Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Debateable]

Well that's weird, because it's what you linked to when I asked for the source for you claim.



Yes I did.

You read the entire site? What was it's premise? BTW the graph may have sourced from that site. I don't know. It wasn't easy to find. I only knew about it because I saw it in a speech.

 

[Debateable]

Sea level is currently rising at just over 3mm a year in the South Pacific islands - you can look this up - it's a matter of record. The trend currently seems to be accelerating but even if we take the current rate, by the end of the century sea levels will be 30+cm higher than in 2000. (This is lower than the mid-range IPCC predictions which have been shown to underestimate current contributions from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice but lets stick with 30cm). 30cm may not seem much, but when your entire country rises no higher than 3m out of the sea and your island is barely more than a few paces across - and you have 100,000 people in overcrowded conditions on it, it is a serious issue. More frequent swamping of your landfill sites and what sewage systems there are contaminates the sea - from where you get your only source of protein. More frequent and more severe flood tides contaminate all your groundwater, freshwater and whatever crops you have - not to mention your homes and gardens. 30cm may be more than countries like Kiribati and the Marshall Islands can bear. And 30cm is about the most conservative estimate of likely sea level rise this century. I have visited both of these countries in recent years - I was in the Marshall Islands during a 'King tide' in 2015. During a King tide, there is effectively no island in large parts of the country - just shallow ocean with houses sticking out of it. I have seen the evidence of these effects first hand and my opinion, based on what I have seen, is that Kiribati is already doomed. I doubt it has a century left before it ceases to be a viable habitat for humans.

On desertification, here's a paper on that that compares IPCC models to actual data and finds that on that too, the models underestimate the pressure on dry land under global warming.

I'm pretty sure that the islands are sinking along with sea level rise. That's why it's at 3mm per year.

 

[Vancouversailor]

Economic conservatives have been saying this for years, that Global Warming is a religion promoting a theocracy with the Socialist State as God and the objective to defeat capitalism. Blind faith strikes once again.

She’ll probably have to walk that one back...somehow. Anybody catch this on CNN, or NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR/NY Times/Washington Post...etc.

I first became aware of the science supporting man made global warming back in the 1960s and have added to my knowledge on the subject since. In 1980 while working as a journalist for Reuters news agency I attended a UN sponsored conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, on the subject of global warming. The facts were on the table then as they are now, though the millions of dollars that oil companies have spent on bribing journalists and politicians over the years mean the public still is left somewhat confused.
Anyhow the conclusion I have reached is that we are past being able to reverse the process that is being driven by the billions of gas guzzling SUVs clogging the roads of all continents. Estimates put the sustainable lifetime of the planet Earth at anywhere from 70 to 120 years from now, at which time our water will be undrinkable, air unbreathable, and life as we know it will end. In the meantime there will be a lot of suffering from everything from respiratory diseases to skin cancer, as the ozone layer that filters out the dangerous radiation from the sun continues to be depleted.
Fortunately my wife and I will by then be long gone but it is somewhat sad to think of the fate that I leave my grandkids to.
So enjoy life while you can, fire up your gas guzzler and drive it all the way to hell.

 

[Debateable]

I first became aware of the science supporting man made global warming back in the 1960s and have added to my knowledge on the subject since. In 1980 while working as a journalist for Reuters news agency I attended a UN sponsored conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, on the subject of global warming. The facts were on the table then as they are now, though the millions of dollars that oil companies have spent on bribing journalists and politicians over the years mean the public still is left somewhat confused.
Anyhow the conclusion I have reached is that we are past being able to reverse the process that is being driven by the billions of gas guzzling SUVs clogging the roads of all continents. Estimates put the sustainable lifetime of the planet Earth at anywhere from 70 to 120 years from now, at which time our water will be undrinkable, air unbreathable, and life as we know it will end. In the meantime there will be a lot of suffering from everything from respiratory diseases to skin cancer, as the ozone layer that filters out the dangerous radiation from the sun continues to be depleted.
Fortunately my wife and I will by then be long gone but it is somewhat sad to think of the fate that I leave my grandkids to.
So enjoy life while you can, fire up your gas guzzler and drive it all the way to hell.

Sorry but it isn't our cars that are the problem, IF there is a problem. The major consumer of power pushing out C02 are buildings. I've yet seen any credible evidence that oil companies are paying people to put out confusing information. In fact, many oil companies are backing AGW because they know it isn't going to hurt them and in fact they are finding ways they could profit from it.

Life will be sustainable on Earth until the day the Sun decides to go boom. There are several times in history where C02 levels and temps were much higher than today and yet life survived.

Water undrinkable? Air unbreathable? Did you actually live in the 60's or were you too high to pay attention to the fact that water and air conditions were exponentially worse back then?

Estimates are about as useful as a leaf to whip my *** with. There were estimates that we'd be ice free by 2005. How did that work out? The facts are that nobody knows 100% what will happen because nature is the one in control, not us. Of course we have an effect, nobody would argue otherwise, but until we actually know what that effect is with accuracy, everything put out is equivalent to a blindfolded guess.

 

[metis]

I first became aware of the science supporting man made global warming back in the 1960s and have added to my knowledge on the subject since. In 1980 while working as a journalist for Reuters news agency I attended a UN sponsored conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, on the subject of global warming. The facts were on the table then as they are now, though the millions of dollars that oil companies have spent on bribing journalists and politicians over the years mean the public still is left somewhat confused...

Thanks so much for the above as it fits into what I have also read for decades now coming out of the scientific community that specializes in this area. At this point in time, based on what we now know, there's two main reasons for the "deniers" to reject what is obvious to the vast majority of the scientific community: their ignorance on the subject, their having an "agenda", or both.

BTW, do let someone here who throws insults at anyone who dares disagree with him deter you from posting what you know. All they are doing is in actuality demeaning themselves.

 

[Debateable]

Here is a graph of the total solar irradiance since about 1600. Now tell me that this doesn't come close to explaining a lot of our recent warming.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif

Pretty good video as well that shows data supporting that most of our warming is natural.

 

[Jose Fly]

A GCM can only be considered accurate if its temperature predictions track reality. However looking at the graph, there are about 4 or 5 that show a reasonable degree of tracking, so one would need to look at the 'climate sensitivity' to CO2, but we can reasonably estimate it by looking at the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report(2013) conclusion on climates sensitivity which states..."Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5◦ C to 4.5◦ C (highcon-fidence), extremely unlikely less than 1◦C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6◦C (medium confidence)"

Now the definition of climate sensitivity goes like this..

"Climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide

Human-caused warming depends not only on how much carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, but also on how ‘sensitive’ the climate is to that carbon dioxide. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the con-centration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions con-tinue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower."

So global warming of 1.1 C over a century implies that at present trend, the extra human derived CO2 is not the demon the agw crowd have been pushing....

Which report is that from (the physical science, impacts, mitigation, or synthesis)?

 

[Jose Fly]

You read the entire site? What was it's premise? BTW the graph may have sourced from that site. I don't know. It wasn't easy to find. I only knew about it because I saw it in a speech.

No, I don't think I read over every single word on the site. Again, you used the graph as a citation for a claim you made, and now I'm asking where the data the graph is based on came from. Now it's clear that you don't know.

 

[Debateable]

No, I don't think I read over every single word on the site. Again, you used the graph as a citation for a claim you made, and now I'm asking where the data the graph is based on came from. Now it's clear that you don't know.

What difference does it make whether or not I know what the source is? For all we both know, the Phd of that website constructed the graph.

 

[Jose Fly]

What difference does it make whether or not I know what the source is? For all we both know, the Phd of that website constructed the graph.

You don't understand how, in a discussion of science, it's important to be able to identify the source of the data you cite? Really?

 

[Debateable]

You don't understand how, in a discussion of science, it's important to be able to identify the source of the data you cite? Really?

You are nitpicking. I have a life, a family, a job, etc. I don't have the time to chase down every single source just to satisfy you, especially considering that neither you nor I have any real outcome in this debate.

 

[Debateable]

Here is something that goes along the lines of Sun being the influence vs C02.

This shows that the tropical cloud cover has been reduced which, also shows, nearly perfectly aligns with temperature change. Cloud reduction obviously reduces the Earth's albedo thus, making the Sun more effective.

https://i1.wp.com/www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3 and TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif

 

[Jose Fly]

You are nitpicking. I have a life, a family, a job, etc. I don't have the time to chase down every single source just to satisfy you, especially considering that neither you nor I have any real outcome in this debate.

That you were unable to back up your claim with anything other than a graph that was based on who knows what, speaks for itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which report is that from (the physical science, impacts, mitigation, or synthesis)?

The document from which have quoted comes from Dr Judith Curry titled 'Climate Models for the Layman'... http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

 

[Debateable]

That you were unable to back up your claim with anything other than a graph that was based on who knows what, speaks for itself.

Lol, fine, believe what you want. It's not like I made that graph up. It came from a site by a Phd who obviously knows more on this subject than you or I.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm pretty sure that the islands are sinking along with sea level rise. That's why it's at 3mm per year.

Interesting article from Willis Eschenbach here Debateable, coral atolls actually sort of 'float', as the sea level rises, they rise with with it, nor does the salt water intrude on the fresh water. Floating Islands

 

[siti]

Here is a graph of the total solar irradiance since about 1600. Now tell me that this doesn't come close to explaining a lot of our recent warming.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif

Pretty good video as well that shows data supporting that most of our warming is natural.

OK - it doesn't come close to explaining a lot of our recent warming. In fact, if you look at the graph it explains precisely none of the warming observed by satellite observations since 1979.

I'm pretty sure that the islands are sinking along with sea level rise. That's why it's at 3mm per year.

Once again you display your profound ignorance of science - your co-dimwit Bendy already claimed that the islands are rising with sea level. The idea you are thinking of is the old climate change denial one about the tide gauge in Tuvalu. It was claimed that the tide gauge was sinking with the island and that therefore (on the basis of a single case, compared to thousands of other tide gauges around the globe that showed that the sea level was rising). It turned out of course that it was just down to faulty setting up of the gauge. The island is not sinking at all. Coral islands are subject to accretion (which makes them bigger) and erosion (that makes them smaller) - on average, most of the coral islands in the Pacific seem to be gaining slightly in terms of land area as sea level rises - but some of the sandy islands are actually shrinking due to erosion. None of them are getting higher and to my knowledge none are 'sinking'. But all that is completely beside the point. The danger from sea level rise is not "disappearing islands" - which I have never said, but "disappearing communities" (which, for the record, is already happening) and potentially "disappearing nations" - as their low-lying homes are subjected to more frequent and more drastic inundation compromising their fresh water sources, food crops and fisheries and sanitation. Its all well and good for you to cherry pick data that allays your concern, and declare posts that highlight these very real issues "funny". But it is not funny - and frankly, neither is your ignorance. Its not funny at all - its profoundly sad.

 

[siti]

Lol, fine, believe what you want. It's not like I made that graph up. It came from a site by a Phd who obviously knows more on this subject than you or I.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! WTF are you talking about - I have known - and taught - hundreds of PhDs and worked with even more - A PhD is an academic achievement - a creditable one indeed - but it certainly doesn't prove you know what the heck you're talking about.

Interesting article from Willis Eschenbach here Debateable, coral atolls actually sort of 'float', as the sea level rises, they rise with with it, nor does the salt water intrude on the fresh water. Floating Islands

This article is nonsense too - the threat to the water lens is not because the sea level is relatively higher than it, but because higher sea levels and warmer seas lead to more frequent and more extreme coastal inundation. There is nothing controversial about this, fresh water sources are compromised by intrusion every time there is a serious inundation - and higher sea levels and warmer seas are known to bring more frequent tidal flooding events. Its simple, common sense logic. I don't know whether the Micronesians vs Czech Republic case makes any sense in that respect, but in terms of science the paper you cited misinterprets the science - maybe the Micronesians lawyers did too - but the fact that some scientists and some lawyers don't understand reality any better than you two does not prove anything one way or the other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Once again you display your profound ignorance of science - your co-dimwit Bendy already claimed that the islands are rising with sea level.

Yes, and I stand by the claim, click on the link on my post #336 to Debateable..

 

[siti]

Yes, and I stand by the claim, click on the link on my post #336 to Debateable..

I did and commented on it above - whether the islands are 'sinking' or getting bigger or smaller by accretion or erosion is completely irrelevant to the points I made. Land area is not the issue, except for the fact that the size of these islands means that every community is a coastal community and coastal communities are the most vulnerable to climate change (whatever is causing it) for the reasons I have stated. It is nothing to do with the relative elevations of sea-level, islands or water lenses - it is to do with the relative frequency and magnitude of coastal flooding events. Anyway, I have explained it sufficiently already - if you want to refute what I said you have to prove that higher tides and warmer seas do not mean higher frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events and flooding and that flooding of coastal areas does not compromise the fresh water and food sources (crops and fisheries) of coastal communities and that coastal communities with insufficient food and fresh water for their populations are at risk of ceasing to exist as communities. So far, nothing you have said has indicated that you even understood the question, let alone have an intelligent answer.