[chiralSPO]

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. :-)

[chiralSPO]

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

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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

Sogatella furcifera (Horva´th) (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
(2010–2013) 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.

[evan_au]

We are now in an era of fake news and partisan propaganda that is no longer even trying to be subtle.

There is a way to defend against fake news. It's called peer review.

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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

 

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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

Sogatella furcifera (Horva´th) (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
(2010–2013) 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.

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

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?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

We are now in an era of fake news and partisan propaganda that is no longer even trying to be subtle.

There is a way to defend against fake news. It's called peer review.

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.

[jeffreyH]

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?

[evan_au]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

Be careful what you wish for.

[alancalverd]

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

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 2008–12, 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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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

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 2008–12, 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

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

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." 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[puppypower]

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.