JoeWeber 2,298 #1526 August 27, 2019 23 minutes ago, brenthutch said: CATROSTROPHY CATROSTROPHY: /noun/ when CAPITALIZED a record album by Dire Straits; not to be confused with Castros Trophy awarded annually to confused souls who seek higher ground; a feline wasting disease peculiar to the United States Left Coast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1527 August 27, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, brenthutch said: No, I don't see a (small) trend in rising temperatures as a problem. Historically the planet has fared much better in times of warmth than in times of cold. You mentioned a guess of future crop failure, I show proof of current record crop production, (thanks not only to increased CO2 levels but to CO2 intensive modern agriculture and longer growing seasons). The retreat of some glaciers uncovering 1000 year old forests that thrived when it was warmer than it is today should inform your thinking. Please show me some EVIDENCE of the CATROSTROPHY that you claim is underway. Hahahahahaha "CATROSTOPHY". Sorry, can't let that one slide. Edit: Anyway: https://qz.com/1631469/midwest-floods-linked-to-climate-change-are-devastating-us-farms/ Edited August 27, 2019 by DJL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1528 August 27, 2019 https://freebeacon.com/blog/obama-beach-mansion/ Obama must know something you don’t CATROSTROPHY note to self, don’t drink and SC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1529 August 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, brenthutch said: https://freebeacon.com/blog/obama-beach-mansion/ Obama must know something you don’t CATROSTROPHY note to self, don’t drink and SC. He has all that George Soros money, doesn't care about losing a mansion here or there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1530 August 27, 2019 1 hour ago, DJL said: https://qz.com/1631469/midwest-floods-linked-to-climate-change-are-devastating-us-farms/ There were worse floods when CO2 was low https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1913 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1531 August 27, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, brenthutch said: There were worse floods when CO2 was low https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1913 Your logic just went from "show me a catastrophe" to "catastrophes are normal". Next up: Coral bleaching https://www.marineconservation.org.au/coral-bleaching/ The fisheries in the affected areas have collapsed along with the tourism industry. The Australian tourism industry represents which operates because of the Great Barrier Reef represents 70,000 jobs and $7bn revenue annually. Edited August 27, 2019 by DJL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1532 August 27, 2019 CORAL BLEACHING IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON & REEFS HAVE SURVIVED & THRIVED IN FAR HIGHER TEMPS & CO2 LEVELS IN THE PAST CORALS evolved during the Cambrian era when atmospheric CO2 levels were at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000 percent or 20 times higher than today’s environment of 415 ppm, with atmospheric and ocean temps temps far higher than today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mbohu 77 #1533 August 27, 2019 On 8/25/2019 at 5:41 PM, Bigfalls said: You can build all the wind turbines and solar panels you want, get rid of all the cows, no more fossil fuels, no more airplanes, plant trees in every open space and everybody drive an electric car but until the world population is drastically reduced, the problem won't be solved. Other great societies have come and gone and this one will go also. When Lyndon Johnson was President (Nov 1963 - Jan 1969), he joked that when his grand child was born (1967), he was the 200 millionth US citizen. We didn't seem to have the issues we have now with 330 million. Now think of the increase in world population in the last 52 years. Society as a whole is not willing to do what is necessary to reverse the situation. Not true. The population increase has already stopped. The number of Children in the world is not growing anymore. The rest of the projected growth in population is only an effect of the people already born growing old: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1534 August 27, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: CORAL BLEACHING IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON & REEFS HAVE SURVIVED & THRIVED IN FAR HIGHER TEMPS & CO2 LEVELS IN THE PAST CORALS evolved during the Cambrian era when atmospheric CO2 levels were at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000 percent or 20 times higher than today’s environment of 415 ppm, with atmospheric and ocean temps temps far higher than today. Uh huh, and they've evolved a little bit since 500 million years ago. You've gone from pulling an example from 100 years ago to pulling your example from 500 million years ago. That's around 5,000,000 times less relevant. Next up: Sea Level Rise Property value losses on the East Coast through Mississippi account for $15.8 billion since 2005. https://assets.floodiq.com/2019/02/9ddfda5c3f7295fd97d60332bb14c042-firststreet-floodiq-mid-atlantc-release.pdf On a smaller scale an example study found revenue loss in one year found to be between $85k to $175k for the subject 8 square mile waterside town because of sunny day (Not caused by typical natural flooding event) per year. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau2736 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #1535 August 27, 2019 2 hours ago, brenthutch said: CORAL BLEACHING IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON & REEFS HAVE SURVIVED & THRIVED IN FAR HIGHER TEMPS & CO2 LEVELS IN THE PAST CORALS evolved during the Cambrian era when atmospheric CO2 levels were at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000 percent or 20 times higher than today’s environment of 415 ppm, with atmospheric and ocean temps temps far higher than today. If you are going to copy and paste from denier blogs with no additional text, it is considered good form to at least credit the author. Otherwise it looks like you are just plagarizing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1536 August 27, 2019 2 hours ago, billvon said: If you are going to copy and paste from denier blogs with no additional text, it is considered good form to at least credit the author. Otherwise it looks like you are just plagarizing. Are you saying that coral didn’t evolve during the Cambrian era? Interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,909 #1537 August 27, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: Are you saying that coral didn’t evolve during the Cambrian era? No, he is saying you and your "sources" evolved in the Koch brothers Republican denial era. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1538 August 28, 2019 (edited) Do some learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere Edited August 28, 2019 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #1539 August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: Do some learning Brent, quite awhile ago... I too; was a climate denier. After a couple of years of Bill's education and suggested readings concluded it was more than likely he was correct. Please consider reviewing the "Talk" section of the article. You'll find that one (which I remember) has been in sanction mode for awhile. I'm not sure why it hasn't been touched in about nine years... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1540 August 28, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, BIGUN said: Brent, quite awhile ago... I too; was a climate denier. After a couple of years of Bill's education and suggested readings concluded it was more than likely he was correct. Please consider reviewing the "Talk" section of the article. You'll find that one (which I remember) has been in sanction mode for awhile. I'm not sure why it hasn't been touched in about nine years... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere I don’t deny climate change; I don’t deny that CO2 has some role. I question that a slightly warmer planet with CO2 levels that are well within pre/historical norms will result in an imminent existential catastrophe. I further question the efficacy of any attempts of mitigation. I ask myself, “Will a carbon tax save the lives of my children or will it just make Al Gore a billionaire?” Just look at the trends in this new “dangerously high CO2” planet. Life expectancy is higher, food production is higher, global poverty is lower, global GDP is higher, rate of sea level rise is stable; floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes — unchanged. Deaths due to climate-related disasters plummeted. Population growth in developed (aka high CO2 emitting) countries is zero to negative. Is coal dirty? Yes — but not in comparison to burning animal dung and wood for kitchen fuel. We could save thousands of lives just from promoting coal in developing countries if we could just not let perfection be the enemy of the good. This isn’t even hard. Just remove the virtue signaling and conduct a simple cost- benefit and the scales will fall from your eyes. BTW the Obamas just bought millions in beach-front property, just saying. Edited August 28, 2019 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #1541 August 28, 2019 7 hours ago, brenthutch said: Are you saying that coral didn’t evolve during the Cambrian era? Interesting. Nope. I am saying that if you copy and paste from denier websites, it's good form to cite the place you copied it from, lest people think you are trying to pass it off as your own work. (Although I can see why you wouldn't want anyone to know.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1542 August 28, 2019 That is why I reposted the wiki links, so you might learn something and we can put this whole “ocean acidification” nonsense to bed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1543 August 28, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, DJL said: Next up: Sea Level Rise Property value losses on the East Coast through Mississippi account for $15.8 billion since 2005. https://assets.floodiq.com/2019/02/9ddfda5c3f7295fd97d60332bb14c042-firststreet-floodiq-mid-atlantc-release.pdf On a smaller scale an example study found revenue loss in one year found to be between $85k to $175k for the subject 8 square mile waterside town because of sunny day (Not caused by typical natural flooding event) per year. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau2736 Four things: 1. Sea levels have been rising at about the same rate since measurements began, well before the industrial revolution. 2. Economic losses in coastal areas are a function of development and population growth in those areas. (A category 5 hurricane slamming into Florida a hundred and fifty years ago would have caused very little property loss, a thunderstorm today could cost millions) 3. Pennsylvania is landlocked and South Philly's drop in land value has nothing to with climate change.(trust me) 4. Tidal forces are perfectly natural Edited August 28, 2019 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1544 August 28, 2019 21 minutes ago, brenthutch said: 3. Pennsylvania is landlocked and South Philly's drop in land value has nothing to with climate change.(trust me) Please don't bring the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air into this, we're having a serious discussion. Speaking of Pennsylvania, stop fucking up my Oysters. No new spat on my oyster beds for two years now. https://www.cbf.org/about-cbf/locations/pennsylvania/issues/stormwater/rethinking-stormwater-runoff-in-pennsylvania.html Anyway, the link was a about property value loss and revenue loss, not only about damage. Also, we're talking about now, not 100 years ago, not 500 million years ago and not 150 years ago. Yes, tides are natural, they're affected by the moon and I don't think anyone is saying that CO2 affects the moon. What HAS changed is the sea level and there has been a profound difference in the rate of change since we started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/ See, again a fact of observed recordings just like you said you're hanging your hat on regarding an increase in crop yield. Do you see what I'm doing here, I'm not making predictions of the future, I'm showing you ACTUAL things that have changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #1545 August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, DJL said: 40 minutes ago, brenthutch said: 3. Pennsylvania is landlocked and South Philly's drop in land value has nothing to with climate change.(trust me) Please don't bring the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air into this, we're having a serious discussion. But he was from west Philadelphia, born and raised. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1546 August 28, 2019 52 minutes ago, DJL said: there has been a profound difference in the rate of change since we started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. According to a reconstruction, from Michael Mann and company no less. Mann is a thoroughly discredited shill who spends his time, up in his office, P-hacking his ass off looking for any signs of AGW attribution. Define profound Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1547 August 28, 2019 Just now, brenthutch said: According to a reconstruction, from Michael Mann and company no less. Mann is a thoroughly discredited shill who spends his time, up in his office, P-hacking his ass off looking for any signs of AGW attribution. Define profound Please disprove the data. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1548 August 28, 2019 Define profound Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1549 August 28, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Define profound A rate at least twice that of the natural cycle or previous scale. And BTW, I know you can't stand Mann, which is kind of why I posted that link but here's one from NOAA. Since you have routinely posted NOAA data to support your points you shouldn't have any issue with this. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level Edited August 28, 2019 by DJL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1550 August 28, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, DJL said: A rate at least twice that of the natural cycle or previous scale. I looked into it and you are right, according to NASA the rate of sea level rise has increased by a profound .9mm per year. If this were truly a threat it would be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore. Edited August 28, 2019 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
