Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

network dude

amazing
The last one ended @ 20,000 years ago. And that is related to man made global warming, how?

I sure hope you ducked. That thing that just whizzed by your head at amazing speeds was the POINT.

Bazinga.

network dude

WhiteAlice


The preceding Ice Ages were not the result of man but were more likely due to slight changes in the earth's obliquity, wobble, and eccentricity in its path around the Sun along with instances where land masses developed in areas where the old conveyor belt existed (shutdown).

Don't take offence to this, it's not directed at you directly, but,

This all happened a long time ago. We have had hundreds of years to study and understand it. It's directly related to the warming problem we have today, yet, when asked the direct question, as was asked of you, your answer contained words like "more likely".

Is it just me, or do you see why it's possible that 90-95% of scientists might be wrong. Not are wrong, but might be.

But don't you see that using your logic. 90-95% of scientists might be wrong about evolution and might be wrong that the earth is older than 6000 years and might be wrong about the theories of Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Universal Law of Gravitation, Newton's Laws of Motion, Laws of Thermodynamics, Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle, Theory of General Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Natural selection, I mean everything really. You're nitpicking ...Man made global warming is like these. throw global warming away and you may as well through out all science. I mean is Tyson Wrong? Is Hawking Wrong? Is Kaku Wrong? Is every scientist wrong?

network dude

amazing
The last one ended @ 20,000 years ago. And that is related to man made global warming, how?

I sure hope you ducked. That thing that just whizzed by your head at amazing speeds was the POINT.

Wow. I sure missed it. LOL But that's okay, because I'll keep listening to and reading about Science.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Still sticking with Watt, huh? Why?

The thing is, the IPCC does not say that global food production has been reduced by warming but Watt goes ahead and uses global yield numbers to prop up his strawman argument. This is what is actually said in the report:

The effects of climate change on crop and food production are evident in several regions of the world (high confidence). Negative impacts of climate trends have been more common than positive ones. [Figures 7-2, 7-7] Positive trends are evident in some high latitude regions (high confidence). Since AR4, there have been several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions, indicating a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors. [Figure 7-3, Table 18-4] Several of these climate extremes were made more likely as the result of anthropogenic emissions (medium confidence). [Table 18-4]

ipcc-wg2.gov...

In some places there is a negative impact. In others it has had a positive impact. Climate extremes are problematic for agriculture, as such extremes occur more often, so will those problems.

reply to post by beezzer

How is it a cyclic event(s) back then, but it's all man's fault now?

Well, for one thing, the things that we know were happening then are not happening now. Except for the rise in temperature.

Convince me that the ice ages were the result of man, or convince me that they never happened!

Either way, you Global-Scaremongers are seriously lacking in any historical explanation!

Who's saying that glacial periods were caused by humans? Who's saying they never happened?

Have you actually looked into the causes for glacial periods? No? You just like to throw out random stuff?

reply to post by amazing

And don't forget about chem trail debunking, and no I am not a chemmie, but some of these guys use these same agencies for reference to prove their point,yet the same agencies are lying about this science? Some members revel, in a self claiming fashion about ruffling people's feathers for enjoyment. I despise that, but understand it is an inevitable part of freedom, so sometimes I think people sidestep evidence and just enjoy antagonizing others?

reply to post by Phage


I'm simply pointing out the dynamic nature of. . . well, nature.

Nothing is static. We don't live in a fragile ecosystem where meddlesome man come along and tips over the apple cart.

If we want to take an honest look at climate, then we have to look at the entire picture. Climate protagonists are so narrowly focused, that even using science to refute their claims is met with derision.

reply to post by beezzer

If we want to take an honest look at climate, then we have to look at the entire picture. Climate protagonists are so narrowly focused, that even using science to refute their claims is met with derision.

If that's what you think, you haven't actually paid much attention to the science. Studying the history of Earth's climate is integral to studying and understanding the current climate.

Do you think that just because climate changed a great deal in the past, it means that the current warming trend is not being caused by human activity? Do you think that the causes of climate change in the past are not considered? Do you think that evidence of those causes has not been looked for? If so, you really haven't paid any attention to the science.

reply to post by Phage


I wasn't talking about the IPCC report but about the AGW chicken little's putting there foot in their mouth . There are many if you look for them .But if a person is dogmatic about the AGW meme you wont see them .

Phage
reply to post by beezzer

 

If we want to take an honest look at climate, then we have to look at the entire picture. Climate protagonists are so narrowly focused, that even using science to refute their claims is met with derision.

If that's what you think, you haven't actually paid much attention to the science. Studying the history of Earth's climate is integral to studying and understanding the current climate.

Do you think that just because climate changed a great deal in the past, it means that the current warming trend is not being caused by human activity? Do you think that the causes of climate change in the past are not considered? Do you think that evidence of those causes has not been looked for? If so, you really haven't paid any attention to the science.

Bull poop.

Climate change in the past is routinely ignored so that an agenda can be pushed.

Cyclic change does nothing to bring home the money.

Man doing naughty certainly does.

reply to post by the2ofusr1

I wasn't talking about the IPCC report but about the AGW chicken little's putting there foot in their mouth .

What? The idiotic article you quoted is nothing but a strawman argument, misrepresenting the IPCC report. Here is what Watt said:

Problem is, the agricultural data doesn’t match the LATimes/IPCC claim, see for yourself

He then goes on to post global yield figures as if that's what the IPCC report (and Barboza) says. They don't. But Watt, he doesn't' care because he's a denier and knows that his audience doesn't really care about how much he distorts the facts. He knows his audience won't actually check.

reply to post by beezzer

Climate change in the past is routinely ignored so that an agenda can be pushed.

So you have no idea of the actual science involved.
Got it, thanks.

Phage
reply to post by beezzer

 

Climate change in the past is routinely ignored so that an agenda can be pushed.

So you have no idea of the actual science involved.
Got it, thanks.

edit on 4/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Don't know where you got that, but you're wrong.

Some are blind to facts. Sadly, I never thought you'd be one of them.

reply to post by beezzer

Some are blind to facts. Sadly, I never thought you'd be one of them.

So you are here saying Phage is blind to scientific fact? Wow, I have heard it all now! C'mon Beez man, you have got to be kidding!

reply to post by beezzer

Don't know where you got that, but you're wrong.

I got it from here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't know the science. If you did you would not make such a statement. The causes of past climate change are studied deeply. Evidence for the same causes is not present.

I am truly baffled by the climate change deniers. Do you not see it around you every day and night? I just don't get it. Climate change isn't going to happen, it's already happened and is happening right NOW. The deniers are going to doom this planet.

Phage
reply to post by beezzer

 

Don't know where you got that, but you're wrong.

I got it from here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't know the science. If you did you would not make such a statement. The causes of past climate change are studied deeply. Evidence for the same causes is not present.

And you can make a blanket statement like that.

Gee golly. Glad you and the climate guys have it all figured out.

/sarc

Im guessing the koch brothers are actively posting here.

They use the internet, phones, computers but are against science? why?

amazing
I mean is Tyson Wrong? Is Hawking Wrong? Is Kaku Wrong? Is every scientist wrong?

Can you say with 100% certainty, that they are right? (I'll give you a hint, even they don't make that firm of a statement.)

I am really hard headed. I see all the past warming and cooling. I see parts of the world that were lush rainforests that are not deserts, and deserts that were one lush rainforests. I hear there once was a land bridge connecting Russia and Alaska. Now there isn't. All that happened a long, long time ago. I just cannot help but think that our Earth does what it does and we don't have a lot of say in the matter.

I will admit that if I went out to prove that Man caused Global Warming, I could probably find some fantastic data to point to as well. But we all know that real science doesn't work like that. You have to go into the data with NO preconceived notions. You have to objectively look at all the data and remember that you might not be right.

The big picture is, it doesn't matter one rats ass what I think. The Earth will do whatever it's going to do, and there is nothing we can do about it. We can adapt, we can deal with the cards that we are dealt.

In 20-50-100 years, maybe much much more, we (if we are still here) will finally know the truth.

In the mean time, why is nobody able to find a better fuel source? There amazing scientists have the entire climate of a planet figured out within a 5% margin of error yet nobody can find a way to separate hydrogen from oxygen cheaply?

I think the brains are being used for the wrong thing.

oooh, lookie!

Science!

www.ces.fau.edu...

be back later, have to do some "science".

*eye rolls*