Positive effects of Global Warming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Yet it has been warmer before with warming being positive for northern latitudes. The equatorial regions are less effected by warming than the northern ones are.

What you are assuming is that it will be bad without considering the positive effects. At one point in time, before the earth turned cold and this ice age started 2.5 million years ago, life was very abundant and animals grew to great sizes because of the more friendly conditions. Why do you think that would not be the case if it warmed up again?

---

What sort of water supply infrastructure did human societies have 2.5 million years ago.
How large were the cites 2.5 million years ago?

What sort of climate have our existing water supply infrastructure and large cities been designed to operate in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugalugs

What sort of water supply infrastructure did human societies have 2.5 million years ago.
How large were the cites 2.5 million years ago?

What sort of climate have our existing water supply infrastructure and large cities been designed to operate in?

---

The one thing that is constant is change, so that question is silly on the face of it since things will change, no matter what we do. For instance, will this interglacial end? If it does, how does your question apply and why would it mean anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

The one thing that is constant is change, so that question is silly on the face of it since things will change, no matter what we do. For instance, will this interglacial end? If it does, how does your question apply and why would it mean anything?

---

Do you understand the difference between change on decadal time scales and change on millenial time scales?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Do you understand the difference between change on decadal time scales and change on millenial time scales?

---

Again, long term predictions based on theory. We are now in a decade long lull of warming. Like the stock market, some predict it will go up, some down. We won't know until it does either. Fact is that no one predicted this lull and it has just been discovered over time. That does not mean it won't resume warming, just that even decade long predictions are not always right.

Even if it resumes warming, why would that be a bad thing considering the one of the most likely alternatives and that is returning to a glaciation period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulu1

If I may interject.

Do some leading experts disagree with the consensus view? Sure they do. There are also some leading experts who disagree that a link exists between smoking and lung cancer too, but that doesn't negate the reality of the science. So it's disengenuous to claim, as many denialists do, that the 'jury is most definetely still out' - it's not. The truth is the science is most definetely SETTLED.

The vast majority of climate scientists accept that AGW is a reality and this is supported by every credible scientific body in the world. This is what is meant by the consensus. Denialists cannot accept this because they are dogmatically and ideologically tied to their position.

This, I'm afraid to say, is an inevitable consequence of being a denialist conspiracy theorist. Implicit in this, is the tendency to obfuscate and cherry-pick and twist data to fit the preconceived agendas of the conspiracy theorists concerned until, as one realist put it, "the data confesses". The same logic is prevalent in relation, for example, to the arguments of moon landing denialists and 9-11 'truthers'.

Just because many denialists have claimed to have read some science doesn't mean that they correctly interpret it. Denialists are not climate scientists and therefore have no authority to dismiss the legitimacy of the science - a science, like I say that is supported by every credible scientific body in the world. By denying this, they put themselves firmly in the same camp as those who claim 9-11 was an inside job.

---

I have listed 11 arguments of warmers. I’ve trying to see if I can bring the warmers ot the level of Ellochka the cannibal. I am still looking for one warmer who’d show to be equal in intelligence to a member of MumboJumbo tribe.

" http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO


ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
1. You're being vulgar.
2. Ho-ho (expresses irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and satisfaction, according to the circumstances).
3. Great!
4. Dismal (applied to everything-for example: "dismal Pete has arrived", "dismal weather", or a "dismal cat").
5. Gloom.
6. Ghastly (for example: when meeting a close female acquaintance, "a ghastly meeting").
7. Kid (applied to all male acquaintances, regardless of age or social position).
8. Don't tell me how to live!
9. Like a babe ("I whacked him like a babe" when playing cards, or "I brought him down like a babe," evidently when talking to a legal tenant).
10.Ter-r-rific!
11. Fat and good-looking (used to describe both animate and
inanimate objects).
12. Let's go by horse-cab (said to her husband).
13. Let's go by taxi (said to male acquaintances).
14. You're all white at the back! (joke).
15. Just imagine!
16. Ula (added to a name to denote affection-for example: Mishula, Zinula).
17. Oho! (irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and
satisfaction)." The extraordinary small number of words remaining were used as connecting links between Ellochka and department-store assistants.".



When Ellochka the cannibal managed easily and fluently on thirty, all warmists' bullying arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen

1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
2. You should get some education.
3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.5
. read this:
somethingImyslefcannotundersta ndbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
8. …. Not too many more are there
…. [ I am working on it]
13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
14. I did not say that
15. You have not proven anything.




I tried to make it easy for you and other evolutionists.

Instead of typing all the lines you could just type, -

My arguments are:

1.
3.
4.
6.

Wouldn't it be a time savior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

The one thing that is constant is change, so that question is silly on the face of it since things will change, no matter what we do. For instance, will this interglacial end? If it does, how does your question apply and why would it mean anything?

---

Once again you are bringing up something that is not slated to happen for centuries and using it to excuse the changes we are experiencing NOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

Please do some basic research for yourself it is hard work trying to educate - especially those who consistently fail to listen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Again, long term predictions based on theory. We are now in a decade long lull of warming. Like the stock market, some predict it will go up, some down. We won't know until it does either. Fact is that no one predicted this lull and it has just been discovered over time. That does not mean it won't resume warming, just that even decade long predictions are not always right.

Even if it resumes warming, why would that be a bad thing considering the one of the most likely alternatives and that is returning to a glaciation period.

---

Please do some research! Geeez!

Where on this Earth or even in the outer planets did you get the idea that the interglacial period was going to end within our lifetimes or that it would not be swamped by the signal that is the rise in CO2?

And you have never addressed the fact of what happens if (most likely) we do NOT see an end to the current interglacial?

What will happen if the temperature continues to rise with the rising CO2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Please do some research! Geeez!

Where on this Earth or even in the outer planets did you get the idea that the interglacial period was going to end within our lifetimes or that it would not be swamped by the signal that is the rise in CO2?

And you have never addressed the fact of what happens if (most likely) we do NOT see an end to the current interglacial?

What will happen if the temperature continues to rise with the rising CO2

---

Interesting how you read into things that do not exist. For instance, I never said this interglacial will end during our lifetime.

So, what if this interglacial does not end? That means it will stay mild by earths standards and we will not go into a glaciation period, which would be much more disastrous than any warming. If not and we warm more, then we could return to the state the earth was in for millions of years before this ice age. In other words, if you have ever read about the past, the earth used to be much more vibrant, enough so that the huge amount of growth that happened became our oil reserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Interesting how you read into things that do not exist. For instance, I never said this interglacial will end during our lifetime.

---

However the CO2 rise will grossly affect the planet within our lifetime which is why I used that timeframe

Quote:

---

So, what if this interglacial does not end? That means it will stay mild by earths standards and we will not go into a glaciation period, which would be much more disastrous than any warming. If not and we warm more, then we could return to the state the earth was in for millions of years before this ice age. In other words, if you have ever read about the past, the earth used to be much more vibrant, enough so that the huge amount of growth that happened became our oil reserves.

---

Hooo boy!

Okay now please follow your own logic through

It does not cool (because we are not in the part of the Milankovitch cycle that would trigger the cooling and the sun is about to hit another active time) but warms - good

Now there will be more tropics on Earth and you think "Good"?

Diseases - ever wondered WHY there are more in the tropics? Let us take a look at just one, and one I deal with almost daily here

LICE! AKA Scabies

They flourish in the tropics to the point of "crusted scabies" where there are millions of lice in skin that looks like it should belong to an Elephant.

And that is just one add things like Melliodosis, Malaria, Tetanus etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_disease

And then there are the insects - more prevalent in the tropics

And then there is plant and animal adaptation - we are already seeing die back in many temperate plants because of climate change - do you really think we can !@#!@# with mother nature THAT much and get away with it?

How about the rising acidity of the sea levels and the effect on the corals?

Simple and basic chemistry will tell you that CO2 dissolved in water gives you Carbonic Acid

Then there is the whole CLIMATE CHANGE thing. It is hard to grow crops where there is no water (talk to Texans about that) or when the water does come it takes you from drought conditions to raging floods (ask Queenslanders about THAT) within a span of 6 - 12 months

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

However the CO2 rise will grossly affect the planet within our lifetime which is why I used that timeframe


Hooo boy!

Okay now please follow your own logic through

It does not cool (because we are not in the part of the Milankovitch cycle that would trigger the cooling and the sun is about to hit another active time) but warms - good

Now there will be more tropics on Earth and you think "Good"?

Diseases - ever wondered WHY there are more in the tropics? Let us take a look at just one, and one I deal with almost daily here

LICE! AKA Scabies

They flourish in the tropics to the point of "crusted scabies" where there are millions of lice in skin that looks like it should belong to an Elephant.

And that is just one add things like Melliodosis, Malaria, Tetanus etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_disease

And then there are the insects - more prevalent in the tropics

And then there is plant and animal adaptation - we are already seeing die back in many temperate plants because of climate change - do you really think we can !@#!@# with mother nature THAT much and get away with it?

How about the rising acidity of the sea levels and the effect on the corals?

Simple and basic chemistry will tell you that CO2 dissolved in water gives you Carbonic Acid

Then there is the whole CLIMATE CHANGE thing. It is hard to grow crops where there is no water (talk to Texans about that) or when the water does come it takes you from drought conditions to raging floods (ask Queenslanders about THAT) within a span of 6 - 12 months

---

Lice, scabies? Really?

I guess the warmer well is depleted enough to include lice as the main motivator of fear. Sorry, but that is an awfully pathetic argument.