Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Are human activities influencing the climate?

Options
1…1920222425…46

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    I would much prefer for you to do the footwork and find out for yourselves.

    I've spent over 5 years studying science, including a fair bit of climate science. You've read a couple of blogs that told you the government control the weather.

    Not sure I'm the one that needs to be doing some footwork here.


  • Options
    #633
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There is no treaty

    There is something called the
    Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

    It's not a 'weather control treaty' because other than cloud seeding which can cause it to rain, there is no technology that can cause extreme weather events at will

    We do have one set of technology that is causing devastating effects on weather and climate however, and it's the internal combustion engine and other methods of burning fossil fuels.

    Thiz is a limited outlook on your part.Cloud seeding is wwll technology.


  • Options
    #634
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I've spent over 5 years studying science, including a fair bit of climate science. You've read a couple of blogs that told you the government control the weather.

    Not sure I'm the one that needs to be doing some footwork here.

    This is not accurate.What im zaying is climate change has many elements to it.


  • Options
    #635
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Hope you make some progress with this limited outlook.


  • Options
    #636
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    This is not accurate.What im zaying is climate change has many elements to it.

    You're completely unqualified and are telling people educated in the area to go and do research.

    You should heed your own advice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    It would be much better if you look into it.Anything I say will get a negative reaction.Youve nothing to lose.
    into

    I've everything to lose in terms of time. You won't even give me some jumping off points?

    I was willing to listen but you either won't or can't elaborate on what you're talking about. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about anything you posted. If you don't have the courage of your convictions then why bother post in the first place? Who cares if random internet people don't react positively. Post or don't post but you can't moan about close minded people not listening to you when you're not willing to say anything.


  • Options
    #638
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Will the proponents of climate change here at least accept there's a possibility the whole thing is being orchestrated by Nazis (from their Antarctic base) with their alien technology, in an attempt to flood huge parts of the world and make their own continent flourish again?


  • Options
    #639
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    c_man wrote: »
    Will the proponents of climate change here at least accept there's a possibility the whole thing is being orchestrated by Nazis (from their Antarctic base) with their alien technology, in an attempt to flood huge parts of the world and make their own continent flourish again?

    nope. Because if I say it's a possibility, their reality/fantasy filter will interpret that to mean it's just as likely as any other cause.


  • Options
    #640
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Clearly nonsense when everyone knows the nazi base is on the moon.


  • Options
    #641
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Thats what they want you to think, The Nazis were really just a front for the Illuminati who have their base in a volcano on Hawaii


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    Doeshedare
    Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭Doeshedare


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Thats what they want you to think, The Nazis were really just a front for the Illuminati who have their base in a volcano on Hawaii

    Wrong. It was Spectre and it was Japan


  • Options
    #643
    cfuserkildare
    Registered Users Posts: 3,573 ✭✭✭cfuserkildare


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There is no treaty

    There is something called the
    Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

    It's not a 'weather control treaty' because other than cloud seeding which can cause it to rain, there is no technology that can cause extreme weather events at will

    We do have one set of technology that is causing devastating effects on weather and climate however, and it's the internal combustion engine and other methods of burning fossil fuels.


    Hmmm,

    No mention of the Methane Gas created by Live-Stock?
    Or the Fossil fuels burned to power Electric Cars?
    Until there is a Proper Viable alternative, then we are stuck with using what we have available to us!!!


  • Options
    #644
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Glaciation is driven by earth's eccentric orbit and a wobble in the earths rotation that changes the season lengths and greenhouse gas concentrations.

    Currently we are fundamentally changing the composition of our atmosphere. It's not permanent though. If humans were to stop this pollution, or go extinct, the earth would find a new balance after a geologically short period of time.

    If humans survive this period of our history and figure out how to live sustainably on our planet, we will no doubt be able to regulate the earths climate in order to maintain a suitable habitat for humans. Humans need never experience another ice age on earth as long as we continue as technologically advanced species, but if humans disappear, the climate will return to natural cycles controlled by whatever elements of the carbon cycle dominate a post human globe

    Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?


  • Options
    #645
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?

    If we survive tens of thousands of years, sure, why wouldn't we?

    We already know how to warm the planet.


  • Options
    #646
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?

    just start producing carbon again, job done.


  • Options
    #647
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    server down wrote: »
    just start producing carbon again, job done.

    I think perhaps most people in this thread should give up their bedrooms at mummy and daddys and get out into the real world.


  • Options
    #648
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    I think perhaps most people in this thread should give up their bedrooms at mummy and daddys and get out into the real world.

    I think you should get out of their basement and enroll in a foundation science course in your nearest third level institution.


  • Options
    #649
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    I think you should get out of their basement and enroll in a foundation science course in your nearest third level institution.

    More brainwashing?


  • Options
    #650
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    dense wrote: »
    Anyone seriously interested in learning about how the IPCC has got it wrong should read this.

    "Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2"

    http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/


    And the comments.

    I have invited Akrasia to log on there and chastise the author pointing out various flaws etc;, but they've refused......

    They can't dispute it. Yet, they will, here.

    But folks, don't take my word for it, read it yourselve.

    You've already been fooled by the 97% of scientists lie.

    Don't get fooled again. Unless you want to be, that is.

    Read it and come back here to say what you think.

    If you can disprove it log on there and post a link here so we can follow you.

    If you can't or won't like Akrasia here, well then Ed Berry is right and the IPCC bandwagon is wrong.

    As it stands:

    Ed Berry 1
    Akrasia and the whole IPCC hysteria bandwagon 0

    That whole post assumes that there will be an outflow equal to the human added inflow and that the oceans will absorb any extra carbon emissions. This leaves him with an explanation of the carbon increase in the atmosphere being down to some external increase in temperature, but he doesnt explain where the increase in temperature comes from.


  • Options
    #651
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    More brainwashing?

    some ( I wouldnt say more) scientific training might help you know what you are on about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    server down wrote: »
    some ( I wouldnt say more) scientific training might help you know what you are on about.

    I might suggest that you investigate outside your comfort zone.Otherwise you will be perpetually stuck in the nether regions of misinformation.


  • Options
    #653
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    I might suggest that you investigate outside your comfort zone.Otherwise you will be perpetually stuck in the nether regions of misinformation.

    Physician, heal thyself.


  • Options
    #654
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    server down wrote: »
    That whole post assumes that there will be an outflow equal to the human added inflow and that the oceans will absorb any extra carbon emissions. This leaves him with an explanation of the carbon increase in the atmosphere being down to some external increase in temperature, but he doesnt explain where the increase in temperature comes from.

    If you asked him, I wonder would he say:

    "The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that “Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.” To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1.

    In science, showing that a hypothesis is wrong is an end in itself. I do not need to go any further. I do not need to propose or prove an alternative to Claim#1.

    The burden for those on your side of this issue is to come up with a new and better argument to support Claim#1.

    Once we acknowledge that I do not need to propose an alternative to Claim#1 to prove the present arguments for Claim#1 are invalid, I will be happy to entertain ideas to address your interest in other possible causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2."
    Claim#1 is that human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

    You appear to agree that he has done what he says he has done, namely set out to prove that Claim#1 is wrong?

    And, there are many loose ends to many theories......

    This is not my area but what he says appears to be true.

    It would most useful to the conversation here if someone more qualified would challenge or critique his paper on a peer basis, one to one with him, it is even something he says he welcomes.

    Whether that's true or not, there's one way to find out.


  • Options
    #655
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    If you asked him, I wonder would he say:


    Claim#1 is that human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

    You appear to agree that he has done what he says he has done, namely set out to prove that Claim#1 is wrong?

    And, there are many loose ends to many theories......

    This is not my area but what he says appears to be true.

    It would most useful to the conversation here if someone more qualified would challenge or critique his paper on a peer basis, one to one with him, it is even something he says he welcomes.

    Whether that's true or not, there's one way to find out.

    ED Berry is wrong because he counts all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural. In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

    Berry is not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, he calls all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

    His 'paper' completely fudges the rate at which long term co2 sequestration occurs.
    I explained this 2 weeks ago.

    If only he spent more time on the science and less time ranting about Al Gore and the Aztecs


  • Options
    #656
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    ED Berry is wrong because he counts all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural. In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

    Berry is not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, he calls all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

    I explained this 2 weeks ago.

    Why not post that response there if it's so simple then?
    That's what I find odd.

    I could do it for you if you like.
    What about using a name we both agree on, such as Arkasia for example?

    Would you be on for it?

    I'll change the "Berry" and "he" in the above etc. to "you" etc?

    Have you tried to post there? Is it difficult to get published do you think?


  • Options
    #657
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Why not post that response there if it's so simple then?
    That's what I find odd.

    I could do it for you if you like.
    What about using a name we both agree on, such as Arkasia for example?

    Would you be on for it?

    I'll change the "Berry" and "he" in the above etc. to "you" etc?

    Have you tried to post there? Is it difficult to get published do you think?
    You're free to post anything i say here anywhere you like.

    You can link to this thread if you want


  • Options
    #658
    conditioned games
    Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭conditioned games


    Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

    By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

    By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.


  • Options
    #659
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    conditioned games wrote: »
    Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

    By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

    By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.
    I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?


  • Options
    #660
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?

    I dont believe you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    conditioned games wrote: »
    Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

    By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

    By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.

    Finally someone spells out the bigger picture and the end game.


Advertisement