Humans Are Changing the Climate 170x Faster Than Natural Forces

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
The conceit lies in assuming that humans are not part of "nature."
Most of us don't even qualify as being human.

65,000km of oceanic trench expanding at an average rate of 1cm/yr would release how much heat into the oceans per year or in the last 45 years. When you get faster and slower rates of expansion that would affect climate on the surface? In years with no expansion would that relate to a cooler year on average.

When looking at an average rise or fall does it indicate 1/5 of the world got warmer by 10 deg and 4/5 of the world got colder by 3 deg so it was a global ice-age.

If the Pacific blob stays a hot spot it means that rift is expanding at a faster rather than it was, once started let's say it stayed that way for 1,000 years. In the 1st 100 years the west side would get head and the east side would get cooler winds from the north and @ 50 years the first year goes past where all the snow did not melt. That trend accelerated for another 100 years and the west stayed warm. Each 100 years that followed saw the snow migrate further west until a balance was reached. When the rift stopped expanding the water cooled down and the ice covered the land that had not been covered yet. The cold air coming off the ice would have caused warm rain to fall on the ice and that would have sped up the 400 ft rise in the level of the oceans.

If 100kg of 'flesh' needs so much energy to be alive then a dino that weighed 100,000kg should have needed 1000x more air, water and food.

The best example of global warming is not ever referenced as it show how minuscule out output has been compared to what the Siberian Trap put out as heat over the million of so years of constant eruption. The volume is know and the global temp change is 'noted' so it can be figured out much was released each year and compare that to current rates of certain gasses rising and causing changes on their own rather than they are signs of changes that already took place. Molten basalt into a solid would also have a rate of energy released into the air to do that. Over 1M (or so) the temp rose 5C so that is 1C every 100,000 years and there is no indication that the heat released back then is very much higher than it is if the oceanic rifts put out as many sq km per year. The numbers are there they just haven't been crunched yet.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Humans Are Changing the Climate 170x Faster Than Natural Forces



A NEW EQUATION

Scientists have devised a new mathematical equation

A new equation, eh?

... Gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that this new equation will be just as successful as the last new equations and models that all failed

Aetna says that universal public healthcare will be run by death panels.

Scary... Might be a good idea to get some private healthcare
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,011
14,445
113
Low Earth Orbit
Solar activity


...now where's my multi-million dollar research grant?

And earth's declining and shifting magnetosphere that defends the atmosphere from solar activity causing atmospheric heating in completely different latitudes than it did 45 years ago.

Have a nice day!




We took a hit recently.

This is what that looked like.

 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
A new equation, eh?

... Gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that this new equation will be just as successful as the last new equations and models that all failed



Scary... Might be a good idea to get some private healthcare
Do you mean the same scientists would come up with the same solution. If they were fired who would take over the science industry, not everybody can be a banker or politician.

Private healthcare?? a bottle of 3% hydrogen peroxide and a manual on how to bury the dead is about all you will get from either. Finding a cure isn't the problem. There are cures that cost next to nothing, they cannot let that out without crumbling the 'for profit industry' for what it really is.
Do you want to know which World Bank arm rakes in the money from the scam???
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,011
14,445
113
Low Earth Orbit
Do you mean the same scientists would come up with the same solution. If they were fired who would take over the science industry, not everybody can be a banker or politician.

Private healthcare?? a bottle of 3% hydrogen peroxide and a manual on how to bury the dead is about all you will get from either. Finding a cure isn't the problem. There are cures that cost next to nothing, they cannot let that out without crumbling the 'for profit industry' for what it really is.
Do you want to know which World Bank arm rakes in the money from the scam???

Only 6% of Scientists work outside of private industry.

Too many trees. Cut them down and burn them all. Trees are a menace.

Very true. Fire suppression has made the forests weak. We need to start from scratch.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Do you mean the same scientists would come up with the same solution. If they were fired who would take over the science industry,

Ice free north pole since 2013.

.... 'Nuff said

not everybody can be a banker or politician.

The world needs ditch diggers too

Private healthcare?? a bottle of 3% hydrogen peroxide and a manual on how to bury the dead is about all you will get from either. Finding a cure isn't the problem. There are cures that cost next to nothing, they cannot let that out without crumbling the 'for profit industry' for what it really is.
Do you want to know which World Bank arm rakes in the money from the scam???

Really makes you wonder how people in nations without free unlimited healthcare survive, let alone how humanity ever got this far without health insurance don't it?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,541
9,612
113
Washington DC
Once again, 97% of 33% is not a consensus. I know you leftards tend to have serious problems with even the most basic math but continually beating that same worn out 97% drum doesn't make it factual.
And even if it was, agreement does not make accuracy. Science is not a democracy. It is the hardest and most deadly of autocracies. No matter how sincerely you are wrong, no matter how many people agree with your error, science will not bend for you.

We call it "the cold equations."
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
97% of experts in 1905 agreed that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was nonsense.

1. That number is probably wrong
2. You don't know how many in that field the dissenters represent
3. There is likely a range of opinions
4. Unlike AGW, there was no foundation for consensus based on evidence because you were dealing with theory

Once again, 97% of 33% is not a consensus. I know you leftards tend to have serious problems with even the most basic math but continually beating that same worn out 97% drum doesn't make it factual.

Sorry that you're just as dumb as petros but allow me to explain why..

You don't look at the entire body of climate science, just the research relating to questions about why it's happening.


What you're suggesting is like saying there is no consensus about the mating habits of bees by looking at every single study about bees.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Too many trees. Cut them down and burn them all. Trees are a menace.


Actually you are more correct than you might think. You were right on until you got to the word "all". We need something to replace oxygen and a little shade at times isn't a bad idea. Trees standing alone can be a real hazard and roots can create mayhem.


B.T.W.- that "170 X" might be a lot of Bull shit! :)
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Only 6% of Scientists work outside of private industry.



Very true. Fire suppression has made the forests weak. We need to start from scratch.

The internet has made us weak. We need to start from scratch.

Ten megaton airbursts ...

Actually you are more correct than you might think. You were right on until you got to the word "all". We need something to replace oxygen and a little shade at times isn't a bad idea. Trees standing alone can be a real hazard and roots can create mayhem.


B.T.W.- that "170 X" might be a lot of Bull shit! :)

The Okanagan will make one, puuurdy desert!

And even if it was, agreement does not make accuracy. Science is not a democracy. It is the hardest and most deadly of autocracies. No matter how sincerely you are wrong, no matter how many people agree with your error, science will not bend for you.

We call it "the cold equations."

You still don't know about "fake news" and how alternate facts can change "scientific" outcomes?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
The Okanagan Desert is the common name for a semi-arid area located in the South Okanagan region of British Columbia, Canada, primarily around Osoyoos Lake.
Okanagan Desert - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Okan...


I've read several times that the only desert in Canada is a very small area around Osoyoos, but I've also read that the place with the least precipitation in B.C. is Ashcroft with 6" a year. So why one is a desert and the other isn't I'm not sure. I guess precipitation isn't the only criteria for identifying a desert!