or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Insanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Insanity Thread

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
No, it's not what you think. This thread is no created to discuss the existence of global warming, its causes, etc. It's been created to show examples of idiotic "solutions" to GW, and ridiculous examples of what GW itself causes---assuming it does exist.

Let's begin:

Seattle may ban beach fires to combat Teh Global Warming.

--I think we should ban forest fires too.

But why stop at one little link, when you can have about 1,000:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


As you all know I don't believe Global Warming exists as its been described. If it does, I don't believe that the results of it will be nearly as Earth shattering as some predict...not by far. But let's put that aside and assume it does exist. We're going to solve it by banning beach fires and using florescent light bulbs? Can't we start with...I don't know...getting off of oil as a major fuel source? Is it really right that we blame a reduction in brothel business on Teh global Warming? Do we really believe that half of all animal and plant species will become extinct because the Earth warms a few degrees? Can anyone possibly believe that the human brain will shrink because of it?

I'm very interested to see the response to this one. Any stupid "solutions" or other "causes" you'd like to post?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 88
More interested in iPhone insanity. Thanks anyway.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #3 of 88
I am a straight male who lives happily alone. I write poetry and have released 1 CD combining the music of Gavin Stephens with my poetry. The CD is called " I Can't Belive I'm Not Buddha". If you would like one please ask, they are free. You can hear some of the tracks here:

www.myspace.com/limbopoet
post #4 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo Poet View Post

I am a straight male who lives happily alone. I write poetry and have released 1 CD combining the music of Gavin Stephens with my poetry. The CD is called " I Can't Belive I'm Not Buddha". If you would like one please ask, they are free. You can hear some of the tracks here:

www.myspace.com/limbopoet

That's the most appropriate reply I've seen yet.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 88
Yup.

Just like clockwork, every two months (on average) you know who starts another thread about what it believes (sans the facts as presented in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature).

I'm going back to sleep now because I believe the thread topic starter is, quite frankly, boorish.

Zzzzz, Zzzzz, Zzzzz, ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #6 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Just like clockwork, every two months (on average) you know who starts another thread about what it believes (sans the facts as presented in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature).

I'm going back to sleep now because I believe the thread topic starter is, quite frankly, boorish.

Zzzzz, Zzzzz, Zzzzz, ...

What can I tell ya? He's bored and wants to fight.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 88
Thread Starter 
Frank, is " peer reviewed climate science literature" your answer to every question?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, is " peer reviewed climate science literature" your answer to every question?

Told ya he just wants to pick a fight.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, is " peer reviewed climate science literature" your answer to every question?

Why wouldn't "peer reviewed science literature" be the best answer to matters of science? Are you suggesting we should rely on non-peer reviewed, non-science literature?

Oh wait, you are.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #10 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, is " peer reviewed climate science literature" your answer to every question?

I just "peer reviewed" myself and it's f@cking HOT outside.
post #11 of 88
Too.... funny,
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/
Quote:
FucktardFucktards do not simply defy common sense, they are pathologically incapable of recognizing the obvious, so even mirrors fail them.


Only a fucktard could explain the purpose behind this mysterious artifact of fucktardation.
post #12 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Told ya he just wants to pick a fight.


Or to correct your spelling!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Why wouldn't "peer reviewed science literature" be the best answer to matters of science? Are you suggesting we should rely on non-peer reviewed, non-science literature?

Oh wait, you are.

I'm suggesting that "peer reviewed science literature" doesn't answer all questions, particularly with respect to Teh Global Warming.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, is " peer reviewed climate science literature" your answer to every question?

,,, you bet your ass it is.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #15 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Any stupid "solutions" or other "causes" you'd like to post?

#1. Have SDW in charge of global warming policy.

D'oh!
post #16 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm suggesting that "peer reviewed science literature" doesn't answer all questions, particularly with respect to Teh Global Warming.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Do not arouse the the wrath of the great and powerful Oz.
.
.
.
You're a very bad man.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #17 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Or to correct your spelling!

Hey, we can all speak casually here. I prefer to type the way I pronounce.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #18 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Hey, we can all speak casually here. I prefer to type the way I pronounce.

Let me try that:

sjaldki;u wlkjupwoieu wdfoipuwds ;dsqwu3y7d081x7 qkuihja sd;kjn !!!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #19 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I just "peer reviewed" myself and it's f@cking HOT outside.

No doubt, it's been over 95 all week, and >100 for the last three days straight here, and it's only early June!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #20 of 88
I've had bad luck linking to Canadian papers in the past, but here goes. Via /. this morning...

In Praise of CO2

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I've had bad luck linking to Canadian papers in the past, but here goes. Via /. this morning...

In Praise of CO2

If anything this article confirms AGW is real (e. g. longer growing seasons predominantly in the polar regions and general increased CO2 production in the tropical ecosystems) and unavoidable (IMHO given the current global political climate ). That the biota are doing their best to balance the CO2 budget, but that CO2 released from humans burning fossil fuels is much greater then the increased rates in biomass. In other words CO2 will continue to increase faster then the biosphere can remove it as long as we burn fossil fuels at current and ever increasing rates for the foreseeable future.

In other words, Planet Earth will get very hot, the Greenland Ice Cap will most assuredly melt completely over the next several hundred years, that most mountain glaciers will also melt completely in a much shorter timeframe and that vast amounts of methane (another GHG) will be released from the Arctic tundra (or permafrost) as these areas warm to a greater extent then the planet as a whole.

Let's get this straight once and for all, carbon deposits in the form of fossil fuels, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, that the sun was the dominant energy source for biomass creation, and as the biomass dies it eventually is turned into fossil fuels through geological processes. And that we humans are currently burning those energy sources at a rate somewhere between O(5) to O(6) times faster (5-6 orders of magnitude faster) than those fossil fuels took to be created in the first place.

[CENTER]
Quote:
During a greenhouse Earth period, the planet's atmosphere contains sufficient greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane for ice to be entirely absent from the planet's surface.

[/CENTER]

Can't wait to go sailing at the North Pole during the winter solstice though.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #22 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

If anything this article confirms AGW is real...

No way! Thank you, Captian Obvious!


No trend reaches its logical conclusion.


Also, slightly off-topic -- we know for a fact, that since the time Captain Cook sailed around what is now Kenai Fjords National park in 1778, that those glaciers have been steadily retreating; I think what Muir saw in Southeast Alaska bears this out too. What is the stock answer for that from the "sea levels will rise 30 feet by 2100" crowd?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #23 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Also, slightly off-topic -- we know for a fact, that since the time Captain Cook sailed around what is now Kenai Fjords National park in 1778, that those glaciers have been steadily retreating; I think what Muir saw in Southeast Alaska bears this out too. What is the stock answer for that from the "sea levels will rise 30 feet by 2100" crowd?

Ah, yes. I get my scientific data from all the best 18th century explorers.

post #24 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Ah, yes. I get my scientific data from all the best 18th century explorers.


Well it's not turning a pig's tooth into Nebraska Man, but it's gonna have to do.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #25 of 88
post #26 of 88
I'm still not sure why the concept of Global Warming sends conservatives into epileptic fits.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #27 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No way! Thank you, Captian Obvious!


No trend reaches it's logical conclusion.


Also, slightly off-topic -- we know for a fact, that since the time Captain Cook sailed around what is now Kenai Fjords National Park in 1778, that those glaciers have been steadily retreating; I think what Muir saw in Southeast Alaska bares this out too. What is the stock answer for that from the "sea levels will rise 30 feet by 2100" crowd?

Present an evidentiary quantitative link as I think you are just making this stuff up now. Oh and how do I know your lying, well for one no photographic evidence since 1778 predates it's invention, and no land surveying (e. g. benchmarks) existed in that area in 1778.

It's not listed here;

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

[CENTER]
Quote:
The retreat of glaciers since 1850, worldwide and rapid, affects the availability of fresh water for irrigation and domestic use, mountain recreation, animals and plants that depend on glacier-melt, and in the longer term, the level of the oceans. Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. Mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the southern Andes, as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, are showing some of the largest proportionate glacial loss.

Quote:
There are thousands of glaciers in Alaska, though only a relative few of them have been named.
.
.
.
"A 2005 aerial survey of Alaskan coastal glaciers identified more than a dozen glaciers, many former tidewater and calving glaciers, including Grand Plateau, Alsek, Bear, and Excelsior Glaciers that are rapidly retreating. Of 2,000 glaciers observed, 99% are retreating."

[/CENTER]

And remember that I have taken all the names of the "usual suspects."

Here's a spanish map circa 1790;

[CENTER]
Spanish map of Cook Inlet and Kenai Coast region, 1790.[/CENTER]

Another circa 1826;

[CENTER]
Sarychev atlas, c. 1826, showing Outer Kenai Coast.[/CENTER]

Another circa 1849;

[CENTER]
Teben'kov Chart #5 showing Outer Kenai Coast, 1849.[/CENTER]

Another circa 1902;

[CENTER]
George Davidson's map of Outer Kenai Coast, 1902.[/CENTER]

And finally a (what I'll assume circa 1998) modern day map;

[CENTER]
from A Stern and Rock-Bound Coast (1998)


Planet Earth says: "I'm melting."[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #28 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

OK, genius. Let's see if peer reviewed journals (at least the ones you provide) can address this:



Oh look, 10 degree temperature shifts, thousands to millions of years before man was on Earth. Hmmm!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Present an evidentiary quantitative link as I think you are just making this stuff up now. Oh and how do I know your lying...

Yes, I sit at my desk and dream this stuff up, I'm not really curious.

Like I said, John Muir and Glacier bay:
http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/p/x/32.htm

And like I said, from the time of Cook and Vancouver, they've been retreating:
http://www.nps.gov/akso/akarc/cr_glba.htm
Quote:
The earliest recorded observations by La Perousse (1786) and Vancouver (1794) show the presence of glaciers at the mouth of Glacier Bay at Icy Strait. John Muir in 1879 recorded a retreat 32 miles up bay to a point at the mouth of Muir Inlet. Since then, the ice has retreated another 25 miles. Current research indicate that some glaciers within the Fairweather Range are advancing while those in the Chilkat Range are retreating.

I don't have the time chase down the stuff on the Kenai peninsula, but here are a couple of links:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1b.htm
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1a.htm






Less bile and belligerence, franksargent -- it's not necessary! A simple explanation of this historic retreat would have sufficed.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Yes, I sit at my desk and dream this stuff up, I'm not really curious.

Like I said, John Muir and Glacier bay:
http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/p/x/32.htm

And like I said, from the time of Cook and Vancouver, they've been retreating:
http://www.nps.gov/akso/akarc/cr_glba.htm


I don't have the time chase down the stuff on the Kenai peninsula, but here are a couple of links:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1b.htm
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1a.htm






Less bile and belligerence, franksargent -- it's not necessary! A simple explanation of this historic retreat would have sufficed.

Your first link about John Muir in 1879 falls within the post-1850 time period that I linked to in my previous post about glacial retreats since 1850.

Your second link;

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Quote:
The earliest recorded observations by La Perousse (1786) and Vancouver (1794) show the presence of glaciers at the mouth of Glacier Bay at Icy Strait. John Muir in 1879 recorded a retreat 32 miles up bay to a point at the mouth of Muir Inlet. Since then, the ice has retreated another 25 miles. Current research indicate that some glaciers within the Fairweather Range are advancing while those in the Chilkat Range are retreating.

No direct reference in that link, but it does have a BIBLIOGRAPHY but no direct objective evidence for the above quote. In other words where in the Bibliography list will I find quantitative data for the above quote. Standard peer review places either reference numbers or author name(s) and year with this list of references placed at the end of the text. Therefore the quality of this paper is suspect from a strict scientific presentation in a peer reviewed journal, or thesis dissertation. or for that matter any other well written works.

Your 3rd link covers the post 1850's time period I cited in my previous post. We also need to remember that coal was the primary fossil fuel during those time periods, and that coal soot into the atmosphere may have traveled long distances and settled on these glaciers causing their retreats prior to 1850,

Ditto for your 4th link, the time periods are all post-1850 per my link above in a previous post.

As to your first graphic, the 1800AD demarcation lines are shown with question marks, in other words, these positions may have been assumed due to their topography and bathymetry characteristics, leading to those questionable 1800 interpretations.

And your last graphic is from a high school contest in 2005, nothing wrong with doing that, but these kids have been in no way schooled as glaciologists and trained/experienced in the survey methods used to measure Glacier mass balance.

The paper was titled;

Global Climate Change and its Effect on Our Coastal Community with the following disclaimer;

[CENTER]
Quote:
This paper was written as part of the 2005 Alaska Ocean Sciences Bowl high school competition. The conclusions in this report are solely those of the student authors.


Glacial Retreat on the Kenai Peninsula, Edward Berg, ADF&G.[/CENTER]

The Burg reference reads;

[CENTER]
Quote:
Berg, E. 2004. Personal communication. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Soldotna, Alaska.

[/CENTER]

So unless Berg has actually published the data sets along with the various methodologies used to define them, I have to remain very skeptical of Berg's underlying data.

I can be critical of these "so called" glacial front maps since I have quite a bit of experience in land surveying methodologies, and realizing that glaciers are three dimensional, meaning that glaciers also have width and depth, see Glacier mass balance
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK, genius. Let's see if peer reviewed journals (at least the ones you provide) can address this:



Oh look, 10 degree temperature shifts, thousands to millions of years before man was on Earth. Hmmm!

600 million to 20 million years before man, actually. And your chart depicts 10 degree average global temperature shifts occurring over tens of millions of years.

I'll leave it for you to work out how that differs from what we're talking about.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #32 of 88
[CENTER][/CENTER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

600 million to 20 million years before man, actually. And your chart depicts 10 degree average global temperature shifts occurring over tens of millions of years.

I'll leave it for you to work out how that differs from what we're talking about.

The PermianTriassic extinction event;

[CENTER]
Quote:
The PermianTriassic (PTr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred 251.4 million years ago, forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events. This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".

[/CENTER]

So if this graph is accurate, in it's own "cartoonish" way then the above extinction event coincided with a 1 degree centigrade temperature rise. Oh, and the horizontal scale is ~1.000.000 years/pixel, meaning that the resolution is so course, that we could never obtain meaningful rates of temperature change, which is the subject de jour.

So for example, if we use the current estimate of 0.10 degrees centigrade per decade, which is a low estimate, then for 1,000,000 years, the global temperature will be 0,10 *1,000,000 / 10 = 10,000 degrees centigrade. OK, I'll admit that this won't happen, because well before then, man would become extinct.

So now lets look at a 10 degree centigrade temperature rise based on the range shown in this graph; 10 degrees centigrade / 0.01/year = 1,000 years (or one thousand years). Now that is most certainly doable given a highly industrialized society of ~ 10 billion people and the plentiful supply of fossil fuel in the form of coal.

Now go back to the "cartoon" graph. Do you see anywhere on that graph a rise (or fall) of 10 degrees centigrade occurring in just 0.001 pixels (i. e. 1,000 years)? Do you even see a 10 degree centigrade rise over just one full pixel (i, e, one million years)?

The answer is the same for both, no and no.

We are talking about climate change are we not? And we are not talking about climate stasis as shown by the 22 degree centigrade climate plateau's, correct?

So to sum it all up in three words it's all about the rate of change. It is not about what temperature regimes existed in the past, but how rapidly the temperature changes from one extreme to the other. In that regard this "cartoon" graph is virtually useless.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

600 million to 20 million years before man, actually. And your chart depicts 10 degree average global temperature shifts occurring over tens of millions of years.

I'll leave it for you to work out how that differs from what we're talking about.

Let me guess...the hockey stick graph. Hmmmm? Then tell me adda, where is the hockey stick graph for global temperature? I'll tell you where....it's nowhere. It doesn't exist. Because global average temperatures have barely risen at all. There is nothing to suggest that the warming that has happened is abnormal. Slight variations in the Earth's temperature have been happening for millions of years.

Now, if GAT had increased perhaps 5 degrees in the last 100 years (with a spike in the last 50), then we'd have a serious problem. But that hasn't happened.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[CENTER][/CENTER]



The PermianTriassic extinction event;


So if this graph is accurate, in it's own "cartoonish" way


Fuck off. The graph was not intended to be accurate to within 1/10th of a degree or to show smaller periods of time.

Quote:
then the above extinction event coincided with a 1 degree centigrade temperature rise.

And I'm sure that is what caused the extinction event, aren't you? And since it happened on its own with no SUVs and coal plants, we can't prevent the next one.

Quote:
Oh, and the horizontal scale is ~1.000.000 years/pixel, meaning that the resolution is so course, that we could never obtain meaningful rates of temperature change, which is the subject de jour.

I think you mean "coarse." But to address your point: If this graph is not acceptable, why are any historical temperature estimates acceptable beyond those which we have actually measured?

Quote:

So for example, if we use the current estimate of 0.10 degrees centigrade per decade, which is a low estimate, then for 1,000,000 years, the global temperature will be 0,10 *1,000,000 / 10 = 10,000 degrees centigrade. OK, I'll admit that this won't happen, because well before then, man would become extinct.

Righto..because we're causing the climate to change and the temperature will just go up and up and up some more. I forgot.

Quote:

So now lets look at a 10 degree centigrade temperature rise based on the range shown in this graph; 10 degrees centigrade / 0.01/year = 1,000 years (or one thousand years). Now that is most certainly doable given a highly industrialized society of ~ 10 billion people and the plentiful supply of fossil fuel in the form of coal.

Only if you ASSUME we are raising the temperature.

Quote:

Now go back to the "cartoon" graph. Do you see anywhere on that graph a rise (or fall) of 10 degrees centigrade occurring in just 0.001 pixels (i. e. 1,000 years)? Do you even see a 10 degree centigrade rise over just one full pixel (i, e, one million years)?

Do you believe that the temperature didn't vary (up or down) within those smaller time periods, only to resume it's normal cycle?

Quote:
The answer is the same for both, no and no.

We are talking about climate change are we not? And we are not talking about climate stasis as shown by the 22 degree centigrade climate plateau's, correct?

Of course.

Quote:

So to sum it all up in three words it's all about the rate of change. It is not about what temperature regimes existed in the past, but how rapidly the temperature changes from one extreme to the other. In that regard this "cartoon" graph is virtually useless.

You can mock it all you want. It shows that climate change is normal. There is nothing to suggest that what we are experiencing today is abnormal. If we believe our best measurements, GAT has increased about .8 degrees in 100 years. That's assuming there is no margin of error, and that measurements from 100 years ago are as accurate as today's (which themselves have been revised at times for overstating temperature).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me guess...the hockey stick graph. Hmmmm? Then tell me adda, where is the hockey stick graph for global temperature? I'll tell you where....it's nowhere. It doesn't exist. Because global average temperatures have barely risen at all. There is nothing to suggest that the warming that has happened is abnormal. Slight variations in the Earth's temperature have been happening for millions of years.

Now, if GAT had increased perhaps 5 degrees in the last 100 years (with a spike in the last 50), then we'd have a serious problem. But that hasn't happened.

Please stop. I know we disagree on many things, but I don't dislike you and I hate to see you careening about like this.

Just, generally, it's a not a great idea to pick up a grab bag of "gotcha" talking points from the web and brandish them when you (I guess, it appears) don't know much about how those "arguments", such as they are, are being structured. It just looks foolish.

And no, this isn't breezy dismissal of forbidden thought in the way of those group think climate scientist robot black helicopter dupes.

Posting utterly irrelevant graphs because some web site proffered it up as yet another "HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THIS YOU CAN'T HA!" is foolish. Upon learning of this immediately falling back on "OK SO GLOBAL HOCKEY STICK HA!" is foolish.

Save yourself. The people disseminating this crap are not your friends, they have no intention of making good faith arguments and they are profoundly, deeply, cynical. You are being used, friend.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Save yourself. The people disseminating this crap are not your friends, they have no intention of making good faith arguments and they are profoundly, deeply, cynical. You are being used, friend.

One world (coin), two sides...90% of Enviro Skeptic Books Have Think Tank Roots

Quote:
A new study by a team of political scientists and sociologists at the journal Environmental Politics concludes that 9 out of 10 books published since 1972 that have disputed the seriousness of environmental problems and mainstream science can be linked to a conservative think tank (CTT). Following on earlier work by co-author Riley Dunlap and colleagues, the study examines the ability of conservative think tanks to use the media and other communication strategies to successfully challenge mainstream expert agreement on environmental problems.

Holy Kevin Bacon Batman!

IMO: Big business does not want to spend the money to retrofit its factories (anything that causes polution) so they put out misinformation to save them money. Simple as that.

BUT: Works that clarify links between sources of funding and the result of research are really important, regardless of the specific political agenda. Paid bias is a problem that can't be ignored. If we can't have unbiased research in health, environment and the rest of it, then we are completely screwed.
post #37 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No direct reference in that link....but no direct objective evidence for the above quote....

....So unless Berg has actually published the data sets...

I can be critical of these "so called" glacial front maps....

Honestly, franksargent. That's profoundly disappointing.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #38 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Honestly, franksargent. That's profoundly disappointing.

,,, I've demonstrated conclusively that that there is a net loss of glaciers globally and that this net loss has been accelerated over the past ~150 years and that this confirms AGW due to increases in GHG's of human origins.

Heck, disregard my comments on Berg's rather limited data (a couple dozen Alaskan glaciers when there are literally thousands of Alaskan glaciers). Even that rather limited data set clearly shows an accelerated trend line of glacial retreat over time.

I could even show glaciers that are advancing (albeit at slower rates then they once were). But the main point remains that there is an accelerating net loss of glaciers globally since 1850.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Fuck off. The graph was not intended to be accurate to within 1/10th of a degree or to show smaller periods of time.



And I'm sure that is what caused the extinction event, aren't you? And since it happened on its own with no SUVs and coal plants, we can't prevent the next one.



I think you mean "coarse." But to address your point: If this graph is not acceptable, why are any historical temperature estimates acceptable beyond those which we have actually measured?



Righto..because we're causing the climate to change and the temperature will just go up and up and up some more. I forgot.



Only if you ASSUME we are raising the temperature.



Do you believe that the temperature didn't vary (up or down) within those smaller time periods, only to resume it's normal cycle?



Of course.



You can mock it all you want. It shows that climate change is normal. There is nothing to suggest that what we are experiencing today is abnormal. If we believe our best measurements, GAT has increased about .8 degrees in 100 years. That's assuming there is no margin of error, and that measurements from 100 years ago are as accurate as today's (which themselves have been revised at times for overstating temperature).

... rate of change as opposed to temperature plateaus, and that rate of change is what is important with respect to climate change, then and only then, will I bother to discuss further with you your gross misconceptions of what increasing GHG's of human origin and AGW actually means.

I honestly don't think you've ever dealt with derivatives, mathematically speaking.

So a simple question to you is: Do you even understand what rate of change means with respect to global warming, or what the rate of change of the rate of change means with respect to global warming (e. g. the second derivative of the CO2 curve from 50 years of objective empirical instrumental data is real and positive).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change.


Can't we get SDW banned for this thread?
It is an impeachable offense?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Insanity Thread