Human Caused Global Warming.

Yes, some areas will do better. Not Australia, unfortunately

 

You have a strategic closeness to Antartica. Sieze that **** bro!

 

We already own a lot of it - but tell me if the west Antarctic ice shelf melts - how are you going to deal with the 167 million people in Bangladesh alone



And it is not just Bangladesh

 

They should prolly seize some of Antartica too. Surely Aussies don't need the whole place to themselves (cuz that would 'racist').

But even Bangladesh still only stands to lose about 1/3 of their landmass even if ALL the ice EVERYWHERE melts...

 

Read some actual reports please

 

I've read a lot. They all cherry pick the region that supports their narrative while excluding the ones that don't. Can you provide anything different?

 

Sooooo your reply is a link to a book - which may or may not contain the quote since you have NOT even used APA referencing

A book published in 1996

That is earns an “F” in any University

https://www.wssu.edu/about/offices-...ard/_Files/documents/develop-quantitative.pdf

The research we are discussing would be classified as causal

https://deakin.libguides.com/quantitative-study-designs

It is not about “what the author wants” but developing a structure that will address the hypothesis in a thorough manner

 

Sure can it is called the IPCC and it is what governments are using to inform policy around the world
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/
https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
You can pontificate all you like on discussion boards but unless you are able to counter what is written in the IPCC it will make no difference

 

You cannot so easily displace people and what are they going to grow down there? What will the light levels be like (a helluva lot of northern arctic areas are tundra for a reason) How fertile will the soil be?

Have you any idea how “empty” Australia is at the moment and do you know why?

 

The IPCC has been directed to focus on the negative and 'worst-case' aspects of climate change. Its literally not even in their mission to determine positive aspects of climate change. The IPCC is biased by its very mission toward 'climate change = bad.' Its what they're directed to find, and so they do.

 

Got proof of that? I mean there are a LOT of governments around the world who would be more than delighted NOT to have to do something about global warming and if you can prove your contention you will be hailed a hero

But obviously you have never read ANY a of the reports because they actually do address this issue - in fact there is a whole report on Mitigation that covers a lot of that

 

No there arent. The elite political classes of the world are not going to be effected by the de-industrialization, rising energy costs and production reductions that attempting to eliminate carbon emissions will result in. Thats a burden for we-the-common-folk to endure. We are to live more austere while they keep their mansions and yachts and armies of body-guards and taxpayer funded vacations. Governments value power over all else, and there is no greater power than having authority over the primary building block of all life- carbon.

Governments don't care about what they can do for us beyond keeping themselves in power because only those who seek power have interest in getting into government. Do you trust people who seek power?

 

Nope. Your claim is factually incorrect. To report a robbery is not to commit a robbery.

 

Pedantry does not interest me. The cited book is routinely included in lists of the 100 most important books of the 20th century. It was first published in 1962; my copy is the University of Chicago 50th anniversary edition, published in 2012. This is from the blurb for that edition.

"A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were—and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. Fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach.

With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science, those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of “normal science,” as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age.

This new edition of Kuhn’s essential work in the history of science includes an insightful introduction by Ian Hacking, which clarifies terms popularized by Kuhn, including paradigm and incommensurability, and applies Kuhn’s ideas to the science of today. Usefully keyed to the separate sections of the book, Hacking’s introduction provides important background information as well as a contemporary context. Newly designed, with an expanded index, this edition will be eagerly welcomed by the next generation of readers seeking to understand the history of our perspectives on science."

 

Antarctica will not be completely thawed in 200 years. No scientist is projecting that to happen. There is a risk of the Thwaites Glacier melting over
a period of several hundred years which would destabilize West Antarctica. If the Thwaites Glacier melts down that would raise global sea levels by
an average of 2 feet. The loss of the Thwaites Glacier would cause a regional chain-reaction in West Antartica causing several meters of sea level rise to occur.
We will lose some valuable coastal land if West Antarctica melts down and gain nothing in Antarctica.

You fail to mention that humans did not exist when the earth was devoid of ice in the past. Sure, some humans could survive on a very hot planet but
not in the tropical or sub-tropical zones. You fail to mention the massive loss of species that would occur on land, in water, and in the air. We won't be fine.
You seem to suggest that we need to sacrifice our economy, which is false, while not correctly projecting the economic catastrophe that would unfold in
future. You also suggest that massive sea level rise in not preventable or something that may not happen. It is preventable and it will happen if we do
nothing.

Antarctica’s “Doomsday” Glacier: Its Collapse Could Trigger Global Floods and Swallow Islands (scitechdaily.com)

The massive Thwaites glacier in West Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 65cm if it were to completely collapse. And, worryingly, recent research suggests that its long-term stability is doubtful as the glacier hemorrhages more and more ice.

But the worry is that Thwaites, sometimes called the “doomsday glacier” because of its keystone role in the region, might not be the only glacier to go. Were it to empty into the ocean, it could trigger a regional chain reaction and drag other nearby glaciers in with it, which would mean several meters of sea-level rise. That’s because the glaciers in West Antarctica are thought to be vulnerable to a mechanism called Marine Ice Cliff Instability or MICI, where retreating ice exposes increasingly tall, unstable ice cliffs that collapse into the ocean.


A sea level rise of several metres would inundate many of the world’s major cities – including Shanghai, New York, Miami, Tokyo, and Mumbai. It would also cover huge swathes of land in coastal regions and largely swallow up low-lying island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Maldives.

 

Major cities can be moved. There's a lot of large and largely unexplored ruins underneath the sea right now, 150 feet or more underwater, meaning its happened before and quite a long time ago. So it can happen again. As far as Antarctica thawing, maybe not 'completely' but, habitable and arable, well here ya go: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...turies-due-to-climate-change/?sh=74488d033e7d

 

If it supports deniers, I say to hell with "critical analysis." They want you to dive deep into BS minutia to obscure the whole topic. Go to my thread, "Can I call HCGW deniers idiots?" I posted a video that is short and too the point. In less than 30 seconds, it puts an end to any arguments against HCGW.

 

It does not

But critical analysis is a wonderful tool that allows you to take apart research and examine it - take the article Jack posted a few days ago. It claimed there was no sea level rise and in fact some islands were getting bigger - there was some cherry picked figures suggesting this was so. Being suspicious I checked the source (ie the journal it had been published in) and it was some geo-engineering journal from one of the Arab States. Now neither geo-engineers (who are mostly employed in oil and mining industries) nor the Arab states are inclined to support the idea of Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming - so, probable bias (actually the rat smelt pretty rotten at this stage) Googlin the name of the author (and good research papers usually have more than one author) brought up the fact he often wrote under a pseudonym (sounding fishier) and had been exposed in the past for submitting fake science papers in the past (Copenhagen was reeking at this point). Usually that would be enough for me - if the watermark is not on the $50 bill I will not accept it. But Jack accused me of “attacking the person not the science” so I took another look and sure enough there were so many picked cherries in that paper it could have fed a starving nation.

See sea level rise is not uniform across the globe. It is affected by factors such as wind (trade winds in particular can “pile” water up) currents, and gravitational pull of land mass/ice to name just a few factors. Obviously deposition of sand can also alter the outlines of pacific islands. None of these variables had been addressed.

This is only a tiny part of critical analysis - it can involve examination of the type and application of statistics, structure of the research, type of research, population sample size etc etc etc

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to try to prevent sea level rise above 3 feet than to move New York City?

The Forbes article assumes we continue burning fossil fuels without slowing down for the next 200 years and the mean global surface temperature rises
to around 4 or 5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. We could gain the coastal area of Antarctica and sacrifice the many coastal areas currently inhabited
by hundreds of millions of people plus virtually all of the tropics and subtropics. This is a poor trade off especially when we consider the vast number of species
that would face extinction and all of the human suffering and unrest that would surely follow. Also, it is very unrealistic to think that fossil fuel burning will
continue unabated for 200 years.

from Forbes.com referenced above.:

"One final note: two centuries is not that much time for our climate. If we continue burning fossil fuels without slowing down for the next 200 years, I suspect the coastal temperature in Antarctica might rise as much as 10 degrees Celsius, maybe even more. That’s enough for a legitimate growing season, warm enough for grazing animals, and habitable enough for a self-sufficient human colony."

"I’ll say it again: amazingly, the answer is yes!"