Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,714
#4,714
MaxamusXIII said:
I disagree. I think we are repairing damage done by nature and improving our overall existence on this planet.
Click to expand...

Do you have any supporting evidence or reasoning to go along with this?

How does nature damage nature? What was the optimum condition we are repairing back to? How is warming improving our existence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,715
#4,715
Mtntrout said:
Do you have any supporting evidence or reasoning to go along with this?

How does nature damage nature? What was the optimum condition we are repairing back to? How is warming improving our existence?
Click to expand...

Well, civilization has thrived the most during the warmest periods on earth.
 
#4,717
#4,717
Mtntrout said:
Do you have any supporting evidence or reasoning to go along with this?

How does nature damage nature? What was the optimum condition we are repairing back to? How is warming improving our existence?
Click to expand...

Well, goober....... May I call you goober? Anywho...... That was intended as sarcasm and I don't do the blue font thing. But since you asked....
1)solar flares could easily damage the magnetic field causing all sorts of climate change. If we are talking about pure damage a meteor strike could end us.
B) nobody has a clue what the ideal temp is
III) I could use a tan and a longer growing season for my tomatoes
 
#4,718
#4,718
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Well, civilization has thrived the most during the warmest periods on earth.
Click to expand...

Not exactly true. There were several interglacials about as warm as present in the Pleistocene, and there is no evidence of civilization existing. The Miocene on back for hundreds of millions of years was warmer as well, and no civilizations were present (or people).

Civilization started during the Holocene, our present interglacial, but the climatic Optimum occurred at around 7,000 to 3,000 BCE. That's before the Pyramids, but does coincide with the development of permanent settlements and widespread agriculture. Now, the Medieval period occurred during a warm time that was about as warm as the 20th century (we're warmer now), and the Renaissance occurred during the "Little Ice Age".

So... No. One can not honestly say civilization "thrives" during warm periods necessarily. Civilization is an instantaneously new development in the context of long-term climate, and history doesn't seem to indicate warming is better than cooling in a general sense. Remember that a warming climate can often be a drying climate due to how saturation humidity works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,719
#4,719
MaxamusXIII said:
Well, goober....... May I call you goober? Anywho...... That was intended as sarcasm and I don't do the blue font thing. But since you asked....
1)solar flares could easily damage the magnetic field causing all sorts of climate change. If we are talking about pure damage a meteor strike could end us.
B) nobody has a clue what the ideal temp is
III) I could use a tan and a longer growing season for my tomatoes
Click to expand...

I've been called worse, and if pet names give you joy then I reckon I will take a little jab.

While solar flares play a role and a bad enough one could have serious impacts, solar flares in recorded history have not played a large part in our climate: Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature

The concept of an "ideal temperature" is not scientific. However, rapidly warming or cooling temperatures are problematic for ecosystems and humans as well. Accidentally geoengineering global temperature as we are is worth avoiding and taking seriously.

Global warming isn't necessarily going to help you tan more. That has a lot more to do with sun angle and genetics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,721
#4,721
Mtntrout said:
Not exactly true. There were several interglacials about as warm as present in the Pleistocene, and there is no evidence of civilization existing. The Miocene on back for hundreds of millions of years was warmer as well, and no civilizations were present (or people).

Civilization started during the Holocene, our present interglacial, but the climatic Optimum occurred at around 7,000 to 3,000 BCE. That's before the Pyramids, but does coincide with the development of permanent settlements and widespread agriculture. Now, the Medieval period occurred during a warm time that was about as warm as the 20th century (we're warmer now), and the Renaissance occurred during the "Little Ice Age".

So... No. One can not honestly say civilization "thrives" during warm periods necessarily. Civilization is an instantaneously new development in the context of long-term climate, and history doesn't seem to indicate warming is better than cooling in a general sense. Remember that a warming climate can often be a drying climate due to how saturation humidity works.
Click to expand...

It is no coincidence that modern civilization and humans have flourished during the Holocene. Let's see how well man thrives when the Earth is 6-10C cooler. Might have a tough time feeding himself for one.
 
#4,723
#4,723
volinbham said:
I have never stated or claimed equality. That is you reading far too much into my comments.
Click to expand...
“Some on both sides have vested interests and agendas and some do not”
“Often times too, the alarmists have an economic benefit”
“Let's not forget that there are peddlers of falsehood on both sides of this issue”

It sounds like you’re equivocating. Maybe I am reading into it too much.
volinbham said:
More importantly, I'm focusing almost entirely on how people are using the science incorrectly rather suggesting the science is bad.
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest otherwise
volinbham said:
I'm not trying to compare them. We know it has happened on one side. I'm suggesting that it could be happening on the other side since there are financial incentives on all sides of the issue.

Let's make this simpler - here's what I'm not saying:

1. I'm not saying it is happening
2. Even if it does happen I'm not suggesting it is widespread or changes the consensus on the link between CO2 and warming.

I am suggesting that because there are parties that stand to profit from policy there is an incentive to fund research that supports the policy one seeks.

That is human nature I'm afraid. It is naive to believe that only one side of an issue would stoop to biased methods to support their potential gravy train.

So, I'm raising the possibility that given the financial incentives or pure passion for the issue that it may occur in cases other than the fossil fuel folks.

I would like to see those who traced the Dark Money trail take a look. Would be an interesting story if there's any thing to it.
Click to expand...
That’s all fine and dandy, I just have trouble even speculating how that cashflow would work. We can’t come up with one example of environmental groups funding climate research period, let alone an example where the research was suspect...

I’m not saying it’s not possible, but so far nobody has come up with any halfway plausible mechanisms. And I'm especially directing that comment at the global science conspiracy crowd
volinbham said:
No doubt. Why is his analysis the superior one? Isn't it more common in such matters to have competing conclusions, analyses?

As I said I have no beef with defending one's position.
Click to expand...
Well these weren’t exactly competing analyses of some body of fact. Holdren shows where Pielke provides misleading testimony through selective quotation.

You claimed Pielke was being persecuted for his contrarian views. The point of this tangent is that (according to the letter) Pielke was singled out for his misleading testimony, not because of his general disposition.
volinbham said:
Good to hear. We agree on something :)
Click to expand...
Yep :hi: even the congressman himself agrees now

Grijalva: Climate Letters Went Too Far in Seeking Correspondence

Also related:
Climate Change Researcher [Willie Soon] Offers a Defense of His Practices
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,725
#4,725
82_VOL_83 said:
That's like one zillionth of a degree a decade.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. If you look at just CO2 alone according to their best calculations which are probably just as good as any you or anyone else can come up with its affect is pretty small. So, they claim there are all these positive feedbacks that amplify the affect of CO2. Only so far, there aren't any positive feedbacks. And, here is the kicker. Even they agree that as CO2 concentration increases its affect diminishes. That is as the atmosphere saturates with CO2 there is no increased warming without the feedbacks. Which it appears is where we are. However, we have their minions in the Obama's EPA going ahead with their plans to increase carbon restrictions which will kill our economy to the delight of some of the other economic powers of the world-namely China and India. Hopefully, our next President can reverse what these knotheads are doing. And, I hope the states just ignore them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top