*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

Most of the feedback from the medical community on this issue has stated that it simply doesn't work this way. "Faked" might be over stating it, but let's not ignore the police lying for their own ends as a factor.

For example, one of the feedback items from a doctor was how fentanyl "patches" take about 6 hours for their first effects to start happening, so that is one of the reasons this doctor was very skeptical of this.

I am certain. Science doesn't lie, and I don't have to take someone's word, I can examine data, understand chemistry, and see short and long term trends. The data is undeniable, the only thing wrong with what the media tells you is they paint FAR too rosy a picture. You would think, based on media reports, that if we did stay at only 1.5C above pre industrial levels all is fine, that's nonsense. Truth is 1.5C is where they theorized we lose all control and skyrocket up from there to....nobody knows where, but hot. I think we are on track to 1.5C before 2030, and the feedback loops are already kicking in now. Does that mean we die in 2030? No, but it means our collective fate is sealed and completely out of our control.

I do plant trees, I already have solar, I drive well under 4000 miles a year, in fact I haven't driven anywhere but the grocery store in the wife's car in over 6 month when my car broke, and I don't miss it, I don't have AC, and yes, I need to get on my bike more, for my weight and blood pressure. My money IS where my mouth is, and I still was willing to put it on the line....you aren't.

A big difference is, if somehow I am wrong, what I do is still proper, cleaner, safer, and actually cheaper. Your ideas and ideals lead to detrimental, polluting, dangerous, and more expensive actions and processes even if miraculously they don't lead to our extinction this century.

Are you snatching up cheap uninsurable coastline in Florida and Louisiana? Are you selling off your water rights because they're a dime a dozen? Are you short selling produce and grains on margin? Are you doing anything to risk your money based on what you say?

Your turn.

Edit: I don't do mobs. I prefer people who think for themselves.

Says the dumb fuck who didn't graduate 8th grade, just like his pa and paw paw.

118F, Bob. Shouldn't be over 40F. All time highs broken world wide daily...but nope, Bob knows better than everyone with his 80 IQ and D average through middle school. You are such a dumb fuck it's amazing. I bet you also insist trickle down works for the poor, cigarettes aren't addictive and don't cause cancer, and the sun revolves around the earth carried in a flying chariot. Leave the science to people with brains, please. You only force us to ridicule you when you pretend to know or even understand it.

No Bob. All is lost now thanks to fucking idiotic morons like you.
We have tipped some tipping points, started the natural feedback loops that signal the end of our opportunity to control the changes, there is now no avoiding severe climate change that civilization will not survive, likely humans won't survive at all.

Yes, Bob, actually ALL experts, including UN experts, agree. Climate change isn't a theory, it's reality. It's unavoidable. Now, it's likely unmitigateable and unsurvivable. Your video was from 3 years ago and was overly optimistic then, assuming we would lower emissions rather than ramp them up, things are exponentially worse today because instead of curtailing our emissions we've increased them to over 36.5 BILLION tons per year...if forests were all healthy at 1900 levels they could absorb 7 billion tons, but thanks to deforestation and droughts, that's cut in half or worse. Same goes for the carbon sinks in the ocean, they were absorbing around 7 billion tons a year, now heat and acidity have all but stopped them from absorbing CO2 and destroyed the most diverse ecosystems underwater.
Estimates are 1600 billion tons of carbon are stored in permafrost as methane, which is 25 times as damaging as CO2 in the short term. That's >40 times the carbon humans produce annually, all in the worst of greenhouse gasses, and it's melting out rapidly....exploding out in many cases.

I hope you live long enough to be forced to accept responsibility for your stupidity...something fitting, along the lines of being slowly eaten alive by your family for days before they're murdered by a mob of survivors for their water before you die in agony, limbless, dehydrated, and burnt to a crisp. You deserve no less.

Such an unbelievable bat shit crazy moron you've become.

Before "someone" spouts off about this being a singular, isolated weather event in America and Canada, it's happening world wide.
All time record high temperatures are also happening in Europe, Asia, Africa including ground temperatures in Siberia above the arctic circle at 118F, not so good for permafrost that should be near freezing. Mexico has seen all time high temperatures for June exceeding 125F, nighttime low temperatures are also shattering all time highs like 105F overnight in palm springs, and over 70F was the overnight low in S Africa (southern hemisphere) on the WINTER solstice. Let's not forget, June is typically the coolest summer month.
It's hard to imagine this not triggering feedback loops like permafrost releasing methane and less ice reflecting heat that are each, by themselves, more than we could possibly counteract with current technology with an unlimited budget and the collective will to try. Combined, and without the unlimited funds or collective will to act, it's looking like game over, man.
Somehow "we told you so" hardly seems sufficient.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/heat-wave-russia-brings-record-breaking-temperatures-north/story?id=78446355

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2021/06/22/wild-high-temperatures-worldwide-show-the-extent-of-record-june-heat-wave/?sh=496b6bc05668

You don't want a vaccine? Lovely. We will be canceling your health insurance. Since you've chosen to be a complete cunt, we've chosen not to pay for your utter cuntiness.

I work in health insurance. The three biggest contributors to the price of insurance are:
1: fraud (doctors are notorious for this)
2: general waste (upbilling; unnecessary tests that are only performed to keep the fucking ambulance-chasing lawyers from filing malpractice suits because someone got the shits from an antibiotic)
3: PREVENTABLE HEALTH ISSUES. This includes obesity, smoking, not exercising, not getting annual checkups and atrocious dietary habits as first-order issues. If not corrected, these lead to more expensive and longer term second-order issues: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, vascular disease. These issues start a feedback loop with the second-order effects cause immobility which contributes to increasing first-order effects which amplifies second-order effects -- lather, rinse, repeat.

Now add a good case of Covid to that mix. If you end up on a ventilator for two week, there's a mil-plus in hospital bills: someone has to either pay that (welcome higher insurance rates!) or the hospital has to eat it (welcome even HIGHER insurance rates!) You can bitch all you want about the cost of healthcare in America, but you're paying for every dumb, entitled asshole who spouts shit like MUH FREEDUMS!! when asked to do basic things to protect themselves and others.

tl;dr: your idiot views of what the actual fuck "freedom" is ends at my wallet. Fuck you and get your goddamn vaccine. And put down the Cheetos while you're at it.

Depends on your definition of "need", and your definition of "stopping" climate change.

Because I'm convinced enough natural feedback loops are in effect that there's no chance at all of stopping further climate change, and only a slight chance of slowing the rate of change and only if humanity fundamentally changes first, I find the question flawed.

I find it odd that tidal energy (different from hydro) is never considered in these debates. It's simple, relatively cheap, easy to maintain, and best of all predictable and consistent. All you need is a shoreline with a relatively large tide swing, a small inlet, and a tidal flat.

At best, nuclear is a stop gap measure that trades one planetary poison for another.....largely because we aren't responsible with it....building on shores in earthquake zones for convenience, banning fuel recycling, having no long term waste plan and handling waste insanely (Japan, I'm looking at you and your plans to dump Fukushima irradiated water into the ocean)....It's far from "green" the way we do it.

Something like that needs haptic feedback. I don't know if it has it built in already but when you place your foot on the ground, you need to feel that pressure against your foot.

Your video, Let's talk about Trump's decisions and feedback loops..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Trump MAKES Decisions according to his feedback loops is the point. Whether we like them or not is a "nothing burper."




get it? FEEDback loop? nothing Burper?

icrackmyselfup

I want the switch to route the mic signal directly and solely to a speaker built into the candidate's lectern. Start talking when it isn't your turn, you get the feedback (but no one else hears it, or at least not nearly as loudly).

I got the feeling after watching some of her other videos that she targets a group of kids that have had a tough and abusive life. Her words or lyrics or style harmonize with victims and gets their attention but may also elude the "fortunate". She also shows hope that they can overcome just as she has.

Music, no matter the genre will reach those that are looking for answers to cope with whatever the damage may be and the answer will always be, "you are not alone in being alone."

-----------------------------------

All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall - Pink Floyd

-----------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9W3X0T15Rs

-----------------------------------

The Spirit of Radio

Begin the day
With a friendly voice
A companion, unobtrusive
Plays that song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood
Off on your way
Hit the open road
There is magic at your fingers
For the spirit ever lingers
Undemanding contact
In your happy solitude
Invisible airwaves
Crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle
With the energy
Emotional feedback
On a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price
Almost free
All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah, your honesty
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity, yeah
Invisible airwaves
Crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle
With the energy
Emotional feedback
On a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price
Almost free
For the words of the profits
Were written on the studio wall
Concert hall
And echoes with the sound of salesmen
Of salesmen, of salesmen - Rush

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

You are correct, I was using NOAA numbers, not realizing they use a different start point to compare from. I honestly thought both would use 1890, pre industrial era start points, since that's what the 1.5C limit is based on. Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic.

No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report. You can accept their current estimate, that's better than the average person. I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine.

I have no horse in this race. I hit my best by date next year, and don't have kids...got fixed in my 20's. What happens after 2050 isn't my concern, and I have no problem if humanity goes extinct. It's all the other life we will take with us, or worse, that we survive as the last species standing, that gets me upset.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.