Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You my friend have to not believe everything you saw in the Movie "Inconvenitent Truth".

IT CANNOT BE STOPPED. Mother Nature will do what she does. The fact the earth was warm in the past without our help says to me that the climatic cycle is still part of the Earth's future, and I suspect we like to think we can do something, but as the dinosaurs found out, we cannot.


It is human conceit in our abilities (and maybe a lack of faith in something larger than ourselves) that leads us to believe that we are the source of this global warming and that we can stop it. A realist would look at the effects, and try to change human behaviour and where we live to take either advantage of it ( farming farther north ) or to mitigate its effects. There is so much propaganda about how this is all caused by CO2 but when no one is paying attention, the sun is the source of all heat and energy on this planet, and if its effects are up by 1 %, it has HUGE ramifications to our climate. Maybe someone should take note that Mars is reportedly warmer now too....and there are no SUV's there.

---

Not quite champ. I formed my opinion way before I saw the movie. The movie was flawed, but had some good points. I didn't like the fact that it seemed to be a fluff peice for Al Gore.

Man Made Global Warming can be stopped. As I have said before: I am not concerned by the fact that the planet is warming. I AM concerned about the speed of its warming and the change in makeup off the atmosphere.

Would a realist look at a few million displaced people that can no longer be fed and say we just have to move our farms north (or south)?

Can someone show me somewhere that the sun is warming. I think its bizare that people pull this little bit of myth out all the time and I have not seen any scientific evidence of it.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/s...06/1740858.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233
I have plenty more where that came from if you are genuinly interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton university, is an expert in examining climate records from the distant past. He has said:



There is also an article from him here. He mentions something I've been thinking since I first met the terms "climate change":

---

Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

---

The fact is that theh coolest period agreed with way higher concentrations of CO2 than today are considered deadly.

Quote:

---

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

---

Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.

A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.

In any case your claim shows a lot of bias. For example, one question hanging here is whether the sun is radiating more these days than at certain times in the past. And that's a question for an astronomer, not a climatologist. And, as I said, if you want to assess the climate from more than 100 years ago, you need to study different kinds of evidence (trees' rings, ice layers, etc., etc.), and none of those are the area of expertise of a climatologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

---

It's the same planet my friend. Rather than just analysing one small bit of data he's using a lot more. Like me making the assumption that you must be an eco-nazi and nothing else just because I've only seen your posts on this thread. I could be right but I'm probably wrong. I have no other evidence of you doing anything else and I'll dismiss any other evidence you present with the line "What does it have to do with today's rah?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

---

I've never really thought of it from that perspective. :dozey:

All of the factors that you mentioned will have a vast effect on the climate.

Oceans currents for example would be much different when the only continent was Pangaea. Small changes in ocean currents can cause major changes with the climate, as Great Britain may find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

The fact is that theh coolest period agreed with way higher concentrations of CO2 than today are considered deadly.



Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.

A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.

In any case your claim shows a lot of bias. For example, one question hanging here is whether the sun is radiating more these days than at certain times in the past. And that's a question for an astronomer, not a climatologist. And, as I said, if you want to assess the climate from more than 100 years ago, you need to study different kinds of evidence (trees' rings, ice layers, etc., etc.), and none of those are the area of expertise of a climatologist.

---

But the atmosphere 450million years ago was a completely different thing. The effect of large concentrations of CO2 will have a different effect then to now. Not to mention that light levels, contintal shape, size and location will have an effect on the atmosphere. The data from 450 million years ago, while very interesting, does not have meaning in todays world. Have a look at the Ordovican period to get an idea of the difference. This could help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician

Where do I show bias? Not saying I don't but I would like to know where. I do try to keep an open mind, however one does get carried away.

The Sun question is not hanging. It is dead. I can find more links to the research if the previous links were not good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's the same planet my friend. Rather than just analysing one small bit of data he's using a lot more. Like me making the assumption that you must be an eco-nazi and nothing else just because I've only seen your posts on this thread. I could be right but I'm probably wrong. I have no other evidence of you doing anything else and I'll dismiss any other evidence you present with the line "What does it have to do with today's rah?"

---

Its a completely different planet my friend. Just using the same rock.

Eco-nazi is not only a very strong label, it is also a very insulting one.

If it makes you feel better, I like F1, MotoGP, WRC, V8 supercars, CC and a little IRL. I also like long walks in the park and pina coladas.

How do you know? Were you there before? Were the scientists there? before? :mark: You can't be argued with though. You'll just say "That's wrong cos it's different now lyke" :dozey: I wish my life was as simple as modern climatology Been fun knowing you though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

How do you know? Were you there before? Were the scientists there? before? :mark: You can't be argued with though. You'll just say "That's wrong cos it's different now lyke" :dozey: I wish my life was as simple as modern climatology Been fun knowing you though.

---

Hey dude, not sure if we are on the same page here. I don't want to be right. I don't want to beleive what just about every scientist in the related field is saying. But from my reading, all I can see is bad news. If you can tell me something I am missing please do. But have you pointed anything out? Can you shown me the evidence that I am missing.

There are some very smart minds working on this, and I am not one of them. Hell, there are people riding short buses to school that are sharper than me, but I do know how to read. Whenever you read something regarding AGW, check the sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Where do I show bias? Not saying I don't but I would like to know where. I do try to keep an open mind, however one does get carried away.

---

I was concretely talking about the fact that you said the the only person qualified to talk about this is a climatologist. And I just don't agree with that. And, by the way, Patterson doesn't mention just things from 450 million years ago. He mentions that 6000 years ago temperature was 3C higher than it is now: can you deny that?

In any case, my main point is not to deny the warming, but to discuss its consequences. We are told that an increase in temperature is catastrophic. As I have asked many times: does that mean that a decrease in temperature will improve the world in any sense? Or does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I find that hard to believe.

I know I'm biased on this particular bit, but being someone that walks to work in January under -40 weather, it's tough to convince me that "warmer is worse" ;)