Climate change tipping point could be coming sooner than we think: study

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
7,732
#43
Not reversible by humans, because humans have nothing to do with climate change.

In any case, why on earth would anyone want to reverse the effects? The CO2 spike is boosting plant growth and greening the planet. Warmer climate is better for food production, economic growth, and human development.
Look at the following images, then the follow the link, and tell me again, with a straight face, that humans have nothing to do with climate change.

1548320282850.png

1548320311412.png
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Sure, take your time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
11,699
#44
Look at the following images, then the follow the link, and tell me again, with a straight face, that humans have nothing to do with climate change.

View attachment 609902

View attachment 609904
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Sure, take your time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment
Yes humans had everything to do with that graph, we invented the technology to measure it accurately only at the point where it starts going up.


And I'm still useing the word accurately very loosely. It's a guesstimate at best.
 
Last edited:

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,762
#45
For some perspective, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased slightly more than one ten thousandth since the time that we could accurately and directly measure it without deriving historical estimates from proxies and models.
 

gamer16

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
4,893
#47
Yes humans had everything to do with that graph, we invented the technology to measure it accurately only at the point where it starts going up.


And I'm still useing the word accurately very loosely. It's a guesstimate at best.
For some perspective, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased slightly more than one ten thousandth since the time that we could accurately and directly measure it without deriving historical estimates from proxies and models.
They are not guessing the historic data. it's accurately determined with Ico Core Data to name just one.

https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
11,699
#48
They are not guessing the historic data. it's accurately determined with Ico Core Data to name just one.

https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
How much CO2 got trapped in the ice is not the same thing as how much CO2 is in the air. It takes a lot of interpretation and modelling to get to that and it will flatten out the extremes and give a more avarerge figure. For all we know there could have always been spikes in the data like we see now.
 

gamer16

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
4,893
#49
How much CO2 got trapped in the ice is not the same thing as how much CO2 is in the air. It takes a lot of interpretation and modelling to get to that and it will flatten out the extremes and give a more avarerge figure. For all we know there could have always been spikes in the data like we see now.
Have a look at how its done instead of guessing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
 

gamer16

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
4,893
#51
Exactly like I said. What do you disagree with?
Their findings are not only determined by "how much CO2 is trapped in the Ice" as you suggest would be inaccurate. They employ a vast amount of test and analysis procedures which have been in use for a very long time and is in constant development. The Accuracy of the sum of their findings is not disputed by those qualified to do so but instead concurred by them. Here are some of the methods used to determine conditions.

Visual analysis
Isotopic analysis
Palaeoatmospheric sampling
Glaciochemistry
Radionuclides



The International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences have plans in place for the following, much more we can learn and do from this.

  • Retrieve ice cores that reach back over 1.2 million years, in order to obtain multiple iterations of ice core record for the 40,000-year long climate cycles known to have operated at that time. Current cores reach back over 800,000 years, and show 100,000-year cycles.
  • Improve ice core chronologies, including connecting chronologies of multiple cores.
  • Identify additional proxies from ice cores, for example for sea ice, marine biological productivity, or forest fires.
  • Drill additional cores to provide high-resolution data for the last 2,000 years, to use as input for detailed climate modelling.
  • Identify an improved drilling fluid
  • Improve the ability to handle brittle ice, both while drilling and in transport and storage
  • Find a way to handle cores which have pressurised water at bedrock
  • Come up with a standardised lightweight drill capable of drilling both wet and dry holes, and able to reach depths of up to 1000 m.
  • Improve core handling to maximise the information that can be obtained from each core.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
11,699
#52
Their findings are not only determined by "how much CO2 is trapped in the Ice" as you suggest would be inaccurate. They employ a vast amount of test and analysis procedures which have been in use for a very long time and is in constant development. The Accuracy of the sum of their findings is not disputed by those qualified to do so but instead concurred by them. Here are some of the methods used to determine conditions.

Visual analysis
Isotopic analysis
Palaeoatmospheric sampling
Glaciochemistry
Radionuclides



The International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences have plans in place for the following, much more we can learn and do from this.

  • Retrieve ice cores that reach back over 1.2 million years, in order to obtain multiple iterations of ice core record for the 40,000-year long climate cycles known to have operated at that time. Current cores reach back over 800,000 years, and show 100,000-year cycles.
  • Improve ice core chronologies, including connecting chronologies of multiple cores.
  • Identify additional proxies from ice cores, for example for sea ice, marine biological productivity, or forest fires.
  • Drill additional cores to provide high-resolution data for the last 2,000 years, to use as input for detailed climate modelling.
  • Identify an improved drilling fluid
  • Improve the ability to handle brittle ice, both while drilling and in transport and storage
  • Find a way to handle cores which have pressurised water at bedrock
  • Come up with a standardised lightweight drill capable of drilling both wet and dry holes, and able to reach depths of up to 1000 m.
  • Improve core handling to maximise the information that can be obtained from each core.
And everything of that equals to their way of interpreting the data. The complexity involved doesn't make it better or more "scientific", it actually creates more room for error.
 

gamer16

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
4,893
#54
And everything of that equals to their way of interpreting the data. The complexity involved doesn't make it better or more "scientific", it actually creates more room for error.
They don't "interpret" they analyse and develop their findings with processes that have been thoroughly developed, tested and proven.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
11,699
#55
They don't "interpret" they analyse and develop their findings with processes that have been thoroughly developed, tested and proven.
Same thing. You don't actually disagree with anything I said you just don't like my word choices.
 

Rabobi

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
7,616
#56
Climate change, and warming. Its real

Did we cause it? Nobody can answer that because nobody has the data
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
18,730
#60
Great, more fear mongering.

If you are being sarcastic then well done, if you are being serious I suggest you phone this number +27 12 327 7076 they will help you.
He has a point. Climate change isn't all bad. It's actually good in some instances. It's only as humans that we are sentimental and averse to change but the earth's history shows it happened countless times. The reason we care about a few meters of coast is because we allowed people to build where they shouldn't have. Depending on your definition of species more are extinct than what are alive today. So why should we be trying to save any one of them? Sure it doesn't mean we should go and kill the last elephants but if they die a natural death why should we try to save them?

You shouldn't be basing your assumptions about climate change on memes, but on the science itself.
The meme is designed to make people think. We already KNOW it uses stock images and the ice shelf pic below is computer generated. We expect you to do the homework for yourself.
This is the whole point... stop following social eddies and flows on climate change and read the science for itself!
So why post it then? Oh yeah, because there is no science behind the claims. The meme makes us think alright. It makes us think what a bunch of crap is being spewed. It's well established that falsehoods can't win anybody over. So why don't climate fanatics use facts then for their cause? Because they simply don't have any on their side.
 
Top