Climate Change: Which Ever side is Wrong Will Severely Hurt society.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

The only real " sun is heating up" theory I've seen is electric universe theory and there's some parts of that that Don't match up. Plus the sun is constantly monitored. Any change would be noted by scientists all over the world. Plus I thought solar storms were far below normal levels the last few years.

a reply to: ArtemisE

You know almost nothing about the Sun I'm afraid...

a reply to: ArtemisE

But the climate change/global warming complex/solution is based on money only.

Nothing else is giving the answers to the alleged problem.

The whole thing is just another pyramid scam chain letter.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Venus is like 1000 degrees ( too lazy to look up the real temp :p) solely because of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your right we already get to pay the price. But how bad it gets is still up to us.

Are you sure that CO2 is the reason for this and you aren't just regurgitating old, out-dated science? I mean you can't even be bothered to look up the correct temperature of Venus, just saying "facts" without any evidence whatsoever.

Hyperventilating on Venus

The first problem is that the surface of Venus receives no direct sunshine. The Venusian atmosphere is full of dense, high clouds “30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude.” The way a greenhouse effect works is by shortwave radiation warming the ground, and greenhouse gases impeding the return of long wave radiation to space. Since there is very little sunshine reaching below 30km on Venus, it does not warm the surface much. This is further evidenced by the fact that there is almost no difference in temperature on Venus between day and night. It is just as hot during their very long (1400 hours) nights, so the 485C temperatures can not be due to solar heating and a resultant greenhouse effect. The days on Venus are dim and the nights are pitch black.

The next problem is that the albedo of Venus is very high, due to the 100% cloud cover. At least 65% of the sunshine received by Venus is immediately reflected back into space. Even the upper atmosphere doesn’t receive a lot of sunshine. The top of Venus’ atmosphere receives 1.9 times as much solar radiation as earth, but the albedo is more than double earth’s – so the net effect is that Venus’ upper atmosphere receives a lower TSI than earth.

The third problem is that Venus has almost no water vapor in the atmosphere. The concentration of water vapor is about one thousand times greater on earth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The volcanic activity could account for the lack of ground sunlight. The co2 could be trapping the volcanic heat the same way earth traps the suns heat.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The volcanic activity could account for the lack of ground sunlight. The co2 could be trapping the volcanic heat the same way earth traps the suns heat.

Don't just make up science based on your assumptions of scientific knowledge. You already demonstrated that you don't have a firm grasp on the surface temperature on Venus, so it makes any further "scientific" explanations you come up with sound dubious at best. I actually posted a link with graphs, charts, and scientific reasoning that explains that Venus ISN'T the cause of a runaway greenhouse effect but rather the result of very high atmospheric pressure. So how about you start with refuting that.

Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk.

Thats the only thing that is being done about it. Thats the only thing that is being done about poverty. Thats the only thing that is being done about wars. Thats the only thing that is being done about the economy.

Distasteful and archaic as it may be, people need to be hung in the streets and imprisoned for life in order to enact any immediate and lasting change on any of these issues. Our species has been purposefully lead down a narrow steel corridor to receive the bolt gun.

I for one welcome the massive x-flare that that wipes out the world wide power grids, then maybe without electricity to distract us we might be able to cut the rot from our species. MAYBE. meh.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hehehe this from the guy saying 90% of the worlds actual real scientists are either wrong or in a big conspiracy to confuse him.


You really are cute. :p

a reply to: ArtemisE

Established institutional science has become highly specialized because of the sheer volume of knowledge. Its all good science, normal human error excepted, as long as the experimental protocol is known. But the results are not always presented in context, which is easy because of widespread layman ignorance and the compartmentalization from specialization.

Mostly, all professional scientists get their money from collectivist sponsors.

Action to ameliorate global warming increases collectivist power.

AGW has not been proved. Science doesn't even know when the next glaciation will be. Or if the ice age is over.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hehehe this from the guy saying 90% of the worlds actual real scientists are either wrong or in a big conspiracy to confuse him.


You really are cute. :p

I said that? Could you please link me to a post where I claimed anything of the sort.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hehehe this from the guy saying 90% of the worlds actual real scientists are either wrong or in a big conspiracy to confuse him.


You really are cute. :p

Note:

90% of the world's scientists are not focused on climate modeling. They are a diverse group from physicists to biologist whose focus ranges from theorizing particle spin to researching scat patterns in national parks.

The models and data need to be made fully public and open source for 90% of science to be able to legitimately agree on the subject.


Also, has anyone here actually researched how the ionosphere traps energy (interesting stuff I guarantee it)? The conspiracy theorists should note that HAARP has blasting energy (electromagnetic radiation) there for decades and it is only one of hundreds of such stations.

Mostly I just laugh at folks like the OP talking about science though.

-FBB

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well since they all can't see the bigger picture because of the compartmentalization but you can. Thank god your so insightful compared to the people actually working in that field.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

But 90% of them agree with the evidence and validity of there colleagues.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

But 90% of them agree with the evidence and validity of there colleagues.

No . . . 90% have not even reviewed the evidence, much less the data.

You are regurgitating the established narrative of the interested parties.

The validity of their "colleagues" is a non starter as that, at most, would only apply to those studying climate which make up an extreme minority of science.

-FBB

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well since they all can't see the bigger picture because of the compartmentalization but you can. Thank god your so insightful compared to the people actually working in that field.

And what does this mean? I don't see any links to any of my posts where I said that there is a big scientific-wide conspiracy to deny climate change. I just see you making more assumptions about me.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: yorkshirelad

I gotta disagree..... Do you know how ridiculous the thought that all of science is in on a conspiracy? That would require every science major coming out of college to turn down money and fame just to keep the hoax going.

The debate isnt whether climate change is real or not, the debate is whether is man made..

To have this discussion honestly the PEOPLE and POLITICIANS need to make this distinction very clear and stop lumping "climate change" with "man made global warming" as a tactic to whitewash anyone who thinks that "Man made" global warming is a farce.......

That is the ONLY way to have an honest discussion about this.....

Yes, humans polute the planet and this needs to be changed...

I would also like to state that not all of science is behind the man made global warming theory, in fact many scientist have thrown away their whole careers, risked their integrity , to come out AGAINST the data that man made global warming is as detrimental as the gov and agenda driven people are making it out to be.

This speaks louder to me then the people that have something to gain from it, pushing the agenda...

If people are willing to lose their livelihoods to come out against this, shouldnt that make you question the validity of some of the studies coming out?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

But 90% of them agree with the evidence and validity of there colleagues.

And 99% of all bankers agree that fiat money is the name of the game.

So do 99% of the investment brokers.

I agree with you that the damage could potentially be catastrophic, however I think it will be a long time coming. Let me explain. First I believe the climate change that is occurring, and it is occurring, is a natural cycle and has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. We have been out of the last ice age for at least 12,000 years, and even though that is a short period of time geologically speaking, we now know that temperatures rose and fell dramatically in such windows of time. If these fluctuations were occurring before man was emitting massive levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, then could this not be just another such change?

Now, the reason that the affects will be a long time coming is that regardless of whether climate change is manmade or natural, the results will be relatively similar. So it won't effect us any differently. But in the future the effects could be worse, if more and more CO2 were pumped into the atmosphere, and that really was causing these changes.

It is very frustrating listening to AGW deniers. Many of them are very adamant about their opinions. Yet they often choose to try and simplify the real issues involved. They like focus the issue solely on the burning of fossil fuels and on the whole carbon tax issue. Calling it all a big scam. Which, depending on your perception, may very well have some validity and truth to it. But the issues involved with man-made global warming is not just about scams centered around the burning of fossil fuels.

I think it is quite ignorant to think that humans are not negatively affecting the climate and here's why ......

Which ever side you're on I would hope that you can acknowledge that the "green house effect" is a very real and scientifically proven fact. You don't need to be a scientist to know this. Just ask any gardener or better yet go build one yourself and stand inside. There are numerous sources besides fossil fuels that contribute to the problem of the green house effect.

1) The lumber industry, deforestation, clear cutting of the rain forests and old growth trees. Without enough re-planting

2) Poor countries and communities burn wood for heat and for cooking their food.

3) Man-made forest fires destroy thousands of acres every year as well. These areas take many years to recover.

4) Asphalt / blacktop roadways absorb more heat than normal soil does.

5) Dark roofing material on houses absorbs more heat than normal soil does.

6) Desertification or humans use of freshwater. We divert rivers and streams to supply our cities and farms. Leaving areas that were previously lush with wetlands to dry up and become deserts.

7) The distribution of our species across the entire planet. Which means all of the above is happening just about everywhere.

8) We also are using more and more extreme techniques to acquire oil and natural gas. Methods such as fracking and deep off shore drilling rigs. Heated pipelines running across ice covered land or under the sea. We have no way of knowing the long term impacts these techniques are having.

9) Disasters and accidents. Such as Fukashima, BP Gulf Coast oil spill, Exxon Alaska oil spill and others. These incidents affect our Oceans in unknown ways. They can influence the Gulf stream and change weather patterns. Which in turn can influence the amount of glacial ice melting.

10) Acid rain, caused by pollution from industry and transportation, changing soil alkaline levels. Which is another contributing factor to deforestation.

11) Man made clouds from pollution, jet contrails and shipping traffic trap in heat that would otherwise

12) Man made efforts to undermine the discovery or improvement of the use of cleaner, safer and more sustainable methods of energy production. Geo-thermal, wind, solar and hydraulic methods such as harnessing the power from ocean waves and rivers, hemp, hidden advanced technology, etc, etc.....

I'm sure that I have left out quite a few other ways that humans are affecting our climate. But I hope you get the idea by now. With all these factors, including the use of fossil fuels. It's foolish to think we are not having an impact on our climate.

It is also foolish to not focus on the fact that dependence on fossil fuels is a disaster waiting to happen in and of itself. Oil and natural gas are a finite resource. Our best estimates say we have about 50 years left of uninterrupted oil production at our current rate of use. And only about 150 years left of known oil reserves on the entire planet. That's if we continue to use methods like fracking and shale oil extraction.

Even if you want to completely deny that AGW is real and call it a complete hoax. You can not deny that we are running out of fossil fuels and we must take steps to change our dependence on them. Unless you just don't care about future generations. Which seems to be the case with AGW deniers.

They are too selfish to look at the big picture and see it for what it really is. They are to content to just sit there making ignorant comments, crying hoax, eating Mc D's hamburgers and driving their SUV's. Meanwhile, people who actually care about the future of our planet and our current civilization are being called scam artists while trying to take some steps to change the way we think and act before it's too late.

Let me also add that I am not in favor of the whole Carbon Tax. And yes, as with any important Global political issue, there will be people trying to take advantage of it for personal gain. But that does not negate the facts or the need for change. We're running out of time and we need to find some solutions.

It would be stupid to focus on any one aspect while ignoring all the other factors. We need to have multiple solutions and implement them all. That way when we are forced to transition away from fossil fuels we can hopefully do it smoothly. Without the collapse of society as we know it. Without starting WW3, without people starving or fighting in line at the gas pumps.

a reply to: MagicWand67

That sums up quite a bit of abuse indeed.

Now, what's the master plan to "correct" all the problems?