Thursday, October 12, 2006

GCC Update!

Global warming climate change update!

A Westerly flow of unseasonably cold air circulating around a very intense storm up over Lake Superior will continue to pour into western New York tonight. This cold air crossing the 60 degree waters of Lake Erie will continue to produce bands of intense lake effect precipitation.
New research suggests that 2.5 million year climate change cycles are to blame for the rise and fall of mammalian species:
If rodents in Spain are any guide, periodic changes in Earth’s orbit may account for the apparent regularity with which new species of mammals emerge and then go extinct, scientists are reporting today.

It so happens, the paleontologists say, that variations in the course Earth travels around the Sun and in the tilt of its axis are associated with episodes of global cooling. Their new research on the fossil record shows that the cyclical pattern of these phenomena corresponds to species turnover in rodents and probably other mammal groups as well.
Clearly the rodents die when they pollute themselves into extinction. I mean, all this climate change is anthropogenic, right?


Matt said...

Classic global warming denier argument: cite things that have absolutely nothing to do with the larger effects of climate change. Looking at hand picked localities of weather patterns is a poor scientific argument to make. You're completely contradicting yourself by even posting that, especially when you just did a post about "smutty science" a few days ago. You had a serious problem with that study because it looked at specific areas in Iraq and than generalized the information they gathered to estimate how many casualties there have been since the invasion throughout the entire country. You're now doing the same thing. You saw that the northern states, (including my home state) were colder than they are usually in this time of year, and then you decided to completely over-generalize it and imply that this is proof that warming isn't happening globally. Practice what you preach.

I'm not sure what rodent populations have to do with GCC either. They have fluctuations in their species and populations every 2.5 million years. Okay, and? I tried to read more about it but your link sent me to a new york times advertisement.

Matt said...

Got it to work. I still don't see how that study has anything to do with GCC. It mentions global warming once in it, saying "Previous studies have invoked climate change to explain mammalian species turnover, but they have been challenged or only partly supported by other research."

This isn't one of the key arguments for the warming of our planet, it's been suggested before with little to no evidence to back it up. Why are you even wasting your time blogging about this?

k2aggie07 said...

The first post was mainly to counter posts like your own with idiots like Pat Robertson saying "boy its hot out lately, those global warming folks must have it right" or Al Gore's "we foresee bad hurricanes, sea levels rising" etc. The fact that you're calling me on it proves my point all the more.

I don't think you read that second article very well. While they did not say "GLOBAL COOLING KILLS RATS EVERY 2.5 MILLION YEARS" there was this:
The longer-term cycle, the scientists determined, peaks when Earth’s orbit is closer to being a perfect circle. The short cycle corresponds to shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis. The “pulses of turnover,” the scientists determined, occurred mainly at times when the different cycles left Earth a colder world.

I.e., the climate changes on its own, and has been doing so for a long time. If that isn't an argument for nonathropogenic global climate change, I don't know what is.

“It’s very intriguing,” said John J. Flynn, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. “But this will be controversial. Any time you invoke periodic and external forces to explain patterns in biology and climate, it stirs up controversy.”

Especially when the media and the elite have decided to have a "consensus" that periodic and external forces are NOT factors in climate or biology.

Matt said...

I guess I just find it hard to believe that in our extremely short human lives, we coincidentally seem to be on the verge of a drastic climate change that only happens every 2.5 million years. I don't buy lottery tickets because I know there's no way on god's green earth that I'm ever going to win. You're doing that here, grabbing onto any explanation that excuses the pollution of human beings, even if it means accepting the fact that the chances of something like that happening in our lifetime is 1 in 300,000 (depending on how you calculate it). That's okay though, waste your time on that line of thought... there's always a tiny, microscopic possibility that you may be right.

k2aggie07 said...

Youre looking at the same odds and calling them the wrong way. You saying that humans, in our short lives, have managed to change a climate that already changes on its own every 2.5 million years is the equivalent of a powerball deciding he's going to change the state lottery system.

Humans are one cog in an infinitely huge system. Somewhere in the past one hundred years we started putting on airs and decided that we're it.

You tell me this -- think about something like wind erosion, or the grand canyon; things that take millions of years to happen. If you came to a cliff and yelled really loud and a huge chunk of the rock fell off, would you have caused that? Or would there be literally millions of years behind that change?

Don't you think its a bit presumptuous to say that, given our short lifespans, we're altering cycles that take millions, if not billions, of years to change?

I just think you're looking at the odds completely backwards. Its not improbably that these things are coming to a culmination in our lifetime. It is improbably that we've managed to cause these things merely because they were occuring on their own before humans were even a figment of the Earth's imagination.