Page 2 of 19

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:38 am
by Alex123
alan wrote:Jesus Friggin' Christ.
At one point the atmosphere contained no oxygen. Can we extrapolate a greater point from that fact? No, because the planet has undergone severe changes throughout it's history. We humans have been polluting for just a tiny fraction of that history. Therefore, and I hope this gets past your conceptual barriers--we need to look at the data from the past one hundred years or so, when industrial society became dominant.
Is this a difficult concept?

The human contribution of CO2 is negligible.

CO2 is NOT catastrophic either.
5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860. This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... tml#Hockey" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance - a period of time long before the ”Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... tml#Hockey" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 63628.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 63628.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 63628.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing - the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of ”warming” that occurred in the 1990′s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001″. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... l_warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009 ... mandments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:42 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote:Is this a difficult concept?
Image

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:46 am
by Alex123
Tilt,

Do you have any argumements against what I've said?
If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The danger in Global Warming beliefs is that they create great economic burden, loss of personal freedom, sending us back hundreds of years back, and all this for nothing.


Don't want to pollute the earth? Don't drive, don't fly airplanes, don't buy food in the supermarket (where the food is delivered by evil polluting trucks)! Use the bicycle in -20C.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:49 am
by alan
The sites referenced are right-wing propaganda channels. "mcauleysworld" is a particularly egregious example of ultra-conservative BS propagated upon the feeble minds of the less intellectually capable. Best ignored, as are all the ramblings of climate change deniers everywhere.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:50 am
by Alex123
alan wrote:The sites referenced are right-wing propaganda channels. "mcauleysworld" is a particularly egregious example of ultra-conservative BS propagated upon the feeble minds of the less intellectually capable. Best ignored, as are all the ramblings of climate change deniers everywhere.

Rebute the facts, not the messenger. So far there was NOT A SINGLE rebutal of significant human contribution to Global warming posted on this thread.


Rebute this chart

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:14 am
by octathlon
Alex123 wrote: Rebute this chart
Hi Alex,
A discussion of problems with the chart can be found here:
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=92074" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:20 am
by alan
Some people are ignorant. There is nothing I can do about it. I choose to avoid contact with fools.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:22 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote:Some people are ignorant. There is nothing I can do about it. I choose to avoid contact with fools.
It cuts down on headaches.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:27 am
by Kim OHara
nathan wrote:I've lived in the north west pacific, on the British Columbia coast for over 25 years. ...

Australia is, relatively speaking a desert, and likely, although Australians would know best, human activities have done little to ameliorate this and likely have only contributed to the overall desertification of the land. ...

As for the nature of global climate overall, ... in the greater context of the planet's geological and climatological history such shifts are almost insignificant. If an understanding of all of this contributes little to a more realistic assessment of the significance of human life in the overall scheme of things on this planet then I'm not surprised, an extremely myopic and short term view of the overall context is completely typical of all organic lifeforms.
Hi, Nathan,
I linked to Australia's climate trends because I wrote the piece for Aussies, not because Australia is unusual.
Here is parallel information for Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.a ... 77842065-1. I have only glanced at it, but it may give you some food for serious thought.
Re your last paragraph: while it's true that the last hundred years are a blink in world history, they are a really important blink to us because the climate in that time has allowed us to flourish. The world's climate for most of the last billion years would not have supported human life, let alone human civilisation, and if we flick the world out of that climate regime, the world may very well cease to support human life. No big deal in the scheme of Eternity, but liable to generate an immense amount of human suffering in the here and now.
:namaste:
Kim

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:44 am
by Kim OHara
Now, in response to Alex's posts ...
Thanks, Alan, Tilt and others for already making some of the points I was going to.

Alex, your posts in the few hours I have been away from my computer demonstrate conclusively that you reject all of the last twenty or thirty years of climate science.
Are you aware that you are doing so? If not, please read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm and as many of the pages linked to it as you have time for.
If you are aware that you are rejecting the overwhelming consensus of thousands of very hard-working professional climate scientists, perhaps you could tell us why? If you can do so, we have some possibility of establishing a dialogue. If you can't, or won't, you seem very likely to keep on repeating pseudo-science and ignoring the truth. That's not healthy, and it's not dialogue.
Over to you :smile:
:namaste:
Kim

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:00 am
by poto
Oh no, I'm about to post in yet another global warming thread.

In my opinion, the fanatical belief in man-made global warming and for that matter the whole "save-the-planet" mindset is wrong view and should be abandoned. Attachment to the planet/climate/whatever is just clinging to an impermanent thing.

This is what the Buddha had to say about climate change:
Monks, the highest peak of the Himalayas, is eighty four thousand yojanas high from sea level. Eighty four thousand yojanas in breadth. It is eighty four thousand yojanas deep down in the sea. Monks, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of years there comes a time when it does not rain. When it does not rain, all seed and vegetation born plants such as medicinal grass, plants trees and forests dry up and wither and are no more. Monks, thus formations are impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be released from all formations.

…the great ponds maintained by the great rivers such as Anotatta, Sihapapata, Rathakara, Kannamunda, Kunala, Chadanta and Mandakini dry up and wither, they become no more. Monks, thus formations are impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be released from all formations.

…the water in the great ocean recedes one hundred yojanas, two hundred yojanas three hundred yojanas, five hundred yojanas, six hundred yojanas and seven hundred yojanas. The water recedes to the height of seven, six, five, four, three, two palms and even one palm. The water recedes to the height of seven, six, five, four, three, two men, or even one man. It recedes to half the height of a man. It recedes to the knee depth of a man, to the ankle depth of a man. ….there would not be water in the ocean to wet the fingers up to the knots. Monks, thus formations are impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be released from all formations.
from AN 7.66 The Seven Suns

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:07 am
by octathlon
poto wrote: In my opinion, the fanatical belief in man-made global warming and for that matter the whole "save-the-planet" mindset is wrong view and should be abandoned. Attachment to the planet/climate/whatever is just clinging to an impermanent thing.
Hi poto,

I do agree with you on the not clinging part, but the way you expressed it makes it sound like one could make a parallel argument that killing someone would be OK since they are eventually going to die anyway.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:27 am
by poto
octathlon wrote:
poto wrote: In my opinion, the fanatical belief in man-made global warming and for that matter the whole "save-the-planet" mindset is wrong view and should be abandoned. Attachment to the planet/climate/whatever is just clinging to an impermanent thing.
Hi poto,

I do agree with you on the not clinging part, but the way you expressed it makes it sound like one could make a parallel argument that killing someone would be OK since they are eventually going to die anyway.
No, that's not what I meant... it's not OK to kill somebody. Also, the implication that CO2 = murder is fallacious logic. I've been trying to avoid these kind of debates, since they always seem to end badly. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment.

Anyway, I'm in the skeptical camp. I shoveled about 5 or 6 inches of "global warming" off my driveway today. Pretty normal for winters in these parts. I wouldn't mind a bit of warming about now.

For the eco-warriors among us. I do wonder, with all the time spent saving the planet, how does one have time to free oneself of attachments to said planet?

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:47 am
by octathlon
Of course I didn't mean to say that CO2 = murder. I was just taking issue with the logic that because something is impermanent there is no problem with hastening its demise. And of course the phrase "save-the-planet" doesn't mean the actual planet, but rather ecosystems, other life, etc. The planet itself isn't in danger (from us, anyway).

As far as the global warming debate -- I prefer not to participate in religious arguments.

P.S. I just shoveled 9" of snow, and we had 8" last week. May Spring please come soon! But that has nothing to do with the topic. Obviously the places we see the effects are in the transition zones -- permafrost, glaciers, ice caps, ocean currents, etc. A simple example is an ice cube. It melts at the outside edges first, while the inside stays frozen.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:00 am
by saltspring
The world is impermanent, yes thanks for pointing that out Poto. Now how about addressing human induced climate change. Is extreme the new normal? the science suggests to me that it is.