Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Depends on the circumstances. Atolls have always been created and maintained by natural accretion. As long as there aren’t non native rats etc. reducing the number of sea gulls craping around atolls, the crazy things just keep rising along with sea levels. As long as humans don’t replace natural vegetation with non native plantations etc. the crazy things just keep growing along with sea level rise. As long as humans don’t install sea walls the crazy things just rise commensurate with the sea level. As long as humans don’t dump pollutants like synthetic fertilizers and pesticides into the water off atolls the crazy things just keep rising.

Flooding and other problems in Bangladesh related to deforestation haven’t suddenly popped up in the last 30 years either. In 1988 flooding covered 60% of the country. In 1998 it covered 75% of the county. In 2020 flooding covered 37% of the country.

Also of interest, incidence of typhoons offshore Bangladesh has decreased. I see the opposite claim often in relation to Bangladesh and their problems.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...a-over-two-decades-study-101626550577184.html

 

Out of politeness. Yes if you deny the agreed science from pretty much every advanced country in the world then we have nothing to discuss.

 

Delete

 

Agreed science? What does that mean? You don't agree on science you test and verify that science agreement is anti-science. It's actually what the church did in the 1600s to stop Galileo.

 

Ah yes I see what you mean, I was thinking of it differently. If I consider the fens in the UK, in their natural state they would be in the most part salt marsh changing gently to marsh as you move from the coast. They were drained and flood banked hundreds of years ago and a pumped system of dykes and banked rivers added to turn them into some of the most fertile land in the world.
This has been their 'natural' state for long enough for man and nature to have adjusted to that.
If the sea rises and all those raised banks and pump systems need raising and upgrading that will cost the UK government a huge amount of money. Or they flood and are lost (Also very expensive)
Now imagine the UK was a poor country not responsible to any degree for the increased atmospheric Co2 that is causing the sea to rise.
Would it be unreasonable to ask those primarily responsible to help fund the work needed?

The UK is already struggling with this for while our sea walls are high enough the change in our rainfall patterns has lead to flash flooding and run off the current pumping and storage systems cannot cope with.
This change seems to be the issue in Bangladesh as well. Change rather than overall increase.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-020-03387-x

Agreed, but while deforestation is in part responsible for Bangladesh's current rainfall, they are saying that climate change is exacerbating the issue and overwhelming the systems they have in place.

According to what I've read, while the number has not increased the intensity and associated rain fall has.
https://www.voanews.com/a/climate-c...e-and-destructive-scientists-say/7094636.html

 

Agreed as in all the major scientific institutes agree climate change is happening and is due to man made Co2.

Your arguments about, we don't know for sure, does the heating come from Tarmac or an alien death ray warming the planet for the lizard people who control the IPCC NASA and the CMA. Are not ones I wish to go over again and again.
And yes warming does release Co2 but Co2 also increases warming.

 

but they don't have any reason to believe this they just believe it because.

none of that was my argument I don't know where you came up with that.

It's obvious where the heating is coming from the Sun.

The thing I said that they don't know is this sudden increase of temperature is normal or not. And they don't know if the CO2 is rising because the temperature is or if the CO2 is causing the temperature to rise.

And that's 100% true they don't know that.

I would ask you to prove it but of course you can't and you're going to say you don't want to so I'm just not part of this religion.

 

Ah yes the sun suddenly got hotter. Only it didn't did it.
And I don't need to prove Co2 is causing temperature rise. The scientists have done it for me and they pretty much all agree.
When 90+% of doctors say the MMR vaccine is safe and a few sat it causes autism, I trust the 90+%. I don't need to set up a study myself.
But as you imply, the IPCC NASA CMA etc are all lying. Why we do not know, but most likely its the Lizard people controlling their minds.

Now you can accuse me of being a Zealot etc and I wont bother you again.

 

Research results suggest otherwise.
New Study: Satellite Evidence Shows Absorbed Shortwave Radiation Has Been Increasing Since 2000
By Kenneth Richard on 14. March 2024

The warming of the oceans since the turn of the century can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation.
Earth’s energy imbalance was determined to be +0.6 W/m² during the first decade of the 21st century (Stephens et al., 2012) using satellite observations. However, uncertainty in this positive imbalance value is large: ±17 W/m².



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2012
According to a new study (Kato and Rose, 2024), absorbed shortwave irradiance has been increasing since 2000 at a rate of +0.68 W/m² per decade. This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time.”

This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean,” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate (0.68 W/m² versus 0.6 W/m²).



Image Source: Kato and Rose, 2024
CERES data indicated a +0.66 W/m² per decade−1 (+1.3 W/m²) increase in absorbed solar radiation during the 21st century (March 2000 to March 2020) per a 2022 study (Stephens et al.).

It was determined the net absorption of solar energy that has occurred due to the reduction of solar radiation reflected to space by clouds and aerosols is “by far the largest contribution to the increasing rate of change of EEI.”



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022

 

A new study published in 2012.
That says global warming is caused by more reflected solar radiation being trapped.
No **** Sherlock.

 

The fens are only in their current state because of massive fossil fuel inputs. Before steam power only 1/3 of the area could be pumped out annually.

When the fens were originally taken for cropping they were above sea level because natural accumulation of peat in the bogs kept it that way. As soon as farming began, additional elevation ceased and subsidence began in earnest as the peat and other organic matter decomposed and was released into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane. As the fens sunk, they tried pumping them out with windmills. But that could only drain about 1/3 of the land annually while the rest was flooded (flooding deprived peat of oxygen so decomposition and release of greenhouse gasses can’t occur).

But then along came fossil fuels. All the land could be drained by burning coal! Release of greenhouse gasses from the new “soil” increased by another 2/3. The fens began to sink from subsidence faster.

Today, the fens are far below sea level even far inland. They and other peat formations deprived of protective cover account for 3.5% of UK emissions.

The percentage of power used to pump out fens coming from fossil fuels is decreasing. But the release of emissions from the peat that would otherwise have been sequestered indefinitely will continue in perpetuity.

It’s estimated at the time the fens were first converted to farming, their productivity overall did not increase. They became more profitable to the new “owners” but the actual value of pastoral, aquatic foods, thatch (renewable zero carbon building material), and renewable fuel (peat) to society before transition was equivalent. That’s of course debatable No official records exist. The fen dwellers were rebels and scoundrels anyway. It was easier to control and tax farmers than fenmen who ate eels and thumbed their nose at the tax man.

The question of who owes who is valid but impossible to answer. Do poor arid nations owe us a debt for increasing productivity of their lands through CO2 emissions? Does the World Bank owe Bangladesh for helping them destroy mangroves? If we give Bangladesh more money to add to structures that caused the problem to begin with, who owes who? Do I owe someone because my farm is becoming more productive because of climate change? Did someone in Southern Kansas owe me in 1997 because the climate then allowed him to plant corn a month earlier than me? I don’t have answers to those questions. Not my department!

Can you quantify how much problems in your fens are related to subsidence and increased precipitation respectively? Has anyone run the numbers on how much the greenhouse gasses released by creating and maintaining the fens contributes to the current predicament? Does anyone care? Has anyone ever even considered the entire scheme is based on mining sequestered carbon for profit?

Yep. They say whatever they think will get them foreign money as my Vanderbilt University link explained.

Yes, intensity of tropical cyclones appears to be increasing in ones that mature. I’m not sure if it’s been observed in the Bay of Bengal.

 

Well, no. The phenomenon noted in the paper is an order of magnitude larger than that associated with greenhouse gases.

 

Jan 22, 2019 — 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change" - AOC

 

Yes and it's gradually growing because the number of people affected are growing.

Does it really take that much computing power to understand that a storm that hit's a population center of 1 million will do more damage than the same storm that hits a population center of 200k?

 

Compared to the amounts created heating properties and moving vehicles you are talking minute.

I think it was a fairly gradual process and much of the fens were inhospitable and uninhabited. There was no shortage of reed for thatch to my knowledge.

All good answers 557. I was not expecting you to act as judge, just wanted to give the reasoning behind their claim.

I think no one cares because you cannot reverse history, certainly the UK is not asking the world bank to pay to preserve them. What does matter is that climate change is effecting them and there is a cost to not stopping it. Just as there is to stopping it.

Indeed.

That's the position now. They are seeing change in rainfall patterns just as we in the UK and you in the states.
For some it wont make a big difference, for some it will, for some they haven't seen a big difference yet but who knows.

It could be that my concerns about the cost of not tackling climate change are largely mute in the U.S where population density is much lower.
Certainly our scientists seem to think it matters both for wildlife and for humans.

 

Of course it’s a smaller contributor today than vehicles. It wasn’t between 1630 and 1840. It may not be in the future.

I’m not aware of shortages of reed either. But it was harvested in the fens. As was peat, a renewable before renewables were cool.

My point is this. The fens of today are artificial anthropogenic creations that are net carbon emitters. They only exist because of the burning of untold massive amounts of fossil fuels since the 1840’s. I see it as a bit ironic to complain that a bit of extra rain may take something away that humans took from nature to begin with. And it’s funny the mechanism supposedly taking the fens back is a result of the fossil fuels used to create them in the first place.

Even more confounding is the fact the fens are below sea level ONLY because of subsidence which was my original point. And today subsidence isn’t even something 99% of people even ever heard of. But they hear the fens are threatened from climate change when in fact it’s subsidence that made them threatened, not climate change.

As a society we’ve come to assume all our anthropogenic problems are directly related to greenhouse gas driven AGW when that simply isn’t the case. In most cases the big problems are 90%+ driven by other anthropogenic factors and climate change is negligible or even unmeasurable. That’s what I hope to convey. Solving problems requires first identifying the cause of the problem.

Sure. It’s undeniable some folks will see negative consequences from climate change. Every time there are changes some benefit and some see negative consequences. I don’t see how we can make everything fair and equitable on a globe with seasons and different climates in different latitudes. It seems bizarre to try. I’m not against sharing and helping each other. But imagining a world where climate effects on disparate people groups all over a planet with natural and un-natural climatic variations are adjudicated so it’s all “fair” is an exercise in futility

The fens could be allowed to revert to their natural state. People just don’t want to give them up now just like some don’t want to give up ICE vehicles or 85°F houses in January or air travel or doughnuts and coffee. It’s nice to mine sequestered carbon stores for profit. Even in fens that aren’t recognized as such operations by the public.

Worrying about lost fens is equivalent to worrying that climate change will make it impossible or more costly to drill for offshore oil. Doesn’t seem logical to me.

Well I can say this with confidence. Areas that have no vegetative cover and root systems to hold soil and moisture to prevent and slow runoff will definitely see more problems than areas that didn’t intentionally destroy the infrastructure nature developed to deal with rain. Areas that intentionally created huge land masses below sea level will see more problems than those who didn’t. People who destroy mangroves to turn a quick buck selling shrimp to rich westerners will see more problems than those who let their mangroves live. Choices matter.

My advice is fix the BIG problems first. And none of these are fixed by reducing CO2 emissions.

 

a bunch of people agreeing with each other is not science. It's anti-science but everyone agrees that there's not anything worth looking into here we'll just accept something that's the death of science.

Every single person I ever hear argue for this climate change nonsense always sights this religion of agreement. As though multiple people that agree on something that can't be wrong.

You don't have any science you just saying the word to invoke it.

All you have is a bunch of people agreeing on something that they're not really aware of. That's religion.

the vaccine is at safe because doctors say it is. It's safe because it doesn't cause any issues except for in a tiny minority of people.

If 95% of civil engineers told me that the bridge was safe at 5% told me it wasn't and the bridge collapsed 95% of the engineers that told me it was safe would be wrong that's possible. You have already seen this kind of discrepancy within science.

I didn't imply anything of this sort. When you have to make straw man fallacies it means your argument is poor.

You said people all just say it's true and agree on it and so therefore it is that's an axiom that's not science.

No I don't think you're a salad I just think that like most people you really don't like being wrong.

Also the so-called consensus that they did a meta study on a few years back and it was baloney.

 

Unfortunately, more people are being affected.

Your second paragraph isn't really an analysis. It is an issue that any analysis would have to include.

Are you suggesting that climatologists from around the world don't understand that?

Also, today's costs are interesting, as they are part of the analysis of what is economical for us to do. It includes how much we should fund federal emergency response, infrastructure improvement related to storms and higher sea levels, etc.

 

Wow!

It's not just "a bunch of people". It's large numbers of very serious scientists from all over the world.

 

Majority doesn't equal correctness. And many cases it means the opposite.

If 95% of engineers told me that a bridge was sound, and 5% told me that it wasn't and then the bridge collapsed 95% of them would have been wrong that happens. It's not even rare.

Why do you say wow when you hear an apostate critique your religion

 

I pointed out that you are counting those who have no claim to expertise.

And, your total nonsense about bridges is about engineering, not science, and it is local, not global.

 

who am I counting list names please

Well the bridge thing wasn't really about claiming that engineering was science (and it is, just applied science) it was too point out experts or people you seem to believe areexperts can be wrong and how it works.

So your argument that engineering isn't global (it is) is a complete missing of the point.

Thanks for proving yourself profoundly incompetent. Everything you say is suspect now. You didn't understand load force, wind shear, physics, and materials science are all sciences involved in engineering, this you are profoundly scientifically illiterate.

 

I'm suggesting the obvious logical answer.

The amount of damage caused by natural disasters in dollar figures (even if we use adjusted dollars which we should) is used by climate alarmists as an indicator that climate change is real....i.e. we have worse weather now than we used to because natural disasters are worse.

They're not worse.

If the 1900 Galveston hurricane, cited as the deadliest natural disaster in history were to occur now it's clear that it would be far worse.

In 1900 the population of the county was about 44k people. Today it is around 350k.

Clearly the exact same storm would do far more damage today in adjusted dollars, and cause more deaths, than it did in 1900.

 

Yes, a bunch of scientists who only get paid when they say "uh, climate change is getting bad y'all".

 

The increase in damage a storm does today has to do with the fact that we have built more stuff and this more people live there it doesn't indicate that the sun is more powerful.

Example if a category five hurricane was to hit Australia in the Great bight it would likely do less damage an a category 2 hitting Melbourne.