Positives and negatives of global warming
Ilya Shambat
Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most
climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
great harm at considerable cost.
Agriculture
While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also
on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt
those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that
higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to
global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is
very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer
will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth.
Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal
periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands
and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic
livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on
countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over
which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for
example.
Health
Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable
groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to
additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to
be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is
widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-
bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in
places it hasn’t been seen before.
Polar Melting
While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits,
these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental
effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice
hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat),
causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback;
the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as
well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases
methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from
the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates).
Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to
sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.
Ocean Acidification
A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to
the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional
CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising
effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
Melting Glaciers
The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle
impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s
population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring
melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water,
agriculture – may fail.
Sea Level Rise
Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by
modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water,
which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes
with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted.
Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and
Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-
level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the
problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.
Environmental
Positive effects of climate change may include greener rainforests and
enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegitation in northern
latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of
the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen
poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water,
increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due
to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global
photoplankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals,
changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species
loss.
Economic
The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while
there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report
made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the
specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were
far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios
projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as
low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade,
transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance,
investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of
both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased
volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and
insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.
Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military
conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over
water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic
growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious
manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the
detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the
countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically.
Dawlish
> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Any outright lies in that deniers? I don't see any, or I would say.
It's just a balanced and informative post, the like of which I don't
see often. Deniers won't like it. but it's up to them to point out the
weaknesses. It's written in careful language and of course a "may" may
also be a "may not", but this is all about likelihoods and the
scenairios are far more likely to occur than the ones presented by
deniers - my opinion, of course, but one shared by almost all
scientists.
Dawlish
Must ask though. Is this your writing, or is it from skeptical
science? Not that Skeptical science is wrong - if you follow the links
to the original research, you'll find that what they say is perfectly
kosher and linked to good, peer-reviewed papers - but of course
deniers don't follow the research and will probably shout "blog"!,
like they do with "Real Science" as if it is somehow equivalent to the
denier's blogs and right wing publications that they almost always
copy and paste from.
I'd be happy to fight these battles only on peer-reviewed literature,
but that would be a little unfair on the deniers, as they have hardly
got any to quote.
tg
Deniers have the *most* trouble with this kind of writing because it
puts them in the position of having to answer *without* being able to
claim 'conspiracy of the socialist scientists'. Certain things just
don't require a peer-reviewed paper, like whether there will be more
mosquitoes---and more dangerous ones---in places that currently
experience very little impact from tropical diseases.
There are many such phenomena that are readily observable to lay
people, like changes in mountain glaciers and snowpack, as well as
precipitation patterns. Very few people are going to be convinced that
flooding in the spring and drought in the summer are positive
outcomes.
The only answer you ever get is that there is some miraculous just-so-
phenomenon that counteracts the effect; this is not surprising since
anywhere from 30% to 60% of deniers are also Creationists.
-tg
Claudius Denk
> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
>
> Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships,
You are calling this a list of cause and effect relationships?
> showing that most
> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
> great harm at considerable cost.
>
> Agriculture
> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also
> on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt
> those supplies
Vague, speculative, incidental.
Bill Ward
So have you now dropped the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is causing
catastrophic GW?
Brad Guth
> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Those +/- GW issues are pretty much associated with those of us as
having sufficient resources and spare wealth at risk to work with. As
you've pointed out that the poor and still developing (or rather
lacking whatever development) as our servitude nations of cheap
sweatshops and mineral/hydrocarbon resources, are simply screwed
unless you and others of your think-tank have any better plan of
action.
So, what are your plans for the future?
~ BG
Brad Guth
Mainstream obfuscation and of course their perpetual denial of being
in denial is expected, because AGW supposedly doesn't exist and even
GW isn't half as bad as you or I might care to interpret.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Dirty and damp CO2 is a corrosive and global dimming factor, and
otherwise global dimming certainly isn't providing a cooling factor,
especially when it's a dirty co2 layer/blanket parked near and
directly on the surface.
~ BG
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
And who made that claim? Lead me to a peer reviewed paper which has
come to that conclusion. It isn't causing catastrophic GW. You seem to
have made that up. Go see tundy and ask him to explain what is meant
by a strawman argument.
James
news:e3725512-3525-4849...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com
> On Nov 7, 7:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
>>
>>> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
>>> great harm at considerable cost.
>>
>>> Agriculture
>>> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends
>>> also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to
>>> disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been
>>> productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and
>>> bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight
>>> reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is
>>> governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be
>>> disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which
>>> is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water
>>> supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.
>>> Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose
>>> climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields
>>
>>> Health
>>> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among
>>> vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also
>>> vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves
>>> are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter
>>> deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will
>>> encourage migration of disease- bearing insects like mosquitoes and
>>
>>> Polar Melting
>>> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between
>>> the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial
>>> benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives.
>>> Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and
>>> increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo
>>> (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is
>>> also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and
>>> Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of
>>> Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent
>>> greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it
>>> is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the
>>> Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise
>>> with no benefits accruing.
>>
>>> Ocean Acidification
>>> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to
>>> the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional
>>> CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising
>>> effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
>>
>>> Melting Glaciers
>>> The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the
>>> principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of
>>> natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies �
>>> drinking water, agriculture � may fail.
James
news:24e48f05-5e81-4bca...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> On Nov 7, 6:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:42:13 -0800, tg wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 7:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-
>>>>> negatives.htm
>>
>>>>> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
>>>>> great harm at considerable cost.
>>
>>>>> Agriculture
>>>>> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends
>>>>> also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to
>>>>> disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been
>>>>> become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic
>>>>> and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of
>>>>> sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it
>>>>> is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be
>>>>> disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which
>>>>> is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water
>>>>> supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.
>>>>> Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries
>>>>> whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over
>>>>> for example.
>>
>>>>> Health
>>>>> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among
>>>>> vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are
>>>>> also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to
>>>>> heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as
>>>>> winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes
>>>>> will encourage migration of disease- bearing insects like
>>>>> been seen before.
>>
>>>>> Polar Melting
>>>>> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between
>>>>> the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial
>>>>> benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives.
>>>>> Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and
>>>>> increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo
>>>>> (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat,
>>>>> is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier
>>>>> and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of
>>>>> Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent
>>>>> greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where
>>>>> it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the
>>>>> Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level
>>>>> rise with no benefits accruing.
>>
>>>>> Ocean Acidification
>>>>> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits
>>>>> to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by
>>>>> additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe
>>>>> destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
>>
>>>>> Melting Glaciers
>>>>> The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the
>>>>> principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of
>>>>> by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water
Peer review in climate = mutual admiration society
tunderbar
> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
>
> Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most
> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
> great harm at considerable cost.
>
> Agriculture
> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also
> on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt
> those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that
Nope, Not likely to disrupt anything that isn't already being
disrupted from time to time and season to season. And climate change
may make dry areas wetter and wet areas drier for all we know.
> higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to
> global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is
> very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer
> will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth.
There is plenty of good land up north. In the summer seasons, the days
are longer. The growing seasons may be shorter but the days are
longer. In fact one of the best growing areas in Manitoba is north of
Dauphin. Global warming can only help where there is good land up
north. Including Europe, Canada, Asia and Russia.
> Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal
> periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands
> and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic
> livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on
> countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over
> which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for
> example.
Agriculture has always had to deal with such things and they will
continue. And we are told repeatedly that there is much more impact up
north than in the middle or equatorial latitudes. Hey, I'm just
repeating what you alarmists have been parroting for years now.
>
> Health
> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable
> groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to
> additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to
> be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is
> widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-
> bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in
> places it hasn’t been seen before.
"expected to be" means squat. Cold kills much more than heat, in the
real world. Deal with it.
>
> Polar Melting
> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the
> Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits,
> these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental
> effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice
Polar bear population currently equals approx 25,000 while it was
approx 5000 30 years ago. Accordingly all the while the temps were
supposedly going up.
Get it? Temps warm, polar bears population goes up. Can you explain
that in light of your statement above?
> hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat),
> causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback;
> the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as
> well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases
> methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from
> the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates).
> Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to
> sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.
CO2 + Methane = very very minor additional heat in the atmosphere,
negligible and/or immeasurable.
>
> Ocean Acidification
> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to
> the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional
> CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising
> effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
Fraud #3, after ozone and CO2. And no one is buying it.
Bawana
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:24e48f05-5e81-4bca...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 6:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:42:13 -0800, tg wrote:
> >>> On Nov 7, 7:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-
> >>>>> negatives.htm
>
> >>>>> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
> >>>>> great harm at considerable cost.
>
> >>>>> Agriculture
> >>>>> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends
> >>>>> also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to
> >>>>> disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been
> >>>>> become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic
> >>>>> and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of
> >>>>> sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it
> >>>>> is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be
> >>>>> disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which
> >>>>> is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water
> >>>>> supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.
> >>>>> Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries
> >>>>> whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over
> >>>>> for example.
>
> >>>>> Health
> >>>>> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among
> >>>>> vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are
> >>>>> also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to
> >>>>> heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as
> >>>>> winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes
> >>>>> will encourage migration of disease- bearing insects like
> >>>>> been seen before.
>
> >>>>> Polar Melting
> >>>>> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between
> >>>>> the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial
> >>>>> benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives.
> >>>>> Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and
> >>>>> increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo
> >>>>> (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat,
> >>>>> is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier
> >>>>> and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of
> >>>>> Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent
> >>>>> greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where
> >>>>> it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the
> >>>>> Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level
> >>>>> rise with no benefits accruing.
>
> >>>>> Ocean Acidification
> >>>>> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits
> >>>>> to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by
> >>>>> additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe
> >>>>> destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
>
> >>>>> Melting Glaciers
> >>>>> The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the
> >>>>> principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of
> >>>>> by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water
=incestuous lib-turd-shit-eaters
Bill Ward
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:24e48f05-5e81-4bca...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>> On Nov 7, 6:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:42:13 -0800, tg wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 7:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-
>>>>>> negatives.htm
>>>
>>>>>> Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most
>>>>>> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
>>>>>> great harm at considerable cost.
>>>
>>>>>> Agriculture
>>>>>> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends
>>>>>> also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to
>>>>>> disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been
>>>>>> suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become
>>>>>> productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and
>>>>>> bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight
>>>>>> reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is
>>>>>> governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be
>>>>>> disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which
>>>>>> is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water
>>>>>> supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.
>>>>>> Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose
>>>>>> climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields
>>>>>> reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.
>>>
>>>>>> Health
>>>>>> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among
>>>>>> vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also
>>>>>> vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves
>>>>>> are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter
>>>>>> deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will
>>>>>> encourage migration of disease- bearing insects like mosquitoes and
>>>>>> malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before.
>>>
>>>>>> Polar Melting
>>>>>> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between
>>>>>> the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial
>>>>>> benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives.
>>>>>> Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and
>>>>>> increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo
>>>>>> (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is
>>>>>> also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and
>>>>>> Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of
>>>>>> Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent
>>>>>> greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it
>>>>>> is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the
>>>>>> Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise
>>>>>> with no benefits accruing.
>>>
>>>>>> Ocean Acidification
>>>>>> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to
>>>>>> the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by
>>>>>> additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe
>>>>>> destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
>>>
>>>>>> Melting Glaciers
>>>>>> The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the
>>>>>> principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of
>>>>>> the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by
>>>>>> natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies –
>>>>>> drinking water, agriculture – may fail.
It appears Dawlish is denying there is a movie called "An Inconvenient
Truth", and Al Gore, blessed be his corpulence, never got an Oscar for it.
Wouldn't that make Dawlish a "denier"?
Does anyone really care?
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Helllo Bilbo. 0-202 Gore. you've joined the club. Well Done (he's in
it too!).
Stupid denier.
PS Read any good books by Lindzen recently?
tg
What is "catastrophic GW"? How would I know whether it is happening
or not? Please give examples of observations that could be made to
determine if it occurs.
Is it something like a transitional fossil---never defined, so you
Creationists can always claim that they don't exist?
-tg
tg
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e3725512-3525-4849...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Nov 7, 7:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
>
> >>> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
> >>> great harm at considerable cost.
>
> >>> Agriculture
> >>> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends
> >>> also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to
> >>> disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been
> >>> productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and
> >>> bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight
> >>> reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is
> >>> governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be
> >>> disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which
> >>> is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water
> >>> supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.
> >>> Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose
> >>> climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields
>
> >>> Health
> >>> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among
> >>> vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also
> >>> vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves
> >>> are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter
> >>> deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will
> >>> encourage migration of disease- bearing insects like mosquitoes and
>
> >>> Polar Melting
> >>> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between
> >>> the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial
> >>> benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives.
> >>> Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and
> >>> increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo
> >>> (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is
> >>> also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and
> >>> Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of
> >>> Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent
> >>> greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it
> >>> is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the
> >>> Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise
> >>> with no benefits accruing.
>
> >>> Ocean Acidification
> >>> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to
> >>> the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional
> >>> CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising
> >>> effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
>
> >>> Melting Glaciers
> >>> The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the
> >>> principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of
> >>> natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies
Observation. I haven't done a formal study, but I have strong
confidence in the lower bound, since many are open about it.
The higher estimate is based on various correlations, including, as I
demonstrate in this thread, the use of eerily similar arguments which
are rhetorical fallacies.
Are you suggesting that climate deniers are exclusively within the
minority of US citizens who accept the validity of the Theory of
Evolution?
-tg
James
It doesn't matter if they are creationists or don't subscribe to the
theory of evolution. They are obviously in the minority and you take
comfort in using that fact as a form of ridicule. If they have questions
that warmers have no answer for, it doesn't mean anything other than AGW
folks can't answer them and have to resort to such stupid tactics.
Bill Ward
See "An Inconvenient Truth", for which Al Gore received an Oscar. You
can probably check it out from your local library. By now, you may need
to look in the humor section.
> Please give examples of observations that could be made to
> determine if it occurs.
I've been asking that very question. No plausible answers have been
forthcoming.
> Is it something like a transitional fossil---never defined, so you
> Creationists can always claim that they don't exist?
No, I don't think so. It's something that AGWers made up, to try to get
political power. Are you denying it? Or do you still think it's viable?
Not that it really matters.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
It really does matter whather they are creationists. You could not
make a bigger statement to the world that you are completely anti-
science, if you are a creationist. As far as I know, no-one sitting
outside of the stupid seats is a creationist. If there is, show us
someone who is.
tg
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
I know you guys aren't very good at math, but minority is not the same
as majority.
>and you take
> comfort in using that fact as a form of ridicule.
No, even if they were in the minority, the ridicule comes from the
fact that they are anti-science authoritarians.
It is not an ad hominem argument to demonstrate that denialists have
such characteristics, since it bears directly on their response to
scientific evidence.
> If they have questions
> that warmers have no answer for, it doesn't mean anything other than AGW
> folks can't answer them
No, it means that they are not asking rational questions. I have asked
any number of denialists to explain what *would* constitute an answer,
and they never can. This is exactly what Creationists do with
'transitional fossils' for example; they will never define what
qualifies as such, but then claim that none exist.
-tg
Michael Gordge
> Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most
> climate change impacts...............
"Climate change"? so what's happened to "global warming caused by cows
farting"? less confident that the globe is getting hotter now, are
ewes?
MG
Michael Gordge
> Any outright lies in that deniers?
The shift in the nasal chanter's mantra from "global warming" to
"climate change", cant make up their minds, may or may not, could or
could not, possible or impossible.
> I don't see any, or I would say.
Are ewe in denial that AGW is a gigantic fucking hoax changing from
AGW to AGCC?
MG
Geo-logical
<ca24ca45-3c3f-43c5...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:10 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Herešs a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most
> > climate change impacts...............
>
> "Climate change"? so what's happened to "global warming caused by cows
> farting"? less confident that the globe is getting hotter now, are
> ewes?
>
> MG
Guess What?
Long before GW, many species went extinct. Like 99% of all the species
that ever lived on the Earth are now extinct.
You do the math.. Humans , GW or no. Are going Extinct.
the q. remains.
Who'll be the last to know and the first to GO, when TSHTF?
--
Karma, What a concept!
James
You don't know that. You're making it up.
>
> It is not an ad hominem argument to demonstrate that denialists have
> such characteristics, since it bears directly on their response to
> scientific evidence.
No. It does not. You are equating it with religion.
>
>> If they have questions
>> that warmers have no answer for, it doesn't mean anything other than
>> AGW folks can't answer them
>
> No, it means that they are not asking rational questions. I have asked
> any number of denialists to explain what *would* constitute an answer,
> and they never can. This is exactly what Creationists do with
> 'transitional fossils' for example; they will never define what
> qualifies as such, but then claim that none exist.
Apparently you believe anyone who doesn't agree with you does not ask
rational questions because they are religious in nature. How fucking
arrogant can you get.
As to transitional fossils, it's not up to the sceptic to provide the
definition. It would appear there are no rational answers and that is
why you ask them to define what should be there. IOW, you have no idea.
Pitiful
All you've replied is that anyone who has questions on evolution is a
creationist.. Such stupidity as that is exactly what the warmers are
trying to say. Such bigotry seems to be the MO in such disagreements.
Your rationale is incredibly weak.
James
You are defining someone/anyone who doesn't agree with you as a
creationist and anti-science. That's bigotry. Nothing more. It proves to
all that you cannot possibly be objective about anything.
To use Lloyd's favorite as an example, do you think creationists believe
in gravity? I guess not since they are creationists and anti-science.
k...@kymhorsell.com
[...]
> You do the math.. Humans , GW or no. Are going Extinct.
> the q. remains.
> Who'll be the last to know and the first to GO, when TSHTF?
Right. You're a deer caught in the headlights of an on-coming car.
Why get out of the way? You're gunna die anyway...
Your car is headed for a think concrete wall at high speed --
why hit the brakes? It wouldn't do any good, anyway. You were gunna
die sometime. And why burden the planet with any more of your progeny?
I can only see an upside to not hitting the brakes.
Defeatism means never having to think. You don't need to learn.
You don't need to plan. You don't need a means of escape.
You don't need to read or work out at the gym. You really don't
need to do anything by exist. And why even bother with that?
In the long run, you're dead.
Defeatism is therefore the primary defence of the Stupid.
It is the "surrender reflex" of the herd animal.
And if it wasn't a Good Think to be stupid herd animal,
then it wouldn't have evolved.
It's a Good Thing to be a herbivore. If it wasn't a Good Thing to be a
herbivor it would not have evolved. And Carnivores need something to eat,
after all.
--
R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com>
If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
Immortalist
Has human activities altered the environment at all?
Andy F
be able to name a well written article by a climate skeptic which has
been refused publication.
Francis A. Miniter
The poster who questions peer review seems to be unaware of
the sometimes intense competitiveness of scientists.
--
Francis A. Miniter
In dem Lande der Pygmäen
gibt es keine Uniformen,
weder Abzeichen, noch irgend welche Normen,
Und Soldaten sind dort nicht zu sehen.
Siegfried von Vegesack, "Es gibt keine Uniformen"
from In dem Lande der Pygmäen
Claudius Denk
> On 08/11/2010 00:38, James wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:24e48f05-5e81-4bca...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> >> On Nov 7, 6:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:42:13 -0800, tg wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 7, 7:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-
> >>>>>> negatives.htm
>
> >>>>>> climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
> >>>>>> great harm at considerable cost.
>
> >>>>>> Agriculture
> >>>>>> While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends
> >>>>>> also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to
> >>>>>> disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been
> >>>>>> become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic
> >>>>>> and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of
> >>>>>> sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it
> >>>>>> is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be
> >>>>>> disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which
> >>>>>> is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water
> >>>>>> supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.
> >>>>>> Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries
> >>>>>> whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over
> >>>>>> for example.
>
> >>>>>> Health
> >>>>>> Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among
> >>>>>> vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are
> >>>>>> also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to
> >>>>>> heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as
> >>>>>> winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes
> >>>>>> will encourage migration of disease- bearing insects like
> >>>>>> been seen before.
>
> >>>>>> Polar Melting
> >>>>>> While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between
> >>>>>> the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial
> >>>>>> benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives.
> >>>>>> Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and
> >>>>>> increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo
> >>>>>> (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat,
> >>>>>> is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier
> >>>>>> and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of
> >>>>>> Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent
> >>>>>> greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where
> >>>>>> it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the
> >>>>>> Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level
> >>>>>> rise with no benefits accruing.
>
> >>>>>> Ocean Acidification
> >>>>>> A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits
> >>>>>> to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by
> >>>>>> additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe
> >>>>>> destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
>
> >>>>>> Melting Glaciers
> >>>>>> The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the
> >>>>>> principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of
> >>>>>> by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water
If there is something right with the peer-review process then you
should be able to name one well written and peer-reviewed article by a
global warming adherent that indicates an experimental attempt to
falsify the assumption/premise that atmospheric CO2 has a thermal
effect on the atmosphere. The fact that no such experiment and no
such paper exists is all the evidence I need to conclude that this
notion that CO2 causes atmospheric warming is Peter Pan science and
not real science.
It's funny that the AGW adherents are so determined to believe what
they want to believe that they think it gives them a mandate to
rewrite the rules of science. The fact is there is no experimental
evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere.
tg
What are you talking about? This is going on all the time---it isn't
something that one individual can do, so analysis is done on reported
data from various sources.
Why doesn't Exxon-Mobil finance some individual to do this
experiment---maybe you have the credentials? I'm sure they have the
money to pay you well, and if you do succeed, you will be set for
life.
Oh wait, Exxon-Mobil *did* ask their scientists, of which there are
plenty and well-qualified, and they all told them CO2 did have an
effect on the global climate system energy balance. Or do you think
all the scientists who are very well paid by the fossil fuel industry
are also part of the conspiracy, and they are all looking for gummint
grants?
-tg
Michael Gordge
> Has human activities altered the environment at all?
Are there moronic human beings polluting cyberspace with their idiotic
leftist anti-human Kanting fucking garbage?
Of course there are, do ewe have a sensible question?
MG
Michael Gordge
> In article
> <ca24ca45-3c3f-43c5-ad36-1d43cec73...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:10 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > climate change impacts...............
>
> > "Climate change"? so what's happened to "global warming caused by cows
> > farting"? less confident that the globe is getting hotter now, are
> > ewes?
>
> > MG
>
> Guess What?
> Long before GW, many species went extinct. Like 99% of all the species
> that ever lived on the Earth are now extinct.
> You do the math.. Humans , GW or no. Are going Extinct.
> the q. remains.
> Who'll be the last to know and the first to GO, when TSHTF?
> --
> Karma, What a concept!
Is this your first attempt? fucking moron.
MG
*VFW*
Media Madders.Lie wrote:
> >> Czar Holdren's "Global Climate Disruption" isn't the most convoluted
> >> term to obfuscate the Climate Scam, however. Some Moonbats refer to
> >> Human activity as "Inadvertent Climate Modification..."
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:22:57 -0500, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
> wrote: GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION Issue from 2 Or 3 Years Ago May Still
> Be Problem
>
> WASHINGTON-According to a report released this week by the Center for
> Global Development, climate change, the popular mid-2000s issue that
> raised awareness of the fact that the earth's continuous rise in
> temperature will have catastrophic ecological effects, has apparently
> not been resolved, and may still be a problem.
> This 2007 chart predicting rising temperatures worldwide could still
> possibly be worth looking at today.
> While several years have passed since Global Warming was considered
> the most pressing issue facing mankind, recent studies from the Center
> for Atmospheric Research, the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the
> Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and basically any scientific
> report available on the issue confirmed that it is not only still
> happening, but might also be worth stopping.
> "Global Warming, if you remember correctly, was the single greatest
> problem of our lifetime back in 2007 and the early part of 2008," CGD
> president Nancy Birdsall said. "But then the debates over Social
> Security reform and the World Trade Center mosque came up, and the
> government had to shift its focus away from the dramatic rise in sea
> levels, the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, and the
> imminent destruction of our entire planet."
> The new report claims we may see a return to the ominous days of 2007,
> when terrible flooding and storms of unprecedented scale and intensity
> were something mankind was concerned about. Continued Birdsall,
> "Because the problem of Global Warming and massive environmental
> devastation appears to be lingering, however, the time may be right
> for the federal government to consider dealing with it again in some
> way." According to the 300-page document, though Global Warming-and
> the worldwide homelessness and drought associated with it-was a
> desperate problem immediately following the release of the Academy
> Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, China's undervalued
> currency, the midterm elections, and gay marriage have since
> monopolized lawmakers' time. It concludes that the likelihood of any
> of these matters flooding the entire Eastern Seaboard and leaving the
> state of Florida completely submerged is "very slim." The report
> further suggests global warming might be worth reversing, especially
> if mankind wants to avoid the unprecedented food shortage that an
> overwhelming majority of scientists and agricultural experts predict
> will happen within 85 years if global warming is not reversed.
> "The impending disaster we talked so much about stopping back in 2007
> may actually still occur,' Nancy Birdsall, President, Center for
> Global Development. "I was a bit surprised by our findings, because I,
> along with the rest of my colleagues, thought that the process of
> fixing climate change ended soon after [2007 rock concert] Live
> Earth," CGD assistant director George Oliver told reporters. "But it
> turns out that the things needed to stop it, like substantive energy
> legislation, worldwide cooperation to reduce carbon emissions, and a
> massive cultural shift toward sustainable living actually didn't
> happen at all." "We kind of just assumed that the threat of total
> annihilation spurred everyone into action back in '07 and that
> everything got better," Oliver added.
>
> Oliver said his group is making several recommendations to elected
> officials, some of which include fully comprehending the fact that
> human beings-actual human beings just like themselves-will be living
> on the planet when climate change begins to destroy it. The document
> also suggests that taking steps to prevent the earth from becoming
> completely unlivable should, for the moment, take precedence over
> tasks that do not do that. Moreover, the report states that the 192
> countries that participated in the U.N.'s 2009 conference in
> Copenhagen to fix climate change should have used the 12-day symposium
> to fix climate change. "Last year's federal budget included more than
> $200 million in funding for the Office of Personnel Management,"
> Birdsall said. "Since nobody really knows what that is, we suggest
> that money perhaps be spent making sure the oceans don't turn into
> acid." Thus far, the study has gained unanimous favor in the
> scientific community, which was admittedly surprised in 2008 and 2009
> at how quickly a defining issue that will undoubtedly affect everyone
> on the planet became so heavily politicized and took a backseat to
> health care reform, the housing bubble, and replacing Jay Leno on The
> Tonight Show.
> "Climate change is real, and we might be killing our planet more every
> day," said climatologist Helen Marcus, who has made similar statements
> in interviews in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
> 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. "We need to make a
> serious effort to stop it, or, you know, we'll all die. There really
> isn't much else to say."
he who destroys the environment that gives us life forces....well, you
do the math.
Good News! the earth will heal and many life forms will escape the fate
of the humans.
Google; Renewal.
Peter Baeder
> Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
>
> great harm at considerable cost.
>
dry climate, so it will come back to the good old days in 1813 when
the US attempted to invade Canada, their million man army was turned
back by 50,000 British Regulars, 500,000 Canadians and several
thousand indians. And then the British marched down to DC and
torched the White House in revenge for the sacking of Toronto.
Even now, as we speak, Indiana's water table is dropping
substantially. Which is why the State of Indiana is not allowed to
take water from the Great Lakes. Only states and provinces from the
Great Lakes who return the water can do so.
Indiana is drying up. Do you really think that things are going to
be better for the USA?
New York City is just slightly above sea level, another two metres
will wipe out the subway system and cost critical damage. And NYC is
just but one.
Peter Baeder
>
>
>
> > Fromhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
>
> > Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most
> > climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do
> > great harm at considerable cost.
>
I guess the US military during the days of Bush was full of shit when
they recognized Global Warming as the biggest threat to security in
the next 100 years?
Some of these asshats need to listen to Gwynne Dyer's "Water Wars".
It's all about Climate Change and how it effects national security.
Gynne is not a kook. He's a reputable war correspondent and author.
Geo. Pomeroy
>
> I guess the US military during the days of Bush was full of shit when
> they recognized Global Warming as the biggest threat to security in
> the next 100 years?
>
> Some of these asshats need to listen to Gwynne Dyer's "Water Wars".
> It's all about Climate Change and how it effects national security.
> Gynne is not a kook. He's a reputable war correspondent and author.
>
> http://www.gwynnedyer.com/
>
Yep, Dyer sounds like another crazy left winger.
Look at his credentials:
GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and
lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was
originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees
from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in
Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served
in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy
Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on
international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45
countries.
His first television series, the 7-part documentary 'War', was aired
in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, 'The Profession of Arms', was
nominated for an Academy Award. His more recent television work includes the
1994 series 'The Human Race', and 'Protection Force', a three-part series on
peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards. His award-winning
radio documentaries include 'The Gorbachev Revolution', a seven-part series
based on Dyer's experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in
1987-90, and 'Millenium', a six-hour series on the
emerging global culture.
Dyer's major study "War", first published in the 1980s, was completely
revised and re-published in 2004. During this decade he has also written a
trio of more contemporary books dealing with the politics and strategy of the
post-9/11 world: 'Ignorant Armies' (2003), 'Future: Tense' (2004), and 'The
Mess They Made' (2006). The latter was also published as 'After Iraq' in the
US and the UK and as 'Nach Iraq und Afghanistan' in Germany.
His most recent projects are a book and a radio series called
'Climate Wars', dealing with the geopolitics of climate change. They have
already been published and aired in some places, and will appear in most
other major markets in the course of 2009.
Peter Baeder
I would call that guy an expert on the military condition and how
climate change affects it.
So much for CO2 is food! :)
Bret Cahill
> unless you and others of your think-tank have any better plan of
> action.
>
> So, what are your plans for the future?
Francis A. Miniter
>>
> Well, the USA will rot in hell because it will have a very arid and
> dry climate, so it will come back to the good old days in 1813 when
> the US attempted to invade Canada, their million man army was turned
> back by 50,000 British Regulars, 500,000 Canadians and several
> thousand indians. And then the British marched down to DC and
> torched the White House in revenge for the sacking of Toronto.
>
Million man army in 1813???? What history book did you read?
The regular army only reached about 38,000 by war's end,
and the local militias mostly operated in their own areas,
which meant that many were not involved at all.
And no, 500K Canadians were not involved in the fighting.
More like 14,000, including militias.
"Marched down to DC" ? No, wrong again. They sailed up
Chesapeake Bay and came across the peninsula.