Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2701 - 2720 of 2954 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,657 Posts
Trying to change a person's belief with a barrage of facts, figures, and theories for or against will make no difference?
It should if the person is a rational thinker. We are not talking about religion which is hocus pocus anyway
...

Anyway, I hear you and can see some do not believe any scientist, on either side. Guess they must live under a rock.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Religion is not hocus pocus, as obviously yourself being an agnostic.... you would never know. PSK you insulted many here. Sadly, you are the one that lives under a rock....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Consider the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun. This eccentric cycle takes about 100,000 years varying from almost circular to more elliptical.

Then you have precession of the Earth's axis, a wobbling cycle running at 23,000 years.

Many magnetic pole reversals have happened over Earth's geologic history., the last one 780,000 yrs ago. They're not quick, the "flip" takes thousands of years. In the recent years the N/S field has gotten weaker, when the field get too weak the reversal process begins...a factor?

Exclusive of precession is axial tilt which varies 3 degrees over a 43;000 yr cycle.

These cycles each effect the amount of solar radiation reaching earth. Each on their own cycle, in a complex interface. I suspect any one of these on it's own overwhelms the + or - effect of our species on the planet.

I do believe in global warming...and in global cooling...and in climate change. It's happened over and over during Earth's existence. I believe in cow farts and brontosaurus farts. If the zealot true believers get their way, they may figure out a way to tax us each on our portion of the Milankovitch cycles!

My brain hurts. I think I'll hop in the GTV and burn some hydrocarbons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
...more CO2 means hotter temperatures and more eratic climate...
My understanding is that other variables have much more impact than CO2. Yet the models are so inaccurate, seems the truth is really unknown.

What if we had the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? What would be the correct percentage? Where should we stop before we go too far? Would CO2 level from 1950 be okay? How do we know when enough is enough. I am not willing to adopt an Amish lifestyle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
Not that this will change anybody's mind, of course. Nonetheless, as Bob has said---again and again---on this thread . . .

I have a neat idea. Let's all practice saying i-n-t-e-r-g-l-a-c-i-a-l.

And let's hope those unnamed scientists are all senior faculty with tenure. No un-tenured junior faculty member trying to build a career in climate science would dare mention such heretical ideas as these.

Science Digest reports that scientists are calling for urgent action to restrict carbon dioxide emissions to protect coral reefs from global warming. The Science Digest article asserts that coral reefs, “which have functioned relatively unchanged for some 24 million years, are now going through profound changes in their make-up.” A review of global temperatures during the past 24 million years, however, shows warming temperatures during the past 100 years since the end of the Little Ice Age are relatively insignificant compared to temperature swings during the past 24 million years.

Science Daily quoted Professor Nick Graham of Lancaster University saying, “Coral reefs have been with us in some form since the dinosaurs and today they are at the frontline in terms of responses to climate change and a range of other human pressures.”

Scientists, however, report that temperatures were warmer than today throughout most of the period since the last ice age glaciation ended 10,000 years ago. Moreover, scientists report that temperatures during each of the past several interglacial warm periods – lasting approximately 10,000 years apiece and separated by 100,000 years or more of advancing ice sheets – were warmer than our present interglacial warm period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
Very helpful to read more of the original piece...
Too many only read the headline and the first paragraph.

Back when newspapers were our main news source, I learned to read what was on the front page, THEN read the last two paragraphs on pg. 26. The author always included the important info there. The first page sells newspapers and the last paragraph completes the information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
No, but I was a geology major at Occidental College for 2 years before switching to a kinesiology major/history minor. Too much time in the field looking at the same 4 faces forced my hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
The highest biodiversity of corals, about 600 species, and of reef fish, is in the world’s warmest ocean, the Coral Triangle. Corals retreated to the warmest seas as the Pleistocene cooling set in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Still not enough failed predictions for the Climate Alarmists to admit that they are on the wrong side of History yet:


May 14, 2019
Wettest 12-month period on record leaves US nearly drought-free amid rampant flooding
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/wettest-12-months-on-record-leaves-us-nearly-drought-free-amid-rampant-flooding/70008265


Now, did the Alarmists predict the above? Nope...


Global warming will intensify drought, says new study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Still not enough failed predictions for the Climate Alarmists to admit that they are on the wrong side of History yet:


May 14, 2019
Wettest 12-month period on record leaves US nearly drought-free amid rampant flooding
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/wettest-12-months-on-record-leaves-us-nearly-drought-free-amid-rampant-flooding/70008265


Now, did the Alarmists predict the above? Nope...


Global warming will intensify drought, says new study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
More misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Climate change scientists absolutely predicted extreme weather events. Some areas will become more dry, while others will become more wet as the result of climate change. So droughts might be worse in Central Africa while floods more common in the Midwest U.S.. Changing the climate means changing many of the weather patterns that shape the climate in a specific region.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
The first three words in this thread are "DO YOU BELIEVE". Do you believe in GOD the resurrection of Jesus and the virgin birth or the man on the moon conspiracy or CLIMATE CHANGE Trying to change a person's belief with a barrage of facts, figures, and theories for or against will make no difference? Arguing climate change theory is pointless.
Throughout this discussion, I've never labored under the impression I was going to change anybody's mind. What I'm mostly arguing against is the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the arguments surrounding climate change. Before you argue against something, at least take time to truly understand it first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
More misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Climate change scientists absolutely predicted extreme weather events. Some areas will become more dry, while others will become more wet as the result of climate change. So droughts might be worse in Central Africa while floods more common in the Midwest U.S.. Changing the climate means changing many of the weather patterns that shape the climate in a specific region.
Change is not new. The reason it is called climate change just a way to allow for being all inclusive. No matter what happens, it can be said, see we were right.

If the science is so tight, then why are all of the predictions falling short?

Accurately measuring the average temperature is extremely difficult. Too many assumptions and adjustments are being made. The uniformity and standardization of temperature measurement is fiction. NASA cannot even measure year to year without adjustments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Both sides of this argument truly understand it.
It's the other side that won't listen.
And we all agree that misrepresentation and misunderstood facts are being pushed at us every day from both sides.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
On the physics side there is only one temperature history.
On the explanation side the amount of heat received at the Earth's surface forces glacial advances going back more than a million years ago. These have been relieved by the warming during an interglacial. The latter has been on for some 12,000 years and associated with the strongest solar activity in thousands of years.
Milankovitch in the 1920s came up with the theory that climate changes were driven by changes in orbital mechanics. That, in turn, changed the temperature trends recorded in the Earth's history.
Essentially, the last 40 years of data accumulation has confirmed this theory.
But the temp changes at the Earth have been greater than the changes in output from the sun.
Something has been missing.
Beginning some 10 years ago Svensmark began working on the theory that cosmic rays forced changed cloud cover. More clouds, more cool.
And from work in the lab, on measurements over weekly as well as much longer periods this theory is being confirmed.
The physics of climate understanding is on a renaissance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
More misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Climate change scientists absolutely predicted extreme weather events. Some areas will become more dry, while others will become more wet as the result of climate change. So droughts might be worse in Central Africa while floods more common in the Midwest U.S.. Changing the climate means changing many of the weather patterns that shape the climate in a specific region.
Change is not new. The reason it is called climate change just a way to allow for being all inclusive. No matter what happens, it can be said, see we were right.

If the science is so tight, then why are all of the predictions falling short?

Accurately measuring the average temperature is extremely difficult. Too many assumptions and adjustments are being made. The uniformity and standardization of temperature measurement is fiction. NASA cannot even measure year to year without adjustments.
Nobody is saying that change is new- they are saying the current change is unprecedented.

When you say predictions are falling short, which predictions are you referring to? I keep hearing about predictions made by politicians and media personalities- those aren’t scientists. Most of the examples of predictions falling short, aren’t- a cold winter in your area is irrelevant.

As to measurement- Temperature is a very easy thing to measure form an instrumentation standpoint. Hand waiving over “adjustments” should be explained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Even if climate change is true....there is NOTHING 1 ****ry alone can do to have any effect.......
That is likely true, although the largest emitters like the U.S. and China may be big enough to have some impact. As I explained earlier, that is the reason for attempts at international cooperation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Both sides of this argument truly understand it.
It's the other side that won't listen.
And we all agree that misrepresentation and misunderstood facts are being pushed at us every day from both sides.
Sure, but I am only responding to what is written here.

And I’m not taking about misrepresentation of facts- I’m taking about misrepresenting the argument of the other side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Fact is, while we are arguing about climate change, China and the rest of the world are moving forward with the energy technology of the future. They are moving away from coal, we want to go back to it. We need to move forward not backwards.
 
2701 - 2720 of 2954 Posts
Top