Climate change caused by Dinosaurs

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by UltraAlanMagnus, May 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KayeMinor

    KayeMinor Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Posts:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +1
    wat
     
  2. TrueNomadSkies

    TrueNomadSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Posts:
    15,852
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    Kelowna, BC Canada
    Likes:
    +44
    So I take it you misread the thread title too eh?
     
  3. VictoryLeo19

    VictoryLeo19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Posts:
    6,357
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +2,458
    Possible. There are actually theories that massive packets of methane gas have erupted over the course of the past couple billion years that each, in their own way, contributed to massive climate change.
     
  4. Insane Galvatron

    Insane Galvatron is not insane. Really!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Posts:
    16,730
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +1,348
    In other words, it's consistent with the concept of global warming as a whole...

    Jessie Ventura actually proved the "global warming is a scam" conspiracy theory to be true, on his show "Conspiracy Theory". ( For those not aware, it's a show where they investigate the conspiracy theories and put them to the test. It's like Mythbusters, but for conspiracy theories. Usually they disprove them, but every now and then, one gets confirmed. )
     
  5. spiritprime

    spiritprime Dudes, I'm a girl!

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Posts:
    5,413
    News Credits:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Location:
    SA, Australia
    Likes:
    +819
    I call bullshit!
     
  6. process

    process Hanlon's razor Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    8,483
    News Credits:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    377
    Likes:
    +4,370
    >Jessie Ventura, climate scientist.
     
  7. Insane Galvatron

    Insane Galvatron is not insane. Really!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Posts:
    16,730
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +1,348
    No, he's not. But he didn't research the science. He researched the claims that the data is manipulated and if those with the power/ability to manipulate the data had the motivation to do so. Turns out, they did. Between the fact the sensor's are placed above A/C units, in the middle of blacktop parking lots, and other places that give higher than accurate readings ( which they used to account for, but slowly phased out the formula so the data comes out higher ), to people pushing the agenda being the ones to benefit the most financially ( Al Gore and the CCX ).

    You should really try to watch that episode. It's quite intriguing. I watched it on cable, so I'm not sure if it's available online or on Netflix.
     
  8. Dark Skull

    Dark Skull Well-Known Enabler Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    36,046
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    402
    Likes:
    +19,645
    So...just fart into the wall? And our homes will be heated by our own natural gases in the winter? :lol 
     
  9. VictoryLeo19

    VictoryLeo19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Posts:
    6,357
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +2,458

    First of all, I agree with you. I personally believe global warming is real, but has NOTHING to do with mankind. We've experienced a number of ice ages in the past, and it's theorized that each time the world needs to warm before it cools considerably. The oxygen rich environment was much different during the "tropical" eras that included life forms like the dinosaurs. Global warming is something I believe both ends of the political spectrum have used for ill gotten purposes. If anyone here works in academic environments, they'll likely be aware that government funding tends to flow towards whichever science agrees with whichever party doing the funding. (that was a mouthful).

    I do believe the world is changing. Did we have anything to do with it? Almost astronomically unlikely (again, just my opinion). Can it be stopped? of course not. Welcome to the new age. It'll get warm, and then it'll get cold. If you want realistic advice, move to central America, but only the good parts.
     
  10. process

    process Hanlon's razor Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    8,483
    News Credits:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    377
    Likes:
    +4,370
    I don't need to watch that episode. Your example of misplaced sensors is an old issue, and is accounted for and ultimately just one of many data sets that are used to corroborate temperatures.

    The fact is the science is against your position, as are the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who study climate.

    I did watch a clip from his 9/11 episode, and judging by Ventura's own opinions, this show reeks of confirmation bias.
     
  11. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    28,248
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    422
    Likes:
    +10,141
    Boy, I sure am happy a cable reality show was able to put aside decades of research and documented, reviewed evidence. I'm glad Global Warming has finally been taken on by the same people willing to do such hard-hitting stories on the 2012 Mayan Apocalypse and Area 51.

    I'm being sarcastic, of course. Lanny "The Genius" Poffo is the only pro wrestler who puts enough peer review and rigor into his analysis to win me over.


    I urge you to do further research, especially on the correlation between global temperature, carbon levels, and the industrial revolution.

    I have worked in academic environments, and I can tell you that both government AND private funding flow towards where there is a gap in knowledge, not whatever "science" (which is far less of a single-minded, monolithic entity than it is endlessly touted as in these threads) agrees with. I can also tell you that the kind of people doing research on climate and environment are not going to be growing fat off grants, public or private.

    Also, those central american regions you seem to think of as a refuge would be at an increased risk of catastrophe due to rising sea levels, desertification, violent weather patterns, and a loss of oceanic resources (such as food) due to ocean acidification. "Climate change" encompasses a lot more factors than just how warm it is outside.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  12. Insane Galvatron

    Insane Galvatron is not insane. Really!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Posts:
    16,730
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +1,348
    That's just it. The way they account for it has changed so they don't account for it as much as they used to. Thus giving the appearance of increased temperatures.

    The only reason "science" supports global warming is because they are all using the same data. The scientists are doing the science right, they just have flawed data to work with. It's the data that's corrupted.

    I didn't see his 9/11 episode, so I can't comment. I just know that the climate-gate data that came before his global warming episode gave evidence of data tampering. He just confirmed it.

    Oh yeah, the temperature goes in cycles. The problem is that the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. It started cooling in the early 2000's. This was confirmed, and thus called the data into question when they started using satellites to track global temperatures. They weren't as affected as the sensor's were with their iffy locations, and gave more accurate numbers. Which showed the previous data with the sensors as being inaccurate, since they showed warming when the satellites showed cooling. This is also a lot of the reason for hearing the term "global warming" being phased out and replaced with "climate change". It'll be too hard to keep the lie going as soon as people can actually notice the weather getting colder.

    And I don't think we can safely delve into this much further. At this point, all we can look at is the motivation for tampering with the data, which would take us into political discussion. So before we go there, I'm going to bow out.
     
  13. process

    process Hanlon's razor Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    8,483
    News Credits:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    377
    Likes:
    +4,370
    As I said before, there are many, many sources of independent data. You'd have to be suggesting that all of them are corrupt, yet together produce a consistent model. That is conspiracy.

    Just the opposite, actually.
     
  14. Insane Galvatron

    Insane Galvatron is not insane. Really!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Posts:
    16,730
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +1,348
    Can you list me several? I was under the impression there were two for a while, and then only one. NASA and one in Europe ( name escapes me at the moment ). The NASA one stopped years ago since the data was identical. It was redundant and a waste of money. It was after the European company became the only source of global temperature data that the corruption started. There may be a lot of other places repeating that data, but they are the ones with access to all those censors we talked about earlier. No one else has the network of global thermometers to be able to come up with data to compare to.

    I had once posted a link that filtered through all those climate gate emails showing the controversial parts that showed the corruption. If you just look at the emails, it's hard to find due to the massive amount of emails there. Like a needle in a haystack. However, once it was pointed out, you could go right to the emails and see it. Had I not read it myself, I'd be skeptical too. But that link you posted does nothing to explain the emails from climate-gate.

    All you have to do is look back at the stuff we were told in school in the early 90's. "We won't know what snow is in the future. The warming will do away with winter completely". Now we here "The warming temperature causes extremes on both ends so we'll now see more snow than normal". That is so obviously spin, to account for their "predictions" not coming true.
     
  15. Cyber-Scream

    Cyber-Scream Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Posts:
    9,608
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    191
    Likes:
    +19
    If only they had Gas-x back then.
     
  16. process

    process Hanlon's razor Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    8,483
    News Credits:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    377
    Likes:
    +4,370
    Here's one list of data sets: RealClimate: Data Sources and here: Data.GISS: Data and Images

    Again, climate science does not only concern itself with temperatures: Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)

    I actually remember your link, and you and I did have a discussion about it in that thread... which I think got locked. The people involved in "climategate" were ultimately exonerated by several independent agencies. The worst thing revealed was that the scientists were capable of being dicks.

    Also remember that science is an adaptive process. As newer, better data is acquired, the conclusion will continue to become more refined. I wouldn't take what your middle school science teacher taught you over what modern climate science has to say.
     
  17. Ratchets Hatch

    Ratchets Hatch Medic

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Posts:
    5,365
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    317
    Location:
    Alabama
    Likes:
    +1,931
    It just goes to show that the Earth's climate is always changing whether humans are around or not. While human activity certainly contributes to climate change, I personally don't think it's as much as some people claim.
     
  18. Asterios

    Asterios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Posts:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Likes:
    +1
    Sorry but Global warming is not caused by humans or Dinos or cows, they may contribute to it, but the world has gone thru global warming spats several times, and some of them where there were very few if any land animals and such to cause it.

    people who say we humans are responsible for global warming are having fits of megalomania thinking man can effect things on such a large global level such as that.

    While man is able to effect things on a global level we are only responsible for a drop in the bucket that is called global warming.
     
  19. VictoryLeo19

    VictoryLeo19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Posts:
    6,357
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +2,458
    Remember the first teaching of psycology: Correlation does not equal causation. I say that only to infer that there are MANY factors involved. The biggest fault with all human science, it that it continually believes it has answered natural questions, when in reality, we constantly encompass all knowledge with each successfull generation. Our grandchildren will likely laugh at how incapable we were of understanding nature. That being said, neither aspect of science can possibly be "proven" against the other, because both sides have compelling evidence that the world is not being controlled or affected by mankind.

    I dont know if anyone here has taken a geology course involving the ice ages, but central America was basically the only habitable belt of land that could sustain our species in it's current condition.

    The worst thing any of us can do is assume we are not complete idiots, and then to believe the garbage we eat from the left and right. True scientific breakthrough will come, but it likely cannot be pushed. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but I wouldn't bet on it also being the mother of applicable theory.

    Most scientists involved with the european theatre of global warming were generally found to be funded by "far left" groups and think tanks. I'm conservative, but I'm not republican. I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night. We need to stop, think, and continually re-analyze data. We'll get there, but blaming smokestacks and cars isn't the most constructive approach. (and yes, I'n my personal experience, almost all government grant funding is extremely political in nature both within the scientific community and the parties involved. I don't think anyone could make the reasonable argument that "unpopular" science is given a fair shake in the grant world.)

    We've only been able to gather data on climate change for about 100 years. The little ice age lasted from 1500-1800 if I'm not mistaken, and we only understood that within the last decade. Just imagine what we will know in the next few decades.
     
  20. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    28,248
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    422
    Likes:
    +10,141
    Incorrect, temperatures have been measured and recorded for hundreds of years, especially by farmers/agriculturists and scientists, though effective measurement techniques really only came into play around 1850. There are numerous other methods of determining a relative approximation of temperatures in the past, however, such as ice cores, coral growth, sediment studies, tree rings, accounts of historical events, etc. I agree that nothing trumps primary data, but it's not like we have nothing to compare that primary data to. In the case of the little ice age, researchers still aren't completely sure about the cause (though they've narrowed it down to a few possibilities), but that doesn't mean we don't understand what happened during it, as well as the implications of such a change and it's place in a historical trend of global temperature.

    Here's a pretty good article on the LIA by Discover:

    What caused the Little Ice Age? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

    Now, I agree that correlation doesn't prove causation (which comes from statistics much moreso than psychology), UNLESS where there is sufficient repeated correlation or suspicious occurrence of correlation to indicate a likely trend. Unfortunately, this is the case that has been observed. As I mentioned earlier, there's substantially more to the issue of climate change than just temperature. The impact of human carbon emissions is also observed in things like ocean acidification, as in this NatGeo article

    Ocean Acidification -- National Geographic

    or in air quality and smog figures worldwide (although in many places these smog statistics have been improving in recent history, which proves a link not only between human action and it's ability to rectify environmental issues, but between those issues and a human cause in the first place), such as those gathered by the world health organization

    WHO | Air quality and health

    or in the changes in locations already being observed in terms of niche-shifts, desertification/aridation, salination, and erosion, such as in this article by Men's Journal

    The Ghost Park*|*Men’s Journal

    I think you underestimate our ability to understand the world around us, as well as the abilities of people in the past. Certainly, we'll discover new things, improve our understanding of other things, and advance our knowledge of time goes on, but it's actually very rare that we deliberately set aside scientific knowledge, especially fundamental scientific principles. We're still working on a foundation of principles and discoveries that are hundreds of years old in most fields, and those very basic scientific principles are at the core of much of the study in the OP, and cimate studies as a whole. I very much doubt that our children will roll their eyes because scientists back in dad's day saw a link between pouring a known thermally insulative gas into the atmosphere and things getting warmer. I mean, it's just as likely that younger generations will look back on our reluctance to act on what will to them appear to be unmistakable evidence and say "what were you guys thinking?". Especially given that even now we can look back on past civilizations who we're pretty certain had enough impact on their environments to wipe themselves out, albeit on a smaller scale. Here's an article relating to that concept from NASA

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ancient-dry.html

    Most climate science is not funded by "far-left" thinktanks, actually. Most of it comes from government agencies, like NASA, the EPA, The Canadian Ministry for Natural Resources, The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and other equivalent national and international agencies. Almost all of the research is done through universities, and published as papers in peer-reviewed journals, just as every other form of scientific research.

    I agree with you that you shouldn't listen to what comes from politicians on the right or the left when it comes to situations like this, since they aren't accredited or reviewed scientists, but denying the current state of research is like setting aside what your mechanic tells you about the state of your car because you think he's in a union and you're sure that the car company will release a report in a few weeks that states the horrible grinding noise you're hearing is perfectly normal.

    Aside from a few notable exceptions, scientific advancement is the result of tireless effort, research, and experimentation, not surprise breakthroughs. Even in the rare cases of a discovery being made by accident, it can take years of work and significant resources to understand that discovery and make it work in a worthwhile manner. If you're truly interested in seeing scientific breakthroughs, and if you want a better understanding of the state of our world and it's environment, you should be pushing your government officials for increased resources devoted to climate study, since that's where most of it comes from.

    Again, I encourage you to do more research on the subject, from as wide a range of trustworthy sources as possible as as in-depth as you can find.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.