|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Monday, 26 November 2018 12:50:03 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard Yes, "thousands" may die. Meanwhile, every winter, cold kills about 3 million more people than would die without it. Good luck matching that, global warming. Have your had your flu shot? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:40:18 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Monday, 26 November 2018 12:50:03 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard Yes, "thousands" may die. Meanwhile, every winter, cold kills about 3 million more people than would die without it. Good luck matching that, global warming. Have your had your flu shot? The main problem with climate change isn't deaths caused by temperature (although extreme cold is not the most dangerous, while extreme heat is... meaning that warming will disproportionately increase heat related deaths compared with cold related deaths). The problem isn't a few thousand more dying from heat. It's millions more dying from floods and lack of water and starvation and resource wars. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-8, Quadibloc wrote:
An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard Gee, 10 kids/ family average over there, and some how miscarriages the problem now? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard climate change "might be" to blame, the reason for this "they believe" is climate change? C'mon, John, that's not science. But to the point of AGW: (1) That the earth's temperature has been rising isn't a forgone prediction that it will continue to do so. There are several factors not considered in the climate models (e.g., the effect of solar wind on cloud formation which affects the earth's albedo). (2) That the rise in CO2 levels are correlated with the temperature rise doesn't mean that one is causing the other. The meanest and nastiest greenhouse gas is water vapor, and it increases with temperature REGARDLESS of what causes the temperature increase. The interactive calculator, modtran, demonstrates that doubling CO2 level from the present value has a modest 1.1° C rise in temperature, and that INCLUDES the feedback effect of water vapor. A 20% increase in water vapor has the same effect as DOUBLING the CO2 level which, at the present rate of 2 ppm/year, will take 200 years to accomplish. So the effect due to CO2 amounts to .005° C/year. If the earth is warming faster than that, intelligent people would entertain other reasons. Gary |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:27:08 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote: An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard climate change "might be" to blame, the reason for this "they believe" is climate change? C'mon, John, that's not science. But to the point of AGW: Oh please. Give the pseudoscientific crap a rest. You are profoundly ignorant and driven by a combination of religious and political dogmatism. You are incapable of reasoning. You are a part of the human race that is leading us to extinction. People who think as you do are the core problem facing the future. You will be gone, or we will all be gone. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 8:58:18 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:27:08 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote: An article on the BBC illustrates the kind of thing global warming is doing to people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 John Savard climate change "might be" to blame, the reason for this "they believe" is climate change? C'mon, John, that's not science. But to the point of AGW: Oh please. Give the pseudoscientific crap a rest. You are profoundly ignorant and driven by a combination of religious and political dogmatism. You are incapable of reasoning. You are a part of the human race that is leading us to extinction. People who think as you do are the core problem facing the future. You will be gone, or we will all be gone. And YOU are a climate groupie who doen't understand the first thing about the models but arrogantly denounces anyone who questions the Climate Gods whom you worship with YOUR dogmatism. And you dishonesty is evident by the fact that you deleted the discussion of the facts so you could rant and rave about "extinction" and have it not appear to be sheer stupidity. TWO HUNDRED YEARS to double the CO2 level and produce a whopping 1.1 degree increase! But the COGENT question is why would an atheist who believes civilization is doomed anyway care about AGW to go to such a point as to attack an individual who isn't causing the supposed CO2 catastrophe in the first place? Are you really quaking in your boots with fear that I could change the course of a civilization that you have no hope for anyway? Why don't you try to be a decent human being instead of an insufferably arrogant prosecutor? “Ignorance and weakness is not an impediment to survival. Arrogance is.” ― Cixin Liu |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:42:50 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
And YOU are a climate groupie who doen't understand the first thing about the models but arrogantly denounces anyone who questions the Climate Gods whom you worship with YOUR dogmatism. He certainly doesn't help matters by coming across as someone who plans to line you up against the wall when the revolution comes. However, by continuing to defend the false, and well-known to be false, proposition that AGW is not based on genuine and valid science, and that opposition to it is worth taking seriously, the only people you will manage to impress are the ignorant. There are dishonest people, many of them in the pay of oil companies, who don't mind that, because - as the current inhabitant of the White House proves - ignorant people can vote too. While science is not infallible, and so there is a need for vigilance against mistakes, in the case of global warming, the science _is_ sufficiently well established that categorizing its opponents as either deliberately dishonest on the one hand, or stupid or at least ignorant on the other... however impolite it may seem, is basically an accurate characterization of the actual situation. Sure, citing facts and figures is a better mode of argument than name-calling. But sometimes it's not worth the time and effort. Especially when facts and figures *are* put forward, and they don't seem to have an effect. John Savard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:10:45 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:42:50 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: And YOU are a climate groupie who doen't understand the first thing about the models but arrogantly denounces anyone who questions the Climate Gods whom you worship with YOUR dogmatism. He certainly doesn't help matters by coming across as someone who plans to line you up against the wall when the revolution comes. However, by continuing to defend the false, and well-known to be false, proposition that AGW is not based on genuine and valid science, and that opposition to it is worth taking seriously, the only people you will manage to impress are the ignorant. So my son-in-law who is a soil scientist is ignorant, as well as his father who taught soil science for decades. So my other son-in-law who has a degree in agriculture is ignorant. So my cousins who are farmers and also have degrees in agriculture are ignorant? They came to these conclusions independently on their own. Your denigration of the people on the front lines as opposed to those in their ivory towers is remarkable. There are dishonest people, many of them in the pay of oil companies, who don't mind that, because - as the current inhabitant of the White House proves - ignorant people can vote too. And now you're denigrating the people on the front lines again. Sure, there are dishonest people EVERYWHERE, and some of them hold executive positions in climate science. They make sure their underlings tow the party line. While science is not infallible, and so there is a need for vigilance against mistakes, in the case of global warming, the science _is_ sufficiently well established that categorizing its opponents as either deliberately dishonest on the one hand, or stupid or at least ignorant on the other... however impolite it may seem, is basically an accurate characterization of the actual situation. You should move in with Peterson. Sure, citing facts and figures is a better mode of argument than name- calling. But sometimes it's not worth the time and effort. Especially when facts and figures *are* put forward, and they don't seem to have an effect. John Savard Exactly what you and Peterson are doing: ignoring facts. "(1) That the earth's temperature has been rising isn't a forgone prediction that it will continue to do so. There are several factors not considered in the climate models (e.g., the effect of solar wind on cloud formation which affects the earth's albedo). "(2) That the rise in CO2 levels are correlated with the temperature rise doesn't mean that one is causing the other. The meanest and nastiest greenhouse gas is water vapor, and it increases with temperature REGARDLESS of what causes the temperature increase. The interactive calculator, modtran, demonstrates that doubling CO2 level from the present value has a modest 1.1° C rise in temperature, and that INCLUDES the feedback effect of water vapor. A 20% increase in water vapor has the same effect as DOUBLING the CO2 level which, at the present rate of 2 ppm/year, will take 200 years to accomplish. So the effect due to CO2 amounts to .005° C/year. If the earth is warming faster than that, intelligent people would entertain other reasons." I'm not interested in having a "discussion" about this any more than you or Peterson are. Modtran is a well-respected atmospheric model and it refutes all the AGW alarmist poppycock. It is so well-respected that it stands head-and-shoulders above the climate models and its alarmist groupies. If you are so self-satisfied that your position is incontrovertible, then maybe you should revisit Cixin Liu's pronouncement. Refusing to honestly consider alternatives when the mainstream model predictions don't agree with the sanity check model is arrogance. “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Modtran is a well-respected atmospheric model and it refutes all the AGW alarmist poppycock. It is so well-respected that it stands head-and-shoulders above the climate models and its alarmist groupies. First thing I did was try to find out what Modtran was: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...10/25/modtran/ An amateur tried to use Modtran to check AGW, and did not get a refutation. That, of course, doesn't prove anything. Ah, here we are. Not the author of MODTRAN, but someone who wrote a web interface to it, writes the following page: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...for-deception/ If, therefore, it is that particular fellow from Australia you're using as a source, it shows that you're allowing yourself to be fooled. Who do you want to believe: people who know what they're talking about, and are widely recognized as such, or the people who say what you want to hear? John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming Live in real time | Arc Michael | Misc | 0 | October 10th 14 02:30 AM |
Yet another real Scientist debunks Global Warming ... | Hgar | Misc | 6 | May 3rd 14 11:57 PM |
Some real facts about Global Warming ... | Hgar | Misc | 7 | December 19th 13 09:16 PM |
Major analysis confirms global warming is real | Mike Collins[_4_] | Amateur Astronomy | 559 | January 19th 12 11:45 PM |
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 10 03:27 AM |