60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[Whaleboy]

Yep!

[Japher]

that's what they mean!

I never understood that ghetto slang

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why? Is Wikipedia too difficult for you to comprehend?

You're the one making the claim that DDT is a "global scale fiasco." Sounds like an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence. Something more than this:

Rachel Carson, holier-than-thou author of Silent Spring, which caused the DDT scare and subsequent banning, has more blood on her hands than your average mass-murdering despot.

Which doesn't support your claim at all.

[TCO]

climateaudit.org

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[Berzerker]

OMFG, are you THAT dense? the natural CO2 level during an interglacial is 280ppm, during a glacial it's 180ppm. It's now 395ppm, a bigger difference from natural interglacial levels than between glacial and natural interglacial levels. It is a proven fact that the increase from 280ppm to 395ppm was cause by humans. It is also a proven fact that increased CO2 levels increases temperature, that fact has been known for over 100 years.

100 years ago people didn't fully understand how the environment consumes CO2, and we still dont. Temps are still within historical parameters even as CO2 increases. Do CO2 increases precede and trigger higher temps or do higher temps trigger more CO2? Graphs show CO2 lags behind temps. Think of all the vegetation in the northern hemisphere that will result from increased CO2 and higher temps.

Berz, you don't seem to understand the consequences of global warming. There's a lot more to sea level rises a bit.

For starters, sea level will rise several metres.

Huh? I've heard 2-4 ft.

That's a lot more than a bit. That's sufficient to wipe out a whole bunch of islands in various oceans. Then you have the strange effect of hot places getting hotter and cold places getting colder. Not to mention there will be more storms, tornadoes. etc. and they will be more powerful.

And it also means far more habitable, arable land. Also, climatologists know storms in the Atlantic were worse during the mini ice age. But if storms did get worse, so what? Thats the Earth spreading heat away from the equator towards the poles and in the north there is alot of land that needs more heat from the equator.

I'm not buying it, I dont see how a warmer Earth is a bad thing. It'll be bad as people have to adapt to higher sea levels, but there's alot more land at higher latitudes than the equator and the pattern shows ice sheets covering much of the northern hemisphere. Global warming? Bring it on, its better than freezing your ass off

[Whaleboy]

100 years ago people didn't fully understand how the environment consumes CO2, and we still dont. Temps are still within historical parameters even as CO2 increases.

Temperatures are still within historical parameters yes, but the rise, the acceleration in temperature change if you like, itself is like nothing in the geological or environmental record.

Thats the Earth spreading heat away from the equator towards the poles and in the north there is alot of land that needs more heat from the equator.

A lot of land that needs more heat? Are you talking about that land becoming more economically viable for humans, because that's a shockingly short-sighted thing to suggest.

It'll be bad as people have to adapt to higher sea levels, but there's alot more land at higher latitudes than the equator and the pattern shows ice sheets covering much of the northern hemisphere. Global warming? Bring it on, its better than freezing your ass off

By most accounts, Northern Europe will become tundra, most of the USA will be burned to a crisp and a great deal of pressure will be put on the world's population through problems with food supply, and most of all water supply. I can't see how civilisation in its current form, or at least the concept of the nation state, could possibly survive such a change.

You're trying to explain why climate change will benefit mankind but the examples you've given are short sighted and ill-thought out. The fact is that you and I do not know what climate change will bring. What we do know is that we, today, are already in a precarious position. There are 6 and a half billion people on this planet, we're ridiculously overpopulated and there aren't enough resources to cope. If you tip that balance it is almost guaranteed that there will be immense suffering, and if, in centuries to come, the changes benefit mankind, it wont be in ways that you predict, or could account for in any argument proposing climate change, since your way of thinking will have died out along with millions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
You're the one making the claim that DDT is a "global scale fiasco." Sounds like an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence.

Again, is Wikipedia too difficult for you?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Huh? I've heard 2-4 ft.

I am not sure what your model is. When the permafrost starts melting an additional amount of methane and other green house gases will also be released.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And it also means far more habitable, arable land.

According to what?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Also, climatologists know storms in the Atlantic were worse during the mini ice age. But if storms did get worse, so what?

Berz, if you don't see a problem with lots of violent storms and tornadoes running amok I can't help you.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm not buying it, I dont see how a warmer Earth is a bad thing.

Go ask all those people on Pacific and Carribean islands, and probably in NYC.

"How would you like it if your home gets flooded by a rising sea?"

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

climateaudit.org Has more math, more content, more posts, and more free discussion. RC is about at the peurile level and with the same slant as your average "Fresh Air" on NPR.

[TCO]

I am very well acquanted with RC. They started off saying that they were non-political but have now pulled that statement and they are guests on Daily Kos.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Again, is Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Wikipedia is unreliable and hardly a source of evidence in this case. Also, it's poor form to ask someone else to find your sources for you. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or are you just going to continue to sling insults?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
100 years ago people didn't fully understand how the environment consumes CO2, and we still dont. Temps are still within historical parameters even as CO2 increases. Do CO2 increases precede and trigger higher temps or do higher temps trigger more CO2? Graphs show CO2 lags behind temps.

The mechanisms by which CO2 increase global temperatures are trivial and very well understood.

[Kuciwalker]

UR can access Wikipedia?

EDIT: For that matter, DaShi can? My girlfriend is in China right now, and the Great Firewall has Wikipedia blocked for her.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The mechanisms by which CO2 increase global temperatures are trivial and very well understood.

The amount of direct greenhouse gassing is small. What is required is positive feedback (via water vapor). The amount of this is not proven or "well understood".