Nature says global warming is real

Bullcrap. All of it.

Even if that tree is growing where trees didnt normally grow, ie Tundra..

That tree would only have like 2 month growth peroid, and that would make a tree that size like 100 years old.

 

Well if you think this is an elaborate hoax, all one has to do is go to Norway.

 

Sorry , but that fact has not been established,and why does the "study" have to use a PHONY PHOTO, if it is so "obvious"?


Notice all the DECIDUOUS trees in the background= COMPLETE, DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD.

The photo was INTENTIONALLY USED TO LIE, as is TYPICAL of the Warmist Religious publications, as we all have learned...

 

In the long run, there isn't any great harm. In the short to medium run, it means the human physical plant (where we live and what we do there) is going to have to undergo modification and relocation, which promises to be expensive. And it also probably means plenty of unpleasant weather until a new equilibrium is reached and the dust settles.

???Nobody says it has. This is simply an average of the predictions of the best current models, of what will happen over the next 100 years if we keep going the way we are. And if you think 100 year predictions are hopelessy iffy, I agree with you.

This complaint strikes me as incoherent. What are you trying to say? You make it sound like 100 year predictions should have happened 10 years ago!

Now, if you are trying to be intelligently skeptical about the predictive capabilities of current climate models (rather than slamming your mind shut with a resounding BOOM), then you have plenty of company. Up to the present, these models are unnecessary - we can and do measure temperatures, rainfalls, wind velocities, sea levels, glacier speeds and sizes, and so on. And up to the present these models are increasingly well calibrated by matching variables (and there are quite a few) to observations. But going into the future, these models can produce drastically different predictions.

So: The facts are, the world's temperature is rising. People are causing it. So far, this doesn't seem to have translated into anything particularly awful. Maybe it never will. Maybe any changes it DOES cause will be easily adapted to. Maybe they will be net improvements. And maybe we better hope so, because the world's temperature IS rising, and people ARE causing this, and aren't about to stop doing so anytime soon.

- - - Updated - - -

In the long run, there isn't any great harm. In the short to medium run, it means the human physical plant (where we live and what we do there) is going to have to undergo modification and relocation, which promises to be expensive. And it also probably means plenty of unpleasant weather until a new equilibrium is reached and the dust settles.

???Nobody says it has. This is simply an average of the predictions of the best current models, of what will happen over the next 100 years if we keep going the way we are. And if you think 100 year predictions are hopelessy iffy, I agree with you.

This complaint strikes me as incoherent. What are you trying to say? You make it sound like 100 year predictions should have happened 10 years ago!

Now, if you are trying to be intelligently skeptical about the predictive capabilities of current climate models (rather than slamming your mind shut with a resounding BOOM), then you have plenty of company. Up to the present, these models are unnecessary - we can and do measure temperatures, rainfalls, wind velocities, sea levels, glacier speeds and sizes, and so on. And up to the present these models are increasingly well calibrated by matching variables (and there are quite a few) to observations. But going into the future, these models can produce drastically different predictions.

So: The facts are, the world's temperature is rising. People are causing it. So far, this doesn't seem to have translated into anything particularly awful. Maybe it never will. Maybe any changes it DOES cause will be easily adapted to. Maybe they will be net improvements. And maybe we better hope so, because the world's temperature IS rising, and people ARE causing this, and aren't about to stop doing so anytime soon.

 

Yeah, so says the liar in the OP link who published a COMPLETELY PHONY PHOTO as "proof" if their idiotic hysterical claims....

 

I dont see any evidence, just lies.

 

And already we have exhibit A. Amazing.

 

What does the season have to do with the fact that there are trees growing there?

Previously there were no trees growing there at any time of the year regardless of the season....now there are.

Conspiracy theory much?

 

The earth has warmed following every ice age. No one denies this. Greenland will be green again.

 

So a hundred year old tree is proof of what?

 

No, it means MORE CROPS, from more arable land.

All Warmist predictions have been completely debunked by NATURE, so far.

.


Climate models are UTTER NONSENSE. The current atmosperic levels of CO2, .000387, are having about ZERO EFFECT on ANYTHING , except green plants. WATER VAPOR is another story, but humans aren't causing most of that ,either.

It ten-twenty years, all the Warmist will be lying to their children ,claiming "I never fell for that 'global warming' nonsense..."

 

Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves...Works every time with this one.

 

Your scare tactics wont work on me.

 

Because we're all supposed to have not noticed that the specifically chosen , featured photo in the OP article is a COMPLETE LIE...right?

 

If the earth stops warming, it will likely signal the beginning of our descent into the next Ice Age. Glaciers scraping civilization off of the face of Canada and northern Europe would be much more unpleasant than excess heat.

 

If you have evidence that that picture was not taken is the arctics of Norway, please, link it.

 

Stay out of reality if you wish.

- - - Updated - - -

Well your claims its all a hoax is idiotic.

 

More arbitrary statements.

 

Uh, no of course it does not. There is more to "arable land" than average yearly temperature. You also need the appropriate nutrients, you need periodic mild rainfall (or the ability to irrigate), etc. Rising temperatures are not expected to provide these things, and in fact are predicted NOT to.

Odd, considering that the models are based on, and calibrated with, their predictions. And the models are in very close agreement about temperature. Do you understand how models are built, how they're tested, how they work?

Ah, I understand. Your mind is made up, there's no way to confuse you with the facts because you have decided there aren't any. And as the world heats up, usually the denial does too. There are STILL people who don't think smoking is unhealthy. The fact that they are all smokers is coincidence...

Well, that's a good solid prediction. I for one would be delighted to be wrong. So would 99% of the world's climatologists. And as for you, if in 20 years the world is 2 degrees warmer and there are drastic weather changes, you can say "would have happened anyway, this is normal, so it's not happening." And everyone will be happy.

 

How tall is that tree in that photo? How fast does say a norway spruce grow each year? How about their pines? Because the one in the photo is actually young.

Did you make it to the second photo?

See research is done over a long period of time because scientists like to gather information instead of just pretending to know what they are talking about.

Here you are telling me that your integrity should be measured by your ability to know what an article on scientific research says by the photo on the first page....and it's duly noted.

 

It says it was taken in Finnmark which has a timber industry centered around planed forests. So yes the advancing treeline is very anthropogenic as man planted it.

 

OK, Let's agree that humans are killing the planet and something drastic has to be done and done soon... The only rational thing to do is reduce the population in the places that are producing the most Co2.

We can rebuild of arsenal of neutron bombs - if don't still have some - pretty quickly and cook the big population centers in China and if the global keeps warming we can do India. And the middle East, just because.

It is clear that China will ruin the planet even if we stop producing CO2 completely. We can't risk the planet any longer because China is getting more powerful and if we wait they will nuke us first and that will really warm things up.

 

Then put your money where your mouth is and prove to me that that picture is either not from the arctics or that that tree has died from exposure to cold since the picture was taken.

 

Yeah, these temperature fluctuations over tens of thousands of years are a real pain, you know? I also like taking the long view - that given our breeding rate and general irresponsibility, we will render ourselves extinct before such long-term changes matter to us anyway. And once we're gone, really, who cares what happens to polar bears or hummingbirds?

 

Okay, so then you have a link to support your word, right?