Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:16

HBS Guy wrote:A major US city destroyed by storm and flood, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars of damage to homes, infrastructure and agriculture infrastructure. This years north easters were just a little taste.


Storms and floods happen often in the US. They are common occurrences there. It may not necessarily be due to climate change??
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal


Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 00:24

The orangutan in the White House rescinded an order Obama made that federal infrastructure be built to be out the reach of floods. Going to make flood damage worse, hamper mass evacuation etc.

Rising sea levels and rising sea surface temperatures will make storms and flooding worse. I have never said every storm or flood is due to AGW—I come from Holland, we know about storms and floods. Was a huge one, De Ramp (The Disaster, I guess) in 1956 occurred while I still lived there. But the three northeasters this year, definitely caused/worsened by AGW which also sent all three on the same track.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49188
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:26



What would be accurate is to show me articles that attribute diseases being caused as a result of AGW climate change rather than just climate change in general.

In my mind, you would need to prove to me the following:

1) the disease was caused by climate change;

2) the said change in climate was a direct cause of some anthropogenic method;

3) the disease would not have emerged but for the anthropogenic method.

Other than that, if you just argue that climate change causes increase in diseases and that pollutants increase climate change generally without being able to attribute direct cause and effect, then that's not scientific.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:27

HBS Guy wrote:The orangutan in the White House rescinded an order Obama made that federal infrastructure be built to be out the reach of floods. Going to make flood damage worse, hamper mass evacuation etc.

Rising sea levels and rising sea surface temperatures will make storms and flooding worse. I have never said every storm or flood is due to AGW—I come from Holland, we know about storms and floods. Was a huge one, De Ramp (The Disaster, I guess) in 1956 occurred while I still lived there. But the three northeasters this year, definitely caused/worsened by AGW which also sent all three on the same track.


The issue that I'm thinking about is whether or not a specific event can be directly attributed to man-made climate change. If you say that America has had storms and this is due to climate change, was it due to the climate change caused by man-made means, or was it due to natural climate change?? Or are you saying that man affects the climate, and we can never know specifically whether any one single event is the direct cause of man-made climate change???
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:32

In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 00:33

CaesarAugustus wrote:


What would be accurate is to show me articles that attribute diseases being caused as a result of AGW climate change rather than just climate change in general.

In my mind, you would need to prove to me the following:

1) the disease was caused by climate change;

2) the said change in climate was a direct cause of some anthropogenic method;

3) the disease would not have emerged but for the anthropogenic method.

Other than that, if you just argue that climate change causes increase in diseases and that pollutants increase climate change generally without being able to attribute direct cause and effect, then that's not scientific.


Ceasar, why do you want everyone else to do your homework for you?

Permafrost. Start there. Leave algae for later.

As to the rest of it, it reads very much like you are simply looking for ways to diminish the movement. Irrelevantly. Whether we caused it or not is not important, now is it. Can we just move past it? We have a rather pressing problem.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 00:34

CaesarAugustus wrote:In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?


When what?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 00:35

Yes, generally warmer, wetter conditions help disease vectors like mosquitoes spread disease into new areas. At the same time we have idiot antivaxxers reducing herd immunity.

The warming is anthropogenic as I have already explained. Warmer seas mean more evaporation.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49188
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:36

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:


What would be accurate is to show me articles that attribute diseases being caused as a result of AGW climate change rather than just climate change in general.

In my mind, you would need to prove to me the following:

1) the disease was caused by climate change;

2) the said change in climate was a direct cause of some anthropogenic method;

3) the disease would not have emerged but for the anthropogenic method.

Other than that, if you just argue that climate change causes increase in diseases and that pollutants increase climate change generally without being able to attribute direct cause and effect, then that's not scientific.


Ceasar, why do you want everyone else to do your homework for you?

Permafrost. Start there. Leave algae for later.

As to the rest of it, it reads very much like you are simply looking for ways to diminish the movement. Irrelevantly. Whether we caused it or not is not important, now is it. Can we just move past it? We have a rather pressing problem.


Never asked anyone to. Just asking questions.

Having thought about it, the issue at large is that climate change causes XYZ and man causes climate change, thereby further creating XYZ. Whether or not we can directly attribute one event to cause and affect is irrelevant.

Problem solved.

We agree.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:37

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?


When what?


When it will become catastrophic.

In any case, it doesn't matter when. The point is that it will happen, and we should do something about it.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:38

Just to conclude, the whole point of the video/post was to show that some people on the Left claim that man-made climate change will be imminently catastrophic. I think we can agree that that the world won't end tomorrow or next year. I also agree that we need to tackle this issue.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 00:45

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?


When what?


When it will become catastrophic.

In any case, it doesn't matter when. The point is that it will happen, and we should do something about it.



Define catastrophic.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 00:49

Attribution of events is being done now. Some climate models are really excellent—models are tested initially on past data then if they perform well they are used to predict weather.

Say there were three northeasters in a row hitting pretty much the same bit of coastline one after the other. You run the reliable model with classic climatology settings, no AGW, then run it again with AGW added (CO2 concentrations, methane, nitrous oxide) and if the second run predicts the storms and the first run didn’t then it is a good bet the even was driven by AGW.

This field is still in its infancy but advances will be made.

Another way to see that AGW can cause cataclysmic consequences—insurance companies increasingly will not insure low lying coastal properties including, for example houses near the coast in Miami.

I have never dwelled on catastrophic consequences—I am not an alarmist. I know enough science to see that AGW is real: for no other reason that 140 years has seen a reasonably steady climb in temperatures.

As the globe warms, climatic zones move polewards. The southern half of the country may get too hot to grow wheat. The northern states in the US are so far north that is their climate warms the very long days at those high latitudes will make it hard to grow wheat. If you are a wine buff you will know that Fiano and other heat tolerant Italian grape varieties are starting to replace Riesling: as a wine area gets hotter some grapes give a lot of fruitiness and fermentable sugars but no balancing acidity.

Climate change, warming, is happening so fast compared to earlier warmings that animals and plants can only cope by moving to higher altitudes (plants don’t move but their populations do) or higher latitudes—these have obvious limits.

OK, if you like I will continue this tomorrow—its late.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49188
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 01:01

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?


When what?


When it will become catastrophic.

In any case, it doesn't matter when. The point is that it will happen, and we should do something about it.



Define catastrophic.


Catastrophic means the world will end.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 01:03

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?


When what?


When it will become catastrophic.

In any case, it doesn't matter when. The point is that it will happen, and we should do something about it.



Define catastrophic.


Catastrophic means the world will end.


No it doesn't.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 01:05

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:In any case, this video and this thread talked about magnitude and as you raised 'when'?

Is there any scholarly consensus as to those two factors?


When what?


When it will become catastrophic.

In any case, it doesn't matter when. The point is that it will happen, and we should do something about it.



Define catastrophic.


Catastrophic means the world will end.


No it doesn't.


What does it mean then?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 01:10

CaesarAugustus wrote:

What does it mean then?


Really heavy shit.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 01:18

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:

What does it mean then?


Really heavy shit.


I have no idea what that means.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 01:26

Augie, can't you google catastrophic?


catastrophic
katəˈstrɒfɪk/Submit
adjective
involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
"a catastrophic earthquake"

extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful.
"catastrophic mismanagement of the economy"

synonyms: disastrous, calamitous, cataclysmic, ruinous, tragic, fatal, dire, awful, terrible, dreadful, black, woeful, grievous, lamentable, miserable, unfortunate; literarydireful

"the catastrophic consequences of a major oil spill"

involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state.
"the body undergoes catastrophic collapse towards the state of a black hole"
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 08:08

I will give you cataclysm.

The Eemian period was 125,000 years ago. temperature then was perhaps a smidge higher than now. Sea levels in the Eemian were nine metres higher than now.

Sea levels are increasing as the globe warms due to melting of ice sheets, sea ice and glaciers and by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. We have until 2100, assuming no non–linearities happen, i.e. things keep going as they are, o sudden accelerations.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49188
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 10:21

mothra wrote:Augie, can't you google catastrophic?


catastrophic
katəˈstrɒfɪk/Submit
adjective
involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
"a catastrophic earthquake"

extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful.
"catastrophic mismanagement of the economy"

synonyms: disastrous, calamitous, cataclysmic, ruinous, tragic, fatal, dire, awful, terrible, dreadful, black, woeful, grievous, lamentable, miserable, unfortunate; literarydireful

"the catastrophic consequences of a major oil spill"

involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state.
"the body undergoes catastrophic collapse towards the state of a black hole"


Ah. So now all of sudden you’re into semantics.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Dax » 25 Apr 2018, 10:43

It really doesn't matter how many scientists agree with global warming, if you can't see it is here now and close to 100 years ahead of the scientific predictions, then you are part of the problem. Have a feeling the acceleration of climate change and global warming will shock most people in just a couple of years. The temps in my area are way above average and we have never had temps like this in April, Anzac day here is normally pretty cold. Today all you needed was a shirt on and when got home from the dawn service, it was getting pretty warm.
User avatar
Dax
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 431
Joined: 12 Apr 2017, 12:15
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby MilesAway » 25 Apr 2018, 12:25

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
MilesAway wrote:Image


she's hot .... she's just not used to swallowing. :c


Still don't see the point of vacuous photos of a woman taking a sip of alcohol.

I was high: I didn't come down for hours after I saw that :beer
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby MilesAway » 25 Apr 2018, 12:28

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
Still don't see the point of vacuous photos of a woman taking a sip of alcohol.


there is no point ... miles is high.

Apparently drugs do that to you. I don't know from personal experience, so you'd have to check with mothra if you want that confirmed. :c

No drugs involved: I saw that gif and left my chair for a few hours... I gave up drinking two months ago(11 weeks tomorrow to be exact :scare ) so I think that's made me a bit 'silly' :WTF
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

cron