Warming Climate Saves Lives!!!

[DGS49]

"It is commonly understood among academics that deaths from cold weather outweigh deaths from heat — by a sizable number. A recent study in The Lancet determined that each year cold kills about 4.5 million people, while about 600,000 die from the heat.

Moreover, when the researchers of The Lancet study assessed increased mortality from increased heat (about a half a degree per decade), there were about 116,000 more heat deaths each year and about 283,000 fewer cold deaths each year. As a practical matter, that means the temperature increase experienced since 2000 has resulted in 166,000 fewer weather-related deaths each year worldwide."

Whooooda Thunkit?

Facts of life and climate change

The Associated Press ran a headline a few days ago: “U.S. to plant a billion trees as climate change kills forests.”

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Votto]

That's it!

That is why the global elites, who are obsessed with over population and the need to thin the herd, wants to slow down global warmth!

Thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't access the article due to their paywall, but others have also used that headline.

But the paleontological record does indicate that Planet Earth flourished during much warmer climates than what we have now.

And while I have no problem with replanting burned out forests, we really do have a lot more trees now than there were early in the 20th Century. It is not an immediate crisis that warrants the U.S. Government spending more dollars on top of the near unprecedented inflation we are experiencing. No forests were more devastated than those around Mt. St. Helens in 1980 but those are coming back nicely.

"In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival."

More Trees Than There Were 100 Years Ago? It's True!

In the U.S., there are more trees than there were 100 years ago, according to the FAO. Chuck Leavell explains why.

www.treehugger.com

 

[johngaltshrugged]

When the eco nuts started talking about CO2 as a toxin that wou8ld kill us all they really jumped the shark.

I was taught in elementary school that plants need the CO2 to the produce the oxygen we need.

I still handle the cold better than the heat but I'll take mid 70's- low 80's everyday

 

[Woodznutz]

When the eco nuts started talking about CO2 as a toxin that wou8ld kill us all they really jumped the shark.

I was taught in elementary school that plants need the CO2 to the produce the oxygen we need.

I still handle the cold better than the heat but I'll take mid 70's- low 80's everyday

CO2 is just one of several "limiting" nutrients. Based on atmospheric CO2 levels we should be seeing explosive plant growth across the globe. We don't.

 

[ReinyDays]

We're at the dawn of a new Golden Age of Human Existence ...

CO2 is just one of several "limiting" nutrients. Based on atmospheric CO2 levels we should be seeing explosive plant growth across the globe. We don't.

The main limiting factor is the other product of combustion ... H2O ... roughly 90% of crop failures are due to water stress, not heat stress ... and the warmer Earth is a wetter Earth ...

 

[ding]

mamooth and Crick have argued the planet was cooling and CO2 saved us from that.

 

[Woodznutz]

We're at the dawn of a new Golden Age of Human Existence ...



The main limiting factor is the other product of combustion ... H2O ... roughly 90% of crop failures are due to water stress, not heat stress ... and the warmer Earth is a wetter Earth ...

I meant nutrients like nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous (which are added to nutrient poor croplands artificially).

 

[ReinyDays]

I meant nutrients like nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous (which are added to nutrient poor croplands artificially).

Yes ... and these can be added to croplands to take advantage of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ... more important to yields is the water ...

AGW Theory relies on carbon dioxide having an outsized radiative effect for the teeny tiny masses we're dealing with here ... anything that relies on the mass of carbon dioxide, like plant growth, will be teeny tiny ... well, teeny tiny compared to a single degree increase in temperature over 40 years as monumentally large ... [giggle] ... I don't think our great-great-great-grandchildren will care ...

 

[mamooth]

mamooth and Crick have argued the planet was cooling and CO2 saved us from that.

No, we've said no such thing.

So how do you justify it to yourself, the outright lying? Just curious.

 

[mamooth]

CO2 is just one of several "limiting" nutrients. Based on atmospheric CO2 levels we should be seeing explosive plant growth across the globe. We don't.

That's correct. Any "greening" of the earth stopped in the 1990s. Plants have all the CO2 they can handle now, so pumping in more does nothing.

 

[ding]

No, we've said no such thing.

So how do you justify it to yourself, the outright lying? Just curious.

You didn't say the planet was cooling and CO2 made it start warming? You didn't say we would be in a glacial cycle if it weren't for CO2?

 

[mamooth]

You didn't say the planet was cooling and CO2 made it start warming?

Yep, I did. Now, do you see the word "saved" there anywhere?

You didn't say we would be in a glacial cycle if it weren't for CO2?

Nope, I didn't say that. That's more complicated. We're sort of still in a glacial cycle, but we're overriding it.

But again, notice the lack of the word 'save'. I never said or implied that the glacially slow glacial cycle was a bad thing that we needed saving from. Quite the contrary, I've said that the natural cycle is what human civilization evolved with, so it's desirable to keep it.

You lied outright about that.

 

[ding]

Yep, I did. Now, do you see the word "saved" there anywhere?

Semantics. According to you the planet was cooling and would have kept cooling if it were not for CO2. What exactly do you believe happens in an icehouse planet that is cooling, dummy?

Nope, I didn't say that. That's more complicated. We're sort of still in a glacial cycle, but we're overriding it.

But again, notice the lack of the word 'save'. I never said or implied that the glacially slow glacial cycle was a bad thing that we needed saving from. Quite the contrary, I've said that the natural cycle is what human civilization evolved with, so it's desirable to keep it.

You lied outright about that.

You don't know jack shit about glacial and intergalcial cycles.

Watch and learn, dummy.

 

[ding]

The earth was very slowly cooling into the next ice age, until we changed that to fast warming.

Bam! According to you CO2 prevented the next ice age.

 

[ding]

<ahem> the planet was not heading into another glacial cycle (ice age is imprecise language) because if you'd have watched the video you would have discovered that every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular and that's the one we just went through, so the earth was not heading for a glacial cycle due to orbital forcing. So the argument that the earth was slowly cooling and then began to warm because of CO2 isn't correct.

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

 

[mamooth]

Semantics.

That's what a liar who was just caught lying big would say to cover up his lie.

I never said or implied "saved", as you claimed multiple times, even after your error was pointed out. I implied quite the opposite. You lied, and you're not sorry for lying, which means you'll lie again whenever it's convenient for you. Therefore, no one should trust anything you say.

The only purpose you serve now is to show people how someone shouldn't allow their butthurt to drive them to destroy their own credibility.

 

[mamooth]

if you'd have watched the video you would have discovered that every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular and that's the one we just went through, so the earth was not heading for a glacial cycle due to orbital forcing.

I watched the video, and it didn't say that. It said what I've always said, that the next glacial period is 25,000 - 50,000 years away.

So the argument that the earth was slowly cooling and then began to warm because of CO2 isn't correct.

So are you denying earth has been cooling for the past 8000 years, or are you denying that CO2 is causing warming? That is, which delusion are you embracing?

Correlation does not prove causation.

That's right.

Causation is proved by the increased backradiation, the decreased outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands, the stratospheric cooling, the polar amplification and the larger temperature rises at night and during winter. AGW theory explains all of that, while your theory does not.

Since your theory is contradicted by the directly observed data, your theory is wrong. The strength of your faith in it does not change that.

 

[ding]

I watched the video, and it didn't say that. It said what I've always said, that the next glacial period is 25,000 - 50,000 years away.

Then you didn't watch the video as he clearly stated every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular which the last cycle was.

So are you denying earth has been cooling for the past 8000 years, or are you denying that CO2 is causing warming? That is, which delusion are you embracing?

I couldn't have been more clear.

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

That's right.

Causation is proved by the increased backradiation, the decreased outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands, the stratospheric cooling, the polar amplification and the larger temperature rises at night and during winter. AGW theory explains all of that, while your theory does not.

Since your theory is contradicted by the directly observed data, your theory is wrong. The strength of your faith in it does not change that.

Incorrect. They prove causation from models that tune out natural variations, include the UHI effect and use low solar variability output datasets.

 

[ReinyDays]

Generally I'm loath to dispute anything from PBS ... but there's a material error in the video in Post #14 ...

The line of apsides is coincident to the major axis of the ellipse ... and the major axis of this ellipse is constant ... never changing ... with the eccentricity value, we can then calculate the minor axis ... the foci are also along the line of apsides, which is the position of the Sun, and the Sun ain't moving ... thus the major axis is constant ...

We are currently at e = 0.017, and this gives us a minor axis about 40,000 km short of a perfect circle (± 5,000 km) ... we are currently moving towards e minimum at 0.001, and this is a perfect circle within 5,000 km ... I'm not going to bother calculating irradiance ...

Thus ... finally ... the effect of orbital eccentricity occurs at the EQUINOXES ... not the solstices ... Milutin Milankovic isn't violating Kepler's Laws, you two are ... can we clean this up a little with some high school math? ...