[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Hey, it's not two of every animal. The animals that can live in the ocean would not need to go on the ark. Although I'm not sure about the salt regulation. Where did all this water come from that caused the oceans to rise that much? There can't be enough frozen water on land to cause such a drastic rise? Since it was rainwater, ie non salty, it would vastly reduce the saline content of the ocean, so I take it back. Saltwater species would also need special holding tanks for them on the ark. Funny how that was never mentioned.

There's a growing body of thought that the Noah story came from the flood of the Black Sea basin about 7,500 years ago. Yes, there's a lot of embellishment to the story but aspects of it may well have their roots in actual events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_ ... hypothesis

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Hey, it's not two of every animal. The animals that can live in the ocean would not need to go on the ark. Although I'm not sure about the salt regulation. Where did all this water come from that caused the oceans to rise that much? There can't be enough frozen water on land to cause such a drastic rise? Since it was rainwater, ie non salty, it would vastly reduce the saline content of the ocean, so I take it back. Saltwater species would also need special holding tanks for them on the ark. Funny how that was never mentioned.

The wate part isn't too hard to explain;

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-oc ... earth.html

But your saltwater fish point is a good one.

Or how about two of every bird...they can't all fly for 40 days straight after all.

Or two of every insect - how many millions species are there again? How much would they all weigh? What about all the termite species - why didn't they wreck the Ark?

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

Hey, it's not two of every animal. The animals that can live in the ocean would not need to go on the ark. Although I'm not sure about the salt regulation. Where did all this water come from that caused the oceans to rise that much? There can't be enough frozen water on land to cause such a drastic rise? Since it was rainwater, ie non salty, it would vastly reduce the saline content of the ocean, so I take it back. Saltwater species would also need special holding tanks for them on the ark. Funny how that was never mentioned.

The wate part isn't too hard to explain;

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-oc ... earth.html

But your saltwater fish point is a good one.

Or how about two of every bird...they can't all fly for 40 days straight after all.

Or two of every insect - how many millions species are there again? How much would they all weigh? What about all the termite species - why didn't they wreck the Ark?

I don't think water 400 kilometers down rose up and flooded the earth.

Never mind your puny insects and birds. All dinosaur species would have had to be on that ark, since every living thing survived the flood. "Ham, run down to the hold, the T Rex's got in among the Triceratops again."

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Kind of a funny one here. Not directly related to the AGW debate, but kind of similar to what happens when those who know nothing about science pretend that they do. Jenny McCarthy, infamous anti-vaccination activist and probably the only celebrity (except for Mel Gibson ( ) and probably every rapper out there) to have her own death count that she's provably responsible for, made the mistake of going on Twitter and asking "what's the most important personality trait you find in a mate? #JennyAsks". Well, Twitter responded and it wasn't pretty. Goddamn hilarious and delightfully mean spirited, but not pretty at all.

Lesson #1: don't fuck with real scientists. The numbers don't lie, Penny.
Lesson #2 thru #10: see Lesson #1.

Ought to be right up Zippy's alley who, if he isn't too tired and/or high right now, I suspect is really here just using all of us as chew toys for his own amusement.

Ha--you're on to me!

Seriously though, on AGW I'd be what they'd call a "ringer" in pick up hockey. It's not really a fair fight a lot of the time. But thanks for the nice backhanded compliment regardless!

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

I wouldn't. It's barely been confirmed that any changes are even happening at all right now, much less confirmed to happen in the near future. Assuming catastrophic change is imminent is just damn foolish. The hardcore enviros, who have successfully purged any remaining moderates from their ranks as much as the TeaBirchers have done with the Republican Party, went for apocalyptic terror as part of their propaganda plan. That's why they're meeting with so much damn resistance right now. Don't go with the "aaaaaaahhhhhhhggggghhhhh, the world is dying!" bullshit routine and they'd conceivably be miles farther ahead with whatever it was they were attempting to persuade the governments and populations into agreeing with.

Yeah, even the Jehovah Witnesses got wise and stopped predicting dates fo the end of the wolrd. The "world will end pretty soon but not quite sure when" works much better for them. Every time they find some scientist who points to some anomalous weather event as proof of global warming I cringe.

Fact is that, even prior to the advent of global warming as an issue, weather/natural events tend to be the biggest stories of the year every year. Tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts, floods, heat waves, tornados, freak anomalies. They happen regardless of global warming.

Was that heat wave or that polar vortex due to global warming? May as well ask if that smoke gave Buddy cancer. Who knows? All you can say is that if you smoke the probability is that you won't live as long. On the other hand you might be a pack-a-day man at a hundred years old. Not very likely, but could happen. Probably has happened.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Hey, it's not two of every animal. The animals that can live in the ocean would not need to go on the ark. Although I'm not sure about the salt regulation. Where did all this water come from that caused the oceans to rise that much? There can't be enough frozen water on land to cause such a drastic rise? Since it was rainwater, ie non salty, it would vastly reduce the saline content of the ocean, so I take it back. Saltwater species would also need special holding tanks for them on the ark. Funny how that was never mentioned.

There's a growing body of thought that the Noah story came from the flood of the Black Sea basin about 7,500 years ago. Yes, there's a lot of embellishment to the story but aspects of it may well have their roots in actual events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_ ... hypothesis

Can't be as the world was created just over 6000 years ago.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

The overwhelming evidence of human caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that climate change puts the well being of people of all nations at risk.

Surveys show that many Americans think climate change is still a topic of significant scientific disagreement. It is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human caused climate change is real.

Moreover, while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world. It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred. Nor are we seeking to provide yet another extensive review of the scientific evidence for climate change. Instead, we present key messages for every American about climate change

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/u ... e-Know.pdf

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Back in the Bush II Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) nakedly tried to nudge the political process surrounding the passage of the environmentally-horrific ethanol fuel mandate. It hung a large banner from the side of its Washington headquarters, picturing a corn stalk morphing into a gas pump, all surrounded by a beautiful, pristine, blue ocean. They got their way, and we got the bill, along with a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

So it’s not surprising that AAAS is on the Washington Insider side of global warming, releasing a report today that is the perfect 1-2-3 step-by-step how-to guide to climate change alarm.

This is how it is laid out in the counterfactually-titled AAAS report “What We Know”:

Step 1: State that virtually all scientists agree that humans are changing the climate,

Step 2: Highlight that climate change has the potential to bring low risk but high impact outcomes, and

Step 3: Proclaim that by acting now, we can do something to avert potential catastrophe.

To make this most effective, appeal to authority, or in this case, make the case that you are the authority.

Somehow in its haste to scare us, the AAAS seems to have missed (or ignored) the two hottest topics in climate change these days—1) that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades , and 2) that high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.

http://www.cato.org/blog/aaass-guide-cl ... um=twitter

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-tho ... e-science/

[DrCaleb]

And yet, there is still the same trend . . .

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yet, there is still the same trend . . .

What trend? There has been no statistically significant warming for 17 years, but if you go back 160 years or so to the end of the little ice age you can find a trend to warming of about 1.5 degrees Celsius as a global average. Is that what you mean?

If so explain why that gives you worry of catastrophe.

It is true most global warmist models predict catastrophe, but as you can see above, they have been proven wrong by reality.

[DrCaleb]

Ok, I'm bored so I'll bite.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yet, there is still the same trend . . .

What trend?

Upwards. Never down.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There has been no statistically significant warming for 17 years,

So why were 2005 and 2010 the warmest years ever recorded? Why was June 2009 to May 2010 the hottest 12 months ever recorded?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

but if you go back 160 years or so to the end of the little ice age you can find a trend to warming of about 1.5 degrees Celsius as a global average. Is that what you mean?

If you go back 800,000 years, there has never been this concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If so explain why that gives you worry of catastrophe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-in-2036/

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It is true most global warmist models predict catastrophe, but as you can see above, they have been proven wrong by reality.

For very short cherry picked periods of 'reality'.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Was that heat wave or that polar vortex due to global warming? May as well ask if that smoke gave Buddy cancer. Who knows? All you can say is that if you smoke the probability is that you won't live as long. On the other hand you might be a pack-a-day man at a hundred years old. Not very likely, but could happen. Probably has happened.

I tend to look at things like the so-called 'Polar Vortex' (see note) with a more critical eye.

The question I ask when it's proposed that global warming cause the polar vortex is: Has a polar vortex event happened before? Has it happened prior to the Industrial Age?

If the answer is 'no' then I go with Occam's Razor and note that since this kind of thing can happen all on its own then it's not logical to attribute a cause to the event that never caused the event before. To do so requires magical thinking.

(Note: What was called 'the polar vortex' in the media was the event of a perfectly normal circular polar wiond pattern descending below the Arctic. This is not unusual except that in the past the media would call the event an 'Arctic Blast' and this time around they seized on the more accurate scientific term of polar vortex.)

[PluggyRug]

The Earth has been around for millions of years and yet the alarmists are telling us of forthcoming catastrophes based on evidence from the last couple of hundred years.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So why were 2005 and 2010 the warmest years ever recorded? Why was June 2009 to May 2010 the hottest 12 months ever recorded?

The instrument record is about 160 years long. It began following a period of cooling called the little ice age. The cycle then went to warming. Currently we are at a peak in that cycle. It peaked and we have been plateauing for about 17 years. No warming. None of this is even controversial. Who is saying anything different? Yes the highest measurements are on the plateau peak. Why would that surprise you?