Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

More evidence that we are messing up the climate

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by no fat chicks, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 AM.

  1. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    The graph you presented is for global temperature, from 1880 to present.

    Here, again, are the NOAA thermometer stations 1891-1920: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png
    [​IMG]
    Where does the data in your graph come from for the period of 1880-1920?


    Does this graph exist? USA1880-1999 in 1999 (NASA): Figure 6 https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf
    [​IMG]
    When was it hotter in the USA. In 30s? In the 90s?

    You can't predict the past when your head is full of communist wisdom. I told you I would prefer to discuss the science (what you see with your own eyes), and if you would use them, you would see that the data has been altered (and even imagined in the case of global temperature). But here we are, me discussing the communist historical revisionism right before your eyes and you inventing the past.
     
  2. laz0001 Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    Here’s what I don’t understand for the people in the thread who are denying/downplaying man-made climate change.

    What is there to lose? Surely you must agree the world is getting ruined by human activity?

    Plastic particles present in EVERY ecosystem in the world.
    50% of all trees cut down.
    90% of all animals hunted/displaced.
    90% of all fish caught.
    90% of all wetlands destroyed.
    Pretty much 100% of every river delta being used for human industry.

    You say you don’t believe humans activity can have an affect in the planet - there’s pretty much no area where humans HAVEN’T radically altered the planet.

    What’s the idea behind denying climate change?

    [​IMG]
     
  3. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    What do you think the world CO2 should be? You are losing your mind about an increase from 200 ppm to 400 ppm at Mauna Loa.

    I'll tell you what I thing the CO2 should be: at least 700 ppm, and here is the science to support it.

    From: https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x
    During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 18 000–20 000 yr ago) and previousglacial periods, atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm, which is among thelowest concentrations that occurred during the evolution of land plants.
    ...
    Modern plants grown at low [CO2] (150–200 ppm) exhibit highly compromised survival (Ward & Kelly, 2004) and reproduction (Dippery et al., 1995) at conditions that occurred only 18 000–20 000 yr ago.Jul 5, 2010

    [​IMG]

    I have to keep reminding myself that I am trying to discuss science with people who don't know that plants require CO2 for photosynthesis, and humans require photosynthesis for the air that we breath and plants for the food that we eat.
    [​IMG]

    I have stated my opinion and supported it with science. You have provided a scary infographic supported by Jack Squat and then proceeded conjure a series of hobgoblins.

    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

    You may think I am being harsh, but try your own hand at science. What are the safe limits for CO2 in the atmosphere? Can you support your opinion with scientific evidence?
     
  4. laz0001 Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    Firstly, I’m not scientifically illiterate, so I understand this.

    Note that it’s called climate ‘change’. Not just ‘climate’. The word change demands you consider how quickly it is occurring.

    Forget 700ppm, the earth used to be at 2000ppm.

    But that was tens of MILLIONS of years ago.

    CO2 levels are increasing more than a hundred times faster than was seen before industrial levels.

    Remember it was in the news just a few years ago we hit 400ppm? We’re at 415 already.

    At the current rate , we’ll be back to 700ppm in 130 years - you talk about plant growth. What plants? What’s the betting we WON’T have replanted trillions of trees by then to balance that?

    That’s you and/or your friends grandkids lifetimes likely completely fucked/unliveable.

    ———-

    If you were being completely honest - you’d say “even if I AM skeptical about it all, there no harm in trying to keep things clean and unpolluted for the future”.

    The more people sitting around going “oh, there’s no problem”, the longer the government ignores it, the worse the problem gets.

    Stop spreading denial.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020 at 12:34 AM
    SmilinDesperado likes this.
  5. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    Can you show me a single data source (as opposed to an apples-to-oranges comparison) to support this statement?
    "CO2 levels are increasing more than a hundred times faster than was seen before industrial levels."
     
  6. eworden78 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,206
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Sacto
    This isn't great source, but he could just use your previous post as a source.

    Your graphic shows:
    glacial: 150ppmv
    Pre-industry: 270ppm (.009ppm/year)
    2010 when plant study was posted: 350ppm (.32 ppm/year)
    Current: 400ppm (5 ppm/year)

    That shows a 35x rate increase between the first two time periods, a 15x rater increase between the second two time periods.

    That's over a 500 time rate increase from the first period to the third period just extrapolating off of your own post.
     
    laz0001 likes this.
  7. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    Would you give me the post # to which you are referring please?
     
  8. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
  9. eworden78 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,206
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Sacto
    I just looked at the numbers in the picture in your spoiler tags. I just glanced at the paper to see when it was published.
    I assumed the photo went with the paper.
     
  10. eworden78 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,206
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Sacto
  11. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    Are you inferring these rates from average CO2 ppm figures?

    These rates: .009ppm/year, .32 ppm/year, 5 ppm/year

    I did a controlF with the .009 in the paper, and I can't locate it.
     
  12. laz0001 Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    NOAA:

    “Global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 409.8 ± 0.1 ppm in 2019, a new record high. That is an increase of 2.5 ± 0.1 ppm from 2018, the same as the increase between 2017 and 2018. In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Between 2009-18, however, the growth rate has been 2.3 ppm per year. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago. ”
     
  13. eworden78 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,206
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Sacto
    Like I said, I just extrapolated. I admit it's a super sloppy way to do the numbers.


    270-150/15000 years = .009ppm/year
    350-270/250 years = .32 ppm/year
    400-350/10 years = 5 ppm/year

    Data all came from your post, rates were all my shitty math.
    I got the idea from work, I'm an Engineer and we regularly do a thing called a "dummy check" where we do an rough and informal alternate calculation and compare it to our official calculations, just to make sure there aren't any big typos or rounding errors in our math.

    Basically the point I try to make here, is if I just grab the most basic numbers and divide by the time period interval, I get an answer that jives with laz0001 "hundreds of times" assertion.
     
    no fat chicks likes this.
  14. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    What data are you using for 11,000-17,000 years ago (ice cores? which ones? Law Dome? Vostok?) and what data are you using for 2017 and 2018 (direct atmospheric measurement from Mauna Loa?). I suspect you are attempting an apples-to-oranges comparison but I can't show you the problem with doing this unless you tell me where the data comes form.
     
  15. Tropodan Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    11,984
    Likes Received:
    538
    Location:
    Canada eh!
    This is the kind of hoax advocacy data that we see non stop by the shills today.

    They put together a comprehensive history, use a lot of forceful language about anthropogenic climate change, and stated that what they observed in the passed suggests we're in for a hot house, because of humans.

    It's a lie and the shills doing the study are paid liars.
     
  16. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    You have to look at the data points at equal time intervals (yearly, "decadely", whatever) to compare rates. For all you know, CO2 could be going up and down hundreds of ppm within a single decade. But I encourage you to keep looking.
     
  17. SalvadorCollie Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    591
    Any videos yet of the intentional fires? Not seeing it on YouTube. Soon as I saw the trail game footage and told my girl “they’ll use this during the election to blame climate change”, she told me not everything is political.
     
  18. SammyJar88 MAGA!!!

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,513
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    USA
    We're suppose to believe the science coming from people who tried to make it settled science, by silencing any scientist that questioned the narrative; which is all that was needed to know there was an ulterior motive behind it. It's even easier to see that now that the left has started pushing fake science on other fronts. Using a strange kid to push the agenda just showed how fucking stupid and political it all was.
    -
     
  19. ocean size Red Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    8,280
    Likes Received:
    860
    Who that was producing science got silenced?
     
  20. ShadowRun error Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    730

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.