|
Post by Hiromant on Jul 24, 2019 2:59:04 GMT -5
"Please don't talk about uncomfortable facts and just believe us, OK?" Totally not a cult.
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Jul 24, 2019 3:06:05 GMT -5
"Please don't talk about uncomfortable facts and just believe us, OK?" Totally not a cult. Actually i’m asking you to talk about facts. You’re the one spewing individual anecdotes and refusing to talk about the science, the consensus view, or even engage the posters on this thread on their view, and what the reasons for their view are.
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Jul 24, 2019 3:20:47 GMT -5
Totally agree. Hiromant quotes several newspapers, Prince Charles (WTF!!!) and Paul R. Ehrlich who is talking about DDT, not global warming and thinks disproving them is a valid fact against AGW?! Herpy DERP. Such bullshit belongs in the things from weather forums thread.
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jul 24, 2019 3:32:05 GMT -5
Totally agree. Hiromant quotes several newspapers, Prince Charles (WTF!!!) and Paul R. Ehrlich who is talking about DDT, not global warming and thinks disproving them is a valid fact against AGW?! Herpy DERP. Such bullshit belongs in the things from weather forums thread. Strewth, I'll have to agree with you on this one; only the most idiotic of alarmist plonkers would believe that "12 years left" poppycock and its ilk...however, a few particular cretins on this forum actually do take such codswallop seriously, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the more sane warmists (i.e. yourself, Nei, AJ, etc.) don't buy that alarmist tripe in the slightest, of which I do commend.
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Jul 24, 2019 4:18:29 GMT -5
If alarmism is unfounded and there is nothing catastrophic going on this whole discussion is moot though. Cancel all the greenie taxes and programs, stop lying to people and if any warming does happen let's enjoy the mildly warmer climate before the next ice age hits.
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Jul 24, 2019 4:19:52 GMT -5
Hiromant Sea level rise is the main issue, much more so than a few degrees of warming.
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Jul 24, 2019 4:21:55 GMT -5
Similarly, even if it is rising, it's clearly not catastrophic so we may as well ignore it. According to this IPCC report, it's much the same for most other weather phenomena:
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Jul 24, 2019 4:29:19 GMT -5
Similarly, even if it is rising, it's clearly not catastrophic so we may as well ignore it. It’s not catastrophic for you. For those of us living on barrier islands and in coastal cities it’s a bit concerning. It’s possible, even likely, I would say, that based on past emissions, current emission trends, and temperature trends, that the majority of Miami will be underwater within a century.
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Jul 24, 2019 4:31:51 GMT -5
Kiribati has been the center of that "crisis" for quite a while and last time I checked, they're still above water. Nothing catastrophic, anywhere. I should just copy-paste that every time anyone says something.
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Jul 24, 2019 4:34:25 GMT -5
Kiribati has been the center of that "crisis" for quite a while and last time I checked, they're still above water. Nothing catastrophic, anywhere. I should just copy-paste that every time anyone says something. Yes, it’s not catastrophic yet, you’re right. The whole point of thinking about combatting climate change is that if we do nothing it will become problematic in the future. As far as sea level rise goes it’s already measurable, and noticeable (speaking from personal experience). It’s only going to get worse.
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jul 24, 2019 4:48:46 GMT -5
There was most certainly sea-level rise—but it was very minuscule, and has drastically halted at Fort Denison, Sydney Harbour ever since 2016 ( far less than 0.65 mm annually...almost stable or even retreating, really!); nonetheless, it was relatively rapid over a century from 1885/86, when Co2 concentrations were much lower:
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Jul 24, 2019 5:06:39 GMT -5
If alarmism is unfounded and there is nothing catastrophic going on this whole discussion is moot though. Cancel all the greenie taxes and programs, stop lying to people and if any warming does happen let's enjoy the mildly warmer climate before the next ice age hits. Well this is a climate & weather forum so people on here are naturally very interested in our changing climate, regardless if the consequences will be catastrophic or not. You still confuse climate science with politics, just open a thread in the p&oc subforum about "stupid climate policies" or whatever.
Personally I think the drastic warming itself won't be too bad for most regions on earth (at least within our lifetimes), but could cause incalculabe ecosystem changes especially regarding droughts and sea level rise. And I think environmental protection is always a good thing, mitigating global warming or not.
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jul 24, 2019 5:13:22 GMT -5
Yes, it’s not catastrophic yet, you’re right. The whole point of thinking about combatting climate change is that if we do nothing it will become problematic in the future. As far as sea level rise goes it’s already measurable, and noticeable (speaking from personal experience). It’s only going to get worse. And might I ask you this: how can we, effectively— without sacrificing our economy—solve the so-called "issue"? There isn't the slightest ounce of certainty within the scientific community regarding AGW, owing to the myriads of flaws and inconsistencies discovered encircling this particular scientific notion. So riddle me this, AJ: why should we so boldly adopt inefficient, renewable energy policies, when the expertise hasn't even an ounce of certainty within its grasp? Farthermore, do tell me why we must take such a vacuous risk with little to no certainty; this isn't leaping from the frying pan and into the fire, but rather straightway into the fire, so to speak. There is a very good reason as to why the Coalition government prevailed in a landslide at the Australian election, I'll have you know; not only the ill-informed risk-taking is being wagered down, but also accentuated by the fact that much of Australia has actually cooled since the late 19th Century, as plainly demonstrated by that graph whereby data from 52 stations across both NSW and VIC were compiled, of which I had posted earlier.
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jul 24, 2019 5:29:24 GMT -5
Well this is a climate & weather forum so people on here are naturally very interested in our changing climate, regardless if the consequences will be catastrophic or not. You still confuse climate science with politics, just open a thread in the p&oc subforum about "stupid climate policies" or whatever.
Personally I think the drastic warming itself won't be too bad for most regions on earth (at least within our lifetimes), but could cause incalculabe ecosystem changes especially regarding droughts and sea level rise. And I think environmental protection is always a good thing, mitigating global warming or not.
(I.) You do know that many regions of the Earth have actually cooled, correct? It is downright fraudulent to say " Global" Warming; instead, Climate Change is the proper, scientific term. (II.) I agree wholeheartedly with that statement of yours; however, the so-called "Greenies" are most certainly not role-models for environmental protection, owing to the fact that they preach chiefly urban elitist notions: destructive immigration amounts; larger populations and cities, as well as toxic waste from solar panels, and the felling of birds from wind turbines. They shall henceforth be dubbed Brownies, as opposed to "Greenies"—the most dastardly of hypocritical plonkers on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Jul 24, 2019 9:38:39 GMT -5
(I.) You do know that many regions of the Earth have actually cooled, correct? It is downright fraudulent to say " Global" Warming; instead, Climate Change is the proper, scientific term. (II.) I agree wholeheartedly with that statement of yours; however, the so-called "Greenies" are most certainly not role-models for environmental protection, owing to the fact that they preach chiefly urban elitist notions: destructive immigration amounts; larger populations and cities, as well as toxic waste from solar panels, and the felling of birds from wind turbines. They shall henceforth be dubbed Brownies, as opposed to "Greenies"—the most dastardly of hypocritical plonkers on Earth. (I.) Yes I know, though global warming means the average temperature of Earth's surface is rising, which it does indeed.
(II.) I largely agree with you on that one. I'm all for reducing overpopulation and strict immigration and think a lot of these urban elitist neoliberal greenies are kinda hypocritical just pro-environment because it's hip. Still better than denying scientific evidence too vindicate a hedonistic lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by nei on Jul 24, 2019 11:12:18 GMT -5
a vague quote portending doom even by a scientist isn't a global warming prediction; there are far more detailed stuff put out by science writers and scientific agencies that you should use. I don't think guys like these are deliberately lying just feel like there's an urgent problem and are scared. The effects of global warming take decades to fully set in, so even if the changes don't seem big now, more could happen quickly.
|
|
|
Post by nei on Jul 24, 2019 11:18:35 GMT -5
If alarmism is unfounded and there is nothing catastrophic going on this whole discussion is moot though. Cancel all the greenie taxes and programs, stop lying to people and if any warming does happen let's enjoy the mildly warmer climate before the next ice age hits. Not really, the point of this discussion is weather and climate interest. I mostly respond because of what I feel is stupid science, not whether there is a catastrophe or not. As for greenie taxes & programs, not as interesting of a topic, why do you constantly keep inserting politics? As for catastrophe: 1) I definitely believe you have already seen the effects of human-caused greenhouse gas warming but has not been catastrophic 2) If global emissions stay high, or increase [something like the RCP 8.5 or maybe 6.0 scenario] , catastrophe [don't feel like defining what counts, my guess is it will be very bad only for drought-prone places or low lying coastal places] is a serious danger. Not now. or 10-20 years. But 30, maybe 50+ years
|
|
|
Post by Speagles84 on Jul 24, 2019 12:01:11 GMT -5
Totally agree. Hiromant quotes several newspapers, Prince Charles (WTF!!!) and Paul R. Ehrlich who is talking about DDT, not global warming and thinks disproving them is a valid fact against AGW?! Herpy DERP. Such bullshit belongs in the things from weather forums thread. Strewth, I'll have to agree with you on this one; only the most idiotic of alarmist plonkers would believe that "12 years left" poppycock and its ilk...however, a few particular cretins on this forum actually do take such codswallop seriously, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the more sane warmists (i.e. yourself, Nei, AJ, etc.) don't buy that alarmist tripe in the slightest, of which I do commend. Im in that group as well
|
|
|
Post by nei on Jul 24, 2019 12:12:29 GMT -5
AJ1013 has suggested that using stratospheric aerosols to counteract greenhouse gases is a cheap solution to global warming. Couple points why it's not quite so simple. 1) Greenhouses trap heat escaping the earth. That means they have a warming effect when there's no sun: nighttime, winter and late fall when the sun angle is low, etc. 2) Stratospheric aerosols cool the earth by blocking the sun; they'd have the biggest impact where there's sun; lower latitudes and higher latitude summer. And not so much nights. Higher latitudes have hotter temperatures than expeced from the solar energy they receive, heat transported from lower latitudes keeps them warms than otherwise: more long-wave (infrared) radiation escapes than received from the sun (mostly visible and short-wavelength infrared) at higher latitudes. So blocking infrared coming out has a bigger impact at higher latitudes; while blocking sunlight coming in has a bigger impact at lower latitudes. Recent warming from greenhouse gases warm winters more than summers at high latitude. Yea, sorta misleading graphic as summers is melting sea ice in most of the Arctic where the temperatures is fixed at about freezing. But the northern US has the same pattern 3) Stronger sun causes evaporation. An earth at the same temperature but weaker evaporation would have a drier atmosphere and less precipitation would reach semi-arid regions. Could look up sources & maps at some point if people are interested ======================== The two biggest negatives of global warming imo are: 1) sea level rise; current sea level trends are from warming water but the more destructive predictions involve melting glaciers and ice sheets at high latitudes 2) semi-arid subtropical areas getting drought; causing massive agricultural losses ============ reflecting sunlight is inefficient at (1) as it's not good at stopping global warming where it's worst (high latitudes). You'd still have arctic amplification. It may also make (2) worse by drying dry areas. So, IMO it might be an ok temporary fix but not a great long-term solution. And the more greenhouse gases there are the more the sun needs to be blocked; eventually the amount needed would be unpleasant. Who decides how much aerosols should be emitted to block the sun?
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jul 25, 2019 0:26:39 GMT -5
|
|