• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
BHS1975 said:
So how can raising CO2 from 270ppm to 420ppm not warm the planet? Hint: it does. It would still be 270ppm if it was't for human activities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It might contribute a tiny amount, but it's not the main driver. Water vapor and solar cycles are much more important. Also, where did you get the 270 ppm and when was it measured? Were the measuring methods exactly the same? Same tools, same location? Also, 420 parts per million is not historically very much, when, according to some scientists (big grain of salt), the levels have been much higher. When CO2 was 270 ppm, how successful was human kind at achieving new technologies and improving our lives?

Adaptation is the only, viable, way forward. Controlling and restricting CO2 emissions will not bring you back to 270 ppm. You would have to live like you're in 1775 for many centuries, or fully embrace nuclear power, which I bet you don't want to do. Even if you go completely nuclear, you're going to lose the autonomy you enjoy now, without carbon based energy. Electric cars are a fool's errand due to the battery waste and rare earth metals needed. Maybe hydrogen fuel cells or something else might work.

Most likely, it's going to be forced public transportation (trains, buses, ships, etc.).
 
Scientists have predicted that Earth is 15 years away from a "mini ice age," The Telegraph reports. Using a new model of the sun's activity, the solar researchers estimate that in the 2030s the movements of two waves of fluids within the star will lead to a 60% reduction in solar activity. The subsequent decline in Northern Hemisphere temperatures would be similar to the freezing conditions seen in Western Europe during the late 17th century, the scientists announced at the 2015 National Astronomy Meeting. During that time, now known as the Little Ice Age, the Thames River in the United Kingdom froze over for several weeks, which it hasn't done since. Scientists still debate what caused the past cooling; possible explanations include a reduction in sunspots or the eruption of four tropical volcanoes that spewed ash and dust into the atmosphere.
Science Mag in 2014.
 
BHS1975 said:
The sentiment on AGW has definitely changed on this forum. There's still a few pockets of resistance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Questioning science and data isn't "resistance", it's exactly that, questioning the data. Funny thing to me, almost everyone on here I've read don't deny we're in a warmer climate currently but what many of the "resistance" do question is whether it's purely cyclical or AGW. It's not settled and seeking more data to come to a definitive conclusion is how science should work.
 
BHS1975 said:
The sentiment on AGW has definitely changed on this forum. There's still a few pockets of resistance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more, its kinda sad how some of the "right wingers" on here are the loudest/post most often (especially some mods). Facts are facts, were bulldozing forests across the globe and pumping more Co2 into the air then ever. It will and does cause temperatures to warm...

Ever put cover a candle before, crazy that it doesn't just burn forever...
 
The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees. The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.)
 
NoSnowATL said:
The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees. The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.)
Click to expand...
I can attest to this. I've got trees everywhere. I can't harvest them fast enough. These things are growing like weeds! Also, land use has changed greatly. We once had acres and acres devoted to farmland around my area. Over the last 40 years, it's all houses and trees springing up in those empty pastures. The old farmer gets too old to farm the pastures. The trees take over in just a few years. Then when the land owner dies, his children sell it off to developers. They cut a few roads in the young forest and clear just enough space for houses, but most of the trees stay. My house was built in the early 90's on an abandoned dairy farm. The trees in my front yard are all less than 50 years old. The ones down by the creek are pushing 80/90 years old. The earth is greening up again, thanks to CO2! More trees mean cleaner air, more oxygen and lower temperatures due to the transpiration and shade they produce during the warm months. We need to release more CO2, keep energy cheap, and develop new, cheaper and cleaner energy sources as we adapt to whatever the climate does down the road. Everybody wins in this approach, especially the poor.

The other approach, pushed by the AGW, WEF and social governance crowd is to make everyone impoverished except a few elites so that our human contributions to CO2 are minimized (and zero is their goal). That path leads to a hellish, miserable, short life for most humans on earth.

That is the resistance. Resistance to the tyrannical control of a brainwashed, anti-human league of Bond villains.
 
NoSnowATL said:
The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees. The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.)
Click to expand...

Love to hear it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DTB247 said:
Couldn't agree more, its kinda sad how some of the "right wingers" on here are the loudest/post most often (especially some mods). Facts are facts, were bulldozing forests across the globe and pumping more Co2 into the air then ever. It will and does cause temperatures to warm...

Ever put cover a candle before, crazy that it doesn't just burn forever...
Click to expand...
Seems a little out of context and borderline personal attack but I understand emotions are real, so no hard feelings
 
Avalanche said:
Would be nice to know how much colder could it be if we all drove Teslas, had windmill energy, had green roofs, and eliminated cows from this Earth
Click to expand...
Be careful about hitching your wagon to the Tesla and chargeable battery model. Batteries require cobalt and other minerals that have to be mined with major destruction to environment and yet its quantities of existence are far too small to sastify the global demand, let alone sustain it. And worse, there is a human toll, check out cobalt mining in the Congo.
Windmills require large open areas; we don't have those in the east. You'd have to deforest enormous amounts of land which leads to other problems like flooding, slides, destabilization, etc.
 
Iceagewhereartthou said:
Be careful about hitching your wagon to the Tesla and chargeable battery model. Batteries require cobalt and other minerals that have to be mined with major destruction to environment and yet its quantities of existence are far too small to sastify the global demand, let alone sustain it. And worse, there is a human toll, check out cobalt mining in the Congo.
Windmills require large open areas; we don't have those in the east. You'd have to deforest enormous amounts of land which leads to other problems like flooding, slides, destabilization, etc.
Click to expand...
Solar does as well. They are eating land here for that bs . Takes thousands of acres just to power a mere 50k homes
 
DTB247 said:
Couldn't agree more, its kinda sad how some of the "right wingers" on here are the loudest/post most often (especially some mods). Facts are facts, were bulldozing forests across the globe and pumping more Co2 into the air then ever. It will and does cause temperatures to warm...

Ever put cover a candle before, crazy that it doesn't just burn forever...
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
metwannabe said:
Seems a little out of context and borderline personal attack but I understand emotions are real, so no hard feelings
Click to expand...
Wounder why radiative forcing wasn't more widely discussed and the fact that if humans and anything they invented didn't exist from today, Earth would still warm for 50 years. It's a big scam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top