Global warming discussion III

[The Atheist]

Which is not right, The Atheist, because you have only half the equation: "vast sums of money" with "vast amounts of profit".

I did say short term, and several decades is not short term.

Also, from your own links:

Since it is difficult to predict how much climate change will impact the economy, or how much climate change will be averted as a result of these policies (particularly since they may trigger similar GHG emission reduction policies by other countries), the comparison to an unrealistic BAU scenario is the best we can do.

Best guess.

As for the number of people who actively care being "vanishingly small", I would say that the number of people just in environmental groups and Green political particles is a non-vanishing number .

Small enough to be ignored, which is what's happening. As for the Greenmunists, they care more about having no nuclear power than stopping coal being burnt.

In the case of China...

US

there are many many others......

Sweden will be carbon neutral by 2050 and is well on the way now.

Bottom line the world is moving on .....time for you to.

Well and truly trumped by India alone, which is not about to give up growth to cut CO2 and will prove to be the biggest contributor in years to come.

Then we can looks at South America, where Brazil still allows wanton destruction of rain forests, having refused to legislate against it.

Then I might add in Australia (full denial by Abbott & Co), Canada (cut budget), New Zealand (budget reduced to zero), UK (much talk, no action) plus several others.

Then air travel - the worst of all polluters - is expected to double in the next ten years.

the people with the power care......that's all that matters....

Sure. I've listed several of those people in power above. Meanwhile, Germany cares enough to be shutting all its nuke stations. No word on how much extra coal they will be burning. (or that both solar and wind power are less carbon-friendly than nuke stations)

This might surprise you...

as I said....time to put the failed What Me Worry meme to rest and move on to dealing with reality.

Your quote notes:

As a nation, 63 percent of Americans think the planet is warming and 48 percent of Americans think these changes are caused by humans.

Yet, USA's only real reduction has come from the GFC. Obama talks plenty on the subject, but I believe the other team couldn't give a crap and most of them don't believe a word of it anyway.

Oddly enough, it's reality I'm dealing with - the reality that says CO2 levels won't drop significantly planet-wide.

 

[The Atheist]

You made a statement, you supported it with a source, that source very clearly said "more likely than not" and explained that the phrase means slightly more than 50/50. It really doesn't get any more straightforward.

It's not the source I was after and is much more recent. I didn't see anything on a quick search, but since it's historic, I'm not about to waste time on it and will happily concede the point rather than waste a week trying to prove something for no good reason.

 

[Reality Check]

I did say short term, and several decades is not short term.

Here and now is very short term, The Atheist, as you would have seen in my links: The economic impacts of carbon pricing is the economics stuff.

intermediate version:

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

(my emphasis added)
The real world examples have already happened!
The "over the next several decades" starts tomorrow.

ETA: Actually the studies of carbon pricing models start at an assumed implementation date of 2012 and go to 2050.

It is the best prediction given the available data, The Atheist, not a "best guess".

Obviously you do not live an a country with active environmental or and Green political parties - they are not ignored . Think about Germany where the Green Party has fallen back into the opposition but still had over 3 million votes. Think about New Zealand (where I live) where the Green Party is a influential (if minor) party. For that matter the Democrat party in the USA has millions of not ignored people in it. There is even this guy called Barack Obama who recently made a very not ignored speech about climate change and national security.

 

[The Atheist]

Here and now is very short term...

The "over the next several decades" starts tomorrow.

We obviously work to different time scales.

It is the best prediction given the available data, The Atheist, not a "best guess".

Prediction and guess are listed in all thesauruses as synonyms.

Obviously you do not live an a country with active environmental or and Green political parties - they are not ignored .

Really? Cutting the budget from $1,000,000,000 to $0 is not ignoring the problem?

As to the Greenmunists, they are a total waste of space in this country. They lie, they cheat, anything they say is taken with less than a grain of salt and their big success in the past three years is not losing any seats. If you want evidence on the NZ Greenmunist Party, I have truckloads.

Note I speak as a former member of the Greenmunist Party, which is where I thought the sensible people were until I was able to prove otherwise.

Think about Germany where the Green Party has fallen back into the opposition but still had over 3 million votes.

Yeah, on the back of ridding Germany of nuke power.

Think about New Zealand (where I live) where the Green Party is a influential (if minor) party.

Gosh, I think you might even believe that!

Please do explain how influential they are. When Russel Norman was assaulted on Parliament grounds by a Chinese security guard I didn't see Johnny Combover rushing to his aid.

The NZ Green are Pathetic, and yes that does have a capital letter at the start; it reflects how utterly useless they are. I see the new boy is making all sorts of claims, despite winning by a very narrow margin. Even half his own party dislike him, so I don't imagine Key is going to have much time for him.

For that matter the Democrat party in the USA has millions of not ignored people in it. There is even this guy called Barack Obama who recently made a very not ignored speech about climate change and national security.

Sure, Barack Obama is a shining light in international terms.

If Billary wins next year, they might even keep to it. If not, you can tip all that down the toilet.

 

[Trakar]

I would feign shock, but why...

Emails Suggest Shell Pressured Science Museum to Alter Climate Change Exhibits
http://hyperallergic.com/210973/ema...ence-museum-to-alter-climate-change-exhibits/

The Guardian has obtained several emails exchanged between the Science Museum in London and Shell, which recently became the principal sponsor of the institution’s climate science gallery. They show the company repeatedly making demands about the museum’s exhibitions.

“Regards the rubbish archive project [an interactive exhibition examining the impact of waste on the environment], [redacted name] and I have some concerns on this exhibition particularly as it creates an opportunity for NGOs to talk about some of the issues that concern them around Shell’s operations,” reads one especially disturbing email sent by a Shell employee to a museum staffer on May 8, 2014.

It continues with the company seemingly insinuating it would like a say on which guests would attend a climate change conference at the institution. “Could you please share more information with us on the symposium event planned for September? As you know we receive a great deal of interest around our art sponsorships so need to ensure we do not proactively open up a debate on the topic. Will it be an invite only event?”

The email ends with the Shell representative asking whether the museum employee has spoken with Shell climate change adviser David Hone “to see if he would like to participate in the content refresh.”

Rest at link, not too surprising except that they did this through emails which are discoverable, in person discussion may have been more difficult to verify.

 

[Trakar]

Ocean Migration

Global Warming Could Lead To Greatest Ocean Migration In 3 Million Years
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5...ocean-migration-three-million-years-study.htm

University of Science and Technology researchers in Lille, France, showed that if warming is near 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the warming would result in the largest mass migration of ocean species seen in 3 million years.

"If climate change is not tackled quickly, it will lead to a massive reorganisation of marine biodiversity on a planetwide scale," The National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France reported.

Even if the world meets the U.N. goal of limiting temperature rise below 3.6 degrees F, the change in species habitat would be three times greater than what was seen over the last 50 years.

An increase of just 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 would have little effect on biodiversity, researchers concluded. This is the level predicted in the most optimistic forecasts being made today. Some aspects of this study were based on theories of how species will react to rising temperatures, as little objective data on these behaviors is available.

The study examined species which live in the top 650 feet of the ocean, since they have the greatest direct impact on human beings. There are still many things about the global ocean that scientists do not understand, and predicting behavior of such a complex system can be extremely challenging. However, the study clearly showed that greater amounts of warming will result in more extreme changes to biodiversity.

Warm water-loving species could see their habitats expand, but "this will not compensate global species extinction," the study warned.

Analysis of how varying degrees of rising global temperatures could affect biodiversity was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The way our species' luck runs, a warm, seaweed filled, long-day, shallow sea ecosystem could turn out to be a perfect breeding ground for the planet's food fish,...if not for the oil spills and methane emissions.

 

[bit_pattern]

Greenmunist :rollseyes:

 

[Belz...]

Exactly where and how have you been "deeply involved in the climate science debate?"

Reminds me of moon hoaxers* who claim to have studied that topic for years, but don't know the first thing about photography and film exposure.




*: I almost wrote "moaxers", as a typo, but I think it should catch on, and become the standard label to describe these people.

 

[Belz...]

No. Their original position definitely included that phrase and if I cared enough I'd try to find the original statement, but as it's 10-15 years ago, I doubt it would be easy to find.

Is it possible that you are misremembering ?

 

[greybeard]

Greenmunist :rollseyes:

Yeah and from someone who said..

The way I see it, there is an inevitable tipping point - a place in the future at where the damage to the climate is irreversible and catastrophic.

I don't personally agree with opposition to nuclear energy but then I doubt that all green party supporters do either. Anyway if we are heading for a catastrophe it's not environmentalists at fault. Top of the list are those who deliberately put out misinformation so as to prevent action. Also why is someone who thinks we are heading for catastrophe picking endless trivial quarrels with those who want to see action taken to reduce greenhouse emissions.

 

[Trakar]

*: I almost wrote "moaxers", as a typo, but I think it should catch on, and become the standard label to describe these people.

I like that, be glad to help you spread the meme!

 

[lomiller]

No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

And what was the certainly attached to it? How old was it? It would have to be at least 2 decades out of date at this point, scientific understanding changes over time that’s how it’s supposed to work. TBH your argument is akin to saying “Evolution is questionable because at first scientists thought dinosaurs were reptiles now they say they are more closely related to birds”

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

What's been "shown to be false"? Certainly not the impact of ocean surface temperatures on hurricane formation.


It’s well established that Warmer ocean water leads to more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes, and that global warming would increase surface water temperatures. In the late 90’s it was discovered that a warmer climate also increases wind shear effects which has the known effect of surprising Atlantic hurricane formation. The new information in no way changes what was already known, and simply reflects the normal progression in science. It’s how science works, nothing more.

 

[The Atheist]

Is it possible that you are misremembering ?

Certainly. That's why I've conceded the point already. I don't think I'm wrong, but would rather admit to it than waste a week trying to prove it one way or the other.

 

[The Atheist]

Greenmunist :rollseyes:

You like that?

It's the perfect one-word description for them, because when you break their policies down they are 50% Green and 50% Communist.

Feel free to use it - there's no copyright on it.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't personally agree with opposition to nuclear energy but then I doubt that all green party supporters do either.

Sure, not all Green supporters think like that, but I'm reasonably confident all Green parties have it as a central policy.

Anyway if we are heading for a catastrophe it's not environmentalists at fault. Top of the list are those who deliberately put out misinformation so as to prevent action.

I disagree. I think apathy is a much bigger problem. People don't want to buy in because it will cost them money, so nothing gets done.

NZ is a classic example, because while our global impact is minute, we are also in a perfect position to act, and under the previous government held our heads up proudly as a leader yet again in a social issue.

But when it came to the crunch there was no opposition whatsoever to the next government cutting the budget to fight climate change from $1 billion to $0.

Also why is someone who thinks we are heading for catastrophe picking endless trivial quarrels with those who want to see action taken to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Mostly because of the complete irrelevance of it.

What good do you think this thread will do? Has it changed a single denier's mind yet?

Thought not.

What's to argue? Scientific confidence in AGW is sufficient that there is no real question any longer, so what's the point of the thread. I'm treating this thread exactly as I do bigfoot threads - it helps highlight the absolute pointlessness of the discussion.

Sensible places - The Guardian, Reddit, & even 4Chan last time I checked - have banned dissenting threads on AGW because they're exactly the same as CT threads - no progress is made, and if people in the thread care that much they'd be far better served to go and actually do something instead of fighting via keyboard and getting nowhere.

Here's one for you:

How many of the Green Warriors in the thread drive an internal combsution engine car? Talk the talk but don't walk the walk is my experience of pro-AGW arguers.

I stand to be corrected, but I will be surprised if anyone here is doing more than paying lip service to the entire question.

 

[greybeard]

You like that?

It's the perfect one-word description for them, because when you break their policies down they are 50% Green and 50% Communist. Feel free to use it - there's no copyright on it.

Did that not bother you when you were a member? Cite which policies are communist just so we can see whether you
understand what a communist policy is because I really don't think that you do.

 

[macdoc]

Atheist

Wrong but no convincing you...just as you say no convincing some...you can include yourself in that stuck in rut group.

Significant progress is being made in many regions despite the crap handed out by the right wing idjits.
But you just want to believe otherwise.

This is a climate science thread....not an echo chamber for your wringing of hands at human ennui.

This isn't a greenie forum, nearly all support nuclear power and most recognize nothing will happen rapidly but they don't give up either.
Your attitude sucks....don't try and attribute such a useless view to others.....it's not climate science and it's incorrect.

 

[The Atheist]

Did that not bother you when you were a member?

Yes, but it was outweighed by policies I saw as better than other party policies in areas I care about.

Until I caught them lying.

Cite which policies are communist just so we can see whether you
understand what a communist policy is because I really don't think that you do.

[Re] Nationalising privately-held assets

That one alone should suffice, because it is a 100% Communist ideal, but here are a couple of local (to me) examples.

Taxing high incomes to give money to those too lazy to work

Choosing leadership by dogma rather than capability

If you need more, there are plenty of them - maybe it should be a new thread as it has little to do with the climate?

 

[The Atheist]

Atheist

Wrong but no convincing you...just as you say no convincing some...you can include yourself in that stuck in rut group.

Significant progress is being made in many regions despite the crap handed out by the right wing idjits.

You claim that, and there was an attempt to display that it's even correct, but the truth is that the alleged progress is ancillary to game and not caused by fear of climate change.

The two big improvers right now, USA & China, have reduced emissions, but as I already noted above, that is nothing to do with a global agenda to fight AGW.

Please feel free to show how the alleged progress is actually being made and how it will negate the effect of India's growth and Brazil's continued failure to protect the rain forests.

But you just want to believe otherwise.

No, I don't want to believe anything.

What I'd like to see is action.

This is a climate science thread....not an echo chamber for your wringing of hands at human ennui.

Mocking, not hand-wringing.

I note your avoidance of my question, so I'll repeat it:

What are you personally doing to help combat climate change?

Posting in a thread on it is not "doing something".

From my own point of view, I'll gladly stack my personal record up against anyone else's.

Your attitude sucks....

Without knowing what others are doing, I'll wait until evidence of action is shown before I answer that.

Away you go!

 

[a_unique_person]

Certainly. That's why I've conceded the point already. I don't think I'm wrong, but would rather admit to it than waste a week trying to prove it one way or the other.

One of the necessary requirements for a tropical cyclone is a certain sea surface temperature. As the global sst warms it is logical that there will be more TCs. However the climate is complex so there will also be more wind shear to treat forming TCs apart. Wind patterns are also changing so that cyclones that do form may be turned out to sea instead of towards shore.