A picture of global warming

Forum » Beenos Trumpet » A picture of global warming

Feb 04, 2021, 21:34

Here’s a projected picture for the Midwest in February ......normal high is 36 F degrees...we are projected to be a cumulative 266 degrees or almost 9.5 degrees a day below normal. Anybody that seriously believes there is ‘run away’ warming needs their head read.


Yes I know the arguments about the weather today. But this is the weather for a month over the Central USA.


And Lefties make claims all the time....like the supposed run away heat in Oz last year. Turnaround is fair play.



Feb 04, 2021, 22:02

Weren't the climate deniers the same people who were also the Covid deniers? 
Conservatism vs science... 

Feb 04, 2021, 22:03

The midwest of the US  does not equal the globe. It's not even 1% of the globe.

Stop cherry picking relatively small areas over limited time scales and look at global temperatures over time.

Feb 04, 2021, 23:12

Tell your Left Wing mates to stop talking about every snow storm, forest fire, ice berg or hurricane in global warming terms .....and then lecture me on citing a specific example.


Of course I fully anticipated this as you can see in my post. 


As for the Midwest, perhaps this will help:

821,000 square miles
The Midwest's roughly 821,000 square miles make it about twice the size of France, the country from which the US bought most of it. The region is pretty close in size to Mexico, which is just under 800,000 square miles.
.....
Big enough to be very relevant. Total global landmass is 57 million square miles, so statistically we are taking a sample equal to 1.4% of the earth’s landmass.

If we were to sample at the same rate for Covid, you would say the findings weren’t relevant unless we sampled more than a hundred million people.

...

Your limited education keeps tripping you up.




Feb 05, 2021, 13:54

No not every snow storm, forest fire, ice berg or hurricane can be directly attributed to climate change, but what proponents of climate change are saying is that frequency of these extreme weather events will increase as a result of climate change.

Funny thing is I google searched the size of the midwest and found the exact same result you posted up.

But let me clarify it for you, the worlds total landmass also does not equal the globe. Europe just makes up 2% of the worlds sufrace area and even an area twice the size of France is still less than 1% of the world's total surface area.

We have temperature readings from all over the world including from the sea's. These readings show the global temperatures are increasing. And I don't want to hear that these temperatures readings are wrong, if the midwest can accurately measure temperatures the rest of the world can too. You already plugged the idea the idea before that global temperatures haven't increased much since 1850 happy to use old temperature records from over 170 years ago but somehow with all the advances in climatology since then the modern temperature readings are wrong.

And your biases keep tripping you up. You have gone so far down the path of climate change denial, where you actually go out of your way on this forum to promote it, that no matter how overwhelming the evidence is presented in front of you, your ego just won't allow you to admit you're wrong. To you its all about winning an argument as opposed to being on the right side of an argument.




Feb 05, 2021, 14:49

Star

The earth heating up is NOT proof of "man-made climate change".

As far as proof, you have presented very little. Scientists say isn't proof of anything.

So here's your chance. Provide us with irrefutable proof that man-made climate change is real and demonstrate how much of the heating up is caused by us pesky humans.

My guess is that your answer will include statements regarding scientific consensus, mounting undeniable proof, clear as day evidence....but not actual evidence will make its way to this thread.



Feb 05, 2021, 15:34

We should have been cooked already if the CO2 angle was that simple. 

Feb 05, 2021, 16:24

The earth heating up is NOT proof of "man-made climate change".

I didn't say it was. Merely pointing out if where talking about global warming, you look at global temperatures over prolonged periods of time not just temperatures in a  limited area over a limited period of time.

As far as proof, you have presented very little. Scientists say isn't proof of anything.

Climate scientists are the experts n this particular field and thankfully they don't just say thing they provide proof to back up the things they say.

So here's your chance. Provide us with irrefutable proof that man-made climate change is real and demonstrate how much of the heating up is caused by us pesky humans.

These links can explain the evidence better than I can.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-basic.htm

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming

In answer to your question humans are responsible for over 100% of the temperature rise since 1950

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

All of these points are backed up by peer reviewed research and data, they are backed up the scientific process.

I don't like using scientific consensus as a way of validating an argument. All I can say is the evidence appears to be so overwhelming it has led to virtually a unanimous scientific consensus.

Feb 05, 2021, 16:25

This chart is a better scale. 


Image result for co2 increase over last 2000 years

Feb 05, 2021, 16:46

I'll simplify, Star.

You refereed to overwhelming evidence. 

Give us your top three evidences that are so overhwhelming that they practically constitute proof.

No need to link us to papers. We can all link to papers...but where does that get anyone, other becoming quicker at hotkey URL /paste haha!

Give us the skinny, in your own simplified terms.

...and then, once you've done that, give us your overwhelming evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere will result in famine and drought. 


Feb 05, 2021, 18:01

 

Feb 05, 2021, 18:04

There's been spikes even before humans could have had any impact...looks like a natural cycle...more worried about the plummet after the spike.

Feb 05, 2021, 18:10

No need to link us to papers. We can all link to papers...but where does that get anyone

Emm it gets you to the evidence?

If I was to try and explain it simply, he can see from temperature readings from around the world that temperatures are rising and the rate at which they are rising is increasing. So whats causing this.

We know from taking measurements from the atmosphere that CO2 concentration has increased in the atmosphere. We can also tell this additional CO2 has come from human emissions both by looking at the historical records of human emitted C02 emissions and by measuring the isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere, as human emitted CO2 contains very little of the Carbon 13 isotope found in natural emitted CO2, for the measured increased of CO2 we see a corresponding decrease of the Carbon 13 isotope so we the increase is coming from human sources.

CO2 we know through basic physics can trap energy/absorb heat. Along with the other carbon gasses in the atmosphere allows shortwave radiation from the sun to pass through them, but when this shortwave radiation hits the ground it heats it up and is deflected back up into the atmosphere as longwave radiation which gets trapped by the carbon gasses, the causes the carbon gas to vibrate which generates heat which radiates through the atmosphere. That CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation has been known about for over 150 years. Adding more CO2 into the atmosphere increases the amount of long wave radiation being adsorb by the atmosphere which in turn emits more heat. From measurements we can see the earth temperature has risen in lock step to the increase in human CO2 emissions. CO2 also traps energy/ heat at a very specific wavelength, different to the other carbon gasses. We can see/measure the wavelength of the energy from carbon gasses being deflected back to the earths surfaces and we can see the overwhelming majority is coming the from the wavelength that CO2 traps energy at. So we know its not coming from the other carbon gasses in the atmosphere

Now of course through out history the temperature has gone up and down via natural causes, but none of these historical causes account for the current temperature rise and the speed at which its rising at. They don't even come remotely close. All of them have been looked at, like the sun, solar activity, ocean currents and they have all been ruled out. 

More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased temperatures, increased temperatures will lead to more droughts, more droughts will lead into an increase in crop failures, more corp failures equals an increase in famines. It just logically follows on.



Feb 05, 2021, 18:14

DbDradd just because temperature spikes occurred naturally does not mean there a good thing or something that will not affect mankind nor does it exclude man from causing temperature changes.

Feb 05, 2021, 18:21

If you look at Draads most recent chart, it is from the conservative far-right organisation. (heritage.org)
A research and educational institution whose mission is to build and promote conservative public policies, based in Washington, D.C..

No doubt pushing dirty energy and on the payroll of oil companies, but trying to pass themselves off as scientific...

Far-right conservatism does not understand science. It is that simple. 



------------------------------------

------------------------------------


The chart I provided was by a specialist weather scientist.. 

Ed Hawkins

Climatologist

Description

Description

Edward Hawkins MBE is a climate scientist known for his data visualization graphics portraying global warming, especially for general audiences, such as the warming stripes. Wikipedia
AffiliationUniversity of Reading
Citations12,910
h-index51

Feb 05, 2021, 18:30

So, Star

Are you aware that deserts have become 10-15% greener as a result of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere?

How does that play into the famine/drought predictions(because that's what they are.)

We have 30 years of evidence that proves what marijuana growers already knew...more CO2 = better crops.

https://earthsky.org/science-wire/elevated-carbon-dioxide-making-arid-regions-greener

Versus...

Man-made global warming is gonna kill all the plants and people will starve.

Let's assume that man wasn't creating CO2. Today, we'd have bigger deserts, less farmable land and more famine. 

Thanks for the radiation lesson. Tell me...which reflects more long and shortwave radiation...green forests or desert sand? You already know the answer.


Feb 05, 2021, 19:01

No I didn't know that, but its irrelevant. As I've pointed out before the pro's and con's of global warming have already been weighed up and the con's massively out weigh the pros. Some area's may see increased food production, but globally global warming will cause a net decrease in food production. Do you really think this hasn't been thought about?

Don't misrepresent the other side, global warming proponents are not saying its gonna kill all the plants.

Yes lets assume man wasn't creating CO2. Today we would had less extreme weather events and crop failures that would more than compensate for the small increase in farmable land in desert area's. Like Mozart you need to stop cherry picking and look at the data on the whole.

Tell me which reflects more long and shortwave radiation, green forests, desert sand or polar ice caps? I think you already know the answer.

Feb 05, 2021, 19:07

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Climate Change
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 per cent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the ...


If you took your car to 97% of all mechanics and they agree, what do you do?
Get under the bonnet and try argue with them.?
While understanding a specialists logic and facts as an argument is good,
this is not the case with debunked assumptions. 

If climatologists say Glaciers are melting due to global warming (Cause and Effect):
1.) Do you accept they are melting, but due to another cause? 
2.) Do you not accept that they are melting at all? 

- If you accept Glaciers are melting, what is the cause? 

1.) Do you accept seas are rising? If yes, what is the cause? 
and so on...


Feb 05, 2021, 19:19

Do you not know sharkbok, 97% of mechanics are in on a conspiracy to rip of their customers and thus bring about a global socialist dictatorship? Sure isn't it obvious!

Feb 05, 2021, 20:11

Lolz

Droughts kill plants, mate.

Exactly what am I misrepresenting?

What are the net cons that outweigh the benefits of more farmable land and a greener planet with more oxygen? No long stories please, just list them.  

Seriously...Unless were talking daily tornados, I struggle to think of one. Flooding? But floods don't occur during droughts because...well, that's kinda the opposite. Severe thunderstorms? Lightning puts nitrogen(great for growing plants too) into the ground. 

I'm gonna have a guess that my argument is too simplistic, right?

Man-made global warming is much more complex? See, it affects this river and that forest and the ph of that pond and and and...Armageddon!

Am I close?


 




Feb 05, 2021, 21:02

Droughts do indeed kill plants. Now tell me where anyone was suggesting a drought would kill all the plants on earth. You used the words "global warming is gonna kill all the planet" which anyone reading would logical assume means all plants on earth, you know this and you know your misrepresenting the other side. Don't try to deny this.

Increase in droughts which leads to an increase in famines. Increase in sea levels which will put low lying coastal regions under water. More frequent severe weather events, like storms, hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, wildfires and dust storms, more acidic oceans, less bio diversity/more wildlife extinctions and less clean air. And no they don't contradict each other, different regions will be affected in different ways, this is basic easy to look up information.

And yes your argument is too simplistic.



Feb 05, 2021, 21:48

Lol Star

Why would I deny it? You do realise that people can read what I wrote? 

Of course I was exaggerating since the only thing that would kill ALL the plants on earth would be a complete loss of atmosphere or something similarly catastrophic.

Nevermind, let's continue.

Shall we deal with your first point...increase in droughts.

Now, without Googling...can you tell me if global rainfall over land has increased, decreased or remained the same over the last 100 years?

It has increased. 

Ah, ok...but it's the "extreme" rain that's the problem. 

Have floods become more or less regular over the last 100 years. 

Before you answer...how much flooding is the result of new, badly built or poorly managed dams?

 ...and do those papers take dams into account? What happens to the flooding data when you strike man-made floods from the numbers? Are we still at increased flooding?





Feb 06, 2021, 03:36

So.....the spike of 1985 to 2020 is no more significant than the spike between 1910 and 1945 when Co2 had barely budged. If the increase since the industrial revolution is 1.2 degrees c....the increase since CO2 levels increased is 0.7 degrees. 

This increase cannot have caused all the changes the Climate lobby attributes to CO2.

The fact is man made CO2 represents about 1/1000 of the greenhouse effect. Showing there is a temperature increase and showing CO2 has increased doesn’t prove correlation.

There is no doubt CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse effect. But just because that‘s true and there  have been slight changes in ‘measured’ temperature doesn’t mean that man made CO2 is the main cause. Nor is there a single version of the ‘temperature’ globally. It’s a consensus of many measurements

We have been hearing this story for 30 years now....by now we were supposed to be seeing major climate changes, temperature increases of 3 degrees or more, I see nothing except natural variability.




Feb 06, 2021, 10:04

We're clearly too dumb to get it, Moz.

I'm still struggling with the biodiversity angle of global warming. 

"less bio diversity/more wildlife extinctions and less clean air"

As I recall, it was during the early PETM that many mammal groups diversified, in the lush forest created by all the evil CO2. 

All the dominant and advantageous features present in primates developed during the early PETM. It's literally a case of, no PETM---> no humans. 

Forward-looking eyes and opposable thumbs. Thank you hot planet. Without you...I wouldn't be able to hit the spacebar with my monkey thumb haha

Perhaps Star would be able to enlighten us on what biodiversity looked like the last time the world got hotter than any humans could ever make it.


 



Feb 06, 2021, 13:23

 "Now of course through out history the temperature has gone up and down via natural causes, but none of these historical causes account for the current temperature rise and the speed at which its rising at. They don't even come remotely close. All of them have been looked at, like the sun, solar activity, ocean currents and they have all been ruled out. 

BS, the average apex were higher twice "recently " in geological terms.

Feb 06, 2021, 13:26

"DbDradd just because temperature spikes occurred naturally does not mean there a good thing or something that will not affect mankind nor does it exclude man from causing temperature changes.

Doesn't make it bad either...it is what it is.:D

Feb 06, 2021, 14:18

Now, without Googling...can you tell me if global rainfall over land has increased, decreased or remained the same over the last 100 years?

It has increased.

Well with out googling it I wouldn't have known for sure but I would of guessed its increased because that was a predicted consequence of global warming, increased heat leads to increased evaporation which in turn leads to more rain. I also would of guess it increased by the very fact you where asking me that question anyway. Increased rainfall in no way contradicts global warming nor is it an overall positive benefit of climate change nor does it mitigate or balance out the other negative effects of global warming.

"Have floods become more or less regular over the last 100 years.

Before you answer...how much flooding is the result of new, badly built or poorly managed dams?

 ...and do those papers take dams into account? What happens to the flooding data when you strike man-made floods from the numbers? Are we still at increased flooding?"

How much flooding is caused by badly built or poorly managed damns?. I suspect quite a few but statistically insignificant compared to natural occurring floods globally  I live right on the river Shannon, it has no dams and it floods every couple of years. Tell me do you have any idea how many floods have been prevented or reduced by properly maintained damns.

I'd strongly suspect flooding has increased globally and even removing man made floods from the numbers they still will have increased.

But enough with the red herrings. Rivers flood, dam or no dams, I live beside the Shannon River and it floods fairly regularly, no dam's on it.  Seriously if you think increased rainfall won't result in increased flooding I don't know what to say to you at this point.



Feb 06, 2021, 17:19

Plum any questioning is verboten. The accepted facts say we have increased 1.2 degrees since the Industrial Revolution. But 0.5 degrees occurred before man  made CO2 was a factor.


Which means that temperature increased 0.7 degrees since CO2 increases became significant.....and.....there was an underlying natural temperature rebound since the little ice age.


Call that 0.2 degrees.....which leaves the man made CO2 component for 70 years  at about 0.5 degrees.

And during that period we have undoubtedly had some heat island effects as cities have exploded. And the ‘scientists’ have been dicking around with the data. None of which changes have ever favored the ‘no warming’ thesis.

Call (using common sense is probably more reliable than models that are so complex nobody knows how they work) those two effects another 0.2 degrees. And .....voila.....we have man made global warming at about 0.3 degrees. 

But we can’t even project this small change forward because we are becoming more carbon efficient, natural gas vs coal for example. And because the CO2 effect, contrary to the tipping point models, probably has diminishing effects on temperature. The old law of diminishing returns.

And I’m guessing we aren’t at optimal temperature...why would we be on a random basis?  All the data suggests mankind flourishes when the earth is a little warmer. So these small man made effects we are trying to mitigate at a huge cost, are probably benign.

...............

Decency and our duty to future generations suggests we should preserve as much oil as we can. It is the elixir  that created modern man and allowed huge populations to flourish. There is a role for nuclear in all of this. And a role for conservation, hypocrites like Branson should be condemned for their selfish use of resources.

Feb 06, 2021, 23:43

Flooding is also attributed to the increase in building, of roads, homes and businesses. 

Feb 07, 2021, 05:08

"If you look at Draads most recent chart, it is from the conservative far-right organisation. (heritage.org)"

I Googled for Earth's temperature over the last million years...I wasn't looking for a right-wing view...are you saying the data is wrong? Ir are the PC crowd too dishonest to look at data they don't like.

Like have said before, pollution is a big problem, but politicizing it won't solve the issues. Even if we were able to drastically curb CO2 emissions, we will still have to face a drastic drop in Earth's atmosphere in the near future...but all the alarmists seems to be ignoring that obvious fact.

Feb 07, 2021, 05:39

Haha Star, 

Yes, increased rainfall would see increased flooding. 

However, the "apocalyptic" increase in flooding as suggested in some of the papers on the subject don't take many causes outside of CO2 into account.

There seems to be a lot that you simply suspect. Kinda exactly what the global warming politics relies on.

How about having a look?

All I'm saying is that we've barely begun talking and I've already identified a few areas where you're unsure of the figures and outcomes.

And I'm not even exploring Moz's point about how much temperature rise we're responsible for. Just arguing your points at face value.

"How much flooding is caused by badly built or poorly managed damns?. I suspect quite a few but statistically insignificant compared to natural occurring floods"


Feb 13, 2021, 18:15

Close to 60% of the nation will likely have snow and ice on the ground in the storm's wake by the middle of next week," Rayno said. "This appears to be a significant snowstorm in the Plains.”

A blast of frigid air extending from the U.S.-Canada border down through the southern Plains along with the storm will be the main culprit behind the tremendous expanse of snow and ice expected with the storm. Temperatures will plunge as much as 40 degrees below normal compared to mid-February averages.

.........

I’m not drinking the Kool-aid

Feb 13, 2021, 18:57

Unfortunately for you the severe snow storms America is currently experiencing actually supports the case for global warming as an increase in severe snow storms was a predicted consequence of global warming.


I think Kool-aid would be better than whatever you are currently drinking.



Feb 13, 2021, 21:27

The ay the whole argument has developed gives it all away.

First it was the global colling threat. Then we had the global warming threat. When that was shown not to be happening beyond what were cyclical changes they changed it to Climate change. Increased COs - man made of course - would both increase and decrease temperatures!!!

Mnhattan should have been under water by 2015!  There is no rise in sea levels.

Hussein Obummer loved to speak about global warming and the rise in sea levels but bought his mansion by the sea as did that other nutter Al Gore.

To me the biggest the biggest expose of the hoax is that both India and China are allowed to pollute to their hearts content. Bwhahahhahahahahahaha

Face facts, the climate change hoaxers have been left with huge egg on visogs! Tell me a prediction of these loons that has come true. Is all been a lot of BS.

No its now very obvious climate change is all political. The Open borders globalist elite want to establish a world government. How can thy get people to surrender their freedoms and their countries to the elites. Well fear will be the mechanism. They will use climate change, Pandemics like covid, threat of world war, financial collapse to herd the peoples of the world into their one world government.

The politicization of the CCP Virus is a perfect example of how they use these events to gain power and strip people of their freedom even the right to earn a living.

Supporting these effort is the globalist owned Big Tech and globalist owned MSM. Here the aim is to totally control the narrative.

Those not bowing down to their demands and cancelled. They control the schools and indoctrinate kids in globalist/marxist ideology and teaching children to hate their country, its flag ,constitution, values and history. All as a prelude to the surrender of sovereignty. America must be brought to its knees. They ae the big prize. Name me one EO of China Joe that has benefited the American people.

So Climate change is designed to hurt America and allow China to thrive. As are all China Joe's policies. The CCP Demonrats are bed with the commies that much is very clear.

Not surprising radical globalist/marxists like Sharkstink and Redrooistink are nasty little commies and hated President trump's tough stance n China.

They hated America First policies because they hated America and loved China. The marxist /socialist minority have stolen an election via massive voter fraud. However the story doesn't end here.

By they way did anybody here see any of the fascist marxist Stinker Group decrying the assault on free speech by big tech. Please let me know.


Feb 13, 2021, 21:33

Climate changes regardless of human action...if we should be able to totally negate human influence, we still are going to sit with a major cooling problem within the next millennium...it's just funny how the alarmists ignore some facts and highlight others...dishonesty...why?...why lie?

Feb 13, 2021, 21:47

Look how they tried to suppress news of Hunters laptop from hell. Those talking about it were cancelled. Not allowed to talk about election fraud or you will be cancelled. Cant talk about the CCP virus unless you agree with WHO. 

Now the CDC says hydroxychloroquine works. They attack Ivermectin. They silence dissenting medical people.

Look at the attack on Parler; so many conservative have been kicked off Fascistbook, Twitter and You Tube.

Massive global revolt against big tech underway.

But of course on the board the Stinker group love all this marxist behaviour. To think redstink tried to tell us he was a moderate. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Feb 14, 2021, 02:16

Anger buys the bs that increased snow and frigid temperatures are evidence of global warming. There are always con artists, and sadly there are always dupes....like Anger.

Feb 14, 2021, 08:32

Stinkers indeed

As far as I can tell, everything that falls outside of what they expect = global warming brought on by man-made CO2.

A dry summer resulting bushfires...global warming. A wet summer with less bushfires...evil CO2 caused rain which stopped the bushfires and as a result there is less Nitrogen in the soil. 

More OR less rain, wind, snow, hail, sunshine, tornadoes...global warming.

Quite nice actually, to have an overarching culprit that is responsible for everything outside of this year being the exact same ad the year/s before.

Funny stuff.

I'm still waiting for Star to tell me more about biodiversity as regards increased man-made CO2.




Feb 14, 2021, 08:34

LOL...maybe it really is a Global Freezing Question8-)

Tell it to the Russians, Canadians and to the far North American//European and Asian dwellers...hahaha.

Afterall you can study all the charts and statistics you like but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. 

Intellectual theories versus practical experienced wisdom.

There are far more important issues such as the pollution of the rivers, seas and the shocking littering problem in the world that kills all natural life, fish and resources in the world.

The filth in our waters and lands is an utter abomination...my own once exquisitely beautiful  country has become a gigantic rubbish dump and sewer. Fish and other marine life is dying in the seas as well as freshwater life. Wildlife is diminishing at a rapid rate, soils are poisoned, indigenous trees are getting less in favour of huge alien plantations of gum, wattle and pine.

Mankind is as blind as a bat when it comes to PRIORITIES. 

Feb 14, 2021, 09:45

...but there's no political incentive, Seb.

Pollution isn't sexy, dangerous or nearly as taxable as CO2.


Feb 14, 2021, 13:15

Co2 is an amazing gas oaks. It causes temperatures to go up and also for temperatures to go down. 

Now that we have climate change these Globalists have got it all covered. 

Face it you have to he extremely gullible to suck up this patent nonsense with its very clear globalist world government agenda. 

Feb 14, 2021, 13:18

"Anger buys the bs that increased snow and frigid temperatures are evidence of global warming. There are always con artists, and sadly there are always dupes....like Anger."

Except my position is backed by scientific research. Your gut feeling doesn't qualify as science.

For all the skeptics here, scoffing or mocking the fact that global warming can cause an increase in in frequency and intensity of several different extreme weather conditions from heatwaves to rain/snow storms, weather events that are often at opposite ends of the temperature spectrum, scoffing or laughing at it isn't a rebuttal of the scientific evidence is just a confirmation of your ignorance to it.

Instead of mocking it, why don't you try to understand the evidence that explains why these events are occurring.

"As far as I can tell, everything that falls outside of what they expect = global warming brought on by man-made CO2.

A dry summer resulting bushfires...global warming. A wet summer with less bushfires...evil CO2 caused rain which stopped the bushfires and as a result there is less Nitrogen in the soil. 

More OR less rain, wind, snow, hail, sunshine, tornadoes...global warming.

Quite nice actually, to have an overarching culprit that is responsible for everything outside of this year being the exact same ad the year/s before.

Funny stuff."

On dry summers, climate scientists are saying climate change will result in an increase in bushfires, not that climate change is the cause of every bush fire.

I have no idea what your going on about less nitrogen in the soil, I've never heard any proponent of climate change bring that up. Frankly it sounds like rubbish to me.

As regards more or less of those other weather conditions, what the climate scientists are saying is the saying as regards bush fire, they will result in increased occurrence of them, not that its responsible for all of them.

"I'm still waiting for Star to tell me more about biodiversity as regards increased man-made CO2."

There is no scientific body that I'm aware of that suggests their will be an increase in biodiversity due to global warming. Its the exact opposite. But I know what you're trying to get at here, your suggesting that global warming will bring net benefits, like the greening of deserts and increasing food production. But likewise no scientific body supports the concept of a net benefit to global warming and yes they are aware of the benefits but as I've said, they are massively outweighed by the downsides of global warming.

Yes some regions will see a boost in food production with warmer weather. However some of the area's that would see weather conditions more favorable to food production suffer from low quality soil ill suited for food production. Increased temperatures will also increase in crop destroying pests and insects. Increased rain in wet regions will see more crop failures in those regions. Farmer will tell you that too much rain is actually worse than drought. It doesn't even require flooding to destroy crops, which the increase in flooding will do as well. In dry regions, increase drought, meaning less food. Food producing regions in coastal area's will be lost due to sea level rises. Then you have other factors like Trillions of dollars worth of assets in coastal region being destroyed by rising sea levels. The increasing cost of having to deal with increasing storms and hurricanes. The loss of bio diversity particularly in the sea etc etc.

You can go on about man made flooding and the greening of deserts all you want, but until you can provide some credible scientific evidence that supports your position of a net benefit then its nothing but a red herring.






Feb 14, 2021, 13:38

Stav seeing you understand zero about climate change tell us about the crumbling of the EU. 

Oops forgot you have no value about that either. 

Feb 14, 2021, 14:50

Star, how much have sea levels risen over the last 100 years?

I keep asking you for numbers and outcomes and you keep coming back with...because science.

So here...

How much have sea levels risen over the last 100 years?

How much rise, above the 100 year average is attributable to man-made CO2?

What is the projected rise over the next century?

Your friend Wiki says the following...

"More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,[4]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century."

Tell me again how the flooding of all coastal areas is just around the corner. You kinda have to, because it appears to factor heavily into argument about famine, destruction, displacement and and and...






Feb 14, 2021, 17:03

Why are you asking me these questions?

You quoted a wiki page (by the way I don't tend to quote Wikipedia too much as its quite unreliable due to anyone being able to edit it, but its still a useful resource) which actually answers several of the questions you asked. So rather than cherry picking like you did I'll post the full paragraph and highlight the relevant parts.

"Global sea level rise began around the start of the 20th century. Between 1900 and 2016, the globally averaged sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in). More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017, which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century. This acceleration is due mostly to human-caused global warming, which is driving thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land-based ice sheets and glaciers. Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of the oceans contributed 42% to sea level rise; the melting of temperate glaciers, 21%; Greenland, 15%; and Antarctica, 8%. Climate scientists expect the rate to further accelerate during the 21st century."


"Tell me again how the flooding of all coastal areas is just around the corner. You kinda have to, because it appears to factor heavily into argument about famine, destruction, displacement and and and..."

You could easily look this stuff up. I can link you to the various projection and depending on the emission rates for CO2 and the consequences of them if you want, here is one example
but I've feeling you will just jump to another area of the climate debate, "what about the sun? etc"

I keep asking you for numbers and outcomes and you keep coming back with...because science.

Science isn't just opinion, specialists in the field of climatology have gone out and conducted research and experiments, they have taken readings and observations, conducted experiments in a laboratory environment,, publish their findings in thousands of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals, made models that have quite accurately predicted future events etc. And its not just a few scientists that have done this but thousands across the worlds endorsed by dozens if not hundreds of reputable scientific organization across the world. All in all the work and research gone into the field of climate change amounts to probably hundreds of thousands of man hours if not more over decades. There not in on a conspiracy and their not that incompetent that they haven't ruled out other basic factors like the sun or other natural causes or that they haven't weighed up the pro's and con's of climate change.

What have you got on your side of the argument?. Speculation that an increase in flooding is more to do with purely constructed dams than global warming, that global warming will lead to a net increase in bio diversity and a net increase in world wide food production and that a greening desert will better reflect radiation from the sun than desert.

Who has gone and done the research that proves that the increase in flooding in recent decades is mostly or even partly due to poorly constructed dams, or they will be an increase in global food production or a greening desert will have a high enough albedo to offset the loss of the polar ice caps?

I suspect there is none. Its likely all come from the online blogosphere or some of it might have just come to you.  But I don't after picking this ground you will actually stand to fight on it.


Feb 14, 2021, 17:22

Bwhahahahaha who can take this rube seriously. 

Do ya think Gore got it wrong then huh. 

Hahaha haha. 

Feb 14, 2021, 18:06

Star

So when can we expect coastal cities to be submerged?

This century?

The next?


Feb 14, 2021, 18:52

"(by the way I don't tend to quote Wikipedia too much as its quite unreliable due to anyone being able to edit it, but its still a useful resource)"

Stav, I'm in your corner on most of the issues discussed here and I enjoy seeing you setting the likes of Moffie, ButtPlug and Baboon-ou straight on so many issues (even if they're too dumb to realize they're being schooled) but I can't agree with you here.

Have you tried to edit a Wikipedia article? If it's as easy as you say it is, why not prove it and have something changed. Just tell us which article you're going to edit and go ahead and change it. I will be hugely impressed.

It's no big surprise that the same dull-witted and brainwashed conspiracy theorists who believe the US election was stolen, who think Bozo was anything but an unmitigated disaster and who think the Trumpvirus is just another form of the flu are the same short-sighted and selfish morons who deny climate change. They all drink the same Kool Aid from the same alt right websites.

Feb 14, 2021, 22:47

Also, Star

Can I just confirm that, you believe, the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is significant to the point of endangering humanity on a large scale?

Note I'm not asking whether you know or believe that there is scientific consensus that the planet has shown some temperature increase since the end of the last mini ice age or whether man has had an effect on the environment. 

Tread carefully now good fellow, you're all the way out on a parroted and potentially erroneous limb.

You seemed to agree with this statement from StinkVis;

NASA Climate Change
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 per cent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the ..

Do you still agree?

Feb 14, 2021, 22:47

Feb 14, 2021, 22:49

Duplicate

Feb 15, 2021, 01:22

But if the sea levels started to rise at the beginning of the 20th century, when carbon had hardly budged relative to increases since 1980,  it proves the point.

Either sea levels rose for other reasons or....they were increasingly less sensitive to increases in carbon.


And of course sea levels have been rising since long before the 20th century.. Poor facts and no logic.

Feb 15, 2021, 01:47

This is the problem, Moz. 

Every man-made climate change point that one focuses in on, even briefly, seems to show that the proven science, used to back up the sweeping statements, is often actually very un-proven, faulty and misleading.

And it starts right the beginning with the supposed scientific consensus on man-made CO2 and how it poses a great or existential threat to humanity.

I ask again, Star...are you still on board the 97% consensus train?

Or is my question yet another red herring?






Feb 15, 2021, 10:38

In 2013, following Obama's lead, Kerry and CNN declare that 97% of the world's scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous on a massive scale.

Translation - almost every scientist believes that climate change is a predominantly man-made disaster of escalating proportions.

So where'd the number come from? What % of scientists and papers were surveyed? What were the questions asked, and when?

Most importantly, was it biased?

Note: There is consensus that...

- the earth is heating up and has been doing so long before and completely free from our evil CO2.

- CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

- man has an effect on his surroundings.

Notice anything missing above? 

So where did the tacked-on bit of the "dangerous" consensus originate from? 

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes claimed to have surveyed 900+ papers and concluded that 75% endorsed the view that the earth's climate is being affected by human activity...and that none directly disputed it.

Of the 900+ papers that were surveyed, have a guess how many of them disagreed that humans are causing global warming and that it's a serious problem... ZERO! 

See - Proof that humans have some effect on climate became proof that humans are having a bad effect on the climate.

Feel free to fact check any of this...btw

"Oreskes reported examining abstracts from 928 papers reported by the Institute for Scientific Information database published in scientific journals from 1993 and 2003, using the keywords “global climate change.” Although not a scientist [sic], she concluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported IPCC’s view that human activities were responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Oreskes’ essay, which was not peer-reviewed, became the basis of a book, Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes and Conway, 2010), and an academic career built on claiming that global warming “deniers” are a tiny minority within the scientific community, and even a movie based on her book released in 2015. Her 2004 claims were repeated in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and in his book with the same title (Gore, 2006).

It is now widely agreed Oreskes did not distinguish between articles that acknowledged or assumed some human impact on climate, however small, and articles that supported IPCC’s more specific claim that human emissions are responsible for more than 50 percent of the global warming observed during the past 50 years. The abstracts often are silent on the matter, and Oreskes apparently made no effort to go beyond those abstracts. Her definition of consensus also is silent on whether man-made climate change is dangerous or benign, a rather important point in the debate.

Oreskes’ literature review inexplicably overlooked hundreds of articles by prominent global warming skeptics including John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, and Patrick Michaels. More than 1,350 such articles (including articles published after Oreskes’ study was completed) are now identified in an online bibliography (Popular Technology.net, 2014)."

Okay okay fine...It's not 97% but it's still a'lodda lot...kaaay???!!!

Wanna try again?

Don't shoot yourself in the foot this time by relying on something which is known, by open secret, to be utter dawg poop and indeed the opposite of science.

Another mechanic analogy would be great.

...or perhaps you could lecture me again on what you are sure has already been studied and put to bed.

Up to you, bud...





Feb 15, 2021, 14:56

@Rooinek

Perhaps you're right and wikipedia isn't that simply to edit, I've never tried but it has a reputation for nothing being very reliable when it comes to information, after all its open for anyone to edit and who has time to check every page over and over for accuracy.. Just today I've read about a page being vandalized. I've always seen wikipedia has a useful reference point and useful in the fact that much of its content has links back to the source of the content. The actual content on wikipedia is IMO often superficial and you get the impression its edited by a lot of armchair historians reciting popular history but not necessarily correct history so I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.

@Plum

"So when can we expect coastal cities to be submerged?

This century?

"The next?

Within the next 30 years or around 2050. Note I'm not talking about cities being completely underwater or that all area's of the cities affected will be flooded but enough that many people will be left homeless and billions if not trillions of property damage will be incurred. The situation will be even worse by the end of the century with flooding affecting hundreds of millions of people.

"Can I just confirm that, you believe, the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is significant to the point of endangering humanity on a large scale?"

Yup. but I don't consider it a matter of belief I consider it a matter of accepting the evidence. Climate changes stands to negatively effect hundreds of millions of people at least.

"You seemed to agree with this statement from StinkVis;

NASA Climate Change
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 per cent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the ..

Do you still agree?"

I know the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are proponents of man made climate change. I also know the 97% number is banded about a lot and perhaps it's exaggerated. It probably something that's very hard to get an exact number on and proponents of man made climate change maybe thought it was better (and easier) to put a figure instead of saying something like a majority or overwhelming majority of climate scientists because that leaves room for interpretation. If for example they said majority of  climate scientist accept man made climate change, climate skeptics could claim or imply only 50.1% of climate scientists support man made climate change and 49.9% are against it making the debate among the scientific community seem much larger than it actually is. Even terminology like overwhelming majority is open to interpretation.

"Every man-made climate change point that one focuses in on, even briefly, seems to show that the proven science, used to back up the sweeping statements, is often actually very un-proven, faulty and misleading."

Go on and cite the unproven faulty and misleading science then?

"I ask again, Star...are you still on board the 97% consensus train?"

Already answered this. Regardless of which side of the climate debate your on, people should try to be accurate as possible, because if you exaggerate or use hyperbole even with good intentions all you do is undermine your own sides argument.

Tell you what Plum let me ask you some questions and don't jump to another topic please, stand your ground and answer.

Do you accept the planet is warming?

If you do accept the planet is warming, is it caused by man or is naturally occurring. If you believe its naturally occurring, what is the natural cause?

If you accept the planet is warming either man made or natural, do you accept there will be serious consequences for the planet. If not can you cite as scientific sources that support your position.

Can you cite any scientific sources that attribute the recent increase in flooding primarily or even partially to poorly constructed dam or that these dams have more of an affect on flooding that climate change.

Can you site any scientific sources that say global warming will need to a net increase in global food productions?

Or any scientific sources that say the greening of deserts will reflect enough of the sun's radiation to offset the loss of the polar ice caps.

Note citing source even scientific ones that refer to this topics in isolation and not in the context of climate change is not evidence. So I'm sure you can find evidence that the desert is greening or that dams have caused flooding but that proves nothing if they are compared against climate change.

Also citing content and quotes from random internet climate skeptic bloggers, politicians or farmers who think one two degree temperature increases sound nice.

Feb 15, 2021, 16:37

Well, all I'm trying to establish here is the very basic.

Is there a consensus?

97% seems like a yes.

You were happy to go along with this figure and never conceded when it was mentioned that it's proven bollocks. So you have a choice. Either you were unaware that it was nonsense or you were being sneaky and hoping we didn't know. Your choice.

"Do you not know sharkbok(sic), 97% of mechanics are in on a conspiracy to rip of their customers and thus bring about a global socialist dictatorship? Sure isn't it obvious!"

Hyperbole, you say?


Do you accept the planet is warming? YES

If you do accept the planet is warming, is it caused by man or is naturally occurring. If you believe its naturally occurring, what is the natural cause? Both - When I fart the air around my body becomes warmer. Be more specific.

If you accept the planet is warming either man made or natural, do you accept there will be serious consequences for the planet. If not can you cite as scientific sources that support your position. I don't know if there will be a serious consequence for the planet, and neither do you. Historically, however, the earth was lush and full of life last time the earth was hotter than we could ever make it. The same period lead to massive diversifying of species and is where human's first ancestors, along with the ancestors of many species of animal, are derived. 

Can you cite any scientific sources that attribute the recent increase in flooding primarily or even partially to poorly constructed dam or that these dams have more of an affect on flooding that climate change.

Here's one...there's plenty more. However, the better query is...find me one paper on man-made evil CO2 that takes dams into account.

Dams and Floods


Can you site any scientific sources that say global warming will need to a net increase in global food productions?

Get yourself a grow-room. Then we'll talk ;) 


Or any scientific sources that say the greening of deserts will reflect enough of the sun's radiation to offset the loss of the polar ice caps. Why do they need to? Is it imperative to maintain this specific global temperature? Kinda the point, right?

Note citing source even scientific ones that refer to this topics in isolation and not in the context of climate change is not evidence. So I'm sure you can find evidence that the desert is greening or that dams have caused flooding but that proves nothing if they are compared against climate change. Exactly, and the opposite is true too. All the climate data means zip if you haven't leaned causes that aren't attributable to CO2 against it. Using your own logic here, where does that leave you?

Also citing content and quotes from random internet climate skeptic bloggers, politicians or farmers who think one two degree temperature increases sound nice. You're right, it does. A lot better than a thumb-sucked 97% consensus by a non-scientist with an agenda.


I take it that you'd like to rework the mechanic analogy?


At your leisure...


Feb 15, 2021, 19:14

Wasting your time...they ignore historical data they don't like...only use physics in broad terms, but are unable to put together a physics model with proper detailed calculations...typical jargon without substance...zealots of "The Science Religion"...all dissidents must be silenced and neutered like the heretics of yore...the new normal with "Denier" labels and worse to go....the "Shrine of Science" is full of priests without a clue...the new religion of hate in the name of peace. Fascism is alive indeed.


Feb 15, 2021, 19:59

What I tend to find is that most good scientists are a lot more open-minded than the herd, normally not scientists, that think using the word science is an argument ender.


Feb 15, 2021, 21:07

"Is there a consensus?"

Yes there is.

"97% seems like a yes.

You were happy to go along with this figure and never conceded when it was mentioned that it's proven bollocks. So you have a choice. Either you were unaware that it was nonsense or you were being sneaky and hoping we didn't know. Your choice.

"Do you not know sharkbok(sic), 97% of mechanics are in on a conspiracy to rip of their customers and thus bring about a global socialist dictatorship? Sure isn't it obvious!"

Hyperbole, you say?"

I was making fun of the common retort for climate skeptics that the vast majority of scientists who support man made climate change are in on some sort of global conspiracy. Regardless if its 97%, 95%  or 88% of climate scientists that support climate change, the idea they are in some sort conspiracy is as daft as its a deliberate attempt to discredit the evidence. Climate change skeptics don't have the data on their side so they have to cost doubt on the data's validity by suggesting a conspiracy.

"Both - When I fart the air around my body becomes warmer. Be more specific."

Stop playing dumb, You know what I'm asking.

 I don't know if there will be a serious consequence for the planet, and neither do you. Historically, however, the earth was lush and full of life last time the earth was hotter than we could ever make it. The same period lead to massive diversifying of species and is where human's first ancestors, along with the ancestors of many species of animal, are derived.

Are you seriously suggesting their is no consequence is rising sea levels?

Which historical period are you referring too?

Here's one...there's plenty more. However, the better query is...find me one paper on man-made evil CO2 that takes dams into account.


Finally something close to evidence supporting an argument. Okay so you have scientific backing that poorly constructed dam's can cause or aggravate flooding not that I was contesting that point. But does the report go to state the improving the construction of dams or taking into consideration the other factor mentioned in this report goes anyway near close to preventing the majority of flooding that is/will occur due to climate change?.

If you make a claim its up to you to provide the evidence. If your claiming poorly constructed dams are more significant factor in flooding that climate change you provide the evidence.

"Get yourself a grow-room. Then we'll talk ;) "

That's a no then to my question. Nice dodge attempt though.

" Why do they need to? Is it imperative to maintain this specific global temperature? Kinda the point, right?"

That's another no, instead answering with a question with a question. Its imperative to maintain the global temperature to avoid severe consequences.


" Exactly, and the opposite is true too. All the climate data means zip if you haven't leaned causes that aren't attributable to CO2 against it. Using your own logic here, where does that leave you?"

The climate scientists are aware of other factors that affect the climate. They have ruled them out. Now anyone can come up with alternate theories, it doesn't mean the climate scientists are obligated to investigate ever single one of them because they would be stuck doing so till the end of time. They investigate and look at credible theories.

Take your example of dams. How in the love of all that holy are they going to have any effect on sea levels rising causing flooding in coastal area's. Only 3% of water on earth is fresh water and only 0.5% of fresh water is available (as in rivers, not in the atmosphere or under polar ice caps). the overwhelming majority of flooding will come from sea rise. But even when it comes to river, its just common sense, more rain will equal more flooding, dam or no dam. By all means ensure dams are properly constructed and fix up the ones that aren't but again what evidence is their to say that will offset flooded caused by increased rainfall.

You're right, it does. A lot better than a thumb-sucked 97% consensus by a non-scientist with an agenda.


I take it that you'd like to rework the mechanic analogy?

 Okay if you prefer

"Do you not know sharkbok(sic), an overwhelming majority of mechanics are in on a conspiracy to rip of their customers and thus bring about a global socialist dictatorship? Sure isn't it obvious!"

Happy now? or are you just going to keep using this as a deflection tactic?
 

Feb 15, 2021, 21:09

"Wasting your time...they ignore historical data they don't like...only use physics in broad terms, but are unable to put together a physics model with proper detailed calculations...typical jargon without substance...zealots of "The Science Religion"...all dissidents must be silenced and neutered like the heretics of yore...the new normal with "Denier" labels and worse to go....the "Shrine of Science" is full of priests without a clue...the new religion of hate in the name of peace. Fascism is alive indeed."

That's some premium grade waffle there.

Feb 15, 2021, 21:13

Indeed, both sides can do that.

Feb 15, 2021, 21:44

How does one cost doubt?

Risk management?

Feb 16, 2021, 09:05

Here, Star


Soybeans baby hahaha!

You should be supporting me on this.

Those lattes that your order have to come from somewhere.

Feb 16, 2021, 12:58

"Indeed, both sides can do that."

While I can freely admit laymen proponents of climate change have got things wrong and have at times exaggerated the issue, ultimately the climate change proponents have the facts and evidence on their side.

As I've said before layman climate change skeptics do not. So they have to try to undermine the evidence by calling science a religion muddled up with conspiracy theories. Which is exactly what you're doing here. 

Imagine trying to pull this stunt in a court of law. A person is up for murder and the prosecution bring out fingerprint evidence on the murder weapon as well as DNA evidence linking the suspect to the killing. The defense starts going on about  DNA is just the workings of scientific zealot cultists trying to bring out about a fascist world government. I think the the judge would tell the defense to sit down stop talking utter nonsense and maybe direct the dependent to hire a better non crazy legal team.

@Plum

Interesting read on Soybeans but it doesn't really support your position.

To quote the conclusion in the abstract.

"In conclusion, EC did not mitigate drought-induced inhibition of seed yield in soybean, although it increased Pn and WUE. Soybean should be cropped under well irrigation regimes or at regions with sufficient precipitation to adapt and take full advantage of EC"

So basically the study found that under elevated carbon levels even under drought conditions, soybeans became better at photosynthesis and used water more efficiently resulting in soybeans growing larger, though this only slightly improved the end yield and they concluded that slight improvement in yield did not offset the inhibition of seed yield caused by drought conditions.

Even if this paper had concluded that Soybeans would grow better with elevated CO2 levels that more than compensated for drought conditions, you would not have been able to say that the same applied to other food crops and plant life.

I don't drink lattes by the way, I'm more of an americano person.





Feb 16, 2021, 13:57

Lol Star

How do you look at the following and not see a net benefit? 

Beneficial during normal water conditions + slightly beneficial during drought = net benefit.

"The results showed that plant height, leaf area, and shoot dry weight were increased by 25.4%, 15.8%, and 33.4% under normal water and EC conditions, respectively, at the seed-filling stage. Seed yield per plant was also improved by 25.3%. Under drought conditions, EC did not show a significant effect on plant height, leaf area, and seed yield. However, shoot dry weight was increased by 56% at the seed-filling stage."

Feb 16, 2021, 14:11

Because I didn't just cherry pick the part of the report that supports my argument.

And again even if there was a net benefit, you can't just assume other crops and plants would see the same benefit

Please read this article on why there is more factors affecting plant growth than just CO2.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm.


Feb 16, 2021, 15:24

haha my guy!

What type of logic is that?

Because it's basically neutral during drought, you ignore massively improved results at normal watering...and I'm cherry-picking? 




Feb 16, 2021, 15:32

Why are you bringing up normal watering conditions, when the issue is that climate change will mean less normal watering conditions which that article I linked to refers too.



Feb 16, 2021, 20:47

Sure along with colder temperatures, more snow etc......mathematical fantasies, and so easy to do....just tweak a few coefficients.

Feb 17, 2021, 07:36

Star,

Oh...so where there are farms, that's were the droughts will occur?

Can you prove that?

Unless...

Farmers won't be able, for some reason, to irrigate crops, as is predominantly done today. This despite the facts that dams should be more full RE your previous take that rainfall would increase. 

So, really what you are saying is that global warming will be a crisis because we'll run out of power to pump abundant water to crops.

What am I missing?

Feb 17, 2021, 08:22

"What am I missing?"


Goodness me . . . where to start? Intelligence, education, coherence, manners, wit, tact, literacy, chivalry, worldliness, relevance, significance . . . must I go on?


Feb 17, 2021, 08:42

Welcome back RooNaartjie.

Alweer naar?








Feb 17, 2021, 09:50

Welcome back? Was I gone?

Feb 17, 2021, 12:30

Yes

Weren't you?



Feb 17, 2021, 12:57

Star,

Oh...so where there are farms, that's were the droughts will occur?

Can you prove that?

The modelling predicts that hotter regions, regions that are already affected by drought will get hotter increasing and exasperating droughts in those areas.  You can look up where droughts occur yourself but just off the top of my head, Southern Asia, China and Africa.

Prove what, that droughts occur? Well the WHO estimate that 55 million people on average are affect by droughts every year.

"Unless...

Farmers won't be able, for some reason, to irrigate crops, as is predominantly done today. This despite the facts that dams should be more full RE your previous take that rainfall would increase. 

So, really what you are saying is that global warming will be a crisis because we'll run out of power to pump abundant water to crops.

What am I missing?"

The fact that those full dams are not where the droughts occur. Take the Horn of Africa drought in 2010-2011 which was caused by two years of lower than average rainfall. Some parts of the countries that suffered drought actually got above average rainfall, but that did not help the area's affected by drought. China is a country that sufferers from both floods and droughts, its such a bigger country that different parts of it can be affected by different weather events.



Feb 17, 2021, 13:48

North Africa has been a desert for 12000 years.

Are you basing your argument on the fact that droughts occur?

...because it seems like it.



Feb 17, 2021, 14:20

Will you stop playing dumb.

Just because certain regions are naturally prone to drought does not preclude man from making the droughts occur more frequently or even causing droughts to occur in regions that where not previously prone to suffering droughts.

I'm basing my argument on research and evidence compiled by climate scientists.



Feb 17, 2021, 15:49

Looking at a couple of hundred years of weather data is nonsensical...these things are syclical, spanning thousands of years...and focussing only on CO2(0.4% of the atmosphere) while there are so many other problematic human made issues, looks fishy too...

 

EDIT: Sorry it's....0.04%!!!...and the man made component is a minuscule fraction of that...., but DOOM if you don't give the 1%ters lots of money to prevent it.

Feb 17, 2021, 15:57

Star's favourite two words..."Just because"

Anyhow, you have to show where droughts are increasing as a result of man-made CO2

The floor is yours...

Feb 17, 2021, 17:27

"Will you stop playing dumb."


I don't think he's playing, Stav.

Ask him if he thinks the US election was stolen. I bet he says yes.

Feb 17, 2021, 18:14

@DbDraad

They are not just looking at a couple hundred years of weather data. Climate scientists have investigated warming in the earths past and have a very good understanding of what caused warm periods in earth history.

For example past warming events have been caused by cyclical deviations in the earths orbit exposing it to more sunlight, or increased solar activity. However these are not the cause of the current warming because the earths orbit is currently stable and will be for another 16,000 years and solar activity has been measured and has been shown to have declined during this current period of warming. The rate of which the planet is currently warming is also far higher than previous natural causes.

Absolutely the climate changes naturally. But does not preclude mankind from changing the climate. The current warming does not have a natural cause

Just because CO2 only makes 0.4%  of the atmosphere, does not preclude it from having a massive impact on the planet. To suggest otherwise is just showing ones ignorance.

No other man made issue is as serious or will have the same impact on the planet and to humanity as man made climate change. Again to suggest otherwise is just a deflection.

@Plum

What else am I suppose to say to your logical fallacies. You brought up North Africa being a desert (and I said Africa, not North Africa) to imply that droughts occur naturally. I'm pointing out that doesn't prove anything. Its like saying human being die of natural causes therefore can not die of man made causes like.

CO2 increases temperature, higher temperatures evaporate more water in the earths soil, less water in the earths soil will result in more droughts as plants and crops need that water to live.

Is that clear enough for you?

Feb 17, 2021, 18:59

‘No other man made issue is as serious or will have the same impact on the planet and to humanity as climate change’....there you have it, the Gospel according to the weathermen.

And if you don’t agree or ask for a shred of proof.....you are a Denier baby and the Inquisitors will deal with you,

Feb 17, 2021, 19:01

And the US election was stolen.....50% of the voting public believed Trump colluded with Russia....if the media corrected their mistake Trump wins. But they didn’t because it suited them... that’s how the election was stolen.

Feb 17, 2021, 19:25

Stav...I read all 4 articles you initially posted...typical jargon and half truths...

Its simple, we should look after the planet, we as humans have an enormous effect in general...making carbon the only or even the main culprit is dishonest to the extreme...slight of hand BS.

If you look at the hockey stick increase in CO2, the increase in temperature did not follow the trend as predicted...it went up, but not at the ratio predicted, so the model is wrong.

And if you look at the historic data over a million years, you will see that we will have to do something to buck the trend. We are on the brink of another major drop in global temperature. Most of the so called models ignore the big picture and focus on the short term data...it all smacks of fearmongering...why?...follow the money.


Feb 17, 2021, 19:29

Latency sorry.:'(


Feb 17, 2021, 19:30

‘No other man made issue is as serious or will have the same impact on the planet and to humanity as climate change’....there you have it, the Gospel according to the weathermen.

What other man made issue could have as serious consequences as man made climate change and what is the evidence to support that claim.

When skeptics ask for evidence, climate scientists can provide it, you just choose to ignore or deliberately not understand to suite your own political agenda.

Its hilarious at times, help help scream the skeptics as they get called out on the lack of the evidence, we 're being persecuted! How dare these climate change proponents ask us for evidence to support our arguments its so mean and it makes us look bad.



Feb 17, 2021, 19:46

Stav...I read all 4 articles you initially posted...typical jargon and half truths...

A.k.a you don't understand or don't want to understand them. Where are the half truths contained within them specifically?

"Its simple, we should look after the planet, we as humans have an enormous effect in general...making carbon the only or even the main culprit is dishonest to the extreme...slight of hand BS."

Why is it dishonest when its what the evidence indicates. To say its not the main cause when all the evidence indicates is is whats dishonest.

"If you look at the hockey stick increase in CO2, the increase in temperature did not follow the trend as predicted...it went up, but not at the ratio predicted, so the model is wrong."

Ah the hockey stick. One the classic climate skeptic go to argument is the hokey stick is broken but its long since been refuted.

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

"And if you look at the historical data over a million years, you will see that we will have to do something to buck the trend. We are on the brink of another major drop in global temperature. Most of the so called models ignore the big picture and focus on the short term data...it all smacks of fearmongering...why?...follow the money."

What are you talking about? What major drop in global temperature are you talking about, when its due to occur? What models are you referring too?.

And you end with a on a conspiracy note. 

Suppose if we are following the money what about the $ 2 billion the fossil fuel industry spent on lobbying to kill climate laws between 2000 and 20i6 in the US alone?





Feb 17, 2021, 19:53

"A.k.a you don't understand or don't want to understand them. Where are the half truths contained within them specifically?"

Nope...go and read them again and see all the deliberate over simplifications...

Feb 17, 2021, 19:58

"What are you talking about? What major drop in global temperature are you talking about, when its due to occur? What models are you referring too?."

No models needed. Look at the historical data over millions of years. A clear trend. I've posted the graph numerous times....if the data is wrong, please post the correct data.

Feb 17, 2021, 20:22

The earth/moon analogy was a deliberate over simplification.

None of those articles looked like scientific palers...it was opinion pieces, supposedly backed by science, mentioning science in broad terms, but not being particular.

Feb 17, 2021, 20:24

"A.k.a you don't understand or don't want to understand them. Where are the half truths contained within them specifically?"

Nope...go and read them again and see all the deliberate over simplifications...

"What are you talking about? What major drop in global temperature are you talking about, when its due to occur? What models are you referring too?."

No models needed. Look at the historical data over millions of years. A clear trend. I've posted the graph numerous times....if the data is wrong, please post the correct data.

So from that response I take it you can't point out the half truth.

You also can't back up your claim that we're on the brink of a major drop in global temperatures.

Very obvious attempts at evasion.

Feb 17, 2021, 20:42

So you ignore the graph of global temperatures over the last 1M years...or you can't interpret it?

Feb 17, 2021, 21:54

No Draad, your silly graphics from conservatives masquerading as scientists were ignored in favour of those I provided from a well-known climatologist. 


Heritage.org is not considered a reliable source of information among scientistics. They have no scientific experience, and they have political motives. 




Feb 17, 2021, 21:55

Image result for child drawing

Feb 17, 2021, 23:44

Your graph proves nothing. As I said several times before the fact the planet has been warmer in the past and that warming has occurred naturally in the past does not preclude man from causing the climate to warm.

We know the causes of natural warming in the past and we know they are not the cause of the current warming.

Feb 18, 2021, 01:54

Lol Star

"What else am I suppose to say to your logical fallacies. You brought up North Africa being a desert (and I said Africa, not North Africa) to imply that droughts occur naturally. I'm pointing out that doesn't prove anything. Its like saying human being die of natural causes therefore can not die of man made causes like."

Ok. 

Now, I'll try to be clear.

Show me the proof that the drought you referred to was caused by man-made CO2.

You brought up the drought in, I guess it's Somalia or Etheopia you're talking about, to support your view on man-made climate change. 

I'd like you to show me how that drought is a proven consequence of what you say it is.

PS, I don't think that you know what a logical fallacy is. 

Here's one for you; Appeal to authority(which, on a soft count, you've done at least five times on this thread).

Now, point out which one I'm guilty of.


Feb 18, 2021, 03:06

I was not referring to any particular drought, I was just off the top of my head listing regions that where prone to suffering drought.

What I'm saying, is that yes droughts can occur naturally, but man made climate change will cause an increasing occurrence of droughts.

Just a brief check online and you can easily find lots of papers and research that supports that position.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076521

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324702167_Climate_Change_and_Drought_a_Perspective_on_Drought_Indices

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3858

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2017/5757238/

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0006-87052018000100201

https://brill.com/view/journals/tjis/2/1/article-p118_118.xml?language=en

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515727/

https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c047p123.pdf

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001502

On logical fallacies. What point where you trying to make when you brought up North African being a desert for 12,000 years?

On appeals to authority, its not an appeal to authority to cite climate scientists who over decades have spent hundreds of thousand hours conducting research, taking measurements/observations, preforming experiments and published their findings in peer reviewed scientific journals for the scrutiny of the world to see.

Now I suppose I could link to the research to back every claim I make but I have doubts for all the time and effort I put you will even read them let alone accept the findings in them and just move on to another red herring or eventually loop back to one you used before.

What your guilty is coming up with a load of unsubstantiated claims and red herrings.






Feb 18, 2021, 06:39

Snarkhole...your graph spans over 2000 years, which is nothing in geological terms. Find me a graph over 500 000 years or a million years. Use any source site you like.

Has it ever occurred to you that the human population/civilization  exploded the way it did exactly because of the relative stability in Earth's climate during this time?

Feb 18, 2021, 09:18

As you'll note, Star, I'm sticking with this particular red herring for now.

The last time earth was very hot and had extremely high(highest ever) CO2 levels, were there more or less droughts?

It's simple, the earth was 5-7 degrees warmer during the PETM and it rained about 4 times as much as today.

Rainfall patterns across regions did change. However, here are two key points that fly directly in the face of your idea of increased droughts...

1) There was no large scale die-off of tropical vegetation.  It had earlier been speculated that the PETM might have been too hot for the survival of tropical plants, but at least in Columbia/Venezuela, this doesn't appear to have been the case. The tropical forest persisted, and in fact became more diverse:

2) There is no evidence of increased drought stress from the composition of plants seen in the sediments analyzed:

You are adamant that global warming = drought and famine.

However, the fossil and geological record shows that even in the most extreme case of global warming, droughts were less abundant and plants thrived...as well as an increase in biodiversity.

You keep banging on about all the science but it does appear rather un-scientific to ignore hard evidence in favor of projections laden with confirmation bias.

Asia, South America and Europe saw more rain during the PETM. Those are from studies I've found. But I bet Africa saw similarly increased rainfall.

So, tell me, what is different now?

Where are the droughts going to come from this time?





Feb 18, 2021, 11:58

"Weather- is when it contradicts the BS and climate- is when it supports the BS."

Haha

Feb 18, 2021, 14:52

"Image result for child drawing

Feb 18, 2021, 15:42

Right on cue......the NY times today:

Good morning. A Times reporter explains the connection between frigid weather and global warming.


......


Hilarious and predictable.....this frigging dummy wouldn’t know a mathematical equation if it slapped him in the face.

Feb 18, 2021, 15:54

Einstein - "I need a theory that explains everything."

Global warming lemming - "Hold my beer..!"

Feb 18, 2021, 16:11

The storm in Texas is probably only a 1 in 100 year event, not even close to a 1 in 500 or 1 in 1000 year event.

In hydrology you zoom out quite a bit to 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 flood events...these things are normal in the long run, it only feels special/out of the ordinary to us humans because of our short life spans.

Feb 18, 2021, 16:18

What is with this forum and it failing to upload posts. Sigh.

Feb 18, 2021, 16:19

"I realize I’m repeating myself here, but scientists are still hashing out all of this. While the science underlying the links between human emissions and climate change is rock solid, some of the particulars, such as whether climate change will cause us to see more frequent blasts from the polar vortex, are still being debated. And that’s as it should be."


Meaning: they don't know what the effects, good or bad, will be...:devil:

Feb 18, 2021, 16:22

"What is with this forum and it failing to upload posts. Sigh."


Can be infuriating if a long post just disappears into thin cyber-air!:D

Feb 18, 2021, 16:43

It's auto-deletes BS, Star

Haha just kidding

Feb 18, 2021, 16:59

I reckon its a conspiracy, the fossil fuel companies are deleting my posts!

Feb 18, 2021, 17:05

You mean i shouldn't have forwarded your details to BP?

My bad

Feb 18, 2021, 18:00

@Draad,


Using a graph over 5 million years to measure man-made climate change is difficult because we are talking about such a small number. (e.g. 1%). 

This would be the same for any PowerPoint presentation of any data over a long period of 5 million years. (A longer period would have more variables that could impact weather, not just makeup of the atmosphere). 

What is clear, is a no point in the 5 million years, has the curve showing change been so steep.
If the curve continued for a thousands of years (or increased without green energy) , it would be much easier to see it on a chart running over 5 million years. 

A 5 million year chart compared to a tiny period like 200 years for a 1-2% increase without the ability to drill down would not reveal a significant difference, at least in a high-level visual. 

Not only is the curve steeper than at any time, but the atmosphere makes up has changed as a percentage ratio(not just CO2). This in itself is changing the makeup of the environment, and a small change could have major effects- not just warming. 
Image result for weather change over last 5 million years


Feb 18, 2021, 18:01

An issue that is being recycled by politicians, loonies and lefties.


Feb 18, 2021, 18:08

Draad, this belongs on your bedside table...



Feb 18, 2021, 18:44

Whatever Snarkhole bullshitter...keep on zooming in on 150 years in a 150 000 year cycle...you can't see the wood for the trees.

Feb 18, 2021, 18:49

Snark...ever heard of a bio chemical reaction...?

The problem is not fossil fuels on it's own...the problem is too many humans as a whole...and the effect we have on the planet..CO2 is a minor in the bigger scheme of things.

Feb 18, 2021, 19:37

Too many humans is a problem, however barring the option of killing people,
reducing fossil fuel is seen as the most impactful approach, followed by general waste control. 

Feb 18, 2021, 20:43

...so it was the crayons then...thanks for clearing that up.



Feb 18, 2021, 21:45

Whatever Snarkhole bullshitter...keep on zooming in on 150 years in a 150 000 year cycle...you can't see the wood for the trees.

Feb 18, 2021, 22:06

The curve is not steeper than at any time.....it’s not as as steep as 1923 to 1948 when CO2 in the atmosphere hadn’t spiked. And the second spike has benefited from data ‘sanitizing’.....ie throwing out any piece of data you can that doesn’t work  And of course there’s the heat island effect.


Shark’s chart is the one I have referred to and demonstrates some heating....but only 0.7 degrees fell in the period where carbon could have made a difference....along with other things.



Feb 18, 2021, 22:29


Feb 18, 2021, 22:33

It’s crystal clear......modest CO2 increases in the first half of the 20th century yielded similar temperature increases... about 0.7 degrees ....to dramatic CO2 increases in the second half of the 20th century....about 0.7 degrees.


Feb 18, 2021, 23:06

"It’s crystal clear......modest CO2 increases in the first half of the 20th century yielded similar temperature increases... about 0.7 degrees ....to dramatic CO2 increases in the second half of the 20th century....about 0.7 degrees."

How many times are you going to repeat this debunked argument.

The early warming of the 20th century was caused predominately by natural factors.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522

Natural factors that are not presently occurring.

Nor was the rate of warming as fast as the current rate of warming.

Feb 19, 2021, 01:41

Of course it was caused by natural factors that you  warmer groupies believe stopped and stayed exactly the same through the second half of the century. Nonsense of course because if an even temperature is applied to a kettle in continues to get warmer.


Of course the 1900 to 1950 natural factors continued in the second half of the century, maybe at a diminished impact....but they were dramatically pushing temps right up to 1949. They didn’t stop on a dime.

The rate of warming was not as fast....it was faster.

1950 peak to 2000 peak plus 0.4 degrees.

1900 peak to 1950 peak plus 0.7 degrees.

Inconvenient huh?

Feb 19, 2021, 07:54

"Natural factors that are not presently occurring."

What were they?

What's also pretty funny is that Shark claims that the graph covers too much time to be able to focus in on a 150 year period.

He then uses the same long graph to illustrate why the last 50 years have been abnormal.

Does anybody else see a problem there?

Shark, what you should do, if your being fair, is to take that long graph, isolate all the 50 to 300 year periods where temperatures increased....and then see how the current rise compares to those. 

Feb 19, 2021, 08:15

Here Vissie

I count 8 similar rises over the last 12 thousand years, some not as long but just as steep.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File%3AHolocene_Temperature_Variations.png

That's 12 000 years.

What happens when I take 100 000 years or more of data and look for similar rises? Will I find another 8, 50, 100 or a 1000 similar temperature rises that occurred without humans being being involved?

Also look at the most recent dip...and notice how the current rise is returning the line to where it was 800 years ago.

This is from the same page where you lifted the previous graph that you posted here.




Feb 19, 2021, 09:06

    

Temperature estimates relative to today from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica. Today's date is on the right side of the graph.

Even longer term records exist for few sites: the recent Antarctic EPICA core reaches 800 kyr; many others reach more than 100,000 years. The EPICA core covers eight glacial/interglacial cycles. The NGRIP core from Greenland stretches back more than 100 kyr, with 5 kyr in the Eemian interglacial. Whilst the large-scale signals from the cores are clear, there are problems interpreting the detail, and connecting the isotopic variation to the temperature signal.


What goes up, must come down.

Feb 19, 2021, 09:22

Plot showing the variations, and relative stability, of climate during the last 12000 years

Feb 19, 2021, 09:24

It seems to be the case that when you take periods of 10 000, 100 000 or 1 000 000 years...there is nothing special about what is happening now. 

Sharky probably interoperates graphs the same way he interprets blood alcohol level...very badly haha.


Feb 19, 2021, 09:28

Yes, Draad, that last graph you posted is the one I referred to with the link.

Look at the most recent dip...how steep the drop and steep the climb. It's basically a laterally inverted image when you divide the dip in half at its lowest point.

I guess temperature, according to our climate change pals, is supposed to drop rapidly, then rise much more slowly than it dropped. 

Even though it hasn't done that previously in earth's history.


Feb 19, 2021, 10:13

"Blikkies on Ruckers ForumBlikkies

Bok regular

1400 posts

Jan 09, 2015, 23:56

 The point is that the first doom and gloom predictions were made round about 1990 and we are now in a position to compare with true data how well these cataclysmic predictions turned out and everyone must agree that the situation is less severe as was predicted.

I am 100% in favour of switching over to AFFORDABLE alternative, but sustainable energy sources, i.e. if I want to make myself a cup of coffee at midnight, the energy source should be available instantaneously. The Green brigade can not guarantee this.

Photovoltaics is a non starter - it works only when the sun shines and it cost an arm and a leg. I don't even want to mention the cost and lifetime of batteries that come with solar cells. 

As far as I know, municipalities will not allow home owners to erect a large enough turbine on your property to supply your house. On top of this, it will also cost a small fortune to install and maintain. The cherry on top is that you must shut it down during strong wind while in areas with high snow fall during winter the chance of snow building up on its blades and throw the whole unit out of balance is a limitation.



So, I don't want to save the planet, but I am all in favour to reduce my electricity bill. The tree huggers don't offer me any feasible alternative. My feeling is that all these billions spent on renewables should rather be focussed on the development of processes to remove the nasties produced by coal power stations - nasties like mercury, sulphur gasses (SOx) and nitrogen gasses (NOx) and possibly convert CO2 to carbon and oxygen. However, before any serious money is granted to look into this, I would rather like to see a similar vigour to reduce family sizes which I am sure will have a beneficial effect on the environment.   "

Blikkies's post from the old thread Rudeneck linked in the "Valentines Day record shattered" thread.


Feb 19, 2021, 10:24

See what happens when you point out almost symmetrical rises and falls from Vissie's page...

Green = Further from same rise/drop ratio

Red = Closer to same rise drop ratio.


Feb 19, 2021, 11:28

That's over 12 000 years...the time "modern humans" walked the Earth after the Ice Age...how will we survive the next "plunge" if we spend all our resources in preventing it...we should rather focus on adapting to the inevitable.

Feb 19, 2021, 16:04

@plum

As you'll note, Star, I'm sticking with this particular red herring for now.

The last time earth was very hot and had extremely high(highest ever) CO2 levels, were there more or less droughts?

It's simple, the earth was 5-7 degrees warmer during the PETM and it rained about 4 times as much as today.

Having looked at various papers and articles on the PETM, it isn't clear. For example you quoted from a blog that was referencing a a published scientific paper on the PETM that suggested less drought than expected but that was looking specifically at the South American rain forests and not the whole globe.

Can you give the source for it raining 4 times as much as today globally. Again from looking around I can't find anything confirming that but I can find papers that indicated rain patterns changed but that different regions of the global where affected differently. There may have indeed been more rain overly but that doesn't mean it was evenly distributed across the world. Some regions may same a lot less rain, while others got far more severe cases of heavy rain.



“However, here are two key points that fly directly in the face of your idea of increased droughts... “

Its not my idea, its what the scientific evidence indicates.



“1) There was no large scale die-off of tropical vegetation. It had earlier been speuclated that the PETM might have been too hot for the survival of tropical plants, but at least in Columbia/Venezuela, this doesn't appear to have been the case. The tropical forest persisted, and in fact became more diverse:

2) There is no evidence of increased drought stress from the composition of plants seen in the sediments analysed:”



Have tracked down the source of your quote I can see its from a blog belonging to a scientist (not a climate scientist) who is referencing a published paper on the PETM. I take it by quoting this scientist that you support his position that CO2 drives climate change as he lists it as the leading contender for the cause of the temperature warming during the PETM. I take it we are at least in agreement that CO2 can cause the planet to warm, you just don't agree with me on on the consequences of it?



But again I find it another example of cherry picking. I note you left out this quote from the blog

 There was a global extinction event, with large amounts of ocean flora disappearing

But okay while that's another downside of global warming its not really relevant to the topic of droughts so on to those two points.



1. No large scale die-off of tropical vegetation. Note the key word being tropical and other research indicates large extinction of other plant species for example conifers. What your omitting here is the time frame, huge numbers of plant species went extinct and where indeed replaced by new plant species or other plant species that migrated and became dominate in a region, eventually resulting even more biodiversity than before the PETM. This happened in geological terms very quickly but that is still extremely slow process, tens of thousands of year. Humanity can't afford to wait for biodiversity to naturally adapt to the new climate and as the rate of warming now is greater than during the PETM, plant life will have less time to adapt.

No evidence of increased drought stress, but that only pertains to one part of the world and even the the blogger has stated “Of course, it's only one small area of the globe, so that limits how general a conclusion can be drawn. “ Its something worth looking at and trying to understand why the area of the world where the research was conducted suffered less drought than expected. Understanding the cause of it may allow future predictions to be even more accurate. The author of the blog found it encouraging that indicated maybe projected drought would not be so bad. But if you look at the bloggers other posts and more recent posts than the on you quoted in 2010. Its obvious he's clearly a proponent of man made climate change and this paper hasn't convinced to him change his position that urgent action needs to be taken to combat climate change. Why has not reached the same conclusion as you?

You are adamant that global warming = drought and famine.

However, the fossil and geological record shows that even in the most extreme case of global warming, droughts were less abundant and plants thrived...as well as an increase in biodiversity.

Can you provide a link to where the fossil and geological records show that even in extreme case of global warming droughts occurred less globally and not in just one specific region.

Can you also show where in the fossil record, that there wasn't masse extinction of plant life with extreme rise in global temperatures and that the time frame for the increase in biodiversity is so quick in compensating for the species that lost that it wouldn't have an affect on human life if it was to occur in the future.

Asia, South America and Europe saw more rain during the PETM. Those are from studies I've found. But I bet Africa saw similarly increased rainfall.

Links to those studies please?



Feb 19, 2021, 17:12

Here, Star

The two points I posted there are from a paper and mentioned in a blog. Relevant exerts from the paper are included.

https://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-tropical-drought-in-paleocene-eocene.html?m=1

I could post all the papers that deal with Asia, South America and Europe as regards higher rainfall during the PETM but why don't you just google it yourself?

Honestly, it's pretty easy to find.


Feb 19, 2021, 17:34

The paper you posted was limited to the South American rain forest not the entire globe during the PETM.

You don't need to link all the papers, just one that states that globally rainfall increase during the PETM. 

I have for example found a paper that said rainfall increased in a region of China, but a region of China does not equal Asia.

I have also seen sources online that say regions along the east Atlantic became increasingly arid during the PETM.

Feb 19, 2021, 23:28

Star

I don't have the patience to catch you up. The fossil record of rainforest trees, plants and animals from the PETM isn't a disputed matter. What is disputed, though less so recently, is what caused the maximum.

In fact, one doesn't even need the plant fossil record. Simply looking at animal fossils is enough. Rainforest animals occur in rainforest areas. On top of that...rainforests need a certain thing...and it's in the name. Yes, there was plenty of rain.

It's true that rainforests in actual fact don't have very fertile soil. But the Amazonians figured out what to do about that problem and I'm sure we can too. Look up terra preta, otherwise known as Amazonian dark soil, if you wanna go down and an unexpected rabbit hole. 

The mere existence of terra preta is an anomaly. However, when you look at how widespread and well used it was, there are anthropological implications that are pretty nuts. Seriously, look into it. You won't be disappointed.

I am particularly discussing your contention that droughts and famine are coming. 




Feb 19, 2021, 23:37

"I don't have the patience to catch you up . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah . . ."


Seems you found the patience after all, ButtPlug.

LMAO!

Feb 20, 2021, 03:34

Poor old Rooi peepie, unable to participate (he’s not very bright and doesn’t understand numbers) he stands on the side lines throwing insults.

Climate change can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation or a laboratory experiment....there are too many factors involved. It is essentially an exercise in informed empiricism. But unfortunately to date it’s an exercise in bent empiricism.


Simply dividing the 20th century into it’s two halves demonstrates the dominating role of natural causes.

Feb 20, 2021, 06:56

Here, Star

This guy does a god job of it.

Feb 20, 2021, 07:05

Hey Rooi

Remember when you had a smidge of relevance?

Feb 20, 2021, 09:27

"Climate change can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation or a laboratory experiment....there are too many factors involved. It is essentially an exercise in informed empiricism. But unfortunately to date it’s an exercise in bent empiricism."


They like to extrapolate the data and make lots of assumptions...not very scientific at all.

To me it is obvious that we should urgently find ways to lessen the impact on the environment...the planet is going downhill fast, but it's obvious if the field of climate science has been politicized to the extreme and almost all the focus is on carbon...

Feb 20, 2021, 16:00

"Climate change can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation or a laboratory experiment....there are too many factors involved. It is essentially an exercise in informed empiricism. But unfortunately to date it’s an exercise in bent empiricism."

Be honest here, if the mathematical equations and laboratory experiments supported your side of the argument you be on here praising the validity of them.

"This guy does a god job of it."

Plum, that video supports the position that CO2 drives temperature rises, that rate of temperature rise during the PETM was much slower than the current warming, that sea levels where much higher due to a lack of polar ice caps, that sea temperatures rose and the oceans became more acidified which devastated the marine eco system. It did indicate that tropical plants spread across wide parts of the world but it did not give the time frame. You are free to check but that process took thousands of years. The rate of temperature rise in the PETM, gave the plant life more time to adapt. Even if the process was close to instantaneous as you freely admit rain forest don't have very futile soil, so an increase in rain forests doesn't really support food production for large populations.

The fact that evidence indicates rain forest in South America during the PETM did not experience the expected drought does not mean you came assume the same across the whole globe during the PETM or that without understanding why it didn't experience the expected drought that we should just hope for the same to happen with the current warming the planet is experiencing.

I don't really know how I can make it much clear. CO2 is causing the planet to heat up, higher temperatures cause more drought by evaporating water in soil, water that is need for plants and crop to grow. Plants and crops will die hence famine. There is other factors like ice cover melting too early meaning dams, rivers and reservoirs are topped up to early and our out of alignment with peak water usage.

Yes increasing temperatures will cause increase rainfall but not in all regions. Modelling predicts less rain fall in South Europe, North Africa, South Africa, the middle east, Australia, parts of South America, Central American, South West and parts of central USA as well the Caribbean, the fact that its raining more in other parts of the world does not help these regions. As I said the dry area's of the planet will get dryer and the wet area's will get wetter.

Feb 20, 2021, 19:10

I don't really know how I can make it much clear. CO2 is causing the planet to heat up, higher temperatures cause more drought by evaporating water in soil, water that is need for plants and crop to grow. Plants and crops will die hence famine.


BS...droughts are lack of rain...and without evaporation there can't be any rain...it's not as simple as what's being made out.

Feb 21, 2021, 23:12

Remember when these dolts were convinced the Gulf Stream was going to stop, turning Britain into an icicle. They dream up these nutty scenarios.....hook googling suckers like Anger....and then just move on when the idea implodes.

Feb 22, 2021, 09:42

Star

Rainforests = rain, is the point. 

Perhaps you didn't know, we are able to curb rainforest encroachment these days. We'll have just the rain, thank you very much.

Anyhow...

"East African vegetation and hydrological responses to the global change occurring at the PETM. Although total organic carbon contents decrease, the concentrations of both higher plant (n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids) and soil bacterial (glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers) biomarkers increase dramatically at the onset of the PETM negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE), suggesting an increased discharge of fluvial sedimentary organic matter."

Hotter, drier, not tropical but still good for plants. Fancy that.

We know, via similar studies, that Southern Europe experienced a similar higher rainfall. And I'm gonna guess that the rest of North Africa wasn't too much different - similar latitudes and all.

You are going to have to start being more specific if you wish to use "models" as your argument. 

You mention the USA - What size is the landmass that will receive less rain and what type of rainfall does it presently experience?

And, if I go looking, am I gonna find that the PETM resulted in higher rainfall over Australia too?





 

Feb 22, 2021, 16:32

BS...droughts are lack of rain...and without evaporation there can't be any rain...it's not as simple as what's being made out.

Yup and there will be less rain in hotter regions which will result in less water in the soil which will evaporate quicker.

Mate you're the one pushing all the simple answers.

"
Remember when these dolts were convinced the Gulf Stream was going to stop, turning Britain into an icicle. They dream up these nutty scenarios.....hook googling suckers like Anger....and then just move on when the idea implodes."

Which climate scientists said that and what was the time frame?

You would know about moving on Moz, you're an expert at when it comes to the climate debate. Moving from one long debunked argument to another before eventually circling back to your first argument and beginning the process a new.

@plum


We'll have just the rain, thank you very much.

And what about all the types of plants and crop that can't survive in the higher temperatures?

"East African vegetation and hydrological responses to the global change occurring at the PETM. Although total organic carbon contents decrease, the concentrations of both higher plant (n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids) and soil bacterial (glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers) biomarkers increase dramatically at the onset of the PETM negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE), suggesting an increased discharge of fluvial sedimentary organic matter."

So your quoting a research paper that confirmed over organic carbon contents decreased right?. I also think you need too look up the meaning of the word fluvial. I'll give you a hint its based on the latin word for river.


"Hotter, drier, not tropical but still good for plants. Fancy that."

Afraid the paper doesn't say. The paper at least the abstract in no way supports your argument.

"You are going to have to start being more specific if you wish to use "models" as your argument. "

You want specific models. Here is a link to a model that combines 38 models showing the predicted rainfall due to climate change.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall

That page also shows model for seasonal changes as well as a model for where it is receive more extreme rain like India and China.


"You mention the USA - What size is the landmass that will receive less rain and what type of rainfall does it presently experience?"

The previous link shows it.

"And, if I go looking, am I gonna find that the PETM resulted in higher rainfall over Australia too?"

I dunno, you haven't linked to any research that shows rainfall was higher. I found a paper saying it was higher in northern China. I'll willing to accept it did rain more overall during the PETM but you're essentially making the claim that we don't need to worry about higher temperatures causing drought as this will be offset by more rain. What you need to show is that this increased rainfall will fall in area's that are and will be affected by droughts in the future.




Feb 22, 2021, 17:59

Global warming is unproven, but copy and paste warming is in full swing. One day Anger will come up with one of his own opinions...but not this day.

Feb 22, 2021, 18:14

The evidence for global warming is clear and overwhelming.

I don't care for opinions, their like assholes, everyone has one. What I base my world view on is on facts and evidence's not my own ideological biases. One day you will understand the importance of such concepts such as evidence and facts...but not this day.

Feb 22, 2021, 18:45

$tar

Do you need a moment to think about why higher rainfall would decrease organic contents?

Hint: It serves as supporting evidence on the matter of increased rainfall in the area.

Kinda surprised that you never understood that.





Feb 22, 2021, 18:55

‘Their like assholes’....oh dear.

Feb 22, 2021, 19:03

While I'm strongly agains pollution of any kind, I'll start taking the "models " seriously as soon as they start predicting accurately...and they can actually use historical data to test the predictions...as it stands, I see the words "assumptions", "extrapolation" and "estimated" way too much...they actually concede that they do a lot of guessing. 

Feb 22, 2021, 19:13

"What I base my world view on is on facts and evidence's not my own ideological biases. "

Actually you base your views on how some facts are presented by journalists, reporting on scientific subjects they rarely understand themselves...I'm no climate scientist, but I see how journalists butcher topics in my field of knowledge...

There is a clear agenda and any dissent are bullied into submission/silence...not the scientific/liberal/democratic way at all, but somehow it's OK these days.

Feb 22, 2021, 19:28

@plum
The research paper states "total organic carbon contents decrease,"

Which contradicts your claim of Hotter, drier, not tropical but still good for plants.

It also states "suggesting an increased discharge of fluvial sedimentary organic matter."
That doesn't necessarily mean more rain, it could just more cases of extreme rain causing faster river flows. Even if there was overall more rain, it doesn't mean it compensated for in the increased heat.

Moz loves my grammar mistakes, he's delighted by them, anything to take the focus away from the lack of his credible arguments.

"While I'm strongly against pollution of any kind, I'll start taking the "models " seriously as soon as they start predicting accurately"

They already do.

Feb 22, 2021, 19:32

"One day you will understand the importance of such concepts such as evidence and facts...but not this day."

Why do you think these dribbling morons will ever see the light? The ones who can't understand climate change are the same brainwashed half-wits who thought Trump was a great president and the US election was stolen. Facts and common sense don't matter to these idiots.

Feb 22, 2021, 20:26

""While I'm strongly against pollution of any kind, I'll start taking the "models " seriously as soon as they start predicting accurately"


They already do."

No, by their own admission they don't....they've got a point, but they totally overextend.

Feb 22, 2021, 20:44

"However, this set of partial differential equations is so complex that there is no known exact solution to them (except in a few simple cases). It remains one of the great mathematical challenges (and there is a one million dollar prize awaiting whoever manages to prove a solution always exists). Instead, these equations are solved “numerically” in the model, which means they are approximated.'

Feb 22, 2021, 22:10

And feebly Rooipeepie throws in Trump, a winner in any argument in his circles.

Feb 22, 2021, 22:15

Remember when these dolts were convinced the Gulf Stream was going to stop, turning Britain into an icicle. They dream up these nutty scenarios.....hook googling suckers like Anger....and then just move on when the idea implodes.".....moz


Which climate scientists said that and what was the time frame?....Anger

Sigh.....you really are a newcomer to this Fantasy series. Here’s Global Warming central, the Guardian:


Serious disruption to the Gulf Stream ocean currents that are crucial in controlling global climate must be avoided “at all costs”, senior scientists have warned. The alert follows the revelation this week that the system is at its weakest ever recorded.

Past collapses of the giant network have seen some of the most extreme impacts in climate history, with western Europe particularly vulnerable to a descent into freezing winters. A significantly weakened system is also likely to cause more severe storms in Europe, faster sea level rise on the east coast of the US and increasing drought in the Sahel in Africa

The new research worries scientists because of the huge impact global warming has already had on the currents and the unpredictability of a future “tipping point”. 

The currents that bring warm Atlantic water northwards towards the pole, where they cool, sink and return southwards, is the most significant control on northern hemisphere climate outside the atmosphere. But the system, formally called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc), has weakened by 15% since 1950, thanks to melting Greenland ice and ocean warming making sea water less dense and more buoyant.

This represents a massive slowdown – equivalent to halting all the world’s rivers three times over, or stopping the greatest river, the Amazon, 15 times. Such weakening has not been seen in at least the last 1,600 years, which is as far back as researchers have analysed so far. Furthermore, the new analyses show the weakening is accelerating.


........


Note the frequent use of talismanic term ‘scientists’. Admittedly this nonsense hasn’t been so evident lately.





Feb 23, 2021, 04:54

Star,

Goodness, man.

The markers for plants were hugely elevated. That's your evidence for increased plant activity. 

Organic matter in hot and wet climates is quickly cycled and does not remain in the ground to the degree that it would in, for example, a temperate forest. The reason why it's notoriously difficult to find plant fossils in rainforests. 

This is also why rainforests are generally considered to have poor soil quality. 

Do NOT get stuck on that above fact, because we are easily able to avoid this nutrient run-off and/or lessen its effect through soil mix, root modification, fertilisation, drainage, nutrient recycling and and and. Oh, we're also able to stop/reverse rainforest encroachment these days haha 

The point is - Water, more of it.

There is evidence for more rain in almost every area that they have checked. 

And your argument, at this point, is...yeah but it could have been floods. 

My counter is, yeah but it may not have been floods and I'll raise you higher plant density as evidenced through reliable markers.

@ Rooi - you've basically devolved into a sad nothing. Completely uninteresting and 100% a waste of time. Congrats bud.




Feb 23, 2021, 11:30

"Afraid the paper doesn't say. The paper at least the abstract in no way supports your argument."

Afraid the paper does say...right in the abstract. I added that to the post for your benefit.

"However, higher plant leaf wax n-alkanes (C27, C29 and C31) become more deuterium-enriched throughout the same interval, suggesting a more arid and/or hotter, rather than a more humid, environment. This evidence collectively suggests an East African early PETM climate characterised by overall hot and arid conditions punctuated by intense, perhaps seasonal, precipitation events."

 I'll let you off...this time haha

Note - South Africa is semi-arid and has seasonal rain, lots of it. I know the JHB storm drains take a pounding every year. It's fantastic for farming. Natal being wetter and the Free State a bit less wet than Gauteng. 

I did quite a bit of water skiing as a kid and we were never shy of glassy water surfaces between the walls of rivers where water levels had dropped. We're talking 2-4 meters for long stretches.

This place could handle more rain if it needed to, is my point.

JHB received some epic amount of rain this very year. Ask Rooi! I'm certain records were broken. Here's your cue - say "Anecdotal!"


 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top