Scary Stuff Coming From the Al Gore Warmist Front

[sandorski]

You say that but you are unable to provide the actual peer-reviewed scientific papers that predict the impact of global warming. You can't even guess what they are. Given that, how do you know global warming is "bad"? SHOW ME THE FUCKING PAPER OR SHOW YOURSELF TO THE DOOR!

I DO NOT DENY that global warming is happening. I don't think anybody does. That would be idiotic. I deny that the effects are going to be all that bad.

Upon which basis?

 

[Jhhnn]

Uh, warmists should be a bit reticent before they go down this road.

Can we start the indictments with Paul Ehrlich?

Or Al Gore?

Or any other zealot who's made ridiculous predictions of climate armageddon?

Subpoenas are not indictments.

 

[bshole]

Upon which basis?

On the basis that I have seen no and am aware of scientifically provable ill-effects. I have witnessed the staggering increase in crop yields and I deny that global warming and increased CO2 hasn't contributed to the bounty.

 

[interchange]

On the basis that I have seen no and am aware of scientifically provable ill-effects. I have witnessed the staggering increase in crop yields and I deny that global warming and increased CO2 hasn't contributed to the bounty.

I think you are going to get a lot of flak, but there is merit to your idea. There have been identified consequences of global warming, but it is unclear if any of them are "meaningful", and it is hard to say "yep, this is definitely because of humans and their fossil fuels". I quote meaningful because there is no objective definition for its threshold.

My fear, and I think the argument with "warmists", is that the consequences will be delayed and extremely severe, that likely there will be a point of no return (which we may have already crossed) which will destroy the world as we know it, and that we won't really know when the consequences of these actions will occur.

Personally, I think it's unlikely that humanity has enough capacity to revere that fear to make changes big enough to avoid that consequence if it is even avoidable (assuming it exists).

 

[chucky2]

Well, we know how serious Global Cooli, er, Global Warmi, er, MMCC is because of all the Believers chaining themselves to those ludicrously polluting jumbo jets used for almost totally needless travel. I just wonder when the news cycle will pick up on that story...any minute now!...

 

[sandorski]

On the basis that I have seen no and am aware of scientifically provable ill-effects. I have witnessed the staggering increase in crop yields and I deny that global warming and increased CO2 hasn't contributed to the bounty.

🙄

I think we discussed this before. How you ignore other technologies designed to increase Crop Yields, so that you can shove C02 in there as a convenient point against worrying about C02.

It's a stupid unsubstantiated point. Why do you think you can make this kind of judgment in the first place?

 

[werepossum]

I think you are going to get a lot of flak, but there is merit to your idea. There have been identified consequences of global warming, but it is unclear if any of them are "meaningful", and it is hard to say "yep, this is definitely because of humans and their fossil fuels". I quote meaningful because there is no objective definition for its threshold.

My fear, and I think the argument with "warmists", is that the consequences will be delayed and extremely severe, that likely there will be a point of no return (which we may have already crossed) which will destroy the world as we know it, and that we won't really know when the consequences of these actions will occur.

Personally, I think it's unlikely that humanity has enough capacity to revere that fear to make changes big enough to avoid that consequence if it is even avoidable (assuming it exists).

Anyone who feels that global warming is going to "destroy the world as we know it" is a complete blithering idiot. That said, some places are going to suck hard. Especially Florida, where the freshwater aquifer is severely depleted and infiltration by salt water is extremely easy. It's easy enough to build sea walls, but if you're building them on sand, it's going to be hard to actually keep out the salt water.

As far as the benefits of global warming, that's true enough, but there are no benefits without corresponding losses. And I doubt we'll see much more in the way of increasing crop yield due to increasing CO2. Land plants simply aren't meaningfully limited by CO2 now, and unless we're growing them hydroponically, I think it will be nigh impossible to increase the nutrients and micronutrients sufficiently to use even higher levels of CO2 than today's. Whatever benefit should be attributed to higher CO2, it's likely shot its wad.

 

[Jaskalas]

Migration from the coasts and low areas might add enough stress to "end" society as we know it. That's a lot of stress to add to our rigid systems.

 

[interchange]

Anyone who feels that global warming is going to "destroy the world as we know it" is a complete blithering idiot.

Why do you say that? I have no idea what will be the case, but the world has had natural climate change events over time with mass extinctions in the process. The earth has many compensatory mechanisms. But that's the nature of fault tolerant systems. They go along with just a few warning signs and then they are unable to compensate fully and crash massively. It's just one possible scenario.

 

[CitizenKain]

On the basis that I have seen no and am aware of scientifically provable ill-effects. I have witnessed the staggering increase in crop yields and I deny that global warming and increased CO2 hasn't contributed to the bounty.

I think being underwater is a downside. Rightwingers are so goddamn stupid its amazing most of you haven't drowned in a shower.

 

[Paratus]

You say that but you are unable to provide the actual peer-reviewed scientific papers that predict the impact of global warming. You can't even guess what they are. Given that, how do you know global warming is "bad"? SHOW ME THE FUCKING PAPER OR SHOW YOURSELF TO THE DOOR!

I DO NOT DENY that global warming is happening. I don't think anybody does. That would be idiotic. I deny that the effects are going to be all that bad.

Here you go:

Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States

Sea-level rise (SLR) is one of the most apparent climate change stressors facing human society1. Although it is known that many people at present inhabit areas vulnerable to SLR2, 3, few studies have accounted for ongoing population growth when assessing the potential magnitude of future impacts4. Here we address this issue by coupling a small-area population projection with a SLR vulnerability assessment across all United States coastal counties. We find that a 2100 SLR of 0.9 m places a land area projected to house 4.2 million people at risk of inundation, whereas 1.8 m affects 13.1 million people—approximately three times larger than indicated by current populations. These results suggest that the absence of protective measures could lead to US population movements of a magnitude similar to the twentieth century Great Migration of southern African-Americans5. Furthermore, our population projection approach can be readily adapted to assess other hazards or to model future per capita economic impacts.

On the basis that I have seen no and am aware of scientifically provable ill-effects. I have witnessed the staggering increase in crop yields and I deny that global warming and increased CO2 hasn't contributed to the bounty.

You made this claim about crops before. Where's the support for your hypothesis. Or as you so colorfully put it above:

SHOW ME THE FUCKING PAPER OR SHOW YOURSELF TO THE DOOR!
:whiste:

 

[Paratus]

Well, we know how serious Global Cooli, er, Global Warmi, er, MMCC is because of all the Believers chaining themselves to those ludicrously polluting jumbo jets used for almost totally needless travel. I just wonder when the news cycle will pick up on that story...any minute now!...

As our resident Gaia loving green hippy you maybe comfortable living in a hemp tent down by the river but lowering our standards of living and denying the third world the chance to raise theirs just isn't going to happen.

So the smart move is to support policies that mitigate climate change, allow us to adapt faster and cheaper to the impacts we can't mitigate, while maintaining and improving our quality of life.

Your support for meaningless protests does nothing for the problem.

:whiste:

 

[bshole]

SHOW ME THE FUCKING PAPER OR SHOW YOURSELF TO THE DOOR!
:whiste:

LoL. Great point. I debated with potholer on this and he demanded scientific papers or he wasn't interested. I actually looked. It was real damn hard and I really didn't find shit on either side. I would kind of be interested in reading published peer reviewed papers. You tried to provide one but to actually read it I would have to pay for it. I had much the same problem with the few I was able to find.

I did find this interesting in what you did provide:

We find that a 2100 SLR of 0.9 m places a land area projected to house 4.2 million people at risk of inundation, whereas 1.8 m affects 13.1 million people—approximately three times larger than indicated by current populations.

900 mm? We are currently at 3 mm/yr. Not sure how you are going to get to 900 mm in only 85 more years. Even assuming that, I can't imagine that 85 years is too short of time for them to move or adjust. Can you? Are you really worried about sea level rise? Seriously concerned about it? Why? Their big scary projection is 4.2 million people being displaced in 85 years while simultaneously 1 million people will starve to death this VERY year. Quite literally, you are more worried about 4 million people having to move within the next 85 years than 25% of that number starving to death today. Jesus that just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[bshole]

Anyone who feels that global warming is going to "destroy the world as we know it" is a complete blithering idiot. That said, some places are going to suck hard. Especially Florida, where the freshwater aquifer is severely depleted and infiltration by salt water is extremely easy. It's easy enough to build sea walls, but if you're building them on sand, it's going to be hard to actually keep out the salt water.

I contend that this has NOTHING to do with global warming. It appears that the professionals agree with me. The problem is that Florida is overusing it's natural water resources. That is completely detached from global warming. It would seem the logical next step would be to manage the water resources MUCH MUCH better. It is a pathetic that in 21st century 1st world nation there are states that are apparently incompetent to manage their own resources.

In the 1900s, developers drained swamps and low-lying areas to increase the amount of land available for building homes and growing crops. Wetlands bordering bays, lakes, and rivers were filled in to create more land. Seawalls were built to straighten and maintain shorelines. Coastal areas have been most affected because large numbers of Florida�s new residents choose to live near the beaches. All of these actions combined have changed the natural flow of water in the environment. This is disastrous to the natural balance.

In Florida, having enough water has become a critical issue. People are using water faster than it can be replaced. The growing population and varying amounts of rain mean that the need to conserve is very important. We must do everything possible to assure a water supply of good quality for today and the future.

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/water/water.htm

 

[JockoJohnson]

I think being underwater is a downside. Rightwingers are so goddamn stupid its amazing most of you haven't drowned in a shower.

Wow, way to stereotype and prove you are an idiot. Bshole is not known for being a right-winger around here. He just happens to not agree with all of the MMCC findings. This issue does usually fall on the left/right lines but there are people on each side that disagree with the crowd they cheer for.

Is everything left/right in your world?

 

[MiniDoom]

I think being underwater is a downside. Rightwingers are so goddamn stupid its amazing most of you haven't drowned in a shower.

lol

 

[werepossum]

I contend that this has NOTHING to do with global warming. It appears that the professionals agree with me. The problem is that Florida is overusing it's natural water resources. That is completely detached from global warming. It would seem the logical next step would be to manage the water resources MUCH MUCH better. It is a pathetic that in 21st century 1st world nation there are states that are apparently incompetent to manage their own resources.

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/water/water.htm

Florida is definitely overusing it's natural water resources, but as sea levels rise, this becomes more of an issue. Or strictly speaking, a different issue. If it's just pulling too much from the aquifer, then primarily you get sink holes and lower water tables and suffocating wetlands. But combine that with increasing sea levels and we see also more salt water replacing fresh as the water tables rise, which carries its own problems.

 

[IGBT]

No doubt the eco-KOOKS Junk Science will now result in Junk Justice to forward their alarmist climate psychosis. North Korea energy policy here we come.

 

[Paratus]

LoL. Great point. I debated with potholer on this and he demanded scientific papers or he wasn't interested. I actually looked. It was real damn hard and I really didn't find shit on either side. I would kind of be interested in reading published peer reviewed papers. You tried to provide one but to actually read it I would have to pay for it. I had much the same problem with the few I was able to find.

I did find this interesting in what you did provide:

900 mm? We are currently at 3 mm/yr. Not sure how you are going to get to 900 mm in only 85 more years. Even assuming that, I can't imagine that 85 years is too short of time for them to move or adjust. Can you? Are you really worried about sea level rise? Seriously concerned about it? Why? Their big scary projection is 4.2 million people being displaced in 85 years while simultaneously 1 million people will starve to death this VERY year. Quite literally, you are more worried about 4 million people having to move within the next 85 years than 25% of that number starving to death today. Jesus that just doesn't make any sense to me.

First the overall rate is increasing:

Second, because of ocean currents and the shape of the coasts, water can pile up. This means locally much higher increases in sea level. Here's an example of different places having different increases:

Thirdly, what does people starving today have to do with forced migration from sea level rise? 😵

I mean that's like me saying, "You want me to vote for Bernie when 30K+ people are dying in car accidents this year?!"

I contend that this has NOTHING to do with global warming. It appears that the professionals agree with me. The problem is that Florida is overusing it's natural water resources. That is completely detached from global warming. It would seem the logical next step would be to manage the water resources MUCH MUCH better. It is a pathetic that in 21st century 1st world nation there are states that are apparently incompetent to manage their own resources.



http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/water/water.htm

Uh your link says nothing of the sort. See what Werepossum wrote:

Florida is definitely overusing it's natural water resources, but as sea levels rise, this becomes more of an issue. Or strictly speaking, a different issue. If it's just pulling too much from the aquifer, then primarily you get sink holes and lower water tables and suffocating wetlands. But combine that with increasing sea levels and we see also more salt water replacing fresh as the water tables rise, which carries its own problems.

Apparently the fresh water sits on the heavier saltwater. When the saltwater rises it displaces the fresh water and enters the wells that were dug.

http://www.marketplace.org/2015/02/10/sustainability/water-high-price-cheap/rising-seas-threaten-south-floridas-drinking-water

 

[Paratus]

No doubt the eco-KOOKS Junk Science will now result in Junk Justice to forward their alarmist climate psychosis. North Korea energy policy here we come.

Damn dude, 4 pages of the same crap.

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=2736559

Maybe consider a new schtick for varieties sake?

 

[chucky2]

As our resident Gaia loving green hippy you maybe comfortable living in a hemp tent down by the river but lowering our standards of living and denying the third world the chance to raise theirs just isn't going to happen.

So the smart move is to support policies that mitigate climate change, allow us to adapt faster and cheaper to the impacts we can't mitigate, while maintaining and improving our quality of life.

Your support for meaningless protests does nothing for the problem.

:whiste:

LOL oh no, I'm not a Believer, at least not nearly to the extent you Believers are. I just like hearing the doom and gloom, all caused by CO2, and then seeing the non-action from Believers on actually doing anything real to limit CO2. I mean, no waiting decades for some actual results from a treaty that might be 1/10th half ass followed, like, real action, today.

And LOL at having the Billions of 3rd world folks moved up to 1st world CO2 output status. I love the insanity...we just need Nick here to Nick and the thread will be complete lol

P.S. I especially love how 'the solution' never involves actually impacting Believers lives. We magically can reign in the already way too high CO2 but shazzam! not to the level it'll impact anyone. Lulz...Believers...

 

[Paratus]

LOL oh no, I'm not a Believer, at least not nearly to the extent you Believers are. I just like hearing the doom and gloom, all caused by CO2, and then seeing the non-action from Believers on actually doing anything real to limit CO2. I mean, no waiting decades for some actual results from a treaty that might be 1/10th half ass followed, like, real action, today.

And LOL at having the Billions of 3rd world folks moved up to 1st world CO2 output status. I love the insanity...we just need Nick here to Nick and the thread will be complete lol

P.S. I especially love how 'the solution' never involves actually impacting Believers lives. We magically can reign in the already way too high CO2 but shazzam! not to the level it'll impact anyone. Lulz...Believers...

I think the lady doth protest too much! You've got like 15+ posts talking about what you hope believers will do. http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=2736646

Much like Nehalems love of toasters leaked out in many of his posts so does your believer obsession. No need to deny it. 😉

First world countries have population growth rates at or below replacement. The benefit to improving the third world is reduced global population. The only trick is doing it while limiting CO2.

The good news is lower/no CO2 sources, (natural gas, solar, wind, some nuke), are displacing coal.

In fact 20 countries have managed to start delinking their GDPs from CO2:

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/06/20-nations-decoupled-gdp-emissions/

Now some of this is due to moving manufacturing to China. So China's move to reduce coal is highly important. It is why I would support policies that push selling US natural gas and solar, wind, and nuclear technologies to developing countries.

No need to tie yourself to a plane. 😉

 

[Jaskalas]

No doubt the eco-KOOKS Junk Science will now result in Junk Justice to forward their alarmist climate psychosis. North Korea energy policy here we come.

If mud slinging is all we have against "Junk Science" then maybe our position is not prevailing or even sound. Our opposition and the Surface Temps cannot both be true. One is false. Is it us? Why not?

The answers from our side are dreadfully lacking in substance and impact.
Think about the ground your position stands on.

 

[bshole]

I think the lady doth protest too much! You've got like 15+ posts talking about what you hope believers will do. http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=2736646

Much like Nehalems love of toasters leaked out in many of his posts so does your believer obsession. No need to deny it. 😉

First world countries have population growth rates at or below replacement. The benefit to improving the third world is reduced global population. The only trick is doing it while limiting CO2.

The good news is lower/no CO2 sources, (natural gas, solar, wind, some nuke), are displacing coal.


Now some of this is due to moving manufacturing to China. So China's move to reduce coal is highly important. It is why I would support policies that push selling US natural gas and solar, wind, and nuclear technologies to developing countries.

No need to tie yourself to a plane. 😉

Some? And what they delinked appears to be ECLIPSED by what China added. Not sure what you think is being achieved by these machinations.

 

[zinfamous]

No doubt the eco-KOOKS Junk Science will now result in Junk Justice to forward their alarmist climate psychosis. North Korea energy policy here we come.

You really could use a couple of bong hits. Let me know when you need a hook up.