Positive effects of Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Sadistic-Savior, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thats a nice science lesson, but does nothing to prove mans relation. What you describe is the same process thats been going on for millions of years. C02 in the atmosphere goes up, goes down, regardless if man is around or not.

    You can surf the internet all day and come up with a study to support your position either way, not only with GW, but most anything. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how throwing money at this cause will somehow reduce CO2 by any significant amount. Even if we could, even if it was in our power to do so, what would that achieve ? Weather patterns will still stray from their norms, flooding will still occur, ice will still melt and refreeze. Hurricanes will still happen, as will droughts and anything else mother nature can toss at us.
     
  2. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    REad the Garnaut review
    http://www.garnautreview.org.au/

    And remember Aussies do not like to pay taxes any more than Americans do
    http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.html
     
  3. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which ones are you talking about?

    The several thousand who agree with you or the tens of thousands that agree with me?

    Don't like that Blogger site?

    Try these, they are actual studies or articles about real studies done on the subject...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm
    http://www.sciscoop.com/climate-change-evidence.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0...rming-paused-Water-vapor-may-be-in-the-answer
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
    http://www.slate.com/articles/healt.../is_global_warming_caused_by_water_vapor.html
    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/WaterVapor.htm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pour-responsible-slowdown-global-warming.html
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/11/greenhouse-gases-water-vapor-and-you.html
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...or-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming

    Let me know when you have finished with those because there are many more where those came from...
     
  4. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CO2 represents only .038 of the atmosphere. It is a TRACE gas. The Earth has 'warmed' a whopping .007C per year in the past 100 years IF, that is, you believe all station data is actually accurate.

    Pollution happens when liberals and socialists (who can't seem to live without assistance) gather in huge population densities (NY, LA etc) and foul their own environment. Then they point fingers at everyone else as they cry for environmental activism while driving their gas-guzzling cars, letting the 'homeless' crap on their streets, and generally screw up the very environment they claim they are 'saving.'
     
  5. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are saying that all this suddenly happened since 2003, like the spike in the graph?
     
  6. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you go down there and measure each time it is leached?

    Please provided a link to such claims.

    You don't mind if I don't take your word for it, do you?
     
  7. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That spike looks a lot like the "hockey stick", that supposedly showed Global temperature rising, that was proven to be something simply made up to try and prove Man-made Global Warming.
     
  8. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me see if I understand this, you want me to take the word of an Economist, who also happens to be a former Banker ? I wonder who all that carbon credit coin will flow to ? Hmmm.

    Yep,and government manages money so well, makes me want to run out and hand them hundreds of billions more.
     
  9. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    While this is broadly true, application of research and critical thinking skills will weed out the reliable sources from the unreliable ones.

    The real question comes when there is overwhelming reliable information proving X, but because of personal bias, one is motivated to surf the Internet for any scrap of data, no matter how dubious, to cling to a discredited idea.
     
  10. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,632
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or you could just say "I like my suburban. When I'm dead what do I care about everyone else?"
     
  11. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,632
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, an ignorant suggestion.

    Growing plants absorb CO2 and release O2. As long as we're not stupidly tearing down a rain forest to irrigate a lawn (and limiting the use of chemical based fertilizers and pesticides) it is a net positive.
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The mistake warmers make is abusing the 97% of scientist believe there is warming and twisting it to mean anything they want, like implying all those scientists think it is all created by man and that they all think something needs to be done about it.

    FAIL.

    All but a few of them warn against trying to predict far into the future. Most will not trash their own reputation by doing something as stupid as that. Many do not agree on the cause of warming.

    So, AGW is the religion, warming happens.
     
  13. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Starting a wildfire is a crime?

    Who are you going to charge, Mother Nature?

    You understand that most wildfires are started by lightning, right?
     
  14. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As the Science points out, water vapor is many times more powerful in the Greenhouse System than CO2, so no, it is not a "net positive" as you are trying to say....

    Also, CO2 HELPS grow these massive amounts of food we need, and is NOT a "pollutant" as your side is attempting to say it is. It is actually something that is needed in our ecological system to grow healthy plants, as you just pointed out yourself.

    Thank you for making my point for me.
     
  15. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again dadoalex you get it wrong...

    Real Science SHOWS, without a doubt, that CO2 LAGS temperature change, not the other way around...

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    CO2 lags temperature
    "An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

    What the science says...

    EarthÂ’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
     
  16. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just because a subject is not #1 on the Google list does not mean it is irrelevant. It just means that it has been popularized by the media and/or pushed up by manipulation.
     
  17. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think you need to reread my comment:


    This describes climate change deniers far more accurately than the rest of us.
     
  18. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,632
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Being an idiot is not a crime.

    go start a wildfire.

    video yourself starting the fire and post it to You-Tube.

    Find out for yourself.

    Most flash floods are caused by rain but that doesn't make it smart or legal to destroy a dam.
     
  19. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,632
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science points out that the amount of water vapor in the air is directly proportional to the air temperature. The higher the temperature the more water vapor will be in the air.

    That's why, Mr Science, when it is very cold outside the humidity is generally lower.

    I never said CO2 was a pollutant. I said TOO much CO2 in the atmosphere contributes significantly to global warming. O2 and H2O are not "pollutants" either but too much of either will kill you.
     
  20. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    GW skeptics are routinely ignored by the GW/AGW believers. GW is an established industry based on an unproven hypothesis. My point is that one does have to search for skeptical data and just because one has to search does not mean skeptical data is irrelevant. BTW there is no such thing as a 'denier' that is a made-up term.
     
  21. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If higher temperatures mean more water vapor in the atmosphere then, at some point, the density of that water vapor forms clouds which block the sun. Sooner or later, water droplets are formed which increase humidity and lower temperatures. It's a cycle "Mr Science."
     
  22. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really?

    Then please explain the following...

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10...e-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/

    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).

    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.
     
  23. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,632
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  24. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,632
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just FYI....

    A blog is not a peer reviewed paper.

    There. Now don't you feel smarter already?
     
  25. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From NASA...

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

    The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates...
     

Share This Page