Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Warming: Where Is The Harm?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Translation: "I got nothing so I will insult you and run away "
    Here is a one of the many hundreds of similar reports on the negative economic impact of climate change easily available to anyone who bothers to look:

    Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land
    Hanewinkel et al
    Nature Climate Change 3, 203–207 (2013)

    Abstract: European forests, covering more than 2 million km2 or 32% of the land surface, are to a large extent intensively managed and support an important timber industry. Climate change is expected to strongly affect tree species distribution within these forests. Climate and land use are undergoing rapid changes at present, with initial range shifts already visible. However, discussions on the consequences of biome shifts have concentrated on ecological issues. Here we show that forecasted changes in temperature and precipitation may have severe economic consequences. On the basis of our model results, the expected value of European forest land will decrease owing to the decline of economically valuable species in the absence of effective countermeasures. We found that by 2100—depending on the interest rate and climate scenario applied—this loss varies between 14 and 50% (mean: 28% for an interest rate of 2%) of the present value of forest land in Europe, excluding Russia, and may total several hundred billion Euros. Our model shows that—depending on different realizations of three climate scenarios—by 2100, between 21 and 60% (mean: 34%) of European forest lands will be suitable only for a Mediterranean oak forest type with low economic returns for forest owners and the timber industry and reduced carbon sequestration
    But the willfully ignorant will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      Here is a one of the many hundreds of similar reports on the negative economic impact of climate change easily available to anyone who bothers to look:



      But the willfully ignorant will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.
      How does that prove anything? It is just another report trying to claim what MIGHT happen IN THE FUTURE (the year 2100??? sheesh).

      You made the claim that AGW HAS been proven to be affecting our world and economy. Yet when Seer asked you a legitimate question, you just tossed out an insult and refused to back up your claim. It's easy to blamed bad weather on AGW. It makes a great political tool. But as seer has said, can you show that the weather is worse now than it has been in the past? One bad winter. Oh no! it's Climate Change!!! (note not called "global warming" any more because it's easier to blame any sort of weather on "climate change" even blizzards) - A mild summer? Climate Change!!! Flood? Climate change! No flood? Climate change!

      AGW has become the "god of the gaps" for anything the liberals want to use it for. Good weather, bad weather, anything at all.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        How does that prove anything? It is just another report trying to claim what MIGHT happen IN THE FUTURE (the year 2100??? sheesh).

        You made the claim that AGW HAS been proven to be affecting our world and economy. Yet when Seer asked you a legitimate question, you just tossed out an insult and refused to back up your claim. It's easy to blamed bad weather on AGW. It makes a great political tool. But as seer has said, can you show that the weather is worse now than it has been in the past? One bad winter. Oh no! it's Climate Change!!! (note not called "global warming" any more because it's easier to blame any sort of weather on "climate change" even blizzards) - A mild summer? Climate Change!!! Flood? Climate change! No flood? Climate change!

        AGW has become the "god of the gaps" for anything the liberals want to use it for. Good weather, bad weather, anything at all.
        Like I said, the willfully ignorant will refuse to read any scientific studies and will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          Like I said, the willfully ignorant will refuse to read any scientific studies and will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.
          No HMS, this is because you claim things that can't be proven, like that drought in California was caused by global warming. That is a claim without evidence.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            This does not make sense. When the earth was much warmer wasn't it also more lush? More tropical? Was there less rainfall back then, with more deserts?
            Overall, no.
            If I remember the Arctic once once very warm with lots of vegetation and life.
            The arctic circle was once warmer and lush, true enough - what were conditions in the rest of the world like at the time? Coastal regions will be OK, but interiors won't be. During the ice age, Australia had vegetation extending throughout most of its land mass. Now it is 70% desert. Even in the time since European settlement, large tracts of land that were at first marginal for agriculture have become suitable only for cattle.
            Quick question: when do we see more rainfall, cooler seasons or warmer?
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              Overall, no.
              Ok so you agree that when the earth was much warmer there wasn't less rainfall with more deserts. So why should it be any different going forward?

              The arctic circle was once warmer and lush, true enough - what were conditions in the rest of the world like at the time? Coastal regions will be OK, but interiors won't be.
              I suspect that when the ice caps were warm and lush that the rest of the world just just as lush and tropical. Why wouldn't they be? I mean back then the world was feeding and supporting dinosaurs.

              "The flourishing of the dinosaurs and a range of other data indicates that the Cretaceous period was considerably warmer and boasted a high degree of CO2 in the atmosphere” Dr Price.


              Quick question: when do we see more rainfall, cooler seasons or warmer?
              I have no idea.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                No HMS, this is because you claim things that can't be proven, like that drought in California was caused by global warming. That is a claim without evidence.
                You and Sparko sure love to trot out the Tobacco Company defense, don't you?

                In the 60's and 70's science came up with a ton of evidence showing the negative health and economic impact of smoking tobacco. The Tobacco lobby responded with "science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. And here's Mary Jones, a two-pack-a-day smoker for 40 years and she doesn't have emphysema! Therefore the anti-smoking evidence is just a bunch of politically motivated lies!"

                I know you guys think the Earth was specially created for humans to rape and trash as they see fit, so rape and trash it you will. Screw those future generations, they can deal with our mess. Meanwhile those of us who do understand the science and the long term negative impacts of AGW will keep working the problem. All we ask is that the selfish lumps like you stay out of our way.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Quick question: when do we see more rainfall, cooler seasons or warmer?
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I have no idea.
                  Says it all really
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    You and Sparko sure love to trot out the Tobacco Company defense, don't you?

                    In the 60's and 70's science came up with a ton of evidence showing the negative health and economic impact of smoking tobacco. The Tobacco lobby responded with "science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. And here's Mary Jones, a two-pack-a-day smoker for 40 years and she doesn't have emphysema! Therefore the anti-smoking evidence is just a bunch of politically motivated lies!"

                    I know you guys think the Earth was specially created for humans to rape and trash as they see fit, so rape and trash it you will. Screw those future generations, they can deal with our mess. Meanwhile those of us who do understand the science and the long term negative impacts of AGW will keep working the problem. All we ask is that the selfish lumps like you stay out of our way.
                    HMS, I quoted a NY Times article that quoted scientists in the field. And the NY Times is not a right wing paper. Your claim was false, there is no evidence that the drought in California was the result of AGW. And there was no evidence that the recent Midwest drought was the result of AGW. The fact is HMS is that these events have been happening forever and even more intensely in the past. And remember you made these SPECIFIC claims.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Says it all really
                      So what is your point? You agree that there wasn't less rainfall or more desert when the earth was much warmer - so what are you getting at?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        H.M.S. Beagle and tabibito, please! What is your definition of "climate"? I am willing to discuss the subject on the basis of your definition, but I have no idea what that is. Some events (e.g., drought in California) can be blamed on El Nino and La Nino; are they climate changes or not? I would say, no, weather, but maybe you disagree, insisting, "NAY! CLIMATE CHANGE!"
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          HMS, I quoted a NY Times article that quoted scientists in the field. And the NY Times is not a right wing paper. Your claim was false, there is no evidence that the drought in California was the result of AGW. And there was no evidence that the recent Midwest drought was the result of AGW. The fact is HMS is that these events have been happening forever and even more intensely in the past. And remember you made these SPECIFIC claims.
                          ""science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking!!"



                          Meanwhile the data shows the precipitation average in the US west with a steadily decline over the last 100 years

                          Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 07-01-2014, 12:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            Like I said, the willfully ignorant will refuse to read any scientific studies and will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.
                            well, you should know, since you are an expert at willful ignorance.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              ""science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking!!"



                              Meanwhile the data shows the precipitation average in the US west with a steadily decline over the last 100 years

                              Why do you need a model to show what has already happened? You don't. You use actual data. That should give you a small clue.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Why do you need a model to show what has already happened? You don't. You use actual data. That should give you a small clue.
                                The blue part of the graph is actual data.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                40 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 07-20-2021, 06:52 AM
                                45 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-18-2021, 12:17 PM
                                19 responses
                                69 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X