Scary Stuff Coming From the Al Gore Warmist Front

[zinfamous]

I don't understand the question.

touche.

 

[Paratus]

But it leaves plenty of open space for giant, elephant-sized spiders to thrive in the new CO2-rich world.

Shatner Save Us!

 

[crashtech]

Are you illiterate, is that your problem?

I honestly wondered if you were questioning my reading comprehension or critiquing my tortured prose. Either way, you may have helped bolster my point by reacting so strongly to a statement that wasn't even aimed at you in particular. Obviously I dissent at my own peril!

The parallels between fervent religious zealots and anthropomorphic climate change believers tend to be striking. Either you are a true believer, or an infidel marked for destruction!

But nobody likes an agnostic like me, who loves the science but hates policy and prognostication. Doomsayers are wrong with tedious regularity; "wolf" has been cried too many times to raise my blood pressure.

 

[Jaskalas]

Another thread that reveals the Left being terminally infected with authoritarian thinking; believing falsely they are lovers of freedom and tolerant of diversity, their blind spot being that it must be their approved freedoms and their approved diversity, or else face the power of the State to enforce your compliance.

Are we not allowed to regulate and mitigate / reduce harm to the public or planet at large? Should dangerous chemicals be poured out "at will"? If so... China has some "drinking water" for you.

Let's put it another way... would you protect us from a handful of Muslims, but not a refugee crisis of over half a billion people? Are you capable of determining which is the bigger threat?

 

[Paratus]

I honestly wondered if you were questioning my reading comprehension or critiquing my tortured prose. Either way, you may have helped bolster my point by reacting so strongly to a statement that wasn't even aimed at you in particular. Obviously I dissent at my own peril!

The parallels between fervent religious zealots and anthropomorphic climate change believers tend to be striking. Either you are a true believer, or an infidel marked for destruction!

But nobody likes an agnostic like me, who loves the science but hates policy and prognostication. Doomsayers are wrong with tedious regularity; "wolf" has been cried too many times to raise my blood pressure.

Well i consider folks who ignore overwhelming scientific evidence to be in the same vein as:

• Creationists
• Moon Landing Hoaxers
• Anti-Vaxxers
• 911 Truthers

You say you love the science, well the science makes the predictions. Those predictions are coming true for some low lying coastal areas. For them it's now all about policy.

 

[crashtech]

Are we not allowed to regulate and mitigate / reduce harm to the public or planet at large? Should dangerous chemicals be poured out "at will"? If so... China has some "drinking water" for you.

Let's put it another way... would you protect us from a handful of Muslims, but not a refugee crisis of over half a billion people? Are you capable of determining which is the bigger threat?

I am only speaking to the idea that disagreeing with the policy solutions in regard to the problem represents free speech. Nowhere will you find me advocating for lawlessness, as you seem to be implying.

 

[crashtech]

Well i consider folks who ignore overwhelming scientific evidence to be in the same vein as:

• Creationists
• Moon Landing Hoaxers
• Anti-Vaxxers
• 911 Truthers

You forget "infidels." Seriously, even those who agree with a lot of the science get lumped into groups by name-calling Internet bullies.

You say you love the science, well the science makes the predictions. Those predictions are coming true for some low lying coastal areas. For them it's now all about policy.

Most predictions have not come true. I guess the knack is to determine which ones will come to pass. There is no settled science, only a state of the art which evolves constantly. The inability of people on both sides to separate the science from the policy debate is disheartening.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am only speaking to the idea that disagreeing with the policy solutions in regard to the problem represents free speech. Nowhere will you find me advocating for lawlessness, as you seem to be implying.

You want to debate policy solutions? That'd be great.

Most predictions have not come true.

Or... that. At a basic level many points of theirs are true. CO2 is rising, and so is Watts per Square Meter (W/2^m). Sea level is rising. Ice is melting. Surface Temps are rising. This adds up.

There are a few data points that are contrary, but they are minority and taken out of context or even not that important in the big picture. Frankly, as long as GISS is allowed to stand I'm not sure there's any room for contesting the subject. Their chart is up-up-and-away. Is that not the truth? Who is going to the mat and willing to falsify that publication?

I'm sure some exaggerations and doom says have failed... but the greater subject is troubling.

 

[Paratus]

You want to debate policy solutions? That'd be great.



Or... that. At a basic level many points of theirs are true. CO2 is rising, and so is Watts per Square Meter (W/2^m). Sea level is rising. Ice is melting. Surface Temps are rising. This adds up.

There are a few data points that are contrary, but they are minority and taken out of context or even not that important in the big picture. Frankly, as long as GISS is allowed to stand I'm not sure there's any room for contesting the subject. Their chart is up-up-and-away. Is that not the truth? Who is going to the mat and willing to falsify that publication?

I'm sure some exaggerations and doom says have failed... but the greater subject is troubling.

:thumbsup:

 

[crashtech]

You want to debate policy solutions? That'd be great.



Or... that. At a basic level many points of theirs are true. CO2 is rising, and so is Watts per Square Meter (W/2^m). Sea level is rising. Ice is melting. Surface Temps are rising. This adds up.

There are a few data points that are contrary, but they are minority and taken out of context or even not that important in the big picture. Frankly, as long as GISS is allowed to stand I'm not sure there's any room for contesting the subject. Their chart is up-up-and-away. Is that not the truth? Who is going to the mat and willing to falsify that publication?

I'm sure some exaggerations and doom says have failed... but the greater subject is troubling.

I'm still slaving away at work and I can't really do your reply justice, other than to thank you for your civility and the care you took with your reply. Honestly threads like this seem like quamires into which I have thoughtlessly tread; though there is the potential to spend much energy, there is little hope of anything meaningful being accomplished. There is one thing that I take issue with in your response, though, and that is equating data points with "predictions" in the way I thought I was conveying, which was more along the lines of twenty foot sea level rises and the loss of all polar ice, which by some past estimates should have already occurred. Anyway, I don't really want to debate the nuances that much, please just take my word that I don't reject the science of climate change, certainly not wholesale. What to do about it, though...

 

[bshole]

So your plan is to wipe out trillions of dollars of coastal real estate? Once insurance is unavailable or only affordable to the richest 1% property values will drop like a rock. The poorest will still live without insurance until the property is flooded and then walk away. The upper and middle class will take a large hit on their home equity.

This doesn't sound like a benefit of climate change. :hmm:

The government is currently funding people to live in areas that are susceptible to flooding. This is completely divorced from climate change. With or without climate change, flooding happens. If people decide to live on land that is prone to flooding then the insurance rates charged should reflect that risk. The idiocy of forcing the American people to pay the insurance for this is mind-boggling. It is gift that will never stop giving. Their homes get destroyed over and over again and we the American people pay for the reconstruction only to wait for the next flood. These kind of policies set up America for unspeakably huge catastrophic losses when the land becomes completely untenable. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, you would never support such policies.

Regarding southern Florida. With or without manmade CO2, natural warming is going to cause the exact same problem but at a later date. The majority of it's history has been under water with no input from man.

 

[fskimospy]

The government is currently funding people to live in areas that are susceptible to flooding. This is completely divorced from climate change. With or without climate change, flooding happens. If people decide to live on land that is prone to flooding then the insurance rates charged should reflect that risk. The idiocy of forcing the American people to pay the insurance for this is mind-boggling. It is gift that will never stop giving. Their homes get destroyed over and over again and we the American people pay for the reconstruction only to wait for the next flood. These kind of policies set up America for unspeakably huge catastrophic losses when the land becomes completely untenable. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, you would never support such policies.

Regarding southern Florida. With or without manmade CO2, natural warming is going to cause the exact same problem but at a later date. The majority of it's history has been under water with no input from man.

It's amazing how quickly you went from 'it's an easy fix, no need to do anything about climate change' to 'they are doomed no matter what, no need to do anything about climate change'.

 

[zinfamous]

I honestly wondered if you were questioning my reading comprehension or critiquing my tortured prose. Either way, you may have helped bolster my point by reacting so strongly to a statement that wasn't even aimed at you in particular. Obviously I dissent at my own peril!

The parallels between fervent religious zealots and anthropomorphic climate change believers tend to be striking. Either you are a true believer, or an infidel marked for destruction!

But nobody likes an agnostic like me, who loves the science but hates policy and prognostication. Doomsayers are wrong with tedious regularity; "wolf" has been cried too many times to raise my blood pressure.

The problem with conflating those two communities, as you describe them, is that one fundamentally rejects sound, evidence-based approaches to reality and truth, while the other fundamentally accepts this approach.

Describing the work of climate scientists as "blind zealotry" is rather ignorant.

Skepticism is grand and necessary in science. The problem with science-deniers is that they often claim "conspiracy, bias, profit-driven corruption!" when they attempt to attack this research, and they only ever use sources that are profoundly and unabashedly biased and driven by profit as evidence for the validity of their skepticism. I find these people by and large to be non-scientists. They have have a need to believe that scientists, in aggregate, do it "for the money." Lol--anyone that gets into science for money is not going to be around very long. Most of these detractors come from fields and lifestyles where it all very much is about the money, so, they really don't see the world in any other light. To them, skepticism is always valid, simply by virtue of being skeptical. Of course with this view, there is no longer any value to skepticism because one is fundamentally unwilling to accept uncomfortable facts when they are plastered across their face.

I get that; but it's obviously a highly subjective perspective on how everyone must value the world, if they themselves value it in such a way. To this end, when the Cock brothers and Exxon tell them that "big science" is corrupt and out to profit on the back of your ability to boat around with your hard-earned fossil fuels, it makes sense to them.

It's interesting to see this great disconnect of the religious zealots. It is plainly obvious that this is what such people are experiencing, yet I still don't quite understand how people can be so easily duped into such a low level range of thinking that fundamentally works against their own best interest.

 

[crashtech]

@zinfamous: I did not say nor mean "blind zealotry," yet there is zealotry on both sides nonetheless, which tends to envenomate the debate on how to interpret the data and craft policies based upon it. Our understanding of Earth's extremely complex climate and the forces which act upon it is constantly evolving; one valid conclusion based upon this realization is to proceed cautiously when demanding policies which will have measurable negative effects upon the population in order to attempt a untestable global experiment in temperature reduction.

There isn't really much point in arguing this, governments all over the globe agree with me already, we are doing what we can to ameliorate CO2 emissions within a consensus and without undue immediate harm to people, jobs, the economy, etc.

 

[bshole]

It's amazing how quickly you went from 'it's an easy fix, no need to do anything about climate change' to 'they are doomed no matter what, no need to do anything about climate change'.

Well you are the one who contends that there is no possible way to prevent South Florida from flooding. 21st Century engineering is completely not up to the task and there can be no way to engineer a solution. I went with your UNPROVEN hypothesis. I do not necessarily agree with it.

Accepting YOUR hypothesis, that means Southern Florida is completely doomed and there is nothing that man can do to prevent inundation. For some reason, it matters to you that South Florida may be inundated 1-2 centuries after your death instead of 7-8. It matters so so so so much for..... reasons.... However it does not matter enough to you to ask our federal government to stop encouraging people to move into flood zones. In fact you support the exact opposite. It is almost as if you want to MAXIMIZE losses/human suffering due to ocean rise/floods. The beautiful part of the Federal Insurance plan is that it maximizes costs to taxpayers today to ensure that the cataclysmic inundation will be maximally harmful in the future.

A sane plan to address this would be start from the current insurance rates of these people (lets say they are paying 10% of the true cost of that insurance today). Over the next 75 years, increase the property owners cost from 10% to 100% of the insurance. The change is gradual enough to not be economically disruptive. This will gradually edge people out of marginal areas and into more viable locations. This isn't rocket science...

 

[sandorski]

Well you are the one who contends that there is no possible way to prevent South Florida from flooding. 21st Century engineering is completely not up to the task and there can be no way to engineer a solution. I went with your UNPROVEN hypothesis. I do not necessarily agree with it.

Accepting YOUR hypothesis, that means Southern Florida is completely doomed and there is nothing that man can do to prevent inundation. For some reason, it matters to you that South Florida may be inundated 1-2 centuries after your death instead of 7-8. It matters so so so so much for..... reasons.... However it does not matter enough to you to ask our federal government to stop encouraging people to move into flood zones. In fact you support the exact opposite. It is almost as if you want to MAXIMIZE losses/human suffering due to ocean rise/floods. The beautiful part of the Federal Insurance plan is that it maximizes costs to taxpayers today to ensure that the cataclysmic inundation will be maximally harmful in the future.

A sane plan to address this would be start from the current insurance rates of these people (lets say they are paying 10% of the true cost of that insurance today). Over the next 75 years, increase the property owners cost from 10% to 100% of the insurance. The change is gradual enough to not be economically disruptive. This will gradually edge people out of marginal areas and into more viable locations. This isn't rocket science...

I see, Fuck our Grand Children and their Children!

Ya, sounds like a plan to me.

 

[crashtech]

I see, Fuck our Grand Children and their Children!

Ya, sounds like a plan to me.

That would be consistent with things like government spending, for instance.

 

[sandorski]

That would be consistent with things like government spending, for instance.

Deficits? Sure. Spending? Not necessarily.

 

[werepossum]

First Mea Culpa once again, I looked at a paper for America and assumed it was for the world.

Now WerePossum, you really believe that reducing carbon use in America is going to do a damn thing at this point? That cow has left the barn. Looking at Florida, if America quit using fossil fuels TODAY and never used them again, it would not do a damn thing for that state. South Florida is only 1 meter above sea level and is relatively flat. This is STRICTLY an issue for engineers. Parts of the Netherlands are 7 meters BELOW sea level and yet they have a thriving population. To be clear, they were able to settle there and thrive using middle age technology to manage the problems associated with their low altitude and proximity to the ocean. The practical engineering part of me insists that if pre-industrialists could solve problems extremely similar to what Florida is facing, modern engineers can also and in a cost-efficient manner. Making energy expensive and pretending that will solve Florida's problem is quite silly. Unless we enter a global cooling era, Florida is going to need to address the issue of a rising ocean at some point. Perhaps they should have thought of that and taken the CORRECT measures when they first moved onto AT SEA-LEVEL land near an ocean in the last few hundred years.

This is a relatively straightforward engineering challenge and will be met.

I believe that reducing carbon use in America at this point MIGHT help. This issue is not straightforward. For example, CO2 is by far not the strongest greenhouse gas and is fairly limited in adsorption spectra, so at some point its effect stops no matter the concentration. It's also true that much of what we do to lower our CO2 production simply shifts production to places like China, where CO2 output per unit good is actually higher. It's true that there has been a LOT of dishonesty among the CAGW crowd; the models that tell us we're doomed cannot work on historic conditions AND current conditions, where they could actually be verified. But there are some valid reasons to assume that reducing our CO2 output can help. For instance:
1. We can hardly pressure China and the Third World to reduce their output if we aren't actively reducing our own.

2. The Earth has exquisite feedback mechanisms that we don't really understand. So while it's entirely possible that the Earth system will adapt to this higher level of CO2, it's equally possible that the system might adapt only to where we COULD have been had we really tried. It might be the difference between Florida's mean being 1 meter under versus two, or 0.5 meters over versus three under. We simply don't know, but the complexity, cost and feasibility of protecting Florida varies wildly depending on the differential. We also know that the Earth is a chaotic, non-linear system, so reducing CO2 levels by 1% might have no noticeable effect or equally likely, it might have a disproportionately higher effect.

3. We have very, very limited experience with conditions on Earth. We try to look back, but in fact we cannot directly measure past history, we can only infer and deduce. That reduces the reliability of these doomsday projections, but it also introduces uncertainly on the other side. As any natural quantity increases, there is some small chance of unforeseen catastrophic (for some meanings of "catastrophic") consequences. If we are artificially increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2, we are increasing the chances of something really bad that we do not yet understand. That alone adds some reason to limit CO2 output; we're moving into an atmospheric concentration of which we have no first hand knowledge and which might have had dire consequences which left no decipherable record when they last occurred.

4. Most of the actions to fight CO2 output have direct benefits for other forms of pollution. The more we go to solar, wind, etc. the fewer pollutants of all kinds we put out, and the less we disturb the Earth getting fuel.

5. There are consequences of excess CO2 such as aquatic acidification and increased erosion which are outside the CAGW models and are much more straightforward.

I don't want to see us crash our economy, but taking such actions as seem reasonable seems, well, reasonable.

That would be consistent with things like government spending, for instance.

lol +1

 

[Texashiker]

In a perhaps unprecedented move that spits in the face of the Constitution and and is a direct assault on free speech, the heavily monied warmists are kick-starting their campaign to silence skeptical and serious minded questioning of their meme. Pretty ugly stuff. If they can't win in the marketplace of ideas, their go to plan is to imprison those who dissent.

Whats the problem?

Anything for the good of the public trumps your rights.

 

[pyrolyser]

I find it baffling how quickly some people will change their narrative in their argument against climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to the contrary.

It usually starts with an outright denial of the existence of climate change using for instance the fact that there has not been an increase in temperature over the past 10 years when the data shows that the upwards trend can be seen over decades.

Once it has been established that there is indeed a gradual rise of temperature globally, skeptics will start to argue the fact that it cannot be attributed mainly to human activity despite evidence of the direct correlation between the two, mainly in terms of carbon dioxide emissions which in the US alone has increased by about 9% between 1990 and 2014. The increase is more significant the further we go back in time.

Finally comes what I call the "it's not my problem" or "it's already too late anyway" arguments. Those are fairly self explanatory.

So far in this thread I've seen some people calling out others to show the peer-reviewed scientific articles to back their statements whilst not providing any themselves in their rebuttal and providing such excuses as "it was really damn hard" or "I read that somewhere" or even in another instance "I heard a guy say this". I think that I'm not the only one here who thinks that anecdotes are not a very effective way to weigh in an argument.

One issue that has not been discussed so far in this thread is health concerns pertaining to climate change [WHO]. While skeptics might argue that sea levels might rise to alarming levels in a century or so, I'm betting on statistical models predicting a major outbreak boosted by conditions brought about by climate change much sooner than that.

Also let's no forget that predictive models/simulations are a work in progress and can be refined as new studies brings more data points as well as parameters that might have been overlooked before. Just look at the reliability of weather forecasts.

 

[GoPackGo]

Any reason they couldn't pump the water into Death Valley?

 

[werepossum]

Any reason they couldn't pump the water into Death Valley?

Cool. World's biggest hot tub.

If we cared to do so, we could desalinate the water and pump it into arid inland areas. Hell, we've been reducing water tables for many, many decades, so that would kill two birds. If one figures out the energy and monetary costs to do so . . . Let's just say the world has never cared that much about anything.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

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.

Just saw this article today. Remembered this ^post, you might find this interesting:

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.

Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries.

It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years.The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

If I understood the article correctly it says, yes, increased CO2 has resulted in substantial tree/plant growth. However, there are limiting factors as you suggest.

Also says current climate models are inaccurate (hooda thunk it) as they fail to take this into account. (Increase in CO2 increases plants which decreases CO2 etc.)

Fern

 

[Paratus]

Just saw this article today. Remembered this ^post, you might find this interesting:



http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

If I understood the article correctly it says, yes, increased CO2 has resulted in substantial tree/plant growth. However, there are limiting factors as you suggest.

Also says current climate models are inaccurate (hooda thunk it) as they fail to take this into account. (Increase in CO2 increases plants which decreases CO2 etc.)

Fern

This has been a well known effect of increased CO2 from the historical record. It's part of the investigation climate satellites were supposed to perform.

Increased CO2 can even improve crops depending on the type of crop:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-could-actually-help-reduce-water-scarcity/
(Although not nearly to the extent bshole has contended in past threads)


However you made a couple of statements based on some erroneous assumptions.

First, for this new information to prove the models "wrong" it would have to move the projected temperature outside of the error bars of the current models. I've seen no evidence this has happened. If you have some, please link it.

Second you said this decreases CO2. These measurements have been going on for 20-30 years. Can you point out the decrease in CO2 in the observed CO2 record?

Or is it possible you meant greening slows the rate of increase of CO2?