Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling

[HAL 9000 96]

For clarity you should state what kind of global warming. Its hard enough as it is getting naysayers to understand to differentiate between weather and climate. Now you have to mention natural vs artificial causes. VJ sheez.

[scandal 951]

For clarity you should state what kind of global warming. Its hard enough as it is getting naysayers to understand to differentiate between weather and climate. Now you have to mention natural vs artificial causes. VJ sheez.

Bill: I didn't say there is a single accepted hypothesis. I said "The evidence is consistent with a GW based hypothesis". Meaning any of several that are based on GW.

In other words - we're in agreement on this point.

But you're still clueless about how to maintain a business supply chain. Or the need to properly nourish your SO with sufficient crackers in bed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

For clarity you should state what kind of global warming. Its hard enough as it is getting naysayers to understand to differentiate between weather and climate. Now you have to mention natural vs artificial causes. VJ sheez.

Bill: I didn't say there is a single accepted hypothesis. I said "The evidence is consistent with a GW based hypothesis". Meaning any of several that are based on GW.

In other words - we're in agreement on this point.

But you're still clueless about how to maintain a business supply chain. Or the need to properly nourish your SO with sufficient crackers in bed.

I would expect nothing less from a clock puncher.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The ancient ice age featured glaciers that covered the South Pole on top of the supercontinent of Gondwana. Two-thirds of all species perished in the frigid climate.

...

A long time ago there was an ice age and the only land was a supercontinent in the center of the planet, dinosaurs roamed the land and later went extinct, the supercontinent divided into 7 continents all spaced out across the earth.

And now we are concerned because the earth might get a degree warmer?

Could you imagine what they'd be saying if we still lived on this one giant supercontinent? How many degrees cooler/warmer (cycles) did this planet go through YTD? I'd imagine from ice age to current was a drastic change in degrees! But now a tenth of a degree warmer means we are all doomed.

It seems to me that the period of dinosaurs, ice ages, and drifting continents was just a bit more alarming than what is going on right now...just sayin'

You raise excellent points, and I think a big part of the confusion in the understanding of GW and other issues of science and its perception in popular culture are embedded in your comments here.

I'm referring specifically to the notion of scale -- scale of time and space. We as humans exist in such a puny fraction of the universe's expanse of space and time that it can be really hard to grasp the things we've learned through scientific discovery. Especially things that seem counterintuitive to our everyday experiences. That's true about the big bang and expanding universe models and Doppler red shifts. It's true about evolution and natural selection acting slowly across generations over millions of years. And it's true about climate change on our planet.

What you wrote is "A long time ago". Which is true. Very very true. A long long long time ago. In fact - different long times ago, for the different things you mention.

The Earth has had many different ice ages, the most recent of which ended only about 11,000 years ago - well within the time that modern humans already existed on all continents of the Old World, and approximately the time that they crossed the Bering Strait to the Americas. Clearly humans can adapt and survive in prolonged Ice ages that last thousands of years.

The "supercontinent" Pangaea existed approximately 250 million years ago. On the scale of planet Earth (4.5 billion years old), that's quite recent. On the scale of human existence, that's unimaginably vastly long long long ago -- long before the very earliest mammals evolved from reptiles (about 125 million years ago).

We as modern humans have occupied the planet for a tiny fraction of its existence, we evolved about 2.5 million years ago. That's long enough to have lived through countless ice ages. But it's long long after the modern continents were formed and the geology and atmosphere of the planet were largely stabilized and as we know them today. Humans will no doubt sputter out at some future point when conditions on Earth change and the environment is hostile to our finely tuned needs as warm blooded mammals. The goal of halting (or not halting) GW is not to prevent the eventual change of Earth's climate to our detriment. The Earth (and the Universe) are dynamic. We will go extinct. That much is certain. But on a timescale really not interesting to us, right now today. If you care about yourself, your children, your grandchildren, then you care about dramatic change on the scale of a century or so. That's the challenge man made GW is posing. We're seeing environmental change on a scale that has profound effects for our way of life as modern humans.

Which brings us to the science and politics of global warming. Studies of our ancient planet are relevant, because they show us what our planet used to look like, and the interplay between green house gases, sea levels, and temperatures. We can infer from the ancient past what higher CO2 concentrations are likely to mean.

However, arguments of "well, we had naturally caused greenhouse effects before, so it's no big deal if we create man-made ones now" are misguided. We as humans did not live through the extreme effects of ancient times. Other living beings did, and they adapted to those conditions (ferns and mosses did. would you like to be a fern or a moss?). Moreover, even the much more recent extreme-climate variations that humans have lived through, such as the Ice Ages, would be very burdensome to our modern way of life. Virtually all of modern industrialized society in the northern hemisphere (Europe, Asia, North America) exists in places that were under mile thick sheets of ice. Sure, humans adapted then - by living in tropical regions, or by subsistence existence in the temperate zones. This would reduce everything you know about your current existence - the country you live in, the economy you participate in, the lifestyle you enjoy - to a basic hunter/gatherer existence.

I'm not saying manmade GW means all these disaster scenarios will happen. Frankly I don't know enough about the science and predictive models to comment.

I'm just saying that our everyday experience measured over a human lifetime gets overwhelmed when we need to contemplate changes that play out on a scale that's simply hard for us to imagine. Consider it this way: it's been 2000 years since the era of Christ. If you think back to that "ancient" time - Roman soldiers, Judea, crucifixion... it seems like ancient history, a time vastly different than our own "modern" experience. Yet in climate research Jesus and we are contemporaries, living in the very same period. He and we both lived many thousands of years after the last Ice Age - his experience on Earth happened 80% into the timeline of ours from the point of the last Ice Age.

Excellent post, Ron.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Scientists know to be skeptical when they don't have all the answers or sufficient evidence. What they don't do is naysay like idiots until proof is unequivocal. Skepticism works both ways... something the illiterati haven't got yet in their quest for ignorance.

Climate science is, at this point in time, HIGHLY suggestive within all parameters of high degrees of significance, that its not only real, but perhaps worsening beyond present expectations.

Another excellent post, from my brother computer HAL.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

Scientists know to be skeptical when they don't have all the answers or sufficient evidence. What they don't do is naysay like idiots until proof is unequivocal. Skepticism works both ways... something the illiterati haven't got yet in their quest for ignorance.

Climate science is, at this point in time, HIGHLY suggestive within all parameters of high degrees of significance, that its not only real, but perhaps worsening beyond present expectations.

Well we've only got less than 5 years until we reach the point of no return. Those of us who want the earth destroyed (or a little warmer) will just hold you off until then. Then we won't have to worry about it because we'll be too far gone.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

GW is like a religion. Right now I am not converted/convinced to believe that it is the real deal and/or an immediate danger. But unlike religion, I am sure that within the next 5 to 20 years the proof/truth will come out on GW, and when there aren't any scientists left denying that it is real, then I will believe it. Until then I am very skeptic!

I respect your right to be a skeptic. But I disagree with your assessment. The accumulating science from Greenland, the Antarctic, and the polar ice cap is clearly showing that SOMETHING is going on. The polar regions are interesting because they are at the extremes of our planet. If they are undergoing change it's a likely harbinger of changes throughout the globe. Something is different in these regions - very, very different - than it has been over thousands of years. The glacial melt and lack of annual replacement is testament to that. Something, or somethings, must account for these rapid changes. What? The evidence is consistent with a GW based hypothesis. No one (to my knowledge) has put forward a credible counter hypothesis.

Well I said that GW parishioners were sheep and no one has given a credible counter hypothesis either.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

You really ought to start substantiating this sort of thing, rather than merely saying it for the sake of it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

You really ought to start substantiating this sort of thing, rather than merely saying it for the sake of it.

Sure a couple -

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

But you'll dance around the bush on this one. I already know that.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nothing in Hal's posts in those threads relates to your earlier claim.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Nothing in Hal's posts in those threads relates to your earlier claim.

Good grief do i have to do your homework for you?

Yes Nick. Read up again on what a 1 degree C increase (average) in such a SHORT time span can do to different climate zones. Then get back to your AL Gore and Fl light bulb jokes.

In layman's terms - Global Warming is proven by weather in different areas changing... But here comes the "explanation" and following insults.

This is just one post.. So i'll give you this one... and when you copout - we'll move on to the next one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Amazing how the weather in one geographical location 'defines' a person's concept of a global phenomenon.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Amazing how the weather in one geographical location 'defines' a person's concept of a global phenomenon.

Which only applies when criticizing GW heretics...

Thats my point.. But you purposely don't get it. (but you know its true)

The previous post(s) prove that the GW Priests will use weather as a propaganda machine when it suits their argument.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Amazing how the weather in one geographical location 'defines' a person's concept of a global phenomenon.

Which only applies when criticizing GW heretics...

Thats my point.. But you purposely don't get it. (but you know its true)

The previous post(s) prove that the GW Priests will use weather as a propaganda machine when it suits their argument.

My point is you purposefully say these things for the sake of saying them regardless of the absence of any direct evidence. There's nothing in either of those threads that does what you're alleging - its just more ####### for tat argumentativeness.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Amazing how the weather in one geographical location 'defines' a person's concept of a global phenomenon.

Which only applies when criticizing GW heretics...

Thats my point.. But you purposely don't get it. (but you know its true)

The previous post(s) prove that the GW Priests will use weather as a propaganda machine when it suits their argument.

My point is you purposefully say these things for the sake of saying them regardless of the absence of any direct evidence. There's nothing in either of those threads that does what you're alleging - its just more ####### for tat argumentativeness.

You are so full of it. I feel sorry for you.

Its right in front of you, but yet you still toe the line. I will give you GW priests one thing, you stick together with eachother no matter how wrong one of you is. You'll explain away anything.