"Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk"

Mirai Gen · 03-06-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

I don't agree with Ibian's posts, and I'm not trying to argue on his side, but (there had to be a but) what if the greenhouse emissions from humanity are covering up what would otherwise be a natural ice age? If that were the case, then theoretically, if we were to eliminate our emissions, it could allow the Earth to settle back into it's natural cycle, producing the ice age Ibian describes? Would there be a way to know if we should, our impact aside, be in one right now?

Greenland 1992 vs 2002

If we actually were in an 'ice age' and we're counteracting it, then we've drastically overshot. The target wasn't even in the same country as us, is what I'm saying.

EDIT: I don't even want to bother with him anymore.

If Ibian isn't Godhand, or at least a Godhand Jr., then I have a hat I'm going to eat.

Ryanderman · 03-06-2010, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

Compelling Pcitures

I wasn't trying to support his argument. I had just been looking at his claim of freezing the earth, and tried to think of any way that could make sense. My previous post was the only one I could come up with.

Mirai Gen · 03-06-2010, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

I wasn't trying to support his argument. I had just been looking at his claim of freezing the earth, and tried to think of any way that could make sense. My previous post was the only one I could come up with.

Yeah I wasn't directing it at you, at least not cruelly. The post was purely to provide the evidence you were asking for, and I was trying to keep it civilly relaxed around you.

No worries - we're cool.

Ibian · 03-06-2010, 07:02 PM

Incidentally, there is good evidence that Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. It involves archaeology. And vikings.

Cue the pointing and laughing.

bluestarultor · 03-06-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibian

Incidentally, there is good evidence that Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. It involves archaeology. And vikings.

Cue the pointing and laughing.

Funny to hear this from a kid who has no idea on the scientific review process and thinks that by failing to continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we'll cause an ice age.

Really, if your dad IS an archaeologist in a relevant area, it's pretty apparent you're not getting info from him. Because these are basics.

Thad: I think it's pretty strong evidence over the course of 1300 years that we're seeing warming caused after we started getting really into burning shit. To put it this way, records dating back to 700 C.E. as was mentioned earlier in the thread gives us plenty of info. Like the inclusion of the Industrial Revolution. Just saying, we humans have been around for quite a while, but we've only just very recently gotten into fossil fuels and our data predates that.

Ibian · 03-06-2010, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Funny to hear this from a kid who has no idea on the scientific review process and thinks that by failing to continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we'll cause an ice age.

Really, if your dad IS an archaeologist in a relevant area, it's pretty apparent you're not getting info from him. Because these are basics.

That's another thing. You have been talking to me this entire time as if i'm a ten year old with no idea how science works. Also, kid. You make far too many assumptions. And you don't care what aforementioned evidence looks like, you simply decided that i'm wrong.

I think i'm wasting my time here.

Thadius · 03-06-2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Thad: I think it's pretty strong evidence over the course of 1300 years that we're seeing warming caused after we started getting really into burning shit. To put it this way, records dating back to 700 C.E. as was mentioned earlier in the thread gives us plenty of info. Like the inclusion of the Industrial Revolution. Just saying, we humans have been around for quite a while, but we've only just very recently gotten into fossil fuels and our data predates that.

Ah. So my time capsule needs to be set for about 700 years then instead of 500. Gotcha.

Sithdarth · 03-06-2010, 08:59 PM

Thad we've got climate data stretching back thousands of years from ice cores, fossil records, and various other sources that indicate the kind of rapid changes we're seeing are not natural. (Except for maybe under extreme circumstances like the end of the last Snowball Earth event and last I checked the equator wasn't covered in ice.)

Here is some suggested reading for everyone. I'd check your local library but it is well worth buying. It not only tells the story of how anthropological global climate change became an accepted theory it also details very well how research is done, how scientific facts become accepted, how they change, and how science as a whole is effected by various societal pressures.

As for Bob if he's still listening. There are two main reasons why I eventually fell on the side of global climate change. First, I accept that even if I don't fully understand the science the people that actually did the science do. I trust an individual climatologist to know about what the climate is doing exactly as much as I trust an individual doctor to know what is going on in my body. Which is to say more than basically anyone else. In this particular case we have just about every climatologist ever saying we're the problem. That would be like getting a couple thousand second opinions on a cancer diagnosis that confirmed it and maybe a 100 that disagreed. You damn well bet I'd undergo chemotherapy. Second, there is nothing to be gained from not cutting back and becoming more green. At best people keep making money on oil until it runs out and we have to switch anyway. Might as well be now regardless of climate change. Further, beyond just climate change the search for oil and fossil fuels is destroying ecosystems, communities, and to no small extent global stability. Climate change is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and increased its density to the point that it collapsed inward into a singularity. Oil has been bad for us pretty much since we first started using it. Now its running out and there really is no way to make it not bad for us.

Mirai Gen · 03-06-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thadius

Ah. So my time capsule needs to be set for about 700 years then instead of 500. Gotcha.

IGNORANCE VS SCIENCE

WHO WILL WIN

03-06-2010, 08:59 PM	#8
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Thad we've got climate data stretching back thousands of years from ice cores, fossil records, and various other sources that indicate the kind of rapid changes we're seeing are not natural. (Except for maybe under extreme circumstances like the end of the last Snowball Earth event and last I checked the equator wasn't covered in ice.) Here is some suggested reading for everyone. I'd check your local library but it is well worth buying. It not only tells the story of how anthropological global climate change became an accepted theory it also details very well how research is done, how scientific facts become accepted, how they change, and how science as a whole is effected by various societal pressures. As for Bob if he's still listening. There are two main reasons why I eventually fell on the side of global climate change. First, I accept that even if I don't fully understand the science the people that actually did the science do. I trust an individual climatologist to know about what the climate is doing exactly as much as I trust an individual doctor to know what is going on in my body. Which is to say more than basically anyone else. In this particular case we have just about every climatologist ever saying we're the problem. That would be like getting a couple thousand second opinions on a cancer diagnosis that confirmed it and maybe a 100 that disagreed. You damn well bet I'd undergo chemotherapy. Second, there is nothing to be gained from not cutting back and becoming more green. At best people keep making money on oil until it runs out and we have to switch anyway. Might as well be now regardless of climate change. Further, beyond just climate change the search for oil and fossil fuels is destroying ecosystems, communities, and to no small extent global stability. Climate change is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and increased its density to the point that it collapsed inward into a singularity. Oil has been bad for us pretty much since we first started using it. Now its running out and there really is no way to make it not bad for us. Last edited by Sithdarth; 03-06-2010 at 09:11 PM.

03-06-2010, 07:02 PM	#4
Ibian Goomba Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 20	Incidentally, there is good evidence that Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. It involves archaeology. And vikings. Cue the pointing and laughing.