User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 39

Thread: further proof biologists should take geology classes

  1. #17
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    where did i loose yah Finch?......i said the sun is more responsible for the change in climate than the gases in our atmosphere.......did not say we werent changing chit, just said the greenhouse gases we are putting into the air have minimal bearing on our current rise in temps. since the earth i not currently experiencing a "greenhouse effect" the sun happens to be doing almost all the warming what gases we put in the air are have minimal impact on global climate change............are they causing pollution and other things? defiantly but they have minimal bearing on the current changing climate
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  2. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    my question is why does everyone seem to think that the Earth is supposed to stay the way it was at the point directly before the industrial revolution. we know that even within the last 1,000 years the global temps were a degree or so warmer than present. i think the main problem with all this global warming stuff is the fact no living person has seen just how quickly the natural processes of this planet can change the climate, even if temproary. when Krakatoa blew in the 1880's it dropped global temps 1.6*C and kept the average temps below normal for most of 5 years. that was just one major erruption of a single volcano, think of what can happen if you get a couple going off like that.
    By that logic, we should be free to pollute all we like, since that's just the earth changing!

    The problem isn't change, it's the rate at which it happens. We're inducing change to happen far faster than it should, faster than natural systems can deal with. Furthermore, unlike volcanic eruptions, the effect will linger for more than just a few years.

    Now, time to get to your "facts":

    man is not responsible for 99% of the current rise in temps. in order for us to do that the air would have to be heating up at a faster rate than the ground which is not happening, they are rising at about the same rate.
    Wrong.

    "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." - US Climate Change Science Program

    So your assertion is based on false data.

    so infact it is increased radiation from the sun causing the vast majority of the global warming......who would think that huge nuclear reaction going on not that far from us would influence the temps on earth?
    Wow, that's amazing! The sun is somehow warming us more in spite of having NO CHANGE in solar output since 1960.

    It's magic! Or denial, one of the two.

    we are still coming out of an ice age. we are going to spike and just as likely as temps continuing to rise we are likely to start down another valley into another ice age like has been cycling for the last 40 million years.
    Wrong again -we're in a COOLING phase of the Milankovich cycle.

    do i think we should reduce polution? yes ofcourse, but passing stupid legislation because of the theory man is causing the earth to warm up is idiotic in the extream.
    You mean like that silly theory about CFC causing ozone depletion? The one that was *correct*? Notice something about the ozone lately? Yeah, it's all come back after we banned CFCs.

    did not say we werent changing chit, just said the greenhouse gases we are putting into the air have minimal bearing on our current rise in temps.
    Got any proof of that? Other than your "solar radiation" theory which I just skewered?

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  3. #19
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by herenorthere View Post
    But to justify a particular action or inaction by saying, don't worry life will still survive in some form, is to argue against caring or doing anything about anything. That's a way of thinking I just can't agree with.
    I am sorry Bruce but I can not help but feel you are purposefully being obtuse here. I never made the argument that we should do nothing because "life will survive." I was merely stating a fact. One would think that the person who just trashed people for not acknowledging facts would would themselves recognize the difference between stating a fact and making an argument.

    You called me out for my comment with the accusations of "little concern for evidence" and "ignore the far more compelling case of global warming" and I retorted that you yourself were explicitly ignoring facts, mainly that the only reason people really care about global climate change is because it will make their lives difficult and not because of what will happen to the animals. I find it extremely hypocritical that someone can accuse me of blindly towing some party line when they themselves are blindly towing a party line.

    Global climate change was going to disrupt the Antarctic ecosystem whether or not the sharks moved in. That is nature, you upset a system and there will be consequences. In point of fact, it already has been effecting the ecosystem, most of us just did not know (or care for that matter) until the media decided to exploit peoples fear of "killer" sharks to bring it to our attention!! Very very few people would have heard about it if the shark researcher had not put out her theory and had the media latch onto it. How many people reading this had even heard of an icefish before I brought them up in this thread?? And how many people know of the drastic decline of the icefish population that has been going on since the 60's?? I can guess with pretty high confidence that there may be 1-2 people who would raise their hands (Hi Mokele.)

    And that is what I am taking issue with here. People who make claims that they are up on all the facts of "global warming" but they only know what has been piped to them by the "news." If people really truly cared about the impact of greenhouse gasses then they would demand an end to the excessive use of fossil fuels. Instead they just urinate and moan about the high cost of gas prices while they pump 50 gallons into their SUV while wearing their synthetic material shoes and pants and yapping away on their plastic cell phones. It is BS and I am so tired of it that I am no longer moved by their gripping.

    I can not stand hypocrisy! So to sit here and have someone seemingly purposefully misconstrue my comments and then pass judgment on my based on that misrepresentation leaves a rather foul taste in my mouth. Especially when that same person is making me out to be some kind of "anti-green" while they themselves are just as guilty as I am of using more than their fair share of power and water to light, heat and water their carnivorous plant collection.
    Last edited by Pyro; 02-19-2008 at 06:05 AM.
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  4. #20
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yah know Mokele......i presented you with facts to back up my case from reputable sources and not crack pots.....your reply to that wasnt that my data was wrong but that it only changed things by minor degrees. the whole argument is based on changes of a few tenths of a degree.

    out of the last almost 120 years out of the 10 warmest on record, five are pre WWII. only 3 have occured in the last 10 years. doesnt that seem odd to you if the earth is infact on a major warming trend?

    the top ten warmest years are:
    1924
    1998
    1921
    2006
    1931
    1999
    1953
    1990
    1938
    1999

    my problem with the global warming scare is there isnt chit for hard data before the 1880's or so.....all you have to back up your data is theory's. your trying to convince me that we are warming up based on theories. i agree that the general data based on ice cores and sea floor sediment is prolly more or less right however that is not hard data about what temps were. you cant tell me the average temps for Europe, NA and Asia for 1659 and 1754 based on ice core data, you can tell me that it was likely warmer or cooler than 10 years previous but that is about it. that is why i have problems with the cries of global warming.

    as far as CFC's and the ozone layer i seem to remeber being told the hole in the Ozone layer was due to CFC's let loose 40 years or so previous cause the CFC's take time to travel into the upper atmosphere, let alone be concentrated at the south pole. why in the hell did a crack down on CFC's in the 80's and 90's close up the hole so fast?, it shouldnt have started closing up till the 2050's or so. based on what we did 10 years ago. either the scientists were wrong about what CFC's due to the ozone layer, or how fast they move, or it was part of the natural processes......we will find out soon i think cause i highly doubt China and India follow the rules on such......so in theory it should open back up again shortly
    Last edited by PlantAKiss; 02-19-2008 at 10:48 AM. Reason: filter bypass edit
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  5. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yah know Mokele......i presented you with facts to back up my case from reputable sources and not crack pots.....
    No, actually, you didn't. Your "facts" were flat-out wrong, and from crackpots. Check your sources, and if it's not a peer-reviewed scientific article, it's not a source, period.

    the whole argument is based on changes of a few tenths of a degree.
    You are aware that it only took about 10 degrees to cause the Permian Catastrophe, right? The event commonly called The Great Dying, which wiped out 90% of life and left our ancestors as stunted little mouse-things scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs for 180 million years?

    out of the last almost 120 years out of the 10 warmest on record, five are pre WWII. only 3 have occured in the last 10 years. doesnt that seem odd to you if the earth is infact on a major warming trend?
    If you expect climate data to show a smooth, simple trend, you're just plain stupid. All climate data has scatter because it's a big, complex system.

    Oh, and did you *also* notice that 4 of those 10 years were in the past decade?

    Furthermore, there was actually a temporary dip in temperatures that partially masked global warming around the 40's, but not for a good reason - it was due to huge quantities of aerosols such as the sulfur compounds responsible for acid rain. Once they disipated to more tolerable levels, you see the same long-term rise again, even faster than before.

    my problem with the global warming scare is there isnt chit for hard data before the 1880's or so.....all you have to back up your data is theory's.
    Ice cores. I win.

    Tree rings. I win.

    Seafloor sediments. I win.

    What was that about data?

    i agree that the general data based on ice cores and sea floor sediment is prolly more or less right however that is not hard data about what temps were. you cant tell me the average temps for Europe, NA and Asia for 1659 and 1754 based on ice core data, you can tell me that it was likely warmer or cooler than 10 years previous but that is about it.
    Um, yes, we can. Between ice cores, tree rings, isotope analysis and 100 other methods, we *can* reliably construct models of past climate.

    Hell, do you know what one of the biggest controversies in climate studies is right now? The Cretaceous. Yes, as in T. rex, Triceratops, raptors, and that lot. We can reconstruct climate from 65 million years ago, and you're pissing and moaning that we might be off by a degree or two about the summer of 1745 in London?

    Fail.

    as far as CFC's and the ozone layer i seem to remeber being told the hole in the Ozone layer was due to CFC's let loose 40 years or so previous cause the CFC's take time to travel into the upper atmosphere, let alone be concentrated at the south pole. why in the hell did a crack down on CFC's in the 80's and 90's close up the hole so fast?, it shouldnt have started closing up till the 2050's or so. based on what we did 10 years ago. either the scientists were wrong about what CFC's due to the ozone layer, or how fast they move, or it was part of the natural processes......
    You were wrong - nobody ever said 40 years. The number is 15 years, which fits right in with reality.

    So, ready to give up? Or are you going to keep parroting crap from Faux News? Why not just sit down an admit that the real scientisits actually know what they're doing?

    Mokele
    Last edited by PlantAKiss; 02-19-2008 at 10:48 AM.
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  6. #22
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    *sigh*

    This thread really went downhill since I last checked. Was going so well, too.

    A discussion does not always have to be about who is right or wrong - or about winning, either... its not a competition unless you make it one.

    I do not want to start this up again, so rattler I will PM you - lets talks about the sun.
    that makes no logic

  7. #23
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    im not ready to give up cause your missing the forest cause of the trees with my arguement.

    i never said the earth wasnt warming up i said i doubted mans involvement in it.you say the years i gave in the top ten dont matter because you say its a trend not a simple linear trend.....well no chit, the earth has had an overall warming trend for the last 10,000 years with ups and downs like the top ten i gave....its freaking normal. we are hitting a peak in that trend.....just as likely in the next 50-100 years we will start down the other side of the curve and have temperature drop as keep rising..

    i never said tree rings, ice cores and sea floor sediment arent showing a warming trend. im saying you cant tel me that from year X to year X+5 the earth warmed up .3 degrees.....you can tell me it raised somewhere between .2 and .5 degrees.....you can tell me it raised but you cant tell me exactly how much. and depending on how you want to make the data look you can say either it was a huge jump or it was normal. but most of all these tree rings and ice cores show a warming trend BEFORE the industrial revolution.

    my whole freaking argument isnt that global warming isnt happening its that the natural processes of the earth and solar system contribute to 95% plus of it and man might have as much as 5% involvement in it.

    my other argument isnt that global warming is going to kill us off as a species, its just going to be bad for ppl in some areas.....most notably those in the US and mainland Europe its going the f'with. look it where on the earth is above the 45th parallel, this area is likely to have a boon in agriculture due to the warming........the US is pretty well screwed as is half of Europe, however Canada and Russia have huge tracks of land that will now more than likely be farmable. is this for sure? no but it is highly likely

    as i said Mokele.......your missing the forest for the trees.....i aint arguing with yah weither or not global warming is happening.....im arguing the cause................you seem to think im denighing weither or not its happening.....do i think pollution levels should be lowered? yes definatly. but dont feed me the man made global warming line of crap to get it through. ill vote for it anyways if the logic behind doing it is sound.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #24
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the Antarctic fishies may be safe after all?
    http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/...t/sea_ice.html
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •