Chump for President

[Schnitzer318is]

Planet has been warming for the last 12k years, where many of us sit to type these very messages, was under a sheets of fucking ICE 6000 FEET thick or more a blink in grand scope of time ago.......


I guess it was all the campfires those prehistoric hunter gathers lit to fend of the wild life and cold got the ball rolling

That's the point. The climate is warming at a rate that exceeds even that blink you are referring to. The campfire statement is a bit extreme though, which I'm sure you made for dramatic effect.

I just think it's arrogant of man to think they can change the world in such a way that nature is overruled. Every time man tries to tame beasts, it is met with some success and some tragedy. The world is just so much bigger and more powerful than us.

All that oil from the BP spill and the ocean is like, "that all you got?"

I think it's ignorant to believe man can have no affect on his environment. We could, very effectively, wipe out life on the planet in a few years if that was a goal. The world would recover over a VERY long period of time, but it would be a vastly different Earth.

I didnt say we dont have some impact on the "change" but I do think the impacts is WAY OVER STATED for the profit and power of a few. In general I agree with your statements, I am all for cleaning shit up some, but for the same reason a dog does not shit where it eats

I can agree with this for sure. I don't think we need to go all eco-Nazi in terms of changing the way we live, don't get me wrong. Just that we need to acknowledge (everyone) that this is in fact a thing that would be worth looking at trying to slow down.

Science can't be "believed" or "denied" - those terms are typically applied to something called religion.

You don't need to be a climate researcher to educate yourself on the subject and have a credible position. ;D

I agree with your first and last statement. No so much everything in between. It is a real scientific theory... that unfortunately has been turned into a political talking point instead of a factual idea that should be addressed in terms of being responsible with where we live as Sleeve said.

[mrsleeve]

Well the last ice age was not the 1st nor will be the last, that's my point of it all, there is a lot we don't know about climate cyles, solar output cycles and or slight changes that span tens of centuries in their duration. Jumping to the conclusion it's a little co2 (compared to known level's in almost every eon previous ours) is the sole culprit, and really having that great of an effect on the global climate, vs natural things already in play that we have little to no understanding of its true scope or influence in the very long term from our perspective

[nando]

really what would say if you were alive 12k years ago at the END of the last ice age and the ice was stopping its march south and over the next few k years melted off and then compared it to NOW..... would you still say its all the inhabitants fault that in the N hemisphere went from ICE PLANET to habitable

The difference is that happened over thousands of years. The extreme changes we are seeing now are happening in less than 50. We continue to set new weather records year after year after year. You're going to have to reckon with reality eventually, which is why I usually don't bother to argue about it.

[gwb72tii]

The difference is that happened over thousands of years. The extreme changes we are seeing now are happening in less than 50. We continue to set new weather records year after year after year. You're going to have to reckon with reality eventually, which is why I usually don't bother to argue about it.

well according to your historic time frame as a bench mark, apparently man is causing the planet to cool at a record pace LOLOL

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-the-last-eight-months/

[mrsleeve]

What's to say what happened year over year in the last couple centuries or melinium previous to the trigger point of the last ice age..... Yeah that's right we don't know....

[2mAn]

I just want to add a few things to this which Im sure some of you will jump all over

#1 I was hiking at Glacier National Park in 2010 and the Park Rangers were saying that these Glaciers that have been there "forever" will be all metled away in our lifetime... this *could* be normal climate change

#2 It was in the 90s yesterday here in Los Angeles... this *could* be normal climate change

#3 In the last 250 years our use of coal & coal burning was not something that the previous 11,750 years have had to deal with (using sleeves 12k years as a base)... is the heat added by all of this burning normal to what our planet has had to clean up in the past? ... Obviously, I dont think this is normal for the planet to have had to deal with.

but Im not scientist so?...

[mrsleeve]

1 word

Volcano


1 major eruption pumps more co2 and even more efficient greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of human combustion of fossil fuels in history. In the past volcanic activity has been far more frequent than what we know today.

I live in the shadows of GNP, I can see it from my living room. Look at the photos taken at turn of last century, compared to just a couple decades latter, their accelerated melt off began long before humans really amped up the co2 production with the automobile. I really can't stand all the agenda shoved into the ranger talks and the shit coming our of the glacier institute anymore, so we go else where, there are better places to see not far away. Not quite as grandiose but no people for 20 plus miles in any dirrection

[Farbin Kaiber]

I think it's ignorant to believe man can have no affect on his environment. We could, very effectively, wipe out life on the planet in a few years if that was a goal. The world would recover over a VERY long period of time, but it would be a vastly different Earth.

Did you see the 2009 History Channel miniseries Life After People? 'Recovery' would be much more rapid that I feel you think it would be.

1 word

Volcano


1 major eruption pumps more co2 and even more efficient greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of human combustion of fossil fuels in history. In the past volcanic activity has been far more frequent than what we know today.

I live in the shadows of GNP, I can see it from my living room. Look at the photos taken at turn of last century, compared to just a couple decades latter, their accelerated melt off began long before humans really amped up the co2 production with the automobile. I really can't stand all the agenda shoved into the ranger talks and the shit coming our of the glacier institute anymore, so we go else where, there are better places to see not far away. Not quite as grandiose but no people for 20 plus miles in any dirrection

There are a lot of nonpolitical fields of employment that have become polarized and tools of political manipulation. Those less trod paths are the better ones anyway.


I just spent a few weeks on an island created by a volcano that is presently making the island even bigger. I experienced Vog daily and saw the emissions that release as the earth 'burps' its guts out of a hole in a rock.

For example, Kilauea releases 2,000-4,000 tons of SO2 a day, which comes to almost 1.5 million tons. China, in 2005 released 25m of the same in total.

While I am not claiming to be a climate scientist in any form, I can look at data and infer.

What I'm inferring is, if in a year, an island you can hardly see from space can produce 17% of what the second largest country by land area on the globe produces as a whole in regards to Sulfur Dioxide in that same year, we can deduce that other surface geothermal features of the globe will also add to that (I live a short drive from Yellowstone National Park, 60% of Earth's geysers) exponentially. Now, the earth is only 29% land that we are calculating on, so there is still 71% of the earth with underwater geothermal features that we are not calculating.

By these numbers we can quickly see that humans may have an impact(I don't think ANYONE is denying that fact), but nowhere near the impact of the earth on itself. I have not even gotten to the whole concept of solar emissions and convection and radiation in space influencing the surface temperatures of the globe.

[BraveUlysses]

climate science determined the end of the last ice age, why do you believe that's true but choose not to believe that current rate of change is not accurate

[marshallnoise]

1 word

Volcano


1 major eruption pumps more co2 and even more efficient greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of human combustion of fossil fuels in history. In the past volcanic activity has been far more frequent than what we know today.

I live in the shadows of GNP, I can see it from my living room. Look at the photos taken at turn of last century, compared to just a couple decades latter, their accelerated melt off began long before humans really amped up the co2 production with the automobile. I really can't stand all the agenda shoved into the ranger talks and the shit coming our of the glacier institute anymore, so we go else where, there are better places to see not far away. Not quite as grandiose but no people for 20 plus miles in any dirrection

Yeah, unless mankind can somehow plug up volcanos, there is nothing we can do to stop the next ice age or anything else for that matter. Oh, and unless you can control the sun's flares, we ain't gonna be able to do a damn thing about it.

Now, can we stop treating the earth like a dump? Yes. Should we? Yes, because we want a nice place to live in. But should we tax the shit out of businesses and in turn ourselves into great poverty to stave off the small impact we have on global warming or cooling? No.

Everything about climate change is about control. From what you clean your oven with, to the dishwasher detergent, the cars you drive, how long the paint lasts on your exterior walls, etc. It is all about control. It will never be anything other than that.

The whole argument for greater environmental regulation is to control the population, period.

[Kershaw]

While I am not claiming to be a climate scientist in any form, I can look at data and infer.

How much of weight differential do you think these rocks need to become unbalanced? Is there a percentage change that you think would start to affect things? Maybe 5%? Maybe 10%?

Second question, do you think nature is perfectly balanced between all its individual constituents and terrains? How much would it require to unbalance things? Maybe the world can recover from volcanoes, huge ones certainly can unbalance the world, but it does recover. What happens when the world is at the limit that it can recover from and then a huge volcano erupts? The planet will keep living, but will it be hostile to us and the plants and animals we depend on?

I posit that there are plenty of people not bought by politics that simply want to care for the world and keep it beautiful for all the coming generations. Even those of us, like me, who don't plan on having kids and have no vested interest in the future. I want to keep this world a beautiful place.

Here is really sad news. The Great Barrier Reef is dying.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160321-coral-bleaching-great-barrier-reef-climate-change/

[Schnitzer318is]

well according to your historic time frame as a bench mark, apparently man is causing the planet to cool at a record pace LOLOL

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/1...-eight-months/

Come on GWB... Please site a reliable scientific graph, not one that is generated with a political agenda. They are even soliciting donations there on the site. Please go watch "Merchants of Doubt." You don't have to agree with everything in the film, but it certainly sheds light on how all these graphs, studies, and opposing positions come into being.

Here's one from Illinois State and then one from NASA which seem to coincide fairly closely, with the added benefit of showing Co2 levels as well.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Did you see the 2009 History Channel miniseries Life After People? 'Recovery' would be much more rapid that I feel you think it would be.

I did, and you're right... I probably should have clarified my use of VERY. They went all the way from day 1 out to something like 1000 years? I forget exactly, aired a long time ago.

My main point was that we are capable of influencing the planet to a very high degree, especially if we choose to do so.

[ajhostetter]

I love that the Trump thread has become the climate change thread.

[gwb72tii]

Come on GWB... Please site a reliable scientific graph, not one that is generated with a political agenda. They are even soliciting donations there on the site. Please go watch "Merchants of Doubt." You don't have to agree with everything in the film, but it certainly sheds light on how all these graphs, studies, and opposing positions come into being.

Here's one from Illinois State and then one from NASA which seem to coincide fairly closely, with the added benefit of showing Co2 levels as well.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I did, and you're right... I probably should have clarified my use of VERY. They went all the way from day 1 out to something like 1000 years? I forget exactly, aired a long time ago.

My main point was that we are capable of influencing the planet to a very high degree, especially if we choose to do so.

not going to enter this debate again
keep the faith baby cause that's all you have

the point was Hillary lost because of the dems overreaching and emphasizing crap like crap climate science instead of things important to the deplorables, like wages and jobs.
its interesting to note the people who voted for and elected our next president historically were the democrat base, people who worked their butts off, raised kids, bought a home and hoped to retire someday with a modest income. you know, the deplorables.
instead the left gave us crap climate models, transgender bathrooms, a war on coal jobs, and a war on the police.
and the left throws a temper tantrum because they lost?

[BraveUlysses]

hey if you're going to complain about use of sweeping generalizations like deplorables you shouldn't turn around and pretend that these protestors are representative of all of the 61M voters that picked hillary.