The sea is getting the short straw with climate change

[Mark Chase]

Rebreather 101 - the trigger to breathe is 0.04bar PPCO2 - why? because we've evolved to that figure because it's what's in the air - at what point do all humans get a CO2 hit?

Adapting will cause a load of deaths and mass evacuations of the places too hot to live in. Not sure we can evolve in time....

B

The LD50 for Humans is 40,000ppm C02

The limit for adaptation is 1000ppm which is a common level found indoors and walking through forests with a dense canopy.

https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/resour...%20in%20danger.

[Mark Chase]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...fusion-energy/

Indeed

Chris thinks there's a will to put this right and enough time, Mark thinks that technology will sort us out, both completely deluded. Were fooked!

Not that accurate.

Chris thinks it's possible for humans to put in measures to prevent global warming. I totally disagree. Chris thinks global warming is an existential threat, Again I strongly disagree.

1: Token efforts by the wealthy countries will not be reciprocated by the rest of the world, notably India and China

2: The massive economic and social impact of the planned measures will become unsustainable and the popular will not support 500% increases in energy costs, restricted travel and massive taxation. They will revolt at the polling stations and put a stop to it.

3: No one has proven Co2 is the issue that's driving climate any more or less than the fact we are coming out of a little ice age, but working on the premise its true, all current research has found the impact of new Zero will be fractions of a degree and will make little or no difference.

4: The actions taken by our respective governments do not indicate a genuine commitment to doing anything at all. It's all virtue signaling and tricks to raise tax based on environmental issues but not spending said tax on environmental issues.

5: The threat to humans of a 1 degree temp increase will not be fatal, the impact of sea level increase again will not be fatal. We will adapt. This will take hundreds of years, its not happening next week despite the ridiculous claims of the green lobby.


As for me? Yes I think we will adapt, I think we will find ways of cleaning up emissions, scrubbing carbon, creating cleaner fuel, implementing environmental fixes in impacted areas and taking advantage of areas that benefit from the change (which will be extensive)

More importantly, I ask the question, what is the point of all this? If the point is to save lives then we are looking in the wrong direction if we want to achieve that. There are way more significant issues impacting life that can be readily fixed for a fraction of the cost.


I am not a climate denier, I am a climate religion opposed

It has to stop, it will stop and I might even live long enough to see that happen.


Dr Tim Ball was the first to suggest the Emperor had no clothes on when he debunked Michal Mans's Hockey stick graph suggesting it to be a pac of lies and false data.

Professor Man sued for defamation

Professor Michael Man had flatly refused to disclose the math's behind the infamous Hockey Stick Graph, widely used and indeed sighted in this very thread as evidence of imminent catastrophic temperature rise. So basically peer review had never been possible

As a result of the court case he rather foolishly instigated, the math had to be reviewed under disclosure.

He still refused and Dr Ball won the case and was awarded full costs.


Dr. Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.

Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003

In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.

So, the graph was junk science. But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make a profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?

No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr. Ball came into the picture!

[Mark Chase]

By the way, Professor Man tried the same thing with Mark Steyn who also suggested his Hockey stick graph was fake

He lost that case but argues it was on a technicality.

Mark Steyn was awarded full costs and as anyone who understands anything about such cases of deformation will know, that doesn't happen unless the judge comes down on the side of the defendant.

Man's tactics seem apparent. Sue and tie people up with millions of dollars of legal bills for years. In doing so, scare away any critics.

No doubt he's receiving significant financial support for this.

[notdeadyet]

By the way, Professor Man tried the same thing with Mark Steyn who also suggested his Hockey stick graph was fake

He lost that case but argues it was on a technicality.

Mark Steyn was awarded full costs and as anyone who understands anything about such cases of deformation will know, that doesn't happen unless the judge comes down on the side of the defendant.

Man's tactics seem apparent. Sue and tie people up with millions of dollars of legal bills for years. In doing so, scare away any critics.

No doubt he's receiving significant financial support for this.

Libel and defamation cases are won and lost within the definitions of the law. It doesn't imply that one side's or the other's views are right or wrong. The British Chiropractic Association won their case against the science writer Simon Singh. It didn't mean chiropractic is a real science, only that they could prove in court within the terms of the law that Singh's opinion had caused damage to their reputation.

(Thankfully Simon Singh won at appeal).

[graham_hk]

The LD50 for Humans is 40,000ppm C02

The limit for adaptation is 1000ppm which is a common level found indoors and walking through forests with a dense canopy.

https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/resour...%20in%20danger.

If you want a better demonstration of why non-scientists struggle to understand things here it is demonstrated … you’re arguing with someone about a fact he got wrong…

Scientists can understand science and non-scientists may (but usually don’t)… it doesn’t mean that scientists always tell the truth or non-scientists always misinterpret the data- for both the right or wrong reasons

[Barrygoss]

If you want a better demonstration of why non-scientists struggle to understand things here it is demonstrated … you’re arguing with someone about a fact he got wrong…

Scientists can understand science and non-scientists may (but usually don’t)… it doesn’t mean that scientists always tell the truth or non-scientists always misinterpret the data- for both the right or wrong reasons

Hence why I didn't respond

400 PPM moves the decimal

however, my point was if you move the background level up, it leaves less "headroom" before it gets messy

B

[jturner]

I watch much more Youtube than anything else.

Somehow, I'm not surprised to hear this.

[Paul Evans]

Scientists can understand science and non-scientists may (but usually don’t)… it doesn’t mean that scientists always tell the truth or non-scientists always misinterpret the data- for both the right or wrong reasons

"In practice, this means that when we as a species (and scientists are no exception) encounter evidence that conforms to our preferred views, we tend to ask ourselves, “Can I believe this?”—and when we encounter evidence that does not conform to our preferred views, we ask ourselves, “Must I believe this?” The answer to the first question is almost always yes, and the answer to the second question is almost always no; it’s easy to come up with a reason to doubt the quality or credibility of undesirable evidence."

https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/...xoCq7AQAvD_BwE

Good Article

[Chrisch]

Oh dear my anti-virus went ballistic at that link.

Confirmation bias is a well understood thing though and something you have to take into account when looking at new evidence. For AGW the science is pretty much universally accepted by everyone bar the fruit loop element and those with fossil fuel interests (who are liars rather than people debating/contesting the actual data)

The data to support the various tipping points is still a bit sketchy I think, but the melting of the methane clathrates is under way and probably will be the start point of a sharp acceleration in heating that will confound attempts to limit CO2. This point is probably the start of the latest round of lies and bluster by the fossil fuel industry as it continues to seek out the last remaining value of current reserves. The Artic Methane Emergency Group has some good data (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/sear...rgency%20Group) for anyone interested.

I don't think Mr Putin or his many friends in the global political right will be much bothered though.

[edit] The blog is 2015 and suggests excessive heating in the Artic - which is what has happened[/edit]

[Paul Evans]

Oh dear my anti-virus went ballistic at that link.