Paris Climate Summit

[TimG]

Are you making a positive claim or reacting to a claim ? Who needs to provide the cite here ?

https://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?download=1&ID_ARTICLE=MEDI_122_0139

The pollen-derived climatic proxies inferred from these two cores suggest that a shift towards drier conditions started during the early 15th century AD. The main dry and cool interval recorded both in coastal and inland Syria occurred from ca. 1500 to 1850 cal yr AD, a time frame encompassing the Little Ice Age. In Syria, the Little Ice Age is not only cooler, but also much drier than the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the present-day climate.

Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, I take it that you are citing your claim. Thanks.

I dont' think the little ice age is a good cite though, is it ? I honestly don't remember how we use this time period in this debate. It has been too long. Sorry.

[Big Guy]

I also see this as a plus. The more non-Trudeau people making decisions, the better. They do have a deep bench of experienced people. Maybe he is showing wisdom and insight into his lack of knowledge, and willing to let the grown-ups do the work.

In my professional life, I was considered fairly bright and did my job well. After I learned to hire smart, hard working people and allowed and encouraged them to make the decisions I suddenly became very smart. I hope Trudeau is very smart.

[-1=e^ipi]

What is your null hypothesis in this case?

Can you please stop convoluting the existence of climate change with whether mitigation is justified.

who wants to imagine that the entire human race could be essentially extinct in just a few generations?

Alarmists. It gives them a cause for their religion. Especially if their understanding of the magnitude of expected climate change is magnitudes larger than even the IPCC's largest predictions.

too many people prefer to be comforted than realistic.

And many have a confirmation bias where they try to dogmatically justify their belief, that it will cause the end of the world, in order to obtain a false sense of moral superiority.

And when dissenting opinion appears, you can pretend that they are just deniers, even when that is not the case.

Edited October 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Except there is no plausible evidence linking these things to climate change given the other, more plausible, explainations. In the case of tuvalu the it is an atoll which basically rises with sea level so any problems are related to local problems such as over population and construction in zones that should be kept free because of the geography of atolls.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

I realize that many alarmist treat these claims as the word of god but I took the time to actually look into the scientific basis and in almost all cases there is no scientific justification the religious beliefs.

The deniers now have land elevation rising to stave off SL rise. I've heard it all now!

[TimG]

I dont' think the little ice age is a good cite though, is it ? I honestly don't remember how we use this time period in this debate. It has been too long. Sorry.

My assertion was there have been drier periods in Syria's past. The fact that these drier periods coincides with a cooling period simply nderscores the idea that drought are temperature are not linked.

[Smeelious]

Is there a better / older thread for this? I feel like I'm missing half the discussion, and I completely lost what I was actually going to say about the Paris talks.

The fact that these drier periods coincides with a cooling period simply nderscores the idea that drought are temperature are not linked.

That they coincide underscores that they aren't linked?

[TimG]

The deniers now have land elevation rising to stave off SL rise. I've heard it all now!

It's true: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract

We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's true: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract

Not working too well in Florida.

http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2015/04/28/will-you-be-underwater-when-sea-levels-rise-find-out-here.php

[poochy]

Well if the sea level rise doesn't get florida the sink holes probably will.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well if the sea level rise doesn't get florida the sink holes probably will.

Yep...maybe Florida will get back some of the very large wetlands and marshes drained over the past 150 years.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yep...maybe Florida will get back some of the very large wetlands and marshes drained over the past 150 years.

They certainly will, and a bunch they didn't drain, which are just not so welcome if you happen to be a condo owner in Miami.

[poochy]

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170

What strikes about that graph is how the sea level rise there has been at a consistent rate since 1900, not only is climate change destroying the planet now, it also seems to have mastered time travel, o but I know we aren't supposed to point out some of these inconsistencies, it's just not nice to talk about facts in the face of ideology.

[-1=e^ipi]

They certainly will, and a bunch they didn't drain, which are just not so welcome if you happen to be a condo owner in Miami.

It's too bad people can't build sea walls. *sarcasm*

[-1=e^ipi]

Is there a better / older thread for this? I feel like I'm missing half the discussion

There are many, many threads on climate change here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/forum/26-health-science-and-technology/

[dre]

There are many, many threads on climate change here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/forum/26-health-science-and-technology/

Yup. Mostly the same people saying the same things... over... and over... and over...

[dialamah]

You've mentioned Tuvalu more than once so I imagine it really concerns you. Don't fret about it. The Tuvaluans are not sinking but the President of Tuvalu has been on a soapbox to declare his population to be the first Climate Refugees - and thereby extort money from sucker donors. But hey - if you are concerned enough about rising seas - your fears should be with the Florida Keys which are actually a lower land mass than Tuvalu. They are the true "canary in the coal mine". The emperical evidence has been drowned out by the hysterical cries of environmental activists - but here's some reading for you....because if you've been duped on the most prevalent "fib" - you might want to take a closer look at some of the others......

Article One gives the facts as they were in 2010 - but the story was completely drowned out by the Climate Refugee trend...

Article Two is from 2015 and gives grudging acceptance to the fact that Tuvalu and others are not sinking.......but on queue, the alarmists have moved the goalposts.....as their argument devolves into what Climate Change could do to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.

Article One: http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4236

Article Two: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27639-small-atoll-islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/

Yes, your first source is incomplete as far as identifying the effects climate change has been having on Tuvalu. Luckily, your second source fills in some of the blanks.

From your second source:

And climate change could result in bigger, more frequent storms. These could be catastrophic in the short term even if they increase the area of atolls in the long term, says Tom Spencer from the University of Cambridge. “The challenge for island nations is to figure how they will coexist with their changing islands,” says Kench.

Here's another viewpoint, which I think looks at both sides rather fairly.

A new Atlantis? Maybe. But not all scientists agree that Tuvalu’s future is underwater. Some critics have branded island leaders as opportunists angling for foreign handouts and special recognition for would-be “environmental refugees” who, they say, are exploiting the crisis to gain entry to New Zealand and Australia. Others have even said that people and organizations sympathetic to Tuvalu are “eco-imperialists” intent on imposing their alarmist environmental views on the rest of the world.

The challenge is to see through the fog of rhetoric and conflicting scientific views to where global climate theory might—or might not—intersect with Tuvalu’s people. But that’s surprisingly difficult to do. Most experts who have weighed in on the matter haven’t visited Tuvalu, and those who have made the journey typically have an agenda of their own. “Everyone arrives with a story,” says Ursula Kaly, an Australian ecologist and former longtime environmental adviser to Tuvalu. “Their minds are made up beforehand.” After I toured Tuvalu, reviewed the scientific evidence and spoke with climate experts and other scientists, I gathered that the population and its nearly 10,000 people are indeed in trouble and may even be doomed. But rising seas are only part of the problem.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/will-tuvalu-disappear-beneath-the-sea-180940704/?page=1

And another article which talks about how climate change is affecting Tuvalu and the Maldivies now; it includes a lot of quotes from Kench:

Mohamed Aslam, an oceanographer by training and until 2012 the environment minister for Maldives: "The islands are going to fight back as the environment changes, and adjust themselves to new equilibriums. But there may come a point when they can no longer do that, and we don't know when that point will be reached. The biggest fear island people have is not knowing what will happen beyond that point."

As Kench sees it, Pacific leaders should get off their soapboxes and invest their energy in thinking strategically about how they'll confront the environmental changes taking place, changes that are causing food security issues and water shortages.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

[bush_cheney2004]

All that is required for climate change "deniers" to prevail is for the usual "alarmists" to continue to predict a certain global doom based on flawed models.

Bring on Paris...another chance to play climate change Rope-A-Dope^®.

Edited October 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

Yup. Mostly the same people saying the same things... over... and over... and over...

You say that, yet, I think that significant progress has been made. Progress that may eventually lead to publications.

[waldo]

All that is required for climate change "deniers" to prevail is for the usual "alarmists" to continue to predict a certain global doom based on flawed models.

Bring on Paris...another chance to play climate change Rope-A-Dope^®.

"alarmists"... "global doom"... "flawed models"! Such profound input... following the standard 'some model projections haven't been met', therefore ALL models are flawed! Well done.

[waldo]

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170

What strikes about that graph is how the sea level rise there has been at a consistent rate since 1900, not only is climate change destroying the planet now, it also seems to have mastered time travel, o but I know we aren't supposed to point out some of these inconsistencies, it's just not nice to talk about facts in the face of ideology.

clearly you have no understanding of that graphic, liner trending, rate determination, etc.: try the following graphic that actually shows increasing slopes of liner trends taken over the last 19, 15, 10 and 5 years... per Virginia Key where measurements for Miami Beach are taken:

The data are color-coded by arbitrary 5-year periods (pink is 2010-2014, green is 2005-2009, blue is 2000-2004, and purple is the remainder: 1996-1999). For reference, the average seasonal cycle is shown by the thin black line and is calculated using a 31-day running mean of all 19 years of daily data. There is plenty of daily and intra-annual variability of course, but what stands out is the increasing slopes of the linear trends. Over the past 15 years, the average high tide has increased by 0.30″/year, but over just the past 5 years, the high tide has increased at an average rate of 1.27″/year.

.

[waldo]

hot damn! A quick glance at the thread shows some real gems/whoppers... but no time to play right now! CUlater...

[dialamah]

Except there is no plausible evidence linking these things to climate change given the other, more plausible, explainations.

When scientists develop a theory, and when that theory predicts what happens, I would call that pretty plausible.

http://www.livescience.com/25367-first-ipcc-climate-report-accurate.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

But as I said previously, I hope you and others who think this is all false or won't be ultimately catastrophic are right and I'm wrong. I've been comforted reading stuff put out by scientists claiming it's all an overblown crisis - but unfortunately, their arguments and conclusions are less persuasive to me than the other side. But I'll certainly continue to hope I'm on the wrong side of belief this time.

[TimG]

When scientists develop a theory, and when that theory predicts what happens, I would call that pretty plausible.

Except those links don't address the endless attempts to link random weather events to AGW. Your first link fails to mention that the magnitude of warming has been a lot less than was predicted so they are only really claiming that scientists correctly guessed the outcome of a coin toss which is not hard to do.

I've been comforted reading stuff put out by scientists claiming it's all an overblown crisis - but unfortunately, their arguments and conclusions are less persuasive to me than the other side. But I'll certainly continue to hope I'm on the wrong side of belief this time.

I used to think like you until I actually spent time digging into the basis for the various claims being made and have found them to be quite underwhelming.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, your first source is incomplete as far as identifying the effects climate change has been having on Tuvalu. Luckily, your second source fills in some of the blanks.

Put all the bafflegab aside - as I said,if the seas are rising to any extent - you'll see the results in the Florida keys - which are actually lower than Tuvalu. Until you see the seas washing over the keys, you can bet that anything going on in Tuvalu is caused by something other than "Global Warming". Agreed?