How can we destroy climate change sceptics?

[Berzerker]

The only way to regulate sea level is to try and regulate temperature.

Like pumping CO2 into the atmosphere if we're approaching a Maunder Minimum or some other cooling mechanism? I see that in our future too, we'll be adding pollutants to the atmosphere designed to warm us up or cool us down.

 

[Cutlass]

Land Area on the Planet (148,647,000 sq km)
Ocean Area (335,258,000 sq km)

In other words, to lower the oceans by a foot you'd have to cover every square inch of land by over 2 feet of seawater. That's quite a bit of pumping.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I have an easier solution: just open some portals to the Xen borderworld and drain the planet that way.

 

[FriendlyFire]

This thread is particularly ironic given the hidden data that the hacker uncovered. You know, the part where the "inconvenient truth" that detracted from the (formerly global warming until that didn't apply) climate change agenda was simply ignored.

Too funny.

It had better be cooling cause we just had the HOTTEST summer on record.

 

[Elrohir]

Consensus about there being warming for one. Consensus that some of the warming is due to AGW effects. I know you can find editorials stating a controversy, but I follow primary scientific literature at a level that most people don't. Unless there's conspiracy between competing journals, consensus continues to be strong.

You're right that the consensus is still that human beings are a primary factor is causing global climate change. But saying things like "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right" and destroying data is creepy, not to mention completely unscientific. (Also, if you think climate change is going to kill millions, and you hope that happens so it doesn't look like you screwed up...well, you come off as sort of a jerk.) People who are going "HAHA SEE THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING" are being absurd, but so are people who are insisting that this isn't a problem, because it is. Science is about finding things out about the universe in a replicable, reasonable, and objective way. Even if these guys were 100% right about what's actually going on, they're still acting poorly and in a way that makes their profession look bad, and hurts the public trust. For that reason, and for that reason alone, this should be fully and completely investigated.

/random rant

 

[FriendlyFire]

This theory has become common, even in the OMG-AGW crowd.

The warming of the oceans causes a break in the mid-atlantic deep-water current (fed, of course, by the gulf stream flowing into the mediterranean - thereby forcing colder bottom-water to flow out and south of the sea).

So... this atlantic deep water current is dulled. It feeds the antartic circumpolar current.. the only continous current in the world.

When the circumpolar current is slowed or even stops... Ice Age begins.

Of course it means the heat is TRAPPED around the equator. Spelling disaster for a very wide section the the earth and leaving a much smaller band of habitable terrain. Those countries saddling the affected areas will probably be deversated.

 

[Berzerker]

Land Area on the Planet (148,647,000 sq km)
Ocean Area (335,258,000 sq km)

In other words, to lower the oceans by a foot you'd have to cover every square inch of land by over 2 feet of seawater. That's quite a bit of pumping.

And we're told sea levels will rise X# of feet if the ice sheet on Greenland melts, sea levels were 4-6m higher ~130 kya (those damn Atlanteans caused AGW) supposedly because much of Greenland did melt. I think that'll happen again with or w/o people around, but thats 12-18 ft mother nature stored on a relatively small plot of land. And if we expand the surface area with the creation of inland seas we'll be increasing evaporation rates and precipitation rates, including over ice sheets that are typically desert like.

 

[Cutlass]

When it's frozen you can stack it up a few miles. When it's not frozen, it tends to spread out.

 

[Berzerker]

sure, but we can take advantage of that - pump water onto ice sheets and expand sea area for a wetter world which stores water in ice sheets and moderates temperatures.

 

[Cutlass]

You aren't making the slightest shred of sense.....

 

[lutzj]

It seems unfair that any good done by those who understand climate change and are doing something positive about it also benefits those who are trying to detract us.

I wish there was at least like a public record or something so we can shame them. Or will it destroy them in the future to know that they've been wrong all this time? I doubt it, most of them are shameless. Most of them completely denied it and now are denying it's not anthropogenic.

reads a lot like

People disagree with my illogical beliefs. Kill them all.

See the link in my signature.

 

[PiMan]

You aren't making the slightest shred of sense.....

No, no, he makes sense. He is advocating pumping huge amounts of water very large distances at massive expense of money and energy.

 

[lutzj]

No, no, he makes sense. He is advocating pumping huge amounts of water very large distances at massive expense of money and energy.

Probably cheaper than all of humanity not burning fuel.

 

[GreatEngineer]

It had better be cooling cause we just had the HOTTEST summer on record.

That's interesting. During 2009 We sweated through the second coolest summer in Chicago history.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jul/09/news/chi-wx-weathersummary0709jul09

 

[Cutlass]

Probably cheaper than all of humanity not burning fuel.

That was never something considered by, well, anyone, really.

 

[FriendlyFire]

That's interesting. During 2009 We sweated through the second coolest summer in Chicago history.

Hottest summer in Sydney since they started recording tempatures.
Ironicly wheat crop has been deversated at the same time some of the worst frost.

So far its been dry heat, Iam not looking forward to January when the humdity results in a muggy heat.

 

[Berzerker]

You aren't making the slightest shred of sense.....

Somebody understands

No, no, he makes sense. He is advocating pumping huge amounts of water very large distances at massive expense of money and energy.

ty, seemed so obvious But I was also talking about the effects of "terraforming" inland seas where deserts are today too, that transports water to ice sheets also by increasing world precipitation rates.

That's interesting. During 2009 We sweated through the second coolest summer in Chicago history.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jul/09/news/chi-wx-weathersummary0709jul09

Hottest summer in Sydney since they started recording tempatures.
Ironicly wheat crop has been deversated at the same time some of the worst frost.

So far its been dry heat, Iam not looking forward to January when the humdity results in a muggy heat.

The Earth's closest approach (perihelion) to the Sun is when the southern hemisphere has its summer, ie hotter summer, colder winters. The north gets milder winters and summers. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit has a ~7% effect on insolation.

 

[BasketCase]

It seems unfair that any good done by those who understand climate change and are doing something positive about it also benefits those who are trying to detract us.

I wish there was at least like a public record or something so we can shame them. Or will it destroy them in the future to know that they've been wrong all this time? I doubt it, most of them are shameless. Most of them completely denied it and now are denying it's not anthropogenic.

Ooh! Ooh!! OOH!! MeMeMeeeeee!! Right here! Skeptic!

Climate Skeptic right here IN YO DAM FAIC.

There's nothing you CAN do. I have never been, and never will be, ashamed to be a global warming skeptic.

The best part is that long before any of the gloom-and-doom effects of global warming have any chance of coming true, all of us will be dead. So those of you in here who are global warming alarmists will be unable to gloat, and I wouldn't be able to hear you if you could.

Ha, ha, HA. (I think I might have just committed a GIGANTIC troll, but as the saying goes, the truth hurts )

 

[GreatEngineer]

The Earth's closest approach (perihelion) to the Sun is when the southern hemisphere has its summer, ie hotter summer, colder winters. The north gets milder winters and summers. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit has a ~7% effect on insolation.

Right, but it's not like the perigee and apogee of earth's orbit are getting closer and farther respectively, which is the only logical conclusion if you assume that his hotter summer and my cooler summer are the result of the earth's orbit's eccentricity. I agree that it makes a difference, however slight, but do you see what I mean?

We've been cruising the same orbit for a few billion years (or at least many million if you assume that the orbit changed after the impact that created the moon), so that the southern hemisphere reports an unusually hot summer can't be the result of a "closer part of the orbit" -- unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to point out.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're right that the consensus is still that human beings are a primary factor is causing global climate change. But saying things like "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right" and destroying data is creepy, not to mention completely unscientific. (Also, if you think climate change is going to kill millions, and you hope that happens so it doesn't look like you screwed up...well, you come off as sort of a jerk.) People who are going "HAHA SEE THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING" are being absurd, but so are people who are insisting that this isn't a problem, because it is. Science is about finding things out about the universe in a replicable, reasonable, and objective way. Even if these guys were 100% right about what's actually going on, they're still acting poorly and in a way that makes their profession look bad, and hurts the public trust. For that reason, and for that reason alone, this should be fully and completely investigated.

They're going to be investigated. I predict that most of the emails will be just poor phrasing, not controversy. Maybe some of their published data will have to be reviewed. And their behaviour regarding 'hiding data' will be scolded.

These guys are not the only proof of AGW, though. Not by a long-shot. If their data didn't exist, AGW would still be consensus. IF their data do not show warming, it's almost reasonable to suggest that their data collection is bad.