Is Global Warming to Blame for the Ki...

Is Global Warming to Blame for the Killer Earthquake in the Philippines?

There are 43 comments on the SooToday story from Oct 16, 2013, titled Is Global Warming to Blame for the Killer Earthquake in the Philippines?. In it, SooToday reports that:

Global warming is causing earthquakes and giant landslides, according to some scientists, one of which is going so far as to call the coming wrath an age of havoc.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SooToday.

Mr Giblets

UK

#22 Oct 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
and always with a reason we can understand.
<quoted text>
Gore was just repeating the science.
<quoted text>
To claim that 6 BILLION humans will have NO effect on the planet is THE height of stupidity. That is a sort of 'reverse humility' that belongs to children trying to escape responsibility for their actions. NOR was it 'suddenly'. That is infantile denial of the great amount of research that went into finding out why.
<quoted text>
Where did THAT piece of shit come from????
<quoted text>
Buloney. We can adapt to arctic conditions (see the arctic if you don't believe me), and live in -80C (see Vostok) but OVER 35C we cannot sweat enough to keep from overheating and need A/C to survive. HOT temperatures are more dangerous than cold and harder to live with. Even plants find really HOT conditions hard to take, and then there are evaporation rates which go up and dry out the land (leading to deserts) eliminating agriculture unless heavily irrigated (which is also energy intensive as we need to desalinate to get enough water).
Have a look at your 'paradise of the future'...
http://tinyurl.com/yaczh53
over 35, is it? so how did all those people in S Spain survive all those centuries before AC? how do I survive when I am there? and when do you predict these temperatures to reach the North of Europe? I suppose you can grow wheat in Alaska? You people seem to really HOPE that things will get really bad. You seem to be a rather sick bunch of fantasists and crypto-nazis, in your intolerance of any one else's opinions except fat Al's.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#23 Oct 17, 2013
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>so why isn't it warming globally?
It is, you cretin. He said it was. That means that the globe ON AVERAGE is warming up. And the global surface includes water (to 800+meters), land (to about 150 meters) and air. If you can prove otherwise, I suggest that you write a paper and submit it to Nature or Science.

If you cannot, then try reading what the science DOES say.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#24 Oct 17, 2013
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>over 35, is it? so how did all those people in S Spain survive all those centuries before AC?
water, shade, thermal barriers (insulation), thermal mass (keeping the cool of the night). The fact is that over 35C we cannot lose heat from SWEATING so it makes it hard to keep cool enough. It doesn't make it impossible as long as it is only warmer than 35C for PART of the day. Just difficult.
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text> how do I survive when I am there?
Ahh. This is another of Mr. Dirtling's sock puppets, is it? You survive despite a peak heat of 35C. You do not survive with a constant heat of 35C.
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text> and when do you predict these temperatures to reach the North of Europe?
I do not make such predictions. The distribution of additional heating will be dependent on local geography, winds and currents. Each area must be analyzed separately and I don't have THAT much time free. I hope it gets as hot as hell where YOU are though.
Mr Giblets wrote:
I suppose you can grow wheat in Alaska?
Not a farmer either I see. You need fertile soil as WELL as 'degree days' to grow wheat. And flat land for the combines, etc.

Alaska may never be a hub of 'wheat' farming no matter how hot it gets.
Mr Giblets wrote:
You people seem to really HOPE that things will get really bad.
Cassandra probably got blamed a lot for predicting the future. The idiots never blamed themselves, of course, for not listening to her warnings. The issue is whether the warning is valid, not motivation. That you attack people for ' intent' you have no evidence of shows how weak your arguments on the fact is.
Mr Giblets wrote:
Y You seem to be a rather sick bunch of fantasists and crypto-nazis, in your intolerance of any one else's opinions except fat Al's.
I don't even know a 'fat Al' and certainly he is not a scientist that I listen to. The issue is the PUBLISHED SCIENCE, not your 'ad-hominem' insults.

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

#25 Oct 18, 2013
Global warming and cooling is happening as it has always happened you leftie, tree hugging numpties. Live with it.

The last ice age retreated very quickly, and without the help from humans.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#26 Oct 18, 2013
supersonic boom wrote:
Global warming and cooling is happening as it has always happened
To the extent that it has always been the climates response to changes in the factors that control it, certainly. Cause and effect. The issue is that this time WE are causing it and it will be a problem for modern civilization and our investments, as well as 'renewable resources' we have come to count on.
supersonic boom wrote:
you leftie, tree hugging numpties.
From an idiot like you, this seems to be like a compliment. I can only assume that you are sputtering and insulting because you cannot rebut my arguments (or reality)..
supersonic boom wrote:
Live with it.
We will live with it, die with it, or do something about it. Everyone has to make their OWN choice. You cannot condemn me.
supersonic boom wrote:
The last ice age retreated very quickly, and without the help from humans.
Not sure what you call 'quickly' in terms of ice ages.
http://tinyurl.com/lbt7e7b

As any idiot SHOULD be able to see, the exit from the last ice age took about 12 millenia (-20,000 to -8,000 years). This is consistent with the slow change in orbital dynamics that cause it.

But you will also note the VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY quick (on the same time scale) change from industrialization at the right of the graph. Do try to learn something. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever.
numpty muppets

UK

#27 Oct 18, 2013
a lefty tree hugging Muppet, right!

they don't even know about the Little Ice Age that we are still climbing out of. They ignore the fact that it was warmer when the Romans were here. They ignore the Mediaeval Warm Period. These people are the least scientific propagandists since the nazis. And it is YOU people who predict the future. and we all know who Fat Al is - a failed divinity student from a Southern baptist college. That's real Nobel Prize level!

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

#28 Oct 18, 2013
Indeed. During the iron age the climate changed to the point where arable land up north became grazing land because the planet changed so much.

Must've been the ants passing wind that changed that climate.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#29 Oct 18, 2013
sock puppets wrote:
a lefty tree hugging Muppet, right!
they don't even know about the Little Ice Age that we are still climbing out of. They ignore the fact that it was warmer when the Romans were here. They ignore the Mediaeval Warm Period. These people are the least scientific propagandists since the nazis. And it is YOU people who predict the future. and we all know who Fat Al is - a failed divinity student from a Southern baptist college. That's real Nobel Prize level!
Somebody's in their second childhood.

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

#30 Oct 18, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
To the extent that it has always been the climates response to changes in the factors that control it, certainly. Cause and effect. The issue is that this time WE are causing it and it will be a problem for modern civilization and our investments, as well as 'renewable resources' we have come to count on.
<quoted text>
From an idiot like you, this seems to be like a compliment. I can only assume that you are sputtering and insulting because you cannot rebut my arguments (or reality)..
<quoted text>
We will live with it, die with it, or do something about it. Everyone has to make their OWN choice. You cannot condemn me.
<quoted text>
Not sure what you call 'quickly' in terms of ice ages.
http://tinyurl.com/lbt7e7b
As any idiot SHOULD be able to see, the exit from the last ice age took about 12 millenia (-20,000 to -8,000 years). This is consistent with the slow change in orbital dynamics that cause it.
But you will also note the VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY quick (on the same time scale) change from industrialization at the right of the graph. Do try to learn something. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever.
You carry on believing, and it is a belief that humans are causing global warming. The less alarmists amongst us believe that mother nature is taking its course.

Did you know the planet moves closer and further away from the sun over millenia? How do you think that will affect the climate?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#31 Oct 18, 2013
numpty muppets wrote:
a lefty tree hugging Muppet, right!
If the shoe fits..
numpty muppets wrote:
they don't even know about the Little Ice Age that we are still climbing out of.
The LIA is well documented. But we are not 'climbing out of it'. We were actually cooling slightly before AGW.
numpty muppets wrote:
They ignore the fact that it was warmer when the Romans were here. They ignore the Mediaeval Warm Period.
These are actually well documented REGIONAL climate changes. GLOBAL warming is about the world as a whole. Where did you get your education or are they still trying..?
numpty muppets wrote:
These people are the least scientific propagandists since the nazis.
Since nobody knows who YOU mean by 'these people' it is hard to rebut you. You may be referring to your own group for example.
numpty muppets wrote:
And it is YOU people who predict the future.
Well, obviously you are NOT talking about science or even me. Nobody 'predicts' the future. Science attempts to EXTRAPOLATE from current conditions. But within a very wide boundary since some factors (such as future emissions) are unknown.
numpty muppets wrote:
and we all know who Fat Al is - a failed divinity student from a Southern baptist college. That's real Nobel Prize level!
Last I heard he was an invention of Bill Cosby, the comedian. I believe they have some kids shows based on him. What that or any individual has to do with AGW science is beyond me. Science is about reality and it is researched by a body of tens of thousands of PHd climatologists, not even regarding allied work in other specializations.

your post is approaching 'babble'. Try to do better.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#32 Oct 18, 2013
supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
You carry on believing, and it is a belief that humans are causing global warming.
I follow the FACTS and the SCIENCE. If and when the FACTS change, and the SCIENCE follows, I will change my reading of them. Until then I will stick with the facts as science understands them.
supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
The less alarmists amongst us believe that mother nature is taking its course.
What do you call someone who doesn't believe in 'cause and effect'? If he's right, you call him a 'magician'. If he's wrong, you call him an idiot. So you are either basing your call on magic or idiocy. I leave it to the reader to suggest which..
supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know the planet moves closer and further away from the sun over millenia? How do you think that will affect the climate?
Over many millennia there are factors that affect the climate. You may be describing the "milankovitch cycles' that may or may not cause a new ice age. But that will take tens of thousands of years. THe issue TODAY is the climate change TODAY which will have effects RIGHT NOW for within the next century. You really need to start dealing with NOW.
B as in B S as in s

Eden Prairie, MN

#33 Oct 18, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
... global surface includes water (to 800+meters), land (to about 150 meters) and air. If you can prove otherwise, I suggest that you write a paper and submit it to Nature or Science..
How convenient... suddenly, "surface" is a over a HALF MILE deep.
Climate science deals with a multitude of dynamic bars.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#34 Oct 18, 2013
B as in B S as in s wrote:
<quoted text>
How convenient... suddenly, "surface" is a over a HALF MILE deep.
Climate science deals with a multitude of dynamic bars.
It is neither sudden nor convenient. The solar insolation penetrates to a depth and all of this 'thermal mass' must be heated to change the global temperature. We know from boreholes how far the warming from the surface penetrates before it is lost in the rising geothermal energy from below. About 150 meters. The ocean is a bit more ocmplex because of vertical mixing, the high thermal capacity (about 4 times that of an equal weight of air), etc. The mixing is a bit deeper than we thought so the temperature is affected below 700 meters. But that is still not much in an ocean that AVERAGES 4,300 meters deep!

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

#35 Oct 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I follow the FACTS and the SCIENCE. If and when the FACTS change, and the SCIENCE follows, I will change my reading of them. Until then I will stick with the facts as science understands them.
<quoted text>
You read the evidence your way and I'll read it my way. I'm going by millenia of evidence.
Did you know that the scientists are only 95% sure, they can't say definitely man is causing it.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call someone who doesn't believe in 'cause and effect'? If he's right, you call him a 'magician'. If he's wrong, you call him an idiot. So you are either basing your call on magic or idiocy. I leave it to the reader to suggest which..
<quoted text>
Good, we'll see who is right eventually, but remember this, the earth is forever changing, and there's nothing you or I can don to stop the nature of evolution galloping steadily on.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Over many millennia there are factors that affect the climate. You may be describing the "milankovitch cycles' that may or may not cause a new ice age. But that will take tens of thousands of years. THe issue TODAY is the climate change TODAY which will have effects RIGHT NOW for within the next century. You really need to start dealing with NOW.
No doubt the iron age man wondered why over about a century or so he could no longer sustain his crop growth in parts of the UK so he adapted and successfully continued through the natural climate changes and won.
Gore Blimey

London, UK

#36 Oct 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It is neither sudden nor convenient. The solar insolation penetrates to a depth and all of this 'thermal mass' must be heated to change the global temperature. We know from boreholes how far the warming from the surface penetrates before it is lost in the rising geothermal energy from below. About 150 meters. The ocean is a bit more ocmplex because of vertical mixing, the high thermal capacity (about 4 times that of an equal weight of air), etc. The mixing is a bit deeper than we thought so the temperature is affected below 700 meters. But that is still not much in an ocean that AVERAGES 4,300 meters deep!
why were the "climate scientists" in the 70's and '80s predicting a New Ice Age , I think which was due to have been in full swing by 2000?

That was before Al Gore started HIS bandwagon, though. Mind you, that "Millenium bug" never happened either, did it?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37 Oct 19, 2013
Gore Blimey wrote:
<quoted text>why were the "climate scientists" in the 70's and '80s predicting a New Ice Age
Never happened. That myth has been busted a thousand times now. What did you park your brain? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

[QUOTE who="Gore Blimey"
Mind you, that "Millenium bug" never happened either, did it?
[/QUOTE]

Good thing we prevented it. A LOT of work went into that. Oh, and the problem was real. I was working on a Burroughs A12 mainframe at the time, and I know the problem with the COBOL code. It did have mostly two digit dates with NO provision for a 'century' rollover.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#38 Oct 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Never happened. That myth has been busted a thousand times now. What did you park your brain? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643
<quoted text>
Good thing we prevented it. A LOT of work went into that. Oh, and the problem was real. I was working on a Burroughs A12 mainframe at the time, and I know the problem with the COBOL code. It did have mostly two digit dates with NO provision for a 'century' rollover.
Good luck. People have tried to explain to the regulars here before. It's like talking to brick walls. They simply cannot understand the science.
Mr Giblets

London, UK

#39 Oct 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Never happened. That myth has been busted a thousand times now. What did you park your brain? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643
<quoted text>
Good thing we prevented it. A LOT of work went into that. Oh, and the problem was real. I was working on a Burroughs A12 mainframe at the time, and I know the problem with the COBOL code. It did have mostly two digit dates with NO provision for a 'century' rollover.
yes, many computer "experts" ripped off a lot of innocent people with that scam. Most people here ignored your sort and of course, nothing happened. I also am amazed that superbrains like you never provided for a new century. Perhaps you believed that the end was nigh, either global warming, or the New Ice Age? there is really more chance of the Zombie Apocalypse happening.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40 Oct 19, 2013
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>to another poster:

yes, many computer "experts" ripped off a lot of innocent people with that scam. Most people here ignored your sort and of course, nothing happened. I also am amazed that superbrains like you never provided for a new century. Perhaps you believed that the end was nigh, either global warming, or the New Ice Age? there is really more chance of the Zombie Apocalypse happening.
You are such a delight..

How are you?
SpaceBlues

United States

#41 Oct 19, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:

Good luck. People have tried to explain to the regulars here before. It's like talking to brick walls. They simply cannot understand the science.
Yes.. but why do they stay such a long time and then disappear without a gb.

Is it therapy for them?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Natural Disasters Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hopkinsville considers eminent domain in acquir... Fri fo real deal 9
News New dams coming to California? A dozen projects... Aug 16 Solarman 1
News Despite Reduction in Oil, Gas Wastewater Inject... Aug 16 soldierows 1
News EPA overrules GE on Housatonic PCBs cleanup (Oct '16) Aug 15 KABBALAH Occult 11
News Hurricane Andrew: A look back Aug 14 Razor Bronco 1
News Recycled wastewater to give Los Angeles County ... (Nov '15) Aug 14 Solarman 13
News Trump plans 'major briefing' on opioid epidemic Aug 10 Putins Glock Holster 35
More from around the web