Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=180

Table 4-6 shows the numbers of people living in countries using more than 20% of their water resources in 2025 and 2050 and in which the amount of resources **decreases** by more than 10% as a result of climate change.

IOW - fewer people will experience water shortages as a result of climate change.

can you read? That most certainly is not what the referenced table is stating... the number of people experiencing "water stress" increases from 2025 to 2050!

but let's look at what you've done here. You're not even referencing a current IPPC report; you've gone all the way back to the TAR, to 2001. Within that table, you're referencing an outdated emission scenario and outdated models. Do you have any aversion to being more current? Aside from you incorrectly interpreting that table, it only reflects a single study - if you wanted to offer a consensus statement from the IPCC you should be doing so.

even sticking with your long dated reference, aside from you messing up the table interpretation, you purposely omit the follow up sentences in your quote extract that emphasize global variability and regional distinctions:

There is considerable variability between scenarios, essentially reflecting how resources change in populous countries, but by the 2020s the table indicates that about 0.5 billion people could see increased water resources stress as a result of climate change. Significant geographic variations are hidden in Table 4-6. Under most of the scenarios considered, climate change increases stresses in many countries in southern and western Africa and the Middle East, whereas it ameliorates stresses in parts of Asia

let me bring you forward; more current... I would quote the AR5; however, the latest report has not yet been released. Given that, the following AR4 summary assessment refutes your unsubstantiated opinion.

14docqv.jpg

now, of course, I would be most negligent in not highlighting your intent to selectively glean from IPCC reports... you know, the same reports and summary positions that emphasis the need for both mitigation and adaptation. Oh my, aren't you the adaption only, Adapt-R-Us (only), guy? :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also - there is ZERO evidence that AGW had any impact on floods, storms or other weather extremes to date (also from the IPCC report). It is quite possible that any effect that AGW has on these events will be too small to measure for the foreseeable future.

citation request

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ waldo - I'll ignore the fact that your AR4 climate alarmist conclusion ignores any benefits of climate change and only discusses the negative consequences, and I'll also temporarily ignore the fact that you ran away from your 'debate' with me because you could not handle debating someone who has a good understanding on science.

I'll ask you this, why does the conclusion indicate that climate change is the problem and not the population distribution? Maybe the bigger problem is that certain countries (primarily middle east and africa) are breeding like rabits and addressing the population growth disparity is a better idea? Why do you think it is easier to implement global climate mitigation policies & transfer of wealth from industrialized countries to undeveloped countries rather than tackle the problem of population growth distribution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ waldo - I'll ignore the fact that your AR4 climate alarmist conclusion ignores any benefits of climate change and only discusses the negative consequences

climate alarmist conclusion??? Hey now, how come you didn't throw down this conclusion and offer an ignore to TimG?... I mean, c'mon... he went there first - he quoted IPCC statements first. What kind of double-standard selectivity are you presenting here, hey!

in any case, as many times in the past, you simply have limited reading & comprehension abilities! When the highlighted extract states, 'the negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems outweighs its benefits"...... how do you claim the IPCC ignored any benefits? The negative impacts outweighing the benefits is not, as you say, "ignoring the benefits" - duh! Perhaps you should read the entire extract image... pay particular attention to the boxed highlighted statements.

.

and I'll also temporarily ignore the fact that you ran away from your 'debate' with me because you could not handle debating someone who has a good understanding on science.

no - you weren't bringing anything new to move the discussion forward. Notwithstanding all you were providing was your unsubstantiated opinion. In any case, feel free to exercise your ultra-sensitivity, your lack of self-esteem and your low confidence level... please, claim your victory once more!!! :lol:

.

I'll ask you this, why does the conclusion indicate that climate change is the problem and not the population distribution?

yet more of your reading and comprehension difficulty! Read the first sentence in the image extract... what does exacerbate mean? Hey, why not read the whole extract - try it... it's not long. Pay attention to global variability and regional distinctions, particularly in regards your population reference. If you'd like to counter... with something other than your personal unsubstantiated opinion, please feel free to do so.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point one is a given - at least at this stage of the Earth's development.....Point 3 is also accurate - we can't control Climate Change.

Simple, you forgot about 'Point 2' => "Humans caused the majority of the warming". As before, as you've been challenged many times in the past when you've beaked off like this, feel free to present your alternative principal causal tie for today's relatively recent warming... present (and support/substantiate) your alternative principal causal tie... your alternative other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 being the principal cause of today's relatively recent warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the point "Most of the heat is going into the oceans"........since land temperatures have stabilized for 17 years, the Antarctic has more ice mass than ever, and the Arctic shows signs of recovering its recent ice loss - ocean heat is pretty well the last bastion of the alarmists.

It's hard to disprove (or prove) because we have no way of measuring the heat content of the deep oceans. Imagine - scientists have been fighting over land temperatures and frantically making adjustments for decades - and now we are to believe they know the amount of heat that's trapped in the oceans? This Johnny come lately theory only gained favour when land temperatures stopped rising, thereby repudiating the predictions/projections of virtually every one of the computer models.

you don't know what you're talking about... you never have! Shady already beat you to this in his failed "pause thread"; studies in ocean warming, ocean heat content, are not new... I quoted Shady 70s era studies that addressed the issue and implications of ocean warming. I quoted Shady long-standing ocean warming/OHC statements from the earliest IPCC reports. An ocean emphasis is nothing new; it's gained more prominence lately given scientists have more actively engaged the topic given the rate reduction in global surface temperatures... looking to explain the full energy transfer at play.

your continued natter over the Antarctic is nonsense. Gains in land ice (ice sheet) are minimal; notwithstanding you (and others) have been presented studies that speak to the influence of warming on in-land ice sheet growth. Your reference to the Arctic is just dumb. You've been shown the long-term trending loss of both extent and volume in the Arctic. This years melt-season wasn't as significant as in the recent past... and from this... you speak of an "Arctic Recovery"! That's just nonsense, absolute bunk!

there's a ton of study/research out there looking at OHC within the respective ocean layers. Feel free to bring forward something that disputes overall ocean layer OHC increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ waldo - I'll ignore the fact that your AR4 climate alarmist conclusion ignores any benefits of climate change and only discusses the negative consequences, and I'll also temporarily ignore the fact that you ran away from your 'debate' with me because you could not handle debating someone who has a good understanding on science.

I'll ask you this, why does the conclusion indicate that climate change is the problem and not the population distribution? Maybe the bigger problem is that certain countries (primarily middle east and africa) are breeding like rabits and addressing the population growth disparity is a better idea? Why do you think it is easier to implement global climate mitigation policies & transfer of wealth from industrialized countries to undeveloped countries rather than tackle the problem of population growth distribution?

Why not go ahead and compare those "certain countries" who are "breeding like rabbits" with regard to the per capita fossil fuel consumption compared to the rest of the world. Then look at how "we" are going to those "certain countries" which are the ones you refer to and suck up all the fossil fuel we can to bring back to the northern latitudes to burn. I hasten to add if we could only roust out some of the right wing religious freaks from those places, and then did some good aid work with contraception, they would be happy to have more control over their population..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is easy to say that, indeed it is. No argument there.

your attempt to paint a broad-brush of fraudulent funding and its application is noted.... again, it's easy to say, and very easy for you to say.

what's even more illuminating is you clearly didn't like that video I just put up... so you reached back ~3 weeks into the thread to reply to something completely unrelated, to reply to something that wasn't initially addressed to you. And your topic du jour was... an avenue for you to pump your broad-brush fraud labeling! Yes, clearly, your attempts to bury the video are noted... here, have another go it - maybe you can dredge up something from a couple of months back! :lol:

I've put up past versions of the following atmospheric CO2 time history graph... I believe the last update I've referenced was 2010. As below, an updated 2012 version... stick with it to the end!

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is easy to say that, indeed it is. No argument there.

Yes, quite easy.

This marks the second time in the past year that carbon trading has been shut down. Last year, the U.N.'s carbon market halted for several days when authorities discovered that the Hungarian government had—legally—been reselling allowances that had already been used. In 2009 Europol reported that in certain countries, 90% of the ETS's trading volume was taken up by value-added-tax scams. Europe's system has also been plagued by smaller thefts since its founding in 2005, and some companies in the Third World have spewed pollutants simply to eliminate them and sell the carbon allowances to European companies.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703439504576116020196050548

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news for warmists. This year will rank as one of the coldest years in American history.

hey Shady, at what point do you feel emboldened enough to move your status updates into full thread posts? In my status update reply, I already pointed out your big-time fail by highlighting the source of your claim... denier extraordinaire "Steven Goddard", the anonymous guy that no one actually knows! He makes his wild-assed claims behind a cloak of anonymity. Who is your source Shady? :lol: We know he's a blogger... but just who is the guy... no one, as in NO ONE, actually knows who he is.

.

per NCDC/NOAA:

Global Analysis: The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the 2013 year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.

National Analysis: The 2013 year-to-date (January–November) contiguous U.S. temperature was 54.4°F, 0.5°F** above the 20th century average, the 35th warmest January-November on record.

but here's a thought, Shady... it's called GLOBAL warming! Does your understanding of GLOBAL warming start/stop with a regional segment? Here's some perspective for you: 2012, was the hottest year in U.S. history... it was also only the 10th warmest globally. Again, Shady... G-L-O-B-A-L warming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, quite easy.

This marks the second time in the past year that carbon trading has been shut down. Last year, the U.N.'s carbon market halted for several days when authorities discovered that the Hungarian government had—legally—been reselling allowances that had already been used. In 2009 Europol reported that in certain countries, 90% of the ETS's trading volume was taken up by value-added-tax scams. Europe's system has also been plagued by smaller thefts since its founding in 2005, and some companies in the Third World have spewed pollutants simply to eliminate them and sell the carbon allowances to European companies.

I could not read the whole article (have to log in and I am tired of signing up for stuff). However that does show what I had said before about the carbon trading markets. The exchange was bound to fail simply because you can pay to pollute and does not address reduction of C02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys, guys..... the video... what about the video? You keep ignoring it!

as for the EU ETS, you won't read me extolling the virtues of cap & trade... I've long been a proponent of cap & dividend, with several MLW posts to that end. The problems with the EU ETS are recognized (by some within the EU)... reforms are on the table; it remains to be seen whether needed reforms will be accepted/deployed. Your earlier emphasis on underlying fraud is misplaced - there have been examples of fraud discovered, with very high-profile court cases and resulting criminal prosecution... overall monies lost to fraudulent practices is relatively placed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news? I was just thinking the trend towards increasingly extreme weather was a vindication.

So it's good news...in a weird sort of way.

Actually the IPCC has recently confirmed in their recent report their they have low confidence in the increases to extreme weather. So I guess you're on your own there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What trend? What extreme weather?

e.g. per a recent post:

no - the intensity of storms is predicted to increase... along with an increase in the frequency of these more intense storms ("in some basins"). The issue of the number of hurricanes hitting landfall is one under study... one line of investigation shows evidence that the number of landfall hurricanes has shown a decrease in recent years, with some scientific research/study attributing that landfall decrease to increased water temperature and related wind sheer effects.

from the latest IPCC AR5 report:

Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates. The influence of future climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but there is low confidence in region-specific projections. The frequency of the most intense storms will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins. More extreme precipitation near the centers of tropical cyclones making landfall are likely in North and Central America, East Africa, West, East, South and Southeast Asia as well as in Australia and many Pacific islands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not read the whole article (have to log in and I am tired of signing up for stuff). However that does show what I had said before about the carbon trading markets. The exchange was bound to fail simply because you can pay to pollute and does not address reduction of C02.

And yet, carbon trading and taxes on carbon are the best anyone has come up with so far. Which simply goes to what I said earlier: regardless of the cause of warming, the focus on trying to reverse it is largely a waste of time and money. We'd be better off putting money into ameliorating the likely results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...