Global warming - is it a bad thing?

[benny_patrick7]

I hear from every side that we are facing a catastrophe, that our planet is in peril and I just do not get the logic of it. Presume for a second that what these people are saying is exactly what is going to happen, and let us see in what kind of peril Canada is in.

They predict warming of 1 degree at the Equator and warming of 12 degrees in Canada, namely, the further to the North, the greater is the warming. Isn't this "what the doctor prescribed"?

Indeed, most of Canada territory is not fit for habitation. It is the second largest country of the world which has one of the smallest population. Warming up by 12 degrees would make the whole Canada inhabitable. Why is this a catastrophe? Imagine Canada being able to grow oranges and grapefruit, and doesn't need to import them from Florida or California. What is wrong with that? It was reported that one iceman has managed for the first time in history to grow wheat. If this not a blessing, what is? Imagine Arctic sea melts completely and become fit for navigation all year around; it is trillions of dollars in economic windfall.

If anything, Canada should not spend a penny on stopping global warming, but rather do all in its power to speed it up and so should Russia and all other Northern countries. Am I missing something?

 

[AmberEyes]

A thorough look into the research done is what you're missing. That and common sense.

A rise in temperature will kill many species of plants and animals, which in turn will kill the species that prey on them, which in turn will cause even more imbalance. Or what if the various giant bodies of water, currently frozen above land (not the north pole, that's already in the water), melt even further and cause our oceans to grow slightly and our potential water sources to diminish. Or what if some of those species as mentioned above are plant life... plants convert carbon dioxide (what you breathe out) into oxygen (what you breathe in). If they die, you die.

 

[Mulk]

Inndeed, most of Canada territory is not fit for habitation. It is the second largest country of the world which has one of the smallest population. Warming up by 12 degrees would make the whole Canada inhabitable. Why is this a catastrophe? Imagine Canada being able to grow oranges and grapefruit, and doesn't need to import them from Florida or California. What is wrong with that? It was reported that one iceman has managed for the first time in history to grow wheat. If this not a blessing, what is? Imagine Arctic sea melts completely and become fit for navigation all year around; it is trillions of dollars in economic windfall.
... Am I missing something?

Although I don't mind the idea of no more winter and more variety in our diets, there is no way to predict what the imbalance would also bring us. With the Polar Ice Caps gone, and the permafrost thawed, what will that bring us?

Also, I believe the term most people use now is "Climate Change", not "Global Warming". Which means that there will be a shift in temperature patterns. So there may be a time when nobody can grow oranges or any of the food we require because weather patterns will be so unstable that areas that do not typically get frost suddenly begin to, or the annual average temperature drops in that region and raises somewhere else and neither one is capable of obtaining the yields required to provide the food needed. Typical "bread basket" areas will become dust bowls, and fish stocks will be eliminated. There will be a chain reaction in the food chain that will be cataclysmic.

In other words the change is happening so fast everything will be F***ed up for long enough that the human population will be severely affected. You may not be around anymore to enjoy the warmer winters.

Mulk

 

[Kreskin]

America's reliance on middle east oil will kill us all long before any climate change does. Rather than speculate on what the hell is happening with the climate, lets just pretend it's a serious man-made problem, if we have to, so that we can get to the root of the real thorn in our future. North Americans need to wake the f-word up and begin their own jihad; namely stopping people like Bush-Cheney who use this debate to stall and maintain the status quo while their crooked friends line their pockets with publically mortgaged money.

 

[benny_patrick7]

A thorough look into the research done is what you're missing. That and common sense.

A rise in temperature will kill many species of plants and animals, which in turn will kill the species that prey on them, which in turn will cause even more imbalance. Or what if the various giant bodies of water, currently frozen above land (not the north pole, that's already in the water), melt even further and cause our oceans to grow slightly and our potential water sources to diminish. Or what if some of those species as mentioned above are plant life... plants convert carbon dioxide (what you breathe out) into oxygen (what you breathe in). If they die, you die.

Let's go step by step.

1) First, "species die". The only thing that will happen is California moving into Canada. I don't know species for which California climate is dangerous that they would die. If you know those species, please name them. If there are some species, they just move further to the North. The same goes for plants, they will move to the North, where by now they cannot grow.

2) "Water will flood us." Significant part of the Netherland lies below sea level for centuries. Last time I checked, they are doing quite well. The money you want to waste on fighting global warming should be spent on building dykes. By the way, quite a lot of melting already took place and global ocean level not only didn't increase, but I read that it DECREASED by several millimetres. Any explanation?

3) "If they die, you die". Plants do not die, they move to the North and Southern plants establish in their stead. This is what happens, for example, on mountains.

 

[benny_patrick7]

Although I don't mind the idea of no more winter and more variety in our diets, there is no way to predict what the imbalance would also bring us. With the Polar Ice Caps gone, and the permafrost thawed, what will that bring us?

Also, I believe the term most people use now is "Climate Change", not "Global Warming". Which means that there will be a shift in temperature patterns. So there may be a time when nobody can grow oranges or any of the food we require because weather patterns will be so unstable that areas that do not typically get frost suddenly begin to, or the annual average temperature drops in that region and raises somewhere else and neither one is capable of obtaining the yields required to provide the food needed. Typical "bread basket" areas will become dust bowls, and fish stocks will be eliminated. There will be a chain reaction in the food chain that will be cataclysmic.

In other words the change is happening so fast everything will be F***ed up for long enough that the human population will be severely affected. You may not be around anymore to enjoy the warmer winters.

Mulk

I do not get the logic of what you are writing about. The only thing which was actually observed is very tiny rise of temperature. Last time I went out, Winter is still here, Summer is still here, right now, we see Fall, and I can predict Spring. Climate change is predicted due to change in temperature and nothing else. What gives you the ground for imagining gloom and doom, rather than thinking more logical scenario, namely California coming to British Columbia. Now, how terrible is it?

It is good that you remember dustbowl. What you don't seem to remember is that they were back in 30's when there was no climate change.

 

[scratch]

I do not get the logic of what you are writing about. The only thing which was actually observed is very tiny rise of temperature. Last time I went out, Winter is still here, Summer is still here, right now, we see Fall, and I can predict Spring. Climate change is predicted due to change in temperature and nothing else. What gives you the ground for imagining gloom and doom, rather than thinking more logical scenario, namely California coming to British Columbia. Now, how terrible is it?

It is good that you remember dustbowl. What you don't seem to remember is that they were back in 30's when there was no climate change.

In the 30s, if there was no climate change, how did the `dust bowls` come about?

 

[Tonington]

Let's go step by step.

1) First, "species die". The only thing that will happen is California moving into Canada. I don't know species for which California climate is dangerous that they would die. If you know those species, please name them. If there are some species, they just move further to the North. The same goes for plants, they will move to the North, where by now they cannot grow.

Meanwhile, the bark beetles are already invading California and the SW USA from Mexico, and Canada will continue with the same pattern as the increasing temperatures fit the lifestyle patterns. The beetle winter mortality has gone from 80% down to 10% in some areas. That's pretty significant, and is consistent with other findings of the related beetle species all along the pacific coast of North America.

2) "Water will flood us." Significant part of the Netherland lies below sea level for centuries. Last time I checked, they are doing quite well. The money you want to waste on fighting global warming should be spent on building dykes. By the way, quite a lot of melting already took place and global ocean level not only didn't increase, but I read that it DECREASED by several millimetres. Any explanation?

That's plain wrong.

The Arctic Ocean continued to warm and freshen due to ice melt. This was accompanied by an "unprecedented" rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.1 inch per year.

The Associated Press: Report says Arctic temperatures at record highs

As to Netherlands doing quite well, how do you propose to do what the Netherlands has done for countries like Canada and the US which have vastly larger areas of coastline? Any idea how much that would cost? How much it would cost to replace the aquifers which become destroyed by encroaching sea water?

3) "If they die, you die". Plants do not die, they move to the North and Southern plants establish in their stead. This is what happens, for example, on mountains.

What about plants that are already established in the North? Where do they go? Where do the species go that depend on them? Reducing biodiversity is never a good thing, never.

 

[benny_patrick7]

Meanwhile, the bark beetles are already invading California and the SW USA from Mexico, and Canada will continue with the same pattern as the increasing temperatures fit the lifestyle patterns. The beetle winter mortality has gone from 80% down to 10% in some areas. That's pretty significant, and is consistent with other findings of the related beetle species all along the pacific coast of North America.

Come bloddy on! Bark beatle is not the end of the world. I have a surprise for you: there are huge forests in tropical countries and no bark beatle is killing trees there. If pines are not suitable, for this particular place, there are other trees even better. And they are resistant to beatles. You are not going to spend billions of dollars to fight bark beatles.

Grow up, people. Pines will go North where it's still winter.

That's plain wrong.
The Arctic Ocean continued to warm and freshen due to ice melt. This was accompanied by an "unprecedented" rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.1 inch per year.

The Associated Press: Report says Arctic temperatures at record highs

You don't seem to know Archimed law. Even if in Arctic ocean ice melts completely, there will be absolutely no change in the ocean level. To prove this, you can make a very simple experiment: take a deap glass of water and throw a big chunk of ice into it so that it would float in the glass. You will see part of the ice is sticking out of water. Mark the water level and wait until the ice melts completely. A suprise is waiting for you: water level will not change. It is called Archimed law.

As to Netherlands doing quite well, how do you propose to do what the Netherlands has done for countries like Canada and the US which have vastly larger areas of coastline? Any idea how much that would cost? How much it would cost to replace the aquifers which become destroyed by encroaching sea water?

Exactly the same way. Canada is so big that even if half of it goes under water, there still is more than enough space for everybody. As far as big cities are concerned, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are threatened. But should the threat arise, to protect city, is not such a huge enterprise.

What about plants that are already established in the North? Where do they go? Where do the species go that depend on them? Reducing biodiversity is never a good thing, never.

Further to the North. Look at the map, Canada is so huge. There are places where nothing grows right now. They certainly could benefit from a little warming.

 

[Tonington]

Come bloddy on! Bark beatle is not the end of the world.

I didn't say it was the end of the world. Your thread is asking whether something is really a bad thing. Losing forest is a bad thing. Is that simple enough?

Grow up, people. Pines will go North where it's still winter.

As will the beetles...

You don't seem to know Archimed law. Even if in Arctic ocean ice melts completely, there will be absolutely no change in the ocean level.

I know it very well. Can you point to where I said, or even the scientists said it was melting sea ice that was raising ocean levels? They said melting sea ice is contributing to a decreasing salinity, and that it is accompanied by a rising ocean. Where did you think that water goes that flows off of the Greenland glaciers, the melting alpine glaciers?

Exactly the same way. Canada is so big that even if half of it goes under water, there still is more than enough space for everybody. As far as big cities are concerned, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are threatened. But should the threat arise, to protect city, is not such a huge enterprise.

See, you're changing goal posts now. The original comment you had was that we can build dykes like the Dutch. Now you're saying we should abandon the land and just move people and infrastructure, which isn't cheap either.

Further to the North. Look at the map, Canada is so huge. There are places where nothing grows right now. They certainly could benefit from a little warming.

So the tundra plants which provide a food source for arctic grazers, are supposed to grow on the ocean now? On the diminishing sea ice? What becomes of the arctic charr? There's no more freshwater to move to above that where they are already?

In case you didn't notice, you can only travel north for a time before you're heading south...

 

[AmberEyes]

The arctic glaciers are sitting on the ocean, you are correct.

However, the antarctic ones are not. Nor are the continental glaciers.

 

[#juan]

There is a real threat to animals like the Polar Bear. The receding sea ice is making it almost impossible for them to get out to where their main prey, the seal, is. The loss of the Polar Bear would adversely effect the Arctic Fox who depend, to a large extent on the scraps from the kills of the larger predator. It would be a shame to lose either of these animals but I don't think we have any choice in the matter. I hope they survive. I don't know for sure whether climate change is man's doing or not but if anyone watched the "March of the Penguins", they would see that some animals are right on the fine edge of survival/extinction.

 

[scratch]

There is a real threat to animals like the Polar Bear. The receding sea ice is making it almost impossible for them to get out to where their main prey, the seal, is. The loss of the Polar Bear would adversely effect the Arctic Fox who depend, to a large extent on the scraps from the kills of the larger predator. It would be a shame to lose either of these animals but I don't think we have any choice in the matter. I hope they survive. I don't know for sure whether climate change is man's doing or not but if anyone watched the "March of the Penguins", they would see that some animals are right on the fine edge of survival/extinction.

True. A few days ago a team from New Zealand was there and their findings were dire.

 

[Walter]

There is a real threat to animals like the Polar Bear. The receding sea ice is making it almost impossible for them to get out to where their main prey, the seal, is.

Polar bear fears groundless

The U. S. government commissioned studies to support the listing of polar bears as a threatened or endangered species. Polar bear numbers are currently high and the population has been increasing rapidly in recent decades. Everyone likes polar bears, so this is good news. A decision to list would require forecasts that the current upward population trend will reverse. The government studies concluded that polar bear populations would decrease substantially.
Decision makers and the public should expect people who make forecasts to be familiar with the scientific principles of forecasting just as a patient expects his physician to be familiar with the procedures dictated by medical science. Three scientists, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Kesten Green of Monash University, and Willie Soon of The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, audited the government studies to assess whether they were consistent with forecasting principles. Their paper, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal.
They concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions and their polar bear population forecasts contravened many principles for scientific forecasting. Indeed, the reports followed fewer than one-sixth of the relevant principles. Given the importance of the forecasts, all principles should be properly applied. In short, the government reports do not provide relevant information for this decision.
Research shows that for issues such as the population of polar bears—situations that are complex and where there is much uncertainty—the best forecast is that things will follow a “random walk;” in effect, this model states that the most recent value is the best forecast for all periods in the future. Because the polar bear population has been increasing over recent decades, however, a continuation of that trend over the short term is possible.




Click on graph for better view.
Looks to me like the ice is increasing not receding. Not a wonder the Polar Bear population is increasing.

 

[Avro]

Oh, nice try Walt but I'm afraid I'll have to expose your idiocy once again.:lol:

Enter the Inhofian Polar Bear Expert

12 May 08
What a coincidence.
Just as the Alaska State Legislature allocates $2 million for a conference promoting climate change deniers' "expert" analysis of why polar bears aren't really endangered, a poster boy for polar bear junk science emerges from the woodwork.
Enter J. Scott Armstrong, who is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. His research emphasizes forecasting methods, which he has used as the cornerstone for - you guessed it - claims that the IPCC climate change projections are actually all wrong.
Now he's extended his "forecasts" to say that polar bears are doing just fine. He alluded to his research when Sen. James Inhofe called him as an "expert" to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the proposed endangered status of the polar bear; now, Armstrong has released an official statement advertising his paper.
Here's the link (warning, slow website):
Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS®). [...]
Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
[...]
Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

Armstrong's claims regarding the increasing polar bear population have been debunked again and again (which doesn't stop Inhofe and others from repeating the claims, of course).
Also, those who are familiar with climate change deniers will recognize Willie Soon 's name. He's one of the true believers that solar activity causes global warming, which has also been repeatedly debunked (quite conclusively , in fact).
Click here (pdf) to read the paper.
My forecast is that it will be quoted over and over again throughout the deniersphere.
As the saying goes, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with..," well, you know the saying.

Haha

Keep trying Walt..........:roll::lol::roll::lol::roll::lol:

 

[Tonington]

Hmm, if you minus Extent minimum from Extent maximum this year in Walts graphic, it would appear to be a record melt :smile:

 

[Scott Free]

Hey Avro and Tonkahead!!!

Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming

"Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is." - I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train

 

[Avro]

Who is 'Rocket Scientist' David Evans?

22 Jul 08
UPDATED: David Evans has sent along his definition of a rocket scientist. See below for details.

This title grabbed our attention: Top Rocket Scientist: No evidence C02 causes global warming. And it should. It is a pretty bold statement and the implications would be pretty big news.
So we decided to compile a backgrounder on 'The Top Rocket Scientist."

Here's the research database entry on David Evans:

No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.
Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.
Evans also published a "background briefing" (pdf) document for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming "skeptic" organization with close ties to the mining industry.
"I am not a climate modeler"

From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says (pdf) that "[he] know a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler."
Background

David Evans lives in Australia and gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, No Smoking Hot Spot was published in The Australian in June, 2008.The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of "a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." Evan's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
According to his bio, Evans claims to be a 'Rocket Scientist' and one article claims that he is a 'Top Rocket Scientist.' While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.
Evans answered our inquiry about his claim to being a rocket scientist with the following explanation:
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.

The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.
Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.

HaHa

Hmmmm..............interesting fellow Scott, you and Walt must subscribe to the same philosophy of if it's written on the web it must be true.:lol:

Perhaps you should exit right, that's where all koolaid is.....hurry before Walt drinks it all.:lol:

 

[benny_patrick7]

I didn't say it was the end of the world. Your thread is asking whether something is really a bad thing. Losing forest is a bad thing. Is that simple enough?

Yes, beetle is not good, but you have to look at the big picture, namely, California coming to British Columbia is good; perma frost melting and Canada becoming fit for habitation is very good; artic ocean melting and fit for navigation is extremely good. On this big picture, pine beetle is a minor annoyance, nothing more.

As will the beetles...

Try to concentrate, people are saying that beetle cannot thrive in the conditions of harsh winter. So, beetle will follow and die there.

I know it very well. Can you point to where I said, or even the scientists said it was melting sea ice that was raising ocean levels? They said melting sea ice is contributing to a decreasing salinity, and that it is accompanied by a rising ocean. Where did you think that water goes that flows off of the Greenland glaciers, the melting alpine glaciers?

Water from glaciers is a different story, but here is a fact: a lot of these glaciers melted so far, and not only was there no raising of ocean level, it was rather decreased by couple of millimeters. Do you understand why? Let me give you a hint: increase the vaporation.

See, you're changing goal posts now. The original comment you had was that we can build dykes like the Dutch. Now you're saying we should abandon the land and just move people and infrastructure, which isn't cheap either.

First of all, I repeat that there has not been a millimetre of oceans raising. Second, there no one tactic for every situation. If there is an Inuit tiny village, it is cheaper to move it. If there is a threat to Montreal or Toronto, it is cheaper to build a dyke around it. Now, was it difficult to figure it out by yourself?

So the tundra plants which provide a food source for arctic grazers, are supposed to grow on the ocean now? On the diminishing sea ice? What becomes of the arctic charr? There's no more freshwater to move to above that where they are already?
In case you didn't notice, you can only travel north for a time before you're heading south...

I used google and all the dictionaries to find out what the hell charr is, and I still have no idea what it is. Please help me.

As far as tundra is concerned, there is such a huge space left over that tundra is not in any danger of disapearing. And it will not be flooded either. Look at the map. It is high enough above the ocean. Canada has fresh water more than any country on this planet. All perma frost is water.

 

[Zzarchov]

I hate to point out this, but the OP is correct. The Arctic has very little biodiversity. Warming would self stabalize as more plantlife (overall) would grow. The water that melts from the Ice would by and large not cause massive flooding, but the air would be alot more humid. The most likely areas for flooding (Depending on scale of warming) are the Prairies. But in the end biodiversity would increase.

Lets not forget the current balance of the world is caused from events that cooled the earth a great deal and caused massive extinctions. The earth used to be massively warmer. We aren't adding new carbon to the planet, we are taking buried carbon and throwing it back into the biosphere.


The problem is our infrastructure, nor the worlds, isn't set up for a shift. The north would be full of airable land, but you got any roads or railways up there? anyway to move produce to cities?

We may do fine, up until about a billion refugees come streaming north because their land became uninhabitable for the number of people living there.


The problem isn't the climate change. Its change we aren't prepared for. And its cheaper to prevent the change, than pay for it.