Question to all climate skeptics

[Berzerker]

Unless it destroys it in other areas by creating deserts. Tropical forests have far more biodiversity than taigas ever could, anyway.

Tropical forests either create their own climates - the Amazon, Kilimanjaro, etc - and/or exist within rain belts created by solar heating. That wont go away with global warming, but these belts do shift as the Earth's tilt slowly changes over the millennia. Overall global warming should produce more rain and more stability between air masses.

Thats some weak sarcasm bro. Whats your point?

I was responding to weak sarcasm, gosh. I asked you to stop talking to me, I even took a 2 pt hit from EM trying to get you to ignore me. But I am really tired of you jumping into my debates without reading them first, you just come off as a hypocrite with your BS.
Moderator Action: Warned for PDMA. Please refrain from discussing any points you may receive from a moderator.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Yes! We've co-opted a lot of the land surrounding habitats. You're asking me what will prevent ecology shifts, and I replied "we apply pesticides, herbicides, & monoculture crops around the habitats". Species will migrate unless they're prevented from migrating.

Thats your strawman and you keep pushing it... I never said we haven't co-opted lands around where we live, I said there's millions of acres up north that will become habitat for many critters (including us) with a warmer world. You keep talking about Kansas and I'm not talking about Kansas. It aint up north and its habitable now...

Do you think farmers are going to let habitats migrate onto their property?

They dont have to, animals and mother nature spread as habitat spreads regardless of farmers. Jesus EM, oceans and mountains cant stop migrations and you think some farms will?

Why would a farmer care about the need to let a certain species root on his property (as it's migrating)? They'd rather herbicide the land & grow their crop.

Because he cant do much of anything about it even if he wanted. We have wildlife migrating through here all the time, and in spite of your google search farmland makes up a small % of the land around us.

 

[Senethro]

Shouldn't even have to talk about this as its obvious, but heres a link anyway. Tell me if you can't access it or understand it.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2640991


Thats some weak sarcasm bro. Whats your point?



If you look at the fossil record you'll see that many times species did not.


And thats just flat out wrong. Mature forests take many decades to grow and develop. What will happen if moving temperature zones is that a bunch of aggressive colonisers move into the disturbed area and take it over. It won't resemble an older forest, it'll be this weird mix of species, possibly temporary but maybe not, that doesn't necessarily support a good mix of other forest species, animal or plant.

yo go answer the rest of my points Berzerker, your habit of avoidance is starting to look bad. In case you haven't noticed this is a public communication area so I'm going to keep linking science articles relevent to your discussions with others.

 

[BasketCase]

I'm going to refute your rainforest example - deserts.

And you just failed at it.

I told you already--a desert is not a warmer climate. A desert is not a desert because it's hot, it's a desert because it's DRY. The reason a desert is hot during the day is because there's no water vapor to insulate; daytime sunlight comes in unopposed and bakes the terrain. Then, at night, all the heat goes right back out.

That lack of water is the reason a desert is barren. Not because of heat, because of DRY. No matter how cool and temperate an area is, there will be no life if there is no water. And it turns out warmer climate results in more water, because warm air can hold more water vapor. That's why deserts expanded so alarmingly during the last Ice Age: the cold air was unable to move water, so much of the Earth was too dry.

A rainforest is a rainforest because it's wet, and it's that "wet" part that makes it warmer. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the direct result is that a rainforest stores up more heat during the day and doesn't lose it at night. And the direct result of that is life all over the place.

Warmer climate = more bountiful life.

Please don't ignore my point about biodiversity needing time to accumulate again please.

Now ignoring.

 

[Senethro]

So why do you disagree with the work in the paper I quoted that suggests warming could add to desertification? You're obviously qualified.

You can't be now ignoring something you were already ignoring. You're continuing to ignore. Thank you for reminding everyone that you're unable to respond to my points.

 

[gugalpm]

Hey, gugalpm, you back. What did you think of this post I did about natural landscapes having value while you were claiming that turning everything into a city was a good idea and the best way to make a profit?

Only shows how much you know about the Amazon.

That simply doesn't work here. Never will.

 

[Senethro]

Only shows how much you know about the Amazon.

That simply doesn't work here. Never will.

You're the expert, tell me why not.

 

[Grey Fox]

I dont deny it, try reading what I've said

I'm just not concerned, I welcome a warmer world

It's not just going to get warmer. It is going to get more extreme. Check this winter out. Lots of people are probably going "Where is that global warming you were talking about?", but I bet it is related to global warming.

Some places on earth will most likely dry out, some will have more flooding. If water levels rise some countries are even at risk and might have to relocate a large part of their population.
We'll have less area to grow food on with an exponentially increasing population. In 100 years time the human population have quadrupled. The earth is expected to have a 9 billion human population by 2040.

 

[CavLancer]

What do you guys think of a sun shade solution? Other than acting as a potential greenhouse gas CO2 really doesn't hurt anything, right? Plants thrive on the stuff...


Link to video.

 

[ainwood]

Now ignoring.

So why do you disagree with the work in the paper I quoted that suggests warming could add to desertification? You're obviously qualified.

You can't be now ignoring something you were already ignoring. You're continuing to ignore. Thank you for reminding everyone that you're unable to respond to my points.

Moderator Action: Please keep it civil. Discuss the topics, without trolling each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BasketCase]

So why do you disagree with the work in the paper I quoted that suggests warming could add to desertification? You're obviously qualified.

I already explained why. Go back and read my damn posts.

You can't be now ignoring something you were already ignoring. You're continuing to ignore. Thank you for reminding everyone that you're unable to respond to my points.

Yeah. I'm pretty much incapable of responding to that which is ridiculous.

When I got my house, I neglected to put in a back lawn. Turns out a back lawn is important because it prevents weeds from growing. Within TWO MONTHS, my entire back yard was a forest of six-foot tall weeds of at least a dozen different species.

Did those dozen different species evolve in those two months??? Of course not!! They already existed in the surrouding neighborhood. The biodiversity has ALREADY HAPPENED. Give a rainforest a chunk of bare land, and said rainforest will consume said land in a matter of weeks.

Moderator Action: As I said in the post right above, keep it civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Senethro]

I already explained why. Go back and read my damn posts.

No, you just restated what you said previously and provided no evidence for why you were more correct than the scientific paper I linked suggesting there would be links between climate change and desert expansion. But perhaps you yourself are published and have merely forgotten to mention it.h

Yeah. I'm pretty much incapable of responding to that which is ridiculous.

When I got my house, I neglected to put in a back lawn. Turns out a back lawn is important because it prevents weeds from growing. Within TWO MONTHS, my entire back yard was a forest of six-foot tall weeds of at least a dozen different species.

Did those dozen different species evolve in those two months??? Of course not!! They already existed in the surrouding neighborhood. The biodiversity has ALREADY HAPPENED. Give a rainforest a chunk of bare land, and said rainforest will consume said land in a matter of weeks.

Moderator Action: As I said in the post right above, keep it civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Of course I don't believe that additional biodiversity can evolve that fast, except in a few rare cases of instant speciation such as polyploid speciation. However what you observed in your backyard is a community of opportunistic colonizers. Given that those species are all about moving in and reproducing as fast as possible they will eventually get displaced by species better able to compete in the long term. They in turn will get displaced by others. This process is termed ecological succession. You can read about it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession

While the definition and even the concept of a climax community for succession is more than a little bit wooly, we can be fairly sure that what you observed in your back hard is only the start of the succession process, not the end. Over time you would observe an increase in the number of species which is at least one measure of biodiversity increasing.

While an educational diversion, its straying from the point that backyards are not comparable with rainforest. A good start for your claim that climate change would cause rainforest expansion would be to link some work that supports this claim.

 

[El_Machinae]

We'll have less area to grow food on with an exponentially increasing population. In 100 years time the human population have quadrupled. The earth is expected to have a 9 billion human population by 2040.

Most estimates have it stabilising at 9-11 billion, as more and more women have ~2 children.

 

[Cutlass]

What do you guys think of a sun shade solution? Other than acting as a potential greenhouse gas CO2 really doesn't hurt anything, right? Plants thrive on the stuff...


Link to video.

While interesting, given the likely costs and our technical ability, I don't see it as an option for maybe 50 years or so. Keep in mind that we're barely keeping the space station up there. And that's vastly smaller. And in a low orbit. A sun shade would have to be high enough so that it's not actually orbiting Earth. It would be orbiting the sun near enough to Earth to reduce the light hitting the planet.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is what I wrote earlier. I'm not 100% settled on this, though.

What happens when China & the US have different ideas of what the ideal climate is?

Well, right now, environmental economics have a fairly easy time figuring out how to handle climate change: either don't change the climate, or compensate those who've been disadvantaged by a climate change. It's the same as normal pollution economics, really, just scaled up.

But once we start deliberately changing the climate, then we'd need some consensus to what we're changing it to. And then competing countries will try to change the climate in different ways. It's best to just not allow any intentional changes in the climate.

 

[civ_king]

While interesting, given the likely costs and our technical ability, I don't see it as an option for maybe 50 years or so. Keep in mind that we're barely keeping the space station up there. And that's vastly smaller. And in a low orbit. A sun shade would have to be high enough so that it's not actually orbiting Earth. It would be orbiting the sun near enough to Earth to reduce the light hitting the planet.

AKA impractical?

 

[Cutlass]

AKA impractical?

At least for now. That may change. However I don't see it changing in the near future.

 

[BasketCase]

No, you just restated what you said previously and provided no evidence for

I provided simple everyday facts, easily verifiable on the web. Deserts all over the planet routinely drop to near-freezing almost every night. Deserts are not hot, they are DRY. In fact it's the dryness that causes high temperatures during the day, not the other way around. So anybody who thinks a desert is hot (including whatever idiot wrote that scientific paper you linked up) is wrong.

Of course I don't believe that additional biodiversity can evolve that fast, except in a few rare cases of instant speciation such as polyploid speciation. However what you observed in your backyard is a community of opportunistic colonizers.

Just like all other ecosystems on the planet. Give the Amazon more space, and it will expand into that space--not in years, but in months. A warmer planet means more space that the Amazon Rainforest can compete for.

A good start for your claim that climate change would cause rainforest expansion would be to link some work that supports this claim.

No need. The Earth itself is the perfect case study. Hotter climates such as the Amazon are full of life. Colder climates such as the northern United States, less so. Dry climates such as deserts are almost uninhabitable.


Edit:

 

[Senethro]

I provided simple everyday facts, easily verifiable on the web. Deserts all over the planet routinely drop to near-freezing almost every night. Deserts are not hot, they are DRY. In fact it's the dryness that causes high temperatures during the day, not the other way around. So anybody who thinks a desert is hot (including whatever idiot wrote that scientific paper you linked up) is wrong.

You didn't even read it, did you? If you had you would be able to tell me why. Did you not notice he gave specific mechanistic processes that would cause the changes he thought would happen? In contrast you're just going "hurf blurf its common sense".

Just like all other ecosystems on the planet. Give the Amazon more space, and it will expand into that space--not in years, but in months. A warmer planet means more space that the Amazon Rainforest can compete for.

Given your focus on moisture, where do you think that requried for rainforest expansion will come from? And can you prove it, or will you just cite common sense?

No need. The Earth itself is the perfect case study. Hotter climates such as the Amazon are full of life. Colder climates such as the northern United States, less so. Dry climates such as deserts are almost uninhabitable.


Edit:

And you are failing to prove that climate change will cause the kind of changes you propose.

I don't suppose theres any kind of rule against repeatedly spamming your viewpoint in a thread while refusing to engage with others?

 

[BasketCase]

I proved all of my arguments already, in both currently-running global warming threads, against other people.

Everybody else gave up arguing at me because they knew I had them beat. You're no different from them; I have nothing to gain for myself by arguing the same old stuff all over again with you.

So click here and then click here, and read up on stuff I already did.

 

[Merkinball]

It's not just going to get warmer. It is going to get more extreme. Check this winter out. Lots of people are probably going "Where is that global warming you were talking about?", but I bet it is related to global warming. - Grey Fox

Ridiculous. There is really very little critical thought that goes into "extreme cold" when it comes to global warming theory. On some level there is reason to suspect that global warming could would usher in brief periods of colder than average temperatures. But what we are seeing now across the globe is not that. We have seen weeks of consistently cool temperatures. The scientific backing of periodically cool temperatures is premised upon the creation of stonger low pressure systems. Which, in theory, is perfectly plausible. The additional energy created by global warming would create stronger low pressure systems, not tropical low pressure systems, but extra-tropical low pressure systems. These stronger than normal low pressure systems would create some negative effects like stronger, and more numerous tornadoes. More gusty winter storms, more clashing air masses. But what they would not produce is protracted periods of extreme cold. What we are seeing now is not normal. The northern hemisphere has experienced temperatures that are ten to fifteen degrees below normal for weeks straight. Global Warming would make periodic spikes up and down as these stronger low pressure systems would usher in warmer than normal temperatures ahead of low pressure systems, and colder than average temperatures behind low pressure systems. The other cunundrum facing "global warming warming produces colder than average temperatures too!" crowd, is that the northern climates that drive colder temperatures across continental America and continental Asia are theoretically warmed much more than other climates. IE: The Artic suffers most from global warming. So somehow, some black magic creates a scenario where the artic warms 4oC above where it "should be," and this warming still somehow manifests itself in drastic cooling throughout Canada and America via clipper systems.

The whole premise is just totally bogus. What we are seeing now is a near unprecedented period of the artic jet stream being driven way south of what it usually is for a protracted period of time. Global warming has absolutely positively nothing to do with what we're seeing right now. It is just another example of how we really have no idea how this planet's climate really works.