how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

You asked what impact climate change would have on agriculture where you live - you have the evidence. Increased temperatures may well mean more droughts where you live.

That isn't what the peer reviewed research says. It says that droughts were longer in duration and more severe when it was cooler. Climate science says that a warmer world will be wetter. Does wetter mean more drought in climate pseudoscience speak like warmer means colder?..

Warmer world gets wetter : Nature News
Expect a Warmer, Wetter World this Century, Computer Models Agree : News
World getting wetter and warmer - SpecialsEnvironment - www.smh.com.au

So your own scientists say that drought is not going to be a problem...one vague threat down.

You also have the evidence that climate change IS linked to the spread of tropical disease.

I also have, and have provided evidence that practice can eliminate that problem. Another vague threat down.

Both of these points have now been proven, and an honest poster would accept that.

Actually, they both failed. Drought, according to climate science is not going to be an issue and history has shown that vector born disease can be eradicated via practice.

You fail.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Again, you simply don't understand the science because you don't listen or read what other posters explain to you.

How many times do you need it explained that wet regions are becoming wetter as the climate becomes more extreme? That areas prone to drought are seeing increasing and more intense droughts than ever before?

This has been posted here dozens of times, with endless links and info - all of which you have simply ignored.

We both know that you can never and will never admit that you are wrong, but you must also realise your habit or simply refusing to read or listen makes meaningful debate with you futile, right?

 

[Saigon]

btw. The material I posted earlier proves that there IS a link between climate and the spread of diseases like malaria.

You know it, I know it.

We also both know that your ego cannot allow you to admit that.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Again, you simply don't understand the science because you don't listen or read what other posters explain to you.

You may accept information that is not backed by hard, observed evidence and assume that it has been "explained" to you. I don't. The changes you claim are not happening outside the bounds of natural variability. If you believe they are, then provide some hard proof to support the claim of unprecedented changes.

This has been posted here dozens of times, with endless links and info - all of which you have simply ignored.

Endless links to failing computer models. Computer output does not equal hard evidence and certainly not proof.

 

[SSDD]

btw. The material I posted earlier proves that there IS a link between climate and the spread of diseases like malaria.

You know it, I know it.

We also both know that your ego cannot allow you to admit that.

I didn't say that there wasn't a link. I said that it could be dealt with through practice just as malaria in the southeastern US was dealth with and eliminated through practice.

Do you ever ask yourself why you must lie about what people say?

 

[itfitzme]

The statement from the Nature article doesn't match the IPCC report.

Nature-"But climate models project that global warming will also bring weaker winds, "

IPCC-"Confidence in future changes in windiness in Europe remains relatively low. Several model studies (e.g., Zwiers and Kharin, 1998; Knippertz et al., 2000; Leckebusch and Ulbrich, 2004; Pryor et al., 2005a; van den Hurk et al., 2006) have suggested increased average and/or extreme wind speeds in northern and/or central Europe, but some studies point in the opposite direction (e.g., Pryor et al., 2005b). "

"Most of the MMD-projected pressure changes fall between the two PRUDENCE simulations shown in Figure 11.6, which suggests that the most likely outcome for windiness might be between these two cases."

Curious.



Warmer world gets wetter : Nature News

11.3.3.5 Wind Speed - AR4 WGI Chapter 11: Regional Climate Projections

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Climate and the spread of diseaseare not linked?

This article suggests otherwise:

Climate Change One Factor in Malaria Spread

Mar. 4, 2010 — Climate change is one reason malaria is on the rise in some parts of the world, new research finds, but other factors such as migration and land-use changes are likely also at play. The research, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, aims to sort out contradictions that have emerged as scientists try to understand why malaria has been spreading into highland areas of East Africa, Indonesia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Climate change one factor in malaria spread

Here's a video that deals with your cute little story. Amazingly enough (well, not really) THE leading experts on tropical disease say your story is full of shit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtWEW2nKRI]The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to that increased problems with pests, disease and storm intensity.

Wikipedia? That's your argument against all of the published, peer reviewed material stating that drought was worse back when the climate was cooler? You guys get nuttier all the time. Wiki

Do try and post with a little honesty and self-respect, SSDD.

You asked what impact climate change would have on agriculture where you live - you have the evidence. Increased temperatures may well mean more droughts where you live.

You also have the evidence that climate change IS linked to the spread of tropical disease.

Both of these points have now been proven, and an honest poster would accept that.

You won't.

Don't you dare try and lecture us on posting honestly you prevaricating little twerp. Mind your damned manners.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Again, you simply don't understand the science because you don't listen or read what other posters explain to you.

How many times do you need it explained that wet regions are becoming wetter as the climate becomes more extreme? That areas prone to drought are seeing increasing and more intense droughts than ever before?

This has been posted here dozens of times, with endless links and info - all of which you have simply ignored.

We both know that you can never and will never admit that you are wrong, but you must also realise your habit or simply refusing to read or listen makes meaningful debate with you futile, right?

You are lying through your teeth yet again. You have posted NOTHING of SUBSTANCE. That's the point. You and your ilk avoid facts whenever possible.

 

[westwall]

btw. The material I posted earlier proves that there IS a link between climate and the spread of diseases like malaria.

You know it, I know it.

We also both know that your ego cannot allow you to admit that.

THE leading experts on tropical diseases say you are full of shit. What a non-surprise....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtWEW2nKRI&feature=player_embedded]The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

Here's a video that deals with your cute little story. Amazingly enough (well, not really) THE leading experts on tropical disease say your story is full of shit.

The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

Vague threats of this and that are about all they are good for. Ask for specifics and they choke because they know that they will be shot down in no uncertain terms. For example:

I live in the southern US...Virginia specifically. The average mean temperature across the state is 55.1 degrees. If the global mean increased 2 degrees I suppose our average mean would be in the neighborhood of 57 or 58 degrees. Looking at the average state temperatures I see that Georgia has an average of 63.5..that's more than 8 degrees warmer than here.....Mississippi has an average of 63.4...again more than 8 degrees warmer than here...Florida has an average of 70.7....15.6 degrees warmer than here.

Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida with an average mean temperature that is 15.6 degrees warmer than where I live that do not already threaten me? Answer...none. A couple of degrees, if it happens, will be a welcome change in this somewhat chilly world.

 

[westwall]

Here's a video that deals with your cute little story. Amazingly enough (well, not really) THE leading experts on tropical disease say your story is full of shit.

The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

Vague threats of this and that are about all they are good for. Ask for specifics and they choke because they know that they will be shot down in no uncertain terms. For example:

I live in the southern US...Virginia specifically. The average mean temperature across the state is 55.1 degrees. If the global mean increased 2 degrees I suppose our average mean would be in the neighborhood of 57 or 58 degrees. Looking at the average state temperatures I see that Georgia has an average of 63.5..that's more than 8 degrees warmer than here.....Mississippi has an average of 63.4...again more than 8 degrees warmer than here...Florida has an average of 70.7....15.6 degrees warmer than here.

Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida with an average mean temperature that is 15.6 degrees warmer than where I live that do not already threaten me? Answer...none. A couple of degrees, if it happens, will be a welcome change in this somewhat chilly world.

I agree 100%. I live in an alpine forest right next to a desert. 2 degrees will have zero impact here. Hell three degrees would have no impact other than the make my growing season longer...which would be good. Currently my area is STILL below normal average temp and it's interfering with our veggie growing. And here is the video from THE leading experts on tropical diseases stating, once again that saggy, mammy, poopy, and oltrollingblundertrakarfraud are full of crap and warm weather has NOTHING to do with the spread of disease...

 

[itfitzme]

Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...

Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades.**

350-400ppm is a natural state for outdoor air.
1000ppm is good indoor air with good air circulation
2000ppm is bad indoor air with poor circulation

Effects:

350-400ppm No ill effects
1000ppm drowsiness
2000ppm headaches

Sorry I can't site the source, but it was a government paper and part of a Wisconsin College study. *Didn't think I'd run into this again.

...

....

It's adapt or die people...

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. *Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
>5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
>40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

Source:
Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

The issue isn't about breathable air, though. If that was it, no problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...

Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades.**

350-400ppm is a natural state for outdoor air.
1000ppm is good indoor air with good air circulation
2000ppm is bad indoor air with poor circulation

Effects:

350-400ppm No ill effects
1000ppm drowsiness
2000ppm headaches

Sorry I can't site the source, but it was a government paper and part of a Wisconsin College study. *Didn't think I'd run into this again.

...

....

It's adapt or die people...

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. *Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
>5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
>40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

Source:
Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

The issue isn't about breathable air, though. If that was it, no problem.

But the EPA has gone rogue and classified CO2 as a "pollutant" --- hasn't it?

Seems like they've gone into the social planning biz...

 

[mamooth]

You warmers are always telling us how bad it is going

You mean we give accurate info, and you exaggerate it and declare we're predicting the end of the world.

Congratulations. You've conclusively debunked your total global destruction strawman. Trouble is, you haven't touched anyone's actual argument.

Oh, there's also the fact that your "benefits" of warming are your bizarre opinions, which you justify by cherrypicking and distorting the research you like, and ignoring what you don't.

Almost nobody in Georgia wants it to get hotter, being they're not retarded. Sure, there's a fringe of stupid people who want it to get hotter, but those are the ones people point at and twirl a finger around their ear.

 

[mamooth]

Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida

I don't know about Florida, but bark beetles have wiped out western forests. Why? Lack of winter kill, longer breeding season, drought-stressed trees.

Higher temps mean more bugs. Do you classify that as one of your benefits of warming?

 

[mamooth]

And the lies just keep on coming. You claimed that malaria was wiped out in the US prior to the invention of DDT.

Liar. I specifically said "mostly wiped out". Words mean things. Malaria was way down in the USA by the time DDT came around.

So, given that you always end up lying about damn near everything everyone supposedly says, why should anyone bother speaking with you? After all, you're just going to lie about what they supposedly said or supposedly believe. Like you do here:

If the shoe fits, wear it to the dance. You are also in favor of blocking hydroelectric dams in 3rd world countries. That lack of access to electricity alone accounts for the deaths of more brown people in the world than stalin, lenin, hitler, and polpot killed combined. If you didn't have that wall outlet and all it brings to you, your life expectancy would also be 25 or 30 years...but hey, they are just brown people...right?

So when I point out how you've been a brazenly lying piece of shit, you respond by stepping it up being an even bigger brazenly lying piece of shit. You lie more readily than normal humans breathe. It's a truly remarkable talent you have.

How do you manage to look in a mirror without puking? Oh, that's right. Your cult says all of your big lies are a good and holy thing, being they're for the glory of the cult.

 

[SSDD]

Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida

I don't know about Florida, but bark beetles have wiped out western forests. Why? Lack of winter kill, longer breeding season, drought-stressed trees.

Higher temps mean more bugs. Do you classify that as one of your benefits of warming?

New thing or same old same old? History says same old same old.

 

[SSDD]

Liar. I specifically said "mostly wiped out". Words mean things. Malaria was way down in the USA by the time DDT came around.

You call 30% of a population being mostly wiped out? What was the infection rate prior to 1930?

So when I point out how you've been a brazenly lying piece of shit, you respond by stepping it up being an even bigger brazenly lying piece of shit. You lie more readily than normal humans breathe. It's a truly remarkable talent you have.

I am afraid that it is you who has once again been proven to be the lying piece of shit. Hell, piece of shit in general best describes you.

 

[itfitzme]

Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!

Ignorance is hard to defend because you got no facts. Your best option is to slam your mind closed and never, no, never open it again!

I am afraid that it is you who is short on facts. *I keep asking for facts and you keep giving me opinion. *Lets see the hard data that proves that AGW exists....following that, state how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.

You keep talking about facts but remain incapable of producing any. *The models are based on the AGW hypothesis and they are failing spectacularly. * *Look at this. *It is a graph of the output of 73 climate models compared to the satellite record and actual measurements made with balloons.

All of these models claim to be based on the same set of actual atmospheric physics but look at their output. *None of them produce the same result....in fact, they are all over the place and diverged completely from the observed temperature. *If I build a model, or 50 models based on the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the ideal gas law and run them, the results could not help but be the same because if any number of models were based on a physical law, by definition, their output would have to be the same and the output, if it were in fact based on the physical law, would match observation very closely. *That isn't what is happening with the models...they not only do not match each other even though they claim to be based on physical laws, they do not match observation.

If you are unable to see the uncertainty, flaws, and spectacular failure of the claims made by climate science, then I am afraid it is you who suffers from the closed mind.

Who is Dr Roy Spencer? *How do*CMIP-5 models of*Tropical Tropospheric Temperature fit into the discussion of mean global temperature changes and IPPC models?

I don't know, but I'm getting this sneaky suspicion that the presented graph is out of context.

It was the balloon measurments that seemed odd. If the discussion is about global average means, balloon readings have nothing to do with it.