Global warming - is it a bad thing?

[Tonington]

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.

Minor annoyance? How is losing trees a good idea? That just increases How is permafrost melting good? You plan on building infrastructure or agriculture on peat bogs?

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

How is it a harsh winter with warming temperatures? Try to keep up please.

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.

Water that evaporates falls back to land as precipitation. Where does that water go? The satellite measurements show net loss in the glaciers. Mountain glaciers are shrinking. Surface water goes back to the ocean. Reference for decreased sea level please.

First of all, I repeat that there has not been a millimetre of oceans raising.

According to whom? References?

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.

Have you actually looked at the costs to do any of that? There's hardly enough money to spend on road upkeep and now you want to wall of cities with canals? Move entire villages...So the benefit of a warming climate is increased spending by government...yay:roll:

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.

The northern-most freshwater species in the world. A member of the salmonid family of fishes. One of the principle foods of the Northern natives.

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.

And what do you think 12°C of additional warming will do to permafrost? Any ideas? Roads are built on this now, houses, not to mention the enormous amount of methane stored in those bogs. Methane, which is 21 times more potent at trapping heat...

Sure, there will be some advances in biodiversity, but not while we're here. By the time those areas gain biodiversity, the southern areas will have lost biodiversity. Think ecology, and try to think ahead. We're not built-up around the coming changes at all.

Assuming we'll have more biodiversity... it's not an instantaneous change. Some species don't move that quickly...many species of the planet are already in trouble, threatened, endangered...what happens to them. Where does the biodiversity come from?

 

[coldstream]

We're in for another cold winter, another dart in the fraudulent balloon of Global Warming. In fact the earth started cooling about 1998 in one of the many periodic cooling phases in goes through, virtually all caused by the variation in a normal cycle of solar radiation. Man's effect.. and specifically carbon emissions.. has has had an utterly insignificant effect on climate. The entire GW scam is a political agenda not a scientific one, and it seems a growing number of people have decided not to be conned by this radical, human hating enviro fascist nonsense.

 

[Avro]

We're in for another cold winter, another dart in the fraudulent balloon of Global Warming. In fact the earth started cooling about 1998 in one of the many periodic cooling phases in goes through, virtually all caused by the variation in a normal cycle of solar radiation. Man's effect.. and specifically carbon emissions.. has has had an utterly insignificant effect on climate. The entire GW scam is a political agenda not a scientific one, and it seems a growing number of people have decided not to be conned by this radical, human hating enviro fascist nonsense.

What a lovely pile of crap that is.:roll:

 

[coldstream]

What a lovely pile of crap that is.:roll:

And of course... some still are being conned by it. You really can fool some of the people ALL of the time. :smile:

 

[Avro]

And of course... some still are being conned by it. You really can fool some of the people ALL of the time. :smile:

Sorry I don't buy into your carbon industry crap but I have spoken to real scientists and they have changed my mind, I use to think the world was flat like you but educated people fixed that problem.

Perhaps one day you will believe in science to.

 

[coldstream]

Sorry I don't buy into your carbon industry crap but I have spoken to real scientists and they have changed my mind, I use to think the world was flat like you but educated people fixed that problem.

Perhaps one day you will believe in science to.

Of course at one time the entire scientific establishment believed the world was flat, and that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the stars were held in place by crystal spheres in the aether. The scientific establishment has always been subject to extreme orthodoxy, for fear of their jobs, grants, tenure, academic credentials.. which is why this nonsense, that is utterly without either a credible theoretical framework, and without proof has risen to the level of hysteria.

As far as the 'carbon industry goes', like most businesses who act out of self interest rather than principle., they in fact have decided to join rather that fight what they know to be a con job.. as can be seen by their commercials and press releases. But it is still a con job.

It does however fit nicely into a philosophical perspective that has gained ascedency in media and educational circles, that casts man as a malignant intruder on pristine mother earth. It could be a sign of a society racked with pessimism, confusion, fear.. that is a fact.. but Global Warming is a fraud.. a psychological delusion.. not a scientific construct.

 

[Avro]

Of course at one time the entire scientific establishment believed the world was flat, and that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the stars were held in place by crystal spheres in the aether. The scientific establishment has always been subject to extreme orthodoxy, for fear of their jobs, grants, tenure, academic credentials.. which is why this nonsense, that is utterly without either a credible theoretical framework, and without proof has risen to the level of hysteria.

As far as the 'carbon industry goes', like most businesses who act out of self interest rather than principle., they in fact have decided to join rather that fight what they know to be a con job.. as can be seen by their commercials and press releases. But it is still a con job.

It does however fit nicely into a philosophical perspective that has gained ascedency in media and educational circles, that casts man as a malignant intruder on pristine mother earth. It could be a sign of a society racked with pessimism, confusion, fear.. that is a fact.. but Global Warming is a fraud.. a psychological delusion.. not a scientific construct.

To bad you're worng.

thanks for playing though it's been fun.

 

[#juan]

Climate change is happening. It doesn't matter if we call it global warming or whatever. I used to work a a job where I flew over the Arctic often and I can tell you that there are huge areas of bare ground that had been covered with snow and ice for centuries.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution and the air temperature has been rising.. It is more reasonable to connect the two events than not. In the last 50 or sixty years there has been a spike both in the temperature rise and in the rate of rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is not rocket science to connect the temperature rise to the rising levels of CO2. It would be stupid not to.

It would be idiotic to blindly assume that dumping 8 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years would have no effect.

 

[coldstream]

The evidence that the GW industry uses in always anecdotal. You can always find some glacier that is receding of cracking.. but the overall evidence including space measurements of the Ocean temperatures shows there is almost no significant temperature change at all, and what there is indicates cooling.

 

[scratch]

The evidence that the GW industry uses in always anecdotal. You can always find some glacier that is receding of cracking.. but the overall evidence including space measurements of the Ocean temperatures shows there is almost no significant temperature change at all, and what there is indicates cooling.

Everyone has an opinion. But in 1967 the scientists all had the same opinion.

 

[Zzarchov]

Minor annoyance? How is losing trees a good idea? That just increases How is permafrost melting good? You plan on building infrastructure or agriculture on peat bogs?

How about the fact that its a Peat Bog? Peat Bogs are more biodiverse than rainforests and the way the first world destroys them (while at the same time complaining about rainforest loss since thats someone elses problem) makes them insanely valuable. Lets not get into all the wealth that could generate. Yes , Please to peat bogs!

How is it a harsh winter with warming temperatures? Try to keep up please.

Now Tonnington, I almost always universally agree with you. But in this case you should follow his logic train. The beetles may thrive in the current region (the natural order), but the forests will now be able to spread north, and once again spread past the beetles range.

Water that evaporates falls back to land as precipitation. Where does that water go? The satellite measurements show net loss in the glaciers. Mountain glaciers are shrinking. Surface water goes back to the ocean. Reference for decreased sea level please.

I can't help you with that, But I can point out the massively larger amount of water that will be in the air. If that negates the icecaps or is a drop in the bucket I don't know. But more water isn't a bad thing either. Its not like the planet has been quite fine being warmer than it is now.

Have you actually looked at the costs to do any of that? There's hardly enough money to spend on road upkeep and now you want to wall of cities with canals? Move entire villages...So the benefit of a warming climate is increased spending by government...yay:roll:

Government spending on construction work, creating jobs, cycling that money through the economy... and then everyone else gets to save on their fuel bills by not needing so much heating. You can do without AC (millions through the ages have) but you always need heat in the cold.

The northern-most freshwater species in the world. A member of the salmonid family of fishes. One of the principle foods of the Northern natives.

Then they will switch to a species of fish that thrives in that environment.

And what do you think 12°C of additional warming will do to permafrost? Any ideas? Roads are built on this now, houses, not to mention the enormous amount of methane stored in those bogs. Methane, which is 21 times more potent at trapping heat...

It would even out, I mean, it would be a giant loss of immediate building supplies. But lets keep in perspective how few people live up north versus down south.

Sure, there will be some advances in biodiversity, but not while we're here. By the time those areas gain biodiversity, the southern areas will have lost biodiversity. Think ecology, and try to think ahead. We're not built-up around the coming changes at all.

Yes we would be hosed in the short term, hosed. But as for biology not keeping up. a few chartered flights and some trips to the zoo would change that. Species migrate and die off. The world is not static. Besides, Elephants in Calgary might be fun. The rodeo would be alot more dangerous.

Assuming we'll have more biodiversity... it's not an instantaneous change. Some species don't move that quickly...many species of the planet are already in trouble, threatened, endangered...what happens to them. Where does the biodiversity come from?

A zoo and an airplane or two?


That being said, billions would wind up dead, so even if it works for Canada, I don't really think its a good idea overall.

 

[TenPenny]

I believe that cancer is a good thing, too. Consider the benefits:

-lots of jobs for medical and research personnel
-steady turnover in the workforce as people die off and have to be replaced
-great boon to the funeral industry
-good for the flower shops, card shops, etc.

You can always find an upside if you look.

 

[#juan]

The evidence that the GW industry uses in always anecdotal. You can always find some glacier that is receding of cracking.. but the overall evidence including space measurements of the Ocean temperatures shows there is almost no significant temperature change at all, and what there is indicates cooling.

That post is complete horse ****
There is more than enough evidence for climate change for anyone with even average intelligence. The fact that insects like the Pine Beetle are moving deeper into our forests every year is easy to see for anyone driving on the interior highways. The beetles are spreading farther north than ever before.

Almost every year produces record warm temperatures.
Polar Bears are drowning on their long swim to reach sea ice.

Coldstream do some real research before you spout any more of this drivel.

 

[Tonington]

How about the fact that its a Peat Bog? Peat Bogs are more biodiverse than rainforests and the way the first world destroys them (while at the same time complaining about rainforest loss since thats someone elses problem) makes them insanely valuable. Lets not get into all the wealth that could generate. Yes , Please to peat bogs!

But not good for agriculture, nor is it "fit for habitation." Rainforests are more diverse than peat bogs...they have up to 400 species of tree in a square kilometer. You won't find that in bogs. The tropical rainforests of Indonesia, Brazil, Costa Rica have far more biodiversity than peat bogs.

I wasn't saying peat bogs were bad, just that they aren't great for subdivisions or condominium developments.

Then there's the law of unintended consequences...

Now Tonnington, I almost always universally agree with you. But in this case you should follow his logic train. The beetles may thrive in the current region (the natural order), but the forests will now be able to spread north, and once again spread past the beetles range.

The 'niche' for the trees moves North faster than the trees can. Pine trees move at about 4000 feet per year, while the Northern push of all this heat is moving as fast as 15,000 feet per year. A few miles may not seem like much, but it's faster than the trees move. The natural order is for disease and insect pests, but the insects have the upper hand in drought and heat stressed forests, which again, is moving poleward.

I can't help you with that, But I can point out the massively larger amount of water that will be in the air. If that negates the icecaps or is a drop in the bucket I don't know. But more water isn't a bad thing either. Its not like the planet has been quite fine being warmer than it is now.

If more water is held in the air, more water is condensing out of the air. The net-effect is zero...

More water is relative. Some areas will dry up, and others will be soaked. The observations show that the "increase" in water is happening in large one-time events in many areas. Drought stricken areas don't get the benefit of all the water. It get's washed downstream and back to the ocean...

Government spending on construction work, creating jobs, cycling that money through the economy... and then everyone else gets to save on their fuel bills by not needing so much heating. You can do without AC (millions through the ages have) but you always need heat in the cold.

And the result is more taxes...

I'm all for more infrastructure. It's a gainful method for stimulating an economy, and by doing something which needs to be done anyways. But it's not cheap.

Then they will switch to a species of fish that thrives in that environment.

Find a species of anadromous fish that can actually migrate up there and survive. It sure as hell won't be Atlantic Salmon...

It would even out, I mean, it would be a giant loss of immediate building supplies. But lets keep in perspective how few people live up north versus down south.

I think Benny's thesis from the beginning has been that this boon will draw people to the North of our sparesly populated country. Where does he plan to put them? Maybe a Canadian version of Venice where we get around by canoes? Actually that would be pretty sweet, though not too practical

Yes we would be hosed in the short term, hosed. But as for biology not keeping up. a few chartered flights and some trips to the zoo would change that. Species migrate and die off. The world is not static. Besides, Elephants in Calgary might be fun. The rodeo would be alot more dangerous.

Have you heard or read about the anthropocene? Check it out. Ecologists aren't seeing much optimism...

A zoo and an airplane or two?

Noah's ark is a bit desperate IMO. Probably better to aim to avoid that.

That being said, billions would wind up dead, so even if it works for Canada, I don't really think its a good idea overall.

Neither do I.

 

[Scott Free]

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

You're the one who belongs to the GW cult. Maybe the Koolaid is your carbon tax? That should finish us off pretty quickly.

Your assuming carbon is the cause but you have no proof only correlated data. So drink up.

 

[Mulk]

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.

If you were to actually pay attention to the chart that you have presented then you would have noticed that average annual sea ice during the months July to October 2007 & 2008 were significantly lower than the averages from 1979 to present. The fact that 08 is marginally greater than 07 is statistically insignificant without at least 5 data points showing an upward trend. This graph does not prove that sea ice is increasing. All this graph proves is that the average sea ice thickness for the past two years is significantly less than the moving average total.

 

[Mulk]

All perma frost is water.

Huh???? So, the Northwest Territories is one giant lake????? I think you are mistaken.

 

[Mulk]

!

We're in for another cold winter, another dart in the fraudulent balloon of Global Warming. In fact the earth started cooling about 1998 in one of the many periodic cooling phases in goes through, virtually all caused by the variation in a normal cycle of solar radiation. Man's effect.. and specifically carbon emissions.. has has had an utterly insignificant effect on climate. The entire GW scam is a political agenda not a scientific one, and it seems a growing number of people have decided not to be conned by this radical, human hating enviro fascist nonsense.

Try this experiment Coldstream.... get a jug of gasoline, an empty steel barrel, a book of matches and the inside of your garage. Grab a couple of your favorite pets (maybe some birds) and close the door. Seal up all of the cracks so that you've got a closed system. pour a little gasoline into the drum and light it. It will burn off quickly and be done. Not bad eh? A little smoky, but no big deal. Now repeat every 15 minutes or so. How long before everything isn't so hunky dorey and things are a little toasty warm in there. How are your lungs feeling now? The birds dead? Yeah thought so.

I know it's not a perfect experiment, but it will kill you nonetheless. This is basically a small scale representation of the planet. I know I know the planet is a big place and trees scrub CO2 out of the air and there are several other filters at work too, but here's the glitch. The rate that we consume hydrocarbons has been increasing exponentially, the rate that we've been deforesting is out of control... The rate that we consume EVERYTHING is out of control. People who say "nothing is wrong", "don't worry bout it" don't want to admit that there is a breaking point. Why do we have to push and find out where the line is. Why not throttle back on the consumption, why not have more efficiency built into everything? I don't get why there is an argument against prudence!

 

[Mulk]

Then they will switch to a species of fish that thrives in that environment.

That's one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard! Shall they eat goldfish???? Where will these new low saline high temperature fish come from???

 

[AmberEyes]

Maybe because it takes strength to show that much restraint. People like to think they're tough and have lots of control, but when it comes to self discipline most people fail. And so they rather deny there's a problem rather than be proven to be pathetic.