ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

a reply to: Phage

Who have I hated on? Except for the "neener neener" guy.

You have at least helped this thread achieve notoriety, for that I am grateful. If you notice, I didn't forcefully try and inject much criticism or opinion into the OP. I threw one line up about how the MSM outlets create propaganda. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

a reply to: libertytoall

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict there is no way the earth can experience a runaway warming.

I guess that would depend a bit on your definition of "runaway warming" but that's not really much of a limb you're climbing. More of a trunk.

a reply to: eisegesis

I threw one line up about how the MSM outlets create propaganda.

And I agreed.

But it's not the first time the failure of media to get the science right has been used as a front to attack the science.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt

They worried about this because they saw people on TV with science degrees telling them that an Ice Age was upon us. Yes, really. It was on the news.

No. They saw some sensationalistic articles about what a small minority of scientists said while a majority of climatologists were writing about the warming effects of CO2.

True statement, but there is a problem with it. More co2 does not equate to any drastic changes in higher temperature like the climate models you love to follow. co2 has proven in models to increase temperature but not in any dangerous levels. In fact, more co2 has been proven to increase crop production and speed growth rates in vegitation. There has yet to be any kind of link to runaway temperatures being caused by co2.

How do you desalinate an ocean? Is that what you're conserned about? because that can't happen either..

a reply to: libertytoall

More co2 does not equate to any drastic changes in higher temperature like the climate models you love to follow.

Not on its own. But as deniers like to point out, climate is a complex system. CO2 increases radiative forcing. Increased radiative forcing increases temperatures (the energy has to go somewhere). The increase in temperatures leads to an increased atmospheric capacity for water vapor. Water vapor is, like CO2 but more so, a greenhouse gas. More water vapor leads to a further increase in temperatures. A feedback effect. There are others. Initiated by increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

In fact, more co2 has been proven to increase crop production and speed growth rates in vegitation.

No. Not crop production. In a greenhouse with controlled conditions plant growth has been shown to increase. But there are other factors which affect crop production, water availability not being the least of them.

There has yet to be any kind of link to runaway temperatures being caused by co2.

There you go on that "runaway" thing again.

How do you desalinate an ocean? Is that what you're conserned about?

No.

a reply to: Phage

How am I denying it? The current state of climate science is a joke, and as someone who respects science you should be able to see that. I even got you to admit that NASA was misinforming the public about climate change in a previous thread.

Don't you think that maybe...just maybe...there could be an agenda behind this science? Do you not see the incredible amount of control and manipulation that can and will be pushed onto everyone around the world from this agenda?

The reason there is still a dependence on fossil fuels is just that, too many people, and not enough energy. Once the science of green energy, and energy storage reaches the point we don't need fossil fuels anymore, we won't use them anymore.

The fact is that even with nuclear(which has faced extreme protests since it's inception), hydroelectric, solar, and wind energy, we are not even close to being able to cut off our addiction to fossil fuels.

I would love to wake up tomorrow in a world where fossil fuels are no longer used...the reality is that we still need them and they are providing needed energy that saves lives every single day.

Green energy is cheap, it can be good for the environment, it is user friendly, and overall MUCH better. I think we can agree on that.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

The fact is that even with nuclear(which has faced extreme protests since it's inception), hydroelectric, solar, and wind energy, we are not even close to being able to cut off our addiction to fossil fuels.

I agree. That does not mean that there's no reason to work on it.

originally posted by: Phage

climate is a complex system.

That it is, and we only have a single lifetime of real models to base it on. We know what natural CO2 saturation does, but as it stands we can only PREDICT what man-made CO2 does. (That does not equate to me downplaying it).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: libertytoall

More co2 does not equate to any drastic changes in higher temperature like the climate models you love to follow.

Not on its own. But as deniers like to point out, climate is a complex system. CO2 increases radiative forcing. Increased radiative forcing increases temperatures (the energy has to go somewhere). The increase in temperatures leads to an increased atmospheric capacity for water vapor. Water vapor is, like CO2 but more so, a greenhouse gas. More water vapor leads to a further increase in temperatures.

Which leads to more rain because more water vapor will mean more rain clouds releasing water in the form of rain more frequently.

No. Not crop production. In a greenhouse with controlled conditions plant growth has been shown to increase. But there are other factors which affect crop production, water availability not being the least of them.

Water availability increases with increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Plants get more rain as a result.

Lucky for us our earth and it's atmospere live in a cyclical set of laws that all cause a healthy balance we experience. You can't increase something without something else correcting it's imbalance. Mother nature is amazing at that.

a reply to: Vector99

We know what natural CO2 saturation does, but as it stands we can only PREDICT what man-made CO2 does.

What is CO2 saturation?
But yes, the physics tell us rising CO2 levels do. They increase radiative forcing. That means that the climate system retains more solar radiation. That means temperatures (of the atmosphere and the oceans) go up. That part is not complicated.

a reply to: Phage

Yet you think that somehow claiming the debate on climate change is over, and giving governments around the world more power over our lives is going to change that?

a reply to: libertytoall

Which leads to more rain because more water vapor will mean more rain clouds releasing water in the form of rain more frequently.

No. If temperatures are higher it does not mean more rain. Look up the difference between absolute humidity and relative humidity and how relative humidity relates to rainfall.

Water availability increases with increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Plants get more rain as a result.

You're repeating yourself.

a reply to: eisegesis

I started a thread on this yesterday.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: eisegesis

I threw one line up about how the MSM outlets create propaganda.

And I agreed.

But it's not the first time the failure of media to get the science right has been used as a front to attack the science.

Fine, I guess I'll have to take that. Except if this was an actual attempt to attack the idea of climate change drastically affecting our planet in the near future, you bet your last icecap I would have put more effort into it. Don't take what you believe to be a poor attempt at discrediting science as a measure of my intelligence. Some nights I like throwing chum in the water to attract sharks. The frenzy is entertaining.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Yet you think that somehow claiming the debate on climate change is over, and giving governments around the world more power over our lives is going to change that?

No. I think that the "power" to change that does not lie in the hands of government. Nor do I think that burying our collective heads in the sand does. Nor do I think that denying that the planet is warming does. Nor do I think that denying that human activity is a proximate cause does.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: Phage

Yet you think that somehow claiming the debate on climate change is over, and giving governments around the world more power over our lives is going to change that?

It's interesting you would choose to frame the discussion in this way. This seems to show a core belief and fear that has nothing to do with the topic.

The debate on if humans are influencing the global climate ended decades ago. The question which remains is to what degree, and what should be done about it. Did anyone watch Freeman Dyson's video on the second page? I found his take interesting.

originally posted by: Chesterjohn
a reply to: eisegesis

I started a thread on this yesterday.

Sorry Chester, I've had bad luck with duplicates lately. I tried searching, but apparently didn't use the right words.

Mods, please close.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: libertytoall

Which leads to more rain because more water vapor will mean more rain clouds releasing water in the form of rain more frequently.

No. If temperatures are higher it does not mean more rain. Look up the difference between absolute humidity and relative humidity and how relative humidity relates to rainfall.

Water availability increases with increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Plants get more rain as a result.

You're repeating yourself.

I wasn't claiming you would have more inches of rain but that it would happen more often. This is already proven all over the globe. Go visit the carribean and it will rain every single day for 10-20 minutes. That's due to higher solar radiation being closer to the equator which in turn is warmer temperatures in that part of the globe causing more frequent rainfalls.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Core belief and fear that has nothing to do with the topic? How does it have nothing to do with the topic?

a reply to: Phage

CO2 effect is saturated
"Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." (Marc Morano, as quoted by Steve Eliot)

CO2 also has a cooling effect as well. Good example is the time of dinosaurs, 5x the amount of CO2 and not much warmer temps.

CO2 actually has many effects on the planet, not JUST warming link