How do you feel about global warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Sep 29, 2010.

  1. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,615
    Thanks Received:
    4,589
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,106
    I feel that earth has warmed up near .7c since 1900 because of global warming with .12 to .18c per decade the last 20 years, but I believe the forcing is far weaker then people like Hansen or IPCC believes and I believe it's likely near 1.2-1.5, while hansen 88 believed it to be 4+ and it is widely believed within the IPCC to be around 3,,,Which would work out to about as much warming as we're seeing now. This warming is without coming out of a little ice age and the highest solar output in 2,000 years to, so a far more impressive green house effect then what we seen in the 20th century either way, but nothing like the people at the ipcc believe.

    I believe that 2100 will be .7-1.2c warmer today over the whole earth...That is still huge when you think about it...Getting us into a warmer regime then anytime in the last 2 million years. Life will be very favorable for feeding a population that will be knocking on 10 billion at the time and humanity should advance nicely within the more favorable global environment.

    More food, less cold weather extremes, lower heating bills and a happier human race. :cool:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,510
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    The true believers will be along to explain to you that the religion of Man made global warming disagrees with your assessment. They will at first try to convince you and failing that they will just label you a paid shill for the Oil Companies.

    Enjoy their attacks.
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,146
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,177
    yeah bro..........Retired is right..........you got some real hyper-k00ks in this forum. They post the same 5 links up about 500 times/year!!!
    Its hysterical because I come in for a cup of coffee here every couple of weeks and its always the same OCD stuff going on
     
  4. Granny
    Offline

    Granny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,121
    Thanks Received:
    785
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Rocky Top, TN
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    I think the whole thing is a crock.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,154
    Thanks Received:
    14,899
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,872
    You can tell how full of shit it is because they're renamed it so many times, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change, GlobalWarmerCoolering, GlobalCoolerWarminering and they finally settled on:

    It's The Great Climactic Googly Moogly, Charlie Brown

     
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,424
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    Totally wrong. Wrong on every count.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

    Response from Dr. Peter Reich

    The best evidence from state-of-the-art free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiments is inconsistent with thenotion of major sustained increases in crop yield in a world of doubled atmospheric CO2. Quantitative analyses and syntheses of those experiments indicate that the direct effects of elevated CO2 will increase crop yields by 13%(on average for those with the C3 photosynthetic pathway, such as wheat, soybeans, rice) or 0% (on average for
    those with the C4 photosynthetic pathway, such as corn, sugar cane, and sorghum); not the 40% Lord Monctonsuggests. Moreover, these estimates ignore (1) indirect effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on future temperatures, precipitation, and their variability, and hence on future crop yields and (2) otherconsequences of fossil fuelburningsuch as rising ozone pollution that will reduce crop yields. The bottom line for crop yields: combined
    effects of fossil-fuel burning (rising CO2, rising O3, climate change) are uncertain but at least as likely to be negative as positive, and shifting increasingly towards the negative the higher that CO2 concentrations rise.

    Rising CO2 fertilization of productivity (and of carbon sequestration) of forests, grasslands, savannas of the world is also likely to be less than previously anticipated from overly simplistic models. This is because other limiting factors (such as soil fertility and soil water) and other vegetation changes (reduced vegetation diversity
    and complexity) will increasingly constrain positive impacts of CO2 on productivity of non-agricultural systems. Moreover, as with crops, but likely more so (given that we can adaptively modify agriculture much more rapidly), the cascade of indirect effects of fossil-fuel burning are in aggregate likely to lead to loss of vitality, health, stability, diversity, and provisioning of ecosystem services from the world’s forests, savannas, and grasslands. The cascade of indirect effects includes increases in ozone pollution, droughts, floods, windstorms, wildfires, and native and invasive insect and disease outbreaks, that will accompany rising CO2 levels and associated climate change; and that will all have negative consequences for forests, savannas, and grasslands.

    Dr. Peter Reich: Regents Professor and Distinguished McKnight University Professor, University of Minnesota’s Department of Forest Resources. His teaching and research focus on ecology, global change, and the sustainability of managed and unmanaged terrestrial ecosystems. Regionally, his interests lie in the forests and grasslands of mid-North America and globally on terrestrial ecosystems in aggregate.
    About Us | Institute on the Environment | University of Minnesota
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    that is toooooooo funny coming from your side! hahahahaha. I believe scientific consensus comes down on the side of CO2 as a fertilizer.
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,424
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    Real scientists, actually engaged in research, not a bunch of goofs with no credential, no publication in peer reviewed journals in the subject, and no apparent knowledge in the field of climate research.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

    Response from Dr. Michael MacCracken

    Monckton’s discussion of the impacts of a continued rise in the level of CO2, which he limits to the possible increase in the yield of some crops, is extremely superficial. Just the rise in the CO2 concentration alone, independent of the impacts of climate change on the environment, is tending to acidify the oceans, and already leading to a shallowing of the depths at which the calcium carbonate making up fish skeletons, shells, and coral reefs dissolve. This is already starting to have impacts on Arctic marine systems (because the chemistry affects colder waters first) and a growing number of coastal aquaculture projects (including, for example, in the Pacific
    Northwest). [See also responses to Assertion 4 below]

    While climate change leads to a very wide range of environmental and societal impacts, those that will lead to costs likely becoming far greater than the costs of switching off of fossil fuels include the following: (a) a rise in
    sea level of perhaps 1±0.5 meters by roughly 2100, which will require substantial construction of costly barriers and likely significant population relocation from many low-lying areas; (b) poleward shifts in storm track and upward shifts in the snowline that will alter the amount and timing of river waters in ways that, combined with
    intensified evaporation and increasing societal needs, greatly limit available water resources; (c) create stresses on forests and other ecosystems that weaken them, making them much more susceptible to fires and pests; (d) human health and well-being are more greatly stressed by the rising heat index, the more frequent and intense occurrence of what have been relatively rare severe storm conditions, and a greater and spreading threat of pest and vectorborne infectious diseases—all requiring much more significant public health efforts; and (e) especially for those in currently marginal agricultural regions, more difficult conditions for farmers to deal with, including more frequent and faster onset of drought, rain coming in more intense events that overwhelms soil moisture capacity (causing
    loss of needed water to flooding runoff), intensified pressure from pests and weeds, and altered timing of plant flowering and growth that is expected to be generally disruptive and require greater efforts and training of farmers.

    Dr. Michael MacCracken:
    Chief Scientist, Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in
    Washington DC, a non-partisan, non-governmental organization established in 1986 to heighten national
    and international awareness of climate change. Dr. MacCracken recently completed a four-year term as
    president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences. For 25 years he wasan atmospheric physicist at the Physics Department of the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). His research included numerical modeling of various causes of climate change including study of the potential climatic effects of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and landcover change.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,424
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    I believe that a person holding a Phd in the field of ecology of forests and grasslands would know a great deal more about the subject than you do. What is funny is that you reject the knowledge of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject, yet accept, without any research, those whose statements agree with your opinion, an opinion formed with absolutely no knowledge of the subject.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    post up the non-pdf article so I can read it on my BB
     

Share This Page