Global Warming

[palerider]

well Mr Rider. You bring up a few points. As I stated before I'm not a climate scientists so this is about where my level of expertise ends. I really don't feel you've proved your case very well, since the fact that the evidence we do have points to man's involvement in warming. Stating that we just don't have enough evidence yet to make that claim seems a little short-sided to me.

The only "evidence" that has been provided to support AGW theory has been gleaned from comparing the exit from this ice age to itself. Nothing more. Expecting that you can gain scientific knowledge by comparing an event to itself is shortsighted.

A carbon sink is any environment that captures more carbon than it releases. And what is the most effective kind? This question once again exposes the pseudoscientific nature of climatology. There is no clear consensus on what is the most effective. There are those who say that the ocean (particularly the north atlantic) is the most effective carbon sink but since warm water can’t hold carbon as well as cool water, and the earth is in a natural warming trend, its ability to hold carbon is being diminished. Then there are those who say that forests and vegetation are the most effective carbon sinks but they are vulnerable to fire and will release enormous amounts of stored carbon if they catch fire. Then there is the idea of substances like soil char which results from the partial burning of field crops, for example, being the most effective carbon sinks.

You could be wrong. And we really can't afford to get it wrong seeing as how we only have one planet.

The earth is going to continue to warm until all of the arctic ice is gone and most, if not all is gone from the south. That is what the earth does. If we are to invest treasure on this event, it should be towards technology that will make us more comfortable in the long summer that is coming and would come whether we had ever evolved or not.

 

[palerider]

well lets see what the climatoligist who is here has to say on this issue

We have a practitioner of the pseudoscience here? Who might that be?

Perhaps s/he can explain how climatology might be considered an actual science when they lack any real knowledge of the core issue of their study. That being, how the different elements that make up the climate work together to form the whole. Until there is a firm understanding of that, climatology can not be considered a science. The study of the elements that make up the climate can certainly be considered a science, (in an information gathering sort of way) but any attempt to suggest that they have any sort of answers about the global climate until they have more than the most rudimentary understanding of how the elements work together to form the present global climate, much less how they might work together to form any future climate is nothing but so much bloviation.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

certainly not you eh?

 

[Fonz]

The only "evidence" that has been provided to support AGW theory has been gleaned from comparing the exit from this ice age to itself. Nothing more. Expecting that you can gain scientific knowledge by comparing an event to itself is shortsighted.

This is what I'm talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty. If you think thats the only evidence, then I suggest you re-read through this thread a few more times.

The earth is going to continue to warm until all of the arctic ice is gone and most, if not all is gone from the south. That is what the earth does. If we are to invest treasure on this event, it should be towards technology that will make us more comfortable in the long summer that is coming and would come whether we had ever evolved or not.

Well thats certainly your uninformed opinion. I however trust people that actually know what they are talking about. You know, the actual scientists that deal with climate science.

 

[palerider]

This is what I'm talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty. If you think thats the only evidence, then I suggest you re-read through this thread a few more times.

I have read what you have written and what others have written. Perhaps you don't realize that any research that doesn't go back 270 to 300 million years ago is comparing the exit from this ice age to itself. Once more, let me give you a picture to look at.

Do you see the temprature drop towards the middle of the tertiary period? That is when the ice age that we are still coming out of began. The ice age before that began during the carbonoferous period and ended during the permian period. That one was 270 to 300 million years ago. And before that was the ice age at the end of the ordovician period some 450 million years ago.

You might note that the earth came out of those ice ages much more rapidly than we are exiting this one. When you compare the exit from this ice age to the exits from past ice ages, the only real argument that you can make is that mankind might be keeping the earth unnaturally cold.

Now you show me some research that compares the ice age that began some two million years ago (which we are still exiting) to previous ice ages and then you will be showing me data that isn't comparing this ice age to itself.

Well thats certainly your uninformed opinion. I however trust people that actually know what they are talking about. You know, the actual scientists that deal with climate science.

Climate pseudoscience you mean. Well, at least we know where you are now. You don't understand the science so you are left taking the word of a bunch of grant whores who will say whatever their political masters tell them to say if it keeps the money rolling in.

 

[Fonz]

I have read what you have written and what others have written. Perhaps you don't realize that any research that doesn't go back 270 to 300 million years ago is comparing the exit from this ice age to itself. Once more, let me give you a picture to look at.

and i've explained to you why we can't compare the earth from hundreds of millions of years ago to today. It was a vastly different place. And we have to take that into account.

I've also showed you that its not just a straight line. there are many ups and downs during the cycles.

Climate pseudoscience you mean. Well, at least we know where you are now. You don't understand the science so you are left taking the word of a bunch of grant whores who will say whatever their political masters tell them to say if it keeps the money rolling in.

I think I understand the science fairly well. As I stated, Im just a regular dude. I have no choice but to have trust in the scientific community to do their job. Not everyone can spend there lives studying the evidence, so I trust the people that do. I see no reason why I shouldnt listen when they say its happening.

Especially when i see the situation as a win/win anyways. If they are right, then we win, and even if they are wrong, using less energy, moving towards lowering CO2 emissions and finding alternatives to fossil fuels can only be a good thing.

 

[palerider]

and i've explained to you why we can't compare the earth from hundreds of millions of years ago to today. It was a vastly different place. And we have to take that into account.

The earth was not a vastly different place. With the exception of some species that are so specialized that they are in danger of exticnction, there are no species alive today that could not have lived 400 million years ago. The temperature cycles have continued to remain relatively constant throughout the history of the earth. With a very short exception at the end of the permian period (due to unimaginable worldwide volcanic activity) the maximum and minimum temperatures have remained about the same.

I've also showed you that its not just a straight line. there are many ups and downs during the cycles.

Again, you are only showing ups and downs of one cycle. You are comparing a cycle to itself rather than to other cycles. Such comparisons are meaningless.

I think I understand the science fairly well. As I stated, Im just a regular dude. I have no choice but to have trust in the scientific community to do their job. Not everyone can spend there lives studying the evidence, so I trust the people that do. I see no reason why I shouldnt listen when they say its happening.

Actually, this isn't rocket science and the basics don't require much effort to learn if you are of average intelligence.

Especially when i see the situation as a win/win anyways. If they are right, then we win, and even if they are wrong, using less energy, moving towards lowering CO2 emissions and finding alternatives to fossil fuels can only be a good thing.

If they are wrong, and we take their advice and implement schemes like kyoto, then immeasurable damage will be done to the economys of the world. If good old al had his way, you would be paying about $8 a gallon for gas today. How much of a win is that for you? How much of a win is it for people who don't make much money but have to drive 20 or 25 miles to work? There is no winner if hairbrained ideas like kyoto are implemented. Unless you are in a position of political power, then you win big time.

By the way, if you understand the science fairly well, why do you believe that lowering CO2 levels is important. Every scrap of research we have indicates that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming, not the cause. Rising CO2 levels lag behind warming trends by 600 to 1000 years.

 

[palerider]

Just out of curiosity, did you believe them when they told you that CFC's were destroying the "ozone layer"?

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Just out of curiosity, did you believe them when they told you that CFC's were destroying the "ozone layer"?

You sure like to repeat yourself eh there Liar?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You sure like to repeat yourself eh there Liar?

I've yet to see you make a coherent argument in this thread.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

then of course you dont know how to read

i have no need to repeat myself like the liar above does

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Then just send me a private message with a link to a post in this thread where you actually made an argument.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

As i understand it........................

it is also Questionable that YOU are what you Claim you are......

we will let that reveal itself over time

when you all get strangers at your message board

you should take a minute and think about what you claim to be and where you have claimed to have been and what you think you know

for all you know you have meteoroligists,Climatoligists,Special ops soldiers ,intelligence soldiers, you never know whos on the other side of the glass or where they have been or what they have done

keep talking lets see if your a liar too?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What have I lied about?

 

[Rokerijdude11]

time will reveal that wont it?

have a nice day Jarhead