Some Himalayan glaciers actually growing, scientists find

[DCNBILL]

Originally Posted by Calliso

Calling people deniers may be harsh but sometimes the truth is harsh. The problems with many so called climate change "skeptics' is they are not true skeptics. A true skeptic asks questions of both sides and examines both sides fairly. AGW skeptics tend to just deny anything that is evidence for AGW and automatically accepts anything that supports their position. And no I accept AGW and am not brainwashed. Actually like many others I was skeptic of the AGW position at first. But I did some reading. And I realized that you would really have to deny a lot if you can;t accept that humans might at least be somewhat responsible for the current warming. I mean the evidence poiints to us if you read the science that is clear as day. But anyway this might be an interesting read. It tells storys of how skeptics of agw or those that were just indfferent changed their minds. http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html

Also yes energy and prosperity is important. Which is another reason why renewable and clean energy is important. regardless of global warming fossil fuels will not last forever. And the negative effects of AGW wonlt exactly help prosperity either.

It would seem that at least one renewable energy source is a contributor to global warming.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=670595

[Calliso]

Originally Posted by vz71

I could if the data they were providing was not so obviously flawed.

There is a claim that there is a problem that is 'harming and killing people.'
Yet the data to support this is based upon an analysis that has a higher degree of error then the actual trend they wish to show.
And we also are left with a couple of practical questions...Who? Where? How?

It seems every year, the weather does not act as their data suggests.
And so corrections are made, and we are asked to believe their findings again.

Look at the title for the thread. Glaciars are growing where the data suggested previously that they would not.

How many times must the theory be shown wrong before the premise behind it (AGW) is actually understood to be a faulty premise.

So where is the data that suggests they should not? And does this data actually suggest that AGW is wrong or does it suggest that perhaps our understanding of how things should go is incorrect? It should also be worth mentioning that focusing on a handful of glaciers growing and ignoring that over all glacials are declining is really missing the big picture.

Also the premise behind AGW is that co2 is a greenhouse gas we are putting into the atmosphere. We know the co2 is human caused. Also we have lots of evidence to support the idea that the earth is warming. From reponses of plants and animals to temperature records and of course things like sea ice declining. Then we look at the patterns of warming and the patterns suggest that yes the warming is greenhouse related. Now this is probably overly simplifying things but the point is if you follow the evidence it does lead to agw.

[Holly3278]

That's interesting. You would think that if global warming were true this wouldn't be happening. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people that deny the global warming theory. I do believe we are experiencing a global warming. But this just confuses me I guess.

[Calliso]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

That's interesting. You would think that if global warming were true this wouldn't be happening. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people that deny the global warming theory. I do believe we are experiencing a global warming. But this just confuses me I guess.

You would think that but the proper course of thought is to ask why is this happening. Rather then just throwing out AGW out all together. It is also important to look at the bigger picture.

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am absolutely convinced that the climate is changing. Only a fool would deny it.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Calliso

Calling people deniers may be harsh but sometimes the truth is harsh. The problems with many so called climate change "skeptics' is they are not true skeptics. A true skeptic asks questions of both sides and examines both sides fairly. AGW skeptics tend to just deny anything that is evidence for AGW and automatically accepts anything that supports their position. And no I accept AGW and am not brainwashed. Actually like many others I was skeptic of the AGW position at first. But I did some reading. And I realized that you would really have to deny a lot if you can;t accept that humans might at least be somewhat responsible for the current warming. I mean the evidence poiints to us if you read the science that is clear as day. But anyway this might be an interesting read. It tells storys of how skeptics of agw or those that were just indfferent changed their minds. http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html

Also yes energy and prosperity is important. Which is another reason why renewable and clean energy is important. regardless of global warming fossil fuels will not last forever. And the negative effects of AGW wonlt exactly help prosperity either.

With recent discoveries, we have enough petroleum and natural gas for a long, long time. People who ignore the earth's resources in favor of wind and solar power have their "energy deniers" heads in the sand. Hey, turnabout is fair play!

One problem is that the AGW accepting crowd has issues confused and melded into each other. Pollution is not a global warming issue. It is stewardship, and we can all participate in that, to the extent that we can. So throwing out "You're all out to TRASH the earth!" is just alarmism with no meaning whatsoever.

The old theory of "peak oil" has been destroyed. There is no point where we will irrevocably run out of petroleum products. Not in the near future, not even in the far future. It may well prove to be renewable. It's looking more and more as if that is the case. What will the Chicken Little crowd squawk about next, I wonder?

Oh, and also - if we were allowed to explore and exploit our own resources, the geopolitical balance would shift. Middle Eastern oil fields are old, and ours from shale, are not old. We could change the face of the world, if the jackbooted environmental thugs weren't standing on our figurative energy necks.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

I am absolutely convinced that the climate is changing. Only a fool would deny it.

Yep, it's getting warmer, summer is on the way!

[K-McD]

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

Yep, it's getting warmer, summer is on the way!

Truly. Global warming is real. It happens every Spring.

[Linda Marie]

Talking about slander:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnvinc View Post
I'm actually now more concerned about the souls of the denialists, who are in business to trash the planet

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

The knock-on effects of AGW are indeed killing people thru intensification of heat waves, droughts, vector disease spread, floods, storms, and wildfires. It is projected that deaths from the knock-effects of AGW will increase tremendously in the future if we fail to mitigate it. I've done a lot of study in the area of how AGW is harming food production around the world, and is expected to very greatly harm it in the future. It's just not right to ruin people's agriculture and seafood catches, etc. And that is what we are doing, and to top it off denying that we are doing that -- as if there were some courtroom adversarial arena where the guilty insist on their innocence to the bitter end, instead of a moral arena in which people should take responsibilities for their harm and try to rectify them.

So, you cannot actually say that one single person has died directly due to global warming. You cannot give a figure, just some nebulous 'people are dying'. People have been dying from drought, flood, famine, storms, disease, etc since the beginning of mankind.
For Wheat and Rice, CO2 is Nice

In the end, Xiao et al. have this to say “It is expected that by 2030 warming temperatures and changes in rainfall will have led to the increase of 3.1% in wheat yields at a low altitudes and of 4.0% in wheat yields at high altitude in semiarid northwestern China, and that by 2050, there will have been the additional increase of 2.6% and 6.0%, respectively, at these altitudes”. Further, “In addition, the results of this study revealed that a 0.6–2.2ºC increase in temperature will improve the water use efficiency of winter wheat plants at both altitudes evaluated here.”

Do AGW proponents take any responsibility for the increase in food prices due to diverting food crops to fuel which in turn is causing starvation? or is that ok because it is going to 'save the planet'?
or for:
Gunman's Environmental Grudges Well Known Before Discovery Channel Hostage Standoff
or
Alarmists Continue to Inject Violence, Hate into Global Warming Debate
or
Activists – Birth Control Can Help Fight Global Warming

“It is common sense that when women are able to plan their pregnancies, populations grow more slowly and as a result so do greenhouse gas emissions,” she explained. “Providing access to contraception and preventative health should be one of the many effective strategies used to fight climate change.”

preventative health = abortion

There is absolutely NO evidence that any weather is intensified by 'global warming'. It is all theory, conjecture, might be, could be, may be.

'Global Warming' has not been proven, much less Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is all conjecture, hypothesis supported only by computer models fed manufactured data. The sea level has not risen, the Himalayan glaciers have not melted as predicted, and on and on ...

How many times do the predictions of alarmists have to be wrong before they will accept that their hypothesis is in error?

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Linda Marie

Talking about slander:

So, you cannot actually say that one single person has died directly due to global warming. You cannot give a figure, just some nebulous 'people are dying'. People have been dying from drought, flood, famine, storms, disease, etc since the beginning of mankind.

That's why you cannot say which people died from the AGW contribution to the drought, flood, etc, only estimate the portion of deaths may have been caused by it, according to how much AGW enhanced it. For instance, they estimated that half of the 30,000 deaths from the 2003 European heatwave were caused by global warming. It is also estimated that 150,000 people die each year from global warming due to vector disease spread.

As a Catholic, I am not so much concerned about exact figures or names of persons I am harming and killing, or what my tiny fraction of the harm is, only that I should reduce this harm to my utmost possible. That my GHG emissions could go on contributing to the harm and death of people well into the future and possibly eventually wipe out all people (a few scientists say we could tip the system into runaway warming, as on Venus) is all the more reason for me to mitigate -- I don't have to know their names.

However, sometimes I do find out: When a brother OCDS Carmelite's home was greatly damaged by Hurricane Rita in 2005 I emailed him my sympathy and also mentioned how I had been mitigating AGW for 15 years in hopes of helping reduce such disasters, that I had been thinking of people like him. He was appreciative.

Now Rita may have happened without AGW, but perhaps it would have been less intense and would not have been quite strong enough to blow off his roof. Maybe it was that extra tad of intensity that was the "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak. And my contribution to that harm would have been extremely minisule. For me, that doesn't matter, all I know is that I need to mitigate. Others may brush my concerns off as stupid nonsense.

For Wheat and Rice, CO2 is Nice

Quote:
In the end, Xiao et al. have this to say “It is expected that by 2030 warming temperatures and changes in rainfall will have led to the increase of 3.1% in wheat yields at a low altitudes and of 4.0% in wheat yields at high altitude in semiarid northwestern China, and that by 2050, there will have been the additional increase of 2.6% and 6.0%, respectively, at these altitudes”. Further, “In addition, the results of this study revealed that a 0.6–2.2ºC increase in temperature will improve the water use efficiency of winter wheat plants at both altitudes evaluated here.”

That's right, the warming and CO2 fertilization are projected to be helpful to crops in mid and high latitudes up to about 2050 -- that's what I also found in my studies -- after which there is a projected strong decline in agricultural productivity. See: Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.full.pdf+html

However, in other parts of the world AGW is already harming agriculture, and ocean acidification from CO2 is harming sea life. See:

• Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
• Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
• Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, and E. G. P. Greenfield, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737-1742.
• Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, M. I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M. C. O. Ferrari, and D. P. Chivers. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29):12930-12934.
• Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.

Do AGW proponents take any responsibility for the increase in food prices due to diverting food crops to fuel which in turn is causing starvation? or is that ok because it is going to 'save the planet'?

The very first time I heard about biofuel some 15 years ago I thought that is really bad -- taking food away from the poor and starving so we can drive around aimlessly in our SUVs. I've been against food-to-fuel since its inception.

What got me started mitigating AGW some 22 years ago was the finding that AGW may have been enhancing the droughts in the Sahelian belt in Africa, causing famine. Why would I want to starve people to solve some problem -- that's no solution, that's just another problem.

However, there are possibilities of using some non-food organic matter for biofuel. I wouldn't be against that.