Global warming: science and pseudo science [modified]
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
I read a book recently called 'the skeptical environmentalist' and it was a real eye opener. It also made me think about the fact that every generation seems to have it's prophets of doom. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
I read a book recently called 'the skeptical environmentalist' and it was a real eye opener. It also made me think about the fact that every generation seems to have it's prophets of doom. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
I weould have loved to have gone to this conference[^], great range of speakers. Hopefully, the lazy skeptics will get the videos online somewhere soon. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
The odd thing that I notice about the arguments I've seen on global warming is the number of different positions by people in the anti-global warming camp. For example, I've seen different people argue that: There is no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. That there is a correlation but we can't say what the causation direction is. That CO2 is causing global warming, but mankind's contribution to the CO2 levels are dwarfed by natural ones. That global warming is occuring and is manmade, but we really can't do anything about it without crippling the economy. It's quite a contrast, and it makes me wonder about the arguments used by the anti-globalwarming camp - it appears that their information is either not persuasive enough to get everyone to a single opinion, or that many of the people aren't widely read on the subject. (Yes, I fully admit not being very well read on the subject, either. But, then, I'm not nearly as confident in my opinion as these guys seem to be.) Sometimes the anti-globalwarming arguments remind me of the types of arguments used by creationists (don't trust the scientists, it's a lie perpetrated by liberals). There is some fearmongering on both sides, but at least the scary scenarios of the global warming camp are consistent with the belief in global warming. Fear mongering on the other side ends up being an attack on liberals, talk of a global socialist/communist conspiracy*, etc, which are essentially extra beliefs on top of the idea that global warming isn't happening. The other one that kind of makes me laugh is that scientists are making up global warming in order to get funding. If we're going to talk money, it's clearly the oil companies that have the most financial incentive to keep the world on oil (I once calculated that something like 80 trillion dollars worth of oil is still in the ground - valuable only if the world stays on oil). *"I think the modern environmental movement is simply the latest refuge for communists and socialists who are opposed to capitalism... a liberal agenda, which is largely an anti-capitalist agenda, a big-government agenda, and they want people to be as concerned about it as they can be because you'll give up some of your freedoms in order to protect the environment." - Rush Limbaugh http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1478398/posts[^<
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
I happen to agree that global warming is a serious man-made threat, but the conservative side needs to understand that opposing the issue of the environment, regardless of the truth, is a lost cause. Every time there is a little warmer weather, or a little stronger hurricane, more people will join the lefty cause out of fear (and lets face it, this is leftist fear mongering for political gain, just as terrorism is republican fear mongering for political gain). Just as with race, if the conservatives don't begin offering conservative solutions to the problem, all the solutions are going to be Marxist, and take us further down the road to the totalitarian Marxist state people on the left want so badly. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
It's a very funny theme. There are idiots on both sides - and at the moment I believe there are more idiots on the side denying global warming. Not because the other have good arguements, but because many of those denying it argue in a way, showing that they have no idea about science at all. http://www.junkscience.com/[^][^] is one of these funny links. They say those others cannot prove their arguements and then they show this using arguements, that cannot be proven, too. That's not the way a scienetist should work, that's the way an idiot works. Well, I don't know if there will be a "Global Warming". There are so many variables and effects, that it's not easy to argue any way. 1. There has be climatic changes in many earlier times. Some times were hot others cold. 2. In most hot periods there were less co2 than today - but in most times there were less co2 at all! 3. Global warming don't means that weather is getting hotter were you live. In Germany for example it should get colder, because some of the streams carrying hot air to Germany could stop, so in some areas of the world it would get colder (due to Global Warming). 4. Nobody knows the effects of co2. Yes, the temperatur is rising on earth since the last hundred years, but it could be a normal effect. 5. On the other side, (even the chance is slower than forecasted), but it's faster compared to some other climatic changes in the past (as we know). 6. There are other effects, too. Some scientist believe that we have a change in polarity of earth: northpole and southpole could swap. That would explain the loss of the ozone layer and so it could lead to a climatic change, too. 7. Mankind produces a lot of polution, more than it's normal in nature (except for some catastrophies). So there are many arguements for both sides and I don't know what will happen. But on the other hand co2 could be reduced by some simple changes. Cars can drive with gas - this would even more worthwhile. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
OK, here is my take on global warming. I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but; A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting. It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that. The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable. And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself. So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions? I think not. And I think the temperature rise we are seeing is perfectly normal, and only taking us back to where we were in the time of the Romans. Nunc est bibendum
-
OK, here is my take on global warming. I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but; A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting. It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that. The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable. And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself. So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions? I think not. And I think the temperature rise we are seeing is perfectly normal, and only taking us back to where we were in the time of the Romans. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
Of course, but the polution output of the human beings is at the moment multiple times higher, than the nature caused polution.
fat_boy wrote:
It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that.
I think that is not true at all. The medium temperatur of the earth was less at that time. Global warming doesn't mean that temperatur is getting hotter in england, in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there (like in Germany) because of the decrease / loss of gulfstream.
fat_boy wrote:
So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions?
Of course. Human can. The last words can be heard when the earth (or minimum mankind) will be destroyed by mankind will come from an expert, telling us that it is not possible. :-> But I don't know if there will be global warming (caused by mankind) or not. No one knows, I think. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
OK, here is my take on global warming. I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but; A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting. It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that. The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable. And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself. So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions? I think not. And I think the temperature rise we are seeing is perfectly normal, and only taking us back to where we were in the time of the Romans. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
Yes, but volcanism is fairly constant. Volcanos spew co2 into the atmosphere and the biosphere absorbs it at a constant rate that has kept the envirionment more or less stable. In addition to that normal rate, humans are adding billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere. That is an artifical change and can be logically expected to produce artifical results. The planet itself is probably in little danger from a little extra CO2. The question is can we purturb the atmosphere just enough to make life very,very, rough on ourselves. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
fat_boy wrote:
A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
Of course, but the polution output of the human beings is at the moment multiple times higher, than the nature caused polution.
fat_boy wrote:
It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that.
I think that is not true at all. The medium temperatur of the earth was less at that time. Global warming doesn't mean that temperatur is getting hotter in england, in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there (like in Germany) because of the decrease / loss of gulfstream.
fat_boy wrote:
So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions?
Of course. Human can. The last words can be heard when the earth (or minimum mankind) will be destroyed by mankind will come from an expert, telling us that it is not possible. :-> But I don't know if there will be global warming (caused by mankind) or not. No one knows, I think. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
I dont know the figures for volcano vs human being, anyone out there got any? Re the viking settlements in greenland. They were there, but it got just too cold in the 15th century for them to survice. And the Romand were growing grapes in the north of England.
ihoecken wrote:
I think that is not true at all. The medium temperatur of the earth was less at that time. Global warming doesn't mean that temperatur is getting hotter in england, in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there (like in Germany) because of the decrease / loss of gulfstream.
So you are stating that the reason we cant grow grapes in the north of england is because of the gulf stream being deflected? But the temperasture fell in the 15th century! That is when the Viking colonies failed! Long before any supposed impact mankind could have had.
ihoecken wrote:
Of course. Human can
Why? Why 'of course'. You take it as a matter of fact that we can. Where is your proof? Nunc est bibendum
-
fat_boy wrote:
A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
Yes, but volcanism is fairly constant. Volcanos spew co2 into the atmosphere and the biosphere absorbs it at a constant rate that has kept the envirionment more or less stable. In addition to that normal rate, humans are adding billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere. That is an artifical change and can be logically expected to produce artifical results. The planet itself is probably in little danger from a little extra CO2. The question is can we purturb the atmosphere just enough to make life very,very, rough on ourselves. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
the biosphere absorbs it
By what process? There is absoloutely no link betwen global temperature and mankinds actions. Can the world temperature vary widely without any input from man (before man was industrialised)? Yes. So, the inverse question, can mankind now that he is industrialised, have an effect on global temperatures? Yes. Put it together, is the effect of mankind dwarfed into insignificance by the massive changes the earth is capable of on its own? Yes. Nunc est bibendum
-
I dont know the figures for volcano vs human being, anyone out there got any? Re the viking settlements in greenland. They were there, but it got just too cold in the 15th century for them to survice. And the Romand were growing grapes in the north of England.
ihoecken wrote:
I think that is not true at all. The medium temperatur of the earth was less at that time. Global warming doesn't mean that temperatur is getting hotter in england, in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there (like in Germany) because of the decrease / loss of gulfstream.
So you are stating that the reason we cant grow grapes in the north of england is because of the gulf stream being deflected? But the temperasture fell in the 15th century! That is when the Viking colonies failed! Long before any supposed impact mankind could have had.
ihoecken wrote:
Of course. Human can
Why? Why 'of course'. You take it as a matter of fact that we can. Where is your proof? Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
So you are stating that the reason we cant grow grapes in the north of england is because of the gulf stream being deflected?
No. I said: Global warming doesn't mean that temperatur is getting hotter in england, in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there (like in Germany) because of the decrease / loss of gulfstream. I think when there is Global warming it don't need to lead to a higher temperatur everywhere.
fat_boy wrote:
But the temperasture fell in the 15th century! That is when the Viking colonies failed! Long before any supposed impact mankind could have had.
Yes, but what does it means? Nothing. Because there are temperature changes any time. I don't say they aren't. In fact I said there are and I don't know if there will be Global warming.
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Why 'of course'. You take it as a matter of fact that we can. Where is your proof?
Of course, because if you start enough atomic bombs at the same time you can look at the effect. There are other human effects that can be measured. Because of building in rivers the number of floodings in the near of rivers has been increased. Another effect: because of barrages the speed of the turning of earth has been reduced, but this has a positive effect, too. The moon will sheer off slower. Of course you can say, that I can't proof those arguement and your are right. But you can't proof that they are wrong. I think that humans can do that. You can even messure regional effects. If you deforest a region, the climate changes. It's a gaugeable effect. So why shouldn't we be able to change the climate of the earth? Deforst it and we can see it. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the biosphere absorbs it
By what process? There is absoloutely no link betwen global temperature and mankinds actions. Can the world temperature vary widely without any input from man (before man was industrialised)? Yes. So, the inverse question, can mankind now that he is industrialised, have an effect on global temperatures? Yes. Put it together, is the effect of mankind dwarfed into insignificance by the massive changes the earth is capable of on its own? Yes. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Put it together, is the effect of mankind dwarfed into insignificance by the massive changes the earth is capable of on its own? Yes.
That is the question. I don't know the answer. It cannot be proven. What would be the climate without mankind at the moment? Perhaps it would come to an ice age and we'll stop it. Or it would be better and it's gettings worse because of our actions. Nobody knows that, I think humans could have an effect, but I don't know if we have an effect on the climate, yet (or will have one in future). Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
fat_boy wrote:
So you are stating that the reason we cant grow grapes in the north of england is because of the gulf stream being deflected?
No. I said: Global warming doesn't mean that temperatur is getting hotter in england, in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there (like in Germany) because of the decrease / loss of gulfstream. I think when there is Global warming it don't need to lead to a higher temperatur everywhere.
fat_boy wrote:
But the temperasture fell in the 15th century! That is when the Viking colonies failed! Long before any supposed impact mankind could have had.
Yes, but what does it means? Nothing. Because there are temperature changes any time. I don't say they aren't. In fact I said there are and I don't know if there will be Global warming.
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Why 'of course'. You take it as a matter of fact that we can. Where is your proof?
Of course, because if you start enough atomic bombs at the same time you can look at the effect. There are other human effects that can be measured. Because of building in rivers the number of floodings in the near of rivers has been increased. Another effect: because of barrages the speed of the turning of earth has been reduced, but this has a positive effect, too. The moon will sheer off slower. Of course you can say, that I can't proof those arguement and your are right. But you can't proof that they are wrong. I think that humans can do that. You can even messure regional effects. If you deforest a region, the climate changes. It's a gaugeable effect. So why shouldn't we be able to change the climate of the earth? Deforst it and we can see it. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there
This is still just theory and here you are stating confidently that europe will get colder because of global warming!
ihoecken wrote:
Because of building in rivers the number of floodings in the near of rivers has been increased
No shit. Sticking your head in food prcessor increases the chance of having your head turned to pulp.
ihoecken wrote:
because of barrages the speed of the turning of earth has been reduced
Link?
ihoecken wrote:
If you deforest a region, the climate changes
Why. Is the cliamte of a forrested part of a country different to the part composed of grassland? Nunc est bibendum
-
Got into a conversation with some folks on another site recently about the global warming issue. This lead to some interesting research (web-only, of course) I know it's kinda like urinating on a hornet's nest, but in the hopes of enlightening a few of the remaining open minds around here, I offer these two web sites: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] Compare and contrast! -- modified at 1:03 Friday 16th June, 2006
-
ihoecken wrote:
in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there
This is still just theory and here you are stating confidently that europe will get colder because of global warming!
ihoecken wrote:
Because of building in rivers the number of floodings in the near of rivers has been increased
No shit. Sticking your head in food prcessor increases the chance of having your head turned to pulp.
ihoecken wrote:
because of barrages the speed of the turning of earth has been reduced
Link?
ihoecken wrote:
If you deforest a region, the climate changes
Why. Is the cliamte of a forrested part of a country different to the part composed of grassland? Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
This is still just theory and here you are stating confidently that europe will get colder because of global warming!
Of course it is. We are talking about theories. In my first post I said, that I don't know wether it's true or not. But your arguements are taken out of some theories, too.
fat_boy wrote:
No sh*t. Sticking your head in food prcessor increases the chance of having your head turned to pulp.
I don't argue with you in that style.
fat_boy wrote:
Why. Is the cliamte of a forrested part of a country different to the part composed of grassland?
Yes, it is. There is a difference in temperature and rainfall. Take an island in the "Bodensee" (a like in Germany), there is a small island call Mainau. The temperature is much higher there, so that flowers and fruits grow there, you can't plant outdoor anywhere else in Germany. This island is about 45 hectares.
fat_boy wrote:
Link?
I don't have a good link (just some discussion about this theme in German), but the explanation is that the moon-rotation is reduced by the water (so today we see the same side), but the mass of the moon is able to slow down the rotation of earth (you can see it that earth isn't a sphere, it is baggy towards the moon). This effect is because that speed of water is slower than the speed of the rotation (it always follows the moon, but there is a difference). If more water is impound, less water can follow the moon, so the mass left behind is bigger. This leads to a reduction of the rotation. Link added: http://www.imweber.de/texte/gezeiten.htm Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left. -- modified at 10:15 Friday 16th June, 2006
-
ihoecken wrote:
in fact it cause a temperatur reduction there
This is still just theory and here you are stating confidently that europe will get colder because of global warming!
ihoecken wrote:
Because of building in rivers the number of floodings in the near of rivers has been increased
No shit. Sticking your head in food prcessor increases the chance of having your head turned to pulp.
ihoecken wrote:
because of barrages the speed of the turning of earth has been reduced
Link?
ihoecken wrote:
If you deforest a region, the climate changes
Why. Is the cliamte of a forrested part of a country different to the part composed of grassland? Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
This is still just theory and here you are stating confidently that europe will get colder because of global warming!
I don't think that's disputed. That fact is that it could - all it would take would be for the gulf stream to stop (or reverse, which would be even worse I'd expect). Climate is a chaotic syustem, and therefore by its very nature exceptionally hard to model. Given that and the vested interests on all sides it should be no surprise that there is no general agreement on what is (or is not) happening and why (or why not). What I do know is that chaotic systems can change without warning given a nudge which appears insignificant. Given that, I personally believe it's in our interest to ensure we disturb the environment as little as humanely possible. That's plainly not the case right now - quite frankly we are a bunch of irresponsible little brats when it comes to the integrity of our environment. Earth is, after all, the only planet we inhabit at the moment. If we screw it up right now we as a species won't get a second chance. :rose: Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
OK, here is my take on global warming. I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but; A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting. It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that. The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable. And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself. So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions? I think not. And I think the temperature rise we are seeing is perfectly normal, and only taking us back to where we were in the time of the Romans. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but [here is my opinion anyway, using "facts" and arguments that are basically drawn straight from my own head and out of thin air despite the presence of at least one good source in this thread alone, because for some strange reason in our society scientific illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of when making an argument on a scientific matter - and hey, if I'm wrong, someone who knows better can just come along and correct me, right? Saving me from actually actively seeking out information on the subject! Hooray!];
I mean, can you actually see yourself saying something like, "I don't know anything about electricity, but this is why there's no problem with the wiring in your house..." - F
-
OK, here is my take on global warming. I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but; A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting. It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that. The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable. And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself. So tell me, can the human race really throw such a stable system off course? A system that can and has coped with such extreme conditions? I think not. And I think the temperature rise we are seeing is perfectly normal, and only taking us back to where we were in the time of the Romans. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
olcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
No one has said that.
fat_boy wrote:
It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that.
Of course. Everybody understands that the climate changes naturally over time.
fat_boy wrote:
The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable.
That's baloney. Life has been on the planet for about 1/2 billion years, not a few million.
fat_boy wrote:
And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself.
No, it's not stable; it's dynamic. Our global climate system is in a state that sientis refer to as "chaordic" - that is, right on the edge of order and chaos. (This is sometimes refered to as a "metastable" state.) A "stable" system is one in which all the water is either frozen or liquid (for example) - we don't want that.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but;
Umm - perhaps you should educate yourself, then, rather than spouting opinions based on ignorance.
-
fat_boy wrote:
A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else. Volcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
Yes, but volcanism is fairly constant. Volcanos spew co2 into the atmosphere and the biosphere absorbs it at a constant rate that has kept the envirionment more or less stable. In addition to that normal rate, humans are adding billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere. That is an artifical change and can be logically expected to produce artifical results. The planet itself is probably in little danger from a little extra CO2. The question is can we purturb the atmosphere just enough to make life very,very, rough on ourselves. "You get that which you tolerate"
Your first 5 from me, Stan. Watch it ;')
