By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Reverse Climate Change?

Qwark said:
EricHiggin said:

This documentary says otherwise. Just look at what some of the reputable people interviewed in it have to say, right at the very beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

Climate change fluctuates initially because of the sun and it's variable output. Clouds and carbon, etc, follows as a result, so they explain. They even bring to light the politics behind it, which we all know politics has it's hands in almost everything.

The title of the video is a little misleading, as it doesn't try to disprove climate change, it just explains the main factor is not carbon as we've been told.

Isn't one of the main factor the earth orbital forcing. The earth north/south a is tilts/ rotates a bit over time. Kind a like a ball which rolls a tiny bit away from the sun and than back towards it. This eventually causes ice ages on the Northern henisphere because it receives less energy from sun light up to 25 to 50%. (Milanktovich cycle) 

While there are solar cycles, periods in which the sun is more active and less active. They usually don't take  longer than11years.

I've read that too, along with the orbital pattern around the sun changing every so slightly, which happens over long durations, and both apparently contribute to more major climate changes when they occur. My point was directed more at climate change as it effects us today.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
EricHiggin said:

This documentary says otherwise. Just look at what some of the reputable people interviewed in it have to say, right at the very beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

Climate change fluctuates initially because of the sun and it's variable output. Clouds and carbon, etc, follows as a result, so they explain. They even bring to light the politics behind it, which we all know politics has it's hands in almost everything.

The title of the video is a little misleading, as it doesn't try to disprove climate change, it just explains the main factor is not carbon as we've been told.

That's pure bullshit. If it were true then the earth would be cooling off for years again, as solar activity is very low right now.

Solar activity is cyclic, every dozen years or so the sun switches between high and low activity, but the climate doesn't follow suit. The melting isn't stopping (which it should have by now according to that theory), it's not getting cooler, the sea level continues to rise (even outside of the melting due to thermal expansion, the warmer the oceans, the more volume they take)...

That "documentary" had been largely criticized by most climatologists, and also some scientists appearing in the flick who got quote mined and misrepresented.

You didn't consider cloud formations. If there are lots of clouds but the sun is at a peak, more get's reflected before it get's to Earth and leads to cooler weather than if the sky is clear. If the sun is at a low but the sky is clear, it can more easily reach Earth and lead to warmer weather, yet with cloudy skies can lead to much cooler weather. The warmer and cooler weather also effects how and when clouds form, so they directly effect each other.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/15/antarctica-ice-sheets

https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/14/earths-largest-ice-sheet-antarctica/

"Antarctica’s eastern ice sheet was stable for millions of years during the Pliocene warm period when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were about the same as today, according to a new study."

"The study on the Earth’s largest ice sheet surviving a period scientists believe was warmer than modern times was published in the journal Nature, but got little media attention, especially when compared to a study published the same day in the very same journal alleging Antarctic ice melt had tripled from ten years ago."

If the Pliocene era, 4 million years ago, had CO2 levels the same or higher than that of today, then CO2 must also be cyclic, or at the very least can rise and fall naturally, since there weren't humans back then.

Seems like there is a clear discrepancy between the results and the reason's for them. I'm not one who's made up my mind that CO2 is not to blame at all, but at this point in time it seems it's less to blame than it's made out to be. That doesn't mean more evidence won't surface over time proving that's actually the case though.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 07 October 2018

Around the Network

I think the only thing I know that can drop down temperature to the planet is a mega volcanic eruption,

[The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, Indonesia, the Laregest eruption in recorded history, ejected an estemated 150 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of debris into the air. The average gloval temperature cooled by as much as 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), causing extreme weater around the world for a period of three years. As a result of Mount Tambora's Voclanic Ash, North America and Europe Expeirenced the "Year without a Summer" in 1816. This year was characterized by widespread crop failure, deadly famine, and disease.]

-Taken from a scientific study.

Look up Yellowstone Mega volcano eruption if you're into Apocalyptic scenarios that would be just as bad for the human civilization as climate change will be; however, it would probably be a better outcome for overall life on the planet.



CaptainExplosion said:

Are there ways, any at all, to reverse climate change? Would it help if we planted new forests, reduced our garbage output, used more renewable energy sources, invested further into water bottles and re-hydration stations, etc?

There are ways to reverse climate change, but it is extremely resource intensive, we need to increase carbon consumption.

CaptainExplosion said:

I try my hardest to help out, I'm even trying to use lights that are more energy efficient. What else can we do?

Walk/Bicycle as a means of transport, not only will you be reducing your carbon footprint, but you will be saving yourself money... And improving your health. (If you don't already.)
Try not to buy pre-packaged food from super markets, don't use plastic bags.
Open a window instead of turning on the Air Conditioner. - Put on warmer clothes before you turn on a heater.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
The hardest part is making change on a global scale. It is already hard to get state to state energy efficient efforts, imagine nations.

The world collectively got together and saved the Ozone layer once.
But politics is a massive issue... There needs to be bipartisan support on the issue... Rather than conspiracy theorists running the show.

CaptainExplosion said:

Especially with how corporations hate clean energy because it'll cost them a fortune. Wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to even commit murder just to keep their agenda going.

Many businesses here run their own green energy and actually make money out of it... There just needs to be an appropriate business case for it that makes it more tenable to more businesses and organizations.

Mnementh said:

Oh, I talked about athmospheric engineering. Clean energy won't reverse climate change, but stop making it worse. The grenhouse gases already released will keep on changing the climate for about the next hundred years. With clean energy, we don't make it worse, but we don't make it better.

Don't forget that Carbon levels will continue to rise even if we stopped producing carbon tomorrow... The oceans have absorbed a significant amount of carbon and thus has a laggard effect on our atmospheric levels.

fatslob-:O said:

We can't no matter what we do. Earth is simply destined to be vapourized by our sun even if we do have a global solution to geoengineering ... 

Trying to cut emissions at the expense of productivity is futile. The action probably won't make any ultimate difference the way earth becomes uninhabitable because sooner or later Earth will move out of the goldilocks zone as long as the sun keeps expanding ... 

The only realistic alternative to move away from extracting energy in petrochemicals without heavy deindustrialization is by temporarily adopting nuclear fission. The Green's who lobbies the hardest against climate change have to make compromise to accept nuclear energy cause following Germany's quick route to decommissioning nuclear reactors means that their citizens and residents are getting less value for their money for the amount of energy they pay for ... 

#VoteForNuclearPower

Instead of millions of years though, we could be talking merely hundreds.

Amnesia said:

Nothing and just relax. Every winter are announced as exceptionnal, like summers.

Obviously have absolutely zero understanding of what climate change is.
You are conflating CLIMATE for WEATHER.

Climate change is the changing of the weather over long periods of time... Weather is the more immediate phenomena.
Climate change doesn't mean we won't have cold days or hot days.

It's a very simple concept.

Amnesia said:

Believe me if you just stop to think about it you will have plenty of new freetime in your mind and less stress. We have no influence on the climate as individual citizens.

Rubbish.
This kind of thinking is disingenuous. I highly encourage you to do some research on this topic... Unbiased research, the stuff that is backed by empirical, scientific evidence.

flashfire926 said:
Honestly I couldn't care less, because the major consequences of greenhouse gases/pollution are going to take place well after our lifetimes.That might seem like a selfish point of view, but it is what it is.

Absolutely false.

Sea levels are actually rising, this has been measured. - Consequences are that some Pacific Islands are now sinking.
The change in climate is having devastating drought effects in regions like Australia... Forcing farmers to close up shop and move farther south where climate is more viable for farming.
Extreme weather events are becoming more extreme and more common.

SvennoJ said:


I wonder if solar panels provide cooling. They keep your roof 3c cooler, yet that's just preventing the heat from reaching your roof. Do they actually convert solar heat to energy? I'm guessing using mirrors to focus sunlight at a central point to turn water into steam does take heat away. You probably need to cover the entire desert with these to make any kind of difference.

It's immeasurable. The sun outputs a significant amount of solar energy.
The laws of thermodynamics comes into play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

There are also two ways of capturing solar energy... The suns heat itself, which is used in some "solar hot water systems" - Which are fairly common in say... Australia.
Or Photovoltaic, which captures the light particles and converts it into current.

Qwark said:

Isn't one of the main factor the earth orbital forcing. The earth north/south a is tilts/ rotates a bit over time. Kind a like a ball which rolls a tiny bit away from the sun and than back towards it. This eventually causes ice ages on the Northern henisphere because it receives less energy from sun light up to 25 to 50%. (Milanktovich cycle) 

While there are solar cycles, periods in which the sun is more active and less active. They usually don't take  longer than11years.

There are a ton of factors.
Any good climate model will generally take note of them all.

SvennoJ said:
Changing human behavior is hard, very hard. Using more energy efficient lights is not going to make a dent. Energy consumption keeps going up with more and more electronics getting used in every day life.

Things that will make a difference are a break through in Fusion power, more nuclear power plants until then. More electric vehicles. Switching cargo ships to clean hydrogen for fuel source, as well as trucks. Electrify the rail network and build high speed rail lines to replace domestic air travel. Develop roof tiles with built in solar panels and make them mandatory for new housing projects.

Well. Fitness is stupidly important to me, so I prefer not to use vehicles at all.
I have LED lighting through my home.
Avoid pre-packaged foods, mostly for health benefits.

And my home is powered by Windfarms... Which consequently also do not always generate energy... So the wind farms energy is actually used to split water into Hydrogen to generate power when the wind isn't blowing. (Hydrogen being a form of energy storage.)

EricHiggin said:

You didn't consider cloud formations. If there are lots of clouds but the sun is at a peak, more get's reflected before it get's to Earth and leads to cooler weather than if the sky is clear. If the sun is at a low but the sky is clear, it can more easily reach Earth and lead to warmer weather, yet with cloudy skies can lead to much cooler weather. The warmer and cooler weather also effects how and when clouds form, so they directly effect each other.

Water is actually one of the biggest culprits to trapping heat.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

probably unlikey to reverse unless China were to get on board with it. definitely dont fly around in a private jet for now



Pemalite said:
SvennoJ said:
Changing human behavior is hard, very hard. Using more energy efficient lights is not going to make a dent. Energy consumption keeps going up with more and more electronics getting used in every day life.

Things that will make a difference are a break through in Fusion power, more nuclear power plants until then. More electric vehicles. Switching cargo ships to clean hydrogen for fuel source, as well as trucks. Electrify the rail network and build high speed rail lines to replace domestic air travel. Develop roof tiles with built in solar panels and make them mandatory for new housing projects.

Well. Fitness is stupidly important to me, so I prefer not to use vehicles at all.
I have LED lighting through my home.
Avoid pre-packaged foods, mostly for health benefits.

And my home is powered by Windfarms... Which consequently also do not always generate energy... So the wind farms energy is actually used to split water into Hydrogen to generate power when the wind isn't blowing. (Hydrogen being a form of energy storage.)

We drive less than 8k km per year, I cycle about 5k km per year. That's fitness and car use covered :)
I avoid having lights on at home, yet it's mostly tv, consoles, computers, laptops, amplifier, airco, microwave, etc that are responsible for electricity usage.
Buying locally sourced food when possible is a great help. Most of the pollution comes from shipping everything back and forth over the world.

Our home is simply connected to the grid. Which is as of now, 68% nuclear, 27% hydro, 3.6% wind, 1.2% gas. I've been seeing more solar farms around here but I guess they still contribute so little as to be grouped in other. (Oh stupid me, it's dark atm duh)
https://cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

I wonder how much online shopping contributes to global warming. All those deliveries add up as well.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
EricHiggin said:

You didn't consider cloud formations. If there are lots of clouds but the sun is at a peak, more get's reflected before it get's to Earth and leads to cooler weather than if the sky is clear. If the sun is at a low but the sky is clear, it can more easily reach Earth and lead to warmer weather, yet with cloudy skies can lead to much cooler weather. The warmer and cooler weather also effects how and when clouds form, so they directly effect each other.

Water is actually one of the biggest culprits to trapping heat.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

Correct. This ties into cloud formation. Just another link in the chain.

CO2 currently only makes up around 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, while water vapor varies and can be from 0.01% up to 4.0% depending on temperature and air density. 



contestgamer said:
If you live in the west then the effects of climate change are unlikely to be felt in your life time. I wouldnt worry about it or waste my 'energy' trying to save energy.

people care for the future generations...



Pemalite said:

Instead of millions of years though, we could be talking merely hundreds.

Even the IPCC's fifth assessment report doesn't have as negative of a forecast as you and the others here do ... (on page 11 it states that there's virtually no chance that anthropogenic activities will cause a runaway greenhouse effect like we see on Venus) 

Here's a good video explaining it below:

Now without further ado, people here need to take a chill pill instead of worrying about a hypothetical fossil fuel induced climate change armageddon (NASA even shows evidence that earth is getting greener thanks to higher CO2 levels) because the day earth becomes uninhabitable will not be in thousands, millions or even tens of millions of years ... 

It'll take at least 100 million years for earth to become uninhabitable but that's mainly due to the sun constantly expanding rather than down to our consumption of petrochemicals ... 



EricHiggin said:
Pemalite said:

Water is actually one of the biggest culprits to trapping heat.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

Correct. This ties into cloud formation. Just another link in the chain.

CO2 currently only makes up around 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, while water vapor varies and can be from 0.01% up to 4.0% depending on temperature and air density. 

All plays into each other. Hence why it's called an "Ecosystem". - The more CO2... The more evaporation, the more water in our atmosphere, the more heat that is trapped.

I am actually amazed at how little some individuals don't follow basic Physics/Science and will happily deny it all... Then again, thousands of people believe the world is flat, so there is that.

And in my line of work, every year is getting more intense.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

fatslob-:O said:
Pemalite said:

Instead of millions of years though, we could be talking merely hundreds.

Even the IPCC's fifth assessment report doesn't have as negative of a forecast as you and the others here do ... (on page 11 it states that there's virtually no chance that anthropogenic activities will cause a runaway greenhouse effect like we see on Venus) 

Here's a good video explaining it below:

Now without further ado, people here need to take a chill pill instead of worrying about a hypothetical fossil fuel induced climate change armageddon (NASA even shows evidence that earth is getting greener thanks to higher CO2 levels) because the day earth becomes uninhabitable will not be in thousands, millions or even tens of millions of years ... 

It'll take at least 100 million years for earth to become uninhabitable but that's mainly due to the sun constantly expanding rather than down to our consumption of petrochemicals ... 

creator of that video made errors in calculations