Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[Catoni]

8 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, I am saying that any source that has clear bias, such as yours who are being paid by fossil fuel companies to present a climate change denying stance, needs to be scrutinized, which when done to yours reveals the fact that they are not scientists at all, they are mere lobbyists who claim that the scientists have it wrong, by misrepresenting facts, such as the ones you blindly re-posted, not actual scientists demonstrating any facts of their own. 

 

Show us the evidence, all you have shown us so far are corporate shrills telling you it is so and resorting to lying in order to make themselves sound more convincing.

 

As for you final comment, again, I am not stating that any source that is paid should be disregarded, I am saying that they should always be scrutinized if there is even the remotest chance that they might be biased, something you seem uneasy with regarding your own source, which makes sense seeing as just the first tiny little bit of scrutiny reveals them to not be scientists and instead to be lobbyists paid by the very companies they claim are not causing climate change.  A half wit could see their game, but not you, oh no.

So as long as the researchers are collecting taxpayer cash from government grants, or funded with leftist “Tides Foundation” or leftist Heinz money or billionaire socialist George Soros cash, then we can believe them....Is that correct? 

[Catoni]

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have a pretty good idea of how quickly the temperatures increased following the last ice age, there was a global average temperature increase of about 5C and we know that it took thousands of years, we don't know exactly how many years but we know it was thousands. We don't know of any other global temperature increases of 5C in history other than following ice ages.  There is nothing to suggest that any of the other ice ages within the past 65 million years happened at substantially faster rates than the last one.  Perhaps there was some period in history where the temperatures rose at the rate they are currently rising but there is no evidence of it whereas there is plenty of evidence that rises of this amount happened following ice ages and took thousands of years.  We also know that if we maintain the current rate of increase in the global average temperature seen in the past 100 years, we have already risen 2C since 1900, we will see a 5C rise happen within the next 100 years.  There is no evidence of a rise in temperature of 5C over a couple of hundred years since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

We are still in an Ice Age. The Pleistocene/Quarernary Glaciation, or Current Ice Age which started about 2.6 million years ago. As long as the planet has frozen polar regions, glaciers and ice caps like Greenland, we are in an Ice Age.

    Some people obviously confuse Glacial Periods with Ice Ages.

   We are currently in an Interglacial Period, between Glacial Periods, during our current Ice Age. 

    Some people, (these days primarily leftists/socialists and communists) claim that the planet should STAY in an Ice Age. Some people want most of human kind to die off. (See the Georgia Guidestones etc.)

      The argument over Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change  is only to further their politico-economic agenda to tear down capitalism and build socialism/Marxist-Leninism. Nothing more! 

    But one true claim can certainly be made. Historically, civilization has always done best during the warmer times, and done poorly during colder times. 

      And people with money, (and even many people with relatively little money) prefer to travel to and/or retire to the hot tropics, rather than the colder shores of the Arctic Ocean. 

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Catoni said:

We are still in an Ice Age. The Pleistocene/Quarernary Glaciation, or Current Ice Age which started about 2.6 million years ago. As long as the planet has frozen polar regions, glaciers and ice caps like Greenland, we are in an Ice Age.

    Some people obviously confuse Glacial Periods with Ice Ages.

   We are currently in an Interglacial Period, between Glacial Periods, during our current Ice Age. 

    Some people, (these days primarily leftists/socialists and communists) claim that the planet should STAY in an Ice Age. Some people want most of human kind to die off. (See the Georgia Guidestones etc.)

      The argument over Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change  is only to further their politico-economic agenda to tear down capitalism and build socialism/Marxist-Leninism. Nothing more! 

    But one true claim can certainly be made. Historically, civilization has always done best during the warmer times, and done poorly during colder times. 

 

From spending years in the cold, I can assure you that it is easier to stay cool than stay warm.

[DrTuner]

15 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Historically, civilization has always done best during the warmer times, and done poorly during colder times. 

Pre-AC and central heating, sure. These days I'm nursing a theory that hot climates stop your brain activity since all effort goes to sweating. It seems to be the nordics that have a higher IQ. Case in point, Italy.

[Catoni]

16 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Pre-AC and central heating, sure. These days I'm nursing a theory that hot climates stop your brain activity since all effort goes to sweating. It seems to be the nordics that have a higher IQ. Case in point, Italy.

Can you tell us why people prefer to go to the hot tropics for vacation and retirement, and not to the Arctic shores of Alaska, Russia, or Canada? 

     I don’t see Sandals, Beaches, Hilton, Atlantis Resorts etc. rushing to build hotels and resorts on Ellesmere Island or Baffin Island.

[Catoni]

32 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Pre-AC and central heating, sure. These days I'm nursing a theory that hot climates stop your brain activity since all effort goes to sweating. It seems to be the nordics that have a higher IQ. Case in point, Italy.

As a matter of fact, East Asians show higher math and science scores anywhere in the world they go. 

The Nordics, as a race, can’t touch ‘em in intelligence levels. 

    And once you’ve acclimated to the local climate, you shouldn’t have a problem. 

  Again, civilization historically has advanced best in the warmer times, not the colder times. Holocene Climate Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period etc. 

    Life prefers it warm. Go to the Arctic and look around. And then go to Borneo and look around. 

    Where do you see the greatest biodiversity? 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

So as long as the researchers are collecting taxpayer cash from government grants, or funded with leftist “Tides Foundation” or leftist Heinz money or billionaire socialist George Soros cash, then we can believe them....Is that correct? 

 

No, they should be scrutinised as much as any other, and they are, however unlike the climate change denying corporate shrills, they actually stand up to their scrutiny.

[DrTuner]

40 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Can you tell us why people prefer to go to the hot tropics for vacation and retirement, and not to the Arctic shores of Alaska, Russia, or Canada? 

     I don’t see Sandals, Beaches, Hilton, Atlantis Resorts etc. rushing to build hotels and resorts on Ellesmere Island or Baffin Island.

It's the classic, you leave the brains at swampy.

[Bangkok Herps]

I saw the headline and thought, "Oh, posted here? Watch a bunch of ignorant people without the slightest clue of the issues involved make ignorant statements."

Wasn't disappointed.

 

It's amazing how the strong the denial instinct is. I got my degree in biophysics and have friends who work as scientists for major petrochemical manufacturers, and even THEY believe the science behind anthropomorphic climate change, not to mention the actual conditions outside which have passed the point of reasonable deniability during the last 20 years. Even the experts whose bosses would most benefit from such denial are accepting it, while the "man on the street" who is afraid of the slightest inconvenience to his life will deny it solely because he doesn't want to have to bother.

Before you respond, ask me if you know.....

* What the typical speed of past temperature changes were.

* What the normal variation in CO2 levels has been during human history, and how that compares to CO2 levels now.

* What % of CO2 levels are produced by man, what % are produced by volcanoes, and why that would or would not have an effect.

* Who is going to benefit the most from climate change, and who is going to suffer the most.

* How many other negative effects that overconsumption, excess CO2 production, and other pollutants have in addition to AGW

[Nyezhov]

10 minutes ago, Bangkok Herps said:

I saw the headline and thought, "Oh, posted here? Watch a bunch of ignorant people without the slightest clue of the issues involved make ignorant statements."

Wasn't disappointed.

I read your post and thought...theres a guy who never tried wearing a thong in December in Fairbanks Alaska.

 

Let it warm I say.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Bangkok Herps said:

I saw the headline and thought, "Oh, posted here? Watch a bunch of ignorant people without the slightest clue of the issues involved make ignorant statements."

Wasn't disappointed.

 

It's amazing how the strong the denial instinct is. I got my degree in biophysics and have friends who work as scientists for major petrochemical manufacturers, and even THEY believe the science behind anthropomorphic climate change, not to mention the actual conditions outside which have passed the point of reasonable deniability during the last 20 years. Even the experts whose bosses would most benefit from such denial are accepting it, while the "man on the street" who is afraid of the slightest inconvenience to his life will deny it solely because he doesn't want to have to bother.

Before you respond, ask me if you know.....

* What the typical speed of past temperature changes were.

* What the normal variation in CO2 levels has been during human history, and how that compares to CO2 levels now.

* What % of CO2 levels are produced by man, what % are produced by volcanoes, and why that would or would not have an effect.

* Who is going to benefit the most from climate change, and who is going to suffer the most.

* How many other negative effects that overconsumption, excess CO2 production, and other pollutants have in addition to AGW

 

    Well... in general...  people do best in wamer times.  Civilization began, and also made their greatest advances during warmer times....  not so much during the intevening colder periods.   (Holocene Climate Optimum and the end of hunter/gatherer....beginning of agriculture and first villages/cities).  The Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period...

     Not so good during the cooler times....  

 

    We just came out of a 550 year cooler time... the Little Ice Age..(circa 1300 - 1850) with longer, colder more bitter winters, shorter growing seasons, failed harvests, famine and lots of early death from easier disease spread due to people spending lots more time close together indoors...

   The I.P.C.C. says we warmed only 0.85 degree C between 1880 - 2012. (Third, fourth and fifth Assessment Reports.)

                    You think 0.85 degree C over a period of time of 132 years is fast compared to the past ?  You haven't heard of Abrupt Climate Change?  (Like 10 degrees in 10 years or even less.  That is fast.) 

    Tell me.... what do you expect it to do after a nasty colder time ends.  Do you expect it to warm up for a couple of hundred years?   

    Or get colder.. . LOL   ? 

   By the way..  CO2 is not pollution.  And compared to almost all of the last 500 - 600 million years....  CO2 level is extremely low right now.   

   We actually reached a level of 180ppm before.......

  What do you think would have happened if we went below 150 ppm atmospheric CO2 ? ? ? 

 

  You're a "scientist" ? ?   

 

Here's some more scientists : 

 

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.^{[19][20][21][22]}
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.^[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.^[25][26]
• Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. ^[27][28][29]
• Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.^{[30][31][32][33]}
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.^[34][35]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).^[36]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.^[37][38]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.^{[35][39][40][41]}
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.^{[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]}
• Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.^[49][50]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.^[51][52][53]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).^[54][55]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.^[56][57]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.^[58][59]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.^{[60][61][62][63]}
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.^[64][65]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.^[66][67]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.^[68][69]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.^[70][71]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.^[72][73]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.^[74][75]
•  

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.^[77][78]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[79][80][81]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.^[82][83][84]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[85][86]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.^[87]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.^[88]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.^[89][90]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.^[91][92]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.^[35][93]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.^[94][95]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[96][97]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.^[98][99]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.^[100][101]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.^[102][103]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.^[104][105]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[106][107]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[108][109]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[110][111]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.^[112][113]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.^[114][115]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.^{[116][117][118]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.^[119][120]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.^[121][122]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.^{[123][124][125][126]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[127][128]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.^[129][130]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.^[131][132]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.^[133][134]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.^[135][136]

 

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[137][138]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[139][140]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[141][142]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.^[143][144]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCCreports.^{[145][146][147]}
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.^[148][149]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.^[150][151]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.^[152][153]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.^[154][155]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[156][157]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.^{[158][159][160]}
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.^[161][162]

 

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.^{[163][164][165]}
• Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[166][167]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.^[168][169]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.^[170][171]

       . 

     

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Bangkok Herps said:

I saw the headline and thought, "Oh, posted here? Watch a bunch of ignorant people without the slightest clue of the issues involved make ignorant statements."

Wasn't disappointed.

 

It's amazing how the strong the denial instinct is. I got my degree in biophysics and have friends who work as scientists for major petrochemical manufacturers, and even THEY believe the science behind anthropomorphic climate change, not to mention the actual conditions outside which have passed the point of reasonable deniability during the last 20 years. Even the experts whose bosses would most benefit from such denial are accepting it, while the "man on the street" who is afraid of the slightest inconvenience to his life will deny it solely because he doesn't want to have to bother.

Before you respond, ask me if you know.....

* What the typical speed of past temperature changes were.

* What the normal variation in CO2 levels has been during human history, and how that compares to CO2 levels now.

* What % of CO2 levels are produced by man, what % are produced by volcanoes, and why that would or would not have an effect.

* Who is going to benefit the most from climate change, and who is going to suffer the most.

* How many other negative effects that overconsumption, excess CO2 production, and other pollutants have in addition to AGW

Excellent example of the problem (highlighted in bold). Even so-called scientists can have a religious belief. The true nature of science is not one of belief, except perhaps a belief in the methodology of the scientific process which requires, before reasonable certainty can be achieved, repeated experimentation under ideal conditions where one can change just one variable to observe its effect, doing one's best to create experiments in an attempt to falsify a particular hypothesis, and always only provisionally accepting something as true if one fails to falsify it, and all the experiments tend to produce the same results.

 

A degree of skepticism is always required in science. We know from history how wrong a consensus view on any particular scientific theory can be. Such skepticism is even more important when the subject under investigation is tremendously complex with multitudes of variables interacting with each other.

 

The degree of complexity of human biology is similar to the complexity of climate, but climate change is more difficult to predict because the time-scales are much longer, and we have only one planet to experiment with, whereas we have a large number of human bodies to experiment with, not to mention mice and rats, and so on.

 

I just recently heard on the news the results of the latest experiments on the benefits of taking regular, small doses of Aspirin, which is often claimed to protect one from cancer and reduce the risk of heart problems and high blood pressure. A large group of elderly people were split into two groups, one group taking the Aspirin and the other group taking a placebo.

 

The results were surprising. Basically, those taking the aspirin showed no 'observable' benefits, compared with those taking the placebo. Of course, more experiments need to be carried out, but I mention this as an example of the difficulty in being scientifically certain about predictions when great complexities are involved. The Aspirin has been around since 1890, about the time CO2 levels began increasing, yet we are still not sure if regular small doses are of benefit to our health.

 

But we are certain that increased CO2 levels are the main cause of the current change in climate, and we are certain that the current rise in global, average temperatures (about 0.8-1.0 degrees C over the past 130 years or so) is faster than any rise during the past 65 million years. Wow! Something seems a bit unscientific here, wouldn't you agree? ?

 

This highlights another aspect of the problem that could lead us to disaster in the future; the general ignorance, among politicians, the public at large, and apparently even certain so-called scientists, of the fundamental nature of the methodology of science.
 

[DrTuner]

I've met a few scientist in my life. Most can't probably couldn't use a toaster, employed by government naturally. 

 

The climate is changing for sure, always has, always will be. Are humans the new dino-asteroid? I doubt it but if we are, it's a long overdue culling. The thing that I don't believe is they've managed to create a  computer model of a climate and fed it data worth something. Garbage in, garbage out. The models are just about as crude as weather forecasts in the 1800's.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, DrTuner said:

I've met a few scientist in my life. Most can't probably couldn't use a toaster, employed by government naturally. 

 

The climate is changing for sure, always has, always will be. Are humans the new dino-asteroid? I doubt it but if we are, it's a long overdue culling. The thing that I don't believe is they've managed to create a  computer model of a climate and fed it data worth something. Garbage in, garbage out. The models are just about as crude as weather forecasts in the 1800's.

Scientists are employed by private industry also. I was one of them. I generated millions of dollars of direct benefit to the companies I worked for, which is more than I can say for some other professions.

Focusing on facts, not models, the Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate. Ditto the Greenland glaciers. The Northwest Passage is open to shipping for the first time in human memory.

As far as modelling goes, the Tibetan Plateau supports 1.4  billion people. Its glaciers and lakes feed the Mekong, Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The lakes are drying up and the glaciers receding as we speak, and are forecast to lose about two-thirds of Asia's fresh water reserves by 2050 with no change in the current rate of loss.

As a statement of blithe ignorance, your post takes some beating. Judging by some of the other posts on this thread, there's a lot of competition.

 

[DrTuner]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

As far as modelling goes, the Tibetan Plateau supports 1.4  billion people. Its glaciers and lakes feed the Mekong, Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The lakes are drying up and the glaciers receding as we speak, and are forecast to lose about two-thirds of Asia's fresh water reserves by 2050 with no change in the current rate of loss.

So you take a graph and do a linear approximation based on current rate and call that a forecast? Very scientisty. To muddy it up at least throw some nifty DIY variables in there.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Scientists are employed by private industry also. I was one of them. I generated millions of dollars of direct benefit to the companies I worked for, which is more than I can say for some other professions.

Focusing on facts, not models, the Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate. Ditto the Greenland glaciers. The Northwest Passage is open to shipping for the first time in human memory.

As far as modelling goes, the Tibetan Plateau supports 1.4  billion people. Its glaciers and lakes feed the Mekong, Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The lakes are drying up and the glaciers receding as we speak, and are forecast to lose about two-thirds of Asia's fresh water reserves by 2050 with no change in the current rate of loss.

As a statement of blithe ignorance, your post takes some beating. Judging by some of the other posts on this thread, there's a lot of competition.

 

The Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the summer by now. What ever happened to that? 

    So did these things also melt away during the other Interglacial Periods? 

   How do the Himalayan glaciers supply water for the rivers? Don’t they have to melt to do that? 

    You want glaciers to start advancing?  What if they go too far, like a few in Europe did during the “Little Ice Age” that wiped out some crop fields and even flattened a a village or three? How will you stop them?

     

     We’ve been in an Ice Age now that started about 2.6 million years ago. Are you saying it should last forever? 

    Don’t you believe in climate changing? Do you want the climate to stay the same as it was in 1835 or some other year?

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Scientists are employed by private industry also. I was one of them. I generated millions of dollars of direct benefit to the companies I worked for, which is more than I can say for some other professions.

Focusing on facts, not models, the Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate. Ditto the Greenland glaciers. The Northwest Passage is open to shipping for the first time in human memory.

As far as modelling goes, the Tibetan Plateau supports 1.4  billion people. Its glaciers and lakes feed the Mekong, Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The lakes are drying up and the glaciers receding as we speak, and are forecast to lose about two-thirds of Asia's fresh water reserves by 2050 with no change in the current rate of loss.

As a statement of blithe ignorance, your post takes some beating. Judging by some of the other posts on this thread, there's a lot of competition.

 

“...Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate.”

     Uh huh?  Really? 

Define “...unprecedented...”

     How ‘bout you tell us when they started documenting melt and freezing rates of the Larsen Ice Shelf? I’d like to know how many years ago they started keeping an accurate record.  Ditto the Greenland glaciers. LOL

  When you’re done getting that info, you can then fill us in on how long they’ve been keeping track of the Northwest Passage.

    We were supposed to have an ice free Arctic Ocean during summers by now. 

    Got a bit delayed on that one I guess. Maybe by summer 2019 perhaps, huh ?

  The leftist/socialist/Marxist-Leninist Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmists have given the order.

  “Climate must always stay the same on the planet.”

   “ And to make that happen, we must bring down Capitalism and build Socialism and tax carbon and raise other taxes and redistribute more and more wealth.”

     That’s what they REALLY want.

[Nyezhov]

6 minutes ago, Catoni said:

That’s what they REALLY want

Naw what Gore wanted was to make money. He did. Lots. As did his cronies.

[mauGR1]

The poles will shift abruptly, maybe in 1000 years, or maybe tomorrow, that's the defense mechanism of the planet.

It has happened before, it will happen again.

The survivors will tell tales of flying machines and angry gods , the pyramids and the sphinx will still be there, although not sure if underwater or not.

[utalkin2me]

19 hours ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...interesting! Let's say we "loose" most of Africa to constant drought and sandstorms, i guess, Europe will happily acommodate all the Africans, who need to live somewhere not as drought- stricken!
Oh...wait a minute...

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You lost me at "loose". 

[DM07]

2 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

You lost me at "loose". 

Yeah...isn't it sad, that not all of us are blessed with a birth in a mainly English-speaking country!?

But we could try German...let's see how far that gets us!?

[utalkin2me]

3 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...isn't it sad, that not all of us are blessed with a birth in a mainly English-speaking country!?

But we could try German...let's see how far that gets us!?

You missed something, because the point was if we lose Africa, another area just as large could open up and become habitable. That doesn't mean it has to be Europe. It is just an observation, there is not much to argue about. 

[DM07]

Wow...that is even more interesting!

So...let's say we loose or lose or we have lost Africa...which other "area" might open up?

Don't be so cryptic about it!

Say what you want to say and loose (or lose) all credibility, which what comes next!

[Catoni]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

The poles will shift abruptly, maybe in 1000 years, or maybe tomorrow, that's the defense mechanism of the planet.

It has happened before, it will happen again.

The survivors will tell tales of flying machines and angry gods , the pyramids and the sphinx will still be there, although not sure if underwater or not.

Only the magnetic poles will shift, over a great length of time. As a matter of fact they are always shifting, but flipping north to south will happen over a few thousand years very gradually. It doesn’t happen overnight. Our ancestors were walking around last time it happened. Massive destruction doesn’t happen. So don’t worry about it. 

     You have a very unreal imagination and watch too many Hollywood disaster movies.

 

[Nyezhov]

9 hours ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...isn't it sad, that not all of us are blessed with a birth in a mainly English-speaking country!?

But we could try German...let's see how far that gets us!?

I'd be happy to try but my German is so bad and es tut mir leid, aber wir können keine Fremdsprache in diesem Forum verwenden (we arent allowed to use foreign languages on this forum).

 

Mainly English speaking countries (that matter) are the US, GB and the Ozztrians. It is a blessing to have been born there.

[mauGR1]

5 hours ago, Catoni said:

Only the magnetic poles will shift, over a great length of time. As a matter of fact they are always shifting, but flipping north to south will happen over a few thousand years very gradually. It doesn’t happen overnight. Our ancestors were walking around last time it happened. Massive destruction doesn’t happen. So don’t worry about it. 

     You have a very unreal imagination and watch too many Hollywood disaster movies.

 

I don't watch many movies, but i have read a few theories which are still debated among the scientists.

As far as i know, the frozen mammoths found in Siberia are yet to be convincingly explained.

There are many legends of massive destruction, and scientific evidence of it.

Well, my point, regarding this topic is that, whether humans are fully or partially responsible for climate change, our existence is based on many factors which we can't control.

[Nyezhov]

Todays Chicken Little News:

 

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/17/remember-when-climate-change-meant-end-coffee-never-mind-13418

 

Im still waiting for the Ice Age  that was all the rage in the 70s

[DM07]

I'd be happy to try but my German is so bad and es tut mir leid, aber wir können keine Fremdsprache in diesem Forum verwenden (we arent allowed to use foreign languages on this forum).
 
Mainly English speaking countries (that matter) are the US, GB and the Ozztrians. It is a blessing to have been born there.

Funny! I can't remember, talking to you!
But I guess, you just have to force yourself into every conversation.
Must be the interner- equivalent of buying a Porsche, when you reach 50!

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Nyezhov]

15 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Funny! I can't remember, talking to you!
But I guess, you just have to force yourself into every conversation.
Must be the interner- equivalent of buying a Porsche, when you reach 50!

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I need your permission to post on any matter do I? Dude bist der Boss?

 

I sold my Porsche years ago. Too fat to climb out of. Mercedes instead. 

[DM07]

35 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I need your permission to post on any matter do I? Dude bist der Boss?

 

I sold my Porsche years ago. Too fat to climb out of. Mercedes instead. 

?