Remember me
▼ Content

Do man-made climate change deniers prove man-made climate change exists?



Page 1 of 3123>
Do man-made climate change deniers prove man-made climate change exists?09-10-2015 11:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi everyone, and welcome to another exciting thread on Climate-debate.com.

Here, we'll be discussing if man-made climate change deniers actually prove, through their own argumentation, that man-made climate change does indeed actually exist, contrary to their own assertions.

For right now, I'll leave it up to you to post your own conclusions, but shortly I'll be showing you how, indeed, man-made climate change deniers do actually prove, through their own contrarian argumentation, that man-made climate change does actually exist!

Will I do this using fasifiable models? Will I do this using the magical and mysterious Antithetical Circle, or will I just pull a rabbit out of my hat? You'll just have to wait and see.

So join in, stay tuned, and post away as we venture into that wild and wacky world of man-made climate change deniers!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
09-10-2015 11:53
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Let's take a look at "Climate Change Denial" as Wiki describes it:

Climate change denial involves denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.


OK, that just about covers all the bases and can include anyone who questions or doubts anything written by climate catastrophist crusaders.

MY NAME IS EARTHLING AND UNDER THE REVISED DEFINITION, I'M A GLOWBULL WARMING DENIER.
Edited on 09-10-2015 11:59
09-10-2015 12:03
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
While the term "Climate denial," or anything else containing the words "deny, denier denial or denialist" is used, those trying to sell the CAGW snake oil will never achieve their goal of bringing the world to its knees.

What's a "climate denier?"
Does anyone deny climate?
Is it a person who denies that climate exists?
Do they deny that climate changes?
I'm not a climate denier, climate change denier, or even an anthropogenic climate change denier, I'm sceptical that climate change will be a catastrophe and so are many scientists who work in climate science and related fields.

Who denies that climate changes?

It's possible I could be accused of denying the C in CAGW.


What are CAGW sceptics "denying," exactly?

1. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"climate, therefore cannot be "climate deniers."
2. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" that climate changes, therefore cannot be "climate change deniers."
3. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" that Earth has warmed by almost 0.8º C over the last 162 years, therefore cannot be "global warming deniers."
4. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" that climate science exists, therefore cannot be "climate science deniers."
5. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" that CO2 can cause a small amount of warming, therefore cannot be "anthropogenic global warming deniers."
6. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" anything, we're sceptical of the inaccurate figures bandied about by alarmists and very sceptical of the scary catastrophe stories about everything and anything to do with climate.
We're also justifiably sceptical of computer models.

So, catastrophists, man up and spill the beans, what do you believe sceptics are actually "denying," if you know, of course?
09-10-2015 13:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote:Does anyone deny climate?


Does anyone know what "Climate" really is (outside of the many different dictionary definitions)?

What does Christy say "Climate" means to him?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2015 13:18
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Email: christy@nsstc.uah.edu
09-10-2015 15:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote:
Email: christy@nsstc.uah.edu


My bad. Obviously if you had known what he says "climate" is you wouldn't have had to reach for your dictionary.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2015 17:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I'm sceptical that climate change will be a catastrophe and so are many scientists who work in climate science and related fields.


Hi Earthling

I too am sceptical that climate change will cause a catastrophe. But then again, I don't live in Bangladesh. Or the Maldives. Or on the great barrier reef. Likewise, I will not go hungry if the weather where I live is particularly dry one year, or particularly wet.

I guess my point is that 'catastrophe' is a relative term. Do I think that the world or humans will cease to be because of climate change? No. But I do think that there are many people who will suffer from the effects of climate change (although some will also come out as 'winners'), and many species that will go extinct? Yes - and to them, climate change is a catastrophe. I have no interest in bringing the world to its knees, but I would welcome a shift away from fossil fuels, partly because of the impacts on climate change, and partly because I don't think that fossil fuels will be a sustainable source of energy in the long-term (several hundred years).
09-10-2015 17:42
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
AFAIK, his email address isn't in any dictionary.
09-10-2015 17:46
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Do man-made climate change deniers prove man-made climate change exists?

Part 1: What is a denier?

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
be careful as you pass.
Move along! Move along!

- Brain Salad Surgery (Manticore, 1973)

And let's have a big round of applause everyone for that lovely introduction by Emerson, Lake & Palmer.

So, settle down, settle down there... take your seats, and let's get started on this dangerous and somewhat titillating journey into mind and mind set of a man-made climate change denier, or MMCCD as we here in reality land like to call them. But before we begin, first let me tell you a little bit about this thread.

Now the mind of a MMCCD is a very complex and complicated thing, and rather than try to serve it all up to you in one grand twelve course meal, I'm gonna break it down into a series of little morsels, or postlets, which you can then devour and, if need be, regurgitate at your convenience. As for today, we'll begin with Part 1: What is a denier?

To better understand this question, we must first ask what is the difference between a denier, a skeptic and a doubter. The quick answer to this is that the skeptic and doubter are really the same thing. As a matter of fact, all good scientists are skeptics, as they incorporate doubt into their research. If they didn't have at least a little teeny-eeny-weeny bit of doubt themselves, then they wouldn't bother investing all that energy into performing those exhaustive experiments for which they're all so famous. While this would save a lot of time and money, we'd just end with a bunch of conclusions which all read something like, "It's true because I say so." Again, a real time and money saver, but not a great way to produce reliable results about reality.

On the other hand, a denier is someone who has neither skepticism nor doubt. They looked at enough data, at least in their own minds, come to their conclusion and then shut the door on any other possibilities ever entering their vault tight brains. For reference, there already are many kinds of science doubters: in the historical sciences we have the Holocaust deniers; in medicine we have Professor Peter H. Duesburg who denied well into the 21st century that HIV caused AIDS. And now, in the weather related sciences, we have the MMCCD.

Now remember, because they are deniers and not skeptics nor doubters, there's no use in trying to talk rationally with them. Through tactics like cherry picking and misrepresenting data, they will skillfully and quite happily drag you in circles. Why? Because they don't care what you think. They've already made up their minds, and their only goal is to win control of something (you) as compensation for something else in their lives they've already lost control over (i.e. - their parents didn't love them, their girlfriend left them, their boyfriend left them, both their boyfriend and their girlfriend left them, they have a small penis, their vagina smells like and elephant - you choose, the choices are endless).

So when you come across one of these keyboard gangsters here or anywhere else on the internet, take my advice and know that the best way to respond to someone who routinely employs Religion, Repetitiveness and Redundancy, the preferred Three R's of the climate science illiterate, is to not respond. Simply suggest that they go sit in the corner where all immaturely behaving children belong, like this: NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!

Well ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and nerds and nerdettes of all ages, that brings us to a close of Part 1 of this series. For now, post amongst yourselves and stay tuned for Part 2: How crazy can a denier be?
09-10-2015 18:00
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Last post:
Too much jumbled words.
Ö¿Ö
09-10-2015 18:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Yes, Earthling, English can be tricky! I found this very helpful when I first started out. Would you like to give it a try?




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
RE: END OF THIS THREAD...10-10-2015 07:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Well at least as far as I'm concerned it is.

You see, it doesn't matter what M2C2 deniers say, Ceist has just made two outstanding posts which make further comments here (at least on topic ones) unnecessary. Have a look for yourself at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-science-of-the-greenhouse-effect-d6-e713-s40.php#post_2746

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-science-of-the-greenhouse-effect-d6-e713-s40.php#post_2747


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 23:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote: I too am sceptical that climate change will cause a catastrophe. But then again, I don't live in Bangladesh. Or the Maldives.

Your view would somehow change were you to live in the Maldives? Why?

(clue: Why are the Maldives standing testaments to seal level not changing?)

climate scientist wrote: I have no interest in bringing the world to its knees,...

...but you want to eliminate fossil fuels, regardless of what that will cause.

climate scientist wrote: but I would welcome a shift away from fossil fuels,

...and the faster the better, right?

climate scientist wrote: partly because of the impacts on climate change,...

...and what would those be? The "greenhouse effect" that can't happen? How does a minor change in temperature, far less than what happens during the change between daytime and nighttime, cause a catastrophe?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2015 00:08
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:

How does a minor change in temperature, far less than what happens during the change between daytime and nighttime, cause a catastrophe?


Actually, I almost agree with IBdaMann on this one. Back around 2000, I began wondering why everyone was so ga-ga about global warming, when we were only talking about a few fractions of a degree rise? Then it occurred to me that global warming is a misnomer. The major event that's currently happening as M2C2 (man-made climate change) continues to progress is phase change (i.e. - melting of all ice and snow, which will then be followed be evaporation of all the water). After the phase change components of M2C2 are complete, then we'll see some pretty serious global warming measured in the 10's or perhaps 100's of degrees. Of course we won't even last through most of the phase change portion of all this, but who knows. Maybe Earth could become an intergalactic hot spot for vacationing aliens who are better insulated than us!




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
11-10-2015 00:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Actually, I almost agree with IBdaMann on this one.

I love it! You almost agree with me! Even when you agree with me you can't be seen in public agreeing with me. Look, I understand the whole solidarity thing with your comrades. I'm the "enemy" and you can't give the appearance that you are consorting. I get it.

trafn wrote: After the phase change components of M2C2 are complete, then we'll see some pretty serious global warming measured in the 10's or perhaps 100's of degrees.

At risk of bursting any fragile bubbles you might have, ...no...it doesn't work that way.

I understand your model of what is going on, i.e. the earth has a "greenhouse effect" going on which makes it like a heat-producing oven which would blow the temperature through the roof if it weren't for all the ice that absorbing that heat and changing phase...and when all the ice is gone, we're going to cook, right?

Fortunately for humanity (and all other life on earth) there is no "greenhouse effect" going on (except as Into the Night uses the term to describe how the atmosphere distributes atmospheric thermal energy, via convection, and from wind currents, from warmer areas to cooler areas). Earth is not losing ice. Both the Greenhouse Ice Sheet and Antarctica ice are growing in volume (I know, I know, people you trust in the warmazombie camps only tell you about those glaciers that are in decline, but never about all those that are growing).

In short, what you are describing, ... isn't happening.


trafn wrote: Of course we won't even last through most of the phase change portion of all this, but who knows. Maybe Earth could become an intergalactic hot spot for vacationing aliens who are better insulated than us!

I've always said that aliens like to party, and earth is known for having everything needed for festivities. However, if the aliens wait too much longer as the sun reaches its solar minimum, they won't find the earth to be much of a "hot spot."



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2015 01:03
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:

I know, I know, people you trust in the warmazombie camps only tell you about those glaciers that are in decline, but never about all those that are growing.


Of course, you automatically clasiffy anyone making a claim contrary to yours as a "warmazombie" making this a self-fulfilling prophecy on your part. For example, I suppose you'd say that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC - Boulder, Colorado) is just a bunch of warmazombies when they state:

Since the early twentieth century, with few exceptions, glaciers around the world have been retreating at unprecedented rates. Some scientists attribute this massive glacial retreat to the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760. In fact, several ice caps, glaciers and ice shelves have disappeared altogether in this century. (view page)

PS - That poor alien must have left home without his thermal underwear (oh, good god, let's hope this doesn't open the door to debating the existence of thermal underwear).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 11-10-2015 01:05
11-10-2015 01:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Of course, you automatically clasiffy anyone making a claim contrary to yours as a "warmazombie" making this a self-fulfilling prophecy on your part.

Now, now, you're letting that Marxist penchant for hyperbole take over.

I specifically stated that you trusted some people in the warmazombie camps. Are you going to deny the existence of warmazombie camps? Are you going to deny that you trust some of the people in them?

Reading comprehension. It's a good thing.

trafn wrote: For example, I suppose you'd say that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC - Boulder, Colorado) is just a bunch of warmazombies when they state:

Since the early twentieth century, with few exceptions, glaciers around the world have been retreating at unprecedented rates. Some scientists attribute this massive glacial retreat to the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760. In fact, several ice caps, glaciers and ice shelves have disappeared altogether in this century. (view page)

I don't have time to read the article. Tell me, do they mention all the glaciers that are growing, along with mention that the Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctic ice volumes are growing, or do they just leave the reader with the impression of a scientist-verified global disappearance of ice? If so, then yes, warmazombies they probably are (at least those in charge). The specific mention of the Industrial Revolution makes it extremely likely that they are warmazombies.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with any disagreement with me. It has everything to do with their brand of dogma, i.e. their denomination of the Global Warming religion. Of course they disagree with me; I simply say what the body of science says. They are out trying to gain converts.

trafn wrote: PS - That poor alien must have left home without his thermal underwear (oh, good god, let's hope this doesn't open the door to debating the existence of thermal underwear).

It might end up a debate over whether aliens possess thermal underwear.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2015 01:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Dear IBdaMann,

Thank you kindly for sharing what one can only presume to be a picture taken from your preferred science reference text. Perhaps this is the one in which, along with brightly colored drawings of aliens in underwear, there are also photos of the evil warmazombies who you claim are trying to take over the world so as to oppress you with their excessive redistribute-all-the-wealth type of tax plans.

Should you ever turn your attention to space flight, here's another exciting text you might want to add to your reference shelf:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 11-10-2015 01:58
11-10-2015 02:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Should you ever turn your attention to space flight, here's another exciting text you might want to add to your reference shelf:

That's not funny. I think you know what happened to Oscar when his craft burned up on reentry over China...




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2015 02:08
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)


...now that's a good one!
RE: Apologies for missing this post!11-10-2015 19:31
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
climate scientist wrote:
I'm sceptical that climate change will be a catastrophe and so are many scientists who work in climate science and related fields.


Hi Earthling

I too am sceptical that climate change will cause a catastrophe.
Great.
climate scientist wrote:But then again, I don't live in Bangladesh.
How long before AGW causes a problem there?
climate scientist wrote:Or the Maldives.
What problem do they have?
climate scientist wrote: Or on the great barrier reef.
Nobody 'lives' on that.
climate scientist wrote: Likewise, I will not go hungry if the weather where I live is particularly dry one year, or particularly wet.
I'm happy for you and me.
climate scientist wrote:I guess my point is that 'catastrophe' is a relative term.
Absolutely.
climate scientist wrote:Do I think that the world or humans will cease to be because of climate change? No. But I do think that there are many people who will suffer from the effects of climate change (although some will also come out as 'winners'), and many species that will go extinct?
When?
climate scientist wrote: Yes - and to them, climate change is a catastrophe. I have no interest in bringing the world to its knees, but I would welcome a shift away from fossil fuels, partly because of the impacts on climate change, and partly because I don't think that fossil fuels will be a sustainable source of energy in the long-term (several hundred years).
I've been hoping for renewable energy since the 50s, when I was at school and I still believe it won't take "(several hundred years)" to achieve a state of fossil fuel free life.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
11-10-2015 20:20
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
How long before AGW causes a problem there?


Not sure, but it is probably already happening. According to Wikipedia, 10% of the land would be flooded if sea level rose by 1 m. The Netherlands, on the other hand, already has 26% of it's land lying below sea level. Eek!

What problem do they have?


The Maldives is the lowest lying country in the world. The islands are made from coral reefs. They have no where to go.

Nobody 'lives' on that.


Well, if you are a fish, or a coral, or a crab, then you might.

When?


This question is too general for me to answer at the moment. Also, I do not have a crystal ball. However, if you read the IPCC reports, you should find some information on what the likely rates of climate change in the future will be, and what the likely impacts on species, countries, etc. might be.

I still believe it won't take "(several hundred years)" to achieve a state of fossil fuel free life.


I never said that it would take several hundred years to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels. My point was that if we continue to rely on them for several hundred years, then I think they will become unsustainable.
11-10-2015 20:56
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
climate scientist wrote:The Maldives is the lowest lying country in the world. The islands are made from coral reefs. They have no where to go.
I'm pressed for time at the moment, so I'll address this point.

Coral islands have nowhere to go except upwards as sea level rises.
They have always been at the same height above sea level.

A little research will prove that point.
https://www.google.es/search?q=coral+islands+growing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=FKMaVtL5KIq6avybr1g

Hasta mañana.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
Edited on 11-10-2015 20:59
11-10-2015 22:58
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
12-10-2015 00:17
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Earthling - I share your enthusiasm for renewables, and I was extremely dissapointed when the USA didn't jump on the bandwagon as Jimmy Carter had suggested during his presidency (he spoke about having 20% of US energy being from renewables by 2000).

Totototo - Great article about Antarctica. Essentially, the sea ice (not land ice) is increasing during the winter, because the melted runoff from the land ice dilutes the saline content of the coastline ocean water, making it (the diluted ocean water) easier to freeze in the winter so that there's more wintertime sea ice. Sadly, most all of this sea ice still melts in the summer.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 06:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote:
Coral islands have nowhere to go except upwards as sea level rises.
They have always been at the same height above sea level.

They can't go upward when they have a military air base constructed on top of them.

The Brits built a base in 1951 in the Maldives and the relative sea level has not changed. That's more than sixty years without any noticeable change and without the atoll "growing' upward.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 08:56
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Yes tranf, very interesting article indeed. Great summary you made there, but yeah that's basically the idea so if this is correct then IB is mistaken I guess.

Would like to hear your thoughts though tranf since my scientific knowledge is poor. You are welcome to add your thoughts too IB.
12-10-2015 10:13
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Earthling wrote:
Coral islands have nowhere to go except upwards as sea level rises.
They have always been at the same height above sea level.

IBdaMann wrote: They can't go upward when they have a military air base constructed on top of them.
You wrote that before and I asked you why, but you didn't answer.
A military air base weighs less than a modern airport and neither would stop coral from growing.
IBdaMann wrote:
The Brits built a base in 1951 in the Maldives and the relative sea level has not changed. That's more than sixty years without any noticeable change and without the atoll "growing' upward.
Of course there's no change, the coral doesn't stop growing and maintains the island at the same height above seal level.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
12-10-2015 12:46
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Beware jumping to conclusions.


I would advise that you follow your own advice.

Coral islands have nowhere to go except upwards as sea level rises.
They have always been at the same height above sea level.

A little research will prove that point.
https://www.google.es/search?q=coral+islands+growing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=FKMaVtL5KIq6avybr1g


A little more research would show that coral reefs around the world are in dying (over 50% of them in fact). The causes are varied, from over fishing to pollution, to increasing sea temperatures, and decreasing pH (already happening, but effects will probably not be seen for another few decades).

In fact, the NOAA coral reef watch program announced just last week that a global coral reef bleaching event is underway now:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/100815-noaa-declares-third-ever-global-coral-bleaching-event.html

National Geographic says:

"They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century.

But for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier. That's largely because their many structures—seawalls, roads, and water and electricity systems—are locked in place."

So you see, the jury on the Maldives is not decided yet, although, since the IPCC projections indicate that coral reef growth will likely decline in the coming decades, owing to coral bleaching and dissolution of aragonite, I would not want to bet that they will still be there in 100 years...
12-10-2015 12:59
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
I'm more worried that in 4.5 billion years the earth will be history.
12-10-2015 13:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote: You wrote that before and I asked you why, but you didn't answer.

OK, the "why." (Note: Yes, I did answer you when you first asked).

Lawn grass grows upwards, and spreads outward. If you lay a brick on your lawn, the grass cannot grow upward in that spot. It is not strong enough to lift the brick and push it out of the way.

Corals certainly grow, but they aren't geological activity. They can't continue to grow upward and push tons of concrete out of the way. They can certainly continue to grow outward, but not upward if there's an entire base sitting on top.

Earthling wrote: A military air base weighs less than a modern airport

Both are far more than enough to keep coral from growing upwards through it.

Earthling wrote: and neither would stop coral from growing.

...not from growing outward, no...but certainly sufficient to keep it from growing upwards through it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 13:25
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
It's obvious that the preceding poster doesn't understand the process of coral atoll growth.
12-10-2015 13:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote:
It's obvious that the preceding poster doesn't understand the process of coral atoll growth.

It's obvious that you don't really know anything.

Shouldn't you be looking for science to EVADE?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 17:31
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Still no evidence that the previous poster knows anything about coral atoll growth.
12-10-2015 18:08
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Earthling,

What about the well established fact that as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, the oceans are absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere which is causing an acidification in the overall pH of the world's oceans. At more acidic pH's, corals do not for their outer shells as well (carbonate, I think) and will cease growing and finally die. This is being seen already in some parts of the world.

Is it better to work with the science knowledge we have, or wait until all the coral dies and then go, "Oh well, maybe they were right after all?"


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 18:28
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
IF the oceans ever become acidic it will be too late to worry, but someone will blow a whistle long before that ever happens.
Currently, that whistle hasn't been blown.
12-10-2015 19:43
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Ocean acidification does not mean that the oceans will become acidic. Just that they will become less alkaline. It will not be a problem for humans, but it will be a big problem for oceanic organisms, such as corals, that secret calcite or aragonite shells or skeletons.
12-10-2015 22:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Earthling,

I hate to be a whistle blower, but here's the whistle you've been looking for, and it was blown a long time ago:

Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

This is from the abstract from the article which was published the journal Science back in 2007:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems.

Notice they don't say "might", they say "will."


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 23:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
trafn wrote:
Earthling - I share your enthusiasm for renewables, and I was extremely dissapointed when the USA didn't jump on the bandwagon as Jimmy Carter had suggested during his presidency (he spoke about having 20% of US energy being from renewables by 2000).

Totototo - Great article about Antarctica. Essentially, the sea ice (not land ice) is increasing during the winter, because the melted runoff from the land ice dilutes the saline content of the coastline ocean water, making it (the diluted ocean water) easier to freeze in the winter so that there's more wintertime sea ice. Sadly, most all of this sea ice still melts in the summer.

There is no melted runoff from land ice. It never melts. Temperatures simply don't get high enough. All land ice loss is due to sublimation.

Secondly, freezing ocean water removes the salt from it. The salt does not freeze with it. The unfrozen part below becomes saltier. If the water completely freezes, the salt is forced to the bottom. Ocean water typically freezes at about 28.4 degrees F instead of 32 degrees F for fresh water.

As sea water in the Antarctic freezes, the water becomes saltier. This makes the remaining water harder to freeze until an equilibrium is established. During antarctic summers, this equilibrium shifts to thinner ice (or none at all) as the temperatures warm. The land ice, however, never melts. It sublimates away if it does at all.

Land ice in Antarctica is actually increasing from season to season. The original South Polar Station is currently buried by about 100 ft of ice. The current station is built on top of it. The 100 ft tall radio towers from that original station now stick out of the ice about 1 foot or so. They are actually kind of a hazard when visibility is poor.
12-10-2015 23:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
IBdaMann wrote:
Earthling wrote: You wrote that before and I asked you why, but you didn't answer.

OK, the "why." (Note: Yes, I did answer you when you first asked).

Lawn grass grows upwards, and spreads outward. If you lay a brick on your lawn, the grass cannot grow upward in that spot. It is not strong enough to lift the brick and push it out of the way.

Corals certainly grow, but they aren't geological activity. They can't continue to grow upward and push tons of concrete out of the way. They can certainly continue to grow outward, but not upward if there's an entire base sitting on top.

Earthling wrote: A military air base weighs less than a modern airport

Both are far more than enough to keep coral from growing upwards through it.

Earthling wrote: and neither would stop coral from growing.

...not from growing outward, no...but certainly sufficient to keep it from growing upwards through it.

If coral did grow upward at such a base, it would tend to cover the runway, leaving the runway to submerge under such a rising sea.

Coral can't life anything upward from beneath, as some here are starting to argue toward, because the only living part of the coral is the surface. Everything underneath that is dead.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Do man-made climate change deniers prove man-made climate change exists?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Prove It!506-12-2018 03:26
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?16105-12-2018 03:22
What are Stacks made from317-09-2018 08:58
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 20:07
The case against man made climate change, condensed - 23 mins121-12-2017 19:50
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact