1. Because this time it is faster than ever before, giving life no time to adapt.
Last night I did upload a picture. For some reason when I looked for it today, after blasting Thistlethorn for not looking at the data I posted, I find that apparently it didn't upload. I will try again in this note. My apologies to Thistlethorn for referring to a picture that didn't get uploaded but until I finished this note, I thought it had been posted last night. I don't know what happened.
2. Because PEOPLE ARE LIVING THERE NOW! You don't care about those people, right? Is it because it isn't you? It isn't your family that get everything washed away? It's a very cynical and callous view you hold. You keep saying that they'll just move. My question is: where? If the people of Bangladesh could move so easily, why haven't they already? Why do they remain in one of the most flood- and disease-infested countries in the world? Why do people die there every year from floods? But that doesn't matter, right? As long as it isn't you.
People were living there then. My view is more realistic. We can't stop the sea from rising. We should help them move, so it isn't a callous view. But we can't be so stupid as to think we have the power to command the sea. Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ?
Not as chaotic as you try to make it out to be. It's normally fairly cyclical, in that we get an ice-age, followed by a warmer period.
Now we are in a warmer period and you are petrified. Thistlethorn, THIS IS WHAT AN INTERGLACIAL IS LIKE. THE WORD GETS WARM AND THE ICE MELTS.
Let's look at the interglacial that happened 125,000 years ago. Notice Thistlethorn, I am citing peer reviewed articles, you are citing your opinion above. 125,000 years ago, the seas were 6 meter higher than at present. Southern Greeneland was ice free and was covered by spruce.
"Evidently, the Greenland ice sheet was smaller during MIS 5e and 13 than it is today, but ice probably still covered the location of the Dye 3 ice core. During MIS 11, deglaciation must have been much more extensive. The six-fold increase in spruce pollen abundance during MIS 11 relative to MIS 5e and 13 is unlikely to reflect minor differences in ice sheet size. Spruce is absent in Greenland today not because of the high latitude but because there is no land sufficiently removed from the hostile microclimate at the ice sheet margin. Thus, the Dye 3 area must have been completely deglaciated during MIS 11. For that to occur, most of southern Greenland must have been ice free." Eric J. Steig ad Alexander P. Wolfe, "Sprucing Up Greenland," Science, 320(2008), p. 1596
MIS 11 is around 400 thousand years ago, and there was more of Greenland melting than at present. YET, AMAZINGLY THERE WERE NO CO2 BELCHING AUTOS. If the earth is now engaged in repeating what happened 125,000 years ago we can't stop it. And we would be fools to try.
Please, if you chose to respond to this, cite literature which says that no spruce were living on Greenland 125kyr ago.
Said graph appears to have disappeared, or at least am I unable to find it. I would very much like to see this graph, as it seems that you and I when looking at graphs see two very different images. For example, I cannot get you to admit that when you look at a graph of the heating trend these past 500 years, you see a remarkable jump at the time of the industrial revolution. You keep insisting that this heating trend began at the year 1600, something I have yet to see any evidence of. Could you please repost the graph that shows that too?
Yeah, I don't know what happened to the graph. If it isn't there when I post this, I will post it in its own note. I will also give a link to it.
Animals can't adapt if the changes are too rapid. That is why we get extinction events. As for the Bangladeshi's, I've already talked about them. If you're really naive enough to say "well, why don't they run away from the water", I fear we have little to discuss.
And now you think you can be God and manage extinction events. What hubris. I think you are right we have little to discuss. I will never think you are God, or a god with that kind of power.
I have answered your question. Whatever heating occurred then was natural, most likely. You need to provide evidence for your claim that the heating trend between 1650 to 1850 was as big as the one between 1850 and now, though.
Sigh, The missing graph again.
Again, provide evidence for this heating trend. The graphs I've seen show a distinct jump in temperature rise after the industrial revolution.
From an academic study published in Energy and Environment which shows warming from 1650 on. I posted this last night. This is published in
Energy and Environment . It is a peer-reviewed journal.
Loehle, C. and McCulloch, J.H. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. (note: I always make it a policy to admit previous errors even if no one actually caught me. Last night I had the wrong reference applied to this picture)
Energy & Environment19: 93-100.
Edited at the end of my writing to note that maybe it is a good thing it disappeared because of the bad reference.
Again, this is not what I've seen at all. There is a distinct jump after the industrial revolution, but the temperature rise gets ever bigger as we approach modern times, only to take an uncomfortable vertical appearance these last few years.
Have you bothered to look at Greenland lately? It has been cooling since 2000. I got the second picture off the Goddard Ist. Space Science site
Global Climate at a Glance (GCAG), the main page The blue dots are cooling grid nodes. They are cooling since 2000. Of course, why should you believe that place? It is only NOAA.
Can you explain how Greenland can melt if most of it is cooling?
Show me the graph, please.
Go to
Signs of the Times News for Tue, 18 Aug 2009- if it doesn't show up tonight.
What are you talking about? I am asking you to provide evidence for your claim that the rise in temperature was as great between 1650-1850 as it was between 1850 and now. This goes contrary to all data I've seen, so I don't believe it. I'm going to call you a liar on this until you provide the data to support it.
Missing picture again goto
Signs of the Times News for Tue, 18 Aug 2009- It is the Loehle and McClulloch picture
Thistlethorn, ,you better be sure of things before you call someone a liar. I don't know why you can't see the pictures I am posting but I am posting pictures here and if you can't see them, you just made yourself look like a fool.
Well, it is from an esteemed scientific community for one. It seems to support the data I've seen before, and it completely demolishes your sun-spot argument. Three reasons to trust the data.
I guess you can't see pictures yet being a newbie. That has to be the case. I, unlike you will give you the benefit of the doubt. If that benefit is wrong, you are nutso. Your picture starts in 1855 My picture starts in the year 1 AD My picture shows warming from 1650 which your picture cherrypicks off the left edge. In otherwords, what you say is 'esteemed', is a carefully chosen graph to avoid showing the sheeple people the fact that there is more warming out there than is explainable by CO2.
Didn't you say your were a scientist? Scientists don't PROVE things, unless they are mathematicians. Scientists deal in evidence. The evidence for the current warming being in large part man-made are plentiful. For one, we have the correlation of green-house gas emissions with the rise in temperature. We know these gases SHOULD cause a green-house effect. We find by observation that they do so. We know that natural sources of green-house gases are very few compared to human emission. It's a fairly simple puzzle.
You are making the claim that warming before 1850 is natural and warming after 1920 is human. I said that you must have miraculous powers so prove to me that you can intuit what is human from what is natural. I used prove in the correct sense. You must prove that you have psychic abilities and I am curious to see how this works. Unless you PROVE you have those powers, I won't beleive it.
You should take a course in critical thinking. You are economically dependent on our continued extraction of fossil-fuels. You don't have a doctorate. The climatologists I listen to have no economical motives for lying. The climatologists I listen to have shown their results and the method for which they got the results. It checks out. The climatologists I listen to have a higher education than you. Pretty logical if you ask me.
Interesting. I did graduate work in philosophy and have probably had more logic courses than you and at a graduate level. So, I will stand by my critical thinking abilities. You are the one before whom I post pictures and you claim they aren't evidence. Anyway...
The climatologists you listen to are all government funded. That means they have an economic motive (not economical motive) to keep us telling our congressmen and parlimentarians to keep funding them. Where else do you think these climatologists get their money? I certainly don't hire them.
I will freely grant that the climatologists have Ph. D.s. But you illogically seem to imply that if one doesn't have a Ph. D. one is automatically wrong. Bill Gates doesn't have a Ph. D and he has been right on lots of things. Einstein actually wrote his important papers BEFORE he got his Ph. D. Golly throw them out. Michael Faraday was one of the most important scientists in electricity and magnetism and he couldn't even do math--never even went to college. What a snob you are to try this "you don't have a ph. d' routine. Deal with the data that I keep posting and you keep ignoring. There are almost no posts to you that I don't post a picture. If you aren't seeing them, then you better have a bit more humility before you further make a fool of yourself.
You can start by presenting peer-reviewed evidence for your claim that the warming trend between 1650-1850 was as big as the warming trend between 1850 and now.
there is a picture of it attached to this post.
No. I'm going to accuse you of it instead. I am fairly certain that you know that you're talking boloney. If it should turn out that you're just dumb, I will apologize.
Dumb is not something people who know me use. Ignorant I am. I am ignorant of many things but on things I study, I am quite knowledgeable. When you can finally see the pictures I am posting , all from peer-reviewed sources, I expect an apology from you, but I won't hold my breath. People who pull out the 'you don't have a ph d.' routine are not often seen having the humility to apologise for anything.
No. Your assertions weren't supported by the peer-reviewed quotations and graphs you presented. Have you forgotten again what your assertions were? Here they are: Global warming acknowledgers deny the Holocene. Global warming isn't man-made. Global warming is nothing to worry about. These assertions have not been supported by your sources.
No, that was not my assertion. That is your twisted view of my assertion. I see little reason to accept your view of what I said. If you want to continue to twist what I said, that is your perogative. But know this that you aren't looking real good right now claiming that you are not seeing pictures that I clearly post and which appear at the bottom of my posts.
What do you think is going to happen? Do you think the climate will change at all? Do you think everything will be hunky-dory?
No, everything will be bleak. The world is about to run out of oil and it will happen before 2020. That will kill the economy. that is why I invested in oil and used the profits to get out of debt and buy a ranch so I can produce food for my family. I can absolutely assure you that I am not rare in the oil industry. Many of us are buying ranches and farms for the same reason. We are all going back to the 19th century but not because of global warming.
I have answered that. My answer is: It doesn't matter in the big picture. Taking ONLY the stations Watt's thought was fine shows almost exactly the same over-all trend as taking all stations, including the "bad" ones. You're answer to this was that they must have manipulated the data. That's a lazy way out when the data don't support your conclusions.
So, you think that putting a thermometer above an air conditioner has zero effect on the reading of that thermometer. I think you need to take a physics course.
No you didn't. At least, I can't see it.
sorry, I don't know why it didn't post unless it was because I had too many characters in the post and had to cut things out.
That's cute. You don't think man has anything to do with climate-change. Do you also deny other aspects of human activity being detrimental to our biosphere? Like deforestation, pollution, over-fishing, etc? Surely you would equate halting these activities to King Canute as well?
So whom do you want to starve to death when you limit fishing and farming? and you say I am callous.
I really have a problem with this attitude. It is best explained in an anecdote: The waiting room at a maternity-ward. It is packed with new mothers and soon-to-be mothers. One of them is chain-smoking, and has been for the last two hours. When asked to stop, she says: "I just have 10 more cigarettes left. When those are out, I'll stop".
So, are you going to volunteer to stop eating fish and farm produced foods so we can cease clearing land and over fishing? Be my guest but don't lecture me until you are willing to stop those activities.
They blow their own horn, and make a noxious toot.
