111–118 of 118 posts
So have we fired a clathrate gun then [1]? It's getting increasingly difficult to pretend worst-case global warming scenarios won't turn into reality in the next 25 years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
There is clathrate under the permafrost, but I doubt that it's substantially vaporizing yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go into this with an open mind, but it shows a number of ways that nuclear is superior to renewables, coming from someone who was staunchly against nuclear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
It’s a great video - thanks! I’m less worried about the safety, than the actual ability to just manage to build the damn things to spec and any kind of budget in the US regulatory environment.
Currently the US defense emits a non-negligible amount of CO2 [2]: "If it were a country, it would have been the world's 55th largest greenhouse gas emitter, with emissions larger than Portugal, Sweden or Denmark." [2]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700462955/former-defense-lead...
[2] https://www.livescience.com/65698-defense-department-climate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think perhaps you ought to realize how childish the "it's cold outside so global warming is a myth" argument sounds. It makes you sound willfully ignorant, which I'm sure isn't what you intended.
No it's not, but it's completely symmetric to the anecdote they were replying to, which was in fact the point. We've got 6 replies so far saying mikeb85's comment is silly, but only one saying that the comment he was replying to was silly, by EXACTLY the same arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say nothing is happening, I said it's not the end of the world. The effects so far are small compared to the direct damage caused by the air pollution itself, which kills over a million people a year. I don't expect that will change in my lifetime. The predictions are not so dire that it is likely to take a million lives a year. Over a period of several hundred years, it's a lot harder to say. At no point is…
This worldview is hyper human-centric. There are ~7735776725 people alive now. A million less is 7734776725. To keep this population alive billions of other lives are sacrificed. Yes humans and human civilization will be less affected in the short term, perhaps, or at least those that matter: i.e european northern hemisphere types. Short to medium term biosphere collapse will absolutely impact human civilization, but…
The 10 degrees warming after the last ice age makes climate change small by comparison. Let's not forget the 400ft of sea level rise. In fact if you look at the climate record the last ten thousand years, the current level of warming is lost in the noise. It will take centuries before it's enough to really jump out on the graph.
Life will adapt and carry on, climate change is possibly only a temporary blip for the earth itself. It may even turn out to be a good thing on long enough time scales, because it's been a little too chilly for comfort here the last few million years. Repeated cycles of ice ages are no joke. If you want to see how bad that can get, lookup snowball earth. Warming is no joke either, see Venus, but a little warming might not be the end of the world.
I'm Canadian, my county was buried under 2km of ice that scoured it to bedrock just as civilization was beginning elsewhere in the world. If you are in the US, you grow your food in what used to be Canadian soil. I'm more afraid of the cold than the heat. People from Australia and the middle east likely have the opposite view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli... https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overst...
Cherry-picked input and model data to exaggerate their claims, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger both work for the CATO institute, and Ross McKitrick is an economics professor and known climate change denier[0]. I do not have enough in-depth understanding of climate sciences in order to fully comprehend the articles you've attached, nor can I be bothered to (there's no attempt to make it accessible for the layman),…
And yet you have no problem accusing the authors of "cherry-picking" and exaggeration. Amazing how people refuse to accept that ignorance and refusal to look at the facts disqualifies them from having an opinion.
Btw, Judith Curry has plenty of published peer-reviewed papers; even the Wikipedia article you reference notes that (apparently you can't be bothered to read that either). She took the position you describe in 2019 (according to that same article); her doing so was based on bitter experience with how much the peer review process has been hijacked by ideological partisans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli... https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overst...
Cherry-picked input and model data to exaggerate their claims, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger both work for the CATO institute, and Ross McKitrick is an economics professor and known climate change denier[0]. I do not have enough in-depth understanding of climate sciences in order to fully comprehend the articles you've attached, nor can I be bothered to (there's no attempt to make it accessible for the layman),…
If you think Judith Curry is the only scientist who questions the "consensus" in climate science, you are extremely misinformed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cherry-picked input and model data to exaggerate their claims, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger both work for the CATO institute, and Ross McKitrick is an economics professor and known climate change denier[0]. I do not have enough in-depth understanding of climate sciences in order to fully comprehend the articles you've attached, nor can I be bothered to (there's no attempt to make it accessible for the layman),…
> she's a lone scientist defying the consensus If you think Judith Curry is the only scientist who questions the "consensus" in climate science, you are extremely misinformed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I didn't have a child, for his sake. The climate makes things like "retirement" really hard to think about... it just hurts to think about his future
That seems like a very dramatic overstatement. Climate change is a serious problem, but hardly past human ingenuity to deal with. It's not like your children will be in a hell world. It'll be warmer, more storms, challenges due to changing sea level and arable lands shifting etc. It won't be a cataclysm but will play out over decades and centuries. Your child, and your children's children will be fine.