What are your thoughts on global warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
806
Location
carolinas
Hardiness Zone
8a
The link is relevant to the scale of misinformation and fraud engaged in by the deniers, $500 billion has been spent by super pacs to corrupt every aspect of government. Politifact, factcheck and snopes are a useful reference to fact check the source of such bunk

One particular fact check is quite absorbing to look up, the claim that volcanoes chug more co2 than all industrial production, the epa calculations on that factoid are an eye opener
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
2,367
Reaction score
1,585
Location
Manchester, UK
Hardiness Zone
9a
Country
United Kingdom
The link is relevant to the scale of misinformation and fraud engaged in by the deniers, $500 billion has been spent by super pacs to corrupt every aspect of government. Politifact and snopes are a useful reference to fact check the source of such bunk

I understand, but let's keep things on global warming.
 

MoonShadows

The Jam Man
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
1,556
Location
Stroudsburg, PA
Showcase(s):
1
Hardiness Zone
6a
Country
United States
The link is relevant to the scale of misinformation and fraud engaged in by the deniers, $500 billion has been spent by super pacs to corrupt every aspect of government. Politifact and snopes are a useful reference to fact check the source of such bunk

You assume the misinformation and fraud is mainly perpetrated by deniers, and you cite two known biased websites' fact checking as "evidence". One can easily cite other websites and publications that would claim that those perpetrating the fraud and misinformation are the climate change advocates who ignore contradicting findings, use faulty data and unproven computer models as "evidence". It doesn't really advance the discussion.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
806
Location
carolinas
Hardiness Zone
8a
I cited three websites where fact checking is done by academics competent to do it, who source expert opinions that are relevant

Yup, the fraud is done by the folk that fund the deniers, you can trace the trail in the fact checking.

You can look up the sources of the super pacs and who fund them along the way

No, I would not call nasa, or noaa data flawed, government scientific data is remarkably precise....
 

Attachments

  • el nini since 1900 anomalies.jpg
    el nini since 1900 anomalies.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 149
  • Wikipedia-record-fire temp australia.jpg
    Wikipedia-record-fire temp australia.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 155
  • Australia-temp-anomaly-1910-2009.jpg
    Australia-temp-anomaly-1910-2009.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 152
  • Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_average_temperature 1880_to_2009.jpg
    Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_average_temperature 1880_to_2009.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 144
Last edited:

MoonShadows

The Jam Man
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
1,556
Location
Stroudsburg, PA
Showcase(s):
1
Hardiness Zone
6a
Country
United States
You can't have a discussion with someone who is not open to thinking. I didn't come to this thread to argue with you. That is obviously futile, so I'll drop it.

I do not deny climate change, but I question how much is really caused by the earth's inhabitants.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
806
Location
carolinas
Hardiness Zone
8a
You can look up the estimates and how scientists arrived at them in wikipedia. Some good info and links there, starting points as simple as 'carbon dioxide' and 'climate change' 'permian extinction event' 'methane clathrates'

I don't have to think about a problem, make stuff up, bicker. I just go look at the best sources and FACT CHECK them.

Some time later I might come to the conclusion that there are folk in this world who calculate that omnicide is a profitable venture with a big pay off in the not so distant future, but then, that is just my opinion. Eventually.

Mitch, at the time of the Alberta fires, satellites were going over. The smoke and methane cloud showed up well at the time on their spectrometers. These were posted on various scientists posts at the time. I was following much larger emissions being observed over Siberia at the time as the permafrost was thawing at a record pace.

You can plug direct into satellite data and analyse what the spectrometer is detecting 24/7
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
806
Location
carolinas
Hardiness Zone
8a
Right now, a rubicon is being crossed, how climate change is triggering methane emissions from the arctic. So, I tend to look at climate anomalies and compare warming progress to scientist estimates.

Seems to be getting toasty, faster than expected, in the northern hemisphere.... accelerating....

Some of the anomalies are in the 20-30f range, so, my logic is, ok, this is only to be expected now, how do I cope with that when the climate is usually in the 90's in my lilypond and that swings this way... I might as well shut down full sun ponds, where everything is going to die, and start digging ponds in full shade positions in future

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-started/?tid=sm_Fb&utm_term=.dab5a75caf1f
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
7,046
Reaction score
7,233
Location
Water Valley, Alberta
Showcase(s):
1
Hardiness Zone
2a
Country
Canada
Ok, so that was your own conclusion. No problem.
But - 600 foot flames are normal for a forest fire of that intensity. Forest fires of that size and intensity can also create their own weather patterns, creating cumulus clouds, thunder and lightning. Pretty scary stuff to someone that wasn't aware of that.
6,000 sq km of Alberta's 660,000 sq km was burned. Not most. Forest fires are also a carbon neutral event. In 10 - 20 years the new growth forest will reabsorb all the carbon that was released during the fire.
I see no data that suggests an abnormal increase in methane that helped the fire along.

My point is that there are a lot of gullible people out there that will read your conclusion and further convince themselves that the end of the world is near.
And then they go out and vote. :LOL:

Just saying...;)

.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
806
Location
carolinas
Hardiness Zone
8a
That was one of my wonders at the time, what difference a cloud of methane makes to forest fires

I can't say I've dug into ppm and flare points much, however it did occur to me methane emissions can be heavier with hydrocarbons, and how would you know until it was too late with a forest fire

A fire chief at the time stated he had never seen fires like it

You may want to fact check the carbon cycle

"Carbon flows between the atmosphere, land, and ocean in a cycle that ... Eventually, the land and oceans will take up most of the extra carbon dioxide, but as much as 20 percent may remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years"

the 'thousands of years' bit is a problem when industrial output rams it over 1000ppm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php?src=share
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
30,782
Messages
508,591
Members
13,043
Latest member
cisifom

Latest Threads

Top