PeaceGen
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,889
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Making a strong case for climate change being much more real and urgent than most admit
Recently, I had seen this post on facebook.com;
So I made a comment on it; "Faith in humanity is now being restored
"
Then I got a climate change denier on my facebook wall, who basically claimed all climate change news warnings are a 'propaganda machine hoax' orchestrated by 'people/companies' who 'buy scientists' to put forth 'false science' (like scientists in the 1950s advocated smoking was good for people), and that all climate change is 'purely cyclical in nature' instead.
We got into a bit of a discussion, which I'd like to repeat here now;
First, he said:
My reply to this was;
Then I addressed his claim that climate change research is corrupted (towards 'climate change is man made');
Urgent new time frame for climate change revealed by massive analysis
And who then *could* *and* would invest the money to corrupt climate science done in 12 countries as you suggest? (AND ever since it was put on the agenda..)
I think the opposite scenario, climate change research being corrupted towards 'climate change is not caused by humans, it's all strictly cyclical, blah blah' - is in fact the only 'direction for corruption' that has ANY 'supporters' that are both *willing* and *able* to corrupt climate change research in *that* direction.
Plus, if Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? is right; "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.", then it would be a LOT more expensive (especially over all the years this argument has been running) arranging corruption in the direction of 'climate change is man made' than it is towards 'climate change is not man made'.
And if you don't trust my source listed above, another source (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/factsheet/documents/ClimateChangeInfoSheet2013-03final.pdf) says "A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers. It concluded that 97–98% of the most active climate researchers support the reality of human-caused climate change. A 2009 survey by the American Geophysical Union found that 82% of the 3,000 responding Earth scientists – and 97.4% of those who were climate scientists – believe that human activity contributes to climate change."
The climate change denier on my facebook wall had no answer at all to countradict my cop-logic common-sense rebuttal of his claims climate change is a paid-for hoax with a call for plausible suspects (to pay for all of this).
I also know that the recent rate of species going extinct has gone through the roof since the 1800s, as made clear by Climate Change To Shrink Animal And Plant Habitats Dramatically, Study Forecasts and https://www.google.nl/search?q=grap...QWa_YHoDA&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1262&bih=849&dpr=1
The climate change denier had no answer to that either.
I then remembered a (rather underquoted and underreported in mainstream news) science report I had seen/read much earlier, about the (vast?!) amounts of methane that's currently frozen in the Earth's crust at many many places, and did some googling to confirm why this is a HUGE timebomb for our planet and ourselves;
And the thing i'm most worried about atm in the climate change area are google searches for 'co2 methane hydrate melting threshold' (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20596.full.pdf : "Large but poorly known amounts of methane are trapped in
the sediments beneath the sea floor, frozen into a form of
water ice called methane hydrate (1–3). The hydrates could be
vulnerable to melting with a deep ocean warming of a few
degrees Celsius", plus a google search for 'methane climate change permafrost' that shows for instance Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is an important warning, and google search 'methane climate change' listing Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA that says bluntly "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of [methane] on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.", which -quite likely via gigantic deposit of methane evaporating resulting in the start of another xxl dose of methane elsewhere on the planet evaporating a while later, and that cycle a few times repeated- ends us quite possibly in the scenario that's at the core of the movie "the day after tomorrow" torrent (download with µTorrent - a (very) tiny BitTorrent client) - the melting of way too much ice resulting in a salinity change in the oceans that stops the ocean currents carrying warmth from our equator up north, possibly bringing an ice age to where I live (and a glacier forming/approaching will care less than a honey badger about people it drives from their homes (http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i57/5/9/1...VE-A-****-So-stop-thinking-it-does-cca29c.jpg)), or -if the methane that's not factored in in that movie messes up the global climate in another way- any of the scenarios put forth on Runaway climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But, that movie I use as part of my layman's research, does not factor in the methane thing, so I replied to the climate change denier;
I've given this matter another thought, particularly the fact that that movie 'the day after tomorrow' doesn't factor in the big possibility that it's massive methane evaporation that causes the shutdown of the ocean currents that carry (massive amounts!!) of heat from the equator up north.
Maybe the chilling of the northern hemisphere won't be as severe as the movie suggests. But it's still likely to get a lot colder from let's say the UK and further north, and with the ocean currents taking a prolonged break (once the fresh water on the poles, greenland and siberia and alaska and canada have dripped into the seas, it's could take more than decades for it to snow down to somewhere where it'll stay fresh-water snow again) there's only the atmosphere to transfer (much more) heat from the equator up north (and to the far south too?!) (and it's also worthy to note that the entire equator region would be prone to passing the limit posed at Will Climate Change Cause Human Extinction? | Climate Change | ReWire | KCET ; "At 100 percent humidity, a temperature of 35°C -- 95°F -- proves fatal within days or hours to people in good health in ideal theoretical conditions -- as James Hansen puts it in a passage quoted by Curry, "even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive" such temperatures"), resulting in a vastly smaller human-habitable region on earth (at the longitude of southern europe for instance) that gets to experience much more severe storms, quite possibly so severe construction costs for safe housing are gonna go way up.
Once again, this whole methane timebomb we're jumping on at the moment, has got me worried.
I recommend anyone who doubts the amount of methane currently still stored in the Earth's crust is large enough to have a serious climate impact when released (due to our pumping of other greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere), to do their own *objective* googling on (a) how much methane is (cautiously) suspected to be stored where on Earth (I could find deposits in the seafloor, the arctic, northern Canada and Siberia, without extensive googling), and (b) when these deposits are suspected to start 'melting'.
One more google search for 'methane permafrost melting evaporate' yields Permafrost Melting Rate Could Be Faster And Worse Than We Thought, New Study Finds ;
Well, the climate change denier had no answer to this argument I put forth either. Instead, he tried the counterargument 'but arctic ice has been REgrowing rapidly recently', so I did some googling about that too, and responded as such;
since you reported that arctic ice is *regrowing* at the moment and used that fact to indicate that climate change is just cyclical as you say; I think we're seeing the overlap of such large/small cyclical climate changes COMBINED with our altering of our atmosphere.. As Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph reports ; "Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.” - that means that potentially in just 15 years we're gonna get the double-whammy of even (much) more CO2 in our atmosphere with the anticipated end of this short cooling trend, and then we're at risk of those currently frozen-in-the-ground-or-seabeds methane deposits entering the atmosphere, resulting in all the potential problems i'm worried about (but continue to hope won't come to pass into reality).
So, considering the realness of climate change's enormous risks (especially if we don't act NOW decisively to curb further human caused climate change), I want to point out to you results of the google search 'global total defense spending 2012' ; take World Military Spending and see it's at about 1.7 - 1.8 TRILLION per year.
Then, a google search for 'tackle climate change total global cost per year' yields few clear responses, but I *could* find Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian ;
A google search for 'global gdp 2012' yields Gross world product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ;
2% of 71.83 trillion is 1.43 trillion.
That's right folks. Our best chance for stopping mass-suffering and even the possible quick end of our planet's ability to support human life caused by scientifically-feared accelerations of climate change problems caused by human activities, is to -temporarily at least- divert as much "defense" spending as possible towards this climate change threat.
I welcome any climate change denier here to counteract the claims and science I put forth in this article.
And for those who already agree with my fears on this issue; I already reported this facebook thread to the US, UK and Dutch governments, US intel agencies, CNN, CNBC (stockmarket 24/7 news tv) and two leading dutch news agencies. I'll inform them of this thread as well.
Recently, I had seen this post on facebook.com;
So I made a comment on it; "Faith in humanity is now being restored
"Then I got a climate change denier on my facebook wall, who basically claimed all climate change news warnings are a 'propaganda machine hoax' orchestrated by 'people/companies' who 'buy scientists' to put forth 'false science' (like scientists in the 1950s advocated smoking was good for people), and that all climate change is 'purely cyclical in nature' instead.
We got into a bit of a discussion, which I'd like to repeat here now;
First, he said:
My reply to this was;
Then I addressed his claim that climate change research is corrupted (towards 'climate change is man made');
Urgent new time frame for climate change revealed by massive analysis
And who then *could* *and* would invest the money to corrupt climate science done in 12 countries as you suggest? (AND ever since it was put on the agenda..)
I think the opposite scenario, climate change research being corrupted towards 'climate change is not caused by humans, it's all strictly cyclical, blah blah' - is in fact the only 'direction for corruption' that has ANY 'supporters' that are both *willing* and *able* to corrupt climate change research in *that* direction.
Plus, if Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? is right; "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.", then it would be a LOT more expensive (especially over all the years this argument has been running) arranging corruption in the direction of 'climate change is man made' than it is towards 'climate change is not man made'.
And if you don't trust my source listed above, another source (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/factsheet/documents/ClimateChangeInfoSheet2013-03final.pdf) says "A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers. It concluded that 97–98% of the most active climate researchers support the reality of human-caused climate change. A 2009 survey by the American Geophysical Union found that 82% of the 3,000 responding Earth scientists – and 97.4% of those who were climate scientists – believe that human activity contributes to climate change."
The climate change denier on my facebook wall had no answer at all to countradict my cop-logic common-sense rebuttal of his claims climate change is a paid-for hoax with a call for plausible suspects (to pay for all of this).
I also know that the recent rate of species going extinct has gone through the roof since the 1800s, as made clear by Climate Change To Shrink Animal And Plant Habitats Dramatically, Study Forecasts and https://www.google.nl/search?q=grap...QWa_YHoDA&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1262&bih=849&dpr=1
The climate change denier had no answer to that either.
I then remembered a (rather underquoted and underreported in mainstream news) science report I had seen/read much earlier, about the (vast?!) amounts of methane that's currently frozen in the Earth's crust at many many places, and did some googling to confirm why this is a HUGE timebomb for our planet and ourselves;
And the thing i'm most worried about atm in the climate change area are google searches for 'co2 methane hydrate melting threshold' (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20596.full.pdf : "Large but poorly known amounts of methane are trapped in
the sediments beneath the sea floor, frozen into a form of
water ice called methane hydrate (1–3). The hydrates could be
vulnerable to melting with a deep ocean warming of a few
degrees Celsius", plus a google search for 'methane climate change permafrost' that shows for instance Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is an important warning, and google search 'methane climate change' listing Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA that says bluntly "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of [methane] on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.", which -quite likely via gigantic deposit of methane evaporating resulting in the start of another xxl dose of methane elsewhere on the planet evaporating a while later, and that cycle a few times repeated- ends us quite possibly in the scenario that's at the core of the movie "the day after tomorrow" torrent (download with µTorrent - a (very) tiny BitTorrent client) - the melting of way too much ice resulting in a salinity change in the oceans that stops the ocean currents carrying warmth from our equator up north, possibly bringing an ice age to where I live (and a glacier forming/approaching will care less than a honey badger about people it drives from their homes (http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i57/5/9/1...VE-A-****-So-stop-thinking-it-does-cca29c.jpg)), or -if the methane that's not factored in in that movie messes up the global climate in another way- any of the scenarios put forth on Runaway climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But, that movie I use as part of my layman's research, does not factor in the methane thing, so I replied to the climate change denier;
I've given this matter another thought, particularly the fact that that movie 'the day after tomorrow' doesn't factor in the big possibility that it's massive methane evaporation that causes the shutdown of the ocean currents that carry (massive amounts!!) of heat from the equator up north.
Maybe the chilling of the northern hemisphere won't be as severe as the movie suggests. But it's still likely to get a lot colder from let's say the UK and further north, and with the ocean currents taking a prolonged break (once the fresh water on the poles, greenland and siberia and alaska and canada have dripped into the seas, it's could take more than decades for it to snow down to somewhere where it'll stay fresh-water snow again) there's only the atmosphere to transfer (much more) heat from the equator up north (and to the far south too?!) (and it's also worthy to note that the entire equator region would be prone to passing the limit posed at Will Climate Change Cause Human Extinction? | Climate Change | ReWire | KCET ; "At 100 percent humidity, a temperature of 35°C -- 95°F -- proves fatal within days or hours to people in good health in ideal theoretical conditions -- as James Hansen puts it in a passage quoted by Curry, "even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive" such temperatures"), resulting in a vastly smaller human-habitable region on earth (at the longitude of southern europe for instance) that gets to experience much more severe storms, quite possibly so severe construction costs for safe housing are gonna go way up.
Once again, this whole methane timebomb we're jumping on at the moment, has got me worried.
I recommend anyone who doubts the amount of methane currently still stored in the Earth's crust is large enough to have a serious climate impact when released (due to our pumping of other greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere), to do their own *objective* googling on (a) how much methane is (cautiously) suspected to be stored where on Earth (I could find deposits in the seafloor, the arctic, northern Canada and Siberia, without extensive googling), and (b) when these deposits are suspected to start 'melting'.
One more google search for 'methane permafrost melting evaporate' yields Permafrost Melting Rate Could Be Faster And Worse Than We Thought, New Study Finds ;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/permafrost-melting-rate-2013_n_2741486.html said:
Well, the climate change denier had no answer to this argument I put forth either. Instead, he tried the counterargument 'but arctic ice has been REgrowing rapidly recently', so I did some googling about that too, and responded as such;
since you reported that arctic ice is *regrowing* at the moment and used that fact to indicate that climate change is just cyclical as you say; I think we're seeing the overlap of such large/small cyclical climate changes COMBINED with our altering of our atmosphere.. As Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph reports ; "Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.” - that means that potentially in just 15 years we're gonna get the double-whammy of even (much) more CO2 in our atmosphere with the anticipated end of this short cooling trend, and then we're at risk of those currently frozen-in-the-ground-or-seabeds methane deposits entering the atmosphere, resulting in all the potential problems i'm worried about (but continue to hope won't come to pass into reality).
So, considering the realness of climate change's enormous risks (especially if we don't act NOW decisively to curb further human caused climate change), I want to point out to you results of the google search 'global total defense spending 2012' ; take World Military Spending and see it's at about 1.7 - 1.8 TRILLION per year.
Then, a google search for 'tackle climate change total global cost per year' yields few clear responses, but I *could* find Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian ;
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange said:
A google search for 'global gdp 2012' yields Gross world product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product said:
2% of 71.83 trillion is 1.43 trillion.
That's right folks. Our best chance for stopping mass-suffering and even the possible quick end of our planet's ability to support human life caused by scientifically-feared accelerations of climate change problems caused by human activities, is to -temporarily at least- divert as much "defense" spending as possible towards this climate change threat.
I welcome any climate change denier here to counteract the claims and science I put forth in this article.
And for those who already agree with my fears on this issue; I already reported this facebook thread to the US, UK and Dutch governments, US intel agencies, CNN, CNBC (stockmarket 24/7 news tv) and two leading dutch news agencies. I'll inform them of this thread as well.
