Global warming is real!!!!!

[Kirby101]

I mean, you'd think "Pollution is bad" would be a pretty easy sell. Even if it didn't effect the climate, but it does, it would still effect literally everything else.

Well the same people think everyone having heathcare or enough for retirement or enough to eat is bad too.

[Jack Dracula]

Climate change is real of course. The issue is whether it is caused by human activity. According to a recent study, it's not.

Read this recent paper from University of Wisconsin:

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-c...-solar-system/

They have proof that climate change is caused by what they call "chaotic solar system". In a nutshell it's saying that climate change is proportional to the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives. And that change in solar radiation amount is caused by the relative positions of Earth and Mars as they rotate around the Sun.

The science behind this may not be valid. After reading the article I have some issues with how the researchers went about ascertaining the link between a chaotic solar system and climate change. Their theory (which is what it is - not fact) is that a higher concentration of clay in one certain geographic area is due to runoff from water produced in a warmer climate and somehow make the leap from that supposition to the warmer climate being caused by planetary wobble from interference of another planetary body.
That's a pretty big damned leap.
The momentarily warmer climate at that given period may be the result of a solar flare. The clay deposit may have resulted from a flash flood or landslide caused by geologic activity.
I know you're eager to to disprove the idea that global climate change could be influenced by humanity, but think critically about what you read.

I would make the argument that humanity would be better off operating under the assumption that we are influencing the climate. If we aren't, then fine, no problem. If we are, then fine, we're doing everything we can to rectify it. We can't really lose.

The only wrong idea would be to not change our ways and risk disaster.

[Tendrin]

The science behind this may not be valid. After reading the article I have some issues with how the researchers went about ascertaining the link between a chaotic solar system and climate change. Their theory (which is what it is - not fact) is that a higher concentration of clay in one certain geographic area is due to runoff from water produced in a warmer climate and somehow make the leap from that supposition to the warmer climate being caused by planetary wobble from interference of another planetary body.
That's a pretty big damned leap.
The momentarily warmer climate at that given period may be the result of a solar flare. The clay deposit may have resulted from a flash flood or landslide caused by geologic activity.
I know you're eager to to disprove the idea that global climate change could be influenced by humanity, but think critically about what you read.

I would make the argument that humanity would be better off operating under the assumption that we are influencing the climate. If we aren't, then fine, no problem. If we are, then fine, we're doing everything we can to rectify it. We can't really lose.

The only wrong idea would be to not change our ways and risk disaster.

Let's not forget that Wisonsin is the home of Koch industries. :P

[beetle_booster]

The science behind this may not be valid. After reading the article I have some issues with how the researchers went about ascertaining the link between a chaotic solar system and climate change. Their theory (which is what it is - not fact) is that a higher concentration of clay in one certain geographic area is due to runoff from water produced in a warmer climate and somehow make the leap from that supposition to the warmer climate being caused by planetary wobble from interference of another planetary body.
That's a pretty big damned leap.

The momentarily warmer climate at that given period may be the result of a solar flare. The clay deposit may have resulted from a flash flood or landslide caused by geologic activity.

Not really a big leap. Like what the article said:

“The Niobrara Formation exhibits pronounced rhythmic rock layering due to changes in the relative abundance of clay and calcium carbonate,” notes Meyers, an authority on astrochronology, which utilizes astronomical cycles to measure geologic time.


It's not a one-off momentary warming. It's a rhythmic warming and cooling that corresponds to astronomical cycles.

I know you're eager to to disprove the idea that global climate change could be influenced by humanity, but think critically about what you read.

I would make the argument that humanity would be better off operating under the assumption that we are influencing the climate. If we aren't, then fine, no problem. If we are, then fine, we're doing everything we can to rectify it. We can't really lose.

The only wrong idea would be to not change our ways and risk disaster.

Yes I have. I'm basing it off the evidence at hand.

Besides, this is a scientific study funded by the National Science Foundation. University of Wisconsin is not a pretend school. Meyer is geoscientist. Sageman is a planetary science professor. They hold a little bit more credibility than Bill Nye the Science Guy

[beetle_booster]

Wow. It's not often that you meet deniers without the dignity to hide their feelings like this. This thread ought to be interesting.

Pfft. Yeah. Why would I hide my feelings? To gain the approval from leftists who are intolerant of other people's views? The hell with that.

[Kirby101]

I guess Science has a liberal bias.

[Tendrin]

Pfft. Yeah. Why would I hide my feelings? To gain the approval from leftists who are intolerant of other people's views? The hell with that.

The study you want to use to disprove climate change doesn't disprove man-made climate change. At all.

It does provide interesting information, but it should be noted that in /no/ way does it disprove the sheer bulk of evidence regarding man's impact on the climate. We all know that the climate has variances and cycles. But, hey, you're choosing to ignore a /huge/ amount of data because 'well this one study says there are cycles!'. Well, OF COURSE THERE ARE. Climate research has never said otherwise. The natural trends act in concert with what we do.

The basic idea behind denialism is that we're powerless and blameless and that we needn't do anything, change anything, fix anything, because the climate is doing this all on its own and that we're completely blamelss victims of a global scientific conspiracy/hysteria.

It's inane and inaccurate. Global man-caused climate change is the challenge of our future. It's the reckoning we're going to have to face whether we like it or not and the longer we use any excuse to avoid dealing with it, the worse the blows will be when they come. Because we're not powerless, blameless, guileless victims of a chaotic solar system impacting our climate.

Also, LOL, none too far away from the article you posted is this:

http://news.wisc.edu/long-term-pictu...limate-change/

Climate change projections that look ahead one or two centuries show a rapid rise in temperature and sea level, but say little about the longer picture. Today (Feb. 8, 2016), a study published in Nature Climate Change looks at the next 10,000 years, and finds that the catastrophic impact of another three centuries of carbon pollution will persist millennia after the carbon dioxide releases cease. The picture is disturbing, says co-author Shaun Marcott, an assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, with a nearly inevitable elevation of sea level for thousands of years into the future. - See more at: http://news.wisc.edu/long-term-pictu....WcdO49RG.dpuf

[TheManInBlack]

The previous few winters had record-breaking cold in many places. Here in Canada, 2 winters ago was the coldest I've seen since I was a kid. But that's just fluctuating weather just like this winter is. This warm winter no more proves global warming than the past few cold winters disproves it. I mean, I believe in climate change, don't get me wrong, but the OP in this thread is just bothering me. The trends are what matter, over long periods of time.

[Kirby101]

The previous few winters had record-breaking cold in many places. Here in Canada, 2 winters ago was the coldest I've seen since I was a kid. But that's just fluctuating weather just like this winter is. This warm winter no more proves global warming than the past few cold winters disproves it. I mean, I believe in climate change, don't get me wrong, but the OP in this thread is just bothering me. The trends are what matter, over long periods of time.

Global Climate Change is also about extreme weather, so the coldest winters fall in line with it. It is trends, and more severe storms and seasons are in line with the models. (though you are right, a warm Feb somewhere is not a sign)

[Spike-X]

Pfft. Yeah. Why would I hide my feelings? To gain the approval from leftists who are intolerant of other people's views? The hell with that.

Oh. You're one of those.

[TheManInBlack]

Global Climate Change is also about extreme weather, so the coldest winters fall in line with it. It is trends, and more severe storms and seasons are in line with the models. (though you are right, a warm Feb somewhere is not a sign)

Of course, colder weather falls in line with climate change. I was mainly trying to point out that you can't simply point to a few unusually warm or cold days or weeks and say 'See! This proves global warming is real/false!" like the OP does.

Oh. You're one of those.

You realize that a response of this caliber is simply validating his post right?

[jeanvaljean]

Way to not sink to his level.

It's not Spike's fault that b_b's sole plan seems to be to make all the special snowflakes in his mind melt.

[Spike-X]

You realize that a response of this caliber is simply validating his post right?

You realize I don't care, right?

[ImprobableQuestion]

Besides, this is a scientific study funded by the National Science Foundation. University of Wisconsin is not a pretend school. Meyer is geoscientist. Sageman is a planetary science professor. They hold a little bit more credibility than Bill Nye the Science Guy

Nye is a Cornell-Educated Mechanical Engineer, and his career has probably done more for the scientific community than most of the published people you could throw at me.

But even if that weren't the case, the sum total of every scientist in the world who have been warning us about climate change for decades is not "Bill Nye," it's every single scientist in the world with any integrity. One paper (that isn't about modern climate change at all) isn't going to topple the body of proof.

[Spike-X]

It's funny how some people will suddenly embrace science once they stumble upon one paper or study that seems to reinforce what they so desperately want to believe, after sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "Lalala I can't hear you!" over and over at the other 99 that prove the opposite.