Global Warming backdown

[Alta4ever]

So to you, the BBC is clearly a tabloid news source? Are you serious? And if that's the case, there really isn't any reason for anybody else in this forum to attempt to discuss anything with you. Whether it's global warming, or anything else. However, I'm glad you're at least being honest.

As I said long ago he is a fanatic.

[Moonlight Graham]

of course, the willful, wanton damage has already been done by denialists and dishonest journalists... it's all about getting it out there, regardless of how inaccurate, how distorted, or how fabricated their stories are. The real difference this time is that scientists are beginning to stand-up and fight back... in line with this thread title, "no backdown"!

Interesting letter/article. I don't know what will happen regionally in the rainforests due to global warming, but isn't it basic science knowledge that more warming temperatures creates more evaporation, at least on a global average? On a global scale, when the earth has warmed in the past it has usually caused more precipitation.

As i said, if the rainforests are indeed susceptible to drought and somehow global warming will cause more drought there i'm thinking it will be a regional phenomenon. Throughout history flora and fauna have thrived in warmer times. Take the era when dinosaurs lived, which was a very fertile time for life on earth and was much warmer then than it was today.

Also, during the Holocene maximum, Egypt (one of the driest places on earth now obviously) was much more fertile and the Nile much more flooded with water. There was lush Savanna all over Egypt at the time. This time also coincided with the great rise of human civilization along the Fertile Crescent, which included Egypt. As the earth became cooler following the Holocene maximum the Nile & Egypt dried up eventually to what it is now.

Antarctica, the coldest place on earth, is also the driest place on earth as well. Antarctica and Arctic rank 1 and 2 in having the largest deserts on earth.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[wyly]

Interesting letter/article. I don't know what will happen regionally in the rainforests due to global warming, but isn't it basic science knowledge that more warming temperatures creates more evaporation, at least on a global average? On a global scale, when the earth has warmed in the past it has usually caused more precipitation.

As i said, if the rainforests are indeed susceptible to drought and somehow global warming will cause more drought there i'm thinking it will be a regional phenomenon. Throughout history flora and fauna have thrives in warmer times. Take the era when dinosaurs lived, which was a very fertile time for life on earth and was much warmer then than it was today.

Also, during the Holocene maximum, Egypt (one of the driest places on earth now obviously) was much more fertile and the Nile much more flooded with water. There was lush Savanna all over Egypt at the time. This time also coincided with the great rise of human civilization along the Fertile Crescent, which included Egypt. As the earth became cooler following the Holocene maximum the Nile & Egypt dried up eventually to what it is now.

Antarctica, the coldest place on earth, is also the driest place on earth as well. Antarctica and Arctic rank 1 in 2 in having the largest deserts on earth.

true enough but there is a reason scientists prefer the term Climate Change, what will happen where long term isn't 100% predictible, rainforests could become deserts, deserts could bloom or become bigger deserts...will ocean currents could shift or stop triggering an ice age?...the danger is we will not be able to deal with a massive rapid change without an ecological and human casualties..

[bush_cheney2004]

.....the danger is we will not be able to deal with a massive rapid change without an ecological and human casualties..

Boo hoo...hominids have only been doing it for millions of years. More people die each year on highways or from natural disasters.

Edited March 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Like I said....it's heads I win, tails you lose. Everything - every possibility - is because of Global Warming - snow, no snow, rain, no rain, colder, hotter. It doesn't matter. Is it any wonder scepticism is rapidly on the rise? Notice how the "scientific" paper I linked to disputes how the models have estimated precipitation? It doesn't mattter who's right...it's just another example of an AGW component that is not fully understood.....even with the 31 page report of the Alarmist trying to spin the IPCC AmazonGate fiasco.

given your denial, you lose no matter what. If you'd like to do something other than whine and bluster... if you'd like to actually attempt to make your case for your alleged contradiction... step up and quit being such a pissant.

you throw up a paper abstract reference that presumes to speak to a contradiction between models and observations... and somehow... somehow... without actually establishing a causal relationship, you would additionally presume to suggest the paper has bearing on the so-called "Amazongate" deniers fabrication. Buddy, you're spinning around wildly, arms flapping in the wind and you're stating nothing - nothing. If you're going to attempt to show contradiction, to show causal relation, then do so, otherwise STFU.

your linked to paper abstract suggests its authors derived an observed increase in precipitation larger than that predicted by climate models. But you don't bother to suggest what significance this holds, or might hold. It's simply another avenue for you to bleat off your favourite theme that there's still uncertainty... gadzooks! Imagine - scientists doing what scientists do... research and bring forward suggested challenge. Of course, it doesn't really matter to you on what basis the paper's authors might have derived their findings... of course, you won't get that from an abstract, hey? That papers now several years old - is it still topical/relevant, or has it been challenged - say here by NOAA scientists at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory... the challenge that refutes your linked to paper showing the model vs. observation predictions are just fine - thank you very much.

now... you could join in for a round of tit-for-tat, scurry about and flog the denier blog that set you on your little mission... oh my gawd, let's hope your denier blog can find you an updated paper source!!! But just imagine, what a concept, hey Simple? Just imagine, scientists engaged in active research, bringing forward findings to challenge the status quo or introduce new science. What a concept!

as for your misplaced comment on the so-called Amazongate fiasco, the real fiasco is playing itself out now with scientists pushing back on the dishonest journalists and denier sources that fabricated the whole incident. As has been stated, the IPCC WG2 statement concerning Amazon forests is correct and was supported (at the time) by published science - since the time of AR4 publishing, that statement has been further supported by continued additional published science.

[waldo]

Boo hoo...hominids have only been doing it for millions of years. More people die each year on highways or from natural disasters

fxxk off, icehole

Edited March 26, 2010 by waldo

[waldo]

As I said long ago he is a fanatic.

standard Altaboy drive-by... never actually anything to say in any climate related threads, but one can understand your want to participate in whatever manner you can - hey?

[Moonlight Graham]

true enough but there is a reason scientists prefer the term Climate Change, what will happen where long term isn't 100% predictible, rainforests could become deserts, deserts could bloom or become bigger deserts...will ocean currents could shift or stop triggering an ice age?...the danger is we will not be able to deal with a massive rapid change without an ecological and human casualties..

If the earth continues to warm at the rate its going there will certainly be negative (and some positive, but certainly a lot of negative) effects for humanity and many parts of the biosphere. However, i doubt the ocean conveyor will stop and cause mega disaster as Al Gore claims. During the vast majority of the Phanerozoic eon (last 500 million years) its been a lot warmer than it is now, over 10 degrees warmer than todays global average though 4 separate and a very long periods: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

There was no catastrophic disaster from the extended warm periods, in fact life thrived through much of it. There have been many times in the past where there was no major glaciation on earth, which was naturally followed by an ice age, and the cycle continued.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Alta4ever]

standard Altaboy drive-by... never actually anything to say in any climate related threads, but one can understand your want to participate in whatever manner you can - hey?

Why would I need to post anymore, you undermine your own position Mr. the BBC is a tabloid.

[waldo]

standard Altaboy drive-by... never actually anything to say in any climate related threads, but one can understand your want to participate in whatever manner you can - hey?

Why would I need to post anymore, you undermine your own position Mr. the BBC is a tabloid.

post anymore? Have you ever posted anything other than drive-by insults in climate related threads... as I said, since you have no game, you need to participate at the level you feel comfortable. Obviously, actual discussion/debate on climate science is well beyond your thought processing capabilities... hence, the patented Altaboy insult drive-by, hee-haw!

[wyly]

If the earth continues to warm at the rate its going there will certainly be negative (and some positive, but certainly a lot of negative) effects for humanity and many parts of the biosphere. However, i doubt the ocean conveyor will stop and cause mega disaster as Al Gore claims.

that wasn't "Gore's" claim, he just reiterating what he's been told by researchers, Gore isn't a scientist...and yes I have heard from scientists that the currents could stop, they do definitely move/wander so to say they can't stop would be wrong, the magnetic poles move constantly and reverse there are a number of disaster hypothesis if that should happen, continents move so the currents stopping is not science fiction...would it stop is not known for sure but if it did ya that would be a major disaster...

During the vast majority of the Phanerozoic eon (last 500 million years) its been a lot warmer than it is now, over 10 degrees warmer than todays global average though 4 separate and a very long periods: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

There was no catastrophic disaster from the extended warm periods, in fact life thrived through much of it. There have been many times in the past where there was no major glaciation on earth, which was naturally followed by an ice age, and the cycle continued.

and each climate change would bring ecological change which if it occurred slowly life can adapt and each change could also bring extinctions, the lifeforms that existed then are no longer with us...see any Trex's, mammoths, wolly rhino's, sabre tooth's or short faced bears walking about? climate change = extinctions

the change we are experiencing is very rapid and you're mistaken if you think we as a spieces will survive a rapid 10c increase in temp...

Edited March 26, 2010 by wyly

[Alta4ever]

post anymore? Have you ever posted anything other than drive-by insults in climate related threads... as I said, since you have no game, you need to participate at the level you feel comfortable. Obviously, actual discussion/debate on climate science is well beyond your thought processing capabilities... hence, the patented Altaboy insult drive-by, hee-haw!

I have posted much more on global warming and it was long before you showed up with your fanatical devotion to the IPCC. I participate with you on a level to which I think you can understand and deserve, ridicule and contempt.

So what major media outlet are you now going to call tabloid journalism? The Wall Street Journal, The Globe and Mail? Times? MacLeans, The American Free Press, the Canadian Free Press? oh wait I know it will be the first one that publishes a story you do not like about some mistake in the IPCC report and is pointed out to you here in this thread.

[waldo]

I have posted much more on global warming and it was long before you showed up with your fanatical devotion to the IPCC.

like I said, you have no game...

[Alta4ever]

like I said, you have no game...

pfffft

[blueblood]

like I said, you have no game...

You of all people should not be saying that

22-7 anybody?

[Pliny]

like I said, you have no game...

I don't understand how those who know that science offers no truths present their findings as truths.

[waldo]

You of all people should not be saying that

22-7 anybody?

like your buddy Altaboy, you also have no game... at least you admit it. Keep plugging your hollow denier poll, the one you haven't the intellect to actually frame positions and arguments for. But really, c'mon - your proxy hero has been vanquished... where's the legitimacy of your poll in the face of your fallen proxy hero? You can't keep using the vanquished, the forgotten, the long gone as your spokesperson... he's never posted once since his much touted E&E journal was exposed as the skeptic rag it is - would you like a link to that post? You can't keep denying your lack of intellect in the face of your fallen proxy hero! Why not take more than your proverbial drive-by shots... take a real shot... step up and just show your intellectual prowess! Oh, that's right - sorry - I forgot that would require you to actually formulate thought and express an argument, subject to actual exchange and debate. Of course, it's not a simple straight-forward subject any ole redneck hillbilly can converse in... obviously, you and Altaboy know what works best for you.

[waldo]

I don't understand how those who know that science offers no truths present their findings as truths.

you're deep Pliny, real deep!

[Keepitsimple]

like your buddy Altaboy, you also have no game... at least you admit it. Keep plugging your hollow denier poll, the one you haven't the intellect to actually frame positions and arguments for. But really, c'mon - your proxy hero has been vanquished... where's the legitimacy of your poll in the face of your fallen proxy hero? You can't keep using the vanquished, the forgotten, the long gone as your spokesperson... he's never posted once since his much touted E&E journal was exposed as the skeptic rag it is - would you like a link to that post? You can't keep denying your lack of intellect in the face of your fallen proxy hero! Why not take more than your proverbial drive-by shots... take a real shot... step up and just show your intellectual prowess! Oh, that's right - sorry - I forgot that would require you to actually formulate thought and express an argument, subject to actual exchange and debate. Of course, it's not a simple straight-forward subject any ole redneck hillbilly can converse in... obviously, you and Altaboy know what works best for you.

You're such a silly little boy....

[waldo]

You're such a silly little boy....

ah Simple, glad to see you've rebounded from your last comeuppance... I guess we can conclude that you weren't able to find an update on that paper you so thought was a significant comment on the "uncertainty" within science... ergo... your rationale for denying!

even if I hadn't countered with that NOAA scientists rebuke to your linked paper, the point still remains... standing science is always subject to challenge. You would presume to showcase one paper's claim that a discrepancy existed between models and observations, as support to your denier creed. The part you can't deal with is that so-called skeptic challenges to the overwhelming consensus on climate change... simply don't hold up over time. Obviously something you read on some denier blog prompted you to link to that paper... sorry to have stolen your denier thunder by rebuking it with the NOAA scientists response.

[Pliny]

you're deep Pliny, real deep!

It may appear that way to you because you are so shallow. I have just given more thought to the issues.

[Alta4ever]

Waldo and Wyly I will be thinking of you tonight and dedicating all the power consumption to you, as I turn on everything in the house and the holiday trailer, and run all three vehicles. Cheers

[Moonlight Graham]

that wasn't "Gore's" claim, he just reiterating what he's been told by researchers, Gore isn't a scientist...and yes I have heard from scientists that the currents could stop, they do definitely move/wander so to say they can't stop would be wrong, the magnetic poles move constantly and reverse there are a number of disaster hypothesis if that should happen, continents move so the currents stopping is not science fiction...would it stop is not known for sure but if it did ya that would be a major disaster...

Ocean currents won't stop, not unless all the oceans in the world freeze completely. Big difference in the ocean conveyor and in ocean currents in general.

and each climate change would bring ecological change which if it occurred slowly life can adapt and each change could also bring extinctions, the lifeforms that existed then are no longer with us...see any Trex's, mammoths, wolly rhino's, sabre tooth's or short faced bears walking about? climate change = extinctions

the change we are experiencing is very rapid and you're mistaken if you think we as a spieces will survive a rapid 10c increase in temp...

99% of all life species that have existed throughout the history of the earth have gone extinct. That's nature. For sure that rapid climate change is not friendly to the survival of many species.

Humans are a very adaptable species, and i think if the average global temp rapidly rose to 25C that our species would survive, though or course i'm sure many would also die as a result. I could move to the Yukon and likely do ok.

[bush_cheney2004]

...99% of all life species that have existed throughout the history of the earth have gone extinct. That's nature. For sure that rapid climate change is not friendly to the survival of many species.

Aahhhhh...what a refreshing observation. Bravo!

[waldo]

Waldo and Wyly I will be thinking of you tonight and dedicating all the power consumption to you, as I turn on everything in the house and the holiday trailer, and run all three vehicles. Cheers

good on ya... don't fret... earth hour is closing in - that will certainly offset your redneck hillbilly ways.