Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

Your proof being what?

That one million isn't 1000 times less than one billion?

Present anything except your uneducated and vague opinion.

Because, on a point by point basis, I am sure that my education far exceeds yours.

And, that you don't like something has never been a qualification for objective evidence.

On the interwebz, you're an academic star!

Still the same old bullshit. Nothing of actual intelligence to add.

 

[Spiderman]

What is the evidence that causes your doubt?

The fact that political machinations are part of the game not just the science.


There are too many unknowns to make predictions that can be believable. No one know how warm the earth will get. No one knows if there will be a desensitization to additional CO2.




No it's that questionable predictions are presented as inevitable

.

We have already cut emissions in this country significantly. How you are going to get other major developing countries to do the same is the real question now isn't it?



It really won't matter to anyone who is alive today as not too many of us will be around in a century to see if the predictions will be true or false. I'll bet on false.


You seem to think that I alone, one man can have such an effect as to threaten the future.

I daresay I probably have a smaller footprint than most of you as far as GH emissions are concerned. I do it because that's how I want to live but I refuse to tell others how they should live.

That you don't believe that evidence is a more likely predictor of effects than random guesses?

Fill us in.

Predictions of disaster have one goal; to instill fear in the public so as to control them.

That's how politics works and you cannot divorce politics from the science here.

Yeah, that is it. Mind control, black helicoptors and the CIA beaming microwaves into your room at night.

I met a guy at McDonald's, yesterday, just like you.

Yes try to marginalize everything I said because I mention that political machinations are an integral part of the climate debate. And I never mentioned mind control black helicopters or the CIA. If you think government doesn't attempt to control behavior via propaganda then you sir are a moron.

 

[itfitzme]

The fact that political machinations are part of the game not just the science.


There are too many unknowns to make predictions that can be believable. No one know how warm the earth will get. No one knows if there will be a desensitization to additional CO2.




No it's that questionable predictions are presented as inevitable

.

We have already cut emissions in this country significantly. How you are going to get other major developing countries to do the same is the real question now isn't it?



It really won't matter to anyone who is alive today as not too many of us will be around in a century to see if the predictions will be true or false. I'll bet on false.


You seem to think that I alone, one man can have such an effect as to threaten the future.

I daresay I probably have a smaller footprint than most of you as far as GH emissions are concerned. I do it because that's how I want to live but I refuse to tell others how they should live.



Predictions of disaster have one goal; to instill fear in the public so as to control them.

That's how politics works and you cannot divorce politics from the science here.

Yeah, that is it. Mind control, black helicopters and the CIA beaming microwaves into your room at night.

I met a guy at McDonald's, yesterday, just like you.

Yes try to marginalize everything I said because I mention that political machinations are an integral part of the climate debate. And I never mentioned mind control black helicopters or the CIA. If you think government doesn't attempt to control behavior via propaganda then you sir are a moron.

Nor have you presented any evidence of this political driven science.

I couldn't care less about your political machinations.

The evidence of science is not open to political debate and is presented in terms of the statistical probability of likelihood. It always has been and always will.

What I have seen, repeatedly, is an constant, emotionally driven, drone of vague accusations and insinuations that the climate science is presented with political bias. I have consistently found that the information presented by deniers is demonstrably wrong. And, if anything might be taken as politically biased, it would be this.

I am surprised that no one has presented the fact that climate scientists exhale CO2 as proof that they are politically biased.

 

[itfitzme]

Give me 3 good reasons why I should care that the climate is changing.

You shouldn't, unless you have children and you actually like them. Then you might care.

 

[PMZ]

So the drought of 1876 was caused by man made global warming?

As I said climate changes all the time. The only constant is change. Do people affect climate? Certainly. Will a slight rise in temperature cause millions of deaths in addition to those that already happen because of weather or natural disaster?

I highly doubt it.

Can you tell me how many people will die in addition to those that already would have if the average temp of the earth rises 2 degrees C?

No you can't.

What is the evidence that causes your doubt?

The fact that political machinations are part of the game not just the science.


There are too many unknowns to make predictions that can be believable. No one know how warm the earth will get. No one knows if there will be a desensitization to additional CO2.




No it's that questionable predictions are presented as inevitable

.

We have already cut emissions in this country significantly. How you are going to get other major developing countries to do the same is the real question now isn't it?



It really won't matter to anyone who is alive today as not too many of us will be around in a century to see if the predictions will be true or false. I'll bet on false.

That you plan to be here in the future but your plan is to enjoy now at the expense of your future?

You seem to think that I alone, one man can have such an effect as to threaten the future.

I daresay I probably have a smaller footprint than most of you as far as GH emissions are concerned. I do it because that's how I want to live but I refuse to tell others how they should live.

That you don't believe that evidence is a more likely predictor of effects than random guesses?

Fill us in.

Predictions of disaster have one goal; to instill fear in the public so as to control them.

That's how politics works and you cannot divorce politics from the science here.

The science says what the IPCC. says it does. The politicians of the world will, as agreed, have that input.

The political world will be split among many different alternative actions (as is true 100 percent of the time). As is true today, those against the actions recommended by the science will deny the science.

In the end what will result is doing less than what the science will recommend as minimum cost, followed by the consequences, followed by trying to hurry, resulting in a higher average cost to humanity, and blame for the politicians.

And science struggling not to say that we told you so.

 

[SSDD]

Give me 3 good reasons why I should care that the climate is changing.

You shouldn't, unless you have children and you actually like them. Then you might care.

Non answer......typical.

 

[itfitzme]

So the drought of 1876 was caused by man made global warming?

As I said climate changes all the time. The only constant is change. Do people affect climate? Certainly. Will a slight rise in temperature cause millions of deaths in addition to those that already happen because of weather or natural disaster?

I highly doubt it.

Can you tell me how many people will die in addition to those that already would have if the average temp of the earth rises 2 degrees C?

No you can't.

No, idiot. I made no such statement here or anywhere else. I am just presenting some numbers of people that can LITERALLY die due to drought. There-in lies your problem, and inability to grasp the concepts of "literal", "specific", "accurate", and "precise". Clearly, as I pointed it out in bold, a number of times, I am literally showing you what literal means.

People can and do die from all kinds of things.

But can you tell me that a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have?

NO

So all the dire predictions of the disasters coming due to warming are bullshit.
But that you can't seem to understand my posts isn't your fault it's mine. I'm not used to conversing with people who can't think beyond the words on a page.

All the dire "predictions of the disasters coming due" is not "bullshit". Depending on what those predictions are, they are simply a matter of time. The timing is, of course, everything.

I can tell you that more people will die than would have if no one wore seat belts. I can tell you that more people will die than would have if everyone smoked cigarettes. Of course a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have. How many, I don't know, hopefully it will be you and not someone else that actually gives a shit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Beyond this, it becomes an exercise in morbid curiosity.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}

This is probably the most significant issue;

"Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3} "

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8} "

"It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur (see Table SPM.1). {12.4}"

If you are looking for a sudden catastrophic event, you will be sorely disappointed, because it isn't some single and sudden catastrophic event. If I am to understand it appropriately, we can expect a significant shift in the climate with an increase in drought magnitude and duration in already drought susceptible regions along with an increase in precipitation events in precipitation susceptible regions.

Simply put, whatever the worse weather is that an area gets, it will be more of it.

That is in our lifetime. Unabated, global warming and climate change isn't going to impact us, individually, beyond that. Prices may take a hit, as crops fail more often. Unabated, it will get worse over the span of a century. You will be dead and gone by then, so you don't have to worry about it. You can go watch reruns on TV.

But, why would we intentionally **** things up for ourselves and everyone else?

 

[itfitzme]

Give me 3 good reasons why I should care that the climate is changing.

You shouldn't, unless you have children and you actually like them. Then you might care.

Non answer......typical.

That is a very specific answer. It won't matter much to you, personally. But then, you are still living in la la land where thermodynamics is deterministic.

And, seeing as you can't think beyond next month, I'm sure that you really don't give a crap about next decade or next century.

 

[Spiderman]

What is the evidence that causes your doubt?

The fact that political machinations are part of the game not just the science.


There are too many unknowns to make predictions that can be believable. No one know how warm the earth will get. No one knows if there will be a desensitization to additional CO2.




No it's that questionable predictions are presented as inevitable

.

We have already cut emissions in this country significantly. How you are going to get other major developing countries to do the same is the real question now isn't it?



It really won't matter to anyone who is alive today as not too many of us will be around in a century to see if the predictions will be true or false. I'll bet on false.


You seem to think that I alone, one man can have such an effect as to threaten the future.

I daresay I probably have a smaller footprint than most of you as far as GH emissions are concerned. I do it because that's how I want to live but I refuse to tell others how they should live.

That you don't believe that evidence is a more likely predictor of effects than random guesses?

Fill us in.

Predictions of disaster have one goal; to instill fear in the public so as to control them.

That's how politics works and you cannot divorce politics from the science here.

The science says what the IPCC. says it does. The politicians of the world will, as agreed, have that input.

The political world will be split among many different alternative actions (as is true 100 percent of the time). As is true today, those against the actions recommended by the science will deny the science.

In the end what will result is doing less than what the science will recommend as minimum cost, followed by the consequences, followed by trying to hurry, resulting in a higher average cost to humanity, and blame for the politicians.

And science struggling not to say that we told you so.

No scientist can accurately predict how warm the temp will get. No scientist can accurately predict the results of any temperature rise.

Saying that the dire doom and gloom predictions are inevitable is not science.

That is politics.

The reality is that there will most likely be winners and losers because of the changing climate. The entire human race will not all be affected deleteriously.

Why is it that no one ever talks about the possible positive effects of climate change?

Certainly areas too cold for sustainable agriculture will experience a lengthened growing season. Would these positives not offset some of the negatives?

 

[Spiderman]

No, idiot. I made no such statement here or anywhere else. I am just presenting some numbers of people that can LITERALLY die due to drought. There-in lies your problem, and inability to grasp the concepts of "literal", "specific", "accurate", and "precise". Clearly, as I pointed it out in bold, a number of times, I am literally showing you what literal means.

People can and do die from all kinds of things.

But can you tell me that a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have?

NO

So all the dire predictions of the disasters coming due to warming are bullshit.
But that you can't seem to understand my posts isn't your fault it's mine. I'm not used to conversing with people who can't think beyond the words on a page.

All the dire "predictions of the disasters coming due" is not "bullshit". Depending on what those predictions are, they are simply a matter of time. The timing is, of course, everything.

I can tell you that more people will die than would have if no one wore seat belts. I can tell you that more people will die than would have if everyone smoked cigarettes. Of course a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have. How many, I don't know, hopefully it will be you and not someone else that actually gives a shit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Beyond this, it becomes an exercise in morbid curiosity.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}

This is probably the most significant issue;

"Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3} "

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8} "

"It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur (see Table SPM.1). {12.4}"

If you are looking for a sudden catastrophic event, you will be sorely disappointed, because it isn't some single and sudden catastrophic event. If I am to understand it appropriately, we can expect a significant shift in the climate with an increase in drought magnitude and duration in already drought susceptible regions along with an increase in precipitation events in precipitation susceptible regions.

Simply put, whatever the worse weather is that an area gets, it will be more of it.

That is in our lifetime. Unabated, global warming and climate change isn't going to impact us, individually, beyond that. Prices may take a hit, as crops fail more often. Unabated, it will get worse over the span of a century. You will be dead and gone by then, so you don't have to worry about it. You can go watch reruns on TV.

But, why would we intentionally **** things up for ourselves and everyone else?

The IPCC is a political organization.

Sorry but you cannot with any certainty prove anything you say will happen for a fact.

There are potentially many benefits to a slightly warmer climate.

Why do you ignore what is such a simple idea in favor of your catastrophic mind set?

It's not for the scientists to do anything but dispassionately present their findings with the caveat that their predictions might be completely wrong.

But they don't do that they like you are predicting inevitable catastrophes

That alone is reason not to get too worked up about it.

 

[Abraham3]

The IPCC is a political organization.

I don't know what you mean by that. I don't think you do either. The IPCC is funded by and manned with scientists from the UN member nations. The reports it has put out have all been affected by political pressures. Invariably, for every single report, the political pressure has pushed the scientists to minimize the hazards they see, to tone their projections downward, to tell the world it has more time. And with the exception of the recent hiatus, in every case, what the scientists wanted to say was more accurate, and more alarming, than what the politicians made them say.

Sorry but you cannot with any certainty prove anything you say will happen for a fact.

Sorry, but you've proven yourself - WITH CERTAINTY - to have no familiarity with the scientific method or the natural sciences. Did you actually consider that a worthwhile retort? The best climate scientists on the planet just told you what they believe will happen, why it will happen and gave a numerical measure to their certainty. And you respond with THAT? Good grief Charlie Brown.

There are potentially many benefits to a slightly warmer climate.

The Arctic will turn into a huge fertile farmland that will feed the world. The Himalayas will melt and people will be able to walk across them with much less trouble than before. The oceans will get warm enough that the deprived children of Maine and Washington State can go to the beach and take a dip while the people in the Bahamas can use the seas to make delicious soft boiled eggs.

Give us a break, will you? That "beneficial" crap has sailed.

Why do you ignore what is such a simple idea in favor of your catastrophic mind set?

I haven't the faintest idea what simple idea you're talking about, but I strongly suspect that it's being ignored because that's precisely what it deserves.

It's not for the scientists to do anything but dispassionately present their findings with the caveat that their predictions might be completely wrong.

Yo, Whizbrain, that's exactly what they just did. It's what they've always done. The problem isn't their research or their conclusions or their reports - it's your unjustified prejudice and your apparently willful scientific incompetence.

But they don't do that they like you are predicting inevitable catastrophes
That alone is reason not to get too worked up about it.

You demonstrating your failure to grasp even the basics is reason to get upset. You've got a vote, for god's sake. You need an education before you hurt someone.

 

[SSDD]

That is a very specific answer. It won't matter much to you, personally. But then, you are still living in la la land where thermodynamics is deterministic.

And, seeing as you can't think beyond next month, I'm sure that you really don't give a crap about next decade or next century.

Don't you think...well, I am off the mark there because it is clear that you don't think, but wouldn't you suppose that if the second law of thermodynamics was about statistics, that the f'ing statement of the law might say something about statistics?

It doesn't. The second law is an absolute statement made in absolute terms. No wiggle room, no backradiation...no energy in any amount moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

I am afraid that it is you who is in la la land. The statement of the second law supports my position since my position happens to be the statement of the second law.

 

[PMZ]

The fact that political machinations are part of the game not just the science.


There are too many unknowns to make predictions that can be believable. No one know how warm the earth will get. No one knows if there will be a desensitization to additional CO2.




No it's that questionable predictions are presented as inevitable

.

We have already cut emissions in this country significantly. How you are going to get other major developing countries to do the same is the real question now isn't it?



It really won't matter to anyone who is alive today as not too many of us will be around in a century to see if the predictions will be true or false. I'll bet on false.


You seem to think that I alone, one man can have such an effect as to threaten the future.

I daresay I probably have a smaller footprint than most of you as far as GH emissions are concerned. I do it because that's how I want to live but I refuse to tell others how they should live.



Predictions of disaster have one goal; to instill fear in the public so as to control them.

That's how politics works and you cannot divorce politics from the science here.

The science says what the IPCC. says it does. The politicians of the world will, as agreed, have that input.

The political world will be split among many different alternative actions (as is true 100 percent of the time). As is true today, those against the actions recommended by the science will deny the science.

In the end what will result is doing less than what the science will recommend as minimum cost, followed by the consequences, followed by trying to hurry, resulting in a higher average cost to humanity, and blame for the politicians.

And science struggling not to say that we told you so.

No scientist can accurately predict how warm the temp will get. No scientist can accurately predict the results of any temperature rise.

Saying that the dire doom and gloom predictions are inevitable is not science.

That is politics.

The reality is that there will most likely be winners and losers because of the changing climate. The entire human race will not all be affected deleteriously.

Why is it that no one ever talks about the possible positive effects of climate change?

Certainly areas too cold for sustainable agriculture will experience a lengthened growing season. Would these positives not offset some of the negatives?

You have no science behind what you wish to be true. You are pretending that your wishes are equally likely as IPCC science which is, of course, typical political opinion.

The problem that we face is that adaptation to a changed climate will be very expensive, will, as you pointed out, create winners and losers, and the resulting tension and friction will have their own consequences. And it will occur in the midst of mankind's largest project ever, the inevitable move to permanent energy supplies.

The world seems to not be able to avoid trouble and chaos in good times, no telling how we'll do in bad times.

I believe that hoping for only inconveniences is just like counting on a miracle.

My experience is that miracles seldom, maybe never, occur.

 

[PMZ]

People can and do die from all kinds of things.

But can you tell me that a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have?

NO

So all the dire predictions of the disasters coming due to warming are bullshit.
But that you can't seem to understand my posts isn't your fault it's mine. I'm not used to conversing with people who can't think beyond the words on a page.

All the dire "predictions of the disasters coming due" is not "bullshit". Depending on what those predictions are, they are simply a matter of time. The timing is, of course, everything.

I can tell you that more people will die than would have if no one wore seat belts. I can tell you that more people will die than would have if everyone smoked cigarettes. Of course a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have. How many, I don't know, hopefully it will be you and not someone else that actually gives a shit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Beyond this, it becomes an exercise in morbid curiosity.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}

This is probably the most significant issue;

"Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3} "

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8} "

"It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur (see Table SPM.1). {12.4}"

If you are looking for a sudden catastrophic event, you will be sorely disappointed, because it isn't some single and sudden catastrophic event. If I am to understand it appropriately, we can expect a significant shift in the climate with an increase in drought magnitude and duration in already drought susceptible regions along with an increase in precipitation events in precipitation susceptible regions.

Simply put, whatever the worse weather is that an area gets, it will be more of it.

That is in our lifetime. Unabated, global warming and climate change isn't going to impact us, individually, beyond that. Prices may take a hit, as crops fail more often. Unabated, it will get worse over the span of a century. You will be dead and gone by then, so you don't have to worry about it. You can go watch reruns on TV.

But, why would we intentionally **** things up for ourselves and everyone else?

The IPCC is a political organization.

Sorry but you cannot with any certainty prove anything you say will happen for a fact.

There are potentially many benefits to a slightly warmer climate.

Why do you ignore what is such a simple idea in favor of your catastrophic mind set?

It's not for the scientists to do anything but dispassionately present their findings with the caveat that their predictions might be completely wrong.

But they don't do that they like you are predicting inevitable catastrophes

That alone is reason not to get too worked up about it.

There is zero evidence that the IPCC is anything but what their mission states. You are counting on a politically motivated conspiracy theory to be true. Trying to avoid that is what inspired the UN to create the IPCC.

The forces of politics are relentless. It is not in the least bit unusual for politicians to employ all manner of truth bending to get their way. On the other hand, it's extremely unusual in legitimate science. Maybe even unprecedented.

People who side with politics and deny science are politicians.

 

[PMZ]

That is a very specific answer. It won't matter much to you, personally. But then, you are still living in la la land where thermodynamics is deterministic.

And, seeing as you can't think beyond next month, I'm sure that you really don't give a crap about next decade or next century.

Don't you think...well, I am off the mark there because it is clear that you don't think, but wouldn't you suppose that if the second law of thermodynamics was about statistics, that the f'ing statement of the law might say something about statistics?

It doesn't. The second law is an absolute statement made in absolute terms. No wiggle room, no backradiation...no energy in any amount moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

I am afraid that it is you who is in la la land. The statement of the second law supports my position since my position happens to be the statement of the second law.

This is not about what the second law says, it's about what you think and say it says. You have demonstrated that you are unequipped to define the law.

 

[SSDD]

This is not about what the second law says, it's about what you think and say it says. You have demonstrated that you are unequipped to define the law.

Unlike you, I don't interpret things in an attempt to make them say what I wished they said. But by all means, if you think you can bring forward an accepted statement of the second law that says it is all about statistical probabilities, then do it. Unless it says it is about probabilities, then it is not about probabilities. You do demonstrate quite effectively, however, what is wrong with post modern science.

 

[PMZ]

Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia.

''The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.''

'' Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.''

''The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards such thermodynamic equilibrium.''

''It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium''

''The second law may be expressed in many specific ways, but the first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824 (see Timeline of thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, the early statements of the Second Law are only correct in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field.''

''The second law has been shown to be equivalent to the internal energy U being a weakly convex function, when written as a function of extensive properties (mass, volume, entropy, ...).[1][2]''

 

[SSDD]

Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia.

''The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.''

'' Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.''

''The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards such thermodynamic equilibrium.''

''It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium''

''The second law may be expressed in many specific ways, but the first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824 (see Timeline of thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, the early statements of the Second Law are only correct in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field.''

''The second law has been shown to be equivalent to the internal energy U being a weakly convex function, when written as a function of extensive properties (mass, volume, entropy, ...).[1][2]''

wiki? I am laughing in your stupid face.

I provide you with a statement of the second law from the physics department at Georgia State University...one of the most respected physics programs in the country and you respond with wiki.....really?

Once more....I am laughing out loud in your stupid face.

 

[westwall]

No, idiot. I made no such statement here or anywhere else. I am just presenting some numbers of people that can LITERALLY die due to drought. There-in lies your problem, and inability to grasp the concepts of "literal", "specific", "accurate", and "precise". Clearly, as I pointed it out in bold, a number of times, I am literally showing you what literal means.

People can and do die from all kinds of things.

But can you tell me that a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have?

NO

So all the dire predictions of the disasters coming due to warming are bullshit.
But that you can't seem to understand my posts isn't your fault it's mine. I'm not used to conversing with people who can't think beyond the words on a page.

All the dire "predictions of the disasters coming due" is not "bullshit". Depending on what those predictions are, they are simply a matter of time. The timing is, of course, everything.

I can tell you that more people will die than would have if no one wore seat belts. I can tell you that more people will die than would have if everyone smoked cigarettes. Of course a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have. How many, I don't know, hopefully it will be you and not someone else that actually gives a shit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Beyond this, it becomes an exercise in morbid curiosity.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}

This is probably the most significant issue;

"Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3} "

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8} "

"It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur (see Table SPM.1). {12.4}"

If you are looking for a sudden catastrophic event, you will be sorely disappointed, because it isn't some single and sudden catastrophic event. If I am to understand it appropriately, we can expect a significant shift in the climate with an increase in drought magnitude and duration in already drought susceptible regions along with an increase in precipitation events in precipitation susceptible regions.

Simply put, whatever the worse weather is that an area gets, it will be more of it.

That is in our lifetime. Unabated, global warming and climate change isn't going to impact us, individually, beyond that. Prices may take a hit, as crops fail more often. Unabated, it will get worse over the span of a century. You will be dead and gone by then, so you don't have to worry about it. You can go watch reruns on TV.

But, why would we intentionally **** things up for ourselves and everyone else?

What happened during the Holocene Thermal Maximum when temps were warmer than today?

 

[westwall]

Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia.

''The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.''

'' Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.''

''The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards such thermodynamic equilibrium.''

''It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium''

''The second law may be expressed in many specific ways, but the first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824 (see Timeline of thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, the early statements of the Second Law are only correct in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field.''

''The second law has been shown to be equivalent to the internal energy U being a weakly convex function, when written as a function of extensive properties (mass, volume, entropy, ...).[1][2]''

wiki? I am laughing in your stupid face.

I provide you with a statement of the second law from the physics department at Georgia State University...one of the most respected physics programs in the country and you respond with wiki.....really?

Once more....I am laughing out loud in your stupid face.

Stupid and lazy. Only lazy dumbasses use wiki.