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.
in the end you are right, man would be better suited to get ready for climate changes rather than to try and stop said climate change.
really? sop according to the geological record, a 10 degree increase in temperatures in 15 years is gradual, yet somehow a 2 degree increase in temperature in 150 years is rapid? the difference of course being that you ascribe the former as being natural since it was coming out of a period of glaciation, and the latter being that you ascribe to being caused by human activity.
At the end of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the last 100 years, the temperature has climbed 0.8 degrees Celsius, about ten times faster than the rate of ice age recovery warming.
really? sop according to the geological record, a 10 degree increase in temperatures in 15 years is gradual, yet somehow a 2 degree increase in temperature in 150 years is rapid? the difference of course being that you ascribe the former as being natural since it was coming out of a period of glaciation, and the latter being that you ascribe to being caused by human activity.
I'm not completely sure which era(s) you're referring to, however during the last glaciation, the climate was highly unstable and 10 degree changes could occur within just a few years-- though overall temperatures were 12F lower than they are now. That instability is possibly the biggest reason why civilization didn't develop during the last glaciation, and also why altering the climate is such a bad idea.
I was referring to the warming that ends glacial periods and the cooling that allows them to develop, not the erratic short-term climate changes that occur during glacial periods.
This episode of warming is definitely rapid when contrasted with the last 10,000 years.
I'm not completely sure which era(s) you're referring to, however during the last glaciation, the climate was highly unstable and 10 degree changes could occur within just a few years-- though overall temperatures were 12F lower than they are now. That instability is possibly the biggest reason why civilization didn't develop during the last glaciation, and also why altering the climate is such a bad idea.
That depends on how you modify the environment. Warmer should make the environment more stable. Cooler makes it less stable.
At the end of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the last 100 years, the temperature has climbed 0.8 degrees Celsius, about ten times faster than the rate of ice age recovery warming.
Little ICE AGE !!!!!!!!
PS What has been tghe climate change over the past 12,000 years?
No SUV's back then
When you people can place climate so called change into proper context over the history of climate since 10,000 BC, perhaps you can convince me.
That is the inference to be made from what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I'm not completely sure which era(s) you're referring to, however during the last glaciation, the climate was highly unstable and 10 degree changes could occur within just a few years-- though overall temperatures were 12F lower than they are now.
Colder temperatures gets more ice. Ice is a big player in a climate feedback loop. So if more ice made it less stable then less ice should make it more stable. Running the ice to zero should make it quite stable.
You mean the same NASA that continues to this moment to publish on its website the blatant flat out lie "that 97% of climate scientists agree" with the blatantly flawed AGW alarmism hypothesis, when in fact there has been no scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted that supports this? Here is the link:
That NASA? LOL. These people have outed themselves as propagandists and are perpetrating falsehoods and lies on this topic at this very moment and as a result cannot be trusted on this.
The study that sampled articles on climate change as a proxy for what either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" believe does not even purport to support the conclusion that you and the other environmental extremists claim that it does.
But of course if you can produce a scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted showing that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, we would all like to see it. But you cannot do it because it does not exist.
NASA either knows this and is knowingly lying or is ignorant of it and is demonstrating their lack of reliability by their negligent promotion of lies on this topic. In either case, they are not a reliable or trustworthy source on this subject.
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
....(More at the link)
Apparently the temperature data in South America, Canada and Siberia regions have been methodically adjusted by the scientists supporting the AGW alarmism movement. Of course those adjustments have all gone in the same direction, which is upwards. This seriously undermines the legitimacy of this data as a basis for claims in recent years that the Earth has been warmer than it has seemed to many people looking on from the outside.
This is a true rejection of science at its worst. If these people were trustworthy, then why would they not be able to simply use the accurate data and let the results be what they may? Obviously, because that would not support their alarmist agenda.
It is true that widely accepted theories have been gradually displaced and disproven even in the hard sciences (i.e. ether, flat earth, the concept of a static universe, etc). The kicker is that in each of these instances, mountains of hard, incontrovertible evidence has been provided in favor of the new theory. So OP needs to put up and provide such evidence or simply shut the f**k up and stop wasting everybody's time.
Once again, we see the leftists trying to silence voices and opinions they do not agree with.
You guys used to believe in freedom of speech. What happened?
Of course evidence is provided constantly raising doubts and concerns about this politically contrived agenda. In reply, we routinely see the same intolerance and closed mindedness that you displayed in your paragraph above coming from the usual suspects who are the local defenders of the AGW alarmism faith. Any objection raised is treated as some sort of blasphemy against their sacred beliefs, and responded to with denials, deflections and name-calling.
Perhaps you would like to illustrate my point with some denials, deflections or some name calling of your own? Oh, yeah, or some attempts to stifle opposing opinions altogether, which you have already shown us above.
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.
