Blizzard in USA – Extreme Cold in Asia

Actually son, that's your global warming true believer's requirement. What you want, isn't possible without eliminating the other world governments and killing off a fair bit of the population. And even then it will do nothing.

Really? Do explain.

You didn't expect anyone to just accept your conspiracy theory at face value, did you? If you're going to accuse people of pushing genocide, you'll need to back up such crazy talk.

Human civilization was built around the current climate...which is an environment that's come into being after....a fisking ice age. If you were paying attention during global temperature history class...which apparently you weren't, this is not the first time this has happened.

Red herring, one that you're using to evade the issue. What does the previous ice age have to do with human civilization being built around the current climate?

News flash princess, it won't be the last.

But we can avoid accelerating the pace of change by a factor of a hundred or more. Given thousands of years, human civilization can adapt well. But with that change compressed into a few decades, there are going to be catastrophes.

You seem to think it's possible for man to either stop, or start a warming/cooling trend. It is not within man's capability to do so. He can fractionally affect said trends, but only marginally.

The way you hold to your faith in your cult's religion in the face of all the evidence is touching and inspiring. However, applying those religious beliefs to the real world will kill many people, so we'll pass.
 
I wish someone here would take the time to study a bit of history. Prior to the 1600s, the population of Europe blossomed because of good weather that allowed a huge increase in food production.

Along came the Mini Ice Age and food became short - creating rebellions and a major shake up in European civilization.

When that ended, we had yet another increase in population.

In other words, WEATHER GOES THROUGH CYCLES AND THOSE CYCLES AFFECT HUMANITY!
 
Actually son, that's your global warming true believer's requirement. What you want, isn't possible without eliminating the other world governments and killing off a fair bit of the population. And even then it will do nothing.

Really? Do explain.

You didn't expect anyone to just accept your conspiracy theory at face value, did you? If you're going to accuse people of pushing genocide, you'll need to back up such crazy talk.

Human civilization was built around the current climate...which is an environment that's come into being after....a fisking ice age. If you were paying attention during global temperature history class...which apparently you weren't, this is not the first time this has happened.

Red herring, one that you're using to evade the issue. What does the previous ice age have to do with human civilization being built around the current climate?

News flash princess, it won't be the last.

But we can avoid accelerating the pace of change by a factor of a hundred or more. Given thousands of years, human civilization can adapt well. But with that change compressed into a few decades, there are going to be catastrophes.

You seem to think it's possible for man to either stop, or start a warming/cooling trend. It is not within man's capability to do so. He can fractionally affect said trends, but only marginally.

The way you hold to your faith in your cult's religion in the face of all the evidence is touching and inspiring. However, applying those religious beliefs to the real world will kill many people, so we'll pass.

How do you intend to force every world government to follow the stringent restrictions on emissions without conquering them? Or are you stupid enough to think they'll do so just cause you'd really like it.....even though it will cripple their economies.

Human civilization being built around the current climate as if that's never going to change

Since the oceans have risen and fallen throughout global history expecting it to always be exactly the same...yeah, that's stupid.

We can't accelerate the pace of change by a factor of a hundred. At best a small fraction. The change will not be compressed into a few decades....seems you warmer enthusiasts have been trumpeting this for decades already....with virtually no change.

I'm not holding any religious stance in this. I stand on very firm scientific ground....you see why the ground I stand on is firm, and the ground beneath you seems awfully shaky, is that I'm looking at all the data.....not about 0.00004% of it. Which is exactly what you're doing.
 
"The global warming which recently hit the USA, has spread to a large area of East Asia, with reports of a brutal cold snap which has killed at least 85 people in Taiwan, and confirmed snowfall as far south as the Japanese island Okinawa, on the Northern edge of the Tropics."

Brutal Freeze kills 85+ people in Tropical Taiwan

IF it were truly warming the cold would be pushed pole ward and tightly contained near the poles. But that is not what is happening. The cold is reaching to the equator.. Now why would that BE?
 
How do you intend to force every world government to follow the stringent restrictions on emissions without conquering them?

Should it ever come to that, economic penalties will work just fine. But as all nations are cooperating voluntarily, it doesn't look like it will come to that. Hence, your belief that conquest will be required looks very peculiar and paranoid.

Or are you stupid enough to think they'll do so just cause you'd really like it.....even though it will cripple their economies.

And yet they're doing so. Reality has a bone to pick with you.

Human civilization being built around the current climate as if that's never going to change

Since the oceans have risen and fallen throughout global history expecting it to always be exactly the same...yeah, that's stupid.

Again, your logic fails, as it doesn't account for the pace of change.

We can't accelerate the pace of change by a factor of a hundred. At best a small fraction. The change will not be compressed into a few decades....seems you warmer enthusiasts have been trumpeting this for decades already....with virtually no change.

Reality ... as in the current rate of fast warming ... disagrees very strongly with you.

I'm not holding any religious stance in this. I stand on very firm scientific ground....you see why the ground I stand on is firm, and the ground beneath you seems awfully shaky, is that I'm looking at all the data.....not about 0.00004% of it. Which is exactly what you're doing.

Nah, you're ignoring all the data and substituting a religious fantasy.
 
"The global warming which recently hit the USA, has spread to a large area of East Asia, with reports of a brutal cold snap which has killed at least 85 people in Taiwan, and confirmed snowfall as far south as the Japanese island Okinawa, on the Northern edge of the Tropics."

Brutal Freeze kills 85+ people in Tropical Taiwan

IF it were truly warming the cold would be pushed pole ward and tightly contained near the poles. But that is not what is happening. The cold is reaching to the equator.. Now why would that BE?
probably confused cause someone moved the baseline
 
How do you intend to force every world government to follow the stringent restrictions on emissions without conquering them?

Should it ever come to that, economic penalties will work just fine. But as all nations are cooperating voluntarily, it doesn't look like it will come to that. Hence, your belief that conquest will be required looks very peculiar and paranoid.

Or are you stupid enough to think they'll do so just cause you'd really like it.....even though it will cripple their economies.

And yet they're doing so. Reality has a bone to pick with you.

Human civilization being built around the current climate as if that's never going to change

Since the oceans have risen and fallen throughout global history expecting it to always be exactly the same...yeah, that's stupid.

Again, your logic fails, as it doesn't account for the pace of change.

We can't accelerate the pace of change by a factor of a hundred. At best a small fraction. The change will not be compressed into a few decades....seems you warmer enthusiasts have been trumpeting this for decades already....with virtually no change.

Reality ... as in the current rate of fast warming ... disagrees very strongly with you.

I'm not holding any religious stance in this. I stand on very firm scientific ground....you see why the ground I stand on is firm, and the ground beneath you seems awfully shaky, is that I'm looking at all the data.....not about 0.00004% of it. Which is exactly what you're doing.

Nah, you're ignoring all the data and substituting a religious fantasy.
well see we put the baseline back where it belongs and 58 is < 62 again, so it isn't getting any warmer. How about that now?
 
How do you intend to force every world government to follow the stringent restrictions on emissions without conquering them?

Should it ever come to that, economic penalties will work just fine. But as all nations are cooperating voluntarily, it doesn't look like it will come to that. Hence, your belief that conquest will be required looks very peculiar and paranoid.

Or are you stupid enough to think they'll do so just cause you'd really like it.....even though it will cripple their economies.

And yet they're doing so. Reality has a bone to pick with you.

Human civilization being built around the current climate as if that's never going to change

Since the oceans have risen and fallen throughout global history expecting it to always be exactly the same...yeah, that's stupid.

Again, your logic fails, as it doesn't account for the pace of change.

We can't accelerate the pace of change by a factor of a hundred. At best a small fraction. The change will not be compressed into a few decades....seems you warmer enthusiasts have been trumpeting this for decades already....with virtually no change.

Reality ... as in the current rate of fast warming ... disagrees very strongly with you.

I'm not holding any religious stance in this. I stand on very firm scientific ground....you see why the ground I stand on is firm, and the ground beneath you seems awfully shaky, is that I'm looking at all the data.....not about 0.00004% of it. Which is exactly what you're doing.

Nah, you're ignoring all the data and substituting a religious fantasy.

And yet the nations aren't cooperating voluntarily. Hence the complaining that the US needs to do more to offset the others failures.

Reality is over there, you might wanna take a peek.

The pace of change is no faster than it has been in history....or have you bothered to avoid looking at the many times it's happened in the past. Hint: I'd start with the Silurian Period.

Reality does agree with me. Per pretty much every source you use, in the last 130 years we've seen a rise of....wait for it....less than 8 inches. That's coming out of the little ice age.

I'm not ignoring all the data, I'm looking at all of it. I've noticed...apparently you haven't that the globe warms...and cools, rapidly sometimes and has done so many times through it's history, without man bothering to help or hinder it fractionally.

Did you notice the global temperature was much higher in recent history during the Eocene Epoch. Doesn't look like it. That's called science, you might want to familiarize yourself with it. That's just one very recent example.
 
And how much of human culture was built during the Eocene? You know, at one point the Earth was a ball of molten rock. Does that mean we shouldn't act to avoid it becoming a molten ball once again? What relevance do you believe the Eocene has to today's circumstances?
 
And how much of human culture was built during the Eocene? You know, at one point the Earth was a ball of molten rock. Does that mean we shouldn't act to avoid it becoming a molten ball once again? What relevance do you believe the Eocene has to today's circumstances?

The planet quite simply doesn't care about human culture. It's climate will fluctuate according to many influences...mostly that big ball of hot gas we call Sol.

The Eocene is very recent history. I used very recent global history, as opposed to the Pre-Cambrian...which oddly enough experienced temperature ranges during parts of it according to the data we've uncovered about that time not too dissimilar to today.

You apparently don't believe recent global history is important when looking at current trending to see if this sort of thing has oh I dunno...happened before? Without that human culture you seem to think is a problem.
 
The planet quite simply doesn't care about human culture.

Ethical humans, however, do care about it, and will try to prevent the deaths of many millions and the economic devastation that unchecked global warming will cause. You, however, just shrug and say it doesn't matter, because the planet doesn't care. That will no doubt be of great comfort to your victims.

It's climate will fluctuate according to many influences...

Such as ... man. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past does not mean humans can't change climate, so you should stop pushing that bad logic.

mostly that big ball of hot gas we call Sol.

However, given that the sun has been cool for the past couple decades, we know with 100% certainty that the sun is not causing the current fast warming.

Don't try the "Those egghead scientists clearly don't know 'nuffin, because they ignored the sun!" line of attack. It's absurd and totally contrary to reality.

The Eocene is very recent history. I used very recent global history, as opposed to the Pre-Cambrian...which oddly enough experienced temperature ranges during parts of it according to the data we've uncovered about that time not too dissimilar to today.

And the rate of those changes was ...?

You refuse to address the issue of the rate of change. Because you can't. It destroys your arguments, so you have to ignore it.

You apparently don't believe recent global history is important when looking at current trending to see if this sort of thing has oh I dunno...happened before? Without that human culture you seem to think is a problem.

So you're okay with the devastation of human culture, as long as the planet survives? Interesting. Sounds kind of gaia-worshipping, your prioritizing of the ThePlanet over humanity.
 
The planet quite simply doesn't care about human culture.

Ethical humans, however, do care about it, and will try to prevent the deaths of many millions and the economic devastation that unchecked global warming will cause. You, however, just shrug and say it doesn't matter, because the planet doesn't care. That will no doubt be of great comfort to your victims.

It's climate will fluctuate according to many influences...

Such as ... man. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past does not mean humans can't change climate, so you should stop pushing that bad logic.

mostly that big ball of hot gas we call Sol.

However, given that the sun has been cool for the past couple decades, we know with 100% certainty that the sun is not causing the current fast warming.

Don't try the "Those egghead scientists clearly don't know 'nuffin, because they ignored the sun!" line of attack. It's absurd and totally contrary to reality.

The Eocene is very recent history. I used very recent global history, as opposed to the Pre-Cambrian...which oddly enough experienced temperature ranges during parts of it according to the data we've uncovered about that time not too dissimilar to today.

And the rate of those changes was ...?

You refuse to address the issue of the rate of change. Because you can't. It destroys your arguments, so you have to ignore it.

You apparently don't believe recent global history is important when looking at current trending to see if this sort of thing has oh I dunno...happened before? Without that human culture you seem to think is a problem.

So you're okay with the devastation of human culture, as long as the planet survives? Interesting. Sounds kind of gaia-worshipping, your prioritizing of the ThePlanet over humanity.

I will create no victims. You on the other hand? In your arrogance you believe man is capable of something...he isn't. Man is a marginal influence on the climate. There's no question man has an influence, but man cannot stop, cannot start a warming or cooling trend. He can affect it slightly, but that's all.

Because you're thinking you can manipulate an impossibly complex system without any negative consequence? You don't see that going bad? It surely will.

My logic is sound, because it looks at the whole picture, not a tiny piece...as you do. If you compare global climate history and what you're using as data to determine what is going to be the course of it's future...and you equate it to a year. You're looking at the last 0.26 seconds of today, and ignoring the rest of the year to do it. That's how pitifully inadequate the "settled science" you crow about is. Your argument would have much more credibility if we could at least get a weekly forecast about next week's rain right.

If you look at a graph of climate temperature history, this one's a decent one http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi and you put it all to scale, you'll see the rate of increase, and decrease is remarkably similar. Your problem is you swallow the line "fastest increase in recorded history"....and equate that to mean...all of history. It's not, they're just talking about the last 150 years or so. Not to mention the error factor in the reliability of said measuring devices has been shown to be questionable at best. You cannot say this increase is faster than than the Permian, or the Eocene, never mind the Silurian which looks steeper than any of them because the ability to parse the data down to mere 200 year intervals unless something's changed just isn't doable. So you see I not only address it...I point out the inability to correlate so narrow a data section as you use today, to anything prior.

Human culture will survive. Humanity survive the Dryas, which was no easy feat considering the conditions and man's ability to adjust to his environment at that time. It will certainly be able to deal with a few feet of sea water over a few million years.

You see despite the doom and gloom your warming prophets have been preaching for decades, there's very, very little change in those sea levels. Oh...and when mankind starts desalinating more of those oceans I think you're going to find your "massive increases in sea levels" are going to be marginal changes yet again.

Want to spend some money on something useful? Spend it on that. More potable water is something mankind's needing more of.
 
I will create no victims. You on the other hand? In your arrogance you believe man is capable of something...he isn't. Man is a marginal influence on the climate. There's no question man has an influence, but man cannot stop, cannot start a warming or cooling trend. He can affect it slightly, but that's all.

Unsupported assertion and wishful thinking on your part, contradicted by the directly observed data. You being unable to believe something has no effect on the reality of it.

Because you're thinking you can manipulate an impossibly complex system without any negative consequence? You don't see that going bad? It surely will.

That's your strategy, as you're the one proposing manipulating the system by dumping unlimited amounts of CO2 into it. We're the ones trying to stop your plan.

You also seem rather confused. First you say man can't affect climate much at all, then you tell us man will create "negative consequences" in the climate system. You're contradicting yourself. Can you pick one argument and stick with it?

My logic is sound, because it looks at the whole picture, not a tiny piece...as you do.

Your bad logic relies on the fallacy "Climate changed naturally in the past, so it's not possible humans can change climate." Declaring that your bad logic isn't bad doesn't make it less bad.

If you compare global climate history and what you're using as data to determine what is going to be the course of it's future...and you equate it to a year. You're looking at the last 0.26 seconds of today, and ignoring the rest of the year to do it. That's how pitifully inadequate the "settled science" you crow about is.

That red herring doesn't smell any better with repetition. You're still ignoring the current unprecedented rate of change, and the fact that human civilization grew up in the current stable climate, and didn't exist in those previous eras.

Your argument would have much more credibility if we could at least get a weekly forecast about next week's rain right.

And now you're confusing climate and weather.

If you look at a graph of climate temperature history, this one's a decent one http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi and you put it all to scale, you'll see the rate of increase, and decrease is remarkably similar. Your problem is you swallow the line "fastest increase in recorded history"....and equate that to mean...all of history. It's not, they're just talking about the last 150 years or so. Not to mention the error factor in the reliability of said measuring devices has been shown to be questionable at best. You cannot say this increase is faster than than the Permian, or the Eocene, never mind the Silurian which looks steeper than any of them because the ability to parse the data down to mere 200 year intervals unless something's changed just isn't doable. So you see I not only address it...I point out the inability to correlate so narrow a data section as you use today, to anything prior.

First, "You can't absolutely prove climate didn't shift on a dime before, therefore it did!" is not valid science.

And second, it's not relevant to the issue. We know humans are the ones changing the climate quickly now. Directly observed evidence shows us that. The fact that climate changed in the past, quickly or slowly, is not relevant to the fact that humans are changing the climate quickly right now, which is a bad thing to do.

Human culture will survive. Humanity survive the Dryas, which was no easy feat considering the conditions and man's ability to adjust to his environment at that time. It will certainly be able to deal with a few feet of sea water over a few million years.

And as nobody claimed human culture wouldn't survive, that's a strawman. Saying "But human culture will survive!" is not an excuse to allow the catastrophic damage and the deaths of millions. We can and should do better.

You see despite the doom and gloom your warming prophets have been preaching for decades, there's very, very little change in those sea levels.

Sea levels have increased exactly as the science predicted. The fact that you paid attention to Hollywood hysteria instead of the science doesn't reflect badly on the science.

Oh...and when mankind starts desalinating more of those oceans I think you're going to find your "massive increases in sea levels" are going to be marginal changes yet again.

Wow. That's one desperate red herring and big logic failure. Water taken out of the ocean doesn't just magically vanish. It eventually all evaporates or runs off, and ends up back in the oceans. Thus, desalinization has zero effect on sea levels. The only things humans do to directly decrease sea levels is build dams that store more water away from the oceans. On the other side of the equation, humans are pumping out ancient aquifiers, and putting that back into the water cycle increases the ocean levels.
 
Well, if you look at global climate history, you cannot correlate a CO2 change in a temperature change. If you bothered to look at that graph, you'd see that it had CO2 levels in it as well. So you're guessing that it does, with no foundation in global climate history to support it.

I'm not contradicting myself. Your warmer cult believes they can intentionally change the climate to suit them. That's your position, which you've repeatedly stated man needs to manipulate such things to keep the climate exactly as is to keep from inconveniencing current settlements.

My logic remains sound. Because I'm looking at the whole picture, not a tiny piece near one of the edges.

The "unprecedented rate of change" isn't unprecedented. See any of the previous warming trends or cooling trends throughout history. They all look a lot alike.

Weather is a effect of the climate system. You proclaim to have complete and total understanding of the system...and you don't even have an understanding of one of the effects. You apparently don't realize how great your ignorance is....and refuse to accept it when someone rationally points it out.

Actually pointing out how much it changed, and correlating that rate of change to this one based on the information available....is science. Ignoring previous data (your position) isn't. There are none, repeat none of your warmer cultists who can quantify how much man affects the climate. All of them are guessing....how do you know their guessing? Because they give you different numbers as to what the effect is, and can't show any kind of reliable consistency in their data.

Sea levels have increased exactly as science predicted....let's examine that just a bit shall we? Remember a man named Hansen? I suspect you might, he had that little hearing before congress in 88? How much was it again he predicted sea levels would rise in the next 20-40 years? Oh yes, about 10 FEET. Not inches. Missed it just a bit there didn't he. And that's the father of your warming cult.

I take it you haven't noticed the levels of potable water decrease. Humans do quite a bit more to reduce the amount available than just build dams. Yes humans are pumping out those ancient aquifers....apparently you have thought through where that ends. You might want to start.
 
I will create no victims. You on the other hand? In your arrogance you believe man is capable of something...he isn't. Man is a marginal influence on the climate. There's no question man has an influence, but man cannot stop, cannot start a warming or cooling trend. He can affect it slightly, but that's all.

Unsupported assertion and wishful thinking on your part, contradicted by the directly observed data. You being unable to believe something has no effect on the reality of it.

Because you're thinking you can manipulate an impossibly complex system without any negative consequence? You don't see that going bad? It surely will.

That's your strategy, as you're the one proposing manipulating the system by dumping unlimited amounts of CO2 into it. We're the ones trying to stop your plan.

You also seem rather confused. First you say man can't affect climate much at all, then you tell us man will create "negative consequences" in the climate system. You're contradicting yourself. Can you pick one argument and stick with it?

My logic is sound, because it looks at the whole picture, not a tiny piece...as you do.

Your bad logic relies on the fallacy "Climate changed naturally in the past, so it's not possible humans can change climate." Declaring that your bad logic isn't bad doesn't make it less bad.

If you compare global climate history and what you're using as data to determine what is going to be the course of it's future...and you equate it to a year. You're looking at the last 0.26 seconds of today, and ignoring the rest of the year to do it. That's how pitifully inadequate the "settled science" you crow about is.

That red herring doesn't smell any better with repetition. You're still ignoring the current unprecedented rate of change, and the fact that human civilization grew up in the current stable climate, and didn't exist in those previous eras.

Your argument would have much more credibility if we could at least get a weekly forecast about next week's rain right.

And now you're confusing climate and weather.

If you look at a graph of climate temperature history, this one's a decent one http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi and you put it all to scale, you'll see the rate of increase, and decrease is remarkably similar. Your problem is you swallow the line "fastest increase in recorded history"....and equate that to mean...all of history. It's not, they're just talking about the last 150 years or so. Not to mention the error factor in the reliability of said measuring devices has been shown to be questionable at best. You cannot say this increase is faster than than the Permian, or the Eocene, never mind the Silurian which looks steeper than any of them because the ability to parse the data down to mere 200 year intervals unless something's changed just isn't doable. So you see I not only address it...I point out the inability to correlate so narrow a data section as you use today, to anything prior.

First, "You can't absolutely prove climate didn't shift on a dime before, therefore it did!" is not valid science.

And second, it's not relevant to the issue. We know humans are the ones changing the climate quickly now. Directly observed evidence shows us that. The fact that climate changed in the past, quickly or slowly, is not relevant to the fact that humans are changing the climate quickly right now, which is a bad thing to do.

Human culture will survive. Humanity survive the Dryas, which was no easy feat considering the conditions and man's ability to adjust to his environment at that time. It will certainly be able to deal with a few feet of sea water over a few million years.

And as nobody claimed human culture wouldn't survive, that's a strawman. Saying "But human culture will survive!" is not an excuse to allow the catastrophic damage and the deaths of millions. We can and should do better.

You see despite the doom and gloom your warming prophets have been preaching for decades, there's very, very little change in those sea levels.

Sea levels have increased exactly as the science predicted. The fact that you paid attention to Hollywood hysteria instead of the science doesn't reflect badly on the science.

Oh...and when mankind starts desalinating more of those oceans I think you're going to find your "massive increases in sea levels" are going to be marginal changes yet again.

Wow. That's one desperate red herring and big logic failure. Water taken out of the ocean doesn't just magically vanish. It eventually all evaporates or runs off, and ends up back in the oceans. Thus, desalinization has zero effect on sea levels. The only things humans do to directly decrease sea levels is build dams that store more water away from the oceans. On the other side of the equation, humans are pumping out ancient aquifiers, and putting that back into the water cycle increases the ocean levels.
That's your strategy, as you're the one proposing manipulating the system by dumping unlimited amounts of CO2 into it. We're the ones trying to stop your plan.

What is the plan, I'm dying to hear this?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top