Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Global Warming: Real or Fraud
|
|
| Re: Global Warming: Real or Fraud [message #415270 is a reply to message #415211] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 03:21   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 20:12 |
No. To assist in a kill, you need to have a conscious means to aid before actually starting.
To relate a kill assist to humans aiding in global warming, you would be saying that humans started releasing these emissions because they wanted to assist in global warming. That is not the case.
The assistance is a by-product of our ignorance and it is now too late to go back.
It is our fault for assisting in speeding up the process, but it is not our fault it exists.
That is not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to fix out mistakes, but we don't have to go crazy worrying about something that is irreversible and will inevitably happen.
|
"I didn't MEAN to run over all those orphans! I was just ignorant of them being in front of me, and their deaths were a by-product of that ignorance! And it wasn't me, it was the car! I was just assisting! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!"
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Global Warming: Real or Fraud [message #415332 is a reply to message #414275] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 10:15 |
SPIKDUM
Messages: 58
Registered: December 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
MUDKIPS here (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED)
Since I study archaeology and Quarternary Climate is one of my subjects, I can give some insight. Prepare for one ungodly novel. (ok not as ungodly as I thought, I didn't include some delta-18 readings because frankly that is a little over the top. Let's just say I have a gazillion ice core and foraminifera and pollen and coleoptera graphs to prove at least some part of my point)
Climates don't just change because of one factor. In theory they do, but in practice it's always a combination of factors that causes climate changes. Solar activity, Albedo (solar energy that gets reflected off the earth's surface) volcanic activity, shifts in the earth's polarity (Every so often the South Pole becomes the magnetic centre of the earth) continent vs. ocean coverage, the earth's wobble, precession and tilt, etc.
Scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, who look at ice cores, pollen data, coleoptera data, whatever, who use real tangible evidence instead of modern-day CO2 measuremeants which are far less reliable and far more biased) have gotten quite good at predicting climatic events, and so we've been able to map out climate changes to GREAT precision for the last 2,7 million years, moderate precision for the past 65 million years, and we only have bits and pieces of the climate before that, we only know it was HOT.
To make a long story short, every period is either a glacial (a period in which the ice sheet GROWS) or an interglacial (a period where the ice sheet doesn't grow or is RECEDING), in the earth's history. Within glacials and interglacials we have stadials and interstadials (periods that are hotter or colder than the glacial/interglacial's mean temperature). It's always a back and forth. We have 10,000 year periods with as many as 27 interstadials and stadials, and we have 50,000 years of constant glaciation (periods in which glaciers grow, a sign of glacialism).
Now this has been happening for about 2 billion years, and it has ALWAYS been a back-and-forth matter. Average temperatures can drop for 7 degrees across the planet that last just a 100 years (the 8.2k cal BP event for instance) after which they soar back up, after which they drop again (The little ice age in the 1600s, where the temperature was on average 3 degrees celcius lower than it is now, while in the middle ages the average temperature was 2 degrees celcius higher than it is now).
So what we have is thousands of factors that are constantly going back and forth, unchangingly, predictably, for millions and millions of years. Whether we eject a shitload of CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we limit it doesn't matter, because the earth IS heating up, and it isn't because of CO2, it's because of a ton of causes that are working together.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be irresponsible with our exhausts and fuel consumption, what it does mean is that everybody is going crazy thinking that WE have any influence on the changing climate, while we at best have regional impacts (for instance a dense city in a mountain region will retain a lot of it's CO2 in the... region obviously, having local effects).
So take it easy, sit back, and watch what happens.
(Note, a lot of people may call bullshit, and I don't blame them. The difference between our (archaeoloists') data and say, Al Gore's data is that Al Gore set out to prove that we cause climate changes, while the archaeological, geological and paleobotanical data we gather is purely for understanding why and how climate changes and how it affects the world, more specifically, the human(oid) world. Biased vs unbiased.)
[Updated on: Thu, 24 December 2009 10:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Global Warming: Real or Fraud [message #415346 is a reply to message #415332] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 11:22 |
 |
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SPIKDUM wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 11:15 |
MUDKIPS here (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED)
Since I study archaeology and Quarternary Climate is one of my subjects, I can give some insight. Prepare for one ungodly novel. (ok not as ungodly as I thought, I didn't include some delta-18 readings because frankly that is a little over the top. Let's just say I have a gazillion ice core and foraminifera and pollen and coleoptera graphs to prove at least some part of my point)
Climates don't just change because of one factor. In theory they do, but in practice it's always a combination of factors that causes climate changes. Solar activity, Albedo (solar energy that gets reflected off the earth's surface) volcanic activity, shifts in the earth's polarity (Every so often the South Pole becomes the magnetic centre of the earth) continent vs. ocean coverage, the earth's wobble, precession and tilt, etc.
Scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, who look at ice cores, pollen data, coleoptera data, whatever, who use real tangible evidence instead of modern-day CO2 measuremeants which are far less reliable and far more biased) have gotten quite good at predicting climatic events, and so we've been able to map out climate changes to GREAT precision for the last 2,7 million years, moderate precision for the past 65 million years, and we only have bits and pieces of the climate before that, we only know it was HOT.
To make a long story short, every period is either a glacial (a period in which the ice sheet GROWS) or an interglacial (a period where the ice sheet doesn't grow or is RECEDING), in the earth's history. Within glacials and interglacials we have stadials and interstadials (periods that are hotter or colder than the glacial/interglacial's mean temperature). It's always a back and forth. We have 10,000 year periods with as many as 27 interstadials and stadials, and we have 50,000 years of constant glaciation (periods in which glaciers grow, a sign of glacialism).
Now this has been happening for about 2 billion years, and it has ALWAYS been a back-and-forth matter. Average temperatures can drop for 7 degrees across the planet that last just a 100 years (the 8.2k cal BP event for instance) after which they soar back up, after which they drop again (The little ice age in the 1600s, where the temperature was on average 3 degrees celcius lower than it is now, while in the middle ages the average temperature was 2 degrees celcius higher than it is now).
So what we have is thousands of factors that are constantly going back and forth, unchangingly, predictably, for millions and millions of years. Whether we eject a shitload of CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we limit it doesn't matter, because the earth IS heating up, and it isn't because of CO2, it's because of a ton of causes that are working together.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be irresponsible with our exhausts and fuel consumption, what it does mean is that everybody is going crazy thinking that WE have any influence on the changing climate, while we at best have regional impacts (for instance a dense city in a mountain region will retain a lot of it's CO2 in the... region obviously, having local effects).
So take it easy, sit back, and watch what happens.
(Note, a lot of people may call bullshit, and I don't blame them. The difference between our (archaeoloists') data and say, Al Gore's data is that Al Gore set out to prove that we cause climate changes, while the archaeological, geological and paleobotanical data we gather is purely for understanding why and how climate changes and how it affects the world, more specifically, the human(oid) world. Biased vs unbiased.)
|
basic science fail...
why do i even bother with this?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Global Warming: Real or Fraud [message #415470 is a reply to message #415346] |
Fri, 25 December 2009 06:36 |
SPIKDUM
Messages: 58
Registered: December 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| surth? / surth! wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 12:22 |
| SPIKDUM wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 11:15 |
MUDKIPS here (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED)
Since I study archaeology and Quarternary Climate is one of my subjects, I can give some insight. Prepare for one ungodly novel. (ok not as ungodly as I thought, I didn't include some delta-18 readings because frankly that is a little over the top. Let's just say I have a gazillion ice core and foraminifera and pollen and coleoptera graphs to prove at least some part of my point)
Climates don't just change because of one factor. In theory they do, but in practice it's always a combination of factors that causes climate changes. Solar activity, Albedo (solar energy that gets reflected off the earth's surface) volcanic activity, shifts in the earth's polarity (Every so often the South Pole becomes the magnetic centre of the earth) continent vs. ocean coverage, the earth's wobble, precession and tilt, etc.
Scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, who look at ice cores, pollen data, coleoptera data, whatever, who use real tangible evidence instead of modern-day CO2 measuremeants which are far less reliable and far more biased) have gotten quite good at predicting climatic events, and so we've been able to map out climate changes to GREAT precision for the last 2,7 million years, moderate precision for the past 65 million years, and we only have bits and pieces of the climate before that, we only know it was HOT.
To make a long story short, every period is either a glacial (a period in which the ice sheet GROWS) or an interglacial (a period where the ice sheet doesn't grow or is RECEDING), in the earth's history. Within glacials and interglacials we have stadials and interstadials (periods that are hotter or colder than the glacial/interglacial's mean temperature). It's always a back and forth. We have 10,000 year periods with as many as 27 interstadials and stadials, and we have 50,000 years of constant glaciation (periods in which glaciers grow, a sign of glacialism).
Now this has been happening for about 2 billion years, and it has ALWAYS been a back-and-forth matter. Average temperatures can drop for 7 degrees across the planet that last just a 100 years (the 8.2k cal BP event for instance) after which they soar back up, after which they drop again (The little ice age in the 1600s, where the temperature was on average 3 degrees celcius lower than it is now, while in the middle ages the average temperature was 2 degrees celcius higher than it is now).
So what we have is thousands of factors that are constantly going back and forth, unchangingly, predictably, for millions and millions of years. Whether we eject a shitload of CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we limit it doesn't matter, because the earth IS heating up, and it isn't because of CO2, it's because of a ton of causes that are working together.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be irresponsible with our exhausts and fuel consumption, what it does mean is that everybody is going crazy thinking that WE have any influence on the changing climate, while we at best have regional impacts (for instance a dense city in a mountain region will retain a lot of it's CO2 in the... region obviously, having local effects).
So take it easy, sit back, and watch what happens.
(Note, a lot of people may call bullshit, and I don't blame them. The difference between our (archaeoloists') data and say, Al Gore's data is that Al Gore set out to prove that we cause climate changes, while the archaeological, geological and paleobotanical data we gather is purely for understanding why and how climate changes and how it affects the world, more specifically, the human(oid) world. Biased vs unbiased.)
|
it's so hard to admit I'm wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Global Warming: Real or Fraud [message #415472 is a reply to message #415471] |
Fri, 25 December 2009 07:45 |
SPIKDUM
Messages: 58
Registered: December 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-peri od.htm
1. Their data is flawed. In terms of Ice ages (like the Last Glacial Maximum) they're off by thousands of years.
2. Once again, climate is a combination of thousands of elements, yet:
| Quote: |
Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall.
|
If temperatures rise, they are balanced out somewhere else. If they drop, they are balanced out somewhere else. They assume that there is one global climate, while earth is a patchwork of thousands of climates. When climate change occurs, it is best seen on the EDGES of those climates, because climate zones start to shift (actually, climate change just IS the shifting of climate zones to other positions, Polar, Mid-latitude, Sub-Tropical and Tropical, and their sub-zones. As I said, during Glacials ICE SHEETS grow, meaning that the Polar zones are far larger. Understanding this leads to understanding why there is no single global climate.). THAT'S how you measure climate sensitivity.
Not by:
| Quote: |
Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated.
|
The fact that there is no global climate that can kill off everything is proven by for instance, Sequoia trees in the USA. These are so-called "Tertiary Relicts", trees that should have been extinct after the Tertiary period ended, yet still flourish. Why? Because of the western mountain ranges in the USA their ecological niches were protected from climate change, thus, the climate zone stayed the same, and the trees survived.
Yet, in all these articles, every argument is based on the assumption that there is a global, fragile, climate that is changing due to CO2 emissions. Through their reasoning, Sequoia trees should not exist, because apparently climate does not occur as a local/regional phenomenon.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Based on the assumption that CO2 is the main cause for climate change. Refer to fourth link comment.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-cl imate.htm
Funny, they use two different ice cores from two different regions for three different periods to show the rise of CO2 levels. Quite a coincidence that they don't have one SINGLE ice core that shows the CO2 levels over a longer period of time. Also, the readings from Hawaii show a massive increase over the past 100 years or so. HAWAII IS A VOLCANO. Those readings are utterly worthless. Fail.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm
Reversal of cause and effect. CO2 does not cause climate change, it's an effect of it and further enhances it. Fail.
As you see here (in a PROPER ice core data set) rising CO2 concentrations are an echo, an aftereffect of rising temperatures and climate changes.
Why this is so is not known, but one plausible explaination is: Less ice sheets, more inhabitable areas of the earth for flora/fauna > More CO2 production. This is probably just one of many causes for CO2 increases though.
The current rising CO2 levels fit in perfectly with the rest of the graph. So if it's our fault that CO2 levels are rising we should go back to the early middle-eastern civilizations 10,000 years ago because look, when humans first started making houses CO2 levels begin te rise! Because they didn't ban housebuilding we now have an unstoppable greenhouse effect!
Also, every 90,000-100,000 years the earth gets far closer to the sun due to changes in it's orbit (one of the Milankovitch cycles). When the temperatures start to rise? Every 90,000-100,000 years. In addition to that the earth's tilt changes every 40,000 years, making it more angled towards or away from the sun within it's orbit. So when the earth's eccentricity and it's obliquity coincide in stages where they are both "forcing" the earth closer to the sun, we have even higher temperature increases. The temperature rises we are experiencing now are nothing compared to the temperature heights in the past.
Same as I said in my first post. All this is BIASED data. Carefully selected to prove a point, not to gain insight into a process.
| surth? / surth! wrote on Fri, 25 December 2009 07:47 |
IM STUDYING SO I KNOW IT BETTER K
|
Nope. It's my business to understand what's going on. Knowledge is useless if you don't understand why and how things happen.
You obviously don't know and don't understand.
-
Attachment: WHAT NAO.jpg
(Size: 71.57KB, Downloaded 277 times)
[Updated on: Sat, 26 December 2009 07:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Feb 01 02:50:17 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01066 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
