• 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!

Why Climate Change is good for the world

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
My answer, given I share the views expressed, is that I do not know what that evidence would be.

I have looked at all the predictions and consider them to be predictions of a slight inconvienience. The adaptions to sea level increas will cost less than the local councils spend on traffic lights. At least for any place that has traffic lights.

Given that these predictions, upon examination, turn out to be very very exagerated at best and down rigt fraud generally I have seen nothing at all which causes me to consider a slightly warmer world a bad thing.

Do you have anything which is likely to alter my view?
Click to expand...


Befuddled Alien said:
I would guess not. I would guess no one could. However, this seems an odd position for someone to take. It seems quite easy to come up with plausible potential evidence that would change my mind on any position I have arrived at thru scientific investigation. Granted, it is far easier to come to a belief than it is to change that belief and admit I was/am wrong.

Personally, I believe that the arguments put forth in the linked article have already been thoroughly refuted many times. The argument that the earths current warming is net beneficial is not new. It gets recycled pretty regularly. Still, I could easily say what would change my mind about it.
Click to expand...

I would certainly change my mind if something which was bad was predicted using reasonable science that did not fall down with half an hour of my looking into it to the point of it merriting much further thinking about.

Do you see anything that is going to be bad about a slightly warmer world? That is more bad than the local council having to spend almost as much on sea defences as on traffic lights?
 
independentusa said:
Pollen season gets worse each year - Business Insider

By the way, have your allergies been bothering you or someone you know. There is a reason for that, you guessed it wrong, it isn't climate change, but the carbon count. Yes plants grow better with the increase in carbon dioxide. They need it to grow and the higher the count the better plants grow. And the better the plants grow, the more pollen they put out. This has caused an increase in the illnesses caused by pollen including allergies and asthma. And it will only get worse.
Click to expand...

As the fertility of the world increases even more.

Sorry, I can't see this as an overall bad thing.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I would certainly change my mind if something which was bad was predicted using reasonable science that did not fall down with half an hour of my looking into it to the point of it merriting much further thinking about.
Click to expand...

I have read and re-read this sentence several times and must admit I am a little confused by your careful appearing language here. What exactly does the term "reasonable science" even mean? To my mind there is only 'science' - full stop. It either stands up to peer review or it doesn't. It either has predictive capability or it doesn't.

It seems like this is an out to dismiss any science which may not support a pre-conceived notion or position (Granted, I could be reading you wrong here). How do you, personally, determine if it is 'reasonable science' or not? How do you, personally, determine if a published paper has "fallen down"? And if the scientists in any given field disagreeing with you can't convince you, what would? What specific piece of data would you find compelling (other then a 'bad' thing coming to pass)?
 
Befuddled Alien said:
I have read and re-read this sentence several times and must admit I am a little confused by your careful appearing language here. What exactly does the term "reasonable science" even mean? To my mind there is only 'science' - full stop. It either stands up to peer review or it doesn't. It either has predictive capability or it doesn't.

It seems like this is an out to dismiss any science which may not support a pre-conceived notion or position (Granted, I could be reading you wrong here). How do you, personally, determine if it is 'reasonable science' or not? How do you, personally, determine if a published paper has "fallen down"? And if the scientists in any given field disagreeing with you can't convince you, what would? What specific piece of data would you find compelling (other then a 'bad' thing coming to pass)?
Click to expand...

I think 'pseudoscience' might have been the word Tim was reaching for there. Climate modelling of AGW is currently the best example of that
 
Steve Case said:
By that I assume you are referring to the Sea Level hobgoblin.

The usual claim from left-wingers is that sea level will go up around a meter or so by 2100.

And that is total fiction.

Sea level is going up according to the satellites at around 3 millimeters per year and according
to the tide gages a good deal less than that. A meter by 2100 requires an average rate of 12 mm/yr
every year for the next 83 years starting right now. There really isn't evidence for that. Well really
when is this dramatic increase in the rate of sea level rise going to begin to happen?
Click to expand...

When the land glaciers slide into the sea, that's when.

 
flogger said:
I think 'pseudoscience' might have been the word Tim was reaching for there. Climate modelling of AGW is currently the best example of that
Click to expand...

Climate modeling is at a pretty bad state. We have over 50 years of good data to model with, yet they still can't make a working model with the preconceptions they use. They need to lower the sensitivity for CO2 and increase the impact of solar for one.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Climate modeling is at a pretty bad state. We have over 50 years of good data to model with, yet they still can't make a working model with the preconceptions they use. They need to lower the sensitivity for CO2 and increase the impact of solar for one.
Click to expand...

There are a very large number of other important variables that they cannot correctly quantify not just CO2. Obviously such errors magnify exponentially the longer the model runs which is exactly what we see happening.

Basically they are an expensive exercise in subjective number crunching to keep the politicial paymasters happy
 
iguanaman said:
When the land glaciers slide into the sea, that's when.

Click to expand...


The focus on sea level rise is a bit of a double-edged sword. The concept is very easy to communicate, but scary illustrations like that are misleading at best. Even under the IPCC's high RCP8.5 scenario, the projections of sea level rise are only 0.58 to 2.03 meters by 2200 (WG1 Table 13.8). Projections beyond that are of dubious value - odds are we can scarcely comprehend what tools and technology will be available in the 23rd century - but even by 2500 under RCP8.5 sea level rise might still be less than 2 meters (published range 1.51 to 6.63m).

Granted, there is low confidence in the ability to predict "rapid dynamical change" in the Antarctic ice sheet, the potential for big chunks to break away and increase sea level rise beyond those estimates. But even if a volume the size of the entire Ross Ice Shelf broke away and melted - an area the size of France almost 1km thick in places - it would still contribute less than 1m to sea level rise. And something of that magnitude is improbable, to say the least!

For some low-lying third world countries, even a half-meter sea level rise could be a serious issue which (despite some folks' blasé attitude) they can ill-afford to deal with. For example according to the World Bank about 20 million people in Bangladesh are already affected by salinity in drinking water which further sea level rises will exacerbate, and 40% of productive land is projected to be lost in the southern region for a 65cm sea level rise by the 2080s.

There are enough genuine issues of concern surrounding climate change to be going on with: The hyper-exaggerated sea level stuff is unnecessary, misleading and often counter-productive.
 
Mithrae said:
There are enough genuine issues of concern surrounding climate change to be going on with: The hyper-exaggerated sea level stuff is unnecessary, misleading and often counter-productive.
Click to expand...
It appears you agree that such tactics of "hyper exaggeration" do harm to the cause.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It appears you agree that such tactics of "hyper exaggeration" do harm to the cause.
Click to expand...

What's the point if they're never going to happen? Besides perhaps establishing in very general terms that changes in climate can have tremendous impacts, before going on to provide details about the actual projected impacts. And really even then, it'd make more sense to illustrate the historical changes from the ~3.5 degree global temperature swing since the last interglacial; it's less misleading, more informative and that magnitude of temperature change is actually well within the bounds of 21st or 22nd century possibilities.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It appears you agree that such tactics of "hyper exaggeration" do harm to the cause.
Click to expand...

So you agree with the OP? That warming is good? Once we reach a point where the Earth absorbs more heat energy that it loses, which is what warming is, how are we gong to stop it from melting all the ice on earth? Far from a "hyper exaggeration", it appears inevitable to me. Why is the future so difficult for you to comprehend?
 
iguanaman said:
So you agree with the OP? That warming is good? Once we reach a point where the Earth absorbs more heat energy that it loses, which is what warming is, how are we gong to stop it from melting all the ice on earth? Far from a "hyper exaggeration", it appears inevitable to me. Why is the future so difficult for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...

The Earth has been warmer in the recent past and will doubtless be cooler again in the not too distant future. There is nothing about todays modest warming phase that mark it out in any way as being unprecedented or unnatural in the post glacial scheme of things.

If you like being scared though you can add this to the vast number of other things AGW is supposed to be responsible for

warmlist
 
flogger said:
The Earth has been warmer in the recent past and will doubtless be cooler again in the not too distant future. There is nothing about todays modest warming phase that mark it out in any way as being unprecedented or unnatural in the post glacial scheme of things.

If you like being scared though you can add this to the vast number of other things AGW is supposed to be responsible for

warmlist
Click to expand...

You comment not only does not reassure me it shows a lack of comprehension of the problem. How is the Earth going to cool when we keep adding blankets? The Earth has also been free of glaciers before.
 
longview said:
I think Shroud waving is appropriate, plane old BS may be a friendly tail, that does not imply
your continued actions will likely render large sections of the planet uninhabitable.
Climate change could make parts of the Middle East and North Africa ?uninhabitable? | The Independent
Click to expand...

The Sahara used to be green.
Maybe when the next ice age (one of the cyclical little ones - we'll be long gone when the big one comes again) arrives a taste of some of those changes may happen again.
But I wouldn't expect any changes from the alarmist crowd.
They're still struggling to explain the warming pause after the last solar cycle.
 
iguanaman said:
You comment not only does not reassure me it shows a lack of comprehension of the problem. How is the Earth going to cool when we keep adding blankets? The Earth has also been free of glaciers before.
Click to expand...

Our alleged CO2 contribution to the atmosphere represents a mere 0.01% of its volume. Do you really think that modifying that tiny fraction is going to make the slightest difference to anything ?
 
flogger said:
I've always said that global warming represents a net benefit for humanity and something that should be accepted and not combatted.
Why climate change is good for the world
Click to expand...
lol

2013 called and wants its denialist article back.

But, what the heck. Let's press on.

So the climate isn't getting warmer, but if it is, then it's a good thing!!!!

Humans don't cause climate change, but we also shouldn't try to change how our actions affect the climate!!!

Of course, the claim is absurd. To wit:
- The difference in temperatures is about 1-2 degrees C. It's not going to result in dramatically warmer winters.

- Agricultural yields are not likely to increase. Aside from other pressures depleting the land and water supplies, the areas that will get a small amount warmer are not optimal for farming (e.g. higher latitudes in Canada and Russia). Similarly, as the Sahara continues to grow, Africa will lose some arable land. Oh, and clear-cutting rain forests for farming not only increases carbon in the atmosphere (which was stored in the trees, as well as reduces CO2 consumed by the trees), it causes lots of other environmental damage and habitat loss.

- Yes, there are some indications that climate change increased rainfall in the Sahel by 0.3 mm per day, on average. However, that is a regional improvement, and ignores how climate change is contributing to increased desertification, loss of glacial ice, and puts pressure on existing crops elsewhere. I.e. it is slightly ridiculous -- and a common tactic of deniers and others who don't understand climate change -- to conflate regional and global effects.

- Lomborg's position is a bit more complex. On one hand, he has a point about what we might call "effective altruism" -- where can we do the most good? At the same time, his priorities are a bit out of whack. E.g. he says we should put more resources into fighting malaria (600k deaths annually) than ebola (20k in a bad year). What he fails to note is that a major ebola outbreak, if not contained, could kill millions.

I'd need to see a lot more detail on his cost analysis about EU policies. We'd also have to keep in mind that many of those policies have dual uses. E.g. increasing solar in the EU doesn't just reduce greenhouse gases, it also reduces reliance on unstable or questionable sources of fossil fuels, such as Russia and Iran.
 
flogger said:
Our alleged CO2 contribution to the atmosphere represents a mere 0.01% of its volume. Do you really think that modifying that tiny fraction is going to make the slightest difference to anything ?
Click to expand...
Yes.

I don't think your numbers are correct. Human activity puts about 30 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, and there is approximately 750 gigatons currently cycling through the atmosphere. Half of that is captured, the rest increases the total amount in the atmosphere. There are also some questions about whether we're maxing out the natural carbon sinks. The end result is a massive spike in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We also constantly reduce the amount of natural carbon storage systems, and release their carbon back to the atmosphere. Coal, oil, trees etc store carbon, and that carbon is released when those types of fuels are burned.

Plus, there are feedback effects. As global temperatures rise, other carbon containment systems start to release carbon. For example, the small increases in temperatures have allowed Siberian permafrost to melt. This results in the release of methane (a greenhouse gas), which in turn causes more warming, which melts more permafrost, which results in the release of yet more methane... There are dozens of feedbacks that affect the climate.
 
Befuddled Alien said:
I have read and re-read this sentence several times and must admit I am a little confused by your careful appearing language here. What exactly does the term "reasonable science" even mean? To my mind there is only 'science' - full stop. It either stands up to peer review or it doesn't. It either has predictive capability or it doesn't.

It seems like this is an out to dismiss any science which may not support a pre-conceived notion or position (Granted, I could be reading you wrong here). How do you, personally, determine if it is 'reasonable science' or not? How do you, personally, determine if a published paper has "fallen down"? And if the scientists in any given field disagreeing with you can't convince you, what would? What specific piece of data would you find compelling (other then a 'bad' thing coming to pass)?
Click to expand...

There is stuff that is easy to understand for me. Things like energy flow rates, amount of heat energy required to melt ice, the amount of ice melt needed to cause a 1mm sea level rise, the amount of flow out of the ice sheet that would result from this, the look of a melting ice sheet vs the look of an ice sheet that is constantly being covered with new additional snow and then there is data from a satelite which I cannot check at all.

If the stuff I can easily understand and check says one thing and the data from some sort of bizare method of measuring ice mass says another I go with the physics I understand.

Can you please tell me what bad thing you think is going to happen.
 
flogger said:
Our alleged CO2 contribution to the atmosphere represents a mere 0.01% of its volume. Do you really think that modifying that tiny fraction is going to make the slightest difference to anything ?
Click to expand...

It already has Bucko. You must be living in a cave.
 
Tim the plumber said:
All the ice is not going to melt. This is 97% the way to a lie.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? The Earth has been glacier free before. What other conclusion could absorbing more heat energy than we lose produce?
 
Whilst I agree with you on this mostly I still have to put in my bit...

Mithrae said:
The focus on sea level rise is a bit of a double-edged sword. The concept is very easy to communicate, but scary illustrations like that are misleading at best. Even under the IPCC's high RCP8.5 scenario, the projections of sea level rise are only 0.58 to 2.03 meters by 2200 (WG1 Table 13.8). Projections beyond that are of dubious value - odds are we can scarcely comprehend what tools and technology will be available in the 23rd century - but even by 2500 under RCP8.5 sea level rise might still be less than 2 meters (published range 1.51 to 6.63m).
Click to expand...

Good luck predicting what human industry will be doing in 50 years. Solar power looks like being better than coal well before then.

Granted, there is low confidence in the ability to predict "rapid dynamical change" in the Antarctic ice sheet, the potential for big chunks to break away and increase sea level rise beyond those estimates. But even if a volume the size of the entire Ross Ice Shelf broke away and melted - an area the size of France almost 1km thick in places - it would still contribute less than 1m to sea level rise. And something of that magnitude is improbable, to say the least!
Click to expand...

If it's an ice shelf it's floating and can easily break off but will never add anything to sea levels as it's already floating.

For some low-lying third world countries, even a half-meter sea level rise could be a serious issue which (despite some folks' blasé attitude) they can ill-afford to deal with. For example according to the World Bank about 20 million people in Bangladesh are already affected by salinity in drinking water which further sea level rises will exacerbate, and 40% of productive land is projected to be lost in the southern region for a 65cm sea level rise by the 2080s.

There are enough genuine issues of concern surrounding climate change to be going on with: The hyper-exaggerated sea level stuff is unnecessary, misleading and often counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Every monsoon deposits at least 2cm of mud on Bangladesh, and that's if you are 10km away from the river, you will have to work hard to find such a place.

By 2100 Bangladesh will be bigger not smaller.

Every claim of doom by the doomsayers falls down with a small anount of challenge.
 
iguanaman said:
So you agree with the OP? That warming is good? Once we reach a point where the Earth absorbs more heat energy that it loses, which is what warming is, how are we gong to stop it from melting all the ice on earth? Far from a "hyper exaggeration", it appears inevitable to me. Why is the future so difficult for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...
I think you are lost when it comes to science.

An imbalance is what causes warming. If there is more energy coming in than going out, then the earth warms until it's radiant output is equal to the input. However, equalization never actually occurs. There is always a variable changing.

Yes, I agree the earth is a better place a few degrees warmer. As slow as the warming will change, we will adapt quite easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom