What are you even saying here? The climate isn't a storm. A weather event =/= climate change. There are similar storms (of varying severity) every decade or so going back... Well, as long as there've been people in these places recording history. For Texas specifically, this is one of the more severe ones out of the last 20 or 30 years. The claim that it's the worst in 100 years is false. But there were storms this severe even 100 years ago and more. For Oregon, this one was more mild than the one... 10-12 years ago.

We're still on the tail end of an ice age. If the climate proceeds as prediction models expect it to, even if there was no human life on the planet, thaws will occur, CO2 would rise, plants would flourish, and an overall "warming" effect would result in much of what is blisteringly cold now, think russia, much of canada, greenland, antarctica. Meanwhile, depending on what the resulting ice melts did to the currents and upper air flows, you would see either a potential turning of current "paradise style areas" such as much of south america through the southern US turn to desert OR possibly ice up.

We know the climate is changing. It has always changed. We can't stop it. The only question was how much we might be accelerating that change. Trying to tie this natural weather event to some "climate change" activist agenda simply blocks discussion of what happened, how to fix it, and what steps should be taken to insure it doesn't happen 10 years from now, when the next arctic storm hits.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 19 2021 07:08am

And in the 1980’s it was called global cooling.

Its such an obvious attempt to cover their ass its funny.

Where did I even talked about this ?

Global warming and periodic cold winters isn't anything new for the poeple studying climate. keep trying bro.

I think it's funny that the most deniers of global warming are located in america, the number 1 contributer to this bad situation (now surpassed by China though). I guess it's hard to assume the consequences of your way of living you fatties



As predicted you can't read and make baseless accusations from your unability to read lmao

"Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?"

This post was edited by Melatonina on Feb 19 2021 07:21am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect

My humble personal opinion is that Q trashes should shut the fuck up.

When did I claim that you implied it? Did you bother reading the tweet in the topic post? Do you know what topic you're in?

Arctic storms and other severe weather events are not "global warming" or "climate change". They're singular events. Occasionally, something like an Earthquake can set off a tsunami that will trigger a typhoon, and that shit's terrible, and usually kills anywhere from tens of thousands to millions. We had one of those... Oh about 15 years ago or so? Still not "global warming".

"Global Warming" or "Climate Change" or "Global Cooling" are all long term models built to try to understand and predict what the natural changing of the climate is, and what, if any impact humanity can/will have on it is.

You have made conclusions that no scientist who is not paid by a government specifically for making conclusions has made. The EPA wasn't created to track CO2. It was created to cut down toxic dumping, poison gas emissions like CO and heavy metals, etc. The shift to CO2 is entirely politically expedient, and allowed an area of virtual pseudoscience to gain billions in funding and a very loud voice.

Perhaps if you put down your tabloids and picked up some archeology books instead, where they have done intense studies of what various areas of the planet looked like and what their weather, flora, and fauna was 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 years ago, you'd find that you know less than nothing. There has been more "climate change" over the course of this planet's history than would occur if we detonated every single nuclear weapon in the entire worldwide arsenal. It would take something like a massive meteor strike to elicit some of the changes that've occurred, and yet life has continued.

What we do know: The higher the C02 content in the air, the better the plants and trees do, the better the sea vegetation does, and the more oxygen is produced as a result. CO2 is not bad. The question is saturation levels. The highest problem we have right now is, saturation of CO2 has seen a slight rise, Oxygen has seen a significant drop. It's not that we're producing so much more CO2 than would otherwise be there, but that there's less oxygen being produced. Do you honestly believe that cutting power to people's homes is going to help that? Shall we deforest the planet to provide the world firewood instead?

Like, the subject is far larger than you seem to understand. And your attempt to equate a weather event with a model of change that spans the existence of a fucking planet is purely asinine. "The Science" is not in. Every "end of the world" prediction has been wrong, consistently, with barely any changes being made. Things have not "gotten worse" the ice caps did not "melt by 2000", the sky is not falling. Stop with the nonsense. You're starting to sound like TiStuff.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 19 2021 07:41am

Never said they weren't singular events bro. But global warming reinforces their occurance, do you understand the nuance ?

Also, I really hate to resort to authority arguments, but I know this subject just much more than you will ever be able to.
I have a master of bioingeneer obtained at Louvain's University and my master thesis can be consulted at their librairy, just like anyone else thesis that received a distinction.
That's if you're able to understand scientific works though, which I highly doubt.

Just two examples to show how deeply clueless you are, and then I will leave this dumb thread there.

You talk a lot about CO2, trying to present things as if it was a simple question of arithmetic, more CO2 means, this, less means this...but it is far more complicated than what you believe.

For instance, hotter oceans decreases dissolution of CO2 into said oceans, which means they're not doing their role of well carbon anymore.
Consequence : corals are dying, amongst various others effects on the marine ecosystem (death of phytoplancton, which is aggravatng that effect).
You may argue back that through history, temperatures changed a lot and that corals may revive later (lol), but never you will be able to explain how fast that process is actually operating if it was simply "a natural cycle of up and down", I dare you to try you fuckin jackass.

Want some more ? Your blabbering about how CO2 is so great for plants biomass : you simply don't know how carbon cycle works.

The biosphere today absorbs around 20% of the anthropogenic carbon emitted into the air, due to photosynthesis which is the basis of the natural and active mechanism of carbon sequestration.
Another ~25% is absorbed by oceans (and that number is slowly decreasing over time) but that still not enough to absorb all the CO2, hence why its athmospheric concentration has rised so much, at an accelerating rate nowadays.

See ? there is a reason why the global warming consensus exists : because people who studied it understand how it works, and people who didn't will keep repeating it's natural cycles and blabla. again just like would do any flat earther lmao
You're the one foolish ignorant sounding like Tistuff, talking about stuff you have no idea how it works.

The entire rest of your post is useless because that premise is false. I just explained to you that Global Warming/Climate Change is merely a long term model attempting to explain long term changes. A singular event like an arctic storm has nothing to do with long term change. And given this particular storm pattern has been occurring for centuries, it's neither been reinforced or changed by "Climate Change" that you or anyone else can prove.

Stop peddling your sky is falling theory. You are NOT an authority on this, you are not credible even for suggesting this, and you have no idea what you're talking about. As I said, open a basic archeology (edit: go with some geology as well, it touches on it pretty deeply) book, get past your 5th grade understanding of what the planet is and move on. CO2 levels have been MANY times higher in the atmosphere. Also many times lower. There's been far more ice caps, down to almost none. There is CONSTANT change. You don't know ANYTHING about irreversible change, and LESS than nothing about how to prevent that change.

Fact: Burning wood will produce roughly 100 times the particulate matter into the atmosphere and several times more CO2 per unit of heat as natural gas.

You propose no solutions, your conclusions are deeply flawed, your premise is so laughable you should be ashamed to even have thought it. Never again claim to be an authority on this subject. Hang your head in shame and walk away.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 19 2021 08:51am

Im pretty sure we agree about Climate change. I work in STEM. I just find the media coverage abhorrent.

Topic title is tongue in cheek.

Its not false. It has been proven by studies bro. Typhoons and hurricane occurance have been icnreasing over the last decades.
]The entire rest of your post is useless because you chosed to ignore facts instead of accepting them. move along troll.

No facts have been ignored. Your post is so simplistic it's not worth responding to. Tell me, what happens to ocean temperatures when ice shelfs fall off greenland, or the arctic? Where does the ice go? Sit on the surface, or cool the oceans down? What happens to currents when ocean temperatures are changed? What would happen if the ancient forests of Antarctica were once again revived?

Literally, the planet is in constant change. Likewise, Bottom Trawling and Sonar are accredited with doing far more damage to ocean ecosystems than the minimal amount of warming. But, let's say it's the warming. When you warm the ocean, you melt the ice shelves, which cools the oceans, see how that works?

Why don't you get into a fun thought experiment. See if you can't decide for yourself how you go from the "great thaw" into the next "ice age". Once you've figured that part out, tell me what it will be that will help humanity get through it? Solar power, maybe? Burning wood that is buried under ice? Frozen wind turbines?

Trust me feller: If I want your advise on how I'd go about creating a hybrid plant combo of jalapeno and pineapple, which I'd naturally call a pineapino, the ultimate pizza topping, I'll ask your advise. Hell, if I wanted to make an artificial lung maybe. "Bioengineer" does not qualify you to lecture on global warming, and any attempt to link global warming or climate change to an arctic storm is just the big stupid. Literally, there's nothing less factual and more idiotic you could do.

It's the same stupid shit people try to do with California Wildfires, and all too much else.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 19 2021 09:14am