Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LogicalFallacy

Arctic's Strongest Sea Ice Breaks For First Time On Record

Recommended Posts

A disturbing development in climate change. They had expected this area of ice would be the last to break up but the  conditions over the summer has meant ice that remains solid even in summer has broken up for the first time on record.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/arctic’s-strongest-sea-ice-breaks-up-for-first-time-on-record/ar-BBMdwJR?ocid=ientp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly a Chinese hoax. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that Chinese hoax is getting out of hand. Let's bring back coal! Let's invest in all fossil fuels, the wave of the future!!! Thanks, Obama.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching a number of Randall Carlson's video's lately. He presents a lot of historical evidence that climate change is normal, predictable, and has been happening regularly for hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

The prior ice ages and planet warmings is proof positive that climate change is a natural and ongoing process. The current climate warming may very well cause ice melting and rising oceans. This has occurred many times before in earth's history. Assuming the cycle continues the warming will eventually run its course and then the climate will begin to cool again and form new ice caps.

 

There doesn't appear humans can do anything to stop the inevitable. The only good news is that these cycles take a thousand or more years to complete their cycle. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Geezer said:

I've been watching a number of Randall Carlson's video's lately. He presents a lot of historical evidence that climate change is normal, predictable, and has been happening regularly for hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

The prior ice ages and planet warmings is proof positive that climate change is a natural and ongoing process. The current climate warming may very well cause ice melting and rising oceans. This has occurred many times before in earth's history. Assuming the cycle continues the warming will eventually run its course and then the climate will begin to cool again and form new ice caps.

 

There doesn't appear humans can do anything to stop the inevitable. The only good news is that these cycles take a thousand or more years to complete their cycle. 

 

 

 

 

This is a common argument that fails to take into account various factors.

 

1) No scientist says that climate change is not natural or normal

2) They know massive changes have taken place over billions of years

3) Catastrophic disasters have caused huge climate changes before

4) CO2 is a primary factor (Factor not cause) in global warming

5) Humans having been producing huge amounts of CO2 for around the last 100 years

6) You are quite right, the current cycle we are on will be felt for many centuries

7) We can stop fucking up the environment and artificially affecting the climate which is exacerbating natural trends

8) No scientist suggests we can "stop" climate change, but we can reduce our impact on it. Maybe live with 1.5 degrees warming not 2 degrees +

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

I've been watching a number of Randall Carlson's video's lately. He presents a lot of historical evidence that climate change is normal, predictable, and has been happening regularly for hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

The prior ice ages and planet warmings is proof positive that climate change is a natural and ongoing process. The current climate warming may very well cause ice melting and rising oceans. This has occurred many times before in earth's history. Assuming the cycle continues the warming will eventually run its course and then the climate will begin to cool again and form new ice caps.

 

There doesn't appear humans can do anything to stop the inevitable. The only good news is that these cycles take a thousand or more years to complete their cycle. 

 

 

 

 

Oceans may naturally erode the beach but that doesn't mean you should drive along the shoreline kicking up sand with your four wheeler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burnedout said:

 

Says who?  I think it's fun.  Kind of like riding a 4-wheeler in the mud.  

That doesn't surprise me at all. Fuck up everything as much as you can for your kids and grand kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

Oceans may naturally erode the beach but that doesn't mean you should drive along the shoreline kicking up sand with your four wheeler. 

 

True. Clean air is a necessity & polluting the atmosphere clearly is not helping the warming problem. If Carlson is correct humans cannot stop the warming trend, but we can do some things that would be helpful.

 

Al Gore successfully turned Global warming into a political issue. That made him rich, but political solutions will not help solve the warming problem, but they probably won't do a lot of harm either......except to taxpayers wallets. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This is a common argument that fails to take into account various factors.

 

1) No scientist says that climate change is not natural or normal

2) They know massive changes have taken place over billions of years

3) Catastrophic disasters have caused huge climate changes before

4) CO2 is a primary factor (Factor not cause) in global warming

5) Humans having been producing huge amounts of CO2 for around the last 100 years

6) You are quite right, the current cycle we are on will be felt for many centuries

7) We can stop fucking up the environment and artificially affecting the climate which is exacerbating natural trends

8) No scientist suggests we can "stop" climate change, but we can reduce our impact on it. Maybe live with 1.5 degrees warming not 2 degrees +

 

 

 

 

For every proposed solution for nearly every problem there will always be those that disagree. And we have already covered, in some detail on this site, that group consensus often involves financial gain, politics & coercion. All I can say is that Carlson's evidence appears to be sound, but that doesn't mean he's right of course. 

 

Until I find more convincing evidence, I personally believe Carlson has identified the problem and the cause. My opinion, of course, isn't relevant, so it doesn't matter what I think. 

 

Was C02 a primary factor in climate change 12,000 years ago? How about a million years ago?  I don't know, I'm just asking the question.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

For every proposed solution for nearly every problem there will always be those that disagree. And we have already covered, in some detail on this site, that group consensus often involves financial gain, politics & coercion. All I can say is that Carlson's evidence appears to be sound, but that doesn't mean he's right of course. 

 

Until I find more convincing evidence, I personally believe Carlson has identified the problem and the cause. My opinion, of course, isn't relevant, so it doesn't matter what I think. 

 

Was C02 a primary factor in climate change 12,000 years ago? How about a million years ago?  I don't know, I'm just asking the question.

 

Regarding solutions - I'm not discussing political solutions here, only whether or not warming is occurring ( I think we agree on that?) and whether human CO2 emissions has exacerbated the natural warming trend (We seem to disagree there).

 

You are essentially saying that Carlson knows something that the climate scientists don't. You must therefore conclude one of the following:

 

1) Climate scientists are all incompetent

2) Climate scientists are all corrupt 

3) Or Climate scientists know something the rest of us don't' when it comes to researching climate.

 

(PS I am assuming Carlson's position, as I haven't had time to look into his research, but I take it that he proposes that the warming is entirely natural? Perhaps driven by the sun or some other factor?)

 

Regarding your questions, if you are interested I can point you to some great research and explanations by various people in the field who actually address that very question.

 

Basically according to my understanding, CO2 has been a major factor in some warming periods, but not every climate change event. It depends on what's going on at the time. In our case we have done a number of things:

 

1) Heavily industrialised thus producing huge amounts of extra CO2 on top of natural CO2

2) We've cut down, and continue to cut down huge swathes of forest

3) We've heavily intensified stock grazing

 

All this leads to a situation in which humans increase the rate of warming.

 

(PS, as far as I understand CO2 won't CAUSE warming, but it will affect it because of its insulation properties. This is a common misunderstanding and you hear people say "Humans are causing global warming" or "If humans are causing global warming how come the earth warmed before there were humans?" Both these represent a misunderstanding of the subject matter) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest end3

Hell, even I think it's a good idea to recycle.  I have young adult children.....they are pro beach/ocean cleanup, pro recycle.  Regardless of climate change, I think for humanity's sake, we are going to have to get better with our products and waste.  And I think the world is moving that way, not at a rapid pace, but moving.  With that said, I don't expect hydrocarbons to go away any time soon, simply because there is no viable alternative to moving goods around the nation/world. 

 

But yeah, we need to quit producing so much waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've created a whole continent of plastic garbage out in the Pacific. We're doing an excellent job with plastics, which just don't break down. We're even putting them in our toothpaste and other cleansing products to ensure that they end up in the water supply somehow, where we and other animals then ingest them. We're steadily doing a good job polluting our planet and poisoning ourselves. Then we wonder why people are dying of cancer and how we can cure it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Geezer I have been looking for a short simple explanation of why CO2 is important in this debate and I think I've found a good one. It's not in depth but gives the basics.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a more though explanation I just watched this lecture. Easy enough to understand. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     For about as long as I'm aware of geologists have referred to the time we're living in as an "interglacial" period.  They're well aware of the cycles and since we still have glaciers we're still at the trailing end of an ice age.  They would expect, under normal circumstances, for another ice age to follow-on after this one like it has in the past.

 

     However, there was some speculation, for quite some time now (maybe a century), on if humans could influence the environment.  Most notably we got a good look at Venus by landing probes.  This caused us to seriously consider the idea that we could reach a "tipping point" with what we call greenhouse gasses that could cause the planet to move away from it's historical norm and towards something that could push us into becoming like Venus instead.  Some folks, a minority and for a short time, speculated that we might actually trigger another "ice age" in the same way a volcanic eruption can cause a global cooling effect, and this is what a lot of people remember since it caught a lot more attention with the public than the scientific community while the more popular warming theory went largely unnoticed for a long time.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Geezer said:

C02 a primary factor in climate change 12,000 years ago? How about a million years ago?  I don't know, I'm just asking the question.

Yes, each time there has been dramatic climate change it has corresponded to CO2 increases. Whether its super volcanoes, meteor impact, or mass extinction event in the oceans they all result in CO2 spikes and the climate quickly follows. 

It's not a question of whether we caused it but how much we have accelerated it. Something that may have taken a thousand years could happen in 10 with our help. Record breaking temperatures, massive wildfires, droughts and a rising death toll are making it more worrying by the day as to where this trend will end. Deniers are like:

 

images.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Regarding solutions - I'm not discussing political solutions here, only whether or not warming is occurring ( I think we agree on that?) and whether human CO2 emissions has exacerbated the natural warming trend (We seem to disagree there).

 

You are essentially saying that Carlson knows something that the climate scientists don't. You must therefore conclude one of the following:

 

1) Climate scientists are all incompetent

2) Climate scientists are all corrupt 

3) Or Climate scientists know something the rest of us don't' when it comes to researching climate.

 

(PS I am assuming Carlson's position, as I haven't had time to look into his research, but I take it that he proposes that the warming is entirely natural? Perhaps driven by the sun or some other factor?)

 

Regarding your questions, if you are interested I can point you to some great research and explanations by various people in the field who actually address that very question.

 

Basically according to my understanding, CO2 has been a major factor in some warming periods, but not every climate change event. It depends on what's going on at the time. In our case we have done a number of things:

 

1) Heavily industrialised thus producing huge amounts of extra CO2 on top of natural CO2

2) We've cut down, and continue to cut down huge swathes of forest

3) We've heavily intensified stock grazing

 

All this leads to a situation in which humans increase the rate of warming.

 

(PS, as far as I understand CO2 won't CAUSE warming, but it will affect it because of its insulation properties. This is a common misunderstanding and you hear people say "Humans are causing global warming" or "If humans are causing global warming how come the earth warmed before there were humans?" Both these represent a misunderstanding of the subject matter) 

 

I have indeed become very suspicious of the academic community due to their track record of coerced conformity. Climate change involves science, politics, and the potential for large financial gain. Therefore, I do tend to take people like Carlson a little more seriously than those that are part of the academic, science, & established political communities. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mwc said:

     For about as long as I'm aware of geologists have referred to the time we're living in as an "interglacial" period.  They're well aware of the cycles and since we still have glaciers we're still at the trailing end of an ice age.  They would expect, under normal circumstances, for another ice age to follow-on after this one like it has in the past.

 

     However, there was some speculation, for quite some time now (maybe a century), on if humans could influence the environment.  Most notably we got a good look at Venus by landing probes.  This caused us to seriously consider the idea that we could reach a "tipping point" with what we call greenhouse gasses that could cause the planet to move away from it's historical norm and towards something that could push us into becoming like Venus instead.  Some folks, a minority and for a short time, speculated that we might actually trigger another "ice age" in the same way a volcanic eruption can cause a global cooling effect, and this is what a lot of people remember since it caught a lot more attention with the public than the scientific community while the more popular warming theory went largely unnoticed for a long time.

 

          mwc

 

 

Most folks, like me, have no formal training in this field of science, so we "assume" the "experts" are right. History has told us that the "experts" are not always right though. We have discovered that the experts are sometimes wrong and also that they occasionally are promoting an agenda for personal gain.

 

Randall Carlson is one "expert" that disagrees with mainstream climate experts. He doesn't disagree that C02 is harmful, but he questions whether humans are capable of putting enough C02 in the atmosphere to cause the climate to warm.

 

I assume their are other climate experts that don't agree with the mainstreams conclusions either. I would very much like to hear from them too.

 

As I noted, in other posts,  the fact this climate issue has become political and there are serious financial consequences both potentially good and bad for some folks, that makes me want to hear from climate experts that have a different opinion of the problem and how to fix it,..assuming anything needs fixed.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

Most folks, like me, have no formal training in this field of science, so we "assume" the "experts" are right. History has told us that the "experts" are not always right though. We have discovered that the experts are sometimes wrong and also that they occasionally are promoting an agenda for personal gain.

 

Randall Carlson is one "expert" that disagrees with mainstream climate experts. He doesn't disagree that C02 is harmful, but he questions whether humans are capable of putting enough C02 in the atmosphere to cause the climate to warm.

 

I assume their are other climate experts that don't agree with the mainstreams conclusions either. I would very much like to hear from them too.

 

As I noted, in other posts,  the fact this climate issue has become political and there are serious financial consequences both potentially good and bad for some folks, that makes me want to hear from climate experts that have a different opinion of the problem and how to fix it,..assuming anything needs fixed.

 

The problem Geezer with this line of thinking is that while you are right (Humans can, and often are wrong) it is also true that "Experts" have challenged every scientific discovery starting from the earth is a sphere. There will always be those who challenge the consensus, and this is necessarily so. However at some point everyone has to say either one side or the other has made their case. Think of the furore over evolution back when it was proposed, and its still going on. Creationism is actually picking up support. Why? Because people say the "Experts" don't have all the answers. Well of course not, that's why they are looking for answers.

 

Regarding the CO2 question. So we know the planet has been warming from the last ice age yes? And this is happening naturally. So the "cause" of warming is not CO2. Here Carlson is actually correct. However any extra CO2 humans pump into the atmosphere will and does affect the rate of warming for reasons outline in videos posted above. What's more this tends to be a longer term concern, not a next decade concern. Basically if AGW is right we are fucking things up for the next few generations ahead of us... but who cares right cause we will be fine. /sarcasm.

 

Re solutions, CO2 scrubbing could actually be a thing if the tech is developed. If there is money to be made someone will find out how to do it. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 1:43 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

A disturbing development in climate change. They had expected this area of ice would be the last to break up but the  conditions over the summer has meant ice that remains solid even in summer has broken up for the first time on record.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/arctic’s-strongest-sea-ice-breaks-up-for-first-time-on-record/ar-BBMdwJR?ocid=ientp

 

God is breaking up the ice because of these gay pride parades...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

Most folks, like me, have no formal training in this field of science, so we "assume" the "experts" are right. History has told us that the "experts" are not always right though. We have discovered that the experts are sometimes wrong and also that they occasionally are promoting an agenda for personal gain.

 

Randall Carlson is one "expert" that disagrees with mainstream climate experts. He doesn't disagree that C02 is harmful, but he questions whether humans are capable of putting enough C02 in the atmosphere to cause the climate to warm.

 

I assume their are other climate experts that don't agree with the mainstreams conclusions either. I would very much like to hear from them too.

 

As I noted, in other posts,  the fact this climate issue has become political and there are serious financial consequences both potentially good and bad for some folks, that makes me want to hear from climate experts that have a different opinion of the problem and how to fix it,..assuming anything needs fixed.

     True enough.  People aren't educated.  I took both geology and astronomy while in college (it was a long time ago and it was only enough to become familiar with the topics and some lab work and a couple field trips).  I was a bit silly and took a lot of courses that were duplicate categories just because I found them interesting and wanted to know how they worked.  Much of what I posted were my recollections from those days.

 

     As to Randall Carlson?  I went to his website.  I educated myself to the point that I don't think he has any real answers (I looked over a couple videos like the one where the pyramid a model of the earth...just brilliant...oops "brilliant").  He has no peer reviewed articles.  I doubt he will ever have any legitimate publications.  He appears to be a kook.  Over at the RationalWiki they write (I'm editing with the best reply so go read the whole short thing yourself):



Randall Carlson and his Sacred geometry woo are all over the internet but there doesn't seem to be a single dissenting voice.

...

According to Sacred Geometry International "Randall is uniquely qualified to interpret the hidden meaning of the great masterpieces of mystical architecture, as well as esoteric and occult ritual and symbolism." — Unsigned, by: Missingtransmission / talk / contribs 18:22, 21 May 2014‎ (UTC)

{{sowriteit}} - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 

 

Carlson is interesting and fun to listen to. I also am looking for voices of criticism, for balance. - michael@michaeltoolan.com — Unsigned, by: 189.220.243.42 / talk18:52, 19 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 

I'm detecting a subtext here of "no one has taken the time to sit down and write a detailed rebuttal, so what he says must at least be plausible". Well, no. People can be just wrong. "Balance" does not mean "given any two propositions, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle". Based on my cursory look, it looks like Carlson is a believer in astrology (see for instance [1]), which is of course rank bullshit. Magic isn't real, sorry. He appeared on Joe Rogan's radio show, which is a pretty big red flag. It's hard to pin down concrete claims he's making, as he seems to like the Deepak Chopra prose style of long, profound-sounding statements that say basically nothing. --Ymir (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

...

     Only SGI, which is essentially Carlson, finds Carlson suitable for the task.  The reply to that are a lot nicer than what I've said but along the same vein.  He has a lot to say in which he says a lot of nothing.  Perhaps he is uniquely suited for that task?

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mwc said:

     True enough.  People aren't educated.  I took both geology and astronomy while in college (it was a long time ago and it was only enough to become familiar with the topics and some lab work and a couple field trips).  I was a bit silly and took a lot of courses that were duplicate categories just because I found them interesting and wanted to know how they worked.  Much of what I posted were my recollections from those days.

 

     As to Randall Carlson?  I went to his website.  I educated myself to the point that I don't think he has any real answers (I looked over a couple videos like the one where the pyramid a model of the earth...just brilliant...oops "brilliant").  He has no peer reviewed articles.  I doubt he will ever have any legitimate publications.  He appears to be a kook.  Over at the RationalWiki they write (I'm editing with the best reply so go read the whole short thing yourself):

 

 

     Only SGI, which is essentially Carlson, finds Carlson suitable for the task.  The reply to that are a lot nicer than what I've said but along the same vein.  He has a lot to say in which he says a lot of nothing.  Perhaps he is uniquely suited for that task?

 

          mwc

 

 

Other academics that I've seen referred to as kooks include: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, Richard Dawkins, etc. Ehrman labels those that think Jesus was a literary character as academic kooks & unfit for employment.

 

It seems to me that the label kook is often applied to someone that simply holds a different view or position about some issue. I find Carlson interesting and informative. If he is a kook he's an interesting kook and I haven't found anything he's said outrageous or absurd. But I'm not an academic so maybe I'm just gullible and easily entertained.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

Other academics that I've seen referred to as kooks include: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, Richard Dawkins, etc. Ehrman labels those that think Jesus was a literary character as academic kooks & unfit for employment.

     Maybe they are for all I care.  It has no bearing on this one person.

 

Quote

 

It seems to me that the label kook is often applied to someone that simply holds a different view or position about some issue.

     If this were true I'd label you the kook and be done with it.

 

Quote

I find Carlson interesting and informative. If he is a kook he's an interesting kook and I haven't found anything he's said outrageous or absurd. But I'm not an academic so maybe I'm just gullible and easily entertained.

     This is unfortunate.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth remembering that its not just the mainstream scientists being paid, the denier scientists are equally open to making a living. Some get funding by petrol and industrial interests who want to play down the damage humans are doing cos restrictions would be bad for business. The money goes both ways. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 7:00 PM, Geezer said:

I've been watching a number of Randall Carlson's video's lately. He presents a lot of historical evidence that climate change is normal, predictable, and has been happening regularly for hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

The prior ice ages and planet warmings is proof positive that climate change is a natural and ongoing process. The current climate warming may very well cause ice melting and rising oceans. This has occurred many times before in earth's history. Assuming the cycle continues the warming will eventually run its course and then the climate will begin to cool again and form new ice caps.

 

There doesn't appear humans can do anything to stop the inevitable. The only good news is that these cycles take a thousand or more years to complete their cycle. 

 

 

 

So Geezer, do you think that humans have a large or minimal impact on the surrounding environment? This is the crux of the matter. Yeah, it might be normal, or predictable, but if you've seen the forecasts for population growth over the next few decades, and the statistics for what kind of impact we have on the environment, the math isn't that difficult. The key there is population growth. It's easy to argue the climate did it's thing for thousands of years, of course it did, and the human impact was minimal as we hadn't yet had an industrial revolution. What wasn't in the equation was the exponential population growth combined with an industrial revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.