[desertdude]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

desertdude desertdude:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

An ice age is happening now--

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

global warming. There's certainly no stopping it at this point,

Anybody see a contradiction here or is it just me ? Or is the great wise one trying to say Global Warming is happening because of the Ice Age ( which is BTW is happening now ) or vice versa ?

Or are we having a globally warmed ice age

Oh too bad. You should have taken my advice and simply not posted until reading a little more on the subject. But no, you just had to come back and show your credentials as a complete fucktard on the subject.

Yes, it is just you who sees the contradiction. Well, you and all the other knuckle-draggers who seem to think you've figured out in ten minutes what thousands of PhDs working thousands of hours have never contemplated.

The issue is the rate of change of the concentration of carbon dioxide and the rate of change of the temperature which, acccording to about 97% of scientists conducting research in relevant fields and the opiniion of every major national and internatinal scientific body globally, is anthropogenic in source and causing a measurable impact on global climate.

And believe it or not, they probably have considered the context of geological claimte change.

You try to act all smart and well informed but the kind of language you use really doesn't help with your online persona, no matter how many pictures of freud you post in your avatar or try to bedazzle with you vocabulary gymnastics.

The point put forward is its either the Ice Age or Global Warming. You have contradicted your smart behind by the quotes posted. You have stated both are happening. So which is it ?

Anyways its pointless even trying to have a reasonable discussion with morons like you in the first place.

* Cue more filth ridden post trying to pass off as another arm chair expert.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

No that is the myth that back in the 70s scientists were predicting a new ice age.

It's not a myth.

$1:

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

This is an excerpt from the paper: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

This was published by the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Who was on the list of credits for this paper? Dr. James Hansen. He did the computer modeling for the notion that particulate matter in the atmosphere from pollution would cause a global ice age by 1980 resulting in global famines and the collapse of civilization as we know it.

It's not a myth and the full paper is available from NASA if you're willing to pay for it.

[tritium]

It's interesting they say this is the warmest summer yet.. however I have not experience any nice hot weather in Vancouver yet??

Please, bring it on..

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is an excerpt from the paper: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

This was published by the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Who was on the list of credits for this paper? Dr. James Hansen. He did the computer modeling for the notion that particulate matter in the atmosphere from pollution would cause a global ice age by 1980 resulting in global famines and the collapse of civilization as we know it.

It's not a myth and the full paper is available from NASA if you're willing to pay for it.

It is a myth that there was a consensus. Even back then there were greater number of scientists predicting global warming and that % has increased to 97%.

97% of experts trump the opinions of a few random bloggers.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

It is a myth that there was a consensus.

I see. Now that I proved you wrong you changed your tune. To refresh your limited capacity for recall, I responded to your post:

DerbyX DerbyX:

No that is the myth that back in the 70s scientists were predicting a new ice age.

Be a man and admit you were wrong.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

97% of experts trump the opinions of a few random bloggers.

Consensus is not a substitute for either science or leadership. Further, citing consensus as if it means anything in science makes your side of the argument look rather childish.

"But, MOM!, all my friends believe in global warming!"

"If all your friends believed in the tooth fairy would you, too?"

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Scape Scape:

Here's where I call BS to all this. Mankind hasn't made any effect what so ever on the environment until the 1800's and the advent of the modern manufacturing process and mass production. Combine with that an exponential population growth and we will effect change on the planet as a species.

Now if a volcano erupted in the 1800's and dropped the world temperature by 2 degree's triggering the next ice age we would have been unable to prevent it. Now however we can cap holes in the ocean spewing tonnes of oil into the ocean that is hundreds of meters below sea level. We may still be in a dire situation if that same volcano were to erupt today at least now we can do something about it. This whole argument is about even suggesting there is a problem to begin with.

This whole debacle of if we should do ANYTHING because the cost is so high just absurd. We have entire forests in Africa turned into desert because they chopped down all the trees for charcoal for cooking when they could have just as easily used tinfoil it's so hot down there. We have hardly one rooftop adorned with a solar panel in all of Canada and the power is free for the taking. People argue that wind farms are an eyesore and ruin their property values for Christ sakes. When is this idiocy going to end?

Nothing I disagree with there. My problem isn't actually the issues we will have to deal with as a result of global warming. There's certainly no stopping it at this point, so we'll simply have to deal with the consequences.

My issue is the attack on science itself by the right wing, and the use of "advocacy science" (which isn't really science at all) by the left. Actually the advocacy science is starting to bug me more these days.

Whether it's man induced or natural cycle - doing nothing to prepare for a warmer climate will certainly result in bad things, and doing something for the wrong reasons can only serve to improve technology and reduce pollution.

We warm blooded biologicals have been mass extincted several times, and the microbes took over - because they can deal with a wider range of heat, humidity, salinity and acidity in their environment. The only creature to survive the last 5 mass extinctions unscathed has been the nautilus. It's genotype goes back 550 million years.

Ours doesn't.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

97% of experts trump the opinions of a few random bloggers.

Consensus is not a substitute for either science or leadership. Further, citing consensus as if it means anything in science makes your side of the argument look rather childish.

"But, MOM!, all my friends believe in global warming!"

"If all your friends believed in the tooth fairy would you, too?"

I am the bridge jumping friend your mother warned you about.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

97% of experts trump the opinions of a few random bloggers.

Consensus is not a substitute for either science or leadership. Further, citing consensus as if it means anything in science makes your side of the argument look rather childish.

"But, MOM!, all my friends believe in global warming!"

"If all your friends believed in the tooth fairy would you, too?"

Except they continually back it up with data. I'll keep pointing it out to you. Observation-theory-evidence. That is what happened. The growth in both number and % of papers concerning global warming has increased to present levels. These papers are peer reviewed and have presented theories with evidence. The evidence was scrutinized by the peer review process and upheld which is why the current support of 97% by bonafide experts.

[Zipperfish]

desertdude desertdude:

You try to act all smart and well informed but the kind of language you use really doesn't help with your online persona, no matter how many pictures of freud you post in your avatar or try to bedazzle with you vocabulary gymnastics.

The point put forward is its either the Ice Age or Global Warming. You have contradicted your smart behind by the quotes posted. You have stated both are happening. So which is it ?

Anyways its pointless even trying to have a reasonable discussion with morons like you in the first place.

* Cue more filth ridden post trying to pass off as another arm chair expert.

It's not that I'm trying to sound smart and well-informed, it is, in fact, that I am smart and well-informed on this particular subject.

The idea of "Ice Age" or [anthrpogenic] "global warming" is a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why human beings cannot be having an impact within the context of geological climate changes.

I mean do you really think that, of the thousands of research geologists and climatologists working on this issue, that you are the first person to discover this amazing "silver bullet" argument that decimates AGW theory, and that has not occurred to anyone else except you after a full--what?--two minutes of contemplation?

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

desertdude desertdude:

You try to act all smart and well informed but the kind of language you use really doesn't help with your online persona, no matter how many pictures of freud you post in your avatar or try to bedazzle with you vocabulary gymnastics.

The point put forward is its either the Ice Age or Global Warming. You have contradicted your smart behind by the quotes posted. You have stated both are happening. So which is it ?

Anyways its pointless even trying to have a reasonable discussion with morons like you in the first place.

* Cue more filth ridden post trying to pass off as another arm chair expert.

It's not that I'm trying to sound smart and well-informed, it is, in fact, that I am smart and well-informed on this particular subject.

The idea of "Ice Age" or [anthrpogenic] "global warming" is a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why human beings cannot be having an impact within the context of geological climate changes.

I mean do you really think that, of the thousands of research geologists and climatologists working on this issue, that you are the first person to discover this amazing "silver bullet" argument that decimates AGW theory, and that has not occurred to anyone else except you after a full--what?--two minutes of contemplation?

Don't you understand that its a global conspiracy of scientists?

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's not a myth.

Derby presetned evidence otherwise that has yet to be refuted. Derby presenmted evidence of the number of papers written on teh subject of global cooling vs warming. You present one paper.

I find Derby's evidence more convincing.

[BartSimpson]

Derby, can't admit you were wrong, eh?

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

97% of experts trump the opinions of a few random bloggers.

Consensus is not a substitute for either science or leadership. Further, citing consensus as if it means anything in science makes your side of the argument look rather childish.

"But, MOM!, all my friends believe in global warming!"

"If all your friends believed in the tooth fairy would you, too?"

I am the bridge jumping friend your mother warned you about.

I did actually jump off a bridge one time on my friend's home-made bungee cord. I was very happy I didn't die, mostly because my mom, during the eulogy, would have said: "I always told him--I suppose if your friend jumped off a bridge, you would too."

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Derby, can't admit you were wrong, eh?

Funny that you will put more stock in a single paper then a considerable number more of papers saying something else.

You just can't admit the truth. You'd rather believe that all the peer reviewed science is wrong and a few bloggers have all the answers.

No doubt you'll also support the idea that all the evidence is wrong about 9/11 and that the conspiracy theory about the towers being blown up (based on their evidence) is also true.

Same thing.