-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback apology accepted
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
The earth has been hotter in the past; the earth has been cooler in the past.
The qualifying factor in the date above is “recorded history,” in other words, when man recorded it.
But if the earth has been both hotter and cooler before mankind existed, is it even remotely possible, just a teeny-weeny little bit, that maybe mankind isn’t exclusively responsible for climate change, and that maybe the sun and water vapour are factors too?
Just asking, in good faith, before we’re forced to abandon civilization to make temperatures drop maybe 1/100th of a degree.
Yep and from my understanding the planet warms when emissions go up, namely from volcanoes. Climate change 250 million years ago nearly wiped out all life on the planet. I also believe the natural warming and cooling of the earth takes a lot longer than the 50 years we have seen dramatic change.
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Salacious-Crumb said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
The earth has been hotter in the past; the earth has been cooler in the past.
The qualifying factor in the date above is “recorded history,” in other words, when man recorded it.
But if the earth has been both hotter and cooler before mankind existed, is it even remotely possible, just a teeny-weeny little bit, that maybe mankind isn’t exclusively responsible for climate change, and that maybe the sun and water vapour are factors too?
Just asking, in good faith, before we’re forced to abandon civilization to make temperatures drop maybe 1/100th of a degree.
Yep and from my understanding the planet warms when emissions go up, namely from volcanoes. Climate change 250 million years ago nearly wiped out all life on the planet. I also believe the natural warming and cooling of the earth takes a lot longer than the 50 years we have seen dramatic change.
It usually follows not leads. So warming from natural cycles leads to higher CO2. Not the other way a =round
And what dramatic change? The temperature has changed very little over the last 50 years. Unlike the past when the world moved out of a ice age for example. And just maybe the NY Times is not the best place to get reliable data from
-
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
And just maybe the NY Times is not the best place to get reliable data from
I really want to know who you get your reliable data from?
Not saying that it is or isn't but who do you rely on?
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
And just maybe the NY Times is not the best place to get reliable data from
I really want to know who you get your reliable data from?
Not saying that it is or isn't but who do you rely on?
why is in 13 month blocks?
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
And just maybe the NY Times is not the best place to get reliable data from
I really want to know who you get your reliable data from?
Not saying that it is or isn't but who do you rely on?
Treat anything you read in papers like the NY Times with caution. I assume everything is likely crap today unless I can prove otherwise.
-
-
Um, without reading the entire study, the title would seem to suggest that this is a study of a very select location, a "shallow Canadian boreal lake" to be precise, whatever the fuck that is.
It's pretty funny that you continue to dispute all evidence that supports the contrary view to yours, and when asked to produce links, sources, anything to support your view, this is what you come up with.
To be 100% clear, I'm not saying that it's impossible to find credible sources that support your views. Just that you don't seem to be able to produce them. And I continue to believe that there are many, many more credible studies that support my position over yours.
-
I should repeat, for the millionth time, that nobody refutes that the climate has changed in the past, and has been hotter than now in the past. You can debate til the cows come home whether we are contributing to this latest warming (and what that increase is based off whatever base year you choose). But what I think is beyond debate is that we are not currently equipped to deal with a warming similar to what we have seen in the past. Either we slow it (again you can debate whether we can or not), or we start working on adapting to it. And we haven't started that journey at all
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I should repeat, for the millionth time, that nobody refutes that the climate has changed in the past, and has been hotter than now in the past. You can debate til the cows come home whether we are contributing to this latest warming (and what that increase is based off whatever base year you choose). But what I think is beyond debate is that we are not currently equipped to deal with a warming similar to what we have seen in the past. Either we slow it (again you can debate whether we can or not), or we start working on adapting to it. And we haven't started that journey at all
Why are we not equipped with warming? Warming means more plant growth and more food. Cooling is when the shit hits the fan. Cooling worries me not warming as our food supply will decrease
And in fact the CC "scientists" do dispute it was warmer in the past. (Have a look at the long opening hockey stick graph). This fact (it was a lot warmer in the past) based on the majority of best guesses (and that's all they are) based on the likes of ice core samples doesn't fit the unprecedented warming story.
So the CC crowd selectively pick minority samples (like pine cone samples) that fit. Hell they even slice different samples together to achieve the hockey stick impact. And then refuse to release the supporting data.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Canadian boreal lake" to be precise, whatever the fuck that is.
If my meteorological memory serves correctly it means arctic or at least far north (as in Aurora "Borealis". As far as climate goes that means long winters, short summers, so not an indicative sample of global climate in any way.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Canadian boreal lake" to be precise, whatever the fuck that is.
If my meteorological memory serves correctly it means arctic or at least far north (as in Aurora "Borealis". As far as climate goes that means long winters, short summers, so not an indicative sample of global climate in any way.
So what do you think should be used?
Ice core samples are supposedly as good as anything to show variations over time and these are only available in the colder regions.
-
@Winger For sure ice core is one of the only sources of historical data that we have. Sadly we will lose a lot of that too soon.
The broader ranging reports use a larger sample from both hemispheres to incorporate a "global" perspective not just one spot. Micro climates can skew data was my point and should be viewed as judiciously as you read the New York Times.
-
@Winger That sample also only goes back to 8000 years BP. Samples from Greenland go back over 100,000 years, Antarctic way further which gives a much broader range of data globally. This information came from the British Antartic Survey that I read a while back and I'm sure it will be available to read now. They also concluded that CO2 was a major contributing factor in the changes in temperature over time. I know that you don't consider it a pollutant, which is fine, it is a naturally occurring gas and is necessary as you have said but over concentrations can be detrimental.
As for man made consequences - Rate of change (yes, fast changes have occurred in the past) and quantities are the concern and it could just be a coincidence that CO2 quantities have escalated since the industrial revolution. I tend to believe in cause and effect, not coincidence. See what I did there - thinking for myself.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger That sample also only goes back to 8000 years BP. Samples from Greenland go back over 100,000 years, Antarctic way further which gives a much broader range of data globally. This information came from the British Antartic Survey that I read a while back and I'm sure it will be available to read now. They also concluded that CO2 was a major contributing factor in the changes in temperature over time. I know that you don't consider it a pollutant, which is fine, it is a naturally occurring gas and is necessary as you have said but over concentrations can be detrimental.
As for man made consequences - Rate of change (yes, fast changes have occurred in the past) and quantities are the concern and it could just be a coincidence that CO2 quantities have escalated since the industrial revolution. I tend to believe in cause and effect, not coincidence. See what I did there - thinking for myself.
Except cause and effect has not been proven, it is more like correlation, which isnt proof of anything. Your post does indicate just how much of this is uncertain, and I def agree that Wingers example proves little beyond adding a piece to a puzzle, a small piece in a large puzzle. But both sides love to extrapolate these small pieces out completely.
And for the rest of you, keep your posts civil and play the topic not the man. It isnt just open season on winger
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger For sure ice core is one of the only sources of historical data that we have. Sadly we will lose a lot of that too soon.
Nah I dont think we will. But time will tell. I think this will go the same way s lots of other climate predictions. And that is an issue as I think Climate change is going to suffer from chicken little syndrome, and maybe when they really need to pull everyone together, people like me will be so weary and skeptical we wont be reachable. Already I have to woek hard not to instantly dismiss some of the alarmng preditions, and at least try and override my layman based scepticism.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
xcept cause and effect has not been proven, it is more like correlation, which isnt proof of anything.
Therein lies part of the problem - proof of either side is pretty much impossible. Nobody actually knows, but yes, correlation is a better word than coincidence because it has all happened around the same time as man getting all industrial and burning carbon. No proof, just correlation as you say.
I think that we all agree that there is change and that it has happened before. Can we try and minimise the change? Yeah, I think so, and I agree with you Baron, it will be personal responsibility that does it, not governments.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Nah I dont think we will. But time will tell. I think this will go the same way s lots of other climate predictions.
Plenty of core ice at the moment but the further you go to the poles to get it, the more isolated those samples become and less representative of the global situation. Yes climate predictions are unreliable but a trend is there.
See that you have added to your post too. Completely agree about weariness and chicken little. I have thought it a bit "boy who cried wolf" at times, but the evidence does point to a problem and one that can be helped.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
we wont be reachable
You will be if it makes economic sense as well as helps your children's future.
Climate Change