Extreme is the New Normal

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by alan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:19 am

I'm assuming you didn't do this research yourself, as it seems like pre-packaged talking points, even down to the dumb ass jokes about SUV's and carbon taxes. That alone tells me you are not serious.
Might want to turn off the right-wing radio nut you listen to all day long.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:19 am

Hello Alan,

Thank you for your post.
alan wrote:Consider, please, that we are talking about man-made climate change.
What caused such big rises in CO2 during 600 million of years? Was it man-made?
Data from the past one hundred years are what we need to be looking at,
Compared to 7,000 ppm, the current level of 389.69 is tiny. Similar is with global temperature. What caused such heat wave lasting 100s of million of years ago? Inefficient SUV's?

and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the globe is experiencing significant overall warming.
Maybe when considering only 100 years, but not 600 million years.

Citing numbers from 500 million years ago, when the earth was a completely different place, is irrelevant at best, and purposefully misleading at worse.
Fully relevant. What caused such big rise in CO2 levels from 4,500ppm to 7,000ppm during Cambrian and what caused such drastic decline?


Nature is far more powerful than humans, unless humans start detonating 100s of nuclear bombs.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

saltspring
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:37 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by saltspring » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:29 am

Alex

Take a look at the link Kim provided for you. Your numbers are as Alan said irrelevant to the issue of human induced climate change. Do you really think that people on this board and the scientific community are not aware that there have been huge swings in the earth's climate throughout history? Come on give us a little credit.

Chris

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:32 am

alan wrote:I'm assuming you didn't do this research yourself, as it seems like pre-packaged talking points, even down to the dumb ass jokes about SUV's and carbon taxes. That alone tells me you are not serious.
Might want to turn off the right-wing radio nut you listen to all day long.

SUV joke was my own motivated by Kim's link. Those points I've written for simplicity. I didn't want to quote whole slabs of text which many may not be read at all.



Saltspring,
3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere.

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009 ... mandments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by alan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:35 am

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?

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:38 am

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;
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:42 am

alan wrote:Is this a difficult concept?
Image
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:46 am

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.
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by alan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:49 am

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.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:50 am

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
Attachments
global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif
global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif (117.86 KiB) Viewed 1977 times
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by octathlon » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:14 am

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;

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by alan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:20 am

Some people are ignorant. There is nothing I can do about it. I choose to avoid contact with fools.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:22 am

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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:27 am

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

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:44 am

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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests