70
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:44 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
Edenkofer's BA in philosophy at the Jesuit university was Marx related
Exactly.
,,, but he left the Jesuit order with this first level of academic studies for scholastics.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:47 pm
@layman,
There are no climatologists in the IPCC. Only nations are members.

The UN has, what, about 190 nations as members? The USA is only one of those. There are 189 others, the vast majority of which have interests CONTRARY to those of the US. Those 189 want money coming FROM the USA TO them. Get it?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:50 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The U.N.'s IPCC is trying to get trillions of dollars for "third world" countries from the U.S. and other "developed" nations, aint ya heard?

Gee, and who do you think holds the power (and the research funding) in this equation? It's not the third world. Bejeebus the UN couldn't even prevent an illegal invasion of Iraq because the US wanted it so bad.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:52 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
Gee, and who do you think holds the power (and the research funding) in this equation? It's not the third world. Bejeebus the UN couldn't even prevent an illegal invasion of Iraq because the US wanted it so bad.


This aint no war. This is slimy politicians trying to gain advantages with their weasly ways. Why the non sequitur?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:53 pm
@layman,
UN Funding sources

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:59 pm
@layman,
At first layman wrote:

Quote:
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that:...


now layman wrote:
There are no climatologists in the IPCC. Only nations are members.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:00 pm
@hingehead,


Another non sequitur. I haven't even looked at your link, but I don't need to in order to know that it's irrelevant. It's pretty obvious that you don't know much about who/what the IPCC is, how it works, and what its goals are.
.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
You think there's something contradictory there?

You don't seem to be real quick on the uptake, eh?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:05 pm
@layman,
So the IPCC is running the world, redistributing wealth to the poorest nations - even though it's funded by the wealthiest nations AND Walter and I are slow.

Had enough of your mindless crap. Ciao.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:58 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
AND Walter and I are slow.
We just don't have those super-natural skill and intelligence to get something from a source without looking at it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 11:02 pm
@Setanta,
Lucky Bob isn't here, he would mark you down for coherence. The format for your post was a bit scrambled but I think I got the idea. I gave the opinion of a independent expert who does not believe in AGW. The counter argument was he now gets paid for his opinion. So all the AGW devotees are not getting paid? They are all homeless pushing around shopping trolleys with all their goods and chattels in them?

But then a government panel is cited. No governments are currently going against AGW, there are too many votes in it. Ever seen what happens to a whistle blower? They are always far worse off.

Perhaps you need to go back and read again.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 11:21 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Your claims about Pinatubo have been dealt with.
Then you have no understanding of my claims. I was pointing out that if one volcano can lower the earth's temp even of a short duration, then a greater event could even usher in an ice age/glacial advance. You dont seem to think that would be catastrophic, that we only have to worry about AGW.

Quote:
From 1812 to 1815 there were five major volcanic eruptions, culminating with the eruption of Mount Tambora in Sumatra, with a volcanic explosive index rating of seven--on a seven point scale. It was the largest eruption known in almost 1600 years. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death or died of common illnesses which were fatal to malnourished people. But guess what--the effects were short-term.
Talk about dribble. The Mini-Ice Age was short term and easy to survive?

Quote:
1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow
1275 to 1300 based on radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation
1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315–1317
1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
1650 for the first climatic minimum.

The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century.
If we count the multiple plagues as a result of this climate change, and many experts do, then it halved Europe's population.

What makes you think the ocean rising by 1-2 m would be worse? The rich countries can afford to rebuild, The poor countries use local materials for housing. There are many technologies that would replace the lost grain growing areas, not to mention Canada and Siberia open for farming. We have dealt with large scale migrations before, we can do it again. Many people live with 2m of water under their house. Now compare that with 1-2 km of ice rising over the northern hemisphere - 1-2 m of water or 1-2 km of ice? I'll take the water anyday.

But you need AGW to feel important and tell others what to do so I'll leave it there.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 11:23 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
No, Walt, there are several sites that say 2 degrees C. Layman gave you NASA - dont you like NASA?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 11:33 pm
@hingehead,
So you cant see how the third world wants to benefit? If offered money, they will say "no thank you, we have our pride"? Rly? It has been estimated by the devotees that AGW will require a trillion dollars to Africa alone.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:05 am
@Ionus,
Ionus says:
Quote:
Google "trees killed in USA by bug". There are no end of bugs eating trees. From memory it was the ash borer. Initially the greenies said it had to be GW, but that was just a knee jerk reaction. The investigation was reported in a news outlet, I havent the time to find it again.
0 Replies
Jeez, Ionus, you apparently know nothing of the biology involved here. There haveALWAYS been bugs (and diseases) killing trees. There's been an arms race between them for millions of years. Plants evolve ways to stop the things that prey on them, and then the predators evolve ways around that, and the plants evolve new defenses, and so it goes around and around. I ksincerely doubt ANYONE ever considered the ash tree die-off as due to global warming, since the borers are bright green and easily visible, and they're clearly AN INVASIVE SPECIES, SINCE THEIR HABITAT IS ASIA, not the States. American ash trees don't exhibit the general immunity to them that Asian ashes do, since they didn't have to evolve that defense, since they weren't here.

Invasive species have been recognized for decades as imperiling and crowding out native species. Dutch elm disease is probably the most famous case in the States. Didn't you guys have a plague of introduced rabbits? Usually they are traceable to some sort of human fuckup, introducing something here we shouldn't have.

The case of bark beetles is different, since now we have to worry about the effects of climate change on plants, which we didn't used to have to. Bark beetles, which are killing lots and lots of our lconifers, are NATIVE to the States, and generally were held in check by less-frequent droughts which weaken the trees, and harsher winters. Warmer winters, a byproduct of global warming have let the beetles' numbers increase greatly, completely different case than dieoffs from introduced predators.

You really should stop being so simplistic and look at the actual cases and causes. The scientists who look at climate change do. They look at ALL the factors. They know that if they don't the models won't work, which is why the models DO work.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:20 am
@Ionus,
Straw man fallacy--additionally, i con't accept your premise that an eruption like Pinatubo would do that, alone.

Straw man fallacy. The so-called "mini-ice age" may not in fact be the event you are attempting to describe. From Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.


From Britannica:

Quote:
Information obtained from “proxy records” (indirect records of ancient climatic conditions, such as ice cores, cores of lake sediment and coral, and annual growth rings in trees) as well as historical documents dating to the Little Ice Age period indicate that cooler conditions appeared in some regions, but, at the same time, warmer or stable conditions occurred in others. For instance, proxy records collected from western Greenland, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and western North America point to several cool episodes, lasting several decades each, when temperatures dropped 1 to 2 °C (1.8 to 3.6 °F) below the thousand-year averages for those areas. However, these regional temperature declines rarely occurred at the same time. Cooler episodes also materialized in the Southern Hemisphere, initiating the advance of glaciers in Patagonia and New Zealand, but these episodes did not coincide with those occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, temperatures of other regions of the world, such as eastern China and the Andes, remained relatively stable during the Little Ice Age.

Still other regions experienced extended periods of drought, increased precipitation, or extreme swings in moisture. Many areas of northern Europe, for instance, were subjected to several years of long winters and short, wet summers, whereas parts of southern Europe endured droughts and season-long periods of heavy rainfall. Evidence also exists of multiyear droughts in equatorial Africa and Central and South Asia during the Little Ice Age.

For these reasons the Little Ice Age, though synonymous with cold temperatures, can also be characterized broadly as a period when there was an increase in temperature and precipitation variability across many parts of the globe.


It was not all as cut and dried as you claim. I note that you don't even name your source, but it's still an improvement since your nomral method is ipse dixit with no sources at all other than your say-so.

Worst straw man of all--at no time have i proposed that others do anything, nor is my self-image involved here, although i suspect that yours is. All i have pointed out is that we're dumping megatons of CO2 in to the atmosphere. Apparently, the energy sector is OK with that as long as they get to keep selling fossil fuels.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:26 am
@Ionus,
Those people aren't being paid to do any research, they're just being paid as shills for the energy sector to deny anthropogenic global warming. The scientists who have put together the picture of what climate change is doing right now get paid to do research and then report the results, rather than making claims their paymasters want to see made. I understand that this is a distinction which it is difficult for your to make in your own mind, but your mental health problems are of no interest to me.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:28 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
you apparently know nothing of the biology involved here
Then you have either jumped to yet another conclusion, as if AGW wasn't a big enough jump, or appearances are deceiving.

Quote:
Warmer winters, a byproduct of global warming
There you go again! Who said warmer winters are a product of GW???? What is the natural variation?

Quote:
The scientists who look at climate change do. They look at ALL the factors.
Do they? Can they tell me what the temp should be because you need to know that before deciding it is getting warmer, and esp before deciding humans are bad.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:55 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Straw man fallacy
What is?
Quote:
i con't accept your premise that an eruption like Pinatubo would do that, alone.
Then you will be pleased to note I was using it to paint volcanoes with a broad brush. You say they dont matter, I say they do. Volcanic activity is one of the major causes of climate change.

Quote:
Straw man fallacy
What is?

Quote:
I note that you don't even name your source
Didn't you read your source? The first ref you gave is the same as mine. I would hate to think you were quote mining but that you read it through. How come you didn't recognise it then?

Quote:
your nomral method is ipse dixit
You have the hide to say that? Shall we look at all your comments on history?

Quote:
at no time have i proposed that others do anything, nor is my self-image involved here
So you propose we do nothing to cure AGW. Ok, good! As for your self-image, it isn't very good from previous conversations I have had with you, but how would you feel if AGW was wrong? It could be you know...it just could be. Then we will have spent trillions because you were wrong.

Quote:
the energy sector is OK with that as long as they get to keep selling fossil fuels.
Who do you think is investing in the new technologies? Energy companies are too stupid to invest in different technologies according to you, but here is a ref: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2014-10/24/c_133738239.htmDo you like this ref?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:57 am
Since you're descending once again into personal invective, i'll just say you can kiss my red Irish ass, and i will have nothing more to say to you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 09:27:06