Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Even if in the absence of human activity the global mean temperature would be 0.7C cooler? A world without intelligent life is a worthless planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A world without intelligent life is a worthless planet. Worthless to whom or what? Was the Earth "worthless" for 4.566 billion years until the development of homo sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The essence of what I'm trying to say is normal in Earth's atmosphere is in constant flux. The temperatures we are experiencing now are normal for this period of time, the colder temperatures decades ago were normal for that time. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is a normal temperature for the Earth - though it is usually referred to a baseline or long-term mean. Baselines for a number of parameters, not only tempterature, are an integral part of Climate Science. Temperature, precipitation, GHG concentrations, solar activity, sea ice area and extent, and aerosols are just a few of the normal values that are tracked. They are important because they are the yardsticks by which climate changes and trends are measured. Have you noticed that global temperature values are frequently plotted as anomalies? Anomalies are determined as the difference between the observed tenperatures and normal temperatures. An analogy I'd offer in hopes of clarifying the issue - suppose you went to your doctor with a temperature of 102 F. Would it satisfy you if he said "You're fine. 102 is now your normal temp. Go home and quit complaining."? Would you follow that advice or would you look for another doctor who would find out why your temp was 102? Climate Science knows from the instrumental record that the Earth has been warming for over a century and is continuing to warm. Here is the latest GISS temperature record: And scientists know from the paleoclimate reconstructions the Earth is warmer now than it has been in thousands of years. It is hotter than normal. On-going research is trying to quantify how much of this warming is due to our actions such as dumpng gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere. Estimates range from most to all of it.of it according to several recent research studies. In order to make informed decisions we need to know the answers to several key questions: How much more warming are we going to get? What will be the consequences of this warming? What are the pros and cons of possible strategies for dealing with this warming? You're handwaving and saying today's temperatures are normal, so don't worry, doesn't add anything to the discussion as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think my posts in this thread are simply over the head of a couple of you, since the replies don't make much sense. Not naming any names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think my posts in this thread are simply over the head of a couple of you, since the replies don't make much sense. Not naming any names. It sounds to me like you are play semantical games with the word 'normal'. The word has a specific meaning in the context of climate discussions and you are avoiding it just to be a pain in the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This isn't any surprise.. but again the denier crowd has derailed the thread with semantic nonsense. Regardless of any semantic argument over the definition of 'normal' and whether the human impacts are normal or natural, the fact of the matter is that our actions have consequences. The question is whether we will benefit or be harmed by these consequences. You can try and twist it into a semantic argument to avoid talking about these consequences, but we will all face these consequences eventually. The fact is AGW will have dire consequences for humanity and most of our surrounding natural environment. But obviously most people here will avoid learning about real science and opt to play silly semantic games which make them feel smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This isn't any surprise.. but again the denier crowd has derailed the thread with semantic nonsense. Regardless of any semantic argument over the definition of 'normal' and whether the human impacts are normal or natural, the fact of the matter is that our actions have consequences. The question is whether we will benefit or be harmed by these consequences. You can try and twist it into a semantic argument to avoid talking about these consequences, but we will all face these consequences eventually. The fact is AGW will have dire consequences for humanity and most of our surrounding natural environment. But obviously most people here will avoid learning about real science and opt to play silly semantic games which make them feel smart. What you mean warming things up in cold climates, longer growing seasons, drought prone areas getting rains and becoming more and more fertile, etc... You mean those dire consequences? Now if your talking about pollution that directly destroys environments thats a different story but the issue of just simple warming, won't just bring about gloom and doom.. There would be a lot of benefits from a "warming" period.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What you mean warming things up in cold climates, longer growing seasons, drought prone areas getting rains and becoming more and more fertile, etc... You mean those dire consequences? Now if your talking about pollution thats a different story but just simple warming, won't just bring about gloom and doom.. There will be a lot of benefits of a "warming" period.. Will you be willing to fight for access to those newly emerging fertle lands as the traditional ones you have become reliant upon become less productive. Are you happy to find the desert southwest expanding and becoming even drier? Most people live within the large girth of the temperate zones. Will we need to squeeze more people and make more productive the smaller area toward the poles? Let's move to Canada, Russia and China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Will you be willing to fight for access to those newly emerging fertle lands as the traditional ones you have become reliant upon become less productive. Are you happy to find the desert southwest expanding and becoming even drier? Most people live within the large girth of the temperate zones. Will we need to squeeze more people and make more productive the smaller area toward the poles? A bit ot but most people across the world live in Large Urban cities... I'd be very happy if every one spread out and lived more integrated within their environments instead of the cluster **** of urban sprawling that we have going on in the world today.. Urban Sprawling is the big issue IMO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What you mean warming things up in cold climates, longer growing seasons, drought prone areas getting rains and becoming more and more fertile, etc... You mean those dire consequences? Now if your talking about pollution that directly destroys environments thats a different story but the issue of just simple warming, won't just bring about gloom and doom.. There would be a lot of benefits from a "warming" period.. You obviously have not interest in studying actual science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Will you be willing to fight for access to those newly emerging fertle lands as the traditional ones you have become reliant upon become less productive. Are you happy to find the desert southwest expanding and becoming even drier? Most people live within the large girth of the temperate zones. Will we need to squeeze more people and make more productive the smaller area toward the poles? Let's move to Canada, Russia and China. Most people don't understand economics or the complexities and interconnectedness of the world we live in. Which is why we get delusional comments like the one recently about how we'll just move all the cities in the world inland as the oceans rise. How simple and easy! I get the impression that these people's understanding of reality comes mostly from playing computer games and watching TV. All transitions have costs associated with them.. social, economic, and political disruption is costly and potentially dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think my posts in this thread are simply over the head of a couple of you, since the replies don't make much sense. Not naming any names. And people wonder why you come across poorly on this forum. No one is confused by your point. Most of us just think it is semantical BS and isn't worth discussing, since there is a generally accepted definition of "normal" (ie: the past thousands of years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 And people wonder why you come across poorly on this forum. No one is confused by your point. Most of us just think it is semantical BS and isn't worth discussing, since there is a generally accepted definition of "normal" (ie: the past thousands of years). I'm being trolled relentlessly by some of the people in here, sorry for saying one thing that was a bit aggressive after being insulted by them in every single post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Is it a joke that more than half the U.S. population has not experienced climate change? I'm 61 and I see the difference between the winters back in the 50's and 60's compared to today in northeastern Mass. A great many people question whether there has been any global warming, it's part of why people are skeptical. Many older folks question it too, but I wonder if they have really paid the kind of attention that I have over the years. This is consistent with natural variability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Worthless to whom or what? Was the Earth "worthless" for 4.566 billion years until the development of homo sapiens? Intelligent life is the most amazing thing ever known or to be known. Without self awareness... Its all just backdrop. The world wasnt worthless, because it was moving toward intelligent life. A planet with life is a marvel, but one with intelligent life is beyond amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm being trolled relentlessly by some of the people in here, sorry for saying one thing that was a bit aggressive after being insulted by them in every single post. Your pearl clutching is noted - but nobody is trolling you on this thread. You have made a number of assertions without providing evidence to support them and people have responded in a fairly civil fashion. If you are insulted by people pointing out errors, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and muddy thinking - well, perhaps you should raise the quality of your posts. Or grow a thicker skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This is consistent with natural variability. Could you please share a link to data to support your assertion? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This is consistent with natural variability. The 1950's were incredibly snowless in lower Michigan. We had 5 straight years with a 35% snow deficit. So do you remember the snowless days as a youth, or the big whopper storms. I bet I know the answer to that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Your pearl clutching is noted - but nobody is trolling you on this thread. You have made a number of assertions without providing evidence to support them and people have responded in a fairly civil fashion. If you are insulted by people pointing out errors, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and muddy thinking - well, perhaps you should raise the quality of your posts. Or grow a thicker skin. You basically ignored all the supporting evidence in my posts and have been calling me an idiot in multiple ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Could you please share a link to data to support your assertion? Thanks. You can't prove one way or another. We can't define a normal winter in Massachusettes. What happened there from 8000 BC till 1880 AD? We don't know and any guess you try to give me is a bold face lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 here's a book you should read: http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/039330700X Interesting. Did any of those animals create paintings or record stories of there lives? Did they love, or invent sky scrappers? They trudged around... ate, 5hit and slept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 you've entirely missed my point, and I recommend you read the book. and if you're trying to present religion covered in a fake scientific wrapper here, please move that to the political forum--this one is ostensibly devoted to science. I never discuss religion... I'm saying that humans are valuable enough that questioning whether we are a detremint to the planet over hazy ill defined and questionable damage to the planet isn't worth it. Edited*** is worth it... to ISN"T worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I never discuss religion... I'm saying that humans are valuable enough that questioning whether we are a detremint to the planet over hazy ill defined and questionable damage to the planet isn't worth it. Edited*** is worth it... to ISN"T worth it. By what and by who are we considered valuable? As far as I can tell we are only valuable to ourselves. The remainder of reality knows little and couldn't care less about us. We are on our own to determine our future, notwhthstanding some unusual cosmic event. We alone are responsible to ourselves while making ourselves the caretaker of the planet we inhabit. I also think we are a marvel and for that reason worth protecting against self inflicted threats such as AGW. We need to smarten up and use the grey matter between our ears for something better than tribal warfare and petty bickering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 You can't prove one way or another. We can't define a normal winter in Massachusettes. What happened there from 8000 BC till 1880 AD? We don't know and any guess you try to give me is a bold face lie. Normal (baseline) climate and weather is defined and determined by the observed data. It that really so difficult to understand? The period before instruments were developed and records were kept is usually not included in the baseline because the uncertainty bars are so large. All of your handwaving that the climate record doesn't exist or doesn't matter matter is just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is a normal temperature for the Earth - though it is usually referred to a baseline or long-term mean. Baselines for a number of parameters, not only tempterature, are an integral part of Climate Science. Temperature, precipitation, GHG concentrations, solar activity, sea ice area and extent, and aerosols are just a few of the normal values that are tracked. They are important because they are the yardsticks by which climate changes and trends are measured. Have you noticed that global temperature values are frequently plotted as anomalies? Anomalies are determined as the difference between the observed tenperatures and normal temperatures. An analogy I'd offer in hopes of clarifying the issue - suppose you went to your doctor with a temperature of 102 F. Would it satisfy you if he said "You're fine. 102 is now your normal temp. Go home and quit complaining."? Would you follow that advice or would you look for another doctor who would find out why your temp was 102? Climate Science knows from the instrumental record that the Earth has been warming for over a century and is continuing to warm. Here is the latest GISS temperature record: And scientists know from the paleoclimate reconstructions the Earth is warmer now than it has been in thousands of years. It is hotter than normal. On-going research is trying to quantify how much of this warming is due to our actions such as dumpng gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere. Estimates range from most to all of it.of it according to several recent research studies. In order to make informed decisions we need to know the answers to several key questions: How much more warming are we going to get? What will be the consequences of this warming? What are the pros and cons of possible strategies for dealing with this warming? You're handwaving and saying today's temperatures are normal, so don't worry, doesn't add anything to the discussion as far as I can tell. Makes sense... It was probably warmer in 1800AD then it was in 3000BC as well. 3000BC was probably warmer then 8000BC.... We know 10,000 BC was MUCH colder then 8000BC as well. Temps have been warming since the last ice age. Once they hit a feedback they will probably crash back to cold again. Enjoy this warm period in history, thats why humans have done so much since 10,000BC. Anyway... We will run out of petroleum soon enough. That leaves us with coal as the major sourse of CO2. Power generation can go completely over to nucleur and CO2 emissions will fall 90% combined between the two. There will probably be a demarcation line in the soil of where the fossil fuel age was on earth that will be traceable by future scientists eons from now. It catapulted us to the future, but eventually its time will run out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I never discuss religion... I'm saying that humans are valuable enough that questioning whether we are a detremint to the planet over hazy ill defined and questionable damage to the planet isn't worth it. Edited*** is worth it... to ISN"T worth it. Possibly the most narcissistic statement in say a couple of millennium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Most people don't understand economics or the complexities and interconnectedness of the world we live in. Which is why we get delusional comments like the one recently about how we'll just move all the cities in the world inland as the oceans rise. How simple and easy! I get the impression that these people's understanding of reality comes mostly from playing computer games and watching TV. All transitions have costs associated with them.. social, economic, and political disruption is costly and potentially dangerous. The one hallmark of mankind has been our ability to survive and adapt to any climate conditions that we have experienced in the past. I think that surviving the last ice age in Europe was a pretty amazing feat considering the primitive technology that we had at the time. Technological advancement in the future should help us out with any climate challenges that we face. There really hasn't been a period of our existence that was not considered dangerous IMHO. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/life.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michsnowfreak Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The majority of the "non wx weenie" people like warmth and hate cold and snow. lol not to mention they dont think too in depth about their local climate, much less the global one. Im under 35 so I guess Ive never seen a normal global temperature. YET as a weather hobbyist my #1 priority is the weather experienced where I live, in SE Michigan. And there were a lot more mild winters and hot summers in the 1930s-1950s here than there are now. So im sure had I lived during the 1930s, as a weather hobbyist that is, I would be very content to know that even though I was experiencing quite a few mild winters and downright unbearable summers, as long as I could know I was living during a "normal" global temperature, I would feel so much better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Possibly the most narcissistic statement in say a couple of millennium. Possibly the best example of hyperbole ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Possibly the most narcissistic statement in say a couple of millennium. My apologies to the polar bears. The world will suffer indefinately with a 50% decline in the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.