Positive effects of Global Warming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dadoalex

Just FYI....

A blog is not a peer reviewed paper.

There. Now don't you feel smarter already?

---

Again you attack the source rather than address the information offered...

Why am I not surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dadoalex

Wrong cycle.

Much of the sunlight that reaches the earth is reflected back to space by the surface, oceans and particularly the polar ice caps. Additional CO2 causes some of that reflected energy to be absorbed in the atmosphere raising atmospheric temperatures. As more and more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere the planet slowly loses the ability to reflect heat back into space. As atmospheric temperatures rise the evaporation of water adds to the cloud cover but the cloud cover acts to retain heat rather than reflect it and the temperature continues to rise despite increasing storms. The increased cloud cover does, however, cause massive deforestation as lack of sunlight stops the photosynthesis process. The lack of vegetation denies animals at all levels of the food chain and the global starvation of all large animals begins. As food stocks dwindle and more large animals starve insects and the surface becomes dominated by insects and small rodents. As plants die off the absorption of CO2 and production of O2 slows hastening the heating process and the killing of all sentient life. Eventually the atmosphere becomes little more than steam and....

We become Venus.

that's the cycle you're trying to create.

---

That is your OPINION not reality. In the REAL world, it rains providing water to plants, clouds dissipate letting radiation from the sun nurture plants and animals. Then the cycle starts all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dadoalex

Wrong cycle.

Much of the sunlight that reaches the earth is reflected back to space by the surface, oceans and particularly the polar ice caps. Additional CO2 causes some of that reflected energy to be absorbed in the atmosphere raising atmospheric temperatures. As more and more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere the planet slowly loses the ability to reflect heat back into space. As atmospheric temperatures rise the evaporation of water adds to the cloud cover but the cloud cover acts to retain heat rather than reflect it and the temperature continues to rise despite increasing storms. The increased cloud cover does, however, cause massive deforestation as lack of sunlight stops the photosynthesis process. The lack of vegetation denies animals at all levels of the food chain and the global starvation of all large animals begins. As food stocks dwindle and more large animals starve insects and the surface becomes dominated by insects and small rodents. As plants die off the absorption of CO2 and production of O2 slows hastening the heating process and the killing of all sentient life. Eventually the atmosphere becomes little more than steam and....

We become Venus.

that's the cycle you're trying to create.

---

CO2 has been much higher than it is now, in fact we are at a low point, and the warmers doom and gloom scenario never happened. How do you account for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

CO2 has been much higher than it is now, in fact we are at a low point, and the warmers doom and gloom scenario never happened. How do you account for that?

---

Yes but when was the last time it was this high? And with that what is the level of atmospheric CO2 that the current biosphere of the planet is adapted to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaar

Really?

Then please explain the following...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/...fessor-plimer/

---

Oh! My! JM (Biologist) - yeah almost as credible a source as the "Oregon Petition" and she is quoting Ian Plimer - Professor of Mining Geology yep! Good credentials in the field and of course, or at least in Plimer's case, no actual conflict of interest is there? (Note I am not actually attacking these people, merely pointing out areas of Academic interest such as whether or not they have a qualification in the field - after all you do not go to someone with a Doctorate in History to find out whether or not your leg needs amputation)

Quote:

---

The history of CO2 and temperature shows that there is no correlation.

Ask your local warmer:

1. Why was CO2 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation?

2. Why were both methane and CO2 higher than now in the Permian glaciation?

3. Why was CO2 5 times higher than now in the Cretaceous-Jurassic glaciation?

The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere via the oceans has led to carbonate deposition (i.e. CO2 sequestration).

---

^^^^^^^^^^
This is not science - it is a political statement

But does have a science component so I will answer THAT

Quote:

---

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

---

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Hang on = Does this mean that Plimer is using data that the AUTHOR has said is unreliable? Surely NOT!

Quote:

---

The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reactions (as shown by Walker et al. 1981).

The literature on this subject is large yet the warmers chose to ignore this literature.

---

He is using data that is suspect and 30 year old science papers to foster his arguments and ending them with political statements

Now you tell me - what sort of academic standard is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

CO2 has been much higher than it is now, in fact we are at a low point, and the warmers doom and gloom scenario never happened. How do you account for that?

---

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998...asComplet.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Eart...on-events.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/wide-...-timeline.html
http://science.nationalgeographic.co...ss-extinction/

The earth will survive. New species will evolve.

They won't include humans.

Let us look at it this way.

Neither of us is 100% certain of the outcome of these events.

In the worst case scenario for both of our cases:

We do what I want and I am wrong:

We have less pollution
We have less dependence on fossil fuels
We have fewer wars over energy sources


We do what you want and you are wrong

We have more pollution
Global dependence on fossil fuels increases
We have more wars over energy sources
Eventually, the pollution leads to mass extinction of all large animal and plant life

Best case scenario

We do what I want and I am right:

We have less pollution
We have less dependence on fossil fuels
We have fewer wars over energy sources

We do what you want and you are right:

We have more pollution
Global dependence on fossil fuels increases
We have more wars over energy sources
Eventually we deplete all of the fossil fuels which forces us to do what I want


You know I can't make the reasoned argument for your position. Even if we disagree over the facts following your path leads bad results while following mine leads to good results.

Unless you're an oil company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Oh! My! JM (Biologist) - yeah almost as credible a source as the "Oregon Petition" and she is quoting Ian Plimer - Professor of Mining Geology yep! Good credentials in the field and of course, or at least in Plimer's case, no actual conflict of interest is there? (Note I am not actually attacking these people, merely pointing out areas of Academic interest such as whether or not they have a qualification in the field - after all you do not go to someone with a Doctorate in History to find out whether or not your leg needs amputation)

---

So because you don't have a Meteorlogical background you can't have studied the theory of Man-Made Global Warming, in your mind?

What is your background? And if it is not Meteorology then why do you get to have an opinion, in your own mind?

You understand that Geologists are used in some of this research because Historical records of these things can be found in our "Geology", right?

Things like Tree rings and Ice Core samples, for example...

You understand that, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Hang on = Does this mean that Plimer is using data that the AUTHOR has said is unreliable? Surely NOT!

He is using data that is suspect and 30 year old science papers to foster his arguments and ending them with political statements

Now you tell me - what sort of academic standard is that?

---

Has the data been disputed and other information replaced it? Shall we take a look at the ice core data?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

If you look, just recently the CO2 concentration has exceeded the norm that has been going on for some 400,000+ years, and yet the temperatures now have not exceeded ANY of the highest "spikes" in that same time frame.

If CO2 played a major factor in temperatures, don't you think we would be seeing record temperatures above any of the previous spikes by now?

And yet, we aren't.

Why do you think that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaar

So because you don't have a Meteorlogical background you can't have studied the theory of Man-Made Global Warming, in your mind?

---

No that is a strawman

I am not a meteorologist or a Climate scientist but then I do not set myself up as an expert in the field and certainly do not go on TV claiming to know more than the experts in the field who have studied the subject for years - and that is what both Plimer and Marohasy have done

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3035371.htm
http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/thinkers/ian-plimer

Quote:

---

What is your background? And if it is not Meteorology then why do you get to have an opinion, in your own mind?

---

And what is your background? and BTW your deflection of the argument to my credentials is an Ad Hom.

Quote:

---

You understand that Geologists are used in some of this research because Historical records of these things can be found in our "Geology", right?

Things like Tree rings and Ice Core samples, for example...

You understand that, right?

---

Do not be insulting - I did not question the fact he is a geologist but the fact he is a geologist specialising in mining AND director of not one but three mining companies - the very industry that would love to delay action on climate change - therein lies the potential for conflict of interest.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/01/25/...n-plimer-at-8/

Certainly Plimer has the background to understand a lot of the science inherent in global warming but unless he has the academic qualifications to go with that he is still an amateur in the field - that is how academy works (I cannot believe I have to explain this) Look at it this way - a Physiotherapist has a science degree in a field related to medicine they are very good at their jobs but would you allow them to either prescribe medication for you? And the answer should be NO, because although giving someone, say pain medication might look easy on the surface there is a whole knowledge base relating to pharmacology that physiotherapists have NOT been taught

But even more important than any of that - Plimer has been caught telling Furphies, as has Marohasy

Plimer

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...karoly/3141930

Marohasy

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/2...imate-science/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...ds_fail_me.php

Quote:

---

Has the data been disputed and other information replaced it? Shall we take a look at the ice core data?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

If you look, just recently the CO2 concentration has exceeded the norm that has been going on for some 400,000+ years, and yet the temperatures now have not exceeded ANY of the highest "spikes" in that same time frame.

If CO2 played a major factor in temperatures, don't you think we would be seeing record temperatures above any of the previous spikes by now?

And yet, we aren't.

Why do you think that is?

---

(((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))) )))))))))))

Okaaaaaay

1) your site is over 10 years old - in climate science terms that is like using a auto mechanical manual from 1950 to try and fix the latest Volvo

2) There is a time delay in the system because of the ability of oceans etc to absorb some of the warming

3) You REALLY REALLY REALLY need to read the articles you are posting because the answers to your own questions are there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

And what is your background? and BTW your deflection of the argument to my credentials is an Ad Hom.

---

Really, and that is what you have been doing with many, if not most, of the people I have cited.

How does it feel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Do not be insulting - I did not question the fact he is a geologist but the fact he is a geologist specialising in mining AND director of not one but three mining companies - the very industry that would love to delay action on climate change - therein lies the potential for conflict of interest.

---

You don't think Climatologists have a vested interest in continuing the Global Warming farce?

How quickly do you believe their grant money would dry up, and therefor their JOBS, if they didn't continue to make it an Issue?

Give me a BREAK. Yet again you use an Ad Hominem attack against those you disagree with but won't use the SAME LOGIC when it comes to those you do.

Imagine that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

1) your site is over 10 years old - in climate science terms that is like using a auto mechanical manual from 1950 to try and fix the latest Volvo

2) There is a time delay in the system because of the ability of oceans etc to absorb some of the warming

3) You REALLY REALLY REALLY need to read the articles you are posting because the answers to your own questions are there

---

Yet you can't show me any other site that has different information than that provided on the one I gave you.

Why is that you suppose?

There are sites that talked about the Globe cooling during the 1970's, that are very old...

Does that make them incorrect?

I don't believe so, because we did in fact cool for some time, as we are again right now. And yet NONE of the Models that "your side" has been touting for almost 2 decades now show this cooling trend, and none fo them can explain it.

Yet there are sites that do and have shown why they believe it is happening, that are a bit old. Are they wrong simply because they are old, even though they got it right and your side did not?

You understand the Sun's part in our Climate System, right? If CO2 were as important as your side believes , why is the affects of the Sun able to drown it out so easily?