What is climate change, and how is it affecting Earth?

jason45

BANNED
Apr 14, 2020
1
0
10
no we are not causing it. the lake vostok ice cores have shown temps rising first, followed by co2. as the ocean warms, less co2 is held. tell iceland who just got hit with 5 feet of snow its warming. during the roman period it was so warm they grew grapes in england. more fake science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Observer

BANNED
Aug 15, 2020
47
2
55
Science should be open to a reasoned on going discussion.

Please can you read this post with an open mind ?

I do not know the answers, I mosty believed the medias various stories until one day years ago I had a very short random conversation with an very kind lady who made a few comments that got me thinking what did I really know ?

First there is a bigger picture we should all be concerned with - we are all being manipulated and allowing it to happen.

In its simplest form its product advertising but there is much more.

We know from history that what we think we know is a given truth is often proved with time misguided and false.

All the big discussions today and in history focus on first capturing the debate and excluding other opinions by whatever means. Ridicule or censorship are often used

We see this most clearly in business.

What happens is business captures the politicians, academics, regulators and media by funding them through donations, advertising spending or regulator financing and business jobs for ex regulators, politicians and others

Let us be honest this process is not a left or right thing, its a China, Russia, EU and USA thing.

Its a Bush, Clinton, Obama, Xi, Putin and most others thing.

Its pay to play and dont rock the boat

Its the sportification of life. Its just become more so today

You are in my team or you are dumb and my enemy.

Its about capturing power not about finding the real answer.

Winning at all cost

Lets look outside politics

Nuclear power is an example of how the debate was captured.

Not JUST the pro or anti nuclear power

but

the TYPE of nuclear power

Thorium / Sodium based nuclear power was known about since WW2 but was blocked even though it is very safe and cheaper in the long term

There is about 3x more thorium than uranium

Plus core melt down basically cannot happen, toxic waste is relatively small and radio-activity does not last as long so decommissioning costs are far less

The nuclear debate was captured and uranium nuclear power was used.

There were many reasons but not because it was better or safer or cheaper for us - though it was sold that way and the thorium / sodium alternative was written out and not discussed.

Basically other parties benefited and made more out of uranium and did not want the thorium alternative developed or researched



Global Warming

There are legitimate reasons both to question global warming or to say it is valid.

Certainly there has been warming up to a point.

However what does it really mean.

We know humans are damaging the planet so lets stop doing that and benefit from that process.

If it helps Global Warming great, and remain open to information as science is never settled

We can all win regardless of our given prejudices whether correct or not.

How ?

Whatever one believes we can certainly agree we need to remove various pollutants from our environment - water, land, food and air.

So lets address that and also how we can develop

greener less toxic stable power sources including thorium/sodium nuclear power and
use fossil fuels in other less polluting ways and processes before it runs out.

Wind and solar power can be part of the solution but that power cannot be stored, can do damage in other ways and will have decommissioning costs that business will not pay for.

We need alternatives.

On Global Warming it has been shown that there have been much warmer times within the last 12,000 years and before so it seems less likely that human generated CO2 is a key driver.

Livescience has featured articles showing the European Alps were probably ice free around 3,300 BC.

No one seeks to discuss or explain this and that human based CO2 played no role

This strongly implies other factors play a far greater role in earths warming and cooling than we currently publicly understand

See the post below for links to the various articles and the Lorraine Lisiecki discovery of evidence showing a huge warming and cooling effect due to earths 3 different orbital cycles - temperature cycle data shown via core sediment samples around the world


Other factors NASA sets out that water vapor has a significant green house warming effect but this is not really discussed

CO2 makes up 0.0416% of the atmospheric volume while water vapor accounts for an average of about 2.5% of the atmospheric mass.

H2O concentration vary significantly from the coldest portions of the atmosphere to as much as 5% in hot, humid air masses

So as the earth warmed after the last ice age H2O vapor in the atmosphere grew significantly


The orbital cycles of the Earth are set out in the livescience post above.

UC Santa Barbara geologist Lorraine Lisiecki discovered a pattern that connects the regular changes of the Earth's orbital cycle to changes in the Earth's climate. The finding is reported in this week's issue of the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

Our axial tilt last reached its maximum value nearly 11,000 years ago, corresponding to the end of our last glacial maximum, with our next minimum approaching in a little under 10,000 years. If natural variations were dominant, we’d expect the next ~20,000 years to favor the growth of ice sheets

If you want to see how other debates are captured look at the plastics debate - read the post below and watch the youtube documentary.

I did not know how badly skewed things were until I watched the video and saw how the debate is manipulated in plain sight

Remember business is doing this in everything we eat, breath, drink, wear and use.

We know about some past manipulation issues but not about whats being hidden in plain sight now or recently


Finally on Global Warming please keep an open mind both ways.

Science is not a religion opinions can and do change 180 degrees over time

That does not meaning we should pollute the planet or generate CO2 but it does mean we can focus on removing CO2 in a way that also properly removes all the toxins that are rapidly killing us and the planet

Lastly if you want an alternative perspective please watch the videos by Nobel Prize winning Physicist Professor Ivar Giaeve

You dont have to agree but he says he had no view on Global Warming and believed the media until he was asked to talk about it as a panel member at a Nobel Laureate Prize event and then did some research which shocked him.

His actions and perspectives are genuine - that does not mean he is right but it certainly means lets ask for better answers.

As he says science is not a religion.

Let us all find a good way forward whereby in looking after others we also look after ourselves and our loved ones

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7mGSVsl-ing


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=0s
 
Last edited:
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
That does not meaning we should pollute the planet or generate CO2 but it does mean we can focus on removing CO2 in a way that also properly removes all the toxins that are rapidly killing us and the planet
Observer...You just implied that CO2 is a pollutant? Focus on removing CO2...and toxins? There are billions being spent on just that. Direct air capture and storage of CO2 under pressure in widespread geological locations. The problem with that solution is it cannot possibly remove enough CO2 to affect the Earth's climate. That technology (even scaled up globally) cannot even remove and safely store just one part-per-million. Never mind those other ppms needed to lower the atmospheric burden to reach a Net-zero goal. A better way forward is to focus our resources on adaptation to whatever the climate decides to do. We will need to do that anyhow.
 

Observer

BANNED
Aug 15, 2020
47
2
55
I do not absolutely think or know CO2 is a pollutant it is consumed by plants to create growth.

I do think that it is often linked to other toxins being released with it from power stations cars and industry or mining

I believe we should stop polluting the planet and what we eat drink and breath while better reseasrch is done on what effects the planets climate.

Watch Nobel Prize winning Physicist Professor Ivar Giaeve youtube videos above

A better way forward is to focus our resources on adaptation to whatever the climate decides to do. We will need to do that anyhow.
Your comments make sense and part of that process is to understand the very long term cyclical nature of the planets climate - including from its 3 long term orbits, the 12 year and longer solar cycles and the ocean currents to name just 3 factors.

We know for example the african desert was once green and but the climate changed and that Vikings settled in Greenland for around 500 years when the climate was warmer but then had to leave probably as it got too cold for farming

Let us all move forward to a better understanding of what drives the climate and not make it a religion that cannot be questioned
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY