Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

how is climate change a "net benefit" overall... and especially to Canada/Russia?

1. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere has a fertilizer effect on plants and makes it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis. This will help increase crop yields globally. For the vast majority of the past 500 million years in which multi-cellular life has existed on our planet in significant amounts, C02 levels have been much higher. For example, in the Cambrian Period, atmospheric C02 levels were approximately 4500 ppm, which is about 16 times pre-industrial levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

In fact, low levels of atmospheric C02 levels around 300 ppm is geologically a relatively recent phenomenon. It pretty much started at the beginning of the Neogene period (23 million years ago) when Panama was formed between North America and South America, greatly affecting global ocean currents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene Low C02 levels is one of the reasons why plants have recently evolved the C4 carbon fixation cycle (such as corn). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation

2. Warmer global temperatures will result in longer growing seasons (especially in Canada) and more habitable land (which will exceed lost habitable land from small increases in ocean levels). These longer growing seasons will result in increased crop yields and will also make it easier to extract natural resources from polar regions. For example, during the medieval warm period, grapes were grown in Northern England and agriculture was even possible in Southern Greenland by Vikings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

3. Furthermore, for the vast majority of the past 500 millions years where multi-cellular life has existed in significant amounts on Earth, the Earth's global temperature was much higher than it is now. The greatest amount of biodiversity is found in equatorial regions, not polar regions so a modest increase in global temperatures will increase biodiversity. In fact, the geological time periods were there were large increases in biodiversity generally had high global temperatures (such as the Cambrian explosion or the Cretaceous period where dinosaurs flourished).

4. Humans evolved in western equatorial Africa (kenya / tanzania) and only started migrating to other places around 100,000 years ago. Therefore, humans are suited to warm climates (it is why humans are so hairless, have lots of sweat glands and are well suited for long distance running). The temperatures at which humans are most comfortable in (room temperature, so 21-24 degrees celcius) is much higher than the global average temperature (around 14 degrees celcius). Increasing the earth's average temperature will therefore make the planet better suited for humans. As for other species, I'm a human supremacist so do not care for them as much; other species will have to adapt or be naturally selected to extinction as species have been doing for millions of years.

5. Human civilization really only started to flourish at the end of the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period It was only after this period that agriculture started to take off and humans started to become civilized. I therefore think that there is a strong link between a warmer climate and the rate of progress of human civilization.

6. In the case of Canada, warmer global temperatures will open up the North West Passage. This will greatly reduce shipping costs between Europe and East Asia and will be a great benefit to the global economy. It will also make it easier to access natural resources in Northern Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Finally, there have been many studies that try to evaluate the net effect of climate change, and all studies that I know of have concluded that climate change is of net benefit to Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-may-benefit-canada-s-farmers-1.1031816

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

Are you satisfied now?

Net benefit???

Severe tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, mudslides..can all be attributed to humans pumping GHGs into our fragile atmosphere. Some of the stuff I read on here makes me wonder.

This is just a lie propagated by climate alarmists and has no basis in science. Even the IPCC admits that there is no link between increased C02 levels / global temperatures and a greater frequency/severity of extreme weather events. The truth is that climate change will result in some weather events becoming more severe/frequent and other weather events becoming less severe/frequent. For example, the frequency & severity of tornadoes in South-Central USA (aka tornado alley) will become less while the frequency & severity of tornadoes in Southern Ontario will become greater.

Actually, extreme weather events usually occur as a result of larger temperature or pressure gradients in the atmosphere between different parts of the globe. The temperature differences between the equatorial regions and the polar regions is the primary driver of winds. The truth is, if C02 levels increase and global temperatures increase, the global temperature gradient between equatorial regions and polar regions will decrease (polar regions will warm significantly more than equatorial regions) so if anything, more C02 should decrease the frequency & severity of extreme weather events not increase it. The idea of blaming climate change for specific storms or weather events, such as the typhoon that hit Manila is ridiculous.

In fact, if you look at the recent climate change on Jupiter (which is a result of a 70 year climate cycle that is caused by atmospheric mixing), you will find that the recent decrease in the severity of extreme weather events (shrinking of the great red spot, decrease in the number of storms, smaller wind speeds) has occurred at the same time that the global average temperature on Jupiter has risen and the temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions have decreased.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You are DEAD wrong. Human caused GHGs ARE causing these disasters., I've had it with deniers.

No point on arguing with you, as Waldo has made a fool out of you many times in this thread alone.

Lol, good job at exposing the irrationality of the climate alarmist religion TimG. It's gotten to the point where socialist doesn't even want to discuss facts or look at evidence, because it contradict's socialist's religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere has a fertilizer effect on plants and makes it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis. This will help increase crop yields globally. For the vast majority of the past 500 million years in which multi-cellular life has existed on our planet in significant amounts, C02 levels have been much higher. For example, in the Cambrian Period, atmospheric C02 levels were approximately 4500 ppm, which is about 16 times pre-industrial levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

In fact, low levels of atmospheric C02 levels around 300 ppm is geologically a relatively recent phenomenon. It pretty much started at the beginning of the Neogene period (23 million years ago) when Panama was formed between North America and South America, greatly affecting global ocean currents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene Low C02 levels is one of the reasons why plants have recently evolved the C4 carbon fixation cycle (such as corn). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation

2. Warmer global temperatures will result in longer growing seasons (especially in Canada) and more habitable land (which will exceed lost habitable land from small increases in ocean levels). These longer growing seasons will result in increased crop yields and will also make it easier to extract natural resources from polar regions. For example, during the medieval warm period, grapes were grown in Northern England and agriculture was even possible in Southern Greenland by Vikings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

3. Furthermore, for the vast majority of the past 500 millions years where multi-cellular life has existed in significant amounts on Earth, the Earth's global temperature was much higher than it is now. The greatest amount of biodiversity is found in equatorial regions, not polar regions so a modest increase in global temperatures will increase biodiversity. In fact, the geological time periods were there were large increases in biodiversity generally had high global temperatures (such as the Cambrian explosion or the Cretaceous period where dinosaurs flourished).

4. Humans evolved in western equatorial Africa (kenya / tanzania) and only started migrating to other places around 100,000 years ago. Therefore, humans are suited to warm climates (it is why humans are so hairless, have lots of sweat glands and are well suited for long distance running). The temperatures at which humans are most comfortable in (room temperature, so 21-24 degrees celcius) is much higher than the global average temperature (around 14 degrees celcius). Increasing the earth's average temperature will therefore make the planet better suited for humans. As for other species, I'm a human supremacist so do not care for them as much; other species will have to adapt or be naturally selected to extinction as species have been doing for millions of years.

5. Human civilization really only started to flourish at the end of the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period It was only after this period that agriculture started to take off and humans started to become civilized. I therefore think that there is a strong link between a warmer climate and the rate of progress of human civilization.

6. In the case of Canada, warmer global temperatures will open up the North West Passage. This will greatly reduce shipping costs between Europe and East Asia and will be a great benefit to the global economy. It will also make it easier to access natural resources in Northern Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Finally, there have been many studies that try to evaluate the net effect of climate change, and all studies that I know of have concluded that climate change is of net benefit to Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-may-benefit-canada-s-farmers-1.1031816

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

Are you satisfied now?

This is just a lie propagated by climate alarmists and has no basis in science. Even the IPCC admits that there is no link between increased C02 levels / global temperatures and a greater frequency/severity of extreme weather events. The truth is that climate change will result in some weather events becoming more severe/frequent and other weather events becoming less severe/frequent. For example, the frequency & severity of tornadoes in South-Central USA (aka tornado alley) will become less while the frequency & severity of tornadoes in Southern Ontario will become greater.

Actually, extreme weather events usually occur as a result of larger temperature or pressure gradients in the atmosphere between different parts of the globe. The temperature differences between the equatorial regions and the polar regions is the primary driver of winds. The truth is, if C02 levels increase and global temperatures increase, the global temperature gradient between equatorial regions and polar regions will decrease (polar regions will warm significantly more than equatorial regions) so if anything, more C02 should decrease the frequency & severity of extreme weather events not increase it. The idea of blaming climate change for specific storms or weather events, such as the typhoon that hit Manila is ridiculous.

In fact, if you look at the recent climate change on Jupiter (which is a result of a 70 year climate cycle that is caused by atmospheric mixing), you will find that the recent decrease in the severity of extreme weather events (shrinking of the great red spot, decrease in the number of storms, smaller wind speeds) has occurred at the same time that the global average temperature on Jupiter has risen and the temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions have decreased.

Unreal. Sea levels are going to rise to astronomical proportions causing trillions of dollars in damage, and all you can do is talk about Jupiter? Yikes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, good job at exposing the irrationality of the climate alarmist religion TimG. It's gotten to the point where socialist doesn't even want to discuss facts or look at evidence, because it contradict's socialist's religion.

Religion? The usual denier claim. I've read the facts. Waldo has spent hours on here providing factual information and not one of you deniers has been able to match him. Sorry, but your argument and TimG's argument are full of holes and denier hearsay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reject your suggestion that fossil fuel use is an 'addiction' because using your logic human beings are also addicted food, air or water and the only proper response it to commit suicide to end the addiction.

Energy is the "food" for modern society which has brought more wealth and health to more people than ever before. Fossil fuels and nuclear are the only source that can deliver the necessary energy and that is not going to change any time soon. So it really makes no difference what hypothetical problems are created by CO2 we simply cannot avoid emitting CO2 anymore than we can avoid breathing.

I also expect that adaptation will happen and in 100 years the climate will be different but no one will have really noticed because humans quietly adapted to the new regime.

Reject it all you want, the crunch will come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is starting 2015 Canada will become a world leader in the battle against climate change Trudeau knows climate change is a threat to the world and to the middle class, and he has the charisma, much like Obama, to influence minds and get things done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unreal. Sea levels are going to rise to astronomical proportions causing trillions of dollars in damage, and all you can do is talk about Jupiter? Yikes.

Lol? Only 1 paragraph out of 11 talks about Jupiter. So your entire response to my post that gives 6 different benefits of climate change is a single sentence that contains a lie about rising sea levels? Sea levels are projected to increase by 0.4 m over this century. Hardly 'astronomical proportions'.

Or would you prefer that we start a new ice age, cover Canada in a thick blanket of ice so that sea levels can drop?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reject it all you want, the crunch will come.

Doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world for millennia. They have not been right yet. Seems to me it was only yesterday that "peak oil" was going to destroy civilization yet thanks to new technology we are swimming in it. why is the a CO2 crisis any more probable than the "peak oil" crisis or the "peak food" crisis that was predicted before? Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion? The usual denier claim. I've read the facts. Waldo has spent hours on here providing factual information and not one of you deniers has been able to match him. Sorry, but your argument and TimG's argument are full of holes and denier hearsay.

I'm a denier now? What exactly is it that I deny?

All I can say is starting 2015 Canada will become a world leader in the battle against climate change Trudeau knows climate change is a threat to the world and to the middle class, and he has the charisma, much like Obama, to influence minds and get things done.

Yes, all hail the Shiny Pony!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a denier now? What exactly is it that I deny?

Yes, all hail the Shiny Pony!

You deny that humans are causing the world to warm. That makes you a denier. Do you watch a lot of Fox and Sun news by any chance? LOL!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world for millennia. They have not been right yet. Seems to me it was only yesterday that "peak oil" was going to destroy civilization yet thanks to new technology we are swimming in it. why is the a CO2 crisis any more probable than the "peak oil" crisis or the "peak food" crisis that was predicted before?

Peak oil would have forced us to do what we should be doing anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You deny that humans are causing the world to warm. That makes you a denier. Do you watch a lot of Fox and Sun news by any chance? LOL!!

No I do not. Where have I said that? Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will increase global average temperatures via the greenhouse gas effect because the absorption spectra of CO2 is more opaque towards blackbody radiation from the earth than from the sun. Unlike you, I actually have a physics degree and can understand papers on climate change.

Edit: Actually I do watch Sun News occasionally as I find it entertaining.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

No I do not. Where have I said that? Increasing atmospheric C02 levels will increase global average temperatures via the greenhouse gas effect because the absorption spectra of C02 has strong peaks the correspond well with the peak frequencies of the blackbody radiation coming from our 6000K Sun. Unlike you, I actually have a physics degree and can understand papers on climate change.

Edit: Actually I do watch Sun News occasionally as I find it entertaining.

Ok. So you agree that humans are causing the earth to warm. Good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So you agree that humans are causing the earth to warm. Good.

Yes. Why did you think otherwise? Do you think that everyone who doesn't agree with your climate religion is a 'climate denier'?

I still wait for a response to my post about the benefits of climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peak oil would have forced us to do what we should be doing anyway.

Why "should" we be doing it? Because computer models which have completely failed to predict the temperature trends over the last 15 years say bad things will happen? Maybe CO2 induced warming is actually the best thing that has happened because it delays the next ice age. The entire 'warming = bad' narrative is dubious at best and largely a reflection of the ideology of the speaker rather than scientific evidence. Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Why did you think otherwise? Do you think that everyone who doesn't agree with your climate religion is a 'climate denier'?

I still wait for a response to my post about the benefits of climate change.

Waldo has done an excellent job of explain all that to you. I have read everything waldo has posted about climate change on this site and have leaned a lot from him. He is obviously well qualified in the scientific community, and there is no point on my parroting his excellent facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Why did you think otherwise? Do you think that everyone who doesn't agree with your climate religion is a 'climate denier'?

I still wait for a response to my post about the benefits of climate change.

Benefits? Hard to have a longer growing season when human cause warming is causing extreme floods and droughts. That's a benefit? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Benefits? Hard to have a longer growing season when human cause warming is causing extreme floods and droughts. That's a benefit? LOL

Could you please provide me with a scientific theoretical model that explains how an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels will result in more droughts AND floods everywhere?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please provide me with a scientific theoretical model that explains how an increase in atmospheric C02 levels will result in more droughts AND floods everywhere?

Well, here's a start for you to begin educating yourself on the subject. Floods and droughts will be more intense.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climate-change-impacts/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's a start for you to begin educating yourself on the subject. Floods and droughts will be more intense.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climate-change-impacts/

Clearly you do not understand what a scientific theoretical model is...

They say that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it.

You link is to an 'environmental action group' not a scientific group/journal and nowhere do I see a theoretical model that explains how increasing atmospheric CO2 increases extreme weather events everywhere. All I see is a single sentence on the web page you provided that is just an unjustified claim without support:

"Carbon pollution is the main reason our planet is getting hotter, increasing the chances of weather disasters, drought and flood and hurting our health."

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you do not understand what a scientific theoretical model is...

They say that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it.

You link is to an 'environmental action group' not a scientific group/journal and nowhere do I see a theoretical model that explains how increasing atmospheric CO2 increases extreme weather events everywhere. All I see is a single sentence on the web page you provided that is just an unjustified claim without support:

"Carbon pollution is the main reason our planet is getting hotter, increasing the chances of weather disasters, drought and flood and hurting our health."

I guess the truth hurts when you're narrow minded. Explore the site I provided and educate yourself, instead of thinking you are someone special because you have a physics degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is socialist a troll? I can't tell.

Socialist, please provide me with a model or scientific paper that explains how increases in atmospheric CO2 result in more extreme weather events everywhere.

And no, A link to a climate alarmist website that merely repeats the same claims without justification does not count.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that there are so many trolls wedded to the oil industry that are afraid to even try. They're worried that it may be a lot more feasible than they want it to be.

No, that's not it.

Isn't a troll someone who makes an incendiary post on a website that is deliberately intended to elicit a reaction? Why would they be trying to solve AGW?

Link to post
Share on other sites

somehow... when you first dropped that fringe-of-the-fringe denier turd a few pages back, you managed to ignore my question/challenge to you... asking you to qualify the physical basis'/mechanism behind the warming you simply claim as "Little Ice Age (LIA) recovery warming"! Challenging you to provide your LIA recovery warming attribution, the physical based attribution/mechanism behind today's relatively recent warming. Is there a reason you ignored the request put to you? Is there a problem? :lol:

Let me make one thing clear. I am not under deposition from you. Or cross-examination
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...