Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

IPC projections are updated regularly. Increases will vary regionally but their latest estimates go up to double that, including an increase of .74 m in the New York area.

I give your claims of the postive effects the same credibility you give mine of the negative effects.

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.

Yes, countries like Bangladesh are so stinking rich it is their own fault they get flooded out every time there is a major storm in the Bay of Bengal.

How arrogant. How ignorant.

King Canute's efforts?

And here all this time I thought it was the Moon and Sun which were responsible for the tides. Who knew.

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

Show me your scientific paper that says we aren't or aren't capable of it. Show me the paper that says there is no possibility of a tipping point.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both agree that humans are causing climate change. Done.

Do you deny the benefits of climate change? Do you deny that the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs?

including an increase of .74 m in the New York area.

0.74 m over a century is still on the order of 0.4 m over a century and is not catastrophic.

I give your claims of the postive effects the same credibility you give mine of the negative effects.

What do you mean by 'same credibility'? I'm still waiting for a point by point refutation.

Yes, countries like Bangladesh are so stinking rich it is their own fault they get flooded out every time there is a major storm in the Bay of Bengal.

How arrogant. How ignorant.

What has this got to do with climate change? Bangladesh has always been an area prone to flooding. Maybe they should build dikes like the dutch.

Show me your scientific paper that says we aren't or aren't capable of it. Show me the paper that says there is no possibility of a tipping point.

The burden of proof lies on the one claiming that we are heading towards a Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.

But none the less, i can explain why the claim is wrong.

In the Permian mass extinction event there was an increase in global temperatures on the order of 10 degrees Celsius. The magnitude of change we are talking about with human caused climate change due to increases in CO02 levels is roughly an increase of 2 degrees since pre-industrial levels. And pre-industrial levels correspond to the end of the mini-ice age, so temperatures were among the lowest of the past 2000 years. And geologically speaking, we are at a period (i.e. since panama was created 22 million years ago) of the lowest CO2 levels and temperatures in the past 500 million years despite gradual increases in solar irradiance, which is why the C4 cycle has been evolved recently by plants. So the small increase of 2 degrees will only warm the planet to a level closer to that that it has been at for most of the past 500 million years of which multicellular life has existed on this planet.

But even if I ignore the fact that the planet has been warmer for most of it's history and the fact that the magnitude of warming doesn't even come close, even if we did duplicate the events of the permian-triassic mass extinction event (i.e. 10 degrees of warming, significant acidification of oceans, methane explosions once the oceans can no longer hold their methane, etc.) it still wouldn't be as large of a mass extinction event as the permian-triassic mass extinction event for many reasons.

1. All life that exists on the planet today descends from life that already survived the permian mass extinction event, the cretaceous-paleogene mass extinction event (you know, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs) and numerous other mass extinction events. This means that life is more durable and better able to adapt than life millions of years ago and it is more able to survive mass extinction events that its ancestors survived.

2. Humans. Humans are the greatest result of millions of years of evolution and natural selection and we have evolved the intelligence that allows us to build today's modern society, go to other planets, etc. Humans are more than capable of helping other species survive the changing climate and even alter the climate to more preferable states (ex. we could cool the planet with a giant space mirror).

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a point by point refutation for my argument that climate change is beneficial.

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.

Tornadoes happen all year round, http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/tornadoes_bymonth.png, there is no trend in the severity or frequency of tornadoes, http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF1-EF5.png , http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png, and all of that with FAR better detection than ever, i mean, light years better detection. it isn't the 'deniers' who are anti science, anti fact, it's you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not see TimG's post about the predicted extent of the sea rise ?

Predictions are continualy being modified, one thing that hasn't changed is that there is a net warming of the oceans and a net rise in sea levels. As 90% of the heat in the earths surface is stored in the oceans, that is serious.

All these wonderful things that will supposedly happen with warming are pretty Polyanna and aren't based on much other than faith. We are just starting to come to terms with the consequences of mass die offs in such species as honey bees and bats. We have a whole ecosystem in the Pacific North West that is centered on the Pacific Salmon. Hundreds if not thousands of other species rely on the annual salmon migrations. Ocean warming is one of the things that are currently threatening the salmon. Anyone who thinks they know what the consequences of warming will be on the worlds eco systems is in a fool's paradise..

As we merrily convert from growing apples to oranges in the Okanagan Valley and Niagara Peninula, do we honestly think the hundreds of millions if not billions in lower latitudes who have lost their means to exist because of temperature rise or the loss of their habitat to rising water, will conveniently die off, or will they head north? Even those in southern latitudes will head north because that is where most of the world's land mass exists. Mass migrations have always gone hand in hand with climate change and so has the strife and suffering that goes with them.

Will mankind adapt and survive? Probably unless we are somehow able to create a runaway greenhouse effect. Nature has always had a way of curbing the excesses of a particular species. It kills a whole bunch of it off. Ultimately, we are likely to find that we are no different from the lowly lemming after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It astounds me that after all these years you still think it's going to be possible to get people to stop using fossil fuels. It's like the 'war on drugs'. No matter how often you ram your head into that brick wall, you still go back and do it again, certain that some day, somehow, the wall will break. Well, it won't.

So try something else!

$100 billion a year is a drop in the bucket? Please.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The studies of the effects, the ones I have read, do factor in positive effects. Why wouldn't there be *any* ?

How many of these studies have really gone into the possibilities in depth and who were their authors? Are geologists experts on biology? Do you really thing biologists know the full implications of climate change? If you follow gambling or the stock market you will know that for every winner, there is at least one loser.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It astounds me that after all these years you still think it's going to be possible to get people to stop using fossil fuels. It's like the 'war on drugs'. No matter how often you ram your head into that brick wall, you still go back and do it again, certain that some day, somehow, the wall will break. Well, it won't.

So try something else!

$100 billion a year is a drop in the bucket? Please.

A good mass extinction of humans will get our consumption of fossil fuels under control. That is the way nature has always worked. Arrogant humans somehow think they are immune. Fools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of these studies have really gone into the possibilities in depth and who were their authors? Are geologists experts on biology? Do you really thing biologists know the full implications of climate change? If you follow gambling or the stock market you will know that for every winner, there is at least one loser.

They're economic studies... Look, with any effect that large there would be *some* positive effects, even if the net effect is negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes me feel better. Economists are never wrong. I wouldn't doubt there would be some positive effects for some parts of the world for a short term at least, but if we continue with not putting limits on increases in green house gas emissions and deforestation, how long before they to are overwhelmed by events.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes me feel better. Economists are never wrong. I wouldn't doubt there would be some positive effects for some parts of the world for a short term at least, but if we continue with not putting limits on increases in green house gas emissions and deforestation, how long before they to are overwhelmed by events.

In my lifetime we have seen at least three end of world scares (peak food, peak oil and Y2K) each of these scares had a plausible basis yet they simply disappeared with a whimper because humans don't stand still - they are constantly looking for ways to solve problems without some technocrat micromanaging their lives. The eventual solution made all of the "expert doomsayers" look like idiots because none of them predicted that events would have unfolded the way they did.

So my question for you: given the doomsayers 0 for 3 record why should the climate doomsayers be taken seriously? Keep in mind that the climate doomsayers already have a long list of failed predictions from temperature rise to hurricanes to drought. How many more failures do there have to be until you accept that the entire thing is going to disappear with a whimper like the scares that have come before?

Edited by TimG
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.

That will happen when Kugluktuk gets palm trees or New York City is beneath the waves. I.e. either never or an impossibly long time from now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the denier now? Do you alarmists still deny the benefits of climate change?

Waldo would roundly call me a denier (knowing as a Jew I find the term offensive) but even I wouldn't go so far as you do. I don't' think there is anything great about dumping tons of pollutants into the air. That being said I see no reason to export "pollution rights" to China or give their industrialists a free pass.

I don't believe in AGW. If there is warming it is likely cyclical. I also don't believe that anything politically possible can halt or lower significantly emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases." I think these people's agenda is to curb or limit democracy, to turn us, at best, into social democracies or at worst "people's republics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these wonderful things that will supposedly happen with warming are pretty Polyanna and aren't based on much other than faith.

Lol. You dismiss all positives of climate change as just faith? In that case it should be easy for you to refute the positives I listed in my earlier post.

Still waiting for a point by point refutation...

We are just starting to come to terms with the consequences of mass die offs in such species as honey bees and bats. We have a whole ecosystem in the Pacific North West that is centered on the Pacific Salmon. Hundreds if not thousands of other species rely on the annual salmon migrations. Ocean warming is one of the things that are currently threatening the salmon. Anyone who thinks they know what the consequences of warming will be on the worlds eco systems is in a fool's paradise..

I have not seen evidence that suggests that recent increases in CO2 levels are causing mass die-offs of bees and bats.

As for salmon, yes warmer temperatures will make it more difficult for Salmon to live in BC, but there will be a boost to the Alaskan Salmon Fishery (which has a lot more coastline per unit of latitude). The BC fishery will just shift to other types of fish that are better suited to the warmer waters.

As we merrily convert from growing apples to oranges in the Okanagan Valley and Niagara Peninula

The amount of warming will not be large enough to cause oranges to become dominant in the Okanagan and the Niagara Peninsula.

Do we honestly think the hundreds of millions if not billions in lower latitudes who have lost their means to exist because of temperature rise or the loss of their habitat to rising water, will conveniently die off, or will they head north?

The premises of this question are wrong. We are looking at an amount of warming on the order of ~2 degrees C, most of the warming will occur in polar latitudes (due to a combination of decreased albedo from loss of ice and an slower rate of heat going into space), global dimming (decrease in direct sunlight due to greater CO2 combinations) will have its greatest effect at equatorial latitudes where direct sunlight is greatest, and biodiversity is greatest at the equator. The idea that life cannot flourish at equatorial latitudes if temperatures rise slightly (by like 0.5 C for 2 C warming globally) is ridiculous! The greatest biodiversity currently exists at equatorial latitudes and the planet has been much warmer than currently for most of the past 500 million years.

Nature has always had a way of curbing the excesses of a particular species. It kills a whole bunch of it off. Ultimately, we are likely to find that we are no different from the lowly lemming after all.

Lol, here we are with your gaia-worshiping religious nonsense. Gaia will punish us for all the evil sins we have committed!

If you follow gambling or the stock market you will know that for every winner, there is at least one loser.

The stock market is not a zero sum game. It helps allocate physical capital to the areas of the economy that can put it to the most productive use. Therefore, your statement is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't' think there is anything great about dumping tons of pollutants into the air.

The thing is, CO2, is an odourless gas that is essential for life on this planet. It is not a pollutant.

Furthermore, CO2 levels around 300 ppm started around 22 millions years ago with the creation of panama and this period has seen the lowest CO2 levels in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. I would argue that without human intervention, CO2 levels would continuously get dangerously low as more carbon is accumulated in fossil fuel reserves, making it harder for planet life to flourish (that's why the C4 cycle has evolved recently).

I don't believe in AGW. If there is warming it is likely cyclical.

What is hard to believe? The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This makes the atmosphere better able to absorb incoming radiation due to the absorption spectra of CO2, resulting in warmer temperatures as it becomes harder for heat to escape to outer space. There are cyclical effects yes, but there is also a human component.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, CO2, is an odourless gas that is essential for life on this planet. It is not a pollutant.

Furthermore, CO2 levels around 300 ppm started around 22 millions years ago with the creation of panama and this period has seen the lowest CO2 levels in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. I would argue that without human intervention, CO2 levels would continuously get dangerously low as more carbon is accumulated in fossil fuel reserves, making it harder for planet life to flourish (that's why the C4 cycle has evolved recently).

You are literally right. But with CO2 comes a noxious cocktail of other pollutants. I am not a big believer in this climate change nonsense alarmism.

What is hard to believe? The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This makes the atmosphere better able to absorb incoming radiation due to the absorption spectra of CO2, resulting in warmer temperatures as it becomes harder for heat to escape to outer space. There are cyclical effects yes, but there is also a human component.

Also increases cloud cover, lowering daytime maximums. That is if it's happening which I don't believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, in the Cambrian Period...blah blah blah...

What was it that preceded the Cambrian Period again? Oh right, the End-Ediacaran mass extinction.

...still deny the benefits of climate change?

Not me, nope.

You're quite correct to say AGW will be beneficial to something somewhere down the road. And notwithstanding the evolution of hindsight, I suspect there must have even been an Ediacaranian or two who would have agreed with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are literally right. But with CO2 comes a noxious cocktail of other pollutants. I am not a big believer in this climate change nonsense alarmism.

Also increases cloud cover, lowering daytime maximums. That is if it's happening which I don't believe.

Could you please define what you mean by 'lowering daytime maximums'?

What was it that preceded the Cambrian Period again? Oh right, the End-Ediacaran mass extinction.

Mass extinction events & natural selection are part of nature. If it weren't for the mass extinction events in history, we would probably not exist here today to have this conversation.

I suspect there must have even been an Ediacaranian or two who would have agreed with you.

Impossible. Ediacaranians would not have sufficient intelligence to agree with me. Heck, pretty much all species other than humans that have existed on this planet (well neanderthals might be an exception) lack the intelligence to agree or disagree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass extinction events & natural selection are part of nature. If it weren't for the mass extinction events in history, we would probably not exist here today to have this conversation.

Said the Platysolenites.

So the plan is to benefit from the mass extinction of this period and simply hop, skip and jump our way into the promised land of the next CO2 enriched period? This is not a chicken and road question.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the plan is to benefit from the mass extinction of this period and simply hop, skip and jump our way into the promised land of the next CO2 enriched period? This is not a chicken and road question.

I do not agree with the premise of the question. I do not believe currently projected climate change (0.4 m ocean level rise in a century, 2 C increase in global temperatures) will result in a mass extinction event (unless you want to be really, really liberal with your definition of mass extinction event).

Edit: deforestation and loss of habitat are probably bigger drivers of extinction than increases in CO2 levels by 100 or so ppm.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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