![]() |
How about some actual science - Printable Version +- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb) +-- Forum: Controversy and Debate (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=52) +--- Forum: The Great Climate Change Debate (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=53) +--- Thread: How about some actual science (/showthread.php?tid=2614) |
How about some actual science - 727Sky - 02-24-2025 [video=youtube]<iframe width="315" height="560" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/07IYzhwAzuI" title="The Extreme Climate of Ancient North America" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video] RE: How about some actual science - Ninurta - 02-24-2025 It appears that the video is a "YouTube Short", which is having trouble embedding on an external page, maybe because the aspect ratio is different from regular videos. I'll try it from here: Doesn't look like it's working for me, either. A summary: The presenter claims that the climate of North America, 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, was like the climate of Antarctica is now. While not strictly true - the climate of CANADA and some of the northern US was Antarctic, entirely covered in ice, but the US, from about half way down in Ohio and southward of that line was more like Canada or Siberia is now - it's close enough for his premise. He says that folks have some weird notion that there is a steady state for climate, and that is utterly wrong, which is a true statement. The one constant of climate is that it is always changing due to a plethora of variable interacting with one another. He also says that the heat capture ability of CO2 is limited, and that most of the thermal capture is accomplished in the first 100 parts per million, which is also true. Beyond that, you reach a point of diminishing returns, where simply adding more CO2 does not capture the same amount of heat, but falls off. It's not a linear 1 for 1 capture for each new unit of CO2. During the carboniferous period, our atmosphere had about 4 times the current level of CO2. If heat were captured in a linear fashion, all life on Earth would have ended other than extremophiles, because Earth's surface temperature would have been well over the boiling point - hotter at the equator, somewhat cooler at the poles. But, to the contrary, life flourished, and the Earth was a jungle-covered mess, which is why we have coal deposits now. Insects, amphibians, and fish nearly overpopulated, and the first reptiles came into existence. Here's an attempt at posting just the link, so you can watch it on YouTube if it works: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/07IYzhwAzuI . RE: How about some actual science - Michigan Swamp Buck - 02-24-2025 They probably didn't mention the O2 expelled by all the new robust plant growth or that water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas when compared to CO2. RE: How about some actual science - BIAD - 02-24-2025 The real problem is that if your livelihood, your social-setting with good benefits and ensuring your family's future shouldn't be burdened with the normal fiscal issues many of those living alongside you on this planet... would you blow an easy well-funded ride for the sake of telling the truth? Remember, the established media have gone along with this scam and other powerful elements that could break anyone who shunned the oodles of cash for informing a species that they're not changing the weather with their breath and anything they purchase that is for sale. The other creatures here that inhale and exhale don't seem to be worried about this so-called crisis and that might be a bit strange to some, until you recall that out of everything alive on this planet, we're the only species that uses money. Odd isn't it? The simplest thing would be to have stopped companies from selling anything bound in plastic, halt any Hollywood movies that require big-smoky explosions, bung the cows asses up, kill the fashion industry off, destroy any vehicle that doesn't move by wind-power and close down the use of building materials. Er... wait a minute, the majority of those constantly accused of being bad by the established media and investing business moguls, don't actually own any of these industries. ![]() RE: How about some actual science - Ninurta - 02-24-2025 (02-24-2025, 01:42 PM)Michigan Swamp Buck Wrote: They probably didn't mention the O2 expelled by all the new robust plant growth or that water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas when compared to CO2. Indeed. During the Carboniferous that I mentioned in my post, O2 levels were at 35% or so of the atmosphere, as opposed to the current 21% - almost 175% of current oxygen levels. One result of that was that wildfires were more common,and more volatile and dangerous, due to the increase in oxygen. Another result was that insects got much larger, with cockroaches between 8" and a foot long, dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans, and a centipede or millipede named "Arthropleura" that reached lengths of 8 feet or so. The "carbon crew" can't make any money on water vapor, because it is so volatile that it can disappear into either water or ice, negating it's value to them as a taxable commodity. That is a disability that CO2 doesn't have, since it sticks around a little longer. In other words, they cannot fear monger well enough on water vapor, but they can on CO2, despite the stronger greenhouse effect of water vapor. . RE: How about some actual science - F2d5thCav - 02-24-2025 Quote:The other creatures here that inhale and exhale don't seem to be worried about this so-called One wonders if that is the reason that chimps seem to delight in ripping off the faces of humans when they get a chance to maul them. Or, perhaps, they're just insane. ![]() RE: How about some actual science - OmegaLogos - 02-24-2025 Explanation: Science and CO2 eh? This Solar-Powered Reactor Sucks CO2 From the Air and Turns It Into Fuel Researchers have created a solar-powered reactor that collects CO2 by night and turns it into a useful gas by day. ![]() Quote:Researchers at the University of Cambridge have built a solar-powered reactor that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into a gas that could one day fuel vehicles, power off-the-grid dwellings, and even produce pharmaceutical products. Personal Disclosure: Problem solved! RE: How about some actual science - EndtheMadnessNow - 02-25-2025 Here's the video: RE: How about some actual science - 727Sky - 02-26-2025 RE: How about some actual science - 727Sky - 02-26-2025 RE: How about some actual science - SomeJackleg - 02-27-2025 (02-24-2025, 06:36 PM)Ninurta Wrote: Indeed. During the Carboniferous that I mentioned in my post, O2 levels were at 35% or so of the atmosphere, as opposed to the current 21% - almost 175% of current oxygen levels. O2 levels were also higher during the Triassic when the first dinosaurs appeared O2 was at about 12 to 15%, middle of the Jurassic is when the big ass plant eaters showed up and O2 was at about 26-28% the giant plant eaters short fat ones and long neck ones, near the end of the Cretaceous the bad ass meat eaters showed both the big ass ones and the little ones. they say that the the loss of O2 levels was part of the reason lager dinosaurs died out it was harder for the to breath. and the little ones turned into birds. |