So Global warming is a good thing - Pompeo

[Majes]

If we burn your house it would be wise for us to take what's left including the lumber so we can have more BBQ's.

Great idea!

I would like to see the science behind this "thermostat" people seem to think will kick in at a degree or two for starters.

It's what humans do to survive and prosper.

The Earth has regulated itself through other disasters and changes. I'm sure it will with this carbon saturation. It's more a question of what the regulation will require, and what life will be left at the end of this cycle.

 

[dphantom]

So heat waves aren't dangerous but dropping the temps a few degrees is. Science? Nope.

Sure warming is better than freezing to death. Put on another layer.

strawman. didn't say that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's what humans do to survive and prosper.

The Earth has regulated itself through other disasters and changes. I'm sure it will with this carbon saturation. It's more a question of what the regulation will require, and what life will be left at the end of this cycle.

As we are here it's self-evident that some life survived the Great Dying only wiped out the vast majority of life. That would be true in with the current Second Great Dying, where humanity wipes itself out along with most everything else. Humans being a failed species appears to be a given then and technological intelligence a dead end like so many others adaptations but we do win the biggest Darwin Award. It's too bad that wisdom did not evolve to match our ability to tamper with things.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

strawman. didn't say that.

There is no positive to the current situation other than transients towards the path to disaster. One might as well say "well this is better than standing around waiting for a 20 mile hunk of metal and stone to strike because it has a silver lining, for a while"

 

[cytg111]

perhaps your definition of global warming is different.

My statement was that warming is good. I expanded upon the statement that warmth (or heat) kills fewer than cold. And later expanded that warmth to a point was good also.

Then of course all the doomsters come out of the woodwork.

it's fun to see everyone's knee jerk reaction to a simple observational statement.

it shows yet again why this forum is not a place for civil debate when posters have to resort to casting personal aspersions on another.

So a final restatement:
I think the Earth is warming since the end of the LIA ie there is global warming
Warmer temps kill fewer people than cold

No dude. Sorry, there is not an angle to your argument that is not profoundly ignorant. I know you want to come of as smart here, I suggest you find another hill.

 

[HomerJS]

It is a good thing. Fewer people die in warmer temps than in colder ones.

So what? Means nothing unless you are positing the only effect of climate change is warmer global temperatures.

 

[dphantom]

Ok thanks for clearing that up.

Of course while heat waves kill less than extreme cold per your link global warming is not simply a heat wave. It will cause more deaths via heat waves, extreme cold, flooding, more extreme weather events and disruptions in ecology especially in subsistence level areas.

There’s actually quite a lot of doom if we go down the path of trying to maximize fossil fuel company shareholder value but from your simplistic view on climate that’s a future that would be difficult for you to see.

I have not espoused any opinion on global warming other than some warming is better than cold. Perhaps the nuances of that simple statement escaped you as it has others. Any discussion of global warming would first have to start with a comprehensive definition agreed to by all parties on what is meant by global warming. Then an intelligent discourse could begin. But not in this forum as there is a fairly low tolerance for debate outside the accepted viewpoint regardless of the topic under discussion.

Hence why I kept my comment very simple yet as seen above was completely misrepresented by our resident "firemen".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have not espoused any opinion on global warming other than some warming is better than cold. Perhaps the nuances of that simple statement escaped you as it has others. Any discussion of global warming would first have to start with a comprehensive definition agreed to by all parties on what is meant by global warming. Then an intelligent discourse could begin. But not in this forum as there is a fairly low tolerance for debate outside the accepted viewpoint regardless of the topic under discussion.

Hence why I kept my comment very simple yet as seen above was completely misrepresented by our resident "firemen".

Your very simple comment is akin to the headline "Two vehicles demolished in an accident that kills eight people. Bystander comments "well that's eight people who won't suffer from a cold snap"

That would be literally true.

 

[Majes]

As we are here it's self-evident that some life survived the Great Dying only wiped out the vast majority of life. That would be true in with the current Second Great Dying, where humanity wipes itself out along with most everything else. Humans being a failed species appears to be a given then and technological intelligence a dead end like so many others adaptations but we do win the biggest Darwin Award. It's too bad that wisdom did not evolve to match our ability to tamper with things.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. My personal view is if we end up causing a Second Great Dying then if any life survives I think humanity will. We've shown ourselves to be adaptive and resilient. Plus we have tons of "end of the world" movies and books to reference.

 

[umbrella39]

It’s a sad thing. Many conservatives lie about their posts.

And are unrepentant about it. It makes me wonder why he has so much invested in his lies? Must benefit from the raping of our environment and planet. No other motivation causes conservatives to lie so much... the almighty dollar.

 

[nakedfrog]

I have not espoused any opinion on global warming other than some warming is better than cold. Perhaps the nuances of that simple statement escaped you as it has others. Any discussion of global warming would first have to start with a comprehensive definition agreed to by all parties on what is meant by global warming. Then an intelligent discourse could begin. But not in this forum as there is a fairly low tolerance for debate outside the accepted viewpoint regardless of the topic under discussion.

Hence why I kept my comment very simple yet as seen above was completely misrepresented by our resident "firemen".

You also denied that there was an increase in severe weather events.

 

[hal2kilo]

You also denied that there was an increase in severe weather events.

Yea, it's not like there have been repeated 100 year floods in several area of this country, Upper mid-west Mississippi tributaries and the Mississippi river itself are currently in this situation. Not normal!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. My personal view is if we end up causing a Second Great Dying then if any life survives I think humanity will. We've shown ourselves to be adaptive and resilient. Plus we have tons of "end of the world" movies and books to reference.

Well the Morlocks survived so we can move a few underground. Trump, the CEO of Exxon and their effective slaves in this scenario might survive. You? No.

 

[Jaskalas]

Pompeo is blissfully ignoring the vast amounts of methane currently frozen in the tundra and undersea. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. When the arctic warming releases that gas in quantity the sh*t will really hit the fan.

About that...
Eemian - 115,000 years ago. Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today.

How does sea level rise? Ice over land melts. Let us assume it melted at a lower temp, over a longer period of time than today. But still, MORE of it did melt. So my theory is... until our sea level matches the Eemian, we have no "feedback loop" that we haven't already seen before, and quite recently I might add. So the whole "methane in the Arctic" idea really does not scare me. Because logically much worse has already happened to it. Until our sea level is as high.

Make sense?

 

[nakedfrog]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. My personal view is if we end up causing a Second Great Dying then if any life survives I think humanity will. We've shown ourselves to be adaptive and resilient. Plus we have tons of "end of the world" movies and books to reference.

There's also Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos, humanity survived in that too, just with a bit of adaptation...

 

[zinfamous]

About that...
Eemian - 115,000 years ago. Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today.

How does sea level rise? Ice over land melts. Let us assume it melted at a lower temp, over a longer period of time than today. But still, MORE of it did melt. So my theory is... until our sea level matches the Eemian, we have no "feedback loop" that we haven't already seen before, and quite recently I might add. So the whole "methane in the Arctic" idea really does not scare me. Because logically much worse has already happened to it. Until our sea level is as high.

Make sense?

"We're totally fine, even if we go back to a sea-level of pre-history that was totally uninhabitable for humans, because the earth did it before."

It is weird that you would make this argument.

The earth also had an unsustainable concentration of Oxygen that saw regular atmospheric fire storms. But that's totally fine for us, because it happened before. The earth also had CO2 levels so high that it sustained giant exothermic reptiles and arachnids, but that would be totally fine for humans because it means more plants and well, because it happened before.

 

[hal2kilo]

"We're totally fine, even if we go back to a sea-level of pre-history that was totally uninhabitable for humans, because the earth did it before."

It is weird that you would make this argument.

The earth also had an unsustainable concentration of Oxygen that saw regular atmospheric fire storms. But that's totally fine for us, because it happened before. The earth also had CO2 levels so high that it sustained giant exothermic reptiles and arachnids, but that would be totally fine for humans because it means more plants and well, because it happened before.

Yea, I never gotten those arguments either. Our existence is but a spec of time, like yesterday, in the time the earth has existed.

 

[Jaskalas]

"We're totally fine, even if we go back to a sea-level of pre-history that was totally uninhabitable for humans, because the earth did it before."

It is weird that you would make this argument.

Are you stupid enough to think 115 thousand years ago was uninhabitable?
Go ahead and defend your position. Else, what the fuck are you even presenting as an argument here?

You didn't even read my post, did you? You certainly did not understand that it is in regards to frozen methane and people's very common and very loud fears about it thawing. So I presented proof positive that it melted before, to quite a much larger extent than today. There was obviously no runaway ecological disaster then, and there clearly will not be one today until our sea level is at least 20-30 feet higher.

To which a simpleton would reply "hurr hurr, so you don't think CO2 is a problem?"

No, the point is I say we have time to address CO2. We have time to reduce our emissions and time to sink it from the atmosphere. Frozen methane is no imminent threat to life on this planet, contrary to popular fear. The proof is in the Eemian.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

About that...
Eemian - 115,000 years ago. Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today.

How does sea level rise? Ice over land melts. Let us assume it melted at a lower temp, over a longer period of time than today. But still, MORE of it did melt. So my theory is... until our sea level matches the Eemian, we have no "feedback loop" that we haven't already seen before, and quite recently I might add. So the whole "methane in the Arctic" idea really does not scare me. Because logically much worse has already happened to it. Until our sea level is as high.

Make sense?

I think you and others have some misunderstandings about climate, past, and present.

The Eemian has no bearing with today's situation. There is a general statement that is true- Warmer temperatures melt ice and sea level rises. That's pretty much it.

The flaws in your logic-

You create a situation you call a theory with no data lends support and say "we have no feedback loop" until sea levels equal previous levels. You mention methane in the artic thing, which doesn't scare you. Whether is does or does not isn't altering the current situation and is wholly independent on where the coastline lies. What you fail to mention is that the far far slower process of the glacial cycles than today's changes allowed some time for evolution, but wholesale extinctions were common. and have not presented one causal scientifically backed piece of evidence that supports your claim.

Perhaps a better example of what rapid change does happened 70k years when our species was very nearly exterminated. The timescale for the subsequent disaster after the supervolcano is more closely alike to today than the Eemian. But then the supervolcano stopped and over a short time, perhaps equal to all recorded human history, things recovered bit by bit- but only because it stopped. We aren't stopping- and so we are looking at the Second Great Dying.

This isn't glaciation now, there is no natural cooling to be had and a point of relatively high temperatures is being driven beyond what it normally would occur combined with significant changes faster than the blink of an eye allowing for no adaptation. So push the temps up faster than phytoplankton can adapt and then you will understand but too late.

 

[brycejones]

You also denied that there was an increase in severe weather events.

Yeah notice how he bailed on that argument without acknowledging he was wrong?

 

[Paratus]

I have not espoused any opinion on global warming other than some warming is better than cold.

This statement is similar to not espousing an opinion on the existence of gravity, the efficacy of vaccines, or the shape of the Earth.

It’s very nature indicates that the person stating it likely holds views outside the mainstream either through ignorance or motivated reasoning.

Perhaps the nuances of that simple statement escaped you as it has others.

No the nuance is quite clear. By playing semantic games you can attempt to cloud the mainstream view without actually stating your own view which you are unable to defend.

Any discussion of global warming would first have to start with a comprehensive definition agreed to by all parties on what is meant by global warming.

For someone who has in the past said he likes to research this subject you should have found any one of a number of acceptable scientific definitions of global warming.

• Heat Energy of a system (Earth) increases over time
• Energy into a system (Earth) is greater than the energy leaving the system over time
• The average temperature of the surface of the Earth, the of the atmosphere and ocean are increasing

Any of those would be fine.

Then an intelligent discourse could begin. But not in this forum as there is a fairly low tolerance for debate outside the accepted viewpoint regardless of the topic under discussion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence which supports a warming earth caused by the release of ~30 Gigatons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases per year. Evidence which suggests expensive adaptation strategies will be needed.

Intelligent discourse would be to start from the point of accepting these facts and instead discussing appropriate mitigation strategies.

Hence why I kept my comment very simple yet as seen above was completely misrepresented by our resident "firemen".

Yes while your very simple comment maybe narrowly correct it does not apply to the topic at hand. Global warming is not a heat wave and the increasing number of deaths from it cannot be directly compared to a cold snap.

So if intelligent discourse is what you want instead of throwing shade at mainstream science which you are unable to contradict and arguing semantics why don’t you address what it is about the mitigation strategies that you find so distressing.

Living in huts is not the solution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So if intelligent discourse is what you want instead of throwing shade at mainstream science which you are unable to contradict and arguing semantics why don’t you address what it is about the mitigation strategies that you find so distressing.

Science is not done by these people. Take permafrost yet again. The estimated carbon currently sequestered in Siberia is about equal to that in the entire atmosphere with much of that being in a form nearly two orders of magnitude more potent than CO2. You know this and so do others who are familiar with the facts, but there are indeed "firemen" in the Fahrenheit 451 sense, doing their work to repress or discredit that which they oppose not based on facts but because that's what they are bound to do.

 

[cytg111]

About that...
Eemian - 115,000 years ago. Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today.

How does sea level rise? Ice over land melts. Let us assume it melted at a lower temp, over a longer period of time than today. But still, MORE of it did melt. So my theory is... until our sea level matches the Eemian, we have no "feedback loop" that we haven't already seen before, and quite recently I might add. So the whole "methane in the Arctic" idea really does not scare me. Because logically much worse has already happened to it. Until our sea level is as high.

Make sense?

So around the same time we learned to control fire

https://thequintessentialmind.com/primal-living-and-modern-parallels/homo-sapiens-timeline/

There is a lot more of us now, more densly packed, eating a lot more cow and burning a lot bigger fires. As our prosperity is correlated with trade you have costal cities around the planet. Its going to get ugly.

 

[dphantom]

Science is not done by these people. Take permafrost yet again. The estimated carbon currently sequestered in Siberia is about equal to that in the entire atmosphere with much of that being in a form nearly two orders of magnitude more potent than CO2. You know this and so do others who are familiar with the facts, but there are indeed "firemen" in the Fahrenheit 451 sense, doing their work to repress or discredit that which they oppose not based on facts but because that's what they are bound to do.

Yeah notice how he bailed on that argument without acknowledging he was wrong?

A few examples if you are really interested. There are dozens more.

Hurricane
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Tornado Trends USA contiguous
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
Seasonal Snow Cover - NH
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Fire Frequency
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires
California Drought
https://cpo.noaa.gov/Meet-the-Divis...MAPP-Task-Forces/Drought/Drought-Task-Force-I

 

[dphantom]

So if intelligent discourse is what you want instead of throwing shade at mainstream science which you are unable to contradict and arguing semantics why don’t you address what it is about the mitigation strategies that you find so distressing.

Living in huts is not the solution.

My mitigation strategy is to buy a very nice 27' boat with a 300HP outboard engine for my family and friends to enjoy on my lake. Planned for 2021 when I trade in my existing smaller boat.

In all seriousness, any mitigation scenario that is practical involves nuclear power. Windmills and solar simply will not sustain an energy intensive economy. Nor will it allow those brown, yellow and black people living in abject poverty to transition to the modern world. The only way they can do that is grid scale 7x24 power plants - preferably CCGT but HEC if needed based on their resources at hand. Intermittent, unreliables may be fine for simple cooking or recharging a cell phone, but to drive an industrial economy and lift these people into a world where they have continuous, reliable access to clean water, health care, food supplies will require much more.