What's new
By:

Global Climate Status Report

NAOS said:
What’s the ball that keeps on bouncing? Life on Earth? Human civilization as we’ve come to know it in the past 300 years? Human existence?

It’s very problematic to compare the warming event that we’re producing right now with previous warming events in Earth’s history.

It’s clear to me that you want to believe a certain narrative on what is transpiring. Of course, you’re trying to apply that same critique to anyone who is broadcasting “doomsday scenarios”; but that critique isn’t going so well for you, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

None of these are the "ball that keeps on bouncin'" in my reference. The natural world and the mega-systems that exist in geology and surface enegy cycles. natural systems that have been on-going for millions of years, and will keep on going. Whether we can burn enough of the stored hydrocarbons or not. Whether all oil is photosynthetic or not.

Actually, I think some of our oil resources are abiotic, that some thousands of feet beneath our geologic carboniferous or sedimentary layers since Pre-Cambrian time, there has been some hydrocarbon entrapped since the ball coalesced in the first place. While 90% plus of the material in space is hydrogen even now, the most frequent carbon compounds will be hydrocarbon in the first place.

I know a lot of scientists see our anthropogenic carbon dioxide as extra-cyclical, and consider it disruptive of the whole natural system. We would be indulging in quibbling over orders of magnitude to argue it., without enough information I would consider reliable.

What the warmist are conveniently discounting is ocean heat beneath the surface. The satellites are recording the SSTs and we are getting better data, which is still compared to less convincing data of a hundred years or 140 years ago, during a little "cold spell" so to speak, a probable convenient low point, to create a nearly 1 C comparative plus in todays temps. That is just dishonest science to begin with. But let's go with it anyway. 1C is huge in terms of climate, in terms of ocean evaporation rates, in terms of changed precipitation quantities and patterns, in terms of hurricane strengths..... I think we don't need to quibble about that.

I'm trying to find any kind of data on changing temps in deep wells, or in volcanic activity changes, or in plate tectonic changes.... which I think relates to something more powerful than human activity.... cycles within the earth itself. I think we may be coming into a volcanic age, an age of increased release of heat from our nuclear engines in the core.

I think climate change is definitely going on. I don't know that we can change what we do to make a difference. I don't think we should be doing fossil fuel burnoff as our core economic system in the first place. Let's just move on.

But lets no give ourselves into the hands of our current elite fascists, OK?
 
So, in overview......

I generally enjoy the attempt to be a contrarian, in almost any subject...... even in religion..... but especially in science. Many people just flop down on their knees and do some sort of oooh.... or ahhhh.... as they boy repetitively to the great God of Science, at whatever "Science" has been made out to be for the popular mind or for the unwashed masses of humanity.

I've sat in on a few research report seminars and heard the quibbling among "The Scientists". From that standpoint, I would infer that "Settled Science" will go on being a myth for some time.

So here's the kiddy breakdown of the issues I think have not been adequately researched, all of which have been assumed to be irrelevant in the hysteria of Climate Change.

(1) Space Environment. The nature of the areas we are impacting as we move on through space. We have a certain orbit around the Sun, which we know something about. We know about the other planets and their movements, we know about the Moon. We know a very little about solar "wind" and the Sun processes which appear to present some cycles which affect us.... changing radiance flux, changing particle wind flux, particle character.

We also have an orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy, in which some speculate some cycles due to changing relations to other galactic realities, like debris fields, hydrogen clouds, and radiative regions. We know nothing, practically speaking.

We must accept that even the Milky Way Galaxy is on a journey..... into regions we know little about. We look out with our telescopes of different sorts, and see stuff that is beyond our expectations.

Being on this ride is not something people with great normality biases can expect to be "normal", really. We have geologic history or cataclysmic events like huge chunks of whatever colliding with us.

Then there is the space within the Earth we know little about......

Science is changing in this field, quite rapidly. No room for "Settled Science" here. Within the past 50 years, the much-derided science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions has nevertheless been gaining ground. This is the Cold Fusion Science our petroleum political establishment intended to sink the bottom of the sea, never to rise again. But recent data relevant to internal earth nuclear processes has come up, within the past year, that forces scientists to revise their ideas about the Earth Core. Now they are scrambling to explain about half of the Core Heat balance. Known fission, as measured by certain radiative measures, does not account for half of it. Residual heat from the Earth's original molten ball theory, cannot explain it..So at last, serious mainstream Science publications have admitted publication of the first LENR proposal for a reaction that is possibly happening within the Core. An iron-hosted hydrogen fusion reaction going on under extreme pressure and heat..... a sort of halfway reaction between Cold Fusion and unassisted Hydrogen Fusion believed to be the heat engine of the Sun. But this reaction has not been an "Earth Constant"..... it is believed to have started a mere 2 billion years ago.... and we have no idea of how it is changing now. Stuff is moving within our molten insides. And while the iron core is believed to be a solid, under the pressure imposed, it is absorbing hydrogen into the crystal lattice of the iron, it is being proposed.

So, in terms of fissionable nucleides in our composition, we have U and TH, and K, with known half-lives, but whose decay rates do vary in terms of neutron fluxes and such. These fission events give off radiation that can escape to where we can measure it, and so determine the current rates. The current rates are only about half of the current heat being generated.

So, while Scientists consider the Earth's heat neglible in comparison to the Sun, it can no longer be assumed to be a constant. We need to know how it is changing. 1 C difference under the sea will be "Climate Changing".

But overall, I am not really a Science Skeptic. I am just saying we don't have enough understanding of the whole situation.

Politically, I am opposed to globalism and socialism as top-down political "causes" because we just don't have people we can trust that much to run the world.

I assert that the Climate Accords are scandalously corrupt deals that favor some few "winners" in the Grand Chase for Global Monopolies.
 
NAOS said:
You should definitely have a pretty good emergency food storage.

I’m not a prepper, but those folks are looking less crazy by the week.
Click to expand...

Food storage....stuff in tin cans or even grain in plastic buckets.... is pretty short term provisions....

When the sea is rising a fraction of an inch in a year, or an inch in a lifetime..... the idea of panic is just unrealistic. If we know what is happening.... if we know plate tectonics and earthquakes, we can make plans long term. We know some mountins are rising six or twelve inches per year.... we know some plates are moving a foot in a year. We can build to be safe from earthquakes, to some extent. We can build in places where the buildings will have their expected useful lives above the sea's incursion.

I'd day we need to abandon New Orleans and the Mississippi River dikes, and just build a new city about fifty feet higher , and dredge a channel for the new port.... stuff like that.

Trying to keep the river barges and the seagoing ships able to meet in New Orleans is just useless. We've built the river dikes up so high, if it breaks there's a whole new route to the sea thirty five feet lower. Go build a new port city somewhere along that....

A few degrees in temp can change the best crops to grow in a location, though. But that's a short term decision any year.

The whole idea of urban concentration probably needs to be revisited. We can build smaller cites that function more effectively..... less commute.... less transportation expenses.

One idea I really like is a whole new "Interstate" highway project. An electric suspended rail. vehicles of all types could be hooked, and hoisted, and taken to their offload site, where they could drive away. All it takes is designing vehicles so they can be securely carried by the "hooks". Electric generation along the route rather than megaplants in a few locations. Instead of so much concrete and oil in the roads, more steel. A lot more copper because of all the electric motors though.

LA to Vegas, and LA to San Francisco, could be the initial projects in the West. Boston to DC in the East.

With any kind of electric generation plant, we can do the pollution control effectively, not like it is with cars and emission controls in each car.
 
I don't have cable/dish TV but I baby sat my parents dog this last weekend and got to watch a little. I was watching CNN and they showed a stat the 50% of global emissions comes from 10% of the richest people in the world. I found that absolutely insane, yet I never hear anybody talk about that. All I see is the rich telling others how they need to change while they travel the world in their gas guzzling yachts and private airplanes.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I don't have cable/dish TV but I baby sat my parents dog this last weekend and got to watch a little. I was watching CNN and they showed a stat the 50% of global emissions comes from 10% of the richest people in the world. I found that absolutely insane, yet I never hear anybody talk about that. All I see is the rich telling others how they need to change while they travel the world in their gas guzzling yachts and private airplanes.
Click to expand...
This post demonstrates is that you need to get out more. That’s about it.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I don't have cable/dish TV but I baby sat my parents dog this last weekend and got to watch a little. I was watching CNN and they showed a stat the 50% of global emissions comes from 10% of the richest people in the world. I found that absolutely insane, yet I never hear anybody talk about that. All I see is the rich telling others how they need to change while they travel the world in their gas guzzling yachts and private airplanes.
Click to expand...
Most of the richest ten percent aren't as rich as you seem to think. You yourself are likely among them, you only need to have a net worth of around 90k to qualify.
 
Zombie said:
Most of the richest ten percent aren't as rich as you seem to think. You yourself are likely among them, you only need to have a net worth of around 90k to qualify.
Click to expand...

Nope, y'all need to get your **** together and stop ruining my planet!

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top