Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, YOU were the one who provided the original research study link we're discussing that indicates there are errors in the sea level readings due to vertical changes where the instruments are located.  Now you say above that  "Improved new technology confirms the observed trends." OK.  Please provide that confirmation.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg1000635#msg1000635

Satellite altimeter data confirms that the tide gauge information is showing the same / a similar trend, arguably the satellite's rate is even stronger.

In addition, there are now more data collection points than before, so better crosschecks are possible.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

There's nothing in the article answering my questions though.  Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels?  How much?  Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?

"Archimedes".  Really, just look it up.  Hawaii, the Galapagos, and others - all made by undersea volcanoes.  If you understand Archimedes' principle, then you can answer your own question by extrapolation.  When you then see that the volume created, whilst seemingly large to an individual, is extremely small compared to the volume of the planet's surface water, you'll see that it's not really significant.  Also, you have erosion and collapses and other things going on.  Again, you are focussing on a simple, single aspect when it's a far more complex matter.  As such, you are drawing demonstrably incorrect conclusions.  It's great to ask questions, but you need to understand their context and look for reliable sources for answers (hint: look for the weight of evidence, not just the evidence that supports your idea).

If the weight of evidence shifts, so too will my understanding of the topic.  Whether it be something in which I am far from an expert (climate change, plate tectonics, etc.), or areas in which I am expert, or experienced, or otherwise qualified.

I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings.

[Farmer]

Typical liberal response.  When you can't show proof, you make fun of the questioner. "Show me the money!"

Oh, so you're a liberal?  (c.f. American versus British legs and your discussion of beating wives).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings.

I salute you as a fellow sceptic, but got to ask: which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?

[Farmer]

I salute you as a fellow sceptic, but got to ask: which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?

That which has been posted on this thread countless times, so don't be disingenuous, Slobo.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That which has been posted on this thread countless times, so don't be disingenuous, Slobo.

You got to be kidding. There is evidence!?

[Alan Goldhammer]

You got to be kidding. There is evidence!?

Yup, evidence you choose to ignore!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I salute you as a fellow sceptic, but got to ask: which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?

Just one link already shared several times, possibly ignored.

One summary of summaries of facts:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

You got to be kidding. There is evidence!?

Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north. And the honey bees are dying - but that's due to a different kind of pollution.

The North Bay-Parry Sound District Health Unit has received more than 50 ticks this year compared to 30 in all of 2016. And with a few weeks of summer left, as well as September and October, the health unit is expecting to see many more. Black-legged ticks (also known as deer ticks) have become so rampant that more than half of Ontarians are at risk on contracting Lyme disease, according to Public Health Ontario.

The Public Health Agency of Canada predicts by 2020 that 80 per cent of Canadians will be living in Lyme endemic areas.
The danger of catching Lyme disease is acute in the Thousand Islands region and other areas abutting the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, says Dr. Curtis Russell, a program consultant with Public Health Ontario. Russell blames climate change for the increase in ticks.  He says milder winters have allowed ticks to get more of a foothold during the past 30 years.

"The warmer conditions have allowed the ticks to get through their life cycle faster and get established," Russell says. "Decades ago, we had some pretty cold winters that would slow them down and didn't allow them to get footholds in certain locations. But now that the weather is warmer, they can get established."

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/08/12/ticks-marching-north

"Human-polar bear conflict rates are on the rise," he added. "As sea ice continues to decline, bears will spend more time on land, even in areas like James Bay."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/polar-bear-cub-shot-kashechewan-1.3688025

[Alan Klein]

"Archimedes".  Really, just look it up.  Hawaii, the Galapagos, and others - all made by undersea volcanoes.  If you understand Archimedes' principle, then you can answer your own question by extrapolation.  When you then see that the volume created, whilst seemingly large to an individual, is extremely small compared to the volume of the planet's surface water, you'll see that it's not really significant.  Also, you have erosion and collapses and other things going on.  Again, you are focussing on a simple, single aspect when it's a far more complex matter.  As such, you are drawing demonstrably incorrect conclusions.  It's great to ask questions, but you need to understand their context and look for reliable sources for answers (hint: look for the weight of evidence, not just the evidence that supports your idea).

If the weight of evidence shifts, so too will my understanding of the topic.  Whether it be something in which I am far from an expert (climate change, plate tectonics, etc.), or areas in which I am expert, or experienced, or otherwise qualified.

I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings.

There were months and month of videos, newscasts, stories and media hype when everyone had been making a big deal out of the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica.   It finally broke off, and everyone fainted.  Yet, it's entire volume has NO effect on the sea levels because it was floating.  So why can't I even ask a simple question about factors that may increase sea levels?  You see, this is the problem with supporters of global warming.  They boost every possible thing that would make their position stronger and bury everything that makes it weaker.  So people like me feel the deck is stacked, that the wool is being pulled over my eyes.  If you guys would just allow for reasoned discussion instead of putting your thumb on the scale, you may get deniers to agree with you. 

I also never said that global warming does not melt glaciers and expand the volume of water raising the sea levels.  What I asked is how much effect undersea volcanoes and tectonic plate movements that change sea levels have on the amount of increase or decrease.  Just saying that's it's not big means nothing.  Someone must have computed it in the IPCC studies or elsewhere.  All I'm asking for is the study that shows what the changes are.  I think I'm asking  a fair question that deserves a scientific answer not an answer that brushes me off as boing ignorant, stupid, or just sad.
 
You said: "I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings."  So am I.  So stop the special pleadings and show me the evidence. 

[Alan Klein]

Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north. And the honey bees are dying - but that's due to a different kind of pollution.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/08/12/ticks-marching-north

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/polar-bear-cub-shot-kashechewan-1.3688025

Thanks for providing evidence I claimed in earlier posts.  I said that warming will provide more land and better climate conditions for species to expand.  You focused on ticks with Lyme disease, which is certainly negative to humans.  However, if ticks are expanding their range, so are white footed mice and deer. That means grasses and other vegetation is expanding and more land will become available to grow food for human expansion and health.  This is the part of global warming the climate change supporters never talk about.  They unfairly focus on the negative aspects.  Warmer is better.  Since the ice age ended 12000 years ago human population and other animal and vegetation populations have exploded.  Warming has always been beneficial.  Another couple of degrees would help even more.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north. And the honey bees are dying - but that's due to a different kind of pollution.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/08/12/ticks-marching-north

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/polar-bear-cub-shot-kashechewan-1.3688025

Oh, about polar bears, I also said in previous posts that global warming would not harm the bears over time.  Simple logic and belief in Darwin's theory about survival of species indicate that they adapt. So if they can't hunt prey on disappearing ice, they will move to land and adapt and find other prey.  Thanks for proving my point with bears as well as ticks. 

What's so surprising is that for years and until today, the environmentalists and climate change supporters have been using the poor polar bear as their mascot to scare people about global warming.  The very people who claim to be science supporters and who knock religionists who disagree with Darwin and who support his theories without question, could not see and still can't see that most species will adapt and many species will actually expand their population due to warming.  Climate change supporters don't want to talk about the positive effects of warming as it might turn people off to the changes they want to remake society under the banner of global warming.

Polar bear populations have been expanding.  Climate change supporters say it's because hunting them is now banned. So what if hunting was banned?    The fact that they're still expanding their population means that despite global warming reducing the ice normally required for them to feed, they still are growing their population.  Otherwise without the hunting, their population would still be declining due to warming.  But they're not declining.  Pretty soon the climatologists will have to find another mascot as people realize polar bears are doing just fine.  Maybe they can substitute Global Warming Supporters themselves as they'll be declining in numbers.  

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Polar bear populations have been expanding.  Climate change supporters say it's because hunting them is now banned. So what if hunting was banned?    The fact that they're still expanding their population means that despite global warming reducing the ice normally required for them to feed, they still are growing their population.

Because the polar bear population is recovering from over-hunting, thus regrowing to a new natural equilibrium (under the new restraints/constraints).

What evidence do you have that the population should not be naturally larger without the climate-induced restraints?

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Oh, about polar bears, I also said in previous posts that global warming would not harm the bears over time.  Simple logic and belief in Darwin's theory about survival of species indicate that they adapt. So if they can't hunt prey on disappearing ice, they will move to land and adapt and find other prey.  Thanks for proving my point with bears as well as ticks. 

I don't think you got my point, Alan, read the supplied links. I don't worry about bears and ticks not surviving. It's the growing conflicts between the humans picking blueberries or mushrooms and the deadly beasts ambushing them.  If the current trends favouring bears and ticks in Ontario continue, it will be advisable for all nature lovers to always wear long sleeved shirts, long pants and a good pump action 12-gauge shotgun.

[Alan Klein]

Because the polar bear population is recovering from over-hunting, thus regrowing to a new natural equilibrium (under the new restraints/constraints).

What evidence do you have that the population should not be naturally larger without the climate-induced restraints?

Cheers,
Bart

Climate warming supporters were making the claim that warming is killing off the polar bear.  While it's true that I don't know if they might expand faster without warming, the fact that they're still expanding with the ice melting belies the claim that they're dying off.  Of course you don't see media showing anything positive with what's going on with their populations.  That would be against the illusion of harm against the bear they want to maintain.  Fake news. 

[Alan Klein]

I don't think you got my point, Alan, read the supplied links. I don't worry about bears and ticks not surviving. It's the growing conflicts between the humans picking blueberries or mushrooms and the deadly beasts ambushing them.  If the current trends favouring bears and ticks in Ontario continue, it will be advisable for all nature lovers to always wear long sleeved shirts, long pants and a good pump action 12-gauge shotgun.

Oh good point.  Global warming is good for the arms industry too.

[LesPalenik]

Oh good point.  Global warming is good for the arms industry too.

Paradoxically, there are more deaths caused by fellow hunters than by bears.

[Farmer]

You see, if Alan believed the sky was red, no amount of showing him would change his mind.  Same with climate data.  He simply invents paradigms to suit his needs, and laughs and jokes.  Because he hasn't the ability to actually deal with the data.  Utterly delusional.

[Alan Klein]

You see, if Alan believed the sky was red, no amount of showing him would change his mind.  Same with climate data.  He simply invents paradigms to suit his needs, and laughs and jokes.  Because he hasn't the ability to actually deal with the data.  Utterly delusional.

There you go again attacking me with insults rather than providing the hard-to-find research to refute my points.

[texshooter]

Climate scientist predicts mass extinction by year 2100 the likes of which not seen in 250 million years.

Should I be alarmed?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4508873/mass-global-extinction-2100-human-civilisation-apocalypse-date-prediction/