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
    So, you are under the impression we can stop heat waves, floods and droughts? The cold never killed anybody?
     
  2. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently you have trouble with simple math.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Wait on............

    You want us to worry about something that is pure speculleation on your part, has no real basis in fact, will not happen in OUR lifetime, will be swamped by the rising CO2 even if it DID occur, over something we know is happening now, is affecting lives and livelihoods now and is of immediate concern?
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

    During our lifetime? OK, what will happen the next 50 years?
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I wait for the prediction, peruse the following:


    10. “The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. See Plate Tectonics

    9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

    8. “That virus is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)cat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

    7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

    6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

    5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

    4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

    3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

    2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

    1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?
     
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No. just with unreferenced twaddle on the internet
     
  7. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So I take it you can find nothing false in the article
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,745
    Likes Received:
    73,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What the Townhall one playing the "shell and pea" game? Mate I have tried and tried to show you the misleading lies and twaddle in those articles.

    It is an OPINION piece by a "journalist" who has a very open political and anti-AGW agenda and is so full of spin I could use it as a ceiling fan

    Show me the original research - and don't link to Landsea's work like Townhall did because that was NOT research - and it seems that Townhall also cannot tell the difference
     
  9. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To imply that climatologists', glaciologists', oceanographers' conclusions are wrong because 10 incorrect conclusions (out of how many millions of conclusions) is asinine!
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I get it: Science advances, therefore Conservation of Energy might be wrong.

    Well yes, I suppose it might. Now all you need is evidence to support your view. Which I keep asking for. And which you never provide.

    So until you've got evidence, I (and anyone else with a lick of sense) will continue to accept the consensus view.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if you dig in and read many of the scientist directly involved in global warming, you will find them giving caution to predictions. Only a very few will go out on a limb and risk their reputations, one of them being Hansen but he is heavily involved in politics.

    Like I said before, we can all agree on global warming and we can agree on man's involvement, what we cannot agree on is that all is doom or gloom or on long term predictions, or on the exact cause, or even on the amount of climate sensitivity.

    The problem warmers have is that they have bought, hook line and sinker, into the doomsday scenarios and long term predictions.
     
  12. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

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

    So you can find nothing false in the article. The lies as I have shown come from the GW community.
     
  13. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was addressing the poster that seemed to have difficulty with simple math. Is that you?
     
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Scientists are naturally conservative. As it happens, conservative predictions are being overwhelmed by reality. Like this one:

    [​IMG]

    And this one:

    [​IMG]

    Not all opinions are equally correct, because not all opinions are equally informed by evidence. I've got evidence behind my opinion, and you don't have evidence behind yours. Therefore, my opinion carries more weight. Not everything is true. Some people are just plain wrong.

    The problem is, deniers don't care about the evidence, they only care about the politics.
     
  15. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

    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?
     
  17. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  20. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reference is Allison 2009. The sea level is relative to 1990 levels.

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

    Pat Michaels and Judith Curry call themselves that. Who am I to argue?
     
  21. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

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

    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.

    More wheat in Canada? Yippee.
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cite journal, peer-reviewed paper, scientist, page number, and lie. Otherwise, you're the one who's lying.

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



    Trenberth made no such statement. Hurricane seasons are caused by -- the seasons.
     
  23. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have officially gone off the deep end.
     
  24. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

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

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

    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.

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

    Here are the records:

    [​IMG]

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

    Nope, that's not what he was talking about at all. He was talking about why global temperatures go down in La Nina years
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You certainly wouldn't know, you ignore it. That's the whole point.
     

Share This Page