Earth's Black Box Climate Warning Box for Future Generations to Study.

Wat said:
Citing other sloppy articles is not helping your case.
Click to expand...

Not sure why it is my case all I am just asking if you are speculating here ?

You can look at any other metric/source to see that yes there was a colder period (with some though of colding in the 70s) than the dust bowl that did happen, but the trend and the earth got warmer since:
19418.jpg


ature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg.png


image.png

The message posted was not about the temperature but about the frequency of extreme weather (cold or hot) that was higher back then, it is not contradicting the source, it is pointing out that it is something different.
 
nthexwn said:
At first I thought you guys were being facetious, but it's evident there are people here who still don't understand how this works. At risk of wasting my breath, It's like this:
  1. Ice core samples have been taken by several unaffiliated groups of scientists across the planet.
  2. The data from these samples leads us to believe that the earth has been through several cooling and warming periods in the past. Most climate change denialists will at least agree on this point.
  3. The data also shows that we're currently in the middle of a natural warming period. Climate change denialists love this, and believe that it invalidates the idea that humans have caused it. However...
  4. The data also show that the rate of warming in this iteration of the cycle is much more rapid than during any other iteration that earth has experienced in the detectable past.
  5. The only significant global change to the planet since the last iteration of this cycle is that humans have industrialized.
  6. Given what we know, the only plausible explanation for the accelerated heating is that human industrialization has caused it.
Click to expand...
So they're just guessing as to the cause. What are the other variables? Has the active sun cycle
  1. I'm not trying to sell you anything.
  2. I can't stop you from coming up with or believing somebody else's crackpot conspiracy theories about this.
  3. Regardless of what you believe, this is the logic that most sane and reasonable people follow, so it's good to at least understand it.
Click to expand...
That is a collection of contradictory statements if I ever saw one. At least you admit that it's all crackpot conspiracy theories. The only thing that is true in the whole scheme is the data compiled from the ice core samples.
nthexwn said:
Most of the data is publicly available here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/?dataTypeId=7

Here's a graphical summary of that data over the past 600,000 years averaged across several sampling sites: https://www.co2.earth/images/figures/co2-ghg-ice-core-record_650kyr_ipcc-ar4_2007_720w.jpg

Do you see the historical cycles followed by the giant vertical spike in the last 1,000 years? Let's zoom in on that. Here's a sample I just found from a couple of sites in Antarctica: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.xls

Notice how C02 and CH4 are rapidly rising everywhere?

These aren't facts. This is just data. Contrary to popular belief, science isn't about finding an authority you trust and accepting their conclusions as truth. You're welcome to look it up yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
What is "C02?"
LukeTbk said:
Not sure why it is my case all I am just asking if you are speculating here ?

You can look at any other metric/source to see that yes there was a colder period (with some though of colding in the 70s) than the dust bowl that did happen, but the trend and the earth got warmer since:
View attachment 421475

View attachment 421476

View attachment 421477

The message posted was not about the temperature but about the frequency of extreme weather (cold or hot) that was higher back then, it is not contradicting the source, it is pointing out that it is something different.
Click to expand...
The data has been "adjusted" to account for "inaccuracies" in the historical temperature data. Funny how the graph looks like a direct correlation to the atmospheric CO2 levels over time. Global temperature couldn't have anything to do with the pattern of overactive solar cycles of the past 80 years or anything...

1639418092561.png
 
Armenius said:
The data has been "adjusted" to account for "inaccuracies" in the historical temperature data. Funny how the graph looks like a direct correlation to the atmospheric CO2 levels over time. Global temperature couldn't have anything to do with the pattern of overactive solar cycles of the past 80 years or anything...
Click to expand...
That a complete different statement no ?

For the cycle it seem trivial that it would have an impact and isn't the reason the debate stopped in really recent year's because of any non-Co2 effect like sun activity went into the cooling direction and the earth global average continued to go up instead ?
 
I'm 58 yrs old and have been hearing about the 100% provable scientific planetary meltdown OR the freezing nuclear winter for 50 years. It is the exact same argument today it was then and we're still here.

My first person observation of the "Argument" over the years is that it is a straw man put forth by globalist progressive elites whose goal is to control EVERYTHING! Energy is the lynch pin that powers the planet so of course if we don't let statists control it we will all die. They see themselves as enlightened socialist super beings with a moral anything goes blank check imperative to save humanity from the smelly clueless Walmart shopper infection raping mother earth.

You budding academic intellectual activists should take note. The freedoms that motivated the filthy masses to create the technical miracles we have today are the same freedoms that will drive solutions to the things you're so worried about tomorrow. Destroying or dismantling freedoms engine of prosperity will be our undoing, Not climate change.
 
Last edited:
GreenLaser said:
I'm 58 yrs old and have been hearing about the 100% provable scientific planetary meltdown OR the freezing nuclear winter for 50 years. It is the exact same argument today it was then and we're still here.

My first person observation of the "Argument" over the years is that it is a straw man put forth by globalist progressive elites whose goal is to control EVERYTHING! Energy is the lynch pin that powers the planet so of course if we don't let statists control it we will all die. They see themselves as enlightened socialist super beings with a moral anything goes blank check imperative to save humanity from the smelly clueless Walmart shopper infection raping mother earth.

You budding academic intellectual activists should take note. The freedoms that motivated the filthy masses to create the technical miracles we have today are the same freedoms that will drive solutions to the things you're so worried about tomorrow. Destroying or dismantling freedoms engine of prosperity will be our undoing, Not climate change.
Click to expand...
well said sir! you are wise beyond your years! i wish more people would rely on first person observation and nothing else, it really is the true key to understanding and knowledge! also i think we all know who you mean by the globalist progressive elites, am i right ;)
 
Phew, is there some bad info in this thread. I'm not seeking an argument or to change anyone's opinion - I'd just like to relay some things I picked up. Firstly, I'm no expert, I'm interested in the topic but came by that honestly while I worked with a firm that was subcontracted for NOAA projects - we were doing various technical/development jobs. I'll reiterate: I am no scientist or researcher - I'm an IT guy. That said, we did work for some researchers who I can definitively say were much smarter than myself. We did work ranging basic facilitating IT to development work that used their data. Doing the work made me curious on the topic and led me to pick up a few books.

Among the things I gleaned:
  • The people working on this (in the "science"-capacity - not as an IT contractor :p) are dedicated and earnest about their work. No mass conspiracy here.
  • The problem: this is imperceptible to people. No one notices a couple degrees shift over a lifetime. Easy to dismiss what is almost invisible on a human time scale.
  • Media, of any political flavor, has to sensationalize this in one direction or another for the sake of agendas and eyeballs ("we're all gonna die!" or "it's all a hoax from the *insert political agenda here*").
  • A sudden cataclysm isn't happening. Picture instead worse weather events, slow death of some habitats, slow collapse of fish stocks, slow increase in droughts and famine.
  • "Global warming" is/was an unfortunate misnomer, not everywhere is getting warmer. A better description is just "climate change".
  • It's not only carbon dioxide and methane - there are other gases to factor in, particulates from burning things that play a role in masking the impact of greenhouse gases too.
  • Bigger concern, in my understanding, is the impact on weather patterns and currents thanks to those cumulative, unnoticeable temperature changes. Likewise carbon dioxide concentrations cause the ocean to become more acidic - leads to killing off reefs, young fish, shellfish among other negatives.
  • As far as all this goes, people are a direct cause - or industrialization is anyway. It's difficult to do any 1:1 links between cause and effect on such a short interval, the one point that was certain was the rate of change (for any the above factors) has drifted increasingly outside of the average since the early 1800s.
  • Some of the imperceptible changes have positive feedback loops that could make serious problems down the road.
  • Any mitigations have to be done at an international scale. Not much has been done so far.
  • We've already failed by a number of metrics - make of that what you will. I think the original number was target was limiting +1.5C temperature shift by 2100 - I think we're on track to hit that in a decade or so.

And, to get us back on the rails: a "post-humanity" black box that requires electricity is stupid and seems doomed to fail. Also how is this enclosed and functional without ventilation? It supposedly has hard drives if the article is to be believed. Stupid in my opinion if they really wanted some sort of vault. A real doomsday black box would have some sort of write-once optical storage, I'm thinknig cartridges with the equivalent of m-discs or better.
 
So if the earth is warming, 100% of the effects will be bad for the earth and humanity? Is that what you are saying? If so, why?
 
I think it is all blown out of proportion. Worst case we roll the climate back to the time of the dinosaurs. Sure we lose some land mass and wreck economies for decades, but the planet has greening from the increased C02.

We aren’t even sure of the impact we are having because solar output varies.

The way things are going I don’t think we will get to that point. Renewables are almost there. Electric cars are almost there.
We have safe nuclear power designs that can be used. Fusion is a few decades away lol.

If they really thought for sure the sea level would drastically rise.. Elites would be buying up ocean front property at the predicted sea level and already be developing it.
 
The time of the dinosaurs had a lot LESS CO2 and a lot more oxygen. That's part of why Dinosaurs and ancient bugs could get so big, more oxygen rich blood was easier to push around. Trees took a while to evolve because the molecule cocktail for creating wood and the system to keep it fed is a bit complicated.

Also there seems to be a hell of a lot of misunderstanding that more CO2 is always better for plants. It's not, there's a limit for what's safe for plants as well, and it's pretty damn low. (1500ppm or something like that?)
The vast, vast majority of air is nitrogen. Greenhouse gases also aren't purely CO2 either, Methane and Ozone also play part, as do all sorts of variants of Flueromethane.

Increased CO2 in Oceans can also cause algae blooms, AKA red tide, which can kill a ridiculous amount of aquatic life.
 
Animals and plants can adapt and evolve, as long as it doesn't happen too rapidly. They need a few generations at least, for the ones with few offspring. We will lose species, and new ones will emerge. The question is only whether we will be able to adapt and survive.
 
SamuelL421 said:
Phew, is there some bad info in this thread. I'm not seeking an argument or to change anyone's opinion - I'd just like to relay some things I picked up. Firstly, I'm no expert, I'm interested in the topic but came by that honestly while I worked with a firm that was subcontracted for NOAA projects - we were doing various technical/development jobs. I'll reiterate: I am no scientist or researcher - I'm an IT guy. That said, we did work for some researchers who I can definitively say were much smarter than myself. We did work ranging basic facilitating IT to development work that used their data. Doing the work made me curious on the topic and led me to pick up a few books.

Among the things I gleaned:
  • The people working on this (in the "science"-capacity - not as an IT contractor :p) are dedicated and earnest about their work. No mass conspiracy here.
  • The problem: this is imperceptible to people. No one notices a couple degrees shift over a lifetime. Easy to dismiss what is almost invisible on a human time scale.
  • Media, of any political flavor, has to sensationalize this in one direction or another for the sake of agendas and eyeballs ("we're all gonna die!" or "it's all a hoax from the *insert political agenda here*").
  • A sudden cataclysm isn't happening. Picture instead worse weather events, slow death of some habitats, slow collapse of fish stocks, slow increase in droughts and famine.
  • "Global warming" is/was an unfortunate misnomer, not everywhere is getting warmer. A better description is just "climate change".
  • It's not only carbon dioxide and methane - there are other gases to factor in, particulates from burning things that play a role in masking the impact of greenhouse gases too.
  • Bigger concern, in my understanding, is the impact on weather patterns and currents thanks to those cumulative, unnoticeable temperature changes. Likewise carbon dioxide concentrations cause the ocean to become more acidic - leads to killing off reefs, young fish, shellfish among other negatives.
  • As far as all this goes, people are a direct cause - or industrialization is anyway. It's difficult to do any 1:1 links between cause and effect on such a short interval, the one point that was certain was the rate of change (for any the above factors) has drifted increasingly outside of the average since the early 1800s.
  • Some of the imperceptible changes have positive feedback loops that could make serious problems down the road.
  • Any mitigations have to be done at an international scale. Not much has been done so far.
  • We've already failed by a number of metrics - make of that what you will. I think the original number was target was limiting +1.5C temperature shift by 2100 - I think we're on track to hit that in a decade or so.

And, to get us back on the rails: a "post-humanity" black box that requires electricity is stupid and seems doomed to fail. Also how is this enclosed and functional without ventilation? It supposedly has hard drives if the article is to be believed. Stupid in my opinion if they really wanted some sort of vault. A real doomsday black box would have some sort of write-once optical storage, I'm thinknig cartridges with the equivalent of m-discs or better.
Click to expand...
Okay.
What is the correct temperature for this planet?
 
Nobu said:
Problem is if you give unrealistic expectations often enough, people begin to realize that they're being fed a load of hogwash. Not that it's not based on reality, but if you stuck with the facts from the beginning and used realistic numbers in your predictions there would probably be at least the same number of people who believe you, and maybe more who supports your work and research. (Rhetorical "you," not you specifically. Talking about climate scientists, here)
Click to expand...

Part of that is the fault of the media though. A climate scientist could come out and make a statement like "models are projecting we may get a sea level rise anywhere between 1cm and 10 metres sometime within the next 100 years depending on a variety of factors which may or may not come to pass", and the media will report the headline as "TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST WHO IS WAY SMARTER THAN ALL OF US AND CAN FORETELL THE FUTURE SAYS OCEANS WILL TOTALLY RISE 10 METERS BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO DRIVE TO THE GROCERY STORE INSTEAD OF TAKING THE BUS THAT ONE TIME OMG EVERYONE PANIC BUY OUR NEWSPAPER AND CLICK THESE ADS".
 
Wat said:
So if the earth is warming, 100% of the effects will be bad for the earth and humanity? Is that what you are saying? If so, why?
Click to expand...
It's not really about the warming. I think "global warming" is a misnomer or oversimplification. A blanket term to explain a topic too complicated for our approaching Idiocracy -level of science literacy in society. Emissions beget imperceptible (for us) temperature changes and ocean acidification. The subtle temperature changes are lightening quick on a geological time scale. Culminates in weather and climates being disrupted ("changed") faster than life can adapt. Shifting weather could make some places cooler or wetter overall.

The real problem is possibility for collapse of habitats, fish stocks, and regions rapidly becoming less able to support agriculture.
Less to do with sad polar bears, wildfires, and sea level rise. Think more like mass famine in poor equatorial countries and the resulting wars / refugee crisis that could bring.

equinox654 said:
...

If they really thought for sure the sea level would drastically rise.. Elites would be buying up ocean front property at the predicted sea level and already be developing it.
Click to expand...
Sea level rise is real, though it isn't some existential crisis unless you live in one of the low lying islands in the Pacific/Indian oceans. We can blame the media for grabbing this as a talking point in an effort to dumb down and sensationalize the story.

NickM said:
Okay.
What is the correct temperature for this planet?
Click to expand...
I suppose it doesn't matter for the planet, it will still be here regardless what we do. For life to adapt (within reason), any changes just need to happen slowly. A few *C change is normal over a several thousand years, less so over 200 years.

HockeyJon said:
Part of that is the fault of the media though. A climate scientist could come out and make a statement like "models are projecting we may get a sea level rise anywhere between 1cm and 10 metres sometime within the next 100 years depending on a variety of factors which may or may not come to pass", and the media will report the headline as "TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST WHO IS WAY SMARTER THAN ALL OF US AND CAN FORETELL THE FUTURE SAYS OCEANS WILL TOTALLY RISE 10 METERS BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO DRIVE TO THE GROCERY STORE INSTEAD OF TAKING THE BUS THAT ONE TIME OMG EVERYONE PANIC BUY OUR NEWSPAPER AND CLICK THESE ADS".
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. The way this is presented and politicized by the media is infuriating to me.

Unfortunately I feel certain that the following:
"WE ARE ALL GOING TO BURN AND OR DROWN AND IT'S BECUASE OF YOUR LEAFBLOWER AND SUV!"
must sell more subscriptions/ads versus:
"International community must cooperate to reduce future possibility of marine die-off and famine caused by drought resulting from effects of climate change"
 
SamuelL421 said:
I suppose it doesn't matter for the planet, it will still be here regardless what we do. For life to adapt (within reason), any changes just need to happen slowly. A few *C change is normal over a several thousand years, less so over 200 years.
Click to expand...
Pretty interested to see a few degrees change in the AVERAGE over 200 years.
Telling me it's 3 degrees warmer in the Sahara this year than it was some random year picked out of the hat is cherry picking and that is exactly what they AGW acolytes do.
 
The hilarious part about "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" is two fold.

1. People will believe anything if it's shoved in their faces enough.
___a. I have a "friend" from college who is literally afraid to let their 4-year-old son outside because they're afraid their son is going to catch COVID. (Brain washing via mass media)

2. Humans are EXCELLENT at measuring and observing. Humans are HORRIBLE at inferring from those measurements and observations.
___b. The fact is that modern science has only been around in any meaningful way for about 100-150 years now, if even that long. This rock we live on is BILLIONS of years old. We are not the first beings to inhabit this rock, and you'd better believe we are not going to be the last.

Humanity is an almost impossibly tiny spec in the whole of the Universe... and people think that we are hurting this planet, which has a completely self-sustaining balance of systems that we cannot even hope to explain or control? Even with the incredibly advanced computer modeling and telemetry available today, Meteorologists probably get the weather right about 30% of the time when it's a few days out. What makes ANYONE think that any human can possibly predict the impact that we are having on this planet over a period of a few years, let alone decades or centuries?

We're a bunch of egotistical, tiny beings that have no power over the place we call home. Accept it. Enjoy life. Most of us have 70-100 years worth of time on this planet. Enjoy it, and stop worrying about things that you cannot hope to control or change. If your goal it to make it into a history book or some sort of text so that the next generation can read about how great you were, you're doing it wrong. Create opportunities for yourself so that you may be successful, and live life to its fullest, because once it's gone, it's gone.

/rant
 
Last edited:
Colonel Sanders said:
climate change is fake news. i know that because i've heard other people say the same things and come up with some very convincing arguments, and it makes me feel good to accept that reality rather than some other one that might challenge my existing beliefs!

beware of Big Solar and Big Wind!
Click to expand...
71c7975c9fe76dbeae6b206e2f0ac6ce.jpg
 
Urgent Crisis? Okay. 10 years? Okay.

Swapping all the coal out with fracked gas will be free and give us 20 years. Oh don't like that? I thought it was a Crisis.

Fracked Gas has enabled the United States to lead in the reduction of CO2 emissions, pretty much hitting the Kyoto targets.

The USA would be a lot further along except for the PREMATURE SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR POWER. The largest most practical clean source of power we have. Just five plants that were shut down early wiped out all gains from Solar and Wind combined.

Remember that Urgent Crisis that is going to end humanity? Is it urgent enough to build nuclear power plants? Not that urgent? Okay.

If you get to the real urgent people you quickly discover Utility Solar is a bad solution too. We need distributed solar even though its far shittier.

Because what is the real crisis? Capitalism. If it doesn't end Capitalism, its not a good solution for Climate Change, wait, "Climate Justice". Climate Justice is just communism. That's all that is behind the curtain on that one.

Almost nobody on either side of the issue gives a fuck about reality.
 
idiomatic said:
Urgent Crisis? Okay. 10 years? Okay.

Swapping all the coal out with fracked gas will be free and give us 20 years. Oh don't like that? I thought it was a Crisis.

Fracked Gas has enabled the United States to lead in the reduction of CO2 emissions, pretty much hitting the Kyoto targets.

The USA would be a lot further along except for the PREMATURE SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR POWER. The largest most practical clean source of power we have. Just five plants that were shut down early wiped out all gains from Solar and Wind combined.

Remember that Urgent Crisis that is going to end humanity? Is it urgent enough to build nuclear power plants? Not that urgent? Okay.

If you get to the real urgent people you quickly discover Utility Solar is a bad solution too. We need distributed solar even though its far shittier.

Because what is the real crisis? Capitalism. If it doesn't end Capitalism, its not a good solution for Climate Change, wait, "Climate Justice". Climate Justice is just communism. That's all that is behind the curtain on that one.

Almost nobody on either side of the issue gives a fuck about reality.
Click to expand...
Most people like progress. I like my current smartphone way more than the one I had in 2012; we’ve made a lot of progress in that area.

Capitalism promotes progress. SpaceX is the perfect example of this. They took an already existing rocket design, perfected it, cut costs by 10x or more, and are now developing more advanced ways to go to space… oh, and they have also perfected the art of landing/reusing rockets. It took a private company not affiliated with the government, to make space travel more viable.

Capitalism supports those that create things that people want and are willing to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
Here's an anecdote that is a microcosm of the current discussion. Where I live, a couple of years ago, they mad a big deal about not having the temperature drop to 32 degrees or lower earlier than ever on record going back over 100 years. The last day 32 or lower was in February or something like that. That was very unordinary. We did hit 33 degrees many times, but the stat they were counting was 32. We got to May and had a cold snap and once again hit 33 degrees, so the record for 32 remained in tact.

I live in a valley and the official temperature is taken at the airport at the very lowest and warmest part of the valley. In the last 30 years, pretty much all land around the airport has been paved over with shopping malls, hotels, stuff like that. Even the local weather guy points out that the airport is a heat island now. At my house, maybe 5 miles away, we got below freezing many times, including that time in May. However, the records will show that my town set a record for the earliest end to below freezing temps.

To add to the drama, the state Capitol, some 3 hours away, that is always about 3 to 5 degrees warmer than my town, hit 32 degrees that night in May, and set a record for the latest night below freezing in the year. Looking at those two data points you would think one place had one of the warmest winters on record and the other had the coldest. Neither could be further from the truth.
 
nthexwn said:
At first I thought you guys were being facetious, but it's evident there are people here who still don't understand how this works. At risk of wasting my breath, It's like this:
  1. Regardless of what you believe, this is the logic that most sane and reasonable people follow, so it's good to at least understand it.
Click to expand...
So if you don't believe in this climate change conspiracy theory, you must be insane, is that how this works? ;)

I like to think of myself as relatively sane. Last I checked, science isn't about "believing." It's about forming a question, gathering data and coming up with a result.
Facts:
1. Temperature readings over decades are statisticically insignificant over the earth's 4,540,000,000 year history. 10 years equates to <0.0000002% of the earth's history. Are the thermometers that accurate? Didn't think so!
2. The ice core data shows a lag of 800 years where temperature increases before CO2. Er causality = time-travel? How do the sane, government grant funded climate "scientists" explain this? Bubbles. (I'm not making this up!)
3. Ice core data is also statistically insignificant.
4. GEOCARB III data, which looks at the geological record to compare changes over hundreds of millions of years, shows there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 changes.
5. GEOCARB III data also shows that CO2 levels were 10x more than they are today when the largest animals in history roamed the planet. Global warming is good for life!
6. Maunder Minimum was a period in the 1600s dubbed by climate "scientists" the "mini ice age." Did CO2 cause this? Nope - sunspot activity.

Conclusion: man-made climate change is a hoax. The logic that most sane and reasonable people follow is based on the facts.

So here is my theory on what is going on here...
  • Solar activity is the primary driver of climate change.
  • Increased solar activity drives the evolution of more biological activity.
  • More biological activity = more CO2 respired into the atmosphere.
  • This also explains why temperature increases come before CO2 increases in the ice core readings.
Occam's Razor.
 
Last edited:
sleepeeg3 said:
Facts:
1. Temperature readings over decades are statisticically insignificant over the earth's 4,540,000,000 year history. 10 years equates to >0.0000002% of the earth's history. Are the thermometers that accurate? Didn't think so!
Click to expand...
Man, I don't even know how to address the thought process behind this statement...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top