Top climate change myths answered [W:126]

[PMZ]

Wow!! Finally an answer.

There's just a few problems with it.

1 The sea level is not predicted o rise much. The IPCC's numbers are that a worst case scenario is a 6.4 degree c temperature rise giving a sea level change of 59cm by 2100. The temperature rise has been reduced in half as a worst case so the sea level rise is likely to be a lot close to your ankle than your knee.

2 Different precipitation patterns are more of the "well, change... no actual mechanism.. no actual understanding..." type of thing. When in the past it has been hotter the earth has been wetter, unsurprisingly, and this has caused a much more fertile earth.

One of the biggest reasons that deniers are stuck there is that they look at the numbers for temperature for instance and think, it wouldn't be bad if everyday was 5 degrees warmer. In fact, it might be more comfortable in some places. Or, just a couple of feet of sea level rise. Not bad at all.

Of course like the conservatives they tend to be, they believe that it's only about them.

Hurricane Sandy showed us how vulnerable coastal cities are. The mid West drought is showing us how vulnerable our agriculture industry is. We are already spending billions every year on disaster recovery that is related to AGW and it hasn't even really started yet.

What environmentalism is about is the future. One has to care about the future to even comprehend it. Folks who care only about themselves have very limited horizons. It's not surprising that they are in denial.

 

[Tim the plumber]

^ The hurricane which flooded New Orleans did so because the defenses were not maintained for the poor (black) people's areas.

There has been a reduction in hurricanes hitting the American coast in recent years.

I count myself as a liberal.

The drought in West Texas is not all that unusual. There will always be some area of the earth having the driest... or the wettest... or the coldest... or the hottest.... That's just in the nature of having so many areas with there own potential to hit lucky/unlucky.

Deciding if there has been an increase in extreme weather is a very difficult statistical problem. The head of the British Royal Statistical Society says that there is no evidence that such a thing has happened.

If environmentalism is going to be a force for good it has to understand what it is talking about. That means understanding the degree of threat that is being considered. The present worst case for temperature rise is about 3 degrees c. The use of food as fuel has caused the poorest billion people on the planet very sever hardship. That is killing people by the tens or hundred million people each year. That is very bad. There can be no excuse for not understanding such things when the impact is so devastating.

 

[PMZ]

^ The hurricane which flooded New Orleans did so because the defenses were not maintained for the poor (black) people's areas.

There has been a reduction in hurricanes hitting the American coast in recent years.

I count myself as a liberal.

The drought in West Texas is not all that unusual. There will always be some area of the earth having the driest... or the wettest... or the coldest... or the hottest.... That's just in the nature of having so many areas with there own potential to hit lucky/unlucky.

Deciding if there has been an increase in extreme weather is a very difficult statistical problem. The head of the British Royal Statistical Society says that there is no evidence that such a thing has happened.

If environmentalism is going to be a force for good it has to understand what it is talking about. That means understanding the degree of threat that is being considered. The present worst case for temperature rise is about 3 degrees c. The use of food as fuel has caused the poorest billion people on the planet very sever hardship. That is killing people by the tens or hundred million people each year. That is very bad. There can be no excuse for not understanding such things when the impact is so devastating.

There are several factors in what the worst case will be that are unknowable. One is, what will the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases be when we finally stop making them ever higher. Another is what are the tipping points that once exceeded cause other effects that add to AGW. Like ice and snow melt reducing earth's albedo.

It's been estimated that there is more carbon sequestered in tundra than in the entire fossil fuel load that we are working our way through. Whatever tundra thaws will release it.

Denialists like to make themselves comfortable by assuming that earth's climate is stable and self correcting. The history of earth shows it not to be.

 

[Tim the plumber]

"When we finally stop making CO2..." Let's just keep it on this world shall we. It is asking a lot to predict human industrial activity to the end of the century. If at the point that we get significant trouble from CO2 or even are sure that it's going to be a problem we can shift to other alternatives. Predicting industrial output beyond 2100 is just stupid.

Tipping points; the effect of warming on Greenland is easy to predict. The snow line will move 100m up in altitude for each 1 degree c of warming. It's thus easy to see that since the vast bulk of the ice on Greenland is at 2000m to 3000m it will not be affected.

The same is true for the tundra. The tundra at the edges will, as you say, finish it's rotting and produce methane. But it's easy to see how much of it will be affected by each degree rise in temperature. It's just the edges.

The earth's history does indeed show that the earth's climate is not stable. In fact the climate of the previous few thousand years has been unusually stable. The cold time of the little ice age and the warm time of the early bronze age are small variations compared to a more normal interglacial period. So ecosystems can manage greater and faster climatic swings than is happening today. This has been happening without our intervention. How do you know that the small warming that has happened between 1970 and 1998 is anything to do with our activity? If it is us, why has it stopped?

Skeptics do not feel comfortable about the future. We are just expecting to have to deal with change. We consider that Maoist abandonment of industrial society which is being proposed very dangerous.

The people doing the Green agenda are also very often not scientifically literate. They are very often communists who see an opportunity to wreak havoc on society and thus start a new revolution. Us skeptics are afraid of that.

 

[PMZ]

"When we finally stop making CO2..." Let's just keep it on this world shall we. It is asking a lot to predict human industrial activity to the end of the century. If at the point that we get significant trouble from CO2 or even are sure that it's going to be a problem we can shift to other alternatives. Predicting industrial output beyond 2100 is just stupid.

Tipping points; the effect of warming on Greenland is easy to predict. The snow line will move 100m up in altitude for each 1 degree c of warming. It's thus easy to see that since the vast bulk of the ice on Greenland is at 2000m to 3000m it will not be affected.

The same is true for the tundra. The tundra at the edges will, as you say, finish it's rotting and produce methane. But it's easy to see how much of it will be affected by each degree rise in temperature. It's just the edges.

The earth's history does indeed show that the earth's climate is not stable. In fact the climate of the previous few thousand years has been unusually stable. The cold time of the little ice age and the warm time of the early bronze age are small variations compared to a more normal interglacial period. So ecosystems can manage greater and faster climatic swings than is happening today. This has been happening without our intervention. How do you know that the small warming that has happened between 1970 and 1998 is anything to do with our activity? If it is us, why has it stopped?

Skeptics do not feel comfortable about the future. We are just expecting to have to deal with change. We consider that Maoist abandonment of industrial society which is being proposed very dangerous.

The people doing the Green agenda are also very often not scientifically literate. They are very often communists who see an opportunity to wreak havoc on society and thus start a new revolution. Us skeptics are afraid of that.

Apparently you believe that God is speaking to you directly and therefore you don't need to learn science. I have to say that I doubt it. So, as for me, I'll stick with science.

 

[Earthling]

Rising sea levels and different precipitation patterns that require relocation of coastal cities and agriculture.

When and how often thereafter?

Do you honestly believe any of that will happen before it's possible to react?

Is 1,000 years long enough to relocate?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Apparently you believe that God is speaking to you directly and therefore you don't need to learn science. I have to say that I doubt it. So, as for me, I'll stick with science.

You have just posted an extremely ignorant post.

What is difficult about the response I gave?

I am an atheist. You have a Green religion. You are unable to debate science.

 

[PMZ]

When and how often thereafter?

Do you honestly believe any of that will happen before it's possible to react?

Is 1,000 years long enough to relocate?

In about 100 years we will be out of oil. In maybe 200 years we'll be out of coal. In that time we have to accomplish by far the largest project mankind has ever taken on. I'm not sure that it's even possible at this point so we will probably go through significant energy trauma along the way.

In that time we will have maximized, irreversibly, and essentially permanently, AGW. We will only have the option of adaptation. We will have given away all options for prevention.

Huge existential risk, no benefit. Does that sound like a good investment to you?

 

[PMZ]

You have just posted an extremely ignorant post.

What is difficult about the response I gave?

I am an atheist. You have a Green religion. You are unable to debate science.

I can debate science with anyone and do well. Politics however, like religion, is not debatable. That's what denialism is. Pure politics. The Koch Bros attempt to harvest America.

 

[Earthling]

There are things that science understands are impossible. They will always remain impossible even to those who don't understand them.

Wasn't splitting the atom considered impossible in 1914?

Same question for television, transistors, silicon chips, mobile phones, laptop computers, MP3, etc?

Landing on the Moon?

Don't bother to respond, I know you agree.

 

[Earthling]

In about 100 years we will be out of oil. In maybe 200 years we'll be out of coal. In that time we have to accomplish by far the largest project mankind has ever taken on. I'm not sure that it's even possible at this point so we will probably go through significant energy trauma along the way.

In that time we will have maximized, irreversibly, and essentially permanently, AGW. We will only have the option of adaptation. We will have given away all options for prevention.

Huge existential risk, no benefit. Does that sound like a good investment to you?

You really do remind me of the guy in 1914, who wondered where all the horses would be stabled in the year 2000, he had no imagination either.

 

[Earthling]

You have just posted an extremely ignorant post.

What is difficult about the response I gave?

I am an atheist. You have a Green religion. You are unable to debate science.

He's not the only catastrophist who writes ignorant posts.

 

[Joe1991]

In the past, the planet has been much warmer than today and was so without Anthropogenic CO2.

In all of the previous interglacials, the planet was warmer than today and was so without Anthropogenic CO2.

During the holocene, the planet was warmer than today and was so without Anthropogenic CO2.

Wait, how do you know that?

Why do you trust what scientists say happened millions of years ago, but not what they say is happening now?

 

[Earthling]

Wait, how do you know that?

Why do you trust what scientists say happened millions of years ago, but not what they say is happening now?

Stop and think before posting.

Paleogeology is a science based on solids, climatology is based on gases.

 

[Joe1991]

Denialists like to make themselves comfortable by assuming that earth's climate is stable and self correcting. The history of earth shows it not to be.

Indeed, and as deep into space as we can see, this is the only liveable planet around.

Why not try and keep it that way? ...Why gamble that all the world's scientists are wrong?

 

[Joe1991]

Stop and think before posting.

Paleogeology is a science based on solids, climatology is based on gases.

So all the paleontologists are right, and all the climatologists are wrong, got it. :roll:

 

[flogger]

Are we humans responsible for as much as 0.012% of atmospheric CO2?

You are correct . I am ascribing all the rise in CO2 of the last 2 centuries to human activity when in most probability oceanic outgassing of CO2 from the natural temperature rise since the LIA is likely the cause of much of it.

In that respect I suppose I'm giving the warmers far too much benefit of the doubt

 

[Earthling]

So all the paleontologists[sic] are right, and all the climatologists are wrong, got it. :roll:

Not quite. :lamo

Paleogeology isn't the scientific study of prehistoric life.

As I wrote earlier, "Stop and think before posting."

 

[flogger]

So all the paleontologists are right, and all the climatologists are wrong, got it. :roll:

Climatology or at least as it pertains to the current AGW hypothesis is primarily based on subjective guesswork about the interaction of as yet unquantified variables. Paleontology is based on the analysis of hard data and existential evidence that's the big difference

 

[flogger]

I can debate science with anyone and do well. Politics however, like religion, is not debatable. That's what denialism is. Pure politics. The Koch Bros attempt to harvest America.

You talk about your affinity for debating science and your disdain for the political aspects .... then bring up the Koch Bros ?

As a British skeptic and couldn't care less about them so smearing all of us with the same political brush is disigenuous to say the least :roll:

 

[Joe1991]

Climatology or at least as it pertains to the current AGW hypothesis is primarily based on subjective guesswork about the interaction of as yet unquantified variables. Paleontology is based on the analysis of hard data and existential evidence that's the big difference

So, the scientists of today, with satellites and computers, monitoring the climate in real time, have it all wrong. got it.

Again, ...Why gamble that all the world's scientists are wrong?

 

[flogger]

Wait, how do you know that?

Why do you trust what scientists say happened millions of years ago, but not what they say is happening now?

Having actual evidence of it helps

You don't even need to go that far back. Here are ice core proxies sampled from both poles from the last 10,000 years showing just how normal today's temperatures really are

Ice Cores

 

[Earthling]

So, the scientists of today, with satellites and computers, monitoring the climate in real time, have it all wrong. got it.

Again, ...Why gamble that all the world's scientists are wrong?

Which ones?

Paleogeologists, paleontologists, climatologists, oncologists, radiologists ......................................

 

[flogger]

So, the scientists of today, with satellites and computers, monitoring the climate in real time, have it all wrong. got it.

The truly accurate satellite record only goes back some 35 years. Half of which has seen no warming at all. This record is far too short to be usable for determining anything

Again, ...Why gamble that all the world's scientists are wrong?

Because they have so often been wrong before. This time the economic consequences of what is being proposed will be far more detrimental than anything mother Earth could possibly have in store for us short of a super volcano

 

[PMZ]

Wasn't splitting the atom considered impossible in 1914?

Same question for television, transistors, silicon chips, mobile phones, laptop computers, MP3, etc?

Landing on the Moon?

Don't bother to respond, I know you agree.

Your belief that nothing is knowable of course is practiced by all life except humanity. Look how far not believing that has taken us.

Education is the primary tool we have for separating what's known from things that are uncertain or unknown.