- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 7,046
- Reaction score
- 7,241
- Location
- Water Valley, Alberta
- Showcase(s):
- 1
- Hardiness Zone
- 2a
- Country
What are your thoughts on global warming?
- Thread starter mgmine
- Start date
- Status
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
What does this link have to do with the topic of global warming?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,367
- Reaction score
- 1,585
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Hardiness Zone
- 9a
- Country
Agreed. The link has relevance in response to the prior post, but it will take things off topic. No more politics please.
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
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
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
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.
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....
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
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
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.
I do not deny climate change, but I question how much is really caused by the earth's inhabitants.
Last edited:
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
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
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 7,046
- Reaction score
- 7,241
- Location
- Water Valley, Alberta
- Showcase(s):
- 1
- Hardiness Zone
- 2a
- Country
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
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
- 7,241
- Location
- Water Valley, Alberta
- Showcase(s):
- 1
- Hardiness Zone
- 2a
- Country
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.
Just saying...
.
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.
Just saying...
.
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
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