[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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[PhysBang]

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/

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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??

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

One reason humans moved to California was because they had desertified Oklahoma. The other was gold. 

[jeffreyH]

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

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[PhysBang]

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.

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.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

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?

[PhysBang]

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.

[Bored chemist]

...
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.

[Bored chemist]

...
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?

[jeffreyH]

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?