[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[alancalverd]

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. 

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[puppypower]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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 globalwarmingdoom^TM 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.

[alancalverd]

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).

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[PhysBang]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[alancalverd]

Don't waste your breath, Tim. PB has added nothing of value to any thread I have seen.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?