Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

[RickG]

If I may show the normal chaotic pattern we can expect? (Below)

Wake up call!
Those are not chaotic events. They are Milandkovitch cycles over hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wake up call!
Those are not chaotic events. They are Milandkovitch cycles over hundreds of thousands of years.

Yaaaaaaa..... I din't write this, do you need the source again? You can google it. It's not from the Institute for Creation Research.
Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings.
A temperature increase of 5°C can occur in a few decades.

 

[RickG]

If that were true....then the models would be correct?

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/r...lobal-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz3c7HIvuZr

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...iew-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

I'm well aware of "YEC" Roy Spencer. All of his claims have been debunked. If you want to cite a NASA scientist why try using, Gavin Schmidt.

And for CREDIBLE sources showing where Spencer is wrong, here are a few.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...iew-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

 

[Loudmouth]

If I may show the normal chaotic pattern we can expect? (Below)

In the past, cycles of warming and cooling were caused by orbital forcings with CO2 reacting to changes in the ocean's temperature. Changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt is what started the warming. As the oceans warmed they released CO2. This added CO2 caused more warming.

Why does this rule out warming due to CO2 production independent of orbital forcings?

 

[RickG]

Yaaaaaaa..... I din't write this, do you need the source again? You can google it.
Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings.
A temperature increase of 5°C can occur in a few decades.

You are misrepresenting my reply to you. The wake up call was specifically and only for the graph you posted. They are Milankovich events, documented in Antarctic ice cores; not the switch-er-roo you pulled in my quote.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm well aware of "YEC" Roy Spencer. All of his claims have been debunked.

That only covers the first of the five THEN YOU NEED TO.....
I have yet to see a case study where one person on this planet stopped creating greenhouse gases.
Then
Then
Then
Then
Then you may have some of your intended result.
But would that even work?

 

[SkyWriting]

You are misrepresenting my reply to you. The wake up call was specifically and only for the graph you posted. They are Milankovich events, documented in Antarctic ice cores; not the switch-er-roo you pulled in my quote.

The graph was part of the entire post. The graph covers both 250,000 and the 10,000 year span referenced in the report.

It was decided that the first project within this programme would be the "Greenland Ice Core Project" (GRIP) with the objective of investigating the climatic and environmental changes of the past 250,000 years by drilling and analysing an ice core in the central part of the Greenland ice sheet.

At the end of the last glaciation at about 10,000 years BP, atmospheric methane concentration reached a first maximum of about 700 ppbv. This high concentration lasted only about 500 years. Between 9,500 years and 5,000 years BP, the concentration decreased to about 600 ppbv.

The records confirm that large and rapid temperature oscillations have occurred through most of the last 110,000 year period. They are of a scale that has not been experienced during the past 10,000 years in which human society mainly developed.

Wake up call!

Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5°C can occur in a few decades.
http://pratclif.com/climatechange/grip-final-report.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

That only covers the first of the five THEN YOU NEED TO.....
I have yet to see a case study where one person on this planet stopped creating greenhouse gases.

What does that have to do with the cause of global warming?

 

[SkyWriting]

As for the debate there have been a number of studies looking specifically at the climate science literature and evaluating what the consensus is, which has been found to be over 97% not only saying that it is warming but the major cause is anthropogenic.

What percentage of the population needs to make how much of a
difference, at what cost, and would it work?

 

[RickG]

The graph was part of the entire post. The graph covers both 250,000 and the 10,000 year span referenced in the report.

That's why I quoted it in a separate post. The graph has nothing to do with abrupt climate change.

It was decided that the first project within this programme would be the "Greenland Ice Core Project" (GRIP) with the objective of investigating the climatic and environmental changes of the past 250,000 years by drilling and analysing an ice core in the central part of the Greenland ice sheet.

Please provide source showing a Greenland ice core showing the past 250,000 years.

At the end of the last glaciation at about 10,000 years BP, atmospheric methane concentration reached a first maximum of about 700 ppbv. This high concentration lasted only about 500 years. Between 9,500 years and 5,000 years BP, the concentration decreased to about 600 ppbv.

And? You do know what ppbv is don't you?

 

[RickG]

What percentage of the population needs to make how much of a
difference, at what cost, and would it work?

I am only concerned with the science side.

 

[Loudmouth]

What percentage of the population needs to make how much of a
difference, at what cost, and would it work?

What does that have to do with figuring out the cause of global climate change in the last 100 years?

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for staff review.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread reopened and has undergone a small cleanup due to flaming/goading so if your post is gone that is the reason. I will ask everyone not to attack/goad each other. If your disagree with their position,address the post not them personally.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[SkyWriting]

'...Global warming, with its inevitable effects on so many aspects of our world, will inevitably change the course of evolution – and evidence that this is already happening is all around us.

Fully agree. We need to get ready for chaotic climate change.
Save money, move people, lots of changes.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Fully agree. We need to get ready for chaotic climate change.
Save money, move people, lots of changes.

Fully agree?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you saying there's not much science in the argument presented by the deniers? I always had the impression that there was a fair exchange going on.

And that is the denier's goal: to give you, the non-expert (=target audience), the impression that there's a fair exchange going on.

There isn't. The "fair exchange" is found in the scientific literature. Deniers don't submit to those channels, because they have nothing fair to say.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And that is the denier's goal: to give you, the non-expert (=target audience), the impression that there's a fair exchange going on.

There isn't. The "fair exchange" is found in the scientific literature. Deniers don't submit to those channels, because they have nothing fair to say.

It's a pity then that these 'deniers' didn't take more careful note of the arguments, discussions and debates which went on between Glenn Morton* and others. A little disappointing as science has never been more exciting than when there are strong arguments, discussions and debates.
In a very real sense, it makes me a little uneasy when scientists go unchallenged.

~~~
* The Migrant Mind : http://themigrantmind.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's a pity then that these 'deniers' didn't take more careful note of the arguments, discussions and debates which went on between Glenn Morton* and others. A little disappointing as science has never been more exciting than when there are strong arguments, discussions and debates.
In a very real sense, it makes me a little uneasy when scientists go unchallenged.

~~~
* The Migrant Mind : http://themigrantmind.blogspot.co.uk/

Science is not done through debate (eventhough I have no idea about what "debate" you are talking about).
Science is not done by "winning arguments".

Science is done by forming hypothesis and presenting evidence for such hypothesis and then submitting your findings to appropriate journals for others to review and build upon it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Fully agree?

What part of the story would you like me to argue against?