Challenge to Democrats/Leftists: If you believe climate change is an existential crisis, prove it

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It is also mentioned in the bible.

Isaiah 24:5-6
The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.abstract - Temperature increase significantly impacts rice yields.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf - Forests are burning up

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031764 - Colorado river is likely drying up.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033390 - Australian river basin is likely drying up.

https://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short - Extreme heat tends to cause a lot more deaths than extreme cold.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/...ract?sid=511111d6-a7df-4e55-843d-a751fb821c5a – Humans may not be able to survive in some regions we now live in. (And most areas we live in at higher estimates)

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0409:BAPSOC>2.0.CO;2 – Mosquitos are thriving and spreading more disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480488/ - Allergens are thriving.

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12395.abstract- Some water sources in the arctic drying up

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-007-0278-3 - leech going extinct

http://www.ryanphotographic.com/Ryan_&_Ryan_2006_pp43-57.pdf - Some species losing ability to reproduce.

https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...an&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT – Oxygen poor areas in ocean are increasing

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5913/447 - Trees are dying at a faster rate

https://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144.full?ck=nck – Some vegetation will likely die off.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06777 - Pine beetles are thriving, killing trees

http://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/Veron et al Coral reef crisis CO2 MPB 2009.pdf – Large scale coral die off

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/894.abstract Lizard species going extinct

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdf - People running out of water.

https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/JuneICICLE.pdf - Alaska infrastructure costs increased by billions

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org...0REPLACEM1Change0and0Sea0Level.pdf?sequence=1 – Millions of people displaced

As a start

 

I think Patrick Moore has also earned that right.

And this is what I admire about him: "his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions."

 

Well, to be fair, I don't think the issue is who has been admitted to the "Green Peace" movement, but the most credentialed 'sources of emulation' (scientists from relevant expertise) who have warned of the dangers of climate change in language that would suggest the issue requires sufficient immediate attention. I would assume there are plenty of such scientists given the international attention the issue has received, but as someone who hasn't been particularly focused on this issue, I am not aware of who the actual experts who have made alarmist warnings are, what exactly they have said on the issue, and what makes their warnings and conclusions appear (to those on the other side) biased or self-interested.

 

Never put too much faith in a single person.

 

I don't either, and it was not a point I was making.

Although now that you raised it, I haven't run across another scientist in their ranks since he left them.

Indeed. Thanks, Dad.

 

Hey,I understand, but it's done on every side. Every human being that has ever lived has been wrong... a lot. just saying.

 

But unless someone is recruiting people to the Green Peace movement more generally, I think the search for "sources of emulation" on climate change should throw a much wider net and look for the best credentialed scientists (regardless of whether they are involved in the Green movement) who have taken a position that would justify feeling urgent action (greater than what is being done) is required to avoid some form of imminent and irreversible (or near imminent and nearly irreversible) harm to the planet.

Anyway, that would be my approach to the issue and, once I have the time to worry about it enough (more than many other issues that worry me more urgently), I will look into it following the methodology I mentioned.

 

So, if you don't actually cite the recorded variation, your plea sounds very dire indeed. Until you understand that what you've expressed is a variation (even using the worst data manipulations) or less than 1C. That's it. And any of the "acceleration" of this change is being measured by the THOUSANDTHS of a degree. Thats the fact line that your panic has to actually address, which you don't. The historic record shows that this is very much in line with past rebounds. But that doesn't get at what the progressive folks want, which is absolute control over energy production and distribution, and global wealth redistribution that actually would make the environment worse as it effectively broadens the global manufacturing base. But sure, be afraid of stuff that actually does not only promote but is absolutely vital for life to exist on this planet, and call it the poison that you folks do. It's so hard to actually take this kind of rhetoric seriously because it isn't.

 

Thanks for the list. Now, go back and compare the hype to the reality. Take the Colorado river drying up... have you seen the snowpack in the Rockies this year? Not in any danger, near or future of drying up. Pine beetles are a product of human stupidity that introduced them into the rockies because affluent house wives thought that importing non native trees into the rockies would make it more pretty. The hundreds of millions of acres of dead lodgepole pines attest to that stupidity. If some "vegetation may likely die off, then the CO2 rich atmosphere will likely quickly replace it as is happening around the globe. I can probably make a case in each and every article that you've cited above that it is neither a result of climate modification and more a testament to just how willing some folks are to cast fear into the community to advance their religious devotion to support the AGW church. But thanks for assembling such a useful basket of readily discountable non science......

 

It's pretty hot outside, been that way for at least a month. Experts say the earth is warming, say man has been at it since the industrial revolution. Business interests say no way. Who should I believe? Boy, thats a tough one...I say experts for a gazillion bucks Alex....

 

So you googled something like "bad things caused by climate change" and expect me to be impressed? Nobody gets a grant these days for trying to prove that AGW is no big deal. They only get money for boosting temps. And if you compare the news even 4 years ago with the hysterical news from climate alarmists, it's actually funny:

For example:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5913/447 - Trees are dying at a faster rate
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06777 - Pine beetles are thriving, killing trees
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf - Forests are burning up

I'll do you one better: The World's Plants Are Going Extinct About 500 Times Faster Than They Should, Study Finds

But oh dear, just a few years ago:

America Has More Trees Now Than It Had a Century Ago (2016)
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ago/

Surprise! The earth has trillions more trees than we thought (2015)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...han-thought/2C0o8JJKqdGn6MAzsf3AOI/story.html

Watch: How Europe is greener now than 100 years ago (2014)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/

Curious how all those plants have been dying since 2016, eh? It's a hoax intended to force people to change their lifestyles to suit Leftist authoritarians (but I repeat myself).

 

I don't trust the data, for plenty of good reasons. Climate scientists have been caught cheating too many times to take their word about anything. As of late 2018, the world had warmed 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution. Then, hey! presto! a year later it was 2 degrees C. You really trust those clowns? All they want to do is force everybody to change their lifestyles to suit Leftists, and to keep the climate change gravy train rolling with grant money. Yeah, climate science is the worst kind of politicized science. Makes Lysenkoism look reputable.

 

The Earth is warming because we're pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. After 300 years of doing so, when the concentration has doubled over what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution, temps from just the CO2 will rise 1 degree C. 1 degree C over 3 centuries. Do you really believe the climate is so sensitive that it's going to spiral out of control with feedbacks based on 1 degree C of forcing?

 

Get real! Climate scientists won't debate skeptical scientists because they lose. That's why they started calling them "deniers" because nothing makes science shine brighter than calling skeptics names. And keeping them off the public airwaves.

If you honestly want to know what's going on with AGW, start with my post and then let your curiosity run wild.

 

Sigh. Nobody reads the OP. Must be a Leftist/Democrat thing.

The warming effect of CO2 is pretty close to saturated in the atmosphere. Because greenhouse gases warm logarithmically, the greatest effect happens at low concentrations. When you're at the concentrations we have in Earth's atmosphere, you can double over 3 hundred years the concentration and only increase temps by 1 degree.

It's science. Look it up.

 

Do you mean, NASA is wrong?

 

Prove that you understand what we're talking about. Because that reply didn't inspire confidence in your knowledge of the subject.

 

Which experts?

The expert political activists?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...crisis-prove-it.568571/page-6#post-1071469556

The scientific experts who have been collecting grant money behind the expert political activists?

It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money


Or the scientific experts who have had their knees cut out from under them every time they open their mouth to say hey wait a minute?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

 

You're missing a few things.
1- the temps have risen more that 1C.
2- The water temp. lags surface air temps so temperature would continue to go up even if we stopped adding CO2.
3- The rate of increasing CO2 pollution is also logarithmic.

 

The guy who started the whole CO2 ball rolling was a NASA scientist... Who was promptly awarded 1.5 mil!

 

Is it really that hard to understand?!

1. Temps MAY have risen more than 1 degree C. Up until late in 2018 it was understood that they had risen 1 degree C since the start of the Industrial Revolution. That was the accepted temperature. Now a year later suddenly they realize it's been 2 degrees C all along. A 200% increase! It's a scam.

But here's what you missed: I keep saying that when CO2 doubles, the increase in temperature, JUST FROM THE CO2, will be 1 degree C. There will be feedbacks, some positive as in when ice melts the exposed dark ground beneath absorbs rather than reflects, so there's an increase in warming. And when you have more heat in the atmosphere, there's more water vapor which causes clouds that reflect more heat. So which phenomena wins? Why nobody knows. All we know for sure is 1 degree C.

2. This point has nothing to do with the doubling of CO2, only with feedbacks from the doubling, which is where all the questions arise and the GCMs faceplant.

3. So what? CO2's warming effect is about played out, so that leaves the "pollution". Sure, we should be better stewards of the planet, but the best way to do that is raise everybody to First World status because:
1. Rich people are more careful with the environment
2. Rich people have fewer kids

The answer is NOT to do a Green New Deal that forces everybody to Second World and eventually Third World status as the Leftists slide the GND to full on Socialism. And then we can all be Venezuela, which before it went socialist was the richest country in South America. Now one in three are starving.

 

mistaken click on Reply (why no delete button?)

 

How about cheating by the other side?

How about taking the discussion to where we need to go--what to do about climate change? I think the most workable solution is for the world's nuclear powers to bring nuclear energy electricity generation to the world. Only remote areas would burn fossil fuels. Cars, homes, businesses would run on electricity. We can initiate a planned reduction of the world's population. Everything we do should be looked at through the lens of stopping man-made global warming. Environmentalists should acknowledge we're not going to stop creating and using energy.

 

Well, yes it is when you have posts like this one:

I think maybe you are confused with the often quoted number of 1C from the 1950 to 1980 average until 2018.
1950 was not the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Oh, but we do know.

You could read your original post and find out if water vapor makes us hotter or colder.

The slower warming of water is not a feedback. Feedback makes the original larger. The oceans are just slower to respond.

When you put your cute graph in a reasonable scale you will see there are several doublings left.