Naked Science Forum

Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Tim the Plumber on 23/03/2017 19:46:37

Title: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 23/03/2017 19:46:37
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/03/2017 19:59:46
Not being able to continue to feed all 7 billion people in the world. Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2017 20:03:28
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?
Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 23/03/2017 21:01:38
Not being able to continue to feed all 7 billion people in the world. Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War.

Actual mechanism required not "we are all doomed!!!!".
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: PhysBang on 23/03/2017 21:02:54
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.
I can think of some examples off the top of my head.

Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops. In some cases, land suitable for food crops may coincide with suitable climate for the first time. Even if this is a washout, people and businesses will still need to relocate. This will, at best, make food production less efficient.

The increase in temperature will increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This will mean an increase in ocean acidity, which in turn will change fishing habitat. This means, at best, food production from fisheries will be less efficient.

As we have already seen, the increase in temperature can create less of a discrepancy between the temperature of arctic air and the air at lower latitudes that results in more mixing of arctic air with the air at lower latitudes which results in periods of more intense cold in lower latitudes. This results in higher demands for energy for heat and, likely, in more injuries and deaths due to the cold.

As we have already seen, increases in temperature have lead to increased demand for energy to cool human spaces as well as increased injury and death due to heat.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 23/03/2017 21:03:28
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?
Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Well, I see 3.4c over today by 2100 as slight.

Obviously the world has stubornly refused to warm up at the rate needed to get there since the science was settled but....

What level of warming do you see as a problem and what the hell would you see as the problem?

.....like pulling teeth....
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 23/03/2017 21:08:42
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.
I can think of some examples off the top of my head.

Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops. In some cases, land suitable for food crops may coincide with suitable climate for the first time. Even if this is a washout, people and businesses will still need to relocate. This will, at best, make food production less efficient.

The increase in temperature will increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This will mean an increase in ocean acidity, which in turn will change fishing habitat. This means, at best, food production from fisheries will be less efficient.

As we have already seen, the increase in temperature can create less of a discrepancy between the temperature of arctic air and the air at lower latitudes that results in more mixing of arctic air with the air at lower latitudes which results in periods of more intense cold in lower latitudes. This results in higher demands for energy for heat and, likely, in more injuries and deaths due to the cold.

As we have already seen, increases in temperature have lead to increased demand for energy to cool human spaces as well as increased injury and death due to heat.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of vast changes to the pattern of how the earth's climate zones will change.

When I did O level geography we did questions where you were given a place on the world and had to describe the climate and natural vegitation. There are fixed reasons why the climate is how it is over much of the world. The great grasslands of America and Asia are there due to them being in rain shadows and far inland. The more coastal fertile areas are such due to more rainfall and less extremes of temperature.

Do you think that warmer areas grow less food? We are after all talking about the climate 300 miles closer to the equator that what you have today. Is that really so bad?

The energy required to cool with AC is a lot less than that required to warm in the winter in most of the world.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2017 21:29:13
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?
Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Well, I see 3.4c over today by 2100 as slight.

Obviously the world has stubornly refused to warm up at the rate needed to get there since the science was settled but....

What level of warming do you see as a problem and what the hell would you see as the problem?

.....like pulling teeth....
It certainly is- because I answered essentially the same question from you in post 563 here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg486696#msg486696
So did others.
If you don't pay attention to the answers there's no point asking questions
Pretending that  you can't get an answer isn't very honest, is it?
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 24/03/2017 15:57:54
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?
Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Well, I see 3.4c over today by 2100 as slight.

Obviously the world has stubornly refused to warm up at the rate needed to get there since the science was settled but....

What level of warming do you see as a problem and what the hell would you see as the problem?

.....like pulling teeth....
It certainly is- because I answered essentially the same question from you in post 563 here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg486696#msg486696
So did others.
If you don't pay attention to the answers there's no point asking questions
Pretending that  you can't get an answer isn't very honest, is it?


So you think that the weather will become more variable if it is a little warmer over all?

Do you have any science which would support this?

Again I don't see it a a bog panic as I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt. As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/03/2017 18:08:46
Tim read this all the way through. Don't just skim it. It is a complex issue that you can't make glib statements about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification)
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2017 18:59:31


So you think that the weather will become more variable if it is a little warmer over all?

Do you have any science which would support this?

Again I don't see it a a bog panic as I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt. As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument.
Since you don't know that reality (and thus science) support  the view that the weather gets worse you don't understand why it's a problem
Perhaps you should learn.
Also
re" I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt."
In the real world a fairly large  fraction of crops are already spoiled by bad whether. but you come from a world where the supermarket shelves are full so you don't understand he real world.

"As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument. "
But, as demonstrated by a lot of starving people, we don't have that ability.
So yours is the stupid argument.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: PhysBang on 26/03/2017 04:40:02
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of vast changes to the pattern of how the earth's climate zones will change.
You could try newspapers, television, or the actual IPCC reports.
Quote
Do you think that warmer areas grow less food? We are after all talking about the climate 300 miles closer to the equator that what you have today. Is that really so bad?
Warmer climates grow different food, if they can. Changing the agriculture of a region requires work to effect that change.
Quote
The energy required to cool with AC is a lot less than that required to warm in the winter in most of the world.
You might want to think about some basic thermodynamics on that one. Plus, are you recommending that people move in order to accommodate global warming? Are you going to pay for them to move?
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2017 11:28:11
Tim read this all the way through. Don't just skim it. It is a complex issue that you can't make glib statements about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification)

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change (https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change)

Given that during the holocene optimal the Sahara was a land of woods and grasslands and that the increase in CO2 has caused a general greening of such areas as the Sahel zone in Africa whilst the locals have been using pumps to acess the deep aquifiers which would have furthered the desertification of the area I think you  may have it wrong.

The TED video is one of the best, well worth a watch.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2017 11:34:30


So you think that the weather will become more variable if it is a little warmer over all?

Do you have any science which would support this?

Again I don't see it a a bog panic as I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt. As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument.
Since you don't know that reality (and thus science) support  the view that the weather gets worse you don't understand why it's a problem
Perhaps you should learn.
Also
re" I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt."
In the real world a fairly large  fraction of crops are already spoiled by bad whether. but you come from a world where the supermarket shelves are full so you don't understand he real world.

"As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument. "
But, as demonstrated by a lot of starving people, we don't have that ability.
So yours is the stupid argument.


We clearly do have the ability to transport lots of food around the world it's that loads of it is used to make biofuel that causes the present mass starvation of the world's poor. 800 milliom people with cronic medical undernorishment. 40% of US grain used to make biofuel. Crime against humanity.

Given this thread is about the lack of any support you provide for your view that we should panic about the possibility of a slightly warmer world your lack of providing such support for your claim that the weather will get worse says it all agian. Come on!! Show why the weather is going to be worse in a world where the temperature has risen by a lot less than the normal year to year variance of nature. A warm year in Euope does not cause mass catastrophy!!

Yes lots of food is spoilt be bad weather. That's farming for you. The increase in such events will not be much if any. Show some actual science that says otherwise!!!
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: PhysBang on 28/03/2017 15:03:31
We clearly do have the ability to transport lots of food around the world it's that loads of it is used to make biofuel that causes the present mass starvation of the world's poor. 800 milliom people with cronic medical undernorishment. 40% of US grain used to make biofuel. Crime against humanity.
First, we currently have enough food to feed everyone, even with making biofuel, which is almost a complete waste of resources. The problem is that food has to be distributed and that s the problem. If we are going to rely on growing food in one area and shipping it to other areas, then we need to use either fossil fuels or biofuels. If we use the former, the problem gets worse. If we use the latter, then we have to come up with an as of yet unknown way to produce biofules that doesn't use a lot of fossil fuels.

Quote
Given this thread is about the lack of any support you provide for your view that we should panic about the possibility of a slightly warmer world your lack of providing such support for your claim that the weather will get worse says it all agian.
There is a lot of evidence out there. You just seem to refuse to read any of it.

 
Quote
Come on!! Show why the weather is going to be worse in a world where the temperature has risen by a lot less than the normal year to year variance of nature. A warm year in Euope does not cause mass catastrophy!!
Apparently, you are fine with all the people who died from heat related causes in Europe in the past few years.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 28/03/2017 19:23:48
We clearly do have the ability to transport lots of food around the world it's that loads of it is used to make biofuel that causes the present mass starvation of the world's poor. 800 milliom people with cronic medical undernorishment. 40% of US grain used to make biofuel. Crime against humanity.
First, we currently have enough food to feed everyone, even with making biofuel, which is almost a complete waste of resources. The problem is that food has to be distributed and that s the problem. If we are going to rely on growing food in one area and shipping it to other areas, then we need to use either fossil fuels or biofuels. If we use the former, the problem gets worse. If we use the latter, then we have to come up with an as of yet unknown way to produce biofules that doesn't use a lot of fossil fuels.

Actually saying, with evidence to back it up, what this huge problem is would sort of be the point of this thread....

Quote
Given this thread is about the lack of any support you provide for your view that we should panic about the possibility of a slightly warmer world your lack of providing such support for your claim that the weather will get worse says it all agian.
Quote
There is a lot of evidence out there. You just seem to refuse to read any of it.

And you refuse to actully explain it. The classic tactic of refering to a vast text that the bible bashers use...

 
Quote
Come on!! Show why the weather is going to be worse in a world where the temperature has risen by a lot less than the normal year to year variance of nature. A warm year in Euope does not cause mass catastrophy!!
Quote
Apparently, you are fine with all the people who died from heat related causes in Europe in the past few years.
And apparently you are very very happy with the much larger number of people who died of cold last year and all those who live in fuel poverty as well.

We are a tropical species. Cold places are the one we have trouble with, mostly.

I seem to have not managed to get this link on. i don't know why.

http://oecdinsights.org/2010/01/25/biofuel/

Quote
Its not that there isnt enough food. A new study by the Earth Policy Institute  shows that the grain grown by US farmers in 2009 to make biofuels was enough to feed 330 million people at average world consumption rates.
Title: Re: Threat of Global warming
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2017 22:21:25
...
And apparently you are very very happy with the much larger number of people who died of cold last year and all those who live in fuel poverty as well.
We are a tropical species. Cold places are the one we have trouble with, mostly.
...
Nope, We aren't happy about people dying of cold. That's why we  worry about things like the disruption of the gulf stream and the cooling effect which that would have on the North West of Europe.

Once again, it's as if you believe that a simple "everywhere gets a little cooler"  model is reasonable.
It isn't.
The thermodynamics don't work that way.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 29/03/2017 02:44:00
Gee, like the barrier reef, it is dying, see it now, like lobsters and sea fish, go hunt farther north, Like flooding, see the islands and new york city before the water levels rise, like the glaciers? see them now, like the polar bears, see them now, sure what do you care about any of these things. Climate change does not effect me YOU SAY, but  you cannot even accept the contribution of Co2 changes the world? If it was permissible I would be calling you by all the names you deserve
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2017 12:09:09
Not being able to continue to feed all 7 billion people in the world. Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War.

There's the answer. We have total control over the only important variable. Make fewer babies. The "do nothing" option is always best, and this one is bound to work.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/03/2017 18:18:08
...
And apparently you are very very happy with the much larger number of people who died of cold last year and all those who live in fuel poverty as well.
We are a tropical species. Cold places are the one we have trouble with, mostly.
...
Nope, We aren't happy about people dying of cold. That's why we  worry about things like the disruption of the gulf stream and the cooling effect which that would have on the North West of Europe.

Once again, it's as if you believe that a simple "everywhere gets a little cooler"  model is reasonable.
It isn't.
The thermodynamics don't work that way.

Given that the North Atlantic convayor/gulf stream is wind driven I do not see any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system.

Picture a 1m wide path from Barbados to Scotland, say 10,000km, picture holding a 1m x 1m piece of cloth out horizontally just above the water anywhere along the course of the gulf stream. It will flap about in the wind of the North Atlantic.

If you can hold onto it with a force of the weight of 10kg it is a calm day. 10kg weight is 100N.

5,000km x 1,000 (to get to m) x 100N is enough force to push up a colum of water 50km high. That is why the current is the biggest other than the Southern ocean.

A slight alteration in the salinity of the water it is mixing with to the North will do nothing at all.

Once again I do not need high level physics about IR absorption to understand the bleeding obvious.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/03/2017 18:22:41
Gee, like the barrier reef, it is dying, see it now, like lobsters and sea fish, go hunt farther north, Like flooding, see the islands and new york city before the water levels rise, like the glaciers? see them now, like the polar bears, see them now, sure what do you care about any of these things. Climate change does not effect me YOU SAY, but  you cannot even accept the contribution of Co2 changes the world? If it was permissible I would be calling you by all the names you deserve

A typical response.

1, It's CO2. Or CO subscript 2 (how do you do that on this sciecne forum?)

2, The increase in food prices of between 30% to 70% is killing people at a rate of, my guess, at least 20 million per year. This is due to the use of food to make biofuel. This is a crime against humanity. This is much more real than any none problem of you doomsday cult.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2017 19:48:03


Given that the North Atlantic convayor/gulf stream is wind driven I do not see any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system.

A slight alteration in the salinity of the water it is mixing with to the North will do nothing at all.

Once again I do not need high level physics about IR absorption to understand the bleeding obvious.
"Given that the North Atlantic convayor/gulf stream is wind driven I do not see any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system."
Nor do I
But I do see problems if the temperature gradients that drive the wind change. I also see problems if the melting ice disappears and stops causing the return current of cold water
"A slight alteration in the salinity of the water it is mixing with to the North will do nothing at all. "
Nobody said it would.
But a massive change in the solar energy flux that drives the weather will

"Once again I do not need high level physics about IR absorption to understand the bleeding obvious. "
It seems that you haven't even read "the obvious" so you are not in  a position to understand it.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/03/2017 19:56:52


Given that the North Atlantic convayor/gulf stream is wind driven I do not see any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system.

A slight alteration in the salinity of the water it is mixing with to the North will do nothing at all.

Once again I do not need high level physics about IR absorption to understand the bleeding obvious.
"Given that the North Atlantic convayor/gulf stream is wind driven I do not see any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system."
Nor do I
But I do see problems if the temperature gradients that drive the wind change. I also see problems if the melting ice disappears and stops causing the return current of cold water
"A slight alteration in the salinity of the water it is mixing with to the North will do nothing at all. "
Nobody said it would.
But a massive change in the solar energy flux that drives the weather will

"Once again I do not need high level physics about IR absorption to understand the bleeding obvious. "
It seems that you haven't even read "the obvious" so you are not in  a position to understand it.

All previous panic posts about the NAC have involved the addition of fresh water making the system stop. That your point is new is a credit to you. Thanks.

Do you think that the Arctic ocean can become a warm one, ie +4c? Surely for that there would have to be a very very dramatic warming....

Even then the Southern ocean will continue to provide the oxygenated water the deep ocean needs.

Your idea that the loss of the cooled current returning due to it not being mixed with the cold water does not seem to make sense; The mixed water is at 4c which drops to the deep ocean. the rest has been cooling since it left the Carribean and now has a lower temperature than the stuff pilling in from the west. It will still be so no matter if the North ATlantic is fit to sunbathe on. It will still be cooler than the Carribean.

The jet stream/decending air which has risen from the equator will still drop at 40 degrees North or so as the fundimentals of the world's weather system will not have changed.

I don't see a mechanism for a stopping of the gulf stream. Please enlarge.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2017 21:34:26
You rather missed the point that nobody thinks there will be " any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system.".

Are you so uninformed that you think  the melt water is "tiny" or is that just something you are pretending is true, and hoping nobody notices?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 30/03/2017 19:27:31
You rather missed the point that nobody thinks there will be " any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system.".

Are you so uninformed that you think  the melt water is "tiny" or is that just something you are pretending is true, and hoping nobody notices?


What do you think the ratio is between the added melt water and the flow rate of the North Atlantic drift?

I take it that you are not saying that the Arctic ocean has any chance what so ever of getting to >+4c.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2017 07:49:01

I take it that you are not saying that the Arctic ocean has any chance what so ever of getting to >+4c.

Why not? There's evidence that it has been there in the past. The only resulting disaster was that homo sapiens became the dominant land species.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/04/2017 10:21:59

I take it that you are not saying that the Arctic ocean has any chance what so ever of getting to >+4c.

Why not? There's evidence that it has been there in the past. The only resulting disaster was that homo sapiens became the dominant land species.

That's new to me.

When did that happen? Was it that warm during the early bronze age Holocene optimal?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/04/2017 10:40:14
Apparently around 20,000 years ago and possibly again in the bronze age, the arctic ice cap disappeared - huge northwards spread of agriculture. Conceivably the antarctic got a lot colder at the same time, which may explain the aboriginal colonisation of Australia. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/04/2017 10:43:51
Apparently around 20,000 years ago and possibly again in the bronze age, the arctic ice cap disappeared - huge northwards spread of agriculture. Conceivably the antarctic got a lot colder at the same time, which may explain the aboriginal colonisation of Australia. 
The floating ice melting is a long way away from the water getting to be warmer than 4c though.

I would expect, only a plumber so..., that the sea bed deposits would show a marked difference in species if it managed that trick. Do you think it is possible to get to over 4c?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/04/2017 09:35:57
So in sumary;

The threat for warming is.....

1, We are all doomed. Questioning this is heresy and anybody who does is evil anti-science and should be shunned!!!
[Post 17]

2, The increase in temperatures at the poles will slow the mixing of air and transfer of heat from the warmer parts which will cause faster transfer of heat in big storms. DO NOT ASK FOR ANY SUPPORT FOR THIS!!!!

3, The warming of Greenland will produce a vast glut of fresh water which will shut down the gulf stream. Do not ask for a comparison between the flow rate of the gulf stream and the maximum possible melt rate of Greenland as this is taking you back to being burnt at the stake!!! Remember WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!

4, Expecting people to back their statements and claims with positive support has never been part of science it is those which question the consensus who are duty bound to prove the validity of the negative!! If they can't then burn them.

5, Anybody who talks about the consequences of the fight against CO2 resulting in millions of deaths per year is obviously trolling. To bring up that sort of unpleasant subject is down right rude. Which is more inportant truth or politeness????
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 06/04/2017 11:48:28
OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble with a slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.

Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself: FDR's First Inaugural Address.

Global warming as been equated with fear, instead of hopeful challenge, because fear is the easiest way to manipulate the most people. If you try to place a positive spin, instead of a scary one, the audience who can relate is much smaller.

The reason being is, the emotion of fear narrows our time perception. In other words, if an animal is being pursued by a predator, fear focuses the animal'd mind and body in the immediate present, with time appearing to run slow, so it can react to change in the blink of an eye.

Fear sort of creates a tunnel vision and the need for immediate remedy. This can come in useful if you need to motivate and manipulate people for political purposes. The tunnel vision, created by fear, will also make it harder to open their vision and mind to anything that does not support the fear. This is why I began with the quote, the only thing we need to feat is fear itself, since expect tunnel vision and an altering in time perception that make the herd stampede and unable to hear anything. 

The original doom and gloom scenarios, of Al Gore, never panned out. That does not matter to the fearful. The real goal was to stampede the hysterical leftist herd, so they would trample anyone in their path, without realizing it. Consider what was done to good scientists who tried to appease the fear with alternate scenarios; black ball the deniers even if good they are accredited scientists. They fear still was able to generate anarchy, which is what is predicted will be caused by global warming.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2017 14:17:21
Global warming is a threat because many politicians say it is.  This is essential so they can increase your taxes and fly to conferences where they discuss how not to tackle it. Their biggest coup was exempting China and India from the Kyoto protocol because Western CO2 is decadent and dangerous whereas the stuff that emerges from the world's largest democracy, or is generated by the country with the largest standing army, is entirely different*. Then they invented carbon trading, so that the same people could establish smokestack industries in Iceland, where nobody had ever burned coal before.

The fear is important, not only to ensure that you pay your taxes to fund politicians, but also to support self-styled "scientists", priests of doom whose careers depend on maintaining a consensus in the face of evidence. Climatology has replaced several other religions, though sadly not Islam (which comes from the same place as oil) but hasn't killed quite as many people yet..

Fact is that climate change is inevitable, and most species respond to it by migration. The population of homo sapiens is too large to allow mass migration without intraspecies killing, so we are doomed to an extent of our own making.

*The fact that they are industrialised nations with very low labor costs is, of course, irrelevant. No politician would stoop so low as to admit his motives.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/04/2017 14:52:50
Global warming is a threat because many politicians say it is.  This is essential so they can increase your taxes and fly to conferences where they discuss how not to tackle it. Their biggest coup was exempting China and India from the Kyoto protocol because Western CO2 is decadent and dangerous whereas the stuff that emerges from the world's largest democracy, or is generated by the country with the largest standing army, is entirely different*. Then they invented carbon trading, so that the same people could establish smokestack industries in Iceland, where nobody had ever burned coal before.

The fear is important, not only to ensure that you pay your taxes to fund politicians, but also to support self-styled "scientists", priests of doom whose careers depend on maintaining a consensus in the face of evidence. Climatology has replaced several other religions, though sadly not Islam (which comes from the same place as oil) but hasn't killed quite as many people yet..

Fact is that climate change is inevitable, and most species respond to it by migration. The population of homo sapiens is too large to allow mass migration without intraspecies killing, so we are doomed to an extent of our own making.

*The fact that they are industrialised nations with very low labor costs is, of course, irrelevant. No politician would stoop so low as to admit his motives.

The thing about Islam having killed more people than the globalwarmingdoomTM religion I think I dispute.

Islam has killed many many millions. Say 80 million during the whole Arab conquest of the West, and probably that agin in the East. Another few tens of millions in general strife across the centuries...

The diversion of food into making fuel to the tune of 40% of US grain being so used thus increasing the price of food by 30% to 70% is killing, my guess, 20 million people per year. That has been going on for at least the last 10 years so evens.

The degree to which the impact of not advancing under Islam and not advancing as quickly as the third world should due to the money being siphoned away by higher food prices out of the economy of the poorest 3 billion people in the world is the next big thing to try to quantify....

I will stand corrected on the deaths from Islam and be informed by anybody with better numbers on the artifically created hunger for reasons of making rich farmers richer.

I think it is as yet too close to call but in 3 years the AGW hype will clearly be the second biggest killer ever after the Mongol invaisions.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2017 16:37:49
There is no compulsion on anyone to grow food for any purpose, or to sell it at any price. At least, not in civilised countries. Farming, in a market economy, is a voluntary activity which people undertake to feed themselves or to make as much money as they feel comfortable with. So you can't logically accuse farmers of killing anyone - except in the rare cases where a farmer is contracted to supply X but sells to Y. You can, however, accuse parents of producing more children than they can feed, and that should be a crime against humanity. You can also accuse organisations such as the European Union that deliberately inflate the price of food, create scarcities, and destroy fertile environments, but you would find there is a lot of public support for the EU because everyone has the same color passport (I can't think of any other reason).
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/04/2017 16:53:19
There is no compulsion on anyone to grow food for any purpose, or to sell it at any price. At least, not in civilised countries. Farming, in a market economy, is a voluntary activity which people undertake to feed themselves or to make as much money as they feel comfortable with. So you can't logically accuse farmers of killing anyone - except in the rare cases where a farmer is contracted to supply X but sells to Y. You can, however, accuse parents of producing more children than they can feed, and that should be a crime against humanity. You can also accuse organisations such as the European Union that deliberately inflate the price of food, create scarcities, and destroy fertile environments, but you would find there is a lot of public support for the EU because everyone has the same color passport (I can't think of any other reason).

The farming lobby.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 06/04/2017 19:58:51
So we have three people in a row who simply want to stick their heads in the sand because they don't like other people having freedoms.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 07/04/2017 09:20:20
So we have three people in a row who simply want to stick their heads in the sand because they don't like other people having freedoms.

Well you have me completely confused there.

What freedoms do you think have been opposed??

This thread is about trying to find out what the threat from global warming is. This is because despite my repeated asking of this question I simply don't get any sort of reasoned, supported and scary reply. I get replies that do one of those but  not all 3.

What has liberty got to do with global warming other than the alarmists who want us all to panic want to stop people being free?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2017 18:39:08
Don't waste your breath, Tim. PB has added nothing of value to any thread I have seen.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 13/04/2017 07:47:28
For settled science that has consensus support there seems a lack of anybodyable to explain why it is scary despite there being a very obvious glut of people who are passionate supporters of the thing.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2017 18:39:19
For settled science that has consensus support there seems a lack of anybodyable to explain why it is scary despite there being a very obvious glut of people who are passionate supporters of the thing.
This is
 why people on your side of the debate get called "deiniers"
The first few posts in the tread cite explanations why it's scary
"Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War."
"Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops."
And the thread carries on in that way with people explaining why it's a bad thing- giving specific instances.

And you just tell the lie that nobody has said why it's a problem.

Do you think we are blind?
Did you not think we would notice?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 14/04/2017 10:36:08
For settled science that has consensus support there seems a lack of anybodyable to explain why it is scary despite there being a very obvious glut of people who are passionate supporters of the thing.
This is
 why people on your side of the debate get called "deiniers"
The first few posts in the tread cite explanations why it's scary
"Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War."
"Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops."
And the thread carries on in that way with people explaining why it's a bad thing- giving specific instances.

And you just tell the lie that nobody has said why it's a problem.

Do you think we are blind?
Did you not think we would notice?


I hope you have noticed that you and your "side" is utterly unable to show what mechanism is supposed to be doing all this. That when any of these threats of doom are examined they do not stand up at all.

This is the point of the tread!! Explain the mechanism!

Not refering to a vast mountain of drivel, not bland hand waving about increased energy drivel but actual explaination of the mechanism.

Like you almost started to do with the North Atlanic current but ran away from when I asked you to say what ratio of size the increased meltwater from the Arctic ocean will be to the Gulf stream.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2017 16:02:49
It's not "hand waving".
CO2 absorbs  energy from the sun.
More power driving the weather gives rise to more weather.

You seem to have accused me of running away- which is odd since I'm still here.
I could, in principle, calculate the ratio you are claiming to be interested in.
So could you.
You seem to have run away from doing so.
Or were you only asking  as a delaying tactic?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 14/04/2017 21:18:35
It's not "hand waving".
CO2 absorbs  energy from the sun.
More power driving the weather gives rise to more weather.

You seem to have accused me of running away- which is odd since I'm still here.
I could, in principle, calculate the ratio you are claiming to be interested in.
So could you.
You seem to have run away from doing so.
Or were you only asking  as a delaying tactic?

I am asking you do calculate the size of the ice melt in comparison with the Gulf stream because when you come back with 1% or so you will have shot your own argument down.

I would like to understand why it is that you, a very intelligent man, suddenly loses all ability to organise his science thinking in this area. To do so I would like to see how you investigate such ideas.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 14/04/2017 21:29:37
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Another article on why warmer weather is bad: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather/



Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2017 09:35:15
It's not "hand waving".
CO2 absorbs  energy from the sun.
More power driving the weather gives rise to more weather.

You seem to have accused me of running away- which is odd since I'm still here.
I could, in principle, calculate the ratio you are claiming to be interested in.
So could you.
You seem to have run away from doing so.
Or were you only asking  as a delaying tactic?

I am asking you do calculate the size of the ice melt in comparison with the Gulf stream because when you come back with 1% or so you will have shot your own argument down.

I would like to understand why it is that you, a very intelligent man, suddenly loses all ability to organise his science thinking in this area. To do so I would like to see how you investigate such ideas.
OK 1% is a reasonable guess.
Given that the current climate rests on the balance of flows of pentawatts of power, why do you think that a 1% change wouldn't make a difference?
If you changed your diet from on that provided the calories  you need to one that provided 1% more than you needed them, all other things being equal, you would gain weight at about a kilo per year.
10 years on you would be a lot heavier than you were.
Why do you somehow think that 1% doesn't matter?

To understand the loss of scientific thinking, what you need to do first is get a mirror.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/04/2017 16:24:24
It's not "hand waving".
CO2 absorbs  energy from the sun.
More power driving the weather gives rise to more weather.

You seem to have accused me of running away- which is odd since I'm still here.
I could, in principle, calculate the ratio you are claiming to be interested in.
So could you.
You seem to have run away from doing so.
Or were you only asking  as a delaying tactic?

I am asking you do calculate the size of the ice melt in comparison with the Gulf stream because when you come back with 1% or so you will have shot your own argument down.

I would like to understand why it is that you, a very intelligent man, suddenly loses all ability to organise his science thinking in this area. To do so I would like to see how you investigate such ideas.
OK 1% is a reasonable guess.
Given that the current climate rests on the balance of flows of pentawatts of power, why do you think that a 1% change wouldn't make a difference?
If you changed your diet from on that provided the calories  you need to one that provided 1% more than you needed them, all other things being equal, you would gain weight at about a kilo per year.
10 years on you would be a lot heavier than you were.
Why do you somehow think that 1% doesn't matter?

To understand the loss of scientific thinking, what you need to do first is get a mirror.

Well, I think 1% of additional fresh water going into the mixing pot of the north side of the gulf stream will have a less than 1% effect on the rate of flow of it. Given that the Gulf stream adds say 10c to the temperature in winter and a less than 1% effect would only happen in the summer I will not be able to notice it at all.

To use your diet analogy; If I gain 1kg and continue to do the stuff I do I will use more calories and thus find a new stability point. Of about 1kg, me being close to 100kg in mass.

Do you think that + or - 1kg is something that I would notice? Do you think it is something significant that I should be focusing serrious attention on? Because when I decied I am too fat and choose to lose some weight I generally go for about a stone.

If the concept of scale, of how big something has to be to be significant, is difficult for you how have you got as far in life as you have??

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/04/2017 16:28:08
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2017 17:19:49
The northern hemisphere, or at least Europe, has been warmer and cooler than at present, within recorded history. The extent to which any change was a blessing or a disaster depended on who you were and where you were.

There is no doubt that significant numbers of people now live in areas where agriculture is marginal and a small shift in rainfall patterns can result in starvation.

Other species adapt to climate change by limiting their numbers and/or migrating. Humans are apparently too stupid to do either, so we can expect many deaths attributable to climate change as we get better at measuring both parameters.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 17/04/2017 10:21:33
The northern hemisphere, or at least Europe, has been warmer and cooler than at present, within recorded history. The extent to which any change was a blessing or a disaster depended on who you were and where you were.

There is no doubt that significant numbers of people now live in areas where agriculture is marginal and a small shift in rainfall patterns can result in starvation.

Other species adapt to climate change by limiting their numbers and/or migrating. Humans are apparently too stupid to do either, so we can expect many deaths attributable to climate change as we get better at measuring both parameters.

California is a desert. Before humans chose to make it a hugely productive grain basket it supported very few indigenous people.

The species which adapts best to any and all climatic conditions is humanity. We thrive in the tropics and survive on the ice pack. We do this by making the best use of the best resources availible.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2017 13:02:17
One reason humans moved to California was because they had desertified Oklahoma. The other was gold. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2017 14:25:46
Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 17/04/2017 16:30:28
Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan


Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2017 12:46:09
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.
You are not being "risk averse" you are being fact averse.
The thing that is still scary is the thing we have told you before.
We don't like dead people.
Same old answer.
For the same old reasons, by the same old mechanisms.
The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather.
You seem to be consistently ignoring that.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 18/04/2017 13:04:01
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are.
I doubt it, since you are the whinger that is all up in arms about the non-problem of biofuels. Are biofuels inefficient? Yes. Are they seriously diverting food from people? Not a chance. Yet you find the time to supposedly care about that issue and you find absolutely nothing troubling about the predicted fall in agricultural yields that should accompany global warming.

Quote
That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.
Part of this is because you a) don't look and b) when someone puts something in front of your face, you just close your eyes. Your ignorance is on you.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/04/2017 16:31:23
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.
You are not being "risk averse" you are being fact averse.
The thing that is still scary is the thing we have told you before.
We don't like dead people.
Same old answer.
For the same old reasons, by the same old mechanisms.
The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather.
You seem to be consistently ignoring that.

OK, so we have finally narrowed down the doom list to bad weather due to increased energy in the system. And not the Gulf stream thing.

This is obviously drivel. The wind is driven by pressure differences due to temperature differences.

The way global warming is projected to go is that the differences in temperature between the various regions on the planet will be reduced a tiny bit. This will, if anything, reduce the speed of wind from place to place.

There have been less than expected/too close to call storms in the last couple of decades. But that is not something to hang your hat on as it's all a bit too chancy to be able to tell.

How much damage do you think the occaisional extra storm will do and how much do you think it would take to deal with it in the way of defences?

Can you cite an actual paper that has the mechanism of this mild inconvienience described in it? Where it has been critiacally assesed?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/04/2017 16:34:23
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are.
I doubt it, since you are the whinger that is all up in arms about the non-problem of biofuels. Are biofuels inefficient? Yes. Are they seriously diverting food from people? Not a chance. Yet you find the time to supposedly care about that issue and you find absolutely nothing troubling about the predicted fall in agricultural yields that should accompany global warming.

Quote
That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.
Part of this is because you a) don't look and b) when someone puts something in front of your face, you just close your eyes. Your ignorance is on you.

I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.

Given that the present effect of increased CO2 and a slightly warmer world is increased plants why do you think it will change?

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 18/04/2017 17:33:10
I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.
So your commitment to ignorance starts with your knowledge of those plants that thrive in greenhouses and complete lack of knowledge about plants in general? Good to know. This says a lot about your character.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2017 17:34:03
...
OK, so we have finally narrowed down the doom list to bad weather due to increased energy in the system. And not the Gulf stream thing.
This is obviously drivel.
Quite.
Your post is obvious drivel- because we haven't excluded the gulf stream at all.
What I did was point out that the weather will be affected.
That has many outcomes- many of them bad for people.

And yet you seem to have treated it as if it's trivial.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2017 17:37:24
...
I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.
You point out that we put plants in carefully controlled conditions to get them to grow better.
You are saying that removing the controls that we already have will make them grow fattier.
That's absurd: which one do you mean?
.
And why would anyone bother to lie?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/04/2017 18:47:13
Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan


Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.

No it isn't due to climate change. It is as well as climate change. Warring factions don't usually care how bad the climate is getting. They are too busy destroying infrastructure. When enough countries in Africa succumb to the same fate where are the refugees going to go? From one war zone into another war zone? Or are they going to want to move somewhere safer. What happens if the western world starts to refuse entry to the fleeing millions? I mean who wants a sudden influx of millions of extra people?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2017 22:06:00
Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan


Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.
Let me get this straight.
You make up a nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 and pretend that it might be anything to do with the thread..
Then you try say that this trash is in some way related to the people who actually accept science.

That's certainly an odd way to look at the world..
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2017 22:37:17
Fact is that natural tree growth has accelerated during the current warming period. Difficult to make any assessment about farmed crops since agricultural practices and crop genetics have probably contributed more to yield variance than any climate change, and annual harvests tend to "reset the zero"  so year-on-year yield figures depend on weather rather than climate. But satellite imagery of wilderness forests, and longterm yields of tree crops like coconuts  does suggest a "benign" effect to date.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/04/2017 19:36:25
I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.
So your commitment to ignorance starts with your knowledge of those plants that thrive in greenhouses and complete lack of knowledge about plants in general? Good to know. This says a lot about your character.

Which area of land produces the most food per unit area The Canadian Paries or Wheat fields in Brazil?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/04/2017 19:39:23
...
OK, so we have finally narrowed down the doom list to bad weather due to increased energy in the system. And not the Gulf stream thing.
This is obviously drivel.
Quite.
Your post is obvious drivel- because we haven't excluded the gulf stream at all.
What I did was point out that the weather will be affected.
That has many outcomes- many of them bad for people.

And yet you seem to have treated it as if it's trivial.

OK, back to the potential of a 1% impact, during the height of summer, of the amount of fresh water mixing with the northern side of the Gulf stream and dropping down to the ocean depths which will have a less than 1% impact on anything in the UK.

Do you really think that will be noticable at all???

Please say how much heat energy change in watts per square meter you think it will have. Please say under what conditions this will take place and when.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/04/2017 19:42:20
...
I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.
You point out that we put plants in carefully controlled conditions to get them to grow better.
You are saying that removing the controls that we already have will make them grow fattier.
That's absurd: which one do you mean?
.
And why would anyone bother to lie?

I do not understand the above. The grammer does not seem to make sense to me.

I think that plants grow quicker in warmer wetter conditions with more CO2 given all other factors are the same and you don't go over 35c. I don't know what happens then.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/04/2017 19:44:22
Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan


Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.
Let me get this straight.
You make up a nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 and pretend that it might be anything to do with the thread..
Then you try say that this trash is in some way related to the people who actually accept science.

That's certainly an odd way to look at the world..
JefferyH made the nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 not I.

This is what I mean by your normal high intelligence flying away when you are in this subject area.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2017 19:50:42

JefferyH made the nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 not I.

This is what I mean by your normal high intelligence flying away when you are in this subject area.
No
He didn't.
What he said was that climate change would make a bad situation worse.
Whatever my intelligence may be or do, you just say things that are not true.
Why is that?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 19/04/2017 21:41:08
Fact is that natural tree growth has accelerated during the current warming period. Difficult to make any assessment about farmed crops since agricultural practices and crop genetics have probably contributed more to yield variance than any climate change, and annual harvests tend to "reset the zero"  so year-on-year yield figures depend on weather rather than climate. But satellite imagery of wilderness forests, and longterm yields of tree crops like coconuts  does suggest a "benign" effect to date.

That is interesting. Satellite imagery is a good way to monitor change.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 20/04/2017 12:54:18

JefferyH made the nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 not I.

This is what I mean by your normal high intelligence flying away when you are in this subject area.
No
He didn't.
What he said was that climate change would make a bad situation worse.
Whatever my intelligence may be or do, you just say things that are not true.
Why is that?

Quote
Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/04/2017 14:25:46

    Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan


Quote
Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.

It was JeffreyH who first brought up this thing about hyperinflation in the third world.

I do not consider inflation to be related to global warming.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/04/2017 16:38:02
Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 25/04/2017 17:26:18
Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.
Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/04/2017 18:08:36
Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.
Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.

You have to explain what happens (the mechanism) and then post a link to some sort of science to support it.

You have yet to explain any mechanism.

Don't feel too bad about this as nobody else has sone so so far. I live in hope.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2017 19:54:06
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.
You are not being "risk averse" you are being fact averse.
The thing that is still scary is the thing we have told you before.
We don't like dead people.
Same old answer.
For the same old reasons, by the same old mechanisms.
The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather.
You seem to be consistently ignoring that.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2017 19:54:43
Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.
Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.

You have to explain what happens (the mechanism) and then post a link to some sort of science to support it.

You have yet to explain any mechanism.

Don't feel too bad about this as nobody else has sone so so far. I live in hope.

Yes we have- you just keep lying about it.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2017 20:38:42
Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 25/04/2017 21:16:52
Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 
Says the liar. And bigot.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2017 21:52:09
My advice if someone calls you a liar is to check if you said something that isn't true; something perhaps like this
"You have yet to explain any mechanism. "
After someone has posted a mechanism
"The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather."

And, if it turns out that you have in fact lied then you have some options;
you can apologise or,
you can take the coward's way out and- as Alan advocates- run away.

Obviously, there's third option.
Ignore reality and carry on as if it didn't happen; keep on peddling the same stuff.
I wonder which approach Tim's going to adopt.
(Spoiler alert- he "has got previous" for option 3.)
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/04/2017 09:04:45
My advice if someone calls you a liar is to check if you said something that isn't true; something perhaps like this
"You have yet to explain any mechanism. "
After someone has posted a mechanism
"The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather."

And, if it turns out that you have in fact lied then you have some options;
you can apologise or,
you can take the coward's way out and- as Alan advocates- run away.

Obviously, there's third option.
Ignore reality and carry on as if it didn't happen; keep on peddling the same stuff.
I wonder which approach Tim's going to adopt.
(Spoiler alert- he "has got previous" for option 3.)

What I am asking for is for you to explain the mechanism. Not just post a link to something but for you to actually expalin it. Only then will I bother to look at the link. This is because I am constantly fobbed off with the classic religious tactic of refering to a too long to read irrevalent drivel thing to avoid answering a direct question.

So you will need to explain, in your words, why more even temperatures across the world would result in "more extreme weather" and also say what the hell that means.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/04/2017 09:09:03
Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 

Given that the likelyhood of changing anybodies mind from the 100% confirmed alarmist camp is low the purpose of my efforts here is not to get BC to agree that there is nothing to worry about but to show to the rest of the world the lack of anything that should cause us to have any concearn over this global warming drivel.

By being attacked in the way I am the absence of any scientific argument from the alarmists glares out for all to see.

This is, I think, the most clear of debates, the most clear of results for the spectators of this. They do most of my job for me.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/04/2017 09:13:24
Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.
You are not being "risk averse" you are being fact averse.
The thing that is still scary is the thing we have told you before.
We don't like dead people.
Same old answer.
For the same old reasons, by the same old mechanisms.
The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather.
You seem to be consistently ignoring that.

Select one of the scary things in there.

Then explain why it will happen.

Then support it with some actual science that says it is likely.

Then we can look at it and see if it is really scary or just another of the panic over nothing things like the gulf stream thing.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: PhysBang on 26/04/2017 12:51:50
The "Gulf Stream Thing" is something debated by actual climate scientists. You focus on it because it is dubious and the scientists agree. You ignore the actual problems, like the link I posted and that was reposted above at least once.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/04/2017 13:26:38
I worked for around 10 years in hydrological analysis. Using data that we collected. Not just making assumptions. We saw the trends. It won't be suddenly doom and gloom, it will gradually get worse. Not really that noticeable. Always in the background. Chipping away. It is insidious. It is easy to ignore since the trends are not apparent in the short term. That is the last I will say on the matter.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/04/2017 14:22:32
as Alan advocates- run away.


Walk, not run. People who resort to insults are not a threat, merely beneath contempt.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/04/2017 18:53:46
The "Gulf Stream Thing" is something debated by actual climate scientists. You focus on it because it is dubious and the scientists agree. You ignore the actual problems, like the link I posted and that was reposted above at least once.

I was responding to BC's initial talk of the gulf stream.

In order to satisfy the challenge you must do more than post a link.

You must explain what the issue is.

Then you must explain the mechanism.

Then you must post a link to actual science, a paper or some such.

Then it has to be something that will cost more than the local council concearned will be spending on traffic lights.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/04/2017 18:55:36
I worked for around 10 years in hydrological analysis. Using data that we collected. Not just making assumptions. We saw the trends. It won't be suddenly doom and gloom, it will gradually get worse. Not really that noticeable. Always in the background. Chipping away. It is insidious. It is easy to ignore since the trends are not apparent in the short term. That is the last I will say on the matter.

As I have made clear; vague hand waving about doom and death are not enough.

If there is a decent argument why is it so difficult for anybody to express it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2017 19:43:07
... "more extreme weather" and also say what the hell that means.

Which word(s) are you struggling with?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2017 19:44:10
If there is a decent argument why is it so difficult for anybody to express it?
Because there is none so blind as he who will not see.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/04/2017 10:54:44
... "more extreme weather" and also say what the hell that means.

Which word(s) are you struggling with?

Well, what sort of extremes do you have in mind. can you specify it a bit more? Can you say something like the range of rainfall in a location would be expected to be more variable or something?

Just so we can actually look at it and look at the supporting science for the mechanis you describe etc.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/04/2017 10:55:51
If there is a decent argument why is it so difficult for anybody to express it?
Because there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Have not been able to look at any argument here that is all the things I need. You know, described, mechanism described, mechanism supported by science and still scary.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/05/2017 18:05:52
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2017 19:18:57
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/05/2017 19:46:25
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2017 09:18:07
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.
I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 02/05/2017 12:04:23
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.
I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?


Well, bad weather is a bit vague for a start, not exactly measurable is it? Please specify what bad things you are talking about.

Then please explain what actual mechanism would do it.

Then the paper that shows the mechanism. That should be out there if such a thing exists. It would be profuond and interesting and technical.

Then we will look at it and see how bad this thing is in terms of how much it will cost to avoid/deal with.

You shouting is not enough.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 02/05/2017 12:22:13
Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan


Doom and gloom is easier to sell than hope and change, because change and the unknown is scary. If you look at the news templates, bad news always gets a bigger audience. The reason is, fear is the lowest common denominator and can reach the widest audience. This is useful for selling soap and used cars.

With fear, people become less able to think, objectively. Fear causes use to rely on habit and impulse; fight and flight. Therefore, others, more often appear to be the voice of calm reason, helping us to decide our course of action. People watch bade news longer allowing, more exposure to ads. With good news, reason and creativity come back and people become more self contained. Good news makes you feel good and more open to new possibilities.

For example, if we broadcasted a story about the North Korea Nuclear war threat, people panic and will stay tuned listening to the experts feeding into the fear and/or reassuring our minds and hearts. With a good new story like the GNP does really well, people feel happy and don;t need the experts, as much. They don't hang around for sales, quite as long. Everyone who sells stuff, knows this correlation.

If I said there is a killer asteroid out there with the earth's name on it, you can capture an audience who will linger, hoping to know more so they can prepare for fight or flight. If had a jews story about a new satellite that can track and divert all asteroids, people are reassured by good news and go play in the garden instead of watch commercials.

When the earth warmed from the last ice age, if human media and politicians had been around then, they would assumed and preached gloom and doom, because any change will upset the apple cart and this will get the maximum audience. People feel more secure in a steady state situation. They don't want perturbations.

This fear of a change from the last ice was justified, in the short term, since there was instability  as the glaciers melted and great floods and climate change appeared. But as a new steady state was reached and lakes and more habitable land appeared, climate became more conducive to a new and better way of life. Now the audience is out looking around in the meadows and not watching TV.

A good example of the correlation between fear and sales is ObamaCare. Once the mandate was instituted, this was able to create fear of punishment, causing more people to buy health insurance. The fear helps the cattle line up in the chute ready to be branded. With the mandate gone, due to an Executive Order, less fear is being induced; hope of cheaper prices and more choices, more people became independent again. Fear allows a bad product to be in high demand.

Science is supposed to be like Mr Spock, without emotions. Once emotions are added, assume sales, with fear selling the most soap powder.
 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2017 22:58:00
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.
I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?


Well, bad weather is a bit vague for a start, not exactly measurable is it? Please specify what bad things you are talking about.


Do you really not understand that weather which kills people is bad?
Death tolls are, in fact regularly measured.
How can you not see that killing people is a pretty good criterion for "bad"?

Are you just trolling or what?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 04/05/2017 00:21:44
Let's talk about sugar maples for a second.

Here's a short article from 6 years ago discussing how climate change is moving the habitable zones for sugar maples around, and how quickly the forrests might be able to adapt:
http://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/sugar-maples-in-an-age-of-climate-change

These trees also appear to have changed the composition of their sap as the climate has changed, and the harvesting season has shortened and shifted earlier in the year as well. Both making it much less efficient/economical to produce maple syrup:
http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/02/global-warming-pushes-maple-trees-syrup-to-the-brink/
https://www.maplesource.com/blog/how-climate-change-is-impacting-maple-syrup-production/#.WQpkPSMrK2w

Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/05/2017 08:27:28
Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.
I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?


Well, bad weather is a bit vague for a start, not exactly measurable is it? Please specify what bad things you are talking about.


Do you really not understand that weather which kills people is bad?
Death tolls are, in fact regularly measured.
How can you not see that killing people is a pretty good criterion for "bad"?

Are you just trolling or what?

People dying is bad.

What weather effects are you actually talking about and can you link to some actual paper which shows how this extra energy will cause this?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/05/2017 08:38:03
Let's talk about sugar maples for a second.

Here's a short article from 6 years ago discussing how climate change is moving the habitable zones for sugar maples around, and how quickly the forrests might be able to adapt:
http://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/sugar-maples-in-an-age-of-climate-change

These trees also appear to have changed the composition of their sap as the climate has changed, and the harvesting season has shortened and shifted earlier in the year as well. Both making it much less efficient/economical to produce maple syrup:
http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/02/global-warming-pushes-maple-trees-syrup-to-the-brink/
https://www.maplesource.com/blog/how-climate-change-is-impacting-maple-syrup-production/#.WQpkPSMrK2w

Quote
Tim Perkins,  a Professor of Plant Biology at the University of Vermonts Proctor Maple Research Center focuses on adaptationhow to help U.S. syrup producers make more with less.

He is quick to point out that technological improvements have offset much of the losses affecting American sugar maples to date. [W]ith better vacuum, evaporation, and sanitation, tappers get more from trees than they did 20 years agoeven with those trees stressed from warmer weather.

Well done, you have satisfied the first criteria and the second but when we look at it for 5 minutes it is no longer scary at all.

Quote
Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.

Drivel.

The season for cherry blossom trees in the very big and dense city of Kyoto has changed. Yes, it will of, due to the heat island effect. That is what is warming the micro climate there.

I do not dispute that the world has warmed a bit. Nor do I dispute that the growing season has lengthened. Nor do I dispute that this appears to have had a slight negative impact on Maple syrup, which has caused us humans to get better at making it, but to say that decidious trees will all die if it gets as warm as it is 200 miles south is drivel.

Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 04/05/2017 16:40:32
Thanks for reading my links and continuing the discussion in a serious fashion, Tim! There are many others on this site that don't put in the effort, and I appreciate it a lot.

I have some responses interspersed with yours below:

Let's talk about sugar maples for a second...

Quote
Tim Perkins,  a Professor of Plant Biology at the University of Vermonts Proctor Maple Research Center focuses on adaptationhow to help U.S. syrup producers make more with less.

He is quick to point out that technological improvements have offset much of the losses affecting American sugar maples to date. [W]ith better vacuum, evaporation, and sanitation, tappers get more from trees than they did 20 years agoeven with those trees stressed from warmer weather.

Well done, you have satisfied the first criteria and the second but when we look at it for 5 minutes it is no longer scary at all.

Glad I got the first criterion down on this attempt :-). The point I was trying to make was not so much that the maple industry is about to collapse (it isn't). Rather, the important takeaway is that there is a record of substantial changes in both the timing and quality of the maple harvest--and these changes are only relatively recent (past few decades).

Quote
Quote
Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.

Drivel.

The season for cherry blossom trees in the very big and dense city of Kyoto has changed. Yes, it will of, due to the heat island effect. That is what is warming the micro climate there.

I grant that the effects are exaggerated by the heat island effect, and taken alone shouldn't be viewed as strong evidence of global climate change. However, because the average temperature in Kyoto has increased by about 2C over the last century, while global temperatures have only increased by about 0.5 C during the same period (https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/heat/heatisland.pdf), this serves as a way to see more obvious changes in tree behavior due to temperature changes. If a 2C change has moved the cherry trees in Kyoto by 2 weeks, what will the effect be on forests across North America if the global temperature increases by 4C?

Quote
I do not dispute that the world has warmed a bit. Nor do I dispute that the growing season has lengthened. Nor do I dispute that this appears to have had a slight negative impact on Maple syrup, which has caused us humans to get better at making it, but to say that decidious trees will all die if it gets as warm as it is 200 miles south is drivel.

Well, I'm glad we agree on some points. As to my dire prediction: Trees have adapted to a certain climate, which has been more or less the same for several thousand years, and when it changed in the past, it was a gradual change that was slow enough for forests to migrate (latitude or altitude). If the climate changes in such a way that a shift of 200 miles is required, and the forests only have 50 years to move, that's going to be very bad for the health of the forest (not just the trees).

Trees (and most other organisms) have evolved to depend on all sorts of environmental cues--the most important being light, heat, and moisture. In a location with strong seasons, there is a roughly set alignment between these cues: the daylight changes throughout the year will not be affected at all by climate change, but the seasonal temperature and moisture patterns will shift, leading to mixed signals for the tree (organism). Also, because it's not just the trees themselves, but the whole ecosystem, these mixed signals can cause real havoc. What happens when the bees show up on time, but the blooms were 4 weeks early?? What happens when the bear comes out of hibernation (starting hibernation is tied to daylight, and ending is tied to when the bear gets hungry), and the fish have already done their thing and moved on (temperature driven calendar)?

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135837
Quote
Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 

There isn't going to be one big bad thing that kills everybody. There will be many changes, many of which might well be easily managed on their own, but they will combine to make a very bad thing.

Imagine: frequent coastal flooding in places like New Orleans, Miami and NYC, mega wildfires in California, another dust bowl in the midwest, Zika-bearing mosquitos as far north as Massachusetts, summers where the temp in Minneapolis never drop below 90 F...

Any one of these is manageable, but altogether it's gonna be expensive, and overall quality of life will go down.
But this very US-centric view become scarier in places that don't have the money to adapt. "Your town flooded? Oh well, just move somewhere else." "What's that? Your drinking water all comes from melt-off from the mountains, and it didn't snow last year? Oh well, just buy bottled water."

And this human-centric view is also much more sheltered than for the animals who will probably go extinct because their niche no longer exists. "wah wah, polar bears. wah wah fruit bats. wah wah frogs..."
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 05/05/2017 11:37:28
Thanks for reading my links and continuing the discussion in a serious fashion, Tim! There are many others on this site that don't put in the effort, and I appreciate it a lot.

I have some responses interspersed with yours below:

Let's talk about sugar maples for a second...

Quote
Tim Perkins,  a Professor of Plant Biology at the University of Vermonts Proctor Maple Research Center focuses on adaptationhow to help U.S. syrup producers make more with less.

He is quick to point out that technological improvements have offset much of the losses affecting American sugar maples to date. [W]ith better vacuum, evaporation, and sanitation, tappers get more from trees than they did 20 years agoeven with those trees stressed from warmer weather.

Well done, you have satisfied the first criteria and the second but when we look at it for 5 minutes it is no longer scary at all.

Glad I got the first criterion down on this attempt :-). The point I was trying to make was not so much that the maple industry is about to collapse (it isn't). Rather, the important takeaway is that there is a record of substantial changes in both the timing and quality of the maple harvest--and these changes are only relatively recent (past few decades).

Quote
Quote
Now, let's remember that this problem applies to all deciduous trees that depend on an annual seasonal pattern. The Japanese have kept a 1200-year record of the dates that the cherry trees bloom, and while there are significant differences from one year to the next, the average date of blooming taking a few consecutive years makes for a fairly smooth curve, which shows some minor up and down from 800 AD until the mid 19th century, when it begins a long and sharp dive that continues today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4

While this drifting of the blooming season by only a few weeks sounds pretty minimal, it may ultimately prove fatal to almost all forests outside of the tropics.

Drivel.

The season for cherry blossom trees in the very big and dense city of Kyoto has changed. Yes, it will of, due to the heat island effect. That is what is warming the micro climate there.

I grant that the effects are exaggerated by the heat island effect, and taken alone shouldn't be viewed as strong evidence of global climate change. However, because the average temperature in Kyoto has increased by about 2C over the last century, while global temperatures have only increased by about 0.5 C during the same period (https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/heat/heatisland.pdf), this serves as a way to see more obvious changes in tree behavior due to temperature changes. If a 2C change has moved the cherry trees in Kyoto by 2 weeks, what will the effect be on forests across North America if the global temperature increases by 4C?

Does the range of cherry blossom trees extend to places where the average temperature is 4c (although 3.4c is the highest predicted rise by 2100 and that shows no sign of happening) above that of the land outside the cities near Kyoto?

Would the cherry blossom trees getting out competed by tropical trees in the wild around there be so bad? I am sure they could still grow them where they planted them and tended them. I am even very confident that the trees would do better in a slightly warmer world. Maple syrup is the first example of something not growing as well in a warmer situation I have come across. Is the sap a defense against cold?

Quote
I do not dispute that the world has warmed a bit. Nor do I dispute that the growing season has lengthened. Nor do I dispute that this appears to have had a slight negative impact on Maple syrup, which has caused us humans to get better at making it, but to say that decidious trees will all die if it gets as warm as it is 200 miles south is drivel.

Quote
Well, I'm glad we agree on some points. As to my dire prediction: Trees have adapted to a certain climate, which has been more or less the same for several thousand years, and when it changed in the past, it was a gradual change that was slow enough for forests to migrate (latitude or altitude). If the climate changes in such a way that a shift of 200 miles is required, and the forests only have 50 years to move, that's going to be very bad for the health of the forest (not just the trees).

Trees (and most other organisms) have evolved to depend on all sorts of environmental cues--the most important being light, heat, and moisture. In a location with strong seasons, there is a roughly set alignment between these cues: the daylight changes throughout the year will not be affected at all by climate change, but the seasonal temperature and moisture patterns will shift, leading to mixed signals for the tree (organism). Also, because it's not just the trees themselves, but the whole ecosystem, these mixed signals can cause real havoc. What happens when the bees show up on time, but the blooms were 4 weeks early?? What happens when the bear comes out of hibernation (starting hibernation is tied to daylight, and ending is tied to when the bear gets hungry), and the fish have already done their thing and moved on (temperature driven calendar)?

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135837

You do not have evidence that the rate of temperature change is at all exceptional. The changes we are looking at are in any case less than the normal variability for year on year weather. What happens now in an early spring, do all the bears die?

Quote
Quote
Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 

There isn't going to be one big bad thing that kills everybody. There will be many changes, many of which might well be easily managed on their own, but they will combine to make a very bad thing.

Imagine: frequent coastal flooding in places like New Orleans, Miami and NYC, mega wildfires in California, another dust bowl in the midwest, Zika-bearing mosquitos as far north as Massachusetts, summers where the temp in Minneapolis never drop below 90 F...

Any one of these is manageable, but altogether it's gonna be expensive, and overall quality of life will go down.
But this very US-centric view become scarier in places that don't have the money to adapt. "Your town flooded? Oh well, just move somewhere else." "What's that? Your drinking water all comes from melt-off from the mountains, and it didn't snow last year? Oh well, just buy bottled water."

And this human-centric view is also much more sheltered than for the animals who will probably go extinct because their niche no longer exists. "wah wah, polar bears. wah wah fruit bats. wah wah frogs..."


So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.

And especially you cannoy be at all specific about any trouble which you can link any science to at all.

Your input has confirmed my thinking again. Nice try with the Maple syrup though.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 06/05/2017 17:36:01
Does the range of cherry blossom trees extend to places where the average temperature is 4c (although 3.4c is the highest predicted rise by 2100 and that shows no sign of happening) above that of the land outside the cities near Kyoto?

Would the cherry blossom trees getting out competed by tropical trees in the wild around there be so bad? I am sure they could still grow them where they planted them and tended them. I am even very confident that the trees would do better in a slightly warmer world. Maple syrup is the first example of something not growing as well in a warmer situation I have come across. Is the sap a defense against cold?

I'm not sure if there are any cities with such extreme temperature shifts yet. But there is plenty of evidence of climate-related forest collapse. This link tells of sudden die-off of tens of millions of evergreen trees in California over the past few years: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29062016/coral-millions-trees-joining-list-climate-change-casualties-california (check the links to the us forest service, who did the actual study). The researchers ascribed the problems primarily to draught and beetles (both of which have been tied to climate change).

I believe that the sap of maples trees may well be part of a defense against cold, but I'm not sure.

Quote

You do not have evidence that the rate of temperature change is at all exceptional. The changes we are looking at are in any case less than the normal variability for year on year weather. What happens now in an early spring, do all the bears die?

We have nearly 750,000 years worth of data that indicate that this rate of temperature change IS EXCEPTIONAL. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

That ecosystems can survive the year-to-year variability of the weather, does not mean that a change in the climate wouldn't be disastrous. I was at a bachelor's party last week and probably had nearly half a liter of vodka over the course of the evening. Did I damage my liver? Probably nothing irreversible. Would my liver survive 5 years of doing that every night? Probably not.

Quote
Quote
Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 

There isn't going to be one big bad thing that kills everybody. There will be many changes, many of which might well be easily managed on their own, but they will combine to make a very bad thing.

Imagine: frequent coastal flooding in places like New Orleans, Miami and NYC, mega wildfires in California, another dust bowl in the midwest, Zika-bearing mosquitos as far north as Massachusetts, summers where the temp in Minneapolis never drop below 90 F...

Any one of these is manageable, but altogether it's gonna be expensive, and overall quality of life will go down.
But this very US-centric view become scarier in places that don't have the money to adapt. "Your town flooded? Oh well, just move somewhere else." "What's that? Your drinking water all comes from melt-off from the mountains, and it didn't snow last year? Oh well, just buy bottled water."

And this human-centric view is also much more sheltered than for the animals who will probably go extinct because their niche no longer exists. "wah wah, polar bears. wah wah fruit bats. wah wah frogs..."


So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.

And especially you cannoy be at all specific about any trouble which you can link any science to at all.

Your input has confirmed my thinking again. Nice try with the Maple syrup though.
Umm, the cost of traffic lights globally wouldn't cover half a percent of the resources required to build a 1 meter levee along the entire coastline of Europe, and that would be cheaper still than relocating everyone from Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Genoa, Helsinki, Venice, Naples, Marseille, Nice, and all other coastal cities.

The science of rising sea levels is very simple, there are 2 effects:

One is the melting of land ice into the sea (there is enough ice on land to increase the depth of the ocean by nearly 100 meters if it were all to melt! This is why there are so many marine fossils on what is now land) http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

The other is simply the thermal expansion of water--each degree celsius that the ocean warms up by can increase the volume of the ocean by about 0.02%, which doesn't sound like much, but with about 1.3x109 cubic kilometers of water, that means a 2C increase could expand the ocean by 25000 cubic kilometers! (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/05/2017 18:38:21

So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.
Thanks for clarifying that you are only interested in problems that will directly affect the rich.
Those whose community can't afford traffic lights need not apply.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 07/05/2017 17:39:40
Does the range of cherry blossom trees extend to places where the average temperature is 4c (although 3.4c is the highest predicted rise by 2100 and that shows no sign of happening) above that of the land outside the cities near Kyoto?

Would the cherry blossom trees getting out competed by tropical trees in the wild around there be so bad? I am sure they could still grow them where they planted them and tended them. I am even very confident that the trees would do better in a slightly warmer world. Maple syrup is the first example of something not growing as well in a warmer situation I have come across. Is the sap a defense against cold?

I'm not sure if there are any cities with such extreme temperature shifts yet. But there is plenty of evidence of climate-related forest collapse. This link tells of sudden die-off of tens of millions of evergreen trees in California over the past few years: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29062016/coral-millions-trees-joining-list-climate-change-casualties-california (check the links to the us forest service, who did the actual study). The researchers ascribed the problems primarily to draught and beetles (both of which have been tied to climate change).

I believe that the sap of maples trees may well be part of a defense against cold, but I'm not sure.

Do you have any actual science that says that this Californian drought is unusual for California in a way that has a clear mechanism described in some sort of physics based paper published in a journal after peer review or is it another case of everything being blamed on climate change with out that old fashioned thing of skeptical challenge of the evidence and all the rest?

Quote
Quote

You do not have evidence that the rate of temperature change is at all exceptional. The changes we are looking at are in any case less than the normal variability for year on year weather. What happens now in an early spring, do all the bears die?

We have nearly 750,000 years worth of data that indicate that this rate of temperature change IS EXCEPTIONAL. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

That ecosystems can survive the year-to-year variability of the weather, does not mean that a change in the climate wouldn't be disastrous. I was at a bachelor's party last week and probably had nearly half a liter of vodka over the course of the evening. Did I damage my liver? Probably nothing irreversible. Would my liver survive 5 years of doing that every night? Probably not.

OK, let's look at this temperature record and see if we are having more rapid than usual temperature changes.

First, what period is the fast bit so far?

Second, why would this short period be obvious if it had happened in any of the proxies?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Still waiting for the elusive bad thing that cannot be overcome very easily. 

There isn't going to be one big bad thing that kills everybody. There will be many changes, many of which might well be easily managed on their own, but they will combine to make a very bad thing.

Imagine: frequent coastal flooding in places like New Orleans, Miami and NYC, mega wildfires in California, another dust bowl in the midwest, Zika-bearing mosquitos as far north as Massachusetts, summers where the temp in Minneapolis never drop below 90 F...

Any one of these is manageable, but altogether it's gonna be expensive, and overall quality of life will go down.
But this very US-centric view become scarier in places that don't have the money to adapt. "Your town flooded? Oh well, just move somewhere else." "What's that? Your drinking water all comes from melt-off from the mountains, and it didn't snow last year? Oh well, just buy bottled water."

And this human-centric view is also much more sheltered than for the animals who will probably go extinct because their niche no longer exists. "wah wah, polar bears. wah wah fruit bats. wah wah frogs..."


So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.

And especially you cannoy be at all specific about any trouble which you can link any science to at all.

Your input has confirmed my thinking again. Nice try with the Maple syrup though.
Umm, the cost of traffic lights globally wouldn't cover half a percent of the resources required to build a 1 meter levee along the entire coastline of Europe, and that would be cheaper still than relocating everyone from Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Genoa, Helsinki, Venice, Naples, Marseille, Nice, and all other coastal cities.

But none of those cites will need any sort of evacuation to cope with sea level rise of 1m by 2100. Nor will the entire coastline need to be altered.

Your example of Holland is the best one. Today there are places 11m below sea level there. If the sea does start rising then they will add an extra meter to those existing defenses. This will be the most costly place it would have to be done. It is cheap in comparison to traffic lights which cost a surprising amount. Still nothing compared to the overall budget of any local council. Concrete is cheap stuff. Using a digger to build up the leeve is cheaper still.

Quote
The science of rising sea levels is very simple, there are 2 effects[you mean sources of increased sea level]:

One is the melting of land ice into the sea (there is enough ice on land to increase the depth of the ocean by nearly 100 meters if it were all to melt! This is why there are so many marine fossils on what is now land) http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

Are you cliaming that this is at all in danger of melting in the next century??? Do you understand any physics? If so we can look at the energy budget requirments for this to happen. It cannot happen.

Quote
The other is simply the thermal expansion of water--each degree celsius that the ocean warms up by can increase the volume of the ocean by about 0.02%, which doesn't sound like much, but with about 1.3x109 cubic kilometers of water, that means a 2C increase could expand the ocean by 25000 cubic kilometers! (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm

Which is not going to happen more than 21cm by 2100 if the temperature rises by the max amount the IPCC predicts.

The amount of energy going into the ocean will not be enough to raise the temperature of the water by that much. The deep ocean's temperature is controled by the density of water and will not change.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 07/05/2017 17:41:56

So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.
Thanks for clarifying that you are only interested in problems that will directly affect the rich.
Those whose community can't afford traffic lights need not apply.

No, I am horrified that the poor of the world are currently being denied acess to the benefits of modernity due to some sort of twisted guilt complex dressed in bad science and communist politics.

Your emotional attachment to this doom cult being just one of many examples.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2017 19:08:50
Do you have any actual science that says that this Californian drought is unusual for California in a way that has a clear mechanism described in some sort of physics based paper published in a journal after peer review or is it another case of everything being blamed on climate change with out that old fashioned thing of skeptical challenge of the evidence and all the rest?
Well, it's easy enough to get the data for rain. I found some here
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.php

Can I show that it's unusual?
Well, yes. If you bunch the data into 6 year  lumps to even out the effect of weather rather than climate  then look at those data you find that the recent clump has a z score of about 2.2 which puts it somewhere near the 98th percentile.
That's unusual when you are only looking at a couple of dozen or so bunches of data.
The correlation coefficient indicates that about 8% of the variation in temperature over that interval is due to a trend.

Can I show that it's not due to some other factor? Of course not.
Are there any published papers that do so.
No obviously. Neither I, nor the authors of papers, can prove a negative.
Nice try there.
If you set an impossible task then you might get away with berating someone for not achieving it.
Or you might get called out on it.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2017 19:20:45

So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.
Thanks for clarifying that you are only interested in problems that will directly affect the rich.
Those whose community can't afford traffic lights need not apply.

... communist politics.

That's the Communist policy of practically the whole western world, is it??
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2017 22:49:01
Early blooming does cause problems as it changes the lifecycles of insects, and it takes a while for migratory insectivirous birds, who I think are driven more by day length than temperature, to catch up with the rest of nature.  However the world has undergone more rapid and more extensive heating in the past, and apart from a few trivial extinctions (dinosaurs etc) seems to have adapted.

It's important to distinguish between disasters principally driven by climate change, and disasters conveniently blamed on climate change but actually due to human disrespect for the forces of nature (dust bowls, flooding of New Orleans...) The northerly spread of mosquitoes is no big deal, climatologically: East Anglia was a malarial swamp within recorded history and really only became habitable in the 12th century when the climate suddenly cooled.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/05/2017 09:54:07
Do you have any actual science that says that this Californian drought is unusual for California in a way that has a clear mechanism described in some sort of physics based paper published in a journal after peer review or is it another case of everything being blamed on climate change with out that old fashioned thing of skeptical challenge of the evidence and all the rest?
Well, it's easy enough to get the data for rain. I found some here
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.php

Can I show that it's unusual?
Well, yes. If you bunch the data into 6 year  lumps to even out the effect of weather rather than climate  then look at those data you find that the recent clump has a z score of about 2.2 which puts it somewhere near the 98th percentile.
That's unusual when you are only looking at a couple of dozen or so bunches of data.
The correlation coefficient indicates that about 8% of the variation in temperature over that interval is due to a trend.

Can I show that it's not due to some other factor? Of course not.
Are there any published papers that do so.
No obviously. Neither I, nor the authors of papers, can prove a negative.
Nice try there.
If you set an impossible task then you might get away with berating someone for not achieving it.
Or you might get called out on it.

So, if you, as nobody else has done, chops up the data into 6 year units for a specific location then there is a trend of some unspecified sort.... with a very high corrolation!!!

Look out look out the trend is coming!!!!

Not cherry picking data and location at all and not specifying the time you are looking at......

Not actually linking this in any way to any sort of bad thing, not citing any sort of peer reviewed paper or any such, not then explaining why the not specified problem is costly. Not answering the challenge.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/05/2017 09:55:52

So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.
Thanks for clarifying that you are only interested in problems that will directly affect the rich.
Those whose community can't afford traffic lights need not apply.

... communist politics.

That's the Communist policy of practically the whole western world, is it??

Well, why are you so emotionally attached to this doom scenario when you cannot explain why it is a problem?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 08/05/2017 18:22:07
Do you have any actual science that says that this Californian drought is unusual for California in a way that has a clear mechanism described in some sort of physics based paper published in a journal after peer review or is it another case of everything being blamed on climate change with out that old fashioned thing of skeptical challenge of the evidence and all the rest?

BoredChemist answered this one nicely.

OK, let's look at this temperature record and see if we are having more rapid than usual temperature changes.

First, what period is the fast bit so far?

Second, why would this short period be obvious if it had happened in any of the proxies?

Please see here for Temp and CO2[/sup] records:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ (I know it's a comic, but the data it presents is accurate, and I think the scrolling timeline and milestones communicate the context well)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg (note that each box has it's own x-axis scale, differing by orders of magnitude, so apparently steep changes in the leftmost box need to be adjusted by a factor of 10,000. also each box has data from different locations and measured with different sensitivities.)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg (800,000 years of CO2 concentrations--we are above 400 ppm now)

But none of those cites will need any sort of evacuation to cope with sea level rise of 1m by 2100. Nor will the entire coastline need to be altered.

Your example of Holland is the best one. Today there are places 11m below sea level there. If the sea does start rising then they will add an extra meter to those existing defenses. This will be the most costly place it would have to be done. It is cheap in comparison to traffic lights which cost a surprising amount. Still nothing compared to the overall budget of any local council. Concrete is cheap stuff. Using a digger to build up the leeve is cheaper still.

There will be many places affected, and nobody said concrete would be the expensive part. I am not a civil or environmental engineer, but my understanding is that coastline protection and levees are no small endeavor, especially in urban environments. Once built, these defenses would also need to be maintained and monitored, so I think perhaps comparing this to highways is better than comparing to traffic lights.

Are you cliaming that this is at all in danger of melting in the next century??? Do you understand any physics? If so we can look at the energy budget requirments for this to happen. It cannot happen.

No, I definitely NOT claiming that all that ice would or could melt in the next 100 years. I was just asserting that land ice is not a limiting factor in the potential sea level rise, at least until very severe (and unlikely) scenarios are considered. There are those who would make the claim that melting ice wouldn't change the sea level much, or that there isn't enough, and I wanted to establish that there is indeed enough land ice to pose problems in this regard.

Which is not going to happen more than 21cm by 2100 if the temperature rises by the max amount the IPCC predicts.

Up to 21 cm for just thermal expansion, plus another 20-50 cm from melting, would increase the average sea level by half a meter, give or take. That sounds like a problem to me. Add storm surges and tides onto that (fuller seas have larger tides, and warmer seas have larger storms), and there will be many places that need to add protection.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/05/2017 18:35:16
Do you have any actual science that says that this Californian drought is unusual for California in a way that has a clear mechanism described in some sort of physics based paper published in a journal after peer review or is it another case of everything being blamed on climate change with out that old fashioned thing of skeptical challenge of the evidence and all the rest?

BoredChemist answered this one nicely.

Er, was that the bit where there is some sort of trend if you chop data from 1870 to today up into 6 year lumps for LA?

What did that show and what was the mechanism? And what did it do? And where was the peer reviewed paper cited?

Quote
OK, let's look at this temperature record and see if we are having more rapid than usual temperature changes.

First, what period is the fast bit so far?

Second, why would this short period be obvious if it had happened in any of the proxies?

Please see here for Temp and CO2[/sup] records:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ (I know it's a comic, but the data it presents is accurate, and I think the scrolling timeline and milestones communicate the context well)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg (note that each box has it's own x-axis scale, differing by orders of magnitude, so apparently steep changes in the leftmost box need to be adjusted by a factor of 10,000. also each box has data from different locations and measured with different sensitivities.)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg (800,000 years of CO2 concentrations--we are above 400 ppm now)

Peer reviewed paper or some such. I am fully aware that there are loads of people out there with the belief that there are all manner of dooms awaiting us from using fossil fuels but I insist on actual science not drivel.

Quote
But none of those cites will need any sort of evacuation to cope with sea level rise of 1m by 2100. Nor will the entire coastline need to be altered.

Your example of Holland is the best one. Today there are places 11m below sea level there. If the sea does start rising then they will add an extra meter to those existing defenses. This will be the most costly place it would have to be done. It is cheap in comparison to traffic lights which cost a surprising amount. Still nothing compared to the overall budget of any local council. Concrete is cheap stuff. Using a digger to build up the leeve is cheaper still.

There will be many places affected, and nobody said concrete would be the expensive part. I am not a civil or environmental engineer, but my understanding is that coastline protection and levees are no small endeavor, especially in urban environments. Once built, these defenses would also need to be maintained and monitored, so I think perhaps comparing this to highways is better than comparing to traffic lights.

Given that the mantainance is due to damage from storms and waves it has to be done today. It costs a lot. Sure. But the increase in cost due to this 3 feet sea level rise will not be significant. You are already doing the maintanance.

Quote
Are you cliaming that this is at all in danger of melting in the next century??? Do you understand any physics? If so we can look at the energy budget requirments for this to happen. It cannot happen.

No, I definitely NOT claiming that all that ice would or could melt in the next 100 years. I was just asserting that land ice is not a limiting factor in the potential sea level rise, at least until very severe (and unlikely) scenarios are considered. There are those who would make the claim that melting ice wouldn't change the sea level much, or that there isn't enough, and I wanted to establish that there is indeed enough land ice to pose problems in this regard.

So you brought it up because you wanted it to be know that it is not going to melt? And thus not be a factor? Ugh???

Quote
Which is not going to happen more than 21cm by 2100 if the temperature rises by the max amount the IPCC predicts.

Up to 21 cm for just thermal expansion, plus another 20-50 cm from melting, would increase the average sea level by half a meter, give or take. That sounds like a problem to me. Add storm surges and tides onto that (fuller seas have larger tides, and warmer seas have larger storms), and there will be many places that need to add protection.

Well, I have been using the more alarmist 1m figure. I don't see it as scary but that might be because I am a builder type and if I had a coastal property I could protect easily from such a tiny change where ever it was.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 08/05/2017 18:48:37
Early blooming does cause problems as it changes the lifecycles of insects, and it takes a while for migratory insectivirous birds, who I think are driven more by day length than temperature, to catch up with the rest of nature.  However the world has undergone more rapid and more extensive heating in the past, and apart from a few trivial extinctions (dinosaurs etc) seems to have adapted.

When were there more rapid and more extensive changes in the climate that were NOT associated with mass extinction events?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/

Obviously there were enough survivors of the extinction events I don't think for a moment that the climate change we are experiencing, and will continue to see, will end up ending life as we know it, or probably even come anywhere close to the Permian extinction event. But I think it is not unlikely that a change of 3 or 4 C over 200 years could lead to significant short term (1000100000 yr) ecosystem instabilities. I would rather that didn't happen, if possible.

It's important to distinguish between disasters principally driven by climate change, and disasters conveniently blamed on climate change but actually due to human disrespect for the forces of nature (dust bowls, flooding of New Orleans...) The northerly spread of mosquitoes is no big deal, climatologically: East Anglia was a malarial swamp within recorded history and really only became habitable in the 12th century when the climate suddenly cooled.

Fair enough, I'll gree with you there. I still think these issues count towards the cost of climate change though. We didn't need to build New Orleans where it is, but that doesn't change the fact that they will need to face some very tough choices in the next few decades. And their biggest issues will have been largely (in theory) preventable.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 08/05/2017 19:07:35
Peer reviewed paper or some such. I am fully aware that there are loads of people out there with the belief that there are all manner of dooms awaiting us from using fossil fuels but I insist on actual science not drivel.

See attached pdf, published in PNAS. They show temp data from 1880 until now on the second page, 1350 until now and the last 150 thousand years on the fourth page.

Given that the mantainance is due to damage from storms and waves it has to be done today. It costs a lot. Sure. But the increase in cost due to this 3 feet sea level rise will not be significant. You are already doing the maintanance.

Fair enough. But wonder how many additional dykes and levees might need to be built (and then maintained) in places that have not historically needed them. (I have no numbers here, just wondering)

So you brought it up because you wanted it to be know that it is not going to melt? And thus not be a factor? Ugh???

The main point I was trying to make is that there is essentially unlimited potential for harm. Only our choices will select a value between 0 and 50 meters change in sea level over the next 1000 years. Can we not agree that it would be cheaper to keep that number closer to 0 than to let it approach 50?

Well, I have been using the more alarmist 1m figure. I don't see it as scary but that might be because I am a builder type and if I had a coastal property I could protect easily from such a tiny change where ever it was.

I think 1 m is a good ballpark estimate. And I agree, it's not the end of the world. There are some fairly straightforward ways to manage that level of rise. We disagree on how expensive that would be. I am no expert on that aspect, but the experts I have heard from seem to be concerned, and their logic makes sense to me.

The other thing that I will mention again, is that this is one part of a multi-faceted problem. The sea level rise alone will be manageable. But that combined with agricultural changes, ecosystem destabilization, and everything else all together will place significant economic and ecological stresses on the world.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 08/05/2017 19:15:35
and the other half of the pnas paper. sorry I had to break it up so much.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 09/05/2017 10:35:43
Peer reviewed paper or some such. I am fully aware that there are loads of people out there with the belief that there are all manner of dooms awaiting us from using fossil fuels but I insist on actual science not drivel.

See attached pdf, published in PNAS. They show temp data from 1880 until now on the second page, 1350 until now and the last 150 thousand years on the fourth page.

I am aware of such. This does not meet the criteria of anything that says that there is any doom out there.

Quote
Given that the mantainance is due to damage from storms and waves it has to be done today. It costs a lot. Sure. But the increase in cost due to this 3 feet sea level rise will not be significant. You are already doing the maintanance.

Fair enough. But wonder how many additional dykes and levees might need to be built (and then maintained) in places that have not historically needed them. (I have no numbers here, just wondering)

So you brought it up because you wanted it to be know that it is not going to melt? And thus not be a factor? Ugh???

The main point I was trying to make is that there is essentially unlimited potential for harm. Only our choices will select a value between 0 and 50 meters change in sea level over the next 1000 years. Can we not agree that it would be cheaper to keep that number closer to 0 than to let it approach 50?

Well, I have been using the more alarmist 1m figure. I don't see it as scary but that might be because I am a builder type and if I had a coastal property I could protect easily from such a tiny change where ever it was.

I think 1 m is a good ballpark estimate. And I agree, it's not the end of the world. There are some fairly straightforward ways to manage that level of rise. We disagree on how expensive that would be. I am no expert on that aspect, but the experts I have heard from seem to be concerned, and their logic makes sense to me.

The other thing that I will mention again, is that this is one part of a multi-faceted problem. The sea level rise alone will be manageable. But that combined with agricultural changes, ecosystem destabilization, and everything else all together will place significant economic and ecological stresses on the world.

Many thousands of people per year are dying in the UK alone due to the hype over CO2. Diesel fumes produced from vehicles that would have been petrol are responsible for many thousands of deaths each year here alone.

How many people do you think should die due to some vague worry about some sort of none problem at the moment that could never really be a significant trouble in any sort of forseeable future?

That you cannot stay on a single problem and have to wander all about trying to find one but cannot suppport any with a decently explained mechanism, physics explained, shows how strong each and every cherrished doom is.

I am arguing against religion not science.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 09/05/2017 12:41:27
When the global warming scare started, in earnest, it was predicted that the polar caps would be melted by now and the coasts would be flooded. Based on the first wave of doom and gloom prediction, it turned out this was all hype. It designed for motivation, with many people buying the swamp land. This propaganda was effective and led to a boom in terms of science spending connected to global warming. Even NASA diverted resources away from space to appease the hype, mostly due to the influence of con artists in the seat of power.

Those who most believe the hype, like college students, can no longer think freely and practice free speech. They have to censor, protest and even run away from free speech. They have been brainwashed and then conditioned to avoid alternate POVs, all based on promises of doom and gloom, that have not panned out, but always seem to hang over them.

We are now in an era of fake news and partisan propaganda that is no longer even trying to be subtle. It appears the global warming template is being applied to everything. The same people seem impacted by the fake news in the same way. There are those who blindly go along, not because of facts, but because of an emotional connection driven by induced fear.

As an example, picture if a new neighbor moves into you neighborhood. A rumor begins, that they are criminals. The fear generated, due to the unknown, can make some people start to take precautions, just in case. As others see these precautioned taken, this will reinforce their fear, until the group starts to live out their fantasy. They will all predict lost property.  Yet months pass and no property seems to disappear. But that does not matter, when you reach the point of no return. You will justify the lack of stolen property with clever excuses.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 09/05/2017 16:40:56

I am arguing against religion not science.


And yet you are the one arguing from your armchair while armies of scientists produce actual data and results, and actively test their own theories and each other's theories. That you discount them so easily without results of your own to point to, indicates that it is you who is not following scientific protocol. Perhaps we should turn the tables around, and you should provide evidence that indicates why we are safe and needn't worry.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 09/05/2017 16:46:29
When the global warming scare started, in earnest, it was predicted that the polar caps would be melted by now and the coasts would be flooded. Based on the first wave of doom and gloom prediction, it turned out this was all hype. It designed for motivation, with many people buying the swamp land. This propaganda was effective and led to a boom in terms of science spending connected to global warming. Even NASA diverted resources away from space to appease the hype, mostly due to the influence of con artists in the seat of power.

Those who most believe the hype, like college students, can no longer think freely and practice free speech. They have to censor, protest and even run away from free speech. They have been brainwashed and then conditioned to avoid alternate POVs, all based on promises of doom and gloom, that have not panned out, but always seem to hang over them.

We are now in an era of fake news and partisan propaganda that is no longer even trying to be subtle. It appears the global warming template is being applied to everything. The same people seem impacted by the fake news in the same way. There are those who blindly go along, not because of facts, but because of an emotional connection driven by induced fear.

As an example, picture if a new neighbor moves into you neighborhood. A rumor begins, that they are criminals. The fear generated, due to the unknown, can make some people start to take precautions, just in case. As others see these precautioned taken, this will reinforce their fear, until the group starts to live out their fantasy. They will all predict lost property.  Yet months pass and no property seems to disappear. But that does not matter, when you reach the point of no return. You will justify the lack of stolen property with clever excuses.

There is a way to defend against fake news. It's called peer review. And the peer-reviewed literature is fairly unambiguous about this, and has been for a few decades now. The real fake news is the multitude of unsubstantiated claims of scientists somehow making this up to get rich. It's laughable, but unfortunately there are enough people willing to bury their heads in the sand and eager to grasp at any story that helps them convince themselves that they aren't worried.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 09/05/2017 17:39:17

I am arguing against religion not science.


And yet you are the one arguing from your armchair while armies of scientists produce actual data and results, and actively test their own theories and each other's theories. That you discount them so easily without results of your own to point to, indicates that it is you who is not following scientific protocol. Perhaps we should turn the tables around, and you should provide evidence that indicates why we are safe and needn't worry.

Well with all those scientists, who, if they are anything like you lot, are determined to find trouble with a warmer world and supporting evidence of such, have failed to produce a single peer reviewed paper which says that a slightly warmer world would be bad. At least not one you can find.

I am only asking questions.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 09/05/2017 17:44:23
Well with all those scientists, who, if they are anything like you lot, are determined to find trouble with a warmer world and supporting evidence of such, have failed to produce a single peer reviewed paper which says that a slightly warmer world would be bad. At least not one you can find.

have you tried here? https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
These reports are all peer-reviewed (rigorously) and show quite clearly that there will be significant harm from a swiftly warming world.

I am only asking questions.

Yes, and many of them are good questions. But you also have to read the answers. :-)
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 09/05/2017 17:48:36
see also: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Also, in case this helps, climate change is not just a liberal vs conservative issue: http://www.popsci.com/conservative-climate-change
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 09/05/2017 17:53:36
Well with all those scientists, who, if they are anything like you lot, are determined to find trouble with a warmer world and supporting evidence of such, have failed to produce a single peer reviewed paper which says that a slightly warmer world would be bad. At least not one you can find.

have you tried here? https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
These reports are all peer-reviewed (rigorously) and show quite clearly that there will be significant harm from a swiftly warming world.

I am only asking questions.

Yes, and many of them are good questions. But you also have to read the answers. :-)

OK, so you can do the challenge then.

Specify a bad thing.

Then explain the mechanism that will do this bad thing. Not the warming the result of warming that will be bad.

Then I will look at this peer reviewed paper and have a think.

If it passes that, that it is a reasonable argument and I cannot destroy it in a few minutes, does it still cause a problem that will cost more than the cost of traffic lights will over the years between now and 2100?

If so you pass the requirements for a prima facia case that humanity should do something about all this. I will only read a paper you have looked at and quoted from that explains the mechanism that is going to cause the trouble.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2017 19:46:38

So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.
Thanks for clarifying that you are only interested in problems that will directly affect the rich.
Those whose community can't afford traffic lights need not apply.

... communist politics.

That's the Communist policy of practically the whole western world, is it??

Well, why are you so emotionally attached to this doom scenario when you cannot explain why it is a problem?
I did; repeatedly. I pointed out that bad weather already kills people. Making ti worse will kill more people. (and, by the way, I'm not ashamed to say that I have an emotional response to that fact). You may remember my pointing out that there was none so blind as one who would not see.
Others will almost certainly remember that.
Why don't you?

Your response seems to be that many people in the world will not be able to afford to deal with those problems (any more than they can afford traffic lights)- but that doesn't matter to you.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 09/05/2017 20:53:23
OK, so you can do the challenge then.

Specify a bad thing.

Then explain the mechanism that will do this bad thing. Not the warming the result of warming that will be bad.

Then I will look at this peer reviewed paper and have a think.

If it passes that, that it is a reasonable argument and I cannot destroy it in a few minutes, does it still cause a problem that will cost more than the cost of traffic lights will over the years between now and 2100?

If so you pass the requirements for a prima facia case that humanity should do something about all this. I will only read a paper you have looked at and quoted from that explains the mechanism that is going to cause the trouble.

Ok, here is an open access article, which claims to show that climate-change-driven temperature differences are already significantly increasing the rice crop damages in China caused by a pest: (the mechanism of the trouble is that the warmer and shorter winters allow more of the pest to survive from year to year, and greater populations of the pest means more rice lost, and less rice is bad. As for the cost of dealing with this? That is beyond the scope of this article.)
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535478/pdf/iev041.pdf

Quote
Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) is the most serious pest on rice in southwestern China. Yunnan
province is within this region and is a major overwintering area for S. furcifera in China. This field study was carried out over 4 yr
(20102013) and focused on S. furcifera distribution, population density, and demography, as well as the relationship between various environmental factors and the distribution and density of overwintering S. furcifera in Yunnan. Our study demonstrated that overwintering populations of S. furcifera mainly occurred in valleys and lowlands below 25.02N and 1,680 m above sea level (a.s.l.), where ratooning rice was present. The overwintering range of S. furcifera has expanded in Yunnan compared with 20 yr ago, and regional climate change is believed to be the main contributing cause for this expansion. Environmental factor analysis showed that the mean air temperature of the coldest quarter and precipitation of the coldest quarter were two key factors that were strongly linked to the overwintering distribution and density of S. furcifera in Yunnan.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: evan_au on 10/05/2017 10:11:36
Quote from: puppypower
We are now in an era of fake news and partisan propaganda that is no longer even trying to be subtle.
Quote from: ChiralSPO
There is a way to defend against fake news. It's called peer review.

Quote from: sciencemag
Emboldened by the election of President Donald Trump, Smith appears increasingly comfortable dismissing those who disagree with his stance on any number of issues under the purview of his science committee, from climate research to the use of peer review in assessing research results and grant proposals.
See: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference

It seems that some of the proponents of fake news can't get their pet theories past peer review, so they are now trying to legislate away peer review. Hopefully, the public will see through an attempt to undo the scientific method.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 10/05/2017 10:57:22

So, no, you can't actually point to anything that will require more money than any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid it's problems.
Thanks for clarifying that you are only interested in problems that will directly affect the rich.
Those whose community can't afford traffic lights need not apply.

... communist politics.

That's the Communist policy of practically the whole western world, is it??

Well, why are you so emotionally attached to this doom scenario when you cannot explain why it is a problem?
I did; repeatedly. I pointed out that bad weather already kills people. Making ti worse will kill more people. (and, by the way, I'm not ashamed to say that I have an emotional response to that fact). You may remember my pointing out that there was none so blind as one who would not see.
Others will almost certainly remember that.
Why don't you?

Your response seems to be that many people in the world will not be able to afford to deal with those problems (any more than they can afford traffic lights)- but that doesn't matter to you.


Yes, bad weather kills people.

Now show some actual science that has the mechanism in it that causes bad waether to increase due to a warmer world.

Then we can look at it.

By the way this is the sort of thing but it shows th eopposite;

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446.full

 
Quote
Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.

See, link and quote to show the point of it.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 10/05/2017 11:18:59
OK, so you can do the challenge then.

Specify a bad thing.

Then explain the mechanism that will do this bad thing. Not the warming the result of warming that will be bad.

Then I will look at this peer reviewed paper and have a think.

If it passes that, that it is a reasonable argument and I cannot destroy it in a few minutes, does it still cause a problem that will cost more than the cost of traffic lights will over the years between now and 2100?

If so you pass the requirements for a prima facia case that humanity should do something about all this. I will only read a paper you have looked at and quoted from that explains the mechanism that is going to cause the trouble.

Ok, here is an open access article, which claims to show that climate-change-driven temperature differences are already significantly increasing the rice crop damages in China caused by a pest: (the mechanism of the trouble is that the warmer and shorter winters allow more of the pest to survive from year to year, and greater populations of the pest means more rice lost, and less rice is bad. As for the cost of dealing with this? That is beyond the scope of this article.)
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535478/pdf/iev041.pdf

Quote
Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) is the most serious pest on rice in southwestern China. Yunnan
province is within this region and is a major overwintering area for S. furcifera in China. This field study was carried out over 4 yr
(20102013) and focused on S. furcifera distribution, population density, and demography, as well as the relationship between various environmental factors and the distribution and density of overwintering S. furcifera in Yunnan. Our study demonstrated that overwintering populations of S. furcifera mainly occurred in valleys and lowlands below 25.02N and 1,680 m above sea level (a.s.l.), where ratooning rice was present. The overwintering range of S. furcifera has expanded in Yunnan compared with 20 yr ago, and regional climate change is believed to be the main contributing cause for this expansion. Environmental factor analysis showed that the mean air temperature of the coldest quarter and precipitation of the coldest quarter were two key factors that were strongly linked to the overwintering distribution and density of S. furcifera in Yunnan.


Well done you have got through from the first thing, identify a bad thing, then shown it is supported by some science with a mechanism.

The degree of the badness is very important though. Also is the ease of dealing with it.

Quote
Rice production in China has more than tripled in the past fi ve decades mainly due to increased grain
yield rather than increased planting area. This increase has come from the development of high-yielding varieties
and improved crop management practices such as nitrogen fertilization and irrigation.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1626/pps.12.3

Do you think that warmer more tropical places grow less food than more temperate places?

I see there are difficulties but I also see that there are collosal advantages of a warmer world, which will take a little getting used to but so what?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

Quote
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Surely you can see that the increase in rice production per unit area has some depandance upon the increase in CO2 which has made life easier for plants the world over?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 10/05/2017 11:26:41
Quote from: puppypower
We are now in an era of fake news and partisan propaganda that is no longer even trying to be subtle.
Quote from: ChiralSPO
There is a way to defend against fake news. It's called peer review.

Quote from: sciencemag
Emboldened by the election of President Donald Trump, Smith appears increasingly comfortable dismissing those who disagree with his stance on any number of issues under the purview of his science committee, from climate research to the use of peer review in assessing research results and grant proposals.
See: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference

It seems that some of the proponents of fake news can't get their pet theories past peer review, so they are now trying to legislate away peer review. Hopefully, the public will see through an attempt to undo the scientific method.

I would like to see a law which made lying and calling it science a criminal offense.

I am a plumber, if I do work on installing your new gas central heating boiler and your gas fire later kills you I go to jail. I don not have to have even see the room in which the fire was. I have that responsibility.

A lot lower level of responsibility for telling the trueth about science should be there.

Today the doctor who claims that vaccines cause autism has the ear of the US presedent. This is likely to result in the deaths of many many people. No law will stop the doctor who is paid by lawers who are chasing compensation claims. His not being directly related to the case means that fraud cannot be used. Lying though he is.

If the level of such a law was that the crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person waas deliberately misrepresenting the science any honest scientist would have nothing to fear. I would even have a devil's advocate clause in there which would allow somebody to present an argument he did not believe in to get the other side to work out their case better. Should get this past the ethics committe first though if there is any public policy to be based on it.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/05/2017 12:39:23

Now show some actual science that has the mechanism in it that causes bad waether to increase due to a warmer world.


You are actually serious aren't you?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: evan_au on 10/05/2017 21:48:03
Quote from: Tim The Plumber
Surely you can see that the increase in rice production per unit area has some depandance upon the increase in CO2 which has made life easier for plants the world over?
Actually, food output and food self-sufficiency is one of the major problems of a warming world.

Major food crops based on grass grains like rice and wheat are "C3" plants, which perform worse at higher temperatures. (C3 refers to a critical step in CO2 capture where the intermediate has 3 carbon atoms).

There are some major genetic engineering efforts underway to see if they can produce a "C4" version of these grains, as that biochemistry is less affected by temperature rise. C4 tends to be used in non-grass plants.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/05/2017 22:02:38
I would like to see a law which made lying and calling it science a criminal offense.


Be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2017 23:59:37
Diesel fumes produced from vehicles that would have been petrol are responsible for many thousands of deaths each year here alone.



Or so the politicians would like you to think. According to the British Lung Foundation
Quote
During 2008-12, lung diseases were responsible for 20% of all deaths in the UK each year. In 2012, there were 114,225 deaths from lung diseases compared to 158,383 from cardiovascular diseases. However, over the 5-year period 200812, the proportion of deaths from cardiovascular diseases declined, whereas the proportion due to lung diseases remained constant.

and within the same statistical analysis https://statistics.blf.org.uk/lung-disease-uk-big-picture we read that the number of deaths caused by "lung diseases caused by external agents" (i.e. including all vehicle fumes, industrial hazards, etc) has remained at around 3700 - 4000 per annum, less than 1%.

The percentage of deaths from all respiratory disease increases each year because as we get better at treating other infections, cancer, and heart disease, the only thing left for the elderly to succumb to is pneumonia, which is the commonest recorded cause of death in old folks' homes and geriatric wards. 

Those of a statistical turn of mind would do well to study www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide...mortality/...in...death/respiratory-diseases.pdf which shows how changes in the coding of death certificates have significantly impacted the apparent importance of various lung diseases since the1940s.

Fact is, there are no credible facts.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/05/2017 08:19:29

Now show some actual science that has the mechanism in it that causes bad waether to increase due to a warmer world.


You are actually serious aren't you?

Yes, that is the point of this thread.

Incidentally, whilst it is upon you to support your claim that increased temperatures will cause increased variability of climate or whatever it is that you think will happen, whatever extreme weather means, I have cited science that says the opposite.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/05/2017 08:21:08
Quote from: Tim The Plumber
Surely you can see that the increase in rice production per unit area has some depandance upon the increase in CO2 which has made life easier for plants the world over?
Actually, food output and food self-sufficiency is one of the major problems of a warming world.

Major food crops based on grass grains like rice and wheat are "C3" plants, which perform worse at higher temperatures. (C3 refers to a critical step in CO2 capture where the intermediate has 3 carbon atoms).

There are some major genetic engineering efforts underway to see if they can produce a "C4" version of these grains, as that biochemistry is less affected by temperature rise. C4 tends to be used in non-grass plants.

I know that the crops grown may have to change.

Still the productivity of land in warmer, wetter places is generally higher in terms of food production, different food, overall though.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/05/2017 08:24:25
Diesel fumes produced from vehicles that would have been petrol are responsible for many thousands of deaths each year here alone.



Or so the politicians would like you to think. According to the British Lung Foundation
Quote
During 2008-12, lung diseases were responsible for 20% of all deaths in the UK each year. In 2012, there were 114,225 deaths from lung diseases compared to 158,383 from cardiovascular diseases. However, over the 5-year period 200812, the proportion of deaths from cardiovascular diseases declined, whereas the proportion due to lung diseases remained constant.

and within the same statistical analysis https://statistics.blf.org.uk/lung-disease-uk-big-picture we read that the number of deaths caused by "lung diseases caused by external agents" (i.e. including all vehicle fumes, industrial hazards, etc) has remained at around 3700 - 4000 per annum, less than 1%.

The percentage of deaths from all respiratory disease increases each year because as we get better at treating other infections, cancer, and heart disease, the only thing left for the elderly to succumb to is pneumonia, which is the commonest recorded cause of death in old folks' homes and geriatric wards. 

Those of a statistical turn of mind would do well to study www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide...mortality/...in...death/respiratory-diseases.pdf which shows how changes in the coding of death certificates have significantly impacted the apparent importance of various lung diseases since the1940s.

Fact is, there are no credible facts.
This is drivel then;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/diesel-fumes-biggest-health-catastrophe-since-black-death-as-london-exceeds-yearly-air-pollution-a6803876.html

Quote
Diesel fumes biggest health catastrophe since Black Death as London exceeds yearly air pollution levels in eight days

Again, oh for a law that made lying and calling it science a crime.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2017 10:15:17
The article refers to the 1956 Clean Air Act. This was introduced after a series of coal-derived persistent smogs really did kill lots of people. Los Angeles toxic smog was (and to some extent still is) caused by petrol, not diesel, vehicles. Not a single statistic is quoted in support of the assertion of a current "catastrophe" in London. But why would anyone want to go there anyway?  The natives can't afford the houses,  traffic speeds are lower than anywhere in the UK except Cambridge, there is virtually no manufacturing inside the ring roads, and any other commercial activity can be better done on line.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2017 10:25:07
Apropos peer review: by its very nature it tends to support consensus, whereas science advances by challenging consensus. And a fair bit of barmy stuff still gets through, such as Andrew Wakefield's hypothesis, "polywater", cold fusion....

Apparently 100 Nazi professors signed a paper denouncing Einstein's work. Asked about this powerful peer consensus, he said "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient." 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2017 19:37:50
Apropos peer review: by its very nature it tends to support consensus, whereas science advances by challenging consensus. And a fair bit of barmy stuff still gets through, such as Andrew Wakefield's hypothesis, "polywater", cold fusion....

Apparently 100 Nazi professors signed a paper denouncing Einstein's work. Asked about this powerful peer consensus, he said "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient." 
Let us know when the student gets here.
... any other commercial activity can be better done on line.

Cool, please email me a sandwich.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 12/05/2017 12:12:19
In America, the left has created talking points about a Russian-Trump conspiracy. This has been investigated since last July and there is still no smoking gun evidence. In spite of no hard evidence, Liberals have been induced to fear and hate, simply because of the accusations and the narrative. This is not global warming, but it shows how vulnerable many people are, to false claims that reinforce their fear and their anger. They are convinced even without any hard evidence because they want this to be true.

I am showing you the political and propaganda template that is being recycled. Even though nothing solid has been found, the investigation needs to go on, forever, just to make sure, since they claim they will find something, sooner or later. If you don;t act all kinds of bad things will happen. Those who oppose this are labeled aluminum foil hat, Trump supporters, or deniers in the case of climate change. The common link is the fake news media, who takes pride in being able to shape public opinion, thereby making their services useful to merchants and politicians.

Since the earth has been warming,1.5 degrees over the last 100 years, what kind of doom and gloom has already happened, that did not happen before the 100 years? Like the Russian-Trump connection, there is no past, rather it will happen tomorrow, so we need to continue to investigate to reinforce the narrative. Most people think that they would not still be investigating and spending so much money, if this was not true. It is a magic trick.

Trump has been a useful person in the sense that the Left has had to pull out all the stops. The media leverage and credibility was shaken when, in spite of bias reporter, Trump still won. Their tactics are no longer as subtle, but are in your face to make sure ethics does not happen again. It is making it easier for the untrained eye, to see the parallels,

Let me see if I can out fear, the fear mongers. I will use their template. All I would I would need is fake news support to recite this a few hundred times. This is all based on solid science, which I will extrapolate to speculative doom and gloom that has yet to appear. Scientists have found large deposits of water under the crust in the upper mantle. One such deposit, under SE Asia is the size of the Arctic Ocean. They have also found a large scar in the crust under the Atlantic Ocean where the mantle is exposed. This is based on scientific evidence. I will extrapolate to induce the fear mongering part of the template.

Now I am giant to out doom and gloom global warming. What would happen if the hot sub-crustal water was to begin breeching the crust? That large scar in the Atlantic ocean suggests that this happened at one time and may happen again. It is possible what warming we see is the birth pains.

At first the breech of the crust would be small causing hot water to vent into the local oceans to create Le Nino type affect. As the crust erodes, which the Atlantic scare suggests would become extensive, we would start to get higher pressure superheated water pushing itself to the surface. At first a large steam plume would bubble up and fill the sky. This could last of months causing rain for months. As the crust erodes more and more and the flow rate increases, the upwelling of sub mantle water would heat the oceans and cause massive tidal waves beginning at the center of the breech. This would flood coasts and the oceans would rise due to the added volume of water.

If I had access to fake news and double talking lawyers and politicians, who would dwell in this with clever graphics, I could out scare the global warming doom and gloom, and peal away most of their herd. This scenario is based on peer reviewed science, extrapolated to my own creative scenario of doom and gloom, to leverage resources, using the scared herd to help me demand government action.   

I would ask for resources to make the mother of all bath tub plugs, for about a $1.5 trillion, to plug the hole so it cannot happen. Once people are scared they will not have a practical mind or common sense. This may sound like a solution.  We need to continue the investigation in the mean time and make sure there are no doubters, since the world is at stake.

I could throw in the great flood of Noah, as being caused by a similar phenomena if I needed to leverage the bible crowd. I could point to the Atlantic scar as my smoking gun and ask for funding to investigate.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/05/2017 21:44:56
Quote
in spite of bias reporter, Trump still won.
I rather think the opposite. Trumpf's absurd posturing and Hitlerian rhetoric got 90% of all the media coverage. All we ever saw of Clinton was a couple of soundbites of "look, I'm a woman" which rapidly became yesterday's news because we knew it anyway, and whatever nuggets of political genius she might have uttered, never made it to the headlines.

As Trumpf's role model Goebbels said, there is no such thing as bad publicity.  Would crap musicians have ever made fortunes if nobody had tried to belittle John Lydon with the word "punk"?

But I digress.

Whatever happened to the New Ice Age scare of the Sixties? That was pure rock'n'roll, and is bound to resurface soon.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 16/05/2017 20:43:42
I just split the discussion of e-commerce into its own discussion, and moved it to the technology section. I will post again in this thread with something more thoughtful soon.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2017 20:50:54
In America, the left has created talking points about a Russian-Trump conspiracy. This has been investigated since last July and there is still no smoking gun evidence. In spite of no hard evidence, ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX

The rest of your post wasn't much more accurate.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 19/05/2017 11:35:30
In America, the left has created talking points about a Russian-Trump conspiracy. This has been investigated since last July and there is still no smoking gun evidence. In spite of no hard evidence, ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX

The rest of your post wasn't much more accurate.

The Russians already know about terrorism and about the threat of bombs in laptop computers and other devices This was not anything new nor was it anything Trump would personally benefit from, other than speed up the demise of terrorism. Putin could have learned this from the media. I learned this, at least a week earlier, from watching leaks coming from main stream media. The left has found nothing. It is a witch hunt.

What we should use as the litmus test for any alleged Trump-Russian collusion, is the Obama open mike comments to the Russian President. Obama said, after the election I will have more flexibility, to collude with the Russians. In the mean time, he needed to be two faced to con the American people into thinking he was against Russia. Since this admitted collusion was given a free pass, anything less by Trump should be given a free pass. Picture if Trump was caught saying this! The dual standard of the two faced would kick in. This is why you can't believe any sale pitch the left makes up, since it is based on two faces.

When the investigation is over and there is nothing there, all those who falsely accuse Trump should be investigated.  Their two faced actions have helped the Russian interference in american politics. I am sure they all have dirt to uncover during any investigation. This will impact the upcoming midterms when key democrats are under investigation for helping the Russians attempt to destabilize the US government; treason. Media owners and executives will also be investigated since they control the fake news. One may also need to investigate Democrat donors. The dark state has all types of players.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: evan_au on 19/05/2017 11:49:01
No more discussions about Trump and politics in this thread, please!
This thread is about the scientific evidence about climate change (Trump & Climate change is ok though)... Mod
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 19/05/2017 13:03:56
Trump is a climate change enthusiast and is interested in getting Putin involved in hurrying it along.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/05/2017 15:10:23
Trump is a climate change enthusiast and is interested in getting Putin involved in hurrying it along.

Did you ever get anywhere with that challenge thingy about showing a single thing that is bad about a slightly warmer world and supporting it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/05/2017 19:04:47
Here are two recent stories (there won't be many primary literature sources that meet your criteria because they are all very narrow in scope--a whole paper might discuss a test of one part of a mechanism, or document one trend, or use a certain model to make predictions, none of which alone would meet more than one or two of your criteria. And I don't have time to do an entire lit review)

For both of these examples, the mechanism is very straightforward:
Climate change leads to increased temperatures at the poles, leading net melting of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. In the first example, this leads to flooding in Norther Norway, threatening one of the world's seed banks. In the second the outcome is increased rate of sea level rise due to potential ice shelf collapse in Antarctica.

1)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts

Perhaps a simple fix (build a better seed bank somewhere else), but this might not be so straight forward. They were able to save a lot of money by depending on the antarctic cold for preservation. The whole purpose of the seed bank is to survive catastrophes, so having a power-hungry and maintenance-demanding refrigeration system might not be the best design element.

2) melting ice in Antarcita threatens coastal cities: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html

The authors of this article do not appear to think that a few dozen cm increase in sea level over the next century is a trivial problem.

I am going to circle back to talking about habitat zones shifting faster than trees can cope with, and mention mangroves.  This paper (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030913339001400404) suggests that even a change of 15 cm by 2050 would cause irreparable damage to mangrove populations around the world. Furthermore, the loss of the trees will lead to an increased rate of erosion of coastlines, and threatens the many, many marine species (fish, turtles, shelfish etc.) that depend on mangroves for protection as juveniles. This actually represents a real threat to many of the fish that we harvest from the Caribbean and Atlantic Oceans (https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/mangrove-loss-climate-change-poses-threat-lives-and-gdp)
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 19/05/2017 19:12:01
Trump is a climate change enthusiast and is interested in getting Putin involved in hurrying it along.

Did you ever get anywhere with that challenge thingy about showing a single thing that is bad about a slightly warmer world and supporting it?

I gave up. I have better things to do with my time.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/05/2017 22:47:13
Rising sea levels could restore a number of desert cities around the Persian Gulf  to their former use as sea ports.

Climate change is inevitable. The problem is human inability or unwillingness to adapt to it. It is easier in the short term to pretend it isn't happening, or that we can in some way reverse it, and since the power to do anything resides with politicians, and the time horizon of politics is 5 years or less, nothing useful will be done. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/05/2017 23:12:55
Rising sea levels could restore a number of desert cities around the Persian Gulf  to their former use as sea ports.

Climate change is inevitable. The problem is human inability or unwillingness to adapt to it. It is easier in the short term to pretend it isn't happening, or that we can in some way reverse it, and since the power to do anything resides with politicians, and the time horizon of politics is 5 years or less, nothing useful will be done. 

Yes, my fear is that nothing will be done. Climate change is inevitable, but I do think that there is still much that can be done to reduce the rate at which it happens, thereby decreasing the cost and increasing the feasibility of adapting.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 19/05/2017 23:17:56
Tim might be right. Let's just get the deck chairs out. You can never tell what a chaotic system will do.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 21/05/2017 10:16:26
Here are two recent stories (there won't be many primary literature sources that meet your criteria because they are all very narrow in scope--a whole paper might discuss a test of one part of a mechanism, or document one trend, or use a certain model to make predictions, none of which alone would meet more than one or two of your criteria. And I don't have time to do an entire lit review)

For both of these examples, the mechanism is very straightforward:
Climate change leads to increased temperatures at the poles, leading net melting of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. In the first example, this leads to flooding in Norther Norway, threatening one of the world's seed banks. In the second the outcome is increased rate of sea level rise due to potential ice shelf collapse in Antarctica.

1)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts

Perhaps a simple fix (build a better seed bank somewhere else), but this might not be so straight forward. They were able to save a lot of money by depending on the antarctic cold for preservation. The whole purpose of the seed bank is to survive catastrophes, so having a power-hungry and maintenance-demanding refrigeration system might not be the best design element.

2) melting ice in Antarcita threatens coastal cities: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html

The authors of this article do not appear to think that a few dozen cm increase in sea level over the next century is a trivial problem.

I am going to circle back to talking about habitat zones shifting faster than trees can cope with, and mention mangroves.  This paper (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030913339001400404) suggests that even a change of 15 cm by 2050 would cause irreparable damage to mangrove populations around the world. Furthermore, the loss of the trees will lead to an increased rate of erosion of coastlines, and threatens the many, many marine species (fish, turtles, shelfish etc.) that depend on mangroves for protection as juveniles. This actually represents a real threat to many of the fish that we harvest from the Caribbean and Atlantic Oceans (https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/mangrove-loss-climate-change-poses-threat-lives-and-gdp)

OK, I have tried to give myself time to reply without using inpolite words such as total drivel but i just can't do that and remain honest.

You are telling me that Mangroves which live on coasts with high tidal ranges and loads of mud being deposited in very chaotic and dynamic ways will be devastated by a 6 inch change in sea level over 30 years. My arse.

The Mangroves live in a wide band along the coast. Not a tiny narrow strip where they need just the right sea level to the mm!! They will be in the tidal zone to a vertical depth of at least 6 feet. 6 inches will not do anything significant that they don't cope with much more of an anual basis.

Point 2; sea level rise/Antarctic falling over. Do you have better information than the IPCC? Are you predicting a bigger sea level rise than the IPCC?

If not then we are looking at a maximum of 1m by 2100. That is 3 feet. That shows no sign of happening and is physically impossible to being with.

Antarctic ice sheets which are so huge that they extend into and then over the sea for hundreds of km in places are further isolated from any warmth by the hundreds of further kilometers of sea ice. Only once the thin sea ice has all melted can any argument that the very thick ice shelf be vulnerable be considered. Not happening, not going to happen.

Even should the gods decied to put an electric 3kW heater every 5m over the place.

If the gods choose to put a 3kW heater every foot then even if the ice shelves melt the sea level will be unchanged.

The ice sheet that sits on the ground will not be melting at all. Should physics fly away and random rules take away the ice shelf the only surface that is exposed to heat energy from the ocean, which is well below freezing, would be the front edge of the ice sheet. No fast melting can occur as there is no way to transfer heat from a below zero ocean to a massive 3km thick slab of ice when you only have the front side to attack.

If this horror of a 6 inch sea level rise by 2047 happens and somehow the Mangroves which have evolved to live in the most storm exposed, muddy, dynamically changing places do not take advantage of the newly created opportunities them selves then the locals might have to plant a few. They do this already but at the bottom of the tidal range of them to promote the sediment to collect and form new land where they want it to. It is cheap and will cost less than the traffic lights budget and be unnecessary.

Oh, and if you want to build a 100% safe seed store which is naturally protected by the cold don't build it in a disused coal mine at the edge of the cold areas of the world in 2008 when you are claiming that global warming will melt that zone soon.

And it has suffered no damage.

Do any of you alarmist ever stop and think how weak your arguments are?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 21/05/2017 10:22:57
Rising sea levels could restore a number of desert cities around the Persian Gulf  to their former use as sea ports.

Climate change is inevitable. The problem is human inability or unwillingness to adapt to it. It is easier in the short term to pretend it isn't happening, or that we can in some way reverse it, and since the power to do anything resides with politicians, and the time horizon of politics is 5 years or less, nothing useful will be done. 

Yes, my fear is that nothing will be done. Climate change is inevitable, but I do think that there is still much that can be done to reduce the rate at which it happens, thereby decreasing the cost and increasing the feasibility of adapting.

My guess is 20 million people per year are dying due to the use of food as fuel. Vastly more of the world's poor are artifically locked into poverty by the deliberate increase of food prices by 30% to 70 % due to this.

How much of a cost is OK for your undefined, might happen, maybe, maybe not, don't know what will happen but something.... is OK so that you can rest your guilt complex?

I repeat my challenge;

Choose 1 result of slightly warmer wetter world that is bad.

Then explain how this will happen, the mechanism of the bad thing not the temperature rise.

Then back it with credible science.

Then we have to look at it and see if it is going to be more costly than traffic lights.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 21/05/2017 12:35:53
Tim, please provide peer reviewed literature that shows the resilience of mangroves to sustained flooding.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2017 13:00:36
On this one I have to support Tim.
http://outreach.stakeholderforum.org/index.php/previous-editions/cop-19/190-cop19day3-disasters-security-loss-and-damage/1572-how-mangroves-help-in-reducing-flooding-and-coastal-erosion
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 21/05/2017 13:04:29
On this one I have to support Tim.
http://outreach.stakeholderforum.org/index.php/previous-editions/cop-19/190-cop19day3-disasters-security-loss-and-damage/1572-how-mangroves-help-in-reducing-flooding-and-coastal-erosion


The link provided says "The latest evidence suggests however that in many areas mangroves may be able to keep pace with rising sea levels when the conditions are right."

That is not very reassuring.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2017 13:11:17
Last time I checked:
mangroves often grow in the shelter of coral reefs and
the coral is dying for a number of reasons- not least global warming.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2017 13:45:03
When you say not least can you give a concrete figure as a percentage of the total causes. That would be impressive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2017 14:00:10
The most interesting point in the above article is the threshold of 500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere as critical for coral survival. Where did this figure come from?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2017 14:10:01
Here is one of the references from the way back machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091008064436/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=40021
Now that IS scary.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2017 15:51:19
When you say not least can you give a concrete figure as a percentage of the total causes. That would be impressive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs


Why would it help?
Does it matter which particular cause is "the straw that breaks the camel's back"?
Or are you just trying to stall?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2017 16:02:30
The point is that humans are damaging the world far more quickly in ways that do not relate to climate change. Only they don't think it's their fault since it is climate change that is the bogey man.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/05/2017 16:16:49
Every living thing modifies its environment. That is essential to any definition of life, and a fact. Whether you consider that modification to be harmful is a matter of opinion, but it is clearly the case that at some point a closed environment will be modified to the extent that the plant or animal can no longer survive.   
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2017 16:50:32
Ultimately the inability to sustain life may or may not be considered a negative. That depends upon philosophical outlook. The universe still carries on.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2017 17:19:14
The point is that humans are damaging the world far more quickly in ways that do not relate to climate change. Only they don't think it's their fault since it is climate change that is the bogey man.

What?
Have all the environmental campaign groups like Greenpeace have suddenly stopped worrying about pollution, plastic in the seas, whaling, mercury in fish unsustainable growth, nuclear power,  overfishingand so on?
When did that happen?
 OK, I just checked.
It seems your claim is bullshit.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/05/2017 17:49:40
We must be thankful for small mercies. Greenpeace got it wrong over mercury in fish (the tuna family have a naturally high mercury content - it's essential to their fast-muscle physiology), recycling of oil platforms (recycling on land leaves you with a lot of slightly (naturally) radioactive sludge that would be dispersed by sea creatures but is a bugger to handle in a scrapyard), nuclear power (the cleanest and least environmentally damaging  source of electricity we have), diesel cars (or was that petrol cars? the bogeyman changes every week) and just about everything else apart from nuclear weapon tests.  It is a recipient of funds from the European Union, the organisation that sterilised the North Sea fishing grounds.....Not a good example of scientific excellence or political integrity.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: timey on 21/05/2017 19:36:29
Did anyone watch "Hacking the Planet" 'through the worm hole' - presented by Morgan Freeman?

I very much enjoyed the back to front greenhouse physics that use sea water and solar to produce fresh water to irrigate dessert conditions, the ocean sink hole to relocate the thermally heated sea water from surface to deeper levels to reduce hurricane formation, the idea of genetically modifying elephants with mammoth DNA to repopulate the Siberian tundra to reduce permafrost melt, and the genetic modification of mosquito males to reduce mosquito population and therefore reduce blood born diseases. (Although, to say so, I'm a bit dubious of genetic modification.  Both of the above being of far more noble intent than that of the spider-goat, but what if the mosquitoes are responsible for some kind of natural balance that is not entirely tangible to us at present?  Or perhaps this natural balance is tangible, but not acceptable to us?)

The current media highlights global warming as our present imminent danger, but is this just a distraction from what should really be concerning to us?  This being that a minority of people upon our planet are so heavily invested in the 'war machine' where people who are heavily invested will go to great lengths to protect that investment, and the protecting of those interests can only result in more war?
If it were not for the 'war machine' then a proportion of the pollution's that are of concern to the global warming conversationalist would be vastly reduced were production of the machines of war to cease.  Tax payers money could be relocated from this dismal appropriation of public expenditure to projects such as those mentioned above perhaps, and others of equally innovated thought process throughout the sciences.  Where the onus would be on improving the quality of our lives and the future of our planet, rather than destroying the quality of lives via wars that are clearly being precipitated and conducted in the interests of private financial gain, and funded by the unwitting, and if they were witting, the unwilling public.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2017 20:28:49
We must be thankful for small mercies. Greenpeace got it wrong over mercury in fish (the tuna family have a naturally high mercury content - it's essential to their fast-muscle physiology),

Got any evidence for that?
However, unlike Greenpeace, I'm not actually very worried  about mercury in ocean fish; I'm worried about mercury in people
And that's not something you can write off.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687748/
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/05/2017 21:45:12
Interesting. I recalled the "mercury essential to fast muscle" from stuff I read several years ago, when the Minimata  shambles was current news, but I can't find any reference to it on the first couple of pages of current Google hits, which are all about debating FDA recommendations on tuna consumption in pregnancy but don't discuss the high natural content of the metal in such fish. So either the original research was flawed, or it has become unfashionable!

Mercury toxicity in humans is interestingly paradoxical. Very odd stuff. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/05/2017 19:47:27
Tim, please provide peer reviewed literature that shows the resilience of mangroves to sustained flooding.

I can neither provide peer reviewed papers on that nor on the idea that water is wet.

Given that these plants live on coastlines where there is plentiful silt being washed about and deposited and in the Bay of Bengal at least you would generally expect that the deposition rates would be much higher than the lowest general figure of 2cm per monsoon for Bangladesh at points 10km away from the rivers the concept of

Quote
even a change of 15 cm by 2050 would cause irreparable damage to mangrove populations around the world.

is ludicrous beyond belief.

That you and anybody who has either thought about it or watched any documentary about such places knows that they live in the tidal zone to a wide range of depths, 6feet++++, and are obviously subject to the full force of storms etc can be taken in by obvious drivel like this shows how much you are emotionally attacked to your guilt complex.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/05/2017 19:49:43
On this one I have to support Tim.
http://outreach.stakeholderforum.org/index.php/previous-editions/cop-19/190-cop19day3-disasters-security-loss-and-damage/1572-how-mangroves-help-in-reducing-flooding-and-coastal-erosion


Thank you.

Not all understanding of the world is via peer reviewed papers.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/05/2017 19:51:30
Here is one of the references from the way back machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091008064436/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=40021
Now that IS scary.

I wonder how they managed to survive in all those periods when the CO2 level was far higher than that?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/05/2017 19:52:49
The point is that humans are damaging the world far more quickly in ways that do not relate to climate change. Only they don't think it's their fault since it is climate change that is the bogey man.


Yes.

The obsession with CO2 is stopping any progres on real concearns with things that actually have negative impacts.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2017 20:26:54
The point is that humans are damaging the world far more quickly in ways that do not relate to climate change. Only they don't think it's their fault since it is climate change that is the bogey man.


Yes.

The obsession with CO2 is stopping any progres on real concearns with things that actually have negative impacts.
So, the whaling is still going on. the clean air acts have been repealed, nobody just banned  the use of plastic microbeads, the ozone  depleting CFCs are still in fashion, solar and wind power are not being introduced and so on.

Try to make your nonsense less obvious next time.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2017 20:37:57
Here is one of the references from the way back machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091008064436/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=40021
Now that IS scary.

I wonder how they managed to survive in all those periods when the CO2 level was far higher than that?
The times when the record shows that the sun wasn't so hot?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/05/2017 21:52:46
The point is that humans are damaging the world far more quickly in ways that do not relate to climate change. Only they don't think it's their fault since it is climate change that is the bogey man.


Yes.

The obsession with CO2 is stopping any progres on real concearns with things that actually have negative impacts.
So, the whaling is still going on. the clean air acts have been repealed, nobody just banned  the use of plastic microbeads, the ozone  depleting CFCs are still in fashion, solar and wind power are not being introduced and so on.

Try to make your nonsense less obvious next time.

Millions de each year as a result of using food as fuel.

Thousands of deaths in the UK are linked to diesel from cars, I don't know to what extent this is hype or true.

The proper sorting out of fish stock protection is left on the back burner to pander to the anti-CO2 madness.

Rain forrests are cut down to farm sugar to make petrol and diesel.

How much progress do you think would be made if we stopped barking up the wrong tree?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/05/2017 21:55:11
Here is one of the references from the way back machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091008064436/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=40021
Now that IS scary.

I wonder how they managed to survive in all those periods when the CO2 level was far higher than that?
The times when the record shows that the sun wasn't so hot?

Yes. When the coral grew happily with temperatures higher than today and much higher levels of CO2.

So we can agree that ideas that CO2 at less than 1% are fine for corral then and the paper is as right as the one on Mangrove trees being killed off by a 6 inch sea level rise over 30 years.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/05/2017 22:43:27
The point is that humans are damaging the world far more quickly in ways that do not relate to climate change. Only they don't think it's their fault since it is climate change that is the bogey man.

What?
Have all the environmental campaign groups like Greenpeace have suddenly stopped worrying about pollution, plastic in the seas, whaling, mercury in fish unsustainable growth, nuclear power,  overfishingand so on?
When did that happen?
 OK, I just checked.
It seems your claim is bullshit.


I am just resigned to the fact that our species has an overblown opinion of itself. We aren't special. We are actually quite insignificant. As a species we are also just plain dumb. The games that we play are a nonsense. Like children who have wandered away from the grown ups.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/05/2017 00:43:42

Thousands of deaths in the UK are linked to diesel from cars, I don't know to what extent this is hype or true.
since the number of deaths from non-cancer respiratory disease seems to decrease each year, despite an ageing population, the "link" seems to exist only in the deranged minds of politicians and this year's tree huggers (previous generations thought diesel was good).

Quote
The proper sorting out of fish stock protection is left on the back burner to pander to the anti-CO2 madness.
Fish stock protection is anathema  to the European Union, which is about market price protection. The annual argument between fisheries scientists and the EU fishing lobby always results in a "compromise" brokered by the corrupt Commission. As any sane member of this forum knows, you can't "compromise" with science. The Norwegian government, meanwhile, sets total catch quotas based on actual and predicted stocks and insists that you sell everything you catch, so the market price isn't protected but the  fish are. And CO2 doesn't come into it.

Quote
Rain forrests are cut down to farm sugar to make petrol and diesel.
Not sure what the point is here. Rain forests don't feed many people, but sugar, petrol and diesel do.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2017 19:16:54

 I don't know to what extent this is hype or true.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 23/05/2017 19:45:13

Thousands of deaths in the UK are linked to diesel from cars, I don't know to what extent this is hype or true.
since the number of deaths from non-cancer respiratory disease seems to decrease each year, despite an ageing population, the "link" seems to exist only in the deranged minds of politicians and this year's tree huggers (previous generations thought diesel was good).

Yes, it would be nice to have the integrity of science assured.

Quote
Quote
The proper sorting out of fish stock protection is left on the back burner to pander to the anti-CO2 madness.
Fish stock protection is anathema  to the European Union, which is about market price protection. The annual argument between fisheries scientists and the EU fishing lobby always results in a "compromise" brokered by the corrupt Commission. As any sane member of this forum knows, you can't "compromise" with science. The Norwegian government, meanwhile, sets total catch quotas based on actual and predicted stocks and insists that you sell everything you catch, so the market price isn't protected but the  fish are. And CO2 doesn't come into it.

My point exactly.

If the envirnmentalist urg in all of us, we all want to see a nice healthy world, was not channeled into hysteria about this none problem of CO2 the rest of the issues, much more needed, would get sorted out much better.

Quote
Quote
Rain forrests are cut down to farm sugar to make petrol and diesel.
Not sure what the point is here. Rain forests don't feed many people, but sugar, petrol and diesel do.

The point is that the drive against CO2 has consequences which are at odds to the wishes of true environmentalists (political defenders of nature).
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 23/05/2017 19:55:47
I know it's from a site that will raise hackles with some but this may be what it is all about;

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/22/climate-alarmism-the-mother-of-all-availability-cascades/

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.

Quote
Their need for social acceptance and political correctness, coupled with the apparent sophistication of the new insight, overwhelm their critical thinking. Imitation and conformity, rather than critical analysis and independent thinking, are at the heart of a meme. The public concern then puts pressure on political policymakers to make policies to address the public concern. The public then see confirmation that their concern over the man-made climate change crisis must be valid after all, the politicians are enacting policies to address it. It is a self-reinforcing loop of irrationality based on a very poor understanding of what the science actually says in fact even a very poor understanding of what the scientific authorities actually say.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 25/05/2017 11:41:19
I live in New England where there is a slogan, attributed to Mark Twain around 1876, " if you don't like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes. This humorous observation was made because this area is subject to rapid and varied weather changes, even on an hourly basis.

This is part of his speech delivered at the New England Society's Seventy-First Annual Dinner, New York City, Dec. 22, 1876.

"There is a sumptuous variety about the New England weather that compels the stranger's admiration -- and regret. The weather is always doing something there; always attending strictly to business; always getting up new designs and trying them on the people to see how they will go. But it gets through more business in spring than in any other season.
In the spring I have counted one hundred and thirty-six different kinds of weather inside of four-and-twenty hours."


What was observed back then is now being attributed to manmade global warming. When a new generation comes along, especially the millennial generation, who have been overall coddled and PC dogma prone, old songs appear to be new recordings.

Mark Twain, who was an observer of the human condition, was not yet aware of the modern reasons for the old patterns in the weather. If anything, I notice less variety today, than what he appears to describe. It is possible global warming is stabilizing New England weather and climate compared to 136 different weather conditions in the spring in 24 hours during the time of Twain. Has anyone gone back to compare the modern observations to that of the old timers like Mark Twain to see if this is new, or just an old song recorded and pitched as new? 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2017 20:49:45

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.

Actually, it's quite easy to defend.
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2017 20:53:50
...
What was observed back then is now being attributed to manmade global warming.
...
No.
What has been recorded reliably in many places for years and indirectly (but still reliably) for even longer shows that there has been a recent change which is attributable to mankind's activities.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/05/2017 14:59:10

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.

Actually, it's quite easy to defend.
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.

Can you outline the mechanism more than that? I mean it's a lot simplistic. Given that wind is driven by temperature differences (via pressure differences) and all.

Then can you cite some sort of science supporting this mechanism?

Then we can have a look at how much of a real problem it is.

Although you could look back at this thread for the science that says the opposite.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/05/2017 00:04:51

What has been recorded reliably in many places for years and indirectly (but still reliably) for even longer shows that there has been a recent change which is attributable to mankind's activities.

If only it were so.

1. Correlation is not proof of causation.

2. The supposed mechanism of carbon dioxide forcing temperature rise is contradicted in recent times by the Mauna Loa data which shows that CO2 maximises in the summer, when anthropogenic CO2 is minimal.

3. Said supposed mechanism is also contradicted by ice core records which show in the long term trend that CO2 lags the temperature curve by about 200 years: causes usually precede effects.

4. There have been innumerable recent "adjustments" to the temperature record, all of which remarkably make the adjusted temperature graph look more and more like the CO2 graph - a clear case of fitting the data to the hypothesis, which is not the path to understanding

5. The modern temperature record is full of anomalies before 1970, most of which I have discussed before.  One would have thought that subsequent satellite data would be unequivocal, but for reasons best known to true believers, even that needs "adjustment" to fit the hypothesis.

It is clear that the climate is changing. It is obvious that it always has changed and always must change. It would be very convenient if there was something mankind could do to control it, but alas the evidence for such a possibility is weak.  Faith will not save us.

Quote
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.

Sadly, the evidence is lacking here too. The frequency of  Grade 5 hurricanes has decreased during the last century, but the damage done by each one has increased as more people live in coastal locations.

Extreme weather requires extreme temperature gradients - sudden mixing of hot and cold air. Overall warming actually reduces the temperature contrasts between weather systems in the temperate zone.   
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/05/2017 02:34:35
The problem is that we are no longer an adaptable species. We are tied to large conurbations and depend largely upon delivery of pre-processed foods. Our working environments are in static locations. We can no longer live a nomadic existence. Our dependence upon technology will not help us.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2017 11:29:51

What has been recorded reliably in many places for years and indirectly (but still reliably) for even longer shows that there has been a recent change which is attributable to mankind's activities.

If only it were so.

1. Correlation is not proof of causation.

2. The supposed mechanism of carbon dioxide forcing temperature rise is contradicted in recent times by the Mauna Loa data which shows that CO2 maximises in the summer, when anthropogenic CO2 is minimal.

3. Said supposed mechanism is also contradicted by ice core records which show in the long term trend that CO2 lags the temperature curve by about 200 years: causes usually precede effects.

4. There have been innumerable recent "adjustments" to the temperature record, all of which remarkably make the adjusted temperature graph look more and more like the CO2 graph - a clear case of fitting the data to the hypothesis, which is not the path to understanding

5. The modern temperature record is full of anomalies before 1970, most of which I have discussed before.  One would have thought that subsequent satellite data would be unequivocal, but for reasons best known to true believers, even that needs "adjustment" to fit the hypothesis.

It is clear that the climate is changing. It is obvious that it always has changed and always must change. It would be very convenient if there was something mankind could do to control it, but alas the evidence for such a possibility is weak.  Faith will not save us.

Quote
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.

Sadly, the evidence is lacking here too. The frequency of  Grade 5 hurricanes has decreased during the last century, but the damage done by each one has increased as more people live in coastal locations.

Extreme weather requires extreme temperature gradients - sudden mixing of hot and cold air. Overall warming actually reduces the temperature contrasts between weather systems in the temperate zone.   
Re 1
Nobody said that it was

Re 2
That shows that the short term variations over the course of a year are bigger than the typical effect of tehtrend over a year.
Nobody said otherwise.
So it doesn't prove what you said that it proved.

and so on.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 28/05/2017 17:20:20
The problem is that we are no longer an adaptable species. We are tied to large conurbations and depend largely upon delivery of pre-processed foods. Our working environments are in static locations. We can no longer live a nomadic existence. Our dependence upon technology will not help us.

If there is a particularly bad winter (that's cold = bad) or a particularly sunny hot summer like 1976 (hot = very good, we all liked it) the difference between those tenperatures and the average is far more than the difference between today's average and the highest predictions of the IPCC.

It is reasonable to be scared of the prospect of tigers wandering the streets.

It is not reasonable to be scared of the prospect of mice being out there.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/05/2017 18:17:58


Re 1
Nobody said that it was
  The distinction betwen "attributable to...." and "caused by...." may be obvious to a priest, politican or philosopher, but I have little time for professional dissimulators.

Quote
Re 2
That shows that the short term variations over the course of a year are bigger than the typical effect of tehtrend over a year.
The precise repeatability of the annual CO2 cycle, over as many years as Mauna Loa  has been collecting data, is remarkable. The fact that it is almost exactly 6 months out of phase with the anthropogenic emission of CO2, and in phase with day length and average daily temperature, suggests that anthropogenic CO2 is may not be the prime cause of temperature rise. Added to the prehistoric data and the fairly obvious biolgical significance of CO2, it strongly suggests that CO2 is the thermometer, not the thermostat, and anthropogenic emission is inconsequential.

Scientists, unlike politicians, appreciate such subtleties as phase relationships in correlations, and like to take note of negative as well as positive correlations. We often find such things illuminating.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/05/2017 18:41:22
Some process, initiated at the start of the industrial revolution, has caused the rise in CO2 we are seeing now. This is likely some change in the water cycle. However counter intuitive this may sound, that is my opinion on the matter.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/05/2017 18:49:06
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html
"Here, the isotopic composition of water vapor (deuterium to hydrogen ratio, 2H/1H), forming the surrounding ice, varies with temperature. The higher the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen, the higher the temperature."
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/05/2017 18:52:50
We are sailing on a ship of fools.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_fools
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 28/05/2017 19:41:22
We are sailing on a ship of fools.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_fools


Wot???

There was poor me thinking that science was about saying exactly what you meant and not spouting gibberish to try to look clever.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/05/2017 20:37:11
We are sailing on a ship of fools.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_fools


Wot???

There was poor me thinking that science was about saying exactly what you meant and not spouting gibberish to try to look clever.

The problem is that no one is in charge. You tell me who exactly is in charge. It is either organisation by committee or by dictatorship.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2017 20:40:33

If there is a particularly bad winter (that's cold = bad) or a particularly sunny hot summer like 1976 (hot = very good, we all liked it)
No we didn't.
It F***ked the farming.
Fortunately, we are a rich country and can buy food from elsewhere.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/05/2017 22:00:40
Irrelevant, by BC's criterion. 1976 was "weather", not "climate", beacuse it really pissed down in 1974, and 1977 was about average.

Climate change requires longterm evidence of disaster, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/9777749/Interactive-graphic-UK-rainfall-in-every-year-since-1910.html shows no discernible trend. Indeed
Quote
2012 was the wettest year on record for England but only the third wettest for Wales, 17th wettest for Scotland and 40th wettest for Northern Ireland.
underlines the fact that the smaller the sample, the less meaningful the statistics!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2017 22:03:34
Irrelevant, by BC's criterion. 1976 was "weather", not "climate", beacuse it really pissed down in 1974, and 1977 was about average.

Climate change requires longterm evidence of disaster, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/9777749/Interactive-graphic-UK-rainfall-in-every-year-since-1910.html shows no discernible trend. Indeed
Quote
2012 was the wettest year on record for England but only the third wettest for Wales, 17th wettest for Scotland and 40th wettest for Northern Ireland.
underlines the fact that the smaller the sample, the less meaningful the statistics!
The observation that someone is trying to back up their side of the debate by saying something that's not true, is relevant.

There's better rainfall data here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHw9D1AC4h_w5OJK4i0c8UllhZvrB2jbJurzy2fpvzk/edit?hl=en_US&hl=en_US#gid=0
if you want to do a real analysis.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/05/2017 23:37:15
As I said earlier, no discernible trend. The closer you look, the more random the figures appear, which is normal, but if you scan through the figures year-by-year the only common factor is that it seems to rain more in the winter than summer, but not always!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 29/05/2017 01:39:35
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/climate-lobsters

So far it has been good for Maine and bad for New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island. But soon all the lobster will be up in Canada, and then I don't know where they will go from there...
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/05/2017 10:31:02
We are sailing on a ship of fools.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_fools


Wot???

There was poor me thinking that science was about saying exactly what you meant and not spouting gibberish to try to look clever.

The problem is that no one is in charge. You tell me who exactly is in charge. It is either organisation by committee or by dictatorship.

Why do you need a particular person or group in charge?

What are you talking about appart from some sort of emotional search for leadership so you don't have to take responsibility?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/05/2017 10:34:30

If there is a particularly bad winter (that's cold = bad) or a particularly sunny hot summer like 1976 (hot = very good, we all liked it)
No we didn't.
It F***ked the farming.
Fortunately, we are a rich country and can buy food from elsewhere.
Yep, that's the sort of thing that you can do when you have all those fossil fuels to do stuff with.

Climate changes and you cope easily.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/05/2017 10:40:14
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/climate-lobsters

So far it has been good for Maine and bad for New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island. But soon all the lobster will be up in Canada, and then I don't know where they will go from there...

Just watching the map graphic it looks like the lobster has started to recover from the huge over fishing that happened between 1850 and 1970. That is about when we started taking some steps to protect such things.

In the 19th century it was used to feed the survants because it was so cheap. They would refuse to eat it more than 2 times a week.
Quote
History

In North America, the American lobster did not achieve popularity until the mid-19th century, when New Yorkers and Bostonians developed a taste for it, and commercial lobster fisheries only flourished after the development of the lobster smack,[28] a custom-made boat with open holding wells on the deck to keep the lobsters alive during transport.[29] Prior to this time, lobster was considered a mark of poverty or as a food for indentured servants or lower members of society in Maine, Massachusetts, and the Canadian Maritimes, and servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice per week.[30] Lobster was also commonly served in prisons, much to the displeasure of inmates.[31] American lobster was initially deemed worthy only of being used as fertilizer or fish bait, and until well into the 20th century, it was not viewed as more than a low-priced canned staple food.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2017 11:34:57
As I said earlier, no discernible trend. The closer you look, the more random the figures appear, which is normal, but if you scan through the figures year-by-year the only common factor is that it seems to rain more in the winter than summer, but not always!
Please show the results of your analysis- t test values, correlation coefficients and so on.
Or are you just looking at it and pulling a conclusion from where the sun doesn't shine?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2017 11:37:02

If there is a particularly bad winter (that's cold = bad) or a particularly sunny hot summer like 1976 (hot = very good, we all liked it)
No we didn't.
It F***ked the farming.
Fortunately, we are a rich country and can buy food from elsewhere.
Yep, that's the sort of thing that you can do when you have all those fossil fuels to do stuff with.

Climate changes and you cope easily.
No, it's the thing you do if you have energy.
You seem unable to understand that fossil fuel isn't the only source.
As I have said before; there is none so blind as him who will not see.

Also, please not that '76 was weather, not climate.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/05/2017 16:47:43
As I said earlier, no discernible trend. The closer you look, the more random the figures appear, which is normal, but if you scan through the figures year-by-year the only common factor is that it seems to rain more in the winter than summer, but not always!
Please show the results of your analysis- t test values, correlation coefficients and so on.
Or are you just looking at it and pulling a conclusion from where the sun doesn't shine?

You chose the data. You do the maths.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 29/05/2017 17:51:41

If there is a particularly bad winter (that's cold = bad) or a particularly sunny hot summer like 1976 (hot = very good, we all liked it)
No we didn't.
It F***ked the farming.
Fortunately, we are a rich country and can buy food from elsewhere.
Yep, that's the sort of thing that you can do when you have all those fossil fuels to do stuff with.

Climate changes and you cope easily.
No, it's the thing you do if you have energy.
You seem unable to understand that fossil fuel isn't the only source.
As I have said before; there is none so blind as him who will not see.

Also, please not that '76 was weather, not climate.

1976 was waether that was much further away from the average than the maximum predictions of the IPCC. That is the point. Our normal weather is far more variable than the difference between now and 2100 or even 2200 as predicted at maximum. The change predicted is slight.

And no. You will not be able to move vast amounts of food about the world without fossil fuels or having all ships nuclear powered. Not a solution I would want.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2017 18:00:42
As I said earlier, no discernible trend. The closer you look, the more random the figures appear, which is normal, but if you scan through the figures year-by-year the only common factor is that it seems to rain more in the winter than summer, but not always!
Please show the results of your analysis- t test values, correlation coefficients and so on.
Or are you just looking at it and pulling a conclusion from where the sun doesn't shine?

You chose the data. You do the maths.
No, this is science so:
You made the claim- you do the maths.
It shouldn't be hard.
After all, I'm just asking you to post a copy of the working you already did.
You did actually do the maths before posting- didn't you?

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/05/2017 18:20:59
Intelligence is constructive laziness!

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/long-term-rainfall-trends-in-england-wales shows that winters in England and Wales have become slightly wetter since 1780, whilst summers have become slightly drier. Hopwever

www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/UKCP09_Trends.pdf

shows more recent detail and adds Scotland from 1940, with similar results.

As I remarked earlier, there is no discernible trend in total annual rainfall for the UK that stands out above the noise and in the wise words of the Met Office Hadley Centre

Quote
The first characteristic to note is that of large year-to-year variability in both seasons; over the past two centuries winter totals have varied between 88.9mm (1964) and 423mm (1915), and those in summer between 66.9mm (1995) and 409.7mm (1912). Despite this variability, a general trend can be seen of decreasing precipitation in summer, although this is difficult to quantify robustly as it depends on the period used. In winter, an increasing trend can be observed, although there has been little change over the past 50 years. There is no discernable trend in annual mean England & Wales precipitation.

Apart from the spelling of "discernible", I have no argument with them. But they are scientists quoting pure unadulterated data, collected with the simplest imaginable apparatus over a period of 250 years by experts with no axe to grind, so they must be wrong. Obviously, their funnels are getting smaller. Or maybe larger. Whatever fits your hypothesis, good sir.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2017 13:48:52
Well, since you asked, and as I'm on holiday, I had a look at the Met Office data.
Since the use of fossil fuels really got underway in the last 50 years or so I looked at the "all season All UK" data since 1970.
To remove the effect of some of the noise I took a running average over 5 year slices.
Here's the graph
The trend is pretty obvious.
The vertical axis is 5 year average  rainfall in mm
The horizontal on is years since 1970
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/05/2017 15:27:38
And had you chosen 1960 - 1980, when fossil fuel use was increasing most rapidly, you would have found a regression line inthe opposite direction.

And if you are really convinced that there is a causal relationship, what on earth happened between 1878 and 1886?

Anyway, you are to be congratulated on discerning a trend that Met Office professionals do not consider statistically significant. More power to your elbow.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 30/05/2017 17:45:50
Well, since you asked, and as I'm on holiday, I had a look at the Met Office data.
Since the use of fossil fuels really got underway in the last 50 years or so I looked at the "all season All UK" data since 1970.
To remove the effect of some of the noise I took a running average over 5 year slices.
Here's the graph
The trend is pretty obvious.
The vertical axis is 5 year average  rainfall in mm
The horizontal on is years since 1970

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/05/2017 18:02:16
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/23/were-now-breaking-global-temperature-records-once-every-three-years
Pay particular attention to the fact that noise is still masking the trend. So cherry picking rainfall data is absurd.

Their attribution of a carbon cause is not fact at all.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2017 22:16:02
And had you chosen 1960 - 1980, when fossil fuel use was increasing most rapidly, you would have found a regression line inthe opposite direction.

And if you are really convinced that there is a causal relationship, what on earth happened between 1878 and 1886?

Anyway, you are to be congratulated on discerning a trend that Met Office professionals do not consider statistically significant. More power to your elbow.

OK, so I did
Here's the graph

* rainfall 2.jpg (32.97 kB . 480x288 - viewed 2901 times)
If you have a look, you can see that the equation, and the correlation coefficient for the best line fit are included.

Now, there's a couple of differences to note.
The correlation coefficient is much bigger for the data set I   looked at and the slope is bigger (and in the opposite direction).
Any idea how that came about?
Here's a hint.
"underlines the fact that the smaller the sample, the less meaningful the statistics!"

So, perhaps the best thing to do is combine those data sets


* rainfall 3.jpg (32.7 kB . 480x288 - viewed 2887 times)

Still looks like a trend do me (And I know what an r value means).

Re. "what on earth happened between 1878 and 1886?"
Among other things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 31/05/2017 17:45:46
Which is good and which is bad?

More rainfall is good or bad?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/06/2017 13:00:42
Whilst plants and animal are a good sink for CO2 the same is not so true for deuterium. So that any increase will persist far longer.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X69900417
The trick is to determine how the increase happens in the first place.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/06/2017 17:29:54
Animals do not sink CO2. On the contrary, they are the primary source!

Biology 101: plants are defined as things that use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates, hydrocarbons and oxygen; animals are defined as things that generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates and hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/06/2017 17:32:45
Animals do not sink CO2. On the contrary, they are the primary source!

Biology 101: plants are defined as things that use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates, hydrocarbons and oxygen; animals are defined as things that generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates and hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide.

OK you got me there.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/06/2017 20:16:19
Animals do not sink CO2. On the contrary, they are the primary source!

Biology 101: plants are defined as things that use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates, hydrocarbons and oxygen; animals are defined as things that generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates and hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide.

Surely the primary sink for carbon is the use of it as shells by sea creatures. Animals.

When they drop down to become limestone they take the carbon with them for a very long time.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 01/06/2017 22:03:13
Animals do not sink CO2. On the contrary, they are the primary source!

Biology 101: plants are defined as things that use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates, hydrocarbons and oxygen; animals are defined as things that generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates and hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide.

Surely the primary sink for carbon is the use of it as shells by sea creatures. Animals.

When they drop down to become limestone they take the carbon with them for a very long time.
I'll agree with you here!

I don't know off hand how much CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere each year by non-photosynthetic marine organisms (including coral and diatoms) these days, but diatoms removed an enormous portion of atmospheric CO2 way back when they first evolved.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/06/2017 10:05:56
No matter how much carbon dioxide I generate by living, eating meat, driving around, and running umpteen machines at work, when I die there will be about a ton of CO2 sequestered in my house. So should we encourage everyone to make steel and concrete? I think not. 

It would be interesting to know the lifetime CO2 balance of a diatom or coral polyp. There's certainly a lot of it sequestered in sedimentary rock but the carboxylwarmists keep reminding us that weathering puts the stuff back into the atmosphere!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/06/2017 12:44:46
Depends upon the heavy water vapour concentration in the atmosphere.

The heavy water vapor concentration in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Not the other way around. That is why deuterium content is used to measure temperature indirectly.

Are you saying that when temperature increases the lighter hydrogen rises leaving the deuterium at lower levels and so at a greater concentration?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/06/2017 17:34:11
So what causes the ratios in the oceans, rivers and lakes to change?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/06/2017 21:41:36
How does this explain the cycles in the ice cores?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 03/06/2017 02:48:07
How does this explain the cycles in the ice cores?

The ice in the cores is from compressed snowfall. So you can think of it like sedimentary rock: the earliest snow has become the deepest ice, and the most recent snow became the ice near the top (so this establishes the timeline). Then, because the ice was deposited as snow, we know that the water had become vaporized, redistributed and then fell as snow. Therefore the ratio of the H/D isotopes in a given part of the ice core is reflective of the H/D ratio in the atmosphere at a given point in time, and this serves as an indication of the temperature of the surface water around the globe when the snow formed.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/06/2017 16:32:15
Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/06/2017 17:19:29
Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/06/2017 17:24:04
Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.


Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?

So far the worst thing about a slightly warmer world seems to be that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/06/2017 17:37:22
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/papers/SPEC_ACTA_60_2611_2004.pdf
This is of interest.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2017 17:38:08

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?
.

Yes, there's still an answer.
You still keep ignoring it.

Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 23/05/2017 19:55:47

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.
Actually, it's quite easy to defend.
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.[/quote]
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/06/2017 17:43:48
Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.


Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?

So far the worst thing about a slightly warmer world seems to be that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.

Part of the process in determining the answer to your question is to examine the evidence and trying to determine causes and mechanisms. Or we could just pull things out of the air.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/06/2017 17:45:02

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?
.

Yes, there's still an answer.
You still keep ignoring it.

Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 23/05/2017 19:55:47

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.
Actually, it's quite easy to defend.
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.


If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/06/2017 17:47:38
Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.


Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?

So far the worst thing about a slightly warmer world seems to be that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.

Part of the process in determining the answer to your question is to examine the evidence and trying to determine causes and mechanisms. Or we could just pull things out of the air.


The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2017 18:24:31

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?
If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/06/2017 19:50:34
The huge problem is that water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas but it is always present. As temperature increases the ratio of isotopes in the water changes. This is unlike methane, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses. They don't have more than one phase present in quantities. To say how bad thing are likely to get is not to assume that we know the cause and then determine how bad our guess might turn out.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 04/06/2017 20:03:38

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?
If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.


I have been very clear;

I want to see if there is any science that supports the idea that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing.

Not science about if that warmer world will happen. At least not in this thread.

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/06/2017 22:04:24
Science cannot tell you that. It is subjective and open to interpretation. To be able to make that interpretation you need to analyse the data and make a judgement based on personal criteria. What might appear bad to one person might appear good to another. That is down to the vagaries of human nature.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 04/06/2017 22:13:20

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?
If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.


I have been very clear;

I want to see if there is any science that supports the idea that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing.

Not science about if that warmer world will happen. At least not in this thread.

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

There is no shortage of primary and secondary literature that addresses this very question. But my experience shows me that you will discount anything I put forth, so if you are as interested in answering this question as you claim to be, I suggest you do some diggin' yourself. Perhaps start here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+climate+change+bad
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 04/06/2017 22:20:41
I have split the discussion of isotopes off into a separate thread. I would direct everyone to use this thread to discuss OP's original question, and the new thread for discussion of isotope fractionation: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70556.0
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/06/2017 23:10:31
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.
Because, as has been pointed out many times,  there is no evidence for it. Extreme weather causes more damage every year because people choose to live in more marginal environments

But

www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf supports the following conclusion with some sound statistics

Quote
In the U.S., morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events peaked decades ago.
Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average annual mortality is 59%81% lower than at its peak, while mortality rates declined 72%94%, despite large increases in the population at
risk. Today, extreme weather events contribute only 0.06% to global and U.S. mortality. These improvements reflect a remarkable improvement in societys adaptive capacity, likely due to greater
wealth and better technology enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels. Finally, mortality from extreme weather events has declined even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/06/2017 23:18:04
The answer to the original question has two aspects

1. It is a matter of opinion whether the ability to grow grapes in Scotland again (as has been done within recorded history) would be Good Thing

2. Human migration driven by rapid climate change in either direction is a Bad Thing. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2017 08:58:45
That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

Trying to find out what on Earth you are looking for when you ask, in the same breath for both more-, and less- science is neither  a trick, nor evasion.
Don't try to pretend that it is.

How is it anything other than self evident that putting more energy into the weather will make the weather more extreme?
Which bit don't you understand?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/06/2017 17:27:26
Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2017 18:13:31
Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/06/2017 18:18:10
So having a warmer world means a lack of cloud cover doesn't let heat escape at night? We will have a lovely continuous temperature.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 05/06/2017 18:21:22
Science cannot tell you that. It is subjective and open to interpretation. To be able to make that interpretation you need to analyse the data and make a judgement based on personal criteria. What might appear bad to one person might appear good to another. That is down to the vagaries of human nature.
Complete drive.

I am askinmg that the case for action against CO2 be made so I can look at it and see if there is one.

You have attempted to do this so the idea that there is some sort of philosophical block is drivel.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 05/06/2017 18:23:46

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?
If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.


I have been very clear;

I want to see if there is any science that supports the idea that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing.

Not science about if that warmer world will happen. At least not in this thread.

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

There is no shortage of primary and secondary literature that addresses this very question. But my experience shows me that you will discount anything I put forth, so if you are as interested in answering this question as you claim to be, I suggest you do some diggin' yourself. Perhaps start here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+climate+change+bad
I will skeptically challenge anything you post,

I will not be diverted by links to tyoo long to read masses of vague drivel.

Those are exactly the tactics of the religious.

What is so hard about explaining and supporting your ideas?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 05/06/2017 18:29:14
That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

Trying to find out what on Earth you are looking for when you ask, in the same breath for both more-, and less- science is neither  a trick, nor evasion.
Don't try to pretend that it is.

How is it anything other than self evident that putting more energy into the weather will make the weather more extreme?
Which bit don't you understand?
Places with higher temperatures such as the equitorial regions have the most stable climates going.

The polar regios where the temperature is lowest have the most extreme variability, generally.

Venus which has very high energy levels in it's air has almost no variability, it is always hell. Mars with almost no energy in it's almost atmosphere has many year long sand storms.

If you cannot find any science to support your precious idea there is a reason. If there is no such science then we cannot quantify how much of a problem it is.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 05/06/2017 18:30:25
Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts
Post some facts then we can look at them.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/06/2017 20:35:08
Tim, I don't doubt that you can find a perfectly reasonable objection to any give study I put forth.

We can't observe what hasn't happened yet, so any study will have to rely on drawing comparisons to things that have happened before (but nothing quite like this has happened), or making projections based on current and recent trends, or performing experiments in controlled laboratory settings (which makes it easy to establish causality, but must be simpler than what happens in the real world). In essence, there is no single paper I can present here that won't have apparent holes. The important thing is the body of literature. Everybody is attacking these questions using different methods, using different assumptions, using different data. And they almost all have reached the conclusion that global climate change is going to be very expensive to cope with, and poses serious threats to geopolitical and ecological stability.

But, here goes...

As far as we can tell, climate change will lead to:
A higher sea level (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032;jsessionid=B15B29DE88D582FE6F136534540F0AE9.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org) , which will damage costal cities and habitats, in extreme cases leading to displacement of people and other organisms (especially at risk are islands and wetlands).
Shifted weather patterns (http://www.nature.com/news/climate-zones-will-shift-faster-as-world-warms-1.12838), transforming previously wet and fertile lands into deserts, and vice versa. (So if you own a soy farm in Iowa now, you might have to decide in 20 years, whether to change crops or move a few hundred miles one way or the other to be in the new breadbasket region) Ultimately this will also lead to displacement of people and other organisms.
More dangerous weather (see sea-level rise reference above, and also http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/abs/nature16467.html ) Meteorology is very complex, so there is no simple, "x causes y causes z, QED!" But it has been shown that drought damage to crops has bee increasing over the last century, commensurate with climate change. As sea levels rise, costal cities will be at greater risk of flooding from storm surges (which cause more damage than wind in hurricanes). Also, with a warmer atmosphere, more water evaporates each day (globally), increasing the movement of water vapor around in the atmosphere, and providing more rain in places where the rain does fall.
Increase the spread of diseases and blights ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/514 ) Essentially the warmer temperatures will generally be great for insects and the like. More mosquitos, more ticks, more disease. This also means more damage to crops and forrests from herbivorous insects such as locusts, beetles, and ants.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/06/2017 20:51:39
Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/06/2017 20:59:25
Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

This is sarcasm, right?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2017 20:38:03
Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts
Post some facts then we can look at them.

You don't seem to recognise them.
For example
Here's a fact
This assertion "Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. " is not always true- as witnessed by the counter example.

However weather is essentially driven by temperature gradients.


So, here's another fact for you.
For any given object, the higher the flux of heat through it, the larger the temperature gradient will be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier.27s_law
(It's more complex with the other 3 forms of heat transport, but the basic idea's still the same.

Increasing the  energy trapped by the air (By increasing CO2)  will increase the temperature gradients between where ever the sun's shining and where it's not.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 07/06/2017 21:43:46
Tim, I don't doubt that you can find a perfectly reasonable objection to any give study I put forth.

Well, then they are all crap then.

Come on! Try to be scientific about this!!!

Find one issue, not many so we can look at the detail, rigor, you know science like, and then explain how that thing will cause trouble, then cite a paper or basic science that supports it, then we can see if it is more or less costly than traffic lights.

Simple.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 07/06/2017 21:49:22
Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts
Post some facts then we can look at them.

You don't seem to recognise them.
For example
Here's a fact
This assertion "Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. " is not always true- as witnessed by the counter example.

However weather is essentially driven by temperature gradients.


So, here's another fact for you.
For any given object, the higher the flux of heat through it, the larger the temperature gradient will be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier.27s_law
(It's more complex with the other 3 forms of heat transport, but the basic idea's still the same.

Increasing the  energy trapped by the air (By increasing CO2)  will increase the temperature gradients between where ever the sun's shining and where it's not.

Dear God! The rate of heat flow, flux if you prefer, is proportional to the temperature gradient across the object.

Yes.

The warming is expected to be most at the cold places and weakest at the hot places. Thus less flux.

If it is sooooooo accepted then there must be loads of papers looking at the specific details of this. Assesing the degree of the effects.

Meanwhile, millions of people die per year from not eating the food that is diverted to use as fuel.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/06/2017 00:35:24
Where are these millions dying? Mass starvation is principally an African problem, but according to http://biofuel.org.uk/major-producers-by-region.html the continent produces very little biofuel, mostly from animal poo. If anything, the solution would be to farm fewer animals.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/06/2017 00:38:55
I've never met a "warming denier", so I can't comment on BC's posts. Everyone knows that the climate is changing and currently, in the inhabited parts at least, it is getting warmer. The unresolved questions are why, and what are we going to do in response to it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/06/2017 12:36:27
Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

This is sarcasm, right?

Tim thinks biofuel is the worlds number one problem. So he won't let anything get in the way of his prejudice. So I am making him happy by agreeing with him.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/06/2017 19:58:38
Where are these millions dying? Mass starvation is principally an African problem, but according to http://biofuel.org.uk/major-producers-by-region.html the continent produces very little biofuel, mostly from animal poo. If anything, the solution would be to farm fewer animals.

The world's poor have to buy food at world market prices just like the rest of us.

The price of that food is supply and demand related.

By taking out 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food production the price is increased by 30% to 70%.

The effect is an extraction of 200 to 400 form each and every person on the planet into the pockets of already rich farmers in the West. For us rich people this is mearly cheaky. If you survive on 2 a day it is to continue to lock you in the poverty of the poorest 2 billion people in the world.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/06/2017 20:00:38
Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

This is sarcasm, right?

Tim thinks biofuel is the worlds number one problem. So he won't let anything get in the way of his prejudice. So I am making him happy by agreeing with him.

Rather than face the unconfortable situation of believing something that you are unable to support with any science. Difficult to change your mind when it was a plumber who pointed out that the king's new cloathes were not there at all.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/06/2017 17:44:09
The world's poorest grow their own food, except when it doesn't rain and they are given American rice.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 09/06/2017 21:45:25
The world's poorest grow their own food, except when it doesn't rain and they are given American rice.

No. Those are not the world's poorest.

The poorest do not have land to grow their own food.

The street children of India or Nigeria die of hunger related deaths and the poorest 3 billion are artifically locked into their desperate poverty due to the use of food as fuel.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: evan_au on 10/06/2017 01:27:49
Quote from: Tim The Plumber
If you cannot find any science to support your precious idea there is a reason.
Quote from: Tim The Plumber
I will not be diverted by links to too long to read masses of vague drivel.
To parody: I will demand absolute, detailed proof, but I will ignore any evidence you provide.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 10/06/2017 02:19:32
I agree that biofuel is folly. If you count the energy requirements of irrigating, fertilizing, tending, harvesting, and processing of crops to make ethanol, it is rare to see any benefit at all.

But arguments about food security and famine are very much on the side of climate change being a major threat to food security. If you claim ti be concerned about those starving in the world, at least consider than substantial changes to the weather patterns over the next 50 to 100 years could cause significant disruptions to food supply and distribution.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 10/06/2017 09:56:37
Quote from: Tim The Plumber
If you cannot find any science to support your precious idea there is a reason.
Quote from: Tim The Plumber
I will not be diverted by links to too long to read masses of vague drivel.
To parody: I will demand absolute, detailed proof, but I will ignore any evidence you provide.

If you quote relavent bits from it and then link to the site I will read it.

If you link to a vast ream of stuff with no quote from it I will presume that like all the rest you are doing the religious think of refering to a too long to read loadd of drivel.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 10/06/2017 09:58:02
I agree that biofuel is folly. If you count the energy requirements of irrigating, fertilizing, tending, harvesting, and processing of crops to make ethanol, it is rare to see any benefit at all.

But arguments about food security and famine are very much on the side of climate change being a major threat to food security. If you claim ti be concerned about those starving in the world, at least consider than substantial changes to the weather patterns over the next 50 to 100 years could cause significant disruptions to food supply and distribution.


That is often said.

It does not however have any justification scientifically.

If ypou can find support, in a sciece way, for such concearns please post them.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Walterhurley56 on 10/06/2017 13:22:33
There are lots of scientific evidences which show that the issue is real and there are ways to make consequences less harmful. The Paris Climate Agreement was a big step towards improvement but unfortunately not all can understand that. That is why I think the best way is when every one put their daily routine, let <a href="https://au.edubirdie.com/do-my-homework-for-money">this source</a> to write your papers and think about what they can do to prevent climate change and act. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 10/06/2017 15:02:21
There are lots of scientific evidences which show that the issue is real and there are ways to make consequences less harmful. The Paris Climate Agreement was a big step towards improvement but unfortunately not all can understand that. That is why I think the best way is when every one put their daily routine, let <a href="https://au.edubirdie.com/do-my-homework-for-money">this source</a> to write your papers and think about what they can do to prevent climate change and act. 

Just because you clearly have not taken any notice what so ever of any of the previous posts in this thread;

Can you describe one issue of a slightly warmer world that is scary.

Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism of this happening, not the temperature rise but the bit between the increased temperature and the bad thing.

Then cite some supporting science. Link to it and quote relavent bits from it to show that you have actually read it your self.

The we can look at it and see if it is possibly going to be more difficult to sort out than any local council, that has traffic lights, will spend on traffic lights.

So far nobody has actually managed this. the best so far has been that Maple syrup production has been hit by milder winters but the tecnology has go better and is Canada being the bigger producer a bad thing?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/06/2017 17:34:04
There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/06/2017 17:38:44
And if you think it's just a bit more rain look up flash flooding. Do a bit of your own research for once.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2017 18:49:46

Just because you clearly have not taken any notice what so ever of any of the previous posts in this thread;

Can you describe one issue of a slightly warmer world that is scary.

Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism of this happening, not the temperature rise but the bit between the increased temperature and the bad thing.

Then cite some supporting science. Link to it and quote relavent bits from it to show that you have actually read it your self.

The we can look at it and see if it is possibly going to be more difficult to sort out than any local council, that has traffic lights, will spend on traffic lights.

So far nobody has actually managed this. the best so far has been that Maple syrup production has been hit by milder winters but the tecnology has go better and is Canada being the bigger producer a bad thing?

"Just because you clearly have not taken any notice what so ever of any of the previous posts in this thread;"
Get a mirror.

"Can you describe one issue of a slightly warmer world that is scary."
Two things, firstly
Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.
Secondly
This is
 why people on your side of the debate get called "deiniers"
The first few posts in the tread cite explanations why it's scary
"Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War."
"Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops."
And the thread carries on in that way with people explaining why it's a bad thing- giving specific instances.

And you just tell the lie that nobody has said why it's a problem.

Do you think we are blind?
Did you not think we would notice?

"Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism of this happening, not the temperature rise but the bit between the increased temperature and the bad thing."

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.

Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and  sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.

And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.

But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.

Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.

Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.

To ignore those risks  and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.


And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"


Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.
If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.
I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?



And so on.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 11/06/2017 02:15:39
Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 09:54:52
There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/


It is becoming increasingly pathetic that there is not the actual correct response to the challenge. You are unable to actually read the stuff you link to.

Quote
Some communities in Louisiana have already begun such adaptation, including requiring higher minimum elevation of new structures and requiring older ones to be raised higher to qualify for lower flood insurance rates. In some communities where Superstorm Sandy flooded homes and businesses, building codes now require construction of whats known as freeboard, the space between where 100-year flood levels are projected to rise to in major storms or floods and the start of the building.

So that is sorted then. A little more protection.

Still not found an actual paper that describes the mechanism and looks at the degree of change or couse. Fail all round.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 09:57:56
Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

And recomend you actually do the challenge.

Say which single scary thing it is you want to look at.

Then explain the mechanism that will cause this in your own words. Linking to drivel will not do. You want the world to react to this global warming thing so you have to know what you are talking about or shut up.

Then link to and quote from supporting science.

The we can see the degree of badness that that will cause. Without such rigor you are just a hand waving man in the high street with a sign saying that the end of the world is neigh.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/06/2017 11:55:53
Going back a few posts, drought is not an example of extreme weather. It hardly ever rains in the Nazca plain, and Antarctica is a desert. It rarely rains in the Canaries but the soil is kept fertile by night fog. This is all called "climate". Occasional extreme weather occurs when warm, wet air penetrates the Antarctic high, but continuous dryness is not associated with high winds or damaging precipitation. I guess it depends on what you mean by "weather" and "extreme"
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 12:16:51
There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/


It is becoming increasingly pathetic that there is not the actual correct response to the challenge. You are unable to actually read the stuff you link to.

Quote
Some communities in Louisiana have already begun such adaptation, including requiring higher minimum elevation of new structures and requiring older ones to be raised higher to qualify for lower flood insurance rates. In some communities where Superstorm Sandy flooded homes and businesses, building codes now require construction of what’s known as freeboard, the space between where 100-year flood levels are projected to rise to in major storms or floods and the start of the building.

So that is sorted then. A little more protection.

Still not found an actual paper that describes the mechanism and looks at the degree of change or couse. Fail all round.

So you think that because Louisiana has woken up then everything is sorted? What about everywhere else? You really should think before you type.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 12:21:52
Helicopter rescue. The accumulative cost is more than traffic lights.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 12:56:47
Dealing with 500 incidents. Cost more than traffic lights? Maybe.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2017 13:03:59
Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

And recomend you actually do the challenge.

Say which single scary thing it is you want to look at.

Then explain the mechanism that will cause this in your own words. Linking to drivel will not do. You want the world to react to this global warming thing so you have to know what you are talking about or shut up.

Then link to and quote from supporting science.

The we can see the degree of badness that that will cause. Without such rigor you are just a hand waving man in the high street with a sign saying that the end of the world is neigh.
Already did.
You ignored it.

You ask these questions: we answer them, and then you ask them again.
Why is that?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2017 13:10:05
Going back a few posts, drought is not an example of extreme weather. It hardly ever rains in the Nazca plain, and Antarctica is a desert. It rarely rains in the Canaries but the soil is kept fertile by night fog. This is all called "climate". Occasional extreme weather occurs when warm, wet air penetrates the Antarctic high, but continuous dryness is not associated with high winds or damaging precipitation. I guess it depends on what you mean by "weather" and "extreme"
And if it started raining regularly in the Nazca plains, would you accept that was a change in climate?
The UK  is famously drizzly  in Summer.
Do you realise that regular Summer droughts represent a change in climate?
Do you realise that regular Summer floods also represent a change in climate?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 13:35:01
There are some traffic lights in this montage and also reports of fatalities in son of the footage.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 13:53:05
More than a flash flood.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 13:59:28
It's in Italy
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 14:02:04
It's in Spain.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 14:07:08
What would be the cost of a 100 year flood in Paris and does it beat traffic lights.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 14:10:42
And it happens in Germany.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 14:37:52
Also China.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 14:43:24
Baton Rouge Florida 2016.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 14:48:17
Flash flood evolution Utah 2016.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 16:11:30
There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/


It is becoming increasingly pathetic that there is not the actual correct response to the challenge. You are unable to actually read the stuff you link to.

Quote
Some communities in Louisiana have already begun such adaptation, including requiring higher minimum elevation of new structures and requiring older ones to be raised higher to qualify for lower flood insurance rates. In some communities where Superstorm Sandy flooded homes and businesses, building codes now require construction of what’s known as freeboard, the space between where 100-year flood levels are projected to rise to in major storms or floods and the start of the building.

So that is sorted then. A little more protection.

Still not found an actual paper that describes the mechanism and looks at the degree of change or couse. Fail all round.

So you think that because Louisiana has woken up then everything is sorted? What about everywhere else? You really should think before you type.


The challenge is that the cost has to be more than the budget for traffic lights for any local council that has the things.

Given that you slected a particular example, where there is a lot of subsidance, the point that they have it sorted is obviously going to be locally done.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 16:12:15
Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

And recomend you actually do the challenge.

Say which single scary thing it is you want to look at.

Then explain the mechanism that will cause this in your own words. Linking to drivel will not do. You want the world to react to this global warming thing so you have to know what you are talking about or shut up.

Then link to and quote from supporting science.

The we can see the degree of badness that that will cause. Without such rigor you are just a hand waving man in the high street with a sign saying that the end of the world is neigh.
Already did.
You ignored it.

You ask these questions: we answer them, and then you ask them again.
Why is that?


Which post did you do this in?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2017 16:16:42
Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

And recomend you actually do the challenge.

Say which single scary thing it is you want to look at.

Then explain the mechanism that will cause this in your own words. Linking to drivel will not do. You want the world to react to this global warming thing so you have to know what you are talking about or shut up.

Then link to and quote from supporting science.

The we can see the degree of badness that that will cause. Without such rigor you are just a hand waving man in the high street with a sign saying that the end of the world is neigh.
Already did.
You ignored it.

You ask these questions: we answer them, and then you ask them again.
Why is that?


Which post did you do this in?

Well,  I illustrated the point by answering the first 2 or 3 yesterday in post 272.
Is your memory not up to that, or do you just not read stuff?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 16:16:51
Helicopter rescue. The accumulative cost is more than traffic lights.


This is utterly pathetic!!!

Are you arguing that there have never been such events until it has warmed up a bit recently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Great Storm of 1703

The great storm of 1703 killed 15,000 people. Was that due to CO2 from fossil fuels?

Weather and climate are different and you will need to show that extreme events have increased in frequency due to the minute warming we have had so far. Or that you have compelling science that describes how this wil happen in the future. The mechanism. You will be expected to actually show that you understnad this mechanism yourself.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 16:19:37
Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

And recomend you actually do the challenge.

Say which single scary thing it is you want to look at.

Then explain the mechanism that will cause this in your own words. Linking to drivel will not do. You want the world to react to this global warming thing so you have to know what you are talking about or shut up.

Then link to and quote from supporting science.

The we can see the degree of badness that that will cause. Without such rigor you are just a hand waving man in the high street with a sign saying that the end of the world is neigh.
Already did.
You ignored it.

You ask these questions: we answer them, and then you ask them again.
Why is that?


Which post did you do this in?

Well,  I illustrated the point by answering the first 2 or 3 yesterday in post 272.
Is your memory not up to that, or do you just not read stuff?

Which is not passing the challenge then is it?

You have failed to explain the mechanism for any of your chosen dooms.

You have then failed to quote from supporting scince that you cite.

Thus it is impossible to asses the extent of any doom. Fail.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 16:21:19
The challenge is that the cost has to be more than the budget for traffic lights for any local council that has the things.

Given that you slected a particular example, where there is a lot of subsidance, the point that they have it sorted is obviously going to be locally done.

You deflect as well as my daughter when she knows she is losing.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 16:25:47
Helicopter rescues cost more than traffic lights. You stated the criteria. The flooding necessitated the rescue. Flooding events are becoming more frequent. Mechanism climate change. You won't accept evidence so case closed.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 16:27:46
Insulting people by insinuating they are talking drivel or are pathetic is like shouting over an opponent in a debate. It is a defence against admitting defeat.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 16:37:00
European flood data.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-past-floods
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2017 19:29:52
...
Which is not passing the challenge then is it?

It wasn't meant to be.
It was meant to be an illustration of the fact that you ignore answers.
Why do you do that?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 20:05:01
Helicopter rescues cost more than traffic lights. You stated the criteria. The flooding necessitated the rescue. Flooding events are becoming more frequent. Mechanism climate change. You won't accept evidence so case closed.
The increase cost of doing such stuff must be more than the cost it would have been plus the traffic lights cost.

You must first demonstrate that there is an increase in such events (there is no such connection), then you must show that it is significantly more costly.

This is only difficult to understand for the deliberately ignorant!!!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 20:08:48
...
Which is not passing the challenge then is it?

It wasn't meant to be.
It was meant to be an illustration of the fact that you ignore answers.
Why do you do that?

Millions of dead because of this bad science!

There is even no actual science that actually shows we should do anything about this CO2 issue. You demonstrate that each time you partially answer the challenge and claim it having been completed!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 11/06/2017 20:12:46
Insulting people by insinuating they are talking drivel or are pathetic is like shouting over an opponent in a debate. It is a defence against admitting defeat.

Then, in a single post, do all 4 of these;

1, say what single issue you want to discuss.

2, explain in your own words what mechanism this will be caused by. That is the bit between the increase in temperature and the bad thing.

3, cite science that supports this with a relavant quote from it. Linking to anything you your self have not read will not do.

4, then we can look at the degree of damage and se if it will  be significant or not.

Simple!

That we have got so far without any such a reply says it all. Let's face it when the religious nuts go on you do not get this emotional. It is because you know that you cannot do this that you are so worked up.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 20:21:01
What makes you think I'm worked up?
"The increase cost of doing such stuff must be more than the cost it would have been plus the traffic lights cost."
So you want helicopter rescue data now. Ok.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 20:25:12
Well there may be a problem with that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9961455/Britains-search-and-rescue-helicopters-to-be-cut-by-nearly-50pc-in-new-deal.html
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 20:32:38
Well I guess this is the place to go for the data.
http://bristowgroup.com/uk-sar/
Being a private company the cost has likely gone up from that of the RAF. They are also less likely to want to release data on cost. What do you suggest Tim? We are at an impasse here.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 20:40:06
I wonder how they are going to make disaster profitable?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2017 20:40:38
...
Which is not passing the challenge then is it?

It wasn't meant to be.
It was meant to be an illustration of the fact that you ignore answers.
Why do you do that?

Millions of dead because of this bad science!

Citation needed.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 21:00:21
4. By the way this point is a nonsense since you are suggesting that we look at a hypothesised degree of damage. Straw man Tim.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/06/2017 21:30:53
Just in case you think this is straightforward you need to consider the interdependence of species and what their disappearance means.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/keystone-species/
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/06/2017 23:59:04

And if it started raining regularly in the Nazca plains, would you accept that was a change in climate?
Climate has always changed. Time was that the Sahara was relatively fertile, Cambridge was a tropical swamp, and he Arctic ice sheet was a lot smaller within recorded history. Climate change is inevitable and wholly unsurprising.
 
Quote
The UK  is famously drizzly  in Summer.
No. Drizzle is associated with low cloud and winter warm fronts. UK summer rain is mostly sharp showers from cumulus clouds formed high in cold air. But what does the Civil Aviation Authority know about meteorology, eh? Bloody textbooks! 
Quote
Do you realise that regular Summer droughts represent a change in climate?
Quote
Telegraph 18 Apr 2017 - Water companies have warned that parts of UK could see drought this summer after the driest winter in more than 20 years.
  Depends on your definition of "regular", "summer" and "drought", I suppose. The inability of privatised water companies to maintain their infrastructure  is legendary.

Quote
Do you realise that regular Summer floods also represent a change in climate?
A chap who posts under your pseudonym would, I think, class flash floods as "weather", and my hydrologist consultants explain that summer flash flooding in areas like Yorkshire is caused not by unusual weather (UK thunderstorms peaked in the 1970s) but by injudicious land development. The last really big floods in Somerset were  in February 2013, but again your definition of summer may differ from mine. 

Not sure what your problem is, BC. Everyone with a functional neural system knows that climate changes. The question here is whether current changes are on the whole a Good Thing or  Bad Thing. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2017 19:40:55
Not sure what your problem is, BC. Everyone with a functional neural system knows that climate changes. The question here is whether current changes are on the whole a Good Thing or  Bad Thing. 
Well, if it's that simple, we answered the question ages ago.
Didn't you notice?
(Hint, it's a bad thing- all are systems are geared up for the climate we currently have).

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/06/2017 21:34:30
Except that edible plant yields are increasing each year thanks to the longer growing season and increased CO2 in temperate latitudes.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Beehelp on 15/06/2017 13:28:23
I believe in global warming in that, climate goes through cycles. Predictions mean nothing to me. I remember in the seventies, it was the ice age to be worried about. As far as our own contribution to global warming. Nada!!! Our silly little vehicles cause miniscule issues compared to volcanos or gasses from the ocean floor. However, right now, the political correct research and money to support it goes to the greenies.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2017 21:17:10
I believe in global warming in that, climate goes through cycles. Predictions mean nothing to me. I remember in the seventies, it was the ice age to be worried about. As far as our own contribution to global warming. Nada!!! Our silly little vehicles cause miniscule issues compared to volcanos or gasses from the ocean floor. However, right now, the political correct research and money to support it goes to the greenies.

The facts don't agree with you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

so we can dismiss your opinions without further consideration.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/06/2017 22:11:00
Helicopter rescue. The accumulative cost is more than traffic lights.


This is utterly pathetic!!!

Are you arguing that there have never been such events until it has warmed up a bit recently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Great Storm of 1703

The great storm of 1703 killed 15,000 people. Was that due to CO2 from fossil fuels?

Weather and climate are different and you will need to show that extreme events have increased in frequency due to the minute warming we have had so far. Or that you have compelling science that describes how this wil happen in the future. The mechanism. You will be expected to actually show that you understnad this mechanism yourself.

Please think before you type. No one is saying that floods like this have never happened before. They are saying that floods like said great storm, which only happen every couple years, will increase in frequency, possibly to the point where what used to be every hundred years could be every 20 years. Do you think that maybe quintupling the rate that these things happen might, just might, be more expensive than standard upkeep?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/06/2017 23:15:06
Problem is that there is no evidence of more extreme weather, only of more damage  being done to an ever more fragile civilisation as people build on less suitable terrain and pour concrete over natural soakaways. Mud has been sliding down mountains since the dinosaurs got trapped in it, but building shanty towns on unstable hillsides is a phenomenon of the last 150 years, and becoming more prevalent every year.

Katrina was a regular Grade 5 hurricane, but urban development of the wetlands around New Orleans turned it into a disaster.
Quote
According to a modeling exercise conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), two-thirds of the deaths in Greater New Orleans were due to levee and floodwall failure.[6] All of the major studies concluded that the USACE, the designers and builders of the levee system as mandated by the Flood Control Act of 1965, is responsible.This is mainly due to a decision to use shorter steel sheet pilings in an effort to save money.

Nothing like it in the last 12 years, though, so no evidence of worsening weather.

I remember leaving my London office one afternoon about 25 years ago as bits of university masonry were being blown past the window and the canopy of Liverpool Street station collapsed. Nothing like it since.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 06:23:03
Once you have worked in hydrology for a decade you start to notice trends that are outside your local vicinity. Most people don't make the mental note. Then you tend to spot things like the event in Venezuela which is out of my local news area and doesn't directly impact me. The year 1997 was of particular interest.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/06/2017 17:45:36
What makes you think I'm worked up?
"The increase cost of doing such stuff must be more than the cost it would have been plus the traffic lights cost."
So you want helicopter rescue data now. Ok.
As you fully understand I am asking you to show that such events are anything to do with global warming.

Your deliberate ignorance is a disgrace to a science forum.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/06/2017 17:47:14
4. By the way this point is a nonsense since you are suggesting that we look at a hypothesised degree of damage. Straw man Tim.
Drivel.

You claim that there is a good reason to stop using fossil fuels.

What is it?

More deliberate ignorance!!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/06/2017 17:49:00
Helicopter rescue. The accumulative cost is more than traffic lights.


This is utterly pathetic!!!

Are you arguing that there have never been such events until it has warmed up a bit recently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Great Storm of 1703

The great storm of 1703 killed 15,000 people. Was that due to CO2 from fossil fuels?

Weather and climate are different and you will need to show that extreme events have increased in frequency due to the minute warming we have had so far. Or that you have compelling science that describes how this wil happen in the future. The mechanism. You will be expected to actually show that you understnad this mechanism yourself.

Please think before you type. No one is saying that floods like this have never happened before. They are saying that floods like said great storm, which only happen every couple years, will increase in frequency, possibly to the point where what used to be every hundred years could be every 20 years. Do you think that maybe quintupling the rate that these things happen might, just might, be more expensive than standard upkeep?
Then show some link between the world being slightly warmer now than it was in 1970 and any increase in such events.

There is no such evidence.

Posting anecdotal photos is utterly unscientific and pathetic.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 17:54:33
They are videos Tim. Since you obviously didn't bother to watch them then you are not interested in a proper debate.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 16/06/2017 17:56:04
Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 C. An increase of 2 C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 C to 0 C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km3 of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 C to 37 C does not change the 0 C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km3 of air (an increase of almost 14%.)
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/06/2017 17:56:32
They are videos Tim. Since you obviously didn't bother to watch them then you are not interested in a proper debate.
If you have any science that shows any increase in storms or any such thing have at it!!!!

That you want to post videos which have no bearing on anything shows it all.

This is supposed to be a science forum!!!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 17:57:19
4. By the way this point is a nonsense since you are suggesting that we look at a hypothesised degree of damage. Straw man Tim.
Drivel.

You claim that there is a good reason to stop using fossil fuels.

What is it?

More deliberate ignorance!!

I have made no mention of fossil fuels. The CO2 they pump into the atmosphere is incidental.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 17:59:59
The videos show what actually happens during the events in question. Venezuela and in particular the year 1997 are of interest in this regard. Go and do a little research. You might learn something. Instead of sitting on your bum telling others how pathetic they are.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/06/2017 18:01:12
Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 C. An increase of 2 C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 C to 0 C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km3 of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 C to 37 C does not change the 0 C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km3 of air (an increase of almost 14%.)

Thank you for a good post.

The counter point to that is that there has been no such increase in storm intensity.

It is also a matter of the additional energy required to get all that water into the cloud. The proposed level of forcing is at most 4 W/m2 (from memory and there are lots of numbers about) from a doubling of CO2.

That there would be a general increase in rainfall is I think reasonable. But over most of the world that is a very good thing. Over the wet parts the slight increase in rainfall would be only noticable to those looking at the weather data.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/06/2017 18:01:59
The videos show what actually happens during the events in question. Venezuela and in particular the year 1997 are of interest in this regard. Go and do a little research. You might learn something. Instead of sitting on your bum telling others how pathetic they are.
Do you have anything that links that to global warming???????????

No? Then leave your irrelavent drivel out of it!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 18:03:09
We all learn by our mistakes Tim. You have made the mistake of assuming that you know what you are talking about. You could learn from that mistake if you were so inclined.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 18:12:33
First there was this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1997_tornado_outbreak
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 18:18:03
Also this.
https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/34880-christmas-eve-severe-gale-of-1997/
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2017 18:20:24
And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 17/06/2017 13:16:15
Global warming is a relative concept, because the earth does not have a uniform temperature profile over time. Rather the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all by itself. There is no base temperature for the earth. The impact of a slight warm up, from an arbitrary point in earth history, is not good or bad but neutral to nature.

The idea that warming is evil, is a man made up value judgement. We are not going anywhere, where the earth does not go on its own. The perceived affect is more psychological and human. It is not much different from each generation having a nostalgia for a point in time, and wanting to stop time there. The older generation may even work to stop progress due to their perceived doom and gloom, if anything changes. The next generation, who grew up in different times, now has its own sweet spot for nostalgia. That is the new best of times. The earth does not work this way, since cyclic change is the best of times not any single point in time.

Consider a place like California, that is subject to earth quakes, with major quakes always predicted in the future. Why doesn't everyone panic and start a mass migration out of California? The drum beat of predicted doom and gloom has been sounding for decades. It even created a substantial science and government bureaucracy. The reason there is no mass migration is, people take their chance and learn how to be prepared. People get tired of worrying about the sky falling each day. You learn to live with minor earthquakes and tremors, which will scare a newbie who is still in panic mode and has yet to psychologically adapt to the new best of times.

The real doom and gloom, always seems delayed compare to the sales pitch and once an event does occur,  it is never as bad as the sales pitch. The sales pitch is a type of snake oil made from the finest of ingredients. The quality flavor of the product seems to dominate its practical value and is often mistaken for practical value.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 17/06/2017 14:09:30
In terms of a psychology angle, say the entire manmade global warming was a dream. It is interesting to look at the symbolism of this dream and compare it to the teachings of different political orientations. The earth would symbolize instincts; mother nature. The warming of the earth/instinct would imply going from calm to excited, from love to hate, etc. It would represent a change into a more excitable state than natural.

Since the dream says this change is due to man, this would imply this psychological change is being caused by human activity; propaganda and meme virus. This is not natural. This human activity is destroying the earth or damaging instincts. It does not happen over night but is building and causing climate change. The social climate is much less friendly and more combative, with storms of insults and hostility on the internet.

America's left is currently besides itself with fear, anger and hate. This was anticipated by the dream and is reaching a tipping point. This is a large departure from the love generation; cool and calm from which the modern left was spawned. This change in the earth or instinct is being caused by snake oil salesmen in politics, university and in the media. They are damaging instinct, for power, prestige and money, and the base is starting to project a dire future in their day dreams.

One anticipated affect are the poles will melt. The north and south poles are analogous to natural polarizations such as male and female, young and old. It is not about good and evil but polarization of neutral things. The left has conditioned its base to think that male and female is socially conditioned, but homosexuality and heterosexuality is a natural distinction.

The loss of the natural polarization anticipates a shift in the brain, that will flood the earth. This anticipates the unconscious; oceans, swallowing up the conscious mind (land). This symbolism anticipates a psychosis that needs to occur to restore balance. The ego needs to be rebooted, and all that was built, washed away.

Natural human is being replaced by fake human nature, with the result leading to social chaos. Deep down the left senses something wrong inside, and is  projecting this outward into climate change, since it is not yet conscious to them. The right is not using this climate change dream projection, since it does not have the natural instinct problem. They have decided to stay more old school even with crazy peer pressure from the globally warmed left whose instinct is over excited.

In terms of human manipulation to make such a thing possible, if you create an instinctive problem, you can use that to sell people things that have low or no value, while making think they are getting a deal. For example, if I withhold food until you are hungry, I can get you to buy stale bread. If you are allowed to eat as you need; natural instinct, you will not buy stale bread, even if I tell you this is fresher than yesterday's stale bread. One stale bread that is always fresher today that the left like to sell and eat is Trump and Russia.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/06/2017 14:17:34
@puppypower You introduce the word evil which is a loaded term. A threat is neither good nor evil in terms of climate. The climate has no intent. You may attribute the term evil to those proposing a threat from a changing climate but that is very unhelpful.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 17/06/2017 15:26:13
Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 C. An increase of 2 C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 C to 0 C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km3 of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 C to 37 C does not change the 0 C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km3 of air (an increase of almost 14%.)

Thank you for a good post.

You are most welcome :-)
The counter point to that is that there has been no such increase in storm intensity.

But there has been and is. See here: https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm and here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity and here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201513 Although, I will point out, Australia seems to be getting a reprieve: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml but that appears to be largely due to a change in target, as Southeast Asia is seeing an uptick in storm risk: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n4/abs/nclimate1410.html
It is also a matter of the additional energy required to get all that water into the cloud. The proposed level of forcing is at most 4 W/m2 (from memory and there are lots of numbers about) from a doubling of CO2.

That there would be a general increase in rainfall is I think reasonable. But over most of the world that is a very good thing. Over the wet parts the slight increase in rainfall would be only noticable to those looking at the weather data.

It might be a good thing if the rainfall is distributed over time, but my understanding of the models is that the frequency of the storms is not expected to change that much, instead the rainfalls would be more extreme. Yes Arizona is dry, but this: is not what they need. (Click the video)
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/06/2017 16:09:53
I will also add that there is currently a record-setting heat wave across the Southwestern corner of the US. Phoenix Arizona (same location as the rainburst I mentioned in my last post) reached 118 F yesterday (48 C). This is a tie with the record temp, which was set last year. I will point out that the mechanism by which global warming increases the maximum temperatures observed is well understood, and to some extent self-explanatory.

Where the economics/human suffer comes in is this:

1) some of the roadways have melted! The expense of repairing these roads would not necessarily be that much more than the "traffic light rule of thumb" proposed by Tim, but updating all the roadways to be rated for higher temps will be massively expensive!

2) Electricity usage spiked because everybody needed their AC. But the local power can't keep up, and they have rolling blackouts (eek). This is not only dangerous for those who are depending on AC for maintaining livable conditions at home (there have been some deaths reported), but also throws a wrench in the works for businesses, hospitals, factories etc.

3) Oh, and remember how the roads are melting? Similar problems at the airport...

So, if the average temperatures creep up another 23 C over the next 30 years, these people could be facing yearly heat waves the pass 50 C! Did I mention the humidity is increasing too?

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 24/06/2017 14:23:53
And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

No.

I will not read a load of drivel you want to throw at me to avoid actually answering anything yourself.

To pass this challenge you have to;

1, Choose 1 aspect/effect/issue of a slighly warmer world that is bad.

2, Then in your own words, describe the mechanism that will cause this.

3, Then support this mechanism with some science.

4, Then I will read it and look at it. If it is more bad than would be sorted out with the budget of traffic lights for any local council that has them you win.

Otherwise you demonstrate that you have no clue at all.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 24/06/2017 14:25:27
@puppypower You introduce the word evil which is a loaded term. A threat is neither good nor evil in terms of climate. The climate has no intent. You may attribute the term evil to those proposing a threat from a changing climate but that is very unhelpful.

If there is nothing bad/evil about a warmer world why should we avoid it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 24/06/2017 14:29:37
Regarding mechanism of temperature leading to more extreme weather:

The amount of water that can go into the air (vapor pressure) increases with higher temperature. But that increase is not linear, it increases increasingly with higher temperature (see a data table here: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure )

This leads to greater rainfall events with higher temperatures. Consider this: at 25 C the vapor pressure of water is 23.8 mmHg, but at 20 C the vapor pressure is only 17.5 mmHg. That means high humidity air at 25 C would have to lose 6.3 mmHg worth of water on cooling by 5 C. An increase of 2 C (which is now essentially unavoidable) changes these numbers to 26.7 mmHg at 27 C and 19.8 mmHg at 22 C, a difference of 6.9 mmHg, meaning that 10% more rain would fall. This doesn't sound too scary, but this difference is more exaggerated on more extreme weather.

In a major thunderstorm, humid air can be cooled from over 35 C to 0 C (based on our chart that's a difference of 37.6 mmHg or 36 metric tons of rain per km3 of air). Bumping the surface temp up by 2 C to 37 C does not change the 0 C, which is set by altitude, so the rainfall increases to 41 metric tons of rain per km3 of air (an increase of almost 14%.)

Thank you for a good post.

You are most welcome :-)
The counter point to that is that there has been no such increase in storm intensity.

But there has been and is. See here: https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm and here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity and here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201513 Although, I will point out, Australia seems to be getting a reprieve: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml but that appears to be largely due to a change in target, as Southeast Asia is seeing an uptick in storm risk: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n4/abs/nclimate1410.html
It is also a matter of the additional energy required to get all that water into the cloud. The proposed level of forcing is at most 4 W/m2 (from memory and there are lots of numbers about) from a doubling of CO2.

That there would be a general increase in rainfall is I think reasonable. But over most of the world that is a very good thing. Over the wet parts the slight increase in rainfall would be only noticable to those looking at the weather data.

It might be a good thing if the rainfall is distributed over time, but my understanding of the models is that the frequency of the storms is not expected to change that much, instead the rainfalls would be more extreme. Yes Arizona is dry, but this: is not what they need. (Click the video)
1, I don't use "skeptocal science" because it is neither.

2, The link https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity shows a graph of no real difference. It shows that there has not been any change in the amount of huricanes in the Atlantic.

3, The next one is long. Which bit of it says that there is a link? How do they explain this in a detailed mechanism? Can you explain this mechanism yourself? Can you quote from it to show that you have read it and undeerstand it? How big is it?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 24/06/2017 14:35:17
I will also add that there is currently a record-setting heat wave across the Southwestern corner of the US. Phoenix Arizona (same location as the rainburst I mentioned in my last post) reached 118 F yesterday (48 C). This is a tie with the record temp, which was set last year. I will point out that the mechanism by which global warming increases the maximum temperatures observed is well understood, and to some extent self-explanatory.

Where the economics/human suffer comes in is this:

1) some of the roadways have melted! The expense of repairing these roads would not necessarily be that much more than the "traffic light rule of thumb" proposed by Tim, but updating all the roadways to be rated for higher temps will be massively expensive!

But they will be maintained over time and if different ratios of tar are to be used like they do in hotter places the net cost is tiny.

Quote
2) Electricity usage spiked because everybody needed their AC. But the local power can't keep up, and they have rolling blackouts (eek). This is not only dangerous for those who are depending on AC for maintaining livable conditions at home (there have been some deaths reported), but also throws a wrench in the works for businesses, hospitals, factories etc.

Again, we need to establish a direct link that says that this is due to global warming from CO2. How many deaths? How do you know that this is not within normal variability of weather? How many deaths are not happening due to warmer winters?

Quote
3) Oh, and remember how the roads are melting? Similar problems at the airport...

So, if the average temperatures creep up another 23 C over the next 30 years, these people could be facing yearly heat waves the pass 50 C! Did I mention the humidity is increasing too?

How big a trouble is this?

Iran often has such temperatures. They manage. How would the airport manage if all flights were canceled due to the panic over CO2? If you want a decent airport with easy flights then you will have to accept the CO2 that that will inevitable mean. Unlucky.

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/06/2017 16:19:05
And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

No.

I will not read a load of drivel you want to throw at me to avoid actually answering anything yourself.

To pass this challenge you have to;

1, Choose 1 aspect/effect/issue of a slighly warmer world that is bad.

2, Then in your own words, describe the mechanism that will cause this.

3, Then support this mechanism with some science.

4, Then I will read it and look at it. If it is more bad than would be sorted out with the budget of traffic lights for any local council that has them you win.

Otherwise you demonstrate that you have no clue at all.

If you won't read it then you are showing yourself to be foolish. Anyone else reading it will get it. Except you won't since you don't care about evidence. Bye.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/06/2017 16:31:17
Now Tim will attempt to use my last answer to claim a victory. Trying to imply that I have given up. Well make your own minds up peeps.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 24/06/2017 19:39:55
I will also add that there is currently a record-setting heat wave across the Southwestern corner of the US. Phoenix Arizona (same location as the rainburst I mentioned in my last post) reached 118 F yesterday (48 C). This is a tie with the record temp, which was set last year. I will point out that the mechanism by which global warming increases the maximum temperatures observed is well understood, and to some extent self-explanatory.

Where the economics/human suffer comes in is this:

1) some of the roadways have melted! The expense of repairing these roads would not necessarily be that much more than the "traffic light rule of thumb" proposed by Tim, but updating all the roadways to be rated for higher temps will be massively expensive!

But they will be maintained over time and if different ratios of tar are to be used like they do in hotter places the net cost is tiny.

They have to switch from asphalt to concrete. There are pros and cons to each, and it is not clear which one is cheaper, but changing from one to the other is a big project.

Quote
Quote
2) Electricity usage spiked because everybody needed their AC. But the local power can't keep up, and they have rolling blackouts (eek). This is not only dangerous for those who are depending on AC for maintaining livable conditions at home (there have been some deaths reported), but also throws a wrench in the works for businesses, hospitals, factories etc.

Again, we need to establish a direct link that says that this is due to global warming from CO2. How many deaths? How do you know that this is not within normal variability of weather? How many deaths are not happening due to warmer winters?

Quote
3) Oh, and remember how the roads are melting? Similar problems at the airport...

So, if the average temperatures creep up another 23 C over the next 30 years, these people could be facing yearly heat waves the pass 50 C! Did I mention the humidity is increasing too?

How big a trouble is this?

Iran often has such temperatures. They manage. How would the airport manage if all flights were canceled due to the panic over CO2? If you want a decent airport with easy flights then you will have to accept the CO2 that that will inevitable mean. Unlucky.

Yes, those in the Middle East can deal with these temperatures. I never claimed that this was an insurmountable problem. That wasn't the "challenge." You were looking for substantial increased cost. Air conditioning (both hardware and energy) is very costly. And the higher the outside temperature, the more costly it is to keep the inside livable. Also, since you brought it up, let us consider Iran and the Middle East as global temperatures rise: An article from last year ( https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1665-6.pdf ) shows that since the turn of the century, much of the Middle East and North Africa has had hotter and longer heat waves during the summer months than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Furthermore, they use several computational models which predict that by 2100, there will be on average about seven days of the year with high temperatures over 50 C, and lows above 30 C.

Again, because it apparently needs repetition, the problem is not that the world will be a particular temperature. The problem is how quickly it will change, and how expensive it will be to keep up.

Much of the cost of infrastructure is determined by its maximum capacity, which is determined by the extreme cases that one expects: Storm water systems are designed to handle downpours of multiple inches of rain per hour, even though this might only happen once or twice in a year, when it does happen you need a system that can handle it. So when the worst case scenario gets worse, you need to update the whole system. Similarly buildings need AC systems that can handle the hottest days of the year, and when that changes from 40 C to 42 C across much of Europe and Northern America over the next 50 years, you better bet that the cost of AC upgrades is going to reflect that. One more example: building codes for areas that are threatened by hurricanes and tornados--as maximum wind speeds and maximum storm surges increase, buildings will have to be reinforced or raised to accommodate the new maximal threats.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 24/06/2017 19:48:09
2, The link https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity shows a graph of no real difference. It shows that there has not been any change in the amount of huricanes in the Atlantic.

Correct, there has not been a change in the frequency of the storms. But figure 3 clearly shows an increase in the storm *intensity*

3, The next one is long. Which bit of it says that there is a link? How do they explain this in a detailed mechanism? Can you explain this mechanism yourself? Can you quote from it to show that you have read it and undeerstand it? How big is it?
The noaa one? That is not about mechanism, it is a summary of a few dozen climate metrics, and how they have changed in different regions over the past few decades. It clearly shows that there are changing weather patterns (not just weather) across the entire US, with changes in seasonal weather, rainfall amounts (some areas increase, some decrease) temperatures (increasing everywhere), and it shows the increasing rates of record-breaking weather (events and averages).
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/06/2017 06:24:52
And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

No.

I will not read a load of drivel you want to throw at me to avoid actually answering anything yourself.

To pass this challenge you have to;

1, Choose 1 aspect/effect/issue of a slighly warmer world that is bad.

2, Then in your own words, describe the mechanism that will cause this.

3, Then support this mechanism with some science.

4, Then I will read it and look at it. If it is more bad than would be sorted out with the budget of traffic lights for any local council that has them you win.

Otherwise you demonstrate that you have no clue at all.

If you won't read it then you are showing yourself to be foolish. Anyone else reading it will get it. Except you won't since you don't care about evidence. Bye.
The fact that you cannot quote from it shows that you have not read it.

The fact that you cannot explain it your self shows you do not understand it.

The fact that you choose to avoid making any attempt at answering the challeng shows that you know you can't.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/06/2017 06:29:30
2, The link https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity shows a graph of no real difference. It shows that there has not been any change in the amount of huricanes in the Atlantic.

Correct, there has not been a change in the frequency of the storms. But figure 3 clearly shows an increase in the storm *intensity*

Quote
According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and six of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

Now all that is needed is to show that this has happened all over the world, that there is more to it than just natural variability, that there is a mechanism by which increased temperatures (and that would not be since 1950 but later) are the cause and then to see how much of an effect this is.

Quote
3, The next one is long. Which bit of it says that there is a link? How do they explain this in a detailed mechanism? Can you explain this mechanism yourself? Can you quote from it to show that you have read it and undeerstand it? How big is it?
The noaa one? That is not about mechanism, it is a summary of a few dozen climate metrics, and how they have changed in different regions over the past few decades. It clearly shows that there are changing weather patterns (not just weather) across the entire US, with changes in seasonal weather, rainfall amounts (some areas increase, some decrease) temperatures (increasing everywhere), and it shows the increasing rates of record-breaking weather (events and averages).

Again, no mechanism. And, yes climate/weater always changes. This expected variability of the earth is nothing new.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/06/2017 06:35:08
I will also add that there is currently a record-setting heat wave across the Southwestern corner of the US. Phoenix Arizona (same location as the rainburst I mentioned in my last post) reached 118 F yesterday (48 C). This is a tie with the record temp, which was set last year. I will point out that the mechanism by which global warming increases the maximum temperatures observed is well understood, and to some extent self-explanatory.

Where the economics/human suffer comes in is this:

1) some of the roadways have melted! The expense of repairing these roads would not necessarily be that much more than the "traffic light rule of thumb" proposed by Tim, but updating all the roadways to be rated for higher temps will be massively expensive!

But they will be maintained over time and if different ratios of tar are to be used like they do in hotter places the net cost is tiny.

They have to switch from asphalt to concrete. There are pros and cons to each, and it is not clear which one is cheaper, but changing from one to the other is a big project.

Quote
Quote
2) Electricity usage spiked because everybody needed their AC. But the local power can't keep up, and they have rolling blackouts (eek). This is not only dangerous for those who are depending on AC for maintaining livable conditions at home (there have been some deaths reported), but also throws a wrench in the works for businesses, hospitals, factories etc.

Again, we need to establish a direct link that says that this is due to global warming from CO2. How many deaths? How do you know that this is not within normal variability of weather? How many deaths are not happening due to warmer winters?

Quote
3) Oh, and remember how the roads are melting? Similar problems at the airport...

So, if the average temperatures creep up another 23 C over the next 30 years, these people could be facing yearly heat waves the pass 50 C! Did I mention the humidity is increasing too?

How big a trouble is this?

Iran often has such temperatures. They manage. How would the airport manage if all flights were canceled due to the panic over CO2? If you want a decent airport with easy flights then you will have to accept the CO2 that that will inevitable mean. Unlucky.

Yes, those in the Middle East can deal with these temperatures. I never claimed that this was an insurmountable problem. That wasn't the "challenge." You were looking for substantial increased cost. Air conditioning (both hardware and energy) is very costly. And the higher the outside temperature, the more costly it is to keep the inside livable. Also, since you brought it up, let us consider Iran and the Middle East as global temperatures rise: An article from last year ( https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1665-6.pdf ) shows that since the turn of the century, much of the Middle East and North Africa has had hotter and longer heat waves during the summer months than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Furthermore, they use several computational models which predict that by 2100, there will be on average about seven days of the year with high temperatures over 50 C, and lows above 30 C.

Again, because it apparently needs repetition, the problem is not that the world will be a particular temperature. The problem is how quickly it will change, and how expensive it will be to keep up.

Much of the cost of infrastructure is determined by its maximum capacity, which is determined by the extreme cases that one expects: Storm water systems are designed to handle downpours of multiple inches of rain per hour, even though this might only happen once or twice in a year, when it does happen you need a system that can handle it. So when the worst case scenario gets worse, you need to update the whole system. Similarly buildings need AC systems that can handle the hottest days of the year, and when that changes from 40 C to 42 C across much of Europe and Northern America over the next 50 years, you better bet that the cost of AC upgrades is going to reflect that. One more example: building codes for areas that are threatened by hurricanes and tornados--as maximum wind speeds and maximum storm surges increase, buildings will have to be reinforced or raised to accommodate the new maximal threats.

As you said it is not clear which is more expensive, concrete or tarmac. So there is obviously not going to be a large cost increase as all roads have to be remade/repaired all the time.

The reason I use the size of the traffic light budget is to show that although there obviously will be work needed to cope with the changes, should they actually happen, no sign of that in the last 19 years, they will not be crippling.

Not using the best resources that the world has in the best way will be and is extremely crippling. Millions of dead people per year today. Lots worse if we do more about it.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2017 10:06:09
As you said it is not clear which is more expensive, concrete or tarmac. So there is obviously not going to be a large cost increase as all roads have to be remade/repaired all the time.
Except that it's obvious that there will be a large cost because all the roads will need to be upgraded on a fast schedule based on the weather, rather than a slow schedule based on wear and tear (or equivalently, that wear and tear will be much faster).

Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 14:15:08
And this is why Tim. Read it carefully.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

No.

I will not read a load of drivel you want to throw at me to avoid actually answering anything yourself.

To pass this challenge you have to;

1, Choose 1 aspect/effect/issue of a slighly warmer world that is bad.

2, Then in your own words, describe the mechanism that will cause this.

3, Then support this mechanism with some science.

4, Then I will read it and look at it. If it is more bad than would be sorted out with the budget of traffic lights for any local council that has them you win.

Otherwise you demonstrate that you have no clue at all.

If you won't read it then you are showing yourself to be foolish. Anyone else reading it will get it. Except you won't since you don't care about evidence. Bye.
The fact that you cannot quote from it shows that you have not read it.

The fact that you cannot explain it your self shows you do not understand it.

The fact that you choose to avoid making any attempt at answering the challeng shows that you know you can't.

It is about the 1997-1998 el Nino event. It is about how drastic changes in temperature over a short period can cause devastating effects. This was an actual event, causing the actual effects that will cost more than traffic lights. This is observed data Timmy my boy. It trumps all else. Only an idiot would dismiss it. You aren't an idiot Tim so don't act like one.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 14:47:03
In December of 1999 there was another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_tragedy
"The 1999 Vargas tragedy was a disaster that struck the Vargas State of Venezuela on 15 December 1999, when the torrential rains and the flash floods and debris flows that followed on December 1416 which killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and led to the complete collapse of the state's infrastructure. According to relief workers, the neighborhood of Los Corales was buried under 3 metres (9.8 ft) of mud and a high percentage of homes were simply swept away to the ocean. Whole towns like Cerro Grande and Carmen de Uria completely disappeared. As much as 10% of the population of Vargas perished during this event."

It would need to be diamond encrusted gold traffic lights to outdo this.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 14:59:42
Continuing the trend.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/autumn2000.html
"Impacts

The flooding that occurred across much of England and Wales in the autumn and early winter of 2000 was the most extensive since the snowmelt-generated floods of March 1947. In all, 10,000 homes and businesses were flooded at 700 locations. Peak flows on five major rivers - the Thames, Trent, Severn, Wharfe and Dee - were the highest for sixty years, and the River Ouse in Yorkshire reached its highest level since the 1600s. Many river catchments were subjected to multiple flood events, especially in south-east England.

Two areas were particularly hard hit. In mid-October, large areas of Kent and Sussex were left underwater as rivers such as the Ouse at Lewes (East Sussex), the Uck at Uckfield (East Sussex) and the Medway at Tonbridge (Kent) burst their banks. Hundreds of homes and businesses were flooded to a depth of several feet, floodwater and landslips closed roads and rail travellers faced widespread delays and cancellations.

By early November, it was the turn of Yorkshire, with flood warnings on the Ouse and its tributaries such as the Derwent and Aire. On the 4th, the River Ouse at York was 5.3 m above its normal summer level and the associated flooding there was reported as the worst in 400 years of records; some 5000 properties were affected. Around this time there were similar scenes along the Severn, where water levels at Shrewsbury and Worcester were the highest since 1947."

At that time I got stuck in the flooding on my way back from the hydrology business I worked at. So when you insinuate that I don't understand this it is laughable.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 15:10:10
BTW The equipment we manufactured would have been monitoring the rivers that over topped.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 15:24:52
In 2002 another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_European_floods
"In August 2002 a flood caused by over a week of continuous heavy rains ravaged Europe, killing dozens, dispossessing thousands, and causing damage of billions of euros in Russia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Croatia. The flood was of a magnitude expected to occur roughly once a century."

This is within 3 years of the worst recorded el Nino event. The el Nino temperature rises were extreme. While I cannot say definitely that these events are connected, I can say the cleanup costs more than traffic lights. Mechanism would be the temperature rise resulting from a record breaking el Nino event.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 15:36:53
Now I'm not going to paste a table of data so it is up to those who wish to read it to do so. The latter portion of the table shows the increasing frequency of heavy rainfall events that affect multiple countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Europe

The greater the frequency of flooding the higher the cost. Traffic lights do not keep pace in terms of cost.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 15:50:41
Now during the 1997-1998 el Nino event we have the European millenium flood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Central_European_flood
"Southwestern Poland and the northern Czech Republic experienced two periods of extensive rainfall, the first occurring 310 July and the second 1722 July.[3][6] The precipitation was caused by a Genoa low pressure system, which moved from northern Italy to Moravia and Poland. The unusual development occurred when the field of higher air pressure between the Azores Islands and Scandinavia was blocked. The center of the low pressure remained over southern Poland for a long period.[3]

The precipitation was very high, measuring 300600 millimetres (1224 in), and corresponded to several months' average rainfall over a few days.[2] The waters rose 23 m above the previously recorded averages[2] and were so high that they flooded over standing measurement poles. It was one of the heaviest rainfalls in the recorded world's history.[5] It was dubbed the Millennium Flood because the likelihood of such a flood in a particular year was estimated at 0.1%."
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/06/2017 20:35:22
As you said it is not clear which is more expensive, concrete or tarmac. So there is obviously not going to be a large cost increase as all roads have to be remade/repaired all the time.
Except that it's obvious that there will be a large cost because all the roads will need to be upgraded on a fast schedule based on the weather, rather than a slow schedule based on wear and tear (or equivalently, that wear and tear will be much faster).



Is a 20 year program of steady change that much?

Is it slightly hotter in Mexico? Do they manage?

Which is more restrictive to getting about, having a slightly largere roads budget or not having any fuel?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/06/2017 20:37:40
In December of 1999 there was another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_tragedy
"The 1999 Vargas tragedy was a disaster that struck the Vargas State of Venezuela on 15 December 1999, when the torrential rains and the flash floods and debris flows that followed on December 1416 which killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and led to the complete collapse of the state's infrastructure. According to relief workers, the neighborhood of Los Corales was buried under 3 metres (9.8 ft) of mud and a high percentage of homes were simply swept away to the ocean. Whole towns like Cerro Grande and Carmen de Uria completely disappeared. As much as 10% of the population of Vargas perished during this event."

It would need to be diamond encrusted gold traffic lights to outdo this.
Yet again;

1, show the mechanism that links this to global warming.

2, describe it yourself.

3, link to some sort of supporting science.

4, Then we can look at it and see how big an issue it will be.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2017 21:18:57
In December of 1999 there was another event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_tragedy
"The 1999 Vargas tragedy was a disaster that struck the Vargas State of Venezuela on 15 December 1999, when the torrential rains and the flash floods and debris flows that followed on December 14–16 which killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and led to the complete collapse of the state's infrastructure. According to relief workers, the neighborhood of Los Corales was buried under 3 metres (9.8 ft) of mud and a high percentage of homes were simply swept away to the ocean. Whole towns like Cerro Grande and Carmen de Uria completely disappeared. As much as 10% of the population of Vargas perished during this event."

It would need to be diamond encrusted gold traffic lights to outdo this.
Yet again;

1, show the mechanism that links this to global warming.

2, describe it yourself.

3, link to some sort of supporting science.

4, Then we can look at it and see how big an issue it will be.

1. Changing climate.

2. The climate changes.

3. Why bother, you refuse to read anything.

4. Refer to item 3.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 01/07/2017 02:49:45
For an in-depth analysis of pros and cons of climate change across the US, see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/global-warming-american-south/532200/?utm_source=feed

actual article is here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362.full

Long story short, the American South (especially Southeast) is going to suffer economically. A lot.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: evan_au on 01/07/2017 10:20:46
Quote from: TimThePlumber
not having any fuel?
Both sides of this debate often descend into scaremongering.

Nobody is suggesting that society(s) stop consuming energy.

What environmentalists are suggesting is that:
- The fuels that got society out of the 1700s into the 1800s killed lots of people
- To get us out of the 1800s into the 1900s, these legacy fuels were supplemented by liquid fuels. But even more people died.
- There is a more diverse set of technologies available now, and it is about time that some of these older technologies were forcefully retired.

Coal mining has massive economies of scale, and considerable political leverage - but in many places is still receiving government subsidies. It is also an extremely dangerous occupation, and produces lots of damaging pollution.

Governments need to promote innovation, and move their incentives out of the 18th century into the 21st century.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/07/2017 16:49:20
The data required to actually work out what is going on is not in the public domain. The owners want to recoup their investment and may release portions for a fee. This is why people are in the dark. Unless you work for a business that builds the equipment to monitor various environmental parameters you don't get access. You are also excluded from any modelling and analysis. So people generally pick one side or another. That is the major issue here.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: evan_au on 02/07/2017 04:41:33
Quote from: TimThePlumber
Is it slightly hotter in Mexico? Do they manage?
Yes, it is hotter in Mexico and Florida than in Canada.

The predictions suggest that on current trends of human emissions of greenhouse gasses, Mexico, Canada and everywhere in-between will get hotter over the next century.

Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states
- rising temperatures will impact productivity in Mexico and southern USA more than northern USA
- It will increase the disparity between rich and poor in USA
- But it will unfreeze some parts of Canada for more of the year (which might be a good thing for some Canadians).
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2017 10:23:06
Quote from: TimThePlumber
Is it slightly hotter in Mexico? Do they manage?
Yes, it is hotter in Mexico and Florida than in Canada.

The predictions suggest that on current trends of human emissions of greenhouse gasses, Mexico, Canada and everywhere in-between will get hotter over the next century.

Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states
- rising temperatures will impact productivity in Mexico and southern USA more than northern USA
- It will increase the disparity between rich and poor in USA
- But it will unfreeze some parts of Canada for more of the year (which might be a good thing for some Canadians).
It's also important to realise that, since the earth is roughly spherical, if you push the "temperate" bands towards the poles they cover less actual land area.
So there's less space for growing crops.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/07/2017 18:32:11
Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states

But Australian mining towns, where the surface temperature rarely dips below 40 deg C,  are awash with money, and Scotland is poorer than England.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Herman on 20/11/2017 16:32:37
Global Warming is very dangerous to our Earth's Environment.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Jajdj on 20/11/2017 17:13:59
Thanks For Posting Bro!!
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2017 21:20:31
Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states

But Australian mining towns, where the surface temperature rarely dips below 40 deg C,  are awash with money, and Scotland is poorer than England.
"But Australian mining towns..."
Aberdeen's pretty rich from its oil wealth too.
So?

Air temperature makes little difference to mineral extraction.
How wealthy are the farming towns in the 40C bits of Australia?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/11/2017 22:48:18
Not sure there was ever much agriculture in the hottest parts of Oz, but the introduction of Bramah cattle genes has changed the livestock economy from mutton to beef in my lifetime, and there's no shortage of good tucker down under, mate.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Jajdj on 21/11/2017 10:22:10
Yes, you are right there are so many people which are looking for help, according to their needs, so If you guys want << spam link removed >> they will help you out to make any kind of writing wok
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: YarSmirnov on 15/01/2018 07:20:54
And what is more dangerous - global warming on two Celsium degrees, or global cooling on two Celsium degrees (for example as result of volcanic erruption)?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 15/01/2018 11:56:16
One also has to consider the el Nino, which has been occurring for thousands of years. The el Nino is a cyclic band of warm ocean water that occurs in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Peru. The Inca Indians of Peru used to make sacrifices to the el Nino in an attempt to avoid the torrential rains.This is not new or caused by green house gases.

The el Nino has been impacting climate changes for thousands of year with many of its modern day affects sort of extrapolated to global warming and climate change. One interesting observation by fisherman is the el Nino water is nutrient depleted. This suggests to me that warm water is seeping into the ocean.

Quote
This may sound unlikely because the media, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many politicians have inundated you, the public with reports stating humans are responsible for heating the atmosphere and causing all unusual climate events including El Nios. Not true.  There is an alternative and much more probable cause of the emerging 2015 El Nio...deep ocean geological forces.

Quote
But now an intriguing explanation has been put forward for the cause of El Nino. Surprisingly, it has little to do with the atmosphere or the sea.

The proposed prime mover is fiery lava from the earth's molten interior that erupts between tectonic plates on the Pacific sea floor, heating the overlying waters enough to affect the ocean's surface and bring on the fury of El Nino.

An unusual spate of such seabed eruptions and their accompanying swarms of sea quakes predated the current El Nino cycle, which at four or five years of age is unusually old. One of this cycle's repercussions has been torrential rains in California and the longest drought in Australia's recorded history.

"The seismicity was totally bizarre, maybe the most anomalous it's been in the past 30 years," Dr. Daniel A. Walker, a geophysicist at the University of Hawaii who is the author of the deep-lava theory, said in an interview.

Say this was true, yet politicians are able to maintain the CO2 scam, and cause social changes that benefits them and their crony capitalism buddies, what would be the impact of that on human civilization?
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: syhprum on 15/01/2018 22:26:46
I support the EU not because the colour of the passports but as I have been affected by the effects of to civel wars each vastly worse than the American one I want to avoid a third
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: YarSmirnov on 20/01/2018 09:35:01
I support the EU not because the colour of the passports but as I have been affected by the effects of to civel wars each vastly worse than the American one I want to avoid a third
Sorry, but, imho, you have a little chances to avoid civil or imperialistic war . Europe is too overpopulated and energydeficitic. So, they have only two chances - "Drang nach Osten" (and nuclear war with Russia) or civil war between it's members until enough depopulation.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2018 11:58:07
The birthrate in the EU is currently 1.6 children per woman.
If it gets unpleasantly full people will stop migrating into it and the population will then fall.
No war needed
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: puppypower on 20/01/2018 12:14:33
As an analogy to help answer the question, why global warming is a threat, consider the situation of President Trump and the Russian collusion, accusation. This conclusion, formed ahead of the evidence, has been supported by the left with an endless parade of paid experts, using a one sided media propaganda approach; 90% hostile to anything that resists. After one year, It is turning out this was a scam to destabilize a presidency and to cover up crimes, 

The real threat of manmade Russian collusion, was not the threat of Trump and Russian colluding, but the fact that a political group, with the assistance of mass media, demonstrated it could create and weaponize propaganda that could lead citizens with misinformation. This was the real threat.

How many people bought into the collusion narrative, one year ago, and how many of these also believe in manmade global warming? There is a parallel. What was the underlying motive for buying the collusion farm? What convinced you and why did you wish to be convinced and not remain skeptical until all the evidence appeared? Was it all the paid experts in parade? Or was it a therapeutic outlet for emotional release? These questions help break down the propaganda strategy.

In terms of the collusion illusion, those who fought against the propaganda campaign, and suffered at the hands of those under its spell, have been tediously collected evidence, against the foot dragging of the head of the beast; swamp. Now the time has come for  the mask to be pulled off. The mass propaganda campaign was an advanced prototype in the mass programming of citizen, using modern media, for power and money. This is what you need to be afraid of. Man made up global warming was a trial run to see if this new political weapon works.

Say the collusion scam had been successful to where the propaganda worked and Trump was placed in kangaroo court before his prison sentence. Would this have damaged the Republic in terms of individual rights and freedoms? The same answer is applies to the affect of man made up global warming. 
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2018 13:57:44
After one year, It is turning out this was a scam
Got any proof?
Those close to Trump are on record lying about their involvement with Russia.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/01/2018 14:16:58
Donald Trump is the epitome of a fake president. He is not a politician but an egotistical wannabe fascist dictator. There is a difference between the two. However, this very stable genius doesn't have the common sense to cover his tracks. He depends upon his rhetoric to obscure the truth. The danger is that he turns America into a one party state. The coming elections will determine America's fate. It will have reverberations far outside America's borders.
Title: Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/01/2018 18:51:04
As an analogy to help answer the question, why global warming is a threat, consider the situation of President Trump and the Russian collusion, accusation. This conclusion, formed ahead of the evidence, has been supported by the left with an endless parade of paid experts, using a one sided media propaganda approach; 90% hostile to anything that resists. After one year, It is turning out this was a scam to destabilize a presidency and to cover up crimes, 

The real threat of manmade Russian collusion, was not the threat of Trump and Russian colluding, but the fact that a political group, with the assistance of mass media, demonstrated it could create and weaponize propaganda that could lead citizens with misinformation. This was the real threat.

How many people bought into the collusion narrative, one year ago, and how many of these also believe in manmade global warming? There is a parallel. What was the underlying motive for buying the collusion farm? What convinced you and why did you wish to be convinced and not remain skeptical until all the evidence appeared? Was it all the paid experts in parade? Or was it a therapeutic outlet for emotional release? These questions help break down the propaganda strategy.

In terms of the collusion illusion, those who fought against the propaganda campaign, and suffered at the hands of those under its spell, have been tediously collected evidence, against the foot dragging of the head of the beast; swamp. Now the time has come for  the mask to be pulled off. The mass propaganda campaign was an advanced prototype in the mass programming of citizen, using modern media, for power and money. This is what you need to be afraid of. Man made up global warming was a trial run to see if this new political weapon works.

Say the collusion scam had been successful to where the propaganda worked and Trump was placed in kangaroo court before his prison sentence. Would this have damaged the Republic in terms of individual rights and freedoms? The same answer is applies to the affect of man made up global warming. 


Ya know what, I think I may agree with much of this, but I don't think you'll like my agreement much.

There is probably a fairly high correlation between accepting that anthropogenic climate change is real, and accepting that Russia influenced the 2016 US  presidential election. I would guess that both of them are also very strongly correlated with accepting that men have landed on the moon, that the Earth is nearly spherical, and accepting that the Nazis killed several million Jews systematically in the Holocaust.

In all of the above examples, there appears to be a division between those who accept (with or without actually understanding, which is a major problem too) the historical and scientific facts as interpreted by "the experts," and those who choose to believe that near-consensus among "the experts" is only further evidence of conspiracy. This second group is usually more focused on narrative than data.

There are definitely people on both sides of each of these "debates" who are there blindly, choosing only to side with their friends and families. Those people bug the heck out of me sometimes, but it bothers me less when they defer to the judgement of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of these issues than when they defer to the judgement of radio personalities.

This is not to say that all of these "debates" are cut-and-dried, black-and-white, solved. They are all very complex, and our understanding changes with further study. But small refinements don't indicate controversy.

As a scientist, I am very confident that the conclusions drawn by most of my peers, collaborators, and competitors are largely correct regarding anthropogenic climate change, that we landed on the moon, and the shape of the Earth. I know enough people who survived the Holocaust to know that it did happen (it was also the best-documented genocide in history).

I don't have first hand knowledge regarding Russian interference, but as far as I can tell there is NO evidence that this is a "scam," as described by one of the biggest liars ever. Twitter didn't just decide it would get in on the scam and notify almost 700M of its users about its Russian Troll Problem.

As far as collusion goes, it's hard for someone like me to know. All of the truly relevant info is classified. But, given the timeline of public announcements and releases of Clinton's emails (which is verifiable fact), and the emails which Don Jr. released himself, it seems very clear that, in chronological order: (1) Trump won Republican primary, (2) some Russians contacted members of the Trump team offering dirt on Clinton, (3) Trump team discussed within itself this possibility, and at least some of them moved forward, (4) meeting happened, (5) Trump himself tweeted that we should expect dirt on Clinton, (6) Clinton emails were released.

Once we also factor in the fact that the cyber spies were traced to Russia (Clinton, DNC and RNC hackers, as well as document releasers), and the fact that over half of the senior members of the Trump team had illegal or covert contact with Russian agents or proxies at one point or another between the primary win and the inauguration, it doesn't take a particularly far leap of faith to connect those dots.

Has collusion been proven? No, not as far as I can tell. Is there a strong case for collusion? Yes, I think so. Has the investigation been a scam? Absolutely not.