Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
thum_3823654b974f781521.png
Click to expand...

See how long it took to "forget" the debunking of graphs like this one...


lomiller said:
It may not make sense to do it, but it is what the deniers are doing. For example in the IPCC sceanarioes in the graphic you provided they would do something like this.

1) Look at the averge rate or warming per decade from 2000 - 2100 for the scenario and get a value a little over 0.35 deg/decade.

2) Start from a point in the late 90's where actual temperatures are over the scenario result, and draw a line with that slope. (added in red)

3) Then they go on to draw their own "pause" starting at around the same time "here is the real tend since 2000!" (added in blue)

4) don't show the actual IPCC scenario result and then claim that because their line is over the actual measurement the IPCC is overestimating warming.

The problem is that their representation of the IPCC scenario result is MUCH higher than the actual scenario result at all points.


picture.php
Click to expand...
 
bit_pattern said:
Evidently it is. More's the pity.
Click to expand...

You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.

bit_pattern said:
-- You are labouring under the misapprehension someone somewhere predicted "with a high degree of certainty"
Click to expand...

No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

bit_pattern said:
-- You argued that because heat wave temperature extremes were supposedly higher 50 years ago that current events aren't being caused by climate change
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I was using it as an example of false conclusion.

bit_pattern said:
-- You argued that science should "prove" things...
Click to expand...

Nomenclature. Prove/display/show/provide evidence - take your pick.
 
The Atheist said:
You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.
Click to expand...
Opinions may differ.

No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.
Click to expand...
The IPCC is not a court and does not issue "findings". It issues reports which summarise the science as currently understood, and since there has never been a concensus on how AGW will affect the frequency of storms the IPCC has never "found" one way or the other. There is a concensus that the intensity of storms will increase as ocean surfaces warm, but that's a no-brainer.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.
Click to expand...
Of course there has always been a concensus amongst the AGW denialati that climate scientists are predicting more storms because said scientists are alarmist and, well, that's what alarmists would say, isn't it?
 
The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.
Click to expand...

News to me....I've been following this for decades and the only commentary I've seen on hurricanes is...

more of the severe category storms....borne out
more rainfall intensity ....borne out

Possibly fewer Atlantic storms due to wind shear ....still a maybe.

All cyclonic storms are heat engines so warm SSTs means more powerful storms, more intense storms but not necessarily more storms.

Also the range of cyclonic storms is expanding...
 
The Atheist said:
You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.
Click to expand...

Exactly where and how have you been "deeply involved in the climate science debate?" This a concern given your demonstrated manner of discussion here, especially given your propensity to make assertions without citing supporting references and to make statements like the above which seem to indicate that you know everything of importance there is to know about the subject and there is nothing more that you feel you should learn to advance and improve your understanding.

The Atheist said:
No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.
Click to expand...

The IPCC doesn't make these determinations, they are predominantly catalogers of science; the IPCC itself doesn't do research. One of the main reasons that there are shifts of IPCC consideration from one report to the next is that the weight of new research forces revisions of understandings. Saying that any previous assessments were "false" or even "flawed" is only something that can be determined in retrospect and generally not until after two to three climatically relevant periods have passed and observations can be compared to earlier understandings and projections.

The Atheist said:
Nomenclature. Prove/display/show/provide evidence - take your pick.
Click to expand...

Your ability to casually conflate these terms is counter-productive to your attempt to "prove" expertise, or even basic competence, with regard to the serious discussion of this or any other scientific field of understanding.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
‘Prediction’ or ‘projection’? The nomenclature of climate science.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, Haig - you think semantic arguments are science :jaw-dropp!

In the meanwhile you continue to spread lies about climate science with not sourced and obviously deluded images, Haig.
The reality does match the models: How reliable are climate models?
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
...h/tip to Jtom
Click to expand...
H/tip to a continued state of ignorance about climate science leading to citing someone really ignorant, Haig!
AGW never stopped so it is rather delusional of the WUWT author to state that it will start again :jaw-dropp!

And now I see where that lying image came from - WUWT is repeating a graph that John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources. It looks like the idiocy of selecting 102 IPCC graphs (from the last AR?) and comparing them to observations. That is stupid without considering the scenarios involved - there should be multiple projections on that graph or a statement of which scenario was selected. Where are the even more reliable surface measurements of temperatures? Why does the graph extend up to 2025 (10 years of no observations!). Why only CMIP-5 climate models? Why only 2 out of several satellite datasets?

The implication without more information is John Christy has cherry picked the data to create a false picture of models not matching observations.

ETA: Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing suggest actual cherry picking - that graph is of mid-troposphere temperatures (we live in the in the lower troposphere). We know that climate models match surface and lower troposphere temperatures. The data for the mid-troposphere is less reliable and maybe models do not get the vertical distribution of temperatures correct.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.



No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

Nomenclature. Prove/display/show/provide evidence - take your pick.
Click to expand...

You're shifting the goal posts. You said a "high degree of certainty". What the IPCC said was "more likely than not" - you've changed the meaning from a 50/50 chance to an 80% chance, then you have the chutzpah to hand wave it all away as "nomenclature". Yes, words mean things, they have very precise meanings in this case. And the reason that is important is that when it comes to heatwaves the confidence has ALWAYS been higher, modelling storms and rainfall is among the most complex tasks climate scientists have, but modelling heatwaves is relatively straightforward. That's why the confidence range for heatwaves is an actual (not a made up, as it was in your argument) "high". When it comes to attribution analyses, they also are able to fingerprint events like this with quite high rates of statistical confidence. So when someone links a heatwave event to climate change, that is nothing at all like a denier citing examples of cold weather as disproving climate change, and your tendency to start hand waving every time somebody mentions weather events in this thread is clearly an artefact of your very clear misunderstandings.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
...repeat of three lying images snipped...
Click to expand...
And we are back to spreading lies about climate science in images, Haig! I did think that you had learned about one denier lie but that is not the case:
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.

A repeat of 11th May 2015 Haig: 3. The stupidity of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.

And now what may be a John Christy image lying about the reliability of climate models: 2 June 2015 Haig: Is that an image from John Christy that may be lying about the reliability of climate models?

ETA: Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
John Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville is one of the fewer than 3% of climate scientists who publishes research suggesting that humans aren’t the primary cause of the current global warming. He’s thus become one of Republicans’ favorite expert witnesses. ...
Christy Manufactures Doubt on Model Accuracy
Given that the hearing was ostensibly about environmental policy, most of the witnesses were policy experts. John Christy was the lone climate scientist invited to testify. His testimony focused on manufacturing doubt about the accuracy of climate models, climate change impacts, and about individual American projects’ contributions to global warming. On the accuracy of climate models, Christy played rather fast and loose with the facts, saying in his written testimony (emphasis added),
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Nope, here is the case ... ..snipped yet another link to a crank YouTube channel ...
Click to expand...
Citing a crank YouTube channel run by Ben Davidson (an electric universe crank!) is a case for denial of climate science , Haig: 13 May 2015 Haig: The fantasies about climate or earthquakes of Suspicious0bservers are not scientific evidence!

That global warming is natural variability has been comprehensive debunked by the climate science that you are denying Haig. AGW has been going on for over a century now for a start :eek:
The slower rise in global surface temperatures lately is natural variability - and now the problem is the possibility for the variability to swing the other way as natural variability does! 2014 is agreed to have been the hottest year globally on record. 2015 is shaping up to be at least as warm.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Which is the exact equivalent of a denier saying there's no global warming because it snowed in Chicago.
Click to expand...
I am curious, The Atheist.
Where in this post by bit_pattern which just consists of a link and a images does he state that it was caused by global warming?
bit_pattern said:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-in-india-is-this-a-glimpse-of-earths-future...snipped image...
Click to expand...
The news article makes it clear that is not the case
It is hard to say for sure whether any single extreme weather event is a result of manmade climate change, but this is a scenario we should get used to seeing more of, scientists say. As the effects of climate change take hold and global temperatures creep up, extreme heat events will become more common.
Click to expand...

Though later posts suggest that you understand that this was an example of a possible effect of global warming.
 
Last edited:
A presentation of climate science: Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
The slowdown in global warming is a subject of intense study. Is it a real physical effect, or a few chance cool years, or something more complex? Could it have been predicted? Can we understand it in retrospect? The following lecture and commentary from the Denial101x course attempt to summarize recent work on the subject. However it is a very fast-moving field, so this summary can only cover a small fraction of the material and will quickly become out-of-date (if it is not already so).
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
A presentation of climate science: Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
Click to expand...

I tend to think that with respect to the so called "hiatus," we are looking more at an artifact of short-term natural variation (the "culprit" in many/most of these studies), which is why climate science prefers to look at climatically relevant periods. with 3 decades considered the minimal and multiple centuries considered the better standard for discussing climate. Of course this faces the problem that no standard geologic study of climate has a parallel for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 over a century and a half (much less the doubling time of several decades that we are approaching at our currently accelerating rate of emissions).
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
You're shifting the goal posts. You said a "high degree of certainty". What the IPCC said was "more likely than not"...
Click to expand...

No. Their original position definitely included that phrase and if I cared enough I'd try to find the original statement, but as it's 10-15 years ago, I doubt it would be easy to find.

bit_pattern said:
... your tendency to start hand waving every time somebody mentions weather events in this thread...
Click to expand...

Strawman much?

I note that this thread is up to the third incarnation, with many thousands of posts and I have pointed out one instance.

Yeah, hand-waving every time.

On the other hand, the frequency of repeated information gives me a good idea as to the originality and perspicacity of the pro-science team in the thread.

The funny part is that you are achieving absolutely nothing. You haven't budged a single denier (I saw someone using the non-word "denialist" which did make me chuckle) from his or her position. You're essentially being played by trolls and think you're scoring points.

My interest in climate change these days is much more focused on why deniers deny the science than failing to persuade them they're wrong.

One point for you to think about is: how many countries have taken positive action on climate to date? Don't count China, because their actions have been to do with China's pollution and the benefits to the climate are ancillary to that. The number of people who actively care about the climate warming is vanishingly small, because doing something will require vast sums of money being spent for no short-term gain.
 
The Atheist said:
The number of people who actively care about the climate warming is vanishingly small, because doing something will require vast sums of money being spent for no short-term gain.
Click to expand...
Which is not right, The Atheist, because you have only half the equation: "vast sums of money" with "vast amounts of profit".
If we look at carbon pricing: The economic impacts of carbon pricing
Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.
Click to expand...
or the intermediate version:
Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)

As for the number of people who actively care being "vanishingly small", I would say that the number of people just in environmental groups and Green political particles is a non-vanishing number :D.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The number of people who actively care about the climate warming is vanishingly small, because doing something will require vast sums of money being spent for no short-term gain.
Click to expand...
actually it's mostly a zero sum game ....say start by eliminating the 5+ Trillion in fossil fuel subsidies.....

Fossil fuels get global $5.3 trillion 'subsidy': IMF report ... - CBC
www.cbc.ca/.../fossil-fuels-get-global-5-3-trillion-subsidy-imf-report-1.307...
May 19, 2015 - The IMF estimates China is subsidizing fossil fuels $2.3 trillion a year by ... Only about one quarter of the damage the IMF estimates is from ...
Click to expand...

It matters very little how many people "care" ( they do but you are swallowing koolaid ).....it matters how many people with the power to act on it do.

In the case of China...

China To Cap Coal Use By 2020 To Meet Game-Changing ...
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/.../china-climate-target-peak-coal-2020/
Nov 19, 2014 - The Chinese government announced Wednesday it would cap coal use by 2020. This staggering reversal of decades of Chinese energy policy ...
Click to expand...

US

EPA Rules To Force 85 Coal-Fired Generators To Close By ...
dailycaller.com/2015/.../epa-rules-to-force-85-coal-fired-generators-to-cl...
Mar 10, 2015 - EPA Rules To Force 85 Coal-Fired Generators To Close By The End ... of the 2015 and 2016 retirements are directly a result of EPA rules, we ..
Click to expand...


Ontario - First Place in North America to End Coal-Fired Power
news.ontario.ca/.../ontario---first-place-in-north-america-to-end-coal-fire...
Nov 21, 2013 - Ontario is one step closer to being the first place in North America to eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation.
Click to expand...

there are many many others......

Sweden will be carbon neutral by 2050 and is well on the way now.

Bottom line the world is moving on .....time for you to.

Investors and banks are pulling out of fossil...

No more fossil fuels, no more KfW funding for new coal ...
https://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/.../no-more-fossil-fuels-no-more-kfw-f...
No more fossil fuels, no more KfW funding for new coal projects! To: KfW - the biggest national development bank world wide and owned by the German ...
Click to expand...

even the Rockefeller family...

Heirs to Rockefeller oil fortune divest from fossil fuels over ...
www.theguardian.com › Environment › Fossil fuel divestment
Sep 22, 2014 - Peter O'Neill, head of the Rockefeller family and ... But the Rockefellers' decision to cut their ties with oil lends the divestment ... looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy. ... 150 countries – also pulled its investments from fossil fuels on Monday.
Click to expand...

the people with the power care......that's all that matters....

This might surprise you...

Where in the US Are People Most Worried About Climate Change?
by Shannon Hall, Staff Writer | April 20, 2015 08:08am ET
129

39

228
Submit
295
Reddit


Pin It Estimated percent of adults in each county who are worried about global warming.
Credit: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
View full size image
Residents in California are much more worried about the warming planet than those in parts of the central United States, according to a new set of interactive maps showing public opinion on climate change.

As a nation, 63 percent of Americans think the planet is warming and 48 percent of Americans think these changes are caused by humans. But "Americans don't speak with a single voice on the issue," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and co-author of the new paper published online April 6 in the journal Nature Climate Change. "In fact, there's a tremendous diversity across the country about it."
Click to expand...

http://www.livescience.com/50529-climate-change-opinions-map.html

as I said....time to put the failed What Me Worry meme to rest and move on to dealing with reality.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
No. Their original position definitely included that phrase and if I cared enough I'd try to find the original statement, but as it's 10-15 years ago, I doubt it would be easy to find.
Click to expand...

You made a statement, you supported it with a source, that source very clearly said "more likely than not" and explained that the phrase means slightly more than 50/50. It really doesn't get any more straightforward.
 
Reality Check said:
Which is not right, The Atheist, because you have only half the equation: "vast sums of money" with "vast amounts of profit".
Click to expand...

I did say short term, and several decades is not short term.

Also, from your own links:
Since it is difficult to predict how much climate change will impact the economy, or how much climate change will be averted as a result of these policies (particularly since they may trigger similar GHG emission reduction policies by other countries), the comparison to an unrealistic BAU scenario is the best we can do.
Click to expand...

Best guess.

Reality Check said:
As for the number of people who actively care being "vanishingly small", I would say that the number of people just in environmental groups and Green political particles is a non-vanishing number :D.
Click to expand...

Small enough to be ignored, which is what's happening. As for the Greenmunists, they care more about having no nuclear power than stopping coal being burnt.

macdoc said:
In the case of China...

US

there are many many others......

Sweden will be carbon neutral by 2050 and is well on the way now.

Bottom line the world is moving on .....time for you to.
Click to expand...

Well and truly trumped by India alone, which is not about to give up growth to cut CO2 and will prove to be the biggest contributor in years to come.

Then we can looks at South America, where Brazil still allows wanton destruction of rain forests, having refused to legislate against it.

Then I might add in Australia (full denial by Abbott & Co), Canada (cut budget), New Zealand (budget reduced to zero), UK (much talk, no action) plus several others.

Then air travel - the worst of all polluters - is expected to double in the next ten years.

macdoc said:
the people with the power care......that's all that matters....
Click to expand...

Sure. I've listed several of those people in power above. Meanwhile, Germany cares enough to be shutting all its nuke stations. No word on how much extra coal they will be burning. (or that both solar and wind power are less carbon-friendly than nuke stations)

macdoc said:
This might surprise you...

as I said....time to put the failed What Me Worry meme to rest and move on to dealing with reality.
Click to expand...

Your quote notes:

As a nation, 63 percent of Americans think the planet is warming and 48 percent of Americans think these changes are caused by humans.
Click to expand...

Yet, USA's only real reduction has come from the GFC. Obama talks plenty on the subject, but I believe the other team couldn't give a crap and most of them don't believe a word of it anyway.

Oddly enough, it's reality I'm dealing with - the reality that says CO2 levels won't drop significantly planet-wide.
 
bit_pattern said:
You made a statement, you supported it with a source, that source very clearly said "more likely than not" and explained that the phrase means slightly more than 50/50. It really doesn't get any more straightforward.
Click to expand...

It's not the source I was after and is much more recent. I didn't see anything on a quick search, but since it's historic, I'm not about to waste time on it and will happily concede the point rather than waste a week trying to prove something for no good reason.
 
The Atheist said:
I did say short term, and several decades is not short term.
Click to expand...
Here and now is very short term, The Atheist, as you would have seen in my links: The economic impacts of carbon pricing is the economics stuff.

intermediate version:
Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
The real world examples have already happened!
The "over the next several decades" starts tomorrow.

ETA: Actually the studies of carbon pricing models start at an assumed implementation date of 2012 and go to 2050.

It is the best prediction given the available data, The Atheist, not a "best guess".

Obviously you do not live an a country with active environmental or and Green political parties - they are not ignored :D. Think about Germany where the Green Party has fallen back into the opposition but still had over 3 million votes. Think about New Zealand (where I live) where the Green Party is a influential (if minor) party. For that matter the Democrat party in the USA has millions of not ignored people in it. There is even this guy called Barack Obama who recently made a very not ignored speech about climate change and national security.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Here and now is very short term...

The "over the next several decades" starts tomorrow.
Click to expand...

We obviously work to different time scales.

Reality Check said:
It is the best prediction given the available data, The Atheist, not a "best guess".
Click to expand...

Prediction and guess are listed in all thesauruses as synonyms.

Reality Check said:
Obviously you do not live an a country with active environmental or and Green political parties - they are not ignored :D.
Click to expand...

Really? Cutting the budget from $1,000,000,000 to $0 is not ignoring the problem?

As to the Greenmunists, they are a total waste of space in this country. They lie, they cheat, anything they say is taken with less than a grain of salt and their big success in the past three years is not losing any seats. If you want evidence on the NZ Greenmunist Party, I have truckloads.

Note I speak as a former member of the Greenmunist Party, which is where I thought the sensible people were until I was able to prove otherwise.

Reality Check said:
Think about Germany where the Green Party has fallen back into the opposition but still had over 3 million votes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, on the back of ridding Germany of nuke power.

Reality Check said:
Think about New Zealand (where I live) where the Green Party is a influential (if minor) party.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Gosh, I think you might even believe that!

Please do explain how influential they are. When Russel Norman was assaulted on Parliament grounds by a Chinese security guard I didn't see Johnny Combover rushing to his aid.

The NZ Green are Pathetic, and yes that does have a capital letter at the start; it reflects how utterly useless they are. I see the new boy is making all sorts of claims, despite winning by a very narrow margin. Even half his own party dislike him, so I don't imagine Key is going to have much time for him.

Reality Check said:
For that matter the Democrat party in the USA has millions of not ignored people in it. There is even this guy called Barack Obama who recently made a very not ignored speech about climate change and national security.
Click to expand...

Sure, Barack Obama is a shining light in international terms.

If Billary wins next year, they might even keep to it. If not, you can tip all that down the toilet.
 
I would feign shock, but why...

Emails Suggest Shell Pressured Science Museum to Alter Climate Change Exhibits
http://hyperallergic.com/210973/ema...ence-museum-to-alter-climate-change-exhibits/

The Guardian has obtained several emails exchanged between the Science Museum in London and Shell, which recently became the principal sponsor of the institution’s climate science gallery. They show the company repeatedly making demands about the museum’s exhibitions.

“Regards the rubbish archive project [an interactive exhibition examining the impact of waste on the environment], [redacted name] and I have some concerns on this exhibition particularly as it creates an opportunity for NGOs to talk about some of the issues that concern them around Shell’s operations,” reads one especially disturbing email sent by a Shell employee to a museum staffer on May 8, 2014.

It continues with the company seemingly insinuating it would like a say on which guests would attend a climate change conference at the institution. “Could you please share more information with us on the symposium event planned for September? As you know we receive a great deal of interest around our art sponsorships so need to ensure we do not proactively open up a debate on the topic. Will it be an invite only event?”

The email ends with the Shell representative asking whether the museum employee has spoken with Shell climate change adviser David Hone “to see if he would like to participate in the content refresh.”
Click to expand...

Rest at link, not too surprising except that they did this through emails which are discoverable, in person discussion may have been more difficult to verify.
 
Ocean Migration

Global Warming Could Lead To Greatest Ocean Migration In 3 Million Years
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5...ocean-migration-three-million-years-study.htm

University of Science and Technology researchers in Lille, France, showed that if warming is near 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the warming would result in the largest mass migration of ocean species seen in 3 million years.

"If climate change is not tackled quickly, it will lead to a massive reorganisation of marine biodiversity on a planetwide scale," The National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France reported.

Even if the world meets the U.N. goal of limiting temperature rise below 3.6 degrees F, the change in species habitat would be three times greater than what was seen over the last 50 years.

An increase of just 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 would have little effect on biodiversity, researchers concluded. This is the level predicted in the most optimistic forecasts being made today. Some aspects of this study were based on theories of how species will react to rising temperatures, as little objective data on these behaviors is available.

The study examined species which live in the top 650 feet of the ocean, since they have the greatest direct impact on human beings. There are still many things about the global ocean that scientists do not understand, and predicting behavior of such a complex system can be extremely challenging. However, the study clearly showed that greater amounts of warming will result in more extreme changes to biodiversity.

Warm water-loving species could see their habitats expand, but "this will not compensate global species extinction," the study warned.

Analysis of how varying degrees of rising global temperatures could affect biodiversity was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Click to expand...

The way our species' luck runs, a warm, seaweed filled, long-day, shallow sea ecosystem could turn out to be a perfect breeding ground for the planet's food fish,...if not for the oil spills and methane emissions.
 
Trakar said:
Exactly where and how have you been "deeply involved in the climate science debate?"
Click to expand...

Reminds me of moon hoaxers* who claim to have studied that topic for years, but don't know the first thing about photography and film exposure.




*: I almost wrote "moaxers", as a typo, but I think it should catch on, and become the standard label to describe these people.
 
bit_pattern said:
Greenmunist :rollseyes:
Click to expand...


Yeah and from someone who said..

The Atheist said:
The way I see it, there is an inevitable tipping point - a place in the future at where the damage to the climate is irreversible and catastrophic.
Click to expand...

I don't personally agree with opposition to nuclear energy but then I doubt that all green party supporters do either. Anyway if we are heading for a catastrophe it's not environmentalists at fault. Top of the list are those who deliberately put out misinformation so as to prevent action. Also why is someone who thinks we are heading for catastrophe picking endless trivial quarrels with those who want to see action taken to reduce greenhouse emissions.
 
The Atheist said:
No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.
Click to expand...

And what was the certainly attached to it? How old was it? It would have to be at least 2 decades out of date at this point, scientific understanding changes over time that’s how it’s supposed to work. TBH your argument is akin to saying “Evolution is questionable because at first scientists thought dinosaurs were reptiles now they say they are more closely related to birds”

The Atheist said:
That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.
Click to expand...


What's been "shown to be false"? Certainly not the impact of ocean surface temperatures on hurricane formation.


It’s well established that Warmer ocean water leads to more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes, and that global warming would increase surface water temperatures. In the late 90’s it was discovered that a warmer climate also increases wind shear effects which has the known effect of surprising Atlantic hurricane formation. The new information in no way changes what was already known, and simply reflects the normal progression in science. It’s how science works, nothing more.
 
Belz... said:
Is it possible that you are misremembering ?
Click to expand...

Certainly. That's why I've conceded the point already. I don't think I'm wrong, but would rather admit to it than waste a week trying to prove it one way or the other.
 
greybeard said:
I don't personally agree with opposition to nuclear energy but then I doubt that all green party supporters do either.
Click to expand...

Sure, not all Green supporters think like that, but I'm reasonably confident all Green parties have it as a central policy.

greybeard said:
Anyway if we are heading for a catastrophe it's not environmentalists at fault. Top of the list are those who deliberately put out misinformation so as to prevent action.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think apathy is a much bigger problem. People don't want to buy in because it will cost them money, so nothing gets done.

NZ is a classic example, because while our global impact is minute, we are also in a perfect position to act, and under the previous government held our heads up proudly as a leader yet again in a social issue.

But when it came to the crunch there was no opposition whatsoever to the next government cutting the budget to fight climate change from $1 billion to $0.

greybeard said:
Also why is someone who thinks we are heading for catastrophe picking endless trivial quarrels with those who want to see action taken to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Click to expand...

Mostly because of the complete irrelevance of it.

What good do you think this thread will do? Has it changed a single denier's mind yet?

Thought not.

What's to argue? Scientific confidence in AGW is sufficient that there is no real question any longer, so what's the point of the thread. I'm treating this thread exactly as I do bigfoot threads - it helps highlight the absolute pointlessness of the discussion.

Sensible places - The Guardian, Reddit, & even 4Chan last time I checked - have banned dissenting threads on AGW because they're exactly the same as CT threads - no progress is made, and if people in the thread care that much they'd be far better served to go and actually do something instead of fighting via keyboard and getting nowhere.

Here's one for you:

How many of the Green Warriors in the thread drive an internal combsution engine car? Talk the talk but don't walk the walk is my experience of pro-AGW arguers.

I stand to be corrected, but I will be surprised if anyone here is doing more than paying lip service to the entire question.
 
The Atheist said:
You like that?

It's the perfect one-word description for them, because when you break their policies down they are 50% Green and 50% Communist. Feel free to use it - there's no copyright on it.
Click to expand...

Did that not bother you when you were a member? Cite which policies are communist just so we can see whether you
understand what a communist policy is because I really don't think that you do.
 
Atheist

Wrong but no convincing you...just as you say no convincing some...you can include yourself in that stuck in rut group.

Significant progress is being made in many regions despite the crap handed out by the right wing idjits.
But you just want to believe otherwise.

This is a climate science thread....not an echo chamber for your wringing of hands at human ennui.

This isn't a greenie forum, nearly all support nuclear power and most recognize nothing will happen rapidly but they don't give up either.
Your attitude sucks....don't try and attribute such a useless view to others.....it's not climate science and it's incorrect.
 
greybeard said:
Did that not bother you when you were a member?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it was outweighed by policies I saw as better than other party policies in areas I care about.

Until I caught them lying.

greybeard said:
Cite which policies are communist just so we can see whether you
understand what a communist policy is because I really don't think that you do.
Click to expand...

[Re] Nationalising privately-held assets

That one alone should suffice, because it is a 100% Communist ideal, but here are a couple of local (to me) examples.

Taxing high incomes to give money to those too lazy to work

Choosing leadership by dogma rather than capability

If you need more, there are plenty of them - maybe it should be a new thread as it has little to do with the climate?
 
macdoc said:
Atheist

Wrong but no convincing you...just as you say no convincing some...you can include yourself in that stuck in rut group.

Significant progress is being made in many regions despite the crap handed out by the right wing idjits.
Click to expand...

You claim that, and there was an attempt to display that it's even correct, but the truth is that the alleged progress is ancillary to game and not caused by fear of climate change.

The two big improvers right now, USA & China, have reduced emissions, but as I already noted above, that is nothing to do with a global agenda to fight AGW.

Please feel free to show how the alleged progress is actually being made and how it will negate the effect of India's growth and Brazil's continued failure to protect the rain forests.


macdoc said:
But you just want to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to believe anything.

What I'd like to see is action.

macdoc said:
This is a climate science thread....not an echo chamber for your wringing of hands at human ennui.
Click to expand...

Mocking, not hand-wringing.

I note your avoidance of my question, so I'll repeat it:

What are you personally doing to help combat climate change?

Posting in a thread on it is not "doing something".

From my own point of view, I'll gladly stack my personal record up against anyone else's.

macdoc said:
Your attitude sucks....
Click to expand...

Without knowing what others are doing, I'll wait until evidence of action is shown before I answer that.

Away you go!
 
The Atheist said:
Certainly. That's why I've conceded the point already. I don't think I'm wrong, but would rather admit to it than waste a week trying to prove it one way or the other.
Click to expand...

One of the necessary requirements for a tropical cyclone is a certain sea surface temperature. As the global sst warms it is logical that there will be more TCs. However the climate is complex so there will also be more wind shear to treat forming TCs apart. Wind patterns are also changing so that cyclones that do form may be turned out to sea instead of towards shore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom