• 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!

Global warming challenge/question

joG said:
Not at all. By then we will have the technology to deal with it.

But I think you also miss the fact that reducing growth now will remove meat from the diets of the poor in our countries and increase hunger and death rates in poor ones today. This would be to make life easier for unborn people in the future. In a society that aborts almost a million future people a year, I do not think that helping the unborn at dire cost to living persons is ethically consistent.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about the US obsession with abortion.
 
Tim the plumber said:
This thread is not about the US obsession with abortion.
Click to expand...

No. It is not about abortion. But arguing "later generations" put a value into the people not yet born that we do not as a society support. It is a question of logic. You cannot claim value for something that has none in our legal system. If you can abort the future person for pecuniary reasons, then it is dishonest to demand people pay very much for them. And that is essentially the argument the climate people have. We should reduce our living standard so that the living standard of people yet unborn and not aborted by some girl that doesn't think she wants the kid will be better off.

So it is not a question of being a different topic but one of the logical consistency of the argument.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given that the consensusTM is that we should do lots of things
to avoid climate catastrophy and all that this should be a very
easy thing for those who are of this opionion to do and show why
we must respond to their demands of stopping using fossil fuels;
Click to expand...
Why the limit to just fossil fuels?
Shouldn't we be reducing the population?


Tim the plumber said:
1, Choose 1 issues with a slightly warmer world that is scary.
The actual thing that will impact the world. Corral reefs dying
or something.
Click to expand...
Sea level is the biggest scare they've got. The spectre of coastal
cities inundated under multi meter sea level rise strikes a nerve.


Tim the plumber said:
2, Explain in your own words what mecganism will do this.
Not the temperqature rise but the bit between that and
the issue you have chosen.
Click to expand...
Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, thermal ocean expansion and
ground water pumping.


Tim the plumber said:
3, Then cite some sort of science that supports this mechanism
so we can look at how big an issue it is likely to be.
Click to expand...
All the stuff that Jason Box and James Hansen and others like them tell us.


Tim the plumber said:
4, Then it must be scary enough that any local council with traffic lights
will have to spend more than it's trafiic lights budget to sort out.
Click to expand...
They have to appoint a special planning commission -
they don't work for nothing you know.


Tim the plumber said:
If you do all these things you will have made a prima facia case
for action against climate change. If there is no decent responce
then you will have shown that there is nothing to fear at all.
Click to expand...
Sea level has been rising at essentially a straight line for centuries

Glaciers are receding and we do pump ground water.

Box & Hansen et al. are full of crap.

The whole aim of (appointed special planning commissions) is to keep
the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by
menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken​
 
Tim the plumber said:
Not at all.

If you can be bothered to actually explain what a slightly warmer climate will do to crops in your own words. Not a cut and paste. To explain the mechanism. Then to cite science that supports that mechanism I will look at it. Posting this sort of refer to a too long to read drivel tactic that the religious use will not do.
Click to expand...

I explained it to you in my own words the last time you asked this question, and you ignored it. You were dishonest last time, you'll be dishonest this time.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Almost actually doing the challeng.

You must say what bad thing will happen. That is a bad thing not some thing that is irrelevant to anybody.
Click to expand...

Nice shift of the goalposts, and nice grammar.

You must say what the melting of Greenland's ice will do that is bad. You must talk about the mechanism for this to happen assuming a warmer world. That is I do not seek any information about CO2's ability to warm the world let's take that as read.
Click to expand...

I already answered this. Go back and reread my prior post.

You will need to look at the amount of heat energy that ice can absorb and the length of the Greenland summer. You will need to say what bad thing this will do. You will need to quantify it. You will need to cite some actual science. Not Wiki.
Click to expand...

Yup, I knew you would play this pseudoskepticism game, and that's why I thought twice about responding to your posts. If you really are that interested in said mechanism, which I doubt, the sources are linked in the Wikipedia article. But I already said that in my prior post.
 
Steve Case said:
Why the limit to just fossil fuels?
Shouldn't we be reducing the population?
Click to expand...

No we should not be!!!

This is the most evil meam about.

There is no problem with food supply that is not caused by deliberate act of restriction of the stuff. Either by war, or much more by the use of food as fuel.

All other resources have never been so cheap and plentiful. They keep getting cheaper as we get better at extracting them and the world's economy of people rich enough to participate in it expands. More poeple trading equals more people porducing more resources cheaper per unit. Equals more scientists drawn from a much larger population working faster with more resources from a bigger tax base to cure cancer sooner.

Can you actully do the challenge or wold you prefer to try to derial the thread?
 
Deuce said:
I explained it to you in my own words the last time you asked this question, and you ignored it. You were dishonest last time, you'll be dishonest this time.
Click to expand...

Show where you explained it or be seen as a L**r.

But let's face it you failed last time.

That's why you will not do it this time and you post only to tell yourself that you have an answer at all.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Show where you explained it or be seen as a L**r.

But let's face it you failed last time.

That's why you will not do it this time and you post only to tell yourself that you have an answer at all.
Click to expand...

I don't remember what thread it was in, so I'll explain again. This way you'll have no excuse for ignoring it again:

ONE example of the impact of crop yields is that plants respond positively to temperature only up to a certain point. Days spent beyond that limit have a significant negative impact on crop yields. Too hot, the plants mature too quickly and cease growing. The temperature depends on the type of crop.

Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development

emperature is a primary factor affecting the rate of plant development. Warmer temperatures expected with climate change and the potential for more extreme temperature events will impact plant productivity. Pollination is one of the most sensitive phenological stages to temperature extremes across all species and during this developmental stage temperature extremes would greatly affect production. Few adaptation strategies are available to cope with temperature extremes at this developmental stage other than to select for plants which shed pollen during the cooler periods of the day or are indeterminate so flowering occurs over a longer period of the growing season. In controlled environment studies, warm temperatures increased the rate of phenological development; however, there was no effect on leaf area or vegetative biomass compared to normal temperatures. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80−90% from a normal temperature regime. Temperature effects are increased by water deficits and excess soil water demonstrating that understanding the interaction of temperature and water will be needed to develop more effective adaptation strategies to offset the impacts of greater temperature extreme events associated with a changing climate.
Click to expand...

As a person who believes biofuels are directly responsible for 35% of all deaths worldwide, surely this is more concerning than traffic lights, or whatever your criteria was.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No we should not be!!!

This is the most evil meam about.

There is no problem with food supply that is not caused by deliberate act of restriction of the stuff. Either by war, or much more by the use of food as fuel.

All other resources have never been so cheap and plentiful. They keep getting cheaper as we get better at extracting them and the world's economy of people rich enough to participate in it expands. More poeple trading equals more people porducing more resources cheaper per unit. Equals more scientists drawn from a much larger population working faster with more resources from a bigger tax base to cure cancer sooner.

Can you actully do the challenge or wold you prefer to try to derial the thread?
Click to expand...

Oops! I forgot the sarcasm tags.
 
Deuce said:
I don't remember what thread it was in, so I'll explain again. This way you'll have no excuse for ignoring it again:

ONE example of the impact of crop yields is that plants respond positively to temperature only up to a certain point. Days spent beyond that limit have a significant negative impact on crop yields. Too hot, the plants mature too quickly and cease growing. The temperature depends on the type of crop.

Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development



As a person who believes biofuels are directly responsible for 35% of all deaths worldwide, surely this is more concerning than traffic lights, or whatever your criteria was.
Click to expand...

And I will say what I probably said last time;

Do you think that tropical places grow less food than cooler ones?
 
Dealing with sea level rise alone measured in feet over next several centuries will cost the world of nations immeasurably. Shifting climate zones force the migration of plant and animal species, along with changing the locals for optimal agricultural practice. Heat waves coupled with higher humidities, drought expansion and associated water shortages duo as well to over use of aquifers already plague us. Look for them to worsen.

2 or 3C degrees of global averaged warming is the equivalent of 1/2 the difference between today and a full blown northern hemisphere ice age glaciation. That amount of temp difference is planet changing.
 
Russell797 said:
Dealing with sea level rise alone measured in feet over next several centuries will cost the world of nations immeasurably. Shifting climate zones force the migration of plant and animal species, along with changing the locals for optimal agricultural practice. Heat waves coupled with higher humidities, drought expansion and associated water shortages duo as well to over use of aquifers already plague us. Look for them to worsen.

2 or 3C degrees of global averaged warming is the equivalent of 1/2 the difference between today and a full blown northern hemisphere ice age glaciation. That amount of temp difference is planet changing.
Click to expand...
You would first have to actually have the warming, before there would be any sea level rise.
And 2 C of warming would make thing look roughly like 200 miles south of your current location,
(Assuming you are not on a southern coastline.)
The plants that would be most affected would be those that require large numbers of chill hours,
but the length of time of the change would be greater than the plant life cycles.
Raintree Nursery
Of course what you loose on the chill hours can be replaced with what was growing in the older zones.
What was grown in the tropics, will continue to be grown in the tropics.
The 2C number represents the low end of the IPCC range, and so any increase sea level rise would be low as well.
In the Early 1900's the city of Seattle raised the level of the entire downtown area between 12 and 30 feet,
because of tides in the area. (It is now called Seattle Underground.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground
So, if we actually see much sea level rise, we know that type of thing has been addressed in the past.
 
Russell797 said:
Dealing with sea level rise alone measured in feet over next several centuries will cost the world of nations immeasurably. Shifting climate zones force the migration of plant and animal species, along with changing the locals for optimal agricultural practice. Heat waves coupled with higher humidities, drought expansion and associated water shortages duo as well to over use of aquifers already plague us. Look for them to worsen.

2 or 3C degrees of global averaged warming is the equivalent of 1/2 the difference between today and a full blown northern hemisphere ice age glaciation. That amount of temp difference is planet changing.
Click to expand...

For pitty's sake try to actually do the challenge!

Choose 1 issue. 1 effect.

Then support it with a mechanism that will cause this bad scary thing.

Then link to some sort of science about it so we can see how bi it is.

Then we can look at how much cost there will be.

Rambling just shows your incapability.
 
Tim the plumber said:

For pitty's sake try to actually do the challenge!

Choose 1 issue. 1 effect.

Then support it with a mechanism that will cause this bad scary thing.

Then link to some sort of science about it so we can see how bi it is.

Then we can look at how much cost there will be.

Rambling just shows your incapability.
Click to expand...

Sea level rise.

Thermal expansion and land based glacial melt water.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
 
Tim the plumber said:

And I will say what I probably said last time;

Do you think that tropical places grow less food than cooler ones?
Click to expand...

This question is vague and useless. Current distribution of food crops is irrelevant to future deterioration of crop yields. Less food is less food. Plants grow best in a climate they are adapted to. Change that climate, and you may negatively impact that growth.

As a man who thinks 35% of all deaths, for all reasons, worldwide, are caused by biofuels, surely you're concerned with more days spent above critical temperatures that reduce crop yield.
 
Deuce said:
This question is vague and useless. Current distribution of food crops is irrelevant to future deterioration of crop yields. Less food is less food. Plants grow best in a climate they are adapted to. Change that climate, and you may negatively impact that growth.

As a man who thinks 35% of all deaths, for all reasons, worldwide, are caused by biofuels, surely you're concerned with more days spent above critical temperatures that reduce crop yield.
Click to expand...
Your own citation from post #33 tells a somewhat different story.
Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development
For example, an analysis by Schlenker and Roberts (2009) indicated yield growth for corn, soybean, and cotton would gradually increase with temperatures up to 29°C to 32°C and then sharply decrease with temperature increases beyond this threshold.
Click to expand...
So for the first 3 C yields increase, but decline above 3 C.
So far crop yields are increasing, if we actually warm, we will plant different crops!
The crops that grow in the tropics will likely continue to thrive in the tropics,
but the zone that supports the tropical crops may be larger.
Since most crop cycles are annual, I am not sure this is the issue supposed.
There could come a point where say, blueberries do not get enough chill hours, and have to be grafted
onto several varieties of native root stock, to grow in places with minimal chill hours.
 
longview said:
Your own citation from post #33 tells a somewhat different story.
Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development

So for the first 3 C yields increase, but decline above 3 C.
So far crop yields are increasing, if we actually warm, we will plant different crops!
The crops that grow in the tropics will likely continue to thrive in the tropics,
but the zone that supports the tropical crops may be larger.
Since most crop cycles are annual, I am not sure this is the issue supposed.
There could come a point where say, blueberries do not get enough chill hours, and have to be grafted
onto several varieties of native root stock, to grow in places with minimal chill hours.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
ONE example of the impact of crop yields is that plants respond positively to temperature only up to a certain point. Days spent beyond that limit have a significant negative impact on crop yields.
Click to expand...

Different story?

I see your confusion: you think 3C of global warming improves the growth for corn, soybean, and cotton.

That's not how daily temperatures actually work out. A warmer world means more days spent above that 32C threshold.
 
Deuce said:
Different story?

I see your confusion: you think 3C of global warming improves the growth for corn, soybean, and cotton.

That's not how daily temperatures actually work out. A warmer world means more days spent above that 32C threshold.
Click to expand...
Actually that is not how the data is working out, most of the observed warming has not been in the daytime highs,
but rather nighttime lows, and much of that in the cooler months.
So if crops are to be affected, the first ones would be those that are chill hour dependent.
In ether case, the result would be planting a different crop from the next hardiness zone.
 
longview said:
Actually that is not how the data is working out, most of the observed warming has not been in the daytime highs,
but rather nighttime lows, and much of that in the cooler months.
So if crops are to be affected, the first ones would be those that are chill hour dependent.
In ether case, the result would be planting a different crop from the next hardiness zone.
Click to expand...

Most, not all. The effect is non-zero. And Tim the Plumber thinks biofuels cause 35% of all deaths worldwide, so clearly even a tiny change here is enormous.
 
Deuce said:
Most, not all. The effect is non-zero. And Tim the Plumber thinks biofuels cause 35% of all deaths worldwide, so clearly even a tiny change here is enormous.
Click to expand...
If the number is 60% of the warming is in the evening and the 2 X CO2 ECS is 2.8C, then only
1.12 C would occur in the T-Max category, well below the 3 C stated in your citation.
Also we may not have enough fossil fuel to make even one doubling of CO2, much less more than one.
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

I can't talk to Tim's numbers, but the price of corn more doubled when we started making ethanol.
For a family living on just a $10 or $20 a month for food, that would be enough to push them over the edge.
 
longview said:
If the number is 60% of the warming is in the evening and the 2 X CO2 ECS is 2.8C, then only
1.12 C would occur in the T-Max category, well below the 3 C stated in your citation.
Also we may not have enough fossil fuel to make even one doubling of CO2, much less more than one.
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

I can't talk to Tim's numbers, but the price of corn more doubled when we started making ethanol.
For a family living on just a $10 or $20 a month for food, that would be enough to push them over the edge.
Click to expand...

Even accepting your math at face value, 1.12C still puts more days over that 29-32C limit, with a negative impact on crop yields resulting.

That "3C limit" is a weird thing you invented and makes no sense. They weren't referring to 3C of average global temperature increase. They're saying the limit temperature for crop yields falls between 29 and 32C.

You do this a lot. You find scientifically-valid numbers and plant them in bizarre places that make no actual sense. I have absolutely no idea how you managed to take a range of temperatures of optimal crop yields and transplant (rimshot) that number over to global average temperatures.
 
Deuce said:
Even accepting your math at face value, 1.12C still puts more days over that 29-32C limit, with a negative impact on crop yields resulting.

That "3C limit" is a weird thing you invented and makes no sense. They weren't referring to 3C of average global temperature increase. They're saying the limit temperature for crop yields falls between 29 and 32C.

You do this a lot. You find scientifically-valid numbers and plant them in bizarre places that make no actual sense. I have absolutely no idea how you managed to take a range of temperatures of optimal crop yields and transplant (rimshot) that number over to global average temperatures.
Click to expand...
The 1.2 C is simply 40% of 3C, I fat fingered the number to 1.12 when I typed it, but the 60-40 split was a bit low anyway.
It is you who misread the paper, Their test were run at fixed higher temperatures.
In experiment 2 where one chamber was maintained at 4 °C above normal for the entire growing season there were differences in the phenological development.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
The 1.2 C is simply 40% of 3C, I fat fingered the number to 1.12 when I typed it, but the 60-40 split was a bit low anyway.
It is you who misread the paper, Their test were run at fixed higher temperatures.
Click to expand...


You talked about a 3C increase as if it were a reference to global temperatures, and you derived this number from the listed 29C-32C, correct?
 
Russell797 said:
Sea level rise.

Thermal expansion and land based glacial melt water.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
Click to expand...

Will produce what bad thing. Be specific. Hopefully you can specify a particular location. A particular property would be nice to see exactly what would need to be done to sort it out.

Then show the science that supports the rate of sea level rise you are using. Actual paper here as the IPCC does all it can to obscure the basis of it's numbers but if you can't find it I will take their numbers if you need to. You do need to quote from it.

Then we can look at how much that would need to sort out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom