REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Climate shift causing epochal changes

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2015
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, March 3, 2012 7:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Not millenial changes (a thousand years) or "historic" changes (a few thousand years) or even changes measured in "ages" (a million years) but epochal changes... changes not seen for ten million years or more, and changes measured in "eras" (100 million years, or more).

In the Fukushima thread, Tony and I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the carbon release during the formation of the Siberian Trappa versus the carbon release of today. The formation of the Siberian Trappa because of flood basalt caused the greatest die-off known in the geological record. According to this back-envelope calculation, our current yearly carbon release is about 1/500th of the one that caused a nearly-irrecoverable extinction event... or possibly 1/200th, if you consider our cumulative greenhouse gas release. We might also be releasing carbon at a much faster rate: the basalt flood took a million years, OUR history is shorter. (It was pointed out that the vulcanism prolly didn't occur gradually but as intense events. Not sure I find that particularly reassuring... all it means it that we are following the path of disaster fairly closely.)

So, to get to the epochal/ eral changes

Ocean Acidification: Geologic Record Adds New Warning

Quote:

A new study in Science finds that the oceans may be acidifying faster today from industrial emissions than they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years when carbon levels spiked naturally. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period.


http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/03/01/ocean-acidification-geologic-r
ecord-adds-new-warning
/

Another long-term trend, on the order of "changes not seen for 100,000 years" is the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Extreme Melting On Greenland Ice Sheet, Team Reports; Glacial Melt Cycle Could Become Self-Amplifying

Quote:

Combining data gathered on the ground with microwave satellite recordings and the output from a model of the ice sheet, he and graduate student Patrick Alexander found a near-record loss of snow and ice this year. The extensive melting continued even without last year's record highs.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025163128.htm

I have things to do, but I will post the data later which shows that the parts of Greenland which are melting had been stable geological features for 100,000 years.

And finally, a prediction. It a reiteration of the prediction I made a few weeks ago: In ten years, it will be evident to nearly everyone in the USA that not only is climate shift occurring, it is inimical to our survival.

Now, to explain the timing of that prediction, think back to a glass of water with ice in it. The water stays icy cold as long as there is ice, but it starts to warm after the ice melts. That is because it takes a LOT of energy to melt the ice... much more energy than it takes to warm water. So, remember that... ice melts, THEN the water gets warm.

Now, look at this

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
Use your mouse to grab the bar and pull it left or right to view the changes. It looks to me like the tipping point is about the year 2000.

Now, if we were any kind of intelligent species, we would have created a society where we felt that not only did our families have our backs, but so did our neighbors and governments, instead of this "every man for himself and god against all" clusterfuck. Then we could actually think about solving big problems together.... maybe even surviving with our societies intact, and making things better... if not for our children or their children, at least our great grandchildren. But we are not any sort of intelligent species.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 3:05 PM

OONJERAH



"Scientists and scientific studies have a minimal effect on public opinion," says Drexel University sociologist
Robert Brulle, lead author of a new climate attitude study in the Climatic Change journal. "What really drives
public opinion on climate change are the ways that political elites describe the science."

http://thetriangle.org/2012/02/17/publics-view-of-climate-crisis-teste
d-in-new-study
/
"Brulle’s study states that “while media coverage exerts an important influence, this coverage is itself largely
a function of elite cues and economic factors. Weather extremes have no effect on aggregate public opinion.
Promulgation of scientific information to the public on climate change has a minimal effect.”

"With this in mind, Brulle argues that environmental disasters can have little to no weight in public opinion despite
vast media coverage."

Quote Signym: "But we are not any sort of intelligent species."


Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 4:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hubby and I have spent hours talking about this, as both of us are scientists (physics/ chemistry) and both of us are amateur economists. We look at the self-created catastrophe of Easter Island... prolly the most pristine example of ecocide .... and we ask ourselves "What was the man thinking as he cut down the last tree?", and why ?

History is replete with examples of societies that have run off cliffs. Mayans whose answer was Sacrifice more people for rain!", Egyptians whose answer was "Build higher pyramids for the Pharaohs!" and modern-day elites whose answer is "Gather more money!". That kind of societal suicide requires that most of the people look to their leaders for "the answer". We realized that many societies died for lack of common sense. We figured that there are two kinds of people in society.... those who look inward to the center of social power for "the answer", and those who look OUTWARD... to the real world... to detect the dangers and pathways OUTSIDE of human society. Societies survived when the elite structure happily coincided with the survivalist outlook... but not ever if it didn't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 7:09 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think there is a crossroads of blind self-interest and environmental interest, and I think we are approaching it. When we reach that crossroads, things will begin to improve for all the wrong reasons. But none of the ecologists need concern themselves for the reasons. Only that things will improve.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 5:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


TONY, just because a crisis is upon society doesn't mean society will react in a rational way. There are many societies that dug themselves ecological graves, aside from the Easter Islanders (the Anasazi, Haiti) and many other that expanded to their ecological capacity and couldn't withstand any sort of change (Mayans, Romans). Look at RAPPY... he represents a fairly large portion of the USA population who believe that they will either be saved by their god (and yanno, this isn't a once-in-a-while belief, this is the driving force of everything they think on the topic) or saved by capitalism (which is just belief in another kind of religion). Or they have their heads seriously stuck up their behinds because they cannot abide the thought that there really might be a problem "out there".

When things get worse - which they will- those people won't suddenly wake up one morning, wipe the sleepers from their eyes, smack their foreheads and exclaim Of course! What was I thinking??. No, they will turn to somebody like Hitler or their preacher ... there are plenty of historical examples... and they will follow a self-destructive course and collectively march to their doom. I used to be pretty optimistic about "the better idea" taking root and societies evolving, but the more history I read the more I realize that we humans are flawed thinkers: Most of us defer to "the authorities" and fail to look to the larger world for danger signs and solutions. Looking beyond the human circle, to the big wide universe out there is a rigorous pursuit of knowledge, requiring one to think in non-human ways and in non-human timescales, a POV that most humans... with their innate bent to anthropomorphize* everything have difficulty applying. And those that can look at things with a larger perspective have a hard time communicating their world-view to anyone else.

The other thing I find curious is that what people seem to fear most is uncertainty. They will suffer deprivation, hunger, and death before they give up on the world view in which they were raised.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: If there is a problem- and I think there is- we need to do more than coast towards a solution. The solution will not be automatic, among other things TPTB (and their followers) will not willingly accept any sort of change which diminishes their wealth and authority. The politicians, the military, the corporations and banks, "the authorities"... they're on a pinnacle now. Why change? For THEM, it's all downside!

Now, there IS a solution, but it will take the awakening of people and the realization that THIS problem has to be tackled by most people. And, we HAVE to get governments constructively involved, even if it means ripping people from office election cycle after election cycle until we get the representation that we need. It also means changing the nature of government itself... to make it more scalable and more responsive. But that's another story.

*to ascribe human form or attributes to an animal, plant, material object, etc.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 6:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


From the scary Muslims thread...

Quote:


Originally posted by SignyM:

You cannot for the life of you divorce emotion from discussion, can you? It seems impossible for you to sit down and look at data w/o some sort of glamour attached to it by "the authorities". I keep trying, really I do, to show you where you go off track and how you might actually learn to think like a real boy, but you keep insisting on thinking like a sheep.

One day, will you learn to be NOT useless ?




Hard to not be emotional when it's a known fact that some of this 'data' has been misinterpreted, and even worse, fabricated. To the contrary, I see YOUR lack of emotion on this matter much akin to NAZIs, dutifully going about their business, in following orders, during WW2.

" But the Fuhrer SAID... ! HE can't be wrong! "

My view on this is that climate DOES change, always has, and always will, yet the MSM view of sheer ignorance is being promoted that it doesn't change, unless mankind is f-ing up the planet. The blatant,sensationalist and intentional lies and distortions being put out by certain groups and individuals, for the explicit purpose of driving public opinion, is nothing short of deplorable.

Might be that we need to start a new thread ? Kinda got off the whole Muslim terrorists bit here.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

My view on this is that climate DOES change, always has, and always will
Do you hear any climate scientists saying that climate has NOT changed in the past? Because if you did, you might have a point, but as far as I know ALL scientists ... climate scientists, geologists, chemists, physicists and anyone with any college-level knowledge of the topic will agree that climate has changed in the past and will change in the future. The only peeps denying this are the creationists.

Quote:

yet the MSM view of sheer ignorance is being promoted that it doesn't change, unless mankind is f-ing up the planet.
Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth showed climate changes of the past. Unless you can quote any sort of scientist claiming that climate has NOT changed in the past, this is an utterly baseless argument and should be abandoned.

Quote:

The blatant,sensationalist and intentional lies and distortions being put out by certain groups and individuals, for the explicit purpose of driving public opinion, is nothing short of deplorable...Hard to not be emotional when it's a known fact that some of this 'data' has been misinterpreted, and even worse, fabricated.
Which lies are you referring to? Can you quote those lies here? Can you point to the "fabricated" data? Can you point to data which you do think is NOT "fabricated"?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 7:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM: The only peeps denying this are the creationists.


Well, Creationists say T.Rex was a vegetarian, and Noah put Dinos on the Ark. So let's at least agree to dispense with that nonsense, ok? But my POINT was that the MSM was framing the issue as if climate is stable, static and to ignore the historic fluctuations of global climate in the last 1000 years, never mind 10,000, million or 100 million.

I'll not abandon this point, for the reasons stated above, and because the REAL 99%, the mass of humanity who go about their daily lives and pay no attention to the finer points of this debate only go on by what the media says, or doesn't say.


Quote:

Quote:

The blatant,sensationalist and intentional lies and distortions being put out by certain groups and individuals, for the explicit purpose of driving public opinion, is nothing short of deplorable...Hard to not be emotional when it's a known fact that some of this 'data' has been misinterpreted, and even worse, fabricated.


Which lies are you referring to? Can you quote those lies here? Can you point to the "fabricated" data? Can you point to data which you do think is NOT "fabricated"?




Some highlights :

Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

*Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategat
e-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming
/

*Questionable locations for temperature surface station locations.

http://surfacestations.org/

The entire issue of CO2 causing or being the result global temperature change.

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/the-crux-of-the-global-warming-fraud
-temperature-increase-causes-co2-level-increase-1400






" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 9:44 AM

BYTEMITE


My understanding was that the big problem with the Siberian Traps was methane.

There have been recent indications of permafrost thaw on the traps releasing methane.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:27 AM

1KIKI

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis


TPTB (and their followers)

WE ARE THE 70 PERCENT!*

*discounted from 99

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:29 AM

1KIKI

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis


Oh, btw, I've been treating little Rappy's posts the same way I treat PN's ... scroll, scroll, scroll ...

It's remarkably freeing, and empowering, and saves a lot of time as well!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2012 9:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I don't mean to rain on your parade here but I'm a creationist who believes that the climate changes.

I think that we should really be looking at this acidification issue, that sounds like a pretty bad thing for everyone.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 2:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Okay rappy, I looked pretty deeply into "climategate". There is a long an nuanced story behind it, which I'm sure you're not at all interested in so here's the summary: What I gather out of the whole kerfuffle is that while some data was elided from the record, the vast majority of the data, when carefully parsed to ensure representativeness, continues to point to warming on a global scale.

I pointed to other data in this thread including ocean acidification and the loss of ancient ice... that is the kind of data one needs to include if you are going to create a meaningful world-wide picture of climate change. Have you looked at it? Do you have a refutation for it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 2:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by Rappy:


Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.




So if I can show you an error in your own cite, will that disprove your refutation?

Read it again. One of these things is not like the other.

"Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."

So... was that "manipulation of data" equivalent to a fabrication on YOUR part (did you misquote the article?), or was it a fabrication on the author's part, or was it a fabrication on the court's part?

You did mention fabrication of data, right?

Have I completely disproven your claims and your whole point of view? That's what you've tried to claim in your arguments - that any kind of manipulation of data discredits the entire theory.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 2:57 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


Now, there IS a solution, but it will take the awakening of people and the realization that THIS problem has to be tackled by most people. And, we HAVE to get governments constructively involved, even if it means ripping people from office election cycle after election cycle until we get the representation that we need. It also means changing the nature of government itself... to make it more scalable and more responsive. But that's another story.

*to ascribe human form or attributes to an animal, plant, material object, etc.



You dream awfully big! Love to hear what you solution is. My 2 cents: If you have to wait for others or gov it could be a deal breaker. Can you prove your ideas on a working scale and then show them to the world?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


We HAVE to dream big!

Why do we let our dreams be shriveled by those niggardly, penurious, greedy bastards at the top? Aren't dreams, at least, still free???

Everyone (or early everyone) has to be rowing in the same direction. Personal action by peons (that's us) is great, but it isn't sufficient. Even if everyone you know saves fuel, the military will still be blowing gallons per second on their jet take-offs; and the metropolitan areas will still be looking to develop undeveloped areas rather than restoring the city center, putting in mass transit, and fixing leaky water pipes.

In other words, you couldn't have stopped Hitler by dumpster-diving, and you can't respond to climate shift by recycling old newspapers.

I'll be busy for the rest of the week and I have yet to reply to rappy's other point, but let me let me share some of my dreams:

First of all, the USA is still a major driver of negative action. We (by our military spending which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, relentlessly suppressing self-determination movements) have created a worldwide system of "every man for himself and god against all". All hope for the future has been blighted by the relentless focus on money and competition. We need to reduce our military spending and footprint by about 90%. There is nothing more counterproductive than military spending. Military spending doesn't produce more and it doesn't stop climate shift. What a bloated waste of money!

We need to turn our taxation power to real good, not just planting our military's boot in someone's far-away ass. Let me give you an example (a dream of mine): There was a government-funded university-run experiment on fire prevention in the Sierras. They divided a roughly one-square-mile plot into four quadrants: no action, mechanical thinning, thinning by burning, and mechanical+burning thinning. As luck would have it, one of those devastating crown fires raced through, so the researchers had a chance to assess the different fire-prevention strategies. The "do nothing" quadrant was burned to the ground. The single-technique quadrants were both damaged, but not utterly destroyed. The dual-technique quadrant stopped the fire cold. Now, since forest fires are a predicted result of climate shift, forest management is a labor-intensive process, and a lot of people are looking for work, what is the only thing between "where we are" and creating mile-wide firebreaks throughout our forests, except that the wealthy do not see forest protection as a viable "investment"?

Fuck them, yanno?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Have I completely disproven your claims and your whole point of view? That's what you've tried to claim in your arguments - that any kind of manipulation of data discredits the entire theory.



No. You've done no such thing. I've not misquoted anything.

You're really , really reaching.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I don't mean to rain on your parade here but I'm a creationist who believes that the climate changes.

I think that we should really be looking at this acidification issue, that sounds like a pretty bad thing for everyone.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Ri, you're just on everyone's hit list then, huh?



Young Earth or Old Earth creationist ? ( yes, it mattes. )

Oceanic acidification is an issue I could certainly get behind, as I think it's far easier to grapple with and find a cause / solution for, in a relatively short period of time.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:18 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So if I can show you an error in your own cite, will that disprove your refutation?




When have facts ever trumped ideology when dealing with a true believer?

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:26 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay rappy, I looked pretty deeply into "climategate". There is a long an nuanced story behind it, which I'm sure you're not at all interested in so here's the summary: What I gather out of the whole kerfuffle is that while some data was elided from the record, the vast majority of the data, when carefully parsed to ensure representativeness, continues to point to warming on a global scale.



All of which has been explained many times over. But he beleives there's no way humans can contribute - so no matter of factual info will sway him from that. And any misstep on the side of science will be viewed by him and his ilk as complete and absolute justification for ignoring everything else - because it just don't fit what they beleieve.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:31 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



And Storybook, there's evidence presented which YOU blindly ignore, because it goes against what you WANT to believe.

So, where's that leave us ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 9:35 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

And Storybook, there's evidence presented which YOU blindly ignore, because it goes against what you WANT to believe.

So, where's that leave us ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



Leaves me on the high ground, as what I ignore is your say-so, while you ignore actual sceince.

But keep on beleivin' son. It's all you have.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 9:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Kiki,
Quote:

Oh, btw, I've been treating little Rappy's posts the same way I treat PN's ... scroll, scroll, scroll ...

It's remarkably freeing, and empowering, and saves a lot of time as well!

Welcome to my world! I will go on dreaming that, if enough people join us in the real world, we can leave Alt.Univ. to his own devices and have REAL discussions/debates, rather than have virtually all of them (as this has) turn into Rap v. Story, Rap v. Sig, Rap v. Mike, Rap v. Anyone With Brains.

Certainly as far as climate change is concerned, he should be left in the dust. We ALL know his stance; it will never change, facts will never be accepted, he will always have meaningless snarks a-plenty, etc., etc., and NOTHING WILL EVER GET THROUGH TO HIM.

Shees...

Sig, yes, I looked into it a long time ago, and you're right:
Quote:

while some data was elided from the record, the vast majority of the data, when carefully parsed to ensure representativeness, continues to point to warming on a global scale.
You're correct; the omitted material did not in any way "disprove" global warming, but everyone forgot that after the story got all the attention it did. And always bear in mind that Alt.Univ. NEVER looks further than the original story (or just the headlines, when they're what he wants), remembers only the original hullabaloo, and "nuanced" Does Not Compute.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 9:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Leaves me on the high ground




I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 10:16 AM

CAVETROLL


I'd have an easier time with climate change (formerly known as global warming) if ONE climate scientist would explain the link to the late Ordovician period during the Paleozoic, when the atmostphere's carbon dioxide hovered above 4000 parts per million and there was an ice age. Currently we're around 350 ppm. Which is roughly comparable to the late Carboniferous/early Permian periods when we had another ice age. So, ice age with high or low carbon.

Remember, this isn't theory, this is evidence. You don't change evidence to fit your theory. You change your theory to fit the evidence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 10:21 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Leaves me on the high ground




I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



Of course you find the notion of believeing science over YOU as funny - you're that fucking deluded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 10:24 AM

1KIKI

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis


Your data is 7 years out of date. And all it took was googling 'ordovician ice age co2'. But don't be concerned that I will expect you to learn this. I predict you will post your same old same old at the next opportunity.

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate.
Matthew Saltzman

In Thursday’s issue of the journal Geology, Ohio State University scientists report that a long-ago ice age occurred 10 million years earlier than once thought. The new date clears up an inconsistency that has dogged climate change research for years.

Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, explained Matthew Saltzman, assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio State.

Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:22 PM

CAVETROLL


This is the graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global average temperatures I referenced.



The first ice age, from left to right, represented by a drastic dip in the blue line. Sliding it up or down the graph 10 million years still leaves the atmospheric CO2 well above 4000 ppm. The other two ice ages do indeed show low CO2.

Then again, 30-40 years ago some of these same climatologists were warning us of the dangers of global cooling.

Not convinced.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:27 PM

STORYMARK


It is pointed out that your data is 7 years out of date....

And you respond with data that's 11 years old?

Brilliant!

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:34 PM

1KIKI

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis


Embargoed for release until January 27, 2005.

Now last I knew, 2012 - 2005 = 7 years. Why you respond with data that's 11 --- oh THAT explains your posts! You can't do simple arithmetic!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Of course you find the notion of believeing science over YOU as funny - you're that fucking deluded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"



I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.

And with the added vulgarity, too !

ROFLMAO !

`
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:44 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Of course you find the notion of believeing science over YOU as funny - you're that fucking deluded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"



I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.

And with the added vulgarity, too !

ROFLMAO !




Talk about ego - you find it laughable that someone would believe science over you.

And what's with the virgin ears routine?? You don't seem too verklepmt when you bust out with some vulgarity.

No wonder you are such a laughiung stock yourself. You're a cartoon. You make Glenn Beck look like a calm, reasoned individual.


Truely amazing.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:46 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Your data is 7 years out of date. .




So? AlGore said the debate was over like 5 years ago. He's been yapping about this non issue since he lost to Bush, in the 2000 election.

What's your point ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Talk about ego - you find it laughable that someone would believe science over you.



Naw. It's just funny that you think it has anything to do w/ me ( I'm flattered, really I am ) and that " science " is some how on YOUR side, or that I don't acknowledge science. Now THAT is funny.

Science isn't a 'belief', btw. It's a tool, used for observing the known world.

Quote:

And what's with the virgin ears routine?? You don't seem too verklepmt when you bust out with some vulgarity.


When it's appropriate, yes.

Quote:



Truely amazing.



Awww, thank you.

* blush *


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 9:31 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Well Raptor I guess I'm a new earth creationist, since I don't buy the billions of years thing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:36 AM

CAVETROLL


The original graph, 2001.



An updated graphic, showing the same data points I referred to in my original posts, 2005.



Please examine the graph. You said that the ice age began 10 million years earlier than shown on the graph. The range at the bottom of both graphs is measured in 100 million year increments. You are arguing that a tiny shift in CO2, which still places CO2 levels at about 10 times what they are now, causes an ice age. Yet immediately before, with CO2 levels even higher, the geological record shows a higher temperature.

In fact, looking at both graphs, that are grossly similar, I don't see any strong correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. They could both be related through a third data point that hasn't been identified yet. But global temperatures seem to be high and low when CO2 is high or low.

I'd love to see a more recent chart. I haven't been able to find one in cursory searches. But then again, this became a hot button issue in the mid 2000's. With the way academia prosecute intellectual pogroms, I'm not surprised there's no new data. Anybody who published a paper that disagreed with the pravda of the left would be immediately castigated. I've yet to see the other side present any sort of data linking CO2 and temperature with regard to the geological record. I'd welcome it in fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CAVE, many people who argue FOR carbon-dioxide-sourced climate shift have gotten death threats or have been muzzled by government. "The left is forcing all scientists to walk in lock-step" applies to the right as well as the left. So without going off-track and bringing up extraneous factors (at which point the right might actually suffer more than the left) let's stick to the data, ok?

BTW, here's another chestnut from the right, which goes something like:

"There is no consensus on global warming- the right
Yes there is, nearly all scientists working with that data see that it's happening, there are only a few people who think otherwise- the left
And besides, science isn't decided by consensus- the right"


Again, can we agree to table this line of discussion, and variants of same? It gets us nowhere in terms of looking at data.

RIONA
Quote:

Well Raptor I guess I'm a new earth creationist, since I don't buy the billions of years thing.
Do you expect us to take anything you say on the topic seriously? Because if all it takes is for god to wave his magic wand to create stuff, then no scientific discussion is possible. And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:25 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:


Do you expect us to take anything you say on the topic seriously? Because if all it takes is for god to wave his magic wand to create stuff, then no scientific discussion is possible. And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.



Hello,

I think you'll find that even people who think God created everything still believe he created everything to function within a set of rules. Barring a personal appearance and miracle, even a lot of creationists think the world operates by scientifically predictable mechanisms.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA



What part of "don't wreck your living space" requires this level of complication ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:27 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.




So we agree... " drill, baby drill ! "






" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:31 AM

CAVETROLL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
CAVE, many people who argue FOR carbon-dioxide-sourced climate shift have gotten death threats or have been muzzled by government. "The left is forcing all scientists to walk in lock-step" applies to the right as well as the left. So without going off-track and bringing up extraneous factors (at which point the right might actually suffer more than the left) let's stick to the data, ok?

BTW, here's another chestnut from the right, which goes something like:

"There is no consensus on global warming- the right
Yes there is, nearly all scientists working with that data see that it's happening, there are only a few people who think otherwise- the left
And besides, science isn't decided by consensus- the right"


Again, can we agree to table this line of discussion, and variants of same? It gets us nowhere in terms of looking at data.

RIONA
Quote:

Well Raptor I guess I'm a new earth creationist, since I don't buy the billions of years thing.
Do you expect us to take anything you say on the topic seriously? Because if all it takes is for god to wave his magic wand to create stuff, then no scientific discussion is possible. And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.




Signym,
You're right. Red or blue koolaid has no place in science.

My actual opinion is that climate change is occurring. I do not believe that man is a significant influence in that change. Could we be a catalyst? Maybe, but again, no strong evidence. Which way the change is going is not readily apparent. We had a Maunder minimum event recently that would be a possible indicator of a colder climate. Surface ocean temps are an indicator the other way. Subsurface ocean temps remain stable. (below 1000 feet, and I've only seen one report on that.)

Given that we've only got the one biosphere, I'd prefer if we not mess around with it. Reducing pollutants in the atmosphere? Hell yes, but do it for the value it has in and of itself. Not because of some cockamamie theory.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:32 AM

CAVETROLL


Gah. Double tap.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:32 AM

CAVETROLL


Triple tap?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:36 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

What part of "don't wreck your living space" requires this level of complication ?

-F



That's always been my position. Clean air and water over higher corporate profits sounds like a good plan to me.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I'll take clean air and water AND higher corporate profits.

All of the above works for me.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 3:03 PM

OONJERAH



2004, "Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb"
=> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6124-peat-bogs-harbour-carbon-ti
me-bomb.html


Son-in-Law is a creationist. Fairly intelligent in most ways. His position on GW:

1. It's not happening.
2. Peat bogs produce more CO2 in 1 day than Man does in a century.
3. If global warming were happening, it is cyclical. Man doesn't contribute to it.
4. There is nothing we can do about it.
5. It's not happening.

He is the authority on science and reality in his own home. My 4 grandsons show above
average intelligence. But I don't expect them to overcome the parental brainwashing.

Quote xbf Joe: "A man only believes what he wants to believe."

Personally, I think it would take an Act of God, with a message written in fire in
the sky, to wake people up. I'm with Einstein on human stupidy.



             

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:49 PM

OONJERAH



I looked this up 'cause of them that makes fun of the Algae fuel plan.
As if to say, "We prefer No Plan to one we don't undertand."

from PhysOrg.com:
Alternative-energy innovations on display => http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-alternative-energy.html

"Climate change is in dispute. Oil and gas are staging a comeback. Republicans are questioning federal
funding for energy research as a waste of money in a time of deficits. ...

In this fraught atmosphere, more than 3,000 academics, entrepreneurs and scientists gathered here this
week to peer into the future of alternative energy sources like wind, solar and biofuels.

The meeting, which ended Wednesday, was dubbed an energy innovation summit. ...

More than 300 exhibitors showed off their ideas at the meeting"
the article lists only 3 of the new innovations. But they are ... fascinating.




             

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:50 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I don't really think creationism and climate change have all that much to do with each other. Signe if you don't want to listen to anything I say on the matter that is your call. I haven't really said much in this thread for you to ignore anyways, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you. I've already said my opinions on climate change in other threads so there's no real point in saying them again.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 3:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Republicans are questioning federal funding for energy research as a waste of money in a time of deficits. ...




Just Republicans ? I think ANYONE w/ a brain would be asking such questions, not just Republicans. The list of failed 'green' companies, given millions of US tax payer $'s is ever growing. And Obama seems intent on doubling down on his failed policies. Instead of giving a $7,500 tax credit for those who buy 'green' cars, like the failed Chevy Volt, Obama is proposing now giving even more, a $ 10,000 tax credit!

Wind farms, built by tax $ money, are now being given MORE tax payer $, for when they produce too MUCH electricity, when it gets .... wait for it... TOO WINDY! Wind power is unreliable, and is costing the tax payers at both ends, and eventually drives up power rates, not decreasing them.

Note to self: I wonder how long Anthony will continue with his childish, moronic persecution of others whom he falsely accuses of things for which they're not guilty.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 12, 2012 11:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'll take clean air and water AND higher corporate profits.
All of the above works for me.

Yeah, and I want to have my cake and eat it too! Sorry, sonny, it doesn't work that way. If you think it does, then you are obviously not a capitalist because you don't understand how capitalism really works.

In any case, that was not why I replied.

Rappy made two main points which deserved to be answered. The first was about "climate-gate". I did look that up and replied to that point (above) but just as a refresher to where that issue is - in my mind, anyway- some data was eliminated from the data set, in particular the data from many parts of Siberia, which stubbornly refused to follow the "hockey stick" graph that Dr. Mann calculated. However, even when the data is added back in, there is still that hockey stick... a little messier, with some data points off the line, but still there. Don't forget that while Siberia is very large, it represents only 3% of the total earth's surface, so it's possible to have relatively localized exceptions which do not represent global changes. In my mind, this is a dead issue.

--------------

The second part of rappy's argument was the temperature/ carbon dioxide chart from the Vostok ice core, in which carbon dioxide appears to lag temperature shift by about 800 years in SOME parts of the chart. That's a more significant argument, because if carbon dioxide really is a climate driver, it should NEVER lag temperature.

So I looked that up, and as it turns out there are problems with the data which make the chart ambiguous. (Also, there are more cores than Vostok, but that's another discussion) In addition to the fact that chart lines cross each other- sometimes CO2 leads and sometimes lags- there are problems with dating the ice itself, problems caused by air diffusing into and out of the voids for 1000 years while the ice is forming, the fact that the ice cores represent only a portion of the globe.

But in looking at the data, the temperature chart is in the form of a VERY rapid rise (geologically-speaking) over about 20,000 years followed by a slow decline over about 110,000 years. To me, the rise looks like a thermal runaway- that whatever caused the initial temperature rise, the rise caused the release of CO2 and probably methane from the oceans, causing a further increase in temperature, causing more release, until whatever was being released was maxed out. What caused the initial rise in temperature? An increase in carbon dioxide? If so, what caused THAT? Volcanism? More insolation? Something else?

Climate is affected by many things besides carbon dioxide, including methane, solar output, earth-sun proximity, the shift of continental masses and the growth and wearing down of mountain ranges.

In some ways, the data is clearer when you look at ocean sediments over tens or hundreds of millions of years, rather than the half-million years represented by the ice cores. Volcanism, with its spectacular release of sulfur, chlorine, fluorine, and carbon dioxide has been at the heart of almost every extinction event since the beginning of life on earth.

-----------------

So, how do we figure this out?

Partly, we go back to Physics 101 and immutability of nature. It is absolute fact that water, methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and ozone absorb in the infrared spectrum. It is also absolute fact that carbon dioxide absorbs IR frequencies that no other molecule absorbs. It is also absolute fact that the level of carbon dioxide has increased significantly in the past century. Therefore it is utterly calculable HOW MUCH additional energy is being absorbed by our atmosphere. That is much is (or should be) indisputable.

We also have modern-day temperature readings and carbon dioxide readings, as well as insolation readings, solar readings and a host of other scientific observations. Both temperature increases and ocean acidification are at historic (some would say epochal) highs, and we can definitively rule out certain causes ... major basaltic floods, increased solar output, continental drift... any cause one might think of aside from carbon dioxide increase. Modern data clearly shows carbon dioxide leading energy absorption and temperature rise. It is impossible not to draw a straight line from the physical fact of IR absorption to the increased ice melt and temperatures of today.

Until someone can provide a DEFINITIVE refutation of the current explanation, which so far has only been attacked by innuendo and conspiracy theories, the data and the explanation still stand.
-----------

I apologize for the brevity of the response. I learned a lot, but have a lot of things to do, so if you want to discuss something in detail I will get back with you, but I don't plan on writing a monograph on the topic which nobody will read.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS