Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we want scientists, not activists that in any way, shape or form lend credence to the IPCC's 'post-normal' bulls**t.
The problem is that you can't tell the difference.
I am not singling you out. It appears to me that the majority of the public has become so disconnected from science that they can't tell the difference.
LOL..You don't even understand your own comparison. Yeah so you point to Hogs and say see we are not the most stupid species on the planet, hogs are. It really is amusing. You should write comedy.
What did I state?
Hogs destroy the environment and have no means to replenish it, replace what they've destroyed, or repair what they've destroyed.
Quit dodging and deflecting lemming.
I posted methods to capture C02. Proving my point further you are nothing but a hyperbolic lemming who only wants to blat about it. Not be about it. Further proving we have the ability to extract C02 from the atmosphere and can use it to produce polymers even synthetic fuels... can hogs do that? Nope. Not at all.
Yet you won't touch that with a 10foot pole. Interesting.
If anything, you lend credibility to the entire premise of most stupid species on earth.
So much for being for science and all. You're nothing but a poser that wants to rant tirelessly about expanding .gov through fines, fees, taxes, regulations. Not take any initiative whatsoever yourself to, (if you actually believe, C02 and C02 alone is the planets demise) use science and technology to capture, remove, refine, C02 and produce a profit from your efforts.
I am still proven correct in my assesment.
You keep playing yourself. It's entertaining.
I asked you what ended the last ice age; you answered by saying that I'm stupid.
You're not very good at this are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
What caused the end of the last ice age? CO2???? I highly doubt that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
I addressed this above.
See what I actually said does not resemble what you falsely accused me of saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
You still did not answer my question: What ended the last ice age?
This is a typical denialist argument.
It goes as such...geological record shows that climate can change rapidly without humans emitting CO2 (but which does require millions of cubic kilometers of strategically-placed ice that would be difficult to miss?) Additionally this denialist argument also tries to infer that because we do not know exactly what happened 20K & 13K years ago....how can we be sure about today? (in spite of us we seeing exactly what is happening today!)
With respect to this type of argument I have to say I cannot see how any denialist argument would begin to stand up.
Now to answer your question. So what triggers a de-glaciation? Milancovitch cycles of course! But can you see these triggers?
The triggers aren't so obvious as the ice age needs to be primed as well as triggered. Ice ages used to occur every 40KY but over the last 1,000KY they last 100KY. (I think there's been some progress towards answering why - possibly more exposed bedrock.)
And within ice ages there are other events that still come with significant questions - Dansgaard–Oeschger events, Heinrich events and the Bølling-Allerød warming that immediately proceeded the Younger Dryas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
AS for the Younger Dryus re~freeze, there has been a crater found in Greenland that might have caused the havoc...
Silly geologist hypothesis that's been kicked to the curb. BTW that NASA video you posted is not tied to the agenda you are trying to push.
Perhaps you can read the article linked below and learn a bit about that outdated silly geologist hypothesis.
If you don't want to read the entire article here's the take away.
Quote:
For more than a decade, scientific journals have been the battleground for skirmishes over this impact hypothesis. The idea has drawn opponents from a spectrum of scientific fields, including paleoclimatology, physics and archaeology. The critics contend that there is little to no reproducible or incontrovertible evidence for many of the key arguments of the hypothesis.
“Over and over and over, there are these things that are claimed to be proxies for an impact,” says Vance Holliday, an archaeologist and geologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “And they’re all debatable, every single one.”
I also suggest that you check out this 32 second video of the melt out of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
Note in the video the big lakes that build in the millennia before 13KYbp. The initial take on the Younger Dryas was that it was the sudden draining of these lakes that caused the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) to collapse and precipitate the Yonger Dryas. But evidence for such an outflow remains elusive (the Wikithing references to a Mackenzie River outflow are found in these papers: Murton et al 2010 & Keigwin et al 2018), but some research suggests it has to be more complex than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
All the while the last Ice Age was ending, then the Younger Dryus event happened, that was most likely due to an asteroid impact event.
Not sure why you had to post this twice but I've addressed it in this response from your previous post.
Last edited by Matadora; 06-09-2019 at 11:10 AM..
Reason: To point out that I've already addressed it.
Lot's of good arguments presented here, with statistical analysis and research to buttress it . Both detractors and supporters of our contributions to climate change are increasing everyone's knowledge of climate change. No need to personally attack someones beliefs on anything other than the scientific merits. You cannot convince someone to change their position by repeated insults.
Thanks to everyone, on both sides, for your contributions.
See what I actually said does not resemble what you falsely accused me of saying?
This is a typical denialist argument.
It goes as such...geological record shows that climate can change rapidly without humans emitting CO2 (but which does require millions of cubic kilometers of strategically-placed ice that would be difficult to miss?) Additionally this denialist argument also tries to infer that because we do not know exactly what happened 20K & 13K years ago....how can we be sure about today? (in spite of us we seeing exactly what is happening today!)
With respect to this type of argument I have to say I cannot see how any denialist argument would begin to stand up.
Now to answer your question. So what triggers a de-glaciation? Milancovitch cycles of course! But can you see these triggers?
The triggers aren't so obvious as the ice age needs to be primed as well as triggered. Ice ages used to occur every 40KY but over the last 1,000KY they last 100KY. (I think there's been some progress towards answering why - possibly more exposed bedrock.)
And within ice ages there are other events that still come with significant questions - Dansgaard–Oeschger events, Heinrich events and the Bølling-Allerød warming that immediately proceeded the Younger Dryas.
Silly geologist hypothesis that's been kicked to the curb. BTW that NASA video you posted is not tied to the agenda you are trying to push.
Perhaps you can read this and learn a bit about that outdated silly geologist hypothesis.
Note in the video the big lakes that build in the millennia before 13KYbp. The initial take on the Younger Dryas was that it was the sudden draining of these lakes that caused the AMO to collapse & precipitate the Yonger Dryas. But evidence for such an outflow remains elusive (the Wikithing references to a Mackenzie River outflow are found in the papers: Murton et al 2010 & Keigwin et al 2018), but some research suggests it has to be more complex than that.
I'm going to address you as the other poster has been argued into a corner and can't address what I've brought forth. They'd rather blat about it than be about it.
Capturing C02, transforming it into a polymer, even synthetic fuel for a possible "carbon neutral" fuel source for internal combustion engines.
Imagine the money made bringing a polymer to market, advertising cleaning the air of C02.
Opposed to money lost due to .gov taxes, fees, fines, and regulations.
I'm into science. The poster I argued with merely wants to endorse .gov intervention. I presented we have a way to capture and put it to use.
Can't really say we don't have the science or technology to counter it and can only solely rely on .gov to further intrude upon our lives and arbitrarily raise costs of literally everything...
Prime opportunity awaits for those who are into science... Wouldn't you agree?
Lot's of good arguments presented here, with statistical analysis and research to buttress it . Both detractors and supporters of our contributions to climate change are increasing everyone's knowledge of climate change. No need to personally attack someones beliefs on anything other than the scientific merits. You cannot convince someone to change their position by repeated insults.
Thanks to everyone, on both sides, for your contributions.
"....For more than a decade, scientific journals have been the battleground for skirmishes over this impact hypothesis. The idea has drawn opponents from a spectrum of scientific fields, including paleoclimatology, physics and archaeology. The critics contend that there is little to no reproducible or incontrovertible evidence for many of the key arguments of the hypothesis.
“Over and over and over, there are these things that are claimed to be proxies for an impact,” says Vance Holliday, an archaeologist and geologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “And they’re all debatable, every single one.”...."
From my link....
".....The Hiawatha impact crater was first suspected to exist in the summer of 2015, from examination of a compilation of Greenland's sub-ice topography radar measurements made by NASA over two decades. The visualizations of the subsurface shown below are derived from a spring 2016 airborne survey by Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute, using a new ultrawideband radar sounder developed by the Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets at The University of Kansas. Subsequent helicopter visits to the deglaciated terrain in front of Hiawatha Glacier by scientists from the Natural History Museum in Denmark recovered sediment samples from the main river that discharges water from beneath Hiawatha Glacier, through the northwestern rim breach. Laboratory examination revealed that these sediment samples contained shocked quartz and elevated platinum-group-element concentrations, both signs that the sediment records evidence of the impact of an iron asteroid more than one kilometer wide. The Hiawatha impact crater is potentially one of the youngest large impact craters on Earth....."
I think its fascinating, in concept, if it actually works. And I sincerely hope that it does!
It more than likely would.
That clime works device originated some years ago to pump C02 from the atmosphere into greenhouses to save florists and such from having to run C02 generators in their greenhouse/grow rooms. A c02 generator typically was a natural gas or propane burner.
Consider this.
If the theory/hypothesis is "climate change is solely mankind's doing".
Followed by "plant life is not enough or simply can not combat it on its own".
Concluding with the lemming mentality of "only .gov with taxes regulations fees and fines can stop it"
Reinforced by-"climate change is proven science"
If it's so. If it's proven science and it's proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt through the scientific method of testing with a control and 2 or more extremes.
Why not address it with science? Why the default to only .gov can stop it with arbitrary taxes fines fees and regulation increasing the costs of everything?
Why not pick the ball up fill that void and take the initiative and capture C02 and transform it into a polymer and bring it to market?
Most everything these days from A-Z is some form of petroleum sourced polymer.
Why not extract C02 then and produce goods with it for profit?
Why must the default be only .gov and arbitrarily raising costs via imposing taxes and burdenous regulations will solve this?
I fail to comprehend the lemming mentality of praying to the altar of .gov...
Can't really say in one breath "right wingers don't believe in science!"
When a right winger shows up, that does believe in science, and presents scientific methods to extract C02...
And conclude with "only .gov knows best."
I don't believe .gov knows best. .gov is full of morons that only know how to stand atop soap boxes and try to sound intelligent to rile the populace up for their political profit. To hell with them, and the whole left vs right.
If you truly believe "climate change"/"global warming" is solely man made. It can be corrected by man via science.
If it is a natural phenomenon there's even ways to address that as well.
You've got problems. I've got solutions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
