Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?

Should be good for another 3 or 4 billion years. Shouldn't be any threat to humanity since we'll certainly no longer be human at that point.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

http://www.economist.com/node/5381851


Cheers
Larry

Did you read it? They found a map that some guy named Gavin Menzies says is from 1421, they weren't sure if it was real, said they'll get the test results back in Feb 2007 and we haven't heard about that story since. It's nearly universally panned as lacking any shred of reliable evidence. In most references I've found Menzies is referred to a "pseudo-historian".

Honestly how sketchy and nonsensical does something have to be before you guys will use even a tiny bit of critical analysis?

I mean, take for instance, we have the current prevailing climate science, supported by mounds of evidence, supported by observable real world events, supported by the vast majority of the world's scientific community and you guys think it's all made up. On the other hand, some guy, universally dismissed, shows up out of the blue with what I can only assume at this point, a fake map, and you immediately agree China sailed through the Northwest Passage nearly 400 years before anyone else without even a ounce of hesitation. 

 

[Loachman]

Did you read it? They found a map that some guy named Gavin Menzies says is from 1421, they weren't sure if it was real, said they'll get the test results back in Feb 2007 and we haven't heard about that story since. It's nearly universally panned as lacking any shred of reliable evidence. In most references I've found Menzies is referred to a "pseudo-historian".

And I posted both sides of the story in Reply 2811 above.

Honestly how sketchy and nonsensical does something have to be before you guys will use even a tiny bit of critical analysis?

Honestly how sketchy and nonsensical does something have to be before you guys will use even a tiny bit of critical analysis?

Seriously.

This fraud has moved from sketchy "science" to religious dogma for warmistas, and few dare to question it lest they be branded heretics.

Natural climate fluctuations due to solar cycles have been going on forever. we're not causing it, and we cannot stop it.

I'm not looking forward to the next Little Ice Age, and, while being able to say "I told you so" in twenty years will not make up for the annoyance of the cold, mountainous piles of snow disrupting life in urban areas, and food shortages, it will be satisfying nonetheless.

I mean, take for instance, we have the current prevailing climate science, supported by mounds of evidence, supported by observable real world events, supported by the vast majority of the world's scientific community and you guys think it's all made up. On the other hand, some guy, universally dismissed, shows up out of the blue with what I can only assume at this point, a fake map, and you immediately agree China sailed through the Northwest Passage nearly 400 years before anyone else without even a ounce of hesitation.

It's not as "prevailing" as you think, the mounds on the reality side are at least as high, there are no consistent "observable real world events", the "vast majority" is half-vast at best, and a lot of it is indeed made up.

The scary predictions of the warmistas - coastal regions under water, deadly heat waves, dramatically-increased rate and severity of tropical storms etcetera - still have yet to pass, many years after we should have almost all been wiped out.

None of these events have been observed in the real world.

What was the source of the carbon dioxide - a naturally-occurring constituent of our atmosphere that is essential to plant life, and therefore essential to animal and human life - that caused the Mediaeval Warm Period, during which human civilization flourished?

 

[Remius]

It's hard to say.  I certainly don't subscribe to the celebrity warnings and what not but do see some alarming trends that are in fact man made that I believe are not helping the situation.

1. Deforestation.  It's happening at a faster rate than ever since the mid-late 1800's.  This is an easy fix with carefully managed reforestation and cutting. 

This I believe is a, if not the, major factor on climate change.

 

[Loachman]

Okay - who caused enough deforestation to drive the Mediaeval Warm Period?

Floki was building a lot of longships around then, but not that many.

 

[Remius]

Well there are plenty of known factors during that period.  But temperatures were more in line with mid 20th century periods when solar activity was comparable.  For whatever reason it's hotter now than it was then globally and the reasons are not the same since those reasons are currently not present.

Would you not agree that mass deforestation can have an adverse affect on climate?  I think it does to be honest and I think that science has a good grasp on that part.

 

[Loachman]

For whatever reason it's hotter now than it was then globally and the reasons are not the same since those reasons are currently not present.

There does not yet appear to be farming activity on Greenland.

Would you not agree that mass deforestation can have an adverse affect on climate?

There have been major environmental effects, but climate effects? I don't think so.

I think that science has a good grasp on that part.

Science doesn't have a good grasp on anything climate-related. Our climate is complex.

And science is never "settled", no matter how much the warmistas try and push that line to shut down opposing views.

 

[Remius]

There does not yet appear to be farming activity on Greenland.

There have been major environmental effects, but climate effects? I don't think so.

Science doesn't have a good grasp on anything climate-related. Our climate is complex.

And science is never "settled", no matter how much the warmistas try and push that line to shut down opposing views.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by farming in Greenland. 

I'm curious why you would think why deforestation does not impact climate? Or specifically what other than the sun might affect climate? Or are you saying that only the sun has an effect?

Your last points I agree with.  It is in fact complex.

 

[Loachman]

There were Norse farming settlements on Greenland during the Mediaeval Warm Period. As temperatures cooled, crops and livestock became untenable, fish populations moved further from shore, and increasing sea ice prevented replenishment ships. The people became smaller in stature due to malnourishment. It is unclear if they moved elsewhere - Iceland or Scandinavia - or died out.

The Sun is our only source of heat and light. It is, therefore, the biggest influence. Shorter-term fluctuations are due to El Nino/La Nina effects, and possible similar ones elsewhere (I have not looked to see if this phenomenon occurs in other oceans), but that is not climate. Ocean currents also influence weather.

I don't recall any articles/papers claiming climate effects from deforestation. The only articles that I've seen discuss local environmental damage, and disruption/destruction of indigenous societies.

One of the unfortunate results of "climate change" obsession is the distraction from general, but less-scary, forms of pollution and recycling frauds (a lot of hazardous waste is simply shipped to third-world countries and dumped, to the detriment of local wildlife and human populations).

There is much that we could do better, but too many people are obsessed with carbon dioxide but none of the other poisons. There are far worse chemicals in automobile exhausts

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/06/511843443/are-we-eating-our-fleece-jackets-microfibers-are-migrating-into-field-and-food

https://qz.com/793760/synthetic-clothes-are-polluting-oceans/

There are recent posts discussing the hidden environmental costs of "clean" energy and electric cars.

Everything has a consequence, big or small, but few are aware of that.

PETA protests against the use of fur - a natural and renewable resource -  but synthetic replacements harm animals in other ways.

Silly PETA.

Far too many people have far too much excessive clothing as well, and most of it ends up in dumps. The synthetic fabrics will hang around forever.

 

[Remius]

I appreciate the detailed response.

The thing is that tropical forests do a lot more to absorb carbon than we previously thought.  They contribute to keeping the planet cool.  The problem is that those forests are the most at risk and have suffered the most in regards to deforestation by developing nations. So while you disagree I do think it has an impact on climate or at least temperatures.  NASA has a few good articles on that.  I'll try and dig them up.

Now I agree with a lot of what you said after.  I don't subscribe to some sort of liberal conspiracy about global warming or climate change to advance an agenda.  I also don't think that the world is ending either.  The left is definitely misguided on how to tackle climate change.  Remember corn based ethanol was the great saviour back in the day? Except it created a bigger mess.  But I do believe we are having an impact and that action should be taken, but I don't necessarily agree with the knee jerk policies that make no sense economically or environmentally. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Remember corn based ethanol was the great saviour back in the day? Except it created a bigger mess.

One of those unintended consequences was that it increased the price of beer.

More corn = less wheat and barley = less malt = higher input costs = more expensive beer = Bastards!

 

[Remius]

One of those unintended consequences was that it increased the price of beer.

More corn = less wheat and barley = less malt = higher input costs = more expensive beer = Bastards!

More expensive beer=angry people=burning things=carbon=climate change.  Lower beer prices and save the world. 

 

[QV]

I don't have time to look it up, but IIRC the earth is greener than ever as a result of increased co2.

Check it out

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I don't have time to look it up, but IIRC the earth is greener than ever as a result of increased co2.

Check it out

At the time of the dinosaurs, the time of earth's greatest bio-density, it is estimated that CO2 was at 5 times current levels.  I have yet to see a debate if returning to that level of abundant life is necessarily a bad thing.  On the contrary, it could be argued that to sustain even our current population, additional CO2 would actually help the planet.

It would seem to me that "scientists" should be hosting these kind of debates instead of rushing to attack those that disagree with their views.  The reality being is if you actually tried to host such a set of debates on a western university campus you'd likely get shouted down by the "settled science" crew who are much more focused on the importance of protecting their adopted "brand", than honestly seeking anything resembling truth.

The fathers of science would be appalled....

 

[Lightguns]

At the time of the dinosaurs, the time of earth's greatest bio-density, it is estimated that CO2 was at 5 times current levels.  I have yet to see a debate if returning to that level of abundant life is necessarily a bad thing.  On the contrary, it could be argued that to sustain even our current population, additional CO2 would actually help the planet.

It would seem to me that "scientists" should be hosting these kind of debates instead of rushing to attack those that disagree with their views.  The reality being is if you actually tried to host such a set of debates on a western university campus you'd likely get shouted down by the "settled science" crew who are much more focused on the importance of protecting their adopted "brand", than honestly seeking anything resembling truth.

The fathers of science would be appalled....

Yes, the whole debate by proponents of climate change is the rolling up of coastal cities, like human civilisation must be forever.  There are dozens of cities in Greece and Asia that were sea ports that are now miles inland.  The planet changes, continents pull apart, mountain erode and grow, forest burn and re-grow.  It's nature, man's mark on the world is not forever, Halifax, New York and elsewhere will just have to get used to it.  A warmer planet means more potential for food growth in more areas of the world as water locked in ice becomes part of the evaporation/rain cycle.  Warmer areas of the earth can be watered through technology as Saudi Arabia gets much of it's potable water now.  Adapt and overcome. 

 

[Lightguns]

First I seen this one:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

 

[Kirkhill]

2 for 2 Lightguns.  Thanks

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What makes this real interesting is that Andrew Weaver is now on the Government side of the Legislature in BC. If he is in court, fighting a defamation suit...how does that stay out of the press? How does he make it to vote when the house is at 43-43 ( minus the speaker)?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Tis the humans fault that the North American ice sheet is gone. Millions of tons of ice gone and no one cares.

 

[Loachman]

It hasn't gone.

It just moved to Antarctica for a change of scenery.