JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I really hate to be a party pooper . . . . BUT all y'all are just wrong. This current climate warming is just a temporary occurrence before the coming ice age the "smart" folk back in the 70s predicted with considerable fervor. (sarc)
 

I'm on a mission this year to force myself to worry less and live in the moment more; enjoy every minute with my kids, my wife, sit in the cool fall air watching the clouds pass by, and appreciate all the gifts God has given me. Sure I have stressors and life challenges like everyone, but I want to keep them in perspective.
 
$.02

We don't have an accurate understanding of what happened in 2016, how can we guess the accuracy of someone's interpretation of 10,000 year old
Fifty years ago, we were mostly just guessing or speculating about what caused the Younger Dryas or any other mass extinction. Not any more. These days we have lots of ice cores that allow people to find and date and distinguish between the impact of comets/asteroids vs volcanic events. We're much better at finding the relevant areas that will show the relevant soil layers. We know that a massive volcanic event produces high sulfur dioxide in the ice core samples laid down at the relevant time but impact events dont. We know that structures like shocked quartz and nano-diamonds are produced only by meteor/comet impacts or nuclear bombs. When we find a layer of sediment all over the entire earth that is full of shocked quartz, nano-diamonds, and ash, we know as fact at this point that something really big hit the earth. But it takes a lot of work by a lot of people before you have all the necessary data showing that there was a layer with the shocked quartz etc laid down at the right time. We cant yet tell the difference between impacts from comets or meters.
 
I can't be bothered to worry about science fiction...but, if you enjoy playing 'ain't it awful' go haid...play away...

Me, I got all my chores done, now I'm gonna drink a glass of wine and watch my back yard birds at the feeders and stare at the clouds as they go by...
 
What does a volcanic eruption occurring 200 years ago in a pre-industrialized world have to do with human assisted global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it today?
A volcanic ash plume blocked enough sunlight to effectively cool the earth for a couple years. That has probably happened many times in the history of Earth but I don't see what that has to do with mankind's unique ability to generate tremendous amounts of heat and CO2 beyond his own biological processes.
Somethings can be stated with certainty, like climate changes. Simply because of geologic processes (plate tectonics, geologic uplift, and so forth, climate will change.

What cannot be stated with certainty is that human activity has anything to do with it. What actual evidence do you have that humans change climate? Intuition and supposition are not evidence. Computer models are not evidence.
 
WW-1 and 2 should have had an impact on our environment, yet they didn't, WHY? Even long term, it hasn't been proven to have effected the climate or caused any changes!
Think about this, Both wars saw the greatest amount of pollution ever created by man and released on this earth! Ships sunk with fuel spills greater then any spills occurring after, untold amounts of highly noxious stuff spilled or burned, and entire cities blown to bits and then burned to ash, and yet the climate didn't suffer! Makes a person wonder if Man has or could have effected the climate! The Steam age, saw the massive use of Coal for all sorts of power and heating, yet we didn't see any climate changes from that ether!
 
high sulfur dioxide in the ice core samples laid down at the relevant time but impact events dont.

I recently watched a very interesting Youtube vid on an asteroid hit off the coast of Mexico millions of years ago. I don't remember all of what they said... but the gist was that there was a previously unknown extinction event caused by the impact. They said they analysed the rocks and deep sediment layers inside a huge offshore crater. The resulting data showed that the impact created a flash fire in the atmosphere and also the vegetation for many miles around the impact. Then there was a tsunami. The wave put out the fires and the receding surge drew much of the debris back into the crater. Most of life on earth was extinguished by the blockng of the sun afterwards.

Things that make ya go.... hmmmmmmm!

The rest of this discussion is pretty "Art Bell". :p;):D
 
Somethings can be stated with certainty, like climate changes. Simply because of geologic processes (plate tectonics, geologic uplift, and so forth, climate will change.

What cannot be stated with certainty is that human activity has anything to do with it. What actual evidence do you have that humans change climate? Intuition and supposition are not evidence. Computer models are not evidence.
First, it appears you are asking for geologic evidence of a modern event which won't exist yet.
Second, I never said it was more than a hypothesis, nor did I say it was causing climate change but speculated that human activity could, however, be accelerating climate change by dumping more heat and CO2 into the atmosphere

WW-1 and 2 should have had an impact on our environment, yet they didn't, WHY? Even long term, it hasn't been proven to have effected the climate or caused any changes!
Think about this, Both wars saw the greatest amount of pollution ever created by man and released on this earth! Ships sunk with fuel spills greater then any spills occurring after, untold amounts of highly noxious stuff spilled or burned, and entire cities blown to bits and then burned to ash, and yet the climate didn't suffer! Makes a person wonder if Man has or could have effected the climate! The Steam age, saw the massive use of Coal for all sorts of power and heating, yet we didn't see any climate changes from that ether!
Consider this, World War 2 was cataclysmic, but since then we US, USSR, France and others have detonated, in the open, atomic and hydrogen bombs that individually had greater explosive power than all the bombs dropped in WW2.
Also since then, the world's population has more than tripled and everyone living uses fire in myriad forms.
My speculation is that human thermal activity is akin to a titration experiment from chemistry classes
A slow drip of solution into another where it drips into another solution and it drips slowly with nothing apparently happening until that last drop and suddenly a tipping point is reached and the reaction happens.
Will human activity accelerate the slow buildup of heat/CO2 that tips the balance?
Maybe it will or maybe it won't. That will be something our descendants or the next dominant species on earth will discuss 10,000 or 10 million years from now.
 
First, it appears you are asking for geologic evidence of a modern event which won't exist yet.
Second, I never said it was more than a hypothesis, nor did I say it was causing climate change but speculated that human activity could, however, be accelerating climate change by dumping more heat and CO2 into the atmosphere
I would accept any evidence, not necessarily geologic.

All estimates I have seen indicate that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 (as well as other so-called greenhouse gasses) is miniscule compared to that released in even a single volcanic eruption. I am therefore led to believe that any supposed acceleration would also be very small. I would be open to reviewing evidence to the contrary.

Also, most proponents of anthropogenic warming seem to ignore that the system is bufferred. For example, the ocean is a giant scrubber which removes CO2 from the atmosphere when it dissolves in sea water and precipitates as limestone.

I don't have a problem with your hypothesis, and I'm glad you state it is a hypothesis. Good on you!

My problem is with people who propose a drastic restructuring of the economy and oppressive taxation based on a hypothesis.

And I'm not totally convinced climate change is bad. Will it require some adaptation? For sure. But I think the claims of "climate catastrophe" are over-blown. Chicken Little-ish you might say.
 
I would accept any evidence, not necessarily geologic.

All estimates I have seen indicate that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 (as well as other so-called greenhouse gasses) is miniscule compared to that released in even a single volcanic eruption. I am therefore led to believe that any supposed acceleration would also be very small. I would be open to reviewing evidence to the contrary.

Also, most proponents of anthropogenic warming seem to ignore that the system is bufferred. For example, the ocean is a giant scrubber which removes CO2 from the atmosphere when it dissolves in sea water and precipitates as limestone.

I don't have a problem with your hypothesis, and I'm glad you state it is a hypothesis. Good on you!

My problem is with people who propose a drastic restructuring of the economy and oppressive taxation based on a hypothesis.

And I'm not totally convinced climate change is bad. Will it require some adaptation? For sure. But I think the claims of "climate catastrophe" are over-blown. Chicken Little-ish you might say.
And you'll note that I never said I was giving up my gas-guzzler, my Weber, my fire table, my home heater/AC or my Boomsticks. This is a speculative intellectual exercise that will or won't become fact in 12 (Per AOC:rolleyes:) to 1,000 years or more.

Ah yes, the 'human titration' cumulative cause theory....
Precisely, my dear Watson:D
 
And you'll note that I never said I was giving up my gas-guzzler, my Weber, my fire table, my home heater/AC or my Boomsticks. This is a speculative intellectual exercise that will or won't become fact in 12 (Per AOC:rolleyes:) to 1,000 years or more.
Thanks for clarifying.

It's shameful what they are doing to school children, telling them the world will end in 12 years.
 
I recently watched a very interesting Youtube vid on an asteroid hit off the coast of Mexico millions of years ago. I don't remember all of what they said... but the gist was that there was a previously unknown extinction event caused by the impact. They said they analysed the rocks and deep sediment layers inside a huge offshore crater. The resulting data showed that the impact created a flash fire in the atmosphere and also the vegetation for many miles around the impact. Then there was a tsunami. The wave put out the fires and the receding surge drew much of the debris back into the crater. Most of life on earth was extinguished by the blockng of the sun afterwards.

Things that make ya go.... hmmmmmmm!

The rest of this discussion is pretty "Art Bell". :p;):D
That's the Chicxulub crater, Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. Thats the KT mass extintion, the most recent and best-known one, the one that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That fits everything you mentioned except it was not a "previously unknown extinction event." I was learning about the extinction of the dinosaurs when I was 8, more than six decades ago. It was very old news then. The discovery of the role of the crater is more recent, though. (Even though its 93 miles across, its eroded and is 2/3 under water.) It wasnt obvious it was a crater. Lois and Walter Alvarez published their paper identifying and dating the iridium layer in soils to the time of extinction of the dinosaurs and proposed that an impact with an iridium-rich asteroid is what caused the KT extinction. That was the year after I moved to Oregon. Very exciting. I bought the theory from that first paper. It was wildly controversial for at least a decade as more and more studies accumulated. But where was the crater? At that point, oil geologists got permission to reveal data they had on the underwater part of the crater, and it became the obvious candidate. It turned out to date to the right time and the iridium layer was the deepest the closer you were to the crater.

Just in the last year or two someone has found a site full of fossils that might represent fish and other debris caught and killed in the tsunami flood in North America the very day the asteroid hit. The timing is at least approximately right. Might be flood caused by sloshing of water on earth when asteroid hit rather than tsunami. Early days yet. The guy who found the site is being fairly secretive. It will probably be 5 or 10 years before he produces enough info and lets others see the site before we can really evaluate.
 
Last Edited:
What does a volcanic eruption occurring 200 years ago in a pre-industrialized world have to do with human assisted global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it today?
A volcanic ash plume blocked enough sunlight to effectively cool the earth for a couple years. That has probably happened many times in the history of Earth but I don't see what that has to do with mankind's unique ability to generate tremendous amounts of heat and CO2 beyond his own biological processes.

Human pollution hasn't wiped out 1/3 of the food production for the planet, the 'Year without Summer' did.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top