Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
307 replies to this topic

#136    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:35 AM

Seems no one has gotten over it yet!
:no:


#137    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:26 AM

I find it fascinating that over the last few months there has been a continuing decrease (on the Internet) of articles arguing against the idea that Man is largely responsible for global climate change. Nowadays, it is somewhat rare to come across such articles:

Read one such a "rare" article here
Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message
By: Spencer Michels

"... people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren't rooted in science, but more in politics."


The above comments are the last, concluding remarks at the end of the article.
What are your thoughts?


#138    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,624 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:34 AM

View PostKarlis, on 18 September 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

I find it fascinating that over the last few months there has been a continuing decrease (on the Internet) of articles arguing against the idea that Man is largely responsible for global climate change. Nowadays, it is somewhat rare to come across such articles:

Read one such a "rare" article here
Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message
By: Spencer Michels

"... people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren't rooted in science, but more in politics."


The above comments are the last, concluding remarks at the end of the article.
What are your thoughts?

Not rooted in science?

But it seems to me that the skeptics at least did a step in the right direction: they acknowledge already that there is a climate change and that it could be man-made. A long way from their position 2 years ago.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#139    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,772 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:00 PM

every religion tells of the demise, the end of the world. - Doomsday. this religion 'global warming' is no different.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#140    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,485 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:15 PM

View Poststevewinn, on 18 September 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

every religion tells of the demise, the end of the world. - Doomsday. this religion 'global warming' is no different.
Come what may, the world will still be here.  The question is whether we'll be on it.

As long as there was no process (that we knew of) whereby man-made warming could destroy the ecosystem, global warming was no different.  The other doomsday prophesies lacked a physical mechanism that could produce an end-of-days scenario.  So it was with global warming.

Then we discovered that there is such a mechanism.  It's called the methane gun.  At the time of the Permian Extinction it resulted in the anihilation of 95% of the species on earth.  It could happen again.  Here's how:

Global warming gradually warms the oceans, resulting in warming of the sea bottom where there are vast amounts of methane hydrate.  Warming causes melting, which releases methane into the atmosphere.  Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.  Large amounts entering the atmosphere would cause more warming, accelerating the warming process and starting a runaway warming cycle.  Once started, the process could not be stopped.  This could raise global mean temperatures close to the boiling point, resulting in extinction of most species, especially us.  In a few million years, the geologic cycle will reduce atmospheric carbon and restore the earth's climate.  Surviving species will propser beyond their wildest dreams.  But we won't be one of them.

There is not enough carbon in the air to cause such a disaster at the moment.  If the methane gun fired now, most species, possibly including us, would survive.  But a few more decades of business-as-usual will make such a scenario possible.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to run the slightest risk of extinction.  Any risk, no matter how small, is too large.  That's why I support efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.


Even without the methane gun, there are good reasons to implement clean energy.  Ecosystem collapse is a very real risk long before the methane gun can become a danger.  The desertification of the American southwest has already begun with the loss of 200,000 acres of pinyon pine in the Four Corners area.  The process continues in the Sahel.  It is likely that much of Oklahoma will have to be abandoned to the desert by the end of this century.  And all that means less arable ground to produce food for an increasing population.  And that means you will have to use your money to bid against everybody else who wants to buy food, people who have no choice but to spend their last nickel to outbid you.


Perhaps you can't see these things happening right now, but I have dealt with the issues of resource use for my entire career (I'm 64.). Climate change has already had some effects and more are on the way.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#141    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:05 PM

View PostKarlis, on 18 September 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

I find it fascinating that over the last few months there has been a continuing decrease (on the Internet) of articles arguing against the idea that Man is largely responsible for global climate change. Nowadays, it is somewhat rare to come across such articles:

Read one such a "rare" article here
Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message
By: Spencer Michels

"... people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren't rooted in science, but more in politics."


The above comments are the last, concluding remarks at the end of the article.
What are your thoughts?
the public comments at the end of the article are most insightful.
mostly critical of giving any air time to anthony watts. shows you what we are dealing with here. a dangerous fear and loathing based cult intolerant of open enquiry and contrary views.

not surprisingly the majority of these zealot comments got few "likes" with high likes going to the minorty contrary view suggesting there is a quiet majority in disagreement with the fanatics.


#142    Number Fingers

Number Fingers

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 19 September 2012 - 04:19 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 18 September 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:


But it seems to me that the skeptics at least did a step in the right direction: they acknowledge already that there is a climate change and that it could be man-made. A long way from their position 2 years ago.

If you go through the different sceptic blogs and read the comments going back many years you'll see that sceptics have always believed in climate change because climate has always been changing.  That is one of the sceptics main points in all this.  Humans can have an effect on climate, such as the Arctic Ice melting by heavy pollution, or heat island effects around cities.

Ironically it's the warmists like Michael Mann and James Hanson who don't actually believe in climate change though they trumpet the term around.  For example, from the UN's action report at the Durban Conference last year, one of the chief goals is "ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase" (page 9).  They think they can actually control the world's climate?  How can we believe any scientist that actually believes that's possible?

Or another example is from Michael Mann's latest climate presentation, which includes this image (the final slide here).  He too states "stabilizing Earth's climate" as a utopian goal.  As if climate could ever actually be stabilized.  Stabliized to what?  Some invented normal?  Who gets to decide what the mean climate should be that we stabilize everything to?

It's these warmist leaders who have taken climate change and twisted it around from something fundamentaly normal to something entirely human induced, which needs to be controlled and stabilized just like a bad little child.


Posted Image


#143    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,656 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:41 AM

Number Fingers - it is you who have twisted what real climate scientists are saying (they have never denied natural climate change). They want to stabalise mans contribution to prevent catastrophic climate change caused by man. Since there is no current natural trend towards extreme weather - it is reasonable to say that this is an achievable goal.

You managed to pack a sizable number of obvious myths/lies into your short post. I am not surprised that you lack a fundamental understanding of the issue - it goes with been a denier.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 19 September 2012 - 06:43 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#144    Number Fingers

Number Fingers

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:58 AM

lol, is that a real post?  Belittle those who disagree with you, it lets you pretend you win.  I'd like to see these myth/lies.  I quoted documents produced by "respected" warmists.  Funny enough, there are lies/myths in those documents, so I cannot say you are wrong.

I never said they deny natural climate change.  I even said they "trumpet the term around."  I said that they implicitly reject real climate change, but they're never going to come out and admit that.  It would make them look too kooky.  These are people who think we can actually control climate like gods, do you think they have a grasp on reality?

In my opinion, they have to reject natural climate change because if they readily admit natural variation, it begins a slippery slope towards admitting most variation having a nature cause.  Thus to stop from going down that path, they have to give every single climate event a human cause.  Which is exactly what they do.  By giving every event a human cause, they deny natural variation.  You'd think something must have a natural cause, at least one event in a hundred.  But no, to them, everything is our fault.

Thus, in my opinion, they implicitly cannot believe in natural climate change, although they say they do.

What do I know, I'm just a denier.  By the way, spoiler alert, the holocaust never happened either.  :rolleyes:


#145    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:06 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 19 September 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

obvious myths/lies
where are the lies and myths in the post? can we see your reasoning?


#146    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:30 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 18 September 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

It's called the methane gun.  At the time of the Permian Extinction it resulted in the anihilation of 95% of the species on earth
that is speculation. you have stated it as a fact. naughty.


#147    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,485 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 19 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 19 September 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

that is speculation. you have stated it as a fact. naughty.
Retallack, G. and E. S. Krull.  2006.  Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, reefs and peat swamps.  Geological Society of America, Speical Paper 399.

Smith, R. and J. Botha.  2005.  The recovery of terrestial vertebrate diversity in the South African Karoo Basin after the end-Permian extinction.  Comptes Rendes Palevol 4(6-7), Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 623-636.

Benton, M. and R. Twitchett.  2003.  How to kill (almost) all life:  the end-Permian extinction event.  Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(7) July 2003, pp. 358-365.


Many of the questions you have been posing on UM are answered with isotopic studies.  It might be worth your time to do some reading in this area, rather than just closing your eyes and screaming "does not" all the time.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#148    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,656 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 19 September 2012 - 02:24 PM

View PostNumber Fingers, on 19 September 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

lol, is that a real post?  Belittle those who disagree with you, it lets you pretend you win.  I'd like to see these myth/lies.  I quoted documents produced by "respected" warmists.  Funny enough, there are lies/myths in those documents, so I cannot say you are wrong.

I never said they deny natural climate change.  I even said they "trumpet the term around."  I said that they implicitly reject real climate change, but they're never going to come out and admit that.  It would make them look too kooky.  These are people who think we can actually control climate like gods, do you think they have a grasp on reality?

In my opinion, they have to reject natural climate change because if they readily admit natural variation, it begins a slippery slope towards admitting most variation having a nature cause.  Thus to stop from going down that path, they have to give every single climate event a human cause.  Which is exactly what they do.  By giving every event a human cause, they deny natural variation.  You'd think something must have a natural cause, at least one event in a hundred.  But no, to them, everything is our fault.

Thus, in my opinion, they implicitly cannot believe in natural climate change, although they say they do.

What do I know, I'm just a denier.  By the way, spoiler alert, the holocaust never happened either.  :rolleyes:
I have to say that you missed the point here - climate scientists spend their whole time understanding natural climate change in order to eliminate it from their projections. The majority of climate science is about studying natural variability within the system - so they are not denying natural climate change.
What you are ignoring is that this study of natural trends allows them to identify what is not normal and then to predict the outcomes of this none natural forcing. You really haven't actually read any real scientific reporting of climate otherwise you would already know this.

What you are also ignoring is that to attribute change in a system you must understand what is causing that change - invoking a natural change without a cause is like invoking God - and is called the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 19 September 2012 - 02:27 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#149    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:03 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 19 September 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Retallack, G. and E. S. Krull.  2006.  Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, reefs and peat swamps.  Geological Society of America, Speical Paper 399.
here is the study you quoted
http://specialpapers...99/249.abstract
"atmospheric injections of methane and its oxidation to carbon dioxide could have been a cause of extinction"

which column do we put "could have" under? the fact column or the speculation column? I guess it depends on whether ones intent is to be scientific or political.


#150    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,772 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:29 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 18 September 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Come what may, the world will still be here.  The question is whether we'll be on it.

As long as there was no process (that we knew of) whereby man-made warming could destroy the ecosystem, global warming was no different.  The other doomsday prophesies lacked a physical mechanism that could produce an end-of-days scenario.  So it was with global warming.

Then we discovered that there is such a mechanism.  It's called the methane gun.  At the time of the Permian Extinction it resulted in the anihilation of 95% of the species on earth.  It could happen again.  Here's how:

Global warming gradually warms the oceans, resulting in warming of the sea bottom where there are vast amounts of methane hydrate.  Warming causes melting, which releases methane into the atmosphere.  Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.  Large amounts entering the atmosphere would cause more warming, accelerating the warming process and starting a runaway warming cycle.  Once started, the process could not be stopped.  This could raise global mean temperatures close to the boiling point, resulting in extinction of most species, especially us.  In a few million years, the geologic cycle will reduce atmospheric carbon and restore the earth's climate.  Surviving species will propser beyond their wildest dreams.  But we won't be one of them.

There is not enough carbon in the air to cause such a disaster at the moment.  If the methane gun fired now, most species, possibly including us, would survive.  But a few more decades of business-as-usual will make such a scenario possible.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to run the slightest risk of extinction.  Any risk, no matter how small, is too large.  That's why I support efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.


Even without the methane gun, there are good reasons to implement clean energy.  Ecosystem collapse is a very real risk long before the methane gun can become a danger.  The desertification of the American southwest has already begun with the loss of 200,000 acres of pinyon pine in the Four Corners area.  The process continues in the Sahel.  It is likely that much of Oklahoma will have to be abandoned to the desert by the end of this century.  And all that means less arable ground to produce food for an increasing population.  And that means you will have to use your money to bid against everybody else who wants to buy food, people who have no choice but to spend their last nickel to outbid you.


Perhaps you can't see these things happening right now, but I have dealt with the issues of resource use for my entire career (I'm 64.). Climate change has already had some effects and more are on the way.
Doug

I always enjoy your replies the time and effort you invest in them. i too agree we should be doing our uppermost to reduce pollution. But the Doomsday scenario is all to much. Who knows how long humanity will survive?

but maybe we should look at a warming world as an advantage instead of the disadvantage. as a species we can go back 250,000 years and just look at all the challenges we have faced and overcome, truly overwhelming. go back further to the origin, 4 million years ago and the challenges we overcome are even more spectacular. yet in the vital early years our species benefited from a warmer world. a world 4c warmer than today. sea levels were two to three meters higher. its nearly the exact same conditions portrayed as the doomsday scenario. its no coincidence the abundance of life can be found in the tropics and warmer climes of the world infact of the 9 million species estimated on earth 97% live in the warmer part of the world. in comparison the colder regions seem almost barren.

We really need understand the world isn't a constant, the name of the game is adaptation, and if we cannot adapt then maybe we our a weaker species than we once were, if we cannot play by the rules of the game then we shall go the way of the others - the 99% of all life, that as ever existed in the history of the world now Extinct.

modern day pollution is being tackled, here in the UK our air quality is the best its been in decades, our waters rivers and surrounding seas are also vastly improved. we are moving in the right direction to combat pollution. the sad thing is even if we went to zero - 0 greenhouse gases it would only take the eruption of a modest volcano to undo those achievements.  mans 00.4% total contribution to the atmosphere as a whole seems insignificant in grand scheme of things.

hypothetical - but i've often wondered if mans release of greenhouse gases was eliminated, Zero Greenhouse gases. but the void left was filled by a new volcano erupting the exact same  amount of greenhouse gases how would we stop the volcano, would we simply say its natural? how would we combat it? because the same doomsday scenario would exist. a warming world, rising sea levels etc..

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users