• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Enviroment is Fine

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually human's are affecting the climate. But it's not through pollution or anything.

It's through programs like HAARP. Look it up. Go check out Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. He gets to the truth on a lot of things.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Until the evolution of the most efficient hunting species ever, the Ice Age megafuana survived the interstadials mostly just dandy, when one takes into account the fact that most species only last about three million years anyway.

Anecdotal. Some species survived, obviously, but the truly rapid events in earth's history did cause mass extinctions. We're talking most of the planets species.

But, since there's no evidence to suggest humans are affecting the climate now, there's no basis for any claims that we're going to die next week because of climate changes.
If you really think there's "no evidence," then you really aren't worth talking to because you have your head in the sand. I could just as easily claim there's no evidence that the moon is made out of rock.

Wanna know what all that water is REALLY doing in Asia? Well, the bit that does't fall out of the sky to wash the Pakistanis is falling out of the sky and making ice in the Himalayas, reversing the recent trend of glacial shrinkage.

What do you feel happens to the water that doesn't fall out at the lower altitudes as rain?

So, I suppose you have some evidence to support the idea that those glaciers have reversed their trends?

No. I didn't say anything.

Since you asked, I'd say that better thermometers created a presumed temperature change over that time period.

Also, please take a couple years and study some calculus and differential equations, okay? Don't neglect your harmonics, while you're at it.
Do you have any evidence to support this "different thermometer" theory? The second sentence here is just worthless.


I don't think you get the physical scale of the planet we're discussing here. And, since that's the case, I DO grasp the fact that the time scale we're discussing makes it exceedingly improbably that little old us has been influential in the changes that, after all, began before we did anything anyway.

The industrial revolution started around 1850. Right about when the temperature trend reversed. Your history is off.



Given that warmer climates lead to longer growing seasons, earlier growing seasons, vastly increased arable acreage, perennially navigable norther seaways, lower North Eastern heating bills (and Minnesota and the Dakota's too.), what's the problem?

Before you claim warmer is worse, you need to explain why 1950 is deemed so desirable.

Straw man. Where did anyone claim 1950 was optimal or desirable? The issue isn't "warmer is worse," it's "fast warming is bad." The same can be said of cooling. Plants are sensitive to temperature. Warmer average temperature doesn't mean you just add an extra degree or two to each particular day, that's not how weather works. Warmer average temperatures will cause more extreme heat events, more extreme droughts, and more extreme severe weather events. All of these have a powerful negative impact on crop yields. Just ask the Russians what they think of their "longer growing season" this year.



No, they don't. Not really. Most interstadial come on rapidly, glaciations appear to happen fairly rapidly. How long do you think it took to drain Lake Agassiz or fill the Baltic Basin? How long did it take to fill the Mediterranean Basin? How long did it take for the Toba eruption to alter global climate?

Instead of asking random anecdotal questions you could try working with some evidence.


You're making a logical jump from supposition to conclusion.

And got caught.

Ooooh, you caught me mr smart man. It's not a "logical jump." There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that animals and plants can only adapt so rapidly to a changing environment, including temperature. I don't see how this is so hard for folks like you. "Too fast a change is a bad thing."
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Anecdotal. Some species survived, obviously, but the truly rapid events in earth's history did cause mass extinctions. We're talking most of the planets species.

Hmm.....let's see....99.999% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct.

They didn't all die in the Permian End Event, the Chixalub Impact, and the election of Jimmy Carter.

What YOU are failing to prove is that anythin particularly "rapid" is happening now, and that the human race has anything to do with it even if it is. As someone just said, anecdotal evidence isn't good enough. But you don't have anything but.

If you really think there's "no evidence," then you really aren't worth talking to because you have your head in the sand.

Translation: You have no real evidence and you don't want to talk to people who know the topic well enough to reject the fear mongering of the socialists and expect to see real evidence that answers the real questions.

1) The warming trend began in the middle of the 17th century. What natural events triggered this?

2) The Holocene is not as warm as the Eemian interstadial. Why?

3) Temperatures have been declining for nearly a decade. AGW theory cannot account for this. Hence AGW is a false theory. What other theories exist to account for this cooling?

4) The Medieval Warm Period, removed from IPCC later reports to promote the hoax of AGW, was warmer than today. Why?

5) The iconic Hockey Stickey Graph, worshipped by dumb pucks everywhere, was based on tree ring data. An analysis of modern tree rings reveals that temperatures cannot divined from tree rings. What explains the natural phenomenon of a people insisting on pursuing a lie even after the lie has been well documented?

Just a few of the many questions surrounding the AGW hoax.

I could just as easily claim there's no evidence that the moon is made out of rock.

I'm sure you could.

I can point to the moon rock in the Smithsonian.

You can't point to irrefutable evidence of AGW.

So, I suppose you have some evidence to support the idea that those glaciers have reversed their trends?

You mean two weeks after the rains fell?

Of course I do. I have ice cubes in my freezer.

Do you have any evidence to support this "different thermometer" theory? The second sentence here is just worthless.

You mean besides four and half billion years of earth history?

I don't need more than that.

The industrial revolution started around 1850. Right about when the temperature trend reversed. Your history is off.

Right.

The Little Ice Age's minimum temperatures happened ca. 1650, which means the warming trend was 200 years in progress by the date you cited (which is some 50 years late, BTW).



Straw man. Where did anyone claim 1950 was optimal or desirable?

You pick a date from the past then. Since the AGW theory is false and a deliberate hoax, you can make any year you want to be your ideal. Don't pick 1812, that was a bad year for Napoleon and global warming theorists in general.

The issue isn't "warmer is worse," it's "fast warming is bad."

Actually, it is a matter of "warmer is worse", or why else would that idiot Gore be continually harping on melting glaciers and imaginary sea level increases? Those events aren't rendered less serious if they happen slowly.

The same can be said of cooling. Plants are sensitive to temperature.

Plants are even more senstive to carbon dioxide.

Funny thing, that. What we animals exhale as waste, the plants think of as food. Kinda like when a pig follows a dog around.

The more food, the better the plant grows. Depending on the plant, the more the plant grows, the more food we get.

Fancy that.

Warmer IS better.

Especially for starving Somali pirates.

Warmer average temperature doesn't mean you just add an extra degree or two to each particular day, that's not how weather works.

We're discussing global climate and global mean temperatures, not weather.

Warmer average temperatures will cause more extreme heat events, more extreme droughts, and more extreme severe weather events.

Actually, the reverse is true.

Dissipating the heat sinks in the polar regions leads to more uniformity in temperatures, broader isobaric bands, and calmer winds.

Heat engines are driven by temperature differences and they weaken as the delta-t's decline.

All of these have a powerful negative impact on crop yields. Just ask the Russians what they think of their "longer growing season" this year.

Just demonstrate that today's sporadic weather events are not climate.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If you really think there's "no evidence," then you really aren't worth talking to because you have your head in the sand. I could just as easily claim there's no evidence that the moon is made out of rock.

I don't understand the moon reference, since the moon is made of rock, but what still boggles me is that you still don't seem to understand the concepts I previously mentioned. Climatology and Meteorology.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't understand the moon reference, since the moon is made of rock, but what still boggles me is that you still don't seem to understand the concepts I previously mentioned. Climatology and Meteorology.

No, you failed to understand my post entirely. Here, I'll try again:

ATTENTION: SKEPTICS
You keep saying that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle. Explain the mechanism that you think is causing the warming.
It's not that I don't understand you, what I'm saying is that YOU do not get it. When skeptics talk about the current warming trend being natural, they are completely unable to describe it in any fashion other than "natural." No mechanism. No science. No evidence. My asking why and how wasn't out of ignorance, it was a challenge for you to SHOW SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE CURRENT WARMING IS CAUSED BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN CO2.

I even straight up said in that post in my signature, and the post you quoted, that this is not conclusive proof. Yet you went with that strawman anyway. Amazing.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, you failed to understand my post entirely. Here, I'll try again:

ATTENTION: SKEPTICS
You keep saying that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle. Explain the mechanism that you think is causing the warming.
It's not that I don't understand you, what I'm saying is that YOU do not get it. When skeptics talk about the current warming trend being natural, they are completely unable to describe it in any fashion other than "natural." No mechanism. No science. No evidence. My asking why and how wasn't out of ignorance, it was a challenge for you to SHOW SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE CURRENT WARMING IS CAUSED BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN CO2.

I even straight up said in that post in my signature, and the post you quoted, that this is not conclusive proof. Yet you went with that strawman anyway. Amazing.

Warming and cooling cycles that last hundreds to thousands of years are far too complicated to lay out in detail. Are you kidding me? That indicates that you don't understand metereology and climatology... again. Explain what it rains. Pressures systems. Precipitation. Lots of things. Cold. Heat. Same thing. Lots of things go into it. Solar energy. LOTS of things. Many of these things are not apparent for many years. They build up and cause other issues. Now take these varying and extremely complicated and intertwined reasons for the weather and expand them for hundreds to thousands of years and you get Ice Ages or Warming Periods. This is obviously just a simple overview, but that is the point. This overview explains why what you want is next to impossible and if that is the only way that you will debate or change your stance then oh well... Add to that that not everybody is a believer or a skeptic. Many people, like me, say that both contribute to one another. A naturally occuring warming period can be enhanced or sped up by man's contributions, such as increased CO2 output. Explain how this is not possible before going any further, otherwise you ain't got much.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Warming and cooling cycles that last hundreds to thousands of years are far too complicated to lay out in detail. Are you kidding me? That indicates that you don't understand metereology and climatology... again. Explain what it rains. Pressures systems. Precipitation. Lots of things. Cold. Heat. Same thing. Lots of things go into it. Solar energy. LOTS of things. Many of these things are not apparent for many years. They build up and cause other issues. Now take these varying and extremely complicated and intertwined reasons for the weather and expand them for hundreds to thousands of years and you get Ice Ages or Warming Periods. This is obviously just a simple overview, but that is the point. This overview explains why what you want is next to impossible and if that is the only way that you will debate or change your stance then oh well... Add to that that not everybody is a believer or a skeptic. Many people, like me, say that both contribute to one another. A naturally occuring warming period can be enhanced or sped up by man's contributions, such as increased CO2 output. Explain how this is not possible before going any further, otherwise you ain't got much.

Again with the straw man? Really? Nobody said that nature has no impact on temperature trends. What guys like me are saying is that the "usual" climate forcings cannot explain the current trend. It's the people who say mankind has no influence, that it's all natural, that I'm talking about here.

I probably understand meteorology a lot better than you do. I've been flying planes for a living for more than a decade. We pay attention to that sort of thing. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives global temperatures, and perhaps even basic physics. "Pressure systems" and "precipitation" don't "build up" over centuries, and global average temperature is not just an accumulation of weather events. It's a function of how much energy is being put into the system, how much is being stored and released, and how much is escaping the system. You have it backwards. The energy in the system drives pressure and temperature differences, which causes weather.

A change in global average temperature requires a change in that energy cycle somehow. No skeptic has ever offered valid scientific evidence that points to even significant influence from a source other than CO2. They point at the sun, incorrectly, because the long-term trend of solar activity over the last several decades has been totally flat. (the short-term cycles up and down, but the average is constant) After that, they just start spouting what you're spouting now: Oh it's too complicated, we couldn't possibly understand! It's too hard for us puny humans! No wait, I mean it's not happening at all! The temperature sensors are wrong, despite the fact that even using the skeptics-own criteria for "good" temperature sensors gives you exactly the same information.

That's not an argument. That's not science. You can't win a scientific argument without evidence.

Tell me even one factor that is changing that energy balance, and show some evidence to back up your statements.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Again with the straw man? Really? Nobody said that nature has no impact on temperature trends. What guys like me are saying is that the "usual" climate forcings cannot explain the current trend. It's the people who say mankind has no influence, that it's all natural, that I'm talking about here.

I probably understand meteorology a lot better than you do. I've been flying planes for a living for more than a decade. We pay attention to that sort of thing. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives global temperatures, and perhaps even basic physics. "Pressure systems" and "precipitation" don't "build up" over centuries, and global average temperature is not just an accumulation of weather events. It's a function of how much energy is being put into the system, how much is being stored and released, and how much is escaping the system. You have it backwards. The energy in the system drives pressure and temperature differences, which causes weather.

A change in global average temperature requires a change in that energy cycle somehow. No skeptic has ever offered valid scientific evidence that points to even significant influence from a source other than CO2. They point at the sun, incorrectly, because the long-term trend of solar activity over the last several decades has been totally flat. (the short-term cycles up and down, but the average is constant) After that, they just start spouting what you're spouting now: Oh it's too complicated, we couldn't possibly understand! It's too hard for us puny humans! No wait, I mean it's not happening at all! The temperature sensors are wrong, despite the fact that even using the skeptics-own criteria for "good" temperature sensors gives you exactly the same information.

That's not an argument. That's not science. You can't win a scientific argument without evidence.

Tell me even one factor that is changing that energy balance, and show some evidence to back up your statements.

I didn't say that they build up "'over centuries"... you're too arrogant or hot headed or what ever to continue with to be honest.

" It's a function of how much energy is being put into the system, how much is being stored and released, and how much is escaping the system."

...that is what I was saying or implying in "build up". These changes... storing releasing change and evolve...
wait, here I go talking to you like your reasonable. See ya.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Warming and cooling cycles that last hundreds to thousands of years are far too complicated to lay out in detail. Are you kidding me? That indicates that you don't understand metereology and climatology... again. Explain what it rains. Pressures systems. Precipitation. Lots of things. Cold. Heat. Same thing. Lots of things go into it. Solar energy. LOTS of things. Many of these things are not apparent for many years. They build up and cause other issues. Now take these varying and extremely complicated and intertwined reasons for the weather and expand them for hundreds to thousands of years and you get Ice Ages or Warming Periods. This is obviously just a simple overview, but that is the point. This overview explains why what you want is next to impossible and if that is the only way that you will debate or change your stance then oh well... Add to that that not everybody is a believer or a skeptic. Many people, like me, say that both contribute to one another. A naturally occuring warming period can be enhanced or sped up by man's contributions, such as increased CO2 output. Explain how this is not possible before going any further, otherwise you ain't got much.


Ummm let me see - main causes of warming - Milankovitch cycles - not in play, Solar output - has been down for the last couple of years due to decreased sunspot activity...........

Oh! And we know that man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because the Carbon ratio is changing.

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't say that they build up "'over centuries"... you're too arrogant or hot headed or what ever to continue with to be honest.

" It's a function of how much energy is being put into the system, how much is being stored and released, and how much is escaping the system."

...that is what I was saying or implying in "build up". These changes... storing releasing change and evolve...
wait, here I go talking to you like your reasonable. See ya.

Note how you still haven't produced any evidence of anything.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Note how you still haven't produced any evidence of anything.

That is obviously wrong...

... and your interpretation skills regarding what I said are so lacking, why bother actually debating you? If you are so wrong on the fundamentals of what I have said, then we are debating off a faulty foundation. Besides, I'll take my sources opinion about warming and cooling ages along with his PhD in Theoretical Physics and a lifetime of teaching Physics at university and being a top consultant to the government over your flying any day of the week.

Keep labeling me a skeptic if it helps you feel superior, or whatever. It really just shows that you are seriously lacking in comprehension skills though...

Originally Posted by bowerbird
Ummm let me see - main causes of warming - Milankovitch cycles - not in play, Solar output - has been down for the last couple of years due to decreased sunspot activity...........

Right, because what happened in the last few years contributes so dramatically to cycles that last hundreds to thousands of years...
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't understand the moon reference, since the moon is made of rock, but what still boggles me is that you still don't seem to understand the concepts I previously mentioned. Climatology and Meteorology.

LIAR! It's cheese. CHEESE I tell you!
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is obviously wrong...

... and your interpretation skills regarding what I said are so lacking, why bother actually debating you? If you are so wrong on the fundamentals of what I have said, then we are debating off a faulty foundation. Besides, I'll take my sources opinion about warming and cooling ages along with his PhD in Theoretical Physics and a lifetime of teaching Physics at university and being a top consultant to the government over your flying any day of the week.

Keep labeling me a skeptic if it helps you feel superior, or whatever. It really just shows that you are seriously lacking in comprehension skills though...



Right, because what happened in the last few years contributes so dramatically to cycles that last hundreds to thousands of years...

You still don't get it. You haven't posted any evidence that the current trend is driven by some natural cause. You've just said it's natural. Well, I say it's not.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Global warming (and cooling) are cyclical and have occurred to varying degrees many times over the history of our planet. There were two major ice ages that occured entirely independent of human influence. The Sahara was once lush forest and is now the worlds greatest desert, again, completely lacking any human influence. Major weather, and warming and cooling trends are a natural part of our environment.

I don't think human influence is as dire as the likes of Gore and other's claim, but there can be no denying that our pollution has impacted the environment, drastically in some places. While I think Gore is doing mostly to serves his own needs, his efforts have brought some much needed awareness of our tendency to crap all over our planet.

I am pleased that more and more of us have become aware of our footprint and are making moves to soften it.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
People from all walks of life that have intelligence can have informed opinions. What about the notion that the earth's magnetic fields are reversing? This is lowering the magnetic protection and allowing the earth to be bombarded with uv rays, increasing temperature. Also, deforestation is taking away major numbers of trees, and kelp beds are dying by the tons, thus decreasing plants abilities to take in CO2. There are lots and lots And LOTS of reasons why the earth is warming...
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People from all walks of life that have intelligence can have informed opinions. What about the notion that the earth's magnetic fields are reversing? This is lowering the magnetic protection and allowing the earth to be bombarded with uv rays, increasing temperature. Also, deforestation is taking away major numbers of trees, and kelp beds are dying by the tons, thus decreasing plants abilities to take in CO2. There are lots and lots And LOTS of reasons why the earth is warming...

Perhaps you'd like to show some scientific evidence of any of these changing the earth's temperatures?
Deforestation contributes to the CO2 problem by reducing the amount of CO2 that nature absorbs. (also, the land then absorbs heat differently once all the trees are gone)

Other than that, show me who says the magnetic field is changing, and how they've determined that affects temperature.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps you'd like to show some scientific evidence of any of these changing the earth's temperatures?
Deforestation contributes to the CO2 problem by reducing the amount of CO2 that nature absorbs. (also, the land then absorbs heat differently once all the trees are gone)

Other than that, show me who says the magnetic field is changing, and how they've determined that affects temperature.

They don't know if they "are" changing, but the magnetic fields have been much lower and have been blocking less rays, affecting various animals to a small degree (navigation). This was from the interview that I saw and really didn't pay too much attention to for specifics. One theory was that the magnetic poles may be getting ready, or are in the state of reversing. It takes time. Not an overnight thing. A thousand years or something... but in recent years the weakening field has been observed to be growing at a bit faster rate. There is no data on this, but the coincidence in various things should not be easily dismissed. I am sure you will though...

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
They don't know if they "are" changing, but the magnetic fields have been much lower and have been blocking less rays, affecting various animals to a small degree (navigation). This was from the interview that I saw and really didn't pay too much attention to for specifics. One theory was that the magnetic poles may be getting ready, or are in the state of reversing. It takes time. Not an overnight thing. A thousand years or something... but in recent years the weakening field has been observed to be growing at a bit faster rate. There is no data on this, but the coincidence in various things should not be easily dismissed. I am sure you will though...

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

SPACE.com -- Earth's Magnetic Field Weakens 10 Percent

NOVA | Magnetic Storm | TV Program Description | PBS

((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))) Please answer me a question

Just how FREAKING DUMB DO YOU THINK SCIENTISTS ARE??

I mean - don't you think they can Google too??

The denialists talk about the "money to be made from AGW" but can you even BEGIN to imagine the kudos, the prestige the monetary rewards awaiting the one scientist that shows it is NOT down to the CO2.

The last forty years scientists have been working on the "Null Hypothesis" that means trying to prove that ANYTHING other than CO2 is driving the global temperature changes - but according to you they missed this one.

Mind you I have yet to see the correlation between the changing magnetic field and increased radiation
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,408
Reaction score
20,875
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))) Please answer me a question

Just how FREAKING DUMB DO YOU THINK SCIENTISTS ARE??

I mean - don't you think they can Google too??

The denialists talk about the "money to be made from AGW" but can you even BEGIN to imagine the kudos, the prestige the monetary rewards awaiting the one scientist that shows it is NOT down to the CO2.

The last forty years scientists have been working on the "Null Hypothesis" that means trying to prove that ANYTHING other than CO2 is driving the global temperature changes - but according to you they missed this one.

Mind you I have yet to see the correlation between the changing magnetic field and increased radiation

I don't think that they are dumb at all... your conclusion that I do is a bit perplexing.
Considering the amount of scientists in my family, that would be just plain mean of me, wouldn't it?

No idea what you mean about googling something... the National Geographic thing?
Scientists do their own research, peer review work, publish... why would they google anyway?
They have an idea or want some information and the call up the other scientist and talk
in person... they might google a paper and DL it, but they are not doing what you and I are doing...

You are not hearing me on one very important aspect of this debate... just because we do not
know exactly why climate change is occuring yet does not mean that rising levels of CO2 ARE the
reason for climate change. So, according to me, this "one" might be a cause and it might not
and ruling it out because we do not know yet is literally stupid.

Do you seriously NOT get what I am talking about?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think that they are dumb at all... your conclusion that I do is a bit perplexing.
Considering the amount of scientists in my family, that would be just plain mean of me, wouldn't it?

No idea what you mean about googling something... the National Geographic thing?
Scientists do their own research, peer review work, publish... why would they google anyway?
They have an idea or want some information and the call up the other scientist and talk
in person... they might google a paper and DL it, but they are not doing what you and I are doing...

You are not hearing me on one very important aspect of this debate... just because we do not
know exactly why climate change is occuring yet does not mean that rising levels of CO2 ARE the
reason for climate change. So, according to me, this "one" might be a cause and it might not
and ruling it out because we do not know yet is literally stupid.

Do you seriously NOT get what I am talking about?

Of course we get what you're talking about. What you don't get is that this subject has been researched immensely, and that there is a tremendous amount of evidence pointing at CO2 as the culprit. There isn't any evidence that a natural climate forcing is significantly affecting the long-term warming trend right now. You don't just get to handwave the whole deal and say "Well we don't know everything therefore we just don't know!" Yes, it's theoretically possible there's some previously unknown natural forcing that nobody ever managed to detect or think of, but then again it's also possible it's aliens firing a heat ray (of some undetectable wavelength) in an effort to terraform the planet for their arrival. However, the evidence pointing at CO2 is powerful enough that we should move forward with the assumption that CO2 is the problem.

Einstein said that time is relative, and its perception can be changed by mass/gravity and velocity. Or something. Relativity makes my head spin. There's direct, experimental evidence supporting this. We should move forward on the assumption that he is correct until evidence to the contrary can be found. Waiting for absolute proof of anything means we'll never do anything at all.
 
Top Bottom