Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

Riiiiiiiight....thas why their "models" have been eviscerated year after year after year....things are speeding up and no amount of "human contribution" can attribute for this increase in velocity.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Then I must point out it's "too" not "to".

Thanks for pointing it out, I fixed that because I do care, even about a post here.

I am not a collegiate scholar. I am also not releasing this post on a national level on a subject that might see the end of mankind occur if something doesn't change.

Dear Friends...

Study or not... I still do not believe that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is the fault of man.

Just looking at the Record Highs for RDU here in Raleigh, NC over the last month, the dates bounce all over the century from 1887 to 1902 to 1940 to 1945 to 1952 to 1983 to 1999 and so forth... and in no curve or showing evidence of intensifying in a particular pattern or ominous trend.

The same applies for last month too. The reason I know this is I actually check the data when I see one of these threads about "Climate Change." Just in case I am wrong.... not convinced yet... about warming or being wrong.

I do know this... there have been Ice Ages and periods of extreme warmth long before man had the means to "influence" his enviroment.... actually long before there was even man. Maybe the dinosaurs were grilling out and driving SUVs?

I also know that the surface of neighboring planets were also warming in conjunction with the warming here on Earth. That point alone leads me to believe that the Sun actually has more to do with Earth's warming. Also, solar activity tends to converge with "global warming."

Also... I remember a show on the History Channel about the "Little Ice Age" that occurred around the Middle or Dark Ages to the time of Napolean and even later... the climate cooled so much so that Lief Ericson and party abandoned the colonies in Canada and upper Michigan and Minnesotta, crop failures led the Germans to start growing grains and making beer and wine was surrendered to the warmer parts of southern Europe, the Iraish started growing potatoes and making kraut... as did the Germans, because it was so cool that was all that would grow well in those cooler climates. The winter extremes were responsible for defeating Napolean and allowing Washington to cross the Delaware and so on...

That being said... if it got cooler between the 1100s and 1800s.... and then it started to warm up..... back to a more normal and warmer cycle.. which is shown in the data of the study... the last 200 years have been warmer.

Originally posted by pasiphae
natural climate change that takes 41,000 years (milankovitch cycles) is not the same as what is happening now.

It is exactly the same as what is happening now. You have no proof otherwise and neither do any scientists.

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by SolarIce

 

i think you should watch the discussion in the first video in this link. the scientist explains it. you can choose to think the guy is making it all up if you want.

thinkprogress.org...

I watched the first 1:15 of that video and that scientist is off his rocker. He claims its not explaining what is happening now when what is happening now is exactly when it SHOULD be happening given the avg of the LAST 4 times its happened. And its been happening for the last 18000 years already. They are taking co2 readings from bubbles that take decades to form permanently and actually contain decades worth of data all amalgamated with no way to separate it into a single reading or even a single year and then comparing that to highly accurate modern readings with wild swings that in all probability actually happened then too. And therein lies the problem.

This is evident here on this graph of 420,000 years of vostok ice core data.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Look at the red temperature graph in modern time all the way on the left. See it swinging up and down wildly? It almost looks like it was taken with a seismograph? This has nothing to do with whats happening now. It has to do with more modern readings that are quite pinpoint to year, month or day if you want them where the old readings are amalgams of years or even decades.

Now look at the spacing between peaks over the 420k years. Funnily enough the modern peak is right on time. All but once on that graph co2 was higher than now and it froze everytime. See the plunging of temp and co2 as you read the graph from right to left (from past to present)?

So hopefully now that you can read a very simple graph you can see what is coming next. A big ole freeze. So why lie about global warming? More taxes and more global governance recommended by the IPCC and enacted by the UN.

The best part is them saying if we warm it too much its going to freeze! Um, it freezes anyway! Nice of them to lie about that too. They know that is what comes next anyway. These cycles actually run at about120k years from peak to peak. Not the 40k you mention, or what that "scientist" in the video mentions.

These guys are corruptible too and this one has obviously been well paid. Look at the data and interpret it yourself if you really want to know. Its fairly straightfoward.

There is nothing going on that is changing this cycle. If so where is the evidence? Looks right on track and right on time to me. And what they say will happen is what has been happening for the last 420k years anyway! OH NOES IT GONNA FREEZE IF YOU KEEP POLLUTING! Then why did it freeze 4 previous times with no one polluting!

I think you have to be a dunce to believe what theyre saying with this graph right in front of you.

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by mc_squared

 

You do realize, of course, that based on absolute CERTAIN predictions in the 1970's, we should be hopelessly locked in the early stages of the next Ice Age (glances at Calendar) right about now? Those scientists were certain too. Absolutely, certain.

A HANDFUL of scientists were. One is being inaccurate by conflating a prediction made by a handful of scientists from 4 decades ago to a near total consensus of thousands and thousands of scientists from around the globe on climate change. It's not the same thing. At. All.

APPEAL TO NUMBERS!!! Stick it in your ear...

You consider that a rebuttal?

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness
Riiiiiiiight....thas why their "models" have been eviscerated year after year after year....things are speeding up and no amount of "human contribution" can attribute for this increase in velocity.

I love how you make bold pronouncements like that, but dont even bother to offer any evidence.

You just KNOW it to be true, so why waste time using actual data? Just speak from your gut.

reply to post by winnar


I think you have difficulties interpreting the data within that graph.


First off, look at the graph CAREFULLY at the left. Notice that since we started deforestation after the agricultural revolution, the spike doesn't follow the sharp descent as it did in the last several cycles. Also note that it ALREADY peaked a while back. We thwarted a decline in temperature in this great cycle, ALREADY.

Note the CO2 in the graph. The high end is at 280PPM. Where are we right now

Also note that anything which has happened post industrial revolution isn't showing up as a perceptible data point in the graph. How do I know this? Look again at the CO2. Pretty sure that's close to per-industrial revolution readings.

No one is debating the changing climate. We're just calling bullsh*t on the "caused by humans" spin that these idiots are selling (and looks like you're buying).

As you well know, the earth has never changed temperature, ever.

We live on a tiny rock whipping around a star in a galaxy we know little about.

To assume we should have some kind of equilibrium with little to no climate deviance is both ignorant and short-sighted.

All evidence points to a number of drastic climate changes, and even suggests major pole shifts have occurred in the planet's extensive history.

Do I think we should take steps to reduce emissions and find better solutions for disposing our consumer waste? Absolutely. However, I cannot correlate industrial progress with environmental changes.

Undersea volcanoes and water currents have a greater effect on climates than air quality.

I've done tons of research into temperature extremes, climate patterns, and the effects of carbon dioxide/monoxide on natural habitats. Those without extensive deforestation actually thrive when climate extremes catalyze evolution.

If you want to live in a world where every day is the average temperature, you'll have to live on a planet with no celestial neighbors or stellar disturbances. Good luck.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
No one is debating the changing climate. We're just calling bullsh*t on the "caused by humans" spin that these idiots are selling (and looks like you're buying).

As you well know, the earth has never changed temperature, ever.

It's a shame you dont take the time to actually understand the arguments you think you are disagreeing with. As it stands, you are attacking straw men. Climate scientists dont say the earths climate has never changed. Thats absurd. The issue is how much carbon emissions have had a direct impact on recent changes.

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by pasiphae
natural climate change that takes 41,000 years (milankovitch cycles) is not the same as what is happening now.

It is exactly the same as what is happening now. You have no proof otherwise and neither do any scientists.

then you can't tell me the milankovitch curve is proof of anything either. that curve says that the change takes THOUSANDS of years. not to mention that man wasn't studying climate change... he's an astronomer.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
No one is debating the changing climate. We're just calling bullsh*t on the "caused by humans" spin that these idiots are selling (and looks like you're buying).

As you well know, the earth has never changed temperature, ever.

It's a shame you dont take the time to actually understand the arguments you think you are disagreeing with. As it stands, you are attacking straw men. Climate scientists dont say the earths climate has never changed. Thats absurd. The issue is how much carbon emissions have had a direct impact on recent changes.

If you are going to take someone to task for the brevity of their post you might want to hold the same standard to yours. Carbon "emissions" in terms of climate change, and particularly the IPCC, is more specific than "carbon emissions". Specifically, Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are the concerns in terms of emissions, along with Methane, which as an atmospheric condition is primarily removed by conversion to Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, then Tetrafluoromethane, and also Hexafluoroethane to name just a few.

It is unclear how much research AwakeinNM has done as he made a brief statement and nothing more. It is just as likely that member is aware of the fact that there have been at least five major ice ages in our Earth's history, and may even know that the Huronian glaciation was probably triggered by the Great Oxygenation Event and that member may also be aware of the fact that what actually caused that ice age is not settled, and it could be the oxygenation event, or it could be due to a period of low volcanic activities and reduced carbon dioxide emissions. That member may very well be aware of the Cryogenian ice age, the Andean-Saharan glaciation, the Karoo Ice Age, and finally could very well be aware of the Quaternary glaciation, and if so is more than likely aware of the fact that none of these five major ice ages are attributed to human activity.

Neither you, nor I, know for certain how much research AwakeinNM has done on this issue and because of this assuming he has done the research and diligently or assuming the exact opposite is unmerited. Instead of taking others to task for your perceptions they haven't done the research or haven't supplied enough to contribute, why not just supply that data, or as much as you can as best you can?

Deforestation= frequent flooding= soil erosion. Cut trees=carbon released from trees=carbon dioxide in atmosphere=increased levels of CO2 =warmer air=warmer earth. It’s elementary my dear Watson!

This is not to say there are other factors, but this is simply true in itself!

It seems that we are going the wrong way. We clean the heavy particles out of the smokestacks and exhausts and this leaves free CO2 which easily rises to the atmosphere. If it stays down low longer the trees will absorb it and it gets tied up and the trees grow. You need trees and a lot of them for this to work though.

There is no denying that we are messing stuff up, man has messed things up a lot throughout history and why should that be different. Man has also blamed his messups on others or nature too. The answer to this whole mess is to make things that last a long time and remove the deathdating of things from the economic policy. Quit making things that cause problems to the environment and the thing will fix itself. We have to start being more conservative with respect for the environment and then it will not be gard to fix this mess. Don't cut down forests unless completely necessary. Selective cutting by seasoned loggers is ok as long as they aren't greedy or desiring to boost the local economy more than it needs. People have to learn to treat nature right and work symbiotically with it. I can take care of my land but to do this properly we need millions of people to learn about this stuff and be determined to try to make the survival of our future generations simple and peaceful. Chemicals are our enemy because of the destruction of the land and waterways that feed the trees. It doesn't have to be expensive. If everyone got some seeds from the trees in the area and planted them in a container we could repopulate the woods with no expense at all. Everyone has old flower pots hanging around. Noone needs to profit off this. We just need to help the earth help us.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That was a good post with some interesting links.

Also one thing I would like to say, is that it is generally thought that the "Dust Bowl" during the Depression era was a result of human activity (poor farming techniques). This was essentially a type of climate change scenario, albeit quite tame.

What really is the main crux of the debate I believe, is to what degree or on what scale are human activities affecting and altering environmental conditions?

My personal assessment, which is entirely estimated, is that human's interactions with the environment probably only come in at a mere 5% or less causality factor in relation to carbon induced climate change. This number isn't scientific in any way but my point is simply that our effects are minimal (in relation to carbon footprints).

Now if you want to discuss real pollutant problems like radioactive materials, mercury contaminants in the air, etc, than we have a whole new realm of debate. It appears to me this carbon issue is way overblown when in reality we are ignoring the true dangers that our industries have unleashed upon nature.

I think all these big industries that have been denying climate change are just trying to delay things until they have their ducks in a row to take advantage of it. They don't want to cause a global catastrophe. That would be bad for business. What they want to do is slow down the transition to eco-friendly energy and transportation until they are the ones in place to provide and profit from it, not some new upstart companies that might replace them as the kings of the anthill. I think we're going to see a dramatic shift in the media concerning climate change soon. They won't be denying it much longer. Instead, they will be providing eco friendly alternatives for all of us to adopt... at a premium, of course.

i don`t remember where i first heard this analogy but i believe it makes a lot of sense:

if you were to believe that the earth itself is a living organism, you could relate the effects of climate change to be the result of the earth`s immune system trying to rid itself of an ailment, just as when a person gets sick or infected you get a fever.

so this suggests that the earth is "sick" and has an infection and that this infection is being created by humans who i believe are themselves infected with something foreign and unnatural which is what i believe to be the cause of our unnatural behavior.

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Most skeptics agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and raises temperatures. The question we ask is how much of the warming is due to co2? This is something we don't know yet and we skeptics think that the warming effect in real world is significantly less than claimed. The natural cycles seems to be stronger than positive feedback caused by co2.
Most of the predictions they made failed to be observed in real world and sometimes the exact opposite has been observed.

If co2 is a big player, then it should have been in past as well but that is just not the case.

We will see in a decade or two who is right I think. If global temperatures does not start dropping over next decade then I might reconsider.

edit on 29-7-2012 by juleol because: (no reason given)

Last time I looked, CO2 was 393 parts per million of the total atmosphere, that's less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere.
I just cannot see how so little can affect so much atmosphere

Originally posted by elrem48
Deforestation= frequent flooding= soil erosion. Cut trees=carbon released from trees=carbon dioxide in atmosphere=increased levels of CO2 =warmer air=warmer earth. It’s elementary my dear Watson!

This is not to say there are other factors, but this is simply true in itself!

Simply cutting trees doesnt release their carbon. They'd have to be burnt. I'd say there's a lot of forest tied up in housing and other structures. Maybe a few rainforests worth. People are sequestering carbon and then regrowing forests sequestering even more. The state forest around here is almost all new growth because it was basically all cut down and used for building, lots of it was floated down the river to Pittsburgh.

So no, not true in itself, but quite elementary. 50% isnt bad though.