Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

[ClosedCaption]

That's your purview darling. I look at the planet in terms of millenia and millions and billions of years. You clowns ignore any history of the Earth that occurred prior to 30 years ago.

Actually that's the purview of the OP and article from Forbes and a number of posters as well. Sorry sweetie, but I didn't make them say it.

Wrong again Tojo.

Do you see yet how that totally screws your mantra?

No, you are lying. The Forbes article does say that and you cant pin it on me no matter how you change the subject

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's your purview darling. I look at the planet in terms of millenia and millions and billions of years. You clowns ignore any history of the Earth that occurred prior to 30 years ago.

Actually that's the purview of the OP and article from Forbes and a number of posters as well. Sorry sweetie, but I didn't make them say it.

Wrong again Tojo.

The article does say that and changing the subject is not a defense

The whole meme of AGW "theory" could exist only by ignoring what occurred prior to 30 years ago. Every claim that what happened in the 90's, 00's, and now was "unprecedented" is easily refuted if one just looks 50 years ago.

No, the theory exist without your permission or guidelines of how it could only exist because you say so.

It got to be so bad that Hansen and Co. had to go back and falsify the historical record to try and prop up the fraud. The problem was...it kept not warming up again like they hoped and prayed it would.

Cool story bro but again has dick to do with what I'm talking about

Finally they had to admit there has been no warming fro at least a decade....which means that all of these supposed things that have occurred over the last decade due to warming couldn't have.

Do you see yet how that totally screws your mantra?

Again, Do you think the theory of global warming only refers to warming? And in certain spans of 10-20 years?

You guys keep claiming that warming has stopped therefore global warming is a fraud, but you and Pop will not answer a direct question because that would expose your dancing.

Here I'll ask again, There hasn't been warming in the last decade. Do you think the theory of Global Warming refers to only warming? If not, why keep talking about "warming"?

4th Time I'm asking this question...What is the correlation between actual warming in the past decade to the theory of Global Warming?

 

[Mustang]

Really???

1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice
Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.

Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.

The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the world’s largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago.

NY Times

The people who have traditionally depended on the spring and summer run off from that glacier for the irrigation of their crops and for their drinking water are probably not going to be able to sustain a living there anymore. Now, imagine what would happen to countless towns and cities if glaciers the world over melt, especially in areas of the world where there are millions of people 'downstream' across hundreds of miles and international borders who have depended on glacial run off every year in order to sustain their lives!

There are people living in some desert who are going to get a larger supply of water than they are used to. Most climate models that predict massive problems actually show that, overall, more people will benefit from the changes than will be harmed. Am I supposed to care about the lives of a few thousand people more than I care about the millions who will get more food?

Whether it's heat waves and droughts that stunt the growth of crops (if not killing them outright), or it's flooding that washes them away, the changing weather patters only serve to decrease yields even as populations are rising.

So, how is it that millions more people will get food when the climactic changes that take place will negatively affect areas where the crops have been traditionally grown?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people who have traditionally depended on the spring and summer run off from that glacier for the irrigation of their crops and for their drinking water are probably not going to be able to sustain a living there anymore. Now, imagine what would happen to countless towns and cities if glaciers the world over melt, especially in areas of the world where there are millions of people 'downstream' across hundreds of miles and international borders who have depended on glacial run off every year in order to sustain their lives!

There are people living in some desert who are going to get a larger supply of water than they are used to. Most climate models that predict massive problems actually show that, overall, more people will benefit from the changes than will be harmed. Am I supposed to care about the lives of a few thousand people more than I care about the millions who will get more food?

Whether it's heat waves and droughts that stunt the growth of crops (if not killing them outright), or it's flooding that washes them away, the changing weather patters only serve to decrease yields even as populations are rising.

So, how is it that millions more people will get food when the climactic changes that take place will negatively affect areas where the crops have been traditionally grown?

The net effect of increasing arable land area is more food. The fact that some areas will have poor crops only matters if we assume that the entire world infrastructure collapses because the modern world is able to move food from areas that have surplus crops to places where there is a lack due to the weather changes.

Want to tell me how climate change will collapse modern civilization?

 

[Mustang]

There are people living in some desert who are going to get a larger supply of water than they are used to. Most climate models that predict massive problems actually show that, overall, more people will benefit from the changes than will be harmed. Am I supposed to care about the lives of a few thousand people more than I care about the millions who will get more food?

Whether it's heat waves and droughts that stunt the growth of crops (if not killing them outright), or it's flooding that washes them away, the changing weather patters only serve to decrease yields even as populations are rising.

So, how is it that millions more people will get food when the climactic changes that take place will negatively affect areas where the crops have been traditionally grown?

The net effect of increasing arable land area is more food. The fact that some areas will have poor crops only matters if we assume that the entire world infrastructure collapses because the modern world is able to move food from areas that have surplus crops to places where there is a lack due to the weather changes.

Want to tell me how climate change will collapse modern civilization?

Increasing arable land? Where IS this new arable land, exactly?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Have our partisan divides become so intense that folks would rather form an opinion on this based on the opinion of a political pundit who agrees with them rather than that of a climatologist who disagrees?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Have our partisan divides become so intense that folks would rather form an opinion on this based on the opinion of a political pundit who agrees with them rather than that of a climatologist who disagrees?

Basically yes

 

[westwall]

Actually that's the purview of the OP and article from Forbes and a number of posters as well. Sorry sweetie, but I didn't make them say it.

Wrong again Tojo.

The article does say that and changing the subject is not a defense




No, the theory exist without your permission or guidelines of how it could only exist because you say so.

It got to be so bad that Hansen and Co. had to go back and falsify the historical record to try and prop up the fraud. The problem was...it kept not warming up again like they hoped and prayed it would.

Cool story bro but again has dick to do with what I'm talking about

Finally they had to admit there has been no warming fro at least a decade....which means that all of these supposed things that have occurred over the last decade due to warming couldn't have.

Do you see yet how that totally screws your mantra?

Again, Do you think the theory of global warming only refers to warming? And in certain spans of 10-20 years?

You guys keep claiming that warming has stopped therefore global warming is a fraud, but you and Pop will not answer a direct question because that would expose your dancing.

Here I'll ask again, There hasn't been warming in the last decade. Do you think the theory of Global Warming refers to only warming? If not, why keep talking about "warming"?

4th Time I'm asking this question...What is the correlation between actual warming in the past decade to the theory of Global Warming?

WHAT warming in the last decade?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wrong again Tojo.

The article does say that and changing the subject is not a defense




No, the theory exist without your permission or guidelines of how it could only exist because you say so.



Cool story bro but again has dick to do with what I'm talking about

Finally they had to admit there has been no warming fro at least a decade....which means that all of these supposed things that have occurred over the last decade due to warming couldn't have.

Do you see yet how that totally screws your mantra?

Again, Do you think the theory of global warming only refers to warming? And in certain spans of 10-20 years?

You guys keep claiming that warming has stopped therefore global warming is a fraud, but you and Pop will not answer a direct question because that would expose your dancing.

Here I'll ask again, There hasn't been warming in the last decade. Do you think the theory of Global Warming refers to only warming? If not, why keep talking about "warming"?

4th Time I'm asking this question...What is the correlation between actual warming in the past decade to the theory of Global Warming?

WHAT warming in the last decade?

Typo:

What is the correlation between NO warming in the past decade to the theory of Global Warming?

 

[westwall]

Whether it's heat waves and droughts that stunt the growth of crops (if not killing them outright), or it's flooding that washes them away, the changing weather patters only serve to decrease yields even as populations are rising.

So, how is it that millions more people will get food when the climactic changes that take place will negatively affect areas where the crops have been traditionally grown?

The net effect of increasing arable land area is more food. The fact that some areas will have poor crops only matters if we assume that the entire world infrastructure collapses because the modern world is able to move food from areas that have surplus crops to places where there is a lack due to the weather changes.

Want to tell me how climate change will collapse modern civilization?

Increasing arable land? Where IS this new arable land, exactly?

Yes, Canada would become another bread basket in a warmer world. I do find it amusing that you think warm areas can't produce food. Brazils average temp is 6 degrees above the US and they don't seem to have a problem growing anything.

On the north island of New Zealand they have farms growing trees that are native to Washington State and they grow as much in five years as they grow in 30 years in Washington. Why is that? Warmth and water bucko...warmth and water...

 

[westwall]

The article does say that and changing the subject is not a defense




No, the theory exist without your permission or guidelines of how it could only exist because you say so.



Cool story bro but again has dick to do with what I'm talking about



Again, Do you think the theory of global warming only refers to warming? And in certain spans of 10-20 years?

You guys keep claiming that warming has stopped therefore global warming is a fraud, but you and Pop will not answer a direct question because that would expose your dancing.

Here I'll ask again, There hasn't been warming in the last decade. Do you think the theory of Global Warming refers to only warming? If not, why keep talking about "warming"?

4th Time I'm asking this question...What is the correlation between actual warming in the past decade to the theory of Global Warming?

WHAT warming in the last decade?

Typo:

What is the correlation between NO warming in the past decade to the theory of Global Warming?

I have a meeting to go to but here's a better question....

How do the failed predictions of ever increasing warming based on excess amounts of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere affect the theory of AGW?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So, you're the second person to cite that article then back away immediately when asked directly if you believe what the article states! I see a pattern of ppl posting things they don't believe just to post it, then run from how stupid it is

 

[nodoginnafight]

Have our partisan divides become so intense that folks would rather form an opinion on this based on the opinion of a political pundit who agrees with them rather than that of a climatologist who disagrees?

Basically yes

Pretty sad stuff.

 

[Mustang]

The net effect of increasing arable land area is more food. The fact that some areas will have poor crops only matters if we assume that the entire world infrastructure collapses because the modern world is able to move food from areas that have surplus crops to places where there is a lack due to the weather changes.

Want to tell me how climate change will collapse modern civilization?

Increasing arable land? Where IS this new arable land, exactly?

Yes, Canada would become another bread basket in a warmer world. I do find it amusing that you think warm areas can't produce food. Brazils average temp is 6 degrees above the US and they don't seem to have a problem growing anything.

On the north island of New Zealand they have farms growing trees that are native to Washington State and they grow as much in five years as they grow in 30 years in Washington. Why is that? Warmth and water bucko...warmth and water...

Your post is the kind of post that frustrates me in any debate because it is so rife with assumptions which simply aren't true. Consequently, your arguments aren't even remotely valid. You see, the upper latitudes of Canada are not some kind of wholesale rich yet frozen farmland just lying fallow and waiting for a thaw and a planting season in order to spring forth with an abundance of crops. Much of it is basically frozen marshland that really wouldn't be suitable at all to grow anything resembling a crop of what? Corn? Wheat? Of course, you've forgotten something else that's kind of important. The growing season (not to mention the individual days) is/are too damn short to grow the kinds of crops that have evolved to grow in the continental US during the long summer growing season months.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whether it's heat waves and droughts that stunt the growth of crops (if not killing them outright), or it's flooding that washes them away, the changing weather patters only serve to decrease yields even as populations are rising.

So, how is it that millions more people will get food when the climactic changes that take place will negatively affect areas where the crops have been traditionally grown?

The net effect of increasing arable land area is more food. The fact that some areas will have poor crops only matters if we assume that the entire world infrastructure collapses because the modern world is able to move food from areas that have surplus crops to places where there is a lack due to the weather changes.

Want to tell me how climate change will collapse modern civilization?

Increasing arable land? Where IS this new arable land, exactly?

Why don't you ask all the climatologists who talk about how melting the ice caps will result in tropical weather conditions throughout Northern Canada and Siberia, not to mention new rainfall patterns over the Sahara. I thought you paid attention to science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have our partisan divides become so intense that folks would rather form an opinion on this based on the opinion of a political pundit who agrees with them rather than that of a climatologist who disagrees?

You tell me, since most climatologists are admitting the major disaster that they thought was inevitable is, apparently, not going to happen despite the massive increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 15 years. Which am I supposed to listen to, the scientist that are admitting that the models are wrong, or the pundits that are insisting we need to prepare for an imaginary disaster?

 

[Mustang]

What bullshit.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

You idiots constantly stating how wrong the climate scientists predictions have been. Yet all the predictions of the denialists have been dead wrong. Not just a little off, but dead wrong.

Up to 2000 you jackasses were saying that nothing at all was happening, then when everyone could see it out there back door, you changed your lies to, well, yes, but it is natural cycles. But none of you can tell us what those natural cycles are.

We have been in a period of low Total Solar Irridiance, strong La Ninas, and very much increased atmospheric aerosols, due to the industrialization of India and China. Yet what we see is a pause in temperature, not a cooling. We should be seeing a strong cooling, like we saw for a while in the 60's and 70's.

The one common denominator of all of your posts is they are all desperate for the money that the fraud will give them. What a joke.

It's a handful of scientists who take money from the right to deny climate change.

Probably not the summa cum laude grads.

 

[westwall]

So, you're the second person to cite that article then back away immediately when asked directly if you believe what the article states! I see a pattern of ppl posting things they don't believe just to post it, then run from how stupid it is

I have backed away from nothing. However, as a scientist, I look at real world observations and modify my conjectures and theories based on those observations.

Why is it the climatologists are the only "scientists" who don't?

 

[westwall]

Increasing arable land? Where IS this new arable land, exactly?

Yes, Canada would become another bread basket in a warmer world. I do find it amusing that you think warm areas can't produce food. Brazils average temp is 6 degrees above the US and they don't seem to have a problem growing anything.

On the north island of New Zealand they have farms growing trees that are native to Washington State and they grow as much in five years as they grow in 30 years in Washington. Why is that? Warmth and water bucko...warmth and water...

Your post is the kind of post that frustrates me in any debate because it is so rife with assumptions which simply aren't true. Consequently, your arguments aren't even remotely valid. You see, the upper latitudes of Canada are not some kind of wholesale rich yet frozen farmland just lying fallow and waiting for a thaw and a planting season in order to spring forth with an abundance of crops. Much of it is basically frozen marshland that really wouldn't be suitable at all to grow anything resembling a crop of what? Corn? Wheat? Of course, you've forgotten something else that's kind of important. The growing season (not to mention the individual days) is/are too damn short to grow the kinds of crops that have evolved to grow in the continental US during the long summer growing season months.

There is not one singe assumption in anything I posted. We KNOW that it is true based on archeological and paleontological data from the regions mentioned from periods when it was much warmer. Greenland had huge trees during the Holocene Thermal Maximum when temps were 8C warmer than today.

Do try and read a book sometime...you may actually learn something.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So, you're the second person to cite that article then back away immediately when asked directly if you believe what the article states! I see a pattern of ppl posting things they don't believe just to post it, then run from how stupid it is

I have backed away from nothing. However, as a scientist, I look at real world observations and modify my conjectures and theories based on those observations.
Why is it the climatologists are the only "scientists" who don't?

I observe as well, like how observe you didnt answer the question that stemmed from the article that YOU, you posted twice. Three times for the other guy. I'll ask you again with back story: you posted an article saying that it hasn't gotten hotter in the past 10-15 years.

What is the correlation between no warming in the last 10-20 years to the theory of Global Warming?

Unless of course, you have another meeting you need to attend all of a sudden.