• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Climate Change Discussion

intel-bank said:
But considering the little ice age ended after the Industrial revolution started, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Europe is colder than before the Industrial revolution. It certainly is not.
Click to expand...
Historically, Europe went through a warming period long before the Industrial Revolution and pollutants in the atmosphere.
 
Torcher said:
Temperature, bovine burps and such had nothing whatsoever to due with oil, gas and coal creation. It was a big fucking rock hitting the planet so hard that in places the atmosphere burned, the earth still wobbles and it threw up enough debris INTO orbit to form the moon.
IMO, it’s not y’alls fault. You’ve been brainwashed washed by the media and the reeducation camps, called public school. There they serve up bullshit that’s 90% wrong and 10% mistaken.
Click to expand...
That big rock absolutely did not create oil and coal, these are complex organic hydrocarbons which are not known to be produced by anything but life in any large quantities, and most of the complex organic hydrocarbons in coal and oil are simply only produced by life

Natural gas is slightly different, as methane is found in quite a few places, but life is the main producer of it, volcanic activity is another, because olivine, which reacts with water and co2 to make methane, is found in the mantle of the earth in high volumes but is not very common on the crust because of geological processes unique to the earth. And methane is not a complex hydrocarbon, anyway.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Historically, Europe went through a warming period long before the Industrial Revolution and pollutants in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
During the medieval ages, yes it did. It started out as a warming period, and was a warm period for a while, up until the little ice age when that same warming period lead to anomalies in the North Atlantic Current.

It also wasn't anywhere near as severe as our current warming, and it did not follow global trends like the current one.

And the warm period itself, was in part related to the changing of ocean currents. Europe is sensitive to these things.
 
intel-bank said:
It also wasn't anywhere near as severe as our current warming, and it did not follow global trends like the current one.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.

gtemps.jpg

Now, the data from "modern" times (meaning the last couple decades) has to be taken with a grain of salt as that data has been manipulated to be warmer than it actually is. That doesn't mean that we aren't going through a warming trend or that mankind doesn't contribute to pollution.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Doesn't mean that mankind doesn't contribute to pollution.
Click to expand...
This is my main concern about humans actions. Not so much about the climate but more so were polluting our environment. We are leaving a toxic World Behind for our children we need to do better.

Yes we have come a long ways in just a hundred years. But that shouldn't be an excuse to stop doing better just because we have made such progress. Doesn't mean progress has to stop.
 
DarkNoon said:
This is my main concern about humans actions. Not so much about the climate but more so were polluting our environment. We are leaving a toxic World Behind for our children we need to do better.
Click to expand...
Anyone who lives in the LA basin can tell you how much humans can screw up the environment. Just look at the atmosphere after a good rain or on Christmas when there is less traffic.
 
intel-bank said:
If the North Atlantic Current collapses, Europe will fall into an ice age.
This was likely a factor in the little ice age.
Click to expand...
Except the little ice age impacted NA america as well.

Climate is always always fluctuating.
Just as the angle position and cyclical out put from the sun is also always changing. The single input modifier and it also is always fluctuating.

Climate changes period, ice ages have come and gone temperatures have risen with out the help of man.
And Paleolithic studies have shown it can change pretty dam quickly.
Doggerland is just a blink ago in the geographic record. A “blink”
What did man do or not do to cause the causeway marsh between England and Europe be filled in with the Chanel.
Or the Bering straight land bridge. How much ice melted then and raised the ocean levels several hundred feet.

All this talk of fighting 3” of sea rise or it will be catastrophic. Now it’s being described as an extinction level event.
What a b… snow job.

It just stupid to be piling all this effort resources and money in to climate change.
News flash - the damn climate is GOING to change with or without us.
Take that to the bank!!!

Focus on pollution absolutely
But banning gas ranges for cooking?
I suppose I can cook with my Kelty kettle quite efficiently with twigs and dung. A good portion is still cooking with dung fires.

Figure out effective efficient battery storage options before we rip another part of the environment apart in the fools gold rush to mine metals for batteries.
How many other regions of the world are going to be ruined by slash a burn mining practices in countries that are too poor to care.

Stop OCD recycling programs for plastic that by and large don’t work. It takes “guess what” to much energy to recycle plastics.
So instead of putting them in land fills we send them to third world nations were much of it gets dumped into rivers that end up in the ocean.
News flash on plastics and land fills
Plastics are absolutely degradable buried.
There hydrocarbons and they just take longer
Like it did the first time they were buried and began their path to becoming coal oil or methane.

i remember the pictures of Pennsylvanian and Ohio smelting towns in the early 20th century, they were horrific.
I heard my daughters disappointment when her summer in Beijing was diverted to HongKong because the air was to polluted to breath in Beijing.

Focus on pollutants that matter directly to life. Not naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere that are actually essential to plant growth.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
Not true at all.

View attachment 3586

Now, the data from "modern" times (meaning the last couple decades) has to be taken with a grain of salt as that data has been manipulated to be warmer than it actually is. That doesn't mean that we aren't going through a warming trend or that mankind doesn't contribute to pollution.
Click to expand...

That graph is pretty mad. Firstly, completely beyond my comprehension as to Jesus' relevance in a climate graph, granted im Atheist, but id assume that kind of shit was blasphemous? Thou shalt not use my name in climate graphs and all that, feel like that would've been a commandment. I like the 4 BC though, nice touch that one.

I dont understand what its trying to say. Is it only volcanoes that cause climate change? Did the hebrews leaving egypt cause climate change? Why does it work in periods of centuries then try and cram loads in at the end? Do volcanos cause hot periods or cold periods? Why highlight specfic events and then chuck in a blase '55 eruptions' at the end, the scalings out. Theres no labels for the y axis. Is it global surface temperature, global ocean temperatures, combined? Total earth temperature? Whats the craic with 'very warm' for the Hebrews leaving egypt and it being colder in a place that is always going to be colder (jamestown) given its twice as far from the equator, is that the comparrison?

Wheres the source date for this graph? Ive got way too many questions.

Graphs should only really be used to show a few things. Otherwise, they just start to look a bit ridiculous and/or disingenuous.
 
Spadders said:
That graph is pretty mad. Firstly, completely beyond my comprehension as to Jesus' relevance in a climate graph, granted im Atheist, but id assume that kind of shit was blasphemous? Thou shalt not use my name in climate graphs and all that, feel like that would've been a commandment. I like the 4 BC though, nice touch that one.
Click to expand...
No unit scale on the Y axis, which alone makes it worthless from a scientific point of view. This is, of course, done on purpose, in order to exaggerate certain spikes with the intent to mislead and deceive the reader.

Personally, I don't associate with people who like to mislead and deceive others, but you do you. Here's the real chart (source: https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2020/2019-years/):

800px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png
 
And there is this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg1676649801063.png
And you will deride the source but he is a scientist with phd. So put it on timeline scale.
These are all models based on a variety methods. And quite frankly all the data with deviation scales “massaged” to produce a desired product.
You trust one because you want to believe his assessment is correct.
I another.
In the end the climate fluctuates.

IF you are sincerely concerned about human caused climate change.
Then give up temperature controled living spaces
All gas transportation
All hydrocarbon derived clothing and materials including plastics and handy dandy touch screen phones.
Virtually all ocean travel and all air travel.
As I’ve said we can always improve our climate. Like natural gas vs coal.

Just consider clean water. The amount of electrical power needed to pump and treat sewage is clearly exorbitant.

What is it worth to you besides just trusting a model and believing your right.

All of these millionaires demonstrate their concern and fear of global warming by flying all over the globe frequently to demand change.
There actions demonstrate their concerns, not what they claim to be concerned apart.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Well known point in history.


Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D.

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
www.longrangeweather.com
Click to expand...

I feel like a timeline, which they provide, represents points in history better. At this point im wondering who the intended audience is.

I had a quick skim of it before, theres no actual data... all it says about the chart is...

Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources:
"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

Im not sure what qualifies him as a climatologist in other peoples views but accreditations tend to do it for me. He has none that can be found. One of the books referenced is written by a dude who kept trying to predict horrific earthquakes and failed every time.

Apparently hes (Cliff Harris, chart creator extraordinaire) often rated as on of the top 10 climatologist in the world for over 4 decades. Yet the internet doesnt seem to have much of a clue who he is. Wonder where these lists are?
 
figure-1.2.png

Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/

Caption:
Grey shaded line shows monthly mean GMST in the HadCRUT4, NOAAGlobalTemp, GISTEMP and Cowtan-Way datasets, expressed as departures from 1850–1900, with varying grey line thickness indicating inter-dataset range. All observational datasets shown represent GMST as a weighted average of near surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature over oceans. Human-induced (yellow) and total (human- and naturally-forced, orange) contributions to these GMST changes are shown calculated following Otto et al. (2015) and Haustein et al. (2017). Fractional uncertainty in the level of human-induced warming in 2017 is set equal to ±20% based on multiple lines of evidence. Thin blue lines show the modelled global mean surface air temperature (dashed) and blended surface air and sea surface temperature accounting for observational coverage (solid) from the CMIP5 historical ensemble average extended with RCP8.5 forcing (Cowtan et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2018). The pink shading indicates a range for temperature fluctuations over the Holocene (Marcott et al., 2013). Light green plume shows the AR5 prediction for average GMST over 2016–2035 (Kirtman et al., 2013). See Supplementary Material 1.SM for further details.
 

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming​

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions.
Click to expand...
climate.nasa.gov

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
 
Over the course of the Earth's 4.5-billion-year history, the climate has changed a lot. This is true. But the rapid warming we're seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades.

www.wwf.org.uk

Here are 10 myths about climate change

We've tried to clear up some of the most frequently heard myths about climate change.
www.wwf.org.uk www.wwf.org.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom