Can we start a Global Warming thread?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,324
3,557
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Since COVID is boring... can we start a global warming thread... since the debate will go beyond 1 million years in the future. COVID was a lame virus that lasted 3 years out of the 4.5 billion years the earth existed.

View: https://youtu.be/wbsURVgoRD0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95u2sk_lRoQ




My question is, nearly all Canada was covered with ice, but I am not seeing the coasts flooding by that ice that melted in this video. Could this video be incorrect?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
10,672
39,867
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Depends if it gets political I suppose... thats against the forum rules but facts like Maritius has sunk below a rising sea level (when, not if, it does) is just a fact.

I'd check with the Glorious Leader for permission like Jolly Green Giant did for the COVID thread.

As for Canadia, I'm not sure I follow you - you must have the weirdest baths on the planet if all the watwr stays up the tap end...?
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,324
3,557
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Depends if it gets political I suppose... thats against the forum rules but facts like Maritius has sunk below a rising sea level (when, not if, it does) is just a fact.
What does my redneck political affiliation have to do with climate. Its science, just like masks - if you need someone to tell you the answer, you have a problem - lol.

I've got to admit this is a "nerdy" subject and well within the broad scope of our glorious organization. Only crazy people would fly an Aurora, blot out the sky with suicide, to find a solution to hard questions that need to be answered.

Question is simple: Do you think the worlds climate changes within 100 years and kills us all, or do you think this is normal ecological reaction, ie. climate change happens for a lot of reasons, many we do not understand. Is fossil fuels, really the culprit, or is a natural cycle, world adjusting and changing, which always happens.
 
Last edited:

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
10,672
39,867
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
What does my redneck political affiliation have to do with climate. Its science, just like masks, lol.

I've got to admit this is a "nerdy" subject and well within the broad scope of our glorious organization. Only crazy people would fly an Aurora, blot out the sky with suicide, to find a solution to hard questions that need to be answered.

Question is simple: Do you think the worlds climate changes within 100 years and kills us all, or do you think this is normal biological reaction, ie. climate change happens for a lot of reasons, many we do not understand. Is fossil fuels, really the culprit, or is a natural cycle, world adjusting and changing, which always happens.
From all evidence presented to this point there is a strong connection between human activity and global temperature.

EDIT - For example the Conveyor is being actively monitored and although we know it is slowing it has not slowed to the point it is not doing its thing transferring heat where it needs to, and even if this natural process does stop the things which ceased it are still likely to have been man-made - also other atmospheric observations based on the ammount of CO2 and other gasses which make up the Global average content across the world indicate factors which we know do trap in more heat. - EDIT

Even going back to the 1400's a link has been suggested between The Black Death and Europes 'little ice age'.

 
Last edited:

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,324
3,557
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
From all evidence presented to this point there is a stron connection between human activity and global temperature.
300 years ago... that is a long time ago. Lets set the stage here... the earth is ~4.5 BILLION years old. Homo Sapiens have only been around since ~200,000 years. First human learned to write about 3,400 BC. So we are small fish in a big sea, with a small brain. We have no clue to what "normal" is... only our little existence of 100 years of life.

 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
10,672
39,867
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
300 years ago... that is a long time ago. Lets set the stage here... the earth is ~4.5 BILLION years old. Homo Sapiens have only been around since ~200,000 years. First human learned to write about 3,400 BC. So we are small fish in a big sea, with a small brain. We have no clue to what "normal" is... only our little existence of 100 years of life.

You have just invalidated your own argument and the evidence you quoted to support it.

Your 2 videos, one spanning 20,000 to 1,000 years ago, and one talking about events from between 11 and 12 thpusand years ago. You ask "Where was the flooding" to which I cam now say we only have 300 years of modern historical records - prove there wasn't any costal flooding. Please cite your evidence that there wasnt any and we can then continue the discussion on the Younger Dryas.
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,324
3,557
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Where is your evidence there wasnt any?
You proved my point... I'm sure there was some scientist sitting on the coast of Vancouver 300 years ago measuring the water level. Didn't happen, and our science has not proven anything - because we can't date something so precise. We act... like we know everything... 100 years past the industrial revolution... we don't know shit. The good thing if we give science another 100 years of development we will have a much better picture. Computers came about in the 70s... your phone is more powerful than that 70s super computer... things are going to become clear, but not right now.

Problem is everyone is running around with their hair on fire and not thinking clearly.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
10,672
39,867
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
You proved my point...
So your point was you hadnt checked if there was any evidence to suggest there was flooding in canada caused by a Glacial Lake flood? Here you go, archeological evidence of the flooding at the beginning of the Younger Dryas:


In addition to this your second video itself says its contested. Science is still gathering data and the topic still being investigated and debated.

I'm sure there was some scientist sitting on the coast of Vancouver 300 years ago measuring the water level. Didn't happen, and our science has not proven anything - because we can't date something so precise. We act... like we know everything... 100 years past the industrial revolution... we don't know shit. The good thing, give science another 100 years of development we will have a much better picture. Computers came about in the 70s... your phone is more powerful than that 70s super computer... things are going to become clear, but not right now.
So... this isn't a discussion on global warming, is it? Its a discussion on faith.

We could and can say the same for any science... even things like electronics which run those very computers, its ever evolving and new discoveries are made every day. Just because the people making computers now were not sat studying Babbages Difference Engine i. the 1800s doesnt mean there is not a fairly direct link back to it with the device at your hands right now...

Science isn't based on faith, it is the most likely explanation which can be proved with evidence until evidence is presented to disprove the previous accepted convention.

The things which have been observed which we can tie human activity to are cause-and-effect... CO2 for example. Take a box of atmosphere and a box of atmosphere with higher CO2 and apply the same ammount of enery to both, then measure the temperature in both and the one with more CO2 has retained more energy. Are you suggesting the observed reaction that is happening in my boxes is not happening i the planetary atmosphere? Why isn't it and how isn't it?

If there are natural processes in the background, which there may well be nothing exists in a vaccume, they are a contributor to the problem which the man made issue is then multiplying my orders of magnitude.
 
Last edited:

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,324
3,557
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
So your point was you hadnt checked if there was any evidence to suggest there was flooding in canada caused by a Glacial Lake flood? Here you go, archeological evidence of the flooding at the beginnong of the Younger Dryas:
good'ol ctl-f ocean on your pdf... I still don't see concreate evidence that the ocean level increased from the Laurentide Ice Sheet - there is evidence based on this point of view but nothing concreate - which is why it is still debated.



Science isn't based on faith, it is the most likely explanation which can be proved with evidence until evidence is presented to disprove the previous accepted convention.
As for your assumption that my science is based on faith is a false accusation...
story:
I remember sitting in a class in college when I was an undergrad I countered everything the teacher/professor said, by just pointing out the obvious. I remember this kid getting up and throwing down his text book, complaining that I was challenging his world view. He was so mad, he left the class and never returned. I was just playing the "devils advocate" pointing out the obvious that no one wanted to talk about.

Being the "devils advocate" is a hard job - because everyone think you believe what you write.

Honestly, if you can't handle another point of view, how can you function in our world.

So... yes, I am playing the devils advocate, trying to show you another side, a side you think is irrelevant or don't want to acknowledge.

I don't know what happened 50 years ago, let alone 300 years ago, or 5000 years ago. But to claim to be expert on something that we "think" is a crisis in just 20 years is questionable to to me. So yes, you are going to tell me I'm wrong... but don't walk out when the narrative doesn't fit your world view.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
10,672
39,867
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I still don't see concreate evidence that the ocean level increased from the Laurentide Ice Sheet
I believe your question was "where is the evidence of flooding". There it is. Now its "Where is the evidence of sea level rises" while admitting you have already found some but don't believe it. Strivig for more knowledge is the apex of scientific endeavour so i dont blame you for that however when will a question be answered for you?

Please note at no point have I said you are wrong about non-direct observeable evidence of prehistoric events. Things pretty obvious like the asteroid strike at the extintion of the dinosaurs is still debated because its simply our best guess based on cause and effect. There is a massive crater in the Gulf of Mexico dating from the same time. Cause = effect until such time new evidence comes to light, if it ever does.

there is evidence based on this point of view but nothing concreate
Aha, so that is your worldview? There is no middle ground, it is either concrete or it isn't. That suggests that you believe there is such a thing as cocrete evidence? Would that be right? That once something is considered has irrifuteable no more is able to be discovered about it?

As for your assumption that my science is based on faith is a false accusation...
story:
I remember sitting in a class in college when I was an undergrad I countered everything the teacher/professor said, by just pointing out the obvious. I remember this kid getting up and throwing down his text book, complaining that I was challenging his world view. He was so mad, he left the class and never returned. I was just playing the "devils advocate" pointing out the obvious that no one wanted to talk about.

Being the "devils advocate" is a hard job - because everyone think you believe what you write.

Honestly, if you can't handle another point of view, how can you function in our world.

So... yes, I am playing the devils advocate, trying to show you another side, a side you think is irrelevant or don't want to acknowledge.

I don't know what happened 50 years ago, let alone 300 years ago, or 5000 years ago. But to claim to be expert on something that we "think" is a crisis in just 20 years is questionable to to me. So yes, you are going to tell me I'm wrong... but don't walk out when the narrative doesn't fit your world view.
Hence why I keep repeating "from evidence presented".

Your advocacy as fun as it may be willfully ignores the evidence which does not rely on things over 300 years old. Yes, prehistoric evidencd may be incompletr, but please enlighten me on my boxes of atmosphere: The box with more CO2 is trapping more heat. Irrifuteable evidence.
 
Last edited:

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,324
3,557
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Aha, so that is your worldview?
World view = "the world is going to end in 10 years-your going to starve" or "you must stop using fossil fuels if we are going to survive". This doesn't really matter if you think this is a natural cycle, world heats up when it is closest to the sun, the world cools when it is further away. To me that is the logic and not go crazy with your hair on fire thinking, humans fart too much, don't eat meat because cows poop, or fossil fuels cause global warming. Really, some people think that cows are farting too much... or their poo is the cause of human demise. Everything here is organic, part of the world at one time, the molecules that make my body was probably dinosaur poo... its not like we're introducing anything new to the planet. The planet made my fart, made my food, made my air... it is a living and breathing echo system. So, methane has always been a product of the earth, sometimes really high, sometimes really low. A volcano can create as much methane is a couple minutes as we produce in years. Its all about perspective.

"Scientists estimate that volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per day (only about 2% of the amount that human activity causes). Yet that estimate may be far too low because it's based on measurements from only 33 of the world's most volcanically active peaks (only three of which are ice-covered), among the 1500 or so that have erupted in the past 10,000 years. More data gathered from Iceland—as well as Antarctica, which is home to dozens of ice-smothered volcanoes—may help scientists come up with a better estimate for volcanic CO2 emissions."

"Earth has an eccentric orbit, which means that it moves in a path that is slightly oval in shape. Contrary to what you'd expect, Earth gets closest to the sun every December, and farthest from the sun every June. We in the northerhe maximum eccentricity is about 5 percent and the minimum is near zero, when the orbit is nearly circular. This cycle can be calculated for millions of years, and we know that the glaciers also have cycles of about 100,000 years. The question is whether the glaciers are tied to changes in Earth's eccentricity. "

"What is more important to climatic changes over the eons is the fact that the sun is getting brighter. Earth now gets about 20 to 25 percent more sunlight than it did four billion years ago. "

So, blaming us humans on the primitive sources of energy that propelled us from horses to cars in 100 years is the culprit. I doubt it. Until we perfect hydrogen (water base fuel) were going to have to live with the dinosaur fuel. Solar panels are primitive and use more fuel to make them then what they are worth, wind is unpredictable, batteries are nasty... they do more damage to the environment than what they provide in power - my expert (not) opinion.

*** We're clearly not debating about what is good for the earth, but it is a debate about what is good for humans and humans wanting to survive. Because our small brains do not see the big picture. Wish we would stop the bs about the earth... the earth will live on no matter what. This is a debate about a bunch of afraid humans.

So the function is... earth from the sun, speed the earth orbits, natural eco cycles of the earth.

Humans are like a mosquitos to the earth, we're an annoyance, but the earth will be here long after we're gone.


 
Last edited:

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
10,672
39,867
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
This doesn't really matter if you think this is a natural cycle, world heats up when it is closest to the sun, the world cools when it is further away. To me that is the logic and not go crazy with your hair on fire thinking, humans fart too much, don't eat meat because cows poop, or fossil fuels cause global warming.
And just like when 'they' said CFCs put a hole in the Ozone Layer. Why shoud I stop using the most efficiant and most economical option? They dont have that much info to go on, not even 300 years worth they only discovered the hole in 1985 and really even if they did have 300 years of data or even a thousand the planet is 4.5 BILLION years old how do they know the Ozone Layer doesn't just get a big life threatening hole in it sometimes as part of the natural cycle of the planet?

Apart from the part where we cut out CFCs and the hole began to heal... Was that just coincidence and part of a natural rythem? And recently when they disovered a source of fresh CFCs and damage was recorded, that was part of the natural cycle too...? Or doesnt that count? For what reason?

Really, some people think that cows are farting too much... or their poo is the cause of human demise. Everything here is organic, part of the world at one time, the molecules that make my body was probably dinosaur poo... its not like we're introducing anything new to the planet. The planet made my fart, made my food, made my air... it is a living and breathing echo system. So, methane has always been a product of the earth, sometimes really high, sometimes really low. A volcano can create as much methane is a couple minutes as we produce in years. Its all about perspective.
Merhaine stays in the atmosphere for an average of 12 years amd traps 4 times as much heat as CO2. As such its a very short term trapper which reduction would have a very quick stabilisation effect. there are way more farters than there were 12 years ago but compared to 100 years ago its a massive increase.

"Scientists estimate that volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per day (only about 2% of the amount that human activity causes). Yet that estimate may be far too low because it's based on measurements from only 33 of the world's most volcanically active peaks (only three of which are ice-covered), among the 1500 or so that have erupted in the past 10,000 years. More data gathered from Iceland—as well as Antarctica, which is home to dozens of ice-smothered volcanoes—may help scientists come up with a better estimate for volcanic CO2 emissions."
CO2 in comparison hangs around between 200 and 1000 years. its a much more accumulative process but one which if we turn off the generators can be cleared with natural processes. The rate the sea absorbes CO2 fell a few years back and the amount in the atmosphere picked up in similar vein.

"What is more important to climatic changes over the eons is the fact that the sun is getting brighter. Earth now gets about 20 to 25 percent more sunlight than it did four billion years ago. "
To use your advocacy, you weren' there, you cant tell me if it was cloudy on this day 4/5ths of the planets life ago. Why are you now trying to use information you say is invalid to make a point?

While we are thinking about this: What makes you so certain there is a natural rythem? What is your concrete evidence to support that theory?

*** We're clearly not debating about what is good for the earth, but it is a debate about what is good for humans and humans wanting to survive. Because our small brains do not see the big picture. Wish we would stop the bs about the earth... the earth will live on no what. This is a debate about a bunch of afraid humans.
The planet earth will be here just as Venus or Mars are. Whether it will be able to suppor t life, human or otherwise, is another matter. We know mass extinctions happen. We know we are in the middle of an extinction event right now. the only question is how big it is going to be.

You have still yet to talk about my boxes of atmosphere. Cause and effect. Drop your worldview of cycles and look at the evidence which doesnt give a damn about 20,000 years ago or 20 minutes ago.
 

Mich Angel

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2016
3,586
13,576
2,910
RSI Handle
ARCHANGEL_666
We know because we are human…

Let's see....

in the 1700 you were lobotomized if you thought human could fly, because human know that is not possible we know.. we know how it works

in the early 1800 you got incarcerated in the "lunatic in" if you said humans can ride a carriage without a horse and it could drive by itself too.
Because humans know how it works and that is lunatic talk... we know how it works...

1900 we know cause we're human.. we know how it works..

We know shit... we have a lot of data and a lot of theories but we do not have conclusive answers... just theories..
Global warming... mm... wonder when they invent Global cooling.. I know when! As soon as it can be made a profit then Global cooling will be a thing to...
Earth is doing what it has done for millions of years and we can't do shit about it. That is a fact that is proven, but we are trying to control it....mm !?

All the largest active volcanoes we have on earth and when one, just one of them erupts to a max eruption which happens and has happened.
Just one of those large volcanoes spewed out more toxic air in a week than humans have done in the last 200 years.. and they had several 100 and 100's eruptions during human existence..
The northern so-called mini ice age was caused by one of those largest volcanoes erupting and causing a dust cloud cover that cooled the planet enough to cause a longer winter than normal.
That eruption is proven to be the source for that event, hence all crops got destroyed or wouldn't grow, it caused a human disaster that is well documented.

Is our dinosaur fuel or human a cause of so called global warming or do we contribute? We might, that is what is being looked at but so far no conclusive evidence of it is found.
The ozone hole found in 1985 have closed a long time ago and new ones have opened and closed several times since then ... So is this earth way of venting out shit as a normal process?
Answer is WE DO NOT KNOW we haven't been around documenting long enough.. We are guessing/theorizing and some data we have help but not conclusive.. that is where we are now.

Oldest documented Homosapien us, modern humans are 200.000 years old.
Homosapien, human our documented history, the fact we have of our origin (which is debated) is less or roughly 5000 years old.
And roughly 200 years of that is we're we started to get eh hum.. smart.. and the last 100-150 years of that is where we solved how the universe came to be... euhm.. right!
That's where we are now! I really hope we find an answer some day..
but theories are not fact.. and theories are not prof... period!


CHEERS! 🍻 🍻 🍻 🍻 😱 🍻😱😱😱🍻🍻😱😱🍻🍻
 
Last edited:

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Sep 25, 2017
5,371
16,949
2,375
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
I have to say that I am very torn on this subject.

Its easily proven the existence of the city heat island effect, and city pollution in the form of smog is easily visible. Here on the west coast USA there is a significant issue with water (well always been an issue with water) and yet in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there are a number of naturally formed lakes that have old tree stumps in the bottom which signifies at some time in the past the lake was empty. On top of that if you look at the earth and where the equator is and thus the possibility of being the hottest due to being the closest to the sun on a yearly avg it's not a desert, it's not until you get to the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn that you start to see large deserts (other large deserts are the result of being on the leeward side of huge mountain ranges.

So it's very apparent that in the urban sprawl where most of us live we are indeed polluting ourselves to death and a lot of the environmental measures will have a significant impact on improving these places. I also wish we would get over our fear of nuclear reactors and start building them again as a means of large-scale energy production coupled with breeder reactors to almost eliminate any waste. While it still will not completely eliminate the need for some limited fossil fuels (coal is still going to need to be used in the production of steel, oils used for machinery lubrication, and plastics) it would be a great step forward.

Instead, we make short-sighted policies like in California in the 90's the pressure to stop logging (old growth forest and the spotted owl) resulted in markets stopping using paper bags and starting using plastic bags. This not only contributed to the huge amount of plastic bags in the waterways but also coupled with the fire impression efforts lead to forests that are not healthy and very susceptible to forest fires. Not saying that some of the logging practices were sound but tweaking it into a more forest mindfully and management would have been far more beneficial as well as the continued use of paper bags while promoting the use of reusable bags. Instead, the policy is thicker plastic bags that have a 5-cent per bag charge but does nothing to reduce their usage.

As for global warming, the globe is indeed warming as we are coming out of the last ice age which is why the ice caps only go back a few million years. And water which is by far the biggest greenhouse gas and is seldom included in computer models is able to radiate directly to space its energy through a process called night sky radiation or radiative cooling.


 

Mushin

Space Marshal
Aug 31, 2015
163
573
2,250
RSI Handle
Naelobo
.

As far as I can tell, we haven't had enough volcanic eruptions or other non-manmade events that would cause this increase. If, at this point in time, don't believe that humans directly influence the world around us, stop staring directly at the sun. It might have made you blind or at least fried the part of the brain that uses common sense.

Increase in carbon dioxide, caused by man (aka. tree reduction [natural carbon reducers], an increase in greenhouse gases [caused by man and supplemented by further natural processes, either expedited by man or by nature itself], and a general lack of impact on society [aka we control our local habitat through air conditioning, as an example] has made this perception blurred. Saying that we are going through a normal ecological process with nature through coming out of an ice age would be great, if it wasn't happening at a 1000% increase temperature acceleration over what science has shown as a gradual increase in temperature during prior climate change periods in ancient history, before humanity existed. These transitions, just 1 degree Celsius, could take thousands of years to happen. Where we have had a 1.1 degree change in less than 140 years.

Of course, maybe science is bias. https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/, just like the Ozone hole closed up, long ago, or the scientists who monitor this activity on a daily basis with an advanced understanding of how the Earth's ozone functions can tell you that it's a bit more complex than the Ozone being opened or closed.

If you don't believe the science, listen to the farmers, they are going to be your first indication that things are not going well. I just hope that we find a solution in our current generations, before the ones that come after us, come into a world far worse than what we have now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Forgot your password?