OK , so this is global warming ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
InSpectre Gadget said:
False. Witnessing a change in one's lifetime, or even recorded changes over several people's is not indicative of anything. We don't have enough data about earth's past climate to draw a real conclusion about whether or not there's any kind of significant shift occurring now. Earth's climate has been changing since its beginning. It's not a big deal, people are just too egocentric to shut up about it. They need their lives to feel important and new, so they advertise their observations as being more significant than they have the data to conclusively determine.
Click to expand...


Paleoclimatology has gotten pretty good and understanding what has happened in the past climate wise .

Id not dismiss their knowledge as out of hand as all that . There is actually evidence enough to show cycles in weather , over a damned long time . I personally choose to trust the data to show cycles , floods , droughts , peaks of both and lacks of both , combined with modern records that go back several centuries , It is enough for me to put my faith in the data present showing the history , and that can be used to predict with a fair mount of certainty the future cycles we can expect , as well as increasing or decreasing severity of them . Your mileage obviously does vary , that is cool I agree to disagree with you here . I believe we DO have the data to see whats going on .

I do agree that the earths climate is changing however , I cannot agree with your statement stretching it back to the begining of the earth , simply because we do not have the data to even know definitively when that actually was , and if there were any breaks in the climate change process . Again , I agree to disagree with your statement .

:)
 
Global Warming is fairly simple to figure out. We have the ability to measure (fairly accurately) the amount of ice on earth. If the amount of ice on earth is increasing from year to year then we have global cooling. If the amount of ice is decreasing from year to year then we have global warming. I believe the data we have that indicates the total amount of ice is decreasing on a year to year basis. Therefore, we have global warming.
 
Myal said:


Paleoclimatology has gotten pretty good and understanding what has happened in the past climate wise .



Id not dismiss their knowledge as out of hand as all that . There is actually evidence enough to show cycles in weather , over a damned long time . I personally choose to trust the data to show cycles , floods , droughts , peaks of both and lacks of both , combined with modern records that go back several centuries , It is enough for me to put my faith in the data present showing the history , and that can be used to predict with a fair mount of certainty the future cycles we can expect , as well as increasing or decreasing severity of them . Your mileage obviously does vary , that is cool I agree to disagree with you here . I believe we DO have the data to see whats going on .



I do agree that the earths climate is changing however , I cannot agree with your statement stretching it back to the begining of the earth , simply because we do not have the data to even know definitively when that actually was , and if there were any breaks in the climate change process . Again , I agree to disagree with your statement .



:)
Click to expand...



Depends on whether or not you believe what the Bible says or what men say, I suppose.
 
Not so simple.

Global climate change is documented over 1000's of years by real science. Trouble is, the biggest changes were millennia before man had industry or motor vehicles; we were living in caves and grass huts.

Between the last Ice Age and 1750, the oceans had risen almost 100 meters. Now go back and read the predictions about ocean rise over the next century allegedly due to man.

Even in historic times, it has been warmer. There was extensive farming in Greenland during the Middle Ages; then it got colder.

We can make it worse.

Only so much "water" in the "Aquarium." We are breeding ourselves to death.

Claims about man's role are vastly overstated and will cost conservation credibility, especially given the will not to believe bad news..

Popular "science" is somewhat guesswork.

When the oceans get warmer, they release CO2. CO2 is increasing. What does that prove about why the oceans are warmer recently? (A plane flew over. My dog got pregnant. Ergo?)

Sun cycles. Google is your friend, if you care.

What does recent data prove?

From Australian gov. What does it "prove" about the sources of change?



You often see this chart, only the years prior to 1910 are removed. Why?
 
InSpectre Gadget said:
Depends on whether or not you believe what the Bible says or what men say, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Sure I'll bite.

The bible was written by men. A bunch of different men over a long period of time. Then it was edited, and parts were omitted by different men (the church) to suit their political needs depending on the geopolitical climate. Think about it; whole religious traditions are passed down through long lines of men. We then rely on the accuracy of what those before us in the chain told us. Are we to believe that whatever the original message was has not been watered down somewhere along that long line of men? Anyway... that was not the point of this thread.

Back on topic, I agree with powernoodle that there are a lot of people profiteering off of global warming funding and that the whole thing has been over-politicized. However, in my view it is oversimplifying to blame climate change on a government conspiracy to raise taxes. Taxes go up anyway, they do not need a reason for that. Nor does a huge conspiracy explain the scientific consensus on man made climate change. 97% of the scientific community agrees humans have had an effect on our climate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Even if one chooses to believe that humans are not the cause of climate change, thereby absolving oneself of the responsibility, there still remains the fact that average temperatures have gotten warmer and that extreme weather events have increased. Droughts, heatwaves, and violent storms are to be expected. If the changes are drastic enough some species of plants and animals will not survive the changes.

Pollution is a real problem as well, most rivers and lakes in china are heavily polluted. There is an island of plastic out in the pacific ocean the size of Texas. There is more C02 floating around in the air and fewer trees to absorb it. Where there was only ice there are now shipping lanes. Where there were pockets of methane trapped in permafrost there is now methane that is not longer trapped in permafrost and more gunk to go up in the air. I can agree to disagree on all this stuff though. To each his own. :p

I'll just leave this cheerful comic here.
o79ym.jpg
 
How noble of you to attempt to educate me. Unfortunately, my response goes back to the same thing I originally said. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, so who it was written down by, or what it's history is claimed (by men) to be is irrelevant. What is relevant is the claim of divine inspiration, and whether or not you choose to believe its words, or those of men, which was what I said in the first place.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Not so simple.

Global climate change is documented over 1000's of years by real science. Trouble is, the biggest changes were millennia before man had industry or motor vehicles; we were living in caves and grass huts.

Between the last Ice Age and 1750, the oceans had risen almost 100 meters. Now go back and read the predictions about ocean rise over the next century allegedly due to man.

Even in historic times, it has been warmer. There was extensive farming in Greenland during the Middle Ages; then it got colder.

We can make it worse.

Only so much "water" in the "Aquarium." We are breeding ourselves to death.

Claims about man's role are vastly overstated and will cost conservation credibility, especially given the will not to believe bad news..

Popular "science" is somewhat guesswork.

When the oceans get warmer, they release CO2. CO2 is increasing. What does that prove about why the oceans are warmer recently? (A plane flew over. My dog got pregnant. Ergo?)

Sun cycles. Google is your friend, if you care.

What does recent data prove?

From Australian gov. What does it "prove" about the sources of change?



You often see this chart, only the years prior to 1910 are removed. Why?[/QUOTE]

Because the people showing the info don't want someone to see evidence that doesn't prove their point.

The people that do show the chart in it's entirety get labeled as quacks and accused of being in bed with the oil companies or such. There's more than one scientist that spoke against global warming that has since been fired or discredited into silence.

Can't expect people to get all worked up if the evidence you have doesn't support your theory. Kind of hard to scare people into donating money to save polar bears if you show them that the it's gotten colder since the late 1800s.
If it wasn't global warming it would be something else, got to keep people on edge, or looking at the other hand instead of the one in your wallet.

I think(just my opinion) global warming being man made is a lie.
Click to expand...
 
regards the politicing
catfight.gif
about the cause or if humans and our combined polluting of the planet have affected anything (
dedhorse.gif
) ... I have this for you all , free :

chill_pill.jpg
 
Myal said:
Please explain this , i do not understand what your meaning is .
Click to expand...




Well, according to the Biblical standpoint (strictly Biblical) the Earth isn't more than 10,000 years old. The post I was replying to was from what's referred to commonly as an "old earth" view point. This view commonly invokes "the fossil column" and "deep ice" information to prop up claims about global climate change. I don't interpret things the way these people do, since I see the Bible as the Word of God. It precludes many of the theories which are being discussed here. I can help you understand my views better via e-mail if you'd like, otherwise there would be too much off-topic for this particular thread. Let me know if you'd like to go further in private. I'd be delighted to explain this stuff if you're interested.
 
Not so simple.

The very strong consensus was that germs did not cause stomach ulcers. The doc (from OZ as it happens) who thought otherwise was laughed off the stage when he presented his science. He was right, as it turns out; the consensus was wrong.

Ditto for Plate Tectonics.

So the consensus means something, at least to me. That does not mean it's correct. It does mean that those who espouse it have a stake in its acceptance.

As for ice, it's expanding at the South Pole. I am told that does not mean any thing as it is not "continental ice, But shrinking sea ice was constantly cited as proof of global warming. Sauce. Goose. Gander.

Nor does the "consensus" deal with the fact that the vast, vast bulk of global warming in the last 20,000 years ended 10,000 years ago. The up and downs since then have been relatively trivial.

And I am a "tree hugger."
 
InSpectre Gadget said:
Well, according to the Biblical standpoint (strictly Biblical) the Earth isn't more than 10,000 years old. The post I was replying to was from what's referred to commonly as an "old earth" view point. This view commonly invokes "the fossil column" and "deep ice" information to prop up claims about global climate change. I don't interpret things the way these people do, since I see the Bible as the Word of God. It precludes many of the theories which are being discussed here. I can help you understand my views better via e-mail if you'd like, otherwise there would be too much off-topic for this particular thread. Let me know if you'd like to go further in private. I'd be delighted to explain this stuff if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Actually , yeah , I do want to know .
Just went thru a head aching mind bending discussion of the first few chapters of Genesis with a guy who was trying to prove it all happened in 6 24 hour days ... he gets to Genesis 2:4 and his logic kinda went sideways .

It was interesting tho and got me to look hard at it again .

email is neuman.karl@yahoo.com.au
 
Thomas Linton said:
Nor does the "consensus" deal with the fact that the vast, vast bulk of global warming in the last 20,000 years ended 10,000 years ago. The up and downs since then have been relatively trivial.
QUOTE]

Good point. I think the main concern that I have is the speed with which it is happening. The rate is higher than anything reputable scientists come up with in the recent past (last 100,000 years or so). In the past an increase in carbon dioxide concentration preceded and correlated highly with an increase in global temperature. And while correlation is not causal, there has been good arguments against the other factors I can think of.
Click to expand...
 
Bo T said:
Thomas Linton said:
Nor does the "consensus" deal with the fact that the vast, vast bulk of global warming in the last 20,000 years ended 10,000 years ago. The up and downs since then have been relatively trivial.
QUOTE]

Good point. I think the main concern that I have is the speed with which it is happening. The rate is higher than anything reputable scientists come up with in the recent past (last 100,000 years or so). In the past an increase in carbon dioxide concentration preceded and correlated highly with an increase in global temperature. And while correlation is not causal, there has been good arguments against the other factors I can think of.
Click to expand...

If you are worried about the speed of change, review the data:

SOURCE: GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet



The sea rise from 16,000 to 7,000 years ago is more like 120 meters.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, this makes me more concerned. Our temperature changes over the last 10,000 years has been on the order of+/- 3 C. And I don't think your graph reflects the increase in temperature since 1950? If current predictions are correct, then our temperature will increase to levels not seen in the last 20,000 years within the next 100 years. I agree with your stance on the current population numbers. We are moving rapidly towards the carrying capacity of the earth. I believe an increase of a few degrees Celcius will derease that carrying capacity. So, as far as survival equipment is concerned, what are logical steps for people to take (in terms of gear and equipment) to enhance survivability? Underground housing, hydroponic gardens??
 
So, as far as survival equipment is concerned, what are logical steps for people to take (in terms of gear and equipment) to enhance survivability? Underground housing, hydroponic gardens??
Click to expand...

I would say financial wealth is the best bet, if not for actual survival at least for maintaining a basic level of comfort and security.
 
I'd be absolutely shocked if the climate didn't change. Uneven solar heating, constantly rotating earth, lots of air and ocean currents. How could it possibly stay the same? As for killing the world, I don't believe that. Humans might kill themselves, but the world and almost all it's creatures will survive. For those that don't, extinction is part of evolution. Too bad.

There was some research done a couple of years ago and it said that the North Pole used to be warm.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropical/

Friggin raptors must have had SUV's. No wonder they were so fast!

If there's anything I've learned, it's that scientists aren't nearly as smart as they try to act. They don't have all the answers, and those that claim to, I watch where their money comes from.

The earth (by smart scientist's estimates) is 4.5 billion years old. That's 4,500,000,000 years. We have data for what - 150 years? And we know for sure what that tells us? Yeah right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top