A scientist with some intelligence
- Thread starter BombadEER
- Start date
Again, you are confusing two separate issues. The earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800's. The warmist's claim that man in primarily responsible for global warming. The skeptics claim that it is primarily due to natural variability.
This scientist simply states that the slight warming we have experienced by CO2 is good for the world.
"The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity."
But wasnt it you that jumped all over a thread the other day bashing liberals for using the term global warming then changing it to climate change, and saying it's all bs anyway?
Global warming is one topic; man caused global warming is yet another. The latter seems to be where many concentrate their rhetoric even though they vocalize the former, more general terminology. The globe continues to warm and cool in cycles and has done so over the incalculable years the planet has existed. The sun and other natural phenomena contribute in sporadic fashion, and it is all natural and will change with time, over and over and over. So, discussion of global warming (or cooling when that becomes the major topic sometime in the future) is a complex subject and cannot be addressed adequately by applying limited and narrowly focused sound bites. Your question "..is it a lie or is it good..." defies a simple, concise answer. In the first place it is vital that there be a comprehensive definition of "it" before we even initiate discussion of the other, very narrow, aspects of the question ('lie' or 'good' --as if answers must lie within one of these two, poorly defined terms.
No, you misread or distort my posts either intentionally or unintentionally. I have agreed that we have had global warming. We have since emerging from the Little Ice Age.
What I said was that liberals used to call Climate Change global warming. But then for 18 years, the earth didn't warm and the IPCC had to admit that warming had slowed dramatically and that all of their predictive models of warming were wrong on the high end. Libs than decided to use the term Climate Change since no one could argue the climate never changes.
I still believe we have had slight warming since the mid 1800's. I also believe that man is not the primary driver and that if CO2 was the cause of global warming, why were all the models wrong in overstating global warming? I also stated that the Medieval Warming Period was warming without industrialization.
NOAA is a discredited organization, changing data to suit their own needs. Hiding data from Congress. However, I can cite other scientists with very different views. I am all for clean air and water but I know that we can do both (have clean air and water and still produce fossil fuels). It is not either or as the alarmists make it out to be.
http://www.nature.com/news/ocean-calamities-oversold-say-researchers-1.16714
http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/...new-scientific-evidence/#sthash.WeDtw32v.dpbs
Global warming caused by human activity is a hoax. If you want to call it a lie, the "caused by humans part" qualifies.
The planet is indeed warming, and also cooling at alternating random times. But Men (Humans) have no control over when it does either.
Just like we have no control over how the Planet spins on its axis, trade winds blow, travels in its designed distance around the Sun, gravity, the Moon's effect on Ocean tides, seasonal conditions like storms and weather systems....none of it. We're powerless to "change" any of that.
Now if we could somehow control all of that which has far greater impact on how much we warm or cool, and when we do either, then we can turn up the planet's temperature or cool it down whenever we get into one extreme or the other or whenever it suits us.
But it is a fact we have NO control over any of those factors, we therefore have zero control over how much or when we either warm up or cool down. We can't force or cause either.
It's all a giant HOAX from the Left to force it's political and social agenda onto us, and the sooner more people realize that, the faster we can get rid of the whole charade and hopefully also all of the Leftists who promote it.
Someone's blog and an article that a weak article that doesn't really address the topic. You've got your own version of things so I'm done wasting time here.
LMAO. A sourced article from a magazine titled Nature and you ignore it. I thought that science was all about skepticism, not religion or faith. And I assume the Journal of Geophysical Research is a fraud as well. My oh my.
A paper by Wei et al. (2015) published a year ago in the Journal of Geophysical Research effectively illustrates the vacuousness of the ocean “acidification” paradigm. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/...tific-evidence/#sthash.WeDtw32v.Ti3IucRs.dpuf
You've linked the same blog again smh and I know how you love blogs lol. If you'd read the other article you'd see that there are maybe two sentences on ocean acidification and it mentions what is happening (or not) right now. It reads like something out of People magazine. Ocean acidification is like climate change where the effects will be seen over years/decades so such a short and short sighted "discussion" is so weak that it is easily dismissed.
notrickszone is a blog and you've linked it twice and the linked Nature article is just awful and I told you why.
Don't bother with that line of questioning. He has been shown time and time again, with credible sources linked, that the "no warming in 18 years" is misleading.
He still pretends to have never read or seen any of it and continues on with the same nonsense.
Two years ago it was 16 years, now it's 18 years. Not, 10, or 15 or 20 ... there is a specific reason that timeframe is used and he knows it but refuses to acknowledge it because he prefers ignorance.
It will be interesting to see how quickly these guys turn around now that the GOP cabinet members are testifying that global warming is real, as is anthropomorphic global warming. Especially since their stance was never based on fact or science but rather political affiliation.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/satellite-data-shows-no-global-warming-for-nearly-19-years/
https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/dr-roy-spencer/
Both satellite data and weather balloons show no warming of our atmosphere. Much more reliable measurements than ground based measurements which are subject to variables that don't exist in the atmosphere (e.g. building a parking lot near the measuring station).
The Daily Caller? [laughing] You might as well have pulled a note out of a Cracker Jack Box.
The Daily Caller? [laughing] You might as well have pulled a note out of a Cracker Jack Box.
Somehow we haven't had any warming for the last 18 years, but 2014 was the hottest on record, until 2015 which was hottest on record, until 2016.
But no, there wasn't any warming.
So, you unblocked me, very liberal of you. Blocking someone isn't liberal, it shuts down debate just like libs are trying to do on campuses across the country today.
Even the IPCC admits to a pause:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/
The Daily Caller? [laughing] You might as well have pulled a note out of a Cracker Jack Box.
Roy Spencer is not with the Daily Caller. Nor is Judith Curry.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/
Using what measurements? Ground based? Satellite based? Weather balloon based? And were any adjustments made to the raw data? Lots and lots of questions. NOAA is going to have a lot to answer for in their recent "adjustments" to raw satellite measurements.
There's no variability in the atmosphere, everything is homogeneous, gradations are regular, got it. Is there anything that you're not an expert on?
