly through drilling for drinking water supplies', but also the pollution from agricultural sources, pesticides and nitrogen compounds.

In conclusion, for the Water Board, “the human activity is responsible for this degradation, the agriculture and sanitation, and industry”.

142657
 
The President of the World Bank advocates :

View attachment 142656

An action plan always useful but all these people can’t avoid talking about financial benefits.

However talking about financial benefits can be an incentive to understanding for people who are constantly in denial, as these people see only the overconsumption and the overproduction, and the climate and the future of their children are their last concerns.
When I started studying sustainability, I noticed that the term consists of three "pillars". Already that raised my skeptical eyebrows, like the time the CEO of a company I was working at presented his plans for the future in the form of five "Olympic rings". The three pillars of sustainability are Ecology, Economy and Social. I also noted that my professors were talking about the economic sustainability all the time.

That puzzled me as they were all pretty bright people and that it quickly becomes pretty obvious, that when it comes to sustainability in our current situation, there is no need for pillars. It's all about ecology. If the biosphere collapses then there will be no economy in it's current form, and the social part will be less civilized than today, if any.

However, people working with sustainability are not more stupid than average. They know that people who make decisions also have money, and the reason they have money is that they understand and care about economics. It's their "religion". To get any sustainability idea realized, you have to have these people believe that it's an excellent idea, and appealing to their responsibility even towards their own kids, for some strange reason doesn't seem to work that well. On the other hand, if you can sell them something that is only slightly more profitable than what they currently have, then they're all ears.

When you then begin to understand how biology and the biosphere works, it's really not that strange. We are genetically coded to try and stay alive while reproducing our genes. To do that you need resources, and if it's you or the neighbor, then you live and the neighbor doesn't. At the same time we have become somewhat social on top of the more ego centered part of our behavior. Some are more social than others. "Research" has shown that you generally find students with least empathy among those studying politics, law and economics. It would be easy to say that those people are more jerks than the rest of us, but that wouldn't be entirely fair, considering that research also shows, that the good old debate about genes vs environment shaping ones character, is pointing more and more towards genes. A lot more than people thought in the 1970's when the debate was particularly strong.

All in all, as my friend says: It all comes down to economy and comfort, or as someone else called it, profit and laziness. I know it's not a popular thought, but it becomes a lot easier to understand human behavior if you take a few steps back, and do like Robert Sapolsky et al and realize/accept that humans basically are animals. We have been programmed by nature to primarily be concerned about our own survival, secondly about the survival of our offspring. You secure that by gathering and storing as many resources as you possibly can.

That is why sustainability seems like a dead idea, without first and foremost offering some sort of profit. It's actually and interesting battle, if it were not that we're all in the middle of it: Will civilization and culture, the social contracts etc. win over our basic instincts? I have personally started using the old "put your money where your mouth is" a lot recently when evaluating humanity's future. I try and consider what odds bookmakers would give. There are a lot of Utopian ideas these days. When it comes to the battle between rationally securing our future vs our personal programming, I'm afraid the odds are higher on the latter.
 
Last edited:
Wow. just wow. Sure you carry on with that ostrich manoeuvre while the rest of mankind tries to work out a solution to the OBVIOUS problems being talked about here! Like how many posts is this thread (just as a quick example), how many links to the 'evidence' you just claimed does not exist?!!!! I'm sure if we were all 100% paid professionals in relevant fields this thread could be at least 100% bigger and full of much more of this apparently missing evidence for AGW and the whole worlds living systems difficulty to adapt to those fast changes.

You do realize what you just said? You have 'evidence' to prove your opinion? If so you better send some emails out post-hast to warn all those banking and economic institutions that are putting in place systems to help them deal with (just) the economic fallout of AGW related problems? Or all those governments pushing towards green energy solutions and aiming to limit CO2 emissions etc. If all this is not needed and you have the proof to counter everything this thread has dipped into, please let people know asap, that kind of info is too important not to share on the global scale imho.

Oh and here is some info on new 'evidence' about AGW effects:

'Climate crisis may be disrupting the 'great orgy' of coral spawning':




I'm sure all the scientists involved in such studies will be relieved to get your call telling them everything is fine ;)

--------

'Shocking news: world's most powerful electric eel found in Amazon':


Just for fun and interest, and in part due to the out of control wildfire situation in the Amazon, but also for the link these animals have to boosting modern human civilization. We can thank the electric eel for leading the first research into electricity and all that helped evolve into in our lives (electric lights, laptops EV's etc). Oh and an 860 volt shock from this newly discovered eel is quite crazy, i wonder why they evolved to deliver such a powerful kick (i mean it could kill you as easily as scare you?).
Nothing you said or has been said on this thread refutes Talarin's statement; the world is changing, but we will adapt and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Yes, he did mention life. Context is important, though.
Context is important, and here is the thing Jason, you have the opinion that AGW is not a threat (or grave threat), and Talarin also has his own opinion along those lines, as do nearly all people that deny AGW is a problem we need to do something about. Whenever I see a debate from people that express that same opinion one thing they NEVER give is actual 'evidence' to support their opinions, like never. Maybe a few links to some dusty blog post, but when Talarin expresses their opinion that there is no real issue from AGW and no evidence to suggest otherwise (say like the majority of links in this very thread to the various scientific studies on the subject), and OFFERS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT, well it has to be a troll plain and simple.

You (and Talarin and others like you) might firmly and whole heartily believe in your opinion on the subject, but sadly that is stacked up against such huge actual scientific evidence to counter that opinion it just is not (sadly for you) credible.

Like i can tell you i really believe in dragons, i really do (being welsh might have something to do with it), but can i offer you actual 'evidence' they exist? Not so much. So that to me is where yourself and Talarin sit on the subject, you both appear to want to believe in dragons but have no proof to support your convictions, and even the very 'flimsy' evidence so far provided (blog post links (not peer reviewed) or Fox News articles (the masters of false news and misinformation)) just pales in comparison to the very serious and detailed evidence that is forcing the world (even sectors like Big Oil and Banks etc) to act on the serious issue of AGW.

It's (AGW) real, very real and sadly simply not liking that reality does not change it. Science tends to work like that, it's all about the proof of which there is mountains to support AGW (man made global warming) being a big issue now and in the future. We have to deal with it, or our kids children will have a very bleak life. It's that simple and that obvious, so we need to listen to the credible science on the subject and pay attention to make the changes we will need to over the next 50 years or sooner.
 
The question remains; why is there no evidence of the tipping point being triggered when temperatures were known to be considerably higher in the past?
Because other factors required to reach the sort of tipping point in question were not in place. Temperature is never the sole consideration of any tipping point mentioned in this context.

Peak temperatures in the HCO you used as an example were when solar heating due to the Milankovitch cycle was already on the decline, when CO2 concentrations were far lower, when other potentially mitigating factors were not exhausted, etc and so forth.

The reason the same temperature could be the trigger of tipping points now, when all the other pieces are in place, should not be difficult to grasp.

An action plan always useful but all these people can’t avoid talking about financial benefits.
That's because you can put a price on anything, and have to, to get the the attention of those with the power to change things.

There are no consequences, no loss of diversity, no social turmoil, no lives, that cannot be distilled down to a cost/benefit ratio demarcated with Dollars. That's the language that is understood and the language one has to speak. Everything else is subjective, ephemeral, but money...that's real to the people that matter in this.
 
The cars contribute to the destruction of the planet with their CO2 emissions, but also by polluting the seas.

The Golden Ray, loaded with 7000 vehicles, lay on its port side in shallow waters off the City of Brunswick, Georgia. :p

142680
 
Nothing you said or has been said on this thread refutes Talarin's statement; the world is changing, but we will adapt and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
Yes you are right. We adapt and we will adapt.

More than 90% of the world's population breathe polluted air, warns the World Health Organization

Nearly 7 million people die each year from diseases caused by air pollution worldwide.

Below is a credible proof of the kind of adaptation that does not satisfy me.

142684
 
Gotta keep your eye on ball, Greg: mankind's adaptability is what we were talking about in the latest point.
Maintenant, the adaptability of the humanity is not the goal.

The survival of the nature and the animals is the goal.

The humanity unfortunately only has the name, not the substance, not the level, and not the dignity.

A species destined to disappear, for the greater good of the planet without a doubt, if it continues in this destructive way
 
Top Bottom