What a total load of crap. This is like them trying to blame the earthquake on global warming. Do the even understand how volcanoes erupt? This is just so stupid it's not funny.
@optimumperformance You obviously only know a general view of Earth processes. Everything is connected and accumulated. The first documented ice age was caused by small microscopic organisms producing too much oxygen. All that extra heat we're generating has to go somewhere. Glaciers are heavy, they weigh the crust down, once they melt the earth pushes back, friction, heat.. these are all things that can affect it. It's cause and effect. Global CLIMATE change affects many things.
@optimumperformance Lol! I guess plates down on the earths crust has nothing to do with volcanoes erupt. LOL! Thus is why I do not trust the so called "Green" movement. If I was planet green tv, I would remove this video.
I'd want to read the peer reviewed studies on that, but considering the volume of ice that's been lost over the last few decades I wouldn't necessarily automatically accept or reject it till I read the direct studies. I'm never a big fan of the vague claim of "scientists/experts say"
@garith21 The planet has always changed and will always change. I do not think mankind has one say in it or another. If all of this fear was true why will Al Gore not debate a single person?
1) Who gives a crap about Al Gore I'm a proponent of AGW and I never cared about what Al Gore has to say on a scientific topic.
2) So you've never studied the evidence, read peer reviewed studies or know why scientists say we're warming the globe?
3) "I do not think mankind has one say in it or another."
So when we release over 130 times that of all the volcanoes on a yearly basis of CO2 we can't possibly have a big effect? How about CFC's depleting ozone?
@garith21 Hello plants like it! Stop acting like you know what the hell the weather is going to be like in 20 years from now on this day. Your just a human start acting like it.
2) How does plants liking it change the fact that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation which we perceive as heat which would otherwise have gone out into space?
3) Of course I'm human but I'm pointing out basic physical properties and observations and rejecting basic physics is a bit....silly.
1) Weather is short term chaotic events, Climate especially on a global basis is dealing with global temperatures over a long term basis.
2) I listen to scientists, clearly you just watch movies and listen to wing nuts
3) I'm quite aware of photosynthesis, but it still doesn't change the fact that higher concentrations of CO2 absorb long wave radiation that would otherwise go into space and the primary cause for this long term warming is due to increased CO2 concentrations.
@garith21 so you believe in the hockey stick graph, that has long been discredited. Even the Germans are going away from "global warming". It doesn't exist and even if it did you could not do a thing about it. I take it you have never heard or seen Lord Monckton. The climate (Cough Weather) will always change and it would be arrogant to say you do anything about it. Governments use it has a weapon to take more power, the same with people.
1) You'd better not read about how the National Academy of Science affirmed it then.
2) Except the Germans are not.
3) When we're the cause it means we have an effect =P
4) I have and I can tell you why he's a fraud too, being a paid liar pretending to be a member of parliament or a science adviser while misrepresenting data from scientists that reject his assessment of it being misrepresented by other parties.
@garith21 Yes I do look at science now has politics and not science. Science is not done by consensus. Everything in science is open for debate, if you do not understand this then there is no point in talking with you. Yes the Germans are they call it "Google", stop wasting my time.
1) Science is done by evidence and the evidence indicates that we're the primary cause of the long term warming ever since the industrial age
2) Why you hide behind movies or lectures for "facts" is still amusing though
3) So 60 German scientists is "all of Germany?"
4) I find it funny you talk about consensus then talk about people disagreeing, I don't care that people disagree as to why they disagree, or doesn't that bit of information matter?
Depends on the ice age, primary reasons being that the sun was dimmer, continental positioning, vast CO2 sequestration from rock weathering or temporary blocking out of the sun from global climactic events. Frankly you'll have to be more specific.
Shouldn't you know this or do you think "it was warmer and cooler in the past and I don't need to know any more."?
@garith21 No its a good test. Most people that answer that I hear talking about global warming can't answer the question. So why do you think the big thaw 6 billion years ago take place?
" Yep your talking about Milankovitch cycles. Do you think it was microorganism that kicked it off? Coupled with the sun. "
You can't even pick which ice age you want to talk about...since you chose to pick one that apparently happened before the earth even formed...so I have no idea what you're referring to atm.
So about how long ago? I want to make sure I'm addressing the one you want to know about, since apparently you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. Although why you can't look it up yourself despite claiming to know so much.
The general agreed upon time is around 13.7 billion years old based on what we know about fusion, the observation of cosmic background radiation and the expansion of space-time. How this is relevant to your ideas on global warming is beyond me though.
Perhaps you should actually read more on the topic and get back to me since you seem to lack even the bare basics, do me a favor and read rather than watching videos.
I'm asking you what ice age you want to talk about and why. The reference to the earth being only 4.5 billion years old was merely to point out your question of "the big thaw 6 billion years ago" as a stupid question.
I'm actually telling you to do more research than "it was colder or warmer or had more or less CO2" and look into the other mechanisms, since no AGW advocate says CO2 is the only driver in global climate, not one.
The big problem with only watching people that lecture on the problem and not actually reading about it or specific topics is that you get a fraction of the story, you don't have to think about it much and you think it's right.
Much of Lord Monckton's claims can be addressed with even the slightest bit of skepticism and reading and lecturers such as these prey on the fact that you're ignorant of the science, not skeptical and just want an easy to digest "agree with me" lecture.
Actually you don't seem to understand the word climate, climate has to deal with long term conditions, not daily weather conditions. An example would be, if a desert climate gets a heavy rain storm one day does it stop being a desert climate?
So you reject the idea that climate is about long term conditions and you do think that deserts stop being deserts one day if it rains? Or did I touch a spot that points out your ignorance too much? You originally said weather and climate are the same thing, now you say climate is based off of weather, so which is it?
I'm basically pointing out that an inch isn't the same thing as a foot, hope it's not too complicated for you.
@garith21 I think we have two different conversations going on here. LOL. Yes I'm saying each are based off of each other. If it didn't rain in the rain forest, fairly certain we would stop calling it a "rain forest". Kinda like love and marriage you cant have one with out the other.
"If it didn't rain in the rain forest, fairly certain we would stop calling it a "rain forest". "
Point being if it stopped raining a day would you stop calling it a rain forest or would you stop calling it a rain forest if it stopped raining for 30 years =P Which is why climate and weather are different.
"So why do you think the big thaw 6 billion years ago take place? "
The USGS and other peer review studies show that we emit over 130 times that of all the volcanoes combined. This is also why it was edited out of later editions of movies I'm still sure you use for primary sources of information.
@MrDurcon The plates sit on a layer of liquid. The Earth is something like a beach-ball filled with liquid: push down on one part, it comes up in another. Remove the weight of the ice, and you change the stresses on the plates. Even the construction of dams and their lakes can cause earthquakes, such as Hoover Dam did in the 1930's.
@MrDurcon That is both incorrect and irrelevant. 1) It's a global system, push here equals a pull there. 2) a hypothetical addition in sea-ice wouldn't balance the lost ice from land masses, it would merely cause a slight additional stress on sea-floor plates & rising sea levels, which would, if anything, make the situation worse.
Trust people seeking the truth. Question people that say they know it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
i think that volcano bit sounds a little backwards to me.
opn the other hand the bicycle for 10minute= $36 dinner voucher. sounds like a heck of a plan to me^__^
Pakayaro 1 year ago
More volcanos caused by what!!!!???? ROFL!! TOO FUNNY:-)
cano21 1 year ago
Wow attaching exercising machines to generate energy ... this is one of the top idea. Two thumps up.
kutaro13 1 year ago
That part about the volcano sounds very questionable to me... Other than that, giant origami crane is win. c:
Schyntful 1 year ago
What a total load of crap. This is like them trying to blame the earthquake on global warming. Do the even understand how volcanoes erupt? This is just so stupid it's not funny.
optimumperformance 1 year ago
@optimumperformance You obviously only know a general view of Earth processes. Everything is connected and accumulated. The first documented ice age was caused by small microscopic organisms producing too much oxygen. All that extra heat we're generating has to go somewhere. Glaciers are heavy, they weigh the crust down, once they melt the earth pushes back, friction, heat.. these are all things that can affect it. It's cause and effect. Global CLIMATE change affects many things.
limester 1 year ago 4
@optimumperformance Lol! I guess plates down on the earths crust has nothing to do with volcanoes erupt. LOL! Thus is why I do not trust the so called "Green" movement. If I was planet green tv, I would remove this video.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
I'd want to read the peer reviewed studies on that, but considering the volume of ice that's been lost over the last few decades I wouldn't necessarily automatically accept or reject it till I read the direct studies. I'm never a big fan of the vague claim of "scientists/experts say"
garith21 1 year ago 2
@garith21 The planet has always changed and will always change. I do not think mankind has one say in it or another. If all of this fear was true why will Al Gore not debate a single person?
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
1) Who gives a crap about Al Gore I'm a proponent of AGW and I never cared about what Al Gore has to say on a scientific topic.
2) So you've never studied the evidence, read peer reviewed studies or know why scientists say we're warming the globe?
3) "I do not think mankind has one say in it or another."
So when we release over 130 times that of all the volcanoes on a yearly basis of CO2 we can't possibly have a big effect? How about CFC's depleting ozone?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Hello plants like it! Stop acting like you know what the hell the weather is going to be like in 20 years from now on this day. Your just a human start acting like it.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
1) weather is not the same as climate
2) How does plants liking it change the fact that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation which we perceive as heat which would otherwise have gone out into space?
3) Of course I'm human but I'm pointing out basic physical properties and observations and rejecting basic physics is a bit....silly.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Earth to ding dong go look up the word "Climate".
Yes plants need carbon dioxide to breath, thus grow, and thus I eat. Stop already. Go back to school or stop listening to the wingnuts.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
1) Weather is short term chaotic events, Climate especially on a global basis is dealing with global temperatures over a long term basis.
2) I listen to scientists, clearly you just watch movies and listen to wing nuts
3) I'm quite aware of photosynthesis, but it still doesn't change the fact that higher concentrations of CO2 absorb long wave radiation that would otherwise go into space and the primary cause for this long term warming is due to increased CO2 concentrations.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 so you believe in the hockey stick graph, that has long been discredited. Even the Germans are going away from "global warming". It doesn't exist and even if it did you could not do a thing about it. I take it you have never heard or seen Lord Monckton. The climate (Cough Weather) will always change and it would be arrogant to say you do anything about it. Governments use it has a weapon to take more power, the same with people.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
1) You'd better not read about how the National Academy of Science affirmed it then.
2) Except the Germans are not.
3) When we're the cause it means we have an effect =P
4) I have and I can tell you why he's a fraud too, being a paid liar pretending to be a member of parliament or a science adviser while misrepresenting data from scientists that reject his assessment of it being misrepresented by other parties.
5) Assert global conspiracy much?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Yes I do look at science now has politics and not science. Science is not done by consensus. Everything in science is open for debate, if you do not understand this then there is no point in talking with you. Yes the Germans are they call it "Google", stop wasting my time.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
1) Science is done by evidence and the evidence indicates that we're the primary cause of the long term warming ever since the industrial age
2) Why you hide behind movies or lectures for "facts" is still amusing though
3) So 60 German scientists is "all of Germany?"
4) I find it funny you talk about consensus then talk about people disagreeing, I don't care that people disagree as to why they disagree, or doesn't that bit of information matter?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Ok so explain this, How is it that there where 5-6 major ice ages in the past.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
Depends on the ice age, primary reasons being that the sun was dimmer, continental positioning, vast CO2 sequestration from rock weathering or temporary blocking out of the sun from global climactic events. Frankly you'll have to be more specific.
Shouldn't you know this or do you think "it was warmer and cooler in the past and I don't need to know any more."?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 No its a good test. Most people that answer that I hear talking about global warming can't answer the question. So why do you think the big thaw 6 billion years ago take place?
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
Forgot to mention some of the other long term effects of the earths' tilt and change in orbit, but as stated before you must be more specific.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Yep your talking about Milankovitch cycles. Do you think it was microorganism that kicked it off? Coupled with the sun.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
" Yep your talking about Milankovitch cycles. Do you think it was microorganism that kicked it off? Coupled with the sun. "
You can't even pick which ice age you want to talk about...since you chose to pick one that apparently happened before the earth even formed...so I have no idea what you're referring to atm.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 The very first "big thaw".
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
So about how long ago? I want to make sure I'm addressing the one you want to know about, since apparently you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. Although why you can't look it up yourself despite claiming to know so much.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Since the universe is 13-17 billion years old, "Big bang". Who really knows for sure.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
The general agreed upon time is around 13.7 billion years old based on what we know about fusion, the observation of cosmic background radiation and the expansion of space-time. How this is relevant to your ideas on global warming is beyond me though.
Perhaps you should actually read more on the topic and get back to me since you seem to lack even the bare basics, do me a favor and read rather than watching videos.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Dude we have two different conversations going on here. So now I'm confused.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
I'm asking you what ice age you want to talk about and why. The reference to the earth being only 4.5 billion years old was merely to point out your question of "the big thaw 6 billion years ago" as a stupid question.
I'm actually telling you to do more research than "it was colder or warmer or had more or less CO2" and look into the other mechanisms, since no AGW advocate says CO2 is the only driver in global climate, not one.
garith21 1 year ago
@MrDurcon "global warming... It doesn't exist"..."The climate, will always change"
So if it's not on a warming trend, what do you think the global climate is doing?
foxlake02 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
The big problem with only watching people that lecture on the problem and not actually reading about it or specific topics is that you get a fraction of the story, you don't have to think about it much and you think it's right.
Much of Lord Monckton's claims can be addressed with even the slightest bit of skepticism and reading and lecturers such as these prey on the fact that you're ignorant of the science, not skeptical and just want an easy to digest "agree with me" lecture.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 LoL you cant even understand the word Climate.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
Actually you don't seem to understand the word climate, climate has to deal with long term conditions, not daily weather conditions. An example would be, if a desert climate gets a heavy rain storm one day does it stop being a desert climate?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 O stop, the climate is based off of the weather.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
So you reject the idea that climate is about long term conditions and you do think that deserts stop being deserts one day if it rains? Or did I touch a spot that points out your ignorance too much? You originally said weather and climate are the same thing, now you say climate is based off of weather, so which is it?
I'm basically pointing out that an inch isn't the same thing as a foot, hope it's not too complicated for you.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I think we have two different conversations going on here. LOL. Yes I'm saying each are based off of each other. If it didn't rain in the rain forest, fairly certain we would stop calling it a "rain forest". Kinda like love and marriage you cant have one with out the other.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
"If it didn't rain in the rain forest, fairly certain we would stop calling it a "rain forest". "
Point being if it stopped raining a day would you stop calling it a rain forest or would you stop calling it a rain forest if it stopped raining for 30 years =P Which is why climate and weather are different.
"So why do you think the big thaw 6 billion years ago take place? "
The earth is about 4.4-4.5 billion years old....
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Yep you got me there lol, it is 4-4.5 billion years old. Or at least has much has we can tell.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@garith21 By the way you need to reverse the amount of Co2 that humans give off and volcano's. You do not have that right.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon
You shouldn't get your information from movies.
The USGS and other peer review studies show that we emit over 130 times that of all the volcanoes combined. This is also why it was edited out of later editions of movies I'm still sure you use for primary sources of information.
garith21 1 year ago
@MrDurcon The plates sit on a layer of liquid. The Earth is something like a beach-ball filled with liquid: push down on one part, it comes up in another. Remove the weight of the ice, and you change the stresses on the plates. Even the construction of dams and their lakes can cause earthquakes, such as Hoover Dam did in the 1930's.
browncoat3000 1 year ago
@browncoat3000 I understand, but the sea ice has increased and not decreased.
MrDurcon 1 year ago
@MrDurcon That is both incorrect and irrelevant. 1) It's a global system, push here equals a pull there. 2) a hypothetical addition in sea-ice wouldn't balance the lost ice from land masses, it would merely cause a slight additional stress on sea-floor plates & rising sea levels, which would, if anything, make the situation worse.
browncoat3000 1 year ago