Climate Koch up.

[mistermack]

(Source: FoxNews.com)

Oh for fox sake !!!

Fox is for morons. I dunno why you watch it.

[Blind groper]

To mistermack

On solar effects.
Yes, these are small. However, they are sufficient to measure a minor effect on warming from sunspot cycles. As I am sure you know, there is an approximately 11 year cycle from peak activity to least activity, and this is reflected in a minor change in temperature. It is small compared to global warming though. Where things get complicated is that we do not really know what it is about the sunspot cycle that affects climate. Actual total energy output varies to such a tiny degree that it cannot be the cause. However, there are magnetic and ultra violet changes that are greater.

To Seth

On adapting to global warming.
Yes, we will have to adapt. That adaptation goes way beyond growing tomatoes in Siberia. It will include multi-trillion dollar outputs such as building sea walls around cities, tearing down flimsy houses and rebuilding them out of solid materials to cope with increasing storms, and genetically modifying crops to enable them to grow under the new, much more variable climate conditions.

However, in addition to adapting, we can reduce the enormous multi-trillion dollars costs by mitigating the actual warming. If we can get CO2 build up to reduce, so that sea level rise (for example) is only 2 metres, instead of ten, that will save humanity millions of lives and hundreds of trillions of dollars.

[Seth]

(Source: FoxNews.com)

Oh for fox sake !!!

Fox is for morons. I dunno why you watch it.

And yet you have presented zero evidence that the story is in any way incorrect. Which leads me to question who is the moron in this conversation.

[Seth]

The Problem with Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism's philosophical problems are rather daunting, and fatal to it as a basic theory (though some have applied similar ideas). First, it makes the faulty assumption that what is natural is equivalent to what is morally correct. In other words, it falls prey to the belief that just because something takes place in nature, it must be a moral paradigm for humans to follow.

Very nice, thanks. Now let's discuss the logical fallacy of "ought = is." It's much easier to derive an "ought" (in the moral sense) from an "is" (being an observed scientific fact of nature) than it is to derive "morally correct" from what "ought" to be, which has no foundation in anything other than subjective opinion.

The "naturalistic fallacy" has the advantage of being connected to objective evidence, whereas the "Moral Relativists" or "Situational Ethicists" have no connection to anything real, but are mere philosophical abstracts that vary from culture to culture.

For example, the "naturalistic fallacy" of my First Organic Law, which is the source of the First Organic Right (a statement of "moral correctness"), is directly connected to universal natural behavior of living organisms; they will defend their own life in one manner or another, which translates to the moral argument that a "right to life" exists as an inherent, natural morality.

The Moral Relativist argument on the other hand, which denies any connection to nature, is a thin philosophical assumption that a person has a "right to life" that is unsupported by either nature, history or rational thought. One need only look at the various societies in earth's history that routinely take the lives of others and consider that act to be completely moral to see how relativistic this argument is, and therefor how intellectually weak.

So, taking theism out of the equation and inserting science and rational observation, the "is - ought" conundrum becomes much less knotty, and the Moral Relativist argument disintegrates into a fog of illogic and unreason.

[Animavore]

So do you agree with eugenics?

EDIT: Answered on previous page.

[macdoc]

nother Hubbard brewing up shite for the true believers....watch for the book soon
You know when they start using capitals it's preacher time.....

[Seth]

To mistermack

On solar effects.
Yes, these are small. However, they are sufficient to measure a minor effect on warming from sunspot cycles. As I am sure you know, there is an approximately 11 year cycle from peak activity to least activity, and this is reflected in a minor change in temperature. It is small compared to global warming though. Where things get complicated is that we do not really know what it is about the sunspot cycle that affects climate. Actual total energy output varies to such a tiny degree that it cannot be the cause. However, there are magnetic and ultra violet changes that are greater.

To Seth

On adapting to global warming.
Yes, we will have to adapt. That adaptation goes way beyond growing tomatoes in Siberia. It will include multi-trillion dollar outputs such as building sea walls around cities, tearing down flimsy houses and rebuilding them out of solid materials to cope with increasing storms, and genetically modifying crops to enable them to grow under the new, much more variable climate conditions.

However, in addition to adapting, we can reduce the enormous multi-trillion dollars costs by mitigating the actual warming. If we can get CO2 build up to reduce, so that sea level rise (for example) is only 2 metres, instead of ten, that will save humanity millions of lives and hundreds of trillions of dollars.

First, the attempts to limit CO2 emissions have nothing whatever to do with limiting CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, they are pure political power plays. This is a fact because, assuming that global warming is occurring, it has been stated by scientists that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will be there, and will be affecting the climate, for at least the next 150 years. Therefore, NO CHANGE WE CAN MAKE TODAY OR TOMORROW will have any effect whatsoever on either global climate change or sea level rise.

If the AGW pundits are correct (and assuming that the planet does not have built-in corrective feedback mechanisms), all the "permanent" snow and ice caps WILL melt and sea levels WILL rise to their absolute maximum level, which is something like 10 meters.

If this is what AGW pundits believe, then it is a complete waste of money and public resources to bother to impose CO2 emission restrictions that will cost the economy trillions upon trillions of dollars and which will in the foreseeable future proved ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE against climate change or sea level increase.

If it is true that AGW is what's driving climate change, then we need to IGNORE CO2 output for now and concentrate the entire global effort and economy on ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE. This means exactly what you have said; moving vulnerable populations, relocating infrastructure and cities, working out how to supply food to the people of the earth as the climate changes and (by way of hypothetical example) the breadbasket of the world, the Great Plains of the central United States, desertify and turn into North Africa (which 15 thousand years ago or so was a verdant and abundant area with ample moisture).

It's far more vital to the survival of our species and the continuation of civilization that we learn to predict WHERE and HOW global climate change is going to impact populations and food supplies and pour ALL of our effort and money into preparing for that change.

It's worse than useless to focus on converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas while ignoring the vast effort and investment required to begin and continue the generations-long process of moving everyone on the planet 20 meters vertically so they will be safely above the maximum possible sea level if and when that occurs.

All this "carbon footprint" crap has nothing whatever to do with saving lives and rebuilding infrastructure out of harm's way and everything to do with global political control.

So, adapt or die.

[aspire1670]

To mistermack

On solar effects.
Yes, these are small. However, they are sufficient to measure a minor effect on warming from sunspot cycles. As I am sure you know, there is an approximately 11 year cycle from peak activity to least activity, and this is reflected in a minor change in temperature. It is small compared to global warming though. Where things get complicated is that we do not really know what it is about the sunspot cycle that affects climate. Actual total energy output varies to such a tiny degree that it cannot be the cause. However, there are magnetic and ultra violet changes that are greater.

To Seth

On adapting to global warming.
Yes, we will have to adapt. That adaptation goes way beyond growing tomatoes in Siberia. It will include multi-trillion dollar outputs such as building sea walls around cities, tearing down flimsy houses and rebuilding them out of solid materials to cope with increasing storms, and genetically modifying crops to enable them to grow under the new, much more variable climate conditions.

However, in addition to adapting, we can reduce the enormous multi-trillion dollars costs by mitigating the actual warming. If we can get CO2 build up to reduce, so that sea level rise (for example) is only 2 metres, instead of ten, that will save humanity millions of lives and hundreds of trillions of dollars.

First, the attempts to limit CO2 emissions have nothing whatever to do with limiting CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, they are pure political power plays. This is a fact because, assuming that global warming is occurring, it has been stated by scientists that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will be there, and will be affecting the climate, for at least the next 150 years. Therefore, NO CHANGE WE CAN MAKE TODAY OR TOMORROW will have any effect whatsoever on either global climate change or sea level rise.

If the AGW pundits are correct (and assuming that the planet does not have built-in corrective feedback mechanisms), all the "permanent" snow and ice caps WILL melt and sea levels WILL rise to their absolute maximum level, which is something like 10 meters.

If this is what AGW pundits believe, then it is a complete waste of money and public resources to bother to impose CO2 emission restrictions that will cost the economy trillions upon trillions of dollars and which will in the foreseeable future proved ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE against climate change or sea level increase.

If it is true that AGW is what's driving climate change, then we need to IGNORE CO2 output for now and concentrate the entire global effort and economy on ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE. This means exactly what you have said; moving vulnerable populations, relocating infrastructure and cities, working out how to supply food to the people of the earth as the climate changes and (by way of hypothetical example) the breadbasket of the world, the Great Plains of the central United States, desertify and turn into North Africa (which 15 thousand years ago or so was a verdant and abundant area with ample moisture).

It's far more vital to the survival of our species and the continuation of civilization that we learn to predict WHERE and HOW global climate change is going to impact populations and food supplies and pour ALL of our effort and money into preparing for that change.

It's worse than useless to focus on converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas while ignoring the vast effort and investment required to begin and continue the generations-long process of moving everyone on the planet 20 meters vertically so they will be safely above the maximum possible sea level if and when that occurs.

All this "carbon footprint" crap has nothing whatever to do with saving lives and rebuilding infrastructure out of harm's way and everything to do with global political control.

So, adapt or die.

If you want to lead by example, young Seth, and volunteer to be the first to move 20 meters vertically, I'll have a whip round to buy you enough rope.

[Blind groper]

First, the attempts to limit CO2 emissions have nothing whatever to do with limiting CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, they are pure political power plays. This is a fact because, assuming that global warming is occurring, it has been stated by scientists that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will be there, and will be affecting the climate, for at least the next 150 years. Therefore, NO CHANGE WE CAN MAKE TODAY OR TOMORROW will have any effect whatsoever on either global climate change or sea level rise.

I think there is a misperception here.
Yes, the CO2 currently in the air will not come down in a hurry.

However, there is a hell of a lot of CO2 not yet in the air, but which is on its way.
If we can reduce CO2 emissions ASAP, then the final top CO2 level will be less, and so will the harmful side effects. Any effort in this direction will save the world multiple trillions of dollars.

Sea level rise will be anything between 500 cm, and 80 metres (80 metres is a very unlikely extreme case with all the ice in Antarctica melting). it will not stop at 10 metres, but might be stopped at 0.5 metres with vigorous effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know why you bother. Seth clearly has absolutely no idea about this subject. For a guy who usually has a lot of knowledge of the subjects he talks about, he is embarrassingly deficient in this subject.

[macdoc]

he is embarrassingly deficient in this subject.

try wilfully deficient....

Seth wrote:

First, the attempts to limit CO2 emissions have nothing whatever to do with limiting CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, they are pure political power plays. This is a fact because, assuming that global warming is occurring, it has been stated by scientists that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will be there, and will be affecting the climate, for at least the next 150 years. Therefore, NO CHANGE WE CAN MAKE TODAY OR TOMORROW will have any effect whatsoever on either global climate change or sea level rise.

not sure how many things you can get wrong at once but then consider the soource.

The Co2 from anthro sources for the last 300 years will affect climate 1,000 years out or more.

Best case scenario: Climate change to continue to year 3000

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

http://eideard.com/2011/01/15/best-case ... year-3000/

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever
Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected.

and effects will linger 100,000 years out
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812 ... 8.122.html

Each year is cumulative - very little drops out annually so slowing emissions slows the onset of the worst impacts.
Your comment is like saying I've already smoked thousands of cigarettes - what's a few more.
In other words.....pure bullshit.
In many ways it's worse as in that case you only you die.
IN the case of C02, the legacy goes on in human terms indefinitely.

The climate IS already altered significantly and there is more to come even if we stopped cold but we won't.
Just eliminating coal as a power source would help immensely both C02 and human health.

Carbon neutral can be done but not with the rightwingdings spewing fossil funded crap and buying politicians.

Some supposed libbies just can't own up to their responsibility for damage through fossil fuel use so try to deny its impact.
Hypocrites the fucking lot of them

[macdoc]

even China realizes that coal is the killer...and MUST and IS acting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013 ... ky/100449/

photos will take your breath away....literally.

Pollution readings from the US Embassy (upper) and the local government shows hazardous levels of air pollution in Beijing on January 23, 2013. At the height of recent pollution, Beijing authorities said readings for PM2.5 -- particles small enough deeply to penetrate the lungs -- hit 993 micrograms per cubic metre, almost 40 times the World Health Organization's safe limit. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) #

[Jason]

Your comment is like saying I've already smoked thousands of cigarettes - what's a few more.

Nah. It's more like saying "I've already got inoperable cancer, no point quitting smoking now."

[pErvinalia]

No, it's more like saying "I've already got aids, no point quitting sex now".

[Seth]

If you want to lead by example, young Seth, and volunteer to be the first to move 20 meters vertically, I'll have a whip round to buy you enough rope.

Too late. I'm currently 2140 meters above sea level and well above all local floodplains. I'm not stupid. The same can't be said of billions of other people who are going to stand there for two hundred years wondering what's happening like the pinheaded microcephalic morons they are, as the water rises around their nostrils.

Adapt or die.