Global warming strikes again...

[onejayhawk]

I expect seas to rise, 50 million seems low...

How much? Is it measured in mm or cm per decade?

J

 

[CavLancer]

I expect seas to rise, 50 million seems low...

This prediction was for a decade hence. That would be fine if it were not predicted over a decade ago.

 

[Angst]

That's right, another of the dark side's dire warnings. There was a year a decade or so ago when there was 3 hurricanes. Dire predictions that global warming would make them greater in number and strength! Oh Noes!

Been nearly a decade since the last one. At some point it just gets funny. Polar bears? Fifty million climate refugees? Himalayan glaciers gone in a decade? Belly up to the bar folks for "Climate Science's End of the World Thread, the Original'

Article doesn't at all counter the point of my example, neither does it counter the mass of other proof present in my post.

Also, first line of the article, a tone that lasts throughout:

In a stroke of luck

No, I'm not going to read through the 19 pages. I've seen the counter-arguments, they're all dwarfed by the evidence. You're free to browse the literature I provided. I didn't even call you an idiot, but I'm not surprised that that's what you get out of my post, because your content amounts to nothing more than meming. If anything, it's a good sign you realize you sorely lack the recognition of facts put before you.

You know why noone else has been talking the last two pages? Because they've already given up on you. They presented the facts, and you didn't take it onto yourself. Why would they bother? Why did they bother? Why do I even bother? Well, I bother a little bit. I'm going to try a little more. Even though your discourse amounts to Hollywood clips and stories about winter being a cold time of the year.

Also I find it amusing that you think it's necessary for me to be polite when you're actively ruining the habitats of millions of people.

 

[onejayhawk]

I am way too exhausted with human climate change skeptics to read through 19 pages of material that demonstrates global warming is a thing and is caused by humans, promptly dismissed by claims that are dismissed everywhere, constantly, consequentially

Isn't it climate change, not global warming? Still, we can go with what you are comfortable using.

My issue is not that climate changes exists or not. It's the pace, the size of the human element, and the efficacy of reducing carbon emissions, all of which you take on faith. It is disturbing how many otherwise rational people do not understand that this level is a matter of faith and not of science. To be sure there is scientific agreement on some things. Not everything. Definitely not the stampede to reduce carbon emissions.

Also I find it amusing that you think it's necessary for me to be polite when you're actively ruining the habitats of millions of people.

That may go past faith into conspiracy-land.

J

 

[Synobun]

Isn't it climate change, not global warming? Still, we can go with what you are comfortable using.

*loud groaning*

Why is this still a thing? Why do people still get confused by this? Global warming is a facet of climate change. It describes, you guessed it, the general warming of the planet.

 

[onejayhawk]

*loud groaning*

Why is this still a thing? Why do people still get confused by this? Global warming is a facet of climate change. It describes, you guessed it, the general warming of the planet.

Angst is breaking his own rule. He made a big deal of it a page or two back.

J

 

[Angst]

Yea I did. onejayhawk is right to point out my error. It's very important that everyone understands that there are regional variations and increase in erratic weather until then.

That said, the scientific consensus is unequivocal, as is the proof for climate change being a thing. You are simply ignoring the facts, and the very certain prognosis from those facts.

 

[onejayhawk]

That said, the scientific consensus is unequivocal, as is the proof for climate change being a thing. You are simply ignoring the facts, and the very certain prognosis from those facts.

There is some consensus. Other areas are disputed, some are fringe, and some is junk. That is normal in science. You are claiming all four levels are the same, which is simply wrong.

J

 

[Angst]

There is some consensus. Other areas are disputed, some are fringe, and some is junk. That is normal in science. You are claiming all four levels are the same, which is simply wrong.

J

There isn't "some" consensus. The consensus is unequivocal. You can read through this answer here if you want; it outlines that there are disputes in certain details of how it is happening (outlined in the link), but whether climate change is real and whether it's manmade is not disputed in any meaningful degree.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/

Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

• the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
• the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
• the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
• if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
• a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

 

[Synobun]

Yea I did. onejayhawk is right to point out my error. It's very important that everyone understands that there are regional variations and increase in erratic weather until then.

At no point was there anyone in a legitimate position arguing that the concept of global warming means everything will just heat up like an oven until we all boil alive. A part of the world having a particularly dreadful winter season does not disprove an overarching climate model. If anything, it would confirm it instead of challenge it.

 

[Angst]

At no point was there anyone in a legitimate position arguing that the concept of global warming means everything will just heat up like an oven until we all boil alive. A part of the world having a particularly dreadful winter season does not disprove an overarching climate model. If anything, it would confirm it instead of challenge it.

I completely agree with your point. But there is a good reason naming it climate change over global warming, because otherwise deniers will build the wrong ideas from a misnamed concept. It's about conceptual accuracy for better integration of the facts.

Like, I do understand you're going "groaning", I completely understand the frustration. You can look over my posts and take note of my frustrations with this too. I just want it as nice and clear as possible so people can get the facts outlined as nice and clear as possible so that there's absolutely no misunderstanding of the fact that this is really going on and that something should be done about it.

EDIT: And I can look over my own post and my own errors and acknowledge when deniers are right - because they seem to think that the reason people don't agree with them is because of a paradigm that they simply cannot be right per definition. It is very important to understand that they aren't wrong because I say they are, but because 99% of scientists do, and from there on to mimic the scientific consensus as much as possible, telling them when they use the scientific terminology correctly.

 

[Synobun]

I completely agree with your point. But there is a good reason naming it climate change over global warming, because otherwise deniers will build the wrong ideas from a misnamed concept. It's about conceptual accuracy for better integration of the facts.

We're in agreement. I think I posted near the beginning of this thread, or in one of the other countless "climate change isn't real!" threads, that I prefer just sticking with the climate change terminology as skeptics focus on the global warming term for all their well-thought out zingers ("It's snowing in the Sahara!").

But I guess, when I'm faced with someone seriously pointing to the term and going "but where is the truth??", I can't help but groan and seriously wonder how it's still a "thing" after two decades.

 

[Hygro]

In a world where convincing people takes years, "I'll be sure to know by next Spring" is about as fast as you'll get. But don't stop hammering the anvil.

At no point was there anyone in a legitimate position arguing that the concept of global warming means everything will just heat up like an oven until we all boil alive.

That's not for another 200 years and its cause is something different.

 

[Synobun]

That's not for another 200 years and its cause is something different.

Donald Trump's toupee achieves sentience and covers the surface of the Earth?

 

[Angst]

Alright, I know deniers aren't agreeing with me, but following the fact that scientists agree it's a thing and that it's manmade, I'm just going to post this article & quote because I'm so much fun at parties.

https://mic.com/articles/121209/sci...g-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us#.VfMW23ZDn

Planet Earth is dying all around us on a scale not seen since the annihilation of the dinosaurs.

That's the alarming finding of a new study on extinction rates recently published in Science Advances, which has estimated the Earth's biodiversity is very likely being eradicated at a pace not seen in at least 65 million years. The research suggests the planet is currently undergoing the sixth mass extinction event in its 3.5-billion-year history of life.

This is a crisis: According to the authors, Earth's ecosphere is on the precipice of an epoch on the scale of the Cretaceous-Palogene extinction event, when scientists believe an asteroid impact wiped out at least 75% of all existing species on the planet.

 

[CavLancer]

More doom??!? Oh noes not more doom! The population of humans on the planet is also greater than its ever been. I see that as at the foundation of species decline, they are being crowded out, hunted down, sold off. Its a terrible thing, but due to climate change? The climate is just going through natural fluctuations. The impact of CO2 should actually be good for plant species.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

More doom??!? Oh noes not more doom! The population of humans on the planet is also greater than its ever been. I see that as at the foundation of species decline, they are being crowded out, hunted down, sold off. Its a terrible thing, but due to climate change? The climate is just going through natural fluctuations. The impact of CO2 should actually be good for plant species.

So you're just going to sit there and dismiss the real-life problems that people are facing?

Here are some real-life issues:

Polar bears in Manitoba

Arctic temperatures 30C above normal

Fisheries will be disrupted

Inuit lives are impacted

I realize this may seem pretty remote to someone living in the Philippines. But it's very real to people in the northern regions of Canada.

 

[CavLancer]

Nope, I'm giving it until the end of the spring, see what happens. If things generally don't get considerably colder with all the various factors set to cold then CO2 is more of a greenhouse gas than I thought. Besides that no, I don't 'just sit there' though I do that a lot now I'm oldish, I put a white roof on like Obama suggested. I sold my vehicle and take mass transit, though I really did that to buy the lot next door. Otherwise I try to buy stuff with less packaging, and I've been known in scouts to light my farts which reduces methane, though I didn't know it at the time. Lets see, not just sitting there, what to do? What do people normally do other than get in a twist about it and sit around caring. Can't help the Eskimos, but my kids are brown and they could be Eskimos without too much imagination. I once drank Eskimo tea. Does that help? Give me some ideas Valka, what to do? We recycle all metals and glass...

 

[Angst]

I'll give you that much, white roofs, taking public transit, buying less packaging, participating in recycling are all very good things to do. I seriously respect that you do that and hope for you to continue that as well as further your activities if you have the energy to do it. It's true that there are people that acknowledge the problem while not doing anything. I myself do as much as I can, the details of which is kind of a long list at this point, but I'll tell you if you ask (As it's not part of any argument, I think it'd sound braggish if I just went all in and listed the things.) Again, I'm just a bore because it's depressing, but I'll give you that; you are trying to do something, at least, and every little bit helps.

 

[CavLancer]

I'll give you that much, white roofs, taking public transit, buying less packaging, participating in recycling are all very good things to do. I seriously respect that you do that and hope for you to continue that as well as further your activities if you have the energy to do it. It's true that there are people that acknowledge the problem while not doing anything. I myself do as much as I can, the details of which is kind of a long list at this point, but I'll tell you if you ask (As it's not part of any argument, I think it'd sound braggish if I just went all in and listed the things.) Again, I'm just a bore because it's depressing, but I'll give you that; you are trying to do something, at least, and every little bit helps.

You were supposed to ask me about the Eskimo tea.