Great job Zap.
Hey Phil. Good stuff. I’m pleased to see a voice of moderation and reason in the discussion.
But would you really prefer a Cretaceous climate to a Pleistocene one? Whatever floats your boat, man, but I’ve been to fucking Sumatra, and I don’t think I’d like that to be the world standard all the way up into the high latitudes.
The one thing many people don’t realize about an ice age is that the great majority of the world would NOT be covered in ice. You’d have your ice packs and glaciers, sure, but maybe only down as far as 40 north and south. The subtropics would be temperate, and the tropics would be subtropical, but the equator would still be a torrid zone, and the total available land mass would substantially increase as the sea level subsided.
This increased land mass and cooler climate would mean an increase in large areas of grassland, which means more large game mammals: a global Serengeti.
Just gimme a heavy rifle and a couple of mastiffs, and I’d be a perfectly happy Ice Age Man.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Just gimme a heavy rifle and a couple of mastiffs, and I’d be a perfectly happy Ice Age Man.[/quote]
ice age man didn’t have rifles.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Just gimme a heavy rifle and a couple of mastiffs, and I’d be a perfectly happy Ice Age Man.
ice age man didn’t have rifles.[/quote]
True, and he didn’t have mastiffs, either, because neither had been invented yet. But in the next Ice Age, (which is what we are actually talking about, not the last Ice Age), inasmuch as these things have been invented, I would be perfectly happy to have them. That was the point of my statement. Sorry if it was unclear.
On some TV show or other last night, I was introduced to the Prophet of Global Warming: Al Gore.
The Prophet.
And he looked like crap.
In the next Ice Age, we won’t have to worry about water. Just chip some off the iceberg in your backyard.
I have every faith in mankind existing in and beyond any climatic change. We are too insidious to stop.
In fifty years, when the earth hasn’t been devastated beyond use… all those doom and gloom scientists will look like utter fools.
“Global Cooling”? LOL
This is what is called the assault on reason.
First of all, 1 year of cooling is not enough time when there is documented stats going back the last 100 years or so that there is warming.
But, let’s ignore that.
Then, let’s give the other poster the benefit of the doubt, who said that warming and cooling of the earth is cyclical, and that perhaps we are in a warming phase. For argument’s sake, let’s play devil’s advocate and accept that.
So based on those points there is no warming/cooling outside of natural causes.
Now, by 2020, there will be approximately 2 billion cars with combusiton engines on the roads of the world by 2020. (In China, roughly 14,000 new cars hit the roads every day. Just wait, until India’s new $2500.00 car hits the market sometime this year)
Now add that to the other millions of planes, trains, and other vehicles that are in use. Now also add that to the thousands of coal fired power plants around the world.
MOre than half of the US electricity comes from coal-fired plants. In China, more than 75% of their energy comes from coal. IN fact, 86% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels.
Add it up and you will see, we are burning fossil fuels at an exdtraordinary rate.
If you add that all up, and add it up including, all the way since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and subtract the massive amounts of deforestation (and we all know that trees cool the earth and reduce Co2) I think one would be extremely naive to think that what we are doing as a whole is not effecting the planet and there are/have been changes because of it.
quote"The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (= 21.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide).[4] Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree will cause major adverse effects, including reduced biodiversity and, over time, cause sea level rise."
[quote]kroby wrote:
On some TV show or other last night, I was introduced to the Prophet of Global Warming: Al Gore.
The Prophet.
And he looked like crap.
In the next Ice Age, we won’t have to worry about water. Just chip some off the iceberg in your backyard.
I have every faith in mankind existing in and beyond any climatic change. We are too insidious to stop.
In fifty years, when the earth hasn’t been devastated beyond use… all those doom and gloom scientists will look like utter fools.[/quote
They already look “foolish” , although unfortunately it’s because they have thus far been too conservative in their predictions of the effects of global warming.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.
Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.
[/quote]
This has been debunked already.
The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.
[quote]kroby wrote:
On some TV show or other last night, I was introduced to the Prophet of Global Warming: Al Gore.
The Prophet.
And he looked like crap.
In the next Ice Age, we won’t have to worry about water. Just chip some off the iceberg in your backyard.
I have every faith in mankind existing in and beyond any climatic change. We are too insidious to stop.
In fifty years, when the earth hasn’t been devastated beyond use… all those doom and gloom scientists will look like utter fools.[/quote]
Thankfully scientists using much more useful data in determining global warming, although I’m sure Al Gore’s physical appearance played a minor role.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Since you now resort to lying, I have to clarify that one:
- Solar radiation has been debunked in so far that it became apparent that it is not responsible for the GW. Which your ilk chanted for years.
Solar activity shrinks, planet still gets hotter → solar activity can’t be the scapegoat
-
Now that this is established some guys turn 180° and say “Whoa, since the sun must be 100% responsible for our climate, that means we’ll have an ice age!”
-
The alleged proof: Comparing january 2008 against the hottest month ever.
-
the reasoning: this could be a trend !?
-
Kenneth Tapping isn’t the only scientist quoted out of context. There are lots of them, it’s just like with creationism. [/quote]
Nevermind Tapping believes in GW and was misquoted (or unquoted and somebody just made some stuff up)…
Schwarzfahrer, you’re just pounding sand here with Zap, who is known to be logically challenged 'round these parts.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Maybe we can use a sample period a few days long - or even hours, why not? - when the temperature is seen dropping to dismiss global warming.
A cold year means shit when the trend over decades or centuries is clearly going up.
Blaming the sun is a nice approach. If it was good for the Aztecs and Incas, why not us too? Who needs science when you can invoke ancient tribal lore, right?
While the sun’s output is what warms the Earth, it’s the Earth’s atmosphere - its composition - that regulates the temperature. The atmosphere’s makeup is what controls how much heat is absorbed and how much is released. Push it too far out of whack - either way - and the Earth gets much less enjoyable.
I’ll let you go back to your cherry picking now.
[/quote]
That’s rich! We haven’t had the technology over last many decades to accurately measure the temperature, but you are going to use those calculations as fact in the face of recent, more accurate, measurements?
Nice.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey Phil. Good stuff. I’m pleased to see a voice of moderation and reason in the discussion.
But would you really prefer a Cretaceous climate to a Pleistocene one? Whatever floats your boat, man, but I’ve been to fucking Sumatra, and I don’t think I’d like that to be the world standard all the way up into the high latitudes.
The one thing many people don’t realize about an ice age is that the great majority of the world would NOT be covered in ice. You’d have your ice packs and glaciers, sure, but maybe only down as far as 40 north and south. The subtropics would be temperate, and the tropics would be subtropical, but the equator would still be a torrid zone, and the total available land mass would substantially increase as the sea level subsided.
This increased land mass and cooler climate would mean an increase in large areas of grassland, which means more large game mammals: a global Serengeti.
Just gimme a heavy rifle and a couple of mastiffs, and I’d be a perfectly happy Ice Age Man.[/quote]
I’m with you. Now if we can just keep Al Gore’s mouth closed to reduce the C02 gas coming out of it, we have a chance!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.
Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.
This has been debunked already.
The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.[/quote]
It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.
Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.
This has been debunked already.
The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.
It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.
[/quote]
The vast majority did not and in “peer reviewed” science articles there is certainly no consensus belief in an “imminent” ice age.
It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.
Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.
This has been debunked already.
The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.
It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.
The vast majority did not and in “peer reviewed” science articles there is certainly no consensus belief in an “imminent” ice age.
It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.
[/quote]
It would be more accurate to say no one gave a shit in the 70’s and now people see a way to make money off the hysteria.
[quote]100meters wrote:
It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.
[/quote]
Which is essentially what I said in my first post, Einstein. Concern about the “end of the world”, by whatever means, seems to be cyclical. After the hysteria about global warming has died down a bit, I’m sure the hysteria about the coming ice age will become even louder.
The upshot is, nobody knows what’s going to happen.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.
Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.
This has been debunked already.
The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.
It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.
The vast majority did not and in “peer reviewed” science articles there is certainly no consensus belief in an “imminent” ice age.
It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.
It would be more accurate to say no one gave a shit in the 70’s and now people see a way to make money off the hysteria.[/quote]
No, that would be stupider, not more accurate.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
100meters wrote:
It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.
Which is essentially what I said in my first post, Einstein. Concern about the “end of the world”, by whatever means, seems to be cyclical. After the hysteria about global warming has died down a bit, I’m sure the hysteria about the coming ice age will become even louder.
The upshot is, nobody knows what’s going to happen.
[/quote]
It isn’t essentially what you said, it’s the opposite of what you said. The scientific community wasn’t concerned about an imminent ice age and by the end of the seventies, the majority of concern was focused on GW–so that doesn’t really fit in your cyclical argument, also chicken little doesn’t really work either.
Also thus far scientist have vastly underestimated the effects of GW, so presumably not screaming the sky is falling enough.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Also thus far scientist have vastly underestimated the effects of GW, so presumably not screaming the sky is falling enough.[/quote]
If said scientists do not have a reasonable grasp (and they do not - computer models are crap) of the effects of GW, then any estimation is also crap.
Vastly underestimated? What hyperbole! I’ve seen their vaunted computer models, and they can’t even accurately forcast the weather. And you expect some computer to bring into play the infinite untold variables that affect climate?
As the worlds oceans rise in temperature, the ability to uptake more CO2 increases. The effects of solubility of warmer water is well known and documented.
Put that in your smokestack and puff away.
[quote]Phil_the_legend wrote:
CO2 is actually still being absorbed by the Ocean (yes it does this, something no one seems to mention) and trees (more CO2 = larger trees) and there are more trees today than 50 years ago (believe it or not). Even with the pollution over the years, the earth is still adapting to the point where CO2 levels are a lot less than what they should be.
and then greekdawg wrote:
If you add that all up, and add it up including, all the way since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and subtract the massive amounts of deforestation (and we all know that trees cool the earth and reduce Co2) I think one would be extremely naive to think that what we are doing as a whole is not effecting the planet and there are/have been changes because of it.
and more from greekdawg:
Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree will cause major adverse effects, including reduced biodiversity and, over time, cause sea level rise
and back to Phil_the_legend:
…so sea level rise is actually a good thing (more shallow seas) from a climactic and survival perspective…
and
The largest greenhouse gas is water vapour. [/quote]
Is it any wonder there is so much misunderstanding?