D'oh, Alarmists wrong again!

[westwall]

Upon furhter review it seems that the PETM was actually REALLY good for the planet. The extra heat (6 degrees C) and moisture content of the air seems to have been really beneficial to plants worldwide with the concurrent increase in fauna.


"Researchers at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama examined pollen trapped in rocks in Colombia and Venezuela before, during and after the PETM.
They found that the amount of plant-life in the forests increased rapidly during the warming event with new plant species evolving much more quickly than the older species became extinct."

The researchers believe the hotter, wetter conditions - and additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - boosted plant-life and increased biodiversity.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rainforests-global-warming.html#ixzz156mShQPi
Environmentalists 'exaggerated' threat to tropical rainforests from global warming | Mail Online

 

[DiveCon]

 

[mdn2000]

I am not going to have a link to prove this so I guess it will be easy to prove I am wrong but here goes.

A warmer earth means a longer growing season as well as more land warm enough to grow crops, the increase in CO2 will increase the yield of crops feeding more people.

Liberal's blame people for everything, they state the population of earth should be much smaller, they support abortion to accomplish this, maybe that is the agenda behind the liberals, a colder earth will result in shorter growing seasons, less food to feed people.

Lousy liberals, prefer to starve people than turn on the air conditioning.

 

[editec]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

The Human race has survive climate change after climate change. Now people like you want to claim we can not?

 

[code1211]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

And yet, while the warming has been progressing, the population has been rising.

Throughout my lifetime, I have heard that in ten years, we will not be able to feed the people if the poulation continues to grow at the then current pace.

Then the pace increases and still the people eat. Only politics and hate seem to starve people. The good Earth seems to keep pace. Despite the warming. Because of it?

 

[Old Rocks]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

The Human race has survive climate change after climate change. Now people like you want to claim we can not?

A survival situation in which a majority of the human race dies off has happened in the past according to the geneticists. So you think that is a good thing for the present?

 

[Old Rocks]

We know dramatic, or adrupt, climate change has happened in the past, we do not understand all the whys of it. Were such a climate change to occur today, in either direction, it would cause major misery and death for a good percentage of the inhabitants of this planet. By inducing a rapid warming, we make this change much more likely to happen.

Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

Dramatic climate change of the past

By analysing the ice cores that are drilled through the more than three kilometer thick ice sheet in Greenland, scientists can obtain information about the temperature and climate going back around 140,000 years.

The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change lasted perhaps 1000 years, then -- bang -- the temperature fell drastically and the climate changed again. This happened several times during the ice age and these climate shifts are called the Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the researchers who discovered and described them. Such a sudden, dramatic shift in climate from one state to another is called a tipping point. However, the cause of the rapid climate change is not known and researchers have been unable to reproduce them in modern climate models.

 

[mdn2000]

We know dramatic, or adrupt, climate change has happened in the past, we do not understand all the whys of it. Were such a climate change to occur today, in either direction, it would cause major misery and death for a good percentage of the inhabitants of this planet. By inducing a rapid warming, we make this change much more likely to happen.

Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

Dramatic climate change of the past

By analysing the ice cores that are drilled through the more than three kilometer thick ice sheet in Greenland, scientists can obtain information about the temperature and climate going back around 140,000 years.

The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change lasted perhaps 1000 years, then -- bang -- the temperature fell drastically and the climate changed again. This happened several times during the ice age and these climate shifts are called the Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the researchers who discovered and described them. Such a sudden, dramatic shift in climate from one state to another is called a tipping point. However, the cause of the rapid climate change is not known and researchers have been unable to reproduce them in modern climate models.

I would like to be around your house during Thanksgiving, I bet you its funny as hell to watch you run around screaming, "the earth is warming, the ice is melting".

 

[Truthmatters]

Here they are again failing to understand science.

The earth has gone through many warmings and coolings.

What man does now adds to the system that exsisted before we could effect the planet.

What you idiots on the right do is try to pretend this isnt true.

Now you are going to try and pretend we are improving the planet.


Lets remember you guys hate science and deny anything it says if it fits your political beliefs.


Why should anything you say on the subject be taken with anything but a grain of salt?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

The Human race has survive climate change after climate change. Now people like you want to claim we can not?

A survival situation in which a majority of the human race dies off has happened in the past according to the geneticists. So you think that is a good thing for the present?

And man can control Nature? On the world scale? You are stupider then I gave you credit for. If Nature plans to change so much we die off, guess what RETARD? Nothing you can do about it.

 

[westwall]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

The Human race has survive climate change after climate change. Now people like you want to claim we can not?

A survival situation in which a majority of the human race dies off has happened in the past according to the geneticists. So you think that is a good thing for the present?

No doubt you are referring to the "event" 70,000 years ago when theorists hold that mankind dropped down to a population of 2,000 or so. This of course occured during a COLD DRY period of drought, and furthermore it only holds true if you are a follower of the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution which has been taking a beating of late. Much research is coming to the fore that raises serious questions about that particular theory.

 

[westwall]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

Logically then you should be all in favour of a rise in temperature. The Renaissance occured during a wonderful warm period (the Medieval) and Roman culture flourished during the Roman Warming Period. The cold times saw the advent of the Dark Ages and other miserable times for mankind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

No change whatsoever? Why would that be good?

Our societies evolved dealing with floods, famines, droughts, and pestilence. These helped us grow stronger both as cultures, and as individuals. No change at all would stagnate us, and stagnation is never good. Climate changes could result in the Sahara turning into a tropical rain forest, and Antarctica becoming habitable, both of which would be beneficial here. And they keep telling me that conservatives are afraid of change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

The Human race has survive climate change after climate change. Now people like you want to claim we can not?

A survival situation in which a majority of the human race dies off has happened in the past according to the geneticists. So you think that is a good thing for the present?

Why do you think it is a bad thing? Do you want to end evolution entirely? If so, you are going to have to deal with a lot more than CO2.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We know dramatic, or adrupt, climate change has happened in the past, we do not understand all the whys of it. Were such a climate change to occur today, in either direction, it would cause major misery and death for a good percentage of the inhabitants of this planet. By inducing a rapid warming, we make this change much more likely to happen.

Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

Dramatic climate change of the past

By analysing the ice cores that are drilled through the more than three kilometer thick ice sheet in Greenland, scientists can obtain information about the temperature and climate going back around 140,000 years.

The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change lasted perhaps 1000 years, then -- bang -- the temperature fell drastically and the climate changed again. This happened several times during the ice age and these climate shifts are called the Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the researchers who discovered and described them. Such a sudden, dramatic shift in climate from one state to another is called a tipping point. However, the cause of the rapid climate change is not known and researchers have been unable to reproduce them in modern climate models.

Fear mongering again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here they are again failing to understand science.

The earth has gone through many warmings and coolings.

What man does now adds to the system that exsisted before we could effect the planet.

What you idiots on the right do is try to pretend this isnt true.

Now you are going to try and pretend we are improving the planet.


Lets remember you guys hate science and deny anything it says if it fits your political beliefs.


Why should anything you say on the subject be taken with anything but a grain of salt?

Exactly how is it that I do not understand science?

I know that climate change is cyclic.
I know that humans are impacting climate.
I know that those changes impact human population.
I know that technology is better able to deal with extreme climates than ever before in history.
I know that humans are extremely intelligent, adaptable, and capable of understanding the consequences of their actions.
I know that we will survive whatever happens, and grow stronger as a result.

You, on the other hand, are so afraid of human ingenuity that you think our only chance to survive is to go back to a pre-industrial civilization, which will result in more deaths than any other scenario, including global thermonuclear war.

Keep trying to tell me I don't understand science though, it amuses me.

 

[Sofus]

What would be truly good is no change whatever.

Our societies have developed with the climate we've had.

Massive changes mean massise disruptions in those system that we need.

Who knows? Perhaps global warming in the LONG RUN will have those positive effects this article claims.

But none of US live in a LONG RUN.


We live in the here and now where we depend on the systems which were developed based on the climate we've had.

If it changes dratically over a short period of time, taking advantage of that different climate isn't something that is easily done.

For one thing the flora a fauna of the planet cannot as rapidly change as we can change our systems, but as our systems depend on those flora a fauna, their stress becomes OUR stress.

This isn't rocket science, this is nothing but logic.

Something that apparently is in rather short supply for those who are more interesting in ax grinding than trust seeking.

I just want people to respect the Earth. It is all we have got for now, unless the aliens that seeded us here come back and take us somewhere else.

 

[Sofus]

We know dramatic, or adrupt, climate change has happened in the past, we do not understand all the whys of it. Were such a climate change to occur today, in either direction, it would cause major misery and death for a good percentage of the inhabitants of this planet. By inducing a rapid warming, we make this change much more likely to happen.

Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

Dramatic climate change of the past

By analysing the ice cores that are drilled through the more than three kilometer thick ice sheet in Greenland, scientists can obtain information about the temperature and climate going back around 140,000 years.

The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change lasted perhaps 1000 years, then -- bang -- the temperature fell drastically and the climate changed again. This happened several times during the ice age and these climate shifts are called the Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the researchers who discovered and described them. Such a sudden, dramatic shift in climate from one state to another is called a tipping point. However, the cause of the rapid climate change is not known and researchers have been unable to reproduce them in modern climate models.

I would like to be around your house during Thanksgiving, I bet you its funny as hell to watch you run around screaming, "the earth is warming, the ice is melting".

I have seen our glaciers go away over the last thirty years, it is sad. I don't mind the warmer climate here, but it does bring those really bad winds!

 

[mdn2000]

Here they are again failing to understand science.

The earth has gone through many warmings and coolings.

What man does now adds to the system that exsisted before we could effect the planet.

What you idiots on the right do is try to pretend this isnt true.

Now you are going to try and pretend we are improving the planet.


Lets remember you guys hate science and deny anything it says if it fits your political beliefs.


Why should anything you say on the subject be taken with anything but a grain of salt?

Why, because you stereotype Conservatives as to hating science. Because this has nothing to do with politics. Because people like you cannot see that your manipulated by media into believing the only way to save the earth is if you give your money to the government and corporations to save us from global warming.

Why dont you do some serious investigation into solar and wind and determine if they are the solution or the problem.

Both sides are guilty of using links to an article describing a study. Studies do not mean shit on either side of the debate.

The solution to global warming is a bigger contributer to global warming than burning oil.