herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
DomKen: What an enormous quantity of nothing.
Correction, that’s an enormous quantity of facts and reasoned arguments, still waiting for you to present a reasoned argument to prove your point.
DomKen: You utterly failed to answer any of my questions.
WRONG.
First, your questions dodge the topic, mainly the question of whether humans are causing global warming or not, and whether nature causes it or not.
Your questions ASSUMES that humans are “causing” global warming. They’re red herrings that lead away from the topic.
If you want to talk about whether or not we’re emitting in excess, you need to start another topic on the subject. Then open that discussion to anybody.
My participation on this message board, at this moment, is restricted to the argument of whether we’re causing global warming or not, on whether we’re experiencing catastrophic global warming or not, and on closely related themes.
Not only do my answers answer your questions, they keep this on topic.
DomKen: A pie chart in a grade school lesson plan isn't exactly useful. Give me some sort of usable reference.
How about trying to PROVE the information on that “grade school” lesson plan “wrong”?
You have problems with that chart, because it proves my argument right, and yours wrong.
When you’re insinuating that this information isn’t “useful”, you’re really saying that you want something that “backs” your argument.
That’s typical of what many people do who don’t have evidence to back their argument, keep moving the goal posts, keep stepping back and drawing a new line, no matter what.
Try using a reasoned argument to prove that pie chart “wrong,” instead of sitting there and telling me to find something “more useful”.
DomKen: Also saying that the atmosphere has held more CO2 is not an answer to how much human generated CO2 is excess.
And the question of how much CO2 we have “in excess” has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of whether humans are causing the planet to warm up or not.
Second, whether we’re generating CO2 in excess or not is ARBITRARY, SUBJECT to people’s opinions, and has nothing to do with the thread’s main arguments.
Someone sets an arbitrary level, claim that this is how much we should be emitting, and anything above that is “in excess.”
In order to ask that question, you have to PROVE for a “FACT” that humans are causing the current global warming due to “excessive” CO2 emissions.
You’ve failed to do that.
Until then, that question is an effort to change the subject.
However, when you ask that question in a thread that’s subject to an argument that involves whether CO2 is “causing” global warming or not, my answer is very appropriate to your question.
Your question about our “excess” emissions attempts to bolster the assumption that CO2 is “causing” global warming, and that we’re the "main" culprits.
My response shows you that you bring a non argument, non topic, and non question to the subject.
Again, my response was appropriate.
How much we’re emitting “in excess” is subject to opinion based on an arbitrary line that people draw.
Talking about how much CO2 we’ve held in our atmosphere in the past - which far exceeds anything that we’ve had in the past two centuries - shows you that our CO2 contribution is a NON FACTOR.
The fact still remains. We contribute 5% of the total CO2 into the atmosphere. And, as part of the total amount of green house gases emitted into the atmosphere, CO2 constitutes ONE of the REMAINING 5%. With Water Vapor constituting up to 95% of the total green house gases emitted into the atmosphere.
So, even if you want to factor your assumptions in that we’re “causing” most the CO2 emmissions, you still don’t have an argument.
The reality is that our CO2 contribution is a small fraction of one percent of the total green house gases emitted into the atmosphere.
HENCE, your question has nothing to do with the topic, and my answers not only answered your question, but kept this on topic.
DomKen: Various claims about humanity and higher sea levels is just plain wrong.
One more time:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6778/abs/404591a0.html
quote:
During the last interglacial period (the Eemian), global sea level was at least three metres, and probably more than five metres, higher than at present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
quote:
During the previous interglacial about 120,000 years ago, sea level was for a short time about 6 m higher than today, as evidenced by wave-cut notches along cliffs in the Bahamas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v289/n5797/abs/289481a0.html
quote:
We show that during the last interglacial period, sea level was only above its present level for a few thousand years at about 125 kyr when it stood at +4 to +6m.
There’s EVIDENCE to support the fact that sea levels were HIGHER at points in our past.
DomKen: Homo sapiens sapiens arose during the last interglacial and only spread out of Africa during the last glaciation.
First, there are different arguments about when Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose. They range up to 500,000 years ago.
Second, Ice Age cycles run in 100,000 year increments. That number could vary, but looking at the numbers thrown around for when the “first” humans came around, there’s noway in hell that we just arose, “during the last interglacial.”
Meaning, our ancestors have been through at least one major global warming that rose sea levels.
They’ve been pushing the time that the first modern humans appeared further back in history.
But even if we’ve just had “one” ice age under our belt, you can’t dismiss the fact that we lived on the coasts, that we built structures on those coasts, and that we survived a major global warming period that included coastlines being flooded out, and arable lands disappearing.
DomKen: Loss of arable land will not be due to simply the flooding of land.
As the climate changes some previously arable land will become unusable due to changes in temp and rainfall such that temperate climate crops won't be growable there. This will result in further disruption of food supplies and dislocations of rural populations.
Your question equated rising heat levels to flooding the coasts, hence my using the flooding example as one of the things my answers focused on.
However, I also pointed out other factors that contributed to the loss and change of arable land.
What I said:
“The same temperature that’d cause water level to rise would open more arable lands in areas that we can’t farm today. We’d gain new arable land at locations, elevations and latitudes that weren’t arable before.” -herfacechair
Temperature contributes to the formation of one of the things that you talk about - rain. In order to have rain, one of the things that you need is precipitation.
Your scenario IGNORES the other things that go on.
Again, what I said earlier:
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Many parts of our underwater shelves used to be arable land during the last ice age. In fact, they’ve found village ruins on the continental shelf east of our current East Coast. In order for the village to settle down like that, they have to have farming.
Extensive farming and fishing had to support the people that built those underwater structures and roads.
Back then, many of the arable land that we have now wasn’t quite arable. Climate was cooler.
Lots of our farmlands used to be un farmable tundra during the last ice age.
Heck, the Great Plains, part of our bread basket, used to be sand dunes during the last Ice Age.
The point that I made with that is that YES, we lost arable land. HOWEVER, we GAINED arable land that wasn’t arable before.
IF our water levels were to rise as a result of “continued” global warming, we’d lose arable land, but we’d also gain arable land in other locations.
DomKen: BTW could you keep the non sequitors and evasions a little shorter in the future.
First, none of what I mentioned constitutes a “non sequitur”.
Everything I’ve stated ties to a main argument, that global warming is a natural cycle, not man made. I’ve backed that with both scientific and media information from around the world.
Second, my answers DON’T constitute “evasions”. The reality is that you’re EVADING the topic by asking questions that have nothing to do with the argument’s THRUST. Whether we’re “causing” global warming or not, whether CO2 “causes” temperature rise or not, etc.
Your CO2 emission question evades the topic and is based on arbitrary set maximum emission amounts.
Again, that’s outside the topic.
DomKen: It is frustrating to read so much nothing and to then follow equally useless links.
First, what you label as “nothing” and “useless” are FACTS and reasoned arguments that prove your assumptions WRONG.
Again, my posts, and links, have everything to do with the argument as to whether we’re causing global warming or not, whether we’re experiencing catastrophic global warming or not, etc.
Second, I don’t accommodate people that I debate with.
I’m going to use as much information and argument as I deem necessary to rebut your arguments. If you feel that this information is “too much,” RESIST the urge to read - and reply to - my post.
However, if you chose to go ahead and read my post, deal with what I say, and quit throwing red herrings into the discussion.
Third, try to present a reasoned argument against what I say instead of simply dismissing it as “non sequiturs” and “evasions”.
|
RE: The ice is melting on Mars - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread