you bet? Just like you ignore my question when I asked you what's the best source for your argument that solar flares/sun spots are responsible for global warming? Let me know when you find that temperature change diagram of other planets.
NASA’s Hansen Exploits Hot Summers to Push Carbon Fascism
- Thread starter John F Kennedy III
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nasa
you bet? Just like you ignore my question when I asked you what's the best source for your argument that solar flares/sun spots are responsible for global warming? Let me know when you find that temperature change diagram of other planets.
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
You can find these charts all day long. There's a multitude of ways they gather this information. For example examining ice cores and gathering data such as pollen and such to get a general picture of the climate during the period.
What I'm saying with a chart like this is that it certainly is a common feature of earth to have heating and cooling periods. Quite obviously the previous ones were not man made. If I have no explanation as to what caused these other increased heat periods how can I not know whether this current phenomena is normal or not? If science is not looking at these how can they tell if it is normal or not?
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
Actually sun spots can prevent radiation. It depends on the location. A sun spot facing the earth would actually reduce the suns impact on earth. A couple years ago there were nearly no sun spots. This would mean there was nothing preventing us from getting all of the suns rays. Even though the sun was cooler at this period, we would have gotten no benefit from sun spots blocking out the sun. It's all crazy but the more I read the less convinced I am that anyone can say for sure what causes what. At current it is a best guess. I'm fine with someone thinking it's man made, taking personal steps to reduce ones carbon foot print, but when you start asking for government you better bring more than a best guess and I'm not so sure I'm going to ever accept your ideas on government regardless.
Which scientist compiled the one you posted?
Nobody denies that. But if we either get warmer than the past, or warmer than we are prepared for, that can be a problem. Just ask the people who went through droughts this year. Our population today is more fragile to climate and weather changes than we were in the past, hell, we're more fragile to power outages and internet outages as it is.
Fair enough, whether they made the whole globe at the time suitable for living, or suitable for living in today's lifestyle, is a whole different story. And if there's a man made element to global warming, just add that on top of natural warming. See what you get.
Ok, so you don't. But we've settled one thing, it's not caused by man. This is why I am asking you what your main argument is, is global warming real or not real? If it's not real, I don't care if the "current phenomena" is normal or not. If you acknowledge it's real, then we can move on to discuss the possible causes, but don't sneak in any "we're not sure temperature is rising right now" arguments while we're at it.
By ruling out possible alternative explanations we know about, but yes, they have to explain the past first. Also, by knowing the temperature changes in different atmosphere layers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy Look in the "it's not us" section.
so you basically said that you don't care how much science is behind it, you'll never accept government regulation of carbon emissions? Is that any different than a person saying "I don't care how much science is behind arguments demonizing fluoride, GMO, corn syrup, nuclear energy, vaccines, compact light bulbs, ....I will never accept government regulation on them" ?
Last edited:
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
Which ever scientist's are responsible for the Vostok ice core samples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Vostok
La Nina has a lot to do with the drought. I can't speak about current temps in this regard but as far as lack of rain you have to look at the source.
That's assuming man has a global effect on temperatures.
There's no point in arguing with a thermometer. You can argue many aspects of how the information was gathered. Where it was gathered and what not, but as that chart shows, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that at times the Earth gets cooler and warmer. I'm quite comfortable that we are in a warmer period rather than a cooler period. I'm all for discussing possible causes and I'd like to first discuss what it happened in the past. In my opinion what has happened before is more likely to be the cause rather than a brand new phenomena.
Well it looks like we agree where to start. It would be nice to see an article that explained past heat increases then went into detail as to why this current round is indeed different if that's what is being sold.
Last edited:
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
OK so I looked at this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
If they look to the past rises and attribute the rise to green house gases, obviously not man made, what happened that caused a decline in green house gases that it didn't turn into some perpetual event that made the planet become Venus II?
If they look to the past rises and attribute the rise to green house gases, obviously not man made, what happened that caused a decline in green house gases that it didn't turn into some perpetual event that made the planet become Venus II?
Thanks
Definitely. And if you see warming during La Nina, you know something else is going on. The point I was making here is, it doesn't take more than 3 degrees to disrupt our current lifestyle, not to say we'll die, but it'll be uncomfortable enough. (Ask any flood or hurricane victim if taxation has ever hurt them as much as the disaster did).
Good. Sometimes people like to argue with the thermometer, or the readers, because that's the shorter way out.
Just look at that chart.25,000 years ago,an eye blink in geologic time,Chicago was underneath about a mile of ice.Those warm peaks are few,short lasting and far apart.What if the only thing stopping us from plunging into another ice age,which would kill billions more people than warming,was SUV's,heated swimming pools and coal fired power plants?
Very good question!
I don't know. But if I am allowed to guess, it could be precisely that. Because it wasn't man made, and man made CO2 was not accumulating, then over time CO2 and warming was absorbed and balanced out. But IF you acknowledge that CO2 worsens warming, then at least we know continuing to produce CO2 won't help, if we assume warming is a problem. That may just be the reason why people are calling for CO2 reduction, because IF the past temperature rises can be attributed to CO2, and not man made, then we know warming will not perpetuate IF we reduce CO2 to the point where it's "manageable".
None of these points will makes sense though, if you believe
1. Globe is not warming
2. CO2 causes nothing
3. Warming isn't bad, or we don't expect destabilization of climate
4. We can't reduce it enough
5. Well, we can, but my freedom is more important
6. Well, maybe it's not, but I still like my freedom.
So I think the argument basically comes down to this.
1. Does CO2 really cause or worse global warming and climate instability?
2. If it does, should we at least prepare for it, or seek to avoid it?
Last edited:
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
Look science can get behind whatever argument it wants. My household has two cars both get over 30 mpg. We've reduced our household energy consumption by about 20% over the past year. I certainly take things in and move forward with the best possible information. I don't need government to make these decisions and I'm not so high and mighty to think I need to have government force other people to make the same decisions I would.
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
Now while there are indeed natural fluxuations in temperatures on a geological scale on Earth (that is not disputed by anyone as far as I know), it is certainly possible that actions of man may either reduce or exacerbate those natural effects. The fact that temperatures changed over the geological history of the planet does not rule out climate change (global warming is a less accurate term- some places get warmer and drier while others may get colder and wetter). One cannot rule out climate change because temperature changes have also been observed in the past before man had much influence over the environment.
exactly. just because people died in the past, or got cancer in the past, does not mean people can't die of man made reasons today, or the cancer hasn't increased today.
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
This reminds me of a George Carlin bit.
Now I'm not sold that CO2 is the cause. I assume it could be something that walks hand in hand. For example, warmer temperatures = more life = more CO2. I digress, lets just go with the narative and say that it is. The Earth obviously has a reaction to warmer temperatures that would cause a decline in CO2. Volcanic activity? Better climate for super viruses? These are other things that would be good to know. At the same time we know it has been warmer than current without catastrophic events. Of course this year we have a drought. Last year we had too much water. Maybe next year will be exactly right.
I have no interest in saving the planet, or animals, or trees. I care only about protecting the lifestyle we are used to. You've likely heard of drought alerts or power flex alerts, and this is not necessarily government forcing people to do anything, it's warning people that resources are limited and without careful preparation, "tragedy of commons" will kick in. Whether it means shortage of water or power outage, neither of which are catastrophic, it's inconvenient enough that people would prefer to avoid it if they could. And you're right, you probably don't need government forcing people to do it, but it sure helps if people are informed and aware of it. (hope I didn't get too much off topic)
Warmer temperatures does not mean more life, at least not more human life. Because most people do not live where they are looking for more heat, they live where it's suitable.
Like I said earlier, catastrophic events are definitely undesireable, but they're not the only undesireables. Earthquakes are one example of things we can't prevent, and the events are short, but the damage lasts enough enough, usually the more civilized, the more fragile.
That's part of the problem. If you think you have problems predicting it now, imagine when it becomes even more unstable. How do you "prepare for worst" if you have 2 extremely conflicting things to prepare for?
Bman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
Well you do have more humans living in Florida then you do in Antarctica. Really just saying life likes higher temperatures, of course there is a too high point. Maybe that 5+ degree point is where life starts not to like the higher temps.
Yes but regardless of temperature we will have catastrophic events. Not a reason to dismiss the possibility of man made global warming, but also not a reason to assume man made global warming.
It's like you said earlier, the question is if CO2 indeed causes global warming and if the warming it causes is drastic. Since we can educate ourselves to be more responsible wardens. That's assuming at what point increased temperatures are a threat to the world as we know it.
Personally, I've always found the weather to be a bit unpredictable. It will take years of measurements to see if there is a trend or a just a severely off year.
edit*lol read this. I'm making less and less sense. time to log. gnight. enjoyed the conversation.
Last edited:
John F Kennedy III
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,839
We really should be more worried about an ice age than rising temperatures.
John F Kennedy III
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,839
Are you actually ignorant of the responses? Or just hoping you can ignore them and people won't bother looking for them? Or are there responses to these responses, if so, better to start with the best and most final word, don't you think?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
awake
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 4,358
There are scientists, then there are scientists drunk and corrupted on political power. You usually play for the team who pays you your due. I love how climate deceivers always state that this "climate denier" or that climate denier, since they disagree, is being funded by "dirty oil"... Never will they see that they themselves are funded by the greatest evil : monopoly government. But the "righteous" and true never see it: that they themselves are the very thing they rail against: a propagandist for the "dirty" and immoral fascist state. Science says nothing about what we ought to do, it says what is. Carbon taxes, cap and trade, geo-engennering etc. etc...are all wild adventures in madness from the reckless and irresponsible political class who are hell bent to sacrifice the people to save their precious state. Many planners admit that the aforementioned schemes are nothing more than crafty methods to sure up government coffers - not mitigate for climate change.
"Climate change", and all its remedies, is simply American fascism on the march. But, for most people, they don't bother to look at it closely; WE MUST ACT NOW is repeated like a battle cry, save the masses become wise to the swindle.
Scientists who advocate for more government are themselves against science. Science would not exist in a hand to mouth existence socialist world which they are pushing toward. And science in a fascist state is nothing more than another means to bolster even more self serving political looting.
"Climate change", and all its remedies, is simply American fascism on the march. But, for most people, they don't bother to look at it closely; WE MUST ACT NOW is repeated like a battle cry, save the masses become wise to the swindle.
Scientists who advocate for more government are themselves against science. Science would not exist in a hand to mouth existence socialist world which they are pushing toward. And science in a fascist state is nothing more than another means to bolster even more self serving political looting.
Last edited:
Similar threads
