Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

Do you have any idea what cooling will do ? It means less food as things will not grow in the northern and southern latitudes as they do now. There are lots of good things that come from warming

 

You mean like simply adding more CO2 to the atmosphere wont necessarily cause global warming

 

I'll warrant I know considerably more about the science than you do. On the big questions that we're talking about here, the science is settled and has been for 20 years or more. The climate is warming. It's caused by human activities. The consequences are going to be bad. Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying. The AAAS says so. The National Academy of Sciences says so. There's not a single scientific professional organization that takes a dissenting position anywhere in the world. Not one. And I know for a fact that the AAAS knows a heck of a lot more about climate science than you do. Or than I do. The only people saying otherwise are lobbying groups and individuals like Watts and Inhofe making completely unsubstantiated claims.

But even aside from the enormous credibility gap, just looking at the basic facts should tell you what's going on. Temperatures are rising. CO2 levels are rising. The greenhouse properties of CO2 can be verified in any undergraduate physics lab. We know that the amount of fossil fuels we burn releases a couple times more CO2 than would be necessary to account for the observed increase. You can spin it as much as you want, but in the face of the simple facts you're just weaving crazy conspiracy theories that are about as credible as the Birthers.

As for "Climategate", you mean the fact that one climate scientist was caught using the word, "trick" in an email? My goodness, I can only imagine your reaction if one of them had used the word, "poop" or maybe "boobies." What are you, 12? Put in context, the allegations melt away faster than the Greenland icecap.

Shukla's Gold? What in the world is that? It sounds like the next installment of the Indiana Jones series. Never heard of it.

 

If you didn't think so I'd be worried.

 

See this post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=214748&p=1065439745#post1065439745

 

as a monument to republican dishonesty

 

I already responded to that post by pointing out that your links are to highly partisan sources that have very little credibility.

 

This is the problem both sides claim the other uses partisan sources that have very little credibility. Pretty strange for settled science. It must then still be in question as is all science for the most part.

 

Who said that there's no such thing as climate change? Not me.
Before you dare to reply to my posts at least read them and see what was really said instead of
being childish and making up a story to suit your dogma of intolerance.

Good grief.

Not true. Sensible people, those you childishly call deniers, don't need to cherry pick.

 

The change is probably the most serious issue.

So, today we have warm conditions in the Sahara desert, so there are few people living there.

The problem is when India starts moving toward being like the Sahara, but with a billion people.

And, no, those who are in India when that happens are not going to move to Canada. And, I doubt Russia will be interested, either.

Your "lots of good things" needs to include massive national security problems, disrupted world trade, starving people, and massive numbers of refugees. Oh, and a bunch of coastline issues, and a flooded NOLA, rising waters around Manhattan, etc. - those aren't issues to you, right?

 

Well, you certainly have bought into the hype without looking at the science. I am not surprised you don't know what climategate is about or what Shukla's Gold is because most like you don't look past the headlines. You have your side and the other side, science is not your concern.

BTW, anyone that says the science is settled, doesn't understand science or the debate in the science community. You have dismissed science for politics. You do at least apply the same logical fallacy that most like you do, appeal to authority.

 

You do realize that warming causes more clouds and rain and the closer you get to the equator, the less effect global warming has don't you?

 

Then why don't the Illegals in Kalifornia go back home?

 

Climate change is bringing about reductions in rain to significant regions.

Distribution is a key issue here. Populations have built up around agricultural capacity. When that capacity changes significantly, serious problems arise.

Remember that today the major food issue is distribution, not the ability to create the food.

When fishing resources are reduced due to ocean acidification (such as we see today with the global coral die-off) populations that depend on that food source are in serious trouble, regardless of what is happening in northern Russia or Canada.

 

Guess what happens to those capacities when it gets colder? Are we now at the optimal temperature for humankind? If we do find and maintain the optimal temperature wont this lead to massive overpopulation?

 

It's hilarious, how much it bothers deniers that nobody pays attention to their kook conspiracy theories. They try shouting them louder, but that doesn't work either, so they don't know what to do.

The American Republican denier cult is all alone in the world now. They're marginalized kooks. They can howl on message boards all they want, but they'll still be considered to be the equivalent of flat earthers, except less rational and more dishonest.

 

I can point to a bunch of civilizations overwhelmed by deserts which would disagree, if they weren't all dead.

So you're saying the Sahara is friendlier to life now that it's warmer? Interesting.

That's nonsense. There's no shortage of water in the oceans, which is where all water ends up eventually.

Again, complete barking nonsense. The amount of water locked in ice has absolutely zero to do with the extent of deserts. Water does not move directly from ice packs to deserts. It goes into the oceans first, and there's plenty of water in the oceans already.

 

I don't give this "optimal temperature" idea any credit for being a real issue. Yes, regardless of the temperature we can image a population of earth that is "too large".

But, I'm reasonably convinced that the problem we face right now has to do with change, not absolute temperature.

We can withstand a certain amount of change before the costs go astronomical.

The catch is that we are neither controlling the rate of change nor preparing for the change that we see happening.

The thing we can not do is sit on our tail bones and watch it happen. We're leaving a tremendously horrible situation for our kids and theirs.

Do we care? Is it fine if we knowingly and avoidably leave future generations with multiple catastrophic problems, the source of which is our own behavior?

To me, that would be a damning indictment of our morality - dwarfing anything good that we ever thought we stood for.

 

Well first, the Hadley Cells are the cause of arid regions and they do not change significantly. Second, there is not trend or increase in droughts.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000100/full

There is no indication that the misnamed 'ocean acidification' has changed anything and last estimate was that it changed from 8.2 to 8.1 with is in the middle range of natural ocean alkalinity. There is also no indication that the alleged acidification (moving more towards neutral) affects coral. Ocean acidification comes last of all the threats to coral.

pH homeostasis during coral calcification in a free ocean CO2 enrichment (FOCE) experiment, Heron Island reef flat, Great Barrier Reef

 

The corals build shells made of calcium and can only do it under warm conditions. Excessive acid will dissolve calcium carbonate, but the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and in the oceans is almost negligible. I would worry more about the acid rain caused by sulphur etc. rather than CO2. Naturally, any warming effect would help coral.

 

Denier outrage at common scientific terminology is funny. Acidification has always simply referred to an increase in [H+] concentration, period. It matters not a bit whether the starting or ending point is alkaline or acid. pH 7 itself is only a meaningful point in one type of system, pure water with strong acid/base interactions. Since the ocean is a multiply buffered system, pH 7 is a meaningless benchmark.

I suggest deniers also direct their outrage at the medical community, which defines acidosis being when blood pH falls below 7.35. That is, when it's still "alkaline".

 

Oceans are alkaline, not acid and they are not becoming acidic, just less alkaline. Ocean Acidification sounds scary doesn't it?

Some of the most damaging things to coral are agricultural runoff and mechanical damage. Warm water and low sea level are damaging to coral. Right now we have an El Nino in the Pacific that is affecting a lot of the global oceans and temperatures.

An El Nino subdues the cold water upwelling along the west coast which dampens the amount of nutrients brought to the surface which affects fish population more than anything else.

 

We're going through a major loss of coral reef around the world at present. Claims that small amounts of change in acidity are irrelevant are poorly founded.

And, again, % of drought isn't the only issue. When water changes (such as when the Pacific NW of America gets more rain and CA gets less) that is a problem regardless of whether it balances out.. It can (and did) impact agriculture in a way that has been very expensive.

 

That's not the point. A warm planet is a wet planet, not a dry one. This is not a guess, this is not based on models, these are hard facts preserved in the fossil record.

https://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_deep_history.php

It's amazing what claims the global warmists make, they are either uninformed or confident that their audience has no knowledge of the fossil record. First, it's much wetter, lakes, rain forests everywhere, lush nice forest stretching all the way to the poles. The tropics are no hotter than today, its just that the tropical band widens, and widens a great deal. A warm earth has much more uniform temperatures than ice-age earth.

The most likely reason our current ice-age is apparently unending probably is because of the configuration of the continents that isolates cold water at the poles and allows ice to form, that reflects the sun's energy back into space and since that is unlike to change, I doubt we will get much more warming, than hopefully enough to keep off a glacial advance. You want deadly? That's deadly. Even a mini ice-age is deadly as crop yields fail. A little more water, warmth, carbon dioxide? Bring it on.

Here is a link to the hard evidence of the fossil record about what non ice-age conditions on earth are like. Does that sound like the hell described in what is nothing more than computer models being hawked today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Oceans