Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years

[thetrailboss]

I prefer talking in here about hiking and skiing personally.... :wink: Can we get back to that discussion?

 

[SkiDog]

I prefer talking in here about hiking and skiing personally.... :wink: Can we get back to that discussion?

Please....

M

 

[Greg]

I prefer talking in here about hiking and skiing personally.... :wink: Can we get back to that discussion?

Ahem...Miscellaneous Discussions...

 

[thetrailboss]

Ahem...Miscellaneous Discussions...

True, but I like to see lots of good discussions in the skiing and hiking rooms. We aren't a "Miscellaneous" Forum :wink:

 

[Greg]

True, but I like to see lots of good discussions in the skiing and hiking rooms. We aren't a "Miscellaneous" Forum :wink:

True, but I also like to see lots of good discussions between skiers and hikers in the "Miscellaneous" room.

 

[JimG.]

I really don't know why I am going to respond to this, but hey...

2,000 years is not a lot of time in terms of the earth. We are are obviously in a warming cycle right now and exiting a mini-ice age. We are accelerating this warming cycle, it is unknown to which degree we are doing it. We maybe increasing the warmth of the earth by something like .00001 of a degree or we might be increasing it by something huge like 3 degrees. I really don't think there is anyway to know at this point in time. So why not play it safe and try to do what you can against global warming?

You're a bright kid Austin.

The article actually states that they have proof that Earth is its' hottest in 400 years and that it MAY be the hottest in 2,000 years. MAY...not a very scientific proof of much of anything. 400 years of study out of a global existence of over 5 BILLION years. Utterly insignificant.

That said, we put too much crap into the environment and we ought to cut down on it or stop it altogether ASAP, whether or not it contributes significantly to the normal, cyclical global warming pattern that we, in our short and insignificant lifetimes, happen to be living in.

 

[Greg]

The article actually states that they have proof that Earth is its' hottest in 400 years and that it MAY be the hottest in 2,000 years. MAY...not a very scientific proof of much of anything. 400 years of study out of a global existence of over 5 BILLION years. Utterly insignificant.

That said, we put too much crap into the environment and we ought to cut down on it or stop it altogether ASAP, whether or not it contributes significantly to the normal, cyclical global warming pattern that we, in our short and insignificant lifetimes, happen to be living in.

I agree with both paragraphs and was going to post something similar to your first, but you stated it far clearer than I would have. As far as your second paragraph, I think that was pretty much the consensus in the "other" thread before it went all political. I'm not sure what's left to debate here...

 

[Marc]

You're a bright kid Austin.

The article actually states that they have proof that Earth is its' hottest in 400 years and that it MAY be the hottest in 2,000 years. MAY...not a very scientific proof of much of anything. 400 years of study out of a global existence of over 5 BILLION years. Utterly insignificant.

That said, we put too much crap into the environment and we ought to cut down on it or stop it altogether ASAP, whether or not it contributes significantly to the normal, cyclical global warming pattern that we, in our short and insignificant lifetimes, happen to be living in.

I don't think anyone would argue your second point Jim. I think the point of disagreement comes with how fast we change our behaviou and how it is initiated. Generally the changes demanded by those who see global warming as an inevitable and immediate crisis would cost at least the American people jobs, and probably lots and lots of jobs and add decline to an already unstable economy.

If following Austin's logic train, which I agree is quite astute especially for his age-
Premise 1) We don't know how much human activity is contributing to climate change (or if it is the sole contributor)
Premise 2) Premise 1 is moot since we know, in general, our activites aren't adding to long term sustainability in terms of human life on this planet
Conclusion 1) We should change our behavior to increase long term sustainability.

The problem lies with Conclusion 1) in forgetting and/or ignoring the costs, which should certainly not be overlooked, associated with modifying the way we live and the speed with which we change.

 

[JimG.]

I don't think anyone would argue your second point Jim. I think the point of disagreement comes with how fast we change our behaviou and how it is initiated. Generally the changes demanded by those who see global warming as an inevitable and immediate crisis would cost at least the American people jobs, and probably lots and lots of jobs and add decline to an already unstable economy.

If following Austin's logic train, which I agree is quite astute especially for his age-
Premise 1) We don't know how much human activity is contributing to climate change (or if it is the sole contributor)
Premise 2) Premise 1 is moot since we know, in general, our activites aren't adding to long term sustainability in terms of human life on this planet
Conclusion 1) We should change our behavior to increase long term sustainability.

The problem lies with Conclusion 1) in forgetting and/or ignoring the costs, which should certainly not be overlooked, associated with modifying the way we live and the speed with which we change.

Agreed...several other issues:

1) What makes you think that changing the American way of living would end the problem? We are fossil fuel pigs, but still we account for about 30% of global consumption. What about the other 70%? What about all the other countries on Earth? What about emerging economies like China and Russia? Who is going to tell them to give up fossil fuels? Us? Americans think about themselves way too much...this would cost jobs on a global scale and would castrate emerging economies. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, the question is how.

2) Everyone mentions change. Humans like change about as much as root canal work and taxes. Alot of people talk about it, few ever implement it. So there has to be a motivator that will incentify folks to change and consume less fossil fuels. What is that plan?

3) Brazil made a commitment to switching from oil to ethanol years ago. Now 70% of their cars run on ethanol. If they can do it, why not America, the greatest country on Earth? Please, non-political answers only.

 

[Marc]

Agreed...several other issues:

1) What makes you think that changing the American way of living would end the problem? We are fossil fuel pigs, but still we account for about 30% of global consumption. What about the other 70%? What about all the other countries on Earth? What about emerging economies like China and Russia? Who is going to tell them to give up fossil fuels? Us? Americans think about themselves way too much...this would cost jobs on a global scale and would castrate emerging economies. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, the question is how.

2) Everyone mentions change. Humans like change about as much as root canal work and taxes. Alot of people talk about it, few ever implement it. So there has to be a motivator that will incentify folks to change and consume less fossil fuels. What is that plan?

3) Brazil made a commitment to switching from oil to ethanol years ago. Now 70% of their cars run on ethanol. If they can do it, why not America, the greatest country on Earth? Please, non-political answers only.

I'm assuming when you reference "you" in issue 1) you are addressing the board's general populace and not me directly? I don't think I implied anywhere in my post that changing the behavior of Americans exclusively would solve any problems.

Having been to China recently, I've seen first hand the environmental disaster the whole populated east coast of that country is. Preachin' to the choir with that one.

 

[JimG.]

I'm assuming when you reference "you" in issue 1) you are addressing the board's general populace and not me directly? I don't think I implied anywhere in my post that changing the behavior of Americans exclusively would solve any problems.

Having been to China recently, I've seen first hand the environmental disaster the whole populated east coast of that country is. Preachin' to the choir with that one.

You = the general "you" as in anyone who happens to read this.

As for part 2, you don't need to go to China...check out any of the old eastern bloc countries, environmental disasters all. Even the old West Germany is a total mess...I visited Bavaria and marvelled at crystal clear streams that were utterly dead and devoid of any life due to organic pollution.

 

[YardSaleDad]

I think that was pretty much the consensus in the "other" thread before it went all political. I'm not sure what's left to debate here...

Kind of hard to debate when you are gagged .

On one side there are the scientists who are fair game to ridicule and misquote, and on the other side are the....

 

[andyzee]

True, but I like to see lots of good discussions in the skiing and hiking rooms. We aren't a "Miscellaneous" Forum :wink:

I say you should lock this thread!

 

[salida]

Some where along the lines in my pseudo meteorology training, I overheard a few smart scientists debating that in a serve bout of global warming, it could make northern mountainous locations, near water (pacific north west, new england, and norway, places like that) much colder. Resulting in longer winters and more snow... THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN IN SCANDINAVIA...

I am certainly not a proponent of pollution, yet there is a reason it should be properly classified as "Global Climate Change" as opposed to "Global Warming", it does in fact cool some locations. The 50 year average temperature in Scandinavia has decreased during that time frame, and possibly could happen in similar geologically formed places.

(tried to bring it full circle here)

 

[riverc0il]

one thing is for certain, after years and years of disagreement, no one can argue that the global climate is changing. for a long time, a lot of scientists and lay folk said the increase of climate was exagerated. it is most definitely not. the question to be asked is why?

many people point to a naturally occurring cycle. just because something has previously occurred naturally does not mean we are in a naturally occurring cycle. to assume so is not logical, relying on the past to predict the future. we need cold hard facts (or hot ones if you prefer). putting forth the suggestion that just because it happened before naturally, it is now happening again naturally does not hold up to logic.

what has been shown is the recent rapid increase in temperature. i think the image going around now is being referred to as the hockey stick effect or something like that because the temp was averaging a straight line for a long long time and only in the last 100-150 years or so has the line gone up, and dramtically so, so it bears a resemblance to a hockey stick. a dramatic sudden increase does not seem natural to me.

despite my strong belief that the human created gases being put into the atmosphere over the last 150 years have had a strong effect on recent global climate change, i will admit the jury is still out on a conclusive answer. but the evidence i have reviewed seems to lead more in that direction than the other direction. i have not seen much strong evidence that this is a natural cycle. but that kinda thing is hard to prove, i will admit... which is the only reason i say the jury is still out. folks who believe it is a natural cycle do not have to prove anything as you never have to prove a negative in an arguement. those postulating cause and effect bear the burden of proof.

 

[Greg]

Kind of hard to debate when you are gagged .

Your displeasure with the political "ban" is also very obvious. The mods and I have discussed this at length and the consensus remains that politics do not add significant enough value to this board to warrant allowing them anymore. Most political threads eventually get locked because some folks simply cannot debate these topics in a civil manner and result to mud-slinging. You weren't even a member here last summer when some political debates went way too far, resulting in this ban so you're probably not aware how bad they can get here.

As far as whether I have the right to limit what is and what is not talked about here, I will use an analogy that I've used before. A message board is like a bulletin board in your local grocery store. The owner (me) and the managers (mods) have every right to remove something tacked to that bulletin board that they don't feel is appropriate. Case closed.

 

[salida]

Also, to add to the above. Looking through statistics I would be very suprised that the Earth's temperature hoovered around "average" for very long in its 5 billion year history. It is only natural that there would be widely varried temperature fluctuations. I am however, not claiming that our current "warm" episode is not human induced.

 

[YardSaleDad]

Case closed.

You completely missed the point. What's good for the goose, shoud be good for the gander. If you really mean NO POLITICS then don't enforce it selectively. If you haven't noticed, other than one post I don't talk politics. I am not a Democrat, Republican, Communist, or Socialist.

This board is private property and you absolutely have the right to remove posts and lock threads. I come to this board for discussion about skiing, and hiking. I don't come for Ann Coulter and the flat earth society.

Discussions about beer is okay though.

 

[riverc0il]

This board is private property and you absolutely have the right to remove posts and lock threads.

ummmm, greg has every right to remove posts and lock threads. the board IS private property, greg owns it. this whole concept that BB's and forums are entitled to some sort of freedom of speech guarantee is ludicrous. i am the first person to line up to speak out for first amendment rights... but this is not the case. over moderation and removing posts will naturually select members that like that style of BB and forum membership. people vote their approval in participation rates.

regarding no political threads, i was originally against the idea but it was a REALLY good call. things were getting out of hand. it is a thin line between misc discussion and politics, i think greg and the mod team has done well to monitor that line appropriately. when something is boarderline, they usually pop in with a quick warning. if you don't like it, you don't have to post in those topics, just skip them.

 

[BeanoNYC]

ummmm, greg has every right to remove posts and lock threads. the board IS private property, greg owns it. this whole concept that BB's and forums are entitled to some sort of freedom of speech guarantee is ludicrous.

I think YSD is saying the same thing as you Steve.

Can we get back to the nuns?

"It's alright to kiss a nun, but don't get into the habit"