Climate change video

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Yes, 1 or 2 degrees in a century is a rapid change. Remember, that's GLOBAL AVERAGE. The medieval warm period that you are talking about until 1300AD was a LOCAL variation.
That many degrees of change usually occurs over millennia, not decades. So far we are not doing too bad, but we know what will happen if the current rate of CO2 increase keeps up. That's what the models are for.

Here is an article that specifically debunks what you are claiming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...lwarming/medieval.html

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

I'm sorry, but you're full of sh!t and just keep changing the subject.
First, you have not yet established how global warming would be disastrous. You just keep saying like we're supposed to take you on faith.

You said that the medieval warm period was a global warming, which is a common talking point that is false, and you say I'm full of shit? I'm not changing the subject. I'm responding to what you say.

Second, you have ignored all the recent evidence that global warming itself will impact different latitudes differently (polar latitudes will warm more than equatorial latitudes). That pretty much debunks the point you were trying to make with your hastily googled link there.

What? I did not even say that everywhere would warm, but that climate will change everywhere. It already IS changing everywhere, in different ways. Some regions are much drier, some are much wetter, some warmer, and some colder. I said that mass extinctions would occur because of the shifting of ranges into places that don't exist as habitat because of human development. That's self evident! Since you won't take my word for it, here you go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889856/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

Some species will no longer have any climatically suitable habitat left, and others may be unable to migrate far enough to reach hospitable surroundings.

The authors say: "Many of the most severe impacts of climate change are likely to stem from interactions between threats, factors not taken into account in our calculations, rather than from climate acting in isolation."

They single out as examples habitat fragmentation and loss, and competition from new invasive species.

Third, CO2 levels do not necessarily point to higher temperatures. Quite the opposite, ice cores and other evidence show that CO2 levels usually rise at the end of a warming period and right before the next cooling cycle.

If you are right and a CO2 spike leads to cooling, does that mean that an unprecendented spike caused by the release of carbon from fossil fuels is somehow normal and honkey dory? Are you saying that an untimely and accelerated transition to an ice age will be fun? The skiing will be great?

Finally, and most importantly, you continually fail to address your hypocrisy and lack of positive solution that you bring to this issue. You act as those your beliefs alone will solve this -- an attitude I find better suited to religion that to internet poseur scientists.

What hypocrisy? Everything I've posted is consistent with my beliefs and actions. The truth doesn't necessarily have anything do with solutions, except that the more people are convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and will have negative effects on nature and humans, the more likely we are to try to fix the problem. Look at Europe. They are moving forward, we are thinking of excuses not to. And it's been great for them.
The best thing we can do now is to TRY to reduce the creation of greenhouse gases and try to shift our energy economy to nuclear, solar, wind, and wave power... not ethanol or hydrogen or any other political "solutions" that don't solve any problems.

I don't get the self defeating attitude. When it comes to liberating Iraqis, going to Mars, or creating stealth air superiority fighters, "WE CAN DO IT", but when it comes to reducing our environmental impact it's "WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT DESTROYING THE WORLD ECONOMY".

Edit: Vic can you provide some data showing that the current CO2 increase and warming is natural even though it coincides exactly with the industrial revolution? Or do you want me to take YOUR word?

Yeah, get a hold of me when you sell your car, ride your bike to work every day, and don't touch (much less consume) anything made with fossil fuels. I mean, cut it all out. Otherwise, yes, you are a hypocrite (or delusional). Until then, fsck off with your Iraq straw man, because I was against that war before you were born and I hated Bush's father. much less GW. Prick. You still can't answer the rationale behind your alarmist stance and, quite frankly, I'm not interested in your all-too-predictable resort to personal attacks, much less your someone-else-should-do-it-for-me attitude.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Yes, 1 or 2 degrees in a century is a rapid change. Remember, that's GLOBAL AVERAGE. The medieval warm period that you are talking about until 1300AD was a LOCAL variation.
That many degrees of change usually occurs over millennia, not decades. So far we are not doing too bad, but we know what will happen if the current rate of CO2 increase keeps up. That's what the models are for.

Here is an article that specifically debunks what you are claiming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...lwarming/medieval.html

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

I'm sorry, but you're full of sh!t and just keep changing the subject.
First, you have not yet established how global warming would be disastrous. You just keep saying like we're supposed to take you on faith.

You said that the medieval warm period was a global warming, which is a common talking point that is false, and you say I'm full of shit? I'm not changing the subject. I'm responding to what you say.

Second, you have ignored all the recent evidence that global warming itself will impact different latitudes differently (polar latitudes will warm more than equatorial latitudes). That pretty much debunks the point you were trying to make with your hastily googled link there.

What? I did not even say that everywhere would warm, but that climate will change everywhere. It already IS changing everywhere, in different ways. Some regions are much drier, some are much wetter, some warmer, and some colder. I said that mass extinctions would occur because of the shifting of ranges into places that don't exist as habitat because of human development. That's self evident! Since you won't take my word for it, here you go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889856/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

Some species will no longer have any climatically suitable habitat left, and others may be unable to migrate far enough to reach hospitable surroundings.

The authors say: "Many of the most severe impacts of climate change are likely to stem from interactions between threats, factors not taken into account in our calculations, rather than from climate acting in isolation."

They single out as examples habitat fragmentation and loss, and competition from new invasive species.

Third, CO2 levels do not necessarily point to higher temperatures. Quite the opposite, ice cores and other evidence show that CO2 levels usually rise at the end of a warming period and right before the next cooling cycle.

If you are right and a CO2 spike leads to cooling, does that mean that an unprecendented spike caused by the release of carbon from fossil fuels is somehow normal and honkey dory? Are you saying that an untimely and accelerated transition to an ice age will be fun? The skiing will be great?

Finally, and most importantly, you continually fail to address your hypocrisy and lack of positive solution that you bring to this issue. You act as those your beliefs alone will solve this -- an attitude I find better suited to religion that to internet poseur scientists.

What hypocrisy? Everything I've posted is consistent with my beliefs and actions. The truth doesn't necessarily have anything do with solutions, except that the more people are convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and will have negative effects on nature and humans, the more likely we are to try to fix the problem. Look at Europe. They are moving forward, we are thinking of excuses not to. And it's been great for them.
The best thing we can do now is to TRY to reduce the creation of greenhouse gases and try to shift our energy economy to nuclear, solar, wind, and wave power... not ethanol or hydrogen or any other political "solutions" that don't solve any problems.

I don't get the self defeating attitude. When it comes to liberating Iraqis, going to Mars, or creating stealth air superiority fighters, "WE CAN DO IT", but when it comes to reducing our environmental impact it's "WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT DESTROYING THE WORLD ECONOMY".

Edit: Vic can you provide some data showing that the current CO2 increase and warming is natural even though it coincides exactly with the industrial revolution? Or do you want me to take YOUR word?

Yeah, get a hold of me when you sell your car, ride your bike to work every day, and don't touch (much less consume) anything made with fossil fuels. I mean, cut it all out. Otherwise, yes, you are a hypocrite (or delusional). Until then, fsck off with your Iraq straw man, because I was against that war before you were born and I hated Bush's father. much less GW. Prick. You still can't answer the rationale behind your alarmist stance and, quite frankly, I'm not interested in your all-too-predictable resort to personal attacks, much less your someone-else-should-do-it-for-me attitude.

Chill out! What I said about Iraq, Mars, etc has nothing to do wit hyou. I'm talking aobut Americans in general. There's a "let's do this" attitude that arises when necessary. Then again maybe sometime in the 60s that turned into "let's watch TV".

I use wind power, I walk to work, and I've driven about 1000 miles in the last 5 months. Are you saying that someone is either a hypocrite or they use NO FOSSIL FUELS WHATSOEVER? My job IS fossil fuels. We need to use them now, and we will need to use them for a long time.That doesn't mean we shouldn't minimize our use of them the best we can.
I don't get what you are saying about me not "answering the rationale behind my alarmist stance". Calling someone an alarmist is a cop out. If you look at the ice core and deep sea core data, it will be obvious to you that the current warming is caused by Man's release of fossil fuel and that it's an abnormal rate. All you keep saying is that "change happens naturally therefore all change is good" which is a talking point that politicians use on ignorant sheeple.