Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people?

the earth is going thru a pole reversal. When the reversal occurs, the magnetosphere is reduced and allows more of the suns energy to reach the earth

quite the opposite; 2012 is the next solar maximum (sun reverses its poles about ever 11 yrs)


The earth reverses its poles about every 600k-700k; the last was about 700k (per the evidence found in the basalts)


Based on studies of old volcanic basalt, scientists know that the Earth’s magnetic field reverses at irregular intervals, ranging from tens of thousands to millions of years. Volcanic basalt rock contains magnetite, and when the rock cools, its magnetic properties are frozen, recording the Earth's magnetic field of the time. With this data, scientists estimate that the last magnetic field reversal occurred about 780,000 years ago

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html



ooops..... ........last reversal about 780k

 

cool post...........

 

anyone that reads your posts can see that.

Your post are closer to a preacher: you know the words, can recite the scripture (math) and even confirm your beliefs with other scriptures but have no idea about the fact, that the scriptures are flawed.

For example; a religious wingnut will claim 'well god made the universe from nothing" and you claim, 'well the second law of thermodynamics is 'the law'.... but in both, YOU nor the religious wingnut has any comprehension of how or why.

ie.... there is no causal explanation of a 'creation' from nothing and hot is not hot, just because.... or clearly, there is NO perfect vacuum anywhere, ever identified within the whole of the universe to verify 'plancks constant' or the expansion of the universe into a nothing.

There is no NOTHING from which all came from, ever identified anywhere in anytime, ever. So the speculation of the speed of light in a vacuum or the 'creation' of the universe from a nothing are both still just hypothesis.


Funniest part is, you dont hold the pursuit, intent nor care to convey both humility to the 'unknown' nor the belief that YOU can actually contribute to knowledge.

ie..... it aint your job!

 

Dr. Roy Spencer, the climate denier's favorite climate scientist, is also a creationist.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/roy-spencer-the-anti-scientist/

 

The 110 ppmv increase of CO2 to the atmosphere is all down on the human ledger. That's historical fact.

The 110 ppmv increase of CO2 (from 280 to 390) adds 1.8 W/m² of radiative forcing to the Earth. That's physics.

Are you with me so far, AT?

 

Experiments show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (absorbs and emits infrared). Experiments also show that many forms of human activity release CO2. Thus, experiments show that many forms of human activity release a greenhouse gas contributing to thermally originated climate change.

In other words, climate change deniers are quibbling over degrees of danger.

 

Incorrect.

They're quibbling over the "A" in AGW.

 

Which, since the science is clear, is as silly as quibbling over one or two temperature stations in the entire world wide network

 

The science is not clear: that's the problem.

AGW is merely the accepted hypothesis for the time being.

 

The same that gravity is merely the accepted hypothesis for the time being and tomorrow it may be thrown out and dropped objects will accelerate towards the sky.

 

No, I don't think so.

Nice try though.

 

A theory is a way of explaining why/how something is happening. It can't actually change what is happening.

An alternative climate change theory will not stop tempreatures from changing, just as an alternative theory on gravity will not stop objects falling to the ground.

AGW followers have much to learn.

 

So, you have an alternative theory in relation to why the global temperatures are changing?

 

I give all the theories careful consideration.

AGW is the least convincing.

 

how do they know that it isn't the 'average' temperature increasing over time that caused the growth of civilization instead of the other way around? warmer temperature would make more land habitable for a while, make crops grow easier, etc..

and they always totally ignore you when you ask "Why has the earth gone thru ice ages in the past when men weren't around?". I would like to see their explanation but they never answer.

Example, where I live 'used to be' according to the experts, a huge inland sea...so obviously we had some 'global warming' to dry it up; now the dinosaurs weren't tooling around in some big ol honking SUVs so where did the water go?

 

yes, but the problem lies in that you can't tell if that is caused by or a product OF global warming or by some other force.

there's where you lose people.

I just have a hard time believing global climate change people because a) they use derision to quell opposing views; b) the proponents wont respond to any arguments that they don't have a copy and paste response to; c) the science is so wrapped up in politics and money it is hard to seperate; and d) we can't even tell if it will 100% for sure rain TODAY and they want us to believe they can predict the weather in a hundred years.

when they can tell me exactly what the temps gonna be on Saturday, I'll believe them about the more distant future.

and for the record, I do believe in evolution and I believe in God. Believing in God makes evolution more logical to me.

 

to me, it would make more sense, rather than fighting about the "a" to start looking at how we can live with a hotter temperature; I am not giving up my car and electricity and move into a cave.

 

Scientists do answer that so it is you ignoring their answer.

It's a logical fallacy to say that if A caused B in the past then the only way to cause B is by A.

 

Learn the difference between weather and climate and you will be on your way to an education.

 

Yeah, it's up there with claiming that since I can't accurately predict the next dice roll I can't claim that about 1 in 6 rolls will be a 3.

 

They're the same only in the fact that they're all batsh*t crazy.

 

Of course we can. That's the basic physics part. The 1.8 W/m² is the direct radiative forcing caused by the CO2 increase. There are other feedbacks on top of that. But the forcing -- the input -- is known.

Have you read any Republican blogs lately?

But seriously, if derision isn't your bag, you're not reading the right sources. Read the science, not the commentary. There plenty of links posted to real science, both here and elsewhere, and you won't find a derisive word in there anywhere.

Most skeptical arguments are old and long-ago debunked. If proponents cut-and-paste the response, that's usually because the original argument is cut-and-paste to begin with. Come up with something new, and I'll guarantee you a new response.

That's just plain false. Nobody in climate science is getting rich. You don't see climate scientists flying on corporate jets. You don't see climate scientists on the slopes of Gstaad. The only rich people with a dog in this fight are the energy companies. Many of the top climate scientists have tenure, so they're protected from political pressure. That's why tenure was invented.

Weather isn't climate. I can't tell you what number the roulette ball will hit on the next spin of the wheel. But I can tell you with great confidence that over the long haul, the house will win. Climate is weather over the long haul. You don't have to be able to predict weather to predict climate, any more than you have to be able to measure the motion of individual atoms to measure temperature.

 

Because civilization arose thousands of years before the temperature began to increase. Civilization has been here for 6000 years, but global warming didn't start until the 19th century -- right when we started burning fossil fuels in large quantities.

Yes, there are some benefits to global warming, but the costs outweigh the benefits by several times.

Ice ages and inter-glacial periods are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles, which cause what's known as orbital forcing. Since Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing peaked about 6000 years ago, and has been cooling the planet since then. Here's the science.

Not necessarily. Inland seas are more often uplifted into oblivion rather than dried up.

It flowed off the uplifted land via rivers, and back into the ocean.

 

Also, the Maunder Minimum, sometimes called the little ice age, ended just before the 19th century. Coinciding with the burning of fossil fuels and warming temps. If solar physicists are correct, and so far most of the papers I've read seem to support it, the sun may be slipping back into a MM. The length of the minimum is unknown. A short minimum will have little affect on temps. But a longer MM could have drastic affects. The next 20-30 years is going to be fasinating, keep your eye on the sun. (With proper protection of course.)

 

but I notice YOU can't explain it but you mock me for not knowing it.

and it would be as much a logical fallacy to say that if A caused B in the past then it can't possibly repeat itself, isn't it?