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.
I already did answer, you may have to go back a few pages. It's your turn, what does this question have to do with the validity of AGW?
Quote:
2) Since I have not raised any AGW alarms of hysteria, I am not really required to do anything, since I am not living in fear that some catastrophe awaits me if I don't.
Ah so you want to hide behind that statement when asked the relevance of your question. Not very courageous, certainly not something I'd do but maybe that's how you roll.
Quote:
That said, I've been driving a fuel efficient car of one type or another since I was 16, I recycle and always have, I conserve water even though I don't have to, I never litter and almost always pick up random garbage that crosses my path and place it in a receptacle, I have energy efficient furnace, AC, appliances, etc. I do that because it simply makes sense to me, not because I put one penny worth of agreement into AGW nonsense.
Great, the environment thanks you. These are things people should be doing, whether or not in your belief in AGW. Ironically, efficiency not only helps the environment short term, which is your goal (plus the monetary advantage) but with climate change in the long term.
Quote:
3) Question to the OP remains unanswered.
But here's a few more questions:
1) What is the ideal global mean temperature? I need a number that is "settled" and how the agreement came about.
The ideal temperature is obviously the temperature in which our modern civilization is built on. It's expensive moving all that agricultural infrastructure to new regions, much less all the infrastructure where most of the world's population, the coast.
Quote:
2) Scientific fact shows that the "green" of the planet has increased in the last 20 years, yet the temperature hasn't. Both of these contradict the dire predictions, but even if they didn't....plants grow faster, bigger and heartier, yet the planet doesn't get much warmer. A pretty good thing with no real downside. Why is that bad again?
Yet I caught you using a straw man against me. Yet you don't know fraudulent information, from actual information, the usual liar organizations can't be trusted.
Ask yourself, what would switching from a skeptic to an alarmist actually do? Why does everyone have to be forced to a mainstream view?
Strawman against you? You're the one who said great post to the quote mining.
Why are there only skeptics and alarmist? I'm pretty much in the middle, I believe we are causing the climate to change but don't buy into the sky is falling.
Your ignorance is exposed again....How embarrassing that must be for you..... The strength of gravity at Earth’s surface varies subtly from place to place owing to factors such as the planet’s rotation and the position of mountains and ocean trenches. Changes in the mass of large ice sheets can also cause small local variations in gravity.
Your hypocrisy is exposed here in the below picture. now you admit these world organizations have too much time on their hands, this is exactly the way global warming/climate change skeptics see things. Too bad you're a hypocrite that polluted the earth with tobacco smoke emissions, and the cigarette butts that go with it for 50 plus years.
“The Civil Heretic” was a perfect example of what Freeman Dyson disagrees with: blatant and unfounded exaggeration. Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
MONIKA KOPACZ
Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.
Ok? She seems to actually agree with the AGW? If your point was that climate scientists exaggerate a bit then I'd agree. However, like she says, the science behind our impact on the climate is sound.
Quote:
"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency
Geeze had to go back to.1998 to find that one huh? Are you searching.for these are they compiled?
Quote:
(Botkin did not actually say this, it turns out, he attributes it to colleagues of his)
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.
This article starts off incorrect, we are currently undergoing a major extinction event on the biodiversity. So gonna pass on that one.
Quote:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Strawman against you? You're the one who said great post to the quote mining.
Why are there only skeptics and alarmist? I'm pretty much in the middle, I believe we are causing the climate to change but don't buy into the sky is falling.
Yes. You pretty much made a straw man using college as an excuse, to not really debate anything. That is why people don't trust people like you. Go drink the mainstream media koolaid some more.
Actually, it was Michael E. Mann and his infamous "hockey stick" graph that tries to pretend the "little ice-age" did not exist. He cherry-picked his data to begin only after the "little ice-age" ended in a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform.
Lies.
In fact, he wrote an article about the Little Ice Age, which is commonly understood to be the period from the 16th–mid 19th century, and was most certainly included on his graph:
There were several unusually cold years during the Little Ice Age and they are shown on the graph... but it wasn't a constant barrage of cold weather. The LITTLE Ice Age wasn't literally an ice age, it was a period in which the occurrence of colder weather was more common-- it did NOT mean that every year was unusually cold. If every year had been as cold as the coldest, then progress would have slowed even more than it did.
The graph begins near the height of the medieval warm period. And I have to ask... if he was trying to prove that the Earth is warmer now, WHY would he ignore the Little Ice Age? Wouldn't the dramatic difference between the temperatures make his case seem stronger?
Or wait, he's part of the super-involved industry-wide conspiracy, and refusing to acknowledge something that you can find on WIKIPEDIA is definitely the best way to make everyone think you're legit. Even if he was lying, you'd think a PhD would be able to come up with a much better lie. There are so many levels of weirdness to your claims that I can't wrap my head around it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
The planet has been in a continuous ice-age for 2.58 million years, and it continues to be in an ice-age to this very day. Ice-ages are defined by having continuous ice at both poles. There have been five major ice-ages during the last 2.5 billion years.
Every ice-age has long periods of glaciation, and brief periods where the temperatures warm slightly. The warming periods during an ice-age are called "interglacial" periods, and we have been enjoying the current Holocene Interglacial Period for the last 15,000 years.
There have been numerous interglacial periods during this ice-age, several of them warmer than the current interglacial period. There is also no such thing as "a 10,000 year stability in the climate." It was between 2°C and 6°C warmer 10,000 years ago than it is today, when CO2 levels were lower than they are today.
The mean surface temperature of the planet, when not experiencing an ice-age, is 22°C ± 1°C. Currently, the mean surface temperature of the planet is 14.8°C. Eventually the Holocene Interglacial Period is going to end. When that happens we will experience another ~100,000 years of glaciation and ice will once again lock up about a third of the planet.
It is not a question of "if" it will happen, only a question of "when" it will happen. It is a mistake to think that the ice-age has ended. It has not, and the current ice-age will likely continue for several more million years.
You're missing the point.
The interglacial period has had stable temperatures relative to what preceded it. The fact that we are in an interglacial period now seems to be further evidence that the climate should be trending towards cooling, and yet it is warming.
Nobody has ever claimed that CO2 is the primary cause of ALL warming, just that it is the cause of the CURRENT warming. The fact of the matter is that human civilization couldn't emerge 50,000 years ago not because the world was perpetually frozen, but because the extreme fluctuations between temperatures prevented it. It was the climatic instability that caused the problems, and prevented civilization from developing.
But as the article shows, compared to the extremes of the past, the current climate is rather stable.
Quote:
Going back over the past ten thousand years, the Greenland 18O record shows lots of bumps and squiggles. There is, for example, a slight but perceptible increase in temperature in the early years of the Middle Ages, which leads to what has become known as the Medieval Warm Period, when the English planted vineyards and the Norse established their Greenland settlements. And there’s a dip some six or seven hundred years later, corresponding to the Little Ice Age, which killed off the vineyards and, most likely, led to the demise of the Greenland Norse. But the variation is limited. Between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, Greenland’s average temperature fell by only a few degrees. Its average temperature today, meanwhile, is not very different from what it was ten millennia ago, when our ancestors stopped doing whatever it was that they had been doing and learned to plant crops.
It’s hard to look much farther back in the record, however, without feeling a little queasy. About twenty thousand years ago, the Earth was still in the grip of the last ice age. During this period, called the Wisconsin by American scientists, ice sheets covered nearly a third of the world’s landmass, reaching as far south as New York City.
The transition out of the Wisconsin is preserved in great detail in the Greenland ice. What the record shows is that it was a period of intense instability. The temperature did not rise slowly, or even steadily; instead, the climate flipped several times from temperate conditions back into those of an ice age, and then back again. Around fifteen thousand years ago, Greenland abruptly warmed by sixteen degrees in fifty years or less. In one particularly traumatic episode some twelve thousand years ago, the mean temperature in Greenland shot up by fifteen degrees in a single decade.
If we go back farther still, the picture is no more comforting. Even as much of Europe and North America lay buried under glaciers, the temperature in Greenland was oscillating wildly, sometimes in spikes of ten degrees, sometimes in spikes of twenty. In an effort to convey the erratic nature of these changes, Richard Alley, a geophysicist who is leading a National Academy of Sciences panel on abrupt climate change, has compared the climate to a light switch being toyed with by an impish three-year-old. (The panel recently issued a report warning of the possibility of “large, abrupt, and unwelcome” climate changes.) He has also likened it to a freakish carnival ride. “Dozens of rapid changes litter the record of the last hundred thousand years,” he observed. “If you can possibly imagine the spectacle of some really stupid person (or, better, a mannequin) bungee jumping off the side of a moving roller-coaster car, you can begin to picture the climate.”
The rate at which the climate is changing CANNOT be attributed to natural warming alone, as every source of natural warming has been ruled out in this instance. Since there has been no cooling for the past 100+ years, only periods where warming has slowed, the only possible explanation is AGW.
I support gay marriage, legalization of pot, I'm against our current wars, I'm for prosecuting wall street crooks, anti-death penalty....I could continue.
All of these are typically liberal positions but I do not support the current arguments concerning AGW. Where have I embarrassed myself?
Most of these arguments are not "liberal" arguments. Many of the solutions such as cap and trade and carbon credits will hit the middle and lower classes hard while being a huge boon for Wall Street while doing nothing for the environment. That is not a liberal position.
Those arguing for this may be something but it's not a liberal.
You want an answer...here they are. I do support prosecuting wallstreet crooks, and legalization...however I do have a problem that they want to implement a world carbon tax.
I agree that it is not for the environment, it is one of those fear mongering magick trick distractions for some out there, while they conduct their massive heist by carbon tax. Maybe it isn't completely liberal, but most are democrats. I think you've seen me post enough on this subject enough to know my stance.
Yes. You pretty much made a straw man using college as an excuse, to not really debate anything. That is why people don't trust people like you. Go drink the mainstream media koolaid some more.
But I am correct about your college? You're more than welcome to debate, but like I said it's obvious you don't know good info from bad. It has nothing to do with mainstream or not.
But I am correct about your college? You're more than welcome to debate, but like I said it's obvious you don't know good info from bad. It has nothing to do with mainstream or not.
So bad info is what? The kind that doesn't come from mainstream media sources?
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.
