Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those claims don't actually have to be mutually exclusive. For example, if the earth is warming (for whatever reason) it will eventually shut down the north atlantic conveyor which will freeze Ireland while Canada warms up considerabley.
Additionally, in any movement you will have people pushing political agendas under the guise of something else. There is a lot of funding money out there to do "studies" some of which are of low quality.
I just think that a lot of energy is wasted arguing over this topic.
Good, well thought out post. I'm skeptical of AGW, in large part due to the profitering and tax and spend scams generated in it's name. There seems to be a lot of effort to creating hysteria about it, in order to promote an agenda.
I don't deny that global warming may be taking place. Even that basic assumption is open to debate, particularly with the efforts to skew the data that has taken place (climategate) and the difficulties in correcting data due to changes in physical conditions around recording sites. Efforts of those like Gore and other associates to profit from schemes like "carbon trading" make the motivations of AGW promotors look highly suspect. Equally true is doubt of the integrity of politicians that prompote "carbon taxes" as a revenue source.
One critical piece of the puzzle is, if you accept that the earth is warming, how much is due to human causes. The earth has been hotter in the past, it's been cooler in the past, all before human "intervention".
The other piece is what do we do about it? IF the cause is due to humans, do we throw away a modern industrial society and live in caves? Do we execute 60% of the world's population to get back to a sustainable population? Or do we use our brains and technology and figure out how to adapt to a changing climate?
Good, well thought out post. I'm skeptical of AGW, in large part due to the profitering and tax and spend scams generated in it's name. There seems to be a lot of effort to creating hysteria about it, in order to promote an agenda.
I don't deny that global warming may be taking place. Even that basic assumption is open to debate, particularly with the efforts to skew the data that has taken place (climategate) and the difficulties in correcting data due to changes in physical conditions around recording sites. Efforts of those like Gore and other associates to profit from schemes like "carbon trading" make the motivations of AGW promotors look highly suspect. Equally true is doubt of the integrity of politicians that prompote "carbon taxes" as a revenue source.
One critical piece of the puzzle is, if you accept that the earth is warming, how much is due to human causes. The earth has been hotter in the past, it's been cooler in the past, all before human "intervention".
The other piece is what do we do about it? IF the cause is due to humans, do we throw away a modern industrial society and live in caves? Do we execute 60% of the world's population to get back to a sustainable population? Or do we use our brains and technology and figure out how to adapt to a changing climate?
I agree with most of your points above.
Most people have no idea that in the last iceage scientists feel we came perilously close to global extinction because ice reflects 90% of sunlight and if you get too much ice the earth can hit a tipping point and freeze over.
My personal opinion\reality:
1) We have contributed to greenhouse gasses and a general warming trend.
2) If the US stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow....it wouldn't matter. Global prices would sink and China and the rest of the developing world would pick up the slack. These countries have already stated they aren't going to play ball on pollution accords and let's be honest, will they accurately measure? LOL, I have a bridge to sell people that said yes.
3) The people that beat up the US for not signing Kyoto....the signers pollution increased more than the US.
So, I'm resigned to the current state of affairs and feel that we need to move to renewable resources anyway because:
1) fossil fuels are temporary.
2) Trade imbalance and geopolitical conflics we are drug into over oil etc.
Oh, but remember, "weather" is not "climate. But, how do you know the weather pattern in those two areas are different? If the planet is warming (it's not, btw) what difference would location make?
Can't have it both ways - shrinking birds due to global warming, bigger birds due to global warming. get it now?
Bigger birds in central California, courtesy of global climate change
Ahhh, but you see, in 2009 it was "global warming" but in order for everything to be blamed on humans they changed it to "climate change". you are just not liberal enough to see the subtle nuances involved.
This is a good article....it explains alludes to how the glaciers melting 12,000 years ago due to warmer temps actually caused the conveyor to stop and COOLED other parts of the planet.
Then wouldn't it make a little more sense to say that melting glaciers are a sign of global cooling instead of global warming? (it would still be wrong, but it would make a tiny bit of sense at least). And wouldn't that in turn negate the need for the IPCC fraudsters to manipulate the data on warming? Wouldn't that also dovetail nicely with 600,000 years of climate record data that show that increased CO2 is a result of a previous warming cycle, and CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with past temperature trends? Well, I guess it wouldn't make sense, because it would kill the whole CO2 fraud, and confirm what legitimate science understands ... that the Earth's climate is regulated by a complex system of mechanisms having nothing to do with industrial activity
You see, you've just engaged in the same tactics you guys always engage in ... a never ending exercise in circular logic and mental gymnastics. When opposing scientists claim that it is natural processes at work which "regulate" global temperatures ... including El Nino and La Nina, driven primarily by Solar activity and Cosmic radiation ... this is summarily rejected .... it's got to be man made CO2. But when it's convenient, here comes the Ocean currents to explain what doesn't fit the AGW hypothesis.
Earlier, here, or on another thread, there was a debate about the validity of data readings showing warming ... challenging the fact that the data excluded readings over water and only accounted for land based readings. Well, since the Earth is 70+% H2O, wouldn't it be more accurate to include temperature readings Globally, to include both land and sea based readings if your goal was to determine whether there was indeed "Global Warming"? Of course, if your goal was to PROVE a predetermined conclusion, then excluding those lower temperature readings on the other 70% of the planet would be immensely helpful. And when such a point is raised, your side always has another bloviating line of BS to explain why it is most accurate to measure 30% of the globe instead of 100%, when determining global temperature.
This is just one illustration of the gamesmanship being employed. But back to your version of this gaming .... you want to create a straw man argument and then defeat it ... which is another oft used tactic from your side. The reality is, no one on our side is even claiming that there is a global trend either way (at least those with a clue) ... neither warming or cooling. You're attempting to explain what we ALREADY UNDERSTAND ... you just attempt to reframe it to fit your argument. And for the intellectually disadvantaged, I'm sure you sound impressive. But for someone who understands the debate, I'm not the least bit entertained.
There are two distinct climatic conditions that define Earth's climate .... glacial periods and interglacial periods. PERIOD. Everything that occurs between those two periods are natural mechanisms at work which drive the process of exiting one and moving toward the other ... which necessarily includes warming (coming out of the previous glacial period), followed by variation during the interglacial that lasts for 10,000 years, and includes shorter periods of upturns and downturns in temperatures ... some may be global in nature while others may be regionally more specific or geographically centered due to all of the other complex factors like ocean currents, sun cycles in both radiance and sun spot related, earth wobble, cosmic radiation, and probably include other factors that science is currently not considering.
Those other factors should be accounted for ... like the relative position of the solar system as it traverses the galaxy ... throughout that trip, it should be expected that cosmic radiation and it's atmospheric effect on the planet will vary, as that radiation emanates from the center of the galaxy and other celestial bodies, and how that radiation might also be more or less intense due to the variations in density of cosmic dust in space, from one orbital position to another, etc.
There are already studies relating to how Solar activity alters the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth, due to more or less intensity of Solar wind ... the more intense, the more cosmic radiation is deflected.
So, I really don't need you to explain to me how a regional temperature event such as a melting of Arctic Ice can have effects which show up far away. That's understood. My scoffing at these contradictions from the AGW crowd pertain more to citing examples of weather and its trends like unusually high temperatures we experienced here in Texas this past summer, and the unusually cold conditions being experienced on the east coast right now, as a sign of Climate Change. Two months ago we were in a heat wave, two months later the east coast is being frozen and snow dumping on them. This is not climate change. It's weather, and that ALWAYS changes.
I know this may be beyond reasonable expectation for some people to understand, but these unusual highs and lows are unusual only in the sense of frequency of experiencing them ... not in the unprecedented nature of these things occurring. The big clue here is when you hear such things like "this is the worst heatwave in over 100 years" or "the worst drought in over 100 years". What this should immediately tell thinking people is that these things have happened and have been more severe before. The next logical conclusion that MUST come is the recognition that a heatwave or drought occurring in 1889 was NOT DUE TO MAN MADE CO2.
Now this really doesn't take genius level intelligence to figure out ... it just requires the act of thinking, which seems to be a task too many people find too arduous. But once you do ... these things start fitting together nicely and make sense. Ultimately, you may recognize what people have been trying to tell you ... that these variations have been occurring for as long as we have records .... and if they occurred hundreds of years ago when man made CO2 couldn't possibly have been the cause .... you'll come to the next most reasonable conclusion that the same things occurring today are not likely to be caused by CO2 either.
Then wouldn't it make a little more sense to say that melting glaciers are a sign of global cooling instead of global warming? (it would still be wrong, but it would make a tiny bit of sense at least). And wouldn't that in turn negate the need for the IPCC fraudsters to manipulate the data on warming? Wouldn't that also dovetail nicely with 600,000 years of climate record data that show that increased CO2 is a result of a previous warming cycle, and CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with past temperature trends? Well, I guess it wouldn't make sense, because it would kill the whole CO2 fraud, and confirm what legitimate science understands ... that the Earth's climate is regulated by a complex system of mechanisms having nothing to do with industrial activity
You see, you've just engaged in the same tactics you guys always engage in ... a never ending exercise in circular logic and mental gymnastics. When opposing scientists claim that it is natural processes at work which "regulate" global temperatures ... including El Nino and La Nina, driven primarily by Solar activity and Cosmic radiation ... this is summarily rejected .... it's got to be man made CO2. But when it's convenient, here comes the Ocean currents to explain what doesn't fit the AGW hypothesis.
Earlier, here, or on another thread, there was a debate about the validity of data readings showing warming ... challenging the fact that the data excluded readings over water and only accounted for land based readings. Well, since the Earth is 70+% H2O, wouldn't it be more accurate to include temperature readings Globally, to include both land and sea based readings if your goal was to determine whether there was indeed "Global Warming"? Of course, if your goal was to PROVE a predetermined conclusion, then excluding those lower temperature readings on the other 70% of the planet would be immensely helpful. And when such a point is raised, your side always has another bloviating line of BS to explain why it is most accurate to measure 30% of the globe instead of 100%, when determining global temperature.
This is just one illustration of the gamesmanship being employed. But back to your version of this gaming .... you want to create a straw man argument and then defeat it ... which is another oft used tactic from your side. The reality is, no one on our side is even claiming that there is a global trend either way (at least those with a clue) ... neither warming or cooling. You're attempting to explain what we ALREADY UNDERSTAND ... you just attempt to reframe it to fit your argument. And for the intellectually disadvantaged, I'm sure you sound impressive. But for someone who understands the debate, I'm not the least bit entertained.
There are two distinct climatic conditions that define Earth's climate .... glacial periods and interglacial periods. PERIOD. Everything that occurs between those two periods are natural mechanisms at work which drive the process of exiting one and moving toward the other ... which necessarily includes warming (coming out of the previous glacial period), followed by variation during the interglacial that lasts for 10,000 years, and includes shorter periods of upturns and downturns in temperatures ... some may be global in nature while others may be regionally more specific or geographically centered due to all of the other complex factors like ocean currents, sun cycles in both radiance and sun spot related, earth wobble, cosmic radiation, and probably include other factors that science is currently not considering.
Those other factors should be accounted for ... like the relative position of the solar system as it traverses the galaxy ... throughout that trip, it should be expected that cosmic radiation and it's atmospheric effect on the planet will vary, as that radiation emanates from the center of the galaxy and other celestial bodies, and how that radiation might also be more or less intense due to the variations in density of cosmic dust in space, from one orbital position to another, etc.
There are already studies relating to how Solar activity alters the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth, due to more or less intensity of Solar wind ... the more intense, the more cosmic radiation is deflected.
So, I really don't need you to explain to me how a regional temperature event such as a melting of Arctic Ice can have effects which show up far away. That's understood. My scoffing at these contradictions from the AGW crowd pertain more to citing examples of weather and its trends like unusually high temperatures we experienced here in Texas this past summer, and the unusually cold conditions being experienced on the east coast right now, as a sign of Climate Change. Two months ago we were in a heat wave, two months later the east coast is being frozen and snow dumping on them. This is not climate change. It's weather, and that ALWAYS changes.
I know this may be beyond reasonable expectation for some people to understand, but these unusual highs and lows are unusual only in the sense of frequency of experiencing them ... not in the unprecedented nature of these things occurring. The big clue here is when you hear such things like "this is the worst heatwave in over 100 years" or "the worst drought in over 100 years". What this should immediately tell thinking people is that these things have happened and have been more severe before. The next logical conclusion that MUST come is the recognition that a heatwave or drought occurring in 1889 was NOT DUE TO MAN MADE CO2.
Now this really doesn't take genius level intelligence to figure out ... it just requires the act of thinking, which seems to be a task too many people find too arduous. But once you do ... these things start fitting together nicely and make sense. Ultimately, you may recognize what people have been trying to tell you ... that these variations have been occurring for as long as we have records .... and if they occurred hundreds of years ago when man made CO2 couldn't possibly have been the cause .... you'll come to the next most reasonable conclusion that the same things occurring today are not likely to be caused by CO2 either.
I never have and never will discuss global warming on this forum....especially not in this specific forum. It's been hashed and rehashed and is a complete waste of time anyway IMO whether it's real or not.
My comments were directed at the OP's premise which is wrong. This doesn't validate the GW crowd....I'm merely opining on how such things are possible and gave the north atlantic conveyor as an example.
If you can't stick to topic then fine, but don't drag me into one of the forums repeated GW\AGW screeching poo throwing fests.
P.S. For strawmanning me and trying to throw me in with the rabid AGW crowd after I have been nothing but detailed and polite and haven't even undertaken the argument is pretty rude. I'm done throwing pearls at you. Good luck.
Those claims don't actually have to be mutually exclusive. For example, if the earth is warming (for whatever reason) it will eventually shut down the north atlantic conveyor which will freeze Ireland while Canada warms up considerabley.
Additionally, in any movement you will have people pushing political agendas under the guise of something else. There is a lot of funding money out there to do "studies" some of which are of low quality.
I just think that a lot of energy is wasted arguing over this topic.
the emboldened is an important word to remember when discussing the actions of those who believe in CAGW.
I never have and never will discuss global warming on this forum....especially not in this specific forum. It's been hashed and rehashed and is a complete waste of time anyway IMO whether it's real or not.
My comments were directed at the OP's premise which is wrong. This doesn't validate the GW crowd....I'm merely opining on how such things are possible and gave the north atlantic conveyor as an example.
If you can't stick to topic then fine, but don't drag me into one of the forums repeated GW\AGW screeching poo throwing fests.
P.S. For strawmanning me and trying to throw me in with the rabid AGW crowd after I have been nothing but detailed and polite and haven't even undertaken the argument is pretty rude. I'm done throwing pearls at you. Good luck.
I certainly agree that those who worship a the alter of CAGW believe that all things are possible.
more rain
less rain
more dry weather
less dry weather
more snow
less snow
more bad weather
less bad weather
colder
hotter
bigger birds
littler birds
and 1 honest tree in Yamal Russia.... (but that is another story for another time... thank you Keith Briffa)
However, I believe that the slowing of the North Atlantic conveyor theory has seen some dampering in recent years... of course I could be wrong, I have attempted sleep since last i saw anything on that... .I say attempted as I have small children. Small children tend to hender success when one is attempting sleep.
Fairbanks is at about 64°N; Ireland 53°N or so. Big difference. While the gulf stream definitely helps keep Europe warm; the geography of Europe (very little big landmasses at the northern latitudes, lots of sea around NW europe) is the biggest factor. Just being on the west side of a continent makes a place warmer at high latitudes. While on the west coast of North America palm trees don't go up to Ireland's latitude; they go at least as north as Vancouver (49°N). This gives some more explanation:
May I remind you of some fundamental, universal truths .... such as .... you cannot reason with a drunk who's had too much to drink ... and that holds true for Kool-Aide drinkers as well.
I'm sure you've had to notice by now that those who believe this nonsense about CO2 ALSO embrace many other things that don't make a great deal of rational sense? In fact, with rare exceptions, it is almost always the same usual suspects that can be found on the opposite side of just about EVERY other topic debated on this forum. Therefore, believing in AGW is not really the problem these people have ... it's just another symptom of a much deeper problem.
Now if you ask me what that deeper problem is, I'd just suggest that you consider the most obvious and simple answer as the most likely
Yes, the Left, especially the far Left, which is why that segment of society is deemed fringe.
There's just no doubt the "climate scientists" have given the whole process a bad name, what with their dire predictions that never come true and then attribute every freak/normalcy of nature to "climate change".
As we've heard so many times from the cult - weather is not climate....except when it furthers their agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
