Today on Blogcritics
Home » Global Warming – We’re All Just Walking Corpses

Global Warming – We’re All Just Walking Corpses

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Sometimes I find the whole Global Warming frenzy too much to bear. It’s the essence of scientific scaremongering – take questionable data from only those sources which agree with your hypothesis, draw alarmist conclusions, and then use it as a pretext for trying to restructure society around the world to fit a suspect and self-serving social engineering agenda.

The basis of Global Warming theory is the belief that the earth’s temperature has gradually been increasing since the beginning of industrialization in the 1700s, primarily because of increases in carbon dioxide emissions associated with industry, and that by the end of this century the temperature worldwide will reach a point where radical, catastrophic climate change will take place. The presumed danger point is when the average temperature world wide reaches 2 degrees centigrade above what it was in 1750.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summed up the impact of this 2 degree rise in temperature like this:

    “Beyond the 2°C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for example, that average temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. Exceeding a global average increase of more than 2°C could also imperil a very high proportion of the world’s coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest. Above the 2°C level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase.”

    “The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea levels more than ten meters over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planets forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon.”

Sure sounds grim. Basically the end of the world as we know it. We’re all just walking corpses and don’t know it yet.

But wait. There are a couple of little bits of fact which the Global Warming alarmists aren’t telling you.

The first is that the warming trend which supposedly started with the industrial revolution is actually clearly part of a climate cycle which goes back considerably farther in history. During the late Middle Ages (around 1300) there was a ‘mini ice-age’ where the global temperature declined by several degrees. As that cool period ended the temperature around the world began to gradually increase, starting well before the industrial period and at a rate which did not change significantly once industrialization began. The rate of temperature increase has been so small and so gradual during that period that if industrialization had been a meaningful contributor at all it would be easily noticable as a disturbance in what is essentially a slow linear increase in temperature.

The second is that only now, after 400 years of warming have we reached the same global temperature we enjoyed in the year 1000. If it took us 1000 years to return to that peak temperature – which was less than 1 degree higher than the low temperature of the 1300s – why shouldn’t it take us another 2000 years to gain that next 2 degrees they claim are coming our way?

On very little evidence they maintain that the rate of temperature increase is accelerating. This is based almost entirely on a brief temperature spike in the late 1990s which has since leveled out. They keep making up new computer models to project possible temperatures, but the fact is that the actual temperature trends of the last five years just don’t support global warming and there isn’t enough long-term data which clearly supports an acceleration of global warming to draw any conclusions about it. The methodology being used by Global Warming advocates is incredibly suspect. They try to compare temperature measurements from radically different sources – air temperatures, water temperatures, ground level temperatures in selected areas – which may not be comparable, usually picking and choosing the type of measurement based on whether it supports their hypothesis.

Finally, the variation in temperature from one climate region to another is enormously more than 2 degrees. The Gulf Stream causes much more warming than that on the east coast of North America. In fact, one of their claims is that the Gulf Stream would shut down or move. This would lower the temperature on the East Coast of the US much much more than global warming could ever raise it. A temperature inversion zone can temporarily alter temperatures in a region by five times that 2 degree figure. A slight change in the route of the jetstream can alter temperature far more than 2 degrees for an extended period of time over large areas of the world. This suggests that a change that small would be no more devastating to the environment than normal fluctuations in weather patterns.

Does this mean Global Warming does not exist? No. It’s clear that the earth has been warming up gradually and consistently for several centuries. What it does suggest is that Global Warming is part of a natural cycle and not necessarily significantly impacted by human activity. The level of hydrocarbon production from human sources is still very low compared to natural sources of hydrocarbons. Even one new active volcano would dwarf all human activity in a matter of weeks. We’re really very lucky that the last 100 years have been so unusually low in volcanic activity. High volcanic activity is what likely launched the mini ice age of the Middle Ages.

Does this mean that the US should not participate in the Kyoto Accords which went into effect last month? Not joining Kyoto was a political decision made for very good reasons, however. Because the Kyoto accords put no restrictions at all on major emerging industrial nations like India, Mexico and China – which will each likely surpass the US in hydrocarbon production in the next decade – it is an enormously flawed and inequitable treaty. Kyoto doesn’t take into consideration the level of industry in a country or the amount of hydrocarbon production relative to industrial output. The US may produce 25% of the hydrocarbons in the world, but at the same time we have over 50% of the industrial output, which means that our hydrocarbon production is actually quite low compared to other countries. China’s industrial output is still considerably lower than ours, but because of their focus on heavy industries and reliance on coal power their hydrocarbon output is much higher in proportion to their industrial production. Almost all US hydrocarbon output comes from motor vehicles which are becoming more efficient all the time and are not increasing in number all that much because our population growth is slow. Our hydrocarbon output can be expected to decline substantially on its own while countries like China rocket up in their output with no Kyoto restrictions. The fact that Kyoto does not address this issue makes it a very poor response to the issue it is supposed to address, and it really makes no sense for the US to support it.

All of this makes me rather skeptical, but then I’m sitting here in Texas where, after having had a record cold and wet year in 2004, we’re now enjoying the wettest Spring in recorded history. I moved here years ago lured by the temperate, dry weather which allowed lots of out door activity in the Spring and Fall, but I’m learning to live with constant cold, rain and mud. In the past month we’ve had 2 days of sunshine, though it has at least been slightly warmer than the record cold temperatures we had throughout February last year. Yet the trend for this year is already clear – another cooler, very wet year with record low highs in the summer and cool rainy weather in the Spring and Fall. Sure doesn’t sound like Global Warming to me, just the usual shifting of weather patterns.

Dave

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    “If it took us 1000 years to return to that peak temperature – which was less than 1 degree higher than the low temperature of the 1300s – why shouldn’t it take us another 2000 years to gain that next 2 degrees they claim are coming our way?”
    just to point out, this is a flawed argument. If CO2 does help to increase global temperatures, then the time it takes to gain the next 2 degrees should be exponentially smaller than the first 1000 years, as the world is becoming developed at an exponentially faster rate. Even in just the past 50 years, things have accelerated probably more than the preceding 250 years.
    And whilst the effect of emissions on global warming is still disputed by some, quite aside from that, is the little matter of health. The pollutants most industries spew out at present have a rather adverse effect on the health of people subjected to them (let alone other animals). Not that they’re the only culprits *cough*crap food*cough*

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >> If CO2 does help to increase global temperatures, then the time it takes to gain the next 2 degrees should be exponentially smaller than the first 1000 years, as the world is becoming developed at an exponentially faster rate. Even in just the past 50 years, things have accelerated probably more than the preceding 250 years.<<

    This depends a lot on how much CO2 actually does and how much CO2 is actually being produced. As I pointed out, the CO2 humans currently produce is enormously less than the volcanic CO2 production which caused the last mini ice-age. Even if the small amount of CO2 has an impact it would be a fractional impact on the rate of acceleration of warming, not the primary determining factor in the rate of warming. So yes, in the worst case it might bump us down by a couple of hundred years per degree gained, but we don’t have sound data to make even that projection, much less the crazy alarmist claims that we’ll be up by 2 degrees in this century.

    Dave

  • http://zardozz.com/zz/ Z.Z.Bachman

    Many good points…. also consider the industrialization of Chindia. Fossil fuel consumption in that part of the globe is increasing rapidly (check out $53 oil due not just politics but spot market demand), couple that with the burning of forests in Brazil and other regions of Latin America… all we need to add is a few more volcanic eruptions. Is the ozone hole over Antartica miner’s canary?

    But not to worry… Have confidence in science. Within the next 100 years we will make advances in energy science. (Conjecture) Who knows mini “cold fusion” and other concepts thought to be things of science fiction have a funny way of becoming science fact. This all assumes of course that we have not already obliterate ourselves on this planet due to our human psycho-social flaws.

  • http://www.outragedmoderates.org Thad Anderson

    A recent article on global warming that is not funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

    Ocean, Arctic Studies Show Global Warming Is Real

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7667385

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>But not to worry… Have confidence in science. Within the next 100 years we will make advances in energy science. <<

    Of course, if we could overcome the irrational hysteria over nuclear power this problem could be solved with current technology.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>A recent article on global warming that is not funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute:< <

    I'm not familiar with that organization, but here are a couple of articles which are also not funded by it, and are by one of the leading climate scientists in the world:

    http://winnetou.lcd.lu/physique/global/STOTT_you_cant_control_the_climate.html

    http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_stott.htm

    Nice to see someone with academic credentials introducing some common sense into the debate.

    Dave

  • http://expategghead.blogspot.com Expategghead

    The normal Republican barking.
    Try:

    which uses:

    Land based temperature measurements.
    COADS sea temperatures.
    IODP drilling program
    Dendrochronology.
    Pollen Analysis
    PaleoClimate
    taken from the last:

    Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    None of which contradicts what I’ve said. There’s no question that global warming is taking place, the questions are whether man has any significant impact on it or if it’s just part of a natural cycle. And the evidence, including what you reference is more than covered in the natural cycle concept.

    As for ‘more republican barking’, the two articles I cite are not by a Republican or from a Republican source. They’re from an actual scientist who is one of the growing number who are skeptical about the ‘pick and choose’ methodology of the ideologically motivated pseudoscientists who are pushing global warming as a tool for advancing a political agenda.

    BTW, your link works about as well as most radical global warming models.

    Dave

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Dean

    No offense Dave, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute doesn’t appear to be that credible a source…Looking at the site and the background and the qualifications of its board members…it reads less like an “independent” “non-partisan” think-tank then it does a lobby/spin group intended to nullify any efforts to legislate against energy use, emissions etc. Looking at their list of scholars etc., it’s high on lawyers and economists but fatally low on climatologists. I would love to know where their funding comes from – lots of cash from the energy lobby I would expect.

    I seriously recommend you expand your reading list.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dean, what the hell is the ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’? I’ve never heard of it. Both you and Thad reference it and seem to think I’m using it as a source, but it’s not referenced in my article or any of my responses, nor have I drawn any material from it, nor have I ever even been to its website.

    My information in the article is drawn primarily from the work of Prof. Philip Stott of the University of London – where I did graduate work, though that’s not relevant here as it was in a different field. The hard data which I reference in the article is taken directly from the IPCC’s report – their conclusions may not match mine, but their data is still usable – and from the section on global warming at the American Institute on Physics’ website at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

    Are you suggesting that Prof. Stott and the IPCC and the AIP are fronting for energy companies or for this ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’?

    >>I seriously recommend you expand your reading list.<<

    And I seriously recommend that you actually READ my article before responding to it and sounding like an idiot.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Having seen it references twice here I went and found the CEI website. There’s not just stuff about global warming there, it seems to feature a lot of interesting policy analysis from a free-market standpoint. I didn’t use it for research, and probably wouldn’t – but it appears to be funded by donations and by a group of public interest organizations which contribute to its content. I never take anything at face value, but it looks like a valuable resource which runs counter to the anti-free-market hypemongering that dominates the media.

    Dave

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Dean

    Sorry Dave!

    I made the mistaken assumption that the publication cited at the top of the story was the one you were referring to in your post, as you did not cite where you referenced your data from in your original post.

    Apologies for the error!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Wow, didn’t even notice that the book I put at the top of the post was from the CEI. I just picked it up on an Amazon search so I’d have something to fulfill the BC Amazon link requirement, along with the 4 at the bottom. It got listed first more or less randomly. I guess that explains much.

    Dave

  • http://murasaki.blog-city.com Purple Tigress

    There’s a Japanese saying that your title reminded me of: Gaikotsu no ue yosoote hanami kana. Roughly translated it means: A skeleton is dressed up and out flower viewing.

    Of course, I think in Hollywood, this has been re-translated: Die young and leave a beautiful corpse.

    As an editorial note, I guess the moral of the misdirected debate is to choose which book you list first wisely.

  • sydney

    You guys are idiots. Why not question why it is your so keen to disprove what many, or most, climatoligists are projecting? What’s your motivation? Your apparently experts?

    Forget global warming, what we do know for sure, and what no one is disagreeing with, is the fact that life on this planet is not sustainable given the amounts of pollutants we are putting into the air, the population increases and the amount of resources we are consuming. All of this, despite the fact that as you say, scientists may come to be wrong about the effects of global warming (though it seems unlikely given that everyone in the know, is suggesting we are accelerating the temperature rise). Good for you – your all brilliant.

    My point is this. Why not spend half the energy you spend in these arguments, actually doing something to reverse the damage were doing to our environment? I just don’t get it. The many, unrelated, corollary benefits to reducing greenhouse emissions and preventing global warming, are just as important as the controlled climate benefits. So quit bitching, and lend your support.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I think the point, Sydney, is that the evidence really isn’t conclusive to support the theory of human-generated global warming. When I made the original post I was trying to point out that the people screaming about global warming are alarmists who have blown the issue out of proportion of what the real evidence actually supports. With such a public consensus supporting global warming it’s important to make people aware that there’s more to the story and that the people promoting global warming may be pushing a political/social agenda which has nothing to do with actually solving the problems of pollution.

    I don’t know how old you are, but do you remember how polluted our air and water were in the 1970s and the amazing progress we’ve made since then? You can fish and drink the water from rivers that were too poisonous to even swim in 50 years ago. Remember smog alerts and acid rain? Seen much of that recently outside of a few isolated areas? We’ve made amazing progress. There are no longer poisonous clouds of sulpher dioxide lingering in the streets of London killing people the way there were in the 1890s. A lot of those problems are long gone.

    As for what I’m doing about the ecology, I’ve got 14,000 kw of solar power generation and have a windmill on order, with the objective of energy independence by the end of the decade. That’s a hell of a lot more productive than whining about a global warming theory which just isn’t supported by any kind of definitive evidence.

    You tell me to ‘quit bitching and lend my support’? Support to people who want to destroy American industry to the benefit of China and India? Support to people who want to use environmental alarmism to destroy American sovereignty? Support the Kyoto accords which at this time apparently only ONE of the signatories (England, much to my surprise) has any chance of actually complying with on schedule?

    I bet I can find better uses for my time.

    Dave

  • Brad Arnold

    What I’m about to say is so unbelievable that I will cite two articles at the bottom of this letter.

    The rising temperatures that are now melting the glaciers and ice sheets are caused by the greenhouse gases belched into the atmosphere years ago.

    In other words, even in the unlikely event mankind would stop emitting greenhouse gasses into the air, we are locked into this global warming pattern for decades.

    Furthermore, even in the unlikely event that the US would decrease their discharge of carbon dioxide, China and India (both with more than 4 times the population) will almost certainly continue to increase their emissions.

    There are two catastrophic consequences of global warming-the acidification of the oceans and the halting of the Gulf Stream.

    First, the oceans are now becoming more acidic due to the simple chemical reaction: water combined with carbon dioxide produces carbonic acid. As the oceans inevitably become more saturated with carbon dioxide, they will become even more acidic, killing most of the aquatic life.

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the oceans have absorbed an estimated half of the 800 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted, but acidification of the oceans will cripple the “lungs of the planet.”

    Second, the Gulf Stream is an ocean current that brings a estimated million billion watts of heat to the Northern Atlantic. It is powered by a “salt engine” south of Greenland that is threatened by desalinization caused by melting in the Arctic.

    Already, the Gulf Stream is flowing 10% slower, and when it halts temperatures will dramatically fall, making agriculture extremely difficult in Europe and North America.

    How can we prepare for the dying of the oceans, or an ice age in the US and Europe?

    If we can’t reasonably stop our carbon dioxide discharges or prepare for the consequences of global warming, I suggest we engage in environmental engineering to remove the excess carbon dioxide.

    There are many forms of life on earth that naturally perform this task, but we are overwhelming their ability to cope.

    I submit that the only reasonable course of action is to improve by about ten times the ability of nature to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans. Biotechnology must be used to design genetically modified organisms that we will seed into the environment.

    The alternative is catastrophe. We need that carbon dioxide removed yesterday, and it will only get worse-much worse.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1403798,00.html

    http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1405900,00.html

    Brad Arnold
    3033 Monterey Av
    St Louis Prk, MN 55416
    USA
    dobermantmacleod@aol.com
    (952)924-0076

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>What I’m about to say is so unbelievable that I will cite two articles at the bottom of this letter.< <

    Well, you do cite The Guardian, so right off sensible people are disinclined to believe you, since The Guardian mostly prints loony speculation passed off as news.

    >>The rising temperatures that are now melting the glaciers and ice sheets are caused by the greenhouse gases belched into the atmosphere years ago.< <

    By that you mean the incredibly tiny increments of temperature increase over an enormously long period of time? I will agree about the age of the greenhouse gasses. But it's not that they were generated long ago, it's that they have gradually reasserted themselves after being suppressed during the mini-ice-age. We're not moving into an unprecedented era of warming, we're returning to a higher but still normal temperature.

    >>First, the oceans are now becoming more acidic due to the simple chemical reaction: water combined with carbon dioxide produces carbonic acid. As the oceans inevitably become more saturated with carbon dioxide, they will become even more acidic, killing most of the aquatic life.< <

    Evidence only shows increased acidity in some parts of the ocean, and there's no indication that this will lead to any kind of mass die off of ocean species. In the past they've adapted to equally altered conditions and many of those species are still around.

    >>Second, the Gulf Stream is an ocean current that brings a estimated million billion watts of heat to the Northern Atlantic. It is powered by a “salt engine” south of Greenland that is threatened by desalinization caused by melting in the Arctic.< <

    If there's desalination, doesn't that mean that the acid level is going down? Isn't salt acidic?

    >>Already, the Gulf Stream is flowing 10% slower, and when it halts temperatures will dramatically fall, making agriculture extremely difficult in Europe and North America.<<

    The temperature difference on land caused by the Gilf Stream is less than 4 degrees centigrade, and some of that would be offset by the overall rise in world temperature.

    Think about countries on the same latitude as those impacted by the Gulf Stream which are not warmed by it? Is Poland uninhabitable? Can no one grow crops in Oregon or Washington state?

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    If it took us 1000 years to return to that peak temperature – which was less than 1 degree higher than the low temperature of the 1300s – why shouldn’t it take us another 2000 years to gain that next 2 degrees they claim are coming our way?

    I missed this post, I’ll have to read it more in-depth tomorrow. Global warming isn’t my strong point, but the above sentence caught my eye. Are you factoring in the increase in population and therefore the increase in things that cause global warming? How many people are born every year worldwide? Multiply that by 2,000 years and if we haven’t hit a peak yet where earth can’t sustain any more people, then we’re still left with a lot more people who are using/needing whatever it is that’s causing global warming.

    I would think.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Good point Steve. The thing is, we just don’t know what impact humans are having. The data that environmental activists are putting out is very selective, and the statistical data is inconclusive. It seems reasonable to assume that more people and more industry may be accelerating the process a bit, but all our industrial output this century is less than a couple of good volcanic erruptions, and the earth has survived plenty of those in the past.

    What bothers me is the extreme alarmists who are talking about imminent doom when they really don’t have hard data to back it up. I think it’s irresponsible to talk about the extinction of the human race without something pretty damned substantial to base your conclusion on.

    Dave

  • http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm Tom Rees

    Anthropogenic co2 emissions far exceed volcanic sources . Volcanic eruptions cause a short-term net cooling, btw.

  • JR

    The second is that only now, after 400 years of warming have we reached the same global temperature we enjoyed in the year 1000. If it took us 1000 years to return to that peak temperature – which was less than 1 degree higher than the low temperature of the 1300s – why shouldn’t it take us another 2000 years to gain that next 2 degrees they claim are coming our way?

    You need to see the rest of that paragraph to see how illogical it really is. First he says there was 400 years of warming to regain that 1 degree, then he rephrases it to say it took 1000 years. And he conveniently chose the larger figure to extrapolate any future increase.

    Of course, as pointed out in Comment 1 and again in Comment 19, assuming a linear increase, either in atmospheric CO2 or in temperature, is completely unjustified.

    The logical flaws in this post are legion. The bottom line is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming exists and is to a significant extent driven by human activity. You gonna listen to them or a politically partisan calligrapher?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>You need to see the rest of that paragraph to see how illogical it really is. First he says there was 400 years of warming to regain that 1 degree, then he rephrases it to say it took 1000 years. And he conveniently chose the larger figure to extrapolate any future increase.<<

    Wow, you can’t even read now? It took 1000 years to go from temperature X and then return to temperature X. That included a period of cooling followed by a period of rewarming that lasted for about 400 years. What is unclear about that? The 1000 year span included a cooling phase followed by a warming phase of 400 years.

    Dave

  • JR

    If the warming phase (a gain of about one degree) took 400 years, why did you project that it should take 2000 years to gain two more degrees? 2 x 400 = 800, no?

  • JR

    (crickets chirping)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Sorry, I can’t catch every response to a month old post, JR.

    That’s 2000 years for the full warming/cooling cycle, not just for the rewarming phase.

    Dave

  • Eric Olsen

    too busy with those fonts, eh Dave (smile)?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Well, I ought to be, Eric…but BC keeps distracting me.

    Dave

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    fonts?

  • Eric Olsen

    Yahoo Group, Mark, Yahoo Group

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Yes, you know, those things which make the type look different on your computer screen?

    Dave

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Yes, Mark, didn’t you realize that Dave Nalle is (in addition to being an FBI plant [grin]) the Knowledge of all Fonts?

    I read about it in a post about the font used in a movie that was one of his… Sorry, Dave, I can’t recall the movie!

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    ah, yahoo group….duh.

    dave, you design fonts?

    i used to work for a pre-press software company and still have a fondness for all of that stuff (leading, kerning, etc.)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    DrPat – the movie in question is Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride. I have a funny followup to that article which I ought to post sometime.

    And yes Mark – someone has to design fonts. It may seem like we have enough, but the appetite of the public eye can get jaded awfully fast.

    I plan to post some font-oriented articles to BC at some point, but I need to figure out how and where to do it.

    Dave

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: That’s 2000 years for the full warming/cooling cycle, not just for the rewarming phase.

    So now you’re predicting a warming/cooling cycle over the next 2000 years? Do tell! And wouldn’t that put us back where we started? So what happened to that two degree rise?

    (Or you could just admit you made a stupendous error setting up your arithmetic…)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    JR, this isn’t rocket science. Where exactly are you having trouble following the math?

    It’s a roughly 1000 year cycle. The total time is 2000 years counting the prior cycle and the presumed next cycle. It takes about 600 years to drop 2 degrees and then about 400 years to warm up 2 degrees. Then, in theory, the cycle repeats itself. There’s no big mystery here.

    Dave

  • JR

    You’re bullshitting.

  • http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/jeffmichael/ Jeff Michael

    Wow, thats one great rebuttle, JR!

  • JR

    At this point, anybody can see he’s blatantly contradicting himself:

    “If it took us 1000 years to return to that peak temperature – which was less than 1 degree higher than the low temperature of the 1300s…”

    “It takes about 600 years to drop 2 degrees and then about 400 years to warm up 2 degrees.”

    Why indulge him? Are you still confused?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You’re certainly confused, JR. In the two quotes you give I was talking about two different things. In one, comparing the peaks and in the other comparing the overall pattern. Here’s a thought. Why not come up with a substantive comment on this topic or just drop it?

    Dave

  • David Haddow

    The human race is doomed no matter what they try and do. People are greedy and selfish, which will lead to their downfall in wars over oil. This is because as the population increases, more oil is going to be demanded and less will be able to be supplied. Global warming will occur anyway, and anyone that says that it is just a myth is living in denial. People pretend that it isn’t a problem caused by human activity, but as a natural process. It is these people that are going to be in a rude shock when they realise what has been caused and the reason behind it.
    I would just like to ask one question. What has the human race acheived in their time spent on Earth apart from screwing it up for everyone else.
    The human race has got to finish at some point, however, I and anyone else who is in the same state of mind as me, will try our damn hardest to try and solve this problem.
    You may think that I am some kid who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and talks rubbish, but we all know that what I have said is true and the sooner that it is realised by the government and the public, the sooner we can try to act upon it and try to do something because otherwise, who will?

  • Nancy

    Dave, you worked on Corpse Bride? Kewl. I’ll have to go back to the website & check it out.

    I personally think the human race is going to be culled anyway, by one means or other, just as a matter of natural course: when any creature population gets too dense, diseases increase & so does warfare until the ‘natural’ balance is re-achieved. Or as it has been put, nature has a way of eradicating vermin when she’s overinfested. Just ’cause we have two legs & flatter ourselves we are ‘superior’ doesn’t mean we all aren’t vermin by any other definition. The species certainly seems to act like it.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    please join us next week when dave nalle debates stephen hawking on that dellusional heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    you CAN’T measure a particle’s position and velocity? why, that’s just scientific scaremongering.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    My work on Corpse Bride was relatively indirect. Tim Burton uses a lot of my fonts for his projects. In the case of Corpse Bride I ended up doing some additional customized work under interesting circumstances.

    As for the human race, I’m still rooting for us until something better comes along.

    dave

  • dfgdfgd

    funny how you scumbags, who say we should not do anything abo0ut global warming, are the same moaning scumbags who claim the pension system, is about to explode, or that North KJorea, is about to fire nuclear msilles, or that 25% inflation would destroy the econonmy, or that welafre is a disaster, or that high tax on rich vermin, is a disaster, come on horrible demons, global warming is a threat, and it caused by billionaire verminm like bin laden, and the king of saudi arabia, and dick chney, and gerorge bush, they are allways saying that scientists who object to global warming whjether governments, or university, are just saying it, “to get money”, come, on, people do not do university degrees, in geographjy as they want to become millionaires, people do not protest against global warming as they want to make money, we all know that if their is anybody juist in it for the money it is the leaders, of ENRON, or huge enery companies, or people who go to saudi, arabia, as they said to me, “as it makies them lots of money”, or people who go to Texas, “as it makes us big money”. com e on, you sound like the devil calling a pastor, a greedy fellow, just in it for the money, you are vermin, for calling scientists greedy, and vermin for pul;luting the earth, and you will bhuirn in hell for eternity for this

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Oh look, a lunatic. What the hell are you gibbering about? This post has nothing to do with any of the stuff you’re talking about, and having questions about human causation in global warming doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with all the other things which you fear irrationally because you don’t understand them.

    Dave

  • mttattoo

    Nice article. I get really tired of hearing all of the global warming nonscence. All the scientist that go on about it never seem to know anything about history. From the research I’ve seen it all starts from around 1850 which was the end of the mini ice age of the middle ages. They also seem to get there information about the ice retreating from around Greenland and Iceland as the point of note; that area of corse was were that ise age was centralized. I think they should examine history before they start jumping to conclutions.

  • Dr. Shamelstucker

    Global warming is a good thing. Remember the concern about Robin’s, turned out false. Lets endeavir to take a step foward. Lets discuss the Dodo Bird. My research in the field of psychotherapy shows implications of the meta-analysis. Understand methodologial criticism is evident and expected. We must endeavor as a nation to make a giant workable ice machine and then float them into former ice layend areas and give aid to the frolicking polor bears. This will help increase the death toll on our good friends of the North. As you can see this is sound judgement. My best selling book, Global Warming and Polor Bears can be found at Barnes and Nobles, or Al Gores book and gift shop.

  • sr

    Just read Dr. Shamelstuckers book, Global Warming and Polor Bears. The UPS just rated it as a #1 best seller and their could be a movie on this in the future. Will air on Animal Planet Friday.