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

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.
Problem is that some of the deniers seems to be sore loosers:

 
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
Can't be helped, but this is how I visualized your post. :)

 
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
Some will, some will not. The picture you shared where people were wearing air masks might be in trouble. I hear those poor people in France have polluted their waterways now to the point where the chemicals in the toxic slime washing up on their shores can "kill a person in seconds," they have some difficult times ahead for sure. But other people won't, and there will be regions that are largely unaffected that will be able to adapt comfortably.
 
Some will, some will not. The picture you shared where people were wearing air masks might be in trouble. I hear those poor people in France have polluted their waterways now to the point where the chemicals in the toxic slime washing up on their shores can "kill a person in seconds," they have some difficult times ahead for sure. But other people won't, and there will be regions that are largely unaffected that will be able to adapt comfortably.
I really wonder how they got that figure, did someone get to touch it and die in seconds? Mind you, even arsenic takes about a minute to kill you and that is if you ingest it, we are talking mere contact here.
 
I really wonder how they got that figure, did someone get to touch it and die in seconds? Mind you, even arsenic takes about a minute to kill you and that is if you ingest it, we are talking mere contact here.
I'm just going from the article that I shared earlier. I assume it's a bit hyperbolic for drama's sake, but I don't notice anyone else around here allowing for that in their apocalyptic forecasts.
 
I'm just going from the article that I shared earlier. I assume it's a bit hyperbolic for drama's sake, but I don't notice anyone else around here allowing for that in their apocalyptic forecasts.
You yourself are being a hypocrite by complaining on the integrity of pop science while citing a rather preposterous article and for the record, I do not think the world is going to end but hardships will surely ensue, Also, some of those forecasts actually have some evidence behind them (even if insufficient), I'd be very much surprised to hear the source for the toxicity of that slime.
 
You yourself are being a hypocrite by complaining on the integrity of pop science while citing a rather preposterous article and for the record, I do not think the world is going to end but hardships will surely ensue, Also, some of those forecasts actually have some evidence behind them (even if insufficient), I'd be very much surprised to hear the source for the toxicity of that slime.
Do you ever just stick with facts and the thread topic, or am I doomed to always have your personal attacks on me form the basis of our posting relationship?
 
Yes, my region will be a likely winner in the climate crisis ahead. No toxic beaches, anyhow. I'd move to somewhere else if I didn't think so.
This is essential. Your little personal comfort is saved. The planet and all its fauna and flora can burst

Your children will survive miserably with the fear behind the high walls, in the hope of containing millions of hungry who will come to your beautiful region, famous for its oil, gas and mining pollution.

You still don’t understand that this is a global problem and that no matter where you live you will be impacted in one way or another.
 
Personal attacks? I'm directly adressing what you say.
Typically being called a hypocrite is considered a personal attack. I don't really care, I just thought it worth mentioning in case the mods were paying attention. As far as the veracity of the claim...I provided an article showing a point about mankind harming the environment the same as many others have done and continue to do so, but your jasonbarron derangement syndrome is so severe that you can't even lay off when I'm literally agreeing with you. You just have to keep attacking. Interesting in that it shows that you don't want to have a discussion but just trade snipes.

Here's an interesting article I found about the changing eco system in the Gulf of Mexico:
https://www.foxnews.com/science/the-voracious-and-invasive-lionfish-is-taking-over-the-atlantic-heres-why
 
Last edited:
Good evening all. My, the thread has been busy... Apologies in advance for what will be a large post.

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.
Ok, so much to parse out here:

You wrote "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". You also, in the same segment, wrote "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".

Sorry, but that's utter hyperbole. Perhaps in the first segement rather than "life" you meant "many species/ecosystems", but that's not what you wrote. And the second segment I've re-quoted is worse. Please link to the projection of the "end game" for human civilisation within, say, 500 years. I promise you, it doesn't exist outside of scary op-eds. It certainly doesn't exist in this thread.

You also don't appreciate the difference between opinions, projections and evidence. Someone doing some statistical analysis on a dataset, or running something through an model does not constitute evidence. Evidence relies on empirical fact. You can even stretch a model to say "the model has projected x which has come true, therefore a later projection of that specific model is possibly true". But I posit that there is no empirical fact that justifies these claims as written. Feel free to prove me wrong.

(And I'm using the words "specific model" very deliberately. CMIPX ensemble don't count - that collection of models project such a wide variety of outcomes that literally anything is possible across the collection. Pick one of them if you want to go down that route.)

No, I'm very sure he also mentioned life, so did Talarin.
Yes, to be absolutely clear - life-in-general was mentioned and responded to. I'm explicitly not saying "AGW will have no impacts on the biosphere" and I'm not saying that there are no risks associated with climate change, whether natural or manmade. I'm objecting to and calling out needlessly excessive rhetoric - ironically following on from a post in which I call for more nuance in the discussion.

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.
How can someone offer evidence to support a negative? That's impossible. And needless, when there are so many holes in the projections of a catastrophic future if we don't amend our evil ways. Far easier to poke at them.

However, I'll throw you a bone and refer you to Scafetta et al 2017 which comprehensively demonstrates that the GCMs used to project wholly unfeasible RCP8.5 scenarios in the scare stories (and I quote from the conclusion of this peer reviewed paper, which actually uses observations to make the point) "predict an excessive warming relative to the four available long global surface temperature records" and "deviates from the simulations with a statistical confidence larger than 95%". "Models are not able to reproduce the natural variability observed in the climate system and should not be trusted".

Edit: Just to emphasise this point; the scenarios which rely on an extremely unlikely set of outcomes in our society and physical responses to increased CO2 are - as a matter of course and even when run against real world forcings - exhibiting too much warming.

Something tells me that you won't read about that in the Guardian.

I trust your "evidence" question is satisfactorally answered. And the annoying thing is that if you took even a a vague interest in the topic beyond the media articles, you'd know about the reality vs. projected temperature issue as it's been in the science literature for literally over a decade. And it's I'm pretty sure that its been pointed out in this thread by me before.

There are plenty of reasons to argue against a catastrophic narrative and (more importantly - as it's the real question) what is proposed to do about it. Suggestions of bad faith by people who challenge the science as you see it are not justified.

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.
I get where you're coming from, but not sure I agree without more details. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the proposed feedbacks - but to the best of my knowledge all of the major feedback mechanisms seem to be driven by underlying temperature (in this context, the feedback mechanism is triggered by temperature increased induced by elevated CO2 concentrations).

Could you suggest a specific feedback that might be contigent on something more than temperature alone?

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.
No, this is exactly the route to go down if you want to affect meaningful change. I call the principal of these "no regrets" projects; in that there is upside no matter what actually happens in a climatic context. There are many, many mitigation projects which fall into this category which I wholeheartedly support.

I think the GCA is overstating the benefits somewhat (as they're measuring benefits against what I consider to be overstated avoided losses). Full report is here if you're so inclined.
 
Last edited:
Could you suggest a specific feedback that might be contigent on something more than temperature alone?
An example might be greenhouse gas contributions from permafrost melt. Permafrost in areas where boreal forests have been degraded, where loss of historical animal populations have changed ground cover, or where human infrastructure has disturbed it, will melt faster.

I can't think of any feedback mechanisms that are solely dependent on temperature. The underlying context is always important. If a certain temperature is reached, certain things are near certain to happen, because the stage has already been, or is currently being, set for them. For many tipping points of current interest, this would not have been case many thousand years ago, or even much more recently.

No, this is exactly the route to go down if you want to affect meaningful change.
I'm not sure what I said that would appear to be in disagreement with this.
 
Top Bottom