Yet another climate change thread - Page 3

Such hysteria over nothing. A little more warmth will likely be of benefit to nortern latitudes, increase agriculture production, etc.

Oh my sweet lord. Where do you start.

Careful now lad, you are backing into a swamp. Start with the admission of your manifest ignorance, beg for your betters forbearance, and plead for their forgiveness.

In anticipation, I forgive you.

It's not even that significant. Assuming the dectection and attribution models are correct (and given the amount of con artistry in the discipline that itself is in question) in 100 years sea levels will rise 15 to 18 inchs and global temperature 3 degrees C - mainly in the norhtern latitudes.

Natually different areas will benefit, others will be harmed. England will become a major producer of quality wine and France will turn out nothing but cheapo jug wines- so what, I don't like the French anyway.

Read the latest results from a thirty year study in the rapidly thawing permafrost?

Methane is bubbling out now.

Hispanics have too many babies and become American in their GHG footprint in a generation. Guys just vote Buchanan '08. Odd thought, I know...but facts are facts. We need a fence.

Given that we have had increasing temperatures since the end of the little Ice age I am not surprized - but it's effects are accounted for in D and A models...hardly worth a piffel of worry.

not such a pleasant world if it keeps heating up - take note e Numbers

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-done-for.html

The hysteria over global warming is just hobgoblins - the attempt to create a "public danger" that the politicians can pretend to save us from. Political power brokers love crisis; but rather than selling us a product they use it to mine votes for power, and puff up their petty egos. My old saying has been, those that can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't do or teach, run for office so as to supervise the doings of the others.

So what if the ocean rises a couple of feet, so what if the northern latitudes warm up enough to extend the growing seasons, so what if the earth has more precipitation?

Yet we have the incredible stupidity of the State of California racing to clamp down on its citizens and economy to "save" something that is not in trouble...

Fools and naives...

Millions of people will die and there will be mass migration and war.

Such as the War on Terror, for example?

Unsupported Assertion.

Actually there is a strong element of hobgoblinization i the War on Terror - but that would be another thread...

Either acquaint yourself with the facts or don't post at all.

Either stop pulling claims from the philosgen and support them with factual evidence or expert opinion, or face the damning conclusion : unsupported assertion.

Just where are these "facts" of yours to be found...?

Please provide reference or link to source document.

Please provide reference or link to source document.

Please provide reference or link to source document.

Just so you know frank, in the last century (which would be less than a pixel width on that graph) the temperature has increased 0,5 celcius...

The scale makes our current heating invisible.

Understood.

But I just don't want to "jump in" without further information WRT those graphs.

Basically, where they came from, from whom, etcetera.

For example, are those figures from peer reviewed professional journals (i. e. is it good science or is it bad science)?

I don't like cherry pickers, and I don't like things that are taken out of context.

I would like to read the report or journal article those figures came from, to gain a better understanding of their context, and to more fully understand their meaning.

AFAIK, several important points of the global warming debate have not been mentioned (at least not in this thread).

What is encouraging in reading through this thread, is that no one is arguing IF there is global warming, and their not even arguing WHAT is causing global warming.

But, what I find rather mindboggling, is this new attitude (to me anyway) of, so what, who cares, big deal.

IMHO, really, Really, REALLY strange.

Humankind is definitely DOOMED

"Global surface temperature has increased ~0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes."

So of course, that means that by the year 6000AD, Earth will reach the boiling point! But, I must think positive, about all the good things that humankind will have, for one a GLOBAL steam room!


PS - Found all graphs at wikipedia. Please remember, it's the rate of change that is most important, not that the Earth has been much hotter/colder historically then now. So for example, sea level rates have recently been ~2mm/yr over the last few millennia, ~20mm/yr prior to that, but could exceed ~200mm/yr (linear sea level change of 60 meters over a time span of 300 years) in the future!

"absolute maximum is" anything is bullshit.

Are you serious? We're practically made of carbon. Every living thing is. Supposing all the carbon was in the atmosphere would be assuming we all burned to crisps long before.

Found them (see previous post, I didn't think anyone would respond to my request, so "Seek and ye shall find."). IMHO, pretty good science, all from peer reviewed professional literature, etcetera. However, as most of those researchers themselves point out, proxy data becomes more difficult to interpret the further back in time you go. Read up on a whole bunch of stuff while there, WRT climate change, climate modeling, supervolcanoes (more on that in a later post), evolution, atmosphere, WTC, etcetera, in the last day or so. IMHO, wiki is pretty cool!

WRT the steam room comment, mostly sarcasm, I'll use my sardonic wit WRT supervolcanoes and global warming depending on what you mean by "enlightened talk." BTW, I am mainly a coastal and port engineer (although I have/am worn/wearing several other engineering hats), so the potental sea level rise and potential for increased severe coastal weather (and inland flooding) causes me the greatest concern. OTOH, global warming would be a very good thing for coastal engineers, potential growth industry, read about it in my soon to be released book, "Earth 2222: Planet of the 300 Foot Dykes."

Another sarcastic comment on my part, but remember I did say Earth 2222, so that would be at least grand*8 children! But you do realize what would happen in the short term, engineers would try to hold off the inevitable by building coastal structures (e. g. dikes, like the dutch). And in principle, I for one am not a proponent for building in the coastal zone, except for commerse (e. g. shipping) reasons, and even that should be mitigated (i. e. wetland restoration). In fact, I am extremely conservative on that one, no federal flood insurance in the coastal zone, if you can afford to live in the coastal zone, you can afford to pay your own insurance premiums, and let nature take its course. Of course, certain industries (i. e. fishing) would need protections, but IMHO tourism isn't one of them. I've never been a flatlander, you know.

And consider that Louisiana is seriously seeking federal funding to restore their entire coast line, 200 miles of coast line, which IMHO would cost tens of billions of dollars.

One inch of sea level rise, in and of itself, would not be a problem. However, 1 in/yr over 12 years (i. e. 1 ft sea level rise), would be a problem in many areas of the world with coastal plains (e. g. the US east and gulf coasts). It has everything to do with rate and duration. And if the rate approaches 1 ft/yr (not totally unreasonable as I suggested in a previous post), then it would be time to "cut and run" albeit rather slowly.

Look, just cause your life sucks and you hate yourself, don't take it out on me.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I have a life. (Even so, I still find myself arguing on the internet with climate change deniers, young-earth Christians and people who say the holocaust never happened, so maybe I should temper that claim.)

OK. Firstly, it's 'phlogiston', not 'philosgen'. Small thing: it's just if you're going to try and be clever it... sort of behooves you to be, you know, clever.

Secondly, I'm not going to post links for projected sea level rises and the consequences or the consequences of a 1º C rise in global temperature. If you're not familiar with this research and this debate then you truly have no place engaging in the discussion of it; you're just trolling and I haven't got time for it.

As for the debate over climate change leading to mass migration and wars over water, here are some links if you're interested. I don't at all expect you to read them since the facts and the discussion clearly don't interest you, but I'll post these for form's sake nonetheless.

Pentagon says climate change a bigger threat than terrorism

African mass migration

Wars over water

Climate change and war

I spend a lot of time in Africa, or I have done, for my research. This is why I bang on about mass migration and war because of climate change. It's been happening for thousands of years already, so I don't see why it shouldn't happen when the rate of climate change is faster than its ever been in the sum total of human history and the population of the world is so vast.

Keep breathing out that lovely carbon dioxide and good luck with your battle against reality, evidence and facts, Max.

I'll buy the more rain argument.

But when does this occur, during the 3 month growth season (northern hemisphere), or otherwise?

More rain means, more flooding? Economic losses, loss of life?

In the flood plains, where a lot of crops are grown?

More rain, means more potential crop damage?

More rain, means more disease?

Sea level rise > 40mm/yr (see Meltwater Pulse 1A)?

CO2 increasing at a rate of 2.6 ppmv/yr (2005), currently 380 ppmv, projected to be as high as 1000 ppmv by 2100AD?

Sweet!

Flood control, something I know just a LITTLE bit about since I'm a research hydraulic engineer (my official job title). So you see most flood designs are usually based on a 100-year recurrence interval (except for some things such as the dutch dikes). So what was once a 500 yr recurrence becomes a 100 recurrence, what was once a 1000 yr recurrence becomes a 100 recurrence. Get the picture. Look at what happened on the upper Missippippi a few years ago, look at what happened in western Europe a few years ago. The vast majority of existing infrastructure has BEEN designed based on an assumption, of what has happened, historically! That assumption is not a good one going forward, mark my words, the economic costs alone will be in the trillions of US dollars.

And how do you engineer a crop when it is literally drowned intermittently (from too much rainfall), that is starved for water intermittently (from too little rainfall, irrigation, mo' money).

IMHO, your thinking is really, Really, REALLY starting to scare me!

Oh great, our offspring can look forward to a diet consisting of 100% pecans!

I guess we needn't worry about global warming then!