307 replies to this topic

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 06 October 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Can you see a bacteria MID. I certainly can't without high powered instruments. However the cumulative effect of bacteria left uncontrolled can be death.

Operative term, "...left uncontrolled can be death:"





Yes, bacteria (who are irrelevant here) can cause death to an individual.  But, they're generally rather well monitored and controlled.
  When did a bacteria ever have a will, or a consciousness, or a conscience, or require freedom, or love, or even loathe???


And when did bacteria ever think, develop, invent, engineer, or build things and do things that were great?

You're right:  never.  They're ever so slightly different than humans, who we're talking about here, and who have all those faculties.

If you want to equate humans, and their behaviors, endeavors, accomplishments, and such with bacteria, you're way...way off base...but you actually knew that already, as you well know what I was talking about, and can't disagree with me.

Your weak attempt, by comparing people to infectious bacteria, isn't doing you much good.  It's a weak response, un-scientific, and banal in etremis.

But did you actually have another choice?  
Well, you did, but you don't know it!

It was to simply accept the reality I put forth, admit you didn't quite ever think of it like that, and go think before responding, where you would've said that you're re-considering based upon what I (and many a scientist) has said regarding this idea.

But truly??

I expected nothing more from you than what you posted.
You're miserably ionadequate thinking isn't appreciated, just like the idea that humanity can profoundly affect a planet that's  33 million times larger in surface area than is our entire population standing in a huge group.

Think  about that for a minute before you decide that the small fraction of humanity that actually drives cars and makes smoke and such can actually affect that world by our miniscule efforts.



Going away is OK, too!

[Br Cornelius]

MID, you obviously didn't study any form of biology otherwise you would realise that populations behave the same whatever species they are. The exponential growth of human population is in no way different to the population growth of a bacteria. Intelligence doesn't come into it - its simple biology.
The pooint which you have avoided is that seemingly small insignificant things such as bacteria can overcome systems which are so big in comparison that they cannot be recognised as even existing without specialist equipment.

So my analogy was basic biological science and represented no comment on the capabilities of man.

Nice try to avoid the point with fanned outrage at the presumption of using the science of populations to explain the HUMAN POPULATION.

Try harder next time to address the fact raised.

still not wishing to touch the proof of the lie of your position in the form of CFC's - I suspect you deny that happened as well
but you know you'll look foolish if you say it out loud. Go on treat yourself

How about discussing NASA's ideas to terraform Mars - with CO2 of all things;

Quote

If humans ever build communities on Mars, they might want to find a way to turn up the global thermostat. At a recent NASA-sponsored conference, "The Physics and Biology of Making Mars Habitable", scientists discussed ways that future colonists might make the frigid planet a little more comfortable.

http://science.nasa....001/ast09feb_1/

Not possible for humans to change the climate of a planet hey, care to comment


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 October 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 06 October 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

How about discussing NASA's ideas to terraform Mars - with CO2 of all things;

Br Cornelius

I don't,  haven't, and never will have anything to do with NASA activities concerning terraforming anyplace.
I know that may seem somewhat incogruuous, but really, I always had my sights riveted on real science....things like astronautics, spacecraft operations, clestial mechanics, maneuvering, mission operations, etc.

It may also seem a little wierd for NASA, as a whole, to be actually interested at all either, since Mars exploration not only prohibits any such activity, but that sort of thing prohibits Mars research.
We happen to be a little more interested in Mars exploration than in "terraforming" the place (I suppose somebody's interested (as there's someone at NASA intersted in just about anything!).

I'm not sure you could figure out why, but there are no plans to terraform Mars, or anyplace else.





Maybe, as you consider the inherent lunacy of your comment to me, you explain how this has anything to do with you proving your position regarding "climate change".

Again, I agree with the premise of the thread, "Climate change is happening, but really, it's happened cyclically for the duration of this planets existance.  It begs the question:


So what?

Edited by MID, 06 October 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Never answer a direct question MID

Never consider the evidence when flowery rhetoric will suffice

Still not willing to concede that man can and has changed or planet in many profound ways - not least been the climate.

When your willing to discuss science get back to me

Br Cornelius

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 07 October 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Never answer a direct question MID

I think the question was:  So What?

Quote

Never consider the evidence when flowery rhetoric will suffice

And that is fear exemplified.  A typical response when the CT position is torn apart.  I understand it...

Quote

Still not willing to concede that man can and has changed or planet in many profound ways - not least been the climate.

Yes, yes, yes.  Man has changed the planet in profound ways.  I do agree!  However, none of those have anything to do with him changing the climate of the planet...


Now, perhaps when you're finished feeding your ego, and making ridicuous responses, you can go back to the issue at hand.

I said this...

Quote

Again, I agree with the premise of the thread, "Climate change is happening, but really, it's happened cyclically for the duration of this planets existance. It begs the question:
So what?

Attempting to feed your ego, at my expense, of course fails, but it'll get you put into your real plqace rapidly.

The question was, "So what?"

[Br Cornelius]

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

And that is fear exemplified.  A typical response when the CT position is torn apart.  I understand it...

It is the climate change deniers who claim a grand conspiracy on the part of the Climate change scientists - and you have done nothing in all your voluminous posts to support such a conspiracy.

Quote

Yes, yes, yes.  Man has changed the planet in profound ways.  I do agree!  However, none of those have anything to do with him changing the climate of the planet...

Perhaps you would like to show us on what basis you make that claim in the face of the climate evidence. That after all is all I have been asking you to do for the last year.

Quote

Now, perhaps when you're finished feeding your ego, and making ridicuous responses, you can go back to the issue at hand.

I said this...


Attempting to feed your ego, at my expense, of course fails, but it'll get you put into your real plqace rapidly.

The question was, "So what?"

More flowery rhetoric without any substance.




Simply restating what is know, that climate changes naturally, is in no way evidence that man is not causing the current episode of anthropogenic global warming. So you statement is not addressing the issue at hand in any meaningful way. As I said - your simply avoiding answering simple questions.

CFC's anyone, which are a know climate change element.

Do you think your attempts to stonewall on these issues is impressing anyone ?

Br Cornelius

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 07 October 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

It is the climate change deniers who claim a grand conspiracy on the part of the Climate change scientists - and you have done nothing in all your voluminous posts to support such a conspiracy.


Perhaps you would like to show us on what basis you make that claim in the face of the climate evidence. That after all is all I have been asking you to do for the last year.



More flowery rhetoric without any substance.




Simply restating what is know, that climate changes naturally, is in no way evidence that man is not causing the current episode of anthropogenic global warming!!

Not you too?
Anthropogenic???

Jesus, allow me to translate what you just said:

"Simply stating what is understood...that climate changes naturally...is in no way evidence that MAN IS NOT CAUSING THE CURRENT EPISODE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!

Lord...you did say that!  Then, who is causing it?


Probably best to not grab hold of someone who introduces new terms and makes herself look foolish doing it.  You make yourself look foolish doing it!

Edited by MID, 07 October 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Not you too?
Anthropogenic???

Jesus, allow me to translate what you just said:

"Simply stating what is understood...that climate changes naturally...is in no way evidence that MAN IS NOT CAUSING THE CURRENT EPISODE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!

Lord...you did say that!  Then, who is causing it?


Probably best to not grab hold of someone who introduces new terms and makes herself look foolish doing it.  You make yourself look foolish doing it!

I am sorry MID but I explained to you why Anthropogenic was the correct scientific term - very precise in its meaning - very scientific. Do you have trouble understanding science.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 07 October 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

I am sorry MID but I explained to you why Anthropogenic was the correct scientific term - very precise in its meaning - very scientific. Do you have trouble understanding science.

Br Cornelius

Did ya??!?
Wow, I'm impressed.

It's funny.  There's never been any precision needed when talking about man-made global warming.
Simplicity is as good as you need when explaining something so complex and precise !!!


And the young lady who introduced these terms to the board, and to whom I tried to explain the simplicity in not introducing complex terminology when speaking to man-made global warming, well...

I'm sure I'll never hear from her again, but you explained nothing to me, ever.  Nor will you.


Just as your nonsense claim that YOU explined that  that term was correct ()yea...right!).  c'mon, Doc!  Your imagination is one thing, and we can accept your falacious constructs, but your  knowledge of the climate is limited....

Edited by MID, 07 October 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC

: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>

http://www.merriam-w...y/anthropogenic

Not only do you avoid discussing the science - you wont even use scientific language. I have to conclude your anti-science, are you a creationist as well

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 06 October 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Simple;

http://www.newscient...oven-wrong.html



That certainly looks like a dramatic upclick to me.

And the article explains why complaints against the hockey stick graph are groundless.

Evidence from glacial shrinkage;



http://www.pnas.org/...97/4/1406.short

Tree range also shows an unprecedented shift in the last century, and supports anecdotal evidence presented here by Doug repeatedly;



http://www.bioone.or...44-7447-30.2.72

Evidence from Tibet that temperature are higher than in at least 700yrs;



http://219.238.6.203...e=PDF&id=307566

Evidence from Vostok;



http://www.daycreek....images/1999.pdf

More evidence for an upclick in the temperature trend;



ftp://linux-server.ims.metu.edu.tr/pub/iklim/ecoclimate/science/662.pdf

Notice how most of this stuff is a decade old. The reason is that the evidence is conclusive and no one is repeating what is already established facts.

P.S. - MID though your little rant about naming was all very entertaining - the reason why it is called anthropogenic Climate change is because that is a scientifically accurate term for what is happening which accurately and succinctly describes the cause. Maybe you take issue with calling humans Homo sapien's as well.



Br Cornelius

Quote

It is well established that the long term trend was one of cooling - which is what makes the sudden and dramatic upclick in recent times so significant.

http://www.clim-past...-8-765-2012.pdf

not so significant when you go back just a little further than you presented in your spagetti graphs, and consider only proxies known to respond better to temperature without dampening colder and warmer periods as the studies you presented do. as you can see, there is a similar ramp in temperatures between the years 900-1000 as there is between 1900-2000 which the ipcc models cannot explain - and there is no association with co2. and go back further and you will see similar ramp ups at similar intervals as I tried to show with the 5000 year greenland icecore here:

Edited by Little Fish, 08 October 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 06 October 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

The graph is still relevant because it has been duplicated - which is the scientific method after all.

No two studies of anything this complex ever manage to exactly reproduce each other.  Mann's work has been by-and-large validated, but the updating studies did not EXACTLY reproduce his results.  And that is exactly what one would expect.

One thought for you and Little Fish to mull over with your ping-pong graph match:  the absolute global temperature is not what we're talking about here.  It's the INCREASE in that temperature.  For example, if the temperature were to go from zero to ten degrees, that would be twice the warming that occurs when going from 95 to 100 degrees.  While absolute temperatures are important, it's not the whole story.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 08 October 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 08 October 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC

: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>

http://www.merriam-w...y/anthropogenic

Not only do you avoid discussing the science - you wont even use scientific language. I have to conclude your anti-science, are you a creationist as well

Br Cornelius

It's a bloody word.  It's fancy, it's long, and it's unneccessary, as I've said:


MAN-MADE will do.  There is no need to attempt to grow your position here.  It's shrunk enough without more nonsense.


Oh, and by the way:

CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING!

GET OVER IT!

Edited by MID, 09 October 2012 - 09:57 PM.

[Michelle]

On a lighter note...I demand the government stop the next tornado or hurricane that threatens us. It is just about as futile...IMO.

[Doug1o29]

Michelle, on 09 October 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

On a lighter note...I demand the government stop the next tornado or hurricane that threatens us. It is just about as futile...IMO.

We probably can't stop them all, but by reducing warming, we can reduce the number and and severity of both.  If we don't, we'll just have to get used to more destruction.
Doug