Todays World: Ice House or Hot House? (great info on debunking global warming)

paleomap project ^ | 4/18/06 | christopher scotese

[beebuster2000]

ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE?

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

This chart shows how global climate has changed through time

[beebuster2000]

good post. thks

[tophat9000]

The site is interesting but irrelevant to global warming. It doesn't matter what the climate was like 200 million years ago, what caused it to change then.

That's the charts point, that there is no anomalous cause ...

That there seem to be a natural long term earth warming/cooling cycle...

That we are just coming out of the bottom of a long term cooling cycle and we are just started up a normal long term warming trend and that, on average the earth is warmer then it is now.....

We have in effect passed out of the coldest days of "winter" headed to "spring" and have people contending it's something we are doing that making spring & summer come.....

Is that the case? I don't know but the chart does seen to indicate that it's the norm for the earth to be warmer than now

[ModelBreaker]

Climatologists look at what's causing this change. Trying to find out why the earth's climate is changing now by looking at the creataceous period, is a bit like investigating 9/11 by looking at who tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

Actually, it's very relevant. The global warming folks all have kind-of physics based approximations (models) of how they think various factors interact to affect climate. The most important single step in modeling is validating your model against known data. Otherwise, you are just dreaming stuff up and running your computer.

The assertion by the global warming folks is not just that the climate is warming but that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Given a history of hundreds of millions of years where climate demonstrably changes when there were no humans, the question is why the present is somehow different than the past--that is, in the past, stuff warmed up and cooled down all on its own. Isn't that the obvious explanation for today's climate change?

So the burden is on the ecofreaks to establish that somehow this is different. And that is where there models fall apart on the validation problem. They have only one data point for human effect on the environment--the modern industrial era. There are no previous periods of industrialization that correlate to temperature increases (because there were no previous periods of industrialization).

One data point is laughably insufficient to validate a model. So what the ecofreaks are doing is, quite literally, dreaming stuff up and running a computer and it deserves about that much respect.

Deep down, some of the better statisticians on the eco freak side know this. That's why you hear so much about the 'precautionary principle.' Effectively, what they argue by way of the precautionary principle is that even though the data is insufficient to support their position, they might be right so we should shut down our economy. That's a fine argument if you hate western civilization and want to destroy capitalism and replace it with a statist economy. But it's no way to preserve markets, wealth, and freedom. Plus, I think it underestimates the adaptability of humans.

Big picture. So what if oceans rise 3 meters? Do you think our survival as a species (or even our prosperity) is threatened. New wealth will be created as we will adapt so long as we are free.

[in hoc signo vinces]

Good point.

[liberty2004]

Dont let Al Gore see the facts...you'll take away his purpose in life.

well put. It is his religion, he hopes it is his vehicle to the Presidency. Those on the left believe they are wrong about nothing. God help us if they gain power. They will make us suffer for their arrogance.

[liberty2004]

Trying to find out why the earth's climate is changing now by looking at the creataceous period, is a bit like investigating 9/11 by looking at who tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

Sounds cut, but your statement makes no sense and is ridiculous analog. Anyone with training in the Scientific Method would understand that it is quite important to study and understand the past climate cycles.

[crazycat]

Great response. Well said.

[liberty2004]

Searching for man made causes to assign to a normal global phenomnenon is folly.

well put. Those "stupid" humans that believe it is man-made are fools who will be miserable over this. Those who believe it is man-made do not understand the so called solutions will do absolutely nothing to change what will happen, but will instead wreck our economy and give more power to the elites in government to rule our lives.

[Auntie Dem]

is a bit like investigating 9/11 by looking at who tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

Actually, the study of evil and its causes would lead you to the understanding and cause of both acts of terrorism. Your analogy is fatally flawed--on both counts.

[Paradox]

Althought I am not a true believer, I am not as skeptical about GW as most here on FR. I DO believe that "something" (some warming perhaps) is going on, and that at least some of it (warming) MAY be due to CO2 that man has created, and that it MIGHT portend some dire consequenced (although I dont see even the worst case as being that bad, we adapt, as usual).

My whole problem with the GW "movement" is just that, its science turned into a religious/philosophical/ethical movement. The whacko's have taken front and center, and any reasonable response has been relegated to the fringe. The damned greenies have ruined a great area of study (climatology).

[Old Professer]

Currently, the ice melt is running about .0001" per day or a sea level rise of roughly 1/3 inch per year; by 2039 we should be able to easily measure this.

By 2015 (when we are all dead) we will be under water if we don't move inland.

By 2115 there will be no ice left on the planet and we can all go naked in the winter.

[ArmyTeach]

The problem is that, with a short memory of about a lifetime in length, people expect climactic and geological stasis. A minor unexpected fluctuation outside of the norm is cause for alarm. In fact, the history of the earth provides anything but. We just happen to be living in a period of relative calm.

[finnman69]

See ass kissing review of Al Gore's version of Farenheit 9/11 here:

Gore movie puts heat on Bush (barf)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617005/posts

[ModelBreaker]

By 2015 (when we are all dead) we will be under water if we don't move inland. By 2115 there will be no ice left on the planet and we can all go naked in the winter.

Actually this makes the point in my last paragraph. We move inland and wear linen. Over a period of 100 years, the transition would be not too difficult. Would it be nicer if Washington DC weren't flooded (perhaps a bad example :)). Of course.

But is this a species threatening or civilization crashing event? Nope. Not any more than the Ice Age killed off early humans--it didn't. We're really adaptable and would adapt just fine.

What we would not adapt to well is the dismantling of our economy and the totalitarian regime the ecofreaks want. Especially since the globe's probably going to warm up anyway. So with the greens, we get a twofer--it'll be too darn hot AND our world will be run by eco-stalins.

Sorry, I just don't buy the 'catastrophe' mode thinking about this issue. As long as we are free and have a semblance of a market based economy and the government doesn't try to help out too much, we will adapt just fine.

[beebuster2000]

you can go naked in the winter right now in L.A., but i dont see too many doing it. so whats your point?

[StAnDeliver]

Bookmark. FR has become a wonderful neural net repository of this information.

[Almondjoy]

They double instantly some from of the greatest volanic eruptions the earth has seen.

[mfnorman]

My my my, aren't we touchy today