Warming: Where Is The Harm?

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

[seer]

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.

[tabibito]

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?

[seer]

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.

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

[Sparko]

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.

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

[seer]

Dealing with you is hopeless. We've had , what, at least half a dozen threads on AGW here and on the old TWeb? We've looked at dozens if not hundreds of of scientific papers describing the physical effects, the monetary costs, the damage caused but you ignored every one. I could go to the time and trouble of posting dozens more but you'd just ignore them too. So stay in your fantasy world of pretty butterflies and fuzzy kittens. The rest of us who have to deal with reality will continue to work the problems the best we can despite the dead-weight of the willfully ignorant folks like you.

But you claimed that the drought in California was caused by global warming, you gave that as an example:

But in doing so, they were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought. While a trend of increasing drought that may be linked to global warming has been documented in some regions, including parts of the Mediterranean and in the Southwestern United States, there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.

In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.


“I’m pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/sc...ming.html?_r=0


So how can you even begin to calculate monetary costs, when you can not even show that a particular weather event like this drought was actually the result of AGW?

[Sparko]

Dealing with you is hopeless. We've had , what, at least half a dozen threads on AGW here and on the old TWeb? We've looked at dozens if not hundreds of of scientific papers describing the physical effects, the monetary costs, the damage caused but you ignored every one. I could go to the time and trouble of posting dozens more but you'd just ignore them too. So stay in your fantasy world of pretty butterflies and fuzzy kittens. The rest of us who have to deal with reality will continue to work the problems the best we can despite the dead-weight of the willfully ignorant folks like you.

Translation: "I got nothing so I will insult you and run away "

[HMS_Beagle]

I will ask again: So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming?

Why? Why would we lose our "traditional breadbasket?" You haven't shown that GW has caused more droughts, perhaps our traditional breadbasket will have longer, better growing seasons.

Well first, I very much doubt that we can reverse anything at this point especially when countries like China and India are bringing new coal plants on line weekly. Second, longer growing seasons and more growing areas will help feed this growing population. And that would be a good thing.

Dealing with you is hopeless. We've had , what, at least half a dozen threads on AGW here and on the old TWeb? We've looked at dozens if not hundreds of scientific papers describing the physical effects, the monetary costs, the damage caused but you ignored every one. I could go to the time and trouble of posting dozens more but you'd just ignore them too. So stay in your fantasy world of pretty butterflies and fuzzy kittens. The rest of us who have to deal with reality will continue to work the problems the best we can despite the dead-weight of the willfully ignorant folks like you.

[seer]

Where are your liberal sensibilities, Seer? That would be a BAD thing. Because then the planet could support more people and they would just ruin the planet faster. We need to eliminate the human race to save the planet!

Hehe...

[seer]

No. Warmer planet means loss of low lying plains, increased erosion and, because the increased temperatures result in an increased capacity for air to retain moisture, decreased rainfall.

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? If I remember the Arctic once once very warm with lots of vegetation and life.

[Sparko]

Second, longer growing seasons and more growing areas will help feed this growing population. And that would be a good thing.

Where are your liberal sensibilities, Seer? That would be a BAD thing. Because then the planet could support more people and they would just ruin the planet faster. We need to eliminate the human race to save the planet!

[seer]

Yes seer, really. Reality doesn't go away just because you don't particularly care for it.

I will ask again: So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming?

Productive growing areas may move northward into Nebraska / Montana / Canada but this will be offset by crop losses in the traditional breadbasket states. There's also the problem of moving billions of dollars' worth of food growing / food processing / transportation infrastructure from the drought areas to the new growing areas. Little details like that you probably never consider.

Why? Why would we lose our "traditional breadbasket?" You haven't shown that GW has caused more droughts, perhaps our traditional breadbasket will have longer, better growing seasons.

Animal and plant life will survive. However the Earth never had 7+ billion people on it to support before so that population will likely fall drastically. You'll be gone by that time so why should you care if a few billion people starve to death, right?

Well first, I very much doubt that we can reverse anything at this point especially when countries like China and India are bringing new coal plants on line weekly. Second, longer growing seasons and more growing areas will help feed this growing population. And that would be a good thing.

[Sparko]

Really Beagle? So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming? And wouldn't a warmer planet eventually produce more growing areas and longer growing seasons? After all the earth was once much warmer than today and animals and plants thrived. As far as coastal areas, that is mostly our fault for building to close to the shore in the first place - I knew that when I was a kid in the 60s and saw what hurricanes did to our coastal towns. And since those days we have only built up those areas more.

doncha know? We never had bad weather till global warming, er I mean "climate change" came along! Earth was a paradise. Not too much rain, not too much sun. No floods, or earthquakes or hurricanes, or blizzards or tornadoes. Why, I bet until last year, Venice was on dry land in the middle of a tropical island.