• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Grab Bag of Global Warming Misconceptions

Tim the plumber said:
Yes. I think I got into the high 20's of repeating the question to 3Goofs as to what problems global warming had so far caused before he found some woods in America and Mexico where some bettle or something is causing trouble with the trees. This is put down to global warming. Yeah, right.
Click to expand...

I believe I sent you to several references, including WG2 of the IPCC, where impacts are explained in detail. In fact, WG2 is specifically titled:'Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability'.

You dismissed it because it was too much information (despite your insistence that you've read the IPCC over and over again).

And bringing specific examples, like the pine beetle devastation in North American forests, is dismissed out of hand by you because....well....you're a denier!
 
Threegoofs said:
I believe I sent you to several references, including WG2 of the IPCC, where impacts are explained in detail. In fact, WG2 is specifically titled:'Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability'.

You dismissed it because it was too much information (despite your insistence that you've read the IPCC over and over again).

And bringing specific examples, like the pine beetle devastation in North American forests, is dismissed out of hand by you because....well....you're a denier!
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are models for the future. Not things that actually happened with certainty of AGW being the cause.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are models for the future. Not things that actually happened with certainty of AGW being the cause.
Click to expand...

Says the IPCC is alarmist nonsense.

Doesn't know what the IPCC says.

From the FAQ:

"FAQ 6: Are we seeing impacts of recent climate change?
[Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30; SPM]
Yes, there is strong evidence of impacts of recent observed climate change on physical, biological, and human systems. Many regions have experienced warming trends and more frequent high-temperature extremes. Rising temperatures are associated with decreased snowpack, and many ecosystems are experiencing climate-induced shifts in the activity, range, or abundance of the species that inhabit them. Oceans are also displaying changes in physical and chemical properties that, in turn, are affecting coastal and marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, and other oceanic organisms such as mollusks, crustaceans, fishes, and zooplankton. Crop production and fishery stocks are sensitive to changes in temperature. Climate change impacts are leading to shifts in crop yields, decreasing yields overall and sometimes increasing them in temperate and higher latitudes, and catch potential of fisheries is increasing in some regions but decreasing in others. Some indigenous communities are changing seasonal migration and hunting patterns to adapt to changes in temperature."

It's amateur hour!
 
Threegoofs said:
Says the IPCC is alarmist nonsense.

Doesn't know what the IPCC says.

From the FAQ:


"FAQ 6: Are we seeing impacts of recent climate change?
[Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30; SPM]
Yes, there is strong evidence of impacts of recent observed climate change on physical, biological, and human systems. Many regions have experienced warming trends and more frequent high-temperature extremes. Rising temperatures are associated with decreased snowpack, and many ecosystems are experiencing climate-induced shifts in the activity, range, or abundance of the species that inhabit them. Oceans are also displaying changes in physical and chemical properties that, in turn, are affecting coastal and marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, and other oceanic organisms such as mollusks, crustaceans, fishes, and zooplankton. Crop production and fishery stocks are sensitive to changes in temperature. Climate change impacts are leading to shifts in crop yields, decreasing yields overall and sometimes increasing them in temperate and higher latitudes, and catch potential of fisheries is increasing in some regions but decreasing in others. Some indigenous communities are changing seasonal migration and hunting patterns to adapt to changes in temperature."

It's amateur hour!
Click to expand...

No help.

The SPM from which assessment report?

Why are you so lazy?
 
Threegoofs said:
I believe I sent you to several references, including WG2 of the IPCC, where impacts are explained in detail. In fact, WG2 is specifically titled:'Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability'.

You dismissed it because it was too much information (despite your insistence that you've read the IPCC over and over again).

And bringing specific examples, like the pine beetle devastation in North American forests, is dismissed out of hand by you because....well....you're a denier!
Click to expand...

No I dismissed the IPCC part as an answer to what has already happened because it was talking about future projected stuff.

I have dismissed the pine bettle issue in North American forrests because the temperatures in those areas have not risen. So it is something else, like the sort of plague that happens in nature...?
 
Threegoofs said:
How am *I* the lazy one when I'm apparently the only one digging up references that you seem to have been to lazy to read?
Click to expand...

Because you don't point to the appropriate paragraph.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No I dismissed the IPCC part as an answer to what has already happened because it was talking about future projected stuff.

I have dismissed the pine bettle issue in North American forrests because the temperatures in those areas have not risen. So it is something else, like the sort of plague that happens in nature...?
Click to expand...

1) it discusses current impacts
2) temperatures have risen.

If you deny three times, a **** crows.
 
Threegoofs said:
I cut and pasted a paragraph, complete with refences to chapter numbers!
Click to expand...

The SPM from which assessment report?

You know there have been five now, right?
 
Threegoofs said:
1) it discusses current impacts
2) temperatures have risen.

If you deny three times, a **** crows.
Click to expand...

The question was what bad things have actually happened so far. You managed to find some sort of answer after 25+ times me asking which was about pine forrests in Mexico and Southern USA where some bettle is attacking the trees. That this is not likely to be due to a slight change in climate des not stop you linking it to global warming.

I, and the rest of us regular posters here do not dispute the fact that it is warmer now than in 1970.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The question was what bad things have actually happened so far. You managed to find some sort of answer after 25+ times me asking which was about pine forrests in Mexico and Southern USA where some bettle is attacking the trees. That this is not likely to be due to a slight change in climate des not stop you linking it to global warming.

I, and the rest of us regular posters here do not dispute the fact that it is warmer now than in 1970.
Click to expand...

Just shows they have nothing to validate their faith.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just shows they have nothing to validate their faith.
Click to expand...

I was reading in a religious thread on how the more unsuportable and ludicrus the position is the more deep the religious climb into the faith as a personal definition and identity. That the challenging of their flat earth idea or whatever actually strengthens their faith as it is never about honesty and thinkingbut about choosing their lies.

It is even more pronounced here.

In discussion with Longview I have changed my position on the pause as he has shown graphs where he has removed the El-Nino years and thus revealed a steady warming. If only the alarmists were ever capable of changing their minds at all.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I was reading in a religious thread on how the more unsuportable and ludicrus the position is the more deep the religious climb into the faith as a personal definition and identity. That the challenging of their flat earth idea or whatever actually strengthens their faith as it is never about honesty and thinkingbut about choosing their lies.

It is even more pronounced here.

In discussion with Longview I have changed my position on the pause as he has shown graphs where he has removed the El-Nino years and thus revealed a steady warming. If only the alarmists were ever capable of changing their minds at all.
Click to expand...

We have been, no doubt, in a general warming trend since the Maunder Minima ended. We have also added to that warming because we have changed the land and atmosphere in ways that change forcing and albedo. The solar-ocean-atmosphere coupling is such a long process, that I cannot accurately predict when we will see cooling, or if we will within the next 50 years, but I think we will. That is, if, as predicted, the next few solar cycles are weak. I suspect temperatures will actually decline within 20 years.

I cannot see how CO2 can warm as much as claimed. There is too much overlap with H2O spectral influence, and a far greater negative feedback with clouds than the warmers will accept. Then there are also recent studies that claim CO2 has far less sensitivity than the IPCC et. al. has agreed upon. Probably because their modeling for the lower sensitivity accepts the greater negative feedback too.

When the alarmist crowd starts acknowledging certain simple facts about where how the heat is exchanged, we can start listening to them with less skepticism. But as long as they deny science... they should be laughed at.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sa

"FAQ 6: Are we seeing impacts of recent climate change?
Climate change impacts are leading to shifts in crop yields, decreasing yields overall ...

r!
Click to expand...
what's the evidence for that? seems like a dubious conclusion .
 
Lord of Planar said:
More like #12,468.
Click to expand...

Give the number of crops and the number of countries worldwide, it would seem a difficult task to support a generic sweeping statement like ' Climate change impacts are leading to shifts in crop yields, decreasing yields overall ...". Unless I misinterpreted that.
 
KLATTU said:
Give the number of crops and the number of countries worldwide, it would seem a difficult task to support a generic sweeping statement like ' Climate change impacts are leading to shifts in crop yields, decreasing yields overall ...". Unless I misinterpreted that.
Click to expand...

Climate change is blamed for everything. That's why the claims are so damn stupid.
 
ataraxia said:
Well if you don't mind the states of Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii being under water, and far more violent tornado and hurricane seasons, about entire nations and islands around the world being sunk under water and the rest of the world having to deal with the refugees from all those places, then... yeah, there's nothing to worry about. It's all cool.
Click to expand...

That scenario has happened many times in the past as well as the oceans being 100s of feet shallower.

The only thing different now is someone figured out who they could blame and charge for it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I listed one consequence of many. I think it's interesting that as a "conservative" you'll completely dismiss trillions of dollars in damage and millions of Americans losing their homes over something that could be solved with billions of dollars.

If you think climate change is bull****, publish your evidence and become mind-blowingly rich and famous.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence only shoddy computer models based on crappy data.
 
WCH said:
That scenario has happened many times in the past as well as the oceans being 100s of feet shallower.

The only thing different now is someone figured out who they could blame and charge for it.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Follow the money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom