Options
for all you climate change nuts*
catefrances
Posts: 29,003
*i mean enthusiasts.. :P you might be interested to know that today sydney is experiencing her hottest day on record. its 45.hellcius here... which is around 114F. i temper that by adding sydney is only 224 years old, so the records arent that old. hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNDc5uHAY4
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
:fp:
Hmmm... next try making an origami boat, get a blow-up rubber pool, a few lawn chairs, a big sun umbrella, some Jose Cuervo, limes and ice. You'll save a bundle-- I promise!
It can also mean that the odd cold snap in Los Angeles and San Francisco is a result of changing ocean currents caused by lower salinity in the ocean which was caused by melting ice in the polar ice caps which was caused by holes in the ozone which was caused by chlorofluorocarbons.
And it can also mean the freakishly strong blizzards they've been getting on the east coast, the hurricanes, the tornados... It doesn't mean that Toronto will have Miami weather with no bad side.
It also gets frustrating to see people point to single weather events as any kind of evidence of anything.
As the OP reminded us, the records we've kept on the weather and weather events are scientifically meaningless so we have almost nothing to compare to.
But, I don't think we should abuse the environment by any means.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I assume the no snow in the northeast and Chicago this winter is further proof.
I would love to support a cause like this. No matter what happens, it's proof!
Though as with everyone else on the planet, I agree with know1's last sentiment.
sooo ... the scientists have said that a symptom of global warming will be more extreme weather events with significant disruption to "normal" weather patterns ... now, when we see weather records broken - we are not allowed to point to this as ongoing evidence? ...
the notion that our weather records are short in the history of the earth as a reason to discount the science is about as flawed as it gets ... how do we know smoking can cause lung cancer? ... do we have records of who had lung cancer in the 1300's?? ...
what is ultimately frustrating is that the basic science of global warming is not very hard to understand if one chooses to educate themselves instead of persistently looking for reasons not to believe because the topic has become politicized ...
Again - what you are missing is - nobody is refuting the the climate is changing. Nobody is refuting the earth might be warming. It's cause that's the issue.
The Earth's climate has been changing - cooling, warming, warming, cooling for billions of years. To think that humans are having a SIGNIFICANT (again, I don't think anyone is doubting we have some) impact is the issue.
So, you can all stop with the Hurricane Sandy is your fault line of argument. What you need to do is prove that the Earth's climate has NOT been changing for Billions of years. Didn't you discover in first grade that the continents are a puzzle that have been broken apart? Isn't where we are drifting to all these years even MORE concerning? What happens when Alaska bumps into Russia and the pieces don't fit together? :shock:
:fp: :fp:
good grief ... what did i just write? ... there is proof ... it's called science and it wouldn't take but 25 mins from someone who is reasonably objective and intelligent to educate themselves on that ...
what you write is right out of the big oil playbook in response ... all of which has been addressed by scientists ... i can't really help you if you continue to choose to believe what PR companies and lobbyists tell you ... do you not believe in academia? ... do you not believe in modern day medicine? ... do you believe we actually landed in the moon? ...
to play devil's advocate here.........I think what he's saying is you can't take one miniscule amount of time in earth's history and base science on just that. human-caused-climate-change would have an infinitely more concrete argument if we had data dating back to the last cooling/warming period, and see if it falls in line with the industrial/technological revolution. this is why people still aren't believing and/or concerned about it. because 150 years of data out of billions of years is nothing in the grand scheme.
but still, whether climate change is a bi product of man or not, the amount of pollutants we put in their earth's atmosphere is obviously going to hurt us one way or the other.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no ... i get what he's saying ... and my response is that all that has been addressed ... this notion that we can't prove global warming is caused by man is a myth perpetrated by big oil and their lobbyists ... it's in the literature ... the same argument could be said for nearly everything if that held any water ...
how long has cancer been around? ... how do we not know that it is just naturally occurring and that there is nothing you can do to prevent it ... it's absurd to think this way ...
Don't mistake climate change with the fact that I live in Ontario and haven't had to shovel snow more than three times in the last five years.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
No you don't. Thanks HFD. You put it better than I did, other than the concern part.
The issue with climate change nuts (to use the OP's phraseology) is they think they're smarter than everyone else. That sounds familiar. Perhaps, we should just call them Lays or Enrons, or some other stupidly clever name.
Your cancer analogy is funny, BTW. You can put cancer into remission. You can't put naturally occuring global changes in remission. Change is going to happen. Welcome, to the real world.
How is filling up fresh water lakes with toxins the same as climate change? :?
That's the problem. You guys all think everyone's arguing AGAINST cleaning up the environment.
I don't think it's a myth, but I don't think it can be proven either. I mean, how do you prove the box exists when you can't stand outside of the box to look at it? the only data we have is the data of a warming period during times of severe pollution and industrial (r)evolution. how do we know for CERTAIN that pollution causes the change, and not just a naturally occurring warming phase of the planet, when we have no data pre-pollution?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I agree that drawing any kind of conclusion about climate change from one weather event is unwise. What is relevant is the increasing and vast number of unusual climate events. Catefrances has pointed out one of many such events. No doubt, all of us could contribute to a list of such events. It is pretty much common knowledge that these events are increasing and their numbers do not follow climate change events that have occurred in the past. This is evidenced by the rapid nature of these changes and the influence of human activity which is new in terms of planetary events.
**I need to point out here that I'm not a climate change denier**
however, for discussion's sake, how do we know climate change hasn't happened in the past when man's activities had no/little influence over nature?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Hugh, here's a quote that might help:
"Deniers of global warming science say, 'Global warming has not been proven- it's only a theory.' Similarly, creationists delight in saying that, "Evolutionary theory has not been proven." This despite the fact that science can never prove anything- only mathematicians do proofs.
By contrast, in science we collect evidence and probe the natural world for testable ideas called hypotheses (or theories) that have predictive value. When the world is thus explained using these scientific processes, the results are not theories in the pejorative sense, but they represent the best provisional answers that science and society can presently provide. To disregard these findings in favor of the climate myths debunked in this book, for example, just because a more refined scientific theory may come along in the future, is the height of folly."
-John Harte, from the preface to Climate Myths
Egad!! C'mon Brian. You're better than that. You can't prove one hypothesis by proving another. And besides -
Evolution has been proven. It's CREATION that hasn't been dispelled. Even as a non-religious person, I still have a hard time grasping our starting point. Does that mean I believe in creationism? No. But, I can see the argument. Now, I don't see the Adam and Eve argument, but is it possible that something created whatever cell it was that got us started? I mean at some point SOMETHING had to be created. Even if it was just a magic trick. So, this comparison doesn't hold water.
And climate change has been proven, also (it's changing all the time!). We cool, we warm, so on and so forth. It's the siginificance of human impact that is the issue. If we all get wiped off the planet, the Earth is going to continue heating and cooling, leaning toward warmer b/c we have been heading OUT OF an ice age for millions of years. Until such point as we start heading back into one. Science has actually proven that.
And, none of this says we should not clean up the planet and what we are doing.
No, Edson, I can't do better than that quote. And I can't do better than 90 some percent of all published scientists. And I have to go to work. Ahh- and this was just getting good. Drat!
Fair enough. But, remember, to use the prove a thesis with proof of a different thesis - there have been plenty of scientific conclusions that were considered universal truths that have been proven completely wrong. So, might does not make right (necessarily).
See you in the lounge car later. Have a great day at work!
We don't know what normal patterns are. We've only been measuring for the tiniest fraction of the earth's existence.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Let's take a reasonable look at climate change. Let me preface this by saying that I believe everyone should do their part to take care of the Earth. Just because I don't believe in man-made climate change does not mean that I dump my used oil in the yard, burn tires, or that I'm in favor of living in a filthy polluted environment, nor am I in favor of allowing big corporations the right to cause excessive pollution.
So with that being said, let us just establish a basic time frame for reference. Scientists believe the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. So as to not get ridiculous with the numbers, we will focus our time frame on just 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the entire existence of the Earth, which is just the last 4,500,000 years.
Let's break this down even further and represent our 4,500,000 years as just a single year to give us a better reference. So a full 365 day calendar year will represent our 4,500,000 years. We have been taking relatively accurate weather records for about 150 years. 150 years is roughly 0.003% (three one thousandths of a percent) of our 4,500,000 years. Using our one year reference scale, that equals about 15 minutes out of an ENTIRE year. So as you can see, we have only kept records for a very small amount of time. Think about 15 minutes in regards to a full year. It's nothing. Yet scientists will present theories as absolute inarguable fact based on their 15 minutes of data. Just for fun, if we had based our one year scale on the full age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years), we would have only been taking weather readings for about 0.9 seconds (nine tenths of a second) of that year.
People say, yeah but we can dig down and get core samples of the earth and know what the weather was like 100,000 years ago. I say, why stop at 100,000 years, let's go down 225,000 years. That 225,000 years still only equals 18 days on our scale, or about 5% of our 4,500,000 years. You cannot establish a valid scientific theory on such minimal data. In that 225,000 years we have had both warming and cooling periods, which had nothing to do with man, so why now?
Is this to say climate change is bogus? Absolutely not. Man-made climate change, in other words, the only reason the climate is changing is a direct result of man's actions and nothing else, is what I have a problem believing. We simply do not have enough evidence to support this as fact. The Earth's climate is, and always has been, somewhat cyclical. There have been dramatic changes in climate even in the last 1,200 years which cannot be explained by the actions of man.
I have no idea what causes global warming, or cooling...and nothing has proven definitively that it is man made. Anyone who says otherwise is just as short-sighted as those who deny there's any change in climate at all. The cancer analogy is flawed as well...taking our limited weather records, and comparing it to the long-term study we have of the human body is not even close to being the same. The time frame is grossly skewed. If you had never seen a human being before, and you had a tenth of a second to view one with cancer, would you be able to tell where the cancer came from? If it had occurred before? If it was in remission? If it was advancing? The answer is obviously no. That is the scale of time we are talking about when people try to produce definitive opinions on climate change. We've studied the life cycles of millions of human beings from birth til death for hundreds of years...you're talking about studying a subject that changes quickly, and has changes and illnesses that can easily be tracked, and those illnesses and changes can be seen in multiple subjects over the course of a very short period of time. As opposed to a planet that has been existence for billions of years, where we have no real knowledge of past events, and is almost impossible to accurately track. The fact is, climate change has happened in the past, well before the Industrial Revolution, and the changes were dramatic and came with alarming speed. Why would that stop now, regardless of what we do? Again, this is NOT saying we should just dump our shit everywhere. We should keep our planet healthy, we should walk when possible, and ride bikes, etc. That's just a part of being a good steward of what we've been given, and everyone should want to do that, regardless of what the climate is doing.
this is exactly what I was getting at, except the above post looks like Einstein compared to my Johnny Knoxville.
very well said, Shawshank.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
we know global warming is man made because we can prove that increases in gHg warms the planet ... it's as simple as that ... why is it that if you take two rooms facing the sun and put blinds in one and none in the other ... the ones with blinds will be cooler?? ...
global warming is man made not because of simply temperature records but because the basic scientific principles prove cause and effect ... not having accurate temperature readings from 250 years ago is completely irrelevant ... going down that path is both foolhardy and distracting ...
there is global scientific consensus on AGW where no peer-reviewed piece proves otherwise ... and you guys are discrediting it based on big oil's talking point 101 ... it's frustrating beyond belief to hear the same things over and over again that have been addressed ...
firstly ... have we studied humans since they've been on earth? ... hell no ... how does anyone know if cancer was present ... it's like any medical study that talks about incidence of any illness ... they may be going up but its also likely that people were not correctly diagnosed before ... do we ignore the current studies?
secondly ... the earth's climate has changed but not this rapidly ... all the other times the earth's climate change rapidly have been accounted for either by volcanic eruptions or other catastrophic events ...
thirdly ... if you believe the earth's climate has changed in the past and that it has a natural variability to it - you are subscribing to what is known as science ... and you are using science to base your opinion ... now, science is telling you something else but you choose to ignore it ...