Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[carlosMM]

Gothmog? Yes. You? No, because for a long time you were on my Ignore list as a direct result of your abusive posting. If you continue, you're going to go back there.

Why thank you - back to the ignore list because I answer your posts That's be just great, then I wouldn't have to answer so many distortons of my posts

I never saw Gothmog mention the theory I posted. However, it does not surprise me one bit that more than one person would independently come up with the same theory.

Then go lookie here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3007037&postcount=62

gothmog also addressed that topic, and you were activ in the thread at that time.

Also, I replied with graphs from it to you just recently, and you read that post (and didn't reply) but replied to otehr posts by me by that time - so you SHOULD have realized you missed something

I specifically said I had no evidence to support or disprove it. So no, I don't accept a counter-natural warning as fact. Possibility. NOT FACT.

And I just showed you proof. Go and read it, please - you'll be surprised by how close you were

And since the planet has barely responded at all (and sporadically at that--for a period of forty years in the 20th century, the planet's temperature didn't go up at all) to a huge change in that factor, it follows that CO2 and methane are in fact extremely MINOR factors.

Well, there you are wrong - read the Ruddiman paper and you will see that the response is quite strong. You are just too impatient with climate! Remember that global dimming counteracted the warming - what do you expect? One factor to totally dominate over all others?

No, all factors are always in action - sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. And the resulting changes in temp IN A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME may well not fit the general trend. but long term, they do - and that's what any curve that look at a significant enough timef rame does show. 40 years?
Yeah, 40 years is pretty short, but it is long enough to show that global dimming did cool and thus counteract the warming, and that the cleaner air today leads to less dimming, thus less slowing of the warming trend.

 

[BasketCase]

Also, I replied with graphs from it to you just recently, and you read that post (and didn't reply) but replied to otehr posts by me by that time - so you SHOULD have realized you missed something

Get off it. With the gigantic volume of posts in CFC Global Warming threads, I can't keep track of them all.

And I just showed you proof. Go and read it, please - you'll be surprised by how close you were

There is no proof that the planet is in a glacial age. William Ruddiman states that his idea about anthropomorphic global warming stopping the next Ice Age is a HYPOTHESIS. A hypothesis is, by definition, an UNproven explanation. Ruddiman himself, to his credit, says his idea is not 100% proven fact. And it isn't.

 

[carlosMM]

Get off it. With the gigantic volume of posts in CFC Global Warming threads, I can't keep track of them all.

But you replied to the posts - you jsut ignored parts of them - did you only read part of them or did you CHOSE to ignore the content?

There is no proof that the planet is in a glacial age. William Ruddiman states that his idea about anthropomorphic global warming stopping the next Ice Age is a HYPOTHESIS. A hypothesis is, by definition, an UNproven explanation. Ruddiman himself, to his credit, says his idea is not 100% proven fact. And it isn't.

False - the insolation curve and the tempo curves are objective data - thus proof. Read it and weep. Earth should be in an ice age, but isn't, earth athmosphere contains way more of two major greenhouse gasses than it should, both quite sufficient to explain the warming, there is no other known mechanism - that is far beyond hypothesis, that is a solid theory.

And you can't dismiss a theory without bringing contrary evidence - you're up!

 

[BasketCase]

But you replied to the posts - you jsut ignored parts of them - did you only read part of them or did you CHOSE to ignore the content?

Or did I forget to respond to something?

Be real clear on something:
When you stop posting in an OT thread, it's because....
The poll results show overwhelmingly that we CFC'ers stop posting because we get distracted by real life or because there are too many damn threads. That is the most likely reason I didn't answer any given item in a thread.

False - the insolation curve and the tempo curves are objective data - thus proof. Read it and weep. Earth should be in an ice age, but isn't, earth athmosphere contains way more of two major greenhouse gasses than it should, both quite sufficient to explain the warming, there is no other known mechanism - that is far beyond hypothesis, that is a solid theory.

And you can't dismiss a theory without bringing contrary evidence - you're up!

The planet doesn't respond perfectly to insolation. A whole bunch of explanations have been proposed as to why: weather, plant and animal life, ocean currents. The idea that global warming could shut down the Gulf Stream and set off the next Ice Age has been proposed in CFC more than once.

Again, since we don't have a lab, there's no way to verify experimentally that the planet "should be" in an Ice Age. It may have started 5,000 years ago. Maybe it started in the 1800's with the Little Ice Age. Maybe it won't start until next week.

There's no proof. It does remain a plausible theory--but not proven.

On the side--the possibility that our CO2-spewing cars and factories are protecting us from frostbite--

THAT IS JUST PRICELESS!!!

 

[carlosMM]

Or did I forget to respond to something?

Be real clear on something:
When you stop posting in an OT thread, it's because....
The poll results show overwhelmingly that we CFC'ers stop posting because we get distracted by real life or because there are too many damn threads. That is the most likely reason I didn't answer any given item in a thread.

yeah, another dead horse of yours - a loaded question and the expected result

The planet doesn't respond perfectly to insolation. A whole bunch of explanations have been proposed as to why: weather, plant and animal life, ocean currents. The idea that global warming could shut down the Gulf Stream and set off the next Ice Age has bee proposed in CFC more than once.

why thank you for 'earth 101' - that has been pointed out about 100 times. And, if you had bothered to read the Ruddiman paper or look at the graphs or at least at those I posted here, you'd see how far that truth goes - in GENERAL terms, earth climnate DOES stick to insolation within the last few million years. Thank you.

Again, since we don't have a lab, there's no way to verify experimentally that the planet "should be" in an Ice Age. It may have started 5,000 years ago. Maybe it started in the 1800's with the Little Ice Age. Maybe it won't start until next week.

Ah bleh, what utter rubbish!
You can't test the existence of time in a lab, e.g. There is no need to test in a lab at real time either - it is just your favorite bull excuse.
Fossil climate proxies show very well (see the Ruddiman graphs) that climate and insolation correlate strongly - until about 8000 years ago. No need to test that. Also, current measurements of temperatures worldwide, greenhouse gasses, insolation etc. show there will not be a sudden ice age in the near future. What happenes once the ice caps are gone is a matter of debate - but then we will have already experienced a massive, anthropogenetic warming.

There's no proof. It does remain a plausible theory--but not proven.

Just now it was a hypothesis - now it already is a theory - make up your mind before posting slander

 

[BasketCase]

Fine, so I made a typo. Ruddiman used the word "hypothesis", so his idea is a hypothesis.

Which means basically the same thing: an idea that is plausible but not proven. There's no slander in here, stop it.

 

[carlosMM]

Fine, so I made a typo. Ruddiman used the word "hypothesis", so his idea is a hypothesis.

tsk tsk, he proposes a hypothesis, then brings ample evidence to support it. That makes it a theory.

Which means basically the same thing: an idea that is plausible but not proven. There's no slander in here, stop it.

So, because there is no irrefutable proof, you dissmiss it out of hand.... as you have done with any evidence brought here - what do you want? Why do you post here?

You claim that 'we can't know if GW is happeneing and if so if it is massively man-nfluenced' - but whener proof is brought, you bring interest-group backed slander, lies and misinterpretations. You have not shown ANY contrary evidence at all - just semantics, lies by conservatives, you, etc.

What's in it for you?

 

[BasketCase]

tsk tsk, he proposes a hypothesis, then brings ample evidence to support it. That makes it a theory.

I rebut:

Abstract. The anthropogenic era is generally thought to have begun 150 to 200 years ago, when the industrial revolution began producing CO2 and CH4 at rates sufficient to alter their compositions in the atmosphere. A different hypothesis is posed here: anthropogenic emissions of these gases
first altered atmospheric concentrations thousands of years ago. This hypothesis is based on three arguments.

William himself calls his own idea a hypothesis.

So, because there is no irrefutable proof, you dissmiss it out of hand.... as you have done with any evidence brought here - what do you want? Why do you post here?

Because it's a topic that affects everybody on the planet, and has dire consequences for all of humanity if we do the wrong thing. Making the planet too hot or too cold would both be disasters for the human race. WE MUST KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING BEFORE WE DO IT. We must continue researching the subject, and we must keep asking questions. Rushing headlong into Kyoto and cutting CO2 emissions too far could be disastrous. (Heck, a fellow CFC'er sent me a PM about that; he asked me if we couldn't simply emit more CO2 if the planet started getting too cold. I don't think it would work because we don't have that kind of control.)

I post here because I have shown that I'm open to ALL the possibilities. I've posted possible problems with global warming; possible evidence to SUPPORT global warming; I've described some of the inherent pitfalls that scientists frequently step in.....

.....and now, at complete random, I will describe a a solid and clear criterium that would, in fact, PROVE global warming to be real and human-caused: if the planet's measured temperature goes up by another 2 degrees C or so (and assuming our measurements are accurate), then we would know for a fact that humans are warming the planet--because then the planet would be at a temperature outside its natural range. When a normally stable system goes outside of its normal range, then you can be SURE it's acting abnormally.

I post here to provide new and occasionally screwy ideas for other CFC'ers to have fun with.

 

[carlosMM]

Because it's a topic that affects everybody on the planet, and has dire consequences for all of humanity if we do the wrong thing. Making the planet too hot or too cold would both be disasters for the human race. WE MUST KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING BEFORE WE DO IT.

Then why do you not call for an immediate stop of coal burning? And oil? After all, it hasv been shown a few times here that this is a very recent phenomenon, that cliamte is affected (glaciers melting), that there is no natural cause for the melting and warming trend. Why KEEP GOING DOING SOMETHING????

We must continue researching the subject, and we must keep asking questions. Rushing headlong into Kyoto and cutting CO2 emissions too far could be disastrous.

How do you know?

(Heck, a fellow CFC'er sent me a PM about that; he asked me if we couldn't simply emit more CO2 if the planet started getting too cold. I don't think it would work because we don't have that kind of control.)

Interesting how he asks you... not gothmog...

I post here because I have shown that I'm open to ALL the possibilities. I've posted possible problems with global warming; possible evidence to SUPPORT global warming; I've described some of the inherent pitfalls that scientists frequently step in.....

sorry, but you have failed to show any problems

.....and now, at complete random, I will describe a a solid and clear criterium that would, in fact, PROVE global warming to be real and human-caused: if the planet's measured temperature goes up by another 2 degrees C or so (and assuming our measurements are accurate), then we would know for a fact that humans are warming the planet--because then the planet would be at a temperature outside its natural range. When a normally stable system goes outside of its normal range, then you can be SURE it's acting abnormally.

I agree that a warming of anotehr 2° is a clear sign - but, check the insolation curves and how temp reacted in the past, then check what happened in the lastz 8000 years - that has already happened!

I post here to provide new and occasionally screwy ideas for other CFC'ers to have fun with.

 

[BasketCase]

Then why do you not call for an immediate stop of coal burning? And oil?

Because that could make the planet too cold, destroying the planet's food supply.

 

[BasketCase]

I agree that a warming of anotehr 2° is a clear sign - but, check the insolation curves and how temp reacted in the past, then check what happened in the lastz 8000 years - that has already happened!

Yep. I believe there were five such incidents in the last 10,000 years, if memory serves. Those happened before cars and factories and other such goodies came along. This is one of the things I've been trying to get at: that the planet can overheat without carbon-dioxide spewing cars or factories.

 

[Pikachu]

Galileo and Bruno

I see, so you didn’t mean it literally when you wrote “The first guy who proposed that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe”? Neither Galileo nor Bruno was the first to do that.

The main charges against Bruno were that he advocated that Jesus did not have a physical body, but that his physical presence and the crucifixion was an illusion. He also did not accept the trinity. Copernicanism was not an important part of the charges.

Galileo got an ultimatum from the Catholic Church: Either he had to bring some evidence for the Copernican theory, or he had to stop teaching it as anything more than a hypothesis. Galileo chose to bring evidence, and published a theory that would have proven the heliocentric view. Unfortunately for Galileo, his proof was incorrect and it only made matters worse. It now appeared like he claimed Copernicanism to be a proven fact even though it was not proven at all, which was a clear violation of the Church ultimatum. Because of this he was arrested and trialed for disobedience.

In this situation the Church was playing Basketcase’s role: “You don’t have any real evidence to support your theory, so don’t pretend that it is any more than a hypothesis!” Unfortunately the Church did not settle with threatening to put Galileo on their ignore list

 

[BasketCase]

The difference there, Pikachu, is that I don't threaten to turn somebody into a human weenie roast if they disagree with me. You know that from the PM's you and I have exchanged. Have I ever flamed you? Nope.

For the Church to convict Galileo of heresy was just completely unjustified.

 

[carlosMM]

Yep. I believe there were five such incidents in the last 10,000 years, if memory serves. Those happened before cars and factories and other such goodies came along. This is one of the things I've been trying to get at: that the planet can overheat without carbon-dioxide spewing cars or factories.

last 10,00? you're a bit off

but, has anyone here DENIED that it CAN happen without humans?

nope!

but we ARE pumping the stuff out, and nothing ELSE that could produce the warming of the last 8,000 years has happened - so why deny that the two are cause and effect?

 

[BasketCase]

Because whatever happened 8,000 years ago to get the planet warmer than it is now (i.e. without cars and factories) means that the same thing could be happening now--i.e. something besides cars and factories.

 

[carlosMM]

Because whatever happened 8,000 years ago to get the planet warmer than it is now (i.e. without cars and factories) means that the same thing could be happening now--i.e. something besides cars and factories.

hu?


sorry, you missed my point: what happened 8,000 years ago is indeed still happening: methane and CO2 levels massively increased by humans! True, the main component is changing: first it was CO2, then for a very long time methane, today it is again CO2 that we are pumping out in far greater quantities and to far more effect on the athmosphere - but the story remains the same: we massively change the composition of the athmosphere and produce warming!

 

[BasketCase]

You know what? We've actually gone several posts in a row without trying to strangle each other--so I'm logging off now in order to make it last. The other readers in this thread could probably use a rest, I'm sure their ears are ringing after all the shouting.....

Will get back to this tomorrow.

 

[carlosMM]

You know what? We've actually gone several posts in a row without trying to strangle each other--so I'm logging off now in order to make it last. The other readers in this thread could probably use a rest, I'm sure their ears are ringing after all the shouting.....

Will get back to this tomorrow.

already bookmarked this - if anyone ever wants me to see a psycho-doc I'll have to bring this

 

[Gothmog]

Response to Urederra's post in other thread.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3097638&postcount=30

 

[Urederra]

Response to Urederra's post in other thread.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3097638&postcount=30

I am waiting for your apologies...