Global warming example (1 Viewer)

[sawyerloggingon]

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Alarmist would have us think it is warming and we are at great peril due to man and his nasty co2. We could and often do argue all day on if the planets still warming or how fast it's warming but one thing for certain, it's alot warmer than it used to be. Following link is about just one of many ancient cities that have been found deep under the ocean that were dry land when ice covered most of the earth so if Tampa and NYC are in danger of being submerged it's just part of an on going process that started long before planes trains and automobiles. It will keep going on it's own or turn around and head back to another ice age on it's own, relax and enjoy the ride.




Ancient Underwater City Found Off India: Discovery in Bay of Cambay Will Force Western Archaeologists to Rewrite History

 

[Penderyn]

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Alarmist would have us think it is warming and we are at great peril due to man and his nasty co2. We could and often do argue all day on if the planets still warming or how fast it's warming but one thing for certain, it's alot warmer than it used to be. Following link is about just one of many ancient cities that have been found deep under the ocean that were dry land when ice covered most of the earth so if Tampa and NYC are in danger of being submerged it's just part of an on going process that started long before planes trains and automobiles. It will keep going on it's own or turn around and head back to another ice age on it's own, relax and enjoy the ride.




Ancient Underwater City Found Off India: Discovery in Bay of Cambay Will Force Western Archaeologists to Rewrite History

If you were a person of intelligence and wanted to know about - say - genetics or statistics - you'd consult a university specialist in those subjects. Those who know about climatology are pretty much agreed about man-made global warming. Know better, do you? Publish, kid, and see if it'll stand criticism from experts.

 

[1Perry]

If you were a person of intelligence and wanted to know about - say - genetics or statistics - you'd consult a university specialist in those subjects. Those who know about climatology are pretty much agreed about man-made global warming. Know better, do you? Publish, kid, and see if it'll stand criticism from experts.

I support many of the actions proposed by those who argue AGW. To argue that all scientists are in lock step agreement is and will be completely dismissed by all that know it isn't true.

 

[Manc Skipper]

There is no science body or organisation holding an opposing view.

 

[1Perry]

There is no science body or organisation holding an opposing view.

To what?...

 

[Penderyn]

I support many of the actions proposed by those who argue AGW. To argue that all scientists are in lock step agreement is and will be completely dismissed by all that know it isn't true.

Who's talking about 'scientists'? - that is your problem. I was talking about the relevant ones, climactologists.

 

[Deuce]

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Alarmist would have us think it is warming and we are at great peril due to man and his nasty co2. We could and often do argue all day on if the planets still warming or how fast it's warming but one thing for certain, it's alot warmer than it used to be. Following link is about just one of many ancient cities that have been found deep under the ocean that were dry land when ice covered most of the earth so if Tampa and NYC are in danger of being submerged it's just part of an on going process that started long before planes trains and automobiles. It will keep going on it's own or turn around and head back to another ice age on it's own, relax and enjoy the ride.




Ancient Underwater City Found Off India: Discovery in Bay of Cambay Will Force Western Archaeologists to Rewrite History

Lung cancer existed before cigarettes, therefore all lung cancer is natural. (cigarettes can't possibly cause it)
Also, people have survived lung cancer therefore we shouldn't worry at all about things that might cause lung cancer, natural or otherwise. Just go with it, man.


Pretty stupid argument, right? Of course cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and just because some people will just naturally get lung cancer doesn't mean we should just go all willy-nilly inhaling smoke! And lung cancer kills people sometimes, so it's definitely something we should try NOT to cause artificially! Now let's apply it to global warming:

Climate changes naturally. Nobody disputes this. However, it is still possible for us to change climate.
Next, climate changes and life tends to survive, but that doesn't mean it's always a benign process. Numerous extinction events can be found in the fossil record corresponding with rapid climate shifts. It seems that when shifts are too sudden and too drastic, many species cannot adapt quickly enough and die out, causing problems for other species who relied on the now-extinct plants or animals as a food source. Since it is very clear that climate change can have negative impacts, perhaps artificially causing a climate change is a bad idea, yes?

 

[tecoyah]

Who's talking about 'scientists'? - that is your problem. I was talking about the relevant ones, climactologists.

It is obvious and undeniable, that this planet goes through climate change. The evidence is all around, that is not in question from anyone worth listening to.

Equally, there is no doubt whatsoever that CO2 plays a prominent role in these changes, this is also blatantly clear in the Data we use to come to the above conclusion.

As well, increases of this catalyst have been dramatic and correspond directly to Human activity over the last decades.


To dismiss these facts is pointless and counter productive...I can only assume some level of ignorance comes into play.

 

[RadicalModerate]

To what?...

The idea that human activity is altering the climate.

 

[RadicalModerate]

If you were a person of intelligence and wanted to know about - say - genetics or statistics - you'd consult a university specialist in those subjects. Those who know about climatology are pretty much agreed about man-made global warming. Know better, do you? Publish, kid, and see if it'll stand criticism from experts.

Ah, but you're forgetting their silver bullet to that argument; all these scientific organisations have a BIASED INTEREST in perpetuating AGW; the more they support it, the more money they get from the liberals cabals, the radical environmentalist lobby, the World Government supporters, the Big Alternative Energy lobbyists, etc. Don't you see? It's all a plot...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Warmers just can't grasp it, these cities under the ocean should give you a clue that the planet has been in a long drawn out warming process, de-ice aging if you will. If we are warming now it is just the continuing process of what has been happening for 10000 years. When I hear warmers talk about "normal weather" I have to laugh. You dummy's, this is normal, we have been coming out of an ice age a very long time. The ice age didn't just end one day and the weather got "normal" and suddenly man is warming things up. The time to worry is when we start heading back the other direction as we surly will, personally I am glad to be alive in one of earths brief warm eras, 70% of earths history has been an ice age you know so technically an ice age is normal weather.

 

[tecoyah]

Warmers just can't grasp it, these cities under the ocean should give you a clue that the planet has been in a long drawn out warming process, de-ice aging if you will. If we are warming now it is just the continuing process of what has been happening for 10000 years. When I hear warmers talk about "normal weather" I have to laugh. You dummy's, this is normal, we have been coming out of an ice age a very long time. The ice age didn't just end one day and the weather got "normal" and suddenly man is warming things up. The time to worry is when we start heading back the other direction as we surly will, personally I am glad to be alive in one of earths brief warm eras, 70% of earths history has been an ice age you know so technically an ice age is normal weather.

Thing is...we "Dummy's" tend to look at a bit more than you seem to. It is a given that Climate patterns change, and have for far more than 10,000 yrs. Some in a dramatic and rapid way...this is not in question, so your comment and "Discovery" (Good job by the way, must have been harsh on that expedition) do nothing but explain a piece of a well defined reality.

The issue in question is a matter of not just geological changes, but the way in which atmospheric changes may be impacted by the addition of large amounts of industrial input over relatively short timeframes, and if indeed it might impact our lifestyles and existence...but hey....cool discovery.


Oh, and by the way....You might take a look at the validity of your 70% Ice Age comment.

 

[Deuce]

Warmers just can't grasp it, these cities under the ocean should give you a clue that the planet has been in a long drawn out warming process, de-ice aging if you will. If we are warming now it is just the continuing process of what has been happening for 10000 years. When I hear warmers talk about "normal weather" I have to laugh. You dummy's, this is normal, we have been coming out of an ice age a very long time. The ice age didn't just end one day and the weather got "normal" and suddenly man is warming things up. The time to worry is when we start heading back the other direction as we surly will, personally I am glad to be alive in one of earths brief warm eras, 70% of earths history has been an ice age you know so technically an ice age is normal weather.

So, what you're suggesting is that it is impossible for a previous natural trend to have stopped. There's no sense investigating or trying to find evidence of this. The world has been warming for some unspecified period of time therefore mankind cannot possibly cause warming at all ever.

And here I thought you actually had some interest in science.

P.S. Nobody suggests that the earth has some inherent "normal" temperature that is universally desirable for all time.

What you can't seem to grasp is that you lack even basic understanding of the argument being made.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

So, what you're suggesting is that it is impossible for a previous natural trend to have stopped. There's no sense investigating or trying to find evidence of this. The world has been warming for some unspecified period of time therefore mankind cannot possibly cause warming at all ever.

And here I thought you actually had some interest in science.

P.S. Nobody suggests that the earth has some inherent "normal" temperature that is universally desirable for all time.

What you can't seem to grasp is that you lack even basic understanding of the argument being made.

Face facts, the earth is either coming out of one ice age or going into another, there is absaloutly no Garden of Eden weather pattern.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Thing is...we "Dummy's" tend to look at a bit more than you seem to. It is a given that Climate patterns change, and have for far more than 10,000 yrs. Some in a dramatic and rapid way...this is not in question, so your comment and "Discovery" (Good job by the way, must have been harsh on that expedition) do nothing but explain a piece of a well defined reality.

The issue in question is a matter of not just geological changes, but the way in which atmospheric changes may be impacted by the addition of large amounts of industrial input over relatively short timeframes, and if indeed it might impact our lifestyles and existence...but hey....cool discovery.


Oh, and by the way....You might take a look at the validity of your 70% Ice Age comment.

We could quibble about what % of time earth is in an ice age but it is most of the time.


Are We Missing an Ice Age? (Part I) | Paul Kiser's Blog

"There is no doubt that Earth has a fairly consistent cycle of Ice Ages followed by interglacials, or Warm Ages. Using physical geologic evidence of the last Ice Age, and by analyzing and comparing ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and other samples that preserve air and climate data within them, scientists have an understanding of Earth’s overall climate back for over 400,000 years."




"There is a pattern to the data that suggests an approximate 100,000 year cycle that includes a 90,000 year cold period (Ice Age) followed by a brief 10,000 year warm period (Warm Age.) While this cycle can vary, the fact is that we have been in a Warm Age for over 10,000 years. Another unusual aspect of the current pattern is that typically the Warm Age rises to a sudden peak followed by a fairly rapid cooling period. The current Warm Age suddenly began and peaked about 11,000 years ago. The Earth has stayed relatively warm, and is in fact, continuing to get warmer".


As far as this underwater city thing goes, the point I am trying to get through to alarmist is this is nothing new. I constantly hear them crying how islands may go underwater and cities on the coast may cease to exist as if this is some sudden calamity that man has triggered. The truth is this has been going on 10,000 years, it is really quite normal.

 

[Renae]

If you were a person of intelligence and wanted to know about - say - genetics or statistics - you'd consult a university specialist in those subjects. Those who know about climatology are pretty much agreed about man-made global warming. Know better, do you? Publish, kid, and see if it'll stand criticism from experts.

They aren't in agreement, that's the problem.

 

[tecoyah]

We could quibble about what % of time earth is in an ice age but it is most of the time....snip...

Agreed. No point in quibbling.


As far as this underwater city thing goes, the point I am trying to get through to alarmist is this is nothing new. I constantly hear them crying how islands may go underwater and cities on the coast may cease to exist as if this is some sudden calamity that man has triggered. The truth is this has been going on 10,000 years, it is really quite normal.

Very few will deny our climate changes continuously over large timescales. Nor that there is a natural component to our current changes...but, there is also an effect created by large man made atmospheric change, in the form of greenhouse gas emissions.

I am not an Alarmist...But I am a Realist.

 

[tecoyah]

They aren't in agreement, that's the problem.

It's really not a problem, as no aspect of science has complete agreement within the field of researchers...otherwise we would never develop new theory.

There are times however, when consensus is overwhelming to the point of indisputable agreement:

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. "

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

 

[longview]

But If Scientific consensus is reached by silencing any opposition, is that really science?
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Does this sound like a consensus builder?

 

[tecoyah]

But If Scientific consensus is reached by silencing any opposition, is that really science?
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Does this sound like a consensus builder?

The opposition has not been silenced....far from it, they have become a very vocal minority. Likely you have used quite a few of the opposition documents yourself in these debates.

As far as the IPCC reports, few use them as some gospel the way deniers claim. As with all science, they are a piece of the Data used to study...thus the plural in report(s). They were not meant to be a consensus builder, instead the consensus has come about BECAUSE of the process.

Tell me...if you were making an apple pie, and there were pickles on the table....would you add them into the mix?

 

[Deuce]

We could quibble about what % of time earth is in an ice age but it is most of the time.


Are We Missing an Ice Age? (Part I) | Paul Kiser's Blog

"There is no doubt that Earth has a fairly consistent cycle of Ice Ages followed by interglacials, or Warm Ages. Using physical geologic evidence of the last Ice Age, and by analyzing and comparing ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and other samples that preserve air and climate data within them, scientists have an understanding of Earth’s overall climate back for over 400,000 years."




"There is a pattern to the data that suggests an approximate 100,000 year cycle that includes a 90,000 year cold period (Ice Age) followed by a brief 10,000 year warm period (Warm Age.) While this cycle can vary, the fact is that we have been in a Warm Age for over 10,000 years. Another unusual aspect of the current pattern is that typically the Warm Age rises to a sudden peak followed by a fairly rapid cooling period. The current Warm Age suddenly began and peaked about 11,000 years ago. The Earth has stayed relatively warm, and is in fact, continuing to get warmer".


As far as this underwater city thing goes, the point I am trying to get through to alarmist is this is nothing new. I constantly hear them crying how islands may go underwater and cities on the coast may cease to exist as if this is some sudden calamity that man has triggered. The truth is this has been going on 10,000 years, it is really quite normal.

"Is quite normal" isn't proof that this is a natural trend. It's "really quite normal" for pilot error to cause a plane crash, but we still check for mechanical difficulties in a crash investigation. Why?

Over and over and over again, you make arguments based on nothing more than an attempt at logic rather than based on actual evidence. "It's normal." "It's natural." That's about as scientific as saying "It's magic." "Natural" is not a physical mechanism for climate change. "Increase in solar radiation" would be an example of such a thing. Yes, milankovitch cycles are the prevailing theory for the cause of the regular glaciation cycle we've seen. We know that. Can you provide evidence that orbital mechanics have caused this climate trend? How much has our axial tilt changed over the last 200 years and how much warming might that be expected to cause?

Face facts, the earth is either coming out of one ice age or going into another, there is absaloutly no Garden of Eden weather pattern.

So, what you're suggesting is that it is impossible for a previous natural trend to have stopped. There's no sense investigating or trying to find evidence of this. The world has been warming for some unspecified period of time therefore mankind cannot possibly cause warming at all ever.

And here I thought you actually had some interest in science.

P.S. Nobody suggests that the earth has some inherent "normal" temperature that is universally desirable for all time.

What you can't seem to grasp is that you lack even basic understanding of the argument being made.

I figured it out. The reason you keep repeating the same nonsense is because when I respond to point out how you're wrong, you just don't even read it.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

"Is quite normal" isn't proof that this is a natural trend. It's "really quite normal" for pilot error to cause a plane crash, but we still check for mechanical difficulties in a crash investigation. Why?

Over and over and over again, you make arguments based on nothing more than an attempt at logic rather than based on actual evidence. "It's normal." "It's natural." That's about as scientific as saying "It's magic." "Natural" is not a physical mechanism for climate change. "Increase in solar radiation" would be an example of such a thing. Yes, milankovitch cycles are the prevailing theory for the cause of the regular glaciation cycle we've seen. We know that. Can you provide evidence that orbital mechanics have caused this climate trend? How much has our axial tilt changed over the last 200 years and how much warming might that be expected to cause?





I figured it out. The reason you keep repeating the same nonsense is because when I respond to point out how you're wrong, you just don't even read it.

Actually I keep finding new creative ways to make the same points in an attempt to get through some of the thick heads out there. I think the fact that old cities are being found under 60 feet of ocean is a great way to wake some people up to the fact that the earth has been warming a long time and the sea level has been rising along with it. I hear many people having panic attacks about the prospect of some islands in the Pacific being submerged or NYC going away and it's obvious most of them think this is some new phenomenon. The truth shall set you free and I will keep hammering the truth home, sorry if it annoys you.

 

[Deuce]

Actually I keep finding new creative ways to make the same points in an attempt to get through some of the thick heads out there. I think the fact that old cities are being found under 60 feet of ocean is a great way to wake some people up to the fact that the earth has been warming a long time and the sea level has been rising along with it. I hear many people having panic attacks about the prospect of some islands in the Pacific being submerged or NYC going away and it's obvious most of them think this is some new phenomenon. The truth shall set you free and I will keep hammering the truth home, sorry if it annoys you.

Well, nobody here thinks this is a new phenomenon. We're well aware of all that and always have been.

You've yet to acknowledge that "earth has warmed before" is not proof that the current trend is natural. Do you think this is proof, the end of the discussion?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Well, nobody here thinks this is a new phenomenon. We're well aware of all that and always have been.

You've yet to acknowledge that "earth has warmed before" is not proof that the current trend is natural. Do you think this is proof, the end of the discussion?

If you actually read any of my post with an open mind you would see I didn't say the earth has warmed before, I said we are still coming out of an ice age and hopefully still warming because the alternative is to start going the other way. Earth is basically always coming out of one ice age or going into another, it's the cycle. As far as how warm we could get, one of my threads was about when the Antarctic was a lush green forest so I think we have a very long way to go before we pass some invisible line in the sand where the earth is at peril from warming.

 

[Renae]

It's really not a problem, as no aspect of science has complete agreement within the field of researchers...otherwise we would never develop new theory.

There are times however, when consensus is overwhelming to the point of indisputable agreement:

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. "

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Wait, you're using an AGW propaganda sites opinion piece to back up your arguments? And you want to be taken seriously? That'd be like using a marlboro website to argue that cigarettes are really THAT dangerous.