Warming over, Ice age on its way

[Bigga Petey]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheKid

Indeed. But they're cycles. They're not massive, abrupt crashes.

The change is not unprecedented.

The rate of change is. That's really beyond dispute....

We're talking orders of magnitude.

[SIZE="7"]we're all gonna die!!!!![/SIZE]

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Bigga Petey

[SIZE="7"]we're all gonna die!!!!![/SIZE]

What is even funnier is we knew that the day we left the womb yet it is still news to some.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheKid

Ahh, reductionist arguments. We've hit the end of intelligent discussion.

Perhaps I am an individual lacking intelligence and therefore incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion but please explain how taking an excerpt out of my entire quote, which without the rest of it the context is lost, qualifies me as a "reductionist"?

Here is my entire quote for posterity. Seems you chose an excerpt and elected to avoid the question posed. Please explain the drying up of 1/3 of the US in an ice mass to the point it becomes a lowly river. Again I ask, did man cause that and since we weren't on the planet at the time, then how do you explain THAT global warming at that point in the Earth's history? If that qualifies me as a "reductionist", I guess because someone I don't know says so, I therefore am.

Long before man arrived on this planet, there was this area filled with ice/water.
It contained lots of dirt, rocks and other minerals due to the soft soil, that acted as sandpaper.
It was projected to have been as large as one third of the size of the United States.
In time, it receded and ended up as a river.
As the river flowed with all this sediment, it continued to carve away, making an incredible sculpture that many, many, many years later, man would call the Grand Canyon.
Today, that body of water is a spit in a bucket compared to what it once was, long before man arrived on earth to destroy it.

I bet there must be some way to link that to man and if not, how does one explain that "global warming" so many, many, many years ago?

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by Blueface

What is even funnier is we knew that the day we left the womb yet it is still news to some.

It's the circle of life. Birth, growth, reproduction, death. It's the natural order of life for everything - including plants - on earth. It can be argued that extinction is caused by interrupting, interfering with or completely stopping any of the four steps for happening. If there is no births, there is no growth and no reproduction and the species dies out. If there is no growth the species cannot mature enough to reproduce and the species dies out. If there is no reproduction, there are not new births and the species dies out. Is it such a stretch to infer that if lifespans are greatly increased, then there is less need to reproduce as adding new members of the species would cause overcrowding and eventually the species would die out because of the lack of new births?

The human species is the only one on the planet working so hard to change the world and eliminate natural death while at the same time working so hard to create ways to take human life... I guess that's nature's way of insuring that humans never completely break the circle.

[Blueface]

Interesting article.
CNN, a trusted source by many. Don't think they can be accused of being conservative.

Record low temperatures in a global warming environment.
Things that make you go "hmmmm"
The end of the world is coming!!!
Repent!
Dig your bunker (oops, not a good idea as you will drown - but the end is coming anyhow so who cares?). If you prefer, go for higher ground.
Hope we can last long enough to herf again soon someday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/0...esota.cold.ap/

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Interesting article.
CNN, a trusted source by many. Don't think they can be accused of being conservative.

Record low temperatures in a global warming environment.
Things that make you go "hmmmm"
The end of the world is coming!!!
Repent!
Dig your bunker (oops, not a good idea as you will drown - but the end is coming anyhow so who cares?). If you prefer, go for higher ground.
Hope we can last long enough to herf again soon someday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/0...esota.cold.ap/

That's why I believe we should drink more rum and smoke more cigars.

[fizguy]

Originally Posted by raisin

From DailyKos:

One of the interesting consequences of climate change is greater precipitation from wetter, more intense weather systems. The local result might mean excess snow fall in normally drier and warmer climes.

Register -- China is experiencing its worst winter in more than 100 years. If the IPCC is right, we can expect increased weather variability. In fact, one author recently said that the term "climate change" does not correctly describe the shifts brought about by global warming. "Climate weirdness" is a much more accurate term.

Global warming theories sometimes strike me as "all inclusive." It got warmer? Global warming!
It got colder? Global warming!
It rained more? Global warming!
It rained less? Global warming!
etc.

[SmokeyTheKid]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Perhaps I am an individual lacking intelligence and therefore incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion but please explain how taking an excerpt out of my entire quote, which without the rest of it the context is lost, qualifies me as a "reductionist"?

I think it's important to note that I didn't call you a reductionist. I called the argument reductionist (subtle but important difference - one is an attack on an individual, the other an attack on a position or argument). And the idea that because one thing is pinned to human activity, anything remotely (and I do mean REMOTELY) like it must therefore also be a result of human activity, regardless of the absurdity. It's reductionist and doesn't show any willingness to engage in a honest, intelligent give-and-take argument and debate of the facts in question.

[rumballs]

Anyone else have a comment on the actual article that was posted, rather than the general issue?
Just curious...

[SmokeyTheKid]

Originally Posted by fizguy

Global warming theories sometimes strike me as "all inclusive." It got warmer? Global warming!
It got colder? Global warming!
It rained more? Global warming!
It rained less? Global warming!
etc.

Actually, you're hitting on a key point without (I presume) even realizing it. Global warming doesn't simply mean everywhere gets warmer. It's an average global rise, with those rises peaking much higher at certain areas (the poles for example) because of things like the Atlantic current.

What it does/will mean about everywhere is climate change. When you're talking about things like the stalling of major ocean currents because of a lack of salinity, you're talking about things that could majorly impact weather (and not just in a warming way - a stalling of the Atlantic current would almost certainly throw Europe into vastly colder tempertures).

It's not a simple problem with simple results. Global warming is a catch phrase, but a better description is "rapid climate change." It's an idea that's easy to scoff at reflexivly. People don't like to think about it, or about big changes in general. But if you really study the facts objectivly, I think you'll find them eye-opening.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheKid

I think it's important to note that I didn't call you a reductionist. I called the argument reductionist (subtle but important difference - one is an attack on an individual, the other an attack on a position or argument). And the idea that because one thing is pinned to human activity, anything remotely (and I do mean REMOTELY) like it must therefore also be a result of human activity, regardless of the absurdity. It's reductionist and doesn't show any willingness to engage in a honest, intelligent give-and-take argument and debate of the facts in question.

I do recall having taken logic in college, back when said institutions were formed.
Here is a logic statement:
I make a point
The point is called a "reductionist argument"
Logic dictates I therefore am being called a reductionist, whether you now say it is or not.

As it relates to the part in bold, since you have so well defined that for me, can you please address the question I originally posed? Seems you have not shown any willingness to engage in an honest, intelligent give and take argument and debate of the facts in question.

Now, going back to logic class, are you a "reductionist"?

I recall the earth coming to an end in Florida due to global warming.
Hurricanes galore.
Where have they gone in three years?
Now, they are backtracking and saying it won't be so bad after all.
Go figure.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by mmblz

Anyone else have a comment on the actual article that was posted, rather than the general issue?
Just curious...

Julian,
Great point.
Personally, I am running out and buying some warm coats.
Best to be well prepared.

BTW,
I am a reductionist.
Just realized I just took an H.Upmann Mag 46 and reduced it to a nub.
Wow! Was great.

[rumballs]

sorry for the poor lighting...

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by mmblz

sorry for the poor lighting...

Give me a few minutes and post the nub of the Mag 46.
Only thing is I don't have a before shot.
Poor planning.

[yamaha6000]

May I ask how one goes about measuring the temperature of the earth?