[alancalverd]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[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, ...

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.

[evan_au]

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

[jeffreyH]

Trump is a climate change enthusiast and is interested in getting Putin involved in hurrying it along.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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)

[jeffreyH]

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.

[alancalverd]

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. 

[chiralSPO]

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.

[jeffreyH]

Tim might be right. Let's just get the deck chairs out. You can never tell what a chaotic system will do.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

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.

[chiralSPO]

Tim, please provide peer reviewed literature that shows the resilience of mangroves to sustained flooding.

[jeffreyH]

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

[chiralSPO]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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

[jeffreyH]

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?