|
The complexities of global warming.... solved by a teenager with braces. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lews |
| Unfortunately, yes =/ |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | | It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing. |
|
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Unfortunately, yes =/ |
|
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
have any of you noticed how stupid and uninformed some people are? |
Wish it was only on this 'issue' :(
I think like a lot of 'big scale' things its hard for people to 'see' so they can't comprehend it... this makes it a fairly good target for paranoid conspiracy theorists who appear to believe that all government/science does is take money away from you, since the effects aren't something you can easily identify if you have nfi what you're talking about, which of course, no conspiracy theorist does... |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah that's the way. post a picture that doesn't provide a single T for reference purposes. how many thousands or millions of years do those spikes represent exactly?
|
i think you're missing the point. The point is that climate change is a natural process which occurs regardless of what we decide to do. Don't you think the megafauna extinction which occurred by early humans (irrespective of climate change) was a pretty damning effect that disrupted animal diversity on the planet?
| quote: |
As above. climate change isn't so much about temperatures as it is rate of change. which is well outside natural variability according to any of the literature you care to source.
|
speaking of "rate of change", don't you think exponential population growth is more of an issue here than simply the carbon emissions that are created? I mean, the industrial revolution is responsible for all the advancement and innovation our civilization takes for granted today. Do you simply think completely stopping coal emissions and fossil fuel production is going to somehow cause the panda to start mating again? (take it as a joke) I would honestly think that instead of actually just eliminating the source of carbon emissions we should actually work on eliminating the human population growth curve. Reduced demand will clearly relieve the amount of man made warming that occurs today.
Now i know i've jumped the gun here in response to your comment, but my point is that the actual emissions created and temperature projections and rate of change are all in conjunction with an exponentially growing population, which is the main culprit here (demand).
| quote: |
the IPCC collects data from real studies and tries to dumb them down so idiots like you and i can undertand them. sometimes errors are made. but for the most part, climate science predictions are very conservative. |
And it's their disconnect from the actual facts created by the scientists doing the work and the political hippies going forward and embelishing the projections as fear mongering tactics. The panel should only be comprised of scientists who know what they are talking about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...uri-un-glaciers
Again, my point here isn't that we shouldn't work towards reducing emissions and creating a better habitable environment for us and all other inhabitants of this planet. It's that the whole premise and misconception of induced climate change is something of a phenomenon that is solely man made, when, in fact, history shows that it is natural process which life can easily manage to persist through. |
|
|
| netroM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
i'm always amazed when intelligent people don't believe in climate change. confuses the out of me, really. |
I think the debate is more on the subject of the climate change being increased or rushed on by human life or not.
kev, you're a spitting image of my dad (53); he's been spouting the same stuff as you for years. Comes up every third dinner conversation out of nowhere.
For me, I think we should invest more in renewable resources. I like the green initiative, I just detest the preaching aspect of it.
I also share Nrg2Nfinit's opinions on the growth of our species, but I'm sure Mother Earth will handle that by herself with diseases and such. Or trees/plants making people want to suicide :toothless |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
As above. climate change isn't so much about temperatures as it is rate of change. which is well outside natural variability according to any of the literature you care to source. |
That's not true. Perhaps the rate of change is well outside natural levels, but the temperature itself isn't. As I said, the Romans used to grow figs in northern England. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by netroM
I think the debate is more on the subject of the climate change being increased or rushed on by human life or not.
|
That's not up for debate, facts clearly show that Anthropogenic global warming exists.
The overall significance of it is what is in question (at least from my perspective) |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
That's not true. Perhaps the rate of change is well outside natural levels, but the temperature itself isn't. As I said, the Romans used to grow figs in northern England. |
Isn't that exactly what he just said?:conf: |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Isn't that exactly what he just said?:conf: |
My mistake. I read that really badly. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
i think you're missing the point. The point is that climate change is a natural process which occurs regardless of what we decide to do. |
of course climate change is a natural process. what the does that have to do with the fact that emissions are not natural and they skew any natural process we're talking about?
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Don't you think the megafauna extinction which occurred by early humans (irrespective of climate change) was a pretty damning effect that disrupted animal diversity on the planet? |
not nearly on a global scale, no.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
speaking of "rate of change", don't you think exponential population growth is more of an issue here than simply the carbon emissions that are created? I mean, the industrial revolution is responsible for all the advancement and innovation our civilization takes for granted today. Do you simply think completely stopping coal emissions and fossil fuel production is going to somehow cause the panda to start mating again? (take it as a joke) I would honestly think that instead of actually just eliminating the source of carbon emissions we should actually work on eliminating the human population growth curve. Reduced demand will clearly relieve the amount of man made warming that occurs today. |
im not sure what this has to do with the veracity of the science supporting AGW. FYI i dont give two s about climate change. the worst effects wont happen til well after im dead. i just can't stand deads and their anti-science nonsense.
ive already stated that errors are made. this one in particular had nothing to do with the peer reviewed science and was added to the IPCC report obviously without much thought (from memory the claim is from a hippy statement and never published in any article). with all the contention re AGW yet all people can find is a couple of errors of fact, which weren't plucked from published articles? big ing deal.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
It's that the whole premise and misconception of induced climate change is something of a phenomenon that is solely man made, when, in fact, history shows that it is natural process which life can easily manage to persist through. |
again, strawman. nobody of any significance argues that climate change is solely due to emissions or human beings.
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
That's not true. Perhaps the rate of change is well outside natural levels, but the temperature itself isn't. As I said, the Romans used to grow figs in northern England. |
i cant talk about figs and AGW specifically, but this wonderful article shows that figs can be grown as far north as scotland, and commercial fig ventures existed in england in the 1940s:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...owing-figs.html
i can reference the much more common claim re grapes however, which i suspect is merely the same claim:
| quote: |
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.
...
In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people here as fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside.. If that is not enough, Real Climate did a remarkably in depth review of the history of wine in Great Britain and how reliable it is as a proxy for global temperatures. |
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsider...ust-as-warm.php |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
of course climate change is a natural process. what the does that have to do with the fact that emissions are not natural and they skew any natural process we're talking about?
|
So who cares that we are skewing it? we know that life will persist easily within 10 degree temperature fluctuations. That is my point. Regardless of what we do, life will persist.
| quote: |
im not sure what this has to do with the veracity of the science supporting AGW. FYI i dont give two s about climate change. the worst effects wont happen til well after im dead. i just can't stand deads and their anti-science nonsense.
|
I never said that emissions didn't have an impact. |
|
|
|
|
