Global Warming is over.

[decay]

why can't you entertain the idea that the current model and interpretation of it be not 100% accurate?

who said it is? that's a completely unreasonable expectation. science is literally about discovering *what you don't know*. that's why scientists don't tend to speak in absolutes.

that doesn't mean you can't collect, aggregate, and analyze the data that is available.

[roguetoaster]

It's absurd and pathetic when a grown man gets this riled up...why don't you calm down?

You're a fucking retard.

[AlexJ]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

<3 NASA

Compare w/ NOAA, IPC, and CRP, all of whom have their own models, all of whom have come to the same conclusions.

Also, is there some kinda QAnon population here?

[MrBurgundy]

lol Yeah, that was a little stab because he was saying my comment was pathetic.

I had to be a little hypocritical to get my point across.

Thanks Rogue

Also, no I don't follow/know much about QAnon if that was directed at me.

[roguetoaster]

lol Yeah, that was a little stab because he was saying my comment was pathetic.

I had to be a little hypocritical to get my point across.

Thanks Rogue

YW. What do you see as the downside if we choose to make the green changes that are typically suggested and the current climate trend reverses itself for whatever reason?

[decay]

YW. What do you see as the downside if we choose to make the green changes that are typically suggested and the current climate trend reverses itself for whatever reason?

ok so you agree that there's a trend, and i'm the only person posting here who actually went to college to study the subject, but i'm the retard. got it.

the only thing pissing me off is that i'm presenting actual verifiable data and it's being ignored in favor of confirmation bias.

yeah i have a foul mouth. comes along with being military combat arms, that's just how we talk. grow some thicker skin.

[ForcedFirebird]

It's not like we require 1000 years worth of NASA satellite data before we're allowed to scrutinize and model how our pollution affects the global climate. Bringing up volcano eruptions or other natural processes is a feeble dismissal. I trust that geographers and geologists have thoroughly studied and mapped out earth's history of volcanic activity and determined that volcanos have indeed existed for millennia. However, a billion ICE engines burning fossil fuels never have before, and that's the whole point of all this. We're the new variable in a closed system. The fact that we're essentially at the very beginning of sustained man-made atmospheric pollution, among other things, just doesn't seem to be sinking in for some people. It's just absurd and pathetic how anybody, especially somebody with no expertise in the matter, can boldly claim the insignificance of a new variable being introduced to a closed system. Did you just completely skip every science class in school or what? This is basic stuff..

Again, not dismissal of what is happening, or science, but whether or not humans are the root cause, or rapidly accelerating the warming.

I too love NASA and any cosmological in fact. They are not without fault, though. Just in 1999 the Mars Climate orbiter burned up in the atmosphere due to NASA scientists using imperial in place of metric. $125m project and not a single audit on the math?

No matter how many years of data set points you have, when you start extrapolating from said data points, you can start to reach very skewed numbers - especially when discussing exponential feedback loops. If the Earth was already on a warming trajectory (which we know it was), then that throws even more uncertainty to the mix as we don't know what that rate would have been if humans were absent.

The goal posts keep moving. We are already into 2022, my house was going to be under water by 2010. Humans are analyzing the material, and sure we can put all the info into supercomputers, but computers do exactly what you tell them to do based on human input. Big gov't and big business like to use scare tactics. We were told as kids the acid rain was going to get so bad, it would literally melt skin - there was always a heavy "fog" over Boston/Brockton. Crazy how we stopped using leaded fuel, scrubbed the coal stacks, and now cities skies are clear.

Personal automobiles make up about 40% of the transportation industry. In 2020 cars have half the carbon density just since 2000. In 2000 there were 225m vehicle registrations, in 2020 275m, so it's a net loss - and probably a lot less total emission than the 188m registered in 1990. The rest of the industry is heavy transport and aviation, both of which use far more polluting fuel than passenger cars. Planes still use leaded, ships still use dirty diesel.

Does anyone find it odd that the ones advocating the most for climate are the worst polluters? They fly around the planet in private jets telling you shouldn't drive an ICE car, or eat meat.

Don't get me wrong. I am for clean energy, but when I do diligent research, I'm not convinced we are even close yet. The amount of energy it takes to gather the materials for EV's is exhaustive.

https://www.carscoops.com/2021/11/volvo-says-manufacturing-an-electric-car-generates-70-percent-more-emissions-than-its-petrol-equivalent/

From Volvo: https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-...LCA-report.pdf

The calculated if using 50% renewable energy, you need to drive that Volvo EV 124,000mi to balance an ICE production. In the US, we have an avg of 12% our electricity from renewables, so wonder how many miles that equates to be "carbon neutral"?

Best thing we could do right now and here is nuclear, but then you get the "OMGWTFBBQ nuclear waste and accidents" even though with modern chemistry we can re-concentrate spent fuel, and have passive systems for control failures.

A bigger problem humans are contributing is forever chems and plastics. No matter how many EV's we have, plastic dominates many facets of modern life, and will probably be around longer than us. We still had a milkman as kid. We returned the bottles and came back full. If you broke/lost one, or had another child, they would charge you for new bottle.

[roguetoaster]

ok so you agree that there's a trend, and i'm the only person posting here who actually went to college to study the subject, but i'm the retard. got it.

the only thing pissing me off is that i'm presenting actual verifiable data and it's being ignored in favor of confirmation bias.

yeah i have a foul mouth. comes along with being military combat arms, that's just how we talk. grow some thicker skin.

? I assume you are writing to burgs, or you have somehow never read a single other post I made in this thread.

To everyone else, lets not get too caught up in EVs, they're as dirty as their manufacturing process, the power they consume and their disposal processes. Personally, I think they are just another evolution of the transportation landscape, and when stored energy density is high enough they may replace just about everything.

There are much larger changes to implement in energy production, manufacturing, large scale transport, and the never sexy waste stream. Cars just happen to be an easy target to build an initiative around in this country.

[ForcedFirebird]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

<3 NASA

Compare w/ NOAA, IPC, and CRP, all of whom have their own models, all of whom have come to the same conclusions.

Also, is there some kinda QAnon population here?

So, you are in the camp "If you don't share my opinions or beliefs you are *****". You can put whatever word in there you like. The last few years, anyone slightly conservative is racists, ***phobe, bigot, Trumpster, MAGA, Qanon, Fascist, climate denier, election denier, conspiracy theorist, and many more. So, call me whatever you want, as long as it isn't @sshole.

Funny thing is I have voted equally red/blue looking back - my views and beliefs haven't changed, but what was center is now "far right".

[ForcedFirebird]

ok so you agree that there's a trend, and i'm the only person posting here who actually went to college to study the subject, but i'm the retard. got it.

the only thing pissing me off is that i'm presenting actual verifiable data and it's being ignored in favor of confirmation bias.

yeah i have a foul mouth. comes along with being military combat arms, that's just how we talk. grow some thicker skin.

Yes there's a trend. The earth has been warning since Younger Dryas with a little 300yr cold blip in the northern hemisphere ~13th century.

Yes, thicker skin is needed in P&R. Doubt anything anyone says or does here is really going to effect any one else, or the climate lol.

According to this the earth is generally a LOT warmer than it is now. How can we say that it's humans fault when ~375-240m years ago we see a saw toothed pattern sans humans. What's the actual global average temp over 500m years, and how does that compare to now?

[decay]

? I assume you are writing to burgs, or you have somehow never read a single other post I made in this thread.

no, i was writing to you.

and no, i'm not going back in this almost-200 page thread to parse everything i missed in the past 5 years building an E36M and a Ninja. not a good use of my time.

[roguetoaster]

no, i was writing to you.

and no, i'm not going back in this almost-200 page thread to parse everything i missed in the past 5 years building an E36M and a Ninja. not a good use of my time.

Well, it's an 82 page thread to those of us with sensible forum settings, so one or two pages back isn't far, and as burgs figured out immediately, I was pointing out his hypocrisy.

I personally appreciate that you have returned to this little corner of the internet, but get your facts in order about where someone stands before you accuse them of anything.

[decay]

According to this the earth is generally a LOT warmer than it is now. How can we say that it's humans fault when ~375-240m years ago we see a saw toothed pattern sans humans. What's the actual global average temp over 500m years, and how does that compare to now?

good data.

that spike 250m years ago caused the planet's worst of the 5 extinction cycles.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/12/06/biggest-extinction-in-earths-history-caused-by-global-warming-leaving-ocean-animals-gasping-for-breath/

yes, the earth has always had fluctuations. but do you see that over time they were much more gradual? now look at the spike at the end of the graph and note how it's a lot less gradual than it has been historically. that's human activity, as correlated by my 1950 argument made previously.

do i have a solution? nope. do i think EVs are a solution? nope, they're still dependent on non-renewable resources (lithium and polonium, primarily), and as others have pointed out, they're incredibly energy-intensive to harvest so we're kinda just compounding the problem.

call me a doomsayer if you want to. but once we cross that "no polar icecaps" threshold again (and we're halfway there over the past century), lots of coastal communities are going to be displaced across the planet, as nations in micronesia already are because they don't go too far above the sea level we're used to. crop production as we're used to doing will become non-viable in a lot of places we're used to growing food. conflicts will happen as resources become more limited; the army has been researching that since before i joined. i'm not saying we'll go extinct, but things will change.

[MrBurgundy]

YW. What do you see as the downside if we choose to make the green changes that are typically suggested and the current climate trend reverses itself for whatever reason?

I'm not against clean renewable energy. Technology will naturally move that way with or without climate change and there's no problem with that.

What leaves a sour taste in my mouth is that the gov is using manmade climate change as a stepping stone to do some foolish things.

For example; California is spouting off about banning the sale of new gas cars by 2035, which is a joke. We don't even have a power grid capable enough to power the state without the addition of millions of EVs. Which is just one example.

Also, EVs seems to be the main flagship of technology to help combat climate change and that in itself is not "clean" at all. It's a joke.

These things just make me more open to skepticism.

My whole position really on this topic is, like decay said; there is no absolute truth about this. We could be close, we could be far, but the fact that people are so dead set on this as being the total truth that they cannot even entertain the idea of this climate change being something other than manmade is really bizarre to me.

Like AlexJ probably thinks I'm a racist because I'm not openly supporting the idea that climate change is manmade as a truth. lol

All of that is really bizarre, but super interesting at the same time.

I'm never trying to convince people that it's something other than manmade. That's not what I'm trying to do. Seeing if someone is willing to even admit that this explanation might be wrong is what I'm after- Most people are not willing to admit.

I am- that's the main difference I see in myself vs a lot of people I chat with today.

People attack my character, my intelligence and so on, because I'll challenge their certainty.

[ForcedFirebird]

good data.

that spike 250m years ago caused the planet's worst of the 5 extinction cycles.

yes, the earth has always had fluctuations. but do you see that over time they were much more gradual? now look at the spike at the end of the graph and note how it's a lot less gradual than it has been historically. that's human activity, as correlated by my 1950 argument made previously.

do i have a solution? nope. do i think EVs are a solution? nope, they're still dependent on non-renewable resources (lithium and polonium, primarily), and as others have pointed out, they're incredibly energy-intensive to harvest so we're kinda just compounding the problem.

call me a doomsayer if you want to. but once we cross that "no polar icecaps" threshold again (and we're halfway there over the past century), lots of coastal communities are going to be displaced across the planet, as nations in micronesia already are because they don't go too far above the sea level we're used to. crop production as we're used to doing will become non-viable in a lot of places we're used to growing food. conflicts will happen as resources become more limited; the army has been researching that since before i joined. i'm not saying we'll go extinct, but things will change.