Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[Wooglin]

Uhm no, the models all over estimated the amount of warming, yet global temps are rising, just not as fast as predicted but still outside of known historical norms. Slower than predicted change is not zero

We've been down this exact road before and sticking the graphs in your face didn't seem to alter your opinion, so why bother again? The troposphere, surface temps, and SST for the last 15 or so years, length depending on the index, is at or near 0. I'm not arguing it again, it's just a fact. I'm pretty sure little to no warming is well within historical norms.

That being said, we've seen about .7c or .8c over the last 150 years. That may be "rapid" but to say it's outside historical norms requires comparing high resolution modern measurement to low resolution proxy data and it's not really a fair comparison, especially given how shitty proxy data is to begin with. IOW, it's not something that can be said is "undeniable" with any real certainty.

Extinction is an end state, not a starting point. An example might well prove to be the California Sea Lions. If the warm waters don't recede we could see a serious population collapse. hell California could see a major biological disaster if the historically never seen before drought doesn't break. In Maine puffins are suffering because the prey they rely on are moving out and as poor flyers they can't follow. Strange winters in Mexico along with a loss of habitat in the US have the Monarch butterfly on the verge of extinction. Each might be a small part, but the evidence is mounting that climate change is doing horrendous harm to the lives we share this planet with. Add in the direct damage we do- over harvesting, over fishing, poaching, loss of habitat.... and we have become blight. Its time to get serious about being good stewards of Planet Earth.

Might, if, could see, if... You can't claim something is "undeniably" happening and back it up with "mights" and "ifs". You quite correctly point out many factors for habitat loss and species decline that we are directly responsible for. You want us to act in some way on global warming because you think it can only be beneficial, but the irony is the global warming movement has hijacked many of the conservation efforts you would support, and you can't preserve a species when you're fighting the wrong cause of it's demise... i.e. Deadly Fungus, Not Climate Change, Killing Frogs in Andes and Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 1: Parmesan’s Butterfly Effect | Watts Up With That?

Seriously Z, read that second one and tell me your ok with that. GW is killing the species but not the way you think.

And by the way, Climate change does not cause extreme winters, experts say -- ScienceDaily

[Blademaster]

Gotta do the math. If I recall correctly, the last time I did it, if all the landborne ice above sea level on Earth were to melt, the total increase in Earth's sea level would be about six feet, just shy of two meters.

Key factors:

Floating ice does not count. Its weight is already affecting sea level so if it melts, sea level does not change. None of the north polar ice would contribute to a rise in sea level and little of the south polar ice. The Greenland ice sheet is the major factor, with a few tiny bits from permanent glaciers on tall mountains.

When ice melts into liquid water, its density increases. The same amount of water occupies 90% of the volume as solid ice; and much, much less if you're melting gas-entrained loose snow.

The most amusing thing about this global warming fantasy is that although, if it were anything more than this year's corrupt schemes overlaid on last year's frauds, at the cost of losing some prime real estate in Florida and maybe up on those dikes around New Orleans, Earth gains a 50% increase in arable land, mostly across Canada and Siberia.

You missed out Bangladesh and West Bengal part of India. You are well talking about somewhere between 250 million to 400 million people. People disagree with your math. Several articles have scientists saying that if the Antarctica land ice and Greenland land ice goes, sea levels go up by way more than 2 meters.

[Blademaster]

*sigh*

Ok, I'll play along. What peer reviewed published study claims half of the planets biodiversity has been lost due to climate change?

You still have not proven that the loss of biodiversity is not due to climate change.

[Guest]

Great . Nice share.

[Vargas]

Most of the so called "warming" appeared only because they revised the temperature of the last decades lower, to say that the temperatures actually rose a little bit.
In the 1970s, the fashion was to say that the new Ice Age was coming soon.

[Wooglin]

You still have not proven that the loss of biodiversity is not due to climate change.

https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...edtlo1_500.gif

[Blademaster]

https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...edtlo1_500.gif

[gunnut]

faster than many life forms can adapt to.

Then evolution will take its course.

Many life forms have come and gone in earth's history. Were they all due to "rapid climate change?"

Let's just say creatures adapted to the change. Are they still the same as the ones before the change? If not, then what happened to the old ones? If so, how can they live in the new climate?

its the rate of change, not change itself

Define the "proper" rate of climate change.

I didn't say we could, I said we should clean up our mess because there is no real downside to it other than short term pain for long term gain.

These two things are not necessarily related. We can clean up our mess yet "rapid" climate change still takes place. We can litter to hell and back and maybe the climate doesn't change. You cannot draw a direct relationship between pollution and climate change. Climate has changed before man. Climate will change after man. The earth does what it wants. We are just along for the ride. Should we try to be clean? Sure. But at what cost?

[gunnut]

You still have not proven that the loss of biodiversity is not due to climate change.

Prove that loss of biodiversity IS due to climate change.

[gunnut]

We've been down this exact road before and sticking the graphs in your face didn't seem to alter your opinion, so why bother again? The troposphere, surface temps, and SST for the last 15 or so years, length depending on the index, is at or near 0. I'm not arguing it again, it's just a fact. I'm pretty sure little to no warming is well within historical norms.

That's because your numbers are not adjusted or adjusted enough.

I have this program here that will adjust temperature data to show global warming is taking place. I can adjust it to show ice age is upon us too. ;)

[gunnut]

'Extinct' No Longer? Brontosaurus May Make a Comeback

Interesting....after 112 years of "consensus," the new "consensus" is to rethink the old "consensus" to reach another "consensus?"

As far as I know, these fossil fragments haven't changed or "evolved" over the last 112 years. Yet these "scientists" can examine the same thing but reach new conclusions. Amazing! I wonder what would happen if a bunch of "scientists" examining complex and dynamic things can get things right on the first try?

At the risk of quoting myself, no one has anything to say about this article?

How about that scientific "consensus?"

[Blademaster]

Prove that loss of biodiversity IS due to climate change.

As the saying goes, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

See link: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss | The Center for Health and the Global Environment. See the loss of coral reefs due to higher temperature of water in the oceans. When the coral reefs go, so do many species.

[Wooglin]

As the saying goes, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

See link: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss | The Center for Health and the Global Environment. See the loss of coral reefs due to higher temperature of water in the oceans. When the coral reefs go, so do many species.

First, this cover page, or whatever it is, isn't a study that shows the planets biodiversity has been reduced by half from climate change. They don't even claim as much. I'm assuming you've given up on that one?

Second, the IPCC does not predict that the earth will warm on average by as much as 6c by 2100. So not only does it not support whatever it is you're claiming now but their own claims are incorrect as well.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...er12_FINAL.pdf

Table 12.2: By 2100, the worst case scenario yields 3.7c according to them. Not even close.

You're just striking out all over the place.

[Vargas]

At the risk of quoting myself, no one has anything to say about this article?

How about that scientific "consensus?"

Like I said before... In the 70s the consensus was global cooling.

[zraver]

Then evolution will take its course.

In the past, dying and new birth were roughly in balance, today we are losing species at rates only compared to great extinctions.

Many life forms have come and gone in earth's history. Were they all due to "rapid climate change?"

Probably

Let's just say creatures adapted to the change. Are they still the same as the ones before the change? If not, then what happened to the old ones? If so, how can they live in the new climate?

Brown bears and polar bears used to be the same species, one branched off to live a life on the ice. If the ice vanishes, its likely they will as well. There is simply not enough terrestrial food there to support them.

Define the "proper" rate of climate change.

Within limits established by various historical, natural and geologic records.

These two things are not necessarily related. We can clean up our mess yet "rapid" climate change still takes place. We can litter to hell and back and maybe the climate doesn't change. You cannot draw a direct relationship between pollution and climate change. Climate has changed before man. Climate will change after man. The earth does what it wants. We are just along for the ride. Should we try to be clean? Sure. But at what cost?

At less t=cost than we are paying now. Necessity is the mother of invention- unleash the human mind and market forces to end the reliance on polluting technologies. Fission, Fusion, Solar, Wind, Tides, Geothermal... numerous sources of under utilized electricity production which if combined with modern and developed batteries remove the need for gassy technologies.

The only real cost is the debt we are piling up for our kids and grandkids. The loss of habitat, biodiversity, technological invention, human potential and possibly the very climate we need to survive are not helped by doing nothing and actively trying to thwart change and technological progression. Somehow the oil companies and coal fired power plants have made resisting the march f technology a virtue. Imagine if FDR had said no to the Manhattan project as too costly now for the benefits expected later. Or if Henry Ford had not been willing to risk it all on a new style of production and worker/employer relationship. Change might be pricey, but overall in the US it has tended towards good not bad.