OT: 2019 Weather Thread

[Stylizer1]

I'm bothered by the fact you're using a "weather thread" from a forum you never posted in as a green light to further spread your views

I thought this was the place to express views. I'm not being rude I am only joining the conversation just like if I think the Oilers should trade Lucic. I not here to tell you if I think you are stupid or that I am 100% right. Just expressing views and I am sorry you are uncomfortable with that. Guess we were born in different times brother.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Spoiler

This is true btw

Was the Mafia. Bigfoot told me.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

see I'm a debunker too.

Author: Alex Epstein

he champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and has changed the way thousands of people think about energy.

a fair, un-biased opinion I see LMAO

 

[MoontoScott]

just people who are curious and can entertain theories without prejudice.

There is no doubt that humans have some influence on climate change but there are many other factors as well:

-Solar activity- even small changes in solar output can mean serious climate change. The fall of many empires can be roughly correlated to sun spot activity. When crops fail and people start to starve then you get voted out/beheaded etc. In the last 100 years our star has passed thru a "super stable era" for a yellow sun model and its not coincidence that human populations have exploded to 7. 5 Billion in that period. There is some evidence that the sun is now returning to the "norm" which means increased volatility. The first part in understanding human/animal life is recognition of a stable star output. Many astronomers have now speculated that when we look at "sun/yellow" class stars that are own star is relatively stable even amongst this privileged class of hydrogen burners. When it comes to stars we may have one that in terms of stability is a very rare gem.

-Volcanic activity- outgassing of Co2 and other volatiles has a major effect on climate and when it happens below sea level with subsea volcanic mounts then we are almost oblivious to this change because we know very little about the world's oceans.

-Plate tectonics-- the earth cycles water and Co2 and all kinds of other compounds thru the system in a cycle that spans hundreds of million years and again, we understand relatively little about this process. Prior to the 1960's you would have been laughed at in geology class if you suggested that such a mechanism called plate tectonics even existed.

-I am not denying that there is human input and I am not saying that we shouldn't act responsibly as the dominant species but if it was just human activity then how would we explain 5 mass extinctions events long before homo sapiens were around? We are a young species and if you represented our time here on a sky scraper of time then we would be the thickness of a dime on top of the Empire State Building. There is no way that something as insignificant as ourselves has that much sway.

I don't know why "97% of scientists" (what is a "scientist" exactly?) don't take a more balanced approach when they speak to the public at large about this subject. To me, its another example of extremism and take it from a guy who worked in a college for many years, woe be un to the person who thinks that free speech/free thought exists in those places.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

I thought this was the place to express views. I'm not being rude I am only joining the conversation just like if I think the Oilers should trade Lucic. I not here to tell you if I think you are stupid or that I am 100% right. Just expressing views and I am sorry you are uncomfortable with that. Guess we were born in different times brother.

this is an Oiler forum...

I'm uncomfortable with an outsider that never posts in these forums coming in here and expressing their views, yes, because it signals a pushing of an agenda

if it were a regular and frequent Oiler poster expressing these views, then that's cool

 

[Drivesaitl]

that the vast majority of scientists...97%...agree that humans are the cause of Global warming and climate change

Questions (FAQ) | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The history of science shows us that plurality not necessarily be confused with fact and with endless Scientific groundbreaking work being labeled heresy, reason for execution, debasing, disbarring, etc.

It could even be said that most of whom we accept as the brightest Scientific minds throughout history were Scientists who at their time were widely, and near unanimously critiqued in their time, by their scientific community of peers. Indeed argument could be made that Scientific knowledge is as often obtained through revolutionary, rather than linear means. Or for instance that the greatest public health intervention of all time, Penicillin, was *discovered* quite by accident.

People speak of Climate change as knowns without a foremost understanding that in most of the graphs you see the tails are PROJECTIONS that have not yet occurred. They are theoretical.

Further, the nice and tidy meme like cartoons would have any viewer believe that the present hockey stick rapid change in temp has never occurred before, which is also the subject of scientific debate.

Finally, I challenge anybody here to explain even briefly how you figure Scientists knew the exact global temp averages with fractions of degrees in every decade in prehistory. ftr these are by proxy measures of course. One has to belief that they are so accurate that every decade of climate imformation on every spot on this planet is known, in prehistory. Yes I am aware of how such extrapolations take place. I am aware they can be crude, not exacting measures.

So why would global climate numbers from say 1500yrs bce be plotted as if they were actual fact and to fractions of degrees at that (and with little deviation, lol) Its only curiosity, not denial, to want to ask why.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

this is an Oiler forum...

I'm uncomfortable with an outsider that never posts in these forums coming in here and expressing their views, yes, because it signals a pushing of an agenda

if it were a regular and frequent Oiler poster expressing these views, then that's cool

I do think he is entitled to a viewpoint but the optics are bad and I have to agree with that.

 

[Stylizer1]

There is no doubt that humans have some influence on climate change but there are many other factors as well:

-Solar activity- even small changes in solar output can mean serious climate change. The fall of many empires can be roughly correlated to sun spot activity. When crops fail then you get voted out/beheaded etc. In the last 100 years our star has passed thru a "super stable era" for a yellow sun model and its not coincidence that human populations have exploded to 7. 5 Billion people. There is some evidence that the sun is now returning to the "norm" which means increased volatility. The first part in understanding human/animal life is recognition of a stable star output. Many astronomers have now speculated that when we look at "sun/yellow" class stars that are own star is relatively stable even amongst this privileged class of hydrogen burners.

-Volcanic activity- outgassing of Co2 and other volatiles has a major effect on climate and when it happens below sea level with subsea volcanic mounts then we are almost oblivious to this change because we know very little about the world's oceans.

-Plate tectonics-- the earth cycles water and Co2 and all kinds of other compounds thru the system in a cycle that spans hundreds of million years and again, we understand relatively little about this process. Prior to the 1960's you would have been laughed at it geology class if you suggested that such a mechanism called plate tectonics even existed.

-I am not denying that there is human input and I am not saying that we shouldn't act responsibly as the dominant species but if it was just human activity then how would we explain 5 mass extinctions events long before homo sapiens were around. We are a young species and if you represented our time here on a sky scraper of time then we would be the thickness of a dime on top of the Empire State Building.

I don't know 97% of scientists (what is that exactly) don't take a more balanced approach when they speak to the public at large. To me, its another example of extremism.

there are huge environmental consequences because of large dams by way of the release of methane also.

"When a river is blocked, water gathers behind the dam, creating an unnatural, stagnant lake that often kills off a lot of the existing ecosystem. The excess water is pushed onto the banks, which are often covered in plant life. These plants are then smothered and die. Bacteria in the water then decompose these plants, generating carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than CO2. These gases bubble up to the surface of the reservoir and are released into the atmosphere. Even more of these gases are produced if the upstream river water contains extra nitrogen or phosphorus as a result of fertilizer runoff. These nutrients allow naturally-occurring algae in the river to flourish, but then quickly overwhelm the water’s oxygen resources. As the algae dies, it’s broken down like other organic matter, creating even more of these gases."

 

[Stylizer1]

this is an Oiler forum...

I'm uncomfortable with an outsider that never posts in these forums coming in here and expressing their views, yes, because it signals a pushing of an agenda

if it were a regular and frequent Oiler poster expressing these views, then that's cool

Grant Fuhr was my favourite goaler?

It shouldn't make a difference, really.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

there are huge environmental consequences because of large dams by way of the release of methane also.

"When a river is blocked, water gathers behind the dam, creating an unnatural, stagnant lake that often kills off a lot of the existing ecosystem. The excess water is pushed onto the banks, which are often covered in plant life. These plants are then smothered and die. Bacteria in the water then decompose these plants, generating carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than CO2. These gases bubble up to the surface of the reservoir and are released into the atmosphere. Even more of these gases are produced if the upstream river water contains extra nitrogen or phosphorus as a result of fertilizer runoff. These nutrients allow naturally-occurring algae in the river to flourish, but then quickly overwhelm the water’s oxygen resources. As the algae dies, it’s broken down like other organic matter, creating even more of these gases."

The planet is warming up and the methane trapped in the permafrost in Siberia is staggering.

Mysterious craters blowing out of Russia could mean trouble for the whole planet

Some Arctic ground no longer freezing—even in winter

Artic Meltdown: We're Already Feeling the Consequences of Thawing Permafrost | DiscoverMagazine.com

Bring Back the Dead: Reviving Ancient Plants and Viruses
Permafrost is cold, dark, oxygen-free and has a neutral pH — that is, neither acidic nor basic, like water. “It’s really the best place to keep alive something that doesn’t need any kind of metabolic activity,” says Jean Michel Claverie, a microbiologist at Aix-Marseille University in France. That means microbes, seeds and spores, frozen in a dormant state, could awaken with a little warming.
This was proven in 2012, when researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences sprouted three dozen Silene stenophylla, herby white tundra flowers, from 30,000-year-old fruits. The specimens were recovered from ancient squirrel burrows, 125 feet deep in the permafrost of northeast Russia, according to the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. After sprouting in nutrient-rich test tubes, the seedlings had run-of-the-mill plant lives: They grew into fruit-bearing flowers in plastic pots and soil, resuming normal biological activity after being frozen for 300 centuries.
Seeing the study, Claverie, who researches virus evolution, thought, “If they were able to revive a plant, we should be able to revive a virus.”
Within four years, his team resurrected two never-before-seen viruses from the same 30,000-year-old deposits. Both reawakened in laboratory dishes and infected living amoebas.

This has become a very depressing thread.

I just want the Oilers to make the f***ing playoffs.

 

[Mr Tadakichi]

I just want the Oilers to make the ****ing playoffs.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Grant Fuhr was my favourite goaler?

It shouldn't make a difference, really.

doesn't strike you as odd that you're the only non-Oiler fan in this thread that also happens to have an opinion not many share?

come on dude, you have an agenda you're trying to push

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Its only curiosity, not denial, to want to ask why.

Except when people who ask "why" ignore all explanations that don't tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Section337]

I wonder if I will get wet on my walk home?

 

[Mr Tadakichi]

I wonder if I will get wet on my walk home?

Just think of something really disgusting and it should keep it from happening.

 

[soothsayer]

There is no doubt that humans have some influence on climate change but there are many other factors as well:

-Solar activity- even small changes in solar output can mean serious climate change. The fall of many empires can be roughly correlated to sun spot activity. When crops fail and people start to starve then you get voted out/beheaded etc. In the last 100 years our star has passed thru a "super stable era" for a yellow sun model and its not coincidence that human populations have exploded to 7. 5 Billion in that period. There is some evidence that the sun is now returning to the "norm" which means increased volatility. The first part in understanding human/animal life is recognition of a stable star output. Many astronomers have now speculated that when we look at "sun/yellow" class stars that are own star is relatively stable even amongst this privileged class of hydrogen burners. When it comes to stars we may have one that in terms of stability is a very rare gem.

-Volcanic activity- outgassing of Co2 and other volatiles has a major effect on climate and when it happens below sea level with subsea volcanic mounts then we are almost oblivious to this change because we know very little about the world's oceans.

-Plate tectonics-- the earth cycles water and Co2 and all kinds of other compounds thru the system in a cycle that spans hundreds of million years and again, we understand relatively little about this process. Prior to the 1960's you would have been laughed at in geology class if you suggested that such a mechanism called plate tectonics even existed.

-I am not denying that there is human input and I am not saying that we shouldn't act responsibly as the dominant species but if it was just human activity then how would we explain 5 mass extinctions events long before homo sapiens were around? We are a young species and if you represented our time here on a sky scraper of time then we would be the thickness of a dime on top of the Empire State Building. There is no way that something as insignificant as ourselves has that much sway.

I don't know why "97% of scientists" (what is a "scientist" exactly?) don't take a more balanced approach when they speak to the public at large about this subject. To me, its another example of extremism and take it from a guy who worked in a college for many years, woe be un to the person who thinks that free speech/free thought exists in those places.

To the bold: anecdotally, as someone who has good friends in the atmospheric sciences, I can say that what scientists are saying publicly is the "balanced" approach. Privately, the projections are expressed in much more dire terms.

 

[Senor Catface]

Just think of something really disgusting and it should keep it from happening.

Jesus!

 

[Messrules11]

I blame Price

 

[CornKicker]

Jesus!

hes not that ugly, he kinda makes me ...... happy

 

[Bryanbryoil]

The planet is warming up and the methane trapped in the permafrost in Siberia is staggering.

Mysterious craters blowing out of Russia could mean trouble for the whole planet

Some Arctic ground no longer freezing—even in winter

Artic Meltdown: We're Already Feeling the Consequences of Thawing Permafrost | DiscoverMagazine.com

Bring Back the Dead: Reviving Ancient Plants and Viruses
Permafrost is cold, dark, oxygen-free and has a neutral pH — that is, neither acidic nor basic, like water. “It’s really the best place to keep alive something that doesn’t need any kind of metabolic activity,” says Jean Michel Claverie, a microbiologist at Aix-Marseille University in France. That means microbes, seeds and spores, frozen in a dormant state, could awaken with a little warming.
This was proven in 2012, when researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences sprouted three dozen Silene stenophylla, herby white tundra flowers, from 30,000-year-old fruits. The specimens were recovered from ancient squirrel burrows, 125 feet deep in the permafrost of northeast Russia, according to the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. After sprouting in nutrient-rich test tubes, the seedlings had run-of-the-mill plant lives: They grew into fruit-bearing flowers in plastic pots and soil, resuming normal biological activity after being frozen for 300 centuries.
Seeing the study, Claverie, who researches virus evolution, thought, “If they were able to revive a plant, we should be able to revive a virus.”
Within four years, his team resurrected two never-before-seen viruses from the same 30,000-year-old deposits. Both reawakened in laboratory dishes and infected living amoebas.

This has become a very depressing thread.

I just want the Oilers to make the ****ing playoffs.

What could possibly go wrong with bringing back viruses that have been gone for tens of thousands of years?

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

What could possibly go wrong with bringing back viruses that have been gone for tens of thousands of years?

....and located not that far from Chernobyl!?!?!

 

[Frank the Tank]

The history of science shows us that plurality not necessarily be confused with fact and with endless Scientific groundbreaking work being labeled heresy, reason for execution, debasing, disbarring, etc.

It could even be said that most of whom we accept as the brightest Scientific minds throughout history were Scientists who at their time were widely, and near unanimously critiqued in their time, by their scientific community of peers. Indeed argument could be made that Scientific knowledge is as often obtained through revolutionary, rather than linear means. Or for instance that the greatest public health intervention of all time, Penicillin, was *discovered* quite by accident.

People speak of Climate change as knowns without a foremost understanding that in most of the graphs you see the tails are PROJECTIONS that have not yet occurred. They are theoretical.

Further, the nice and tidy meme like cartoons would have any viewer believe that the present hockey stick rapid change in temp has never occurred before, which is also the subject of scientific debate.

Finally, I challenge anybody here to explain even briefly how you figure Scientists knew the exact global temp averages with fractions of degrees in every decade in prehistory. ftr these are by proxy measures of course. One has to belief that they are so accurate that every decade of climate imformation on every spot on this planet is known, in prehistory. Yes I am aware of how such extrapolations take place. I am aware they can be crude, not exacting measures.

So why would global climate numbers from say 1500yrs bce be plotted as if they were actual fact and to fractions of degrees at that (and with little deviation, lol) Its only curiosity, not denial, to want to ask why.

All this is published in peer-reviewed literature for decades. The methods, like oxygen isotope analysis of ice cores, have been repeatedly tested against other data sources, which establish their accuracy, precision, and error bars. In other words, you can't use or extrapolate them in peer-reviewed publications beyond what has been established because you'd be proven false.

 

[oobga]

Are we all longing for this guy yet?

 

[Stylizer1]

doesn't strike you as odd that you're the only non-Oiler fan in this thread that also happens to have an opinion not many share?

come on dude, you have an agenda you're trying to push

Actually I am just trying to have a civil debate without any name calling. I don't know your post history but it feels like you were teetering on that very edge with how upset you where with my opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything just trying to add more information that some may over look. It's an interesting topic that has yet to be vindicated one way or another.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Actually I am just trying to have a civil debate without any name calling. I don't know your post history but it feels like you were teetering on that very edge with how upset you where with my opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything just trying to add more information that some may over look. It's an interesting topic that has yet to be vindicated one way or another.

if you notice, you're not the only one sharing your opinion in this thread...and you don't see me being upset with them so the opinion you have has nothing to do with me being "upset"

and if you feel so passionate about this debate, feel free to start a thread in the Off-Topic forums where you can talk about this with other fanbases