- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 110,856
- Reaction score
- 64,823
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Hey sawyer, you know those straw man arguments I keep pointing out? Look, another one!
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old 11,000 years is nothing and proves nothing.
All the geological record shows is climate does change - yeah no **** our climate is changing. The problem is that all these AGW nuts do is portray the climate change as something "bad" (or not natural) - that humans are responsible for - therefore all change is bad and the fault of humanity.
mmm Thanks for that, but C02 was not the point.
Y2K, AIDS, Swine Flu, killer bees, West Nile, Bird Flu, Sars, Anthrax, WMD, the Mayan Calendar....and now we're going to be done in by SUVs and cow farts?
And the government is going to do something about this, right?
It will be up to everyone whether we continue to **** in our own backyard. And everyone will face the consequences our inaction.
Hey sawyer, you know those straw man arguments I keep pointing out? Look, another one!
That isn't a straw man argument - if it was this topic wouldn't exist and neither would the concept of AGW.
AGW is a straw man argument..
My position is so damn simple... "Is the change of climate a natural process or do humans somehow change climate with our 'evil' carbon footprint'"
The "control" for all this data to even be relevant doesn't even exist considering the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans have only been around for about a million years and have only been industrialized for about 175 years... 175 years wont tell you anything.
Not if an asteroid gets us first! Or a cataclysmic polar shift, volcanic supereruption, antibiotic-immune plague...Y2K, AIDS, Swine Flu, killer bees, West Nile, Bird Flu, Sars, Anthrax, WMD, the Mayan Calendar....and now we're going to be done in by SUVs and cow farts?
What are you talking about, the messenger?
This was peer reviewed "joint study by Oregon State University and Harvard University."
Global warming is epic, long-term study says - CNN.com
Does previous, natural climate change rule out the possibility of current human influence? The way you worded the bold seems to imply they are mutually exclusive. Can you clarify?
And it was a straw man. AGW proponents do not argue that all change is man-made or that all change is bad. Although your claim that "AGW is a straw man argument" indicates you don't know what a straw man fallacy is in the first place.
There is no evidence to support the AGW claim because there is nothing to compare the alleged evidence to.
Climates are not consistently changing you know. One day a climate could appear to be consistent then BOOM a volcano erupts and that will seriously change that climate for months, years or decades (depending on how massive the eruption was).
There is no evidence to support the AGW claim because there is nothing to compare the alleged evidence to.
Climates are not consistently changing you know. One day a climate could appear to be consistent then BOOM a volcano erupts and that will seriously change that climate for months, years or decades (depending on how massive the eruption was).
well, obviously on the surface it might look silly - but you have to remember that in 2003, thousands of people died across Europe in an unusually hot summer. it is well known that heat stress can increase the likelihood of heart attack and other threatening health events in vulnerable people.
Then you need to think also about what an average 0.6 degree increase might actually mean. It won't be evenly distributed, and it can have significant impact on food production, evaporation rates and water availability. Not to mention an increase in the spread of diseases. In addition, there is a lot of difference between the real impact of temperature on human health depending on other conditions, eg humidity,
The science is already demonstrating that it has impacts on human health.
IN relation to your second point, I expect that the scientists who study this have considered a range of variables which you have not, and are not just picking their findings out of the air. That is not what scientists do.
Actually, it's not absurd at all, since there is a direct correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide found in ice core samples and the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere at any given time. While I wouldn't narrow it down to a tenth of a degree, less than 1 degree of error is a certainty. The science has been proven. And here's the kicker - There is a direct correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and the Earth's temperature, since carbon dioxide traps the heat produced by the sun's rays. That is also proven science. However, there is a real kicker here, which the science has not been able to address yet. Is nature self-correcting? There is one theory that pretty much says that, the more heat that is trapped in the atmosphere, the more clouds that will be formed, and clouds do reflect the sun's rays. The result is that, if enough man made carbon dioxide is generated, the more clouds will form, reflecting more of the sun's rays, thus alleviating the effect of global warming. And here is where the models get very tricky. Man made global warming, depending on which model is used, could result in extremes between excessive heat and excessive cold, and even another ice age. Or it may swing back and forth between extremes. There are 2 more complications in the science:
1) As more ice melts in the arctic, and runs off into the Gulf Stream, it will sink and block the action of the Gulf Stream itself, thus limiting the warming action the Gulf Stream provides to Western Europe, and turning places like London as cold as Siberia.
2) There is a whole lot of methane locked up in Siberia, and also at the bottom of the oceans. An even worse scenario, and possibly a real disaster scenario, is if the Earth warms to a temperature that released all that methane into the atmosphere. The extremes that will result would kill much of the Earth's population. Again, this is based on one model.
One model of the Earth's climate shows the possibility of enough clouds reflecting sunlight to allow us to stay in the Goldilocks zone, between the 2 extremes of high and low temperature, but it is more likely that the Earth would swing between those extremes for quite a long time, rather than finding a comfortable medium. In each and every one of the models, the arctic and antarctic ice sheets are melted, and places like London, New York, and Miami, will be under water, unless miraculous engineering feats are accomplished. And New Orleans? Forget about it. It will be gone forever. It is gone in all of the models.
So, while the science is solid on a direct correlation between global warming and carbon dioxide, the models are all over the map on the final result. No, Earth will not become anything like Venus, but we will definitely be living an old Chinese proverb - May you live in interesting times.
There are data which show that the earth never heated up this fast before. And an accelerating pattern will persist due to feedback loops.The Earth is 4.5 billion years old 11,000 years is nothing and proves nothing.
All the geological record shows is climate does change - yeah no **** our climate is changing. The problem is that all these AGW nuts do is portray the climate change as something "bad" (or not natural) - that humans are responsible for - therefore all change is bad and the fault of humanity.
This doesn't bode well.
We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It - Climate Desk - The Atlantic
I think maybe it's time to kiss our asses goodbye.
The good news: We probably don't double in population again.
11,000 years of climate data?? Lets do the math here and see how this maps out here.....
Age of the earth: 4.54 Billion years
Life on earth: 2 Billion years
Reptiles on earth: 320 million years
Humans : 125,000 years
So lets look at this 11,000 years of data. 11,000 years of data is equal to:
0.00024 Percent of the existence of the planet
0.00055 Percent of the existence of life on the planet
0.00343 Percent of the existence of reptiles on the planet
8.80000 Percent of the existence of humans on the planet
Which is akin to saying that you could tell what the weather this year is going to be based on:
2.1 hours of data (.00024%)
4.8 hours of data (.00055%)
1 Day and 6 Hours of data (.00343%)
1 Month and 1 Day of data (8.8%)
Or, it could be put this way...
If you filled an entire pool with coke (average sized public pool 20X40) it would equal
a 1 liter bottle ( about 3 coke cans)
a 2 liter bottle ( 7 cans of coke, less than a 12 pack)
(2) 24 packs of coke or (6) 2 liter bottles
150 2 liter bottles of coke
Seems to me quite an insignificant data sample to be making such claims.
So. Let me get this right. Since the planet is old, data showing that temperatures are increasing faster than anytime since the last ice age means nothing to you.11,000 years of climate data?? Lets do the math here and see how this maps out here.....
Age of the earth: 4.54 Billion years
Life on earth: 2 Billion years
Reptiles on earth: 320 million years
Humans : 125,000 years
So lets look at this 11,000 years of data. 11,000 years of data is equal to:
0.00024 Percent of the existence of the planet
0.00055 Percent of the existence of life on the planet
0.00343 Percent of the existence of reptiles on the planet
8.80000 Percent of the existence of humans on the planet
Which is akin to saying that you could tell what the weather this year is going to be based on:
2.1 hours of data (.00024%)
4.8 hours of data (.00055%)
1 Day and 6 Hours of data (.00343%)
1 Month and 1 Day of data (8.8%)
Or, it could be put this way...
If you filled an entire pool with coke (average sized public pool 20X40) it would equal
a 1 liter bottle ( about 3 coke cans)
a 2 liter bottle ( 7 cans of coke, less than a 12 pack)
(2) 24 packs of coke or (6) 2 liter bottles
150 2 liter bottles of coke
Seems to me quite an insignificant data sample to be making such claims.
So. Let me get this right. Since the planet is old, data showing that temperatures are increasing faster than anytime since the last ice age means nothing to you.
M'kay.
Then we agree, that this article is nonsense?
No, it does not. The data is insignificant.. Its like basing the world around you and the universe based on only the visible light spectrum like they did thousands of years ago. You simply can not do it unless you know the full spectrum that you can accurately measure what is going on. Basing an entire climate theory off of such small amount of data is akin to villagers believing that sacrificing a virgin would keep a volcano from erupting.
There are data which show that the earth never heated up this fast before. And an accelerating pattern will persist due to feedback loops.
A good amount of it is described in the link provided by Catawba
A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms
There is is evidence of rapid heating and cooling in every period of Earths existence (even before humans) - "WHY" is only speculation.
Blaming humans just because we're the newest creatures is total junk...
Those that want to blame humans aren't real scientists - they're either looking for a goat, want their funding perpetually continued or want to be relevant in the scientific community by perpetuating a false claim. This has already been proven via climategate and climategate II... Even behind closed doors these so-called "scientists" even admit this the media just doesn't print it because the government uses AGW as a means to control the people and the progressives in the media who control the media want the government to control the people.
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?