Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Climate Change is Real... (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Climate Change is Real...
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Neither would disprove the AGW theories.

That's the beauty of the AGW theology, everything proves it. Cold? AGW. Hot? AGW. Dry? AGW. Rain? AGW. Calm? AGW. Storms? AGW. Snow? AGW. No snow? AGW. Floods? AGW. Drought? AGW. [Roll Eyes]

[ February 07, 2011, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
2010 had an unusually high level of Earthquakes.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
In fact, this could be very well incorporated into the climate models that have shown AGW.

I'm pretty sure we would have heard about Geomagnetic reversal being incorporated in an AGW model, if that were the case. So no, I doubt this has been incorporated into any AGW models. However, you are correct that both Global Warming and Geomagnetic reversal could be happening simultaneously.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the beauty of the AGW theology, everything proves it.
No, no everything. If global average temperatures declined over the decades, with no other significant forcings, and with continued increase in CO2 levels, that would disprove it.

And please note that everyone of the short-term effects that you listed--cold spells, hot spells, storms, snow, etc.--neither prove nor disprove AGW. Those who claim that they do are simply wrong.

Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:


If the sun shut off tomorrow, all AGW predictions go out the window. So, too, if the magnetic poles moved and had a signficant effect on the climate. Neither would disprove the AGW theories.

You're missing my point. Even if AGW is real, it 'aint nothing compared to even one major eruption from a supervolcano of the likes in Yellowstone.

If we are in fact moving into a new ice age, which is driven by the lifecycle of the sun and it's energy output, the few degrees increase in global temperature that is supposedly going to occur due to AGW will mean nothing.

Yet we have large political movements designed to address the so called emergency situation caused by AGW. Carbon credits, taxation based on emissions, treaties to reduce economic activity...all based on the fears of an AGW caused cataclysm.

It's like worrying about blowing out a match while your house is burning down.

[DOH]

When that Yellowstone supervolcano blows it's top, in a single day it will dramatically effect the global climate at a degree 10000000000 times more dramatic than a few degrees warming from years of C02 emissions.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, true. Which is why we should absolutely ignore anything we might be doing to the climate, because an event that kills every human being in the Midwest will ultimately matter more.

Along the same lines, our tax rate is irrelevant because when the asteroid finally hits, the American government will collapse.

[ February 07, 2011, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 21153 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma: I can't recall the last time Tom and I agreed, but you managed to get us together. I'm impressed.

Do you have a solution for preventing the explosion of that volcano? If so, by all means put together an informational pamphlet and a petition for governmental action and I'll sign it.

If not, why are you drawing any connection between that and what the government is doing in reaction to the AGW discussion?

Posts: 3452 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Yeah, true. Which is why we should absolutely ignore anything we might be doing to the climate, because an event that kills every human being in the Midwest will ultimately matter more.

Have you purchased any of Al Gore's carbon credits than?

[FootInMouth]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, AGW should not be a concern because some statistically unlikely (in any given time frame) cataclysm might make the effects of human-related climate change trivial by comparison. Cool.

BTW - what exactly does that list of animal mortality show? How does it compare to previous years' activity and why leave in the Arkansas event without including the "coroner's report" explaining the cause?

Posts: 10276 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma: The carbon credit system may be a bad idea (I think it is). That has absolutely nothing to do with your Volcano or the possibility of it's eruption. To conflate these two arguments is just silly.
Posts: 3452 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
That's the beauty of the AGW theology, everything proves it.
No, no everything. If global average temperatures declined over the decades, with no other significant forcings, and with continued increase in CO2 levels, that would disprove it.
That has happened: temperature/CO2 chart
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

large die offs of fish and other ocean life that breath in water are generally from oxygen depletion - 'dead zones' - essentially a large volume of ocean water can become completely devoid of oxygen.

(unfortunately ornery doesn't allow parenthesis in html so I can't like the wikipedia article - google wikipedia dead zone ecology).

Note that reduced disolved oxygen and increased size of dead zones is an expected result of higher atmospheric CO2 concentration

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n2/abs/ngeo420.html

Then dead zone moves around, and thus a school of fish could end up traveling through it and the entire school die off.

All of your examples of sea and water life could likely be attributed to that as the most likely cause. Seriously doubt that nagivation has anything to do with it.

This article covers the issue as relates to ponds (rivers and oceans are similar)

http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/faq/dissolved-oxygen/

The non aquatic life is interesting. Though not as uncommon as you seem to think,

quote:
Wright said large-scale deaths of birds and other species are not uncommon.

Storms, for instances, wreak havoc on bird populations. Birds are also vulnerable to chemical pollution and biological poisoning from natural toxins.

For the blackbird species alone, there have been 16 incidents in which 1,000 or more birds have died in single events over the past five years, he said.

The lab analyzes 300 to 500 large die-off events each year. The deaths involve all wildlife - deaths in 2010 are as varied as the demise of 4,500 bats from a fungal infection known as white-nose syndrome in Bucks County, Pa., to the death of 150 raccoons, striped skunks, coyotes and red fox in Los Angeles County.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/113018024.html

Note that the 300 to 500 is for the US alone. Scale that to the world (we have 1/150 of total world land area). Thus 4500 to 7500 major die off events a year. Thus you should be able to find 12 or more news worthy die off events each day if all news sources were consulted.

For instance the above article notes that the black bird deaths appear to be caused by them getting startled awake from fireworks (new years eve) and being very poor night fliers crashing into things and each other.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68363/title/Arkansas_birds_died_of_trauma

Another common cause of bird die offs are getting caught in storms resulting in the birds being pummeled to death.

[ February 07, 2011, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7938 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
why are you drawing any connection between that and what the government is doing in reaction to the AGW discussion?

Because...as we all know, I think AGW is a lie. A hoax. A scheme to achieve political objectives.

But the discussion of climate change has been hopelessly corrupted by the debate over the legitimacy of of AGW.

Furthermore, if we are in fact moving into a new ice age, it's absolutely insane to be worrying about AGW when real climate change events will be so catastrophic.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Have you purchased any of Al Gore's carbon credits than?
No, mainly because no carbon exchange makes any sense without some kind of legal enforcement; lacking that, you're just passing money around while people skim off the top.
Posts: 21153 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Furthermore, if we are in fact moving into a new ice age, it's absolutely insane to be worrying about AGW when real climate change events will be so catastrophic.
Right. And if a super-volcano makes most of North America uninhabitable, it would also be 'insane'. Sol going nova would make AGW academic as well...
Posts: 10276 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if I die tomorrow, worrying about maintaining my 401K is absolutely insane.

But as many a retiree has discovered, sometimes catastrophes don't happen and you do have to worry about the future. [Smile]

Besides, if we can develop some good global climate models, perhaps we can use CO2 or other greenhouse gases to counteract the effects of magnetic pole disruption (MPD). [Wink]

Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

quote:
when was the last time we've had such a massive amount of die offs all over the globe at essentially the same time period? Sure such things occur in various locales for a variety of reasons...but this past month and a half has seen an unprecedented number of events all over the place.
See my other post, to answer your question, about 12 major die offs or more per day around the world seems to be the expected number. So in a month we would expect nearly 400.

I know 1000, and even 5000 seem like large numbers, but when I was a commercial fisherman we killed 5000 fish over a very small area in a very short time period (I think our record was about 28,000 pounds - 5000 salmon caught in 6 hours of fishing however the net was full within minutes), drastically smaller than the volume occupied by a dead zone. (Indeed a dead zone that happened to wander into alaskan waters at the wrong time could wipe out millions of salmon)

quote:
It's not just prey detection, but migratory travelling that has been affected, leading to disorientation.
I covered that - the variations over a single birds life time are similar to the variation experienced by all birds throughout history. Fluctuations in the magnetic field are something that birds have had to deal with throughout their existence. There doesn't seem to be anything unique to current fluctuations to conclude that they would impact navigation more so than historical changes have (and hence an amount of fluctuation that they are evolved to deal with already).

quote:
Another possibility is the prolonged and colder than normal weather contributes to the mass die offs globally as well.
I don't see anything to imply that the 'die offs' are above background levels.

quote:
There is some sort of very real phenomena that is occurring around the globe that is altering the ecosystems everywhere. And it looks to me like the majority of the die offs can be attributed to colder temperatures than normal for a longer period than normal. This is affecting the food chain and it is affecting migratory species.
I think you are mixing and matching your theories [Smile] A die off due to food chain changes wouldn't have a bunch of a species die at once. It would result in starvation where a few at a time would wash up. Migration issues would turn up as fewer births (due to roosting in sub optimal locations increasing mortality, or due to reduced time for food scavenging, or due to roosting in a location with poorer food sources etc.) and again not have a mass die off of adults.


quote:
????? You act as if this entire thread was based off of one speculative theory from a single link?
This is a "big picture" thing that relies on many links.

Fair enough, but your belief seems to mostly result from not understanding a number of unrelated phenomenon and underestimating the actual frequency of die off events.

Regarding pole reversals - the evidence actually doesn't give us any clues at all. There aren't any particular strong patterns to the actual reversals, and our current down swing is entirely consistent with natural variations over the past million years and longer.

quote:
Here LR, you love to debunk sources: perhaps you would enjoy trying with this one?
Sure,

quote:
quote:Since 1860, the magnetic pole shift has more than doubled every 50 years. That is pretty significant. In geological terms, that seems to be pretty ‘rapid’.

Here is another very interesting fact…
During the past 150 years, the pole shift has been in the same direction.

The following fact is even more astonishing…
During the past 10 years, the magnetic north pole has shifted nearly half of the total distance of the past 50 years! In other words, the pole shift has apparently sped up substantially.

Essentially the author of the site doesn't know what they are talking about. There is nothing to indicate that the present ones are in any way anomalous. The pole wandering around or being briefly stable are nothing to cause alarm.

quote:
At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years; however, geomagnetic intensity has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value achieved approximately 2000 years ago. The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks.

The nature of Earth's magnetic field is one of heteroscedastic fluctuation. An instantaneous measurement of it, or several measurements of it across the span of decades or centuries, is not sufficient to extrapolate an overall trend in the field strength. It has gone up and down in the past with no apparent reason. Also, noting the local intensity of the dipole field (or its fluctuation) is insufficient to characterize Earth's magnetic field as a whole, as it is not strictly a dipole field. The dipole component of Earth's field can diminish even while the total magnetic field remains the same or increases.

Have a look at the graph for the past million years to see the fluctuation that has been experience in our recent geological past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Future_of_the_present_field

[ February 07, 2011, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7938 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
why are you drawing any connection between that and what the government is doing in reaction to the AGW discussion?

Because...as we all know, I think AGW is a lie. A hoax. A scheme to achieve political objectives.

But the discussion of climate change has been hopelessly corrupted by the debate over the legitimacy of of AGW.

Furthermore, if we are in fact moving into a new ice age, it's absolutely insane to be worrying about AGW when real climate change events will be so catastrophic.

The two arguments just don't link the way you're trying to make them, Daruma.

I don't need to give you another analogy, Wayward Son's should be sufficient.

Posts: 3452 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the beauty of the AGW theology, everything proves it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, no everything. If global average temperatures declined over the decades, with no other significant forcings, and with continued increase in CO2 levels, that would disprove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That has happened: temperature/CO2 chart

And where is the chart that tracks the other major forcings (like solar output, orbital variations, etc.) that proves that they remained unchanged since the Cambrian period? [Wink]
Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You're missing my point. Even if AGW is real, it 'aint nothing compared to even one major eruption from a supervolcano of the likes in Yellowstone."

I answered that. You failed to address my answer.

"Because...as we all know, I think AGW is a lie. A hoax. A scheme to achieve political objectives."

Right, whereas the vehement rejection thereof is free of any ulterior motives. [Roll Eyes] This is where you become a tinfoil loon.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the beauty of the AGW theology, everything proves it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, no everything. If global average temperatures declined over the decades, with no other significant forcings, and with continued increase in CO2 levels, that would disprove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That has happened: temperature/CO2 chart

And where is the chart that tracks the other major forcings (like solar output, orbital variations, etc.) that proves that they remained unchanged since the Cambrian period? [Wink]
Of course, the faith must be upheld. [Roll Eyes]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
---------------------------------------------------

That has happened: temperature/CO2 chart

And where is the chart that tracks the other major forcings (like solar output, orbital variations, etc.) that proves that they remained unchanged since the Cambrian period? [Wink]
Of course, the faith must be upheld. [Roll Eyes]
Because there is no way that anthing apart from CO2 levels could have changed over the timescale of a graph that covers 600 million years, going back 200 million years before there was any land-based life of any sort whatsoever. I'm certain that the evolution of all multicellar life and land-based plants and animals have had no effect on the atmosphere at all (except in terms of CO2 levels of course).
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it has to do with a false dichotomy that is being perpetrated by the AWG deniers.

The (underlying--never stated) thesis is that either all changes in global climate have occurred because of changes in CO2 levels, or no changes can occur because of changes in CO2 levels. This is why any other causes for climate change are ignored when referring to historical CO2 levels.

This thesis ignores the obvious reality that there are several possible causes for climate change. Increased output from the sun, or small changes inthe Earth's orbit, or continential shifts, come to mind as examples, along with changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Many of these have affected climate in the past.

This also ignores the fact that, even though other causes have changed the climate in the past, it does not preclude the possibility that CO2 levels may be basic cause of climate change this time.

It is a faith that, since CO2 levels did not cause every climate change in the past, it could not possibly be causing it now.

I believe that is the faith that G2 is referring to (whether he realizes it or not). [Smile]

Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
It is a faith that, since CO2 levels did not cause every climate change in the past, it could not possibly be causing it now.

While that statement might be faith, to say:

Since changing CO2 levels did not cause every climate change in the past, changing CO2 levels will not necessarily be the drive climate change now.

And I'm not sure that G2 has ever said that CO2 "could not possibly be causing it now".

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a reasonable statement, JWatts. All possible sources of climate change must be examined, to see which may be causing the recent warming trend.

While G2 may not have said "could not possibly be causing it now," he has been rather reticent recently about what exactly he is saying, preferring the one-liners and eye-rollers instead. His complete dismissal of the possibility of AGW leads me to believe that he finds it to be proof-positive.

When his explanations are lacking, you have to make assumptions. I am hoping that putting words in his mouth will induce him to spit some out. [Smile]

Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward, velcro, Joshua, and anyone else struggling to understand the point of this thread, and not just interested in "winning the debate," you might find this article interesting:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

quote:
1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.

2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been on the increase for 18,000 years. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not a primary driver of the temperature changes (9).

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?

This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).

Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, you weren't following the last 10 or so posts, were you?

Seriously, you have just quoted someone who lists some climate 101 factoids and basic logical failures that are realy, really common in the denialsphere, things that have been addressed any number of times before (e.g., look upwards by 10 posts and start reading)

Posts: 10276 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
michaellve
Member
Member # 6206

 - posted      Profile for michaellve   Email michaellve       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma28 - I would like to point out that website you use for your last post uses no references newer than 2001, the majority are older. Why is that?
Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

It is a faith that, since CO2 levels did not cause every climate change in the past, it could not possibly be causing it now.

I believe that is the faith that G2 is referring to (whether he realizes it or not). [Smile]

Ummm no. It is progress that you recognize that climate events occurred without CO2 being the root cause. In fact, it is obvious from historical records that there is not even a correlation.

What I am saying is that, as we agree, because CO2 was not related to previous climate change that something else drove the other climate changes. What drove them? Why do they no longer apply?

What made CO2, this one time, suddenly the primary driver? CO2 had nothing to do with prior events but now the literally minuscule amount generated from anthropogenic sources is the cause.

Broader questions: why is the CO2 impoverished current state the "correct" one? Why is the current record low global cold the "correct" temperature as opposed to the much higher average? Why is the current rate of change that is strikingly similar to the that occurred at the start and end of the Little Ice Age different? (you can almost literally overlay the charts)

AGW is a hoax.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald - logical failures? AFAICT, we have Wayward making this assertion regarding the point that historical records of C02 indicate that their levels lag behind global temperature changes.

"It is a faith that, since CO2 levels did not cause every climate change in the past, it could not possibly be causing it now."

No...the "faith" G2 is referring to is the faith that even though C02 levels did not cause climate change in the past it IS causing it now."

Michaelive - There is a reference for 2003...but why is that relevant?

The overall point is that climate change is real, ice ages occur on a cyclical basis, and AGW is at best an unprovable hypothesis.

Question for you kool aid drinking believers (don't you love these nicknames we give each other? Deniers...denialsphere...lmao):

Do you believers actually think AGW is going to stop the next ice age cycle?

Do you think it will negate the effects of the solar cycle?

Do you think carbon emission controls, alternative energy conversions, de-industrialization...all the proposed solutions to deal with mitigating the myth of AGW...these things will somehow stop the climate from changing or preventing catastrophic events?

I'm arguing here that if we are in fact on the cusp of a new ice age, the AGW debate is really a moot point.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
michaellve
Member
Member # 6206

 - posted      Profile for michaellve   Email michaellve       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 -
quote:
Broader questions: why is the CO2 impoverished current state the "correct" one? Why is the current record low global cold the "correct" temperature as opposed to the much higher average? Why is the current rate of change that is strikingly similar to the that occurred at the start and end of the Little Ice Age different? (you can almost literally overlay the charts)

The answer to this question is it isn't the 'correct' state. There is no correct state for the Earth it is a planet it doesn't exist with a correct state only the current state. It is, however, the state in which humanity has built most of its civilization. I don't know about you but I would rather not have the cities and towns that we have built under water or under a mile of ice. So we choose to keep the planet in a state that is agreeable for humanity. So my question to you is why allow the global climate to change in ways that is not advantageous to humanity whether natural or not?
The 'little ice age' was associated with crop failures, famine, disease, and widespread migration. Would we, if we had the resources to, have reversed the cooling that took place at that time in history, probably. Humans change their enviroment, of this there is no question. We should make sure that the environment is one that is the most comfortable for us whether that means keeping it from cooling or warming in extreme ways. I realize that we don't have full control over the climate but we do greatly influence the world around us. Pump CO2 and Ozone into the air and you get smog and possibly global climate change. Who wants to live in a smoggy city or with crazy extreme weather. So cut CO2 emissions and get cleaner air and maybe you help slow down or stop climate change, but if it doesn't exist, well cutting CO2 still has a net positive you have cleaner air to breathe. So why not cut CO2 or other greenhouse gases when there is a net positive either way?

Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pump CO2 and Ozone into the air and you get smog and possibly global climate change. Who wants to live in a smoggy city or with crazy extreme weather.

C02 is odorless and colorless...so how does more c02 equal smog and polluted air?

Smog and polluted air is much more than just C02 emissions.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
michaellve
Member
Member # 6206

 - posted      Profile for michaellve   Email michaellve       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Michaelive - There is a reference for 2003...but why is that relevant?
Because a lot has changed in the last decade with respect to our understanding of the climate and what affects it. Using old sources exclusively
tends to be a red flag for whether the writer can support their claims.

[ February 08, 2011, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: michaellve ]

Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"It is a faith that, since CO2 levels did not cause every climate change in the past, it could not possibly be causing it now."

No...the "faith" G2 is referring to is the faith that even though C02 levels did not cause climate change in the past it IS causing it now."

Daruma, this would be faith if the science was somehow exclusively based on 10-million-year granularity graphs. It is not, however.
Posts: 10276 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
michaellve
Member
Member # 6206

 - posted      Profile for michaellve   Email michaellve       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pump CO2 and Ozone into the air and you get smog and possibly global climate change. Who wants to live in a smoggy city or with crazy extreme weather.

C02 is odorless and colorless...so how does more c02 equal smog and polluted air?

Smog and polluted air is much more than just C02 emissions.

Maybe I should have been clearer, there is a lot of other pollution that gets pumped out of your car, local factory, and power plant, beside CO2 and can be just as responsible for climate change. Again why not cut this pollution if only to live in a cleaner world?
Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michael, I'm certainly not arguing "pro-pollution."

To reiterate: Do you believers actually think AGW is going to stop the next ice age cycle?

Do you think it will negate the effects of the solar cycle?

Do you think carbon emission controls, alternative energy conversions, de-industrialization...all the proposed solutions to deal with mitigating the myth of AGW...these things will somehow stop the climate from changing or preventing catastrophic events?

I'm arguing here that if we are in fact on the cusp of a new ice age, the AGW debate is really a moot point.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is progress that you recognize that climate events occurred without CO2 being the root cause.
I've known that from Day 1. Where did you think I got my examples of the different reasons for previous warmings?

quote:
What made CO2, this one time, suddenly the primary driver? CO2 had nothing to do with prior events but now the literally minuscule amount generated from anthropogenic sources is the cause.
Because what is thought to have driven the other warming events--increased light from the sun, changes in the Earth's orbit, etc.--have been examined, and apparently are not driving this warming. This site gives a nice summary.

As far as it being a "miniscule amount," remember that we are talking only about a relatively "miniscule amount" of warming coming directly from CO2. I normall hear about 1-4C change due to CO2 levels, maybe less. That alone won't change our climate radically. But it can be more than enough to change our climate significantly for growing food, changing the sea level, or powering hurricanes. And you also have to take into account feedback mechanisms, such as melting of the Greenland ice sheet causing changes in the Gulf Stream. These can pile up making the changes even more significant, possibly disasterous. But CO2 won't do it alone.

As far as the "correct" state, michaellve answered that nicely. Humanity can, and doubtlessly will, survive climate change. But as the recent events in Egypt show, messing with our ability to produce food (and thus increasing the cost, not to mention the availability) has it own feedbacks, such as political instability. It would be good not to have to deal with such things if possible.

And Daruma--it takes more "faith" to believe the CO2 is not causig the current climate change than to believe that it is, because most of the indicators (aka the science) points to the increased levels of CO2.

Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
fly,

quote:
Like duct tape, is there anything global warming can't do?

If it's hotter, it's global warming. If it's colder, it's global warming. If it rains too much, it's global warming. If it rains too little...

An average can still slowly increase even as extremes deviate from the mean by greater amounts.

And yes, it is a predicted outcome of the phenomenon.

Daruma,

What kind of evidence would convince you that AGW is real? I'm asking purely as a speculative matter.

Posts: 2024 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm arguing here that if we are in fact on the cusp of a new ice age, the AGW debate is really a moot point.
Can you guarantee that this new ice age will occur in the next 100 years, and not in the next 200 or 1000 years?

Because, IIRC, 100 years is the timeline of when we will be seeing the most dramatic effects of AGW. We are still only seeing the most preliminary effects (which is why those who deny AGW because the worst hasn't happened yet need to be just a bit more patient [Smile] ).

Posts: 8081 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
because most of the indicators (aka the science) points to the increased levels of CO2.

Most of the indicators from scientists who's entire careers and funding depend upon bolstering the AGW narrative.

Again...

Do you believers actually think AGW is going to stop the next ice age cycle?

Do you think it will negate the effects of the solar cycle?

Do you think carbon emission controls, alternative energy conversions, de-industrialization...all the proposed solutions to deal with mitigating the myth of AGW...these things will somehow stop the climate from changing or preventing catastrophic events?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1