Climate change damage is overated

[lasthero]

Yeah, go on cadet. I dare you to provide facts to show that they are wrong. And I emphasise facts, not your opinion.

Let's review your contributions in this topic.

You've said their was a chart that showed a cycle.

Serious provided there was a chart that showed up upward trend.

You still insisted there was a chart that showed a cycle.

Serious asked you to provide this chart.

You told him to find it himself.

Aside from that, you've just repeatedly talked about a hoax, but you've done nothing to support your assertion. And now you're telling someone else to find facts?

 

[[serious]]

No I don't do homework for other people. You want to know, you find out.

I did do the homework.

You said that a 150 year temperature chart showed a 50 climate cycle:

I saw a chart that covered 150 years. Climate change was cyclical which happened on a regular basis in 50 year cycles

I did some research and found the following chart that covers close to that timeframe:

You said you were talking about a different unspecified chart:

The one that I saw more than once in different places did have an identifiable cycle.

Now, since I'm not psychic, I have no way of knowing what specific chart you are talking about that is somehow different from NOAA numbers, I asked you to provide your source.

You now refuse to.

Now, if you won't tell us what you are talking about, we can't very well tell you what you are talking about.

 

[[serious]]

How is this for laugh. One of our climate change experts had a mantra that sea levels were going to rise by two meters by 2050. Next thing we know he has bought a house...by the sea.

Source?

 

[The Cadet]

Don't stop there. Prove any of their facts wrong or the myths correct.

Yeah, go on cadet. I dare you to provide facts to show that they are wrong. And I emphasise facts, not your opinion.

I'll do one.

"2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts."

Now, first and foremost, it's important to note that this article does not cite sources. They aren't footnotes. They aren't in-article links. There is absolutely no citation for any of the claims made in this article. So I'm assuming that you guys either have the sources yourself... Or are taking the claims made in the article entirely on the credibility of the website, a website which asserts that vaccines cause autism and GMOs are dangerous. So what is the source for this claim?

I don't know. I don't really care; if they can't be bothered to source their claims, I won't do it for them. The most up-to-date research seems to be this 2006 paper on the subject: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."​

It was an easily quantified error in how the satellites measured the data. Even the authors of the older papers that I'm guessing GlobalResearch.ca based its claims on, Spencer and Christy, have accepted these adjustments, and Spencer's own temperature data (it's worth noting that Spencer rejects anthropogenic global warming) shows a clear warming trend:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

So now the important question - do either of you care? Does it bother you that the source you cited has absolutely no credible sources backing it up, and seems to very clearly run afoul of the most up-to-date research, even the research by the skeptic who initially proposed the idea? Because if that does bother you guys, if you do see a problem with that, I'll gladly address a few more. But if you don't care, if you find my sources worth rejecting despite your own source not providing any citations whatsoever, then there's no point in continuing.

How is this for laugh. One of our climate change experts had a mantra that sea levels were going to rise by two meters by 2050. Next thing we know he has bought a house...by the sea.

Which "expert" is that?

 

[Phileas]

Ever heard of Al Gore, the high priest of climate change. Flies around the world being paid to raise the alarm about global warming and such like. Apparently, and I say that advisedly as if you point out something relevant, the climate experts always deny everything, he uses more electricity in his home in one month than the average person does in a year. Obviously he doesn't seem bother by climate change and man made gases.

Of course that does not take into consideration his gas guzzling private jet that he uses to jetset around the world telling us what we have to do.

Now, if he really wanted to help the cause he would use a simple piece of technology called video conferencing.

Ah, so Al Gore is the high priest and director of this vast global conspiracy. Well obviously he needs more electricity than the average person to power his time machine so can go back and pay off physicists and chemists in the 19th century.

 

[The Cadet]

Ever heard of Al Gore, the high priest of climate change. Flies around the world being paid to raise the alarm about global warming and such like.

In all of these threads, the only people who bring up Al Gore are the people who deny climate change, and want to use Gore as a weak ad-hominem attack. Why is it that you almost never see the people discussing the science of climate change bring up Al Gore? And why do you see it as necessary to bring him up? There are better sources. We pretty much only ever use better sources. Why can't we just stick to the science?

 

[RickG]

The big picture is that the money is in climate change. Governments want it
in order to increase controls over businesses and economies. Obama wants
it in order to outlaw using coal and vastly increase the price of making
electricity for ourselves.

I think you need to take that comment and other like ones to the CFs Politics forum. We are supposed to discuss science here.

 

[lasthero]

In all of these threads, the only people who bring up Al Gore are the people who deny climate change, and want to use Gore as a weak ad-hominem attack. Why is it that you almost never see the people discussing the science of climate change bring up Al Gore? And why do you see it as necessary to bring him up? There are better sources. We pretty much only ever use better sources. Why can't we just stick to the science?

Because debating the actual science would actually require them to learn something and do real research, which runs the risk of them running into things they don't like and proving themselves wrong. It's much easier just to point at Al Gore and say stuff about him. Even if Al Gore owned a fleet of smoke-spewing gas guzzlers he raced around the country with on a daily basis, it wouldn't change a single paper that's actually been made on the subject, but they don't care about the real data. Heck, even if he were a scientist with actual research, him being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong. But it's all about appealing to people who are too simple to see past the smokescreen or just don't want to.

As I Was saying, you're killing me man. lol

Like this guy.

 

[stevevw]

Climate change is good for the lobster industry

I guess those in cold climates who are getting tropical weather may think its great as well. You never know England may become the new Caribbean.

 

[Goonie]

I guess those in cold climates who are getting tropical weather may think its great as well. You never know England may become the new Caribbean.

Unfortunately the tropical weather seems to consist mostly of hurricanes, and monsoon

Remember global warming is not even, and with changing warm and cold spots, climate chaos is the result

 

[The Cadet]

Unfortunately the tropical weather seems to consist mostly of hurricanes, and monsoon

Remember global warming is not even, and with changing warm and cold spots, lime chaos is the result.

The main issue is, above all, change. Like, just to name a pertinent example: if global temperatures continue to rise, we're going to gain a lot of fertile farmland in Siberia. However, we're also going to lose a lot of farmland currently in use in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and the Grain Belt. And even if the net gain is greater, we still need time and money to build transit lines, till the land, build the agricultural and transport infrastructure needed to process and move that grain around, and in the meanwhile there are people starving in Ethiopia.

Essentially all of human civilization took place somewhere in this margin:

With a total variance of less than 1°C. Our civilization is built around the coastlines, temperatures, and climates provided by these conditions. And now, we're looking at maybe a 4°C increase in the next 100 years. Just to be clear, the last ice age was 8°C colder. This change is probably going to be rough, even if, at the end of it, we end up with some side benefits.

 

[stevevw]

Unfortunately the tropical weather seems to consist mostly of hurricanes, and monsoon

Remember global warming is not even, and with changing warm and cold spots, climate chaos is the result

Thats right and its not always a case of extreme condition from nothing. Its that normal weather patterns are heightened. So what was once tropical and having severe winds that may turn into a hurricanes or wetter than normal seasons.

 

[Goonie]

Thats right and its not always a case of extreme condition from nothing. Its that normal weather patterns are heightened. So what was once tropical and having severe winds that may turn into a hurricanes or wetter than normal seasons.

Agreed.

 

[stevevw]

The main issue is, above all, change. Like, just to name a pertinent example: if global temperatures continue to rise, we're going to gain a lot of fertile farmland in Siberia. However, we're also going to lose a lot of farmland currently in use in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and the Grain Belt. And even if the net gain is greater, we still need time and money to build transit lines, till the land, build the agricultural and transport infrastructure needed to process and move that grain around, and in the meanwhile there are people starving in Ethiopia.

Essentially all of human civilization took place somewhere in this margin:

With a total variance of less than 1°C. Our civilization is built around the coastlines, temperatures, and climates provided by these conditions. And now, we're looking at maybe a 4°C increase in the next 100 years. Just to be clear, the last ice age was 8°C colder. This change is probably going to be rough, even if, at the end of it, we end up with some side benefits.

There are also things like increases in pestilence in hotter and humid areas. Where there are longer and hotter years the insects have more conditions to grow. Then the farmers are using more pest control or GMC and this in turn creates super weeds, bugs and diseases. But overall there is a lot of land being destroyed through adverse weather ie flooding or drying and through deforestation, chemicals and poor land management. The land,oceans,waterways and atmosphere are all linked and once out of balance it can have an effect on all and set off a chain reaction. This in turn affects ecosystems and biodiversity.

 

[Nithavela]

Most likely, europe will grow colder because of the collapse of the gulf stream. Look at a map and you will see that europe has about the same latitude as canada and Kazahstan. Those are not warm countries.

 

[RickG]

Most likely, europe will grow colder because of the collapse of the gulf stream. Look at a map and you will see that europe has about the same latitude as canada and Kazahstan. Those are not warm countries.

If it collapsed yes, but I don't know anyone predicting that. The additional fresh water being added to the north Atlantic due to ice melting is not in enough quantity at its present rate to do that, unlike prior outbreaks of glacial Lake Agassiz.

 

[pat34lee]

There's a ton of money in climate denial. Oil companies and groups like the Koch Brothers have sunk millions of dollars into it and continue to all the time, and climate denialists make a lot of money off of them.

Oil companies do not make the amount that governments do, and
off other people's work. How much do you think they spend already
to keep us fat, ignorant and complacent, so we don't ask too many
questions or cause them too many problems?

 

[pat34lee]

We've been measuring tide levels for over 100 years, so to detect annual changes of tenths of millimeters we would need instrumentation with centemeter level accuracy.

Currently, we have tide gauges approaching mm level accuracy.

As I said, they would have to account for all water at any particular time,
whether in solid, liquid or ice form. There is no way to do it, because we
have no idea how much water is in any of those forms, especially underground.

 

[pat34lee]

 

[The Cadet]

As I said, they would have to account for all water at any particular time,
whether in solid, liquid or ice form. There is no way to do it, because we
have no idea how much water is in any of those forms, especially underground.

Um... What? We're measuring the sea level; how does the amount of water underground have any bearing on that?