Positive effects of Global Warming?

No it is about the correlation of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere with what was happening on the planet

 

No it doesn't. There are no measurements at all in this paper (Crowley & Baum). It is a simulation only.

But what it does not state was that the high CO2 occurred at the same time as the glaciation. In order for the authors to get to that point, they cite on p. 1093 (wait for it) -- Yapp & Poths! -- who, you may recall, I have already pointed out were only able to confine their proxy CO2 data to the Ashgillian, and therefore we cannot rule out the very real possibility that their proxy came from the well known mid-Ashgillian warm period.

This is why I asked for original research, instead of just somebody citing somebody else.

And at that task, you have failed. So has he. You will note that Gaar himself has not once defended his own statements.

And he doesn't. Neither do you.

Well, you've done your search, and it only ended up in Yapp & Poths, which is inadequate to prove the point. Meanwhile, the large carbonate deposits laid down just prior to the Hirnantian glaciation are strong and unrefuted evidence that the glaciation was triggered by a rapid but brief lowering of the CO2 levels.

 

I will number questions. It will make life easier when you will be spinning and denying very soon.

Q1.

Do you agree with me that all simulations which have no direct measurements should be thrown in the garbage, or in other words they do not have any value?

 

No, Birdie this post of yours as well as other posts of yours;
as well as posts of P. Debator,
as weell as Lepper's post,
as well as posts of any proponent of AWG
clearly demonstrate
that for you, for P.Debator, for Lepper as well as for any other proponent of AWG
it is not about
CO2
atmosphere
planet
glaciation
etc.
Not at all.


For some proponents of AWG
it is like for OWS protesters, -
OWS protest is not about
corporation,
socialism,
taxes,
it is about taking a dump on a police car.


For some it is about themselves beloved.


For some it is a chance to be something, when they are not capable or grown enough to be at least on their own.

But it is not about CO2.

Not at all.

 

Actually, as a self professed denier, I take issue with that. Proxy data is used for many of the models but the idea is that proxy data has been expanded which still back up much of the data.

The fact that warming exists is no surprise and that warming is still going on is no surprise. I just don't agree with all the doomsayers.

I say more warming. Islay of Scotland has been cold now for 7000 years giving us the peat bogs that exist on the island. Before that and after the glaciation receded, it was warmer and Islay had forests on it and it was more friendly to living. I say more warming.

 

Q2
Which of the following statements of the article is a simulation only and no measurements.
http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1060941615

1. late
2. Ordovician

3. glaciation
4. high (14X) CO2 levels

 

Hossier8 if you don’t mind starting a tread about proxy data. Here we don’t even know what PD means as measurement. As a rule scientists spit out words and do not know what they mean for them, not even speaking about you and me.

You are not a denier. I am. Denier means that I know that there has been no warming. It looks like there has been a negligible cooling if anything; and the term global warming is dumb.

I have no problem that your beliefs are different from my knowledge and experience as long as you do not shove them into my throat putting hands into my pockets.

If you can’t start a new tread you’d have to wait. The rule of the thumb is that debaters like PD spin endlessly.
If you can start a new tread you’d have to wait too...

wish you more warming ... and if it does not happen have some Scotch, what else it was invented for?

 

To say there has been no warming would be to claim there are still glaciers covering most of the northern hemisphere. Face it, since the last glaciation it has warmed.

Warming happens. So does cooling.

 

But it happens for a reason and this is what you are avoiding - what is the reason for it.

 

Actually, you are avoiding the reason and the history of the cycles. It has been warmer after the last glaciation and I say bring it on. Islay deserves forests again.

 

There is always a causative factor - or do you believe that the earth is flat and it is flatus from the flying spaghetti monster that is causing the current warming?

All throughout history we have found reasons for climate change

Solar output

Sunspot cycles

Orbital variance

Atmospheric composition

Volcanism

etc

What is causing the current change?

 

The point you are driving at is that you believe man is a more important factor that nature itself, that man can more directly affect nature than the balance of nature can affect itself.

I say warming is the thing to do. It will make this earth more inhabitable and more productive. Just look at what it was like when it was warmer. Animals (dinosaurs) grew enormous because of the conditions that are not available now. They lived for hundreds of thousands of years in a climate that was conducive to growth. We can only hope for such a paradise.

The opposite choice is more ice age. Not the best thing for growth. You do know we have been in an ice age for 2.5 million years and that we are at a current earth low for CO2 don't you?

 

To say there has been no warming means to be a straight forward denier closing his eyes on logic and evidence as I am. It means to claim that there are still glaciers covering the northern hemisphere as they always do. If anything they just are slightly colder. Nothing escapes the 2nd law.

That is what I say. If something is warming it means something is cooling. It means the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It means you are denying your statement above. You are not just a denier as I am. You are self denier.

I thought you were about proxy data...

 

Another thing. Higher water levels a problem? Maybe for those wankers that decided to build on the coast, but life exudes from the oceans and for most of the earth's history, it was not covered with ice caps and the oceans were 30 ft higher (where do you think Gore got that?). I say bring it on. Warmer temps, more ocean, more life.

 

You are right there. So far all of the attention has been on the northern hemisphere. Why? Because the southern hemisphere is not experiencing the same change. At other times in the past, the northern hemisphere has been ice free while the southern hasn't. There is a balance but many inputs change that balance, one of the least being humans.

 

No. It is not about the northern hemisphere

here http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...effects-global-warming-36.html#post1060944697 I list what it is all about. You can prove me wrong if you link me to somebody paying attention to the northern hemisphere in this tread.

 

There is no change.

All throughout history we have been knowing fluctuations of

Solar output

Sunspot cycles

Orbital variance



etc

and no climate change.
Since the day climate was invented (1895? or 1889?)
it remains unchanged.

 

Not at all. I am saying only that simulations are not data.

 

Statements are not simulations. Statements might be data, or they might not be. In this case, they're not.

 

Proxy data counts as a measurement as far as I'm concerned. And just because you don't understand science, that doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Right, the Arctic is losing ice because the planet is cooling. You're not going to convince many people with that kind of thinking.

 

Perhaps you can tell us all about it.

 

So two billion coastal climate refugees is not a problem? How much is that going to cost? Have you done the math? Have you even thought about it?

 

I have to laugh, the only constant in the climate is change. Remember, we are in a 2.5 million year long ice age right now that occasionally gets warm enough to make the glaciers retreat. The normal level of the oceans is 30 ft higher than it is today.

Your other option is to be covered in a glacier. Hey, it will go one way or the other no matter what we do.

Deal with it.

 

Like you underpants the climate does not change by itself

 

Rabbit is not bird. Thank you, I did not know. AWG believers always educate me.

We are still at Q1. (See above)

You do not agree with me that simulations which have no direct measurements should be thrown in the garbage, or in other words they do not have any value.

Do you agree with me that simulations which have no direct measurements should not be thrown in the garbage, should not be dismissed?