16 replies to this topic

[bullshort]

As pdx5 points out above, what caused the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago? Cetainly not man. And the emphasis should be on the word "last." I'm sure there will be others, albeit not in our lifetimes. On a planetary scale 10,000 years is not even a blink of the eye. I'm surprised, what with all the cycle experts on this board, someone hasn't pointed out the connection. Or, is the planet's climate immune from cycle theory?

[Rogerdodger]

SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY ALL THE RAGE AMONG THE GLITTERATI...

[EntropyModel]

As pdx5 points out above, what caused the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago? Cetainly not man. And the emphasis should be on the word "last." I'm sure there will be others, albeit not in our lifetimes. On a planetary scale 10,000 years is not even a blink of the eye.

I'm surprised, what with all the cycle experts on this board, someone hasn't pointed out the connection. Or, is the planet's climate immune from cycle theory?

This thread still up? politics are allowed now and encourage by moderators, great!

To answer this question without getting into the 'debate'

Natural heating/cooling cycles exists over 1000's to millions of years due to -
1. Variations in sun's energy output and other factors( variations in earth's spin/orbit/axis tilt).
2. Complex feedback system between carbon dioxide/plant storage of carbon/ice at caps/ocean temperatures.

Man made heating MAY exist due to interfering with (2) - would be over 10's to 100's of years since mid-1800's.

best,
Mark.

Edited by entropy, 28 December 2008 - 07:47 PM.

[bullshort]

As pdx5 points out above, what caused the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago? Cetainly not man. And the emphasis should be on the word "last." I'm sure there will be others, albeit not in our lifetimes. On a planetary scale 10,000 years is not even a blink of the eye.

I'm surprised, what with all the cycle experts on this board, someone hasn't pointed out the connection. Or, is the planet's climate immune from cycle theory?

This thread still up? politics are allowed now and encourage by moderators, great!

To answer this question without getting into the 'debate'

Natural heating/cooling cycles exists over 1000's to millions of years due to -
1. Variations in sun's energy output and other factors( variations in earth's spin/orbit/axis tilt).
2. Complex feedback system between carbon dioxide/plant storage of carbon/ice at caps/ocean temperatures.

Man made heating MAY exist due to interfering with (2) - would be over 10's to 100's of years since mid-1800's.

best,
Mark.

You seem to imply that merely disagreeing with the theory that global warming is caused by man constitutes a political post. There are hundreds of scientists that disagree with Al Gore's theory for scientific reasons, not political.

And speaking of theories, yours above is just that, nothing more, nothing less. I trust you will acknowledge that.

Best to you,

bullshort

[pdx5]

There has been NO real argument in the scientific community about global warming, or the fact that it is man made for some time. The rest is chatter.

So who caused the global warming 10,000 years ago to end the horrendous accumulation of glaciers
on the land mass what is now North America and ended the ice age ? Can any one of your "scientists"
answer that simple question?

Please note I AM NOT DENYING GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS. I am simply pointing out that cataclysmic
global warming has happened before when man could hardly ignite fire using 2 flint stones. I have not
seen conclusive evidence that global warming on a scale which happened 10,000 years ago exists. But
common sense tells me if it is happening, it is not man made.

Edited by pdx5, 28 December 2008 - 10:24 PM.

[EntropyModel]

As pdx5 points out above, what caused the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago? Cetainly not man. And the emphasis should be on the word "last." I'm sure there will be others, albeit not in our lifetimes. On a planetary scale 10,000 years is not even a blink of the eye.

I'm surprised, what with all the cycle experts on this board, someone hasn't pointed out the connection. Or, is the planet's climate immune from cycle theory?

This thread still up? politics are allowed now and encourage by moderators, great!

To answer this question without getting into the 'debate'

Natural heating/cooling cycles exists over 1000's to millions of years due to -
1. Variations in sun's energy output and other factors( variations in earth's spin/orbit/axis tilt).
2. Complex feedback system between carbon dioxide/plant storage of carbon/ice at caps/ocean temperatures.

Man made heating MAY exist due to interfering with (2) - would be over 10's to 100's of years since mid-1800's.

best,
Mark.

You seem to imply that merely disagreeing with the theory that global warming is caused by man constitutes a political post. There are hundreds of scientists that disagree with Al Gore's theory for scientific reasons, not political.

Implying? I'm stating absolutely this thread is political.

UFO comments about liberals etc was political, and global warming debate has shown itself about the most poltical of all time,
on this board and other boards as certain moderators know well, even if you don't bullshort.

If I responded with my viewpoint, you'd see just how political it will get, but fortunately
I'm able to follow the rules and restrain myself.

And speaking of theories, yours above is just that, nothing more, nothing less. I trust you will acknowledge that.
Best to you,

bullshort

The question asked for AN answer, not that I list both the accepted scientific answer, and an infinite number of speculative theories, i'm
sure many on this board can produce a bunch of those for you Bullshort.

But to be accurate, my answer contains both facts and accepted theory, both are valid as answers.

In the broadest sense, just about everything in science is a 'theory', certainly anything complex.
For example gravity is a theory, as is electro-magnetism, but we managed to send a man to the moon, and
create the electronic era using these 'theories'.
Most schools teach evolution as a 'fact', but its a theory, and infact has far less supporting factual
evidence than my answer to this question.

Facts are almost impossible in science, medicine is theoretical science with few facts by strict definition,
but most people rely heavily on it.

The word 'theory' is low on information i.e. its not very useful, there is a huge difference between -
1. Accepted Theory - a peer reviewed, highly challenged and tested, long standing best explaination
versus
2. Speculative Theory - an non peer reviewed, unchallenged or tested new 'out there' explaination.

The theories I used in the answer are accepted theory.

Note. I don't say that does make them or my answer RIGHT, but promoting them to facts wouldn't either, most 'facts' don't last any long that most theories!
So the whole theory/fact semantic argument is a fallacy, since ultimately it is TRUTH that we seek, and that is impossible for
science or any other artifact of a bounded information space to produce ( our brain in this case)....'cept maybe those with a hotline
to the almighty but who's gonna' believe 'em.

So we are faced with a difficult choice, pick accepted theories or pick our favourite speculative theory as most do - or don't pick.
Ultimately no one has a lock on 'truth', no matter what they choose, flat earth was consensus until it wasn't, most widely accepted
facts/theories change over time.

The question of value is - how will you make decisions given the reality of fallable science.
If we 'do nothing' until we have 'proof' - nothing will ever be done, since we never have proof.
If we do 'everything' based on 'best theory' - will will waste huge resources, since many will be wrong.

And speaking of theories, the idea that global warming is natural and not man made is itself a theory, nothing more, nothing less. I trust you will acknowledge that?

BTW - I've stated many times, I don't know if global warming is man made or not, I'm more against anyone who think THEY do, since I know
they cannot! .but worse...misuse our lack of knowledge as a reason to 'do nothing', akin to waiting for a meteor to wipe us out, because we
couldn't prove it was gonna' hit us.

best,
Mark.

Edited by entropy, 28 December 2008 - 11:53 PM.

[EntropyModel]

There has been NO real argument in the scientific community about global warming, or the fact that it is man made for some time. The rest is chatter.

So who caused the global warming 10,000 years ago to end the horrendous accumulation of glaciers
on the land mass what is now North America and ended the ice age ? Can any one of your "scientists"
answer that simple question?

Please note I AM NOT DENYING GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS. I am simply pointing out that cataclysmic
global warming has happened before when man could hardly ignite fire using 2 flint stones. I have not
seen conclusive evidence that global warming on a scale which happened 10,000 years ago exists. But
common sense tells me if it is happening, it is not man made.

I already answered this simple question above, 5 minute on google would
have found the answer.

So, in summary you are saying humanity should base its future on your gut feelings rather than
the viewpoint of every academy of science on the planet, including China and Russia who last
I checked were not uber liberals.

Does your 'common sense' give a possibly YOU could be wrong, or is your common sense infallible?
If so, could you give us the odds of 'man made versus natural', is it 1% chance, 10%, 50%...what's the probability?

best,
Mark.

Edited by entropy, 29 December 2008 - 12:10 AM.