Topic: Attn: Human Influenced Climate Change deniers (Read 4408 times)

Well, ya.  I'm not impressed by the science there at all.

More like a set of poor premises selected to create a desired conclusion.  For example, this statement:

The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.

...is false....

Let's restate the sentence without the puffery.

"We should reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to reduce global warming."

This sentence is better, as the elements which may be questioned are the "Should" and the cause/effect relation in the "reduce", as well as the existence/continued existence of  "global warming."

If you are in the mood to get really mad at people who should and purport to know better, check out the uber-smug groupthink here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism

Rational?  More like AlarmistCultWiki...   

It's because "Deniers point out errors" that you need "Deniers", lol.  The very idea of "settled science" is totally anti scientific, and quite dangerous. 

It happens that "climate science", which isn't even really a good term, as it aggregates dozens of disciplines into a false generality, is where this drama is being played out.

RE Australia, yes I believe the continent could be Terraformed, over some period of time and after a huge amount of study and engineering.  The curious issue of the "Rabbit fence", NO SCIENTISTS predicted the divergent cloud formations.  Very interesting.

Coming back to this and your right there are a fair share of sourcing errors in climate science reporting
The ones that stand out for me are the 2035 prediction for Himalayan Glaciers which was bunked by an India report
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

And of course what preceded that Climategate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

So there are definite points of contention to debate.

And googled the rabbit fence it was interesting stuff those pesky wabbits ah had a good old elmer fudd moment
I must admit Australia seems a bit weird but I'm guessing it worked so guess good on them.

From your article I see what you mean now by different climates being possible depending on the vegetation and strata of the landforms which could also impact weather patterns and design an excellent point with climate there definitely are more factors to consider than what is seen initially.

_
And ah the answer to my pondering was at the end of that article ^_^
The bunny fence, as it turns out, failed to prevent rabbits from entering the farmland, but it has successfully blocked kangaroos and emus.

Darn wabbits XD

Bolded part above about 2025, yes I understand that.  But then your technical article with the 0.4', that didn't compute either.  I honestly don't know why, just was obliged to point it out.  I think you can see my point about gross mis statements of anything remotely near fact in the area of climate science reporting, and sometimes in the science itself.

As for the Australia issue, certainly regional climate is one hell of an impossibility in the some areas with multiple countries, that's why I mentioned AU.  It's a rather unique situation down there, huge chunk of land, mostly desert, almost everyone on the east coast, a few on the west, nothing in between.   Yet sea winds blow inward just like they do elsewheres.  Main problem is, no mountain ranges.

Google "rabbit fence", quite interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html

I didn't repeat the lie unless you got confused about where the FUD is and what part is Science.

The 2025 quote was something Splendulus inserted in there when talking about random FUD examples that I was replying to.
(Also checked my sources they were fine, just to be clear this buzz word stuff came from some blog I didn't source from 2009 with no sourcing of course so just some FUD poster.)

Clarifies it
I was wondering where he got that quote from since it wasn't in any of my articles what I meant when it was from some blog I didn't source.
So went to figure out where that FUD came from and  went to get the source of the quote.
Unless it was something previous that was incorrect then point that part out.


Australia becoming green is a benefit but I guess we might need to make a list of Pros and Cons then sometime are you thinking a California in the outback where the Kangaroos are mate?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-change-turning-desert-green/4798930



"The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko."

Curious how the bolded part works in practice can't really control where the smoke stack fumes go we saw that in the 1970s with Acid Rain unless you meant countries can get regional agreements on these sort of problems
https://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=83930AC3-1

Good luck with China though wonder how you would solve Asian Dust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Dust

Asian Dust (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles. These clouds are then carried eastward by prevailing winds and pass over China, North and South Korea, and Japan, as well as parts of the Russian Far East. Sometimes, the airborne particulates are carried much further, in significant concentrations which affect air quality as far east as the United States.

In the last decade or so, it has become a serious problem due to the increase of industrial pollutants contained in the dust and intensified desertification in China causing longer and more frequent occurrences, as well as in the last few decades when the Aral Sea of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan started drying up due to the diversion of the Amu River and Syr River following a Soviet agricultural program to irrigate Central Asian deserts, mainly for cotton plantations.

OR
http://kotaku.com/chinas-pollution-is-making-japanese-air-all-crappy-1531371641

No you don't.

Anyway let me conclude this subject on a positive not.  

IF - - IF ice was melting and sea levels were then rising in a problematic sense (which they are NOT), the solution is to change the weather over the regional area of Australia, moving water inland and turning that huge continent into a paradise, where now it is mostly desert.  

Water does not have to go to the ocean.  Part of it goes into and over land.

There's a 21st century engineering problem for ya.

The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko.

See 1st bolded.  I think you missed a full stop, this is what you meant?

Most likely is 0.4' by 2025 for the baseline.  The highest alarmist estimate is 2.1' by 2025.

But even your article quoted is riddled through with falsehoods.  It claims sea level rise is 0.12cm per year.  This is coupled with 0.13 cm per year in land sinking to get 0.25cm per year.

For the Charleston case study area, Hicks and others (1978, 1983) have estimated that the total sea level rise since 1922 has been 0.25 cm/yr (0.1 in/yr).*  *Based on a global (eustatic) rise of 0. 12 cm/yr (0.05 in/yr) plus local subsidence of 0. 13 cm/yr (0.05 in/yr).

For there to be 0.4' of sea level rise for Charleston by 2025, the book you quote from would have to have been written in 1966.

2014-1966 = 48 years * 0.1 in/yr = 4.9 inches
0.4 ft * 12 in/ft = 4.8 inches

See 2nd bolded above.  How in the world can you start a reply with actual facts, and end up repeating that lie?

The weather has always change dramatically, all theories have been proved wrong in the last 50years even the very recent ones
The associate of climate change only accept people that already believe their theories and they make studies to prove their theories, not to find the truth

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#sealevel


Regional and local factors will influence future relative sea level rise for specific coastlines around the world. For example, relative sea level rise depends on land elevation changes that occur as a result of subsidence (sinking) or uplift (rising). Assuming that these historical geological forces continue, a 2-foot rise in global sea level by 2100 would result in the following relative sea level rise:

    2.3 feet at New York City
    2.9 feet at Hampton Roads, Virginia
    3.5 feet at Galveston, Texas
    1 foot at Neah Bay in Washington state

Relative sea level rise also depends on local changes in currents, winds, salinity, and water temperatures, as well as proximity to thinning ice sheets.

But your right that is an alarmist quote estimates have it at 0.4 FT by 2025 For the Baseline the highest ones we see are at 2.1 over the same duration for a case study area in Charleston
http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter4.pdf

The high end of 6 feet occurs at 2075

Also checked my sources they were fine, just to be clear this buzz word stuff came from some blog I didn't source from 2009 with no sourcing of course so just some FUD poster.
And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.
http://discover-planet.blogspot.ca/2009/12/global-warming-threatens-kiribati.html#comment-form

Let me be clear.  Very clear, and let's settle this.  Science does not say, anywhere, even as a minority opinion, that oceans will rise 6' by 2025.  Nowhere.  Not even alarmist science.  Not 3', either.

Look at the IPCC reports and the range of possible sea rise increases cited and projected there.  Look at the issue summarized in Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

We are looking at a possible rise by 2025 of 33 millimeters.  About an inch at current rates.

That's why I suggest that we just call lying, lying.

Well even the bible of the oil industry Daniel Yergin's the quest and the prize point out that there is an issue there, but do not mention Kiribati that said the submergence of an island would be logical if ice is melting it has to go somewhere. (Ice is denser than water)
Put a glass of water in the freezer let it thaw and it expands accelerate the melting rate and you get the 100 year timeline they expect.

Perhaps the warming is not at the pace we expect it to go now but it is a possible eventuality, anyways with people relocating I can see it working in some cases but not all cases since the Global South has it's issues with the Global North for various reasons.
However cooperation does happen so I'll keep a neutral stance on those issues.
_

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.html

The immense weight of Greenland’s ice sheet pushes the island down into the ocean, so as the ice sheet melts and the weight decreases, the island rises. Melting ice and warmer weather are reshaping Greenland’s geography, making once-frozen land arable. The thaw is also opening up access to formerly iced-over reserves of oil, zinc, gold, diamonds and uranium. There is a small but growing political movement in Greenland to harness the new wealth of resources as part of a push for independence.

Some gain where others lose
_

http://danielyergin.com/history-of-climate-change/
For more reading on the history of Global warming

All said I'm more for the efficiency argument myself, it really is the third energy source.

The importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world.

I actually have to ask, IS ANY OF THIS EVEN TRUE?

Here is a buzz phrase from one of the articles on the Islands of Kiribati.

And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.

Since the islands are 6 feet above sea level, this implies a 6 foot sea level rise in 11 years.

No, that isn't going to happen.

Everywhere you look, there just seem to be more and more liars.

Right. But the issue is we really don't have any solutions. It would probably be easier to provide aid and relocation to non-wealthy coastal communities than to stop climate change. I think it's likely that over time emissions will drop without government intervention in the developed world. If, however, we take drastic measures with the economy as a casualty, we will probably reduce standards of living more than global warming.

In addition to opening up arctic shipping, it would probably allow more food production because crops could be grown farther north which would probably let us grow more extra crops than would be lost in the south. Unfortunately I live in the south, so I have mixed feelings about that...  <<< My humble and poorly informed opinion.

The main problem of global warming is the coastline will move up
It opens up arctic shipping and those sort of benefits that help with trade, but at the same time if Islands get flooded over and people need to repopulate that brings about other problems.

Places like Kiribati are a good example of that problem.
http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

I believe the climate is warming, but I'm not sure it's as bad of a thing as people make it out to be. It's been warmer before. We need to use common sense in fighting it. Puting more people in poverty is not a reasonable price to pay for a slight reduction in US emissions that will be more than canceled out by china alone.

probably the key question is the amount of lost heat when the planet enters the ice age part of the mischelovich (sp??) cycle, and how that might compare with heat added to the atmosphere through additional co2.

however if "deniers" are right, and additional co2 has a low effect, that might not stop an ice age.

Case A: Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.
In the year 3000 it doesn't matter anymore if there's a ice age or not because the technology will look like magic to us

Okay, let's develop this concept.  Let's accept two alarmist arguments, something like the "worst case of the Warmers" happens, 5F temperature increase and "billions die".

Let's assume we have another the planet pivots to the start of the Ice Age, in 3000AD and it lasts 100,000 years.  Further assume all people live 100 years.

CASE A:  Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.

Population keeps increasing to say 20B year 3000AD.  Ice age happens, hardly anyone lives.

CASE B:  Warmers fail planet heats up 5F.  By year 2100 3B have died.  Population is steady at 4B until year 103,000.

Hmm....