Alexandria wouldn’t be all that bad.
Well, Old Town would be entirely flooded, but everything from the Masonic Temple on up should be good.
Oh wait, you were talking about Egypt… 
@EastUmpqua It is exactly this. If you’d like to debate the hypocrisy of the rich, then create a thread in Great Debates.
When you lead off with stating you have credentials, and then state that an OP which is near entirely (if not fully) wrong, and then follow this up with right-wing political talking points while bemoaning the influence of politics in climate change. Well, in “The Pit”, people are going to make fun of you and your credentials. You actually do seem like a decent person though.
I never meant to imply that Earth’s tilt is the cause of current climate change. The OP at least knew what that means, and “most” people I know don’t know or care. I thought his point that climate change might not be our worst existential threat is interesting. I can supply peer-reviewed articles showing the threat of emergent contaminants:
My only point was that people focus on climate change and mostly aren’t aware or don’t care about the other serious issues our planet is facing, as long as they drive a Prius and buy carbon credits.
Wow. Who ever says that?
This is at least the second time you’ve brought up this water pollution thing. Of course it’s a problem, and so are dozens of other problems facing humanity involving contamination, resource depletion, disease, risks to the food supply, severe weather, and threats to global security, among many. But climate change involves most of all those same problems, and more.
Your point seems to be to whine about too much attention being paid to climate change. My point is that anyone who underestimates the problem of climate change is simply ignorant of the depth and breadth of its impacts and their long-term consequences to the future of humanity.
You might want to start by doing some reading of the IPCC Working Group 2 5th Assessment report on the impacts of climate change, or there is a shorter Summary for Policymakers version.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Or just a quick look at this simple chart (from the AR4 version) gives an idea of the breadth of the problem:
Or you might just want to read this quick and simple summary of yet another report from the Lancet:
A new report says that climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.
Published in The Lancet , the report said that climate change is already responsible for more heat waves, extreme weather, the spread of disease, increasing pollution, and reduced productivity. The report was produced by 24 academic institutions and United Nations agencies, and comes on the heels of a major assessment from the U.S. government about the dire consequences of a warming planet.
In addition to direct effects like storms, floods, and fires, climate change will also contribute to indirect effects, such as decreased crop yields, overwhelmed water systems, hospitals shutting down, people losing their homes, and a rise in mental health problems, according to the report.
Kind of ironic that you cite this article as a reputable source. It does have “Harvard” in its name :
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health traces its roots to public health activism at the beginning of the last century, a time of energetic social reform. From the start, faculty were expected to commit themselves to research as well as teaching. In 1946, no longer affiliated with the medical school, HSPH became an independent, degree-granting body.
Kind of ironic that you didn’t notice it was just citing an article from The Lancet – one of the most prestigious medical journals – or chose not to mention it. I didn’t cite The Lancet directly because you have to be registered to read the full article. Or do you have a problem with their credibility, too?
In any case, the IPCC Working Group 2 Fifth Assessment of climate change impacts is much more detailed and thorough, even if you just read the Summary for Policymakers. You forgot to mention that, too. I would seriously encourage you to read it. I could also have cited the joint statements on the urgent necessity of addressing climate change issued by the world’s leading national academies of science. You should look at those, too.
I couldn’t find the article published by ‘Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’ on The Lancet web page.
I keep up on peer-reviewed articles on climate change. But there is a difference between Climate Science and Atmospheric Science.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32594-7/fulltext
Wasn’t published by or written by them, they just cited the Lancet article.
The really detailed stuff is the IPCC cites. But that chart I posted gives you a quick at-a-glance look at the basics. The fact that you didn’t even comment on – and I’m sure never even looked at – that quick chart of climate impacts tells me all I need to know about your sincerity on this matter. All you could manage was an ad hominem attack on something that wasn’t even an original source.
Like if that was not also a right wing talking point. Saw it before, you guys are not even trying nowadays.
For starters, I don’t think that is ignored, second, you know what emergent means? That is something that is “becoming apparent or prominent.” as in it was not known until recently, the issue of global warming was known for more than one hundred years and the latest research that established the modern understanding of how big is the issue was found about 50 years ago.
Your reply also showed that you did not even bother to read about the history of this issue, that was linked too in my latest post.
I was referring to emergent contaminants, see my post.
No it hasn’t.
I like to read. Thanks for being patient with me.
But you’re back, and you’re playing it again. And may I say, with no greater success than before. You’re not doing yourself any favors here, especially in trying to side with the idiotic OP.
The basic principle has been known for 200 years:
But what we think of as modern climate science, and the widespread use of the term “anthropogenic global warming”, dates back around 50 years, as GIGO correctly said, and was largely the result of that NAS NRC report that I cited.
You’re right that scientists have know for a long time that carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb and emit IR radiation.
Read it again, you are only showing that you do not want to know how wrong you were for using that as an example. (There was another reason why you were wrong, read again too).
From the book the science historian bothered to publish it also in website form, the very same you did not read:
The next major scientist to consider the Earth’s temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature.
Arrhenius brought up the possibility of future warming in an impressive scientific article and a widely read book. By the time the book was published, 1908, the rate of coal burning was already significantly higher than in 1896, and Arrhenius suggested warming might appear wihin a few centuries rather than millenia. Yet here as in his first article, the possibility of warming in some distant future was far from his main point. He mentioned it only in passing, during a detailed discussion of what really interested scientists of his time — the cause of the ice ages.
It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were “evaporating” our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth’s temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
As my experience with other skeptics out there, that depend on politics to reach conclusions tells me, we’ll see if besides reading, you understand and apply what you read about. For it is clear that you are falling for the big lies that many on the right are saying just about this issue alone. Lies that are part of the big wall of denial that the right has erected. The denial of who won the election is part of that wall.
That’s the part that goes back 200 years.
The much more difficult problem – and one that modern climate science is still refining models for – is how the readily quantifiable GHG forcings translate into temperature increase (taking into account all the positive and negative feedbacks) and how that, in turn, governs overall global climate impacts, but we’re getting a pretty good handle on it, and the picture is grim.
This is interesting. I remember concerns in the '70’s that we might trigger an ice age, which has been debunked. Thanks for the info, I will read.
There were few if any serious concerns in the scientific community about a pending ice age, but there were a number of sensationalized media stories about the possibility. Probably one of the most notorious one was a famous Newsweek cover story from (I think) the early 70s. In later decades, when the reality of global warming was established and its human causes confirmed, skeptics liked to claim that science once told us we were cooling and going into an ice age, and now it’s decided that it’s warming – clearly climate science doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
This was, of course, total bullshit. The reality was that the science was just very uncertain at the time, and this was the basis of that 1975 report that I mentioned upthread from the National Academy of Sciences, called Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action. The report stated (direct quote): “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” It launched an ambitious program of climate research, in the US and throughout the world, which finally got us to the state of knowledge we have today.
And now you double down on being a disingenuous dick-head.
Congratulations.
Tell us all about how the Earth was not formed like the other planets in the solar system, and rather was kareening through space until it was captured by our sun.
You know, like our original poster told us. The guy you think was so smart and knowledgable.