Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BarBoBot wrote:
ROFL when the previous graph showed an upward trend in temp because it conviently didnt go back to 1998 all the man made warming pushers toted it as an absolute sign of global warming.

That never happened.

 BarBoBot wrote:

Now that a graph showing that it has in fact NOT gotten warmer since 1998 is put forth its scoffed at as not accurate!

It doesn't matter if you can find a small interval where the global temperature anomaly goes up, down or sideways. What's important is the trend over several decades. Look at a plot that's at least covering the last century like the following graph from a Cowtan and Way publication:

 BarBoBot wrote:

When they started this man made global warming BS they said we would be almost to the point of not return by now!

We are already past that point. All that's left is lessen the impact and learn to adapt.

 BarBoBot wrote:

Hilarious that when facts don't fit their agenda they are ignored and mocked.

Indeed :(

 BarBoBot wrote:

This is why the whole "man made global warming" movement is failing to convince the masses... Because the science is CLEARLY not settled.

Of course it's not settled. But we _do_ know that the global mean temperature has risen, we _do_ know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works just like a greenhouse, we _do_ know that we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and changed the previous equilibrium of its emission and absorption by the planet. Feel free to disprove any of that or any of the implications. It will have far reaching consequences for physics and related fields. You could be the next nobel laureate.

I'm a Climate Change Denier due to fatigue. Being told since childhood that the world is ending 'soon', but then 'soon' keeps getting postponed, kind of saps away the will to believe. Why are the people telling us to panic not panicking themselves?

I'm all for innovation, energy solutions and reducing pollution. Just not the shrieking hysteria that the sky is falling. . . 'soon'

I for one am not a fan of the term "Global Warming/Climate Change Denier".

It's been coined to make us look like loonies, and I don't appreciate it. I know I've made it very clear in the past what my objections are, my reasoning as to why the science is not clear or yet reliable, and all of it made up from personal and professional knowledge and experience.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazz, excess H2O is bad. Just like how we have had CO2 in our air for the duration of history, it's just that we have excess now.

No offense meant, but you are acting kind of obtuse on this.

The thought that toomuch water is bad (when there's land) is farcical on its face.

Unless you can't swim of course, or if Sharknado is coming.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazz, excess H2O is bad. Just like how we have had CO2 in our air for the duration of history, it's just that we have excess now.

No offense meant, but you are acting kind of obtuse on this.

The thought that toomuch water is bad (when there's land) is farcical on its face.

Unless you can't swim of course, or if Sharknado is coming.

Water Vapour is a greenhouse gas.
Too much water vapour in the amtosphere = more heat trapped from the Sun.
More heat from Sun = rising temperatures.
Rising temperatures = more water vapour.

And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.

Yes, yes yes. Aren't we are arguing about whether humans should adapt or die?

Anyway, here is an interesting article on the BBC about the coming US energy self-sufficiency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23151813

 Frazzled wrote:
And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.

Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.

Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.

Nah...

Humankind lived on a hotter earth than now... in two major periods. From memory, one was in 800 AD and the other was prior to the mini-Ice Age. I'll see if I can find it....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.

Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.

please show proof its happening faster than previous epochs. that sounds like utter horse gak.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.

Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.

please show proof its happening faster than previous epochs. that sounds like utter horse gak.

First a note, I really should have just put organisms not creatures

I don't have the information (I'm not a scientist, I just read their papers) but I do have a clarification on what I mean. I don't even know if it is true or not, it's just the other side of the argument side of the argument. Dodos could have evolved to escape predators, but did not because they were wiped out before they could. It's the same with anything, rapid change causes damage to the current ecosystem. It's not a bad thing when it happens naturally, but if it happens too fast than that would be bad. Not world-destroying bad (climate change is not going to cause that) but it could severely damage our ecosystems. Imagine if it heats up enough that we can't produce wheat in the quantities we require to eat. Or if the oceans heat up fast enough that it can't hold the same amount of O2(aq) that it does now, that would certainly hurt the marine life and anything that is in that ecosystem. We see some of these effects now. plants that would usually grow well in a certain area now don't grow as well because it is too hot and start to migrate northward. Plants that survive in warms climes will start to spread further south as well. This is extremely evident on mountain where most plants grow in 'bands' of elevation. This allows them to get to the right temperature, but if it gets warmer, they migrate and don't have time to adapt. The problem with that is that the plants get progressively less area to grow, until they (eventually) go extinct.

And it most definitely is a concern. It affects our food sources, natural resources, and safety.


And about your origanal comment, these are the most abundant greenhouse gases in order
Water vapor (H2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Ozone (O3)
CFCs

H2O(g) is a greenhouse gas, try looking it up next time before you just deny something.

So you have no proof climate is changing faster than other cycles.

Not personally. As I said I am just putting the other side of the argument out there. I'm sure I could find some.
Found some after a quick google
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

I just looked at them quickly, so I don't now how valid they are.

Even if it is happening too fast for other creatures to adapt, who cares?

Our intelligence grants us the ability to survive where others are unable to adapt. So screw the other creatures.

As far as I believe, the human species will continue to exist, and therefore there is nothing to worry about.

I'm not sure if your serious or not...

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm a Climate Change Denier due to fatigue. Being told since childhood that the world is ending 'soon', but then 'soon' keeps getting postponed, kind of saps away the will to believe. Why are the people telling us to panic not panicking themselves?

I'm all for innovation, energy solutions and reducing pollution. Just not the shrieking hysteria that the sky is falling. . . 'soon'

yup...

they told me almost 30 years ago that within 20 years its all over because we are such evil bad people that pollute.

No better then the mayan calandar or y2k alarmists.

fact is, the TOP two green house gases H20 vapour and C02, the former is 100% natural, then second is 97% natural 3% human.

above someone discredited the graph showing global temperature as being stable, because, it didnt cover a long enough time frame... what bolloks.. I had posted the 500 million year time frame graph eariler in this thread, showing concentrations of green house gasses being more then 8 times current levels in the past. Life on earth was just fine back then, and all that warming + extra greenhouse gasses were all naturally produced.

so if the planet can handle 8-9x the current amount of greenhouse gasses released at a natural rate far greater then we get from the current rate, even with the added 3% mankind contributes in modern times, (so stop it with the "perfect balanced rate of emissions BS") then it can handle this.

I have nothing against reduction, recycle, reusing, I practice environmentalism, I have a smaller carbon footprint then most people (cut out driving, cut out packaging, 99% of my garbage is reused or recycled.

I do have something against alarmists using models that have failed time and time again to predict observed reality in the past, being used as "successful" models to predict future reality.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even if it is happening too fast for other creatures to adapt, who cares?

Our intelligence grants us the ability to survive where others are unable to adapt. So screw the other creatures.

As far as I believe, the human species will continue to exist, and therefore there is nothing to worry about.

You do realise your entire diet is made from "other creatures", right? Humans are not autotrophs, we must consume other living things to survive. Without stable environments for agriculture we are pretty much boned.

I mean, that's the most simplistic way I can lay out the importance of biodiversity for you. I could say a lot more, but I'm not making the effort on someone who actually posted "screw the other creatures".

Edit: Oh come ON. 100% natural? EVERYTHING is 100% natural! The whole damn system is "natural". Jesus. The idea that "natural" is good and "artificial" is bad is friggin middle school level!

Deadly nightshade is natural.
Uranium is natural.
Cyanide is natural.
Botulism is natural.
Cancer is natural.

 BarBoBot wrote:

This is why the whole "man made global warming" movement is failing to convince the masses... Because the science is CLEARLY not settled.

Well, no. The "man made global warming" movement, as you call it, is failing to convince the masses because it has yet to develop effective rhetoric.

In the United States "I'm an expert, you should listen to me!" is not effective rhetoric.

 Frazzled wrote:

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Passing legislation which works against climate change is adaptation.

I wouldn't say screw all other life, thats rediculous, but I don't care one bit that the dodo is gone, or that some insignificant gnat is going to go extinct.

I'm not bothered that tigers won't exist forever in the wild any more than I would be bothered that t-Rex is gone... One apex predator will replace it. Life WILL go on. Long after we are all gone, the planet will still be here.

I'm sick of people trying to imply that every species of animal is precious like its always been there and always should.... That's not how the world works. Sometimes its fair, and sometimes its not.

Passing legislation which works against climate change is adaptation.

No thats trying to hold back the tides.

The thing is, biodiverse ecosystems are more robust than less biodiverse ecosystems. If "some species of gnat" dies out, it really does reduce the overall resilience of the ecosystem, sometimes with upredictable and chaotic results.

While this is part of the cycle of the planet, it doesn't mean if it happens it will be beneficial for us.

 Frazzled wrote:

Passing legislation which works against climate change is adaptation.

No thats trying to hold back the tides.

Which is also adaptation.

You're not going to win this one Fraz.

 dogma wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:

This is why the whole "man made global warming" movement is failing to convince the masses... Because the science is CLEARLY not settled.

Well, no. The "man made global warming" movement, as you call it, is failing to convince the masses because it has yet to develop effective rhetoric.

In the United States "I'm an expert, you should listen to me!" is not effective rhetoric.

My gut reaction is that... this is true.

Why is that?

Are we Americans, naturally inclined to question the veracity when someone proclaims their expertise on something? Or is that a normal human behavior?

 Frazzled wrote:

Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.

Passing legislation which works against climate change is adaptation.

Um... Frazz... he does have a point.

 whembly wrote:

Are we Americans, naturally inclined to question the veracity when someone proclaims their expertise on something? Or is that a normal human behavior?

It is normal human behavior. People are more inclined to trust people like them, so when someone who is really well educated (especially in an esoteric field) asks a person who is not to do a thing there will be an inherent trust issue*. This is especially pronounced in the US due to a cultural streak of independence. However, while that's not a bad thing, it can quickly go wrong when people fail to take the time to learn what they're talking about.





*This is part of the reason why I'm a political analyst and not a politician.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even if it is happening too fast for other creatures to adapt, who cares?

Our intelligence grants us the ability to survive where others are unable to adapt. So screw the other creatures.

As far as I believe, the human species will continue to exist, and therefore there is nothing to worry about.

You do realise your entire diet is made from "other creatures", right? Humans are not autotrophs, we must consume other living things to survive. Without stable environments for agriculture we are pretty much boned.

I mean, that's the most simplistic way I can lay out the importance of biodiversity for you. I could say a lot more, but I'm not making the effort on someone who actually posted "screw the other creatures".

Edit: Oh come ON. 100% natural? EVERYTHING is 100% natural! The whole damn system is "natural". Jesus. The idea that "natural" is good and "artificial" is bad is friggin middle school level!

Deadly nightshade is natural.
Uranium is natural.
Cyanide is natural.
Botulism is natural.
Cancer is natural.

My entire diet is currently made up of other creatures, but that could easily change to synthesized nutrient supplements should such an alteration be required for survival. And it is true that stable environments are required, but they can be created. If we can grow plants in space, then we can grow plants in similar air-sealed, water-supplied structures on earth with little issue.

You massively overestimate our capabilities.

 Da Boss wrote:
You massively overestimate our capabilities.

How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.

Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.

Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.

The energy usage for that would be absolutely staggering if you want to feed a world of 7 billion. All of these human controlled processes are massively inefficient. I'm sure we could synthesise glucose in a lab, but doing it on the scale that plants do so easily through photosynthesis is just crazy unlikely.

 Da Boss wrote:
The energy usage for that would be absolutely staggering if you want to feed a world of 7 billion. All of these human controlled processes are massively inefficient. I'm sure we could synthesise glucose in a lab, but doing it on the scale that plants do so easily through photosynthesis is just crazy unlikely.

We can't even feed 7 billion now.

Some humans must die so that humanity may endure.

Also, we can grow plants in space, and therefore we can do it in a biodome on Earth. You don't need to synthesize anything we get from plants.

This is one of the worst arguments for ignoring climate change I've ever been exposed to.