How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

[IlarMeilyr]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.

However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.

• What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
• Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
• Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
• Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
  
• Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.

I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.

 

[Crick]

In reality (a concept you don't quite understand) it's just the opposite.

1. Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?

Shakun and Marotte for temperature during the Holocene and the Vostok, Law and Dome C cores for CO2.

2. You claim that mankind is altering the climate which must mean that you are able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. You must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence do you have that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.

There is no requirement for a "precise" value because there is no requirement for precise attribution. Using the most likely value of the sensitivity range still shows that human activity is responsible for more than half of the observed warming.

3. The climate is a chaotic system. Can you state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? You would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.

I can state with a high degree of confidence that we know all of the major components of climate forcing. Again, precision is not required and you are obviously throwing it in here to get somewhere your science wouldn't otherwise take you.

4. Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Can you state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do you base your claim if you have one?

Do you think a one meter rise in sea level would be harmless?

5. This action you want for me to take based upon your claim is going to cost money...and if you want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now....pollution, habitat loss, etc.

The IPCC's WG-III and IV have made extremely detailed and comprehensive estimates of the costs of doing nothing and the costs of dealing with the situation. The cost of doing nothing, like the cost of doing nothing in virtually ALL such situations, is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of dealing with it. Of course, it would have been much, much less expensive had we dealt with it back in the days of Kyoto, but I guess we had to deal with people like you, more interested in their fossil fuel stocks than the well being of mankind.

6. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that you want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless you can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action you want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can you give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.

Your "precision" bullshit and "ideal temperature" nonsense are become tiresome. Why don't you be honest and simply say - as we all already know - that you will reject out of hand any response I give you here? Is it because you're a fundamentally dishonest person? That's the conclusion I draw from all this.

Global warming is undeniable. Human causation is now a very widely accepted theory over which there is no longer any serious debate. And, I'm terribly sorry, but the denier whining that goes on about here does not constitute "serious debate". Global warming will harm human culture and drastic action needs to be taken about it. Your interpretations of science fundamentals, like radiative heat transfer, mark you as an ignorant looney tune and I cannot for the life of me imagine why ANYONE would go to you for an opinion on a scientific matter save pure entertainment along the lines of a comedy of the absurd.

 

[jc456]

Yes. And it's a compelling one. Puts your claims that the Maldives are going under water soon to bed I would say.

Sea-Level Rise in the Republic of Maldives | Global Warming Effects
As the flattest country on Earth, the Republic of Maldives is extremely vulnerable to rising sea level and faces the very real possibility that the majority of its land area will be underwater by the end of this century.4,9,16,18 Today, the white sand beaches and extensive coral reefs of the Maldives' 1,190 islands draw more than 600,000 tourists annually.2

• Sea level rise is likely to worsen existing environmental stresses in the Maldives, such as periodic flooding from storm surge, and a scarcity of freshwater for drinking and other purposes.5,11
• Given mid–level scenarios for global warming emissions,17 the Maldives is projected to experience sea level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (half a meter)—and to lose some 77 percent of its land area—by around the year 2100.4,9 If sea level were instead to rise by 3 feet (1 meter), the Maldives could be almost completely inundated by about 2085.18
• The Maldivian government has identified many potential strategies for adapting to rising seas, but is also considering relocating its people to a new homeland.19,20

God are you stupid.

Ahhhh yes the ever popular claim. Here's the deal doofus, the world operates via cause and effect. Something happens which causes something else to happen. Only you religious nutters deny that. IF the waters were rising no one in their right mind would invest 400 million of their hard earned dollars into a product that would be destroyed before they were able to get their investment back, and more importantly make at least some profit from it.

Cause....and effect.

I know you believe in magic and all those different volcano Gods, but really, the planet is a cause and effect world. You should study some science so you can understand how that works...

cause ,man made climate change or to be more accurate climate change that would naturally take billions of years sped up drastically
By human activities.

Billions of years? You need to go back to school....




Explain this how did the great Sahara desert go from tropical to dry in only a few thousand years?


From Bountiful to Barren: Rainfall Decrease Left the Sahara Out to Dry

A finding that may help scientists better predict the pace of climate change, research published in Science shows how the Sahara Desert, a region as big as the U.S. that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea across northern Africa, went from bountiful to bone-dry over a period of several thousand years.






Sahara Went from Green to Desert in a Flash

North Africa's sudden geographical transformation 5,000 years ago was one of the planet's most dramatic climate shifts.

The transformation took place nearly simultaneously across the continent's northern half, a new study finds. The results will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

thanks again for proving my post is correct .
What you posted supports the contention that natural climate change takes a very long time.
The industrial revolution started about 200 years ago and has drastically sped up natural processes.
Besides you're a creationist none of this is your concern ,god will fix it.

How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals
Prove it. Let's see the chart on natural temperatures and those that sped up. Got those do you?

BTW, do you have the name of the scientist not funded by government money and believes in your sped up process?

 

[westwall]

The claim that mainstream science has no data or no empirical data to support AGW is a lie and it is a stupid one.

Well then present some!

 

[Crick]

www.ipcc.ch

Now respond to post #222. You ask six questions. I answer them and you just walk away. Why should anyone bother getting into a debate with childish shite behavior like that?

 

[daws101]

Too busy yammering to read ?
You have my answer !

No...all I have from you is a dodge...the very one I predicted. You guys never fail to fail.

Saying you predicted it is absolute bullshit unless you can show proof of what you said and when you said it..
To be credible it would also have to be proved that you had not read through the thread before responding
Your proclamation of the power of prediction don't mean jackshit .
Fail? Watching you clowns flop around grasping at straws is in no way a fail

 

[daws101]

Sea-Level Rise in the Republic of Maldives | Global Warming Effects
As the flattest country on Earth, the Republic of Maldives is extremely vulnerable to rising sea level and faces the very real possibility that the majority of its land area will be underwater by the end of this century.4,9,16,18 Today, the white sand beaches and extensive coral reefs of the Maldives' 1,190 islands draw more than 600,000 tourists annually.2

• Sea level rise is likely to worsen existing environmental stresses in the Maldives, such as periodic flooding from storm surge, and a scarcity of freshwater for drinking and other purposes.5,11
• Given mid–level scenarios for global warming emissions,17 the Maldives is projected to experience sea level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (half a meter)—and to lose some 77 percent of its land area—by around the year 2100.4,9 If sea level were instead to rise by 3 feet (1 meter), the Maldives could be almost completely inundated by about 2085.18
• The Maldivian government has identified many potential strategies for adapting to rising seas, but is also considering relocating its people to a new homeland.19,20

God are you stupid.

Ahhhh yes the ever popular claim. Here's the deal doofus, the world operates via cause and effect. Something happens which causes something else to happen. Only you religious nutters deny that. IF the waters were rising no one in their right mind would invest 400 million of their hard earned dollars into a product that would be destroyed before they were able to get their investment back, and more importantly make at least some profit from it.

Cause....and effect.

I know you believe in magic and all those different volcano Gods, but really, the planet is a cause and effect world. You should study some science so you can understand how that works...

cause ,man made climate change or to be more accurate climate change that would naturally take billions of years sped up drastically
By human activities.

Billions of years? You need to go back to school....




Explain this how did the great Sahara desert go from tropical to dry in only a few thousand years?


From Bountiful to Barren: Rainfall Decrease Left the Sahara Out to Dry

A finding that may help scientists better predict the pace of climate change, research published in Science shows how the Sahara Desert, a region as big as the U.S. that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea across northern Africa, went from bountiful to bone-dry over a period of several thousand years.






Sahara Went from Green to Desert in a Flash

North Africa's sudden geographical transformation 5,000 years ago was one of the planet's most dramatic climate shifts.

The transformation took place nearly simultaneously across the continent's northern half, a new study finds. The results will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

thanks again for proving my post is correct .
What you posted supports the contention that natural climate change takes a very long time.
The industrial revolution started about 200 years ago and has drastically sped up natural processes.
Besides you're a creationist none of this is your concern ,god will fix it.

How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals
Prove it. Let's see the chart on natural temperatures and those that sped up. Got those do you?

BTW, do you have the name of the scientist not funded by government money and believes in your sped up process?

Classic conspiracy theory ploy!

 

[jc456]

www.ipcc.ch

Now respond to post #222. You ask six questions. I answer them and you just walk away. Why should anyone bother getting into a debate with childish shite behavior like that?

How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

Hey neanderthal, what is empirical in that report? Zone rules state you must display an excerpt, where is it?

 

[jc456]

Ahhhh yes the ever popular claim. Here's the deal doofus, the world operates via cause and effect. Something happens which causes something else to happen. Only you religious nutters deny that. IF the waters were rising no one in their right mind would invest 400 million of their hard earned dollars into a product that would be destroyed before they were able to get their investment back, and more importantly make at least some profit from it.

Cause....and effect.

I know you believe in magic and all those different volcano Gods, but really, the planet is a cause and effect world. You should study some science so you can understand how that works...

cause ,man made climate change or to be more accurate climate change that would naturally take billions of years sped up drastically
By human activities.

Billions of years? You need to go back to school....




Explain this how did the great Sahara desert go from tropical to dry in only a few thousand years?


From Bountiful to Barren: Rainfall Decrease Left the Sahara Out to Dry

A finding that may help scientists better predict the pace of climate change, research published in Science shows how the Sahara Desert, a region as big as the U.S. that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea across northern Africa, went from bountiful to bone-dry over a period of several thousand years.






Sahara Went from Green to Desert in a Flash

North Africa's sudden geographical transformation 5,000 years ago was one of the planet's most dramatic climate shifts.

The transformation took place nearly simultaneously across the continent's northern half, a new study finds. The results will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

thanks again for proving my post is correct .
What you posted supports the contention that natural climate change takes a very long time.
The industrial revolution started about 200 years ago and has drastically sped up natural processes.
Besides you're a creationist none of this is your concern ,god will fix it.

How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals
Prove it. Let's see the chart on natural temperatures and those that sped up. Got those do you?

BTW, do you have the name of the scientist not funded by government money and believes in your sped up process?

Classic conspiracy theory ploy!

How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals
Prove it. Let's see the chart on natural temperatures and those that sped up. Got those do you?

BTW, do you have the name of the scientist not funded by government money and believes in your sped up process?

 

[SSDD]

Shakun and Marotte for temperature during the Holocene and the Vostok, Law and Dome C cores for CO2.

According to Shakun and Mayotte, their resolution is greater than 300 years....so as I said, there is no data with fine enough resolution to support the claims you are making...and all the Law Dome and Vostok cores do is go back further into the ice age when one would expect CO2 to be lower....prior to the beginning of the ice age CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm.

There is no requirement for a "precise" value because there is no requirement for precise attribution. Using the most likely value of the sensitivity range still shows that human activity is responsible for more than half of the observed warming.

You claimed that the human contribution to warming was 50%....and can't say any more than using the "most likely" value of the sensitivity range....what you are saying is that you and climate science are taking a wild assed guess....the fact is that without a strong understanding of the climate and ALL the factors that drive it, you have no basis upon which to predict future climate.

I can state with a high degree of confidence that we know all of the major components of climate forcing. Again, precision is not required and you are obviously throwing it in here to get somewhere your science wouldn't otherwise take you.

Again...bald faced lie...at this point, we remain unsure as to the actual number of the planet's albedo...climate science still can't say for certain whether water vapor is a positive or negative forcing...hell, they don't even know what causes El Nino....to say that you can say with a high degree of confidence that we know ALL of the major components of climate forcing is just bullshit. That has to be one of the biggest lies you have told to date.

And knowing the amount of forcing for each factor damned well would be required if you wanted to actually derive an actual human fingerprint. Till you know everything else, you can't begin to put any amount of warming on humans with any credibility at all.

Do you think a one meter rise in sea level would be harmless?

No more damaging than the natural erosion of coastal areas which we deal with every day....and upon what actual evidence do you even make threats of a meter of sea level rise anytime in the near future? Models? At the present rate it will take 3.5 centuries to see a meter of sea level increase.

The IPCC's WG-III and IV have made extremely detailed and comprehensive estimates of the costs of doing nothing and the costs of dealing with the situation. The cost of doing nothing, like the cost of doing nothing in virtually ALL such situations, is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of dealing with it. Of course, it would have been much, much less expensive had we dealt with it back in the days of Kyoto, but I guess we had to deal with people like you, more interested in their fossil fuel stocks than the well being of mankind.

Comprehensive estimates based on wild assed guesses..that is what you are saying. At this point, you can't even say with any certainty that any measures we take with regard to CO2 will have any effect whatsoever. You are just making shit up and beyond a meter of sea level rise over the next few centuries, which would happen anyway you can't even point to any harm with any certainty.

Your "precision" bullshit and "ideal temperature" nonsense are become tiresome. Why don't you be honest and simply say - as we all already know - that you will reject out of hand any response I give you here? Is it because you're a fundamentally dishonest person? That's the conclusion I draw from all this.

What you seem to be saying is that it is unreasonable to expect anything more than wild assed guesses. Asking for anything more just brings the fact that we don't know into high relief and apparently you can't bear to look at that bit of truth. As to who is dishonest...you are a bald faced lying sack who has done nothing but lie one time after another in an attempt to answer these questions and every other question put to you.

 

[SSDD]

BTW, do you have the name of the scientist not funded by government money and believes in your sped up process?

They believe that government money is pure as the wind driven snow and nothing bad could ever be done with it despite hundreds of years of history and hundreds of millions of corpses that say different. again....everything is a matter of belief to these people...they don't do fact.

 

[jc456]

Shakun and Marotte for temperature during the Holocene and the Vostok, Law and Dome C cores for CO2.

According to Shakun and Mayotte, their resolution is greater than 300 years....so as I said, there is no data with fine enough resolution to support the claims you are making...and all the Law Dome and Vostok cores do is go back further into the ice age when one would expect CO2 to be lower....prior to the beginning of the ice age CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm.

There is no requirement for a "precise" value because there is no requirement for precise attribution. Using the most likely value of the sensitivity range still shows that human activity is responsible for more than half of the observed warming.

You claimed that the human contribution to warming was 50%....and can't say any more than using the "most likely" value of the sensitivity range....what you are saying is that you and climate science are taking a wild assed guess....the fact is that without a strong understanding of the climate and ALL the factors that drive it, you have no basis upon which to predict future climate.

I can state with a high degree of confidence that we know all of the major components of climate forcing. Again, precision is not required and you are obviously throwing it in here to get somewhere your science wouldn't otherwise take you.

Again...bald faced lie...at this point, we remain unsure as to the actual number of the planet's albedo...climate science still can't say for certain whether water vapor is a positive or negative forcing...hell, they don't even know what causes El Nino....to say that you can say with a high degree of confidence that we know ALL of the major components of climate forcing is just bullshit. That has to be one of the biggest lies you have told to date.

And knowing the amount of forcing for each factor damned well would be required if you wanted to actually derive an actual human fingerprint. Till you know everything else, you can't begin to put any amount of warming on humans with any credibility at all.

Do you think a one meter rise in sea level would be harmless?

No more damaging than the natural erosion of coastal areas which we deal with every day....and upon what actual evidence do you even make threats of a meter of sea level rise anytime in the near future? Models? At the present rate it will take 3.5 centuries to see a meter of sea level increase.

The IPCC's WG-III and IV have made extremely detailed and comprehensive estimates of the costs of doing nothing and the costs of dealing with the situation. The cost of doing nothing, like the cost of doing nothing in virtually ALL such situations, is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of dealing with it. Of course, it would have been much, much less expensive had we dealt with it back in the days of Kyoto, but I guess we had to deal with people like you, more interested in their fossil fuel stocks than the well being of mankind.

Comprehensive estimates based on wild assed guesses..that is what you are saying. At this point, you can't even say with any certainty that any measures we take with regard to CO2 will have any effect whatsoever. You are just making shit up and beyond a meter of sea level rise over the next few centuries, which would happen anyway you can't even point to any harm with any certainty.

Your "precision" bullshit and "ideal temperature" nonsense are become tiresome. Why don't you be honest and simply say - as we all already know - that you will reject out of hand any response I give you here? Is it because you're a fundamentally dishonest person? That's the conclusion I draw from all this.

What you seem to be saying is that it is unreasonable to expect anything more than wild assed guesses. Asking for anything more just brings the fact that we don't know into high relief and apparently you can't bear to look at that bit of truth. As to who is dishonest...you are a bald faced lying sack who has done nothing but lie one time after another in an attempt to answer these questions and every other question put to you.

You claimed that the human contribution to warming was 50%....and can't say any more than using the "most likely" value of the sensitivity range....what you are saying is that you and climate science are taking a wild assed guess....the fact is that without a strong understanding of the climate and ALL the factors that drive it, you have no basis upon which to predict future climate.

Sure he does, it's called magic eight ball.

Shit, he can't even name one scientist that isn't funded by government money. How can he possibly prove anything about climate. That's so neanderthalish.

 

[westwall]

www.ipcc.ch

Now respond to post #222. You ask six questions. I answer them and you just walk away. Why should anyone bother getting into a debate with childish shite behavior like that?

I see opinion and propaganda. I see no facts. Try again.

 

[SSDD]

Saying you predicted it is absolute bullshit unless you can show proof of what you said and when you said it..

Of course I can show proof you idiot...I wrote it down. Here, from post 216 in this thread:

I'm not much into science fiction....I have a greater appreciation for reality. Here are a few questions that will help you separate fiction from reality. I don't actually expect an answer from you on any of them....and I don't expect for you to grasp how your inability to answer them highlights your belief in fiction....I do hope that people reading and seeng your inability to answer will see that most of what you warmers believe is, in fact, fiction. So here are my straight forward questions..

You people are so predictable that it is no feat to say in advance what your response will be to any given challenge....I predicted that you would not have an answer to a single question and that you would fail to see how your failure to answer highlights how little your belief is based upon....then you did precisely what I predicted...It isn't a statement to my predictive power....if I had such power, I would be richer than Croesus...it was a statement on how predictable you people are....when people are gullible, it is easy to predict the results of their gullibility.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, you are as worthless as worthless can get.

Now to Westwall

www.ipcc.ch

Now respond to post #222. You ask six questions. I answer them and you just walk away. Why should anyone bother getting into a debate with childish shite behavior like that?

I see opinion and propaganda. I see no facts. Try again.

I predicted that you would respond in this manner. See every post in which I called you an ignorant asshole.

 

[westwall]

SSDD, you are as worthless as worthless can get.

Now to Westwall

www.ipcc.ch

Now respond to post #222. You ask six questions. I answer them and you just walk away. Why should anyone bother getting into a debate with childish shite behavior like that?

I see opinion and propaganda. I see no facts. Try again.

I predicted that you would respond in this manner. See every post in which I called you an ignorant asshole.

Yes. We know that your ability to call people names is at about the third grade level. Congrats. Now. Once again for the dunce in the corner.. Present us with empirical data that supports the theory of AGW. It's not a hard question to answer if we are to believe you. So how about you produce something.

The IPCC presents OPINION. Learn the damned difference you ignorant twat.

 

[skookerasbil]

Is it no wonder so many refer to this global warming stuff as being fostered by a religion?

By "so many" you mean "us deniers"; and no, it doesn't make me wonder at all. It makes me think you have no valid scientific arguments to make.

Those with the ability to connect the dots and are not low-information people are able to deduce that climate alarmism is based upon blind faith and nothing else.

So thousands of published, PhD scientists conducting research on a daily basis are "low-information people"?

These people are whores to the science.......meanwhile, all the evidence shows what they are basing their religion on is nearly 60 years of computer model fAiL!!!!!

I have rattled off the wealth of empirical information on which AGW is based often enough that I am quite certain you've seen it and thus your statement here is a willful lie.

ghey

A liar and a bigot.

60 years of climate model inaccuracies........one of the big reasons that for the last 8 years, global warming as a concern to the public has fallen to historic lows.



"A liar and a bigot"..........because I ascribed the term "ghey" as a statement about science............that's real outstanding connect the dots skills s0n!!! Political correctness is quickly becoming a relic of a former era.


Political correctness = domestic terrorism

 

[Crick]

SSDD, you are as worthless as worthless can get.

Now to Westwall

www.ipcc.ch

Now respond to post #222. You ask six questions. I answer them and you just walk away. Why should anyone bother getting into a debate with childish shite behavior like that?

I see opinion and propaganda. I see no facts. Try again.

I predicted that you would respond in this manner. See every post in which I called you an ignorant asshole.

Your comments about the IPCC's assessment reports are completely false. We're not going to move much further till you get that crap out of your system.












Yes. We know that your ability to call people names is at about the third grade level. Congrats. Now. Once again for the dunce in the corner.. Present us with empirical data that supports the theory of AGW. It's not a hard question to answer if we are to believe you. So how about you produce something.

The IPCC presents OPINION. Learn the damned difference you ignorant twat.

 

[PredFan]

You guys don't really expect anything different from the AGW Faithful do you? They are evangelical about it. They are 100% committed not only to the faith, but to converting all of mankind. There is no reasoning with these people.

 

[daws101]

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted