Global Cooling(oops) how about warming?

Climate change or Extortion?

  • Climate change

    Votes: 22 57.9%
  • Extortion

    Votes: 16 42.1%

  • Total voters
    38
Status
Not open for further replies.

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
Well, Kat, if you read my previous posts you will see I'm agreeing with you....Man has definitely had a hand on mismanagement of the planet ..that doesn't negate the fact that warm weather leads to greater agriculture. And that technologies advance quicker from accrued knowledge due to better nourishment, increased populations, longer life spans, increased wealth, etc. Imagine then if another cooling period reduces the amount of arable land. That is why we need to understand how the planet cools as well as how it warms. The IPCC isn't interested in how the planet functions cosmologically, it's interest is in human CO2 production and it's adverse effects on the planet. That is their agenda and has been since 1988. While I believe in their scientific method in obtaining this information, I feel they are not utilizing all the information at their disposal. And I don't believe their peer review goes deep enough in all aspects of the science available on climate. History's greatest scientists were all on the fringe...from Newton to Galileo to Einstein and all suffered at the hands of mainstream science and partiality in peer review until proven correct. I see this same behavior now with the IPCC
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
The IPCC isn't interested in how the planet functions cosmologically, it's interest is in human CO2 production and it's adverse effects on the planet.
Yeah, see, that's the thing though. Warmer is better right up until the ice caps melt and turn the world into one big rice paddy. The actions of man and their adverse effects on the planet should be a higher priority than merely a scholarly issue like "how the planet functions cosmologically". Who cares how it functions if it becomes unlivable?
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
Or it's better right up until the freezing starts and the snow line drops and the planet loses a few million square miles of arable land...regardless of the IPCC and my view of their policies, my hope is that they will serve a purpose in educating the public about energy use and the energy footprint of individuals and countries on this planet. That people can become used to the idea of new energies and lobby their governments to impose stricter reusable energy models for its populace and industry. That the world itself can commit to hydrogen based fuels and solar power and quit using our solar reserves in the form of coal and oil. Using fear to promote this agenda is inappropriate and not applying all sciences to climate models is irrational
 

Kataphractos

freshmeboy said:
Well, Kat, if you read my previous posts you will see I'm agreeing with you....Man has definitely had a hand on mismanagement of the planet ..that doesn't negate the fact that...
No no no no no no no. One thing at a time. You say that in the natural course of things, the planet should be cooler than it is; you deny that global warming is happening. Those are mutually contradictory positions. You only get to pick one. So:

yours truly said:
Something funky started happening to the climate right around...the mid-1700s, the mid-1800s. And then increased throughout the 19th, 20th, and early 21st Centuries. What could that something be, Fresh?
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
"Something funky started happening to the climate right around...the mid-1700s, the mid-1800s. And then increased throughout the 19th, 20th, and early 21st Centuries. What could that something be, Fresh?"

Not to answer for Fresh, but my reply would be that your assertion is not correct.

As I posted earlier, we have pretty doggone definitive evidence that the Earth has been warmer than it is now several times during human history (to say nothing of pre-human history).

We know that it was warmer during the Minoan Warming Period (roughly 2500-3000 years ago), again during the Roman Warming Period (roughly 2000 years ago) and yet again during the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 800-1000 years ago). We know this from seeds found in areas where, in a cooler climate, they would not grow. We know from tree rings because trees tend to grow less during warmer periods. We know from ice cores, which have layers whose thickness rises and falls with the temperature. We also know from human records and activities. Either chariots were as heavy a polluter as a modern SUV or we're dealing with ideology, not science.

Addressing Fresh directly: if you are not familiar with Bjorn Lomborg, you are certainly thinking along parallel lines. He does believe that the planet is warming, but he questions whether man is having an effect and, if so, how much of an effect. He also believes that, as cold kills far more people than heat, a slightly warmer planet might not be the worst thing for humanity. Finally, he believes that the cost of such programs as Progressives advocate will not result in benefits commensurate with such cost. While I do not agree with him in all aspects, I do judge him to be a thoughtful skeptic who presents Progressives with some very substantial arguments which they generally refuse to even attempt to rebut.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
To Kataphractos...yes the planet can get warmer from greenhouse gases and be cooled by the hibernating sun at the same time. I have NEVER denied the adverse aspects of CO2 on our atmosphere but I worry more about the poisoning of our oceans than a little warming. ...I have not read Lomborg, Mustapha, but there are other professors and authors who share my sentiments about the future climate of our planet. They are solar scientists and ice core analysts that complain the IPCC ignores relevant information that is detrimental or in contrast to their narrative and agenda. To question the planet's climate in any way other than to claim man is warming it is to invite ridicule and denial. Pretty much anything mankind does on this planet is detrimental to the planet's health as an living, breathing organism. The systems in play are too vast and complex for our limited understanding but focusing on one area and using fear to promote these theories is not good responsible science.
 

ValhallaEmpire

Active Member
Bravo guys, this was quite a show.

If we are to believe the 'facts' as we're labeling them, that would mean that we should be more focus on abolishing major cities, spreading populations evenly, based on land mass, and working to reduce populations drastically.

Seeing all the delightful things that humans do to the planet, on the planet, heck, even in the planet, I'm in full support of reducing populations. But, while most of the world would love to say the US first, because they are tired of being behind us on several fronts, I'd say a more realistic approach is looking at the true major polluting countries, as it connects to their population, and starting in those places first.

China, India, they're obviously on top of that list. But, as you move along these intersecting lines of data, you'll find places like Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa, Germany, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the list would go on and on and on, of countries that pollute far worse, when factoring in their population. And they wouldn't like being put at the front of that line, and they'd whine and complain that the "US is rigging this," and on it would go.

I'm all for responsibility, but when the facts get factored in, you'd be surprised who jumps off their soap box. We certainly could be doing things better, but so could nearly everyone else. I for one, want to visit the Maldives some day, and ice caps melting is not going to sustain that life goal for me. But after digging into some of those island nations that dot the Indian Ocean, Seychelles, Mauritius, and so forth, I've come to conclusion that their raw sewage systems that jet straight out into the ocean, mere 50 feet from their own resort beaches, with no meaningful treatment, might be causing some our clean water problems, on a world wide scale, when you remember how much many of these types of places depend on tourism, from all over.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
Frankly, the whole situation could be resolved with hydrogen fuel used on a massive scale along with hydro and solar...the tech to control the high pressure of storing hydrogen is already a proven science using, of all things, recycled chicken feathers. The US alone throws 3 billion pounds of them in landfills yearly and, while biodegradable, they can be used for many other items in everyday life because of their kerotin content as well as a fuel base. Eventually, we need to learn how to recycle EVERYTHING...from feathers to cornstalks..
 

ValhallaEmpire

Active Member
Frankly, the whole situation could be resolved with hydrogen fuel used on a massive scale along with hydro and solar...the tech to control the high pressure of storing hydrogen is already a proven science using, of all things, recycled chicken feathers. The US alone throws 3 billion pounds of them in landfills yearly and, while biodegradable, they can be used for many other items in everyday life because of their kerotin content as well as a fuel base. Eventually, we need to learn how to recycle EVERYTHING...from feathers to cornstalks..
Yes, recycling needs to be expanded drastically, and thoroughly researched. My point, snide as it is, is about pollution. We need to halt the pollution issues. Our waste, as a glaring example, is not handled properly in countries outside the US, and Western Europe. Many other countries deliberately lag behind on this issue, because it's easier to skip over, than invest in legitimate infrastructure. While ice caps melting presents a significant danger, the pH, salinity, and mineral damage we do to water on a routine basis is truly criminal. And yes, there problems with water pollution the US needs to address as thoroughly as the human waste issue elsewhere.

We owe it to us, all of us, if to no one else, to fix those problems right now.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
The engine behind change in recycling efforts is profit based on products that can be made from said recycled products. The key is polymers and major breakthroughs are being made in alternative polymer science. It's a tough row to hoe though...because petroleum based polymers are available and plentiful. Make no mistake, when the world runs short on oil, the drilling will start in Antarctica and the environment be damned. That's why these new recycle techs need to be implemented now regardless of cost..
 

Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

Well-Known Member
As a power source?
As a safe power source for almost any scale, safe at car level generation and able to scale up to city wide deployment, small power stations minimal transmission, less chance of storms knocking out power and a viable option in 3rd world countries where copper theft makes banks skittish about investing in electrical grid development. Minimal waste, extremely low radiation when operating and almost none shortly after shutdown & waste can't be weaponized (reason why it wasn't pursued in the US). Most likely entirely pointless to pursue as almost everyone is afraid of nuclear power sources though.
 

Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

Well-Known Member
Nuclear bans are some of the dumbest things that have happened in the history of mankind.
They've happened with good intentions but poor consequences. as a big of an issue in the electrical field is energy storage imho. I haven't been following it much in the past year or so, but I'm still hoping for something big from graphene.
 

Paris 54

New Member
Dursland & Stephan, I should ask you this from my original comment. Why or how is it that the current (or not to distant past) is the accepted standard for the climate.
I've heard climate scientist speak about losing funding because they would not back up the agenda.
Also I've read where they have found Alligator fossils in Canada, & Viking graveyards under the perma frost in Greenland, where many Vikings settled in so that they could farm.
In closing when you take into account that the Sun occupies 95% of the mass in our solar system & that it is 11 million degrees, it & it alone may be the culprit. Some guy landed on the Sun during the night to take it's temperature.hehehe.
Yes, the overall temperature of the Earth is always changing, which is why we've had ice ages as well as hotter periods of time, but that happened over millions of years. Over the last century the temperature has (generally) increased a lot faster than is normal and natural
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
Sorry Paris but the geological view of temperature on this planet is not correct and the ice cores drilled in Greenland in '95 prove it....This planet suffers from major temperature changes in time periods that span 30-80 years and vast changes that occur in hundreds of years. Calling the temp increase on this planet (small as it is ) as unnatural is also a fallacy. This planet is in the longest warming period over its last 300,000 years and it has been colder rather than warmer during most of that history. Assuming a static temperature on Earth is just wrong as it is a cyclic system created by the sun and the planets of our solar system. The Earth is also a part of cosmological weather system...Other planets (especially Jupiter) affect our weather...
 

Dursland

I am Dursland
"Not long ago, the phrase “no single event can be attributed to climate change” was repeated like a catechism. This is no longer true."

"better climate models, more powerful computers, and refined methodologies now allow researchers to quantify how climate change has increased the likelihood or severity of heat waves, droughts, deluges, and other extreme events."

"The record global heat of 2016, a strangely warm patch of water off Alaska known as “the blob,” and deadly heat waves in Asia weren’t just more likely because of climate change — they were only possible because of it."

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/20/17031676/climate-change-lawsuits-fossil-fuel-new-york-santa-cruz
 

DreadfulCadillac

Well-Known Member
I'm not blaming man for climate change & yes the sun has a direct effect on our climate, don't you think the climate would change if the sun went dark? I don't know what church has to do w/ this subject.
I'm wondering when we will be told that we can use this man made climate change to make Mars a warm cozy place to move to?
PLease stop acting stupid.Really!? Come on you know that isint true
 
Status
Not open for further replies.