Positive effects of Global Warming?

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

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Not rare, just ignored. In fact, the true believers keep a list of them.

    In fact, you don't even need to dig very deep to find disagreement, and/or some of your own scientists calling for restraint in predictions.
     
  2. bugalugs

    bugalugs Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,289
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You asked if there was anything positive about global warming.

    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.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,496
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Hell NO! I am open to some suggestions but living as I do in the tropics I do not see many advantages

    The only one i can think of offhand is the opening of the St Lawrence seaway but you would probably know more about that than me'

    How about you "educate me" instead of posting time and again "neener neener you is poopie heads!" Something that will, if it does not cease, get you reported for trolling and flame baiting
     
  4. submarinepainter

    submarinepainter Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it is nice we have a longer construction season here now!!
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,496
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Meanwhile ours seems to be getting shorter because of "the wet"
     
  6. bugalugs

    bugalugs Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,289
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes - there will be many instances where apparent advantages appear. That is a good example.

    But the major issues, especially in larger cities will be things like water supply. Reseviors are designed to suit the locale and the known hydrological conditions of the site. If there is a shift in rainfall in an area - either up or down - then you are left with very expensive and very important piece of infrastucture that has not actually been designed for the conditions it will be operating under.

    At worst this could mean flooding or water shortages. But even if those extremes are avoided - there will still be a massive ongoing cost in operating infrastructure that simply is not designed to do the job it is now being asked to do.
     
  7. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since 2004 no hurricanes to Florida. The hurricanes are not doing what the GW community claimed. More lies and deception from the GW scam.

    I notice you refuse to actually show more hurricane and more powerful because that is a lie. You have to go back and include 30 years because the last few years have been quiet in the US for hurricanes
     
  8. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is what so called scientists claimed would happen is not happening. This shows the whole GW claims and models are a scam
     
  9. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NASA is Hansen and he is a GW nut case
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,496
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    But they did not claim this was a trend

    Sucked in!!
     
  11. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with warmers is taking the last 100 or so years, when actual temperatures are being measured and applying it to a system that is millions of years in the making is a problem. There are problems with the measurements, such as found in ARGO, and there are problems applying them to proxy data from the past (proxy data is like assuming temperature by things like tree rings).

    That is why I look at the long term pattern and ask the question, what will happen when this interglacial ends? If someone wants to cry about trying to keep the climate the same from now on, try fighting glaciers moving south.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Like I said before, from the article:

     
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, I didn't realize that the laws of physics had changed in the last 100 years. Or even in the last 100 million years. Which ones, pray tell? And why is it invalid to apply what we know to past events, present events, or future events?

    Those problems have been solved. See my previous posts.

    What problems?

    And what answer did you come up with?

    If we had never started burning fossil fuels, the next ice age wouldn't have started for another 60,000 years. Why is a climate catastrophe 60,000 years from now more important than an avoidable climate catastrophe that is happening right now?
     
  15. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then it says this
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately for you, history tells a different story. This interglacial is about 11,000 years old and the last one did not last much longer than that, so we are at near end of the interglacial ready for a new ice age, which is a misnomer since we have been in an ice age for 2.5 million years and the last "ice age" was just a cooler period in the cycle. The cold spells last between 60,000 and 100,000 years where the mild interglacials, like now, only last about 15,000 years.

    So what should we do to get ready for the next glacial period which would be much worse than any warming.
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does the law of physics have to do with true believers? Even the IPCC report only states that CO2 itself would be responsible for 1 degree of warming but the rest is all supposed to come about by multiplying agents, of which many people disagree. So one scientists guesswork based on limited data can lead people like you as lemmings to the slaughter.

    As pointed out before, if you are not on the current bandwagon, you can be ostracized from the scientific community, even if you are right or have a great theory in opposition to the accepted political norm.
     
  18. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the past 100 years global temperature has increased approx. 0.7C (about .007C per year). This is well within a statistical margin of error even when NOT considering that calibration, human charting, computer modeling, faulty satellite data, bad station placement and throwing out so called 'bad' data have all been part-and-parcel of the climate research industry.

    Looking at that 'warming' data, one is hard-pressed to see any significant warming at all.
     
  19. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Numerology? LOL, try the historic record of interglacials. The pattern is pretty well defined back 450 thousand years no matter what some scientist decides to theorize, and yes, it could change as things changed and the earth cooled and plunged us into this 2.5 million year ice age but what you are talking about is what I am talking about, how natural forces will trump anything we think we can do.
     
  21. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    False. Name three scientists who say, in peer-reviewed literature, that there is no ice/albedo feedback. Name three scientists who say, in peer-reviewed literature, that there is no water vapor feedback. You can't.

    There are a few scientists who assert that the total amount of the feedback is low. But there is a strong and growing concensus on climate sensitivity. The "many people" who allegedly disagree are actually a tiny minority, way out on an increasingly shaky limb.

    So let me ask you: why do you personally believe climate sensitivity is low? Is it because you choose to believe 5 scientists rather than 5000, because it makes you feel good to do so? Is it political? Or is it because you actually know something about climate sensitivity and see some flaw in the research of the 5000?

    Reference, please: name the one scientist who has engaged in guesswork.

    Reference please: name the scientist who is right and has a great theory, and tell me why that theory is better than the accepted norm.
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Utterly false. Show your work: what is the p value for the last 100 years of global temperature for the null hypothesis?
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,496
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  24. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you have nothing to address the facts you attack the source. Now show where the article is false
     
  25. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,496
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Welll, this is the first post in about the last 20 which does not contain "neener neerner noises" about "religion" therefor I thank you and THIS post I will therefor answer - ones containing vapid partisan rubbish I will ignore

    As for ARGO measurements - yes there are problems - the thermometers have been UNDER recording the changes but ARGO only represents ONE data set among many

    As for glaciation - good luck if you think you will live that long. Meanwhile heat waves can and do kill people as to the floods and droughts we are seeing currently
     

Share This Page