Climate Change Consequences

What?
Was your post written in another language and run thru a translator program?
"Hide the decline"? What are you talking about?
AGW a religion? No room for doubt???
What do you call denial of fact? I call THAT religion. I have some doubt, but THINK - why would there be a hoax? What would be the motive? I can see the motive to deride global warming - profit from selling fossil fuel.
If you are indeed a scientist, you would have to know the overwhelming majority would not go along with a hoax. A few can be bought - and have been bought - to deny reality.

 

My exact thinking.

Even IF we are wrong about some aspects of AGW, it is rather ridiculous to think we can continue to live on this planet crapping all over it without thinking there aren't any consequences.

 

I guess 5,000 years ago you took the reading yourself with your CO2 meter?

 

I don't take CO2 measurements currently.

Did you think that this post would be particularly relevant or persuasive?

 

You not only appear to have a LOT of time on your hands but don't seem to understand the difference between "local" and "global"

 

You are *kidding*, right? You call it GLOBAL WARMING. "Global" means *everywhere*. That also follows from the Laws of Thermodynamics and the increase in entropy they describe. If it is "hot" over there and "cold" over here, then the "hot" tends to migrate to the "cold" over here until an equilibrium is reached. It's the same thing that causes the wind. It's the same thing that causes ponds to turn over in the spring.
If the average temperature is not going up in Kansas then how is it managing to go up in Texas? That's the type of differential that creates *more* tornadoes, not fewer as we have seen over the past decade! And if the average temperature is not going up in either place then why not? Aren't they part of the "global" average?

Much of the global data is *guessed* at. There are very few actual measurement stations in the southern hemisphere, especially Africa and South America. The temperatures in vast areas of these continents are *guessed* at when it comes to land/sea temperature measurements. It's why the satellite measurements, which *do* cover the globe, are considered to be more accurate of the actual global condition -- and it is the satellite measurements that show no global warming for almost two full decades.

 

Exacly.

If we deal with climate change we end up with

A cleaner environment (air land and ocean)
Cheaper energy- available regionally and locally
Less reliance of despotic oil producing

Those are the SIDE benefits

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The ignorance regarding science here is astounding

 

Why would there be a hoax? FOLLOW THE MONEY!
When even the IPCC had to admit to a multi-year hiatus in global warming and no one knows why and the the usual global warming alarmists refuse to accept that then what do you call it but a religious belief?

 

More BS. There was no hiatus

 

Dude...if you seriously think that Global Warming means that everywhere is going to be warmer, then you can just stop posting.

 

This is a typical response from someone that neither understands the Laws of Thermodynamics or statistics.

If it is not warming here locally but *is* warming other places then you would expect to see *more* extreme weather. Instead we are seeing *LESS* extreme weather. Both tornadoes and hurricanes are at historical lows, even in the southern hemisphere. That indicates smaller temperature differentials and not larger ones. The Laws of Thermodynamics call for an increase in entropy, not a decrease. If it is hotter in Illinois than in Kansas that heat in Illinois will tend to disperse itself to cooler areas, areas such as Kansas - thus moving both areas closer to an average temperature. It's the statistical basis for entropy!

 

In other words you have nothing of import to offer as refutation of what I posted. All you have is the argumentative FALLACY of Argument by Dismissal.
Are you denying that the temperature in much of the area in Africa and South America is guessed at?
Are you denying that entropy increases?
Are you denying that temperature differentials are a prime factor in extreme weather?

Show us just how much science *you* know!

 

Like most of the AGW religionists on here you don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or statistics.
In order for the *average* to go up then either *all* members of the set have to go up or the differential between the top and the bottom has to increase with the bottom staying where it is.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says entropy increases. That means that if the differential increases for some reason then, sooner or later, the differential will close again as the heat moves from the hot spots to the colder spots.
Are you claiming the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been repealed?
If the differential between the top and bottom increases that will also drive more extreme weather. But what we are seeing is a *decrease* in extreme weather in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Which implies that we are seeing smaller differentials rather than larger ones!
Do you deny that we are seeing a historical low in extreme weather happenings?
None of the AGW religionists claims have come to pass. Sooner or later they all get disproven. Yet the AGW religionists dogma never changes.

 

A couple of fun things related to climate from Scott Adams:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157694622351/the-climate-science-debate-illusion

 

You really do yourself very few favors by claiming all proponents of AGW don't understand thermodynamics or statistics. Specifically when you are arguing against world renowned scientists with actual degrees in thermodynamics and statistics. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous poster with zero credibility and zero credentials.

You do yourself even fewer favors when you cite a blatantly wrong example of how statistics works.

Let's illustrate how the average can increase without *all* members of the set going up or the differential between the top and the bottom increasing with the bottom staying where it is.

Start with these numbers: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30.
What's the average? 15.142
Difference between the largest and smallest: 29

Now use these numbers: 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
What's the average? 15.571
Difference between the largest and smallest: 26

Did you notice that the average increased? This occurred despite the fact that neither all of the members of the set increased nor did the differential between the top and bottom increase? And that the bottom did not stay where it is?

 

This ought to be good. How fast is "much, much faster"? Define "dramatically affected". Quantify "results of human induced climate change".

I bought pop corn.

 

Your comment means literally nothing. It is, however, a great example of demonstrating the fallacy of the methodology you used to attempt to demonstrate your point.

 

Here is one example to illustrate the point.

The last time that the CO2 Concentration rose by 80 points, which is the amount that the CO2 concentration rose from 1900 to 2000, it took approximately 5000 years. That is a rate of roughly 50x the natural process.

 

Ok Drluggit. Please establish for me why the average in the second number set did not increase.

 

It did, gasps.... So, when a volcano explodes, and it spews 1000s of times the annual human output.... oh never mind. Truth means nothing to you. Ill point out that you are relying on ice core study now, and those have been examined a teensy bit more rigorously than the conclusion you're basing your comment on was at the time the conclusion was made. Bummer that. Likely, it just never occurred to you to research it. Oh well. So, CO2 concentration follows warming. Warming happened. CO2 followed. Questions? Also, now demonstrate what ice core concentration numbers look like today, and why don't they agree with atmospheric collection? Yikes... Seems super problematic for your observation then to be taken seriously. whoopsies..

 

Solution A, one value, Solution B, different value. As in, it certainly did change. It changed because you produced a greater total product. You retained the same member points. Which wasn't your point. You said: "despite the fact that neither all of the members of the set increased nor did the differential between the top and bottom increase" And yet, the differential did change. You get it, right? The differential wasn't the value of importance. It was the total. I know, right? So, commentary based on an erroneous assumption is still BS. so, we're still at BS with your little methodology demonstration. Thanks.

 

MrTLegal said: ↑
Humans are changing the Planet at a rate much, much faster than natural processes. As a result, the currently living plants and animals, which include Humans, are being dramatically affected and will continue to see the results of human induced climate change.

Plants would be affected positively, which is why many green houses pump in extra co2. In fact there are not many reseachers in the greening currently going on, but I read of one report from one a couple years ago where he used satellite photos as evidence the earth is greening, naturally. Of course stopping rain forest deforestation and incorporating more trees in world wide land management would pull down co2 levels and sequester the carbon. And that is never talked about. Yet the alarmists are silent on this. So where are the gov't grants to climate researchers to determine the effect on c02 when you look at deforestation, worldwide? For if you decrease forests and flora, co2 will logically rise. If you increase flora, co2 will go down. Hard to negate this. So how much of our forests, especially the rain forests with its immense closely pack trees, have been cut down over the last 50 years? How much less do we have? And what is the loss of that, do to co2 levels?

Yet not one report from the IPCC on this. And no one questions it. But it needs to be researched, but not by IPCC scientists, but an independent and credible institution. This would include not just climatologists, but botanists and physicists who work in gases. You are less apt to get human bias when you include several pertinent fields of science and get away from the UN.

 

I am sure the Climate has changed but I am unsure what is causing it. I do believe we need to help the Earth but not push people into poverty doing it . I believe we all need to start recycling more which would reduce waste and go back to glass instead of plastic,

 

1. I said AGW *religionists*, not *all* AGW proponents. Don't put words in my mouth.
2. Uh, is 4 greater than 1 or less than one? You had to increase the bottom temperature to keep the differential the same. The claims here are that cold areas can stay the same while the global average goes up. You just proved them wrong! How can the temperature in KS stay the same if the global average is going up?

Your example is also ignoring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. How does the bottom temperature go up while the other temperatures stay the same? Entropy increases, not decreases.

All those "renowned" scientists are depending on computer models that are nothing more than differential equations full of fudge factors to make the results come out they way they want. Those results are only meaningful if the results match reality. For the past twenty years they have not matched reality. The final nail in the coffin is that no one knows why we have seeing a hiatus!
If the scientists actually understood the climate then they would know why their models are wrong and would know how to make the models show the hiatus! There are over 50 models and none of them agree with each other or with reality. That is science?

I am not the only one today pointing out the fallacies of the climate models today! Even renowned physicist Freeman Dyson says that the increase in CO2 is benefiting humanity more than it is hurting it. That goes along with the 13% growth in the green area on Earth since 1980 - more food for starving humanity!
WHO SAYS THE 1990'S TEMPERATURE IS THE IDEAL TEMPERATURE? If you don't know the ideal temperature or CO2 level for humanity's survival then what good are all the studies? Why are they being used to support massive spending?