What if climate change is no hoax?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Apr 3, 2019.

  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    19,664
    Likes Received:
    4,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, and the random events are increasing in both intensity and frequency to a pattern we've never seen before.
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Over what period of time? Why is that period of time so significant as opposed to any other period of time?
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    19,664
    Likes Received:
    4,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When that which has happened over 10,000 or 20,000 years in the past, happens over one or two decades today, it's significant. Add to that the strong world-wide scientific agreement on the cause and you have an addressable issue.
     
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sea levels rose six to twelve feet per century 10000 years ago and you claim things are changing faster than that over the past two decades? Care to explain that?
     
  5. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    19,664
    Likes Received:
    4,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sea levels began to rise 18k years ago at the end of the last glacial period. They have risen about 135 meters since then which is an average of 7.5 millimeters per year. That is an average of 29.5 inches per century.

    The maximum "sea level rise per century" was 12 feet per century after the ice age!! The sea level had DROPPED 400 feet during the ice age!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems like you are helping me make my point here. Today's sea level rise is so slight as to be impossible to measure with any accuracy while post ice age was more than measurable it was a constant move to higher ground or drown.
     
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deleted double post
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2019
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    What is "that which has happened"?

    How do you know that it happened over 10,000 or 20,000 years; were you there to observe it happening from start to finish?

    Why is the 10K or 20K (cherry picked) time period significant as opposed to any other time period?

    What is "that which is happening"?

    Neither "that which has happened" nor "that which is happening" are significant in any way. You aren't even talking about any specific thing here...

    Science is not consensus, Kode. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Neither "that which has happened" nor "that which is happening" are falsifiable theories...

    The cause of WHAT, exactly?

    No, you have some mystery issue which isn't even being defined in any practical way...
     
  9. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    19,664
    Likes Received:
    4,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What are we talking about? See post 124 and 125 .... --CLIMATE CHANGE AND WEATHER CHANGE.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Climate Change is an undefined buzzword; it is meaningless.

    Weather changes all the time, as weather is a random event. Just today, where I am, it has changed from still and sunny to windy and rainy, and now it is still and cloudy.
     
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    19,664
    Likes Received:
    4,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll now try to argue the point in your style of "debating". Maybe that will be better for you.

    Climates don't buzz in my experience. But if you would like the definition of "climate" it is easily available.

    And the weather here today is different than it was yesterday. So maybe that proves there is no weather, because if it is constantly changing, it is never one specific thing. Every minute it is something different. So maybe "weather" is undefinable.

    And yet here, we see "Average temperature: 45.5°F" which is one aspect of climate data.

    There are thousands and thousands of scientists with PhDs studying and discussing "CLIMATE CHANGE" and now we have one poster on a political forum claiming the term and the study is "meaningless". I'll go with the scientists thank you.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  12. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,283
    Likes Received:
    7,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would seem that part of your problem here is the concept of time and how it is used to calibrate change.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    84,539
    Likes Received:
    18,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean the Global Warming dogma. The only think constant in climate is change.
     
  14. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You use time when it's convenient and discard it when it's inconvenient. It's convenient for you to include recent time so the LIA is included in your calibration and discard it when oceans rose six to nine feet a century because it's inconvenient and makes your predicted rise of centimeters or even inches look rather pathetic.
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,283
    Likes Received:
    7,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just displayed EXACTLY what I refer to. Climate change science is a relatively new concept and uses ancient as well as recent/current data points to calibrate the changes it studies. The last Ice Age is part of that material but is not relevant when discussing what is happening now or over the last century. Nothing is ever "Discarded" but if not useful in debate it will become pointless. What you seem to be doing is actually discarding what is happening now in favor of what happened long ago.
     
  16. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I'm pointing out that you want to discard what happened long ago while embracing the LIA period to validate your hypothesis that earths climate is warming extraordinarily rapidly now. It warmed faster and sea levels rose faster ten thousand years ago. It cooled very rapidly again a few hundred years ago and then warmed very rapidly as the LIA ended which coincided with the industrial revolution. You attempt to equate that as meaning the industrial revolution caused that warming cycle.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,283
    Likes Received:
    7,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay...let us try this:

    Who do you imagine gathered the data you use to designate your information on the Last Ice Age? Could it possibly be the scientists and others you now Ignore to make your point? I do not dispute the data on the LIA but instead your conclusion and interpretation as it runs against what the professionals you depended on interpretation. The time frames involved are also quite different in that the current trend is happening much, much faster than anything in the past according to the data you hold so dear but you also ignore or are unaware of that aspect. Then we have the amazingly coincidental industrial age carbon impact which perfectly matches this expediated warming.
     
  18. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The LIA proves just the opposite of what you assert which is climate is changing faster than ever before. Do some reserarch on it and find out about farmland and towns being swallowed by rapidly growing glaciers and get back to me. Also discover how quickly it warmed as we emerged from the LIA which coincided with the industrial age.
    As for scientific data the LIA is written history and doesn't really on that but the dramatic sea level rise post ice age does indeed rely on that. The mistake you zealots make about us skeptics is we deny science and scientist because we don't buy into a certain hypothesis which is a ludicrous assumption on your part. Not agreeing with a specific hypothesis in no way denotes any derision of science and actually is part of science itself.
     
  19. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,283
    Likes Received:
    7,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one was there to record the speed of change in the LIA so we cannot know if it took a week or a year to advance or retreat a foot. All we can do is speculate which you apparently do not care for very much.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  20. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    What if climate change is no hoax?

    it isn't. Climate change is real and has been occurring since the beginning of the earth creation.

    the real question should be whether or not we can change the climate.
     
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one was there? It's written history by people who watched their farms and towns plowed under by glaciers.

    "Only 150 years ago, Europe came to the end of a 500 year cold snap so severe that thousands of peasants starved. The Little Ice Age changed the course of European history. Dutch canals froze over for months, shipping could not leave port, and glaciers in the Swiss Alps overwhelmed mountain villages. Five hundred years of much colder weather changed European agriculture, helped tip the balance of political power from the Mediterranean states to the north, and contributed to the social unrest that culminated in the French Revolution. The poor suffered most. They were least able to adjust to changing circumstances and most susceptible to disease and increased mortality. These five centuries of periodic economic and social crisis in a much less densely populated Europe are a haunting reminder of the drastic consequences of even a modest cooling of global temperatures.

    The Little Ice Age was the most recent of three relatively long cold snaps during the past ten thousand years. The Younger Dryas that triggered agriculture in southwestern Asia was the most severe, for it brought glacial conditions back to Europe. Another cold snap in about 6200 B.C. lasted four centuries and caused widespread drought. The Little Ice Age had more impact on history than its two predecessors, for it descended on the world after centuries of unusually warm temperatures. One can reasonably call it the mother of all history-changing events.

    El Niños have destroyed civilizations and caused unimaginable suffering for at least five thousand years. They lie at one end of the climate-change spectrum -- short, often severe events that roll across the tropical regions of the world and leave destruction in their path. By overthrowing powerful rulers and entire societies, such events have been as dramatic in their historical impact at the local level as the much longer climatic oscillations, measured in centuries, that have affected entire continents. All these fluctuations, whether El Niños or La Niñas, cycles of unusually stormy weather, or suddenly much colder temperatures, are part of a complex global climatic machine that includes oscillations on all scales. We know the machine is driven at least partially by complex interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, and by deep-ocean circulations that transfer warm and cold water from the tropics to higher latitudes and back again. But many of the connections between such phenomena as El Niño and longer-term cycles such as the Little Ice Age remain a complete mystery.

    This chapter changes climatic gears and tells the story of four centuries of unusually cold weather that altered the course of European history. The Little Ice Age operated on a different scale from a short-lived El Niño; it danced to a different climatic drummer than the protean Christmas Child. We do not know what caused this, or earlier, cold snaps, beyond a suspicion that deep-ocean circulations and arctic downwelling were important parts of the climatic equation. We know more about the causes of El Niños than we do about the much longer Little Ice Age.

    The Little Ice Age was not a monolithic deep freeze, but a period of constant, and sometimes remarkable, climatic shifts between torrid summers and subzero winters."

    http://williamcalvin.com/readings/Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA.htm
     
  22. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,283
    Likes Received:
    7,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are referring to the gaps in medieval warming events which were regional or hemispheric events of short lived timespans vs. an actual Ice Age.
     
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay.

    Never said that they did.

    I already know it. Climate is generally defined as "weather over a long period of time".

    Correct.

    Does not follow... Also, a paradox... Weather either exists or it doesn't.

    Correct.

    Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a particular location and time.

    No idea what you are talking about... Average temperature of WHAT? How was that determined?

    So? What does a PhD have to do with anything? What does "thousands and thousands" have to do with anything? Science is NOT consensus, nor is it peer review, nor is it a degree or university course of any sort. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

    Bulverism Fallacy. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Buzzword Fallacy.
     
  24. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    19,664
    Likes Received:
    4,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok gfm, let's get back to the basis of all this. I replied to your post, and I'll reply to the same one again now.

    "Climate change" is not "undefined". So that statement is worthless due to being false.
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+"climate+change"&t=hi&search_plus_one=form&ia=definition

    Yes weather changes all the time, but that doesn't invalidate a study or discussion of "climate" or "climate change", which is the subject of the thread. So your post is off-topic.
     
  25. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually the LIA was worldwide but I fail to see what point you are attempting to make anyway
     

Share This Page