Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Sdajii]

Do you make deliberately absurd posts just to bait me into responding? If so, well done I guess.

We are discussing climate change.
Please try to be relevant.

You said definitionally things can only reverse if they have previously stood still. This was just one of an enormous number of examples which contradict that claim. It is perfectly relevant, as would any other example be.

That said, you need to realise that the basis for your claim on the universe is not sound. The Big Crunch has many adherents. Importantly, dark energy comprises perhaps 70% of the universe and is not well understood. Additionally, if our universe was born from a singularity, what says it cannot return to that state.
As I have said suggested many times, your thinking skills are not particularly good.

Wow, you want to pull that out in the context of complaining about people not believing conventional scientific consensus on climate change.

You win, that was insane enough to get a response, but I'll continue not responding to most of your posts.

 

[rederob]

You can choose to be as stupid as you like, but this from you is FALSE:

You said definitionally things can only reverse if they have previously stood still.

Whereas I exactly said this:

You know that definitionally anything which can be reversed must have been stopped at some point. Climate change can be reversed.

Your claims are unmitigated garbage, and so regular that it's a bit beyond a joke now.
Then, when I respond to your claim about the universe, you confuse it with climate change, thus:

Wow, you want to pull that out in the context of complaining about people not believing conventional scientific consensus on climate change.

Two points of note.
First, you still do not accept the scientific definition of climate change.
Second, consensus is not science.
As I say often, those that don't accept the science indulge in obfuscation and irrelevances because they simply do not understand what they are talking about. If you did, you would be discussing forcing effects and drivers. You never do because you seem to be making stuff up as you go, and hoping you don't get called out.
You are an object lesson of a classic fail.

 

[qldfrog]

This is unstoppable change all right.

"
French Riviera Gardener
March 28 at 10:00 PM ·
What a sad observation.
I have my heart crying

· See original ·
Rate this translation

First image: clearing rainforest to grow soya beans for vegan hipsters, 2nd picture: a polar bear shedding his last season fur as all bears have done since start of time...
No please Explod
We all agree humans are screwing the planet but stop with propaganda leaflets

 

[Ann]

More of GW/CC political agenda....

climate change heart of darkness

George Monbiot appeared recently on Frankie Boyle's far-left political chat show, "New World Order." A columnist and environmental activist, Monbiot explained how we have to save the planet. And boy, does Monbiot have some ideas.


The easy things we need to change, Monbiot said, are to end air travel flying and cease consumption of meat. If that doesn't sound easy to you, then you're not alone. Indeed, those ideas are so destructive of modern life, economics, and the pursuit of happiness, that they could justifiably be regarded as insane.


But Monbiot was just getting started. Next up, he took us down the intellectual river, into the heart of activist darkness.




"We have to overthrow this system which is eating the planet: perpetual growth," Monbiot declared. And the writer pulled no punches. Annual economic growth targets of 3% represent "madness," he said. The columnist reached his crescendo. "We can't do it by just pitting around at the margins of the problem; we've got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it." More...

 

[Ann]

....and now a little light relief.....

video of an 8-year-old girl mimicking and mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 

[kahuna1]

Dementia at work !!

When one disputes ice bubbles ... with CO2 levels dating back a million years ... its pointless to give such brilliance the last 40 years of ground station or satellite data.

Dementia at work !! ...everything is NEW .... or a conspiracy.

Have you worked out where Cape Grim is yet ? Or that no ice cores are there ? That would be new ... for all of us !!

 

[basilio]

Moving away from the comedy and looking at the reality of CC risks.

What lies beneath: the understatement of existential climate risk (report)

This latest Breakthrough report argues for an urgent risk reframing of climate research and the IPCC reports. What Lies Beneath is the inside story of how climate policy-making has become embedded in a culture of failure and scientific reticence. The report brings together the voices of some of the world’s leading scientists.

Written by: David Spratt & Ian Dunlop
Foreword by: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

Download

 

[kahuna1]

Do you make deliberately absurd posts just to bait me into responding? If so, well done I guess

So NOW .... your latest theory is that the oceans were 120 metres LOWER ... recently. But they were 120 meters higher and how YOU measure things ... ignoring Tectonics .... only referring to the astrology section ... and spoke at length about YOUR THEORY ... on grasshoppers from central Australia. WHERE ... there was an INLAND sea, so YES levels were higher in the past, Fossils can be found of marine life near Alice Springs.

So they rose 120 meters then FELL another 120 meters ... A total ocean movement .. of 240 metres ... and this was because the earth is hollow ? Or was it the Lizard people who live inside the hollow earth drinking all the water ?

I am not sure a degree in Astrology is a SCIENCE degree. I just paid $29.99 to a nice Pakistani man over the phone for my degree ... and it seems my account just got drained. Education is so expensive when this occurs, but I do now have also a doctorate in divinity along with a masters in Astrology.

 

[Sdajii]

So NOW .... your latest theory is that the oceans were 120 metres LOWER ... recently. But they were 120 meters higher and how YOU measure things ... ignoring Tectonics .... only referring to the astrology section ... and spoke at length about YOUR THEORY ... on grasshoppers from central Australia. WHERE ... there was an INLAND sea, so YES levels were higher in the past, Fossils can be found of marine life near Alice Springs.

So they rose 120 meters then FELL another 120 meters ... A total ocean movement .. of 240 metres ... and this was because the earth is hollow ? Or was it the Lizard people who live inside the hollow earth drinking all the water ?

I am not sure a degree in Astrology is a SCIENCE degree. I just paid $29.99 to a nice Pakistani man over the phone for my degree ... and it seems my account just got drained. Education is so expensive when this occurs, but I do now have also a doctorate in divinity along with a masters in Astrology.

Literally none of that makes any sense or even vaguely represents anything I've said.

 

[rederob]

Sea levels have risen over 120m since the lows. That means they were previously lower than now. They would have to have fallen 120m since the highs to have previously been 120m higher.

People have tried to explain that sea levels are affected by other parameters over time, so your proposition is naive.

At million-year time scales Late Cretaceous sea-levels have been estimated at a maximum of 170 metres 82 million years ago, although with an error margin taking it over 265 metres.
Although interesting to know, what we need to be concerned with today is how the rate of warming will impact future sea levels. In this regard plate tectonics will not be in any equations as the these movements over geological time have no impact at decadal time scales.

 

[kahuna1]

but you seem fixated on saying I claimed the sea level was 120m higher than at present. I actually said it was previously 120m *lower*. Big difference.

Your words ... you spoke about grasshoppers ... inland Australia when their was an inland sea ... AND much HIGHER sea levels ... YOUR words ... Not mine. Now you refute you said either...

It is a quote off your own post the above ... as to your pet theory as an Astrologer about extinction of insects when the inland sea in Australia drained is, amusing, and the water NOW was NOT higher ... but lower and in fact 120 metres LOWER than NOW .... that's how we had an inland sea ?


Gondwana and the Eromanga Sea
The Australian continent has not always been the same shape or even in the same place. It was once part of the much larger Pangaea landmass, then the great southern land of Gondwana. By the time of the dinosaurs, it was attached to Antarctica and home to the giant inland Eromanga Sea.
https://www.nma.gov.au/learn/kspace/prehistoric-australia-110-million-years-ago/kids

NOW ... it did not exist ? Sea levels were 120 metres LOWER ... not higher ?

I don't have today's Horoscope out of the paper ... and the Astrology section so I must have missed this. Do you have any more conspiracy theories you wish to share ? More hollow earth ? Lizard people ? Cape Grim and Ice caps and cores there today ?

 

[Sdajii]

Your words ... you spoke about grasshoppers ... inland Australia when their was an inland sea ... AND much HIGHER sea levels ... YOUR words ... Not mine. Now you refute you said either...

It is a quote off your own post the above ... as to your pet theory as an Astrologer about extinction of insects when the inland sea in Australia drained is, amusing, and the water NOW was NOT higher ... but lower and in fact 120 metres LOWER than NOW .... that's how we had an inland sea ?


Gondwana and the Eromanga Sea
The Australian continent has not always been the same shape or even in the same place. It was once part of the much larger Pangaea landmass, then the great southern land of Gondwana. By the time of the dinosaurs, it was attached to Antarctica and home to the giant inland Eromanga Sea.
https://www.nma.gov.au/learn/kspace/prehistoric-australia-110-million-years-ago/kids

NOW ... it did not exist ? Sea levels were 120 metres LOWER ... not higher ?

I don't have today's Horoscope out of the paper ... and the Astrology section so I must have missed this. Do you have any more conspiracy theories you wish to share ? More hollow earth ? Lizard people ? Cape Grim and Ice caps and cores there today ?

You can twist my words if you want. You can continue to flip around in tantrums insisting I meant something I didn't even after I unambiguously clarify if you want.

This merely serves to clearly show you don't have any arguments of actual substance to use, and must resort to insisting I said something I didn't in order to attack that.

 

[kahuna1]

I sadly am not having a tantrum ... quoting your absurd theories and conspiracies.

I am neither angry, nor sad. Amused I think, at your clinical pathology and conspiracy theories.

Since I quoted, directly your words, I cannot twist a quote verbatim record of your words.

I am not being insulting, nor attacking, just amazed and agog. You deny a direct quote on sea levels now magically 120 meters lower at some stage, according to you, whilst at another 120 meters higher.

Or are you disputing 120 plus 120 equals 240 metres ?

Substance or arguments are irrelevant as we have found, presenting science to such delusions and conspiracy theories, is pointless. You refute and believe each of 21 common conspiracy theories are correct. All of them ... and even have a long list of your own.

240 metre sea range ? Boy ... its a goodie.

 

[Sdajii]

Oh, and perhaps when I said the grasshoppers were isolated you assumed I meant WA was underwater and the populations were on literal land islands surrounded by water? Nothing like that. The area was intense desert (they are arid zone specialists) and the climate was so hot and extreme that the desert became basically hot, dry sand, which almost nothing can live on. As the climate became less extreme their host plants grew and they were able to recolonise the land.

This is not my personal theory, this has been very well studied, it has happened in a lot of different species (including at least one plant) which were all restricted to the same habitable areas. I was only directly involved with the research on the grasshoppers (although their origins, history, etc were well studied and understood before I came along and I was just one of the people continuing one branch of the research), I was also peripherally involved with one of the parthenogenetic reptiles (Heterenotia sp) and interestingly, one of the host plants of my grasshoppers also evolved asexual reproduction at the same time in a very similar way (research I had absolutely nothing to do with). All these species are arid zone specialists, they were isolated by inhabitable desert, not water.

 

[Sdajii]

I sadly am not having a tantrum ... quoting your absurd theories and conspiracies.

I am neither angry, nor sad. Amused I think, at your clinical pathology and conspiracy theories.

Since I quoted, directly your words, I cannot twist a quote verbatim record of your words.

I am not being insulting, nor attacking, just amazed and agog. You deny a direct quote on sea levels now magically 120 meters lower at some stage, according to you, whilst at another 120 meters higher.

Or are you disputing 120 plus 120 equals 240 metres ?

Substance or arguments are irrelevant as we have found, presenting science to such delusions and conspiracy theories, is pointless. You refute and believe each of 21 common conspiracy theories are correct. All of them ... and even have a long list of your own.

240 metre sea range ? Boy ... its a goodie.

You know, it's possible to quote out of context, just as you've done here.

I have never said the sea level was 120 metres above where it is now, that has never happened.

I said it was 120m lower, and it then rose 120m bringing to to around where it is now.

That's a 120m range.

If you are still confused, let me bluntly, unambiguously say, that I do not claim the sea level has ever been 120m above where it is now. It has been lower. It has gone down from around current levels then up. I do not claim a 240m range. If you ever say otherwise after reading this unambiguous statement, you are being either deliberately disingenuous, or incredibly stupid.

You can continue to pretend I said something else, you can quote out of context, you can distract from anything of substance, you can throw tantrums and deny it, you can claim and even believe you are correct, but it doesn't do anything other than make you delusional.

 

[kahuna1]

But ... you talked so lovingly about grasshoppers and the inland sea.

I might add your time-frame was 100,000 years ago, NOT when it occurred, 100 million years ago.

I just read Trumps Tweets and he quoted FOX news as his source 15 times in a row.

 

[rederob]

If you are still confused, let me bluntly, unambiguously say, that I do not claim the sea level has ever been 120m above where it is now.

Your claims have no science to them:
"By assimilating marine geophysical data into reconstructions of ancient ocean basins, we model a Late Cretaceous sea level that is 170 (85 to 270) meters higher than it is today."
So you really just guess what you talk about on climate.

I do not claim a 240m range. If you ever say otherwise after reading this unambiguous statement, you are being either deliberately disingenuous, or incredibly stupid.

But if it was 120 metres lower, and also 170 metres higher, then the range is substantially more than your "unambiguous statement."
You appear to be unambiguously wrong on both your claims referenced above.
Keep up (or is it "down") the good work.

 

[Sdajii]

But ... you talked so lovingly about grasshoppers and the inland sea.

I might add your time-frame was 100,000 years ago, NOT when it occurred, 100 million years ago.

I just read Trumps Tweets and he quoted FOX news as his source 15 times in a row.

I never spoke of an inland sea.

You are connecting two unrelated things I said. One had a timeframe (the grashopper speciation etc), the other didn't (the sea level). I wasn't relating the two together, they are two entirely different things, I made no attempt to put them in the same context.

You continually just imagine I say and mean things I have never said or thought, and the run with it, regardless of how many times I say no, I never said that and I don't believe it.

Why would you mention Trump and his tweets?

 

[kahuna1]

The sad reality is that we're screwing the planet (and again, climate change isn't the big problem)

I would agree in the context of species destruction, but totally disagree the climate change is NOT the biggest long term problem.

The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change

You ignore 50% more acid in the oceans, levels rising the most in 5,000 years and 1 metre by 2100 v 1900 is the IPCC estimate. 20 metres without action by 2200

The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

You have and it ignores ICE cores going back 1 million years with tiny air bubbles with CO2 gas showing we were in the 200 to 370 PPM CO2 for a MILLION YEARS. You ignore the sun and earth going around the sun every 41,000 years has a wobble at its extreme and less sun Hits the surface. You ignore all fossil records of past events. And seamlessly tie events from 100 million and even 600 million years ago as occurring in the past 10k or 100k years to suit your dogmas.

Looking only slightly further back, we see such extreme climate change that within very short periods of time, the climate changed so much that sea levels changed so much that you could literally walk from Australia to PNG on dry land

I did point out the last ICE event occurred and I agree not CO2 related but during a WOBBLE of the earth around the sun that we KNOW via ICE BUBBLES ... when CO2 levels due to MEGA fauna ... were near 1 million YEAR LOWS. Less irradiance, less stopping it from getting out of the atmosphere ... the HEAT ... called CO2 ... and as such ... ICE TIME. Oh and the sea levels when one looks DID NOT FALL 120 metres. LAND as tectonic plates hit and forced whole continents to rise and fall . Mountains where they were once seabeds. If one IGNORES this as you seem to .. come up with absurd rises ... AND falls of 120 meters in SEAS. Anything is possible.

Do you need any more of an obvious slap in the face to alert you to the reality that you are allowing yourself to be controlled by the media?

Yes conspiracy theory number 22 !! Thanks ... next.

It presumably didn't happen within decades, but entire cycles of going from one state to another extreme and back (like, sea levels higher than current to low enough to join major land masses and all the way back up within 1-2 thousand years, and perhaps much much faster, and it seems most likely to have been much much faster but no one was there taking measurements more than a couple hundred years ago).

Yep the 41,000 year cycle around the sun ... the extremes tend to do that. So too ICE ages and short ones wiping out Oxygen producing regions covered with ice and the CO2 balance goes from one end of the 200 to 380 range ina short period. WE. ... are clearly outside that NOW .... first time in a million years. But you of course dispute this as being any concern, or the ocean acidity up 50% in 40 years, as it tries to absorb CO2 or the carbon and nope fossils of past events, even white layers of dissolved calcium carbonate from previous massive CO2 driven events, not relevant to your theories.

Don't know when that will, if ever occur. Your views changing.

Meanwhile the Great Barrier Reef 25% of the 1980 size due to extreme temperature events on the main, and YEP a bit of the human sort for the 700 out of 3,000 reefs closer to land, we have all 3,000 reefs, all of them 100% of them with Bleaching and death ranging from extreme in the North, less effected by human stuff, they are all in extreme BLEACH and death mode ... to the southern ones now with a 100% bleaching on a lessor level.

120,000 years ago the sea level was about 5 metres higher than today. 20,000 years ago it was about 120 ***METRES*** lower than that

Sadly delusional ... a gem ... since I visted recently the Rock Art near Karatha in WA the oldest rock carvings and also Seas shell mounds dated 25,000 to 40,000 years old. Located on the seashore ... Near the current Pluto Gas plant if your looking ... did they walk 50 km to the level of the seas your alluding to, bring the shells back and deposit them ?

Celestial impacts have occurred many times to varying levels of severity before. I'm not even bothering to hypothesise about future ones, I was talking about previous ones which have done extreme things to the climate, and the climate then returns to normal. The point, which you somehow missed despite it being completely obvious, which was in direct response to the explicit question, was that after it has happened (as in, the actual examples which have already occurred), the climate returns to the normal range. Honestly, I'd struggle to pretend to miss the point as much as you actually do.

Last one was 65 million years ago ... lowest estimate on the recovery was 800,000 Years and it took about 35,000 after the meteor struck to make over 50% of species extinct. We pass the latter milestone in a mere 200 years of modern man, and 800,000 years involved massive CO2 capture naturally the last time via plants being trapped which are NOW oil and COAL deposits.

Then again, You don't believe CO2 or carbon is an issue ... past OR present.

*since accurate records began... decades ago - yes, it is changing more rapidly than at any point in the last century, but while we don't have any accurate records, it probably isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 1,000 years (climate scientists are divided on this point) and it definitely isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 10,000 years (the vast majority of climate scientists agree on this and the only ones who don't are a very small number of exceptionally obvious shills).

Gee are ICE bubble of trapped air inside ICE cores going back a million years NOT a very good record ?

Of course there are no records of correlation between two things prior to the 1970s when records weren't being made! There are literally billions of years of history in this planet and we have a few decades of that type of data.

Yes life began in the 1970's !! DISCO ... like most all records pre 1970, are to be denied. Being able to measure the type of CARBON in a fossil has been possible for 50 years and dating a fossil and seeing the MIX of the type of carbon .... IS TO BE IGNORED. Even the fossil record... too !!

I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues.

Important issues, whilst I agree Humans and their impact on plant and animal life are impossible to ignore. Houston ... we have a problem ... CO2 at levels not seen for a million years and in fact with great confidence ... which you IGNORE carbon dating, the last time we had it at 400 PPM seas were 20 meters higher and half the world was UNINHABITABLE ... then again humans were not around.

The one big point I disagree with climate scientists on is how important CO2 is.

This is my favorite .... all time favorite ... earth had issues ... 5 known die offs. extinction events. ALL CARBON RELATED. Eventually, Carbon got captured sometimes by Seas of vegetation being buried, CARBON capturing ... or massive deposits of limestone ... go to the Nullabor Plain and HAVE a look ... its lime stone, but NOPE ... we have CO2 highest in a million years and in fact many millions of years, all covering your last 120,000 year theory ... NO ... not a problem. Really ? The ocean in 100 years at current rates of ocean acidity change, ignoring feedback loops, will dissolve .... DISSOLVE shellfish and their outer shells. Its a chemical reaction.

NOPE CO2 is not important !! If you like living.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its relative importance has been overplayed.

Well as a cure ... I suggest its use .. for special people. We burn things, that stopped very old carbon events. Under an electron microscope they can identify WHAT various oil deposits were formed from. CARBON CAPTURING things, algae and for coal buried forests compressed over time.

We humans, now burn them ... and NOPE not a worry !! Well not too much in my lifetime.

1,000 years happened completely naturally over the last 100,000 years quite a lot of times, and no scientists dispute this

Yes to SOME extent ... NOT where we are NOW ... NOT ocean acidiifcation which has been unseen for 59 million years !! NOR CO2 levels ... if one is NOT living with a delusion that all records pre 1970 are to be ignored ... ICE bubbles in ICE cores buried over a million years .... SHOW CO2 to even a reasonable person have never been above 380 PPM and we hit 410 PPM and rising faster and faster !!

The Milankovitch Cycles and their effect on Climate Change

Known since 1690 ... the Earht and its orbit around the sun and its tilt ... every 41,000 years ... and output dips ... IGNORED to fit your theory.

Bloody hell !!

LOSS of 6% IRRADIANCE is about the norm ... basically a winter upon a winter ... the cycle 41,000 years, and another the earths actual cycle and its orbit ... again measurable ... two extreme periods ... one is where the TILT is at its maximum irradiance and the other extreme ... oblique and heliun furthest from the sun and MINIMUM solar irradiance.

Ignored as to cause of last dips and ice or colder events ... next one due 10,500 years from now and to be exact ... last one hit 30,000 year or so ago, with ULTRA low CO2 in the air, mega fauna and massive trees and hit with a massive fall in the suns output ?

An "appropriate context is that your opinion, on science, in about 30 different fields, from ocean acidity to Ocean temperature, to atmosphere to permafrost, to Arctic Shel and Ocean sediment and on and on ... possibly 50 different quite unique and complex scientific fields where 50,000 or so scientists, professors and others operate, and agree, all 50,000 of them, and 200 Nobel prize winners, who peer review and discuss the topics and have been 100% accurate over a very long time ... their findings are ... only to be taken in what you deem to be ... "appropriate context.... that being all of them are wrong.

You have displayed this .... calling their work ... incorrect verses your own, and theirs must be taken in "appropriate context ... which is yours. Which the appropriate context is they are wrong, and you are right.

Interesting and you have shared your view on virtually all of the 16 topics covered in the two videos and ignored all written responses of the same .. for your own "appropriate context.

I sadly said it before ...

I am not twisting your words ... or being insulting or even rude.
I quoted your theories, listened to them. Examined the science.
As did 5 or more others on this thread, far more knowledgeable than me. That is not hard !!

We all found your theory, not supported by either fact or science to be incorrect.

You insistence and ignoring all scientific facts, past records that did NOT suit your theory whilst presenting such absurd ones ... MEDIA controlled ? Or Scientists are all wrong ? and your right ?

Can I express my disbelief ? Without being insulting to someone who clearly has a religious belief they are right ? Or is it an illness ? Dementia or Alzheimer's or just Narcissism and not able to an error or even open to the possibility that you are wrong ?

I spend more time KNOWING I am wrong and DON'T know a bloody thing !! More time than I do being right or even thinking I am. Its refreshing, and a learning experience and everything IS potentially NEW as I go through life learning from others.

Or for say very ill people like Mr Trump who lies and lies on tape and then denies he lies. It is what it is. Or they claim they did ot say that ... and accuse others, as has been the case here of PROJECTION ... or GASLIGHTING because we don't agree ? Best form of defense is attack, and if cornered accuse, minimize and maximize, things are black and white ....

You just did that when I quoted out of your own posts. Not twisting words or ideas. Merely quoting them and I am supposedly the issue ? Take a deep breath ... and think.

Of the 21 Conspiracy theories about climate change, above, I have directly quoted your VIEWS on 17 of them. All to you, are factual. All to you are real. No possibility of say ICE core air bubbles being correct exits. everything started in 1970 in terms of records. Fossils are irrelevant. On and on and on and on it goes.

Must run. Internet from the Earth Is Hollow, and I am inside Hollow Earth, another conspiracy theory ... is timed and I have used my quota according to the Lizard people, another conspiracy theory ... and have to get off.

 

[wayneL]

50% more acid in the oceans?

Got a cite for that @kahuna1 ?