WritersBeat.com

WritersBeat.com (http://forums.writersbeat.com/index.php)
-   The Intellectual Table (http://forums.writersbeat.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46)
-   -   Lee Camp & Climate Change (http://forums.writersbeat.com/showthread.php?t=62210)

Beesauce 03-10-2018 09:25 AM

Lee Camp & Climate Change
 
RT, Lee Camp.

He knows --

Beesauce 03-10-2018 10:29 AM

oh these games

Mohican 03-10-2018 10:33 AM

Bee:
I know that you specified Human Made Climate Change, but I'll get this out of the way: The largest driver of climate, the earths temperatures,and changes to the climate is Solar Activity.

This does not take away a responsibility for a more sustainable agricultural model.

The population of the earth is growing, not shrinking. Barring a large depopulation that means that supporting this population means large scale agriculture - You could go with more non animal nutrition but it is less "nutrient dense", and would take more cultivated acres, more petro chemical fertilizer, etc. Which means more fertilizer run off, higher potential of chemicals getting into the aquafiers(sp) etc.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...21&oe=5B3D9FB0

brianpatrick 03-10-2018 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 743133)
Bee:
I know that you specified Human Made Climate Change, but I'll get this out of the way: The largest driver of climate, the earths temperatures,and changes to the climate is Solar Activity.

This does not take away a responsibility for a more sustainable agricultural model.

The population of the earth is growing, not shrinking. Barring a large depopulation that means that supporting this population means large scale agriculture - You could go with more non animal nutrition but it is less "nutrient dense", and would take more cultivated acres, more petro chemical fertilizer, etc. Which means more fertilizer run off, higher potential of chemicals getting into the aquafiers(sp) etc.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...21&oe=5B3D9FB0



If you keep this kind of nonsense up people will start to believe that Crowdgather pays you to subvert creative ideas in this forumóan idea that Iíve tried to play-down whenever I get a PM to that effect. No, Mo is alright, heís just a conservative Christianóyou know how they are, I say.

OMG! Climate change is NOT caused by solar activity. Please just stop spouting the Foxx news party line. Please... for your own good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mohican 03-10-2018 12:42 PM

Brian: I like the attempt at humor with your Faux News joke

Try to address confirm or deny:

1. Most of the Earth's heat comes from the Sun (True / False)

2 The energy radiating from the Sun is cyclical (True / False)

3 People can, and have for a long time observed solar activity and correlated it with climate/weather (aka Crazy BEN Franklin) (True / False)

4. Maunder and his Maunder Minimum was sponsored by the Weather Department at Fox News (True / False)

Myers 03-10-2018 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beesauce (Post 743118)

The TOP CAUSE of human-made climate change - animal agriculture - is basically never spoken about on the mainstream media.

The information is out there and available -- although it's usually framed up as a significant cause -- not the top cause. But that's splitting hairs.

A quick Google search shows stories on CNN, New York Times, The Gaurdian, BBC, NBC News, CNBC about beef production and climate change.

I haven't seen it yet but there's a doc on the subject on Netflix and I saw Food Inc. on Netflix -- which is a pretty damning look at modern meat production.

I think there's a difference between suppressing a story and people just not paying attention.

Mohican 06-23-2018 08:57 PM

The title is amusing

Why the sun controls the climate and Co2 is meaningless

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018...s-meaningless/
Quote:


As we’ve mentioned countless times on this blog, to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans (Click Here). The oceans, lakes and rivers cover upwards of 70% of the earth’s surface, and water is a highly effective heat sink, storing over 2,000x the energy found in the atmosphere. Very small changes to the energy in the oceans, therefore, means very big changes to the relative energy balance between the oceans and the atmosphere, and the oceans warm the atmosphere, not vice versa.

brianpatrick 06-23-2018 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 743159)
Brian: I like the attempt at humor with your Faux News joke

Try to address confirm or deny:

1. Most of the Earth's heat comes from the Sun (True / False)

2 The energy radiating from the Sun is cyclical (True / False)

3 People can, and have for a long time observed solar activity and correlated it with climate/weather (aka Crazy BEN Franklin) (True / False)

4. Maunder and his Maunder Minimum was sponsored by the Weather Department at Fox News (True / False)



Missed this. Iím no climate scientist, but the point is not how hot the sun is, itís how much of that heat stays in our atmosphere and causes the planet (including the oceans) to warm. The more carbon in our atmosphere, the more heat is trapped and canít escape.

The sun is not hotter now than itís been since man evolved.

Please donít become a stereotype. Iíd lose the little amount of respect I have for your philosophies all together.

But... I still respect you as a human being. ĎAll things great and smallí as the saying goes.

Mohican 06-23-2018 10:01 PM

Brian: I'm open minded to this. I'm an engineer, have a scientific mind. I'm not influenced by "Fox news", or Rush Limbaugh or whatever. I don't listen to much talk radio.



I have a fairly "green" footprint, so it's not about respect or lack of respect for environment.



A few years ago, while I had some slack time at the Pharma lab ran a colleague and I ran a few rough experiments with a small contained atmosphere of elevated CO2, and with introduced light and heat did not see temperature delta's from the same test run with atmospheric air. (I know, the atmosphere was collected from a midwest rust belt city, probably already had it's own superpolltants)



Quote:

brianpatrick: The sun is not hotter now than it’s been since man evolved.

With that said, You are in error.



The Sun has cycles where it puts out more heat and lesser heat. It's proven that during ice ages that there is less solar activity.



Here is an article that grudgingly acknowledges that solar activity effects the earths temperatures



https://www.historicalclimatology.co...n-old-question


Another article on Maunder https://www.britannica.com/science/Maunder-minimum



And you're warming is backwards. The Oceans warm/cool and then effect (affect) the atmospheric temps. The atmospheric effect on the oceans is limited to how much solar energy they let through to the Oceans. Salt water (and water in general) absorb and release much more energy than the atmosphere does.








Nacia 06-24-2018 02:27 AM

climate change is man made. absolutely no doubt about it.
It is no solar activity involvement whatsoever it can't be.

Nacia 06-24-2018 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beesauce (Post 743118)
RT, Lee Camp.

He knows --

do you have a link or quote on what he said about it?
I try to google but can't find anything.

Nacia 06-24-2018 02:54 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 745532)
Brian: I'm open minded to this. I'm an engineer, have a scientific mind. I'm not influenced by "Fox news", or Rush Limbaugh or whatever. I don't listen to much talk radio.



I have a fairly "green" footprint, so it's not about respect or lack of respect for environment.



A few years ago, while I had some slack time at the Pharma lab ran a colleague and I ran a few rough experiments with a small contained atmosphere of elevated CO2, and with introduced light and heat did not see temperature delta's from the same test run with atmospheric air. (I know, the atmosphere was collected from a midwest rust belt city, probably already had it's own superpolltants)




With that said, You are in error.



The Sun has cycles where it puts out more heat and lesser heat. It's proven that during ice ages that there is less solar activity.



Here is an article that grudgingly acknowledges that solar activity effects the earths temperatures



https://www.historicalclimatology.co...n-old-question


Another article on Maunder https://www.britannica.com/science/Maunder-minimum



And you're warming is backwards.

Quote:

The Oceans warm/cool and then effect (affect) the atmospheric temps. The atmospheric effect on the oceans is limited to how much solar energy they let through to the Oceans. Salt water (and water in general) absorb and release much more energy than the atmosphere does.





the solar system has nothing to do with it. there are other planets to consider.
each planet including the solar system are perfectly aligned a bit like a jigsaw puzzle. each piece relies on the other to make the full picture. if one goes wrong all the other will. this is how it works.
climate change has everything to do with man.

brianpatrick 06-24-2018 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacia (Post 745541)
the solar system has nothing to do with it. there are other planets to consider.
each planet including the solar system are perfectly aligned a bit like a jigsaw puzzle. each piece relies on the other to make the full picture. if one goes wrong all the other will. this is how it works.
climate change has everything to do with man.



Which is not to say we should avoid the obvious conclusion here. Climate change is accelerated by mans activities, yes, now what are we going to do about it? Are we going to impose draconian, business killing regulations to try and return the earth to its former state, or are we going to use our superior scientific intellects to figure out a solution thatíll allow most of us to live through the coming catastrophe?

chippedmonk 06-25-2018 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianpatrick (Post 745562)
Which is not to say we should avoid the obvious conclusion here. Climate change is accelerated by mans activities, yes, now what are we going to do about it? Are we going to impose draconian, business killing regulations to try and return the earth to its former state, or are we going to use our superior scientific intellects to figure out a solution thatíll allow most of us to live through the coming catastrophe?

i think the latter's the only hope left at this point. we suffered a massive coral bleaching event a couple of years ago because of a rise in sea temperature. and that wasn't too long after the corals recovered from el nino, which ravaged our reefs in the late 90s.

i love snorkelling and still do it from time to time. and i remember only too well when our reefs were vibrant and brimming with fish but the lagoons and reef slopes are shadows of their old selves. but the dead coral attracts many colourful parrotfish and anemones seem unperturbed by the increase in heat. snorkelling today is a sobering experience, though. as a person from an archipelagic nation, the effects of climate change seem so obvious. erosion plagues most of our islands, and if sea levels rise as predicted, we'll obviously be done for :(

Nacia 06-25-2018 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianpatrick (Post 745562)
Which is not to say we should avoid the obvious conclusion here. Climate change is accelerated by mans activities, yes, now what are we going to do about it? Are we going to impose draconian, business killing regulations to try and return the earth to its former state, or are we going to use our superior scientific intellects to figure out a solution thatíll allow most of us to live through the coming catastrophe?

common sense prevails it is easier then you think. ;)

Mohican 06-30-2018 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacia (Post 745537)
climate change is man made. absolutely no doubt about it.
It is no solar activity involvement whatsoever it can't be.


Who is propagating this idea that the sun's output is constant? And that the sun doesn't contribute to a changing climate?



If there was not solar involvement then the earth wouldn't receive radiant heat from the sun.



Solar output is cyclical. That is why people could, prior to modern instruments still track sun spot activity and predict long term weather patterns.



How does the sun produce heat/energy/light? It does it through nuclear fusion, via a hydrogen to helium conversion.



Other things change outside of man's control. The earth sometimes experiences "wobble" on its axis, it's orbit isn't always exact. The continents experience some drift - which could/would change the amount of heat the land absorbs.



Imagine having several large volcanic events. By the logic of the CO2 - global warming theorist, the extra CO2 should make the earth hotter? In 1816, North America and much of the world experienced a volcanic winter. The haze (and extra CO2) didn't absorb heat from the sun, but blocked it. There was summer pond ice as far south as Pennsylvania....

Mohican 06-30-2018 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacia (Post 745541)
the solar system has nothing to do with it. there are other planets to consider.
each planet including the solar system are perfectly aligned a bit like a jigsaw puzzle. each piece relies on the other to make the full picture. if one goes wrong all the other will. this is how it works.
climate change has everything to do with man.


There is nothing in nature that makes the climate change?

Mohican 06-30-2018 08:55 PM

Quote:

brianpatrick: Missed this. I’m no climate scientist, but the point is not how hot the sun is, it’s how much of that heat stays in our atmosphere and causes the planet (including the oceans) to warm. The more carbon in our atmosphere, the more heat is trapped and can’t escape.

The sun is not hotter now than it’s been since man evolved.

Please don’t become a stereotype. I’d lose the little amount of respect I have for your philosophies all together.

But... I still respect you as a human being. ‘All things great and small’ as the saying goes.

I won't change based on "what little respect" you have for me. Is that supposed to be a convincing argument?



Quote:

The sun is not hotter now than it’s been since man evolved.

Perhaps you will soon lose all respect for NASA either? According to NASA


Quote:

Our star varies in every way we can observe it. The sun's writhing magnetic fields – caused by the movement of the charged material, known as plasma, it's made of – leads to constant change on timescales from milliseconds to billions of years. We see giant solar eruptions such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections that can last minutes to hours. We see dark sunspots form, grow and disappear on its surface over weeks. The magnetic poles of the sun flip approximately every 11 years causing a solar cycle that has been meticulously tracked since the 1600s. And over millennia, the total energy output of the sun at any given time is known to change.
As we live in the extended atmosphere of this star -- which dominates our solar system and sustains life on Earth -- we need to understand what drives such variation. What's more, knowledge of what powers the sun helps us create better models to predict what kind of radiation and energy it may send our way. Such information also teaches us about other stars throughout the universe.

brianpatrick 06-30-2018 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 745738)
Who is propagating this idea that the sun's output is constant? And that the sun doesn't contribute to a changing climate?



If there was not solar involvement then the earth wouldn't receive radiant heat from the sun.



Solar output is cyclical. That is why people could, prior to modern instruments still track sun spot activity and predict long term weather patterns.



How does the sun produce heat/energy/light? It does it through nuclear fusion, via a hydrogen to helium conversion.



Other things change outside of man's control. The earth sometimes experiences "wobble" on its axis, it's orbit isn't always exact. The continents experience some drift - which could/would change the amount of heat the land absorbs.



Imagine having several large volcanic events. By the logic of the CO2 - global warming theorist, the extra CO2 should make the earth hotter? In 1816, North America and much of the world experienced a volcanic winter. The haze (and extra CO2) didn't absorb heat from the sun, but blocked it. There was summer pond ice as far south as Pennsylvania....



Letís say, for the sake of argument that 97% of scientists are wrong (or on the payroll), and man is not contributing to global warming. What then? Donít we still have to find a solution? Or... we could not do anything and allow a lot of people to die, and witness mass migrations like the world has never seen.

Is that maybe just part of Godís plan? Iíve heard there are people who like strife in the Middle East because the Bible says thatís where it will all end. Youíre not one of those guys are you?

brianpatrick 06-30-2018 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 745740)
I won't change based on "what little respect" you have for me. Is that supposed to be a convincing argument?






Perhaps you will soon lose all respect for NASA either? According to NASA



Yeah, it varies, but has been stable for 4.5 billion years. The planet wobbles (not time to time, but every 26,000 years).

Thatís not what global warming is.

I just donít see what the end game is for critics of global warming. Do nothing? Give up and say fuck it, thatís what God actually wants? We could use a few billion less people on the planet anyway? What?

Mohican 06-30-2018 10:24 PM

The argument is changing. So perhaps the sun's output does vary? But hmm, let's minimize that?

I do enjoy this habit of people trying to throw my faith at me in arguments where I'm not taking a popular side. What is shows me is that the person making the argument against me is down to ....shaming tactics.


What is global warming?

If we are experiencing Global Warming, is it man made, how much?

Because you are throwing faith at me and wanting a response...
What do I believe? We are taught to be good stewards of the earth. Ancient practices included rotating fields, so that some could lay fallow and rest. I take steps to not pollute water or air.


But I also believe that God has caused massive, cataclysmic climate events, and perhaps God is not finished. When things in The Revelations of Saint John occur, buckle up for the ride.

Some thoughts, not in order.

1. If we are warming, is it harmful? Or how much is harmful?

2. Has mankind done better or worse, healthwise, in warm or cold periods?

3. How do I take global warming seriously when the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement have huge "carbon footprints" and "energy footprints"?

4. Within a generation (or two generations depending on how fast you breed) "Settled Science" has switched from human activity will cause the next ice age to human activity will cause the earth to get to hot.


Other areas of settled science have remained settle science. Perhaps the science of climate change isn't so settled?


5. How long, compared to the age of the earth has the climate been studied?


6. Has the measurement methods for capturing temperature data changed since temperature has been recorded in "the modern era"?

7. Lets look at #2, especially in light of the Earth's population continuing to grow. If the population of the earth continues to grown then the amount of food grown will need to increase? Or will we just need to improve yields through technology? Will more efficient plants yield more or less CO2? If we grow more plants to feed a growing population, will there be more CO2?

If we grow more plants, or more efficient plants, and more C02 is in the atmosphere will the earth then warm significantly?


Perhaps we should realize that this is is a complex subject, and the solutions, if it is a problem, lie somewhere other than Al Gore-ian hucksterisms.

brianpatrick 06-30-2018 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 745747)
The argument is changing. So perhaps the sun's output does vary? But hmm, let's minimize that?

I do enjoy this habit of people trying to throw my faith at me in arguments where I'm not taking a popular side. What is shows me is that the person making the argument against me is down to ....shaming tactics.


What is global warming?

If we are experiencing Global Warming, is it man made, how much?

Because you are throwing faith at me and wanting a response...
What do I believe? We are taught to be good stewards of the earth. Ancient practices included rotating fields, so that some could lay fallow and rest. I take steps to not pollute water or air.


But I also believe that God has caused massive, cataclysmic climate events, and perhaps God is not finished. When things in The Revelations of Saint John occur, buckle up for the ride.

Some thoughts, not in order.

1. If we are warming, is it harmful? Or how much is harmful?

2. Has mankind done better or worse, healthwise, in warm or cold periods?

3. How do I take global warming seriously when the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement have huge "carbon footprints" and "energy footprints"?

4. Within a generation (or two generations depending on how fast you breed) "Settled Science" has switched from human activity will cause the next ice age to human activity will cause the earth to get to hot.


Other areas of settled science have remained settle science. Perhaps the science of climate change isn't so settled?


5. How long, compared to the age of the earth has the climate been studied?


6. Has the measurement methods for capturing temperature data changed since temperature has been recorded in "the modern era"?

7. Lets look at #2, especially in light of the Earth's population continuing to grow. If the population of the earth continues to grown then the amount of food grown will need to increase? Or will we just need to improve yields through technology? Will more efficient plants yield more or less CO2? If we grow more plants to feed a growing population, will there be more CO2?

If we grow more plants, or more efficient plants, and more C02 is in the atmosphere will the earth then warm significantly?


Perhaps we should realize that this is is a complex subject, and the solutions, if it is a problem, lie somewhere other than Al Gore-ian hucksterisms.



I agree that Al Gore is a cock-sucker. But he isnít a scientist. Heís an actor who played Vice President for a few years. That has nothing to do with the fact that when the polar ice caps melt, sea level will rise as much as 22ft. And since most people live on coastlines... but, yeah, maybe Godís not done yet.

Nacia 07-01-2018 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohican (Post 745739)
There is nothing in nature that makes the climate change?

I personally don't believe nature is involved. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Mohican 07-06-2018 06:25 PM

When are the polar ice caps going to melt? Where are the arctic and anarctic ice sheets relative to 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

E. Zamora 07-07-2018 07:09 AM

If you want to impress people at a party, talk about global warming. It's a real ice breaker.

Nacia 07-07-2018 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E. Zamora (Post 745921)
If you want to impress people at a party, talk about global warming. It's a real ice breaker.

you can thrown in the carbon footprint at it and all!!I will wipe the surface clean after that.

Beesauce 07-07-2018 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacia (Post 745764)
I personally don't believe nature is involved. It just doesn't make sense to me.



... Okay, I'll need to extrapolate the logic. Either your being factitious or it's your true opinion / belief --


Nature is always involved otherwise the Ice Age and all those bridges would have been something other than nature --

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying your statement is absolute, as nature cannot not touch itself and change --.

Beesauce 07-07-2018 11:06 AM

Brian Patrick Quoting :
 
From BrianPatrick:
Quote:

If you keep this kind of nonsense up people will start to believe that Crowdgather pays you to subvert creative ideas in this forumóan idea that Iíve tried to play-down whenever I get a PM to that effect. No, Mo is alright, heís just a conservative Christianóyou know how they are, I say.


Funny quote B.P. .and thanks for sharing a bit of WB village history --

Mohican 07-08-2018 03:53 PM

How warm was Scotland during the times of Roman Empire?



How warm was Greenland during the Viking times?



Hard to answer these questions, record keeping and back then there was a lack of measuring temperature.



But was there a Medieval Warming Period, and then also a Little Ice Age?

Mohican 07-08-2018 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacia (Post 745764)
I personally don't believe nature is involved. It just doesn't make sense to me.


Would a volcano fall under "Nature" for you?


If there was a significant volcanic eruption, an a subsequent "Volcanic Winter" would that be due to "Nature" ?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:12 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.