In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Curious about climate change/global warming
mogley98
Member Posts: 18,291 ✭✭✭✭
So I have not really followed this debate, hoax, or reality and don't know the main points for either side of the issue.
I am sure some here are more aware so I wish you would share the reality.
I would guess the impact of deforestation reducing absorption of Co2 and release of O2 has minimal impact on the atmosphere as does the burning of hydrocarbons.
Is this speculation that man could somehow impact his environment as foolish as thinking that the elevated concentrations of lead or mercury (which already existed) have impacted our environment, Halon's increased cancer rates due to Ozone depletion, the dust bowl was created by man, red tide, or that lead paint ever effected anyone?
I am sure some here are more aware so I wish you would share the reality.
I would guess the impact of deforestation reducing absorption of Co2 and release of O2 has minimal impact on the atmosphere as does the burning of hydrocarbons.
Is this speculation that man could somehow impact his environment as foolish as thinking that the elevated concentrations of lead or mercury (which already existed) have impacted our environment, Halon's increased cancer rates due to Ozone depletion, the dust bowl was created by man, red tide, or that lead paint ever effected anyone?
Why don't we go to school and work on the weekends and take the week off!
Comments
I'm not sure man could destroy the earth if we really wanted to. Destroy ourselves sure but not the earth. Look at a really big storm or a tidal wave. Remember when Mt. St. Helens blew in May of 1980? I'm thinking these events are way beyond anything man is capable of.
I'm pretty sure when this old earth grows tired of us she will shake us off like a big dog shaking water after climbing out of a creek. I am just as sure that a lot of folks setting in big comfortable chairs see the whole thing as a way to collect more of the people's hard earned dollars to use for themselves. Such is the way of politicians and other con men. They use fear and guilt to fleece their subjects and the media being the senseless sycophants they are back their play to the hilt. It is simply a way to take our money.
Can man have an effect on the environment? - sure.
Can man have an effect on the temperature of the environment? - That one is way harder.
Questions the climate change pushers don't want to hear are:
1) How far back does your data go? (answer - not really very far when you consider the age of the earth).
2) Could temperatures & climate conditions be cyclical? (answer - uhh... don't really know, see question above).
Yes, when a volcano blows, the amount of CO2 put out is incredible - something like years worth of what man does.
Which all leads back to - God is in control of the climate too!
We are clearly in the midst of climate change, in recorded history there have not been storms like we are seeing now. We are seating temperature records (+) yearly, the ice caps are melting and the glaciers are as well.
Now, whether this is natural climate change or human mediated appears to depend upon your political leaning. If you lean right, it is all a hoax perpetrated by people who will get rich buy stifling fossil fuel sales.
If you lean the other way it is human mediated.
either way, it is proceeding as originally predicted by the scientists who said it was coming. Drought some places, flooding in other places, high temps almost everywhere, melting of ice caps and glaciers, mega-storms. We are seeing the extirpation of animal species in many areas. In New Mexico where I live, several species of birds are no longer found in the north of the state, They have moved further north into the higher mountains of Colorado.
May you live in interesting times eh?
I am not a scientist or well educated and am ignorant in many subjects. Seems the more I read the more I realize how ignorant I really am. But I do have an opinion.
I'm not sure man could destroy the earth if we really wanted to. Destroy ourselves sure but not the earth. Look at a really big storm or a tidal wave. Remember when Mt. St. Helens blew in May of 1980? I'm thinking these events are way beyond anything man is capable of.
I'm pretty sure when this old earth grows tired of us she will shake us off like a big dog shaking water after climbing out of a creek. I am just as sure that a lot of folks setting in big comfortable chairs see the whole thing as a way to collect more of the people's hard earned dollars to use for themselves. Such is the way of politicians and other con men. They use fear and guilt to fleece their subjects and the media being the senseless sycophants they are back their play to the hilt. It is simply a way to take our money.
I always liked this skit by George Carlin:
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
Can you tell exactly how much effect mankind has on the climate?
Can you tell me exactly how much effect all the actions you propose will make?
Can you tell me exactly when we've done too much changing and swing us into another ice age?
Because until now, the answer to all three has been "No". And until it's "Yes" my last question is why are we making drastic changes so willy-nilly?
About 200 years ago there was a "year without a summer".
If something like that would hit now-lots of chaos.
Why don't the global warming people ever mention the impact of the sun on the earth?
Computer models are not science.
I too would like to know if true or hoax. What I have read makes me lean toward hoax. Follow the money. This really makes me think hoax. The fact that the ultra-libs say it is so REALLY makes me think it is pure BS.
I will concede I don't know, not for sure.
I used to have marine fish tanks, lots of them, and there is a very delicate balance to keep the enclosed eco system healthy. Same for Biosphere 2.
Biospere 1 is the Earth. It is an enclosed environment as well. The earth has experienced some near misses already. There have been projects that the general public hears little to nothing about, HARP.
But for me, it is all about the ocean. At what point do we reach critical mass and the cascading effect of die off? What would the Earth look like if life if the ocean dies off?
The warning signs of pollution are there, just as the toxic signs in a fish tank are there.
Once critical mass is met, there will be no stopping the die off. Can't do a water change like in the home aquarium. I do not know the details of what exactly is occurring in the atmosphere and oceans, and ground water. I believe global warming can be cyclical. I believe humans can and may contaminate their environment if not aware and take some precautions.
I do know that when I flew cross country in the 70's the air was far clearer than the past couple times I have flown. The overall haze over the USA is significantly thicker. My photos show this. Nearly impossible to get a clear picture from the air now.
As with any reporting or agenda, there is some truth mixed in with the fear tactics. I do not konw if Donald has this awareness, but I would suggest he visit Biosphere 2 if he hasn't already. The ocean environment is the wake up call.
Sadly, it may just as well happen to climate. Because the clowns who are trying to pull the levers on Nature haven't a clue what they're doing.
It's all about money & power.
Can man have an effect on the environment? - sure.
Can man have an effect on the temperature of the environment? - That one is way harder.
Questions the climate change pushers don't want to hear are:
1) How far back does your data go? (answer - not really very far when you consider the age of the earth). 150 years, not including data that is EXTRAPOLATED.
2) Could temperatures & climate conditions be cyclical? (answer - uhh... don't really know, see question above). Yes and overall it trends toward "cooling". ie: World started out Molten and will end up an "ice ball". :>)
Yes, when a volcano blows, the amount of CO2 put out is incredible - something like years worth of what man does.
Which all leads back to - God is in control of the climate too!
Climate change is another SPREAD THE WEALTH scheme on a MASSIVE MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR SCALE.
Remember in the 70's the U.S. needed to help raise the standard of living of many of the worlds nations. What did WE do ? Help bring up "others" standard ? No,, The U.S. "spread the wealth" on a world wide basis which has ultimately raised the worlds standard,, and essentially lowered the U.S.
Do people under 30 know this or even think about it,, NOPE over half are clueless and uneducated.
However I've watched it happen.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/11480568/1/us-standard-of-living-has-fallen-more-than-50-opinion.html
When Trump says the american worker hasn't had a real salary increase in 30 years,, that's conservative, try 40 !!! for many people. Spreading the wealth along with crappy management and a lack of vision put the U.S. where it's at.
Charts show a massive increase in the worlds standard of living and the time to "quit this crap" is at hand.
I aspire to create as large a carbon footprint as possible. [:D]
Remember one post, maybe 10 years ago. Poster purchased a BRIGHT YELLOW HUMMER and loved to drive around just to "P** O** ,, tree huggers or ??
Who would that have been,, DWS.
quote:The earth is 15 years from a period of low solar activity similar to that last seen during the "mini ice-age" of the 17th century, when the Thames froze.
Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun's activity which they claim produces "unprecedentedly accurate predictions".
They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in the 2030s.
Solar activity will fall by 60 per cent as two waves of fluid "effectively cancel each other out", Prof Valentina Zharkova said in a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.
Fiddling with temperature data is biggest science scandal ever (31,000 comments)
"[In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other - peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun," she said.
"Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.
"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a `Maunder minimum'".
Maunder minimum, indicating low sunspot activity, was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715, when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
A frost fair on the Thames (Alamy)
In England during this "Little Ice Age", River Thames frost fairs were held. In the winter of 1683-84 the Thames froze over for seven weeks, during which it was "passable by foot", according to historical records.
Prof Zharkova said scientists had known about one dynamo caused by convecting fluids deep within the sun, but her research appeared to have uncovered another.
"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the sun's interior," she said.
Climate change could undermine the last 50 years of health advances
Loaves of bread 'smaller in future' due to climate change
Polar bears 'have started eating dolphins due to climate change'
"They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.
"Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent.
"Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity.
"When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article inaccurately stated that scientists have predicted bitterly cold winters in the 2030s, "similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century". In fact, the research focused solely on solar activity, and did not made any prediction about its possible future climate effects. We are happy to make this clear.
So which way are we headed.
quote:The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] While it was not a true ice age, its term was introduced into scientific literature by Fran?ois E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] but climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions.
The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population.
Don't think We are much of any change...
nasa recently released data that their previous predictions of polar ice caps where wrong, according to old predictions they should be gone by 2020
And if we have a Large Volcano cut loose any temp rise for that year will show a marked decrease.
Big enough and it'll "snuff out" the majority of life, including humans.
But my friends, that is quite naive. You can keep peeing in the drinking well, and teach your children to pee in the well, and as the population grows more and more and keep peeing in the drinking well, soon it will be an outhouse you must drink from.
I assure you Mother Earth will deal with it in her own way.
Two separate events seem to be getting co mingled to come to a false premise.
I see a few here have dismissed the human participation because of the natural progressions.
But my friends, that is quite naive. You can keep peeing in the drinking well, and teach your children to pee in the well, and as the population grows more and more and keep peeing in the drinking well, soon it will be an outhouse you must drink from.
I assure you Mother Earth will deal with it in her own way.
Two separate events seem to be getting co mingled to come to a false premise.
our impact on this planet has not been dismissed, only the exaggeration and purpose behind it has
A non-falsifiable theory is not a theory. It is a religion.
They even went so far as to send ships with steel dust to the Pole to spread to warm up the pole.
Global Warming was dropped for Climate Change. Well, yes the climate has been changing for the last 10 billion years and will continue to change.
When I was a kid and learned of the Ice Ages in geography, I was concerned that we would freeze. Then I thought, I will be dead long before the next Ice Age. Yes, we will have another Ice Age and the Earth will get warm, then cold, then warm.
quote:Originally posted by mag00
I see a few here have dismissed the human participation because of the natural progressions.
But my friends, that is quite naive. You can keep peeing in the drinking well, and teach your children to pee in the well, and as the population grows more and more and keep peeing in the drinking well, soon it will be an outhouse you must drink from.
I assure you Mother Earth will deal with it in her own way.
Two separate events seem to be getting co mingled to come to a false premise.
our impact on this planet has not been dismissed, only the exaggeration and purpose behind it has
That is one theory, maybe it is actually understated? Do we need to prove that?
and they predicted in 1978 we had 25 years left and keep pushing the clock back
1. 2015 is the `last effective opportunity' to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the "last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius]."
Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis will likely reiterate that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.
But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the "last" chance to cut a deal to stem global warming. since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014's climate summit.
2. France's foreign minister said we only have "500 days" to stop "climate chaos"
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."
Ironically at the time of Fabius' comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 - some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.
3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to "slow the rise of the oceans" some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.
In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama's second term was "the last window of opportunity" to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it's "the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade," adding that if "we don't do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place."
Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only "has four years to save Earth." I wonder what they now think about their predictions?
4. Remember when we had "hours" to stop global warming?
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada's Green Party wrote that there was only "hours" left to stop global warming.
"We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it," Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. "Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday."
5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only "50 days to save the world from global warming," the BBC reported. According to Brown there was "no plan B."
Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he'd say about global warming today?
6. Let's not forget Prince Charles's warning we only had 96 months to save the planet
It's only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it." So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.
7. The U.N.'s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if "there's no action before 2012, that's too late."
"What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment," he said.
Well, it's 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that's changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.
8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within "as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world's animals or it continues to feed the world's people. It cannot do both."
In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.
9. The "tipping point" warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.
The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a "senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000."
That prediction didn't come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.
Read more: http://nationalenquirer.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/#ixzz4WWXi2vLO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiGHw7CS9b8
Why do you suppose so many are trying to prevent many scientists from speaking their minds? Many scientists do NOT have FREE SPEECH because they must keep quiet if they value their positions or FEAR an attempt to smear their reputations or research.
Opinion: There's a lot of intellectual extortion concerning climate change and its effects.
Just maybe, it wasn't covered in ice back then?
My local weather page on the net, shows the daily record highs and lows for that date since the temperatures were recorded.
Today on 1/22/17: The high will be 55F
In 1925 it was 68F
In 1937 it was 20F
When "Global Warming" was proven to be a hoax, it was quickly re-branded to "Climate Change". All this "science" is based on computer models. They can tell me what the weather will be in 10 years, but they can't accurately tell me what it be, ... next week?
They only "real science", is that sun has cycles, and those cycles have a direct effect on this planet. In fact, on all the planets in this solar system. When our polar caps started to recede, so did the ones on Mars. They have now come back bigger and thicker, here, and on Mars. Now I don't have any positive proof, but I'm reasonably sure, the Martians are not burning any fossil fuels in their SUV's.
Warmest recorded?
Well no doubt it should be, ...if you take the time to see where the sensors are located. Like the ones a few feet from large office buildings, next to the exhaust from the A/C cooling units, or maybe the ones in the middle of an asphalt parking lot.
Author Brian Sussman exposes the hoax and the reasons behind it, in his well researched book. http://www.theclimategatebook.com/
Seeing how the left embraces this hoax as a religion, I can't help but think of this quote:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Joseph Goebbels
also, my local weatherman can barely get tomorrows forecast correct so who the hell knows what is going to happen in 10-20 or 50 years from now.
i agree its about money/ power.
I see a few here have dismissed the human participation because of the natural progressions.
But my friends, that is quite naive. You can keep peeing in the drinking well, and teach your children to pee in the well, and as the population grows more and more and keep peeing in the drinking well, soon it will be an outhouse you must drink from.
I assure you Mother Earth will deal with it in her own way.
Two separate events seem to be getting co mingled to come to a false premise.
Fortunately for me, and the rest of you I do not have off spring so I could give a flying f$%^ what happens after I am gone...gonna party til the lights go out!!! Some men just want to see the world burn....[;)]
"One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency".
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/
You laugh at cow farts causing global warming.
You're still drinking urine and arguing about how it got there. LOL.
You guys are missing it completely fighting over what to call what vs man screwing up his environment.
"One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency".
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/
You laugh at cow farts causing global warming.
You're still drinking urine and arguing about how it got there. LOL.
here is where our ozone went, they just wont admit it, we all blew holes in the atmosphere trying to learn how to destroy each other
I have a degree in science. I briefly worked at the David Taylor Model Basin in Indian Head, MD, where they built table top models of ecosystems & tried to use them to predict how environmental changes would impact the systems. This was before computer modelling, but the projections at the time were likely as unreliable as they are now.
It's really not possible to prove whether or not there is "climate change". Most real scientists that I know fear that mankind's messing with the planet will eventually reach a "tipping point", beyond which our abuse of the Earth will cause catastrophic changes that cannot be reversed. An ice age, a warm millennium, mass extinction, almost anything is possible.
My belief is that there will be an air inversion event that will cause millions of people to suffocate; I think it will be over either Mexico City or somewhere in Malaysia.
"Climate change" may be happening, but that is just a symptom of the problem. Temperatures at the upper levels of the atmosphere have been rising over the past 100 years, & the snow melt which the West coast depends upon for water is coming to a halt. You don't need to be a scientist, just check out Rocky Mountain National Park & Glacier National Park, where the glacier fields are now mostly high altitude meadows.
The least that we can do is implement a global program to reduce population. Many terrible diseases have been cured, & war is no longer sufficient to keep the world population manageable.
We continue to treat natural resources as though they are unlimited, but, trust me, oil, gas, & even coal will eventually run out. We have to conserve everything; we don't want our people to die out after 100-200 years.
Neal
"Opinions are like baracks, every body has one."
here is what i know: 10 years ago it was called "global warming" and since records weren't proving that out they started calling it "climate change" (and they have done a good job with that narrative seeing as most comments here call it that)that is a catchall phrase now for warming cooling whatever!
also, my local weatherman can barely get tomorrows forecast correct so who the hell knows what is going to happen in 10-20 or 50 years from now.
i agree its about money/ power.
How can you get anyone to agree with WHAT the problem is, the extent of the problem, how to fix the problem, who is going to fix it and how much will it cost along with a time line.
WHEN THE PEOPLE LIKE ME have seen this "crap" for 30+ years, warming, cooling, ozone, no freon, ozone layer getting bigger, littler, it's fixed.
What a joke this has become and why? I believe it's because a bunch of Fruit Loop Political activists went a few steps way too far and started to "silence" the scientists, professors and anyone else who didn't agree.
Now what you going to do? Prison camps for dissenters ie: deniers, that's a good term to "demonize" those non-believers.
or
NOW IT's WARMING,, then Climate Change,, give me a break.