Citing issues that are not related, IOW not evidence of a failure of what I cited.
So, no debate there, the evidence here is that there is no debate coming from you if the change will end in failure, so my points do stand.
And even a straw man do not make a counter argument. The point stands, the efforts are ongoing, they may fail, but so far the evidence is that the ones wanting to interrupt those efforts are making arguments that are being ignored.
Understood … thank you for this dance …
=====
Next on my dance card is wolfpup … I’m not going to fist-fight with you wearing a ball gown and my great grandmother’s pearls … your insults to my posts are noted, you need not belabor the point … my feet are killing me and I’d like to sit down and take my shoes off for a spell …
From the top, do you agree or disagree that the map in the OP in grossly inaccurate for 4ºC global warming? … specifically the representation of deserts along the equator (with the continents in those positions) …
I may not have a lot of time over the next day or two so I’ll just remind you that the OP map is not my point here, but rather my remarks in my post #46 regarding the fact that you’re wrong about virtually everything you posted here, most egregiously the hilarious claptrap about how wonderfully benign climate change is.
But regarding the map as a side issue, a 4ºC temperature rise will be very damaging in the many myriad ways I’ve already indicated. Desertification in some areas, floods and droughts in others, persistently stronger storms and coastal storm surges, and rising sea levels and ocean acidification among them.
But precise regional distributions are uncertain, and are usually expressed as risk factors, not firm predictions. One generally tends to find more wet than dry areas along the equator, but not always, and a great deal depends on what one means by “along the equator”. Many parts of the tropics, the zone between the two longitudinal tropic lines on either side of the equator, are at risk of desertification, notably large parts of Africa, the Middle East, the interior of northern Australia, and parts of Brazil, among others. Africa is one of the greatest at-risk areas for drought and water stress. Parts of Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia are immediate equatorial regions with sections at high risk of desertification, and in fact the whole east coast of Africa from just south of the equator all the way up the continent is projected to be persistently dry with sections subject to high risks of total desertification, and a very high risk in a narrow band across the entire continent just south of the Tropic of Cancer. In that area, Lake Chad, a major source of water for the region, has already shrunk by over 90% relative to the 1960s.
And now I look forward to your further comments on some of your most hilarious statements, particularly how “global warming won’t cause bad things to happen” and “weather will be more moderated in a warmer world”, which I’m sure will be of great interest to climate scientists everywhere.
I appreciate you’re a busy person … and I thank you for the time you spend here … I’ve learned much from you and wish you’d be less testy is all …
If we agree the map is wrong in placing deserts in Amazonia, The Congo and Indonesia … do you agree with my explanation? … the convergence zone averages along the equator and provides abundant rainfall … this isn’t the tropics, it’s the line between the two … you’ve claimed that I’ve “been wrong about everything so far in this thread” … state your case as to why this is wrong and please include what is correct …
Power is everything in weather, and climate is average weather … thermo (energy) + dynamics (movement) … the movement of energy is defined as power … sometimes I don’t think you understand this … you don’t trust me to explain, and I don’t know why none of your friends will …
Cite please …
The Map is clearly fudging a lot of things; if Western Antarctica and Greenland are being habitable, the vast ice sheets on top of them today are going somewhere. The evacuations of hundreds of millions would have already begun, because the coastal cities would be dozens of feet underwater.
Unless the Oceans themselves raise in temperatures to lethal levels (and that’s game over if it does), the coasts would still be habitable, albeit they would be higher; farmland would also move around.
http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM
Has a fun artistic vision of what happens if CO2 Doubles, fun website as well.
That is not responsive to the challenge you were given and promised to address, specifically, the totally incorrect major claims you made that I itemized in post #46, where you contradict all the mainstream science and claim that climate change “won’t cause bad things to happen” and that “weather will be more moderated in a warmer world”.
Cite for what, exactly? You yourself claimed that winds were slowing, and there are controversial theories about global wind stilling, yet at the same time I showed you cites projecting greater weather extremes and stronger storms and that in fact it’s already happening. Even the Jennifer Francis research previously discussed about the slowing of the jet stream suggests the increased waviness of the jet stream leading to more extreme and more sustained weather events. Here’s another one pertaining to hurricane strength.
I’m trying to clarify the words we’re using … I’m not up-to-speed on the current wave of New Speak where “energy” means exactly the same thing as power and “bad” means exactly the same thing as good … but if you accept the Biblical definition of good and bad then we have “God’s wrath upon the people of Houston for building their mighty city upon the 6,000 graves of those who lost their lives during the Galveston Hurricane of 1900” … but we don’t need global warming to predict that Houston will flood again, and again, and again … this is part of Houston’s current climate, what change in climate is trivial compared to the change in population there …
Mainstream science has “Particular causes are difficult to implicate, but these sorts of occurrences are consistent with the analysis and mechanism presented in this study.” … this kind of language is common in the scientific literature, so perhaps you mean “mainstream supermarket tabloid literature”? …
Jennifer Francis clarifies her claims in the ten minute video interview … “nice” weather events will also be longer and more extreme … and longer periods of extremely “nice” weather is “bad” for farmers trying to get their crops harvested …
We have all the surface data we need to demonstrate the effect shown in the research paper … yours is the extraordinary claim, please show us your extraordinary evidence … mainstream science has “Further research will elucidate the types, locations, timing, and character of the weather changes, which will provide valuable guidance to decision‐makers in vulnerable regions.” … note that the claim is only that the Rossby Wave ridges will extend further north, the paper doesn’t address whether troughs will extend further south … and she clarifies this in the video interview that her research is focused on the higher latitudes only … the further we get from the polar jet stream, the closer we are to the sub-tropical jet stream …
We’ve discussed this before and agreed that hurricane intensity will increase 10% over the next 100 years … one of the few areas where we can place a numerical value on the effects of global warming … Irma made landfall near Naples FL as a 939 mb storm, in a hundred years this will be a 931 mb storm, but it’s still another hour or two until this future storm makes landfall along the Everglades Parkway … Naples itself is gone underwater … double the number of people living there and we’ll have double the human suffering …
=====
No citation? I understand … I’ve answered one of your challenges, now it your turn to answer mine … do you agree or disagree with my explanation as to why a 4ºC increase won’t cause Amazonia, The Congo or Indonesia to become deserts? …
No, you are dissembling to cover your demonstrated ignorance on the topic. Your attempt to establish that there is a confederacy of dunces aligned here in opposition to you is belied by the progressively more convoluted pseudo-syllogisms and digressions you have employed in trying to insist that no one but yourself is aware of the true nature of climate behavior. Exactly not one person is fooled by it, and frankly I would discourage anyone from continuing to respond to your agrammatical gibberish posts and continuum of counterfactual claims.
Stranger
It is clear that is only a few here have trouble understanding what is good or bad.
Nope, can’t speak for wolfpup, but I’m an agnostic, but even if I was not, it is clear that many believers do think that the rain falls on both the just and the unjust as the bible teach us; of course, like others point out later:
"The rain, it raineth on the just, and also on the unjust fella;
But mostly on the just because the unjust steals the just's umbrella!"
-Ogden Nash
As it happened in Louisiana, the poor are the ones that end up the most affected. Keeping them like that, and the further the contamination of our atmosphere continues, then the poor are more likely to get more unhealthy and with less chances to advance.
So in reality this issue is also about “bad” in the biblical sense when many of the rich and powerful just insist on misleading people about this issue:
Jeremiah 5:27:
For clarity let me say that in the above quotes and in the ones that follow I have replaced your ridiculous flood of ellipses with single periods in order to avoid ambiguity when I use ellipses properly to indicate omitted irrelevant content.
No, you have not answered the challenge. You have, in fact, continued the complete incoherency so well described in this remark. This is a board dedicated to fighting ignorance and that’s what it’s continually necessary to do, it seems, whenever you post about climate change.
Your attempt at digression about “energy” vs. “power” is so completely ridiculous and irrelevant that it reminds me of another discussion demonstrating your lack of scientific knowledge that I’ll get to in a moment. Solar energy in the form of insolation incident upon the earth is absorbed and stored in the land, atmosphere, and oceans, and the latent heat of evaporation and evapotranspiration, which is why we speak of the earth’s energy budget and how greenhouse gas forcing increases the energy of climate systems. We don’t speak of the earth’s “power budget”. Energy is stored, power is not; power is the rate at which these higher energies are dissipated in potentially stronger storms, heavier rainfalls, circulation changes, and concentrated heat waves.
The bullshit that is particularly of concern here is the sort of scientifically irresponsible abject ignorance displayed in post #13 where you state, in part:
… if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands … Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years … Global warming won’t cause bad things to happen
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21144503&postcount=13
Needless to say, it’s completely ludicrous to believe that all those factors will remain unchanged in the face of climate forcing resulting from the highest concentrations of atmospheric CO2 since the first human-like creatures walked upon the earth, or that the climate will remain stable and benign under the influence of sustained forcings a couple of orders of magnitude greater than normally found in nature. Hence the projections of responsible scientific organizations that climate change will lead, not to the benign absurdities you claim, but to increased damage from floods and storms and rising sea levels, heat waves, water stresses, droughts, and desertification in other areas, more extreme weather and stronger storms, increased burdens from the spread of diseases and pests, loss of biodiversity and the onset of major extinctions, and major losses of agricultural yields, among many others. In short, to increasing global catastrophe commensurate with the magnitude of rapid temperature rise.
The bullshit that you’ve spouted here reminds me of a previous discussion, as I said earlier, where you stated that “forcing is the energy leaving the atmosphere out into space”. This clearly demonstrates yet again*** that you have absolutely zero understanding of one of the most important and fundamental concepts in climate science***. The subsequent conversation in that thread is a most entertaining read!
Furthermore, a little further on in that same thread you made exactly the same pronouncement that you repeated here about how awesomely benign and beneficial climate change will be (emphasis mine):
I think the globe is warming, as scientifically demonstrated …
I think man may contribute to this warming, as being scientifically demonstrated …
I believe this is a good thing
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17027115&postcount=107
Followed by this priceless gem:
water vapor is the primary driver of average global temperatures
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17030556&postcount=129
To be clear, water vapor is an important climate feedback affecting temperature and climate in myriad ways, but to call it a “driver” of global temperatures is the kind of elementary confusion of basic fundamental terminology that makes one’s head spin. Here’s a chart of all the major human and natural drivers of global temperature. Please explain to us why ordinary tropospheric water vapor – which you claim to be “the primary driver of average global temperatures” is nowhere to be found on it.
As for your last question, that nitpick on a minor side issue has nothing to do with the present discussion, but you apparently didn’t notice that I already addressed it in post #63, specifically the third paragraph.
Curse these 5-minute edit windows! In my last post I forgot to highlight again that in addition to all your claims cited there about how wonderful climate change will be for all, and how with regard to the catastrophic effects of rapid climate change you state “I believe this is a good thing”, to this you added the equally preposterous bullshit that “weather will be more moderated in a warmer world”.
I can’t see why you bother posting glaringly wrong, unscientific, easily disproven counterfactual bullshit about things you obviously know nothing about.
It’s happened a few times in this thread so I would like to make something clear.
Please don’t disparage other posters reasons for posting or call into question that they should post. Challenge their ideas and posts, please don’t try to prevent them from making those posts.
Can someone explain or speculate why, on the OP’s map, there is a large swath of green from what looks like Senegal/Mauritania to Chad?
Speaking of change, watchwolf49 left the board shortly after his last post in this thread.
And what if scaremongering results in a hardening of attitudes and a ‘boy cries wolf’ scenario that makes it increasingly hard to get people to believe in real risks?
I prefer talking straight and using facts, not fear.
I assume Sahel reforestation will succeed because of climate change. *That *was what caught your eye, not Green Antarctica?.
Ha no I saw that but that makes more sense to me. What I pointed out is this thin strip of land surrounded by desert. Why just that thin strip? What is unique to that area?
As already pointed in post #2 and the on #8:
Yeah, I will have to say that once again looking at popular media is not a substitute for what actual researchers report, but as I also notice, a lot of contrarian sources also love to point at that popular media as if that was what the researchers are telling us. It is done precisely with the intention to discredit the actual science when the worst will not take place sooner, problem with that is that contrarians then ignore that the issue will continue after the end of the century with bad enough results and then it is more likely to become worst after if no changes are made soon.
I’m ignorant of weather related knowledge but I have a few questions.
Why if our co2 count is higher now than it has been in millions of years is the global average temp still well below a great many warm periods?
What factors aside from continental positions explain this?
Am I right in concluding that basically, were looking at 500+ years for drastic change, most people seemed to agree that 2100 is a fairly outrageous claim?
Which are the real terrible effects?
Things like post #73 seem kind of underwhelming to me since there were a great many occasions in which I was personally responsible for recording WBTs and issuing the heat category during military training and saw heat cat 5s which would be what it refers to.
115 million people in the southern US alone experience this kind of condition all the time.
I don’t deny climate change, but it seems like there is quite a bit of exaggerated scaremongering here.
Flooding maybe seems like a real scare, but then again if that changes fairly slowly I’d think population would just migrate back with coastlines.
I’m all for green living, but idk the global warming case seems a bit weak in comparison to the sensationalism surrounding it.
I’d be more motivated simply by air quality changes than climate change at this point.
Maybe I’m missing something???