71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 06:27 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
Those ice ice sheets have been melting for 17,950 years before SUVs rolled off the assembly lines, no matter what Advocate claims.


I agree. Ask these Global Warming advocates what causes Ice Ages. What causes glacial advances and retreats within an Ice Age. What caused the warm period during the middle of the dinosaurs ??

They dont have the answers, only the feeling that this time they might be right. Feelings arent good enough for science. Cold, cruel facts are required. Great scientists wont talk in absolutes. They use caution. Bumbling haphazard scientists use language full of emotion like it cant possibly happen. This is the frail frightened human being talking, and not well established theory being quoted.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 06:30 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
The polluters and other miscreants have no concern that they are driving us to the brink of extinction.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091019_a_reality_check_from_the_brink_of_extinction/


I remember parados telling me no one said it was going to be the end of the world and he is an advocate of Global Warming.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 06:38 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The Danish Royal Air Force overflies the North Pole regularly, and check the ice thickness with radar; they say polar ice is disappearing much faster than previously predicted and within a few years there will be an ice-free pole in summer. Climate models predicted global warming would show up first and more strongly in the Arctic Circle. It is exceeding those simulations. As we keep telling you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33397126#33397126

The facts on the ground and on the water indicate global warming is happening.


Do you understand that two things happening together do not mean that one is causing the other ? Typing on a keyboard at the same time as a child dies of starvation does not mean the typing caused the death. Why dont you believe it was the aircraft that caused it ?

Do you understand that in a computer simulation, you tell it what will happen ?

Why are so many people who have no idea of what is involved feel so emotional ? Is it empowering to try to limit other people ? Do they feel important to shout out "The End of the World is Nigh"? Maybe they should wear a placard and stand on a street corner.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 06:52 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Your reality is not mine. And my preferences don't match yours. Sorry, but I think you and your ilk are traitors to the earth.


The Earth is a rock. People who prefer rocks to other people have serious issues to deal with. Why arent you concerned about wasting resources on preventing Global Warming when it will happen due to natural causes anyway ? Why arent those resources better spent on people who are starving ? They matter more than your Earth and its cute little animals, some of whom are furry and cuddly and are an off spring stand-in.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 06:55 pm
@High Seas,
I am very familiar with that map, and you will find that during winter the temporary ice extended to possibly as far as Spain. Maybe the Global Warming advocates would have us save that ice too ???
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 09:13 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Ice cores in the Greenland icecap go back about four ice ages.

I take it that when you say Ice Age you mean a Glacial Advance and Retreat. Out of curiosity, as it seems it wasnt always there for the 4.6 billion years the planet has been around, what caused it to form in the first place ??? Perhaps a lack of man made carbon ?

Quote:
It's likely to be gone by the turn of the century.

Big deal. So what ? We now have a culture where all you have to do is say something is changing and people will rush out and try to save it. This is driven by people afraid of their own mortality.

Quote:
the climate of the arctic has been relatively stable for most of the peiod since the last ice age.

Agreed. Do you know what this means ? It had a very sudden massive melt about 10-12,000 years ago, many times what we have now. The lingering ice hung on for the next natural change.

Quote:
The melting is unprecedented.

This contradicts your earlier statement above. When exactly did the ice from the last Ice Age melt if the current small amounts are unprecedented ? Obviously, you think the ice is still there..perhaps they are invisible ? What about the Earth Snowball Age ? Perhaps that was just a trickle of ice melting ??

Perhaps you are being emotional rather than logical ? You exagerate your case with too many superlatives. This is a debate not a therapy session.

Quote:
And explicable as a result of anthropogenic effect on the climate.

WRONG ! No one theory accounts for what is happening. More research is required into natural causes but Global Warming is getting all the money because of people like you. It is no longer up to science, the power rests with who can make the loudest noise.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 09:46 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
It's likely to be gone by the turn of the century.

Big deal. So what ? We now have a culture where all you have to do is say something is changing and people will rush out and try to save it. This is driven by people afraid of their own mortality.

Interesting statement, and a very insightful one in my opinion. I believe extreme environmentalism is a form of religi0n, and instead of faith in God, it is replaced with a faith in themselves to control their surroundings, to control the creation, to worship themselves and the creation instead of the creator. The whole concept of "saving the earth" is I think not only foolish but extemely arrogant and self centered, and also relates to a worship of the creation. Faith in God is also replaced with faith in government, which is an extention of self, of mankind, of the creation. That is why many extreme environmentalists are anti-capitalists, extreme socialists, communists, or even one-worlders.

To be clear, it is entirely appropriate to be good stewards of the earth, to use it and not misuse it, but this in no way needs to be taken to the extreme as extreme environmentalism has taken it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 08:48 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
I believe extreme environmentalism is a form of religi0n,...


That might well be: bothe the big "Volks-churches" here in Germany, the Evangelical Church of Germany and the Catholic Church are in frontline re environment: it's seen as Christian virtue ...

But this thread was originally about climate change ...
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 08:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Well, Walter, all that proves is that even the churches in Europe are socialist churches.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 08:58 am
@old europe,
I know, "Volks" clearly proves how they are close to Hitler, Mao and other communists.

(And to make it worse: their environmental projects are done under the headline "Churches with a green [sic!!!] cock" ....)
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:42 am
I think it's extreme when extremists take extremism to the extreme. I'm pretty sure okie agrees with me but I'll never know because he's an extreme example of extremists going to the extreme to deny extremism.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 11:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
okie believes in a form of extreme religion too! It's called the republican party.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 11:08 am
Quote:
A nightmare in the not-very-distant future: the map below shows the enormous temperature rises which British scientists believe the planet may be experiencing in as a little as 50 years from now if global warming remains unchecked.

Released by the Government today, it illustrates a rise in global average temperature of four degrees Centigrade by 2060, and as such represents a dramatic acceleration of previous forecasts made as recently as 2007 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The point of the map, launched by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, his brother Ed, is to show that a four-degree average temperature rise over the whole globe (which takes into account the seas as well as the land surface) equates to very much greater rises over the land alone, especially at higher latitudes " as one goes north or south towards the poles. The darker the colour, the higher the heat increase.
Source and full report: Independent




The impact of a global temperature rise of 4ºC (7 ºF)
Quote:
The impacts of climate change will be widespread across the globe. In order to understand more about what the human impact of high-end climate change might be, and therefore what would happen if a successful agreement can not be reached at Copenhagen, the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre has produced a map outlining some of the impacts that may occur if the global average temperature rises by 4 °C (7 °F) above the pre-industrial climate average. The map represents the latest peer-reviewed science on the impacts.


http://i34.tinypic.com/5oyz3n.jpg

Click here for enlarged interactive map
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 12:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I'm sorta glad I won't be around to witness all those floodings.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 12:34 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Ionus wrote:


Quote:
It is 90 % certain that global warming is man-made.


It is NOT 90% certain, SOME believe it is 90% PROBABLE. It damages your argument if you use emotions to colour facts. It makes you seem afraid of the facts. Or worse, incapable of understanding the argument.


The statement is based on credible scientific findings of fact, not the right-wing contrarian nonsense that pervades this bulletin board.





I would be embarrassed to have your limited understanding. I will explain it again, please read carefully this time...

If something is certain, it cant have any percentage chance of being apart from 100%. If it is 90% possible then it is not certain. Not everyone believes your figure of 90%.

As I said before, and read carefully because I am sick of repeating and explaining to people who have been educated beyond their intelligence, SOME believe it is 90% PROBABLE. That is the only statement you can make that is accurate, unless of course you dont mind inaccurate statements in the service of science. If you wish to have God-like powers and state certainties find a forum where there are more stupid people to convince. 60% of people know that.


Please spare us your literal nonsense. Only children and and those mentally defective take everything literally. Intelligent people discuss issues in a figurative manner to ease conversation. They don't parse every word that comes up.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:13 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Please spare us your literal nonsense. Only children and and those mentally defective take everything literally. Intelligent people discuss issues in a figurative manner to ease conversation. They don't parse every word that comes up.


You were so blinded by yourself you couldnt understand when it was pointed out to you. If you dont think the accuracy of words has anything to do with a scientific debate then you are either underqualified to discuss science or believe yourself to be "certain"of everything. There is a 90% chance of that !
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:20 pm
@Ionus,
Oh, pleeeeeeeze! You are not big enough to admit that you were being a literalist.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:24 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
nightmare...enormous...dramatic...

Oh spare me ! Is this a drama lesson or a scientific debate ? Half of the stuff that you try to pass off as scientific would get you thrown out of High School Science, never mind undergraduate studies. Out of curiosity, how many of you "Noble Defenders of the Earth" have scientific training ?

All this psuedo information would be impressive if it werent for one thing : what would be the natural world climate trend without humans ? Can you answer that ? Becuase if you do not factor in the natural trend then you cant say what influence man has had. What temperature should we be ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:28 pm
@Advocate,
I am only a literalist where science is concerned. If you dont understand that, or how to correctly phrase statistics then you will sprout garbage. Why didnt you understand when it was pointed out to you the first time how to use statistics ?
Or are you happy to spread untruths to further your righteous crusade ?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:34 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Thank you, High Seas. ... It has NOT been a process of gradual warming throughout this interglacial The melting is unprecedented. ...


It's OK, Jack, you couldn't have known I'm a mathematical modeler. Nobody claims this is a gradual warming, but it's NOT unprecedented, having occured many times before. See this chart from the NOAA for an easy visual comparison (scale is thousands of years before present):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/images/base/iceage18.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/11/11_193_bslide.html
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/10/2024 at 05:31:33