Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   83 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 83 total)
  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 05:31pm   (Reply to #53)

    #64

    jturbo68

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 04 2009

    Posts: 224

    count placeholder1

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

I was just pointing out that your use of the term was in error. Being accurate and not shading

arguments is important.

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 07:18pm   (Reply to #53)

    #65
    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 846

    count placeholder0

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

Yeah, get back to me on that thesis that experts are not subject to popular group think when the majority of Doctors , scientists and science journals believe Ivermectin is efficacious for treating Covid. Or check with the phrenologists of yore. Science advancing one funeral at a time and all that.–Meme Monkey

It was scientists who were able to finally get a leg up on Big Oil, after many decades of propaganda and bought off politicians. Now, after many years of confusion we understand the issue with certainty…Nunc scitote

Big Pharma still has the machinery of power in its grip. It’s quite possible that ivermectin as an accepted treatment ( just like the theory of Anthropogenic global warming before it,) will take a while to cast off the pressure of undue influence.

 

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 07:23pm

    #66
    Ision

    Ision

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 145

    count placeholder1

    Reply To: Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

So, you make the common mistake of thinking Man is the ONLY way “sequestered” Co2 is introduced to the atmosphere.  Therefore, this causes a unique increase in Co2 in the atmosphere.  This is totally wrong and foolish.

All volcanic activity, of any sort, releases “sequestered” Co2 into the atmosphere in gigantic amounts, which makes that produced by Man seem just as insignificant as it actually is.

Fact is, every single person on Earth could vanish in an instant, and totally stop ALL of their Co2 production, and this would not make the Climate Alarmists (now vanished) happy, nor magically restore an atmosphere with only a meager 270 ppm of Co2.

I know I cannot enlighten the emotionally disturbed Alarmists, nor change the agenda of those, who set out to profit from propagandizing these Alarmists, and deliberately spew climate nonsense by design.  But, if you honestly think the terrible trace gas, Co2, is a pollutant and a problem, and have spent enormous time and effort, as well as your money, over the obvious lies regarding the “dangers” of Co2 and Global Warming…I can express my regret for the damage these lies have caused you.

Co2 is JUST AS IMPORTANT to life on Earth as Oxygen is, and is not a pollutant, nor is Global Warming a horror, about which you have also been maliciously fed.  It is not Global Warming, which is to be feared, you silly Alarmists, but Global COOLING.

We fully understand exactly what Earth is like during much warmer, and much cooler, epochs, than what we live in right now.   We KNOW warmer is better than colder, with certainty.

Go ahead and convert all of your Co2 figures to Parts Per Million, or Billion, and forget the meaningless use of weight.  How many tons of Co2 is equal to ONE Part Per Million?  The ONLY reason you are shown weights of atmospheric gases, is to impress your ignorance and boggle your perception of comparative quantities…and to mask just how TINY the actual amount of Co2 is.

Imagine a huge stadium with 100,000 seats for spectators.  Now, imagine being on the same street with 10 of these huge stadiums lined up next to each other upon it.  The total seats in these 10 stadiums equals One-Million, almost all of which are upholstered in sky blue fabric.

Imagine the last stadium on the street, has only 995,582 seats covered in the blue fabric, while a small section displays cluster of 418 seats, which have been upholstered in black, yellow, and red, fabric, and not blue.

In this colorful section, imagine only 4 seats have been covered in the red fabric.  If we remove 25% of the red seats, we will have removed ONE of these seats, leaving THREE remaining.

That ONE SEAT is equal to ONE PPM of our atmosphere’s Co2, and lowers the total remaining volume of Co2 to 417 ppm.

Now, reducing the U.S. output of Co2 by 25% is a virtually impossible task, and attempting to do so would cost Trillions and result in suffering of unimaginable proportions.  Do you REALLY THINK such an effort is worth it?

Not only is such an effort NOT WORTH IT, as it would result in NOTHING beneficial, or even measurable, but, the effort itself would result in crimes against Humanity….just like such efforts already HAS!

Imagine an African hospital which has to choose between lighting its ward, or using its Desk Top PC…due to restrictions placed upon it, in the name of reducing atmosphere Co2.  But, then imagination is not required, as this utter nonsense is actually taking place!

Climate Alarmists are basically Socialist Propagandists.  Their science is deceit and absurdities, mixed with manufactured data sets, misinformation, and bad physics.  None of their climate models work and none are predictive.  They even treat identical molecules differently, depending upon their narrative desires.

But, all this is moot.  Mankind  simply does not have much of a future to worry about.  As Man turns to Nuclear Power Plants, to solve the irrational fear of Co2, Man unwittingly seals his fate…and the fate of most living creatures on this planet.

Why?  How about another “Carrington Event” taking place today, like it did in 1859?  Should such another such CME happen today, we all die.

Imagine, the nuclear power reactors in the U.S. (98) all going LOCA at the same time, while the extent of human communications has been reduced to the distance one can scream.

 

 

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 07:41pm   (Reply to #53)

    #67
    Ision

    Ision

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 145

    count placeholder0

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

There is nothing wrong with Co2, or cheap power.  It is just you have swallowed the lies of the Nuclear Power companies and made to think beneficial Co2 is some sort of daemon,  which needs to be cast out…only to embrace the “ever so green” nuclear rods of a reactor.

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 08:55pm

    #68
    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 846

    count placeholder0

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

Overall, volcanoes release less than 2% of the equivalent amount of CO2 released by human activities. Quite small. However, about once every 20 years there is a volcanic eruption (e.g., Mount Pinatubo, El Chichon) that throws out a tremendous amount of particles and other gases. These will effectively shield us enough from the Sun to lead to a period of global cooling. The particles and gases typically dissipate after about 2 years, but the effect is nearly global.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/42/what-do-volcanoes-have-to-do-with-climate-change/

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 08:57pm   (Reply to #53)

    #69
    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 846

    count placeholder1

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

Ision

Look up thorium reactors.

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 10:01pm

    #70

    Mark_BC

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 541

    count placeholder0

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

Even though I generally agree with your assessment, I have to ask if there is any possibility in your mind that the earth is flat rather than a spherical ellipsoid? Until new science comes that proves the earth is indeed flat, I’ll presume to consider it not flat. In fact, I’d consider that question to be settled.

The science concerning climate change is migrating towards placing the sun as the cause rather than blaming anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Does that mean that we’re not influencing the environment? Absolutely not! It just means that assigning the sun’s influence as a dominating player in our environment yields better models for back casting (and forecasting) than the models that assigned the majority of cause to CO2.

Just as it is past time to put the “flat earth” debate to bed, it’s time to turn down the sheets and fluff up the pillows so that AGW can go to bed.

Are you seriously suggesting that the evidence supporting your claim that AGW is debunked is equivalent to the evidence refuting a flat Earth? You expect me to take that argument seriously? Sorry, I can’t even respond to that.

To everyone here (regardless of what side of the AGW debate you fall on) trying to attribute the Earth’s historical climate patterns to a single cause (“Which one is it?!!?!?! We just need to debate and figure out which SINGLE factor influences the climate!!“) — well I’m here to tell you YOU’RE ALL WRONG!!! It is a complex system influenced by several major forcings. And just because it is a complex system does not mean that changing any one of the forcings makes no difference to the Earth’s climate just because your own pet theory says that the other forcings are irrelevant compared to yours.

The forcings are: solar cycles (yes, it’s true!!! The sun influences Earth’s climate!! Who’d a thunk???), major volcanic events, Earth rotational wobbles (Milankovitch cycles), giant asteroids, possibly interstellar gamma rays (haven’t looked into this much), and a gradually increasing solar output that will eventually burn the planet to a crisp. These all interplay with each other and impact the major greenhouse gases (water, CO2, methane) in various positive and negative feedback loops to create the climate the Earth has at any given time. Generally, a more or less equilibrium is reached when those above factors don’t change too much over thousands of years, and the planet is more stable for 10’s of thousands of years. If any of those inputs change significantly then it can set off positive feedback loops that shift the climate either warmer or colder (for example, a warming planet releases more methane and has a lower albedo and therefore heats up faster — this will continue until a new warmer equilibrium is reached for a while and then the cycle will reverse). But over a long time the Earth’s CO2 concentration has been steadily decreasing to coincide with the Sun’s gradual increase in output — resulting in a more-or-less stable climate over the last 300 million years.

Historically over the last million years the Earth’s climate has been highly correlated with Milankovitch cycles. I looked into this a decade ago so things may have changed since then but when they use ice cores to correlate past temperature with CO2 they get this graph:

(yes, I know it’s Wikipedia but these graphs have been around for decades since before Wiki was corrupted).

You will note that temperature usually leads CO2 by 1000 years, not the other way around. What????? Does this kill the theory of AGW? No, not at all, and it is further evidence of positive feedback loops. When the Earth’s wobble causes a significant enough warming, then positive feedback loops like I mention above kick into gear and you see a rapid warming over a relatively short period.

  • Thu, Apr 08, 2021 - 11:50pm   (Reply to #70)

    #71
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 912

    count placeholder2

    Climate Change: Its Not About Climate

Mark_BC wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that the evidence supporting your claim that AGW is debunked is equivalent to the evidence refuting a flat Earth? You expect me to take that argument seriously? Sorry, I can’t even respond to that.

Mark,

I wish you’d read (and understand) what I write before going off half-cocked. In a previous post, you said that science is never settled. Well, sometimes it is. I used the flat earth as an example of where science is settled. There are lots more. That’s why I said, “I generally agree.” The more complicated the issue, the less settled the science can possibly become.

Whenever I talk with AGW proponents, they claim (or imply) that all the blame goes to human activities that increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is the theory that needs to be put to bed – specifically, that humans are responsible for global warming. I agree with you that it is a multi-faceted issue (and yes, we are contributors – just not the dominant players.) Please reread this statement that I wrote and tell me where I claim otherwise:

The science concerning climate change is migrating towards placing the sun as the cause rather than blaming anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Does that mean that we’re not influencing the environment? Absolutely not! It just means that assigning the sun’s influence as a dominating player in our environment yields better models for back casting (and forecasting) than the models that assigned the majority of cause to CO2.

I’m really glad that you are independently investigating the science behind all this. You need to research the influence of cosmic rays rather than gamma rays. Gamma rays are high energy photons. Cosmic rays are mostly charged plasma particles ejected by exploding stars at speeds approaching light speed. Because of the robust solar magnetosphere during the 20th century, fewer cosmic rays were allowed entry into the earth. As a result, we had fewer (and less intense) volcanic eruptions. With the weakening sun, our volcanic activity has reawakened.

I didn’t mention that the earth’s magnetic shield is diminishing since 1850. By some estimates, we’ve lost >15% while others say it is in the 9%-11% range. The loss is accelerating as the magnetic poles go on walkabout. With a weaker solar magnetosphere combining with the earth’s weakening magnetosphere, more cosmic rays enter our system. Also, with earth’s weaker magnetosphere, the solar wind drives away more of the gasses in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. That impacts the dynamics of atmospheric layer interactions. It also leaves us more vulnerable to solar electromagnetic pulses (EMP) and coronal mass ejections (CMEs.)

I don’t know if it was you or someone else who mentioned tipping points. The theory is that once the CO2 gets to an unknown concentration, it will cause the earth to heat up in a runaway fashion – similar to what Venus experiences. During the early Phanerozoic Eon, our atmosphere held ~7,000 PPM CO2. With current CO2 concentrations ~6% of what the earth previously experienced without going runaway, is the runaway theory really anything more than an alarmist worry?

Finally, I take issue with your statement that we’ve had a “more-or-less stable climate over the last 300 million years.” We’ve experienced brief, warm interludes in between the cold ice ages that have dominated the last million years. Take the region where you live in BC. How can you say the climate has been stable when you have giant trees growing where there were kilometers thick ice?

Grover

  • Fri, Apr 09, 2021 - 07:39am

    #72

    JAG

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 763

    count placeholder1

    The “Great Texas Freeze” Never Happened

The congeló mis bolas en Tejas that you guys saw on the news, never really happened. It was just the elite and their media companies fooling you with climate change mierda.

DaveF, I have to ask, again, what good does it do anyone here to b*tch about the elites? How do you (or anyone of us) know what the “elites” are thinking and/or doing anyway?

When I read many of your posts, there is one common implied theme: You should hate “X people” and you are stupid if you don’t.

I don’t want to hate anyone. Hate destroys people from the inside-out.

If you want to provide valuable content, use your brainpower to help everyone here to become more independent from the system.

 

 

  • Fri, Apr 09, 2021 - 08:23am

    #73

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 639

    count placeholder3

    Texas Freeze and Hate

The congeló mis bolas en Tejas that you guys saw on the news, never really happened. It was just the elite and their media companies fooling you with climate change mierda.

Sure, it did.  My best guess is that extreme temperatures in both directions have been more common and somewhat more extreme in recent decades.  There is a reasonably high likelihood that this is caused in part by a slowing of the jet stream as the pole to equator temperature difference decreases due to a warming arctic.  However, the great Texas freeze is certainly not off the charts relative to historic events.  The unique vulnerability of the Texas electric grid as it now exists must be considered too.

As for Dave, I’m not going to dig back through is posts right now, but is he really telling you to hate a group or just to understand that they might actually be doing things behind the scenes that will impact all of us?  If so, isn’t it important to understand their plans and actions as best we can so we can adapt our own plans?

With that said, I can understand how Dave’s approach could feed hate for the elite in those who read his writing.  The risk of hate, of course, is that it is a powerful emotion that can cloud our vision and impair our choices if we aren’t able to avoid being controlled by it.

What are your thoughts Dave?

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 83 total)

Login or Register to post comments