Lack of CC disasters

Didn't CC wipeout the dinosaurs?

CC is ONLY bad to those living on the coast. Even National Geographic had an article stating that it will take over 5,000 years for all the ice to melt on the earth if the average temperature was at 80 degrees.

Just like you said, the ice caps have been melting and the earth warming since the ice age! According to scientists, there would've been ice caps 2 miles above my head here in Michigan. They're what carved out the Great Lakes. So, it goes to serve that glaciers have been melting and the earth warming at least that long. Sea level rise is steady since well before the industrial revolution. None of the predicted disasters have happened.

Saucy said:

CC is ONLY bad to those living on the coast.

Click to expand...

And those living in the mountains (more snow, more avalanches)
And those living in the plains (longer summers, lower crop production, more drought)
And those living in the forests (longer summers, drier and more intense forest/bush fires)

Greatcloud said:

CC has been good for the globe and will likely remain that way.

Click to expand...

Not according to the NOAA or NASA.

Gene2memE said:

And those living in the mountains (more snow, more avalanches)
And those living in the plains (longer summers, lower crop production, more drought)
And those living in the forests (longer summers, drier and more intense forest/bush fires)



Not according to the NOAA or NASA.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me. Only the mountains get more precip, but it doesn't fall in the valley or forests? Why does warming mean less moisture? Plants thrive in greenhouse-like conditions. Higher snow packs mean more runoff in the spring.

There are times in our earth's history when it was much warmer with much higher Co2 concentrations. It was lush and green! Plants and animals were growing faster.

Climate change will lead to longer, hotter summers, and shorter, more intense winters.

Climate change is already reducing corn crop yields in the US, wheat yields in Australia and rice yields in Thailand.

The 'Co2 = plant food = climate change is good' equation fails to consider the effects of high temperatures on growth rates and germination rates, as well as insect life cycles and other factors.

“Soaring ocean temperatures in the past three years have subjected 21 of 29 World Heritage reefs to severe and/or repeated heat stress, and caused some of the worst bleaching ever observed at iconic sites like the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), Papahānaumokuākea (USA), the Lagoons of New Caledonia (France) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles).”

“The analysis predicts that all 29 coral-containing World Heritage sites would cease to exist as functioning coral reef ecosystems by the end of this century under a business-as-usual emissions scenario.”



Our analyses highlight the potential for large reductions in the global Polar Bear population if sea-ice loss continues, which is forecast by climate models and other studies (IPCC 2013). Our analyses also highlight the large amount of uncertainty in statistical projections of Polar Bear abundance and the sensitivity of projections to plausible alternative assumptions. Across six scenarios that projected polar bear abundance three generations forward in time using the median and 95th percentile of estimated GL, the median probability of a reduction in the mean global population size greater than 30% was approximately 0.71

Greatcloud said:

So is CC even bad . Where are the CC disasters we are supposed to be having.

Click to expand...

Flooding in Bangladesh
Drought in Sudan
Increased hurricanes through the Caribbean
Loss of permafrost in Siberia

There are no species having gone extinct due to CC disasters.

Click to expand...

Bramble Cay melomy
Golden toad

Hurricanes are no worse for 10 years.

Click to expand...

Too short of a window. That's like saying a person with a degenerative lung disease isn't dying because it didn't get measurably worse in the last week.

I whipped up this chart showing the rolling 10 year average for the US since the 1850s:


Data from NOAA

Sea levels are rising at the same rate since the ice age.

Click to expand...

Why would we compare an interglacial period, when sea level is generally relatively stable, to the exit of an ice age, when sea level would of course change? For example, we would expect a car's engine to heat up after we turn it on. Saying, "oh, when we started driving it went from 15 to 215, so going up another 200 degrees is normal" is not a good argument for your car not being on fire.

Trees are growing at a faster rate since the 90's .

Click to expand...

Source? (preferably journal or respected scientific body)

Lobster are plentiful in New England due to CC .

Click to expand...

Due in large part to quite progressive harvesting practices such as limits on sizes (both under minimum and over maximum), total haul, etc.

The Polar bear population is growing due to CC.

Click to expand...

Source? (preferably journal or respected scientific body)

And many more besides these.

Click to expand...

There will certainly be winners and losers. It should be noted that population blooms can be just as much of a problem as species collapses. Algal blooms can cause massive fishkills for example. Zebra mussels in the great lakes, Crown of thorns seastars in Australia, overpopulation in one species can severely hurt the ecosystem as a whole.

So nothing bad happened due to CC and good things are happening, is CC even bad.

Click to expand...

Well, except for all the bad stuff above.

Greatcloud said:

Crops are up and down all the time. Anything can happen in the agriculture industry.

Click to expand...

I'm from a farming family, I know all about cyclical variability in agriculture. This doesn't explain why, for example, Australian wheat yields flatlined in the 1990s and have now begun to fall, or that the number of extreme heat days in Australia are cutting dairy yields by up to 15% in some parts of the country.

Look at the long term trends on yields per acre/hectare and tell me what you see.

This reminds me of the old frog boiling adage

What is CC??

timewerx said:

What is CC??

Click to expand...

Climate Change

The data is all garbage.

How does anyone measure the "temperature" of the world? What rubbish. Using land stations to collect data, there are huge gaps that are "assumed" and stations in tropical regions skew the results.

It is all rubbish. Nobody can predict the "temperature" or the "trend" of the world. If you don't believe me, look at how they measure it (some of the stations are in places where it reaches 134F)

morse86 said:

The data is all garbage.

How does anyone measure the "temperature" of the world?

Click to expand...

By taking hundreds of thousands of measurements from hundreds of thousands of different locations and averaging them out over time.

morse86 said:

Using land stations to collect data

Click to expand...

And satellites, ships, buoys, balloons and even aircraft.

morse86 said:

there are huge gaps that are "assumed" and stations in tropical regions skew the results.

Click to expand...

There are gaps. These are known about, not "assumed".

Guess what though? Climatologists and other earth scientist KNOW the record isn't perfect, and they work hard to make it better.

Skeptics help, by pointing out when things aren't right.

Also, I'd like to see you back up the claim that "stations in tropical regions skew the results". An actual scientific source, with references that are checkable, not something from the denialsphere.

morse86 said:

It is all rubbish.

Click to expand...

According to you. According to those who are actually informed about these things, and study climate for a living, it's not rubbish at all.

Who to trust though? A random, conspiracy theory inclined member of a discussion board, or pretty much the entire edifice of academia, public and private research organisations globally, backed up by check-able empirical evidence?

morse86 said:

Nobody can predict the "temperature" or the "trend" of the world.

Click to expand...

Sure they can, they predict it all the time. Its a question of whether they predict it correctly or not.

Initial predictions, those made in the 1980s and early 1990s, were not very good. Some wildly overestimated warming, others predicted cooling.

As more and more data is pooled, and more and more is understood about climate and the various interactions between forces, then the predictions get more and more accurate.

Will they ever be perfect? I'd say no. Will they be accurate to a very small margin (say +/- 1% or lower), I'd say, yes we'll get there eventually.

morse86 said:

If you don't believe me, look at how they measure it (some of the stations are in places where it reaches 134F)

Click to expand...

There are also places where it gets to minus 128.6 °F

So what's your point?

You realise there are stations pretty much EVERYWHERE there are people, and a lot of places where there aren't?

Gene2memE said:

By taking hundreds of thousands of measurements from hundreds of thousands of different locations and averaging them out over time.



And satellites, ships, buoys, balloons and even aircraft.



There are gaps. These are known about, not "assumed".

Guess what though? Climatologists and other earth scientist KNOW the record isn't perfect, and they work hard to make it better.

Skeptics help, by pointing out when things aren't right.

Also, I'd like to see you back up the claim that "stations in tropical regions skew the results". An actual scientific source, with references that are checkable, not something from the denialsphere.



According to you. According to those who are actually informed about these things, and study climate for a living, it's not rubbish at all.

Who to trust though? A random, conspiracy theory inclined member of a discussion board, or pretty much the entire edifice of academia, public and private research organisations globally, backed up by check-able empirical evidence?



Sure they can, they predict it all the time. Its a question of whether they predict it correctly or not.

Initial predictions, those made in the 1980s and early 1990s, were not very good. Some wildly overestimated warming, others predicted cooling.

As more and more data is pooled, and more and more is understood about climate and the various interactions between forces, then the predictions get more and more accurate.

Will they ever be perfect? I'd say no. Will they be accurate to a very small margin (say +/- 1% or lower), I'd say, yes we'll get there eventually.



There are also places where it gets to minus 128.6 °F

So what's your point?

You realise there are stations pretty much EVERYWHERE there are people, and a lot of places where there aren't?

Click to expand...

Do you realize they have stations in the desert?!?!? Do you understand how it skews the results????? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HottestSpot/

Those have very very high temperatures. This is not just 1 station, there are thousands and thousands. Those skew the data, the fraud $cientists try to be "subtle" about it...to push their agenda and also to get that $$$ funding.

morse86 said:

Do you realize they have stations in the desert?!?!? Do you understand how it skews the results????? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HottestSpot/

Those have very very high temperatures. This is not just 1 station, there are thousands and thousands. Those skew the data, the fraud $cientists try to be "subtle" about it...to push their agenda and also to get that $$$ funding.

Click to expand...

You really don't understand how warming is monitored, do you? Let me try and break it down.

Take temperature measurements at a single station for a 30 year period. Use these measurements to get a base line average, to use as a point of comparison.

Then, use the average to work out if the temperature for a particular period (week, month, year, ect) is above or below the 30 year baseline average for that station.

That gives you a temperature anomaly. A figure of plus or minus whatever degrees above the 30 year baseline.

Then, collect the data from all the stations globally. Generate 30 year baselines for them. Then look at the temperature anomalies compared to those baselines.

Then, take those plus and minus anomalies and average them out globally. THAT is how they work out whether the global temperature is increasing, decreasing or stable.

So, it doesn't matter if there are lots of stations in very hot regions with very hot temperatures. It doesn't matter if there are lots of stations in very cold regions, with very cold temperatures. So, if there were 1000 stations at the equator, and they all averaged 30 degrees C year round over 30 years, it wouldn't skew the results towards warming. Because that's not what they're measuring. They're measuring whether the temperature for a given period is warmer, colder or the same as that average.

What climatologists are measuring is not a "temperature of the world". What they are measuring is the average of deviations in temperature from the 30 year baselines.

No-one is going around reporting the average temperature of the earth was 15 degrees Celsius between 1951 and 1980, and is now 15.8 degrees Celsius. What they are arguing is that the temperature now is 0.8 degrees above the average baseline measured from all the baselines of all the temperature stations.

Thus endeth the lesson.

What part of they combine all the averages do you not understand? When you do that, the stations in hotter parts are going to skew the results. What is so difficult to understand that???

If you think 30 year baselines are "accurate", you are clueless. The 30 year itself could be an anomaly (same temperature range over 30 year anomaly etc).

It's sort of like blood work. When you go into the lab to get your blood tested, what they do is generate a baseline based on every 1000 people. That's what you see in the "normal" range. It is very inaccurate and that is one of the reasons why doctors are now treating patients with statins when they have 150 total cholesterol.

Do you not understand this? It is so basic.

morse86 said:

What part of they combine all the averages do you not understand? When you do that, the stations in hotter parts are going to skew the results. What is so difficult to understand that???

Click to expand...

No they're not. They're measuring the anomaly of temperatures from the previous norm, not the average temperatures of the stations doing the measuring.

Suppose you have a remote temperature station at Death Valley. It measures temperatures once an hour, on the hour, every hour of the day. It then records those temperatures. It compares them to the average of the same temperatures measured once an hour, on the hour, every hour of the day, for the previous 30 years.

Then you work out if those temperatures measured were higher, lower or the same as the 30-year baseline.

These temperature differentials give you the temperature anomaly - the amount of divergence from the baseline average.

So, if the station at Death Valley experiences a perfectly average day for that time of year, even if that day is consistently above 40 degrees Celcisus, the temperature anomaly will be zero degrees.

If the station at Death Valley experiences a colder than average day for that time of year, the temperature anomaly will be (plucking a number from the ether here) -0.8 degrees. If it is a hotter than average day, temperature anomaly will be +0.8 degrees.

So, it doesn't matter if the remote station is located at the hottest (or coldest) place on earth. Climatologists are not concerned about what the average temperature is, but are measuring the divergence of the current temperatures from the established, long-term baseline.

Again, it doesn't matter if all the stations were located in places that have average temperatures that are very high. This is not going to skew the results upwards, as climatologist are not measuring absolute temperatures, but the relative change compared to the established baseline.