Future Generations Need Not Worry About Climate Change

What is this "thousands of years" nonsense? The CO2 half-life in the atmosphere is around 30 years.

Why are children not going to survive? Will the entire population of the planet drop dead one Tuesday afternoon?

This is going to kill us?

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

o make it to adulthood, and the grandchildren will never be born.

The underlying macro-scale physics of climate change is turning out to be a n almost insignificant part of all the processes at play, most of which bel ong to the domain of the life sciences, about which you know less than noth ing (less than nothing implies no ability to comprehend or learn). The weat her patterns are indisputably trending, at rates 1E5 to 1E6 x anything that could be considered natural, into zones of total inhabitability. The satur ation limits of all known earthly carbon sinks have been reached. You shoul d be noticing it now, and you will definitely being noticing it shortly.

Well, it's another epic ski season here. That may attract too many damned tourists who buy over-priced junk at the base of Squaw and Northstar. Bad for the planet.

You are a member of the millenia-long gang of failed doomsday prophets.

It will all go to hell "shortly." Sad old git.

google failed climate predictions

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

A true, but irrelevant fact. The half life of CO2 molecules is around

30 years. But they aren't just removed from the atmosphere, they are replaced by CO2 from the oceans. There is an equilibrium with an exchange rate. CO2 goes in both directions between the oceans and the air. Raise the concentration in the air and the rate in one direction increases raising the concentration in the ocean. This is one of the effects mitigating the buildup of CO2. But it does *NOT* lower the level of CO2 as fast as it removes individual molecules of CO2 because CO2 is also moving in the reverse direction from the ocean to the air.

What is much more important is that not only are we still pumping CO2 into the air, it is at an accelerating rate. Before we can put our foot on the brake, we first need to take it off the GAS! (pun intended)

Where is this graph from that you had to upload it rather than just pointing to the original graph?

Why does this graph have 120 years of data but only uses the last quarter of it to draw the trend line? I believe that is called cherry picking. Did you notice that while the slope of the trend line drawn is

detail is ignored... more cherry picking!

No one ever said global warming would kill YOU. It will f*ck up the world for your grandchildren however. Do you have grandchildren?

--

Rick C

Agreed!

People need to step back and go for a walk, play with their kids/grand-kids, volunteer at a charity, walk the dog, watch a sunset, play baseball/hockey/croquet/table tennis, instead of watching all the fear mongers out there.

Really folks, reclaim your lives!

Mr. Larkin has.

John

g to make it to adulthood, and the grandchildren will never be born.

g

e an almost insignificant part of all the processes at play, most of which belong to the domain of the life sciences, about which you know less than n othing (less than nothing implies no ability to comprehend or learn). The w eather patterns are indisputably trending, at rates 1E5 to 1E6 x anything t hat could be considered natural, into zones of total inhabitability. The sa turation limits of all known earthly carbon sinks have been reached. You sh ould be noticing it now, and you will definitely being noticing it shortly.

Oh well, they're not telling people that. It's an epic ski season in Trucke e! So all this stuff the big climate data collection activities are publici zing is a bunch of bs.

Exactly.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

It's actually possible to lead an enjoyable life without jamming your head firmly into the sand. It's not actually mutually incompatible.

If the entire population of the planet will be exterminated soon, all the better reason to enjoy life now.

Stay up all night worrying, if that's your thing. Quit breathing to reduce the CO2 load.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

--

Rick C

If there's a God, at least I'll be able to tell the Almighty I fought for something, instead of nothing.

Nihilism is rather antithetical to American values, I think.

Fought? How? What are you personally doing to prevent the apocalypse, the "zones of total inhabitability" ?

So is neurosis.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

o make it to adulthood, and the grandchildren will never be born.

I wonder where John Larkin got that figure? Probably some denialist web-sit e.

The excursions in CO2 level at the ends of ice ages and interglacials - whe re the atmospheric CO2 levels moves from about 180ppm to 270ppm - seem to s uggest an 800 year time constant for exchange between the air and oceans.

About half the CO2 we are injecting into the air at the moment seems to end up in the oceans pretty rapidly, but that's the top of the ocean - most of the CO2 in solution in the oceans is in deep water, that doesn't turn over too rapidly (or warm up all that fast).

Probably not. Malnutrition in vulnerable countries creating a breeding grou nd for infectious diseases may be more of a threat.

Whoever concocted 1983-2017 "trend line" deserves a reward for persistence, but has to be deliberately blind to the actual trend in the data.

John Larkin clearly doesn't work with real data - otherwise he'd recognise how carefully selected that time interval had to have been.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

g to make it to adulthood, and the grandchildren will never be born.

g

e an almost insignificant part of all the processes at play, most of which belong to the domain of the life sciences, about which you know less than n othing (less than nothing implies no ability to comprehend or learn). The w eather patterns are indisputably trending, at rates 1E5 to 1E6 x anything t hat could be considered natural, into zones of total inhabitability. The sa turation limits of all known earthly carbon sinks have been reached. You sh ould be noticing it now, and you will definitely being noticing it shortly.

Wrong. We haven't had the scientific method for millenia. Doomsday prophets are a different breed of cat.

It's not going to go to hell. Things are just going to get progressively wo rse. What mainly visible now is an increased frequency of extreme weather e vents.

A one degree Kelvin global temperature rise is 6% more water vapour in the air over the oceans, and 6% more energy in every weather event.

You won't notice until hurricanes start hitting California, which - so far

- has been too far from the equator to see many of them

One of the side effects of global warming is the sea areas further from the

s) to start and sustain a hurricane. California is vulnerable, and will get more vulnerable as irresponsible idiots dump more CO2 into the atmosphere.

As you expect, the first item on Google's list is an Anthony Watts website.

He's got it in for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsd am, Germany. He doesn't seem to have noticed a more formal publication from them that got it right in spades.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You've never lived in the Northeast.

Nobody is predicting that. If we let anthropogenic climate change get worse, we may engineer a human population crash in a generation or so, but that isn't complete extermination.

There were a couple of million humans around before we invented agriculture, and if we make a enough of a mess of the climate that our agricultural techniques don't work any more, we may crash the human population by a factor of a thousand.

That won't happen overnight, and some favoured areas will probably be able to keep on growing enough food to sustain modern human population densities. They may have to fight off a lot of hungry invaders.

Breathing isn't a significant contribution. "Housing" - mainly in terms of electric power use - "transport" - gasoline burnt - and "food" - mainly in terms of gasoline burnt to produce and transport it - are the big three.

Renewable energy generation attacks all three a lot more effectively than suicide (which isn't going to sell in the mass market, though denying anthropogenic global warming is a rather long term version of the same strategy).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

True. I grew up in New Orleans, the Big Easy, which is even more hedonistic and mellow than California. Beer, family, friends, food. Not much demand for therapists.

Ironic, the temperature is insane and nobody is worked up about global warming.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Campaigning for more renewable energy and less burning of fossil carbon for fuel is probably the most effective tactic available.

Few Americans can spell it, let alone tell you what it means. Trump embodies it.

But optimistic gullibility is totally American. "There's one born every minute", and John Larkin is a more gullible sucker than most. He never saw a denialist web-site blatant enough to engage his critical faculties.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's right, everyone from New Orleans is exactly the same. Just like everyone from the Northeast is exactly the same, California, etc. Geography is the only difference in people.

No, it would be absurd for anyone from New Orleans to be worried about climate change. It can't get any worse than Katrina, right? Even if they had one of those every 10 years it wouldn't be any different, would it?

--

Rick C