A picture of global warming

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. 

"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.

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. 

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...

Bwhahahahaha who can take this rube seriously. 

Do ya think Gore got it wrong then huh. 

Hahaha haha. 

Star

So when can we expect coastal cities to be submerged?

This century?

The next?

"(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.

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?

Duplicate

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.

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?

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...

@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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

"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.

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

"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.

Indeed, both sides can do that.

How does one cost doubt?

Risk management?

Here, Star

Soybeans baby hahaha!

You should be supporting me on this.

Those lattes that your order have to come from somewhere.

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."

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

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

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

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? 

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 .

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?

Welcome back RooNaartjie.

Alweer naar?

Welcome back? Was I gone?

Yes

Weren't you?

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.

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.

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.

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...