Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

Is socialist a troll? I can't tell.

Socialist, please provide me with a model or scientific paper that explains how increases in atmospheric CO2 result in more extreme weather events everywhere.

And no, A link to a climate alarmist website that merely repeats the same claims without justification does not count.

Here's a scientific report that disputes what you were saying. GW is causing more hurricanes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's a scientific report that disputes what you were saying. GW is causing more hurricanes.

That paper is debunked here:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/24/storm-surge-hockey-stick-2/

A short summary of the critique: storm surges are not a reliable indicator of hurricane events. The paper itself identifies 465 surges when there were only 147 hurricanes recorded. The idea that people would fail to notice 300+ hurricanes over 80 years is laughable.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a scientific report that disputes what you were saying. GW is causing more hurricanes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html

Socialist - one thing you have to think about is the fact that the debate up until now has established STANDARDS for scientific evidence. The basics are: published and peer reviewed studies, plural, leading to a consensus. Even then, we have debates as to how much of a consensus is required, and indeed even whether absolutely consensus means anything.

In any case, you haven't posted a scientific report - you have posted a newspaper review that describes one study (without naming it specifically, from what I can see).

We are obliged to follow the standards that we ourselves set for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kyoto Protocal called for a 5% reduction of 1990 levels by 2012 or a 26% reduction in emissions, not a reduction in growth. Unrealistic maybe but even a quarter of that would make a difference slowing warming.

But what it fails to take into account is the population of the world is growing. China is building a new coal fired power plant every week. The Indians and Chinese and others are becoming more industrialized. You aren't going to be able to cut back global CO2 emissions to any significant degree.

Considering the number of major population centers located near sea level, a trillion dollars would do very little and is about the same amount the US government borrows every year. The cost of reducing emissions may well be a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to deal with their effects.

I don't think you realize how much a trillion dollars buys, particularly in third world countries. The EEC has estimated the cost of CO2 emissions will be something like $100 billion per year. What would $100 billion do to help just one country prepare its coast for rising tides? You could do a country per year indefinitely. And unlike wasting it on trying to cut down on CO2 emissions there'd actually be some significant impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cities cannot handle floods like a natural environment. CO2 is not a problem.

Religion? The usual denier claim. I've read the facts. Waldo has spent hours on here providing factual information and not one of you deniers has been able to match him. Sorry, but your argument and TimG's argument are full of holes and denier hearsay.

Good thing you are not taken seriously on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a scientific report that disputes what you were saying. GW is causing more hurricanes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html

That is an article, not a scientific paper. But it does mention Aslak Grinsted of the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University, so maybe if I do a google scholar search I'll be able to find it, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

1. The article only explains that there is a correlation between temperatures and frequency/severity of hurricanes. It doesn't provide a theoretical model (which is what I asked for).

2. Even if I accept that increased global temperatures can increase the frequency of hurricanes, that doesn't prove/justify the claim that ALL extreme weather events will become more frequent/severe. Climate alarmists constantly claim that all extreme weather events will become more frequent/severe everywhere (so droughts, floods, hurricanes, blizzards, thunderstorms, tornadoes, sand storms, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an article, not a scientific paper. But it does mention Aslak Grinsted of the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University, so maybe if I do a google scholar search I'll be able to find it, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

1. The article only explains that there is a correlation between temperatures and frequency/severity of hurricanes. It doesn't provide a theoretical model (which is what I asked for).

2. Even if I accept that increased global temperatures can increase the frequency of hurricanes, that doesn't prove/justify the claim that ALL extreme weather events will become more frequent/severe. Climate alarmists constantly claim that all extreme weather events will become more frequent/severe everywhere (so droughts, floods, hurricanes, blizzards, thunderstorms, tornadoes, sand storms, etc.).

So you at least have come to your senses and accept the fact that humans are the driving force behind climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an article, not a scientific paper. But it does mentionc Aslak Grinsted of the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University, so maybe if I do a google scholar search I'll be able to find it, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I found the paper and it appears the claimed correlation between tide gauge surges and hurricanes is really nothing but wishful thinking on the part of the authors (if you accept the author's correlation then there were 300+ hurricanes in the US that no one noticed).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major tornado hit Illinois today. It's NOVEMBER people. People who don't think these strange weather occurrences are human caused are crazy. Wake up people, go green, and reduce your carbon footprint.

Except the established science shows that colder weather increases the likelihood of tornado. If you want to argue that AGW increases tornados then you are arguing that the current understanding of climate is completely wrong.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/more-tornadoes-from-global-warming-thats-a-joke-right/

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major tornado hit Illinois today. It's NOVEMBER people. People who don't think these strange weather occurrences are human caused are crazy. Wake up people, go green, and reduce your carbon footprint.

I know you like coming on here just to agitate people but you really should check with the recent AR5 report from the IPCC as even they have backed off their claims of increasing weather extremes from the AR4 report. You might want to stay current if you plan on teaching kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you at least have come to your senses and accept the fact that humans are the driving force behind climate change.

When have I claimed that humans haven't affected the climate?

But why do you completely ignore my entire post? Please reply to it.

People who don't think these strange weather occurrences are human caused are crazy.

I think your climate alarmist religion is crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what it fails to take into account is the population of the world is growing. China is building a new coal fired power plant every week. The Indians and Chinese and others are becoming more industrialized. You aren't going to be able to cut back global CO2 emissions to any significant degree.

A trilliion will be a drop in the bucket. How many of these Third World countries will be able to afford the hundreds of billions required when they are struggling now? The Third World aside, the Thames flood contol barrier cost 3 billion in todays dollars and will eventually be made redundant by rising sea levels. Do you dike the entire Thames estuary and the river to a point twenty miles upstream of the city? What about all the other low lying areas in developed countries? The Netherlands, Denmark, New York, Shanghai, half of Florida to name just a few. What about all the agircultural land that will be lost. Even now the Northern Pine Beetle has devistated BC's interior forest industry because winters are no longer cold enough to kill them off.

It astounds me that you see no need to even try and slow down the rate of increase even though this is something that will accelerate as more and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. There is a little thing called cause and effect and the effect doesn't stabilize if the cause continues to increase.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of these Third World countries will be able to afford the hundreds of billions required when they are struggling now?

20 years ago China was a 3rd world country. In in the worst case scenarios the major effects won't start showing up for 50 years when they will be a lot richer.

the Thames flood contol barrier cost 3 billion in todays dollars and will eventually be made redundant by rising sea levels.

I call BS. According to the IPCC SLR by 2100 might be 1m - most likely less. The idea that the Thames flood contol barrier would be made redundant by rising seas is absurd. The barrier will have to be replaced from old age before that happens. If you want to make that claim then back it up with something.

It astounds me that you see no need to even try and slow down the rate of increase even though this is something that will accelerate as more and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere.

Does the phrase 'pissing into the rain' mean anything? Nothing we can do today aside will have any significant effect on future emissions given the masses of people in the 3rd world that want the benefits of a modern energy intensive lifestyle.. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A trilliion will be a drop in the bucket. How many of these Third World countries will be able to afford the hundreds of billions required when they are struggling now?

And that assumes that the leaders of the Third World countries that collect the moneys use it for the benefit of their people. Hint, they don't.

The Third World aside, the Thames flood contol barrier cost 3 billion in todays dollars and will eventually be made redundant by rising sea levels. Do you dike the entire Thames estuary and the river to a point twenty miles upstream of the city? What about all the other low lying areas in developed countries? The Netherlands, Denmark, New York, Shanghai, half of Florida to name just a few. What about all the agircultural land that will be lost. Even now the Northern Pine Beetle has devistated BC's interior forest industry because winters are no longer cold enough to kill them off.

Hasn't this happened before?

It astounds me that you see no need to even try and slow down the rate of increase even though this is something that will accelerate as more and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. There is a little thing called cause and effect and the effect doesn't stabilize if the cause continues to increase.

King Canute's efforts? Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - as conveyed to you each and every time you play the "denier Holocaust" card, the word denier is not exclusively co-opted by any single group, any single interest. In the AGW/CC context, denier is simply a label, one that is not an insult, one that is not name-calling, one that is simply a matter-of-fact categorization of non-belief in the prevailing understandings within science. The label denier is a quite matter-of-fact part of the understood lexicon within the discussion/debate surrounding AGW/CC.

Still, the term "denier" comes from the "Holocaust denier" terminology. I am solidly against laws proscribing Holocaust denial since if someone wants to hold or speak an idiotic view, let them.

When it comes to climate the term is offensive. It is name calling and is not "matter-of-fact." I am not someone who finds Jew-haters around every corner. But I think the misuse of Holocaust-related terms does trivialize the Shoah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Wilber, please respond to my earlier post on the positives of climate change. Also your concerns about rising sea levels are ridiculous when the projected rate of increase of sea levels is 40 cm per century.

Rate projected on what, current emission rates or an unrestrained increase in rates? You dudes seem to think the rate of increase won't change no matter how much crap you dump into the atmosphere.

You guys astound me, the cause has to be anything but 7 billion people dumping ever increasing amounts of green house gasses into the atmosphere while simultaniously destroying the carbon sinks we have. Anything but that. No worries, as the earth warms, methane released by decaying vegitation and thawing tundra will fix it. Methane is only 23 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rate projected on what, current emission rates or an unrestrained increase in rates?

The rises I am using assume business as usual emissions which takes into account that energy efficiency rises even if nothing is done and population will start to fall within 50 years.

The fact is we can't do anything about emissions and it is a big waste of money to try (trillions have been wasted already with little to show for it). If you want to make the case for doing something then you have to show there is a net benefit - you can't just wave your hands and say 'we got to do something cause bad things might happen'. Where is the benefit of emission controls when no feasible technology exists or is likely to exist in the near future (other than nuclear)?

BTW - the tipping point from methane in arctic is pure alarmist fantasy. If it had any merit then it would have happened 8000 years ago when the arctic was warmer than today. A meteor hitting the earth is more likely. Do you think we should be spending trillions to prevent that from happening?

Is there limit to your 'risk-a-phobia'? Is there any time when you would say it is simply not worth spending the money to reduce risk?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rate projected on what, current emission rates or an unrestrained increase in rates? You dudes seem to think the rate of increase won't change no matter how much crap you dump into the atmosphere.

Projections according to the IPCC. And I never made the claim that rate of ocean increases will not depend on what human activity does. But the increases will still be on the order of 0.4 m over 100 years.

And you still haven't responded to my earlier post on the positives of climate change.

You guys astound me, the cause has to be anything but 7 billion people dumping ever increasing amounts of green house gasses into the atmosphere while simultaniously destroying the carbon sinks we have. Anything but that. No worries, as the earth warms, methane released by decaying vegitation and thawing tundra will fix it. Methane is only 23 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

You alarmists act like we are going to cause something on the order of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, I'll keep reposting this until I get a response from one of the members of the Church of Climate Alarmism.

waldo, on 16 Nov 2013 - 5:59 PM, said:snapback.png

how is climate change a "net benefit" overall... and especially to Canada/Russia?

1. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere has a fertilizer effect on plants and makes it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis. This will help increase crop yields globally. For the vast majority of the past 500 million years in which multi-cellular life has existed on our planet in significant amounts, C02 levels have been much higher. For example, in the Cambrian Period, atmospheric C02 levels were approximately 4500 ppm, which is about 16 times pre-industrial levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

In fact, low levels of atmospheric C02 levels around 300 ppm is geologically a relatively recent phenomenon. It pretty much started at the beginning of the Neogene period (23 million years ago) when Panama was formed between North America and South America, greatly affecting global ocean currents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene Low C02 levels is one of the reasons why plants have recently evolved the C4 carbon fixation cycle (such as corn). http://en.wikipedia....carbon_fixation

2. Warmer global temperatures will result in longer growing seasons (especially in Canada) and more habitable land (which will exceed lost habitable land from small increases in ocean levels). These longer growing seasons will result in increased crop yields and will also make it easier to extract natural resources from polar regions. For example, during the medieval warm period, grapes were grown in Northern England and agriculture was even possible in Southern Greenland by Vikings. http://en.wikipedia....val_Warm_Period

3. Furthermore, for the vast majority of the past 500 millions years where multi-cellular life has existed in significant amounts on Earth, the Earth's global temperature was much higher than it is now. The greatest amount of biodiversity is found in equatorial regions, not polar regions so a modest increase in global temperatures will increase biodiversity. In fact, the geological time periods were there were large increases in biodiversity generally had high global temperatures (such as the Cambrian explosion or the Cretaceous period where dinosaurs flourished).

4. Humans evolved in western equatorial Africa (kenya / tanzania) and only started migrating to other places around 100,000 years ago. Therefore, humans are suited to warm climates (it is why humans are so hairless, have lots of sweat glands and are well suited for long distance running). The temperatures at which humans are most comfortable in (room temperature, so 21-24 degrees celcius) is much higher than the global average temperature (around 14 degrees celcius). Increasing the earth's average temperature will therefore make the planet better suited for humans. As for other species, I'm a human supremacist so do not care for them as much; other species will have to adapt or be naturally selected to extinction as species have been doing for millions of years.

5. Human civilization really only started to flourish at the end of the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia...._glacial_period It was only after this period that agriculture started to take off and humans started to become civilized. I therefore think that there is a strong link between a warmer climate and the rate of progress of human civilization.

6. In the case of Canada, warmer global temperatures will open up the North West Passage. This will greatly reduce shipping costs between Europe and East Asia and will be a great benefit to the global economy. It will also make it easier to access natural resources in Northern Canada. http://en.wikipedia....rthwest_Passage

Finally, there have been many studies that try to evaluate the net effect of climate change, and all studies that I know of have concluded that climate change is of net benefit to Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rmers-1.1031816
http://www.spectator...rry-on-warming/

Are you satisfied now?

socialist, on 16 Nov 2013 - 6:38 PM, said:snapback.png

Net benefit???

Severe tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, mudslides..can all be attributed to humans pumping GHGs into our fragile atmosphere. Some of the stuff I read on here makes me wonder.

This is just a lie propagated by climate alarmists and has no basis in science. Even the IPCC admits that there is no link between increased C02 levels / global temperatures and a greater frequency/severity of extreme weather events. The truth is that climate change will result in some weather events becoming more severe/frequent and other weather events becoming less severe/frequent. For example, the frequency & severity of tornadoes in South-Central USA (aka tornado alley) will become less while the frequency & severity of tornadoes in Southern Ontario will become greater.

Actually, extreme weather events usually occur as a result of larger temperature or pressure gradients in the atmosphere between different parts of the globe. The temperature differences between the equatorial regions and the polar regions is the primary driver of winds. The truth is, if C02 levels increase and global temperatures increase, the global temperature gradient between equatorial regions and polar regions will decrease (polar regions will warm significantly more than equatorial regions) so if anything, more C02 should decrease the frequency & severity of extreme weather events not increase it. The idea of blaming climate change for specific storms or weather events, such as the typhoon that hit Manila is ridiculous.

In fact, if you look at the recent climate change on Jupiter (which is a result of a 70 year climate cycle that is caused by atmospheric mixing), you will find that the recent decrease in the severity of extreme weather events (shrinking of the great red spot, decrease in the number of storms, smaller wind speeds) has occurred at the same time that the global average temperature on Jupiter has risen and the temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions have decreased.

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
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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