IPCC report.

noutopia wrote:
I can not see countries taking sufficient action to halt disastrous climate change, the UK has just started fracking and building a third runway at Heathrow, we are doomed.

According to research at the University of Alabama in 2013, climate models indicate "a natural shift to stronger warm El Nino events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years."

Recently, scientists discovered at least three to six times more heat-spewing thermal vents along the seafloors where tectonic plates are pulling apart. In 2003, at least nine hydrothermal vents along the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean were found. Arctic ice has been melting at a steady pace in recent years and may be due to the warmer than normal ocean waters.

noutopia wrote:
I can not see countries taking sufficient action to halt disastrous climate change, the UK has just started fracking and building a third runway at Heathrow, we are doomed.

noutopia wrote:
I can not see countries taking sufficient action to halt disastrous climate change, the UK has just started fracking and building a third runway at Heathrow, we are doomed.

James___ wrote:

noutopia wrote:
I can not see countries taking sufficient action to halt disastrous climate change, the UK has just started fracking and building a third runway at Heathrow, we are doomed.

....Fortunately many people like living in densely populated areas. This helps mass transit to be more efficient. If everyone lived in some place like Iowa, could you imagine how much more resources would be used?
..If the short warming and cooling periods (500 years?) continues and the Earth cools in another 150 years or so like it did in the Little Ice Age, do you think London would be prepared for much colder weather than what is experiencing now?
..Then there's this and if you notice their graph, the cool periods have been getting colder;

According to research at the University of Alabama in 2013, climate models indicate "a natural shift to stronger warm El Nino events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years."

And also this from the same article;

Recently, scientists discovered at least three to six times more heat-spewing thermal vents along the seafloors where tectonic plates are pulling apart. In 2003, at least nine hydrothermal vents along the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean were found. Arctic ice has been melting at a steady pace in recent years and may be due to the warmer than normal ocean waters.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

shagsnacks wrote:
I started .......... I welcome and encourage your feedback.

shagsnacks wrote:
I started a new Youtube channel and decided to tackle climate change as my first topic, especially considering the recent IPCC report. While not a skeptic, I think most climate scientists make wildly inaccurate predictions. That's what this first video addresses. I welcome and encourage your feedback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9Dc3WTTF0

James___ wrote:

shagsnacks wrote:
I started a new Youtube channel and decided to tackle climate change as my first topic, especially considering the recent IPCC report. While not a skeptic, I think most climate scientists make wildly inaccurate predictions. That's what this first video addresses. I welcome and encourage your feedback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9Dc3WTTF0

..If you check out my last few posts in this thread http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-the-wilder-storms-its-a-loaded-dice-problem-d6-e1896-s40.php#post_32445
you'll see where I discussed an experiment that would be designed to show how changing the composition of our atmosphere effects it's ability to absorb and release heat.

James___ wrote:
..Most computer models haven't verified their null hypothesis.

James___ wrote:
This would explain why they're so inconsistent.

James___ wrote:
It shows that even scientists disagree with what influence different variables have on our atmosphere.

James___ wrote:
..And since some heat is coming from the sea floor, they need to find out how much.

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

[b]Into the Night wrote:[/b

While true, the difference is very insignificant. The Earth is just a speck against the Sun's output.

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

[b]Into the Night wrote:[/b

While true, the difference is very insignificant. The Earth is just a speck against the Sun's output.

..Once again itn working for Tim the plumber. 1 or 2 traffic lights is all we need to consider, right?

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

[b]Into the Night wrote:[/b

While true, the difference is very insignificant. The Earth is just a speck against the Sun's output.

..Once again itn working for Tim the plumber. 1 or 2 traffic lights is all we need to consider, right?

What are you talking about.

Can you cope with understanding the way English works as a language? That the full sentence or even the full context of the words needs to be considered.

ITN and I do not get along. I consider him a stupid denier of everything. That he questions reality as and when it suits him. That he has no scientific understanding.

I presume he does not like me.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

[b]Into the Night wrote:[/b

While true, the difference is very insignificant. The Earth is just a speck against the Sun's output.

..Once again itn working for Tim the plumber. 1 or 2 traffic lights is all we need to consider, right?

What are you talking about.

Can you cope with understanding the way English works as a language? That the full sentence or even the full context of the words needs to be considered.

ITN and I do not get along. I consider him a stupid denier of everything. That he questions reality as and when it suits him. That he has no scientific understanding.

I presume he does not like me.

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Global warming is not mathematics. It's a religion.

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

You are just denying the laws of thermodynamics again.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Sure they work, for their intended missions. Trouble is, it's not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything using a satellite. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

What global warming? Define 'global warming'.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

[b]Into the Night wrote:[/b

While true, the difference is very insignificant. The Earth is just a speck against the Sun's output.

..Once again itn working for Tim the plumber. 1 or 2 traffic lights is all we need to consider, right?

What are you talking about.

Can you cope with understanding the way English works as a language? That the full sentence or even the full context of the words needs to be considered.

ITN and I do not get along. I consider him a stupid denier of everything. That he questions reality as and when it suits him. That he has no scientific understanding.

I presume he does not like me.

..You said you want him in here because he works for you. I don't think you'd be saying that if you didn't get along with him. You won't see where I post he works for me because I think he discourages people from posting in here.
..I think he should be banned but you don't.
..What am I missing?
...There are 2 basic definitions of what a forum is. One is where people discuss or debate something.
..The other definition is where it's a court to judge something. Going by the 2nd definition you and itn have judged people who would consider global warming or climate change to be stupid.
..You both believe such people are wasting their time yet you both engage such people to let them know of your judgements of their opinions. You both have the same agenda.

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

Then you can point out where and how that damage will happen.

It is a challenge you would think would be easy to do.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Global warming is not mathematics. It's a religion.

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

You are just denying the laws of thermodynamics again.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Sure they work, for their intended missions. Trouble is, it's not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything using a satellite. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

What global warming? Define 'global warming'.

troll

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
The more water warms the less heat it can absorb during the day.

[b]Into the Night wrote:[/b

While true, the difference is very insignificant. The Earth is just a speck against the Sun's output.

..Once again itn working for Tim the plumber. 1 or 2 traffic lights is all we need to consider, right?

What are you talking about.

Can you cope with understanding the way English works as a language? That the full sentence or even the full context of the words needs to be considered.

ITN and I do not get along. I consider him a stupid denier of everything. That he questions reality as and when it suits him. That he has no scientific understanding.

I presume he does not like me.

..You said you want him in here because he works for you. I don't think you'd be saying that if you didn't get along with him. You won't see where I post he works for me because I think he discourages people from posting in here.
..I think he should be banned but you don't.
..What am I missing?
...There are 2 basic definitions of what a forum is. One is where people discuss or debate something.
..The other definition is where it's a court to judge something. Going by the 2nd definition you and itn have judged people who would consider global warming or climate change to be stupid.
..You both believe such people are wasting their time yet you both engage such people to let them know of your judgements of their opinions. You both have the same agenda.

I said that me ignoring his posts, not reading them works for me.

That is the practice of just not reading his posts is how I cope with his trollish drivel.

I find it a problem that he is on the same side (not really on the same side but also opposed to the AGW-Green-Communist ajenda).

It is easy for the Alarmist side to point to him and show that there are nutters on the Skeptic side. Thus they must all be???

No.

Skeptics, as opposed to deniers of reality, are generally very good at physics.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Global warming is not mathematics. It's a religion.

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

You are just denying the laws of thermodynamics again.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Sure they work, for their intended missions. Trouble is, it's not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything using a satellite. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

What global warming? Define 'global warming'.

troll

Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Global warming is not mathematics. It's a religion.

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

You are just denying the laws of thermodynamics again.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Sure they work, for their intended missions. Trouble is, it's not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything using a satellite. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

What global warming? Define 'global warming'.

troll

Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Define "define".

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

Then you can point out where and how that damage will happen.

It is a challenge you would think would be easy to do.

I was just reading the paper and there was a news story about that very issue;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/rising-sea-levels-will-claim-homes-around-english-coast-report-warns

The new report from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said existing government plans to "hold the line" in many places – building defences to keep shores in their current position – were unaffordable for a third of the country's coast. Instead, the CCC said, discussions about the "hard choices" needed must be started with communities that will have to move inland.

"There genuinely will be homes that it will not be possible to save," said Baroness Brown, chair of the CCC's adaptation committee. "The current approach is not fit for purpose. This report is really a wake-up call to the fact that we can't protect the whole English coast to today's standard."

She added: "We could see as much as a metre of sea level rise before the end of the century, so within the lifetime of today's children, and that has a major impact on coastal flooding and erosion." Prof Jim Hall, another member of the committee, said: "We are not prepared."

Why do you constantly ask such dumb and inane questions?

Is google broken on your computer?

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Global warming is not mathematics. It's a religion.

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

You are just denying the laws of thermodynamics again.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Sure they work, for their intended missions. Trouble is, it's not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything using a satellite. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

What global warming? Define 'global warming'.

troll

Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Define "define".

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I think this is a place crazy people go to vent.

How can you debate a fact?

1 and 1 is 2

Global warming is not mathematics. It's a religion.

spot wrote:
Tyndall and everyone who followed him understood the laws of thermodynamics better then an anonymous idiot on the internet.

You are just denying the laws of thermodynamics again.

spot wrote:
NASA's satellites work, Greenland is losing ice.

Sure they work, for their intended missions. Trouble is, it's not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything using a satellite. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

spot wrote:
Global warming is going to cause more economic damage then installing some traffic lights.

What global warming? Define 'global warming'.

troll

Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Define "define".

LOL!

Good reply!

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Are you sure you are not a bot?

spot wrote:
This conversation is not going anywhere

spot wrote:
Look I know it is very important to you to have the last word on any thread but don't you think you could use your time on something more productive?

Like sticking your head in a bucket.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Are you sure you are not a bot?

This conversation is not going anywhere

Look I know it is very important to you to have the last word on any thread but don't you think you could use your time on something more productive?

Like sticking your head in a bucket.

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Are you sure you are not a bot?

This conversation is not going anywhere

Look I know it is very important to you to have the last word on any thread but don't you think you could use your time on something more productive?

Like sticking your head in a bucket.

...He only posts because he can get a reaction out of someone.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Are you sure you are not a bot?

This conversation is not going anywhere

Look I know it is very important to you to have the last word on any thread but don't you think you could use your time on something more productive?

Like sticking your head in a bucket.

...He only posts because he can get a reaction out of someone.

That and he thinks making someone give up trying to have a debate out of exasperation is "winning".

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Are you sure you are not a bot?

This conversation is not going anywhere

Look I know it is very important to you to have the last word on any thread but don't you think you could use your time on something more productive?

Like sticking your head in a bucket.

...He only posts because he can get a reaction out of someone.

That and he thinks making someone give up trying to have a debate out of exasperation is "winning".

..In a way it is. And how itn works for Tim the plumber is when Tim asks for an environmental impact statement it makes his request seem reasonable.
..Tim the plumber also considers the barriers the Netherlands built cost more than moving their ports. If people accept the research about Greenland's glaciers, since 2002, it's been losing an estimated 269 billion tons of ice each year. This year, however, may be an exception.
..With me, I think that's what we need to be watching. And it will have a significant impact on sea levels.

Tim the plumber wrote:


Eh???

1, As I explained ITN does not work for me. I never said he did your very very poor reading skills are pathetic.

2, When have we discussed the dykes in the Neitherlands? I have no idea what cost they are compaired to building a new pot. I don't care. The dykes are there to protect farmland generally. The ports are in places with very extensive road and rail connections.

3, Greenland's ice mass balance is an issue that requires you to be able to do very simple maths. I see no sign of that ability.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:


Eh???

1, As I explained ITN does not work for me. I never said he did your very very poor reading skills are pathetic.

2, When have we discussed the dykes in the Neitherlands? I have no idea what cost they are compaired to building a new pot. I don't care. The dykes are there to protect farmland generally. The ports are in places with very extensive road and rail connections.

3, Greenland's ice mass balance is an issue that requires you to be able to do very simple maths. I see no sign of that ability.

..Tim the plumber, I am disappointed. I know you can do better.
.I tend to think of you and itn as "good cop, bad cop". He makes you seem credible even when you aren't. Besides, I've had some interesting thoughts on CO2 but won't post them.
.. Why? You understand little of science. Yet you wouldn't have a computer or a smartphone without it. For you:
https://youtu.be/kB3ooooqcSk

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:


Eh???

1, As I explained ITN does not work for me. I never said he did your very very poor reading skills are pathetic.

2, When have we discussed the dykes in the Neitherlands? I have no idea what cost they are compaired to building a new pot. I don't care. The dykes are there to protect farmland generally. The ports are in places with very extensive road and rail connections.

3, Greenland's ice mass balance is an issue that requires you to be able to do very simple maths. I see no sign of that ability.

..Tim the plumber, I am disappointed. I know you can do better.
.I tend to think of you and itn as "good cop, bad cop". He makes you seem credible even when you aren't. Besides, I've had some interesting thoughts on CO2 but won't post them.
.. Why? You understand little of science. Yet you wouldn't have a computer or a smartphone without it. For you:
https://youtu.be/kB3ooooqcSk

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:



Evasion. Define 'global warming'. While you're at it, define 'troll'.

Are you sure you are not a bot?

This conversation is not going anywhere

Look I know it is very important to you to have the last word on any thread but don't you think you could use your time on something more productive?

Like sticking your head in a bucket.

...He only posts because he can get a reaction out of someone.

That and he thinks making someone give up trying to have a debate out of exasperation is "winning".