What would it take to change your mind?

[Tim the plumber]

I'll start;

As a skeptic of this global warming catastrophe hypothesis I would need to see the climate's temperature rise at least to the mid point of the IPCC's predations by 2025.

I would then need to see why that, and the further predictions, would be trouble.

So far I have been told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause England to have more climate/weather related deaths and such. I consider this utter drivel because the evidence is that warmer places with similar levels of wealth have longer life expectancies than here.

I have been told that Bangladesh will disappear beneath the waves. Again drivel. Every monsoon deposits at least 2cm of soil on top of the land whilst the worst case scenarios have a rise rate half of this. Even this rate of sea level rise has not happened.

I have been told that there would be mass outbreaks of malaria or such diseases. I don't see that as real either due to the fact that rich places don't get it even in hot places. Malaria seems to be a poverty related disease, there used to be a problem with it in parts of the Netherlands.

So that's my position. If you want to explain why that's wrong please do so on a new thread. It will give you a chance to get me to understand each point. Here please keep it to what it would take to change your mind.

[Strange]

Evidence. For example, if you were to engage in rational discussion, not cherry pick evidence and avoid logical fallacies it might change my mind about you. (Although I am willing to bet that won't happen.)

[John Cuthber]

I have been told that Bangladesh will disappear beneath the waves. Again drivel. Every monsoon deposits at least 2cm of soil on top of the land

...

So that's my position. If you want to explain why that's wrong please do so on a new thread. It will give you a chance to get me to understand each point. Here please keep it to what it would take to change your mind.

 

Ok, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh#Biodiversity_and_climate

"Most parts of Bangladesh are less than 12 m (39.4 ft) above sea level, "

which would require that Bangladesh didn't exist before about 600 years ago if it gains 2 cm a year..

 

But it did (albeit under another name).

So when you ask "What would it take to change your mind?"

one answer might be

"​For a start, stuff that isn't a obviously nonsensical as that."

 

Why did you believe that?

Was it just because it suited you?

Are you unable to check things like that?

Edited November 15, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Arete]

So far I have been told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause England to have more climate/weather related deaths and such. I consider this utter drivel because the evidence is that warmer places with similar levels of wealth have longer life expectancies than here.

 

 

Rather than simply slinging around insults, provide any, even one, peer reviewed source indicating that the increased severity and duration of heat waves predicted under climate change models will not have an impact on weather related mortality. You've repeatedly denied it, but never even once provided a single source. Not a one.

 

And do you know what doesn't usually convince other people of things? Poorly spelled, logically dubious, anonymous forum rants with no citations whatsoever.

[Wild Cobra]

What would it take for me?

 

To see how… meaning their methodology... of how they rate the solar influence so much less than what anyone familiar with indirect forcing can see.

 

Let me see a step by step of the entire solar influence since 1700, and how they quantify it.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Ophiolite]

As a skeptic of this global warming catastrophe hypothesis I would need to see the climate's temperature rise at least to the mid point of the IPCC's predations by 2025.

A Freudian slip? Do you see the IPCC as a predator?

 

So far I have been told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause England to have more climate/weather related deaths and such. I consider this utter drivel because the evidence is that warmer places with similar levels of wealth have longer life expectancies than here.

You seem not to understand that the increase in temperature leads to extremities of weather. Increased flooding and high winds, with associated falling trees and the like lead to increased deaths. It has nothing to do with wealth. If you are hit on the head by a Welsh roofing slate your survival is largely independent of your bank balance.

 

I have been told that Bangladesh will disappear beneath the waves. Again drivel. Every monsoon deposits at least 2cm of soil on top of the land whilst the worst case scenarios have a rise rate half of this. Even this rate of sea level rise has not happened.

Can you tell me, without googling, approximately how many people have died in Bangladesh as a consequence of flooding in the last 100 years? An order of magnitude number would do.

 

I have been told that there would be mass outbreaks of malaria or such diseases. I don't see that as real either due to the fact that rich places don't get it even in hot places. Malaria seems to be a poverty related disease, there used to be a problem with it in parts of the Netherlands.

You really need to substitute evidence and study for self indulgent ignorance:

 

From the Guardian, 6 January 2007.

 

Sandwiched between temperate Europe and African heat, Italy is on the front line of climate change and is witnessing a rise in tropical diseases such as malaria and tick-borne encephalitis, a new report says. Italy was declared free of malaria in 1970, but it is making a comeback, said the Italian environmental organisation Legambiente.

[Wild Cobra]

And how do we know that was man made warming rather than natural cycles?

 

Do I smell a strawman?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

With reference to recent refusals to provide evidence or rationale for an argument in this and in other threads; aside from asking members to re-read the rules they agreed to upon sign-up, I would like to make a few things clear.

 

1. This is a science forum - we do not exist to provide a platform for personal views but to allow scientific discussion. This means two things that are crucial for this thread and similar topics; firstly claims or arguments that run contrary to understood consensual science require a good factual basis or at least evidence to show that more work is needed and secondly we do not allow one-sided promulgation of opinion - thus our injunction against soap-boxing.

 

2.Specifically - this thread challenges established science and our membership will not allow anyone to preach such anti-rational views without real scrutiny; it is inimical to our ideals to let posters make unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to consider providing evidence (we will always back the membership when they call for evidence in any topic especially here).

 

3. We will continue to allow posters to honestly challenge received ideas and ask questions - but we will not allow posters to troll the climate science forum; reliance on rhetoric and claims of logical fallacies will not wash. If you do not want to argue the science then do not post controversial ideas - and if you do post then be prepared to defend.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread; responses will be hidden.

 

[Wild Cobra]

My first post addressed solar, which I contend is the primary driver of observed warming over the last three centuries.

 

Since I believe soot on ice has a greater impact than greenhouse gases as well, I guess I should include that. To be honest, it isn't soot that I need to see as less impact than what I believe, but to see undisputable evidence that greenhouse gases cause as much warming as claimed. I am on the record here as stating I do not believe CO2 can cause more than 0.55 degrees per doubling. I know I am highly controversial here, but please. Ask me to elaborate before saying I am wrong on points I make. Even the same scientists that are in the consensus group claim a 2,000 GWP₂₀ or more for soot. 2,300 seems about average and some state it as high as 4,000.

 

Sorry for the longwinded explanation, since it really boils down to this:

 

 

Show me definitive evidence that the increased Arctic ice melt is from CO2 warming and not soot on ice. Also show me why all of Antarctica has no melt issues except the areas over the ring of fire.

 

Anyone up to the challenge of changing my mind?

[Strange]

My first post addressed solar, which I contend is the primary driver of observed warming over the last three centuries.

 

Since I believe soot on ice has a greater impact than greenhouse gases as well, I guess I should include that.

 

Perhaps you should present some peer reviewed papers to support your beliefs. You never know, if you can come up with enough compelling evidence you might convince people.

[Wild Cobra]

 

Perhaps you should present some peer reviewed papers to support your beliefs. You never know, if you can come up with enough compelling evidence you might convince people.

 

Why?

 

This thread is asking what it would take to change our minds.

 

Please stay on topic.

[Strange]

 

Why?

 

This thread is asking what it would take to change our minds.

 

Please stay on topic.

 

The assumption is that evidence would change people's minds. Rather than statements of belief. Quite on topic.

[dimreepr]

Wild Cobra and Tim the plumber, it really doesn’t matter what you think or believe.

 

In a head on collision with a truck; death will follow unless we avoid the truck; even if it’s on the wrong side of the road.

 

The ice caps are melting whatever the cause and the only logical response is to change what we can.

[Wild Cobra]

The ice caps are melting whatever the cause and the only logical response is to change what we can.

 

Then get Asia to stop spewing out black carbon.

 

One of several papers you can find on the topic:

 

http://patarnott.com/atms790/pdf_atms790/papers2014/20thCenturyBC_IceCoreWork_SCIENCE.pdf

Edited November 17, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Essay]

Also, show me why all of Antarctica has no melt issues except the areas over the ring of fire.

 

Anyone up to the challenge of changing my mind?

 

From: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991.

 

[section 14.2.1 Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming]

 

"Although the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming, it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels. Since CO2 doubling studies indicate winter warming around coastal Antarctica of 8-14 C degrees (cf. Fig. 2.12), much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." -p.258

===

 

WC, I think the entire 21st century will qualify as the "initial stages of a greenhouse warming" event, as this book speaks about it.

In the media, when they talk about "Antarctica gaining ice," they mean EAST Antarctica (as predicted by global warming theory, back in the early 1990s).

However, West Antarctica is still measurably warming ...and losing ice ...in response to greenhouse effects.

 

~

[Wild Cobra]

 

From: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991.

 

[section 14.2.1 Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming]

 

"Although the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming, it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels. Since CO2 doubling studies indicate winter warming around coastal Antarctica of 8-14 C degrees (cf. Fig. 2.12), much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." -p.258

===

 

WC, I think the entire 21st century will qualify as the "initial stages of a greenhouse warming" event, as this book speaks about it.

In the media, when they talk about "Antarctica gaining ice," they mean EAST Antarctica (as predicted by global warming theory, back in the early 1990s).

However, West Antarctica is still measurably warming ...and losing ice ...in response to greenhouse effects.

 

~

 

 

"it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels"

 

That's real definative...

Anyone interested in the soot in ice, I suggest searching different phrases. Here are some links that are useful, for anyone wanting to take time to read or skim them:

 

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BlackCarbonArctic-report.pdf

 

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:461913/FULLTEXT03

[Strange]

Here are some links that are useful, for anyone wanting to take time to read or skim them:

 

Skimming the first, it appears to be some sort of American right-wing political thing. The second looks more serious (although it is just a student thesis, not peer-reviewed science) and confirms that CO2 is the more significant factor.

 

And what did you say about staying on topic ...?

Edited November 17, 2014 by Strange

[overtone]

 

 

My first post addressed solar, which I contend is the primary driver of observed warming over the last three centuries.

Since I believe soot on ice has a greater impact than greenhouse gases as well, I guess I should include that.

Good evidence and solid argument supporting either of those claims would change my mind about the primacy of CO2 boosting in the climate change we are experiencing.

[Wild Cobra]

 

Skimming the first, it appears to be some sort of American right-wing political thing. The second looks more serious (although it is just a student thesis, not peer-reviewed science) and confirms that CO2 is the more significant factor.

 

And what did you say about staying on topic ...?

 

The first is not right wing. It is from The Center for American Progress. A progressive site. I figured it would go over better with the crowd here. The second uses several references I have looked up before, so I admit jumping to the conclusion it is a good read. NASA has several links devoted to the topic as well. I provided the links as easy to read material for everyone rather than looking for the harder to understand journals, like the first link I provided in the earlier post.

 

As for staying on topic? I figured if I didn’t provide some material to digest about my viewpoint, you all would keep hounding me. If you want peer reviewed works, they are easy to find. I provided one older one in post 14. It doesn’t address Asian soot, but suggest a soot on ice warming of 3 W/m^2 in the early 1900. Asia is putting out far more soot than that.

[Essay]

My first post addressed solar, which I contend is the primary driver of observed warming over the last three centuries.

 

Since I believe soot on ice has a greater impact than greenhouse gases as well, I guess I should include that. To be honest, it isn't soot that I need to see as less impact than what I believe, but to see undisputable evidence that greenhouse gases cause as much warming as claimed. I am on the record here as stating I do not believe CO2 can cause more than 0.55 degrees per doubling. I know I am highly controversial here, but please. Ask me to elaborate before saying I am wrong on points I make. Even the same scientists that are in the consensus group claim a 2,000 GWP₂₀ or more for soot. 2,300 seems about average and some state it as high as 4,000.

 

Sorry for the longwinded explanation, since it really boils down to this:

 

 

Show me definitive evidence that the increased Arctic ice melt is from CO2 warming and not soot on ice. Also show me why all of Antarctica has no melt issues except the areas over the ring of fire.

 

Anyone up to the challenge of changing my mind?

 

I agree we need to manage soot, coming from burning biomass and fossil fuels, much better than we do now [thus my tagline]. Soot is a problem contributing to ice melt, which the climate sciences are well aware of, and to some degree have accounted for.

None of that changes the significance of a relatively large or possibly unprecedented CO2 imbalance, which contributes to a much longer-term warming effect and acidification effect.

 

Every degree of warming, globally, includes a raise of about 4% in global atmospheric water vapor! …so 5 degrees would mean 20% more water vapor in our atmosphere. Regionally, wherever it can get cool enough for precipitation to form, watch out for extreme events.

 

As for solar variation contributing its effects, which are also accounted for and monitored by the sciences, the solar changes will wax and wane around a very stable, long-term mean over the centuries and millennia. CO2 forcing is unidirectional and ongoing, persistently ‘forcing’ the climate away from the longer-term mean, which ‘natural forcers’ such as solar will still be cycling around, for centuries and millennia to come.

 

...and there is the looming ocean-acidification problem too, for the base of the planetary foodchain....

 

~

[Strange]

The second uses several references I have looked up before, so I admit jumping to the conclusion it is a good read.

 

It is quite a good read. After all, it contradicts you!

[Wild Cobra]

 

It is quite a good read. After all, it contradicts you!

 

Not in concept. Just values.

[Willie71]

What would change my mind? Quite simple, even one methodologically sound peer reviewed article that contradicts well known principles. I haven't seen a single credible source disputing the well known mechanisms of climate change.

[overtone]

 

 

Not in concept. Just values.

The concept is standard and well known by all. Only the "values" are at issue.

 

We have I think a half dozen posters who have all answered the OP the same way - sound evidence and valid argument would change their minds.

 

That may or may not be so, of course - but there's only one way to find out: provide sound evidence or valid argument, see what happens.

[Wild Cobra]

The concept is standard and well known by all. Only the "values" are at issue.

 

We have I think a half dozen posters who have all answered the OP the same way - sound evidence and valid argument would change their minds.

 

That may or may not be so, of course - but there's only one way to find out: provide sound evidence or valid argument, see what happens.

 

 

I have explained in other threads why I don't think CO2 sensitivity is correct and why I think solar is more. There are no definitive studies on CO2 sensitivity, and all newer studies that evaluate the sensitivity from scratch has it lower than the studies that use the papers from the 70's as original source reference. Solar values we are exposed to are only using the direct forcing, and not the indirect forcing.