Global Warming? Rising sea levels or CO2? Melting Ice?

[Ryzorian]

Why would I go read psuedo science such as you suggested Gonative? Those same brilliant scientists thought Negroes were "gentically inferior" useing "Science" in decades past..

Everything I told you about those eruptions I learned watching Discovery, Science and Learning channle. I suppose they weren't "real scientist's right? That none of the measurements they took mattered cause it didn't add up to what your "scientists" data did.

That massive CO2 eruption in Africa by that lake REALLY happened, it factually killed hundreds of people. Timbora still caused a year with out summer, go visit the graves of the thousands who died of starvation that year. Penatubo still caused the earth's mean tempature to drop a dagree. Venus is still a massive volcanically induced greenhouse. These are facts you can't get away from Gonative, these events happened...and in the case of Venus are still happening as we speak.

The only thing man can do is enhance the natural global warming effect as it happens, we aren't "causeing it". It's like pushing a boulder down a mountain..gravity has more effect than your pushing does.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

The only thing man can do is enhance the natural global warming effect as it happens, we aren't "causeing it". It's like pushing a boulder down a mountain..gravity has more effect than your pushing does.

Based on what science? I can't discuss science with you if you can only make totally unsourced, baseless statements like above.

The biggest problem with your statement above is that from all we have learned about climate most of the natural factors that affect it are currently have a cooling effect. But we have still seen warming continue and last year was the equal warmest on record. Something like 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record were recorded since 2000. If anything it looks like the natural climate factors have helped to reduce slightly the rapid warming that is currently going on caused by us not that we are only enhancing an already warming climate as you claim.

If we aren't causing it then what is? Fine you believe there is some natural factor driving the current warming. What is that natural factor?

[Ryzorian]

Many of the top listed years are also from the 1930's. Dureing the dustbowl. Besides, so what if several of the hottest years on record are in the 2000's?...Geee, how long we been keeping records?..less than 200 years? On a planet that is supposedly over 3 and a half billion years old you can't acurately reflect wether those climatical trends are normal or abnormal. At best, you have an hypothosis.

Again, The "who's scientist's are more correct" debate doesn't matter anyway. I'm not going to stop driveing the type of car I want, or use ac when I want or have the type of lightbulbs I want, or turn on my heater to 76 if I want.

You all can say the sky is falling all you like, I'm not going to get overly concerned about it.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Again, The "who's scientist's are more correct" debate doesn't matter anyway. I'm not going to stop driveing the type of car I want, or use ac when I want or have the type of lightbulbs I want, or turn on my heater to 76 if I want.

And here we have you actually being a little honest for once. You really don't know anythng about the science. You've made some terrible attempts to use some 'science' to back up your arguments but we can all see how lame they are and how they have nothing to do with climate science at all. What it is all about for you is selfish greed. Regardless of what the science says you aren't going to change the way you live. That's what it comes down to. I love how supposed christians can be so incredibly selfish.

You see you are not a climate science sceptic. You are a denialist because you are not prepared to accept changes to your privaledged first world lifestyle. Your are terribly selfish as you don't care what will happen to others as long as your life is basically unaffected.

[Ryzorian]

Your science is wacko science, I'm no more inclined to believe that than evidence that points to "little green men from Mars". Wich has as much credibility as yours does. Greed? Because I work for a liveing? I pay for everything I have. I have a right to enjoy life as I wish, same as anyone, who are YOU to enforce some code on me? Don't come over to my place telling me how I should live....isn't that what angers everyone else about the USA? Stange how it only applies to the USA, but not to any one else.

[Warhammer820]

The highest temperatures for who?? Not my city. There were record low temperatures for that winter for my city.

Originally Posted by GoNative

Sangetsu I reckon I could probably guess the psuedo-science websites you're getting that BS from (it's practically word for word I've seen on some sites). It's the same BS that all denialists circulate over and over again throughout the internet. And for people with no background in science (I guess you have little to none) it's impossible to guage what is right and what is wrong.

In actual fact warming has continued unabated through the naughties with global average temperatures surpassing the average of the 90's significantly. 2010 was the equal warmest year on record globally (equalling that of 2005). 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record were recorded in the 2000's.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010

You state that not one single climate model has proven accurate. In fact the opposite is true. The latest models have been supprisingly accurate in their forecasts with actual temperatures following the models well. It really depends on what you mean by inaccurate. Will they exactly predict the temperature in years to come? Of course not, hell we can barely forecast weather a few days out with a great deal of accuracy. What they have been pretty good at is showing likely trends. To test accuracy of models they do a thing called hindcasting. This is where they run the model say from 1900 and see how it does against the actual temperature record. If it does pretty well then it is reasonable to have some confidence that it will be somewhat accurate if continued on into the future. The IPCC has used a fair number of models and got a range of expected temperature and sea level rises out to around 2100. So far the actual observed temperatures and sea level rises have been right at the upper end of the forecasts of the models. So if anything the IPCC has probably underestimated and understated the likely effects.

Yes there has been many 100's of millions of dollars put into the science around global warming and guess what? It has had results! We now understand climate and weather far better than we ever did and the fact the mankind is affecting the climate (warming it) through increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is not even debatable anymore. There's virtually no government in the world now that doesn't agree with the scientific concensus on this (especially now that the old mate of the oil industry Bush is out of the picture). You talk about the money involved in research on climate change as though it's a large amount. It is but a small drop in a vast ocean when compared to the money involved in the fossil fuel industries like oil and coal and the downstream industries these support. That's the gravy train that has the most to lose and has been muddying the scientific waters for years with pseudo-science and misinformation (just like the tobacco industry did).

[Ryzorian]

We went from Global warming to eltrical planets that exspand?

[GoNative]

Nippom I hope you realise that the link you have posted there is not a link to anything that could be viewed as credible science today. Ted Holden is a catastrophist which was a branch of scientific thinking in the early 19th century. It was something that evolved from the religious dogma of the 18th century, especially the tale of the great flood in the bible. It is opposed to the idea of evolution and supposes more of a succession of periods of fauna and flora on the planet that were wiped out by massive catastrophes. Although some great catastrophes have been identified in the history of the planet the theory as a whole does not stand up against how our understanding of the planet has developed since the early 19th century (our scientific understanding has moved on a bit since then!). It is a convenient theory for those of more religious backgrounds who can't (or won't) accept concepts like evolution but it is not a theory that is credible scientifically.

[GoNative]

Where religion comes into it is from the very beginnings of the catastrophist philiosophy. Science in it's modern form where it is freely done without influence from religion really is only a relatively recent thing. Scientists (or philosophers as they were known) used to be persecuted, arrested and executed by the church. A lot of them were very religious themselves and attempted to find evidence that supported a more religious view of the world. Catastrophism is a failed line of science along these lines.

It's actually hard to find any scientific responses to Holden's claims, I think mainly because he is considered such a kook that it would only lower the integrity of actual scientists for them to get involved in debate with him.

Holden did once claim that he had found human skeletal fossil remains in carboniferous rock. He sent samples to the University of Calgary for testing and you can see a discussion of the results at the following link

Carboniferous human bones -- an evaluation

Of course Holden never admitted he got it wrong and probably still claims he has evidence of humans during the time of the dinosaurs. He is a creationist who has twisted science and resurrected an old branch of science that no longer has any validiy (a bit like say alchemy).

Basically there is nothing that Holden has written that you should take even slightly seriously.

If you want to read a relatively recent scientific paper on sauropods have a go at this

Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism - Sander - 2010 - Biological Reviews - Wiley Online Library

[Ryzorian]

Technically earths magnetic field gets weaker ever year..if you add what it looses each year back to it and go back 4.5 billion years...the earths magnetic field would crush to death anything around today.

Gonative, there are many relgious scientists...particularly in the physics and astro physics side of things...They see cosmic design in much of the cosmos.