by designs 165 Replies latest social current
steve2- first you animadvert on the idea of people and communites radically altering how they use natural resources then you describe how people and communites are radically altering how they are using natural resources, cute
Hello designs, I'm not sure what you are referring to; I don't think I have strongly criticized how people and communities are radically altering how they use natural resources. Are you sure your comments are based on something I have said in this thread?
'The sky is falling' gave it that dege, sorry
Thanks for that! To the best of my knowledge, I have always championed people and communities radically altering how they use natural resources, particularly with an eye to conservation and minimizing wastage.
@tt2c
You mostly got that right. I believe that humans can contribute to accelerating an eventuality that is destined to happen anyways with or without man.
OK - so we agree that human activity is an accelerant. (I would argue the dominant accelerant)
I think a new ice age beginning in 2014 is a remote possiblity, and if it happens, then we adapt just like we've always done. .
So you think new Ice Age beginning 2014 almost certainly not happening? I agree there too.
In other words there is little to no sense in running around in a panic,
Agreed panic is rarely appropriate :-) All previous mass extinctions have occured in times of rapid climate change so worth a 2nd look to check and see if we are boiling ourselves alive before proceeding to burn billions of years of carbon in a few short decades.
and regressing technologically for something that will inevitably happen anyways
All the innovation in efficiency, solar power, wind, geothermal and wave power is regressive technologically compared to burning the floorboards? Really?
What is it you are saying will inevitably happen anyways? Runaway global warming or new Ice Age, or just climatic change in general?
I'd argue that things like this should give us more impetus to advance further, and perhaps diversify our planetary choices of where to live. I have no problem taking money from the military and giving it to NASA and other US based space research firms.
I assume you agree with the NASA position on climate change on this planet before accepting their suggestion of how to populate a different planet?
I would be very interested to hear some clarification/explanation though from the AGW body on how the earth was warmer and most of the ice melted prior to the industrial revolution.
Any specific time period you are interested in?
Climate is a system responding to a variety of inputs. Now and in the past this includes planetary orbital cycles, solar variations, volcanoes, tectonic plate movement, oceanic currents, CO2 concentration etc.
More CO2 = a warming influence. More volcanoes = cooling influnce. Weak sun or low solar activity = cooling influnce. And so the climate varies. By studying evidence from the past we can discern which of these factors is dominant in changing the climate for hotter or cooler conditions.
The only variable that explains the current rise in global temperature is human introduced CO2.
So you think new Ice Age beginning 2014 almost certainly not happening? I agree there too.
Maybe what he meant is that we are going into a cold AMO phase...
..together with a period of decreased solar activity.
We were in an "ice age" as recently as the 1800s. It is called the "Little Ice Age."
The only variable that explains the current rise in global temperature is human introduced CO2.
I disagree with that.
According to Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_chilling_stars.html?id=4z1BAQAAIAAJ
"During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world."
Here is a chart of atmospheric carbon-14, which is used as a long term proxy for solar activity. The medieval maximum correlates with the medieval warm period. The maunder minimum correlates with the "Little Ice Age." The modern maximum correlates with the modern warm period.
And there is more regarding the late 20th century temperature rise.
According to Zhou and Tung of the U of Washington, Seattle, once the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is accounted for, the temperature trend has been rising steady for a century (approximately since the end of the "little ice age), and the late 20th century acceleration in temperature rise can be explained as part of the "warm phase" of the oscillation:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0208.1
What is important, but is left out of all multiple regression analysis of global warming so far, is a long-period oscillation called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). When the AMO index is included as a regressor (i.e., explanatory variable), the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trend is so impacted that previously deduced anthropogenic warming rates need to be substantially revised.
So, you are not saying this graphic is from The Economist? You agree it is from the Daily Mail? If so, I misunderstood your claim.
So, you are not saying this graphic is from The Economist? You agree it is from the Daily Mail?
I never denied it was from Daily Mail. I knew the source.
The record is clear.
Here's what Besty said:
loving the Daily Mail as the source of all wisdom :-)
Here's what I said:
The other chart is from The Economist.
If so, I misunderstood your claim.
You misunderstood because you are tripping over yourself over an opportunity to bash and provoke. It degrades your reading comprehension.
Actually, you've been caught falsifying graphics here before so it wasn't much of stretch.
Proceed, Governor.
Not even an apology for a false accusation, but instead another lie from one who likes to go on threads to troll (I'm now certain you didn't "misunderstand"). Your sidekick is much the same. She likes to follow me around the board like a puppy, and bash with one liners. She did it yesterday on a thread asking about political orientation. Apparently she is not very intelligent or able contribute much besides a one line insult. However, when her lack of intelligence is exposed, you feel obliged to come in and try to defend her with lies, which makes you look like the greater fool.
