Global warming

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

2. Your graph is still a tiny slice of world climate history. This is like taking 0.001% of the population and noticing that he is malnourished then decrying a famine. Its simply not true.

 

Evidence?

It doesn't matter. It is still a group of scientists in opposition. And there are others. So your claim that all climate scientist groups are in agreement is patently false.

In so far that global climate changes on a scale of millions of years. And that it is a fallacy to present a much smaller timeslice as evidence.



I'll ask you again: Do you have any evidence that average global temperatures have ever been above 25 degrees Celsius in the past billion years? Even during the periods that there were of orders of magnitude higher CO2 saturation than today?

 

I'm just going to start banning people who spam this forum with opinion. It isn't an opinion forum.

 

That's simply untrue.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/greenhouse_2000e.htm

Volcanoes spit sulfur dioxide on a scale many times larger than that of humans. Sulfur dioxide is the cause of acid rain.

Ozone depletion I have not researched heavily, but I do know the chemistry of ozone formation. And it seems to me that the poles would naturally have less ozone because they receive less sunlight. In any case, the holes are still growing even since the treaties on CFC prohibition. Maybe this is a first or second derivative effect -- I don't know.

A scientific body is exactly a 'random' group of people with degrees. What else would it be?

What I am proving here is that the earth's temperature has never risen to catastrophic levels, even when the saturation of CO2 and water were at massively higher levels than today. In short, the greenhouse effect appears to have a counterbalance, if it exists at all, which equalizes global temperature. That is the only explanation for a stable temperature under changing solar and chemical conditions.

In fact all the evidence I have seen suggest that the real danger is falling into an ice age. Global temperature has never risen past 25 degrees Celsius in the past billion years, but it sure as hell as fallen to levels which would see most crops ungrowable anywhere other than the equator.

In other words, a set of variables worse than those predicted have already come and gone -- the experiment has already been run. Consider if all of the continents were grouped together near the south pole, then there would be a lot more ocean in direct sunlight, which means a lot more atmosphereic water vapour. That combined with all that CO2 would be a much meaner greenhouse effect than the supposed effect we are wittenessing today. And yet the temperature capped off at 22 degrees.

What I am saying is we've already had many periods of high greenhouse gas saturation, and they have not lead to the proposed severe consequences of global warming. On the contratry, they basically cap off at 22 degrees regardless of how saturated the atmosphere becomes.

For you to present a graph of only hundreds or thousands of years is a fallacy because the implication is that the presented evidence is sufficent to back your claim when the climate movements being discussed happen on a much larger scale of hundreds of millions of years.

 

The Fat Controller,

Do you want to know a secret?
Even if man made global warming were true, and even if the global temperature is were not automatically capped, and even if all of the predictions were correct it would still not bother me.

Why? Why would this not bother me?

Because the effects of global warming manifest so slowly. It is not like a huge storm which destroys everything in a single day. We are talking about very slight increases in mean temperature over the course of decades.

Consider how quickly technology is evolving. There is a technology/science called permaculture which is concerned with creating artificial environments to increase the yield and rate of crop growth.

If the amount of arable land in the world begins to shrink by increment due to climate change, a demand for permaculture will result. The increased demand will be met by supply on the open market. By the time even the most drastic climate change has come about, assuming an immensely slow rate thereof, the market will have already provided the alternative.

The same is true of peak oil and all manner of other political scare campaigns. Oil won't run out over night. As it becomes more sacare, alternative fuels become more viable. The market adapts naturallly as young entrepreneurs get out there with new innovations and ideas trying to make their fortunes.

So even in the worst case scenario the necessary solution is going to occur naturally. There is, therefore, absolutely no justification for the use of force against developing nations who need to use their natural resources to accrue greatly needed capital reserves.

An enforced global carbon tax will very likely result in another hundred years of absolute poverty for half of the world's population. Consider the consequences.

There is a very simple way to avoid making these sort of mistakes in all matters: The initation of violence against others is never the correct course of action.

If you follow this one principle in all things you will find peaceful solutions present themselves naturally.

 

Its not a few degrees in a decade. Its a few degrees in a century. And the reason the little iceage cannot be seen on a proper graph is precisely that. It wasn't a big event. It wasn't significant as compared with a massive iceage wherein the global temperature halves for a period of millions of years.

Species die, the world changes. Evolution continues. It is an illusion to believe you exist in a static relationship with nature. You exist as part of nature, and nature is ever-changing. It is even more of an illusion to believe you have any sort of significant impact on nature. Humans are still fighting for survival against nature. If we had control over nature, then there wouldn't be a problem.

But of course all that is beside the point. The manmade global warming proponents want to use violence to enslave people to their doctrine. And that is obviously unethical and undesirable.

 

No. Temperature is on the Y axis. You can't see it because it was an insignificant drop in temperature.

Humans are part of nature if you like it or not.

As you can see by the graph I've been referring you to, we are still in what is technically an iceage. Its a good thing we are heading back into warmer territory. All those higher and lower latitudes will become habitable again. More land to grow more crops means more humans, more prosperity.

Effectively it comes down to this: You don't have the right to stop people from taking what naturally occurs and transforming it into things of value. And even if man made global warming were more than a greasy political scare campaign to implement a new tax, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't make you correct in condemning billions to absolute poverty at the point of a gun.

 

What?

You are talking about a tiny spike in a huge graph. Spikes are common in nature but often do not affect the overall trend.

Does anyone actually have any rational argument to bring to the table on this topic? Or are we going to sit here and discuss the equivalent of a small bump on the side of mount everest?

As I have been saying: There is no reason to assume global temperatures will ever rise above 25 degrees Celsius while the planet's distance from the sun, the sun's radiance, and the chemical composition of the earth stay within the limits of the past billion years.

So, if the worst we have to fear is a temperature rise to 25 degrees, then what's all the fuss about? A warmer climate sounds pretty good to me, personally. I'm sure the Russians would enjoy being able to grow crops on their frozen rock hard land.