quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Sure, I believe in climate change. Lets get on with it, and either have famine, extreme weather, sea level rise, or some other shit take out a whole lot of the earths population. It's getting too jammed with assholes.

We aren't going to "kill the planet." The planet will be fine.

We might wipe out most or all of humanity, so lets get on with it. All the leftists will be the first to die.

Perfectly stated. Arc.

The Earth will do just fine in the long run. Humanity? Maybe not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by sandman76:
Humanity? Maybe not so much.

Maybe? Please tell me of a single species that is immune to extinction. There are none. The human race is no different. We'll be here for a while, and then we won't. As such, get up every day and enjoy the hell out of it and try to follow the golden rule whenever possible.

I guess my question isn’t for the rest of that don’t believe we have an impact on climate change but for those of you that believe that we do.

For you who think that we are destroying the planet, what are YOU specifically doing to save the planet?

Meaning..Are you biking to work? Are you adding Solar panels to your home? Or better yet, are you driving EV...powered by electricity made from fossil fuel?

quote:

Originally posted by Beanhead:
I guess my question isn’t for the rest of that don’t believe we have an impact on climate change but for those of you that believe that we do.

For you who think that we are destroying the planet, what are YOU specifically doing to save the planet?

Meaning..Are you biking to work? Are you adding Solar panels to your home? Or better yet, are you driving EV...powered by electricity made from fossil fuel?

I don't believe we have an impact on climate change, or if we do it's very very slight. But I do think we have an impact on this planet, itself. In that regard, I live a normal life without going out of my way to be green. But, I do try to recycle everything that's recycle-able. I don't litter or throw plastic out on the street or in the ocean and things of that nature. My plastic grocery bags go back to the grocery store and thrown in their recycling bin for plastic bags......Everything that belongs in the recycling bin, goes in the recycling bin. Whereas my neighbor never puts a recycling bin to the street, and simply throws it all in his garbage can......meanwhile the recycling bin is on wheels. I've made my house very energy efficient through things like insulation, LED's, and windows.

This being said, with my career, I single handedly burn between 100,000-200,000 gallons of diesel per year moving peoples toys around. And, all they are, are toys. No other purpose. Imagine burning 2500 gallons of diesel in a day and sitting at the fuel pump, refilling the tanks, just to burn the same the next day. Sometimes for someone's vacation that's only a few days long.

I believe the climate changes, and always has. I also believe all the “climate change” hype is political BS, designed to take more control over our lives.

no.

I think the reason why the sea levels might be rising (I don't really think they are) is from all the snowflakes having a meltdown when they wake up every day and realize that Donald Trump is still President

California is probably the worst greenhouse gas emitter, if you consider all their reckless forest fires.

We should pursue solar and other energy sources just to remain self sufficient. We need to stop sucking Saudi Arabias cock.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I think the reason why the sea levels might be rising (I don't really think they are) is from all the snowflakes having a meltdown when they wake up every day and realize that Donald Trump is still President

Sea level began rising about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last Glacial Maximum. To date, those levels have risen about 300' +/-. If history is any indicator as to what we may expect in the future, well, at the end of the last inter-glacial period, all of S Florida, south of Lake Okeechobee, was underwater, just as an example.

You may not think sea levels are rising, but the are. Whether it is not caused by "us" or just a typical cyclical period is still up for debate.

I'll reintroduce an earlier chart, with explanations, and questions. The Phanerozoic period is an Era, representing assemblages of major life forms over the last 500 million years, plus. The units indicated are precisely measured isotopes of 02 in sea sediment, representing about a two degree Centigrade change in climate (global temperature), plus or minus, for each thousandth increment. The period of time humans have been on earth - not industrial humans, but humans beginning from the lineage of Lucy, the Australopithecene - could be represented by the width of the right axis of the chart - considerably less than a million years, or about a millimeter or two on the chart.

So I'm curious, from those proponents for humans significantly influencing the changes seen on this rather cyclically predictable chart, stretching back 540 million years. Did humans cause the drop in temperature 450 million years ago, spawning the lowest temperatures in the planet's measured history and a major glaciation? Or maybe the highest temperature, about a 6 degree C rise, 300 million years ago, causing major extinction events? Or the latest drop, beginning about 65 million years ago, approacing now the 450 million-year low, continuing 'till today? Note the immediate trend is toward what scientists like to call "cold." Which part of the true and dramatic climactic changes represented here, from really irrefutable data, did humans cause, exactly? And what is their millimeter of life likely to change on the right hand side as the chart progresses? I'll wait....

If you believed that Global Warming was going to cause Sea Level rise and devastation would you purchase this house?

29 Acres of Beach front property on Martha’s Vineyard island for $14.9 million.


Point being, even those that try and sell the hysteria of Climate Change, don’t act like they believe it either.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Holy fuck dude. That is a pretty detailed chart for data from NEARLY A FUCKING MILLION YEARS AGO.

Pull your head out of your ass. You just posted a chart that claims to know the CO2 concentration from just shy of 1,000,000 years ago.

There is gullible and there there is just plain stupid. I don't care if NASA is the source or not. Follow the money.

After I received my Master’s degree I worked for several years as a geophysical Research Associate for the University of Texas Geophysical Institute. During that time I went on several scientific expeditions to take core samples both at the bottom of the Oceans and in the Polar regions.
I physically measured various gas levels and “tried” to ascertain the date of the sample in the cores. I can tell you with absolute certainty that anything less than 100,000 years is pure conjecture not to mention that just the act of measuring the in situ gas contaminates the sample and there’s not a dam thing you can do about it.

Don’t get me started about the modeling...suffice it to say “Garbage in, garbage out”.

Like Para said it’s all about chasing the money and it’s relatively easy to jump on the Climate Change bandwagon to get funding...

kimber1911...screw that hypocritical, muslim, Iran-loving sunuvabitch and his man-wife and the horse they rode in on. Man...I get triggered easily when that bastard creeps into my psyche. I need to work on that...

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Holy fuck dude. That is a pretty detailed chart for data from NEARLY A FUCKING MILLION YEARS AGO.

Pull your head out of your ass. You just posted a chart that claims to know the CO2 concentration from just shy of 1,000,000 years ago.

There is gullible and there there is just plain stupid. I don't care if NASA is the source or not. Follow the money.

After I received my Master’s degree I worked for several years as a geophysical Research Associate for the University of Texas Geophysical Institute. During that time I went on several scientific expeditions to take core samples both at the bottom of the Oceans and in the Polar regions.
I physically measured various gas levels and “tried” to ascertain the date of the sample in the cores. I can tell you with absolute certainty that anything less than 100,000 years is pure conjecture not to mention that just the act of measuring the in situ gas contaminates the sample and there’s not a dam thing you can do about it.

Don’t get me started about the modeling...suffice it to say “Garbage in, garbage out”.

Like Para said it’s all about chasing the money and it’s relatively easy to jump on the Climate Change bandwagon to get funding...

You'll be familiar with this then:

Global climate change in marine stable isotope records

https://thefederalist.com/2017...xposes-fake-science/

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science

Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), exposed how an ex-colleague mishandled a report on global warming right before a major international climate conference in 2015.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said during a Tuesday hearing that NOAA “has deceived the American people by falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.” He will now push for all documents related to the climate study, materials he requested via subpoena in 2015 after Obama Administration officials refused to disclose them.

The explosive allegations from Dr. Bates were detailed in the Daily Mail and on the scientific blog, Climate, Etc. on February 5. Bates accuses Tom Karl, former director of the NOAA office responsible for climate data, of manipulating temperature readings, failing to archive data, and ignoring agency protocols to rush publishing his study that debunked the well-known pause in global warming at the beginning of this century.

At the time, climate activists were in a panic because the premier scientific body in charge of climate science—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—admitted the rise in global temperatures had basically stalled from 1998 to 2012. This bombshell was included in the IPCC’s 2013 report, which would serve as the main primer leading up to the United Nations’ Climate Conference in Paris two years later.


more at link

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

how can you believe any of this BS with all the cooked data, fudged computer programs, and outright lies that have been exposed ?

You'll be familiar with this then:

Global climate change in marine stable isotope records[/QUOTE]

That paper came out after I left the field but two items in there point out to part of my concerns...

_—————————
“.......There are several caveats in using oxygen isotope-based stratigraphy. First, oxygen isotopic records are not numerical-age chronometers. Assigning ages based on measured oxygen isotopic changes depends on correlating the stratigraphic sequence of isotopic variations to a reference sequence that has been dated by numerical-age methods. To make such a correlation
Global Climate Change in Marine Stable Isotope Records one must first have a good idea about the time interval that is represented by the core. To illustrate this point, consider that one of the most commonly analyzed species in marine sediments is the benthic foraminifera, Planulina wuellerstorfi, which first appeared approximately 16 million years ago. The d18Ocalcite value measured on a 12 million year old sample of P. wuellerstorfi from the Pacific Ocean is 2.5 ‰, which is similar to values measured on this species in the modern deep oceans. Therefore, oxygen isotope-based stratigraphy works only in conjunction with other stratigraphies (i.e., those based on fossil events or magnetic polarity changes). If one is concerned with the most recent record of climate change, it is often assumed that the coretop is time-zero and this usually provides an accurate starting point to identify the oxygen isotope stages......”
———————

Identifying various microscopic organisms was a large part of my part of the analysis I did and I can tell you that identifying an organism that has been buried for tens of thousands of years in sediment is a very difficult process and most of the time identifying a specimen down to the genus level was as good as you could get...if you were lucky...

Then using isotopic calcite levels, which they admit have not changed for 12 million years, in conjunction with magnetic polarity changes which happen about every 200,000 to 300,000 years does not seem to me to be able to pinpoint these changes ...or more importantly predict what the future changes will be...

Hey Doc, I know you are trying to prove a point but lets be real. The dating alone is suspect and then you add in the actual numbers that your charts purport to show accurately.

Much of what you are claiming to be accurate is what is called a SWAG. Better than a WAG but a whole bunch of assumptions and extrapolations are involved. You know it as well as I do. It is the kind of math that DOESN'T get a man to the moon, it just kinds of sends him in the general direction, sort of in a scientific wild ass guess kind of way (SWAG).

That chart is bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Hey Doc, I know you are trying to prove a point but lets be real. The dating alone is suspect and then you add in the actual numbers that your charts purport to show accurately.

Much of what you are claiming to be accurate is what is called a SWAG. Better than a WAG but a whole bunch of assumptions and extrapolations are involved. You know it as well as I do. It is the kind of math that DOESN'T get a man to the moon, it just kinds of sends him in the general direction, sort of in a scientific wild ass guess kind of way (SWAG).

That chart is bullshit.

Much of what we "know" in science is the result of logical assumptions based on incomplete data - "theories." We don't "know" that a distant star has two planets orbiting it because we haven't been there and can't see them. We "assume" that it does, because of orbital anomalies in nearer objects that we can correlate. Much like Spock's "best guess" in one Star Trek episode. Sub-benthic isotope analysis has been around for awhile, and as the landmark article I submitted proposes, it's very accurate to about 2 million years - because we can correlate temperature change with other data, such as pollen samples from plants that only live in the tropics, or known glaciations. Further back, we know when glaciers sat on Chicago geologically, and when they left. The isotope data correlates to that. I can tell you exactly my local temperature yesterday, because I measured it precisely with a digital thermometer. I can tell you what it was twenty years ago, approximately, from local weather reports. I can tell you what it was 400 years ago, because there are living plants whose growth corresponds to certain temperature ranges - less accurately. So no, we can't go back 400 million years with a thermometer. But we can extrapolate with logical conclusions. One very respected mentor of mine once told me. "Measure the data as accurately as you can. Then measure again. Then analyze it, not with the idea of finding what you think, but thinking what you find." We've lost that in the politics and the pseudo-science of our public discourse.

The chart represents our "best guess." And I believe its a pretty good one. The glacial periods are indisputable from core evidence. The warming periods are geologically evident from marine and aluvial sediment. The isotope data supports that and correlates to it. How much or how little the global temperature rose or fell is certainly debatable, but we "know' several things from the data. In a cyclical pattern, earth's atmospheric temperature has risen and fallen, to a significant degree and in a recognizable pattern, over the last 500 million years. Sometimes sufficiently to affect the survival of numerous existing species. It does not appear to be associated with the activity of any living organisms, with perhaps the exception of the Great Oxidation Event 2.4B years ago, outside this timeframe, and certainly not with human activity, since, as far as we know, there were none in that period. The conclusion could be that warming and cooling activity during this period is caused by either cyclic geologic or cosmic activity, of currently unknown origins, since the presence or absence of biological overburden seems not to correlate with the cycles. You could extrapolate to infer that on a global scale, human activity going forward would have no effect either, since it seems to have influenced the nearer, hence more accurate scale, not a whit in the last million years. I'm completely open to other interpretations of the data.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
And the scientists who are paid to study 'climate change' know about the imperfections in the planet's rotation and orbit around the sun, along with other factors, and ignore them, because it behooves them to do so.

You claim they ignore these attributes. That may indeed be true, but personally I think it more likely these 'elite' scientists are no more capable of grasping the infinite complexities of this planet than the Hollywierd morons constantly chirping about the topic. Its simple arrogance on their part that prevents them from admitting this simple reality. That and a huge check from the government continually funding their research.

I think it goes more like this...