The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not saying a specific "state of the earth" concept but rather a known and predictable rate of change. That's not saying anyone thinks that the earth's climate should be a certain way forever but that we have a damn good idea of what it's supposed to be at this point in the cycle and how much it's supposed to be changing.
 
Weather men/women can barely get a 5 day extended forecast correct. I doubt very seriously that we can predict the temperature of the Earth 20 years in the future.
 
oy, not that ridiculous argument again :rolleyes: seriously, that is by far one of the most asinine oversimplifications of a scientific issue since "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys, huh?!?"

predicting short term weather is harder than predicting long term climate because weather runs on much shorter and more volatile patterns. global climate operates on patterns that span thousands to millions of years, not hours and days
 
predicting short term weather is harder than predicting long term climate because weather runs on much shorter and more volatile patterns. global climate operates on patterns that span thousands to millions of years, not hours and days
Click to expand...

If you are so certain about this, then name one person who has ever correctly predicted a long term future change in climate. Certainly, there must be at least one, according to your theory of how easy it is to predict long term climate changes.
 
Global Warming and Socialist Red Herrings such as the Kyoto Treaty don't solve any problems.... it just begins taxing citizens of the world. That is all that this debate is about.... should the citizens of the world (including America) be taxed by the UN.

Kyoto isn’t about reducing carbon. Don’t take my word for it. Behold the words of the European Union’s Environment Commissioner:

Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto “is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious,”

Then French President and liberal darling Jaques Chirac added the Kyoto Protocol is “the first component of authentic global governance.”

Aside from that, the Kyoto Protocol is an utter failure. From the L.A. Times:

Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those — members of the former Eastern bloc — can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.

China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.

And the biggest polluter of all, the United States, has simply refused to join the treaty.

That leaves Western Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand to do the work of the world. Their emissions are rising despite their commitment, starting next year, to reduce them by an average of roughly 8% from 1990 levels.

It has been a success in one area. Fines.

The [citizens of the] rich countries who joined the Kyoto Protocol are paying billions of dollars in fines for their failure to meet their commitments. “Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.” According to the article by Bloomberg, the reason for the increase in emission was because “they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities.”

Ireland is facing huge fines as well.

“TAXPAYERS face having to fork out more than €270m so that Ireland can “buy its way” into meeting the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.”

So, if the rich, aka capitalist, country’s economy grows, it results in fines. Or, the rich countries buy carbon credits from the poor countries, who have their commitments so high they can pollute at will. Sounds like an attempt leveling of the playing field to me.
Click to expand...
 
o_O the benchmark is the millions of years worth of data that we have in regards to the planet's climate fluctuations. the benchmark is the past century of instrument record.
 
I thought so.

I win.

There is no global warming. There is only the politics.

Its warmer now that it was at the end of the Pliestocene...so does that mean global warming? Conversely, it was warmer when Hannibal crossed the alps..is it now Global Cooling?

I win...subject finished...lets go back to the armsracethatwilldestroymankinglookatthedoomsdayclock!!!!

Humans are rubberneckers by nature. We love catastrophe! Time for one a bit more real.

WildinonefellswoopihavedemolishedthewholeconceptpleasesendcontributionstomeAlaska ™
 
Global Warming and Socialist Red Herrings such as the Kyoto Treaty don't solve any problems.... it just begins taxing citizens of the world.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: yes, just another UN plot to tax Americans and take over the world. onoz, where's my tinfoil!

If you are so certain about this, then name one person who has ever correctly predicted a long term future change in climate. Certainly, there must be at least one, according to your theory of how easy it is to predict long term climate changes.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question? You do realize that this is impossible since "long term future change in climate" refers to THOUSANDS OF YEARS, right? You realize that the field has only been heavily studied for a couple of generations, yes?

Predictable climate doesn't mean we can find stone tablets of egyptian climatologists predicting what our weather will be like next year, it means looking at all the evidence of the past - of which there is A LOT - and realizing that the climate fluctuates in predictable patterns.
 
I thought so.

I win.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: You're smarter than this. There is a benchmark, you just want to pretend it doesn't exist.

There is no global warming. There is only the politics.

Its warmer now that it was at the end of the Pliestocene...so does that mean global warming? Conversely, it was warmer when Hannibal crossed the alps..is it now Global Cooling?
Click to expand...
godsdamnit, I know you're not this dense. you're doing the same stupid oversimplification of the issue that nutjob creationists do when they demand to know why there are still monkeys.

Critical thinking. Don't you preach that around here often? You cannot point to specific points in the planet's history and use that as a benchmark, you have to look at the entire cycle.
 
hmm... 13 pages now and I'm still waiting for that consensus. Oh wait I forgot. Only "qualified" people count.
Click to expand...
When it comes to science, YES. If you're not qualified in the field then you have no say on the consensus.
 
Other consequences of overpopulation will cause local and global catastrophes long before GW does. But that is not a politically popular problem.
 
There is a benchmark, you just want to pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

No no no...I just dont agree with YOUR BENCHMARK...

4.5 billion years of life on the planet and you are saying is that we are in a CRISIS becuase it is warmer now than 100 years ago?

Gotcha.

Critical thinking. Don't you preach that around here often? You cannot point to specific points in the planet's history and use that as a benchmark, you have to look at the entire cycle.
Click to expand...

I am critical thinking. Tell me why your benchmark is more valid that anyone elses....or are you rejecting ANY benchmark in favor of the famous "cycles"

I win. You can't have it both ways.

WildishouldgetanobelprizeAlaska TM

PS your snide little ad hominems are noted.
 
No no no...I just dont agree with YOUR BENCHMARK...

4.5 billion years of life on the planet and you are saying is that we are in a CRISIS becuase it is warmer now than 100 years ago?

Gotcha.
Click to expand...
No! That is not the argument at all nor has that ever been the argument!

Not because it's warmer now than it was 100 years ago, but because it's warmer than all the science tells us it should be. We know it's supposed to be warming up but the RATE OF CHANGE is greater than what the data says it's supposed to be.
I am critical thinking. Tell me why your benchmark is more valid that anyone elses....or are you rejecting ANY benchmark in favor of the famous "cycles"
Click to expand...
It's not my benchmark, it's the benchmark of the vast majority of the scientific community devoted to the issue.

It's not a rejection of cycles. In fact it's a complete acknowledgment of the cycles but your denials are rejecting some of the basic principles of those cycles. Of course there are cycles; we only know this because climatologists have been studying the records and it's those same climatologists that are showing what the temperature change is supposed to be.

PS your snide little ad hominems are noted.
Click to expand...
well excuse me but it's getting a little frustrating, same way I get frustrated when talking to anti-gun folk
 
The rate of change? Oh please, just look at chaos theory, you don't even know what cycles are interacting, what is their magnitude of effect, or how long they are? Give me a break.
 
by that logic the moon landing was impossible because chaos theory dictates that the complexities of space travel are just too chaotic. computers are also non-existent because such complex electrical systems are too chaotic!

relying on buzz words isn't going to change the facts. what next, gonna try to use quantum mechanics and tell me that heisenberg says we can't even tell where the mercury in the thermometer really is? :eek:

Yes, climatologists have a damn good idea what cycles are interacting, their magnitude of effect and how long they are. Is the data perfect? Of course not; again, in science nothing is 100% proven. Nothing. But when data and evidence overwhelmingly supports a conclusion then scientists can most certainly confidently describe all the things you think are too chaotic to understand.

We're not in the dark ages or the industrial revolution.
 
Nonsense. The data is not finely tuned enough to make finely tuned predictions of change over decades. Millenia maybe. Decades, no. I call BS on it.

Actually, it's not like you're snide comparisons at all. It's more akin to someone licking their finger ever day for a week and saying they can predict the windspeed tomorrow. Poppycock. The proper place for this science to be published is the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top