Before I even waste my breathe anymore with the silly (human's are causing global warming myth)I want those who actually believe it to answer a few question for me (that would mean you James):
1) How do you explain the end of the ice ages when humans weren't driving cars all around?
2) How do you explain warming on Mars, Saturn, and Uranius right now?
3)What is the perfect temp for the planet earth? I would like to know so if the temp ever moves from that ideal I can start to worry about global warming or cooling.
4) Is it possible that most of the so called "global warming" relates to natural cycles of the earth and maybe (this is a big maybe) THE SUN????
1) How do you explain the end of the ice ages when humans weren't driving cars all around?
Clearly they are natural cycles to the ice ages. They come and go due to natural events. Lots of things happen in cycles. If you are positing the theory that increased solar radiation is causing the current global climate change, then you can ask the analogous question "what caused the sun to heat up"? We do know that sun spot activity happens in 11 year cycles. What causes that? It might be sufficient to say there are natural cycles to things.
But if that's not sufficient to explain why the Ice Ages ended (or occured in the first place), one theory is that they are caused by meteoric impacts of a certain magnitude. If they are big enough, they kick up sufficient dust into the atmosphere which blocks out sunlight and killing enough of the plants to cause carbon to accumulate in the atmosphere. Another theory is that the orbit of other nearby suns in relation to our solar system might throw the Earth into the path of various comets and meteors normally harmlessly orbiting outside of the plutos orbit.
Regardless, it is clear that planets don't always get the luxury of such cycles. Venus is a good example of runaway greenhouse effects.
2) How do you explain warming on Mars, Saturn, and Uranius right now?
Send me some links on this. I did some digging and found this National Geographic article on Mars warming. I've heard this theory. According to that article, Mars has it's own cycles of warming, which may or may not be related to ours. I'm kinda doubting accurate temperature readings from Saturn and Uranus: gas giants which have a very different chemical compositions from that of the Earth, and at a much greater distance from the sun. if you send me links, I'll check it out, but one thing to consider is that if the sun is the cause, we should see greater warming on the Earth, and less as we head out, because the other planets are so much farther away (even given the increased size of Saturn and Uranus). BTW: if you don't trust the temperature trends gathers from Earth measurments of Earth over the past 100 years (or the ice core/etc/ data showing temps over the past 1000, 10,000, 100,000 years)... it seems like you shouldn't accept "planetary warming" trends on Saturn, Mars, and Uranus as we have only recently been able to estimate temperatures for those planets. (i.e. even FEWER data points to show that these planets are warming or have cycles or not).
Not many scientists are jumping on the Sun bandwagon (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html) but sure, it's a hypothesis. Seems like it should be easy to prove or disprove: how much sunlight energy impacts an average cubic meter of land this year... how much last year, etc.
Overall, it seems that human effects are probably accounting more for how much sunlight hits the Earth from one year to the next. Case in point, Global Dimming. i.e. from the 1950s to the 1990s, they did the exact measurement I refer to above and found LESS sunlight hitting the earth over the years. But then in 1990, it started to get "brighter". Current theories suggest this is because air pollution reflected sunlight in the atmospher (dimming) but because of the environmental movement, things have been getting cleaner up there. (there are direct correlations between global dimming and aresol usage). Regardless, this is another bullet point showing humans can affect climate on a global scale measurably.
3)What is the perfect temp for the planet earth?
Ha ha, who knows? No one is saying they know this. And how would you even come up with one temperature? The best you could get is an AVERAGE temperature take at the same place for that season, etc... no one knows this obviously. It's only by looking at the statistics overall that we see global temperatures CHANGING, on average upwards, all over the planet.
4) Is it possible that most of the so called "global warming" relates to natural cycles of the earth and maybe (this is a big maybe) THE SUN????
Sure it's possible. That's a completely valid hypothesis and at least a few scientists are advocating it. Most are not blaming the sun. But let's keep that in mind till it's disproven. meanwhile, the other hypothesises should should be kept in mind. i.e. that human generated carbon in the atmosphere is affect temperatures and climate globally. Remember Norm Miller's predictions: 2100 could have a summer that is a COMPLETE heat wave! Or, if we choose, it might only be 33% heat wave and maybe on it's way to being less. i.e. there is a lot at stake based on decisions we are making now. It might be better to take precautions if we are 95% certain about something. (I think Dick Cheney has some policy about percentage of certainty, but that's another blog).
The thing is, human's having a global effect is NOT insane. Think of all the extinctions and alterations to the the North American continent in the past 150 years. Michigan was one giant old-growth forest back then. Do you realize that the global fishing fleet is three times bigger than the size required to fish the entire ocean full time? We are living in the Anthropocene Epoch. The biggest factor affecting the earth's environment is Man.
"We do know that sun spot activity happens in 11 year cycles. What causes that?" I'm thinking humans? ;)
"One theory is..." Theory, theory, theory. Which is all we have on all these types of subjects. You can't force others to change behavior based on theory. Especially when other theories are not allowed to be heard (see recent news on head of NASA). Besides how many times do scientific theories get completely revearsed? (See new theory completely changing evolutionary belief on how man began walking upright).
"But let's keep that in mind till it's disproven." And here is one of my core philosiphical disagreements with mainstream global warmers. I'd rather keep things in mind until they're proven. I'm not ready to act on every theory that comes down the road. And human caused global warming needs alot more dialogue (not monologue) before it should be acted on as a society. You can't keep doing the "we may all die in 2010 so give us power and money just in case". A surefire road to loss of freedom. Notice the outcome of all these things to battle human global warming doesn't, by the backers admintance, solve the problem, it at best may just slow it down, but what is does do is funnel money and power to a small group. The only thing you're fearing is fear itself. Be careful you're not falling for a giant three card monty here. Do all you want personally to convince others and "do your part" to stop global warming. But, as long as it remains nothintg but theory don't force our whole society to do the same. I'm still for freedom of religion and the "Church of human caused global warming" needs not become state sponsored.
"Regardless, this is another bullet point showing humans can affect climate on a global scale measurably." Actually, it's more a bullet point showing scientific and human arrogance. Do we really think we, in a short period of time with limited resources and knowledge, can take a look at all factors globally and make statements like that? Can it be repeated in a lab? Can you prove all other factors have been ruled out? That we understand global and, at times it seems, universal patterns well enough to make these kinds of statements seem kind of arrogant? We put way to much reliance on what science does/can know and far too many need to THINK they are sure of things they can never be sure of. I've heard several scientist say our increased ability to take measurements and the inequtiy of where those measurements can be take throws all possiblity of seeing historical patterns completely off.
What's the perfect temp? "No one is saying they know this." Sure they are. If it's going up or down and that's always to be feared as bad and to be stopped/controlled then the current climate must be just right. If it's warming it's all bad and it's all good if it stays the same. That's the message. If this isn't the ideal climate, what's the problem. Maybe were heading toward something more normal and better? Let it be.
"Think of all the extinctions and alterations to the the North American continent in the past 150 years." None of which match the supposed extinctions and alterations that have taken place periodically over the last 200 million years (according to evolutionary science) and they still can't explain why those took place (outside of the ever changing theories). Besides, those alerations led to what we now find ourselves with which people seem to like since they are so afraid of losing it. Which leads to another core philosophical disagreement I have with the mainstream global warmer. I don't believe man is the most dangerous thing to ever effect this planet or that the loss of trees in Michigan or the warming of the earth a tenth of a degree is a bad thing. In fact there are more trees on the North American Contienent than ever! Worldwide people are living longer, diseases have been wiped out, and the quality of life has gotten better... all because of man! Anecdotally, you should see the improved conditions in the third world countries I've been in over the last 15 years. They are still far from American standards but they have visiblly gotten better, in a relatively short time, due in part to the prosperity of the global community and effort of man in the last 20 years. Boo global warmers! Hurrah Man! Boo James! Hurrah Zimms! :)
"Do you realize that the global fishing fleet is three times bigger than the size required to fish the entire ocean full time?" Thank you Happy Feet ;) I want to make a movie anthromorphing the fish the penguins were eating and end it with a call to wipe out evil penguins.
In other words... so what? I'm supposed to fear losing fish or losing penguins or losing Red Lobster restaurants? I can't keep my fears straight.
I read the one article and once again back in the 80's we were told, by scientist, that world population was growing so fast that by now we've used up all of our water, land, and food. What happened? I actually agree with Norm Miller. A factor never taken into consideration in all these apoctalyptic theories is mans resourcefulness. Why didn't we run out of food, water, and land as predicted? Because man also developed technology to balance out our usage. We find ways to offset our increased needs with increased effeciency (Like paying Norm [profit] to find ways to study things). Most don't do it out of a love of nature but out of a love for self-preservation, progress, and/or profit (and in the minority to make life better for others). It's not behavior that is the main factor in offseting our usage of resources it's technology and development driven by the desire to progress, selfpreservation and/or profit. And THAT is what mainstream global warmers oppose: progress and profit. I think you could argue they are actually the greatest threat to the future by keeping down man's progress and desire for profit. Global warmers are trying to change basic, time-tested, human nature. Good luck. I'm in the buisness and I have a much better hook than "it's getting hot" and it's still tough. Philosophical disagreement: Progress and profit are not inherently bad. Even when sought for the wrong reasons they most often bring benefits. Yes, more for some than others, but the majority gets benefited. Has America profited more than Honduras due to profit and progress in the last 150 years? Yes. But, has Honduras also benefitted? HECK YES! Let's not fight against human nature in this case (because it's not neccesairly bad) let's work with it.
Philosophical difference: Yes, we have to be responsible with our God given responsiblity to utilize the earth, BUT the earth is here for us not us for the earth. Furthermore, man does not have the power all this modern scientific theory gives us credit for. We cannot "destroy" the earth if we tried. Can we cause ourselves some problems? Sure. But, one nature based volcanoe/tidal wave/earthquake is far more powerful than we will ever be. And we have no control of them. Live with it. We need to get over ourselves and be more sober minded about who and what we are. THEN we will be able to act with true wisdom.
(What's the perfect temp? "No one is saying they know this." Sure they are. If it's going up or down and that's always to be feared as bad and to be stopped/controlled then the current climate must be just right. If it's warming it's all bad and it's all good if it stays the same. That's the message. If this isn't the ideal climate, what's the problem. Maybe were heading toward something more normal and better? Let it be.)
Dead on. According to how global warming people act, any change from the temp we are now at is going to end the world. So this must be the perfect temp. Right now. We must do everything we can to keep the temp right where it is. That is crazy talk when you look at the history of the earth but they seem to beleive it based on their actions.
Here's the core of the problem (which Barry hit on a bit). The global warming people seem to have accepted their theories as fact in their own minds. So now every peice of information that they receive they run through their fact of man made global warming. So even new research that has never been tested before is used to confirm their fact of global warming (which really is just a theory). Then they tell everyone that they need to change the way they live and give these people all sorts of money (through taxes, fines, and research)because there "theory" is correct. This is just stupid and I can't beleive intellegent people like James have fallen into it.
James do you still realize that what you beleive is just a theory and not fact????
And if you do understand it's just a theory how (in the world) do you beleive it's ok to force people to change their lives to fit in line with your theory???
What would people do if Chrisitans did the same thing. Let's have the US goverment force Christianity upon everyone. Everyone must become a Christian and change the way they live or they will be fined. Does that sound like a good idea? Heck there's a lot more common sense reasons to beleive in the God of the Bible than in manmade global warming.
5 comments:
Before I even waste my breathe anymore with the silly (human's are causing global warming myth)I want those who actually believe it to answer a few question for me (that would mean you James):
1) How do you explain the end of the ice ages when humans weren't driving cars all around?
2) How do you explain warming on Mars, Saturn, and Uranius right now?
3)What is the perfect temp for the planet earth? I would like to know so if the temp ever moves from that ideal I can start to worry about global warming or cooling.
4) Is it possible that most of the so called "global warming" relates to natural cycles of the earth and maybe (this is a big maybe) THE SUN????
The human's cause global warming bit is insane.
1) How do you explain the end of the ice ages when humans weren't driving cars all around?
Clearly they are natural cycles to the ice ages. They come and go due to natural events. Lots of things happen in cycles. If you are positing the theory that increased solar radiation is causing the current global climate change, then you can ask the analogous question "what caused the sun to heat up"? We do know that sun spot activity happens in 11 year cycles. What causes that? It might be sufficient to say there are natural cycles to things.
But if that's not sufficient to explain why the Ice Ages ended (or occured in the first place), one theory is that they are caused by meteoric impacts of a certain magnitude. If they are big enough, they kick up sufficient dust into the atmosphere which blocks out sunlight and killing enough of the plants to cause carbon to accumulate in the atmosphere. Another theory is that the orbit of other nearby suns in relation to our solar system might throw the Earth into the path of various comets and meteors normally harmlessly orbiting outside of the plutos orbit.
Regardless, it is clear that planets don't always get the luxury of such cycles. Venus is a good example of runaway greenhouse effects.
2) How do you explain warming on Mars, Saturn, and Uranius right now?
Send me some links on this. I did some digging and found this National Geographic article on Mars warming. I've heard this theory. According to that article, Mars has it's own cycles of warming, which may or may not be related to ours. I'm kinda doubting accurate temperature readings from Saturn and Uranus: gas giants which have a very different chemical compositions from that of the Earth, and at a much greater distance from the sun. if you send me links, I'll check it out, but one thing to consider is that if the sun is the cause, we should see greater warming on the Earth, and less as we head out, because the other planets are so much farther away (even given the increased size of Saturn and Uranus). BTW: if you don't trust the temperature trends gathers from Earth measurments of Earth over the past 100 years (or the ice core/etc/ data showing temps over the past 1000, 10,000, 100,000 years)... it seems like you shouldn't accept "planetary warming" trends on Saturn, Mars, and Uranus as we have only recently been able to estimate temperatures for those planets. (i.e. even FEWER data points to show that these planets are warming or have cycles or not).
Not many scientists are jumping on the Sun bandwagon (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html) but sure, it's a hypothesis. Seems like it should be easy to prove or disprove: how much sunlight energy impacts an average cubic meter of land this year... how much last year, etc.
Overall, it seems that human effects are probably accounting more for how much sunlight hits the Earth from one year to the next. Case in point, Global Dimming. i.e. from the 1950s to the 1990s, they did the exact measurement I refer to above and found LESS sunlight hitting the earth over the years. But then in 1990, it started to get "brighter". Current theories suggest this is because air pollution reflected sunlight in the atmospher (dimming) but because of the environmental movement, things have been getting cleaner up there. (there are direct correlations between global dimming and aresol usage). Regardless, this is another bullet point showing humans can affect climate on a global scale measurably.
3)What is the perfect temp for the planet earth?
Ha ha, who knows? No one is saying they know this. And how would you even come up with one temperature? The best you could get is an AVERAGE temperature take at the same place for that season, etc... no one knows this obviously. It's only by looking at the statistics overall that we see global temperatures CHANGING, on average upwards, all over the planet.
4) Is it possible that most of the so called "global warming" relates to natural cycles of the earth and maybe (this is a big maybe) THE SUN????
Sure it's possible. That's a completely valid hypothesis and at least a few scientists are advocating it. Most are not blaming the sun. But let's keep that in mind till it's disproven. meanwhile, the other hypothesises should should be kept in mind. i.e. that human generated carbon in the atmosphere is affect temperatures and climate globally. Remember Norm Miller's predictions: 2100 could have a summer that is a COMPLETE heat wave! Or, if we choose, it might only be 33% heat wave and maybe on it's way to being less. i.e. there is a lot at stake based on decisions we are making now. It might be better to take precautions if we are 95% certain about something. (I think Dick Cheney has some policy about percentage of certainty, but that's another blog).
The thing is, human's having a global effect is NOT insane. Think of all the extinctions and alterations to the the North American continent in the past 150 years. Michigan was one giant old-growth forest back then. Do you realize that the global fishing fleet is three times bigger than the size required to fish the entire ocean full time? We are living in the Anthropocene Epoch. The biggest factor affecting the earth's environment is Man.
"We do know that sun spot activity happens in 11 year cycles. What causes that?"
I'm thinking humans? ;)
"One theory is..."
Theory, theory, theory. Which is all we have on all these types of subjects. You can't force others to change behavior based on theory. Especially when other theories are not allowed to be heard (see recent news on head of NASA). Besides how many times do scientific theories get completely revearsed? (See new theory completely changing evolutionary belief on how man began walking upright).
"But let's keep that in mind till it's disproven."
And here is one of my core philosiphical disagreements with mainstream global warmers. I'd rather keep things in mind until they're proven. I'm not ready to act on every theory that comes down the road. And human caused global warming needs alot more dialogue (not monologue) before it should be acted on as a society. You can't keep doing the "we may all die in 2010 so give us power and money just in case". A surefire road to loss of freedom. Notice the outcome of all these things to battle human global warming doesn't, by the backers admintance, solve the problem, it at best may just slow it down, but what is does do is funnel money and power to a small group. The only thing you're fearing is fear itself. Be careful you're not falling for a giant three card monty here. Do all you want personally to convince others and "do your part" to stop global warming. But, as long as it remains nothintg but theory don't force our whole society to do the same. I'm still for freedom of religion and the "Church of human caused global warming" needs not become state sponsored.
"Regardless, this is another bullet point showing humans can affect climate on a global scale measurably."
Actually, it's more a bullet point showing scientific and human arrogance. Do we really think we, in a short period of time with limited resources and knowledge, can take a look at all factors globally and make statements like that? Can it be repeated in a lab? Can you prove all other factors have been ruled out? That we understand global and, at times it seems, universal patterns well enough to make these kinds of statements seem kind of arrogant? We put way to much reliance on what science does/can know and far too many need to THINK they are sure of things they can never be sure of. I've heard several scientist say our increased ability to take measurements and the inequtiy of where those measurements can be take throws all possiblity of seeing historical patterns completely off.
What's the perfect temp? "No one is saying they know this."
Sure they are. If it's going up or down and that's always to be feared as bad and to be stopped/controlled then the current climate must be just right. If it's warming it's all bad and it's all good if it stays the same. That's the message.
If this isn't the ideal climate, what's the problem. Maybe were heading toward something more normal and better? Let it be.
"Think of all the extinctions and alterations to the the North American continent in the past 150 years."
None of which match the supposed extinctions and alterations that have taken place periodically over the last 200 million years (according to evolutionary science) and they still can't explain why those took place (outside of the ever changing theories). Besides, those alerations led to what we now find ourselves with which people seem to like since they are so afraid of losing it.
Which leads to another core philosophical disagreement I have with the mainstream global warmer. I don't believe man is the most dangerous thing to ever effect this planet or that the loss of trees in Michigan or the warming of the earth a tenth of a degree is a bad thing. In fact there are more trees on the North American Contienent than ever! Worldwide people are living longer, diseases have been wiped out, and the quality of life has gotten better... all because of man! Anecdotally, you should see the improved conditions in the third world countries I've been in over the last 15 years. They are still far from American standards but they have visiblly gotten better, in a relatively short time, due in part to the prosperity of the global community and effort of man in the last 20 years.
Boo global warmers! Hurrah Man!
Boo James! Hurrah Zimms! :)
"Do you realize that the global fishing fleet is three times bigger than the size required to fish the entire ocean full time?"
Thank you Happy Feet ;)
I want to make a movie anthromorphing the fish the penguins were eating and end it with a call to wipe out evil penguins.
In other words... so what? I'm supposed to fear losing fish or losing penguins or losing Red Lobster restaurants? I can't keep my fears straight.
I read the one article and once again back in the 80's we were told, by scientist, that world population was growing so fast that by now we've used up all of our water, land, and food. What happened?
I actually agree with Norm Miller. A factor never taken into consideration in all these apoctalyptic theories is mans resourcefulness. Why didn't we run out of food, water, and land as predicted? Because man also developed technology to balance out our usage. We find ways to offset our increased needs with increased effeciency (Like paying Norm [profit] to find ways to study things). Most don't do it out of a love of nature but out of a love for self-preservation, progress, and/or profit (and in the minority to make life better for others). It's not behavior that is the main factor in offseting our usage of resources it's technology and development driven by the desire to progress, selfpreservation and/or profit. And THAT is what mainstream global warmers oppose: progress and profit. I think you could argue they are actually the greatest threat to the future by keeping down man's progress and desire for profit. Global warmers are trying to change basic, time-tested, human nature. Good luck. I'm in the buisness and I have a much better hook than "it's getting hot" and it's still tough.
Philosophical disagreement: Progress and profit are not inherently bad. Even when sought for the wrong reasons they most often bring benefits. Yes, more for some than others, but the majority gets benefited. Has America profited more than Honduras due to profit and progress in the last 150 years? Yes. But, has Honduras also benefitted? HECK YES!
Let's not fight against human nature in this case (because it's not neccesairly bad) let's work with it.
Philosophical difference: Yes, we have to be responsible with our God given responsiblity to utilize the earth, BUT the earth is here for us not us for the earth. Furthermore, man does not have the power all this modern scientific theory gives us credit for. We cannot "destroy" the earth if we tried. Can we cause ourselves some problems? Sure. But, one nature based volcanoe/tidal wave/earthquake is far more powerful than we will ever be. And we have no control of them. Live with it.
We need to get over ourselves and be more sober minded about who and what we are. THEN we will be able to act with true wisdom.
Barry Said:
(What's the perfect temp? "No one is saying they know this."
Sure they are. If it's going up or down and that's always to be feared as bad and to be stopped/controlled then the current climate must be just right. If it's warming it's all bad and it's all good if it stays the same. That's the message.
If this isn't the ideal climate, what's the problem. Maybe were heading toward something more normal and better? Let it be.)
Dead on. According to how global warming people act, any change from the temp we are now at is going to end the world. So this must be the perfect temp. Right now. We must do everything we can to keep the temp right where it is. That is crazy talk when you look at the history of the earth but they seem to beleive it based on their actions.
Here's the core of the problem (which Barry hit on a bit). The global warming people seem to have accepted their theories as fact in their own minds. So now every peice of information that they receive they run through their fact of man made global warming. So even new research that has never been tested before is used to confirm their fact of global warming (which really is just a theory). Then they tell everyone that they need to change the way they live and give these people all sorts of money (through taxes, fines, and research)because there "theory" is correct. This is just stupid and I can't beleive intellegent people like James have fallen into it.
James do you still realize that what you beleive is just a theory and not fact????
And if you do understand it's just a theory how (in the world) do you beleive it's ok to force people to change their lives to fit in line with your theory???
What would people do if Chrisitans did the same thing. Let's have the US goverment force Christianity upon everyone. Everyone must become a Christian and change the way they live or they will be fined. Does that sound like a good idea? Heck there's a lot more common sense reasons to beleive in the God of the Bible than in manmade global warming.
Post a Comment