Climate Change...Earth Orbit?

[cowslinger64]

But...But, Our mission is either to annoy you to death or drive you even more insane than you already are.

It's a thankless task for most people but for us it has it's own reward.

You guys don't bother me.. Try not to overstate your influence. I find it a little discouraging the amount of silliness here.. But I don't have to play if I don't wish to.

BTW.. You still skipped the mission accomplished thread where you got owned after ripping someone.. Standing behind ones words would help, IMO.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

In short the Earth survives the ravages of man over time. What you lefties fail to understand is that "Man" is just as much a part of nature and the environment as any other species. Man's activities vis a vis the environment are just as "natural" as those of the bear the sheep or the deer.

Yes, all true; but our capacity to render our own environment inhospitable to us is, while probably not unique among known species, certainly unusual.

Anthropogenic climate change is not a threat to "the Earth," it is a threat to humanity -- and the first existential threat humanity has faced since the Cold War ended.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

When a herd of elephants denude an area of trees, they move on. When the Buffalo graze off a tract of prairie, they move. Nature recovers.

But this is a global problem and we have nowhere to move on to.

As was the Ice Age.

Well, no. Our ancestors did well enough in it, and, in fact, evolved into Homo sapiens during it. We could adapt to that better than the other extreme.

Nothing reduces a given habitat or destroys it faster and more thoroughly than Nature itself. Years ago I posted an article pointing out the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines released more CFCs into the atmosphere in a matter of days than the total North American production of CFCs in years. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? We spent billions converting air conditioner systems in the West because the silver ponytails were afraid of Freon. It was based on the bullshit that Freon would destroy the ozone layer, which like the "Population Bomb," was total bullshit..

It was a justified fear at the time -- and still is -- and the hole's rate of expansion slowed after, and almost certainly because, CFCs were phased out.

 

[Mister_Chris]

Sigh.

...I don't know why I continue to allow myself to be dragged into this. It's a bit like trying to teach high school chemistry to a histrionic two year old.

Neither Mount Pinatubo, nor any other Volcano, has ever released Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) into the atmosphere. Some measurements have detected precursor gases which, when combined correctly in a laboratory setting, could produce CFCs; but there is no evidence of their actually having done so in the wild. Actual CFC's have never been measured from any naturally occurring source, including volcanoes.

Mount Pinatubo did release large quantities of sulfur dioxide, which cooled the planet noticeably for about two years. This has led to speculation that, if things got really bad, we could release huge quantities of man made sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The difficulty with doing this is that it results in ocean acidification, which causes erosion of the calcium shells many bottom of the food chain sea creatures depend on. If they are removed, the animals that prey on them will go hungry; and the whole thing might - or might not - translate up the food chain. It would be much better if we could avoid needing sulfur dioxide as a cooling agent in the first place.

Thank you, KingOrfeo, for the link to the Forbes article. That is the first good news in climate change that I've seen for a very long time.

To be clear, we're still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the megaton. It's just that the amount this year is no greater than that of last year, despite a growth in the global economy. I'm not exactly what to attribute that to; I know that China has been trying to get their air pollution problem under control, and perhaps CO2 release has been mitigated as a byproduct of their efforts. At any rate, it's good news; perhaps just a blip of good news, but good news nonetheless. Thanks for sharing that.

For those interested in a decent, unbiased discussion of what we know about climate change, and why we know it, I would recommend this lecture by Kerry Emanuel of MIT. He's a staunch republican, a member of the National Academy of Science, and has appeared on Time Magazines list of 100 most influential people. Here's the youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so8GRCWA1k

regards, MC

 

[PoppingTom]

But...But, Our mission is either to annoy you to death or drive you even more insane than you already are.

It's a thankless task for most people but for us it has it's own reward.

We all know how political trolling works and why it exists. Who do you think you impress with that?

It's sometimes funny to see how people who seem to be intelligent and able to do even complicated math doing joint actions with people not able to do full sentences or counting higher than 2 and have a hard time leaving even the most evil insult level.

Just because dumb people are a threat to society, doesn't mean we fear them or are impressed by their stupidity. I don't know why, but I think that's the part some people here missing, if they are real.

 

[freshNyummy]

While I fully believe it is important to be a good steward of the planet here is basically my take on MMGW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

"Scientists from the University of Southern Denmark and the China National Petroleum Corporation investigated marine sediment from the Xiamaling Formation in China..."

really?

i'm sure their findings are not biased...from the same publication we get this banner:


Latest: Suzanne Somers Reveals the Secret to Feel 20 Years Younger

good science...

 

[freshNyummy]

"Scientists from the University of Southern Denmark and the China National Petroleum Corporation investigated marine sediment from the Xiamaling Formation in China..."

really?

i'm sure their findings are not biased...from the same publication we get this banner:


Latest: Suzanne Somers Reveals the Secret to Feel 20 Years Younger

good science...

oops, wrong quote. i'd take george carlin over the china petroleum corp anytime!

 

[KingOrfeo]

oops, wrong quote. i'd take george carlin over the china petroleum corp anytime!

Me too. But George is dead and PetroChina ain't.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is no proof it's man caused.

That's what you say; practically all climatologists say different.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

No, only the left says this, those who are in the business of managing the liberty and property of people.

I repeat:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

(I suppose now you're gonna tell me Wikipedia, founded by the Objectivist Jimmy Wales, has a liberal bias.)

And:

Scientific consensus

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
And many more.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[14] In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).[15][16]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Looking back, how well did this work out for your side?

"Science was wrong before" is always a bullshit argument.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

"Science is always right" is a bullshit argument as well.

That's why no scientist makes it. Do you understand anything about science at all?!

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

"Science is always right" is a bullshit argument as well.

Yes, much. I understand that we don't know as much as we think we know.

My head almost spun around when I read these two posts.

You obviously know nothing of science. Science is never wrong, that's what makes it science.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Science is never wrong, that's what makes it science.

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

There is no proof it's man caused.

There is a very strong theory, and no supported alternatives. That is, assuming you don't have another explanation for atmospheric isotopic signatures.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Give an example.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's what he's teaching kids in school. That's why some grow up thinking science is always right about everything.

Again, it is. Unless you can find an instance where science was wrong.