Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[a_unique_person]

Better the poles than the Philippines, China, India, the Tropics and other points.

They aren't leaving the tropics, they are covering more area away from the equator.

 

[a_unique_person]

I am a AGW denier and don't think people have anything to do with global temperature, either warm or cold. I think it's that big ball up in the sky, volcanos and other happening caused by Mother Nature.

This is a skeptics forum. Anything in the way of evidence to back your opinion up? Otherwise, you are just wasting your time.

 

[uke2se]

Wow, it really shows how badly the deniers have lost the debate. Before, they were trying - unsuccessfully - to construct scientific arguments to rationalize their denial. Now they seem to take a sort of bizarre pride in being ignorant.

 

[Corsair 115]

I am a AGW denier and don't think people have anything to do with global temperature, either warm or cold. I think it's that big ball up in the sky, volcanos and other happening caused by Mother Nature.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence indicates otherwise. So you have a choice: stick your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, or accept what the evidence is saying, regardless of how you feel about it.

Will you choose rationalism and reality? Or will you choose obtuseness and willful blindness?

 

[greybeard]

I am a AGW denier and don't think people have anything to do with global temperature, either warm or cold. I think it's that big ball up in the sky, volcanos and other happening caused by Mother Nature.

With no science to back up the statement that is just wishful thinking.

Better the poles than the Philippines, China, India, the Tropics and other points.

You do realise that "move towards the poles" doesn't actually mean that the storms take place at the poles? If you had read the article it says this puts more people at risk.

 

[macdoc]

ABC

I am a AGW denier and don't think people have anything to do with global temperature, either warm or cold. I think it's that big ball up in the sky, volcanos and other happening caused by Mother Nature.

The people in this forum do not care about what you think or are of the opinion on unless you have scientific support for it ....it is a science forum expecting evidence to support a position.
You have none.
You are factually incorrect in denying AGW.

You have the same credibility as someone stating they think the earth is flat or the sun orbits the earth or the earth is 6,000 years old.
Their "opinion" is factually incorrect,
so is yours regarding humans impact on earth's climate.

Even Exxon finally got around to admitting human impact on climate and the serious risk it presents publically even though they knew reality in 1995 from their own scientists.

 

[DC]

I am a AGW denier and don't think people have anything to do with global temperature, either warm or cold. I think it's that big ball up in the sky, volcanos and other happening caused by Mother Nature.

and your wild ignorant guesses about our climate system can compete with the scientific data from NASA, ESA, MIT, Yale, ETHZ, MPI etc etc....
lol

 

[ABC10]

Unfortunately for you, the evidence indicates otherwise. So you have a choice: stick your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, or accept what the evidence is saying, regardless of how you feel about it.

Will you choose rationalism and reality? Or will you choose obtuseness and willful blindness?

It does not matter what I think. We never know what is going to happen. Not even when we are sitting next to the coming unanticipated nature event. It's not unfortunate for me?
We'll all be long gone before any of the predictions come to fruition if they ever do. I find it impossible to believe that there are enough signs to predict anything in a 1000 years. I do believe that Mother Nature is violent, highly unpredictable and initiates catastrophic events all on her own without human help causing numerous disasters like the eruption of Mt. Helene, Katchoria, 2004 tsunami and earthquake and Tsunami in Japan and even that hill slide in Washington State.

 

[DC]

It does not matter what I think about it so even "climate scientist". We never know what is going to happen. Not even when we are sitting next to the coming unanticipated nature event. So what's unfortunate??
Me and most of the folk living today will be long gone before any of the predictions come to fruition if they ever do. I find it impossible to believe that there are enough signs to predict anything in a 1000 years. I do believe that Mother Nature is violent, highly unpredictable and initiates catastrophic events all on her own without human help causing numerous disasters like the eruption of Mt. Helene, Katchoria, 2004 tsunami and earthquake and Tsunami in Japan and even that hill slide in Washington State for instance and needs no help from us puny humans.

just because natural events can happen that will overthrow all our projections, does not mean we cannot make accurate projections.
and just because nature can have huge changes without any help from us, does in no way mean we cannot cause changes. even other species without technology have had huge influences on this planet's atmosphere. and we know for a fact that we are increasing the CO2 concentrations, and we know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhosue gas, and we know for a fact that increasing a greenhouse gas causes an imbalance of incoming vs outgoing tadiation, and this leads to warming.
what we do not know for a fact yet is how much warming we will cause, we also don0t know how much CO2 we will pump into the atmosphere etc.

but our best knowledge tells us that we need to be carefull and best reduce the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. anything else would be irresponsible.

 

[ABC10]

ABC

The people in this forum do not care about what you think or are of the opinion on unless you have scientific support for it ....it is a science forum expecting evidence to support a position.
You have none.
You are factually incorrect in denying AGW.

You have the same credibility as someone stating they think the earth is flat or the sun orbits the earth or the earth is 6,000 years old.
Their "opinion" is factually incorrect,
so is yours regarding humans impact on earth's climate.

Even Exxon finally got around to admitting human impact on climate and the serious risk it presents publically even though they knew reality in 1995 from their own scientists.

Absolutely. I am a nobody in a vast sea of nobodies whose opinion, no one cares.

 

[ABC10]

just because natural events can happen that will overthrow all our projections, does not mean we cannot make accurate projections.
and just because nature can have huge changes without any help from us, does in no way mean we cannot cause changes. even other species without technology have had huge influences on this planet's atmosphere. and we know for a fact that we are increasing the CO2 concentrations, and we know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhosue gas, and we know for a fact that increasing a greenhouse gas causes an imbalance of incoming vs outgoing tadiation, and this leads to warming.
what we do not know for a fact yet is how much warming we will cause, we also don0t know how much CO2 we will pump into the atmosphere etc.

but our best knowledge tells us that we need to be carefull and best reduce the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. anything else would be irresponsible.

Totally reasonable. How is the CO2 to be reduced? How will that happen?

 

[macdoc]

Mt. Helene,

correct tho it's St. Helens

Katchoria

have no idea what you are on about

, 2004 tsunami

correct

and earthquake and Tsunami in Japan

correct

and even that hill slide in Washington State for instance and needs no help from us puny humans.

wrong
Hydrology changes a feature of AGW that are already here and mudslides will and are becoming more frequent.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/27/3419880/washington-mudslide-25-dead-communication/

and yes we have a hand in any event associate with global warming. Your denial of responsibility and leaving it to the next generation to deal with your mess is appalling.

You wouldn't be so sanguine if your neighbor was pissing in your drinking water....you'd do something.

 

[DC]

Totally reasonable. How is the CO2 to be reduced? How will that happen?

well we should first think about reducing the CO2 emissions.
increase efficiency of everything possible, switch from fossil fuel electricity production to alternatives like nuclear, solar, wind , hydro, depending on your location.

i like the CO2 tax proposal from Hansen, we have already something similar in my country.
a CO2 tax that goes back to the people, not in the hands of politicsters.

expand "CO2 neutral" public transportation (i use electric trams and trains only, powered by hydro / Nuclear).

implement aditional policies that will encourage alternative fuels for private transportation.

we do many of it already in many places, but only half hearted.

but actually i don't care how you do it. i just want us to do it, i dont care if the policies come from right or left, aslong they are effective in solving the problem without ignoring the needs of people.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by ABC10 View Post
Totally reasonable. How is the CO2 to be reduced? How will that happen?

No one is there yet.
Reducing the rate of emission as many countries have done and many states is the current program.
Some of that involves replacing high emission and polluting coal with natural gas.
That's the primary goal around the world in first and second world nations.

Third world are not an issue from an emission standpoint - they just getting screwed over.

Kill coal first.
Then sector by sector reduce fossil use ....hell even the military is in the game and that's good as they have the research budget to move things forward and the reason to do so.

Coal CAN be replaced in an industrial society in fairly short order.
US emissions were down 11% last year mostly due to natural gas replacing coal.

China knows it must just about get out of coal entirely just to breathe and they have crash programs on thorium reactors as well as massive solar and far and away the largest commitment to conventional nuclear.

The thing I detest is that Europe can have a 50 mpg fleet standard while the US sits at half that.
That's really disgraceful.
So is denying there is a serious problem...that's beyond the pale....

This has it down cold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Move on to solutions which are very difficult set of choices.....

The Economist lays some out in their usual succinct manner.

Americans may absorb all of this and decide that the smart choice continues to be a course of inaction.

They may continue to believe that the storms—and droughts and heat waves and blizzards and floods—to come will be manageable because they'll be richer and well-equipped to adapt.

Hopefully, there will at least be a better sense of what that is likely to mean and the trade-offs it will involve.
Adaptation will be an ongoing, costly slog, with a side order of substantial human suffering. It will be one American icon after another threatened.

Adaptation is not going to be easy. Hopefully Americans will ask themselves whether it's so much worse than the alternatives—high carbon taxes or large public investments or both—after all.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/hurricane-sandy

There is no restoring the climate to pre-industrial - best case would be hold at Holocene Maximum that occurred about 8,000 years ago - 2C above 20th century average by 2100. That gives the biome some breathing space from overly rapid changes.

Very very doubtful.

and then there is the 900lb gorilla.....ocean acidification which rarely gets talked about and may yet be the worst consequence of all.

Getting to carbon neutral will take even the most forward looking nations like Sweden to mid century.
The US COULD...some states ARE....not gonna happen without support and a Manhattan level commitment and you are not helping.

 

[ABC10]

Thanks for answering - informative.

 

[a_unique_person]

Absolutely. I am a nobody in a vast sea of nobodies whose opinion, no one cares.

It does matter. Understanding climate and global warming is a matter of science, acting on it is a political matter. How you vote on global warming determines what is done.

 

[ABC10]

correct tho it's St. Helens


have no idea what you are on about


correct


correct


wrong
Hydrology changes a feature of AGW that are already here and mudslides will and are becoming more frequent.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/27/3419880/washington-mudslide-25-dead-communication/

and yes we have a hand in any event associate with global warming. Your denial of responsibility and leaving it to the next generation to deal with your mess is appalling.

You wouldn't be so sanguine if your neighbor was pissing in your drinking water....you'd do something.

Correction -- oops, sorry that would be the volcano eruption of Krakatau in 1883 with it's global effects. Today, the Son of Krakatau rivals the size of the father Krakatau.
Only drink bottled spring water.

 

[Trakar]

well we should first think about reducing the CO2 emissions.
increase efficiency of everything possible, switch from fossil fuel electricity production to alternatives like nuclear, solar, wind , hydro, depending on your location.

Agreed, I would prefer a transitional time frame along the lines of no new coal power beginning immediately, and a complete ban on coal burning and production (no more mining, buying/selling or transportation) after 2030 at least by U.S. businesses or individuals. Natural gas and oil restrictions would begin in 2030 (no new exploration drilling or new power plants using such fuels), with a ban similar to coal going into effect for all fossil fuels by 2050.

i like the CO2 tax proposal from Hansen, we have already something similar in my country.
a CO2 tax that goes back to the people, not in the hands of politicsters.

I haven't really tracked the specifics of what Hansen has said about carbon taxes, primarily because Hansen isn't an economist, and I prefer the advice of field experts. I do agree with revenue neutral, graduated carbon taxes that increase over time according to a regular and announced schedule and then terminate at a specific time in the future.¹ Though I do like the concept of a Carbon bank that would invest a portion of carbon tax receipts in T-bills, sell carbon bonds and make secured loans to parties for climate adaptation/energy efficiency projects.

I feel that this can be set up to enhance the business environment as well as offset the burdens of such a tax on the lower income segments of society through the use of a variety of economic tools:

100% offsets of payroll taxes for employees earning less than $40k/year, graduate this up to $100k/year, so that at (and above) $100k/year employers are paying full payroll taxes on those individuals.

Citizen-dividend checks, again, reverse graduated to $40-100k/year so that Adult citizens who have 0 reportable income and no substantive assets, would receive a weekly check in the amount of $385/week. This would drop in half by the time a person started earning ~$20, 000/year to around $833/month. At $40k in earnings it drops to $5k/year and remains at that until earnings reach $100k/year where they stop entirely.

These payments would mean that a lot of independent and expensive social programs could be massively restructured, and in many cases eliminated. Likewise, there are a lot of large scale infrastructure adaptation programs (we need to establish continental scale power generation/distribution systems, better transportation and communication systems, irrigation and extensive cache basin and water management systems just to scrape the tip of the iceberg), which private business will contract to perform but won't do on their own, these are all jobs programs that will pay dividends to surrounding communities.

The whole idea of a carbon tax is to eliminate the use of fossilized carbon in industrial and energy generation processes, so you are slowly choking to death the goose that is laying this golden egg. The whole purpose of the tax is to eliminate itself. That said, with an entity like a Carbon Bank, you can stretch out some of the benefits of the early phase high revenues into a continuing re-investment that can continue to pay societal dividends well after the Carbon Tax expired.

expand "CO2 neutral" public transportation (i use electric trams and trains only, powered by hydro / Nuclear).

implement aditional policies that will encourage alternative fuels for private transportation.

we do many of it already in many places, but only half hearted.

but actually i don't care how you do it. i just want us to do it, i dont care if the policies come from right or left, aslong they are effective in solving the problem without ignoring the needs of people.

Fully agreed, this is the future, seems like we have a bit of a late start on it, but nothing that can't be remedied with a willingness to be cooperative, innovative, efficient and persistent

 

[Trakar]

...China knows it must just about get out of coal entirely just to breathe and they have crash programs on thorium reactors as well as massive solar and far and away the largest commitment to conventional nuclear...

We had a monopoly on nuclear power technology and the most advanced design systems on the planet 40 years ago and then we turned our collective backs on it (anti-science liberals). We should have been selling the world thorium power plants back then! would have avoided a lot of the mess we are currently in.

(excuse, "we/us" = U.S.)

 

[macdoc]

Yeah - with the dumbass attitudes around some places these days the Allies would have not won.