Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Interesting to read about all your beliefs.

The thing is, internal nuclear reaction is creating so much heat that thwhe world has just experienced three major EQs, one in Russia, another in Tonga/Samoa and a third in S America.

As global warming increases, so does the frequency and magnitude of EQs.

There will therefore be an increase of atmospheric temperature, resulting in greater extremes of weather conditions such as storms, snow and rainfalls especially within the aeas of influence of these most recent EQs, ie.the Pacific area, markedly, Pacific coast Americas, SE Asia to Tonga and NZ.

Further EQ activity in the Pacific is expected to decline as a result, although such activity may increase along the Himalayas and up to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, along ith their accompanying climatic conditions.

JUST ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY.

Originally Posted by ENT

Interesting to read about all your beliefs.

The thing is, internal nuclear reaction is creating so much heat that thwhe world has just experienced three major EQs, one in Russia, another in Tonga/Samoa and a third in S America.

As global warming increases, so does the frequency and magnitude of EQs.

There will therefore be an increase of atmospheric temperature, resulting in greater extremes of weather conditions such as storms, snow and rainfalls especially within the aeas of influence of these most recent EQs, ie.the Pacific area, markedly, Pacific coast Americas, SE Asia to Tonga and NZ.

Further EQ activity in the Pacific is expected to decline as a result, although such activity may increase along the Himalayas and up to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, along ith their accompanying climatic conditions.

JUST ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY.

What are you on about?

EQ.... I'm guessing you mean earth quake?

Funny, in all the years I studied geology I've never seen EQ used as an anacronym for earthquake. I'm guessing you just made it up, right?

"internal nuclear reaction"?!

wtf mate, have you completely lost it? Are you getting stars mixed up with planets?



FYI, the energy generated by stars is from nuclear fusion. The heat in our planet is called Internal Heat and is the result of the planet's formation and is what powers tectonic and volcanic activity.

Oh, and how about some LINKS to support all these goofy theories you're throwing about?

Cheers!

55555

You've never studied geology!

OK, tell me what a synaptic curve of a P wave represents.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

FYI, the energy generated by stars is from nuclear fusion. The heat in our planet is called Internal Heat and is the result of the planet's formation and is what powers tectonic and volcanic activity.

Oh, and how about some LINKS to support all these goofy theories you're throwing about?

Cheers!

There's a little radioactive decay going on in the core, which produces about twice as much energy as humans use per year, but that's nowhere near the energy the earth receives from the sun, and has no consequences for the climate at all unless it produces a really large volcano. Which it hasn't for 65 millions years. Amazing what sort of shit the deniers come up with, pure fantasy.

The climate change denialists are out in force this morning.

Fortunately they are on the wrong side of science and represent only the lunatic fringe.

Still waiting on that GPA Transcript and the Sheepskin there Tony the Troll...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Still waiting on that GPA Transcript and the Sheepskin there Tony the Troll...

Careful now - it will be deleted again as the agenda here seems to be that anyone pro-slimate change scam can say anything they like and if they are shown to be making stuff up, it gets removed.

Anyway, none of these followers of the Gore Cult have yet answered my logical questions yet - They prefer I guess to keep waging the fake war against people like me than answer the actual question being "what are they relaly doing about it - what will the results be? How soon? Is there any point? Is more effort going into making the banking families richer than actually solving the problem?

they can't answer that because the resources they cut and paste everything from avoid that subject like the plague.

Assuming the people leading this debate actually believe what they are saying, it is rather like a man taking his old mum to the doctors after she has had a fall. the Doctor says she has broken her hip, and the son thinks shes just getting old and frail, They then argue the toss over this for 20 years, all the while the doctor is billing by the hour, and never actually does anything to help the old lady.

Greengorites - you don't give a flying fig about the environment. You care about being the cool camp with Gore. If you cared, you would be more interested in the the aspects that will kill us all long before global warming does; pollution of water for a start (google tap water on fire fracking), or even rogue nuclear state in the middle wast taht will nuke Iran soon and trigger world war 3. But none of you care. I quote Jesus Jones from pages ago - what do you actually do? as I recall, compared to me and him, none of you do anything aside from trot out gore rubbish on forums. How very pious of you. well done.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Careful now - it will be deleted again as the agenda here seems to be that anyone pro-slimate change scam can say anything they like and if they are shown to be making stuff up, it gets removed.

Anyway, none of these followers of the Gore Cult have yet answered my logical questions yet - They prefer I guess to keep waging the fake war against people like me than answer the actual question being "what are they relaly doing about it - what will the results be? How soon? Is there any point? Is more effort going into making the banking families richer than actually solving the problem?

Link already given in post #780 (#780)

Instead of living in ignorant denial and looking like idiots you fellas could take a moment to educate yourselves on the topic.

Here's a nice place to start- simple english and lots of pictures since you're clearly not yet ready for anything more complex:

Home | Climate Change | US EPA

Originally Posted by ENT

55555

You've never studied geology!

OK, tell me what a synaptic curve of a P wave represents.

Say, why did the mods delete ENT's post where he admits there's no such thing as a "synaptic curve of a P wave"??

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by ENT

Interesting to read about all your beliefs.

The thing is, internal nuclear reaction is creating so much heat that the world has just experienced three major EQs, one in Russia, another in Tonga/Samoa and a third in S America.

As global warming increases, so does the frequency and magnitude of EQs.

There will therefore be an increase of atmospheric temperature, resulting in greater extremes of weather conditions such as storms, snow and rainfalls especially within the aeas of influence of these most recent EQs, ie.the Pacific area, markedly, Pacific coast Americas, SE Asia to Tonga and NZ.

Further EQ activity in the Pacific is expected to decline as a result, although such activity may increase along the Himalayas and up to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, along ith their accompanying climatic conditions.

JUST ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY.

What are you on about?

EQ.... I'm guessing you mean earth quake?

Funny, in all the years I studied geology I've never seen EQ used as an anacronym for earthquake. I'm guessing you just made it up, right?

"internal nuclear reaction"?!

Are you getting stars mixed up with planets?

FYI, the energy generated by stars is from nuclear fusion. The heat in our planet is called Internal Heat and is the result of the planet's formation and is what powers tectonic and volcanic activity.

Oh, and how about some LINKS to support...

Seismc events especially on fault lines are called different things by different folks, earthquakes, EQs, seismic shock or activity or even tremors and temblors, take your pick.

I have no problem with the internal heat theory but it needs expanding.

Read Herndon's geodynamics theory for a better explanation of earth's formation and ongoing internal heat source and it's effects on the crust and oceans.

Remember also, that the greater part of the earth's surface is made of basalt, arising as molten lava and extruded constantly from mid-oceanic trenches, then constantly cooled by the oceans, which in turn are warmed up by this heat transference.

The link you need is already given above, see "Herndon's Geodynamics".

Tectonic plate theory is just that, a theory, and is as yet incomplete, though widely accepted.

Herndon's theory of geodynamics expands on the tectonic plate theory and gives a more plausible explanation of how earth was formed and of what constitutes earth's core. It's also a theory, and as geology is a fairly infant science, what was accepted as fact ten years ago or even five, is now often being superceded by newer information.

Climate change is certainly an ongoing phenomenon, but it's dynamics are as yet not fully understood, as I've pointed out ealier. Climatology as a distinct and separate science is only just evolving out of EAOS (Earth and Ocean Studies, a branch of geology).

Understanding El Nino/La Nina cycles is central to understanding what makes our atmosphere create the climatic changes that constantly occur.

These cycles, involving upwelling of ocean currents due to temperature changes, have been observed along continental shelf margins, precisely where tectonic plate boundaries exhibit greatest volatility, thus heat.

Whether it's the result of subduction, or of friction through transverse fault movement, that creates the measurable heat output there, is not clear, but heat there is, and that heat causes the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon to manifest most dramatically in those areas, before the event manifests in the atmosphere as changing weather patterns.

Deep ocean currents and their associated sallinity, acid/alkaline balance, O2/CO2 all interact in this part of the climate change phenomenon called the El Nino/La Nina events.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Say, why did the mods delete ENT's post where he admits there's no such thing as a "synaptic curve of a P wave"??

Deleted along with your post where you chirped "I learnt about that at school you idiot" and then went on to cut and paste stuff to prove you knew what is was about.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Instead of living in ignorant denial and looking like idiots you fellas could take a moment to educate yourselves on the topic.

What are you doing, personally, about it? If you want to live in your fairy tale then feel free. But unless you do something, its a wasted effort.

however......be warned....


Its the Sun.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by ENT

55555

You've never studied geology!

OK, tell me what a synaptic curve of a P wave represents.

Say, why did the mods delete ENT's post where he admits there's no such thing as a "synaptic curve of a P wave"??

I didn't "admit" to anything as you so misleadingly state.

I asked you a deliberately stupid question and you, being stupid, gave a stupid answer, to which I replied that there's no such thing as a synaptic curve on a P wave, something that I didn't even claim to exist in the first place.

I think that the mods were being kind to you.

Yes, being deliberately stupid seems to be the strategy of Climate Change Denialists-

Still find it odd that you can ask a deliberately stupid question but my reply explaining to you what a seismic P-wave is, and the fact that it has nothing to do with synapses (which are part of the nervous system) is gone...

The "deliberately stupid" question remains but the reply gets deleted...

Shite moderation if you ask me, but it is what it is...

So who's denying that climate is changing? I certainly don't.

I don't either. We are still coming out of a mini ice age. Of course the climate is changing.

Heh Ent. I wonder if there is a way we can hijack a natural phenomenon to make oooodles of cash from it from dumb gullible people?

Already done, it's called carbon tax.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Yes, being deliberately stupid seems to be the strategy of Climate Change Denialists

err remember ,
you lot said a few years ago it's GLOBAL WARMING,
we said, well actually its just a period of climate change, the climates always changed and always will .
Then the climate cooled ,
so faced with this uncomfortable truth ,you lot decided to call your Co2 theory , climate change , and people who disagree with you , climate change deniers ...

Ha ha ha , and you wonder why no one respects or listens to your camp any more.

^ not forgetting that before that we had GLOBAL COOLING.

Americans have that problem, the one where you're either in denial or you're a "conspiracist" with a tin foil hat.

I think it's got something to do with being either a "republican" or a "democrat" or attending tea parties and stuff.
There seems to be money involved too, and having to believe the loudest mouth.
Very little science, or logic, or observation involved,... CNN and Fox seem to be important to them too in proving or disproving a point of science or fact.

Meanwhile, the ice caps are melting, and the oceans are warming and we have more CO2 in the atmosphere and less in the oceans than we've had for millions of years.

I've highlighted the salient points for you below, Ent and Company, because I know that it's hard to hold two thought in your head at a time and come up with a sensible thought.

What The Science Says:
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Climate Myth: Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)
A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can't be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case.
It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.
These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.
Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.
In summary the past reveals our climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat.
What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.
The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

I really suggest you suggest you check out the entire site where this came from, and others, for a perspective a bit more realisitic than the one you find poking around in your ass.

http://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=12

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Yes, being deliberately stupid seems to be the strategy of Climate Change Denialists

err remember ,
you lot said a few years ago it's GLOBAL WARMING,
we said, well actually its just a period of climate change, the climates always changed and always will .
Then the climate cooled ,
so faced with this uncomfortable truth ,you lot decided to call your Co2 theory , climate change , and people who disagree with you , climate change deniers ...

Ha ha ha , and you wonder why no one respects or listens to your camp any more.

Please be so kind and explain why 'its just a period of climate change, the climates always changed and always will.' What causes climate change, or more precise the current GLOBAL WARMING other than CO2? If you can't, don't defile this thread again with trivia.

Originally Posted by blue

Taking a guess , I'd say climate change is caused mainly by the Sun,

Taking a guess, I'd say you have the education of a 10 year old.

Originally Posted by blue

But don't get me wrong I wish man made global warming was true , I live in the north of the Earth , I would welcome a 10 degree warming , and the total melting of the ice caps -giving the dirty oceans a good wash with that pure fresh ice water.

Make that a 5 year old.

^
Yes you are right . when I make it to 6 years old , I want to learn to be a cut and paste merchant to save having to think , and even to do it in white so its very hard to read for anyone using V bulletin original style .
At 7 years old I hope to be a link master .