Positive effects of Global Warming?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Feb 12 2012, 06:08 PM
Hoosier8

Quote:

The problem is, deniers don't care about the evidence, they only care about the politics.

Fixed it:

Quote:

The problem is, warmers don't care about the evidence, they only care about the politics.

See how easy it is to ignore opposing evidence and just resort to sound bites and propaganda? Of course you do. It is part and parcel of the true believers.

It is easy to ignore even their own scientists that caution against long term predictions as long as it fits the religion of doom.

Now, back to the OP. What are some of the positive effects of global warming?
Feb 12 2012, 06:45 PM
_Inquisitor_

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

Utterly false. Show your work: what is the p value for the last 100 years of global temperature for the null hypothesis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

So you're basing your belief on numerology rather than science? Why am I not surprised?

What paleoclimatology tells us is that an inter-glacial ends, and ice sheet formation begins, when summer insolation at latitude 65° N drops below a critical threshold level. At 280 ppmv of CO2 (typical pre-industrial inter-glacial concentration), that critical level is about 455 W/m².

What astronomy tells us is that those levels won't be seen again for another 60,000 years. That's because Earth's orbit is becoming more circular right now, and Earth's axial tilt is becoming more upright too. In other words, we're due for a pause in the glacial/interglacial cycle just by a chance occurance in Milankovitch cycles.

I referred you (again) to Archer & Ganopolski 2005.

It's all good. who can know p value for the last 100 years of global temperature for the null hypothesis and what astronomy tells us about 60000 years.

For instance i don't know what I]p[/I] value for the null hypothesis for the last 100 years of global temperature or for anything else. Who are the smart ones ? Scientists.

What one can see is that scientists have lied about hurricanes. They were pointed to their blatant lies. And they have been having nothing to counter. No hypotheses, no astronomy, just null, zero, zilch, but they are coming up with other lies. One does have to know p value to see that.

So let's do one lie at a time. First explain to me why scietists have lied to us general public, carpenters and nurses about hurricanes. Then we will move on to p value and its relevance to the observed reality and our comfort, and of course our money scientists want to extort from us. Are they promising to change pathes and occurences of hurricanes? That is the next question.

Instead, Dr. Trenberth in representing the IPCC has successfully promulgated into the media his own opinion that the 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. Yet, I have been asked to provide the writeup about observed hurricane activity variations for the FAR with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as Lead Author. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system is compromised and its objectivity lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, objective point of view. To this, he has failed. I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as not being scientifically sound. As long as this structure remains, I will no longer participate in the IPCC FAR. Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Feb 12 2012, 07:03 PM
Hoosier8

It has become very apparent to me that people are not wearing enough hats.

The Meaning of Life Part V.

Prove me wrong you scientific geniuses!
Feb 12 2012, 07:04 PM
_Inquisitor_

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

Well yes, I suppose it might. Now all you need is evidence to support your view. Which I keep asking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Considering that all human development on this planet had been established with respect to reasonably constant climactic regimes in respective locations - a significant alteration of climactic regimes can only been seen as negative in impact since the existing infrastucture across the various climate regions will become inappropriate for the conditions.

There will of course be occaisional cases of opportunistic "winners" - but overall, the impact will be negative wherever established communities currently exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Hell NO! I am open to some suggestions but living as I do in the tropics I do not see many advantages

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] first established in 1988 because scientists found that human had been releasing CO2 and CO2 reflected heat back to the earth and earth was warming.

We have approximately 40 years of “recorded” global warming. During this years human Co2 has been rising sharply.

Why don’t anyone writes in the left column negative hapennings which has been recorded during 40 years and which were not recorded in previous centuries, and positive hapennings which were not recorded in previous centuries and compare?

(Obviously the info on hurricanes represented by warmists since 1950 is an intentional lie, another proof that they are malicious and ill intended, but one can pretend it is not a lie)

P.S. Don’t forget to include scientific findings of global cooling circulating in the scientific community prior to forming into IPCC.

It is so easy to see that global warming has NOT been hapenning during last 40 years even if the amount of CO2 has been increasing in geometrical progression.

For all these years we have been releasing CO2 like no tomorrow and have not seen any impact. (It is of course my observation, but I invite anyone to look at records and compare. we live in the same word. read the same newspapers and weather reports. We can find the records quite easy.)

That’s why when a top "warmist" researcher Kevin Trenberth sent e-mail to his colleagues reporting the fact that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” as of October 2009 after 30 years of manipulating and adjusting and smoothing and homogenizing data, he received No email disagreeing with the fact stated by him. Speaking between themselves the top warmists figured out that the globe was not warming. May be not all of them are vid any honesty and decency, but it is too late, - the jinn of politics, personal greed and propaganda is released from the bottle. $Multibillion industry is flourishing and it was not in the personal interests and less in personal abilities of top warmists to put the jinn back in the bottle even if the most powerful of them abounded the dirty politics and money business of IPCC.

To add to Dr.Landsea

Yuri A. Izrael (born 1930 in Russia) was a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until September 2008, when the new bureau was elected.[1][2]
Izrael is a former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology. He also served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, which is a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop World Weather Watch.[4]
In 1992, Izrael won the UNEP Sasakawa Environment Prize for, among other accomplishments, contributing to the "success of Working Group I I" of the IPCC
Izrael believes the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, is not scientifically supported and damaging for the economy,[5] stating, "the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science."[3][6]

“There has never been a consensus among the experts at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I was among the fiercest opponents and have challenged that document because it is not scientifically valid.
Over the centuries, our temperature has waxed and waned for reasons that are not fully understood. Let us take the last 100 years. The average temperature decreased between 1900 and 1910, but increased by nearly 1C by the 1940s despite the wars when industry was in low gear and greenhouse emissions were comparatively low. How does one account for such a rise in temperature? Those who insist that there is global warming have no answer. Then the temperature began to decline even as industry recovered. The drop in temperature continued until 1975 before sharp growth set in, which continues to this day”.Yuri Izrael, Rossiyskaya Gazeta

From scientific e-mails when Izrael just came on board of warmists- , - “do you know anything about yuri Israel, is he trustworthy or he is connected to oil industry?” Scientists are so openly malicious and ill intended – all over Internet.

The thing is that one can find confirmation to Izrael's facts from available witnesses and newspaper records.
Scientists are people too. Nobody except for left handed and incapable wackos approves all this hysteria about AWG, even ones has to vote for it because one does not have another way to pay mortgage faster. Izrael and Landsea and others have nothing to loose. They are top guns, aces; politica is politics but even crooks such as Al Gore need to know what weather is going to be tomorrow and what road is safe to drive.

All one needs to do is to open his eyes and look around to see that there has been no global warming, no climate change. One also can see how the scientific method of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is shutting up, oppressing and removing individuals who live by reality.
Feb 12 2012, 08:34 PM
Poor Debater

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPA1

That sea-level graph has no references at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but, -4 cm is NEGATIVE water. Why does the sea level change start there?

The reference is Allison 2009. The sea level is relative to 1990 levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPA1

Not all 'evidence' is real either.

If you have a rational basis to challenge climate change evidence, be my guest. Experience has shown you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPA1

The problem with that argument is that there is no such thing as a 'denier.'

Pat Michaels and Judith Curry call themselves that. Who am I to argue?
Feb 12 2012, 08:39 PM
Poor Debater

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Fixed it:
See how easy it is to ignore opposing evidence

Ignore opposing evidence? What opposing evidence? You've been posting on this thread for days, and have yet to cite a single peer-reviewed paper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

It is easy to ignore even their own scientists that caution against long term predictions as long as it fits the religion of doom.

The primary reason long-term predictions are uncertain is because we cannot predict how civilization will react to the crisis: we cannot predict whether fossil fuel use will decline, and if so by how much and over what timescale. In other words, we cannot predict how many deniers will throw a wrench into the spokes of civilization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Now, back to the OP. What are some of the positive effects of global warming?

More wheat in Canada? Yippee.
Feb 12 2012, 08:57 PM
Poor Debater

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

What one can see is that scientists have lied about hurricanes. They were pointed to their blatant lies. And they have been having nothing to counter.

Cite journal, peer-reviewed paper, scientist, page number, and lie. Otherwise, you're the one who's lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

So let's do one lie at a time. First explain to me why scietists have lied to us general public, carpenters and nurses about hurricanes.

They haven't, and you have presented no evidence that they have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

[I]Instead, Dr. Trenberth in representing the IPCC has successfully promulgated into the media his own opinion that the 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming

Trenberth made no such statement. Hurricane seasons are caused by -- the seasons.
Feb 12 2012, 08:58 PM
Poor Debater

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

It has become very apparent to me that people are not wearing enough hats.

The Meaning of Life Part V.

Prove me wrong you scientific geniuses!

You have officially gone off the deep end.
Feb 12 2012, 09:18 PM
Poor Debater

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

Why don’t anyone writes in the left column negative hapennings which has been recorded during 40 years and which were not recorded in previous centuries, and positive hapennings which were not recorded in previous centuries and compare?

The problem is not what we've seen so far. The problem is where we're headed. The difference between man and animals is that we can anticipate the future and act to change it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

(Obviously the info on hurricanes represented by warmists since 1950 is an intentional lie, another proof that they are malicious and ill intended, but one can pretend it is not a lie)

Still no citation, which means the only lies here are the ones told by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

P.S. Don’t forget to include scientific findings of global cooling circulating in the scientific community prior to forming into IPCC.

Even in the 1970's, when climate science was in its infancy, there were about three times as many papers predicting warming as there were predicting cooling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

It is so easy to see that global warming has NOT been hapenning during last 40 years even if the amount of CO2 has been increasing in geometrical progression.

Since you don't believe in evidence, why are you even here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

For all these years we have been releasing CO2 like no tomorrow and have not seen any impact. (It is of course my observation, but I invite anyone to look at records and compare. we live in the same word. read the same newspapers and weather reports. We can find the records quite easy.)

Here are the records:

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/deca...comparison.jpg

You don't see warming there? Even Hoosier8 does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

That’s why when a top "warmist" researcher Kevin Trenberth sent e-mail to his colleagues reporting the fact that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” as of October 2009 after 30 years of manipulating and adjusting and smoothing and homogenizing data,

Nope, that's not what he was talking about at all. He was talking about why global temperatures go down in La Nina years
Feb 13 2012, 04:34 AM
Hoosier8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

Ignore opposing evidence? What opposing evidence?

You certainly wouldn't know, you ignore it. That's the whole point.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page