Curse

Simath · May 28, 2009, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earth

Who cares? The world ends in 2012 anyway.

Either you're joking, or you have not studied enough science. The problem could also lie in you believing everything you hear on TV, or just a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding the Mayan Calendar.

Earth · May 28, 2009, 08:20 PM // 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simath

Either you're joking, or you have not studied enough science. The problem could also lie in you believing everything you hear on TV, or just a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding the Mayan Calendar.

I wasn't serious. As far as I'm aware the world was supposed to end a couple of times already, yet here we are. I have no reason to believe it will end in 2012.

Simath · May 28, 2009, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earth

I wasn't serious. As far as I'm aware the world was supposed to end a couple of times already, yet here we are. I have no reason to believe it will end in 2012.

Oh, good. I've just grown tired of people believing the terrible documentaries and books they've found in the science fiction section.

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 01:08 AM // 01:08

So far all we have from skeptics are arguments against human-induced global warming, rather than evidence for an alternative cause. If it is not caused by humans, what is causing it? At least human induced warming is backed by a certain amount of credible evidence, whether you believe that it is solid enough or not. You make hypotheses of other possible causes such as natural cycles, but where is the evidence for that? The fact that warming cycles have happened in the distant past isn't exactly evidence for what we are seeing now. That's like assuming that if one extinction event was caused by an asteroid, all extinction events must be caused by asteroids. It also doesn't explain why it is happening so fast, to a degree never before seen in the last several million years.

When in doubt, isn't it safe to believe what we have the most evidence for?

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

So far all we have from skeptics are arguments against human-induced global warming, rather than evidence for an alternative cause. If it is not caused by humans, what is causing it? At least human induced warming is backed by a certain amount of credible evidence, whether you believe that it is solid enough or not. You make hypotheses of other possible causes such as natural cycles, but where is the evidence for that? The fact that warming cycles have happened in the distant past isn't exactly evidence for what we are seeing now. That's like assuming that if one extinction event was caused by an asteroid, all extinction events must be caused by asteroids. It also doesn't explain why it is happening so fast, to a degree never before seen in the last several million years.

When in doubt, isn't it safe to believe what we have the most evidence for?

I've actually accounted for many possible reasons for "global warming" if you even took the time to read any of my "skeptic" posts.

You ask why it's happening "so fast"...IT'S NOT HAPPENING "SO FAST". I've explained that ad nauseum. There is CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the temperatures over the last 2000 years very well may have been higher on average than claimed by the doomsday theorists. That blows your whole argument out of the water because hey, that 1 degree change isn't so big after all! That 1 degree change may be a high-frequency low-amplitude pattern. Stuff in nature doesn't change smoothly. Not one aspect of nature is a smooth transition. There are high frequency patterns, low frequency patterns, moderate-range frequency patterns, all added together to get the seemingly random changes we see if we're looking at the wrong scale. Step back and look at it.

100 years is NOTHING in the timescale of the earth. 1 degree is NOTHING compared to the changes we've seen on the earth. It takes a BOATLOAD of radiant energy to be trapped in the atmosphere to change average temperature of the ENTIRE GLOBE by 1 degree. And the temperature has changed by 15 OF THEM in past history, long before Humans came to "pollute" the Earth.

I'm done with this discussion...you guys are ignoring basic principles just to argue your magic "science" and regurgitate everything that you saw on Al Gore's falsity-filled cockumentary.

haggus71 · May 29, 2009, 01:18 AM // 01:18

The earth isn't in trouble. We could kill ourselves off along with 99% of life, and, a few hundred million years later, an ecosystem just as lush and vibrant will exist.

We aren't trying to "save the world". We're really just trying to save our own asses.

There are too many people. You want to keep the human race around? Kill off 80% of it. Fate will do that, anyway, sooner or later.

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 01:20 AM // 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by haggus71

The earth isn't in trouble. We could kill ourselves off along with 99% of life, and, a few hundred years later, an ecosystem just as lush and vibrant will exist.

We aren't trying to "save the world". We're really just trying to save our own asses.

There are too many people. You want to keep the human race around? Kill off 80% of it. Fate will do that, anyway, sooner or later.

Fixed. It doesn't take long at all for the earth to recover from anything short of a nuclear detonation. Hell, it only takes a decade for a reclaimed strip mine pit to fill up and start growing fish, and the tailings piles to be growing vegetation again, and that's with people treading all over it.

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 01:38 AM // 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

I've actually accounted for many possible reasons for "global warming" if you even took the time to read any of my "skeptic" posts.

You ask why it's happening "so fast"...IT'S NOT HAPPENING "SO FAST". I've explained that ad nauseum. There is CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the temperatures over the last 2000 years very well may have been higher on average than claimed by the doomsday theorists. That blows your whole argument out of the water because hey, that 1 degree change isn't so big after all! That 1 degree change may be a high-frequency low-amplitude pattern. Stuff in nature doesn't change smoothly. Not one aspect of nature is a smooth transition. There are high frequency patterns, low frequency patterns, moderate-range frequency patterns, all added together to get the seemingly random changes we see if we're looking at the wrong scale. Step back and look at it.

100 years is NOTHING in the timescale of the earth. 1 degree is NOTHING compared to the changes we've seen on the earth. It takes a BOATLOAD of radiant energy to be trapped in the atmosphere to change average temperature of the ENTIRE GLOBE by 1 degree. And the temperature has changed by 15 OF THEM in past history, long before Humans came to "pollute" the Earth.

I'm done with this discussion...you guys are ignoring basic principles just to argue your magic "science" and regurgitate everything that you saw on Al Gore's falsity-filled cockumentary.

Would you care to link me to this "concrete evidence". Don't you think that all the animal species that are dying off today would have already died if such an increase had happened in the recent past? Don't you think we'd have evidence of such extinctions?

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

Would you care to link me to this "concrete evidence". Don't you think that all the animal species that are dying off today would have already died if such an increase had happened in the recent past? Don't you think we'd have evidence of such extinctions?

So the Devonian extinction was Human related? The K-T extinction? Any of the 4 other mass extinctions? You're really incapable of looking at the big picture, aren't you? It's alright, simple minds usually stick to simple, short-term subjects because they can't grasp anything else.

Give me a break. Look at my first post in this thread for the evidence that your 100 year trend is nothing more than reworked biased figures completely ignoring all presence of calculation error, which is significant.

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 01:55 AM // 01:55

You've suddenly switched from arguing for extinctions within the last several thousand years to those which have happened over the last 100 million years. I fail to see why those extinctions, which have proposed causes backed up by evidence, relate to the current one, which is not supported by any evidence that would lead one to believe that it has the same cause as the previous ones.

Again, you spend a lot of time trying to debunk the currently proposed cause but almost none giving evidence for an alternative. I agree that your error graphs are valid evidence that the warming might not be as extensive as the original hockey stick diagram shows, but that is in no way evidence that global warming isn't real, nor that it is caused by something else

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 01:59 AM // 01:59

When people thought the earth was flat the evidence to the contrary was not sufficient enough to convince the vast majority of sheep to the truth, because they simply refused to hear it, such as what you're doing right now. Instead, they switch gears and start talking about things that are entirely irrelevant, like you're doing right now.

If you think the current extinction is not caused solely by climate change, then you admit there's a difference between this extinction and past extinctions, and that difference is most likely direct, such as loss of habitat due to deforestation and suburban sprawl. If that's the case, then the "current extinction" is not sufficient evidence FOR climate change, and even less sufficient for evidence that Humans are causing said climate change. Therefore, it has no place in this discussion regarding CLIMATE CHANGE.

But you're going to ignore all that, stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALALALALALALALA like you've been doing the whole thread.

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 02:03 AM // 02:03

You're right. This is very similar to the late eighties, when the majority of the public was not swayed by the "new" idea of human-induced global warming. It took a lot of evidence to convince people that it was real, just like it took a lot of evidence to convince people that the earth was round. Even today, despite all the evidence on the contrary, there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 02:04 AM // 02:04

That evidence that "proved" global warming is real was debunked by my first post in this thread, which you obviously have yet to take the time to find and read.

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

That evidence that "proved" global warming is real was debunked by my first post in this thread, which you obviously have yet to take the time to find and read.

So now you're arguing that global warming isn't real at all? Make up your mind.

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 02:14 AM // 02:14

Learn to read my posts please. I have not once said that "global warming" was real in the sense that it's being pimped by the Liberal media. "Global Warming" is specifically the idea that Human industry has damaged the earth's environment sufficiently enough to cause a direct increase in global temperature...which is for all intents and purposes just a whole lot of smoke blown up your ass.

If the earths' temperature truly has risen in the last 100 years, it's not much. Not even 10% of the maximum changes seen in the prehistoric record. You see, the Earth has had an AVERAGE "average temperature" of about 8 degrees higher than where we're at right now. But your entire argument ignores that basic FACT. Your entire argument IGNORES PAST HISTORY and any science that doesn't correlate with your argument. Sorry, that's called IGNORANCE. When you refuse to even consider any alternate calculations and FACTS, just because they don't agree with you, that's a very poor mindset to go with. It makes you a HYPOCRITE, and a PESSIMIST, and that's just the start.

Get your head out of your ass and look at my first post in this thread please...it's easy to find, just search the thread for my user name. All the evidence is right there for you in simple easy-to-read pictures...probably a better way to get the information into your head.

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Learn to read my posts please. I have not once said that "global warming" was real in the sense that it's being pimped by the Liberal media. "Global Warming" is specifically the idea that Human industry has damaged the earth's environment sufficiently enough to cause a direct increase in global temperature...which is for all intents and purposes just a whole lot of smoke blown up your ass.

This wasn't explicitly stated in your original post, but at least now we are on the same page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

If the earths' temperature truly has risen in the last 100 years, it's not much. Not even 10% of the maximum changes seen in the prehistoric record. You see, the Earth has had an AVERAGE "average temperature" of about 8 degrees higher than where we're at right now. But your entire argument ignores that basic FACT. Your entire argument IGNORES PAST HISTORY and any science that doesn't correlate with your argument. Sorry, that's called IGNORANCE. When you refuse to even consider any alternate calculations and FACTS, just because they don't agree with you, that's a very poor mindset to go with. It makes you a HYPOCRITE, and a PESSIMIST, and that's just the start.

I have already stated why higher temperatures of the past, which (1) have known causes which don't explain the warming we see today and 2) happened over a large timescale rather than a relatively small timescale, aren't relevant. What we can determine from the distant past is that what we are seeing is nothing like any previous global warming and cooling cycles. Of course the earth was once much hotter than it is now. Even before life evolved it was a giant volcanic stove... again, what is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Get your head out of your ass and look at my first post in this thread please...it's easy to find, just search the thread for my user name. All the evidence is right there for you in simple easy-to-read pictures...probably a better way to get the information into your head.

I have read your post. It kind of sort of attempts to argue that the current global temperature increase might not be as extensive as some have calculated, and that some irrelevant temperature increases happened in the past. What did I miss?

The argument of your first post appears to be that Global temperatures were much higher in the past, therefore, an increase this small isn't that big of a deal.

You're ignoring my argument, which is that a small increase over a short period of time IS a big deal. Deforestation and pollution explain a small amount of extinctions, but not anywhere near the amount that have occurred and that are projected to occur. Take into account the glacial and meteorological effects and you have a huge problem for all species.

Also, your "realistic" hockey stick diagram ends at the year 2,000, whereas the more common one predicts all the way into 2,100... that's mainly why it is so much more dramatic.

I pwnd U · May 29, 2009, 02:40 AM // 02:40

What is really going to happen.

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

This wasn't explicitly stated in your original post, but at least now we are on the same page.

I have already stated why higher temperatures of the past, which (1) have known causes which don't explain the warming we see today and 2) happened over a large timescale rather than a relatively small timescale, aren't relevant. What we can determine from the distant past is that what we are seeing is nothing like any previous global warming and cooling cycles. Of course the earth was once much hotter than it is now. Even before life evolved it was a giant volcanic stove... again, what is your point?

I have read your post. It kind of sort of attempts to argue that the current global temperature increase might not be as extensive as some have calculated, and that some irrelevant temperature increases happened in the past. What did I miss?

The argument of your first post appears to be that Global temperatures were much higher in the past, therefore, an increase this small isn't that big of a deal.

You're ignoring my argument, which is that a small increase over a short period of time IS a big deal. Deforestation and pollution explain a small amount of extinctions, but not anywhere near the amount that have occurred and that are projected to occur. Take into account the glacial and meteorological effects and you have a huge problem for all species.

Also, your "realistic" hockey stick diagram ends at the year 2,000, whereas the more common one predicts all the way into 2,100... that's mainly why it is so much more dramatic.

What makes the (for example) Permian-Triassic temperature spike "irrelevant"? Who's to say it happened smoothly over that long period of time? Who's to say there weren't shorter periods of a few hundred years where temps rose and fell 1-2 degrees but averaged an increase over thousands? What caused the Permian-triassic temperature spike, according to you?

The "more common" hockeystick diagram omits error and exaggerates the increase in temperature until 2100 based off of a very short spike in temperature recorded over the period of a few months, NOT AT ALL sufficient for actually predicting an overall trend. It's more common because the very vocal nutcase lobbyists like it, it helps "prove" their point to people like you who don't take the minor effort to look through the wool pulled over your eyes and see how you're being manipulated. Please learn to think for yourself.

Look at this diagram and tell me that huge spike at the end isn't completely arbitrary. Hell, it ignores the 50 year trend it's coming off of, and spikes even more steeply, regardless of the fact that corporations and factories are cleaner now than they ever have been, due to recent legislation. If anything, that trend should be reduced, if not REVERSED, if Humans are the sole cause of this "global warming" trend. It's easy to manipulate graphs and trends when you're trying to make a point and nobody can refute your arguments because the data just isn't there. Also notice how the blue smooth flat part of the diagram is only for the northern hemisphere, and the yellow is global, is higher resolution, and is for the most part estimated. Lots of data manipulation going on in that diagram. I prefer to look at raw data with error bars...more information and doesn't reek of rhetoric.

I mean come on....it's even hosted by an environmentalist website. That 5 degree change over 100 years is complete and total horsecrap...and I'd like a source cited that show which scientists are claiming this increase.

The point isn't that the earth was "once much hotter in the past", but that the earth has been much hotter AND much cooler, alternating back and forth, all the way back to the Precambrian. You can't claim that the Cretaceous high was due to the earth being younger thus more volcanically active...that's ridiculous because there were 4 ice ages before that. what caused these changes? I doubt you know...and I doubt it's any different than what has caused this current upswing. Notice that the ice age we're coming out of is the longest in the history of the earth. If we take into account past changes in temperature, we're overdue for a temperature increase. Saying that it's different due to the speed at which a 1 degree change has occurred is just bad science, because you totally ignore higher frequency patterns, which I've explained multiple times. If you ignore that data, you have a piss-poor argument for "global warming" based on nothing but a hundred years worth of possibly sketchy data, because you cannot predict a large-scale event with a small-scale range of data.

Tullzinski · May 29, 2009, 06:43 PM // 18:43

warming cycle is over..... start buying winter coats...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=10783

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications

A11Eur0 · May 29, 2009, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Textbook case of short-period high frequency low-amplitude climate changes that have occurred in nature for billions of years, but which mindless zombified eco-greenies so conveniently overlook and ignore because it doesn't suit their argument. Not to mention, that entire article is a carbon-copy of everything I've been saying in this thread.