The rise and rise of Climate Blasphemy

Even if we assume the eco-nuts are right or that the earth is going through a warming period for whatever reason.....I fail to see how warming is 100% BAD and 0% good. Actually the good of a warmer planet outweigh the bad by a great deal, especially when it comes to food production. Russia and China could actually feed themselves with a warmer earth and hundreds of millions of new acres will come into production worldwide and we will grow citrus much further north than we can now.

The alarmists of course make yet an other false assumption....they assume nothing can adapt. Some things won't but most things will

Econuts? Like the NOAA?
 
It's too late? Well good! Then there is no sense shutting the barn door after the cows are out. Why are we even talking about this?

I'm not much of a betting man, but I would be willing to bet you a considerable sum of money you are completely wrong. There is about as much chance that we are headed for the Global microwave as there is we are headed for the global deep freeze. And, if you don't have a political agenda, you are aiding and abetting people who do.

How much do you want to bet?
 
There are plans to have a lot more than 60,000 square miles of them. IN fifty years we may have an unbroken path of turbines from the Canadian border to Texas.

That is not true. That stat comes from what you call an econut website.
 
Yes, and those projections are based on ASSUMED positive feedback factors of 20%-80%. That's the critical assumption, and it's shaky at best. If you can find me any long-term stable system that operates under such high positive feedback quotients, then there might be a scientific basis for this assumption.

Even though most climate models assume positive feedback from the net of water processes (water vapor increase, decreased ice albedo, and cloud formation), the IPCC admits they don't even know the net sign of these factors. If feedback is zero, net warming from CO2 is capped at 1.2 degrees C. If it's negative, as all long-term stable natural processes are, net warming should be between 0-1 degrees C.

THAT is the fatal flaw in climate model projections.

The positve feedback is already happening. The open ocean absorption and the melting of the permafrost is already beginning.
 
The positve feedback is already happening. The open ocean absorption and the melting of the permafrost is already beginning.

And you know that's from AGW and not part of the solar cycle how exactley?
 
Last edited:
Even if we assume the eco-nuts are right or that the earth is going through a warming period for whatever reason.....I fail to see how warming is 100% BAD and 0% good. Actually the good of a warmer planet outweigh the bad by a great deal, especially when it comes to food production. Russia and China could actually feed themselves with a warmer earth and hundreds of millions of new acres will come into production worldwide and we will grow citrus much further north than we can now.

The alarmists of course make yet an other false assumption....they assume nothing can adapt. Some things won't but most things will

And they forget that the earth is not a static place, and never has been.

Their arrogance is beyond reason. They're like, "Okay, we're here, and we're maintaining the status quo REGARDLESS of the history of the planet heretofore...."
 
The positve feedback is already happening. The open ocean absorption and the melting of the permafrost is already beginning.

So the observed warming to date is net of all feedbacks? That means you can attribute even less of the observed warming to CO2 directly, because some must be attributed to the other warming effects you just mentioned.

Warming to date must be CO2 Forcing + CO2 feedbacks = .6 degrees. You have to apply the same assumptions about feedback to historic climate if you include the same assumptions in your projections of future climate.
 
And you know that's from AGW and not part of the solar cycle how exactley?

Because the scientists at the Stanford Solar Center who study the sun say that the sun accounts for at the most 25% of global warming.
 
So the observed warming to date is net of all feedbacks? That means you can attribute even less of the observed warming to CO2 directly, because some must be attributed to the other warming effects you just mentioned.

Warming to date must be CO2 Forcing + CO2 feedbacks = .6 degrees. You have to apply the same assumptions about feedback to historic climate if you include the same assumptions in your projections of future climate.

No, the past has nothing to do with what is happening now because CO2 levels are higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
 
And they forget that the earth is not a static place, and never has been.

Their arrogance is beyond reason. They're like, "Okay, we're here, and we're maintaining the status quo REGARDLESS of the history of the planet heretofore...."

No, your arrogance is beyond reason.

We are on the verge of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere in a short 200 years. What will the effect of that be?
 
No, the past has nothing to do with what is happening now because CO2 levels are higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years.

HAHAHA! You have got to be kidding me.

Of course the past matters! Without it, you have no scientific basis for future predictions. If you're suggesting that CO2 is about to trigger a powerful positive feedback mechanism that's never existed before, I can with equal scientific merit suggest that CO2 is about to trigger a powerful negative feedback mechanism that will cool the Earth. Without empirical evidence, all you've got is a weak hypothesis.
 
HAHAHA! You have got to be kidding me.

Of course the past matters! Without it, you have no scientific basis for future predictions. If you're suggesting that CO2 is about to trigger a powerful positive feedback mechanism that's never existed before, I can with equal scientific merit suggest that CO2 is about to trigger a powerful negative feedback mechanism that will cool the Earth. Without empirical evidence, all you've got is a weak hypothesis.

The North Pole is melting.

That's pretty good "empirical evidence."
 
Prove that it's caused by humans, nitwit. Or even that it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top