Positive effects of Global Warming?

The Earth is not sick so the comparison is null unless you consider Pro-GW/AGW believers afflicted with Munchausen's by proxy syndrome.

 

In the post you quoted I stated
“that during over a month and over 240 posts between the OP and my post neo-fascists did not come up even with one credible negative effect of the fantasized warming, but only with lies, lies and lies and scabies was an example of that - and it is not me who laughed at it and deservers the credit.

If you confirm that you have no objection to my post I may choose to take time and demonstrate in an easy and simple way that your fresh lie is another lie and stinks in the same way as scabies.

If you have an objection to statements of my post you quoted I am giving you another chance to make it.”

I gave you one more chance. You have made no objection to statements of my post.
You don’t need me to demonstrate in an easy and simple way that your fresh lie is another lie and stinks in the same way as scabies. You knew that you lied and your graph was as stinking as scabies.

I am giving you the 3rd chance to make an objection to statements of my post you had quoted or I will read another absence of such objections as acceptance of the fact that I stated the truth.

Upon receiving your reply I may choose to take time and demonstrate in an easy and simple way that your fresh graph is another lie and stinks in the same way as the previous graph and scabies.

 

Is that not contradictory?

 

Not yet. But it will be if we do nothing.

This attitude reminds me of the people who scoffed at what used to be called 'fitness buffs' when most people let themselves go to seed once they were done with college and married. They did little to stay active, mocked people who did and now we know lack of activity and lifestyle is a major factor in avoiding diseases of the heart, etc. But by these people's reasoning, since it's possible to be fit and die early anyway, no one should bother.

Notice they're not laughing so much these days.

Climate change deniers remind me of these people: completely unable to parse a basic risk/benefit analysis.

 

The reference was to the celebration by a fool who thinks it's wonderful that an upcoming ice age may be slowed by global warming.

Meanwhile, at the current trajectory, there's a reasonable probability that human life may not be around on this planet in 1,500 years.

The earth has survived things as bad or worse than global warming. If course it has done so by killing nearly every living thing and starting over.

The end of the earth will come in about 8 billion years with the death of the sun. The end of man?

 

Yep, the true believers can only think of doom and destruction with a warmer earth (hint, it was warmer during the last interglacial when life was abundant), yet scoff at the fact that we are in an interglacial that will end with another glaciation period.

 

Show me your empirical proof.

Genetics play a huge role in longevity. Production of cholesterol can vary depending on genetic history as well. Getting exercise is always a good idea when balanced with food intake.

There is no such thing as a 'climate change denier' that is a made-up term by GW/AGW faithful.

 

Oh for crying out loud. For 10tth time: It is not about the warmth. It is not about "doom and destruction". It is about the sudden change in climate. It is about mitigation being cheaper and less disruptive than doing nothing.

 

I think the point made was that we have much more to fear from cooling than from warming.

Based on the 'current trajectory' for the past few days in my area, the temperature has gone from 30 degrees to 60 degrees. At that rate we'll all be dead in a week!!

Someone has been watching the History channel....

 

I believe that is good, since Humans can endure increasing temperatures much better than decreasing one's.

The reason we are able to feed such vast numbers of people, as are now present in this World, is because increasing temperatures have made much more land able to produce crops...

I find it also interesting that some now believe that the Natural increases and decreases in mean temperatures around the Globe are now caused by Humans. I wonder what these people thought such changes were caused by before there were many, if any, Humans on the Planet? Do they not understand that the World has been going through such climate changes since the beginning of time here on Earth?

 

The 'climatologists' certainly do but, to admit that climate changes naturally would stop the flow of our tax dollars to their 'research.'

 

No, fooled, the point was that some fool was rejoicing over the delay of an event that may be some 1,500 years in the future and would make parts of the earth somewhat less comfortable. As opposed to current events that could make most of this planet uninhabitable by large mammals within 200 years.

If humans are no longer around in 300 years then an ice age in 1500 years will not matter.

As noted, SOLVING THE WRONG PROBLEM.

Whether you deny the problem or not the problem will be solved.

We can solve it.
Or the planet will..

 

I think we would be better served using the funds that go towards these things to try and find ways we can adapt and survive these Natural changes to our World.

For some to think we can stop these Natural events is egotism of its highest form. To believe Humans can stop something that has happened Naturally since the beginning of time is ludicrous.

 

Son the exhaust from an 89 Buick Riviera is not a natural event.

Do yourself a favor. go to Denver and take a ride up to Lookout Mountain on a cool, clear, sunny morning. Take a look back east toward Denver. A breathtaking site except for the brown-grey cloud surrounding Denver. That's not natural either.

Let's look at it this way....

If I'm wrong we have and we do what I want we have:

Less air pollution
Less water pollution
Lowered dependence on fossil fuels
Less political and military tension in the world
Low cost renewable and sustainable energy supplies

If you're wrong and we do what you want:

WE ALL DIE

My plan's a win for everyone...

Except maybe the oil companies.

Who not coincidentally fund most of the opposition climate science.

 

And yet Wildfires ARE Natural events, yet we put them out. Should we allow them just because they are Natural? The fact that we put them out changes the Natural way of things, right? One wildfire puts many times more "pollutants" into the atmosphere than any car could, right?

An erupting Volcano puts more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of the SUV's on the planet, how do you suggest we stop that?

http://lrak.net/globalwarming.htm

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
■First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?
■Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.
■Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.
■Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.
■Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with confounding variables. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.
■Solar output has been shown as a link in weather

 

Why is Water Vapor Swept Under the Rug?
One of the biggest confounding issues is that of man caused changes in humidity. Almost the entire flow of the Colorado river now goes across the content by air, rather than flowing into the Gulf of California as it did 100 years ago1. Water vapor is also a green house gas - it differs from CO2 in an important way in that it is limited to the lower part of the atmosphere - if it goes higher it condenses, dumping heat in the upper atmosphere. If the temperature is higher, water vapor rises higher and pumps heat to a higher altitude thus forming a negative feed back system that should tend to stabilize temperatures. On the other hand, water vapor is a potent 'green house' gas that blocks the heat flow from the earths surface even better than CO 2. Further complications are due to the fact that the altitude of condensation are effected by dust and even cosmic rays. Much of the water used in irrigation evaporates and only stays in the air for a number of days before being rained out - yet this rain evaporates again continuing the elevated humidity and the heat that is pumped to the upper atmosphere is a climatic effect..On the other hand, CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer, but once it is removed from the atmosphere tends to stays out. Water vapor in the form of clouds blocks the warming of the earths surface by the sun. Temperature can effect humidity and humidity can effect temperature. This total process is played out in the clouds, something that is not at all well modeled at this time.

Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Water vapor, a potent green house gas, averages 25,000ppm of the lower atmosphere compared to CO2 which is only about 360 ppm. The Atmospheric CO2 change is only about +60 ppm. Realize that we are talking about a change in CO2 from 0.030% to 0.036% or a 0.006% change as a percentage of the atmosphere. The global warmers don't use these numbers instead 'warmers' say it increased 30% (for maximum rhetorical effect?). Over the same periods specific humidity has increased several percent and could be a change of 25,000ppm to 26,250ppm or 2.5% to 2.6% or a 0.1% change. This change in water vapor (probably due to irrigation) is about 16 times larger than the change in CO2 near the ground. (remember in the stratosphere is possibly cooling and has very little water vapor). see:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/079.htm

Both CO2 and water vapor have similar emissivityso that any change in greenhouse effect due to CO2 would be swamped by changes in water vapor. One could also speculate that this explains the change in global temperatures at lower altitudes with out effecting the upper atmosphere. But lets not draw conclusions based on speculations.

Here is a quote from Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)


"Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? ...: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
If (and I mean IF) man is causing climate change it seems possible it is due to irrigation - not CO2. (Would banning irrigation be a popular political movement?)

The computer models appear to assume a constant relative humidity which would artificially generate higher temperature predictions



Atmospheric CO2 may have a slight effect, but there is no proof that man's contribution as a source of CO2 (ESTIMATED at about 4% of all sources) is the reason temperature is slowly trending upward. It is entirely possible that CO2 is going up due to natural variations more than mans contribution - probably not - but the point is that even this is not a scientific fact.(BTW I think we should be taxing oil imports (in place of income taxes) for other reasons.)

One other detail - the ice core data shows that increases in CO2 follow warming periods - instead of proceeding them. This is expected, because sea water holds less CO2 as it warms and absorbs more as it cools (a established testable fact!).

Low altitude warming has not been established as anything historically out of the ordinary. The data just isn't there to do this. At this time and into the foreseeable future it is unknowable. Being unknowable is the heart of the problem of calling climate speculations,"climate science".

http://lrak.net/globalwarming.htm

 

So dadoalex, should we stop irrigating and growing food for the masses because it is likely heating up the World beyond what would Naturally happen, much more than CO2 is?

 

Actually, it is. All fossil fuels will eventually end up burnt/oxidized in some way and end up in the atmosphere. How do you think we found oil in the first place?

This is just a bubble of what will happen naturally anyway.

 

Doom and Fear. Now, in 100 years it is one degree warmer. It has been as much as 5 degrees warmer in the past and life was very abundant. So in 300 years, it may be a bit warmer, if this interglacial does not end by then that is.

So what? Why is doom and gloom all the warmers have even though there is no proof or evidence of that now or ever in the past when CO2 levels were triple what they are now? You do realize that the levels now are near the lowest they have been for a millenia don't you?

 

Of course we cannot stop what is happening naturally - that is not the issue

The issue is that we have to stop mucking up the environment

And you want money to be spent wisely - well how about this?

 

Suuuuuure

Over 80 MILLLION barrels PER DAY!

Tell me that anywhere on Earth that happens "naturally"?

 

You understand with the increases in population and their living in once remote areas we are bound to see many more instances of weather that used to only happen in the wilderness and didn't affect people that now do affect them, right?

 

No one knows for sure how much oil is naturally leached into the Oceans. You understand that happens, right?

As for Natural events, how much CO2 do you supposed is spewed into the environment when a volcano erupts, or when a wildfire is started?

 

How Dumb do you think scientists are?

Why are you believing a barely literate blogger off of the net over some of our most prestigious science institutes and academies?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

We actually DO know those numbers and only those who do not bother to research the topic correctly claim otherwise

And please think - if there were somewhere leaching 80 million barrels of oil per day into the oceans - would we not notice?

Google for yourself "insurance costs global warming" and see

Better yet read the report from two top economists - Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut. Stern review came out of England and the Garnaut Report is Australian
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/