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.
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.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.
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?
Do you have any evidence to support this "different thermometer" theory? The second sentence here is just worthless.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.
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.
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.
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?
You're making a logical jump from supposition to conclusion.
And got caught.
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.
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.
So, I suppose you have some evidence to support the idea that those glaciers have reversed their trends?
Do you have any evidence to support this "different thermometer" theory? The second sentence here is just worthless.
The industrial revolution started around 1850. Right about when the temperature trend reversed. Your history is off.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...........
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!
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.
Do you understand his moon reference?
I didn't say that "it was natural"... that is what you don't seem to get.
Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher
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.
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
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?