This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new

??? I never said the Earth was hollow.

And if you think the Earth's wobble can affect the climate and sea levels that dramatically, then why worry about human-induced climate change or claim humans are doing anything unprecedented?
 

Seems like we had a bit of a misunderstanding. What I meant was that we can't collect all of the gas which comes out of a person's mouth and analyse the composition and volume, but we can't do that with volcanoes, so it is difficult to measure the absolute amount of CO2 a volcano produces. I'm not exactly sure which of the official figures you're not agreeing with.
 

I understand that an analogy is only useful for explaining how something works and not proving that something is a certain way. I was just saying to Ann that I understood her analogy, not that I was acknowledging that I believed it was evidence of her claim, and I remain sceptical/agnostic about it. I don't know much about the specific topic.
 
Sdajii said:
I never said the Earth was hollow.
Click to expand...

Yes you did .... even worse and more silly things you have said time and time again !!

Maybe an ice core trip to TASMANIA is in order ?

You still persist about CO2 measurement ... CAPE GRIM is ... where it is ... inside the hollow earth.
 

Amazing! You've proven you're not worth conversing with, but I couldn't let that one go. Look at your first figure. Look at the time scale. Look at the height scale. Look at how many metres that chart says the sea level fluctuates in extremely short intervals. It's also just a scatterplot, not a set of maxima and minima.

Look at your second chart, look at the time scale. Do you really think it is possible for that sort of variation to occur without it ever having gone through a more rapid rate of change? No climate scientist in the world thinks so. Your data makes it is obvious it is not the case. But you post it as evidence.

Here's a challenge for you. The default state, the null comment, is that nothing is happening or that the extreme claim is not the case. So, find an authoritative source from actual climate science which says that the current rate of climate change is greater than the planet ever went through before the start of the industrial revolution.
 
kahuna1 said:
Yes you did .... even worse and more silly things you have said time and time again !!

Maybe an ice core trip to TASMANIA is in order ?

You still persist about CO2 measurement ... CAPE GRIM is ... where it is ... inside the hollow earth.
Click to expand...

Try to find reality. I never said the Earth was hollow. I'm not saying it now, I've never said it before.

No idea why you say I "still persist" about CO2 measurement. Someone else brought it up and I've said little more than 'I don't know much about it but would be interested in learning'.

With such a clear and repetitive demonstration of your lack of desire or ability to be rational or worth talking to, I'll probably not bother to respond to you going forward. This sort of nonsense isn't worth it.
 

Is that a promise ?
I'll probably not bother to respond to you going forward. This sort of nonsense isn't worth it.


You will stop with idiotic comments about sea levels 120 metres higher ? When if every bit of ice melted it would only rise 30 metres ?

Please ... please ... I suggest a nice trip to your hollow earth .... or to not find fossils at 15,000 feet ... hence the irrelevant nature of all your supposed science.

There is a thread, FAKE NEWS ... Global warming Consensus ... you are posting on the wrong thread. It was started by Ann and maybe you can take a day trip to the hollow earth or the ice cores at Cape Grim in Tasmania ?

Maybe start your hollow earth thread, or one about seas 120 metres higher ?
 
kahuna1 said:
Cape GRIM ... is located on the Western tip of Tasmania !!
Click to expand...

I know this! That is two stations out of the 20 you quoted, I am still waiting for the other members of the 20. There are four.


Arctic sea ice helps remove CO2 from the atmosphere*
A new study shows that calcium carbonate in the ice absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere.
A new thesis from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources proves sea ice to be an important transporter of greenhouses gases from the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean.
The Arctic has warmed so much over the past few decades that the amount of sea ice has been reduced by some 30 per cent in the summer, and the winter ice has become much thinner.
For this reason it’s to be expected that if the Artic sea ice shrinks, the atmosphere’s content of CO2 will also increase.Ref


Ghotib both air ( taken from Cape Grim) and from air samples of carbon sinks* of firn and ice core samples from the Antarctic are measured at Cape Grim.

Source: Observed by CSIRO in the atmosphere at Cape Grim, Tasmania (41°S) , and from air extracted from Antarctic firn and ice cores. Ref.

If you look at the graphs on that Ref. site, note that they are taking ice core measurements dated back to 1500AD which was the depth of the 'Little Ice Age'. But it is great for a quick glance, it makes the rise in co2 look so profoundly dramatic with such a massive rise on such a massive time scale. It is amazing the stories you can create with charts (speaking as a chartist) which incidentally stopped at 2015.


Let's have a look at the natural events which can contribute co2 to the atmosphere, which are completely disregarded as a contributor to co2...

During the 1997 Indonesian forest fires 97,000 km² (37,000 sq mi) of forest were destroyed, more than 2.6 gigatonnes of CO2 was released to the atmosphere. There are other forest fires in Java and Sulawesi on the same year.

Now lets look at the big volcanic eruptions in recent years...

Mount St. Helens 1980 Most deadly and economically destructive volcanic eruption in the history of the United States. The eruption reached all the way to Montana but killed a small number of people and the blast of the volcano was heard 700 miles away.

El Chichón 1982 Ejected 7 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere

Mount Pinatubo 1991 Largest stratospheric disturbance since Krakatoa eruption in 1883, dropping global temperatures and increasing ozone depletion.

Soufriere Hills Volcano 1997 The major volcano eruption caused pyroclastic flows to move at 60-100 MPH and destroyed towns.

Nyiragongo 2002 At least 15% of Goma comprising 4,500 buildings was destroyed, leaving about 120,000 people homeless.

Eyjafjallajökull 2010 Caused the worst flight disruption over Europe since the Second World War.

Mount Merapi 2010 Over 350,000 people were evacuated from the affected area. Ash plumes caused major disruption to aviation across Java.

Puyehue-Cordón Caulle 2011 Major flight disruptions across the southern hemisphere, including South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Ejecting 0.7 cu km, this event was the biggest volcanic eruption of the 21st century to date.

Mount Sinabung 2014 Mount Sinabung's eruptions caused many pyroclastic flows, one resulting in the loss of 15 lives.

Mount Ontake 2014 A phreatic eruption and pyroclastic flow occurred without warning, killing 63 people. Deadliest eruption in Japan since 1902, first volcano-related deaths in Japan since 1991.

Calbuco 2015 First eruption at Calbuco since 1972. At least 4,000 people evacuated. No casualties reported.

Mount Sinabung 2016 Mount Sinabung continued to erupt, with 7 fatalities over two different occasions

Volcán de Fuego 2018 At least 190 people were killed after the volcano's most powerful eruption since 1974. Ash forced the closure of La Aurora International Airport in the capital Guatemala City.

Anak Krakatoa 2018 A major eruption triggered a tsunami that killed at least 437 people, and injured 14,059 others. The VEI is said to have possibly reached 4. As a result of the landslide, the height of the volcano was reduced from 338 meters to 110 meters
Ref.

Added to all the volcanoes and bushfires belching co2 and other GHG, it turns out measurements at Cape Grim might potentially be a questionable place to be measuring co2 in the atmosphere, unless the requirements were for higher readings of course....

Massive ocean carbon sink spotted burping CO2 on the sly
Data from robotic ocean floats reveal that waters off Antarctica don’t absorb as much carbon as scientists thought.

.......But now researchers report that the choppy waters around Antarctica are also quietly belching out massive quantities of CO2 during the dark and windy winter, reducing the ocean’s climate benefit.

The scientists behind the work, presented this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington DC, say that the winter emissions reduce the Southern Ocean’s net uptake of CO2 by 34%, or more than 1.4 billion tonnes per year. That amount is roughly equal to Japan's annual carbon emissions.Ref.


Ahh yes, let's not ruin a good anthropomorphic story with all the facts!
 
Blah blah blah ...

Sorry .... I am on the way to explore the Hollow Earth. And collecting ice cores at Cape Grim ... bit busy wasting time to deal with geography or your, lasting .... display of stupidity.

Oh and under 120 meters of water as well ...

You do know the Antarctic is 5,000 km SOUTH from Cape Grim in Tasmania ?
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/geography/distances

Must run, found the entrance to the Hollow Earth as Sanjiiididi suggested.

Your post about fires .... even big ones at 2.6 billion tons in a once off verses 37 billion a year we EMIT ... as idiotic as the search for the hollow earth. As to volcanoes, they are already factored in and suggesting they had something to do with the rise from 390 to 410 PPM in the last 10 years ... well is STUPID >.... one idiotic facebook conspiracy theory suggested this .... covered in responses which you and Sadijjiii dont read, misplaced the decimal point 1 million places. ONE MILLION PLACES.

And here you are serving it again ... like your theory about ice cores in Cape Grim Tasmania !!


can you tell me do the Lizard people who live in the Hollow Earth take credit cards? Or AUD currency ?
 
Last edited:

Your irrational, nonsensical tantrums don't deserve a response, but you seem fixated on saying I claimed the sea level was 120m higher than at present. I actually said it was previously 120m *lower*. Big difference. Complete opposite. Sea levels have risen over 120m since the lows. That means they were previously lower than now. They would have to have fallen 120m since the highs to have previously been 120m higher.

Perhaps this inability to understand basic numbers is a big part of the cause of your repeated ramblings and tantrums. Maybe put more effort into reading and thinking than using bold and underlined text in your tantrum posts.
 
explod said:
This is unstoppable change all right.

"
French Riviera Gardener
March 28 at 10:00 PM ·
What a sad observation.
I have my heart crying

· See original ·
Rate this translation
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you have completely failed to understand the difference between "not currently stopping" and "unstoppable"

While I am driving my car and my foot is on the accelerator and I am accelerating my speed, I am not unstoppable. I am still perfectly capable of taking my foot off the accelerator, and if I do, the car will gradually come to a stop (we don't even need the brake for this analogy, but the equivalent would be humans actively doing things to repair environmental damage/pollution). The analogy works quite well because in both cases the system is moving in one direction, and in both cases the future has them both moving in the opposite direction. The myth this thread's title comes from is that climate change is now or soon will be at a point where it will enters a positive feedback state and without human influence will continue to warm and become unlivable. To make any sense it needs to be based on another myth which is that the climate is currently hotter or more extreme than ever before. None of this is true, no climate scientist believes so.

Incidentally, neither of the comparison picture pairs above are from the same locations. You have 4 different locations pictured (if the floating ice all melted, you would be left with liquid water, not land, and the topography of the first pictures is different). Also, the population of polar bears is increasing. There are plenty of healthy ones alive today and there have been sick and skinny ones since the dawn of the species. It's ironic that the poster child of 'animals harmed by global warming', the polar bear, has a population which is increasing.
 
Sdajii said:
Amazing! Look at your first figure. Look at the time scale. Look at the height scale. Look at how many metres that chart says the sea level fluctuates in extremely short intervals. It's also just a scatterplot, not a set of maxima and minima.
Click to expand...
This is about science, not comedy.
You claimed "Massive *cycles* over the last few *tens of thousands* of years which go *back and forth.*" A completely untrue claim as there was barely half a cycle in over 20k years. That's obvious to anyone, but seemingly not you.
You mention that sea levels fluctuated. No problem with that idea as it's beyond dispute. However, that's not what you were saying to begin with and, being obvious, is somewhat pointless.
You mention it is a scatterplot. Given that is how the only scientific data that was available can be represented, what is your point?
And you finish by noting that it's "not a set of maxima and minima." Just think about that comment, then put it in the context of climate, and then you will know how inept you are and why it's so funny!
I will tackle your other comments later on, but between you and qldfrog, the day has been filled with laughter here.
 
Sdajii said:
Unfortunately you have completely failed to understand the difference between "not currently stopping" and "unstoppable"
Click to expand...
You know that definitionally anything which can be reversed must have been stopped at some point. Climate change can be reversed.
Sadly, you have no logical processes to even work out that your analogies are not relevant.
Sdajii said:
The myth this thread's title comes from is that climate change is now or soon will be at a point where it will enters a positive feedback state and without human influence will continue to warm and become unlivable.
Click to expand...
This is a total nonsense claim.
You are absolutely clueless.
AGW theory does not rely on positive feedbacks for its warming trend.
Reducing GHG levels (not just CO2) in the atmosphere will ultimately lead to the planet cooling providing irradiance does not increase. And given we are in a series of 11-year solar cycles with decreasing irradiance the physics demands only one outcome.
Your knowledge of climate science is not even at a basic level, you have no conceptual skills, do not think logically, and then continue to repeat what are proven to be falsehoods.
Keep it up. It's heartening to know that those who deny science are as able as you.
 
I am still speaking to the Lizard people .... in the Hollow Earth ...

Even they KNOW ... weather and winds go from West to East. So air, going over 16,000 km of Ocean and NO land, no volcano's even the Lizards are amazed someone was suggesting this.

The Lizard people from Hollow Earth also know what absorbs CARBON the most on the planet ... and I will give you a HINT .... ITS THE OCEAN and its absorbing about 70% of Carbon out of the air. So to suggest volcanoes are causing CO2 and its traveled 16,000 KM ... the air over an ocean is ... the opposite of reality and so stupid the Lizard people from Hollow earth want to meet you !!

The Lizard people also know what produces the majority of oxygen we BOTH breathe. They even know where it comes from. THE OCEAN ... so air over an ocean producing Oxygen and soaking up CO2, and both of you .... Ann and Sandijjiiis are suggesting volcanoes have something to do with Cape Grim Co2 measurement or .... 3 satellites that measure in 1,000 different locations millions of times a year and one at various levels of the atmosphere as well ?

Lizard people need a leader, come ,... to Hollow Earth and they will welcome you !!

No one I thought could suggest such silly things.

I, as always, am ashamed in underestimating human stupidity, greed or cruelty. Never go short .... you will get caught. Sadly I am now being asked for a margin call of negative IQ points ....
 
Sdajii said:
Look at your second chart, look at the time scale. Do you really think it is possible for that sort of variation to occur without it ever having gone through a more rapid rate of change?
Click to expand...
You tell me what the rate of change of climate was, and I will be able to respond.
We are not, here, discussing sea level rates as sea levels are a response to climate. This is well proven by the last 200 years of data.
Sdajii said:
Look at your second chart, look at the time scale.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's separated into logarithmic time sectors, so millimetres can be in the tens of millions of years.
I have previously told you that you are clueless on issues of scale, so if you think an inflection appears "rapid" the shortest discernible scales are at 100s of years.
Sdajii said:
Do you really think it is possible for that sort of variation to occur without it ever having gone through a more rapid rate of change?
Click to expand...
If you think you know the rates of climate change, then please offer them.
As it stands, your claims are simply more unscientific nonsense.
Sdajii said:
The default state, the null comment, is that nothing is happening or that the extreme claim is not the case.
Click to expand...
Too funny!
Exactly what does that mean as it's not a sense.
Sdajii said:
So, find an authoritative source from actual climate science which says that the current rate of climate change is greater than the planet ever went through before the start of the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...
I have done this previously.
I won't bother doing it again because you do what you always do, and recite rubbish.
 

Cycles as in going back and forth. True, they're not regular in time intervals. Sue me.

Check the scatterplot again carefully and see how many times, according to your scatterplot, it has gone up and then down by more than a metre, within periods of 20,000 years.

It may be in the context of climate, but it is a chart of sea level values. I'd say you should be capable of grasping this concept but either through inability or lack of desire, I am not sure.

It's nice to know that at least you are able to be amused. Imagining you inspires visions of what I imagine manic institutionalised mental patients look like.
 
rederob said:
You know that definitionally anything which can be reversed must have been stopped at some point. Climate change can be reversed.
Click to expand...

The universe has always been expanding. It has never been stopped. Hypothetically it could be reversed. I could give as many reasons as I felt like of things which have only ever gone in one direction, have never stopped, but could be reversed (including many which tangibly could be). Everything which reverses must do so for the first time.


You continue to demonstrate not being worth responding to (you do so in a variety of ways, which is almost interesting), I'll go back to not responding.
 

So vivid is your imagination that when I say the sea level was previously 120m lower than at present, you claim I believe some insane idea about what might be able to cause the sea level to have been 120m higher, which I never said. Even when that's pointed out, you continue.

And so vivid is your imagination that when I merely say "I don't know much about this, I'd like to learn more" you believe I have been pushing some agenda related to the topic.

You have demonstated that you are no more worthy of response than rederob. Enjoy your insanity. Or don't, I don't care.
 
Sdajii said:
The universe has always been expanding. It has never been stopped.
Click to expand...
We are discussing climate change.
Please try to be relevant.
That said, you need to realise that the basis for your claim on the universe is not sound. The Big Crunch has many adherents. Importantly, dark energy comprises perhaps 70% of the universe and is not well understood. Additionally, if our universe was born from a singularity, what says it cannot return to that state.
As I have said suggested many times, your thinking skills are not particularly good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
2K
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
14K
ducati916
Fun with ChatGPT
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
SirRumpole
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
70K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...