The Global Warming Plateau

[TimG]

There is ample data that shows the rise of sea level.

And how exactly does that refute the data that shows that *despite* the sea level rise that most atolls grew in size over the last 60 years? How does it refute the geologic theory of atolls that says they should rise with sea level? Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think there is any data that says attolls rise with sea level. And people getting into boats to leave attolls where they have lived for generations because the land is disappearing under the waves is not really data. It's reality.

[TimG]

I don't think there is any data that says attolls rise with sea level.

I gave you a link describing a peer reviewed paper that say there atolls rise with sea level. If you disagree with that paper then explain why. Simply pretending it does not exist is nonsensical.

People leave atolls for many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise. Poorly planned development can upset the geology of the atolls and cause flooding. Do you have any evidence that these people were not fleeing problems created by the changes they made to the atolls?

[On Guard for Thee]

I gave you a link describing a peer reviewed paper that say there atolls rise with sea level. If you disagree with that paper then explain why. Simply pretending it does not exist is nonsensical.

People leave atolls for many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise. Poorly planned development can upset the geology of the atolls and cause flooding. Do you have any evidence that these people were not fleeing problems created by the changes they made to the atolls?

Go to Google, type in "global warming and sea level rise" you'll be days reading all the evidence that will show up. Read a bit of it and then get back to me.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is ample proof that warming has hapenned various times in history and so logic would dictate it will happen again. The fact is we won't survive it, the question is are we hastening it with our activity? Consider this, when was the last time in history we started up one billion automobiles every day?

[TimG]

Go to Google, type in "global warming and sea level rise" you'll be days reading all the evidence that will show up.

I gave you a very simple challenge: provide a coherent argument for why the data I provided is false. You are unable to do that. Telling me to use google is simply an admission of your failure.

[On Guard for Thee]

Quoting one only source of questionable data and refusing to look at the plethora of opposing data is nothing to do with my failure. The mainstream scientific community is no longer arguing over wether it's happening, but they disagree on how fast.

[TimG]

Quoting one only source of questionable data and refusing to look at the plethora of opposing data is nothing to do with my failure.

You have not provided any data that contradicts the data I provided. All you are doing is waving your hands and claiming there is contradictory data. If you think such data exists then provide it. You also have no basis to claim the data is 'questionable' unless you provide specific criticisms of their approach that explains why you think they might be wrong.

Note: general statements about temperatures rising are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about your claim that global warming will cause island nations to be submerged. I provided evidence that this claim has is dubious at best. You have not even tried to refute that evidence.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You have not provided any data that contradicts the data I provided. All you are doing is waving your hands and claiming there is contradictory data. If you think such data exists then provide it. You also have no basis to claim the data is 'questionable' unless you provide specific criticisms of their approach that explains why you think they might be wrong.

Note: general statements about temperatures rising are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about your claim that global warming will cause island nations to be submerged. I provided evidence that this claim has is dubious at best. You have not even tried to refute that evidence.

Ever heard of the IPCC? Some of the best scientific people on the planet. Check some of their ideas.

[TimG]

Ever heard of the IPCC? Some of the best scientific people on the planet. Check some of their ideas.

Read the reports. Some good stuff - mostly politically motivated BS designed to justify a power grab by UN bureaucrats. I say this because of the way they distort and misrepresent the science if the science does not provide a nice tidy story that supports the alarmist narrative (hide the decline anyone?).

Also - my point is not refuted in the IPCC reports.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Obviously I'm wasting my time here. You have your mind made up and that seems to be that. And that's anything but scientific.

A power grab by the UN, that's a good one.

[TimG]

Obviously I'm wasting my time here. You have your mind made up and that seems to be that. And that's anything but scientific. A power grab by the UN, that's a good one.

Any treaty to limit emissions hands massive sums of money over to the UN to broker the sale of carbon credits and adaptation. The experience so far is this system is a joke riddled with corruption.

And my criticism are based on reading the IPCC SPM and seeing how they present a distorted picture of the science. You, of course, know nothing of the science and expect people to accept the IPCC as the word of god. Well, I don't. I try to understand things myself by looking at the underlying science and draw my own conclusions. I think it is clear that I have much more open mind than you when it comes to the science.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Any treaty to limit emissions hands massive sums of money over to the UN to broker the sale of carbon credits and adaptation. The experience so far is this system is a joke riddled with corruption.

And my criticism are based on reading the IPCC SPM and seeing how they present a distorted picture of the science. You, of course, no nothing of the science and expect people to accept the IPCC the word of god. Well, I don't. I try to understand things myself.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you have now decided which reports are distorted and which are not. Yeah. Anyway, once again give this simple fact some thought, in the next 24 hours around one billion automobiles will be running spewing out carbon. That has come into reality since probably your grandfather or possibly great gf was born. Even the UN couldn't fake that.

[TimG]

Yeah. Anyway, once again give this simple fact some thought, in the next 24 hours around one billion automobiles will be running spewing out carbon.

So? I don't dispute this. I don't even question the fact that the world is warming due to CO2. What I question are the predictions of disaster if we do nothing and most importantly, I think that carbon reduction as a primary policy response is an expensive waste of time that can't work even the IPCC predictions of disaster are true.

All of these opinions are backed up actual data from the many failed carbon reduction policies.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

You have not provided any data that contradicts the data I provided. All you are doing is waving your hands and claiming there is contradictory data. If you think such data exists then provide it. You also have no basis to claim the data is 'questionable' unless you provide specific criticisms of their approach that explains why you think they might be wrong.

Note: general statements about temperatures rising are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about your claim that global warming will cause island nations to be submerged. I provided evidence that this claim has is dubious at best. You have not even tried to refute that evidence.

the stated claim is anything but dubious! Do you even bother to read your own linked article... did you step-up and actually go read the referenced study? The study area was within a subset of the central Pacific involving a relatively small number of atoll islands - the study authors caution extending the findings to a broader coverage area level... in that regard, of course, sea-level rise varies considerably across the complete ocean area, notwithstanding other localized impacts related to the preponderance of tropical storms/typhoons, etc.

even taking the study's own data, against the generalized 120mm of sea-level rise in the study area, 14% of the atolls showed a decrease in total land area. Are you choosing to outright ignore this figure? Equally, another 43% of the atolls remained 'relatively stable' in land area... which only means the respective coral reef growth managed to keep pace with that associated 120mm sea-level rise. That "keeping pace" presumes upon healthy coral growth balanced against that existing sea-level rise rate... if the rate increases, the coral growth may not be able to keep up. Equally, there are other climate change related stresses that directly affect coral growth... coral life, for that matter: a warming ocean, ocean acidification, bleaching and (possible) changes in storm frequency/intensity. All these factors weigh heavily on whether atoll island nations will "remain afloat"... will be able to potentially adapt, if even partially.

additionally, the referenced study analysis was based entirely on area size comparisons... vertical growth/height was not measured questioning whether the study suggests any change to the vulnerability of atoll islands to sea level rise. Per the study authors:

This study did not measure vertical growth of the island surface nor does it suggest there is any change in the height of the islands. Since land height has not changed the vulnerability of the greater part of the land area of each island to submergence due to sea level rise is also unchanged and these low-lying atolls remain immediately and extremely vulnerable to inundation or sea water flooding.

.

[waldo]

Any treaty to limit emissions hands massive sums of money over to the UN to broker the sale of carbon credits and adaptation. The experience so far is this system is a joke riddled with corruption.

And my criticism are based on reading the IPCC SPM and seeing how they present a distorted picture of the science. You, of course, know nothing of the science and expect people to accept the IPCC as the word of god. Well, I don't. I try to understand things myself by looking at the underlying science and draw my own conclusions. I think it is clear that I have much more open mind than you when it comes to the science.

you "look at the underlying science", hey?

[waldo]

Read the reports. Some good stuff - mostly politically motivated BS designed to justify a power grab by UN bureaucrats. I say this because of the way they distort and misrepresent the science if the science does not provide a nice tidy story that supports the alarmist narrative (hide the decline anyone?).

hide the decline? How desperate are you? You know that meme has no foundation... and yet you persist. That idiocy you once again trot out has been beaten on through an assortment of past MLW threads. It's as stooopid as your moronic UN power-grab and New World Order implications.

[waldo]

Warming to pause for possibly another 20 years

yes! You're back on the British tabloid, hack denier "journalist", David Rose bandwagon! Why not pick up on and extend the discussion around his 'stadium wave' reference... we can have some real fun there, hey?

[ReeferMadness]

Any treaty to limit emissions hands massive sums of money over to the UN to broker the sale of carbon credits and adaptation. The experience so far is this system is a joke riddled with corruption.

And my criticism are based on reading the IPCC SPM and seeing how they present a distorted picture of the science. You, of course, know nothing of the science and expect people to accept the IPCC as the word of god. Well, I don't. I try to understand things myself by looking at the underlying science and draw my own conclusions. I think it is clear that I have much more open mind than you when it comes to the science.

Not true. Each jurisdiction could levy its own carbon taxes to bring carbon emissions down to whatever level is agreed to by the treaty. No gain for the UN. Each jurisdiction can do what it wishes with the proceeds. Problem solved.

Carbon trading is a capitalist response stemming from the notion that solving any problem has to generate massive profits for someone.

[ReeferMadness]

So? I don't dispute this. I don't even question the fact that the world is warming due to CO2. What I question are the predictions of disaster if we do nothing and most importantly, I think that carbon reduction as a primary policy response is an expensive waste of time that can't work even the IPCC predictions of disaster are true.

All of these opinions are backed up actual data from the many failed carbon reduction policies.

So, let's all wait around while the chemistry of the atmosphere slowly changes over time. The world's biggest chemistry experiment.

How many people have to die off before it's worth taking action? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? More??

[TimG]

So, let's all wait around while the chemistry of the atmosphere slowly changes over time. The world's biggest chemistry experiment.

We don't really have a choice. There are simply no cost effective alternatives at this time. It is adapt or nothing unless you want to advocate a mass cull of humanity.

How many people have to die off before it's worth taking action? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? More??

For starters claims that people are dying today because of global warming are complete BS - as credible as the weekly horoscope. Humans can and will adapt to whatever changes that are likely to occur. They have been doing this for centuries and there is no reason to believe it will not continue. If the more absurd of global warming predictions came true then that will be extremely strong evidence that there was nothing we could do about it anyways so there is really no argument for mitigation as a policy choice. Edited November 11, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Not true. Each jurisdiction could levy its own carbon taxes to bring carbon emissions down to whatever level is agreed to by the treaty. No gain for the UN. Each jurisdiction can do what it wishes with the proceeds. Problem solved.

Except what happens if carbon taxes don't reduce emissions (largely because it is technically impossible)? With Kyoto countries just walk away from their commitments. Not much of a treaty. Internationally sold carbon credits are a scam designed to allow UN bureaucrats to pretend that it is possible meet targets while pocketing billions.

Carbon trading is a capitalist response stemming from the notion that solving any problem has to generate massive profits for someone.

Trading in imaginary government permits is classic big government over-reach. If it had anything to do with capitalism there would be a built in incentive to police fraud because the buyer would not want a fraudulent product. But with carbon credits the buyer is compelled to buy something that has no intrinsic value and therefore has an incentive to facilitate fraud if it reduces their cost. Edited November 11, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

So, let's all wait around while the chemistry of the atmosphere slowly changes over time. The world's biggest chemistry experiment.

How many people have to die off before it's worth taking action? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? More??

The precedent being set by those that oppose Golden Rice is being set at 8 million and counting.

http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

"It is surprising to me that it is often the activists who speak up in support of the scientific consensus around climate change (i.e., that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is induced by humans and is happening), who are the same activists who don’t accept the scientific consensus and evidence that shows that GM crops can be safe. Either you accept scientific consensus or you don’t; but you cannot have it both ways, accepting science that agrees with your personal philosophy and rejecting that which does not."

http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12682%3Aseeing-clearly-golden-rice-and-climate-science〈=en

[carepov]

We don't really have a choice. There are simply no cost effective alternatives at this time. It is adapt or nothing unless you want to advocate a mass cull of humanity.

Yes we do have choices.

For starters:

-We can conserve energy

-We can switch electrical generation from coal to nuclear/hydro/gas and then use more electric vehicles

-We can use more geothermal for heating