Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

I like how you and your buddy Genava keep referencing/spamming the same 'shoddy' NOAA + NASA junk; then calling it scientific fact. :->
NOAA/NASA has been caught manipulating data; they have lost any credibility they might have had...come on Daruwind try HARDER!

Exactly! I can't tell you how many times I've heard from the whizkids that a Hurricane in the Gulf is caused by Global Warming when they are expected to happen from time to time. At the same time and in the same breath they will say that Summer Solstice Snowstorms are caused by Global Warming.

The very recent (and off season) snowstorms in western China are probably a result of Global Warming, according to them.

The flooding on the Yangtze river is caused by Global Warming and the unexpected heavy rains and snow melt-off; never mind the fact that the Chinese are releasing the water from the Three Gorges Dam reservoir because their afraid the dam could fail. ( the west bank of the dam isn't completely anchored to bedrock and it was constructed with substandard steel). The dam was supposed to prevent flooding...must be Global Warming.

[Menelik_I]

It is probably more saying about you as person than about state of Global Warming Because with your altitude, why should civilization ever try some long lasting projects? Colonization of Mars? Nuclear fusion? Space travel.

Guess what, all these things (space travel, mars colonization (real one, not this "we will return" BS NASA does to get budget), and fusion) have budgets, reasonable time frames and verifiable milestones.

Even if you think that Elon Musk is scammer con artist ponzi schemer, selling you the dream of mars colony for profit, each rocket that fly is a hard proof that we are making progress, even if we don't know if fusion is possible at some point physcucks will have enough data to conclude or have their budget pulled and invested in something more efficient.

Now Global Warming has a inhuman timeframe (centuries), unlimited budgets and powers, without ANY hard milestone to prove that the counter measures are working.

I know a scam when I see it.

[Daruwind]

@Stario

Sure sure. I like how everything we post is "NOAA + NASA junk" except i see so many links for various other pages. Ah those are manipulated too right? So basically everything we post is manipulating. I like simplicity of your life!

@B.W
Still failing at base logic....
Higher global temperatures leading to higher water vapor and higher intensity of extreme weather. Heck you can even locally have lower averages (Europe in case of shutting down Golf Stream anybody?) You are literally being fascinating by snow in summer!

I have another natural wonder for you B.W. - look there is snow in Africa, in summer, WOW - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro

@Menelik_I
So let´s wait another decade two and see what is the trend then, no problem ;-) What can possibly happen..

I don´t understand why you think we consider Elon a scammer or something else? He is visionare. That being said his rockets are hardly new tech. It is all based upon WW2 rockets more or less but he is making them reusable and cheap and from current components like 3D print... That´s all. It is easy to prove, go look at fuels...

And why the hatred for "physcucks"? Don´t tell me physclass students bullied you in school...Anyway you are typing on machine develop by such guy so I really don´t understand it. Fusion has potential, but ultimately any base research is costly. There is no way around it. Can it be wasted money? Sure, but without risk you can resturn to stone age and enjoy fire and sticks..

Anyway you would be right about slowness in natural climate change. However what we see looks like change by decade. And you are not correct about possible counter measures. WW3, erupting a few volcanos, some chemicals in atmosphere...however it would require worldwide coordination and money. That´s all. Mostly the money...

[B. W.]

@Stario

Sure sure. I like how everything we post is "NOAA + NASA junk" except i see so many links for various other pages. Ah those are manipulated too right? So basically everything we post is manipulating. I like simplicity of your life!

@B.W
Still failing at base logic....
Higher global temperatures leading to higher water vapor and higher intensity of extreme weather. Heck you can even locally have lower averages (Europe in case of shutting down Golf Stream anybody?) You are literally being fascinating by snow in summer!

I have another natural wonder for you B.W. - look there is snow in Africa, in summer, WOW - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro

@Menelik_I
So let´s wait another decade two and see what is the trend then, no problem ;-) What can possibly happen..

I don´t understand why you think we consider Elon a scammer or something else? He is visionare. That being said his rockets are hardly new tech. It is all based upon WW2 rockets more or less but he is making them reusable and cheap and from current components like 3D print... That´s all. It is easy to prove, go look at fuels...

And why the hatred for "physcucks"? Don´t tell me physclass students bullied you in school...Anyway you are typing on machine develop by such guy so I really don´t understand it. Fusion has potential, but ultimately any base research is costly. There is no way around it. Can it be wasted money? Sure, but without risk you can resturn to stone age and enjoy fire and sticks..

Anyway you would be right about slowness in natural climate change. However what we see looks like change by decade. And you are not correct about possible counter measures. WW3, erupting a few volcanos, some chemicals in atmosphere...however it would require worldwide coordination and money. That´s all. Mostly the money...

And so the truth finally comes out. What we need, according to the AGW crowd, is a Global Government to solve all our problems. That government will have to be communist CCP since they will never consent to being governed by the rest of the world, which means it is we, the good guys, who will give up our freedom and standard of living so you guys can tell us what we can and can't do.

I remember once waiting on a whole team of physicists who were trying to solve a mechanical problem. After six months I finally lost my patience and pointed them to the cause of the problem and the solution. They were trying to solve a complicated problem sitting behind their desks instead of going out in the field to see the issue first hand. If you think I'm going to change my habits or inclinations because of what some egghead "thinks" is rational, I got news for you: it ain't gonna happen.

[Daruwind]

And so the truth finally comes out. What we need, according to the AGW crowd, is a Global Government to solve all our problems. That government will have to be communist CCP since they will never consent to being governed by the rest of the world, which means it is we, the good guys, who will give up our freedom and standard of living so you guys can tell us what we can and can't do.

I remember once waiting on a whole team of physicists who were trying to solve a mechanical problem. After six months I finally lost my patience and pointed them to the cause of the problem and the solution. They were trying to solve a complicated problem sitting behind their desks instead of going out in the field to see the issue first hand. If you think I'm going to change my habits or inclinations because of what some egghead "thinks" is rational, I got news for you: it ain't gonna happen.

Worldwide coordination as with extermination of smallpox for example? But it is showing what you are fearing so much. Except I said nothing like that...For me, collaboration is like CERN or ITER or ISS where states are building something together. I said nothing about prejecting any policies into that.

So in your opinion all scientist are worthless idiots. All humanity need is common intelligence right? Plus nobody was saying that you must change habits or inclinations. Don´t blame that on scientist, if anything blame that on politicians. But that is completely different discussion as I said. Human Global Warming is question for science and what humanity/politicians will do with results, that´s not up to me,us....so adress those not us. Then if laws gonna pass via normal process, you gonna ignore them? Because not every laws is for you..and I´m not saying anything about badly created laws but if they are actually passed via majority and via complete bugless democratic process. Tell me who is there anarchist.. ;-)

Like if people decide that we will do nothing against warming, fair enough, democracy in real time.

[Genava]

Hotter and Colder periods have already existed during mankind stay on earth, the last 30.000 years included a Ice Ages and Hot periods

For longer than that actually. And greenhouse gases are a major parameter of those changes:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/

Even before the quaternary period, greenhouse gases are very important for the climate:

how come this modest warming is gonna kill us all ?

Strawman argument.

Here an excerpt from the Geological Society of America' statement:

If no effort is made to stabilize emissions, CO2 concentrations will reach three to four times pre-industrial levels by 2100, and Earth will warm by 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C compared to 1986–2005 temperatures. These changes will substantially alter the functioning of the planet and lead to (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice, with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) decreased summer water supplies in mountainous areas; (3) increased evaporation from soils and stress on crops; (4) extreme precipitation and high-temperature events; (5) longer and more intense fire seasons; (6) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (7) acidification of the global ocean for tens of thousands of years, with accompanying likely extinctions; (8) compromised economic and national security because of accelerating decay of infrastructure and increased human conflict and displacement; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity across ecosystems. Sea levels will rise significantly, affecting densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmlands, and dislocating large populations; 15%–40% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” may stay in the atmosphere for more than a thousand years, extending the duration of global warming and its effects on humans and other species.

Africa was more liveable in Warm Climate periods

Was wetter, not hotter. This is why it is called the African humid period.

2- Rising sea levels: China is reclaiming coral reefs to make military bases in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, I don't see them burning money with BS so they must know something.

Actually the Chinese academies endorse the general aggreement about climate change and its causes:
http://insaindia.res.in/pdf/Climate_05.08_W.pdf

And they are not ignoring the threat, Chineses are taking in account sea level rise in their plans:
https://reliefweb.int/report/china/c...ing-sea-levels
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...ea-level-rise/

3- The same politicians that scare us into compliance would not use a climate scare because they discovered gezuz ?

I don't understand your point.

4- the giant thermonuclear reactor known as the sun is just "ignored" in these apocalyptic previsions, while it has a cycle of power output which is probably what drives global Warming. Any discussion about this topic that doesn't include historical Solar data is a scam with in thermometers in ovens.

For people childishly ignoring my argument, I will simply copy-paste it:

I already gave you these links from the NASA about the Sun's role on the climate:
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/w...rrent-warming/
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/w...limate-change/

I already gave you this figure comparing solar irradiance and global temperature:


And I already gave you this figure in which you can see the decrease in solar irradiance in the Arctic (which suggest a cooling period in the Milankovitch theory):


So clearly on this topic, everything suggests the Sun is not the driving force of the current warming.

The very topic of the Sun's role in the current warming is a very long debate that reached a conclusion decades ago, there is little evidence for a major role of the Sun in the current warming and there is evidence suggesting the contrary.

A stronger claim to explain climate came from the seemingly most unworldly of sciences, astronomy. It began with a leading eighteenth-century astronomer, William Herschel. He noted that some stars varied in brightness, and that our Sun is itself a star.Might the Sun vary its brightness, bringing cooler or warmer periods on Earth? Speculation increased in the mid-nineteenth century,following the discovery that the number of spots seen on the Sunrises and falls in a regular eleven-year cycle. It appeared that the sunspots reflected some kind of storminess on the Sun’s surface—violent activity that had measurable effects on the Earth’s magnetic field. Perhaps sunspots connected somehow with weather—with droughts, for example? That would raise or lower the price of grain,so some people searched for connections with the stock market.The study of sunspots might give hints about longer-term climate shifts too.Most persistent was Charles Greeley Abbot of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. The observatory already had a program of measuring the intensity of the Sun’s radiation received at the Earth, called the “solar constant.” Abbot pursued the program single-mindedly, and by the early 1920s he had concluded that the solar constant was misnamed. His observations showed large variations over periods of days, which he connected with sunspots passing across the face of the Sun. Over a term of years the more active Sun seemed brighter by nearly 1 percent. As early as 1913 Abbot had announced that he could see a plain correlation between the sunspot cycle and cycles of temperature on Earth. Self-confident and combative, Abbot defended his findings against all objections,meanwhile telling the public that solar studies would bring wonderful improvements in weather prediction. Other scientists were quietly skeptical, for the variations Abbot reported teetered at the very edge of detectability.The study of cycles was generally popular through the first half of the twentieth century. Governments had collected a lot of weather data to play with, and inevitably people found correlations between sunspot cycles and selected weather patterns. If rainfall in England didn’t fit the cycle, maybe storminess in New England would. Respected scientists and enthusiastic amateurs insisted they had found patterns reliable enough to make predictions.Sooner or later, though, every prediction failed. An example was a highly credible forecast of a dry spell in Africa during the sunspot minimum of the early 1930s. When the period turned out wet, a meteorologist later recalled, “the subject of sunspots and weather relationships fell into disrepute, especially among British meteorologists who witnessed the discomfiture of some of their most respected superiors.” Even in the 1960s, he said, “for a young[climate] researcher to entertain any statement of sun-weather relationships was to brand oneself a crank.”[...]
The variations of sunspots and cosmic rays were negligible compared with the Sun’s total output of energy. How could such trivial variations possibly have a noticeable effect on climate?In 1975 the respected meteorologist Robert Dickinson took on the task of reviewing the American Meteorological Society’s official statement about solar influences on weather. He concluded that such influences were unlikely, for there was no reasonable mechanism in sight—except, maybe, one. Perhaps the electrical charges that cosmic rays brought into the atmosphere somehow affected the way cloud droplets condensed on dust particles? Dickinson hastened to point out that this was pure speculation[...]A 1994 National Academy of Sciences panel estimated that if solar radiation was now to weaken as much as it had in the Little Ice Age of the seventeenth century,the effect would be offset by only two decades of accumulation of greenhouse gases. As one expert explained, the Little Ice Age “was a mere ‘blip’ compared with expected future climatic change.”

Projected changes in the Earth's climate can be driven from a combined set of forcing factors consisting of regionally heterogeneous anthropogenic and natural aerosols and land use changes, as well as global-scale influences from solar variability and transient increases in human-produced greenhouse gases. Thus, validation of climate model projections that are driven only by increases in greenhouse gases can be inconsistent when one attempts the validation by looking for a regional or time-evolving "fingerprint" of such projected changes in real climatic data. Until climate models are driven by time-evolving, combined, multiple, and heterogeneous forcing factors, the best global climatic change "fingerprint" will probably remain a many-decades average of hemi-spheric- to global-scale trends in surface air temperatures. Century-long global warming (or cooling) trends of 0.5°C appear to have occurred infrequently over the past several thousand years—perhaps only once or twice a millennium, as proxy records suggest. This implies an 80 to 90 percent heuristic likelihood that the 20th-century 0.5 ± 0.2°C warming trend is not a wholly natural climatic fluctuation.

Solar total and ultraviolet (UV) irradiances are reconstructed annually from 1610 to the present. This epoch includes the Maunder Minimum of anomalously low solar activity (circa 1645–1715) and the subsequent increase to the high levels of the present Modern Maximum. In this reconstruction, the Schwabe (11‐year) irradiance cycle and a longer term variability component are determined separately, based on contemporary solar and stellar monitoring. The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre‐industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970.

Changes in global average temperatures and of the seasonal cycle are strongly coupled to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I estimate transfer functions from changes in atmospheric CO2 and from changes in solar irradiance to hemispheric temperatures that have been corrected for the effects of precession. They show that changes from CO2 over the last century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar irradiance. The increase in global average temperature during the last century is at least 20 times the SD of the residual temperature series left when the effects of CO2 and changes in solar irradiance are subtracted.[...]Consider the null hypothesis that the observed temperature fluctuations and atmospheric CO2 levels are independent: The probability that the hemispheric temperatures would fluctuate purely by chance in such a way to produce the observed coherences with CO2 is exceedingly low. Given that the records encompass more than a century, the probability is so low that one would not expect to see such an event by chance during the age of the earth.

The magnitude of the Sun's influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate. Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due to solar irradiance variations and climate modeling. This approach suffers from uncertainties that are difficult to estimate. Such uncertainties are introduced because the employed models may not include important but complex processes or mechanisms or may treat these in too simplified a manner. Here we take a more empirical approach. We employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun‐climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

The magnitude of the Sun's influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate. Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due to solar irradiance variations entering climate modelling. Given the complexity of the climate system, however, such modelling is perforce based on simplifying assumptions, which leaves it open to criticism. We take a complementary approach. We assume that the Sun has been responsible for climate change prior to 1970 and that their interrelation remained unchanged afterwards. Then, employing reconstructions and measured records of relevant solar quantities as well as of the cosmic-ray flux, we estimate statistically which fraction of the dramatic temperature rise after that date could be due to the influence of the Sun. We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been significant.

There is little evidence that the observed pattern of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming is due to either solar variability and/or volcanic effects (Wetherald and Manabe, 1975; Hansen et al, 1978). Model-predicted responses to changes in the solar constant do not show stratospheric cooling, while our best information from observations and relevant model experiments indicates that volcanically injected stratospheric aerosols tend to warm the stratosphere and cool the troposphere - a response that is the inverse of an expected greenhouse gas signal. The vertical structure of atmospheric temperature changes might therefore prove to be a fingerprint that is highly specific to anthropogenic forcing.

Measurement of the absolute value of total solar irradiance (TSI) is difficult from the Earth’s surface because of the need to correct for the influence of the atmosphere. Langley (1884) attempted to minimize the atmospheric effects by taking measurements from high on Mt. Whitney in California, and to estimate the correction for atmospheric effects by taking measurements at several times of day, for example, with the solar radiation having passed through different atmospheric path-lengths. Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2. Foukal et al. (1977) deduced from Abbot’s daily observations that higher values of TSI were associated with more solar faculae (e.g., Abbot, 1910). In 1978, the Nimbus-7 satellite was launched with a cavity radiometer and provided evidence of variations in TSI (Hickey et al., 1980). Additional observations were made with an active cavity radiometer on the Solar Maximum Mission, launched in 1980 (Willson et al., 1980). Both of these missions showed that the passage of sunspots and faculae across the Sun’s disk influenced TSI. At the maximum of the 11-year solar activity cycle, the TSI is larger by about 0.1% than at the minimum. The observation that TSI is highest when sunspots are at their maximum is the opposite of Langley’s (1876) hypothesis.As early as 1910, Abbot believed that he had detected a downward trend in TSI that coincided with a general cooling of climate. The solar cycle variation in irradiance corresponds to an 11-year cycle in radiative forcing which varies by about 0.2 W m–2. There is increasingly reliable evidence of its influence on atmospheric temperatures and circulations, particularly in the higher atmosphere (Reid, 1991; Brasseur, 1993; Balachandran and Rind, 1995; Haigh, 1996; Labitzke and van Loon, 1997; van Loon and Labitzke, 2000). Calculations with three-dimensional models (Wetherald and Manabe, 1975; Cubasch et al., 1997; Lean and Rind, 1998; Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree Celsius.

Would you accept to pay to fix for a problem in your lifetime, then your grandson might see the result or not of the proposed solution ?

Actually we are seeing now the first consequences of 30 years of inaction. So I would have appreciated the past generation took the matter seriously.

This is not digging up a canal or building a pyramid where you can count and see your progress, this is literally trusting people watching thermometers, which guarantees them billions is they show warm numbers.

An independent analysis made by Richard Muller (former skeptic) and Judith Curry (still denier), supported by Anthony Watts and the Koch brothers with the hope to contradict climate science on the topic of the global temperatures monitoring has actually strengthen the consensus on the data:


Moreover the topic is very old from a scientific perspective:


Here a report published in 1965 from the US President’s Science Advisory Committee in which the topic of a possible global warming by rising CO2 is expressed:
http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

Finally, even a company like Exxon acknowledges the quality of the scientific theory behind climate change:
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...fect-research/
https://insideclimatenews.org/docume...enhouse-effect

The same for Shell:


So it is clearly not a matter of money grabbing. This is simply a scientific theory supported by decades of research and measurements.

[Stario]

For people childishly ignoring my argument, I will simply copy-paste it:

I already gave you these links from the NASA about the Sun's role on the climate:
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/w...rrent-warming/
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/w...limate-change/

We're are not ignoring your argument- your argument was already addressed. As already stated NASA/NOAA have no credibility after getting caught manipulating the climate data. And spamming this thread with the same bs over and over will not make you any more right :-<


From your YouTube ling re: Riched Muller..."GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND WE'RE DOING IT..."

1. The first does not prove the second.

2. C02 levels have been much higher in the past- even before humanity was capable of doing it; in fact Global temperatures have been both higher and lower in the past, and humanity didn't do it.

3. Previously funded by the Koch brothers, now funded by the Rothschild family smh. Any western scientist who studies climate change and goes against the 'status quo' finds his/her funding cut, agree with the 'status quo' and your career remains intact and the money flows; this is not science, this is financial bribery- unfortunately the 'norm' in today's world.

[Menelik_I]

Moreover the topic is very old from a scientific perspective:

Your post was very strong until you posted this video, which just serve to prove that scare mongering people about catastrophic sea level rises from AGW is a old trick, show me a map of a Warm period from the past with equivalent temparatures where the missipi valey was underwater ?

if temperatures are so warm that this happens, the whole Canada Far North and Siberia will be habitable, so we actually gain in land mass, and the rise in humidity due to warmer temperatures makes Sahara and Kalahari more habitable, what makes deserts is lack of humidity not hot temperatures.

The AGW scam is based on the assumption that this is the BEST CLIMATE and EARTH EVER, while in hour historical timeframe we had warmer versions that weren't so bad

My argument still stands: the proposed solution required total control of everything single aspect of life by a central global government, this is the death of democracy and liberty, a price too high since the realistic effects of the proposed warming would not be worse than the Medieval Warm Period, which was actually of the best periods for Europe or the Warm Period that saw the Sahara Green and with lakes.

[Jom]

Your post was very strong until you posted this video, which just serve to prove that scare mongering people about catastrophic sea level rises from AGW is a old trick, show me a map of a Warm period from the past with equivalent temparatures where the missipi valey was underwater ?

if temperatures are so warm that this happens, the whole Canada Far North and Siberia will be habitable, so we actually gain in land mass, and the rise in humidity due to warmer temperatures makes Sahara and Kalahari more habitable, what makes deserts is lack of humidity not hot temperatures.

The AGW scam is based on the assumption that this is the BEST CLIMATE and EARTH EVER, while in hour historical timeframe we had warmer versions that weren't so bad

My argument still stands: the proposed solution required total control of everything single aspect of life by a central global government, this is the death of democracy and liberty, a price too high since the realistic effects of the proposed warming would not be worse than the Medieval Warm Period, which was actually of the best periods for Europe or the Warm Period that saw the Sahara Green and with lakes.

The jury seems to be out as to what the temperature rise was exactly during the Medieval Warm Period, but it seems to have been between a 0.5 to 1 degree rise. The IPCC predicts between 1.3 - 1.8 but says it cannot rule out higher temperatures completely.

Also, you really don't want more Siberia to become habitable, as that also entails a massive release of methane, one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere.

Exactly! I can't tell you how many times I've heard from the whizkids that a Hurricane in the Gulf is caused by Global Warming when they are expected to happen from time to time. At the same time and in the same breath they will say that Summer Solstice Snowstorms are caused by Global Warming.

The very recent (and off season) snowstorms in western China are probably a result of Global Warming, according to them.

The flooding on the Yangtze river is caused by Global Warming and the unexpected heavy rains and snow melt-off; never mind the fact that the Chinese are releasing the water from the Three Gorges Dam reservoir because their afraid the dam could fail. ( the west bank of the dam isn't completely anchored to bedrock and it was constructed with substandard steel). The dam was supposed to prevent flooding...must be Global Warming.

Looks like there are still people who don't get that global warming doesn't mean everywhere gets warmer at once. It's an average global temperature. One place could get warmer by 5 degrees and another cooler by 4 degrees, but the average is still +1. And climate scientists have been saying for years that global warming will cause more extremes of weather as established patterns are disrupted.

[Genava]

Your post was very strong until you posted this video, which just serve to prove that scare mongering people about catastrophic sea level rises from AGW is a old trick

Well, put the excerpt in its context, 1958 is the beginning of the Cold War, it follows the McCarthyism and the anti-communism feelings are still very present. The producer is Frank Capra, that receives the Army Distinguished Service Medal for its role in the WW2. So clearly, this documentary has no intent to scare you and to bow you under a communist government.

You should ease yourself about analysing everything through an ideological lens.

, show me a map of a Warm period from the past with equivalent temparatures where the missipi valey was underwater ?

Well during the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic eras most of the Mississippi was underwater, but it has nothing to do with the warm climate really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleon...in_Mississippi

During the Eocene, the Oligocene and a part of the Miocene, Lower Mississippi was underwater because of higher sea level but that's only a small part of the river.

However this is not the best comparison because the Mississippi valleys have been carved by the intense discharge from melting glaciers during the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods. So the valleys are a bit lower than during the Miocene.

There is a potential of a 60m sea level rise in all the ice sheets if they completely melt. This is far enough to flood the Lower Mississippi once again:
https://ss2.climatecentral.org/#6/33...ters&pois=hide
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/bur...sea-level-rise

However as you see, this is not enough to represent the sketch map from the video. This is probably an exaggeration from the artist.

Finally, I am not saying that a dozen meters sea level rise will happen. Sea level rises are very slow processes and it would took several centuries to have a that-much-dramatic change. This is unlikely to reach more than 1 meter rise this century.

if temperatures are so warm that this happens, the whole Canada Far North and Siberia will be habitable, so we actually gain in land mass, and the rise in humidity due to warmer temperatures makes Sahara and Kalahari more habitable, what makes deserts is lack of humidity not hot temperatures.

In the very long term yes. However there is an intermediate state where the situation worsen. Notably in Siberia and in Canada with the permafrost melting and threating the infrastructure and the buildings, increasing the risk of flood etc. The same with the Sahel that would see a series of intermittent and intense droughts before to reach an equilibrium in the far future.

The AGW scam...

The Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a scam, this is a scientific theory supported by a lot of evidences. You can disagree with climate policy, no issues with that.

But there is no doubt that the current warming is due to increasing greenhouse effect, this is something we are currently measuring from a physical perspective:

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._1970_and_1997

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...m_1973_to_2008

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

...is based on the assumption that this is the BEST CLIMATE and EARTH EVER, while in hour historical timeframe we had warmer versions that weren't so bad

Well actually no, there is no reason to believe our current climate is the best ever. In the same idea, there is no reason to believe that a temperate climate is better than a tropical one. This is only a matter of societies' adaptability, habit and management. I don't think UK climate is superior to the Spanish or to the Brazilian ones.

However, the problem is not necessarily the destination but the path. We are changing very fast the climate in each regions and we know that small changes in the climate had an impact on the societies in the past. Our different societies are adapted to different climates and clearly we cannot live the same way if we change the climate of our region for another in a few decades. I did water management in the past and clearly the current warming we are experimenting in Switzerland (my country) has a huge impact on the wastewater/sewerage systems because the rains are falling more often in very short and intense events during the summer. Half of the flood damages occuring in Switzerland are done by pluvial flooding. Another issue we have is in the management of our rivers and of our hydroelectric power plants. Usually our rivers have glacier and nival regimes, based on the melting of the snow during Spring. Now we experiment the issue of very low water level in Spring because most of the snow melted very early which is very problematic.

See:
https://naturalsciences.ch/topics/wa...noff_formation
https://naturalsciences.ch/topics/wa..._and_hydrology

Finally, the ecosystems are clearly on the losing side in case of an important climate change during this century. As I am someone that really like the current landscape of my country and that really like nature and biodiversity, I find this argument enough to act.

My argument still stands: the proposed solution required total control of everything single aspect of life by a central global government, this is the death of democracy and liberty

This is a big fallacy. Nearly half of the world emissions are coming from coal burning and half of the emissions comes from electricity and heat production:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-by-source
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...ctor-or-source

Phasing out coal in favor of nuclear and renewable energy will already solves a huge part of the problem. This is not a technological challenge, we already know how to produce electricity and heat with very low emissions.

It doesn't require any global government or anything threatening your liberty. There is a very simple market solution permitting a coal phase out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price

Even a small carbon pricing would make coal uncompetitive.

So stop jumping on very weird and excessive conclusions.

a price too high since the realistic effects of the proposed warming would not be worse than the Medieval Warm Period

The Medieval Warm Period was probably slightly colder than today average. Here the result from ice cores taken in Greenland glaciers, the data reach 1960 as the most recent value and you can see this is higher than during the medieval period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There are also global temperature recontructions using different proxies suggesting the same:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More recently, other studies suggested the same:

Unprecedented warming
http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/new...t-geosc-jul-19

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-major-...ded-years.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At the best, we are currently close to the Holocene thermal maximum 8000 years ago.

[swabian]

At the best, we are currently close to the Holocene thermal maximum 8000 years ago.

Don't even mention this. This will only give reason to global warming deniers that middle and old age that the climate can change radically within thousands of years. It will not convince them of global action against the current development. Climate can naturally indeed change within thousands of years, but not within a couple of decades or a century.

[Daruwind]

Don't even mention this. This will only give reason to global warming deniers that middle and old age that the climate can change radically within thousands of years. It will not convince them of global action against the current development. Climate can naturally indeed change within thousands of years, but not within a couple of decades or a century.

Anybody looking at those graphs must be shocked by rapidity of current change. Temperature itself is not problem, it was higher or lower but speed of change without clear natural intensice culprint (meteors, volcanic activity...) is pointing on the human source. Plus right now current temperature is not yet the problem. But the trend and where we are most probably heading is the problem...

[swabian]

Most single Humans can deal with one really serious problem in their life, and then, given they did, they are glad that it worked and they want it to get over with.

The trend and the problem is nothing anyone can feel yet, it is an existential problem that nobody would care about if it wasn't for all those "little climate ", or the lack of winters in their region and my hate of heat. I'm ing terrified. And you fools cannot blast my fear away with your arrogance.

[Stario]

Looks like there are still people who don't get that global warming doesn't mean everywhere gets warmer at once. It's an average global temperature. One place could get warmer by 5 degrees and another cooler by 4 degrees, but the average is still +1. And climate scientists have been saying for years that global warming will cause more extremes of weather as established patterns are disrupted.

Nothing new here, temperature fluctuates through out the eons. Our ancestors adapted + with our technology we will adapt.
+1-2 degrees just means huge land masses like Siberia will become more habitable overtime (hardly an "end of the world" scenario), while other places will become uninhabitable. There will be winners and looses no doubt; but that's just the way it goes.

as that also entails a massive release of methane, one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere.

What does this even mean? How high will the temperature rise? 0.5 of a degree? 1 degree, 2 degrees? Do we even know?

[Sar1n]

Nothing new here, temperature fluctuates through out the eons. Our ancestors adapted + with our technology we will adapt.
+1-2 degrees just means huge land masses like Siberia will become more habitable overtime (hardly an "end of the world" scenario), while other places will become uninhabitable. There will be winners and looses no doubt; but that's just the way it goes.


What does this even mean? How high will the temperature rise? 0.5 of a degree? 1 degree, 2 degrees? Do we even know?

Again. What is unprecedented, barring few catastrophes in Earth's history like that big rock 65 million years ago, is the rate of the climate change. What you don't seem to understand is that at this rate, we humans might adapt...but other species won't. We rely on whole global ecosystem to support us. And if we lose too many important species too quickly, before nature can adapt and other species fill their niche, it'll go down like a house of cards. There will be no winners, maybe save the cockroaches.

The problem with methane is, we don't know exactly how much methane is trapped in permafrost, but estimates are generally in range of thousands of gigatons, and the potential chain reaction. Thawing of permafrost releases methane, which in turn causes more warming and more release of methane. As worst case scenario...massive increase of atmospheric methane was a cause of one of phases of the largest extinction event in Earth's history. I don't think humanity would survive a repetition of P-T event.

Nobody is saying they know all about global warming. In fact, we know damn little. But Earth's history gives us some possible scenarios, and they're not nice. So we'd better err on the side of caution.

[Stario]

What you don't seem to understand is that at this rate, we humans might adapt...but other species won't. We rely on whole global ecosystem to support us.

Extinction is not always a bad thing, in fact it is thanks to extinction that you and I are even having this conversation. When one species disappears, other species can evolve and fill the natural void left by the species that are no longer here.
In fact in nature "extinction is the rule", it is estimated 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

[Genava]

Stario, you are missing his point.

His point :

What you don't seem to understand is that at this rate, we humans might adapt...but other species won't. We rely on whole global ecosystem to support us. And if we lose too many important species too quickly, before nature can adapt and other species fill their niche, it'll go down like a house of cards. There will be no winners, maybe save the cockroaches.

That's what is called an ecological collapse and indeed some biologists are worried about the consequence for human societies if a global collapse of numerous ecosystems happens. That's also the idea behind the concept of ecosystem services.

Extinction is not always a bad thing, in fact it is thanks to extinction that you and I are even having this conversation. When one species disappears, other species can evolve and fill the natural void left by the species that are no longer here.
In fact in nature "extinction is the rule", it is estimated 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

You can even generalize the rule: death is not always a bad thing. It is a necessary process, not only for the ecosystems but also for our societies. Although we all know it is also a bad thing depending of the context.

However, what's your point? If you are suggesting that a mass extinction is not a bad thing because it already happened several times in the past, this seems a fallacious reasoning. As much fallacious as justifying any death because it is a natural process.

[Stario]

That's what is called an ecological collapse

I call bs on this...it's what the "global warmist" scaremongers want you to believe. Even with 99.9% species that have ever existed going extinct- yet it's not the end of the world; we are still here!

[Sar1n]

Extinction is not always a bad thing, in fact it is thanks to extinction that you and I are even having this conversation. When one species disappears, other species can evolve and fill the natural void left by the species that are no longer here.
In fact in nature "extinction is the rule", it is estimated 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

It takes millions of years for ecosystem to recover after an extinction event. In the meantime, what are we humans going to do? When oceans turn anoxic and most species that we rely on for food die out so every breath and every meal will come with huge technological effort and massive energy expenditure, how many people will we be able to support? Definitely not seven billion. Not even one billion. Are you really okay with yourself or your descendants being one of the 90%+ that won't make it?

And even those who make it will have a sorry life compared to what we have now.

I'm aware that what I'm describing is worst case scenario, but it's still quite possible if we continue on the current course.

[B. W.]

Uh Oh...recent study proves the Mediterranean Sea was 3.6F hotter than it is today 2,000 years ago. The warm period was one of the most productive human periods in history. The preceding cold period led to the downfall of the Roman republic and the rise of the Roman Empire:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...-roman-empire/

And yet AGW proponents are telling us that it is warming we should be worried about. It was the warmest period in the last 2500 years...and people ate well.