It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978



And what if we do what they want, and hundreds of millions starve and freeze to death for no reason when they are wrong?


How would that happen exactly?


I guess because no matter what we do, we wouldn't be able to slow down Global warming. So instead of seeing mass migration from certain areas of the World, the people living there will either starve or freeze to death.


How do you know this? Also where does freezing to death come from?


The temperature gets down real low in desert like areas, just ask the people freezing to death in Syria. But we can ignore all that.


So the whole world is going to turn into a desert due to global warming?


Again Straw Man tactics, words in mouth and all that.

Certain areas, are you not reading all my posts?


I've read every one of your posts. In fact, I've responded to a bunch of them with questions and concerns and you've ignored most of them in order to talk about this concern which I care little about.

Also, not every argument that you disagree with is a strawman.

By the way, you have no argument unless you can disprove AGW through scientific means. Everything else is just speculation.
edit on 11-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

"The replacement of broad leaf species like oak with conifers has increased warming" That is interesting. I doubt the loggers replace the hardwood trees they take out with anything but fast growing pines,which,of course, also screws it up for any woodland animals that no longer have acorns or nut trees to live off of.
edit on 11-2-2016 by korath because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Sargeras
There is not any technology to replace the world's energy needs period.

Green technology is a joke, it still cannot come close to competing with fossil fuels, even with huge government subsidies.


So you acknowledge that the climate is changing, your only quarrel is that our current technology isn't substantial enough to switch to.

I'm not quite sure what your position is? Should we not attempt to create better technology?


originally posted by: Sargeras
What's the plan, watch everyone either freeze or starve or some combination of the 2?


Where is this freezing and starving thing coming from?


originally posted by: Sargeras
Because that is the only way to comply with the greenies demands.


What demands, exactly? To be more energy efficient and use renewable resources? Why are those two things bad?


The climate is changing, and it is warming, that is what happens when an ice age ends.

We don't even know if it is possible to replace fossil fuels with green technology, and if it is when that will even be possible.

If we reduce our carbon output to the levels that the greenies want, the world will starve, because our agriculture and transportation infrastructure depends on energy, a lot of energy.

Without fossil fuels for heat, half the world would freeze in 1 winter, or we would burn every tree on earth for heat.

My position is that I am tired of the hyperbole and grandstanding.

If I disagree with AGW I get told I am antiscience etc...

When I am anything but, I am well educated and very knowledgeable in many fields of science.

There is a great plethora of evidence that this is all just hot air, and that it is at a minimum blown completely out of proportion.

This is not unprecedented warming.

There is no evidence that Co2 can even cause the type of warming that is being proposed.

There is in fact millions of years of evidence that more Co2 is in fact good for the earth and life on it.

We are actually at one of the lowest atmospheric Co2 concentrations in geological history.

Out of control warming has never happened, even at thousands of PPM Co2 concentrations.

You know what did happen though?

A lush tropical paradise that lasted for hundreds of millions of years.

We are currently just barely above the minimum Co2 required for plants to even conduct photosynthesis.

Higher Co2 makes bigger faster growing plants, which means more food food from less land.


I could go on all day, but suffice to say, I am very skeptical of a great many claims of the climate change crowd.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

You saying you are tired of hyperboles is rich.
What education in science has shown you that what is going on right now is not alarming?

And sources for your CO2 claims please.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sargeras

It's called innovation. Just because it doesn't exist now, doesn't mean it cannot exist in the future. We just need to stop this stupid argument about if man made climate change is real or not and start focusing on solutions.


I agree, but our technology is nowhere close yet.

I wish it were but it isn't.

And it is not because of a lack of funding, trillions have been spent in green technology, and it is not even close.

I think it is at least 100 years out if it is even possible to replace fossil fuels.

We are cave men trying to build a car with rocks and a bone....



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Sargeras

You saying you are tired of hyperboles is rich.
What education in science has shown you that what is going on right now is not alarming?

And sources for your CO2 claims please.


I am not linking common knowledge, you have the net thus google.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
The climate is changing, and it is warming, that is what happens when an ice age ends.

We don't even know if it is possible to replace fossil fuels with green technology, and if it is when that will even be possible.

If we reduce our carbon output to the levels that the greenies want, the world will starve, because our agriculture and transportation infrastructure depends on energy, a lot of energy.

Without fossil fuels for heat, half the world would freeze in 1 winter, or we would burn every tree on earth for heat.


You are under the misconception that we would replace all these things all at once. Of course not, we'd want to ween ourselves off of it and slowly head to the other technologies.


My position is that I am tired of the hyperbole and grandstanding.

If I disagree with AGW I get told I am antiscience etc...


Because disagreeing with AGW IS antiscience. Especially without scientific evidence to back your opinion up, which you've presented none.


When I am anything but, I am well educated and very knowledgeable in many fields of science.


So why aren't you using that knowledge of science to critique the AGW theory? Where is your science that shows it isn't true?


There is a great plethora of evidence that this is all just hot air, and that it is at a minimum blown completely out of proportion.


No there isn't. Though if you know about it and I don't, you are free to post it; but just saying this is the case doesn't make it true.


This is not unprecedented warming.

There is no evidence that Co2 can even cause the type of warming that is being proposed.


Yes there is. It's a greenhouse gas.


There is in fact millions of years of evidence that more Co2 is in fact good for the earth and life on it.


You do know that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing right?


We are actually at one of the lowest atmospheric Co2 concentrations in geological history.

Out of control warming has never happened, even at thousands of PPM Co2 concentrations.


Human civilization is USED to this CO2 concentration, we aren't used to other concentrations of CO2 in the air. That is how we evolved.


You know what did happen though?

A lush tropical paradise that lasted for hundreds of millions of years.

We are currently just barely above the minimum Co2 required for plants to even conduct photosynthesis.

Higher Co2 makes bigger faster growing plants, which means more food food from less land.


I could go on all day, but suffice to say, I am very skeptical of a great many claims of the climate change crowd.


Could you? How about stop wasting our time with your opinions and actually produce some scientific evidence that it is fraudulent for once?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Sargeras

You saying you are tired of hyperboles is rich.
What education in science has shown you that what is going on right now is not alarming?

And sources for your CO2 claims please.


I am not linking common knowledge, you have the net thus google.


Burden of Proof


When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. [1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]


Prove our own claims mate.
edit on 11-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Sargeras

You saying you are tired of hyperboles is rich.
What education in science has shown you that what is going on right now is not alarming?

And sources for your CO2 claims please.


I am not linking common knowledge, you have the net thus google.


Typical cop out, you make claims but when asked to back them up you just say no, you do it. That isnt how it works. Burden of proof is on you buddy.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

The climate is changing, and it is warming, that is what happens when an ice age ends.


Indeed,

Except the Ice Age ended thousands of years ago.

Although no new ice age is expected, we have nonetheless been in a cooling period for the past 4-5,000 years.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

I think you underestimate the progress of our technological advancements or the drive of human innovation.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I'm not upset by it, in fact, I like to quote George Carlin every single time I see someone scream Global Warming is going to kill everyone.

Nope, the Earth is going to kill everyone and after we are long gone, Earth will replenish itself, regenerate and recycle the pieces of # that we are and then continue on for another few billion years.

It's man's ego, that's all it is.

I'm just curious about how all the Global Warming people think in their heads, if say, one day the Ice Age comes. It is inevitable, we are going to get another Ice Age eventually, so what happens then? It's all our fault? We need to work together to fight against nature?

Anyway, I like to quote George here:



We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these #ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the #ing planet?

I'm getting tired of that #. Tired of that #. I'm tired of #ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a # about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are #ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your #, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What are you trying to prove here? That climate change happened in the past thus it cannot possibly be caused by man in the present? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between those two premises.


Nor is there 100% proof that man is causing this one that is happening now...only causation equals finding and stretching ways for it to equal correlation. Contributing factor? Sure. Cause of? Doubt it.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: truthseeker84

Well shoot since George Carlin said it....
I like me some Carlin too, but the guy isn't right about everything.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
The climate is changing, and it is warming, that is what happens when an ice age ends.


Good, we're at an understanding/agreement then. The only difference (I assume) is that I accept the evidence that shows that humans are having an impact on the speed in which the climate is changing. correct?


originally posted by: Sargeras
We don't even know if it is possible to replace fossil fuels with green technology, and if it is when that will even be possible.


We do actually know that it's possible, it's just that there is an incredible amount of resistance both from the companies that currently deal with fossil fuels, and from people who deny that the climate is changing at all.


originally posted by: Sargeras
If we reduce our carbon output to the levels that the greenies want, the world will starve, because our agriculture and transportation infrastructure depends on energy, a lot of energy.


This is on the assumption that green energy doesn't work. The majority of Germany runs on green energy, they seem to be surviving just fine. We also have a plethora of inventions and technology out there that would allow us to eradicate the majority of non-green energy production, just like Germany has done, and still maintain the energy requirements that the world needs.

There are also a ton of concepts out there, such as Aquaponics, which create larger crop yields, with no external addition of nutrients, require 10x less water needed to produce an equivalent amount of food that conventional agriculture uses, and doesn't require GMO's to produce healthy crops. Furthermore, it can be built vertically, rather than horizontally, taking up less land, and requiring less deforestation.

Sorry, but this concept of yours is false on a number of counts.


originally posted by: Sargeras
Without fossil fuels for heat, half the world would freeze in 1 winter, or we would burn every tree on earth for heat.


Wood and fossil fuels are not our only source of heat. Again, I point to Germany, who's entire country runs 30% of their on green energy, and that's just with electricity. Then you have solar heating options, and geothermal heating options and in-floor air/water heating options, none of which require fossil fuels, all of which are renewable, all of which are less expensive in the long run.


originally posted by: Sargeras
My position is that I am tired of the hyperbole and grandstanding. If I disagree with AGW I get told I am antiscience etc... When I am anything but, I am well educated and very knowledgeable in many fields of science.


Yes, I've read your other posts outside of this topic of discussion, and I agree, you are knowledgeable. However, it doesn't appear that you're very aware of what technologies we have that are reliable, that are renewable, that are better alternatives to fossil fuels or any other non-renewable source in both efficiency and cost.


originally posted by: Sargeras
There is a great plethora of evidence that this is all just hot air, and that it is at a minimum blown completely out of proportion.


Can you please provide this evidence?


originally posted by: Sargeras
There is no evidence that Co2 can even cause the type of warming that is being proposed.


I wonder why so many reputable scientists acknowledge that it does, then?

Here's an excessively comprehensive list of evidence Source


originally posted by: Sargeras
There is in fact millions of years of evidence that more Co2 is in fact good for the earth and life on it.


No one is saying that Co2 is inherently bad. What we're saying is the level and rate at which we're producing is speeding up the process of climate change.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Sargeras
The climate is changing, and it is warming, that is what happens when an ice age ends.

We don't even know if it is possible to replace fossil fuels with green technology, and if it is when that will even be possible.

If we reduce our carbon output to the levels that the greenies want, the world will starve, because our agriculture and transportation infrastructure depends on energy, a lot of energy.

Without fossil fuels for heat, half the world would freeze in 1 winter, or we would burn every tree on earth for heat.


You are under the misconception that we would replace all these things all at once. Of course not, we'd want to ween ourselves off of it and slowly head to the other technologies.


My position is that I am tired of the hyperbole and grandstanding.

If I disagree with AGW I get told I am antiscience etc...


Because disagreeing with AGW IS antiscience. Especially without scientific evidence to back your opinion up, which you've presented none.


When I am anything but, I am well educated and very knowledgeable in many fields of science.


So why aren't you using that knowledge of science to critique the AGW theory? Where is your science that shows it isn't true?


There is a great plethora of evidence that this is all just hot air, and that it is at a minimum blown completely out of proportion.


No there isn't. Though if you know about it and I don't, you are free to post it; but just saying this is the case doesn't make it true.


This is not unprecedented warming.

There is no evidence that Co2 can even cause the type of warming that is being proposed.


Yes there is. It's a greenhouse gas.


There is in fact millions of years of evidence that more Co2 is in fact good for the earth and life on it.


You do know that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing right?


We are actually at one of the lowest atmospheric Co2 concentrations in geological history.

Out of control warming has never happened, even at thousands of PPM Co2 concentrations.


Human civilization is USED to this CO2 concentration, we aren't used to other concentrations of CO2 in the air. That is how we evolved.


You know what did happen though?

A lush tropical paradise that lasted for hundreds of millions of years.

We are currently just barely above the minimum Co2 required for plants to even conduct photosynthesis.

Higher Co2 makes bigger faster growing plants, which means more food food from less land.


I could go on all day, but suffice to say, I am very skeptical of a great many claims of the climate change crowd.


Could you? How about stop wasting our time with your opinions and actually produce some scientific evidence that it is fraudulent for once?


Name anything I posted that is not accurate.

I don't waste my time posting links because this horse was beaten to death hundreds of times.

You want to believe, so so.

But don't call me antiscience, because that is retarded, as I am not antiscience.

Antiscience would mean I am some religious nutter that claims science is wrong based on my beliefs.

My skepticism is founded in science, and maybe I am wrong, but this does not make me antiscience, because the entire premise of Science is to be skeptical, and not to take things at face value because they were told to you by a scientist.

If we all used science like you, we would not have advanced to the steam engine, because before it was invented, we had discovered everything worth discovering, according to the Royal academy of Science.

Interesting fact Einstein himself went against the grain to develop general relativity.

But what would I know, I am antiscience because I don't blindly believe what I am told.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I am about to drive home, I will respond back in about an hour and a half.

Long trip out to the boonies where I live.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Ghost147

I am about to drive home, I will respond back in about an hour and a half.

Long trip out to the boonies where I live.


Alrighty, take your time



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What are you trying to prove here? That climate change happened in the past thus it cannot possibly be caused by man in the present? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between those two premises.


This is one of those aspects of "the argument" which simply boggles my mind. It seems a great many people feel that if the climate ever changed naturally, then there is no possibility of the climate changing at least in part due to human influence. The second aspect which is difficult for me to believe people don't understand is that it is possible that more than one factor is at play in today's climate, parts (all?) of which we may not completely understand.

For me though, I think we should be more concerned with what we're going to do about the effects of climate change (how we're going to cope/adapt) than with figuring out what the cause(s) is(are.) It's unfortunate that we're wasting time and resources trying to figure out what to blame.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Now people are claiming it's at least part of the cause. So, it's not Man made, it's a contribution from Man?

Oh well, everybody thinks they're right.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join