Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 15:11:40

As a youth i had a very strong allergy to golden rod. Whatever your source saying it is not an allergen is FOS.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 15:17:03

My source is a biologist. He said the pollen is too sticky to get deep enough in the sinuses to cause serious allergies. People assume they are allergic because they see it blooming and it is a very noticeable bright yellow flower. But it generally blooms the same time as ragweed (which has an unremarkable green flower), so people assume it is the thing that they see that is causing their woes...classic case of confusing correlation with causation.

But I'll see if I can find some other confirmatory sources on this.

I used to have quite horrible late-summer/early fall allergies, and I too associated it with goldenrod...was hesitant for years to plant any in my native flower patch.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 15:22:15

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinio ... have-been/

Dear allergy sufferers: Don't blame goldenrod

Less-showy ragweed, which blooms at the same time, is the real culprit behind hay fever's sneezing, sniffling and itchy eyes.

https://www.thespruce.com/am-i-allergic ... od-1762269

Many people experience allergies in the late summer and fall, and they may blame the goldenrod that they see blooming everywhere at this time of year. However, goldenrod (Solidago) is probably not what is making your allergies become a nuisance during the late summer.


http://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/the-goldenrod-allergy-myth/

The Goldenrod Allergy Myth
Goldenrod blooms are an autumn delight—both for human admirers and wildlife visitors. I can’t help but smile when I see the sunny blossoms, teeming with pollinators. That’s what makes hearing the native plants (Solidago spp.) regarded as the main cause of hay fever so disheartening: Sharing the same flowering period as the culprits, they are labeled guilty by association.


Ah ha! The first things that pop up all confirm my position!

I'd say the onus is on you at this point to find reliable sources that support your own claim. Or to simply be persuaded by these and the many other sources confirming that the goldenrod-allergy connection is a myth.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby phaster » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 16:07:52

#goldenrod

I the real Donald J. Trump tweet,... that its 100% myth Stormy Daniels touched my yuge "goldenrod" uh,... next

http://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/2 ... ion-491333

sorry to hijack a thread I started about a serious discussion about climate-change doom and gloom, etc., but since the prior post specifically mentioned "goldenrod" and "myth" though some "related" humor (or my attempt of) might introduce main stream "news" subject matter a majority of people would relate to AND sadly be interested in,...
truth is,...

www.ThereIsNoPlanet-B.org
User avatar
phaster
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dissident » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 19:36:23

BTW, ragweed grows large under higher CO2 conditions. Meanwhile some food staples like cassava have more toxic greenery (more cyanide releasing compounds) while the tubers shrink.

Global warming deniers are basically arrogant retards. They have no clue as to what really happens when you screw around with the parameters of the global environment, but their autistic gut feelings always come up with nothing bad will ever happen, feel good delusion. (Likely as an over-compensation for the fact that they are f*cked in life.) That is what they operate on.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 20:08:50

Global warming deniers are basically arrogant retards

Or more politely, reading deficient and/or biased/in denial
The evidence is all around us now and the science very firm and the consensus almost unanimous among the experts
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 22:12:55

Well you have me there. I didn’t know there was a difference between golden rod and ray weed. Back to the topic at hand, mankind’s self destruction. Sorry for the thread drift.

From James Fennimore Cooper, his first article. Autobiography of a handkerchief about 1830.

“To those who live in the narrow circle of human interests and human feelings, there ever exists, unheeded, almost unnoticed, before their very eyes, the most humbling proofs of their own comparative insignificance in the scale of creation, which, in the midst of their admitted mastery over the earth and all it contains, it would be well for them to consider, if they would obtain just views of what they are and what they were intended to be.”
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 22:47:24

One. More. Time.

AGW/CC is a theory that has been advanced to explain why the world is warming at faster than the expected rate. The theory has supporters and detractors. In reality, perhaps a few hundred people on this planet are qualified to have valid opinions. If your primary education is as a climate scientist, and your career work is in analyzing climate, then you would have a valid opinion on this matter. I do not believe that I described any Peak Oil Forum member with those words, but if you want to correct me, do so by stating your qualifications.

Anybody else, including you or me or your Great Uncle Harry, is an amatuer without the education, the knowledge, and even the need to know whether the AGW/CC theory is correct.

The IPCC is the main international body concerned with investigating the AGW/CC theory. It issues periodic "Assessment Reports", the most recent being AR5, published in 2014. Prior to that, AR4 was published in 2007. AR6 will be published in 2019, after work completes which began in 2017. The IPCC publishes BOTH the AR's and a "Summary for Policymakers" report to go with each one.

Now for the white elephant in the room, which most of you have been ignoring. The IPCC does NOT attempt to state whether AGW/CC is real or not. What it actually does - only in the summary report - is state the majority opinion and the minority opinion from it's members. The difference would be that between AR4 and AR5, the majority opinion (i.e. AGW/CC is real) and the minority opinion (i.e. AGW/CC is unproven) changed significantly.

BOTH AR4 and AR5 had majority opinions that AGW/CCC was real and a concern. However, based on actual IPCC summaries, the minority opinion modestly increased in AR5.

Now heres my own opinion, which is no better than yours, and no worse. The IPCC membership is large, but relatively few work on these reports, and I think the process for vetting report contributors is a good one. Yet the scientific concensus from IPCC contributors is tilting away from "AGW/CC is real", somewhat. If I am understanding WHY this is so, it is because the climate modellers have identified more natural contributions to actual warming, and therefore the modeled amount attributed to humans has declined.

Now here's the difference between those scientists and complete ignoramuses. THEY (the scientists) do not talk in absolutes, they only talk of probabilities. The ignoramuses of the world flatly describe AGW/CC as (to use their own ignorant words) certain, confirmed, real, a major concern, etc. They are also want to describe those who support the minority scientific opinion on the topic of AGW/CC as trolls or retards or even worse.

The final word: The theory of AGW/CC would be confirmed or disproven in another 200 years or so. However, it's a moot point because we don't have the fossil fuels to burn for that long. Meanwhile, there is another checkpoint coming in about 18 months when AR6 is published by the IPCC. IF (as I suspect) the AGW/CC concensus has decined further and the minority opinion increases again, what are you ignoramuses gonna do then?
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 23:15:47

What Kaiser has stated is at best disingenuous. First off, if one has a decent education and can read, one can peruse the vast literature on what climate change is and what is the status of the threat. I have to some degree done that. Like anything else one can analyze data with a keen sense of what makes sense and what does not. Back in the 1980's Dr. James Hanson testified before the US congress of the potential threat that loomed with respect to climate change. He is considered an eminent Earth/Climate scientist.
Now since then CO2 has risen dramatically. It has been almost totally attributed to mankind and its practices. This can be verified by measuring other potential large sources of CO2 as well as man made contributions. Well, the incontrovertible consensus is we are responsible for almost all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, we also have detailed paleolithic knowledge and understandings of what has occurred in past times on Earth with regard CO2 and its role in climate change. We know via undeniable experimentation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such will trap heat on the lower portions of the atmosphere and surface of the Earth. We also, have information that has been released that the Sun should not be causing this warming given that it has been recently in a low energy emitting mode.
So, taken together all this information makes an extremely strong case for not just the Earth warming but our blame for it. So much that a large majority of scientists, yes those that Kaiser refers too, state unequivocally their belief in AGW. Then finally, we have the now pronounced effects like the Arctic sea losing its ice and other dramatic weather events and trends. Of all the matters debated on this site this one should be the least debated among intelligent folks like all of you. Yet, we have someone not lacking in intelligence offering what can only be characterized as a biased opinion by demeaning the rigor of the scientific process in informing the experts of the soundness of the theory of AGW. And remember theory in science does not mean necessarily uncertainty but rather a popular sound view among those qualified in that area of science.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 00:16:00

Everybody is free to agree or disagree with onlooker's own opinion, although he is not a climate scientist. However, the world has been emerging from the last Ice Age for over 10,000 years, during which the predominant climate change trend has been warming. The problem would be then determining what portion of the observed warming is natural, and what portion (if any) is caused by mankind. But the most important take-away from this discussion is that evidence of warming is not evidence that the AGW/CC theory is correct or confirmed.

If I have interpreted the stats in the summary reports correctly, the minority opinion in the AR4 summary was 8%. The minority opinion in AR5 was 14%. YES, I freely admit, the majority opinion was 90% followed by 84%. (In each report, about 2% declined to state an opinion.)

What I am is somebody who favors the minority scientific opinion. I believe that while there probably is some contribution to warming from human generated carbon dioxide, that contribution is relatively minor. That's the whole ball of wax, there is nothing more and further debate as they say, would only be from two ignoramuses, meaning him and me. Knowing that the answer is entirely moot, I have decided to largely not have this conversation, except when the ignoramuses on the other side goad me into it.

Know and understand that the real tragedy the globe is about to experience is running out of cheap fossil fuels to burn. If we had the cheap energy sources, we could mitigate the warming, whether it was natural or man-caused, or both.

The other parting thought: This topic is largely politics and not science. The AGW/CC supporters would club you with a club labeled "science" and force you to change your behaviors. I don't like that at all. However I dislike the idea that we will run out of FF's even more, and I have reduced my consumption of them drastically via lifestyle changes.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 07:49:40

Again, the basics of climate science are simple enough that most school children can follow them:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas...the more there is in the atmosphere, the warmer it gets
2) We have been pumping billions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere
3) Consequently, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by over 40% since pre-industrial times
4) Completely unsurprisingly, average global atmospheric and ocean temperatures have increased over the same period

Anyone who can't put those very basic dots together is either trying really hard not to or is mentally deficient in some way, or is just lying.

Much of the science beyond this is also relatively understandable. But as one gets further into the weeds, one must look to the top people in the field, who to a person, accept the basics of global warming laid out above. The few, like Lindzen, who still downplay its role, have a history of holding an oppositional views long past the point they are any longer defensible. Such types have a use for a while in the early stages helping/forcing colleagues to strengthen and refine their theories, but that process pretty well took its full course by the '90s, and every one of his objections was overwhelmingly shown to be irrelevant.

So those questioning the importance of CO2 and methane wrt GW aren't people with bold new ideas; they are folks that are holding on to faulty claims that have long since been shown to be baseless...they are like the lone and isolated Japanese warrior on a distant Pacific atoll, still fighting WWII while the rest of the world has moved on...sad, delusional, and rather pathetic
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby jedrider » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 10:46:13

It is interesting that we burn fossil fuels like there is 'no tomorrow'.

And, it is TRUE that there will be no tomorrow.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Cog » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 10:49:57

Tomorrow will look pretty much like today.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 13:42:52

Cog wrote:Tomorrow will look pretty much like today.


True enough.

But 10 years from now the world will look quite different from today. Arctic Sea Ice will be gone in the summer, the world will have blasted through the 2 degree "limit" on global warming Obama and the other liars set in the Paris Accords, and the world will be headed irrevocably to more and more warming, sea level rise, killer heat waves, superstorms and super droughts, as well as other interesting weather phenomena.

We will be living in a brave new world.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 15:50:13

Warming is happening. It could be either natural or manmade, most likely both. I happen to believe it is mostly natural, and will continue regardless of our burning of FF's.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 18:25:50

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2018 ... or-humans/
How to Survive When, NOT IF, Catastrophic Climate Change Makes Earth’s Climate Unsuitable For Humans
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dissident » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 23:10:17

It's interesting in a macabre way how the people that always whinge about big bad nanny states and personal responsibility are the biggest welfare moochers out there. They treat the global environment as a nanny state that will always clean up after their messes and believe that they are entitled to do with fossil deposits whatever they please (that is they can tap into global wealth at their leisure, for free). And clearly they do not have a shred of respect for personal responsibility when it comes to their role in f*cking up that global environment and squandering natural wealth. The nanny state called nature will provide. Considering that we only have one accessible planet to live on (no the ones out there around other stars are no accessible), and it is very finite, this makes these people certifiable. It also makes their political dogma that climate scientists are out to restrict their freedoms into an utterly sick joke. As in all other sectors of society, your wanton "freedumbs" are not unlimited.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby phaster » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 02:26:22

dohboi wrote:ph...I love both bees (even though I am allergic to their sting) and goldenrod (which, despite popular misconceptions, do not cause allergies!). Your ideas seem sound, but I'm not any kind of expert on apiculture.


I'll be the first to admit I'm not any kind of expert in apiculture or gardening, but think I now have all the basic pre-fab components which would be needed to setup a "sustainable" garden pretty much anywhere in very little time

http://www.TinyURL.com/PlasticNestingTube
http://www.TinyURL.com/Veg-Table
truth is,...

www.ThereIsNoPlanet-B.org
User avatar
phaster
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 11:31:35

Dis, great point, well stated!

ph, awesome!

Here's a nice quip from Gavin Schmidt:

“If someone says they don’t know precisely how much human activity is contributing to climate change, ask them what level of precision they are aiming for and which actual decisions are dependent on that.”
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/stat ... 6054890496
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby jedrider » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 12:07:27

KaiserJeep wrote:Warming is happening. It could be either natural or manmade, most likely both. I happen to believe it is mostly natural, and will continue regardless of our burning of FF's.


Which is quite relevant to WHAT?? No relevance WHATSOEVER. The CO2 goes up every year and we output huge amounts of CO2 every year. However, the point that we have lost control over the system, yes, perhaps, true. Sticking one's head in the sand OR making quite irrelevant comments, however, serve no useful purpose except:

"We burn fossil fuels as if there is 'no tomorrow'!"
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests