If there was no climate change, and the Earth was still

[Olin]

In an ice age, that covered 95 percent of Canada, and half of the USA under at least a thousand feet of ice, would we be better off?  Or is a warmed world better, remembering that the human race became the dominant species in the last 10000 years after the great melt

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Olin said:

In an ice age, that covered 95 percent of Canada, and half of the USA under at least a thousand feet of ice, would we be better off? 

I'm gonna go with no

[Strange]

Is this a lead-in to the childish "but climate has always changed" argument?

[Olin]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Is this a lead-in to the childish "but climate has always changed" argument?

Can you name the period of time in the Earth when the climate was not changing?

Be specific

Technically it is childish to ignore that the climate has always AS U SAID been changing, but that is what doomsday predicting fools seem to enjoy doing, why is that?

The ocean has risen hundreds of feet in the last 20,000 years, a few more in no big deal in retrospect

[iNow]

Just because forest fires have always existed does not mean humans are unable to start them, as well... yet this is the type of argument you're making... that humans are unable to start a forest fire.

Strange is right. This is childish.

Nobody disagrees the climate has always changed. What matters is the primary forcing agent, which human activity clearly is in modern times. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by iNow

[Olin]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just because forest fires have always existed does not mean humans are unable to start them, as well... yet this is the type of argument you're making... that humans are unable to start a forest fire.

Strange is right. This is childish.

Nobody disagrees the climate has always changed. What matters is the primary forcing agent, which human activity clearly is in modern times. 

Again the Oceans have risen hundreds of feet in the last 20,000 years, another foot if it happens means nothing in retrospect.  Why is it however that after every hurricane that wipes out the coast, FEMA comes in and rebuilds the coast so the next storm can do it again....They must not get the message

Bye the way, are you claiming that a forest fire is climate change? because it is not.  Can humans produce sunspots too? can humans change the deep ocean currents? Can humans hurl ten mile wide asteroids at the Earth? Can humans reverse the Earths magnetic poles?

Humans cause pollution, unfortunate as this is, it is not climate change

Edited November 13, 2018 by Olin

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, Olin said:

Can you name the period of time in the Earth when the climate was not changing?

I never said it hasn't always changed. 

What is foolish (or dishonest) is to ignore the magnitude and rate of the current changes (and the causes) and pretend it is like past climate change.

[Olin]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I never said it hasn't always changed. 

What is foolish (or dishonest) is to ignore the magnitude and rate of the current changes (and the causes) and pretend it is like past climate change.

Wrong, a foot of ocean rise is predicted. yet the fools predicting this ignore the HUNDREDS of feet of ocean rise since the last ice age ebbed.  A foot is a tiny amount if rise, and is NOT any dramatic departure from the norm, no matter what Mann says

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Olin said:

Again the Oceans have risen hundreds of feet in the last 20,000 years, another foot if it happens means nothing in retrospect. 

In retrospect, maybe. Looking back in 20,000 years time, I'm sure people will regard our problems with a certain detachment.

But, meanwhile, in the real world there are now large populations in towns and cities which will be put at risk by rising sea levels, more extreme weather, loss of agricultural land, etc. 

1 minute ago, Olin said:

Wrong, a foot of ocean rise is predicted. yet the fools predicting this ignore the HUNDREDS of feet of ocean rise since the last ice age ebbed. 

And you are ignoring the fact that there were not large cities and other communities built on the coasts. In the past people would have just moved. But if major cities like NY or London are subject to massive flooding, this will cause real problems to the people who live there, but also internationally when communications, financial transactions and business are affected.

 

3 minutes ago, Olin said:

no matter what Mann says

You are doing the usual crackpot thing of trying to pin the beam on an individual. When it comes to climate change, the cranks blame Gore (some sort of American politician, I gather, so I don't know why crackpots are so obsessed) or specific scientists like Mann. Whereas, reasonable people look at the data, not the people.

[Olin]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

In retrospect, maybe. Looking back in 20,000 years time, I'm sure people will regard our problems with a certain detachment.

But, meanwhile, in the real world there are now large populations in towns and cities which will be put at risk by rising sea levels, more extreme weather, loss of agricultural land, etc. 

And you are ignoring the fact that there were not large cities and other communities built on the coasts. In the past people would have just moved. But if major cities like NY or London are subject to massive flooding, this will cause real problems to the people who live there, but also internationally when communications, financial transactions and business are affected.

 

You are doing the usual crackpot thing of trying to pin the beam on an individual. When it comes to climate change, the cranks blame Gore (some sort of American politician, I gather, so I don't know why crackpots are so obsessed) or specific scientists like Mann. Whereas, reasonable people look at the data, not the people.

Actually in my opinion crackpots scream that the ocean is going to rise a foot, after rising hundreds of feet.  The foot is entirely within norms, and hardly cause to leave the Earth

[rangerx]

 

51 minutes ago, Olin said:

Be specific

1- Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have absorbed approximately a third of the carbon dioxide we have produced
2- Anthropogenic ocean acidification to our knowledge, it is at least 10 times faster than any natural acidification event in the past. This current rate of CO2 release is the fastest in at least the past 55 million years.
3- Overall, ocean acidification has been shown to negatively impact more marine organisms than it helps. In particular, marine species that need a compound called carbonate to build skeletons or shells are negatively impacted because as seawater acidity increases, the concentration of carbonate ions in the water decreases. As this happens, it becomes more difficult for corals, shellfish, and other calcifying (carbonate-requiring) organisms to make their hard parts.

https://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-acidification

Conversely, instead of being rhetorical and broadly dismissive in your opinion, can you be specific?

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, Olin said:

Bye the way, are you claiming that a forest fire is climate change?

No, though climate change does make them more common and intense. 

[beecee]

44 minutes ago, Olin said:

Actually in my opinion crackpots scream that the ocean is going to rise a foot, after rising hundreds of feet.  The foot is entirely within norms, and hardly cause to leave the Earth

Crackpots?  I mean really! Ask the "crackpots" that have their homes on Pacific Islands of low lying atolls and reefs etc, if a foot rise is within norms. 

Climate change is happening and has happened in the past...The argument the real crackpots like to ignore and forget, is how humanity is adding to the progression of climate change. And even considering the possibility that scientists may be wrong, with the fate of many people's and countries at stake, I believe erring on the side of caution is the logical way to go.

[And no, at this stage I do not believe they are wrong]

Edited November 13, 2018 by beecee

[CharonY]

 

46 minutes ago, Olin said:

Actually in my opinion crackpots scream that the ocean is going to rise a foot, after rising hundreds of feet.  The foot is entirely within norms, and hardly cause to leave the Earth

Kindly check the time line here:

As mentioned, the rate is the important bit.

 

[Ken Fabian]

It is because the climate system is susceptible to change that adding lots of CO2 is such a dangerous thing to do - it would take a climate that is unchanging to be unchangeable. It is the vehicle with bad steering that is most likely to run off the road and crash.

 Olin - The consistent expert advice - three decades of every institution that studies climate and every expert report governments have gotten on it is that this is a serious problem. Why should I set that aside and believe that you know better than they do? That the consequences of AGW can and will seriously impact human activities and prosperity. Not that it takes a genius to figure that destabilising something as fundamental as our planet's climate system is very unwise and - given that persistent expert advice - dangerously irresponsible.

I don't ask or expect anyone to take what environmental advocacy groups are saying on trust, but I do expect them to take what the world's leading science advisory bodies, like the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society say about it very seriously. These organisations draw on the world's most accomplished and respected experts.

My personal experience - of about 0.5 C of global average warming as experienced in this location - is that vegetation has been effected; perennial weeds that were kept in check by hard frosts are becoming rampant with warmer winters, leading to more work and more costs to deal with them. Bushfires are a real problem here - and that is not new. What is happening is that the 'fire danger season' is, on average, starting earlier and finishing later and the opportunities for 'controlled' fires to reduce fuel loads ahead of the high risk periods are becoming shorter with increasing risk of escaping containment, requiring more vigilance, labour and equipment. Fires could, by picking the right conditions, be expected to go out overnight as dew added a natural fire retardant - but less cool nights, less dew and more fires that don't go out on their own. More work, more expense, more risk.This means less of that hazard reduction is getting done and the consequences in the hot, high risk periods is intensified. That is with a mere 0.5 degrees of global average temperature change; the prospect of 3 to 6 degrees is something I find terrifying. Regions like this could become so unsafe that people cannot live here permanently without an added expense of fire resistant construction and endless vigilance.

The appropriate perspective is needed - looking at too short periods, where normal variability appears to overwhelm gradual changes is a common way to get misled. So is looking at too long periods, where historic climate changes of great magnitude can make what is happening now appear inconsequential. Both blurr the reality and make it hard to see that gradual changes accumulate and will have serious consequences with dangerous economic and security implications.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Ken Fabian
improve clarity

[Olin]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

No, though climate change does make them more common and intense. 

Wrong, as some places experiencing climate change are getting wetter.  See the way it works is nothing really changes in precipitation, though it moves around.  So if it is dryer in one place, it is wetter somewhere else.  California deserves what it is getting for letting in illegals who end up living under bridges.  When all the homes burn to the ground all will be equal

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

Kindly check the time line here:

As mentioned, the rate is the important bit.

 

Does your timeline include the 900 north south miles of glaciation that melted from 20000 bc to 10000 bc, or just the few feet melting a year now.  It's not anywhere near record change, so get used to it, you just will only look at the graph that an idiot made.  I looked, that appears to have been made by someone in kindergarten who never made a graph before.  Graphs denote time from left to right, not up an down.

Really

Edited November 14, 2018 by Olin

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, Olin said:

Wrong, as some places experiencing climate change are getting wetter.

By your logic, winter doesn’t happen because it’s still hot in other places. I’d laugh if it weren’t so pathetic. 

[Olin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Crackpots?  I mean really! Ask the "crackpots" that have their homes on Pacific Islands of low lying atolls and reefs etc, if a foot rise is within norms. 

Climate change is happening and has happened in the past...The argument the real crackpots like to ignore and forget, is how humanity is adding to the progression of climate change. And even considering the possibility that scientists may be wrong, with the fate of many people's and countries at stake, I believe erring on the side of caution is the logical way to go.

[And no, at this stage I do not believe they are wrong]

No pacific island is going under water because of sea level rise.  If this were happening they would all be going under.  Tuvalu is sinking, again the proof is that the surrounding islands are not having the same problem.  I live 4 minutes from an ocean. The same jetties that I fished off of 45 years ago are still there, NO CHANGE.  But if the ice keeps melting as it has been for 20000 years the sea will go up, as it has been.  All is normal

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, Olin said:

California deserves what it is getting for letting in illegals who end up living under bridges. 

Not that I ever took you seriously in the first place, but you now officially have zero credibility with me

1 minute ago, Olin said:

No pacific island is going under water because of sea level rise.  If this were happening they would all be going under.

I just asked a kindergartner what was wrong with this conclusion and they said islands are at different heights (elevations).  

Does it matter to you that your position is so weak that you can’t even fool a kindergartner? Granted, they are a pretty above average 5 year old...

[Olin]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

By your logic, winter doesn’t happen because it’s still hot in other places. I’d laugh if it weren’t so pathetic. 

You simply do not understand the water cycle.  Australia has NEVER BEEN SO WET

 

http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/01/australian_flooding.html

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not that I ever took you seriously in the first place, but you now officially have zero credibility with me

I just asked a kindergartner what was wrong with this conclusion and they said islands are at different heights (elevations).  

Does it matter to you that your position is so weak that you can’t even fool a kindergartner? Granted, they are a pretty above average 5 year old...

Does not matter because the resorts are ALL ON THE BEACHES.

 

Try again, feel free to call a friend

Edited November 14, 2018 by Olin

[iNow]

Well, if you wish to argue against a strawman, then you’re right. However, I never said it was getting dryer everywhere.

You’re funny. It’s like getting into a fist fight with a toddler. They swing their arms around and grunt wildly while I just place my palm on their forehead to keep the distance. 

[Olin]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, if you wish to argue against a strawman, then you’re right. However, I never said it was getting dryer everywhere.

You’re funny. It’s like getting into a fist fight with a toddler. They swing their arms around and grunt wildly while I just place my palm on their forehead to keep the distance. 

You are a parrot, you do not think, you just repeat.  As I said California is getting dryer and Australia wetter.  Australia is praying for the rain to stop, you said that climate change is causing fires, not in Australia

Edited November 14, 2018 by Olin

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Olin said:

You simply do not understand the water cycle.  Australia has NEVER BEEN SO WET

 

http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/01/australian_flooding.html

Does not matter because the resorts are ALL ON THE BEACHES.

 

Try again, feel free to call a friend

Such nonsensical  claims. Australia in parts is still under drought conditions and has been for two years. 

And obviously your silly photo of a tourist resort is childish at best. 

I would tell you to phone a friend, but another from your congregation posting, would be even more sillier.

Just now, Olin said:

You are a parrot, you do not think, you just repeat.  As I said California is getting dryer and Australia wetter.  Australia is praying for the rain to stop

Wrong.  

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is because the climate system is susceptible to change that adding lots of CO2 is such a dangerous thing to do - it would take a climate that is unchanging to be unchangeable. It is the vehicle with bad steering that is most likely to run off the road and crash.

 Olin - The consistent expert advice - three decades of every institution that studies climate and every expert report governments have gotten on it is that this is a serious problem. Why should I set that aside and believe that you know better than they do? That the consequences of AGW can and will seriously impact human activities and prosperity. Not that it takes a genius to figure that destabilising something as fundamental as our planet's climate system is very unwise and - given that persistent expert advice - dangerously irresponsible.

I don't ask or expect anyone to take what environmental advocacy groups are saying on trust, but I do expect them to take what the world's leading science advisory bodies, like the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society say about it very seriously. These organisations draw on the world's most accomplished and respected experts.

My personal experience - of about 0.5 C of global average warming as experienced in this location - is that vegetation has been effected; perennial weeds that were kept in check by hard frosts are becoming rampant with warmer winters, leading to more work and more costs to deal with them. Bushfires are a real problem here - and that is not new. What is happening is that the 'fire danger season' is, on average, starting earlier and finishing later and the opportunities for 'controlled' fires to reduce fuel loads ahead of the high risk periods are becoming shorter with increasing risk of escaping containment, requiring more vigilance, labour and equipment. Fires could, by picking the right conditions, be expected to go out overnight as dew added a natural fire retardant - but less cool nights, less dew and more fires that don't go out on their own. More work, more expense, more risk.This means less of that hazard reduction is getting done and the consequences in the hot, high risk periods is intensified. That is with a mere 0.5 degrees of global average temperature change; the prospect of 3 to 6 degrees is something I find terrifying. Regions like this could become so unsafe that people cannot live here permanently without an added expense of fire resistant construction and endless vigilance.

The appropriate perspective is needed - looking at too short periods, where normal variability appears to overwhelm gradual changes is a common way to get misled. So is looking at too long periods, where historic climate changes of great magnitude can make what is happening now appear inconsequential. Both blurr the reality and make it hard to see that gradual changes accumulate and will have serious consequences with dangerous economic and security implications.

Excellent post Ken, and more importantly, excellent science.

[Olin]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Such nonsensical  claims. Australia in parts is still under drought conditions and has been for two years. 

And obviously your silly photo of a tourist resort is childish at best. 

I would tell you to phone a friend, but another from your congregation posting, would be even more sillier.

Wrong.  

All resorts are tourist resorts kid, the point is that they are all on the beach and the huts are NOT UNDER WATER, in fact they seem to be quite happy

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Olin said:

you said that climate change is causing fires

Gosh. If only I could quote myself to show what I actually said. 

Obvious troll is obvious.