What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

1

1G12

Active member
Economics of climate change, innovation win Nobel Prize for U.S. duo

Economics of climate change, innovation win Nobel Prize for U.S. duo

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Americans William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, pioneers in adapting the western economic growth model to focus on environmental issues and sharing the benefits of technology, won the 2018 Nobel Economics Prize on Monday.

In a joint award that turned the spotlight on a rapidly shifting global debate over the impact of climate change, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said the duo’s work was helping to answer basic questions over how to promote long-term, sustainable prosperity.
Romer, of New York University’s Stern School of Business and best known for his work on endogenous growth - a theory rooted in investing in knowledge and human capital - said he had been taken by surprise by the award, but offered a positive message.
“I think one of the problems with the current situation is that many people think that protecting (the) environment will be so costly and so hard that they just want to ignore them,” he told a news conference via telephone.
“We can absolutely make substantial progress protecting the environment and do it without giving up the chance to sustain growth.”
Hours before the award, the United Nations panel on climate change said society would have to radically alter the way it consumes energy, travels and builds to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The panel declined to comment on Monday’s award.
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a hoax, and last year announced that he would withdraw the United States from a global pact to combat it reached in 2015 - calling the deal’s demands for emissions cuts too costly.
Nordhaus, a Professor of Economics at Yale University, was the first person to create a quantitative model that described the interplay between the economy and the climate, the Swedish academy said.
“The key insight of my work was to put a price on carbon in order to hold back climate change,” Nordhaus was quoted as saying in a Yale publication this year. “The main recipe ...is to make sure governments, corporations and households face a high price on their carbon emissions.”
 
Y

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
It looks like you call names every time someone doesn't type what in your mind, is approved speech. When you get actual evidence 29% less energy in makes more than 100% come out of something anywhere in all thermodynamics,

instead of political approval from the ''Pot's like Heroin'' class, we all want to see it.



igrowone said:
looks like the thread has an infestation of trollbots
hmm, suppose that's a compliment of sorts, thread has attracted attention from those that create such things
back to climate news, the latest from the IPCC via cnn



Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn

By Brandon Miller and Jay Croft, CNN
Updated 4:18 AM ET, Mon October 8, 2018


(CNN)Governments around the world must take "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" to avoid disastrous levels of global warming, says a stark new report from the global scientific authority on climate change.

The report issued Monday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.
The date, which falls well within the lifetime of many people alive today, is based on current levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.
"This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.
Global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C.
Lowering emissions to this degree, while technically possible, would require widespread changes in energy, industry, buildings, transportation and cities, the report says.
"The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal," added King.
Consequences of past inaction

The report makes it clear that climate change is already happening -- and what comes next could be even worse, unless urgent international political action is taken.
"One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1 degree C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes," said Panmao Zhai, co-chair of IPCC Working Group I.
Even if warming is kept at or just below 1.5 degrees C, the impacts will be widespread and significant.
Temperatures during summer heatwaves, such as those just experienced across Europe this summer, can be expected to increase by 3 degrees C says the report.
More frequent or intense droughts, such as the one that nearly ran the taps dry in Cape Town, South Africa, as well as more frequent extreme rainfall events such as hurricanes Harvey and Florence in the United States, are also pointed to as expectations as we reach the warming threshold.
Coral reefs will also be drastically effected, with between 70 and 90% expected to die off, including Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
Countries in the southern hemisphere will be among the worse off, the report said, "projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase."
The report underlines how even the smallest increase in the base target would worsen the impact of recent natural disasters.
"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5 degrees C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
The report cites specific examples of how impacts of global warming would be lessened with the 1.5 degrees C increase, compared to the 2 degrees C increase:

  • Global sea levels would rise 10 cm lower by 2100.
  • The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century, instead of at least once per decade.
  • Coral reefs would decline by 70% to 90% instead of being almost completely wiped out.

Special Report: What it's like at the ground zero of climate change
View ImageThis chart from the IPCC shows how global temperatures would respond to a sudden and drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Even with immediate action, global temps will still overshoot the goal, but could reduce back to the target over time.




'Possible with the laws of chemistry and physics'


Monday's report is three years in the making and is a direct result of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. In the Paris accord, 197 countries agreed to the goal of holding global temperatures "well below" 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C.
The United States was initially in the agreement, but President Donald Trump pulled the country out a year and half later, claiming it was unfair to the country.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degree C is "possible within the laws of chemistry and physics," said Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III. "But doing so would require unprecedented changes."
"International cooperation is absolutely imperative to limit emissions and therefore global warming and its impacts, as well as coordinating effective and widespread adaptation and mitigation," said Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a fellow at the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales. "The next few years will be critical in the evolution of these efforts."
One key issue will be negative emissions, large scale carbon-scrubbing technologies that can reduce the amount in the atmosphere and act to counter continued pollution.
According to the report, there are two main ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere: increasing natural processes that already do this, and experimental carbon storage or removal technologies.
However, all methods "are at different stages of development and some are more conceptual than others, as they have not been tested at scale," the report warned.
They will also require considerable political engagement globally, as will reducing the amount of carbon being emitted. Despite the report's dire warnings, there is no indication such cooperation will be doable, particularly given the Trump administration's stance on this issue.
"Today the world's leading scientific experts collectively reinforced what mother nature has made clear -- that we need to undergo an urgent and rapid transformation to a global clean energy economy," former US Vice President Al Gore said.
"Unfortunately, the Trump administration has become a rogue outlier in its shortsighted attempt to prop up the dirty fossil fuel industries of the past. The administration is in direct conflict with American businesses, states, cities and citizens leading the transformation."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Y

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
"Hay yaw look, the American Medical Association says pot's a dangerous drug and we don't need no legalization!"

So... therefore, pot's like Heroin and worse for people than a methamphetamine addiction?

"WuhL HeLL Yeah, thay coudn't awl say it wuz, if it wuddn't -

doant'chew no nuthin abowt signts!!??

People dun bin two jail tryin two... DU'H NYE tha SiGNTS!"

Signtsie fellurs from awl arownd tha werld dun started makin it illegal sints bufore th 1930s!

Thair's bin fellurs tried two deny tha signts, but thuh signts is sownd! That's why it's illegal awl around tha werld!''

"Thair's uv coarse, uh few ''outlier nations that's denyed tha signts but it's a tiny speck, purty much 97% of awl signtists agree with the American Medical Association that pot's very dangerous and uh gate way two opioids, so evurbody's gotta git own thim sum opioids!''

That's what happens when you mistake ''Evurbodie dun sed so!'' for scientific facts.

:laughing:
 
Y

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
When you've gotta hide - you've gotta hide.

1G12 said:
Yes, it certainly cleans up the thread a lot when you can get rid of the irrational nonsense. :tiphat:
Click to expand...

I think the person who was in here last night named ForumGod is a person with those abilities like some autistic & near autistic intlligence spectra people have, where they can see patterns in speech and other symbols strings that other people can't.

The amalgram or whatever it's called, the contextual shortening of my posts to him was actually pretty slick.

I don't think anyone here expected you to understand what you were seeing.

The other parts weren't quite so well tied together but they only had a little while; I don't know how long it was between posts.

But that was very mature of you to call him/her names, it seems so signtsie

when you tell people a magical gassiness dun made more light come out of a rock

evur time it dun made less go in,

if you demonstrate a clear lack of human compunction when meeting someone not like you, and immediately start calling them names.
 
therevverend

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
I did ONE single search for ''Optimum define.''
Click to expand...

We know what Optimum means stupid. It is not the same thing as climate optimum. A climate optimum is the warmest period during an interglacial period.

But we've been through this before. I'm repeating myself just like you're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. This is called spamming and it makes it impossible to have a fair exchange of ideas.

Which is your goal. To ruin any discussion of climate change you can find on the internet. You've done a fine job of ruining this thread and it's time a moderator cleaned it up.
 
therevverend

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
by 'ignoring' others you cannot understand you isolate yourself.
try removing yourself from the tapestry you've wrapped yourself in.
Click to expand...

You are right especially when it comes to viewpoints that disagree with yours. It's a huge problem right now people on the left and the right are not communicating or respecting one another. This is dangerous because it de-humanizes people with ideas that are different then your own.

However on the internet people abuse their free speech with spam. They steal time by repeating themselves over and over and this destroys any meaningful exchange of ideas. Spam is a form of censorship and that is what has happened in this thread. Someone plugging their ears and saying the same thing over and over disrespects the reader and the person trying to discuss the topic at hand.

Aside from a moderator cleaning this garbage up the ignore button is heaven sent. In this thread particularly because it's impossible to read posts by other members when one person creates pages and pages of spammy shit that must be crawled through to discuss the topic with others.

I almost lost your earlier post in the barrage of gibberish but I was able to read it because of ignore.
 
Y

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
I guess for about 50 years there pot really was completely like heroin and worse for someone than a
methyl amphetamine spike
hanging out of their arm.

..and now, as less and less people believe it's like heroin, it gets a little better for you, and then there'll come a point where it makes people live forever to use it, because they believe it will.

These are fascinating scientific facts.

A law of thermodynamics called ''EvurbodiE dun sed so,''

with sub-chart ''If you believe it, it's real!''

Oh! YeaH! I see right over here on the graph, ''I Believe'' along one axis, and then.. "it is real" along that one...

and they converge over there, right at the point of... "Embarrassed to the Point of having to Hide."

Hmm. :laughing:
 
Y

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
What happened to your apology to everyone in the thread for having gone insane and tried to claim the word Optimum wasn't coined in the English language by biologists to define ''best possible conditions for life"?

And your erroneously misleading them screeching - with the links to the NASA page raining down on your head that the very first step of calculation of the temperature of our planet, isn't

cooling it 29% due to the Atmosphere doing that cooling?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/reflected_radiation.jpg

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance

Nah, you're back with more craven, driveling insult.

What were you gonna come back with - scientific evidence showing the gases making 29% less energy go into the plant,

make more than a hundred percent come back out

by not letting the 29% go in?

:laughing:

therevverend said:
You are right especially when it comes to viewpoints that disagree with yours. It's a huge problem right now people on the left and the right are not communicating or respecting one another. This is dangerous because it de-humanizes people with ideas that are different then your own.

However on the internet people abuse their free speech with spam. They steal time by repeating themselves over and over and this destroys any meaningful exchange of ideas. Spam is a form of censorship and that is what has happened in this thread. Someone plugging their ears and saying the same thing over and over disrespects the reader and the person trying to discuss the topic at hand.

Aside from a moderator cleaning this garbage up the ignore button is heaven sent. In this thread particularly because it's impossible to read posts by other members when one person creates pages and pages of spammy shit that must be crawled through to discuss the topic with others.

I almost lost your earlier post in the barrage of gibberish but I was able to read it because of ignore.
Click to expand...

You claimed there had been ''discoveries about the laws of physics on Venus, and we then applied them to Earth to understand'' the magical gassiness making Venus several hundred times warmer than it should be -

and I showed everyone the entire planet's scientific personnel know about the 25 venera spacecraft, 13 of which we LANDED on VENUS, in joint operations with the Russians,

- showed everyone where the section is for ''SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS ON VENUS'' and it says ''we found some weird grooves in the surface of the planet.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera#Scientific_findings

Not one word of even acting like a human being from you. The ''Reverend.''

Your rage driven hatred is what's disgusting here ''Reverend'' and you need to learn to debate by presenting evidence and act like a human being.

The days-long raging that the word Optimum wasn't actually meant to describe ''best conditions for life'' when just searching ''Optimum Define'' leads to pages of people discussing the word optimum was COINED by BIOLOGISTS to describe ''the set of conditions best for life'' would make any remotely normal person so ashamed they couldn't show their face.

"History of optimum

According to merriam-webster.com, scientists in the mid-19th century needed a word to describe the most favorable point, degree or amount; the best condition for the growth and reproduction of an organism. They took “optimus” from Latin to create the noun optimum.

It filled the scientific need, and optimum eventually gained use beyond the scientific community to broadly imply the best or most desirable."

https://ruthlesseditor.com/optimum-vs-optimal-2/

You're obviously badly unhinged and need to conduct yourself like an adult 'Reverend'
 
Last edited:
therevverend

therevverend

Well-known member
Veteran
I keep on thinking I'm finished here but Yamaha is so good at what he does it keeps bringing me back. In my last post I talked about how spamming is a form of censorship, how what Yamaha is doing is censorship. Here's an example.

For a while now Yamaha has been misusing the term global optimum, he doesn't know what it means and I don't understand why he was throwing it about in the first place. I challenged him to produce evidence, a paper or link or whatever, proving his point. He has not. Instead he has spammed and derailed the thread. Here is a quote:

For days he's been in here squealing that ''Optimum" doesn't refer to the best biological conditions possible.

I've let it go on for days, because I knew what it meant, and why the term was invented: to describe the very best biological conditions

possible, and that in fact the word was first coined in English, in relation to these warm periods.

And that his insane shrieking of course was going to splatter like a bird hitting a brick wall the first tim I simply typed ''Optimum define.''

I did ONE single search for ''Optimum define.''

He's been in here squealing and swearing for days. Cursing and squealing like some sort of insane person, for days: about something that all he had to do was type the word one time.

Instead he's postured and contorted and slobbered and screamed, all to find out he couldn't have been more wrong.

The word was I.N.V.E.N.T.E.D. as DEFINITION for the VERY BEST BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS POSSIBLE: For PLANTS and ANIMALS.
Click to expand...

He wasted an entire post with gibberish. This is how to derail a thread and stifle a free exchange of ideas. He hasn't said anything or added to what he said earlier. It's spam. And it's censorship, it blocks out other people's posts and opinions.
 
TychoMonolyth

TychoMonolyth

Boreal Curing
trichrider said:
you'll never know.


by 'ignoring' others you cannot understand you isolate yourself.
try removing yourself from the tapestry you've wrapped yourself in.
Click to expand...

Ignoring those who sink themselves is a God send.

Try providing an argument that doesn't need me to wear a tin foil hat and you won't be ignored
 
TychoMonolyth

TychoMonolyth

Boreal Curing
Y

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
Since CNN believes 29% less light into a rock makes more than 100% come out,

by making the 29% less go in, it might not be the end of the world.

TychoMonolyth said:
We only have until 2030 to stop catastrophic climate change, experts warn

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html
Click to expand...

I believe CNN also thinks "Warm Optimum" means bad times for global biodiversity, when the term "Optimum"

was actually coined in the English language by Biologists - Botanists in the late 1800s to describe and define these warm, 'Best it can get for life on Earth'' optima.

When you're not hiding your face so you can't watch the fake arguments you and your friends make be utterly debunked, check out the Reverend's epic days-long meltdown, getting owned on this very subject.

You don't have to worry. Warmth brings Optimum-class conditions to the planet. Together with low ice, global krill and other plankton circulation

to otherwise arid arctic and antarctic regions

allow life to live across the vast majority of the planet. So it's not the Armageddon End-Times your people told you is upon us all,

if we don't repent. We don't have to repent, everything's fine.

In fact technically they're in the range of previous Climate Optima now.

Your church of course hides the meaning of the term 'Climatic Optimum' because they want you to think it's the end of the world because you use fire - so you owe government employees money to research "Every time less energy goes into a rock, more comes out, if a magical gassiness makes it not go into it."

It's a con. A global con, and the first time they tell you

29% less energy in the planet

makes anything other

than 29% less come out,

that's proof alone every single word from that point

is crass, in your face fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top