Climate Change

[flowing hands]

3 minutes ago, dawei said:

I'm no climate changer advocate...  as I've stated, global cycles exists and human population by the law of numbers should mean we'll contribute than say 2,000 years ago.  I'm not going to argue against that.

 

What I do simply agree with is we should continue to make better use of technology and reduce our emissions however possible.  Alternate energy seems a good idea.    Electric cars is something I'm on the fence about as there is the problem of disposing of the batteries... but on the surface it seems reasonable to look into... but GM is killing themselves to think they can retrofit themselves into an electric car maker too fast. 

I think its good for one's soul, even if its that, to do something even very small. It would be nice to get the figures between 4%wild animals and 60% cows etc more equal.1000 species lost every month is a lot of life.

[dawei]

2 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

What we do know since measurements were taken that the sea has risen by a significant amount.

 

I would agree that we can cite observation and data, as change... but I'm not yet sold on is whether it is part of a historical pattern of climate change that ebbs and flows over 10s of thousands or 100 of thousands of years.

 

One can kind of deny the trends as man contributed and desctructive, yet one should still be of a mind that improving how we are using energy should not be denied.   So, I do agree doing something is better than nothing.   I just think the argument to do it for the sake of climate change is not going to sell well to some.  Let's embrace and harness technology to improve life and that should be a contribution to any role of man contributed climate change.

 

I think most people in the US just don't care because of being spoiled by the technology that got us where we are...so reasonable minds need to persist in seeing where we can improve our use of energy.

[Jonesboy]

12 minutes ago, ralis said:

 BTW, this planetary biosphere does not belong to you and the cabal of AGW deniers alone!!

 

I agree it belongs to everyone.

 

 

[dawei]

23 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Time for everyone to watch the BBC's doc on Global Dimming - something hardly anyone knows about since it has not been in the corporate-state mass mind control media.

 

so that means MORE renewables means MORE global warming. For example when airplanes stopped flying after 9/11 then temperatures went up 1 degree celsius in the US.

 

So renewables cut back on  sulfur aerosols - so increases warming

 

I'm not saying don't use renewables - I'm just saying they won't save us. We've already jacked SO MUCH CO2 emissions - that it's DOOMED - locked in.

When you include methane levels we're at over 600 ppm.

The warming will keep accelerating.

 

 

 

I generally don't watch anything over 10 minutes... so I hope you can just summarize the 'dimming' idea.

 

That flights stopped was read as a drop in temperature can be a real data observation but dosen't mean we know all the cauality of the interactions...  meaning, if I were to take you're idea too seriously, then if we stop all flights forever, we would plunge into global cooling ?

 

So, that there was some weather observation doesn't mean we can say we should ban flying.   If you push against a car in park and then set it in neutral, it moves more.  How do we know if the change of a variable (flights) isn't just the other variable still trying to push at the level they were previously conditioned.

[Jonesboy]

7 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

I think its good for one's soul, even if its that, to do something even very small. It would be nice to get the figures between 4%wild animals and 60% cows etc more equal.1000 species lost every month is a lot of life.

 

Seems like a lot of ego and thinking one knows better than the way of Nature.

[windwalker]

8 minutes ago, dawei said:

  Let's embrace and harness technology to improve life and that should be a contribution to any role of man contributed climate change

 

 

This implies that somehow humankind is not part of the nature that supports it.

 

Humankind is part of the change.

 

  The natural life cycle of what's going on.

Edited February 23, 2019 by windwalker

[dawei]

1 minute ago, windwalker said:

 

 

This implies that somehow humankind is not part of the nature that supports it.

 

Humankind is part of the change the natural life cycle of what's going on.

 

Not implying that at all... I've mentioned variables and mankind is one for sure.

[flowing hands]

6 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Seems like a lot of ego and thinking one knows better than the way of Nature.

 That's a very silly statement. If the world is spread over by meat on legs that humans have done and pushed out all the other species, are you really saying that this is natural and part of the balanced way?

[Jonesboy]

10 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

 That's a very silly statement. If the world is spread over by meat on legs that humans have done and pushed out all the other species, are you really saying that this is natural and part of the balanced way?

 

Do you really believe we are losing a 1000 species a month? That is silly, no offense.

 

When you think of climate change and the solutions being provided just think of the intelligent man from the TTC. All of the solutions are about controlling others.

 

Just food for thought.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Jonesboy

[flowing hands]

5 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Do you really believe we are losing a 1000 species a month? That is silly, no offense.

 

When you think of climate change and the solutions being provided just think of the intelligent man from the TTC. All of the solutions are about controlling others.

 

Just food for thought.

 Well I'm not a climate scientist but I do know one and I know that scientist who are involved not in climate by biodiversity are saying and quoting those figures. I tried googling it and it comes out a similar figure. That's all I know. But I can see the vast drop in wildlife in my own area, every field either full of sheep, cows or pigs. No room for anything else!

[Jonesboy]

21 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

 Well I'm not a climate scientist but I do know one and I know that scientist who are involved not in climate by biodiversity are saying and quoting those figures. I tried googling it and it comes out a similar figure. That's all I know. But I can see the vast drop in wildlife in my own area, every field either full of sheep, cows or pigs. No room for anything else!

 

What you are describing with less pigs and sheep can have some many variables to it that blaming climate change is a wild excuse.

 

How about we talk about the father of climate science?

 

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

 

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.

 

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

 

Again, just something to think about.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Jonesboy

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

 

How about we talk about the father of climate science?

 

You mean Arrhenius in 1896.

[Jonesboy]

39 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

You mean Arrhenius in 1896.

 

Well, goes to show he was wrong too 😀

[rene]

This thread is using too much energy.

Think of all the bytes you've wasted!!

I'm ashamed of you all. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Well, goes to show he was wrong too 😀

Maybe you just don't know that much about global warming.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1903 - NobelPrize.org

 

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1903/summary/

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1903 was awarded to Svante August Arrhenius "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered to the advancement ...

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, flowing hands said:

 Well I'm not a climate scientist but I do know one and I know that scientist who are involved not in climate by biodiversity are saying and quoting those figures. I tried googling it and it comes out a similar figure. That's all I know. But I can see the vast drop in wildlife in my own area, every field either full of sheep, cows or pigs. No room for anything else!

 

Sure everyone who is older than 40 remembers having way more insects on their car windshields

Quote

The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

Maybe you just don't know that much about global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

He can still be wrong.

 

Svante Arrhenius published in 1919 which contains many very current-sounding ideas on energy topics. Although Svante Arrhenius showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy, he was wrong in some of his most important predictions: America will run out of oil by 1953 at the latest. Coal reserves will be depleted in England within 50 years and in America within 150 years.

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

He can still be wrong.

 

Do you think he predicted Michael Mann would be the "father of global warming" - like you wrongly predicted?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/jun/30/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment2

 

Quote

 

The father of climate change

Ian Sample looks at how the study of the climate has moved from being a relatively minor branch of science to one that now dominates most others, thanks largely to the work of one man

 

Michael Mann?

 

Quote

 

How about we talk about the father of climate science?

 

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

 

So it IS michael Mann - right?

.... or maybe you're prediction was wrong?

You got a prediction wrong that happened 120 years ago. Hilarious.

Quote

At the end of the 19th century, building 92E was the home and laboratory of Svante Arrhenius, a chemist who became Sweden's first Nobel prizewinner. He was destined to have a bigger impact than he could have imagined, far beyond his mainstream work. Unwittingly, he uncovered secrets of the Earth's atmosphere and in doing so triggered research into what many see as the biggest threat to modern humans. He is arguably the father of climate change science.

 

What a second!!!

 

I thought you said it was Michael Mann!!

Quote

Mann’s cherry-picked version of science

 

OK so did Arrhenius "cherry pick" his predictions about the end of oil and coal 200 years later?

 

Or did you cherry pick your claim of who is the "father" of global warming science?

 

I think we all know the answer.

Quote

 

What followed was a year doing what Arrhenius described as "tedious calculations". His starting point was a set of readings taken by US astronomer Samuel Langley, who had tried to work out how much heat the Earth received from the full moon. Arrhenius used the data with figures of global temperatures to work out how much of the incoming radiation was absorbed by CO2 and water vapour, and so heated the atmosphere.

Between 10,000 and 100,000 calculations later, Arrhenius had some rough, but useful, results that he published in 1896.

 

 

1896... is that when Michael Mann.... I mean... Oh what I think I remember that date....

Quote

 

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

You mean Arrhenius in 1896.

 

Well, goes to show he was wrong too 😀

 

 

OK which of his 10,000 and 100,000 calculations were wrong again?

Quote

Back in Stockholm' meteorology department, Erland Kallen is musing about progress since Arrhenius first set about his calculations. "Even when I came to this field 20 years ago, I was very sceptical about global warming. There were too many uncertainties I just couldn't see how anyone could say anything sensible about it. Now, I struggle to see what other explanation there could be."

 

Wow - so he was skeptical about global warming 20 years ago yet Arrhenius figure out global warming 120 years ago!!!

 

[Jonesboy]

I happily admit I was wrong in saying one of the most famous modern day climate scientists was the father of climate science. I freely admit I was stretching the point being made.

 

Svante Arrhenius was a chemist, that is what he is famous for. He didn’t win any awards for climate, actually his views are not in line with current beliefs of climate alarmist. To him co2 was a good thing and not a danger. The ocean was a giant sink hole protecting the earth from any increase of co2.

 

He was a brilliant man no doubt, that doesn’t make him right about everything and it isn’t unfair to say so.

[Jonesboy]

Today’s featured propaganda.

 

Scientists fear end to Mankind not 'decades away' but ‘much sooner’

OUR CIVILISATION is doing pretty well – but how long do we have left?

 

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/760048/civilisation-collapse-when-end-of-the-world

 

It just doesn’t stop does it?

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

To him co2 was a good thing and not a danger.

Wait - you mean he lived in Sweden?

 

SHOCK!!!

Where I live it was recently 56 below  Fahrenheit. Yes global warming does "look good" in those conditions. haha.

But photosynthesis on Earth stops above 105 degrees Fahrenheit.

So we rely on the "interior" of the continents as our bread baskets - they are several degrees warmer than the global average.

Also there's this thing called the ESAS Methane Bomb - it will double global warming.

Yes the Ocean has soaked up 90% of global warming heat - but it's losing it's ability to do so very rapidly.

Also Global Dimming Effect has lowered the heat another 1.5 degree celsius global average (from sulfur aerosols).

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

Today’s featured propaganda.

 

Scientists fear end to Mankind not 'decades away' but ‘much sooner’

OUR CIVILISATION is doing pretty well – but how long do we have left?

 

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/760048/civilisation-collapse-when-end-of-the-world

 

It just doesn’t stop does it?

 

Quote

“So it will be agriculture: simple tools and dark nights”.

Again this actually underestimates our situation.

The rate of CO2 emissions increase on Earth is faster than has ever happened in Earth's history!!

So that means it's just as bad as the Permian Extinction 280 million years ago that wiped out over 90% of life on Earth.

Yes there will be bacteria and archaea left on Earth - but complex life very likely won't survive.

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/02/19/how-tobacco-and-fossil-fuel-companies-fund-disinformation-campaigns-around-world

 

So the worst news has not made it into the corporate-state media. YOu have to read the science directly.

Quote

 

35 thinktanks based in the US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand that promote both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries’ interests.

Of these organisations, DeSmog can reveal that 32 have taken direct donations from the tobacco industry, 29 have taken donations from the fossil fuel industry, and 28 have received money from both. Two key networks, based around the Koch brothers and Atlas Network, are involved in coordinating or funding many of the thinktanks.

 

So there's a lot of money promoting "junk science" to prop up the Big Oil pollution.

But actually abrupt global warming is much worse than just a "left-right" political debate.

Science itself is not able to "solve" this problem - Abrupt global warming was CREATED by Western science itself - going back to thousands of years ago.

I mean Koch - the main funder of anti-global warming science - Koch started out making all its money in Communist Soviet Union!! haha. So this is not a "left right" debate - its about Western science versus Mother Nature.

People can try to pretend abrupt global warming is not happening but Mother Nature is rapidly taking revenge.

http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs/Climatechange/Carbon sequestration/Methane.htm

Quote

 

Last August I discussed findings by German and British scientists “that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres” (see “So many amplifying methane feedbacks, so little time to stop them all” and figure on right).

A lead researcher of that work said, “Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started.”

But the situation in the ESAS is far, far more dicey, as NSF explains:

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, in addition to holding large stores of frozen methane, is more of a concern because it is so shallow. In deep water, methane gas oxidizes into carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn’t have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere. That, combined with the sheer amount of methane in the region, could add a previously uncalculated variable to climate models.

“The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times,” Shakhova said. “The climatic consequences of this are hard to predict.”

 

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Cookie Monster]

.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Ocean Form

[rideforever]

Humans are already miserable taking Prozac killing each other destroying their planet distorting and corrupting everything ruining their cultures and basically a total disgrace.
So ... I don't think the disaster is going to happen "in the future".
The disaster is not outside.

[rideforever]

When I was young in the 1970s things were very different from today.
People were more competent and practical, they were more grounded and took care of their lives.
They had a good spirit and believed in something.
Pleasures and luxuries were maybe for the weekend.
They were much more responsible and intelligent.
 

People have degenerated to the point the only solution will be (prediction) to put them into a vat and plug a usb cable into their head and intravenously feed them.   Just like that film ... what was the name again ?

 

How many humans can stand up against what society is becoming ?