MEMBERS COMMENTS

< Prev  1 / 44  Next >
Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C? 87% Posted Mar 2019

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C?

Comment: 2 hours ago

I accept that greenhouse gasses can trap heat but the extent that humans are the only cause of the global warming, I don't agree.

I also accept that CO2 is not the largest greenhouse gas, that’s water vapor.  How much water vapor is caused by humans in unknown.  

Water vapor acts as a regulator.  The hotter it gets, the more water evaporates causing clouds of water vapor.  Those clouds either block the radiation from the sun or reflect it back into space.  When there are lots of clouds, you get the less heat.  So there is a maximum temperature the earth can get to because the water vapor will regulate it.

Now for you to return the courtesy and answer a question.  What caused the Roman Warming and Medieval Warming periods and what caused the temperatures to go back down instead of just staying at those temperatures?

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C? 87% Posted Mar 2019

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C?

Comment: 6 hours ago

Surprised you didn't answer my question with the answer "Never."  Since nobody can answer that question, it's the reason AGW is not a theory.  It's just a hypothesis.  You would have to know exactly what part of our climate change is caused from human activity and which is natural.  You would realize we are in an ice age that we would naturally come out of at some time with or without humans.  When that would be, nobody knows.  Perhaps it was time now.  There’s no way of knowing.  But when you go back and see the temperature fluctuations before the industrial age for hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of years ago, it’s clear that human activity is not the only reason the temperature rises.

Shouldn't sea levels have risen by now? 87% Posted Mar 2019

Shouldn't sea levels have risen by now?

Comment: 2 days ago

“clear that mean sea levels have been rising for around 20,000 years.”  You are forbidden to use any data before 1880 as that would tell people the truth.  Go back and redo your video so it scares the public into thinking that it has only risen after the industrial revolution.
 

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C? 87% Posted Mar 2019

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C?

Comment: 2 days ago

“There is no ‘normal’ for the climate. “  Incorrect.  Define Normal: “conforming to a standard, usual, typical, or expected.”  You can look at our historical record to determine the usual or typical temperatures and that is what’s normal.  Anything outside that would be abnormal.  Our current temperatures are abnormally low because we are in an ice age.

“Why not go back 4.5 billion years”  Good question.  Why not?  Since the data is there, you should expose it but that wouldn't tell the story the politicians want you to hear.

“A better metric would be what temperature range can humans thrive in.” That’s good too.  Considering a lot of life existed when it was 25C, I don’t see any reason why humans couldn’t live in that environment.  From my last source, those temperature fluctuations were during the last 12,000 of the estimated 200,000 years humans were on the planet.  No problem then.  

“But even if you go back to the Medieval Warm Period (950 - 1100), it was cooler than it is today.”  Your source is flawed.  Most of the time those graphs are smoothed and averaged to remove peaks and valleys to deceive the public.  Previous versions of the hockey stick graph showed those peaks from the Medieval Warm Period but later was taken out because too many people saw the truth.  “The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present. Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures “  https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128045886000215-f21-09-9780128045886.jpg and https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period  When you look at those, notice there was a Roman period that was warmer too.

“There are no known natural phenomena that can account for the warming we are experiencing.” Suppose you didn’t read the first link I provided then.  It explains it to those willing to learn.

“the sun has been in a cooling trend for the past 30 years” Interesting that you believe it is heat from the sun that heats our planet.  I thought it was through radiation because there’s a vacuum in space that makes it difficult for the heat of the sun to transfer over to the earth.  Once the radiation hits our atmosphere (not a vacuum), it converts that radiation to heat and transfers that heat around the planet through radiation, conduction, and convection.

“We're in for a rough ride.” I’ve asked this before and you haven’t answered.  If humans were not on the planet, what year would it have to be in order to arrive at our current temperatures naturally?

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C? 87% Posted Mar 2019

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C?

Comment: 2 days ago

I thought you’ve been on this site long enough to have seen my previous posts that answers your 25C question.  It’s not an arbitrarily picked number.  It’s how warm it was during the majority of time life was on the planet.  Then it cooled and we are currently in an ice age.  

You talk about having stable climates for the last 12,000 so why don’t scientists use that data to show a better hockey puck graph?  Answer, you would find that it wasn’t so stable after-all.  

“The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years). “  Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16006-1_2

That paper also talks about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age of the last millennium which people usually "forget" to talk about.

“Two rapid warming events dated ~14,700 and ~11,500 cal year BP were clearly greater than background climate variability. Between these intervals, the climate varied between alternating centennial warm and cool phases.“

Look at some of those graphs that show the last 10,000 years and notice how hot it was compared to year 0.

“We have only 12.”  Not really.  Read the paper I linked.  It shows the variability within the last 12,000 years.  Life was on this planet during that time and I see no reason for humans to go extinct when they have been through this before with a lot less technology.

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C? 87% Posted Mar 2019

Big Think | Earth 2C hotter will be horrific, but what about 4C?

Comment: 4 days ago

We are currently at 16C and will eventually get to 25C.  That is the normal temperature of the planet when it’s not in an ice age.  Deal with it by adaptation or extinction, your choice.

Noam Chomsky on Sunrise Movement 87% Posted Mar 2019

Noam Chomsky on Sunrise Movement

Comment: 4 days ago

“Pretty close to level of warming of 125,000 years ago when sea levels were about 30 feet higher than it is today.”  Finally, someone has admitted that it was worse before the industrial revolution.  Humans were around 125,000 years ago so it has always been deceiving to use 1880 as the first date to include on the hockey puck graph.  Too bad this guy isn’t a climate scientist so nobody will listen to him.

Andrew Yang | Conversation with the Candidate 88% Posted Mar 2019

Andrew Yang | Conversation with the Candidate

Comment: 14 days ago

Natural disasters, by definition, are not manmade.  Define Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.  So this means that there are zero natural disasters caused by AGW.

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law 86% Posted Feb 2019

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law

Comment: 19 days ago

Who is this "He" to whom you're referring?  I am also a scientist so what does that mean to you?  Probably jack shit.  Just like I don't take the word of any other scientists without proof and neither should you.

What else do I need to know you ask?  Read the question above and it will all be revealed to you.  The fact you asked means you either didn't read it already or you don't know how to read it.

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law 86% Posted Feb 2019

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law

Comment: 19 days ago

“With a brief statement ("For a hypothesis to become a proven theory, you need to test that hypothesis.") ... you show that you have very little understanding of science.”  I got that from the video we are posting these comments.  You did watch the video that you’re posting comments to didn’t you?  Are you saying this video is wrong?  Look at 2:53.

“No facts are ever going to change this man's view.”  That’s not true. Anyway, it would be more believable if they would just come clean and tell the truth and say that it’s not only burning fossil fuels and transportation that is causing it.  Maybe if they say it’s agriculture, deforestation, raising livestock for human consumption, production of cement, CFCs, natural cycles of the planet entering and leaving ice ages, and more, then I might start believing it.  But all you hear about is CO2 but CO2 is a good gas for plant life and if the plants weren’t destroyed so you could build your house then those plants might be able to consume more of that CO2.  We may never know all the real causes because there are so many factors involved and your so-called scientists keep brainwashing the public into believing that it’s only one factor — CO2.

They also lie about the consensus by saying it’s 95% of scientists that agree humans are the cause.  Actually, it’s 95% of cherry-picked papers and not scientists at all.  They also don’t mention the scientists that don’t want to discuss it in fear of reprisal if they go against the mainstream.  There are some scientists who have reached tenure status so they cannot be fired and they have stated against AGW. 

If you can answer this one simple question with facts and evidence, I will believe.  Question:  If humans were not on this planet, what year would it have to be for the planet to have naturally reached our current temperatures  and what year was Earth supposed to naturally come out of our current ice age?

I’m curious about what impact to the temperature there would be if all the humans on the planet suddenly became vegans.  

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law 86% Posted Feb 2019

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law

Comment: 19 days ago

“agw has been tested.”  That’s the black swan theory.  The fact that we have CO2 on the planet and CO2 can warm the planet means that man-made CO2 is the only factor that’s causing global warming. Just like all swans are white because you’ve never seen a black one.  Well, I’m here to tell you that you jumped to a conclusion.  Everyone knows, including scientists, that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas.  Can you tell me how much of that water vapor is man made?  Since you don’t have answers to simple questions like this is what makes AGW not a theory.  It’s just a hypothesis.  What global experiments have been done to test the AGW hypothesis?  Can you remove some of that CO2 and confirm that the temperature goes back down?

“during the last ice age there was an ice sheet sat over most of the uk.”  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Having an ice sheet over most of the UK is not a requirement to be in an ice age.   “Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age” 

During the majority of the planet’s existence including prominent periods such as the Jurassic period, there wasn’t ice there and the mean temperature was 25C and life was thriving.  It would probably still be like that today if it weren’t for a giant asteroid that hit the planet causing a major extinction event.  

Also, why do scientists keep quoting that the temperature has risen a couple degrees since the industrial age.  Why don’t they show increases in temperatures since the beginning of humans 200,000 years ago?  Simple because it wouldn’t show the hockey stick and tell the same story.  Scare tactics.  People would see that it was warmer even without human intervention.  

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law 86% Posted Feb 2019

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law

Comment: 20 days ago

For a hypothesis to become a proven theory, you need to test that hypothesis.  Can you tell me what tests were done to prove AGW?  Can it be reproduced?

A look at other planets show it’s possible for planets to have extreme temperatures without human intervention.  Venus is a good example of an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 (96%) which increased without humans.  Looks like Mars once had water but it dried up without humans and it's further away from the sun.  We are between both of those planets and we will heat up to 25C as that is our typical historical temperatures and it will happen with or without humans.  The Earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles and we are in one of those cool cycles now called an ice age.

AGW only has one thing going for it and that’s the scientific community has written a bunch of papers regarding it and a survey of those papers written specifically about AGW says it’s true 95% of the time.  To be a theory, you need proof, not a consensus of reports.

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law 86% Posted Feb 2019

It's Okay To Be Smart | Fact vs Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law

Comment: 20 days ago

“Evolution by natural selection is a theory.  So is climate change.”  Disagree that AGW is a theory.

Fact = The temperature is rising observed by looking at historical records.

Hypothesis = CO2 is rising due to human activity and that CO2 is the cause of the increasing temperatures.

There are multiple hypothesis and you eliminate the ones that are wrong.  Another hypothesis is that the warming is caused by the natural exit of the current ice age which would have occurred even if humans did not exist.  Since this has not been proven wrong, the AGW hypothesis cannot be promoted to the theory level.

His definition of theory was you start with facts, then create a hypothesis, then test the hypothesis, then predictions.  The problem is that AGW was not tested and clearly cannot be predicted.  All the models created are always wrong.  They usually underestimate the temperature rise. 

His example of people getting sick and testing the hypothesis by scratching out “gluten” was a bad example.  Celiac people do get sick because of gluten.

Bernie Sanders grills EPA nominee Andrew Wheeler 87% Posted Jan 2019

Bernie Sanders grills EPA nominee Andrew Wheeler

Comment: 60 days ago

There have been massive forest fires way before the industrial revolution so you cannot pick specific fires and say that particular one was caused by humans burning fossil fuels but others are not.

Scientists have been very reluctant to state specific natural events are related to climate change.  They will say that the increased intensity of them is related but will not say a specific fire or specific hurricane wouldn’t have happened if humans were not on the planet.

 

How we can beat climate change 87% Posted Jan 2019

How we can beat climate change

Comment: 62 days ago

That actually sounds logical but then explain why the burning of fossil fuels doesn't help the production of wheat farms and trees used for lumber.  I previously stated that CO2 shouldn't be considered a bad gas because it's what plants need to grow.  We are basically putting plant food in the atmosphere. 

Maybe the big problem is with deforestation that is taking away the plants which would normally consume that CO2.  So instead of blaming the creating of CO2, blame the back end where it would normally be converted back into trees and O2.

How we can beat climate change 87% Posted Jan 2019

How we can beat climate change

Comment: 62 days ago

It annoys me greatly when people believe renewable sources are good for the planet.  Biomass is a renewable resource and it still emits greenhouse gases.  Refer to earthobservatory.nasa dot gov/features/BiomassBurning

Just use the words solar, wind, and geothermal or other sources you mean.  Try to refrain from using “renewable” as a good solution unless you also exclude biomass in your discussion.

Solar generation is virtually free per kWh but once you factor in the costs of the panels and the installation, then it takes about 12 years to break even.  The efficiency of the solar panel decreases in time so you need to factor that in by adding new panels to keep up with the initial output.  Electrical output goes down as dust and pollen form on them requiring frequent cleaning.  Finally, the output isn’t stable enough to rely on.  I wouldn’t run a computer solely on a solar panel where you could lose all your work the moment a shadow forms on your panels.  You will either need to store that energy in expensive batteries or have a backup supply using traditional production methods.

Thom Hartmann | The Extinction Domino Effect 87% Posted Dec 2018

Thom Hartmann | The Extinction Domino Effect

Comment: 86 days ago

“The possibility that all live on earth could end.” That’s what WalterEgo used to say and now it’s rubbing off on Thom Hartmann. Thom says 5 to 6 degrees warming is all it takes to wipe out most of the life on the planet.  I whole heartedly disagree.  It’s currently 16C and it was 25C during most of the time prior when life was on this planet such as the Jurassic period. If it wasn’t for the ice age that we are currently in, we would still be at those temperatures and life certainly thrived during that time.  It was an asteroid that killed the larger animals, not the 25C temperatures.

Regarding the decrease of bugs, the government pays for spraying to kill those insects purposely.  It’s to keep the mosquito population down but I can imagine it would kill other insects too and then kill anything that relies on eating those insects.  That is not a global warming cause.  I pay a company to put pesticide around my house because many of those will kill my lawn.  Again, that’s nothing to do with global warming.  Let’s see a correlation of pesticide production versus decrease of insects and I will guarantee you will see a link.  Regarding the banning of certain pesticides, that is meaningless if you still have pesticides that kill insects.  DDT was banned but not because it was effective at killing insects but because of adverse affects on humans such as cancer.  There have been hundreds of other pesticides created after DDT was banned.

Regarding the salmon and tuna decrease, that’s due to over fishing — not global warming.

“Here we are looking out on a world that we are killing and we are killing it with fossil fuels.”  There was a video posted on Boreme, ID=51442, that listed the top 20 causes and #1 was Refrigeration CFC’s, 8 of them were food related, 4 were land use related, and only 4 out of the top 20 were related to energy.  It is easier to become a vegetarian than you would be trying to get rid of all energy production on the planet.

15-year-old condemns world's inaction on climate change 95% Posted Dec 2018

15-year-old condemns world's inaction on climate change

Comment: 93 days ago

I find it interesting that everyone keeps talking about the world not doing anything but they don’t do anything themselves.  The fact this 15 y/o  traveled from Sweden to Poland means she added to the global warming of the planet so she’s what we call a hypocrite. Stop telling other people what to do unless you are first to do it yourself.  Stop driving your cars (or in your case using the bus to school), using your heaters in the winter, and eating meat before telling others to do it.

The Economist | What if the world went vegan by 2050? 87% Posted Nov 2018

The Economist | What if the world went vegan by 2050?

Comment: 110 days ago

You did say it and I provided a link to where you said it.  You did not quote anyone from the video nor did you put quotation marks around the comment.

The Economist | What if the world went vegan by 2050? 87% Posted Nov 2018

The Economist | What if the world went vegan by 2050?

Comment: 111 days ago

WalterEgo said “Nearly 100% of climate CHANGE - is caused by burning of fossil fuels” so when this video says the environmental impacts of the food system are daunting, it’s responsible for about a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions, they didn’t consult with our resident expert WalterEgo.  The video lies further by stating that the food could go up to 50% of greenhouse gas by 2050.  If only the scientists knew as much as WalterEgo. . . 

Source: https://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=51297

PROFILE

guest123456789

guest123456789