This is another subject you like to lie about.
You were caught lying about the results of two studies on the consensus previously.
You sure do lie a lot.
16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
You were caught lying about the results of two studies on the consensus previously.
You sure do lie a lot.
Sophie:
Don't be offended when Frankfooter calls you a liar. He says everyone whose education went beyond Grade 3 (a grade he has never completed) is a liar.
Yesterday, he said I was "still lying" when I said that 0.40 - 0.25 = 0.15. :biggrin1:
Don't be offended when Frankfooter calls you a liar. He says everyone whose education went beyond Grade 3 (a grade he has never completed) is a liar.
Yesterday, he said I was "still lying" when I said that 0.40 - 0.25 = 0.15. :biggrin1:
If someone is running a business based on lying to their customers (eg. claiming a snake-oil alternative to vaccines) then they sure as shit should be charged. They can talk all they want but fraud is still illegal.
Life's too short to click on random links, dummy. I've been a student of history(and a big fan of archaeology) all my life. The ignorance of the past and the absolute arrogance of the "scientists" who look back 50 years and try to tell me that they solved the leading and the following triggers to climatic upheaval is not even a cause for laughter. We should hang our heads in shame and weep for even entertaining the ideas of those charlatans.
The interesting thing here is no one can predict who will get cancer, only statistical probabilities, and you call it proven beyond doubt. AGW/climate change is supported by a similar statistical connection but you claim that there is no scientific connection.
I didn't call her a liar, I reserve that for people who lie.
Such as you, when you lied and said I called Sophie a liar.
Maybe you need to expand your studies then and learn a bit more about climatology before you speak. Because they aren't looking back only 50 years, you know.
Is it? How is any different from the climatic fluctuations in the past? Up or down? What is the explanation? What was the connection, then? What triggered rapid cooling that led to the ice ages? What triggered the interglacial periods that led to temperatures much higher than today's? As a thinking individual, I cannot ignore the past and will not accept conclusions that ignore it.
Its faster and we're causing it, those are the two big differences.
And yes, its happened before, but generally those big changes lead to mass extinctions.
I don't know about you, but I'm not really a fan of mass extinctions.
(not that those are likely to happen during our lifetimes, but still, they aren't very pleasant I hear)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...arths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/?no-ist
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Why do some people get cancer and others not? What makes certain cells more unacceptable to cancer? How come treatments work on some and not others? Why does cancer act faster in some people? How come some growths suddenly turn off their growth and others continue uncontrolled? Obviously there is a ton not understood about cancer. All we know is that because of the chemicals contained in cigarette smoke there is a higher statistical understanding that people exposed to them have a higher risk of cancer.
And every climate change has causes. If you took the time to read up there are fairly well supported explanations for past climactic change. And just like the chemicals in cigarettes are proven to have the ability to cause cancer, gasses such as CO2 are proven to have the ability to raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Even being an simple engineer, I fully understand the way that greenhouse gasses absorb energy and radiate it as infrared (heat).
As of now we have rising CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) due to human activity and its individual impact is known. We are getting a better understanding of which other factors cause a deviation from the trend butt he trend is still evident. I'll agree that there have been warmer times in the Earth's history and there have been other periods of rapid climactic change but they occurred at a time when there weren't 7 billion people. If rapid change in the past had noticeable impact on the small populations of the time then how do you think human society will fare if there is another rapid change.
Have you asked yourself this question basketcase - if past climates (long before the industrial age) were experiencing profound changes due to sun activity, oceans, plate tectonics, orbital shifts etc how is that we no longer focus on those phenomena and instead target a trace gas as the primary driver of climate change?
Also tell me what you think of this statement by Klaus Eckert Puls, a former scientist of the IPCC
"Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think that we can get a nice climate by turning a C02 adjustment knob"
I keep posting this link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
It shows all those possible forcings on the climate and their effects, click on the link and scroll down to see. Its not that they aren't studied or considered, its that presently they are not changing the climate the way greenhouse gases are.
And yes, while the planet has experienced profound climate changes those all occurred before humans existed, most resulted in mass extinctions and the causes also included asteroids and volcanic action, as well as solar activity. What those previous extremes show us is that it would be incredibly stupid to cause an extreme climate event by choice. Its one thing for the planet to slowly revert back to an ice age naturally, and its another thing to cause warming that melts polar ice, increases ocean levels and destroys masses of agriculture and habitable areas.
That link is totally useless all it is is propaganda. Quotes no peer reviewed studies on solar activity, orbital shifts or other natural causes of climate variability.
Think about what you just said for a second. Profound climate changes have occurred in the past even before recorded human history. What makes you think that now humans are here and totalling 7+ billion that these events are no longer relevant or even inevitable?
That question is answered conclusively by the research. We know what the effects of greenhouse gases are. It's not a mystery.
That said, there is a good question as to how SIGNIFICANT human caused climate change is. You are right the planet has had much larger climate changes then the current stuff we are causing.
That we caused global warming is a settled question. Whether the change we caused is a big deal or not is an open question.
The flip side is that mass extinctions followed those previous profound climate changes, and our civilization may not be as resilient to such changes as you may think. Earth will no doubt keep on spinning around the sun with or without human civilization.
Who needs evidence? Or, for that matter, any changes in temperature that are out of the ordinary.
Nope, that page was put together with help from Gavin Schmidt, from NASA, using the data from numerous models and studies. The page also includes links to download the data at the bottom of the page, as well as links to the sources of the numbers. That's the opposite of propaganda, that's a fully documented work. This is on the bottom of the page. Are you really accusing NASA of 'propaganda'?
Who said they are not relevant or inevitable? They've been studied and considered and are fully documented in the IPCC reports. Humans have existed in a time of a fairly stable inter-glacial period, and yes the climate can and does change drastically by itself but typically either through some cataclysmal event or through very slow processes. We're lucky to have come to be as a species during a relatively stable period, and none of those 'natural' influences have drastically changed the climate while humans have lived on this planet. We know that temperature extremes in the past have been linked to high CO2 levels, as well as mass extinctions. Right now we have committed the planet to about 2ºC of climate change, thats big but not catastrophic. 5-6ºC is a different story, and at present that's quite possibly where we are headed.
You could think of the climate of the earth as a teetor totter, tipping between ice ages and thermal maximums. We've been here a short time during which its been nicely balanced in the middle. We just don't want to load up a 300lb kid in the form of tonnes of CO2 on one side, its nice here in the middle. Don't screw it up.
Check out the historic chart and then note that all of humans existence in this chart is so small that its entirely within the border line at the right end.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
CBC reports that the massive amount of ice melting off of Greenland because of climate change has shifted the location of the North Pole.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/north-pole-drift-1.3530656
They also reported earlier that its slowing the rotation of the Earth.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-earth-rotation-1.3361446
That's 'cuz we've help melt about 300 gigatons of ice, and we're on track for about 600 more gigatons of ice melt.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/30/antarctic-ice-shelves-could-collapse-2100-385611.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/north-pole-drift-1.3530656
They also reported earlier that its slowing the rotation of the Earth.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-earth-rotation-1.3361446
That's 'cuz we've help melt about 300 gigatons of ice, and we're on track for about 600 more gigatons of ice melt.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/30/antarctic-ice-shelves-could-collapse-2100-385611.html
S
**Sophie**
