Severe Weather

Trump_1776 · Jul 27, 2019

raven said:
never know if you're joking or not

I'm correct 99% of the time. As cool as that may sound, it's not all that great. It's called the competency curse, and people follow me around.
Oh well

MNK99 · Jul 27, 2019

thats exactly what they do thru intl trade organizations and their globalist movements, and things like the UN. And their bullshit international lawsuits. 8 countries in particular but especially USA, UK, and Canada. Good point.

tanedout said:
Like I said, I tend to agree, but you can't say you know for sure because it's too complex to model, and there is clearly some 'bending of the truth' from both the for and against camps to make the facts support their arguments. Even if it was proven beyond doubt, it's hard for Western countries to tell developing ones to stop polluting. They think it's their turn to industrialise, and it's difficult to force them to do otherwise.

Niles · Jul 27, 2019

raven said:
There is a huge wealth of evidence that human activity is changing the climate, the idea that we can pump billions of tonnes of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere and it have no effect on our climate is only pushed by those with strong financial motivation in denying reality

Seriously, I hate how people talk about "believing" in climate change, like it's Bigfoot or something. Ironically, those sorts of people would believe in Bigfoot and cite Alex Jones yelling about it as evidence.

Trump_1776 said:
Fart in the wind. Little to no evidence we have any impact at all. Ice core data is not 100% accurate but still shows how earth was ~2 degrees C warmer around 50,000 years ago. It's cyclical.
If the water levels raised 1/10 of what liberal propaganda says it would, UK is gone. The entire bottom of the U.S. is gone. Both coasts gone. Banks would not be giving loans for any property on a shore.

The causal relationship between human activity and climate change is a theory backed up by enough scientific data for us to act on, and we have the responsibility to do so. Of course you could do mental gymnastics to poke holes in the overwhelming evidence, but that's not science. If a different theory were to be supported by a significant amount of evidence then a debate could be had, but that's just not the case. Do your own research of primary scientific sources listed in academic digital archives, NOT just the same handful of anecdotes and ExxonMobil studies cherry picked by biased articles, and this should be clear to anyone.

I'm curious as to why anyone would be so willfully ignorant of climate change anyway—I just don't get it. Is it because AOC et al keep pushing it, and they represent everything you hate about liberal America? Is it really just a political allegiance thing? Or have you actually just not looked into it for yourself, instead opting to passively accept the word of alt-right pundits as being stronger than scientific consensus?

Nighteyes · Jul 28, 2019

Niles said:
Seriously, I hate how people talk about "believing" in climate change, like it's Bigfoot or something. Ironically, those sorts of people would believe in Bigfoot and cite Alex Jones yelling about it as evidence.

The causal relationship between human activity and climate change is a theory backed up by enough scientific data for us to act on, and we have the responsibility to do so. Of course you could do mental gymnastics to poke holes in the overwhelming evidence, but that's not science. If a different theory were to be supported by a significant amount of evidence then a debate could be had, but that's just not the case. Do your own research of primary scientific sources listed in academic digital archives, NOT just the same handful of anecdotes and ExxonMobil studies cherry picked by biased articles, and this should be clear to anyone.

I'm curious as to why anyone would be so willfully ignorant of climate change anyway—I just don't get it. Is it because AOC et al keep pushing it, and they represent everything you hate about liberal America? Is it really just a political allegiance thing? Or have you actually just not looked into it for yourself, instead opting to passively accept the word of alt-right pundits as being stronger than scientific consensus?

Sometimes I Think it is about people wanting to feel “special” by not believing what the majority believes. There is a uniqueness that people cherish in looking for contrarian oppinions and adopting these. Then they no longer neutrally base their oppinion on which side has the most evidence in favor of it but cling to their contrarian beliefs. Our ego is not always pleased with doing/believing what most other people do. I suppose it creates a natural balance that is advantageous in many instances and is probably deeply encoded in us.

Trump_1776 · Jul 28, 2019

Niles said:
Seriously, I hate how people talk about "believing" in climate change, like it's Bigfoot or something. Ironically, those sorts of people would believe in Bigfoot and cite Alex Jones yelling about it as evidence.

The causal relationship between human activity and climate change is a theory backed up by enough scientific data for us to act on, and we have the responsibility to do so. Of course you could do mental gymnastics to poke holes in the overwhelming evidence, but that's not science. If a different theory were to be supported by a significant amount of evidence then a debate could be had, but that's just not the case. Do your own research of primary scientific sources listed in academic digital archives, NOT just the same handful of anecdotes and ExxonMobil studies cherry picked by biased articles, and this should be clear to anyone.

I'm curious as to why anyone would be so willfully ignorant of climate change anyway—I just don't get it. Is it because AOC et al keep pushing it, and they represent everything you hate about liberal America? Is it really just a political allegiance thing? Or have you actually just not looked into it for yourself, instead opting to passively accept the word of alt-right pundits as being stronger than scientific consensus?

Swing and a miss.

MNK99 · Jul 28, 2019

lmfao. haha.

Niles · Jul 28, 2019

Trump_1776 said:
Swing and a miss.

Seriously, please do go to any academic digital library and search "climate change + human activity", and you'll start to see things differently. Unless you dismiss what you find by reasoning that the liberal propaganda machine has faked hundreds of independent studies over the past sixty years, with next to no incentive to do so, or that some Alex Jones logic somehow carries more weight than the entire scientific community.

Social issues can be debated with feelings, anecdotes, and allegiances, but this is science. The only reason climate change has become so highly politicized is because of oil money in the pockets of politicians. Do you really want to have your world view shaped by oil money over science?

Trump_1776 · Jul 28, 2019

Niles said:
Seriously, please do go to any academic digital library and search "climate change + human activity", and you'll start to see things differently. Unless you dismiss what you find by reasoning that the liberal propaganda machine has faked hundreds of independent studies over the past sixty years, with next to no incentive to do so, or that some Alex Jones logic somehow carries more weight than the entire scientific community.

Social issues can be debated with feelings, anecdotes, and allegiances, but this is science. The only reason climate change has become so highly politicized is because of oil money in the pockets of politicians. Do you really want to have your world view shaped by oil money over science?

Yes, being in research I've seen first hand how funding is given out and no i don't believe them

RebelWithACause · Jul 28, 2019

I'm going to be honest here. I don't give a shit about climate change. I'm not even driving a fucking car. I drive my bicycle everywhere and sometimes I take the train.

I am living green already.

As if Joe Schmoe can stop the Earth from heating up.

If I can't change it I don't worry about it. Good luck with it.

raven · Jul 28, 2019

Trump_1776 said:
Yes, being in research I've seen first hand how funding is given out and no i don't believe them

swear you posted your high school stats hwk a few months ago

Walker · Jul 28, 2019

I’m no expert in climate change, and I don’t honestly have an opinion on it politically one way or the other, but if the Earth was “warming” - why did I have record lows 45 minutes down the road from me this week? The engineer/tech mind in me has to ask the question.

Honestly asking the question - not trying to say it’s happening or not one way or the other.

raven · Jul 28, 2019

Walker said:
I’m no expert in climate change, and I don’t honestly have an opinion on it politically one way or the other, but if the Earth was “warming” - why did I have record lows 45 minutes down the road from me this week? The engineer/tech mind in me has to ask the question.

Honestly asking the question - not trying to say it’s happening or not one way or the other.

Global warming means that the average surface temperature of the planet is increasing, but short term we can still experience dips in temperature. The weather fluctuations week to week will always be too complicated for us to accurately predict, but the long term trendline is that the surface temperature has been increasing since the 60s

Niles · Jul 28, 2019

Trump_1776 said:
Yes, being in research I've seen first hand how funding is given out and no i don't believe them

Oh nice. Since you're in research, which digital libraries do you have access to? And which sources of funds funneled toward independent studies do you feel are questionable? Pardon me for calling your bluff, but I can't believe anyone of serious scientific integrity could really look at the data and conclude that it's the largest scale conspiracy the world has ever seen, with little to no incentive or evidence.

So I guess the next question would either be, why bluff to defend a denialism that jeopardizes the well-being of our future generations, or if you're actually serious, how can you explain the incentive and logistics behind a multi-billion dollar sixty year conspiracy, which would not only have to be the largest, longest, most intricate, and most expensive conspiracy ever conceived, but also have to contend with the largest political lobbyist group (energy) in the history of our planet? And that's before we even talk about evidence for such a claim...

Now don't you see how silly that sounds? This is not a political thing. I promise you won't have to turn in your MAGA hat if you accept what science is so clearly showing us.

bruschi11 · Jul 28, 2019

We all know the climate change thing is similar to the US healthcare system. They find ways to make the moneymakers more money.

That’s really it. Sure there’s climate change and they know who is behind it... but enough people are getting paid by the people causing it to keep quiet and bring up new statistics.

Selfish, money driven people are the reason this world is collapsing and humans are literally falling apart.

supernature · Jul 28, 2019

As the kid from brooklin used to say: the world is coming to an end.

Not a new topic is this global warming , who say its new and some even dont believe it.

Science, politics or statistics, they can come up with any data, but the real referee cant be more correct and thats the termometer. If it shows high, who cares what the politics are saying, its obvious what it is.

K8668B · Jul 28, 2019

MNK99 said:
Yeah I believe there's definitely change but the earth also warmed up like 1.7 degrees celsius every few years or so, in the eras preceeding mankind. And also I think there were global cooling periods too. When mammals took over this planet, temperatures rose 10-15 degrees during that period.

Definitely climates have changed. Katrina, Rita, and Harvey... etc. Also the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake caused - Tsunami. now its like .5 to 2 degrees yearly, 1.7 degrees yearly in Canada. So yeah it's definitely something real.

I was kind of talking about semantics between warming and change but that just complicates things. Definitely, 99% sure that climates have changed. As per Kyoto etc. Trump may be an asshole that says a lot of things, but he is no great invigilator of the truth. America's so caught up in their 2 party bullshit, they can't see that they can only appease extremeists of the extremes. (Canada is messed up too but I just try and deal with logic and persuasion I don't care about politics mostly). make enough money, be different enough and you're damned regardless anyways. Damned and free. Politics is the biggest scam, as is WTO, WHO, IMF, NAFTA, FDA, "Free Speech", SJW's, etc, etc.

I definitely don't care for politics either @MNK99 . no matter whose in office, it doesn't matter, none of those assholes are gonna fix my PFS! LOLOLOLOL

K8668B · Jul 28, 2019

bruschi11 said:
We all know the climate change thing is similar to the US healthcare system. They find ways to make the moneymakers more money.

That’s really it. Sure there’s climate change and they know who is behind it... but enough people are getting paid by the people causing it to keep quiet and bring up new statistics.

Selfish, money driven people are the reason this world is collapsing and humans are literally falling apart.

agreed!

Trump_1776 · Jul 28, 2019

Niles said:
Oh nice. Since you're in research, which digital libraries do you have access to? And which sources of funds funneled toward independent studies do you feel are questionable? Pardon me for calling your bluff, but I can't believe anyone of serious scientific integrity could really look at the data and conclude that it's the largest scale conspiracy the world has ever seen, with little to no incentive or evidence.

So I guess the next question would either be, why bluff to defend a denialism that jeopardizes the well-being of our future generations, or if you're actually serious, how can you explain the incentive and logistics behind a multi-billion dollar sixty year conspiracy, which would not only have to be the largest, longest, most intricate, and most expensive conspiracy ever conceived, but also have to contend with the largest political lobbyist group (energy) in the history of our planet? And that's before we even talk about evidence for such a claim...

Now don't you see how silly that sounds? This is not a political thing. I promise you won't have to turn in your MAGA hat if you accept what science is so clearly showing us.

Lol

opiath · Jul 29, 2019

Trees cannot solve this problem in less than a few thousand years.
The mathematics is simple.

The human civilization has depended on oil, coal and natural gas for energy production for the last 200 years.
Those three are hydrocarbons which are the product of photosynthesis (CO2 + H20 + sunlight --> glucose --> hydrocarbons).
Right now we have used up about 50% of the hydrocarbons stored on the planet.
They have been accumulating underground for the past 700 million years.
Put that in perspective.
For 700 million years the plants, trees and algae captured energy from sun and combined it with water and carbon dioxide to store it into glucose.
And now just in 200 years we have burned 50% of that to maintain heavy industry, build enormous infrastructure and increase our population from 1 billion to 7 billion.

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion so all of that CO2 is now back in the air.
We got it from 280ppm to 410ppm.
Putting that much CO2 in the air is going to have repercussions no matter what.
What is there to believe?
CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared light thus directly lowering sunlight reflection from earth (aka greenhouse effect).
This is basic physics.

1ppm of CO2 = 7.8 Gt CO2
1 Gt = 1000000000 tons

So 410ppm * 7.8Gt CO2 = 3200Gt CO2 (in the atmosphere right now)
Human emissions are 410ppm - 280 ppm = 130 ppm.
130ppm* 7.8Gt CO2 = ~1000Gt CO2

To recapture 1 ton of CO2 into wood mass you need around 40 years.
So to recapture our emissions in lets say 40 years we need 1,000,000,000,000 new trees (one trillion).
Considering we cut down more than 15 billion per year and plant less than that I don't see that happening.

Planet Earth's Climate Change Dashboard

supernature · Jul 29, 2019

opiath said:
To recapture 1 ton of CO2 into wood mass you need around 40 years.
So to recapture our emissions in lets say 40 years we need 1,000,000,000,000 new trees (one trillion).
Considering we cut down more than 15 billion per year and plant less than that I don't see that happening.

Ive read somewhere cant remm where, they plan on buy land and plant huge amount of trees. Just looked at it but came out only similar news from 2017 kids are contacting millionaires all over the globe.

supernature said:
Some millionaire have said will buy some remote areas of certain countries to plant them with lots of tree

Severe Weather

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member