If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.

[Sunstone]

They prey on the scientifically illiterate. a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air, cannot warm Earth's oceans by 6C by any known scientific process

Only in computer simulations- according to which the ice caps have already vanished, an ice age has also descended, the world ran out of oil long ago, and alternative energy has weaned itself off subsides!

The Ordovician ice age had >1000% of the ' carbon pollution' we have today, and 'pollution based lifeforms' had far bigger problems to worry about then, as we do now

You're not a real climate scientist, but you play one on the internet, right?

 

[Debater Slayer]

"Climate change folks"? You mean the actual scientific community and not random people on the Internet?

My gods... just reading the casually dismissive phrase "climate change folks" was enough to upset my stomach. Worse yet, I had to be subjected to anti-scientific propaganda to top it off.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, based solely on your ignorant, uniformed opinion of what does and does not make sense in climate science, we are to conclude the report of some genuine climate scientists lacks any substance whatsoever. Got it. In other news, invest wisely -- buy ranch land on the moon.

Ok I'll just leave it to the experts then. The track record of expert based predictions like this clearly speak for themselves when it comes to pass.

At any rate, you can be far smarter and better than me anytime you wish in regards to my personal take and opinions here. I'm not keeping track nor maintaining any score.

 

[Wirey]

It sounds farfetched, but so did curing disease with bread mould.

 

[Sunstone]

At any rate, you can be far smarter and better than me...

I am making no such claim and you know it.

 

[Kirran]

They prey on the scientifically illiterate. a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air, cannot warm Earth's oceans by 6C by any known scientific process

Only in computer simulations- according to which the ice caps have already vanished, an ice age has also descended, the world ran out of oil long ago, and alternative energy has weaned itself off subsides!

The Ordovician ice age had >1000% of the ' carbon pollution' we have today, and 'pollution based lifeforms' had far bigger problems to worry about then, as we do now

As somebody over half way through a science degree, I wouldn't say I'm scientifically illiterate.

Also, would you say that every national climate agency in the world is run predominantly by people who are scientifically illiterate?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just to throw this out there: I find it especially adorable when an old person opposes the scientifically observed fact of climate change. It's like, "Not only do I not give a crap about objective evidence, but I also have to make sure I leave the Earth in as terrible state as I can before checking out."

Thanks for nothing, Grandpa.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While I'm far from having an academic background, one dosent need to be a rocket scientist to speculate that such an event is highly unlikely.

Excellent. Rather than knowing that the article is "stupid #$@" you now simply "speculate" that the event is "highly unlikely." That's progress.

But, again, on what ground should we believe your speculation credible?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with you that the article is sensationalist, and it is a major failing of the environmental movement and the mass media that they have sold climate change in terms of "fear", rather than of addressing it in terms of positive solutions and policies. This often has come at the expense of scientific literacy in favour of propaganda value. It would certainly be better if people were better informed on what the science is, but often it falls to politicans and journalists to communicate the information rather than the scientists themselves.
Climate Change affects the habiltability of the planet and we are currently going through the "sixth" mass extinction of animal species in earth's history based on geological records. We are changing our planet at an unpredencented rate. This is a problem that will affect not just the climate, but also food and fresh water supplies, so it is a very real threat. Scientists have to explore different scenarioes and it is likely that the study in the article is trying to explore one of the many areas of uncertianity. quoted without context, it is bad journalism. it could be "that bad", but alot of things have to go wrong first and we still have time and options to prevent it.

Finally!

Someone who gets the entire gist as to why I started this thread in the first place.


THANK YOU !!!!!


.

 

[Quetzal]

http://news.yahoo.com/report-world-run-breathable-air-unless-carbon-cut-210604512.html



Give me a break!

Ill make you a deal. You stop using Fox News and we will stop using Yahoo. Deal?

 

[Parsimony]

The world is going to run out of breathable air by the year 2100.

Dosent that strike you as being a bit melodramatic and over the top?

People don't buy into this kind of. alarmist propaganda. I think it's fairly safe to say we will not be dropping dead by 2100 from a lack of breathable air.

So instead of offering evidence or calculations of some kind showing the simulation to be flawed, you're offering the argument from incredulity instead?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As somebody over half way through a science degree, I wouldn't say I'm scientifically illiterate.

Also, would you say that every national climate agency in the world is run predominantly by people who are scientifically illiterate?

Depends who, these are listed by the IPCC as 'expert reviewers'

Sharmind Neelormi, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice
Cassandra Brooke, World Wildlife Fund International
Habiba Gitay, The World Bank
Bradley Hiller, The World Bank
Benedikte Jensen, Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change
Natasha Kuruppu, Institute for Sustainable Futures
Ahsan Uddin Ahmed, Centre for Global Change (CGC)
Leisa Perch, United Nations Development Programme / World Centre for Sustainable Development
Juan Hoffmaister, Third World Network

and these are some skeptics:

Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, AustraliaFerenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

warm Earth's oceans by 6C by any known scientific process

I have to agree that the 6 degrees Celcius figure is HUGE when you're talking about the entire ocean. That is a hell of a lot of heat considering not only the amount of water, but also the land it all touches and the amount of stabilizing temp. that land lends to the water at any given moment. Though I suppose most of the oxygen-producing plankton would be surface-dwelling or near to it - so maybe only the top of the water needs to shift? Still a crap ton of that as well.

I'm no expert - but just based on the physics behind the process leading to this proposed outcome, I'd say it sounds pretty implausible.

 

[Laika]

Finally!

Someone who gets the entire gist as to why I started this thread in the first place.


THANK YOU !!!!!


.

lol. some really harsh put-downs in this thread. you appear to have stirred a hornets nest. yikes!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have to agree that the 6 degrees Celcius figure is HUGE when you're talking about the entire ocean. That is a hell of a lot of heat considering not only the amount of water, but also the land it all touches and the amount of stabilizing temp. that land lends to the water at any given moment. Though I suppose most of the oxygen-producing plankton would be surface-dwelling or near to it - so maybe only the top of the water needs to shift? Still a crap ton of that as well.

I'm no expert - but just based on the physics behind the process leading to this proposed outcome, I'd say it sounds pretty implausible.

Yup, meanwhile back in reality for anyone that's interested

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

 

[Quintessence]

Finally!

Someone who gets the entire gist as to why I started this thread in the first place.

Considering the extreme brevity of the OP, one can hardly blame the audience not understanding why the speaker started this thread.

So... why did you start this thread?

 

[YmirGF]

Considering the extreme brevity of the OP, one can hardly blame the audience not understanding why the speaker started this thread.

So... why did you start this thread?

A senior's moment?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess I'm in the minority here. I respect your opinions more than most, but honestly I'm having a very hard time thinking it's really that bad as to go to such lengths to write out that we are that close to what can be best described as an extinction event.

We already are in the midst of a mass extinction. And, it's not saying that we're just gonna drop dead in 2100, it's saying, according to the author cited in the article, that rising ocean temperatures will kill off massive amounts of oxygen-producing marine life, which will reduce the amount of oxygen we have to breathe.

They prey on the scientifically illiterate. a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air, cannot warm Earth's oceans by 6C by any known scientific process

So the super-majority of scientists are just preying upon the scientifically illiterate? Funny how scientists are never questioned or challenged except when it comes to evolution, homosexuality, and climate change, the things people are uncomfortable with because they mean god didn't make everything as-is 6,000 years ago and it means we all must do our part, we must all consume less, and we must all be more responsible with the Earth. But people would rather remain blissfully and selfishly ignorant as they burn through oil, pollute without a care, and give not a single damn about the future of our own species.
And, as I've pointed out, many times it only takes a few drops of venom in our 5-6 liters of blood to kill us. Often times, the smallest of changes make for some of the most significant of impacts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Excellent. Rather than knowing that the article is "stupid #$@" you now simply "speculate" that the event is "highly unlikely." That's progress.

But, again, on what ground should we believe your speculation credible?

There's no way I'm going to convince anyone of anything here, nor will I even try to. I just say what I say.

I'm just a common man with opinions and a view, and I like to post whatever interests or ails me for which I critique or complement. That's all.

I'm not an academic person whatsoever, nor do I have any type of professional background to put forth.

If you think my disposition invalidates my personal credibility or as some I'm sure view as being my "credibility" in wake of better qualified and smarter people so be it. Nothing I can really ever do about it anyways. I can't help how I present myself by which people judge my intellect and character as compared to others, so it is what it is.

It happens that I'm not personally impressed with academia nor what has been put forth by elements of the scientific community as of late regardless to any of the credentials presented. Especially in regards to climate change debate.

Wouldn't presenting evidences regarding our atmosphere as it stands comparatively from past to present be far more effective than the never ending slew of scientific models concerning future events with little else presented that can actually be used?

How do you expect people like me to react when articles like this are written?

I'm the type of person who prefers to see the actuality of things and events as it stands and unfolds right now rather than academic based predictions that are disclaimed as being possible. There needs to be more than prediction based modeling brought to the table. So many have been inaccurate or wrong already.

Those are my grounds and my reasons and even ire for making my opening post. Even as I get overwhelmingly flamed for making it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We already are in the midst of a mass extinction. And, it's not saying that we're just gonna drop dead in 2100, it's saying, according to the author cited in the article, that rising ocean temperatures will kill off massive amounts of oxygen-producing marine life, which will reduce the amount of oxygen we have to breathe.

So the super-majority of scientists are just preying upon the scientifically illiterate? Funny how scientists are never questioned or challenged except when it comes to evolution, homosexuality, and climate change, the things people are uncomfortable with because they mean god didn't make everything as-is 6,000 years ago and it means we all must do our part, we must all consume less, and we must all be more responsible with the Earth. But people would rather remain blissfully and selfishly ignorant as they burn through oil, pollute without a care, and give not a single damn about the future of our own species.
And, as I've pointed out, many times it only takes a few drops of venom in our 5-6 liters of blood to kill us. Often times, the smallest of changes make for some of the most significant of impacts.

As above

scientists like 'IPCC EXPERT' Sharmind Neelormi, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice?

or

scientists like skeptic Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center?

10s of thousands of qualified skeptical scientists have put their names to statements that global warming is a humiliation to science, are they all part of an evil conspiracy to destroy our own species?!

the I in IPCC stands for intergovernmental. Climastrology is a political movement first and foremost, it's about the 'solutions' not the problem

science is a method, not a consensus, especially not a politically contrived one

2 extra molecules in 10,000 of air cannot drive climate catastrophe, there is no way around that, I'd be fascinated to hear your personal scientific understanding of how this might happen!