Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[swansont]

I have always noticed that whenever a deciple of any particular theory starts to see holes in his pet theory, he tries to marginalize the person that exposed the holes.

 

You can run, but you can't hide....

Cranks often mistake attacks on their claims with attacks on the person. Your posts do not differentiate you from that.

 

There's no need to marginalize posts that contain all rhetoric and no science. They are already in the margin.

[EdEarl]

 

WOW! That sounds serious....but then, it is supposed to sound serious isn't it? Otherwise how would the doomsday theorists be able to extort money from the unwashed masses?

 

This stuff reminds me of the high priests during the dark ages who, knowing that an eclipse of the sun was going to occure, told the people that god was mad at them and was gonna make the sun go out, but if they brought enough lambs and chickens to the church, that the priest would intervene on their behalf and make the sun come out again.

 

It was BS then, and it is BS now.

I hope you are right. There is a difference, however, doomsday predictions are about the end of the world, which science predicts will not occur for some 4-5 billion years. Doomsday theorists merely speculate about things without scientific study. The predicted climate change is not a world ending event, only one that may be severe enough to destroy civilization. The end of civilizations have occurred many times, some of the more recent ones are the USSR, feudal Japan, Rome, ancient Greece, Anasazi, Mayan, Aztec, ancient Egyptian, and Rapa Nui.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

I have always noticed that whenever a deciple of any particular theory starts to see holes in his pet theory, he tries to marginalize the person that exposed the holes.

 

You can run, but you can't hide....

 

!

Moderator Note

And you need to stop soap boxing. If you can't argue the facts, you should reconsider your ability to participate in honest discussion before staff have to reconsider it for you.

 

Do not respond to this mod note in-thread.

[John Cuthber]

 

Well now that you mention it, yes, I do know that. And I also know that the really big CO2 producers in the near future will be China and India......who are unwilling to limit their emmisions because they are more inclined to bring some 2.5 billion people out of extreme poverty. So, I ask you, where does that leave us?

 

Do you think we should go to war with China and India to bring them into compliance with our poorly thought-out emissions standards?

 

And if the answer is no then we are screwed ain't we?

 

Just perhaps we would be better off devoting our attention to how we are gonna react to the coming warm spell?

A better question would be should India and China declare war on the USA to get the USA to sign up to the internationally agreed standards which the US is ignoring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Kyoto_Protocol

 

Did you not realise you had that completely backwards?

You just insulted two of the most populous nations on earth through apparently staggering ignorance.

Are you trolling?

[CharonY]

All evidence point to yes.

For some perspective according to wiki the CO2 emission per capita 2012 is 7.1k tons for China, 1.6 (!) for India and 16.4 for the US. There is still some catching up to do for those large countries.

[EdEarl]

All evidence point to yes.

For some perspective according to wiki the CO2 emission per capita 2012 is 7.1k tons for China, 1.6 (!) for India and 16.4 for the US. There is still some catching up to do for those large countries.

Even if the US built enough solar arrays, wind farms, and nuclear plants to eliminate coal for electricity production and converted to electric cars in the next 40 years, I am concerned it is too late to avoid catastrophic climate change. Although China has a more aggressive renewable energy program than the US, it is nevertheless building coal fired power plants at an alarming rate. Moreover, recent CO2 emissions by the US are reported to be reducing slightly; while it is not really great news, it is better than it could have been. And, China is now reported to be emitting more CO2 than the US.

 

http://nation.time.com/2013/10/22/efficiency-natural-gas-keep-pushing-u-s-carbon-emissions-down/

http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition

[nova]

Cranks often mistake attacks on their claims with attacks on the person. Your posts do not differentiate you from that.

 

There's no need to marginalize posts that contain all rhetoric and no science. They are already in the margin.

 

Funny, but I was thinking the same thing about you guys.

 

It is, after all, you who insist that speculation about the weather 100 years hence is science, is it not?

[CharonY]

Are you aware of the difference between climate and weather?

[nova]

!

Moderator Note

And you need to stop soap boxing. If you can't argue the facts, you should reconsider your ability to participate in honest discussion before staff have to reconsider it for you.

 

Do not respond to this mod note in-thread.

If this is what passes for "scientific discussion'' on this particular web site, then it is becoming clear why so many are buying into this horse shit MMGW nonsense.

 

Look.....it is not proven science, it is pure speculation and fear mongering for the sake of milking the general public for billions of dollars to "study" a problem that does not exist...

 

If you want to ban me, fine. I won't refrain from expressing my opinion, just because you children can't stand an opposing view.

 

 

Are you aware of the difference between climate and weather?

Are you aware of the difference between climate and weather?

cli·mate [klahy-mit] Show IPA

noun

1.

the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

nova,

My last note was pretty clear. Stop soap boxing. This is a science forum, so start talking actual data and actual science instead of conspiracy theory nonsense.

Do not respond to this note in thread. If you wish to discuss it, report it or PM a member of staff.

[Arete]

Annnnnd, I also noticed that you did not address the fact that China and India and most other un-developed countries are not gonna do anything about their emissions....

 

Allow me.

 

China announces emissions trading scheme to lower emissions

India announces emissions trading scheme

Edited December 5, 2013 by Arete

[iNow]

it is becoming clear why so many are buying into this horse shit MMGW nonsense.

 

Look.....it is not proven science, it is pure speculation and fear mongering for the sake of milking the general public for billions of dollars to "study" a problem that does not exist...

Yes, because the same human activity that results in stuff like this --> http://www.businessinsider.com/shanghai-smog-2013-12

 

... couldn't POSSIBLY also trigger changes to climate and weather. That's just absurd. Thank goodness somebody had the wisdom and courage to say what is so plainly obvious. Thank you, nova.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

 

Funny, but I was thinking the same thing about you guys.

 

It is, after all, you who insist that speculation about the weather 100 years hence is science, is it not?

Yes, the whole point of a scientific theory is that it can be used to make predictions.

But let me remind you that you won't get barred for being plain wrong.

You won't even get barred for expressing contrary opinions.

What you will get banned for, if you are not careful is one of two breaches of the rules

Soap boxing- where you fail to respond to criticism of your ideas or

making false allegations about other groups like this

"Annnnnd, I also noticed that you did not address the fact that China and India and most other un-developed countries are not gonna do anything about their emissions...."

 

If you are banned it won't make you a martyr to any cause, just someone who couldn't follow some simple rules.

[nova]

!

Moderator Note

nova,

 

My last note was pretty clear. Stop soap boxing. This is a science forum, so start talking actual data and actual science instead of conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

Do not respond to this note in thread. If you wish to discuss it, report it or PM a member of staff.

 

[snip] you!

 

If you little people can't stand hearing the truth, then you can just ban and be damned, I could care not less.

 

It is a religon with a certain number of people in the world to believe this crap, but I ain't buying into this [snip] and I am certainly not afraid to say so.

Edited December 5, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine
profanities removed

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

snip you!

 

If you little people can't stand hearing the truth, then you can just ban and be damned, I could care not less.

 

It is a religon with a certain number of people in the world to believe this crap, but I ain't buying into this snip and I am certainly not afraid to say so.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Okay, well thanks for playing.

[SlavicWolf]

Welcome.

 

Are you guys sure that the effects of global warming will be catastrophic and not beneficial? Remember that during the last interglacial 125,000 years ago we had lush forests growing in North Cape and oaks growing in Finland as far north as 65th degree north... 50 mln years ago during the thermal maximum tropical forests were even on Siberia and Greenland and temperature differences between the equator and the poles were far smaller than they are now.

 

Wouldn't you like to have palm trees and bananas growing in Yukon?

Edited December 27, 2013 by SlavicWolf

[iNow]

While there may be a small group of people and locations that are better off as a result of climate change, that is minuscule compared to the risks of it.

 

http://www.who.int/globalchange/summary/en/index.html

Unprecedentedly, today, the world population is encountering unfamiliar human-induced changes in the lower and middle atmospheres and world-wide depletion of various other natural systems (e.g. soil fertility, aquifers, ocean fisheries, and biodiversity in general). Beyond the early recognition that such changes would affect economic activities, infrastructure and managed ecosystems, there is now recognition that global climate change poses risks to human population health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16530580

There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate. The recent (globally averaged) warming by 0.5 degrees C is partly attributable to such anthropogenic emissions. Climate change will affect human health in many ways-mostly adversely. Here, we summarise the epidemiological evidence of how climate variations and trends affect various health outcomes. We assess the little evidence there is that recent global warming has already affected some health outcomes. We review the published estimates of future health effects of climate change over coming decades. Research so far has mostly focused on thermal stress, extreme weather events, and infectious diseases, with some attention to estimates of future regional food yields and hunger prevalence. An emerging broader approach addresses a wider spectrum of health risks due to the social, demographic, and economic disruptions of climate change.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html

Warmer average temperatures will likely lead to hotter days and more frequent and longer heat waves. This could increase the number of heat-related illnesses and deaths. Increases in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events such as storms could increase the risk of dangerous flooding, high winds, and other direct threats to people and property. Warmer temperatures could increase the concentrations of unhealthy air and water pollutants. Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, and extreme events could enhance the spread of some diseases.

<snip>

Other linkages exist between climate change and human health. For example, changes in temperature and precipitation, as well as droughts and floods, will likely affect agricultural yields and production. In some regions of the world, these impacts may compromise food security and threaten human health through malnutrition, the spread of infectious diseases, and food poisoning. The worst of these effects are projected to occur in developing countries, among vulnerable populations. Declines in human health in other countries might affect the United States through trade, migration and immigration and have implications for national security.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131216154853.htm

Water scarcity impacts people's lives in many countries already today. Future population growth will increase the demand for freshwater even further. Yet in addition to this, on the supply side, water resources will be affected by projected changes in rainfall and evaporation. Climate change due to unabated greenhouse-gas emissions within our century is likely to put 40 percent more people at risk of absolute water scarcity than would be without climate change, a new study shows by using an unprecedented number of impact models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans

Climate change has brought about severe and possibly permanent alterations to our planets geological, biological and ecological systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contended in 2003 that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. These changes have led to the emergence of large-scale environmental hazards to human health, such as extreme weather, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, stresses to food-producing systems and the global spread of infectious diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 160,000 deaths, since 1950, are directly attributable to climate change. Many believe this to be a conservative estimate.

<snip>

The majority of the adverse effects of climate change are experienced by poor and low-income communities around the world, who have much higher levels of vulnerability to environmental determinants of health, wealth and other factors, and much lower levels of capacity available for coping with environmental change. A report on the global human impact of climate change published by the Global Humanitarian Forum in 2009, estimated more than 300,000 deaths and about $125 billion in economic losses each year, and indicating that most climate change induced mortality is due to worsening floods and droughts in developing countries.

But yeah, hey... Maybe a few palm trees and bananas could grow in some small parts of the Yukon, so there's that.

[SlavicWolf]

1. Who the f... invented the idea that global warming reduces biodiversity? The most biologically diverse land ecosystems (for water ecosystems the opposite is true) are all located in tropical climates.

 

2. How did they reach the conclusion that global warming will increase hunger? First - roughly 90% of warming takes places in high latitudes while tropical areas are mostly unaffected, second - warmer water temperature = more evaporation = more rainfall = less deserts = more productive agriculture. Deserts reached their peak during the last glacial maximum. Many areas of Africa that are now covered by forests were just savanna due to lack of water. Same is true for South US.

 

3. Far more people freeze to death than die because of thirst. Deaths among elderly also tend to peak in winter months, not during summer. Also - where do all people build their lavish residences when they have money? In Alaska? Hardly.

[overtone]

 

 

1. Who the f... invented the idea that global warming reduces biodiversity?

The people who measure biodiversity and track its influences and trends.

 

It's not the warmth itself, but the speed and nature of the incoming anthropogenic changes, that kills off species without allowing enough time for evoluition to replace them.

 

 

 

2. How did they reach the conclusion that global warming will increase hunger?

By estimating food production under the most likely weather patterns and sea level changes.

 

First - roughly 90% of warming takes places in high latitudes while tropical areas are mostly unaffected, second - warmer water temperature = more evaporation = more rainfall = less deserts = more productive agriculture

Tropical latitude temperatures may not be affected as much, but tropical latitude rainfall and other patterns will be.

 

And the notion that warmer water (which will, as you note, hammer the ecosystems of many ocean regions) leads to less desert and more rain and therefore more productive agriculture is way too simple - greater evapotranspirative deficits, more water retained in the air rather than rained out, and heavier rainfall events less reliably spaced, will harm agriculture; deserts that simply move or even expand rather than shrink will harm agriculture; and so forth. Meawnhile, rising sea levels will salt up and ruin a large share of the world's most productive agricultural grounds in the great river deltas of SE Asia - river deltas form slowly, not in human lifetimes. They are not easily replaced.

 

 

 

3. Far more people freeze to death than die because of thirst. Deaths among elderly also tend to peak in winter months, not during summer.

Heat waves kill more people than cold snaps, in the US.

[SlavicWolf]

1. While many arctic annd temperate species will die out (we have zoos and botanical gardens so they won't die out completely), their niche will be filled by tropical plants and animals, moving northwards/southwards. So the total amount of biomass produced will actually increase.

 

2. Regarding rainfall patterns - they depend mostly on the differences in temperature between lower and higher layers of atmosphere, not between latitudes. So tropical areas on average have more rainfall than temperate latitudes.

[overtone]

 

 

1. While many arctic annd temperate species will die out (we have zoos and botanical gardens so they won't die out completely), their niche will be filled by tropical plants and animals, moving northwards/southwards. So the total amount of biomass produced will actually increase.

The original matter was biodiversity, not biomass. Quoting you from a couple of posts above: "1. Who the f... invented the idea that global warming reduces biodiversity?" We can take that question as answered and settled, then?

 

Meanwhile, zoos and botanical gardens will not suffice - many more arctic and temperate species will die out, if the climate continues to change as rapidly and significantly as it is changing now. So will many more tropical and subtropical species, as the weather patterns change in their often small and specialized niches.

 

 

 

2. Regarding rainfall patterns - they depend mostly on the differences in temperature between lower and higher layers of atmosphere, not between latitudes

It's not that simple. There are global scale circulation patterns involved, seen in such phenomena as monsoons and the great oceanic Oscillations. One way to notice this is to examine a globe with landscape types marked out on it - notice the band of dry that circles the planet around 23 degrees N and S ? That is a consequence of a global scale atmospheric circulation pattern driven by tropical heating and evaporation, an example of rainfall depending on latitude.

 

One of the predicted consequences of the current anthropogenic CO₂ boost is a shifting of that dry band (and associated rain bands) to a somewhat different latitude, drastically altering rainfall patterns on a global scale, especially at the edges of the current bands.

[swansont]

1. While many arctic annd temperate species will die out (we have zoos and botanical gardens so they won't die out completely), their niche will be filled by tropical plants and animals, moving northwards/southwards. So the total amount of biomass produced will actually increase.

Your source on this is what, exactly?

[ZVBXRPL]

The only worry I have is for the millions of gullible people around the world who have fallen victim to the global warming money making scam

American government are so "worried" about the effect CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are having on the environment, they needed to take serious drastic measures

So they came up with the carbon tax

Maybe the reason America is so obsessed with middle eastern and north african oil is that they want to protect the environment by preventing these regions using it themselves

So they are killing and sacrificing "to protect the planet"?

[hypervalent_iodine]

The only worry I have is for the millions of gullible people around the world who have fallen victim to the global warming money making scam

American government are so "worried" about the effect CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are having on the environment, they needed to take serious drastic measures

So they came up with the carbon tax

Maybe the reason America is so obsessed with middle eastern and north african oil is that they want to protect the environment by preventing these regions using it themselves

So they are killing and sacrificing "to protect the planet"?

 

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you could come up with some data to support your claims? We're a science forum, not a conspiracy website. You need to adhere to a certain degree of rigor in your posting.

[ZVBXRPL]

 

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you could come up with some data to support your claims? We're a science forum, not a conspiracy website. You need to adhere to a certain degree of rigor in your posting.

The Earth's climate fluctuates between 2 climate states: Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth

Currently the Earth is in an Icehouse Earth state

So, previous to this the Earth was in a Greenhouse Earth state and previous to that it was another Icehouse Earth state and so on

What caused all the previous Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth changes?

Global warming means we are heading to Greenhouse Earth state, which will happen regardless of whether there are 7 billion people or 1 solitary person on Earth

Is there danger ahead?

If there IS danger ahead, what are the various politicians and celebrities doing to prevent this "danger", aside from saying "there is a danger ahead" and making money