Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 13:08
Quote Posted by Namdrol
:rolleyes:
And now you know what they mean, what do you think of it, does it make me look fat? You probably should have known what it meant given the subject, not in the least because we are discussing temperature-rise, or am I expecting too much.
Namdrol on 14/1/2010 at 13:24
It shows me that there are changes in temperature over time.
A self evident fact. Is the temp now the same as 6 months ago? Or even yesterday?
We live in a dynamic system, so of course there are fluctuations.
In fact, the fact that there are fluctuations, means that these fluctuations have causes.
Humans are part of that dynamic system and our actions have consequences.
We are a natural part of the planets rhythm and development.
There is a very strong case for arguing that man made global warming is as natural as, for instance, the global effects of a large volcanic explosion.
For one reason or another though it seems that we, as a species, are capable of self reflection and awareness of the results of our actions, (and as far as we can tell a volcano isn't).
If you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not it is hard to deny the above points.
But to get back to your graph what are you trying to say about it?
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 13:32
Quote Posted by Namdrol
IBut to get back to your graph what are you trying to say about it?
Besides clockwork-consistant global temperature fluctuations over a period of 40.000 years? Well, 'hi' I guess.
Humans are part of that dynamic system and our actions have consequences.Our industries are as clean as can be, in the 19th century a salesmen wrote a letter to british congress written with the water from the Thames, it's in the British museum if you care to see it. Nature is doing absolutely fantastic, and so are we.
jay pettitt on 14/1/2010 at 13:45
Quote:
Besides clockwork-consistant global temperature fluctuations over a period of 40.000 years? Well, 'hi' I guess.
...because we've not had in those 400,000 years a carbon fueled industrial revolution that has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by upwards of 30%. Until now.
What is your point?
Quote:
Nature is doing absolutely fantastic, and so are we.
Context and citation needed. Yes, we're doing very well (that 'nature' is doing well is much less clear) because we've had a few thousand years with, uniquely in Earths four billion year chaotic history, a climate that has been stable enough to settle and develop agriculture.
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 13:49
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...because we've not had in those 400,000 years a carbon fueled industrial revolution that has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by upwards of 30%. Until now.
What is your point?
That you placed a 0 too many, we are responsible for 3%.
Context and citation needed. Yes, we're doing very well (that 'nature' is doing well is much less clear) because we've had a few thousand years with, uniquely in Earths four billion year chaotic history, a climate that has been stable enough to settle and develop agriculture.The neolithical revolution as we call the rise of agriculture is from 10.000 BC, it had no impact whatsoever.
jay pettitt on 14/1/2010 at 13:58
Quote:
That you placed a 0 too many, we are responsible for 3%.
Wrong again Mr Science. That's 3% per year, every year - accumulating. The carbon cycle is saturated which means that some of that extra annual 3% remains in the atmosphere (CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for 200 years or so) and year on year it builds up. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration) Since the start of the industrial revolution the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is up by over 30%.
Do you think it possible the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere has anything to do with the climate Mr Science? Or keeping planet earth habitable. Do you think that might be possible?
Agriculture isn't relevant? What the fuck do you think sustains your petty little life? Flat screen televisions and iPhones?
bloody hell - you've been willfully stupid for 32 godawful pages.
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 14:09
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Agriculture isn't relevant? What the fuck do you think sustains your petty little life? Flat screen televisions and iPhones?
No, the rise of agriculture seems to have no effect on the climate as you can clearly see. And no cow ever gave birth to a flatscreen or an I-phone. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, or you will have to go back 10.000 BC and you are welcome to try.
you were into argeology, what can you tell me about earth layers.
bloody hell - you've been willfully stupid for 32 godawful pages.We will see, we are dead anyway because China and India are not listening to these great speeches.
edit, I don't call myself mister science that is the mods being funny, and I must admit it is
jay pettitt on 14/1/2010 at 14:20
That's not what I'm saying. It's the other way around. Agriculture is affected by climate. You need a pretty good idea what's going to happen in the future to know what crops to plant, whether to irrigate or drain. Farming needs a stable, predictable climate. The only time in Earth's 4 billion year chaotic history where there has been a stable predictable climate suitable for settling and farming has been in the Holocene - ie the last 12,000 years.
My calculator tells me that planet earth is good for supporting modern human civilization about 0.0003% of the time. Do you want to alter the environmental conditions in which human civilization has developed? Do you feel lucky, punk? Still, Anthony Watts says there's no problem even if the scientific community at large is sounding the alarm bells, and he's got a blog - so there you go.
Namdrol on 14/1/2010 at 14:22
Quote Posted by Fragony
We will see, we are dead anyway because China and India are not listening to these great speeches.
(Talking about death again Frags.)
Anyway you say it's all a lie, so what does it matter what China and India do?
(just seen the deniacell bunny tag :laff:)
Fragony on 14/1/2010 at 14:26
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Do you want to alter the conditions in which civilization has developed? Do you feel lucky, punk?
Yeah kinda, it developed faster in the green crescent but not because of rain but because of the rivers overflowing, you need a few mm of rain (0.3) for agriculture to be of any benefit otherwise, anything else?
Anyway you say it's all a lie, so what does it matter what China and India do?Well absolutely nothing anyway, another one who thinks he is arguing against me
