• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

AGW is a lie

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I choose to believe in CRT it can be proven much better then GHGT.

I am sure you all know CRT and its relationship to clouds and the sun. I believe it will be seen as the primary driver along with sunspots.

I also predict a very cold winter like the last one due to sunspot activity.
I believe the sun not co2 is key for global temperature on earth as has always been since life began.

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm here is what I was talking about with Mauna Loa

Here is a hand in glove match. Co2 does not match like this it is only a curved line.Which is the driver. I say the sun cycles drive as can be seen here.
global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-400-years.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
I choose to believe in CRT it can be proven much better then GHGT.

I am sure you all know CRT and its relationship to clouds and the sun. I believe it will be seen as the primary driver along with sunspots.

I also predict a very cold winter like the last one due to sunspot activity.
I believe the sun not co2 is key for global temperature on earth as has always been since life began.
You're basically talking about solar activity here. Cosmic rays also are dependent on solar activity, so basically according to you we should see a relationship between solar activity and climate change. Now, these analysis have been done by Solanski et al in 2003 and Frohlich et al in 2005 and 2007. Neither of them found a good relationship between solar activity and global warming for the past 20/30 year (the time where we see global warming kick in).

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm here is what I was talking about with Mauna Loa
I'll let someone else respond to this.

Here is a hand in glove match. Co2 does not match like this it is only a curved line.Which is the driver. I say the sun cycles drive as can be seen here.
global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-400-years.jpg
What is actually in the graph? Which lines represent which data? What temperature data is used?
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I choose to believe in CRT it can be proven much better then GHGT.

I am sure you all know CRT and its relationship to clouds and the sun. I believe it will be seen as the primary driver along with sunspots.

I also predict a very cold winter like the last one due to sunspot activity.
I believe the sun not co2 is key for global temperature on earth as has always been since life began.

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm here is what I was talking about with Mauna Loa

Here is a hand in glove match. Co2 does not match like this it is only a curved line.Which is the driver. I say the sun cycles drive as can be seen here.
global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-400-years.jpg
solar variations are something that has been
looked at. I recommend looking at the studies cited above. If they are the ones I'm thinking of (on mobile so can't make sure) then basically they analyzed effects of solar output on cloud cover and found no correlation to support the proposed mechanism. CO2/H2O greenhouse effects, on the other hand, can be verified on a planetary scale by looking at Venus and the mechanism is well known and verified.

As far as the graph:
1. it lacks units
2. I'd like to see where the data is pulled from
3. a similar correlation can be found between the falling number of pirates in the world and rising global temperature. This is why verification of tge mechanism is important.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟29,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
[serious];48071493 said:
solar variations are something that has been
looked at. I recommend looking at the studies cited above. If they are the ones I'm thinking of (on mobile so can't make sure) then basically they analyzed effects of solar output on cloud cover and found no correlation to support the proposed mechanism. CO2/H2O greenhouse effects, on the other hand, can be verified on a planetary scale by looking at Venus and the mechanism is well known and verified.

As far as the graph:
1. it lacks units
2. I'd like to see where the data is pulled from
3. a similar correlation can be found between the falling number of pirates in the world and rising global temperature. This is why verification of tge mechanism is important.


Another problem with that graph is IIRC the red plot, which corresponds to the solar activity stops before the temperature plot (blue/green) If it continued to the same time as the temperature the correlation ends as the solar activity drops an the temperature contiunes to rise.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
As requested a clearer graph. And as you can see a hand in glove fit where co2 would just be a "hockey stick" the sun is obviously the culprit.



JD%20annual%20mean%20vs%20us%20annual%20mean.gif

Figure 2: 11-year running mean Total
Solar Irradiance (Hoyt and Schatten) vs. Annual
Mean Temperatures. Correlation (r-squared) of
0.59 (0.64 for 3-year lag of
temperatures after solar).

ziegl4.gif


There have been at least six warming periods caused by the sun in recorded history. They come every 1,500 years give or take 500 years,nothing can be done about it.


About CRT : By studying satellite measurements,since 1980,Svensmark and Marsh have found that only low altitude clouds...seem to vary in step with the rise and fall of the Cosmic Ray flux.

fig5.jpg

Figure 5: Comparison between the reconstructed cosmic ray flux and the quantitative temperature reconstruction over the Phanerozoic: The top panel describes the reconstructed Cosmic Ray Flux variations over the past 500 Million years using the exposure ages Iron Meteorites. The bottom panel depicts in black, the reconstructed tropical ocean temperature variations using isotope data from fossils. The red line is the fit to the temperature using the cosmic ray flux variations. The notable fit implies that most of the temperature variations can be explained using the cosmic ray flux, and not a lot is left to be explained by other climate factors, including CO2. This implies that cosmic rays are the dominant (tropical) climate driver over the many million year time scale. Further that these rises and falls coincide with the solar systems passage through the Milky Way every 135 million years.

The naked sun can affect temp. only .1 C with CRT that figure jumps to .3 to .5 C accounting for all the heat in the modern warming period.

The MWP was about the same as this one when it topped out as this one has.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: juvenissun
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We only have direct measurement of solar irradiance since the 70's. Surface incident solar irradiance would be heavily dependant on climate. Cloudcover, atmospheric gasses, particulates, etc. will all influence the measurements prior to space measurement. knowledge of the terrestrial influence gets spotty as you look further back. Now we do have very good data for the past 3 or so years:

galway.fig3.gif
.

Satellite_Temperatures.png


Yes, cutting the cords down to only sections that agree with the premise can make some interesting graphs, but we would still need a reason why the other parts don't correlate.

EDIT: and sunspot data:
600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I trump you on presenting newer data, 2007:

The Missing GW Link: New images shock scientists with view of sun’s magnetic field power

25 03 2007



magenticswan_twisted_sun.jpg

Image above: Dubbed the “Swan” this X-ray image shows massive energy releases from the sun’s magnetic field, even while we are at the solar minimum in between sunspots cycles.
Last week, on the same day Al Gore was giving testimony to congress on made-made CO2 being the sole cause of Global Warming, NASA called a press conference in Washington DC to announce some spectacular new findings about the sun. Of course everybody in the press was so busy covering Gore’s big day, there was hadly any mention of what NASA announced.
What they announced was that a new X-ray imaging satellite called HINODE, launched in September 2006, has seen the first images that explain one of the biggest mysteries of the sun: why the corona is hotter than the suns surface. Magnetic reconnection seems to be the key, and these images go a long ways towards proving the theory.
But even more importantly, scientists expected to see a very quiet sun with the new x-ray imager, since we are at solar minimum right now. NASA announced we’d reached solar min on March 6th. The fact that the HINODE scientists saw huge explosive energy bursts even while the surface of the sun is nearly devoid of sunspots tells them that the suns magnetic field is still tremendously active. The suns magnetic field has been getting more active for the past hundred years, coincidentally at the same time CO2 on earth has been increasing along with the global mean temperature.
hathaway1_strip2.jpg

But it seems that coincidence makes CO2 a Red Herring.
The linkage between changes in the suns magnetic field and earths climate has been well documented. Global temps closely track solar cycles as measured by sunspot intensity. Sunpots are proxy indicators of changes in the suns magnetic field. The Danish Meteorological Institute first reported the correlation in a study going back centuries. Historic data reveal that whenever the sun got more active, the earth heated up, and vice versa. The best correlation was the Maunder Minimum.
Sunspot_Numbers_350.png

But until now, we could not see energy being transported away from the sun via its magentic field, which is why many in the environmental community doubt the role of the sun in climate change. We couldn’t visualize the sun’s magnetic output. This new tool is going to open a whole new era of understanding how the sun works, and more importantly how changes on the sun link to climate changes on earth.
Of course I’m sure Mr. Gore will find a way to explain this away, since we can’t have any new science getting in the way of a “consensus” and a “debate thats over”.
Inconveniently, NASA also announced last week a new study that shows a clear sun-earth linkage in records kept by Eqyptians of the Nile river, rainfall, and auroral activity which is a direct indicator of solar activity. It seems the sun-earth climate linkage has been around way before SUV’s.
So what’s easier to believe as the cause of climate change? That a trace gas called CO2 that has increased on earth from about 280 PPM to 380 PPM in the last 100 years is the cause, or that the giant nuclear fireball a thousand times bigger than earth a mere 8 light-minutes away has been getting more active during the same period is the reason?

So you see we now know there is more to the sun then meets the eye !
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The Solar Debate: Are Some Missing The Point?

by SteveSadlov on Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:58 am
Here is how the "solar debate" seems to go.

Camp 1: "There is no way that solar cycles can have an impact on warming and cooling, after all, the variation in incident photonic energy flux is insufficient to greatly affect the energy balance."

Camp 2: "Solar cycles affect the characteristics of the Magnetosphere and of the overall magnetic field structure of the solar system, as well as the characteristics of the Ionosphere. These changes in characteristics can have numerous side effects, which affect the energy balance."

The two camps talk past each other. Camp 1 believe that Camp 2 are arguing that variation of incident photonic flux affects warming and cooling. However, this is not at all what Camp 2 are saying. What Camp 2 are really saying is that indirect effects of Magnetosphere and Ionosphere characteristic changes, which are driven by the solar cycle, then result in impacts on things like cloud physics, cosmic radiation incidence and thunderstorm physics. The two Camps need to stop talking past each other and engage in a real discussion, IMHO.

Have at it folks.


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
From Anthony Watts site, Watts Up With That? , http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...ming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/

CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that in -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]creases in human hydrocarbon use or in at mospheric carbon dioxide[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.[/FONT]


[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]There is no reason to limit human production of CO[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times], CH[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]4[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times], and other[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic ef -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]fects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]the habitability of colder regions.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]will be re leased[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]The United States and other countries need to produce more en -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]ergy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]produced does, how -[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]in the at -[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]version into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]of plants and animals as a result of this CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]increase. Our[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]life than that with which we now are blessed.[/FONT]

[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]- Willie Soon [/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Greatcloud, can you not even be bothered to check your copy-paste for legibility? That quote looks like it's been trash compacted. Perhaps appropriate.

I fixed it thank you for pointing it out.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that in -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]creases in human hydrocarbon use or in at mospheric carbon dioxide[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.[/FONT]


[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]There is no reason to limit human production of CO[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times], CH[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]4[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times], and other[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic ef -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]fects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]the habitability of colder regions.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]will be re leased[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]The United States and other countries need to produce more en -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]ergy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]produced does, how -[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]in the at -[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]version into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]of plants and animals as a result of this CO[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]increase. Our[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EXDAVN+Times]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal[/FONT]
[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]life than that with which we now are blessed.[/FONT]

[FONT=EXDAVN+Times]- Willie Soon [/FONT]
[/FONT]
So, you now agree that human activities, particularly CO2 emissions, are causing global warming? That's good, that's a step.

But Willie Soon is absolutely dreaming when he says that this will be a good thing. First, as for us living in an "increasingly lush environment of plants and animals," this is simply false. We are currently in the middle of one of the largest mass-extinctions ever to happen on Earth. Human activities are dramatically changing habitats around the world, and huge varieties of organisms are dying out as a result.

That aside, there's also the absurd claim that global warming will be good for us. Do you think that droughts in some places and floods in others are good? Do you think stronger hurricanes are a good thing? Do you think that rising sea levels are a good thing? The idea that global warming will benefit human society is positively a pipe dream. We thrive on stability. Any change, to the warm or cold, has serious negative impacts on economies around the world. And that means that it has serious negative impacts on peoples' lives.

We're talking crops destroyed in some areas due to floods, and destroyed in others due to droughts, resulting in mass starvation. We're talking coastal cities being inundated more often by a combination of rising sea levels and more severe storms. We're talking about losing large amounts of land due to rising sea levels. We may even lose nearly all of Florida within a couple hundred years.

You can't honestly think this is a good thing.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So, you now agree that human activities, particularly CO2 emissions, are causing global warming? That's good, that's a step.

But Willie Soon is absolutely dreaming when he says that this will be a good thing. First, as for us living in an "increasingly lush environment of plants and animals," this is simply false. We are currently in the middle of one of the largest mass-extinctions ever to happen on Earth. Human activities are dramatically changing habitats around the world, and huge varieties of organisms are dying out as a result.

That aside, there's also the absurd claim that global warming will be good for us. Do you think that droughts in some places and floods in others are good? Do you think stronger hurricanes are a good thing? Do you think that rising sea levels are a good thing? The idea that global warming will benefit human society is positively a pipe dream. We thrive on stability. Any change, to the warm or cold, has serious negative impacts on economies around the world. And that means that it has serious negative impacts on peoples' lives.

We're talking crops destroyed in some areas due to floods, and destroyed in others due to droughts, resulting in mass starvation. We're talking coastal cities being inundated more often by a combination of rising sea levels and more severe storms. We're talking about losing large amounts of land due to rising sea levels. We may even lose nearly all of Florida within a couple hundred years.

You can't honestly think this is a good thing.

You are wrong there are no mass extinctions;the Polar bears for instance are thriving.

Polar Bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife board (CBC)
Study shows polar bear increase in Davis Strait (Northern News Services)


As for other species:
Not Extinct - Angola Giant Sable: Rare African antelope 'rediscovered' (BBC)
Not Extinct - Bavarian Short-eared Mouse: Back from the dead, not seen for 40 years (The Guardian, UK)
Not Extinct - Beck's Petrel: Flies Back From Presumed Extinction (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Cobble Elimia, Nodulose Coosa and Cahaba Pebble Snails: Thought extinct found in Alabama (Associated Press)
Not Extinct - Cape Lion: 'Extinct' lions surface in Siberia (BBC)
Not Extinct - Capricorn Beetle: 'Extinct' beetle comes out of the woodwork (The Daily Telegraph)
Not Extinct - Canterbury Knobbed Weevils: 'Extinct' bug found alive and well in high-country reserve (The New Zealand Herald)
Not Extinct - Colombian Painted Frog: Believed Extinct Found Alive (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Cozumel Thrasher: 'Extinct' Bird Rediscovered In Mexico (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Cuban Solenodon: Mammal thought extinct found in Cuba (The Age, Australia)
Not Extinct - Dwarf Cloud Rat: Rediscovered After 112 Years (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Giant Palouse Earthworm: Idaho Researcher Finds Rare Earthworm (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Gilbert's Potoroo: Thought extinct for over 100 years, found in Western Australia (Associated Press)
Not Extinct - Glass Sponges: Once thought extinct, now found nearby (UWeek)
Not Extinct - Greater Bamboo Lemur: Held Extinct Found on Madagascar (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Greater Mouse-eared Bat: 'Extinct' - bounces back (BBC)
Not Extinct - Harlequin Frog: Rediscovered In Remote Region Of Colombia (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Indian Owl: Considered Extinct, Is Captured on Film by Americans (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Not extinct (CNN)
Not Extinct - Javan Elephant: Presumed Extinct, May Have Been Found Again - In Borneo (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Javan Rhinoceros: Thought Extinct, a Few Are Seen in Vietnam (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Kouprey Oxen: 'Extinct' oxen are seen (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - La Palma Giant Lizard: Scientists find 'extinct' giant lizards (BBC)
Not Extinct - Leatherback Turtles: Not extinct in Malaysia (The Hindu)
Not Extinct - Laotian Rock Rat: Retired professor tracks down rodent thought to be extinct (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Not Extinct - Long-beaked Echidna: New hope over 'extinct' echidna (BBC)
Not Extinct - Michigan Cougars: Not Extinct, Animal Droppings Indicate (Live Science)
Not Extinct - Mount Diablo Buckwheat Wildflower: Thought Extinct Rediscovered in California (NPR)
Not Extinct - New York Moose: Once Extinct in the state, return to New York (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Opal Allotoca: 'Extinct' Fish Found (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly: Flutters Back to Life (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Pygmy Hippos: Caught on film (BBC)
Not Extinct - Rat-squirrel: Not extinct after all (USA Today)
Not Extinct - Red Colobus Monkey: Thought Extinct Still Exists (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Robust Redhorse Sucker Fish: Thought Extinct Found Again in Georgia (The Georgia Aquarium)
Not Extinct - Ryukyu Spiny Rat: Not Extinct (Japan Probe)
Not Extinct - Siamese Crocodile: Once Thought Extinct, Is Photographed In Thailand (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Sheepnose Mussel: Thought extinct surfaces in Mississippi (Delta Farm Press)
Not Extinct - Short-necked Oil Beetle: Re-emerges after 60 years (BBC)
Not Extinct - Storm Petrel: Flies back from extinction after 150 years (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Not Extinct - Sumatran Ground Cuckoo: Lost Cuckoo Breaks Its Silence (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Swinhoe's Soft-Shell Turtle: Discovered Living In Wild In Northern Vietnam (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Tibet Red Deer: Hunch Leads to Discovery of Herd Thought to Be Extinct (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - U.S. Jaguar: Gone for Decades, Jaguars Steal Back to the Southwest (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Warbler: Fiji's 'extinct' bird flies anew (BBC)
Not Extinct - Woolly Flying Squirrel: Long Thought Extinct, Shows Up in Pakistan (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Yangtze (Baiji) River Dolphin: Previously Thought Extinct Spotted In The Yangtze River (Science Daily)
Show me one species extinct because of GW.

So Chalnoth show me these deaths due to climate disasters;prove these disasters will occur.

At the current rate it would take 1,000 years of rising seas to cause the flooding you describe.

-Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You are wrong there are no mass extinctions;the Polar bears for instance are thriving.

Polar Bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife board (CBC)
Sorry, but this does not indicate that polar bear population is on the rise. You see, the reason why the polar bears are having a hard time has to do with the melting arctic ice. Polar bears are ambush predators: they lie in wait above the ice for a seal to come up for air, then they attack the seal. With less and less ice, and much less of it thick enough to support a polar bear's weight, it becomes harder for these animals to hunt their normal prey.

So what do they do? That's right: they move outside their normal habitat and seek alternative sources of food. This naturally results in them encroaching upon human territory. The observations by these Inuit elders do in no way, shape, or form indicate an increase in the number of polar bears: they indicate what the scientists have been saying all along, that the polar bears are starving.

One local area. Does not indicate that polar bears elsewhere are not having problems.

Now, I don't know if the melting of the arctic sea ice will actually result in the extinction of polar bears, but it will at least force a dramatic lifestyle change, which will have significant impacts for the surrounding ecosystem.

list of species
So, you managed to display a list of what, 30 or so species that were thought extinct but have since been found? This isn't surprising at all. Every once in a while, we expect to mistakenly label a species as extinct. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. 844 animals and plants that lived within the past 500 years are currently listed as extinct. And this is probably a vast underestimate, as we just don't know about many animals before they go extinct. The most significant place where this sort of thing is occurring is the rain forests, where cutting the forests down causes the extinction of massive numbers of animals, particularly insects.

Now, I doubt that very many of the animal extinctions that we've seen so far are due to global warming, but this is irrelevant: the claim was made that animals are thriving. While it may be true that some small subset of species benefit when a change, like global warming, is enacted, the majority are hurt by it.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
They're doing somewhat better now because back in the 70's, some significant bans on polar bear hunting were enacted. Before the bans, polar bears were nearly hunted to extinction. The polar bear numbers had been recovering steadily until sea ice melt became significant in recent years.

It's extremely, extremely misleading to attempt to claim that because there are more bears now than in 1970, they are not in any danger, because it completely ignores current stresses on them. Furthermore, the entire point of this sort of science is to detect problems before they become overly serious. Note that the current projections don't have them going extinct until the end of the century.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They're doing somewhat better now because back in the 70's, some significant bans on polar bear hunting were enacted. Before the bans, polar bears were nearly hunted to extinction. The polar bear numbers had been recovering steadily until sea ice melt became significant in recent years.

It's extremely, extremely misleading to attempt to claim that because there are more bears now than in 1970, they are not in any danger, because it completely ignores current stresses on them. Furthermore, the entire point of this sort of science is to detect problems before they become overly serious. Note that the current projections don't have them going extinct until the end of the century.

And I am saying that GW does not hold any danger to a highly adaptive omnivore such as the polar bear. Not all polar bears live near sea ice many live and hunt on land.

QUOTE (Nunatsaiq News)Fears that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says Mitchell ­Taylor, the Government of Nunavut's director of wildlife research. [...] While he agrees that seals are essential food for bears as they fatten up during the spring and summer months - seal blubber makes up half of the bears' energy intake - he also suspects bears will be able to supplement their diet with other foods, such as walrus. During the summer months polar bears may also forage on berries, sedges and other plants, as well as bird eggs, to supplement their diet. And Taylor also points out female polar bears go nine months without eating at all during pregnancy. Besides, Taylor says he and numerous Inuit hunters have seen bears catch seal without the presence of sea ice. Bears sometimes find a place on shore to pounce on seals swimming by. Or they may catch seals caught in tidal pools, or sneak up on their prey at night. Taylor even suggests polar bears may float still on the water to fool seals into thinking they are hunks of sea ice.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
While it's true that it is possible for the bears to adapt, it is by no means certain. At a population of around 20,000-25,000, their numbers are already quite low. If they hadn't been hunted to near extinction just a few decades ago, they'd be much more likely to survive the current crisis. But with the greater difficulty in finding food, and the more energy expended in getting between hunting grounds, they're having a much harder time surviving.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In 1972 there were 5,000 polar bears now there are 25,000 polar bears.....
They are in fact now thriving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5KWtGHub-8



Study found wrong
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23405
Lol. Apparently you ignored me the last two times I told you (in other threads) that these numbers cannot be compared. The estimates from 1970-1980 were based on reports from polar explorers. Current estimates are based on much more thorough scientific surveys. Can you guess why reports from explorers might not be accurate even if they were the best data at the time?
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟28,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
All the quotes in the following post come from a very extensive article investigating Inuit views about global climate change. I recommend the whole article, as it delivers a seemingly balanced assessment of current Inuit thoughts on the matter.

There are disagreements among the Inuit about the extent of GCC, some point to the warmer period 1200 years ago, some say climate always changes, many are concerned about the dangers the current warming of the Arctic presents.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.11-arctic-global-warming/2/

Quote: "Despite local variation across the Canadian Arctic, Inuit speak of the earlier breakup of ice in spring and later freezing in the autumn (indeed, into the winter), diminished ice and snow, changes in the quality of both, unusual shifts in the location of marine mammals, less prolonged and less severe bouts of cold and blizzard, permafrost instability and loss, increasingly violent storms, more frequent freezing rain and an ensuing reduction in the availability of lichen as food for caribou, poorer water quality, increased UV radiation, and so on."

Quote: "...Others who mark the channels for Voisey’s Bay ore carriers said that sea ice had gone through "a big, big, change" over the past twenty years: where previously it had been "the whiter, the better," this is no longer the case. And George Lyall explained that it is now necessary to stop and check the thickness, sometimes detouring with considerable difficulty."

(The lichen problem is mostly caused by freezing rain making it hard for the animals to get at it through thick icecoating. They normally dig under snow for it, and it is their main forage.) - B

Quote: "For some in Nunavut, human-caused climate change is part of a media-driven southern agenda that risks sidetracking Inuit from their first priority — cultural survival and self-reliance."

(And regarding the polar bear...) - B

Quote: "Though some were concerned over the long-term effects of loss of sea ice, the bear was in no way endangered at present. Nevertheless, southern conservationists had taken it upon themselves to save the animal from extinction. Seeking a ban on the export of heads and hides to the US, they were seen to threaten a vital income stream in the lives of small communities that sold American hunters the regulated right to kill. The protectionists were engaged in exaggeration and public relations posturing in order to raise money for their own operations. This they did, I was told, on the backs of innocent people. It was unjust." (my bolding. -B)

The last quote, IMO, is important for us southerners to take to heart. It is true sea ice is thinning, and that certainly will impact polar bears lifestyle. I believe the Inuit when they say the polar bear is not in danger currently, and that it will change its ways. This is not something said out of greed - these are the same people who don't want sportsmen (who bring a lot of money to small communities) exploiting salmon by catch and release, because they see that as disrespectful, 'playing with the animal'.

There are plenty of other environmental indicators, quite a few of them named by Inuits in this article and elsewhere, for us to believe global warming is occurring, that humans are at least partly resonsible, and that we should try to mitigate our contribution right now. Making the polar bear, whose numbers can be argued about by both sides of the issue, the poster animal for southern environmentalists as the harp seal has already been made the poster animal for southern animal rights groups is IMO irresponsible, especially when the main impact to be felt by pressing the issue will indeed be on the Inuit, who are among the least responsible for the current global crisis.
 
Upvote 0