Back
Trevor Noah on non-scientists denying global warming & the idiots who mislead or believe them.
Menu- Blog Posted by JimNastics
JimNastics
53, Kingston, New Jersey
- Nov 28, 2018 / 941 Views
Trevor Noah on non-scientists denying global warming & the idiots who mislead or believe them.
For your enjoyment 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGgbcU7FmI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGgbcU7FmI
JimNastics
Here's Colbert's take on this same issue from his show last night;
Nov 29https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIQx-w8G6KA
xquseme
Here's an interesting article:
Nov 29https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
The article maintains that carbon dioxide emitted from volcanoes DWARFS the amount of carbon dioxide that human technology releases.
Oh, but WAIT a minute!
https://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html
THIS article maintains that the output of ALL OF THE VOLCANOES ON EARTH cannot match the levels of CO2 emitted by human technology!
What's so intriguing about this? Well, for one thing, you'll see this discussion argued back and forth, with no way to resolve the argument. What's funny, though, is both of the above articles were found....in the SAME PUBLICATION!!!
So, what does this tell us? Well, for one thing, that global warming is just a THEORY, and has not been proven. Even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the AMOUNT of such a gas is just as important as the gas itself. Consider also that 70% of the Earth is OCEAN, and that industry must find a home on the remaining 30% of the earth. Consider, still, that the solar system is a DYNAMIC system which is CONSTANTLY changing, especially the sun (whose energy emission ebbs and flows in an eleven year cycle), and undergoes intermittent, unpredictable change.
My point? There are FAR too many variables in the earth-sun system to DEFINITIVELY prove, one way or the other, the supposed cause of global warming.
And then, EVEN IF it is found that Man is the cause of global warming, how do you propose to stop it?!? Are YOU going to give up your laptop, your stereo, or your car? Will YOU be the first to turn in your charcoal and your lawn mower?? I think not. Frankly, I don't see ANYBODY doing much besides TALKING about global warming. So, maybe the Amish were right, all along!
But, hey--let's hear YOUR solution!!
JimNastics
X - I can understand your confusion. However, this is not a scientific journal. It is essentially a magazine.
Neither of the people had a Ph.D when they wrote the piece and they were written 2 years apart.
Global warming has been proven by developing a record based on worldwide temperatures.
You are totally wrong about that. It is not a theory. CO2 does have a role in it. Whatever the source of CO2,
it warms the earth several ways and thus, leads to the release of stored methane which has a greater influence towards global warming. Humans adding CO2 to whatever the amount produced by volcanoes exacerbates the situation.
This graph shows CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years;
Please read what the NASA scientists state;
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Nov 29
xquseme
Huh. That graph seems to DISPROVE your assertion. Specifically, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere varies PERIODICALLY, as a NATURALLY OCCURRING phenomenon might.
Nov 29In order to definitively state that global warming is caused by modern technology, one would have to find a way to exclude ALL OTHER FACTORS which could cause variance in the atmosphere's temperature. Good luck with that!
So, even IF global warming WERE an actual phenomenon, how would YOU propose reversing it???
xquseme
Oh, wait. I missed that little sliver at the end of the graph.
Nov 29So you assert that an increase from 260 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 to 380 PPM will cause catastrophic damage?
You DO realize that 380-260=120, and 120/1,000,000 (that's one hundred twenty parts PER MILLION) is the definition of miniscule?!?
So, then, what's YOUR solution?!? Gonna give up your car? Your hair dryer? Your video games? How do YOU plan to save the planet?!?!?
ooby_dooby
I've known about the "Greenhouse Effect" for at least 50 years. Back then it was little more than a curiosity. It was believed it could eventually lead to a warming of the planet but nobody worried about it much because it was just an interesting theory.
Nov 29The way it works is, visible light passes uninhibited through the atmosphere, strikes solid objects, cars, people, grass, pavement, buildings, trees, etc. these objects absorb that energy and convert it to infra red or heat energy. If you ever got a sunburn or got into a car that was parked out in the Sun in mid Summer you've experienced the effect of Solar heating. The problem comes from the fact that CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere, I believe Nitrogen if I remember correctly, don't readily allow the passage of the longer wavelengths, those toward the infra red end of the spectrum to pass freely through. Glass has the same properties BTW which is why greenhouses are made of glass hence the name "Greenhouse Effect". For years it was known that the earth it getting warmer but the big question has been, is mankind having an impact on the RATE that this is happening? Anything that increases the % of CO2 in the atmosphere will exacerbate (intensify) this effect. Mankind, by his actions in almost every facet of his life, converts Carbon and Oxygen to CO2 by burning oil, coal, wood, Natural gas, or anything else which is rich in Carbon. The very existence of 12 Billion people on the planet contribute to the production of CO2 by simply breathing. The question is not whether mankind is exaggerating the process but by how much. It is no longer a question of IF, the question has become, can he stop it or at least slow it down enough until he can stop it? It's either that or kiss the human race goodbye.
xquseme
I believe Nitrogen if I remember correctly
Nov 29Nitrogen, ay? Sorry; nitrogen comprises 70% (that's SEVENTY PER CENT) of the atmosphere, while carbon dioxide comprises a mere 5% (that's FIVE per cent)! I think you've selected the wrong gas.
When something in a system changes (like the amount of a particular compound [like CO2]), there is always an opposite reaction to the change. In chemistry, this is known as LE CHATELIER'S principle.(https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/lechatelier.html) So, for example, should carbon dioxide be increasing at such an exorbitant rate, one might expect to see an increase in vegetative growth, due to the fact that the environment has become more suitable for plant growth. To date, we have not seen such a reacton.
The planet has endured three (that's THREE) ice ages since its formation, ALL before human civilization. The planet runs in cycles, which are determined by the dozens of factors within the system. Earth is said currently to be recovering from the latest ice age, which would explain current rising temperatures. There are DOZENS of factors which govern the overall temperature of the planet, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being only one factor.
BTW, the last poster may be thinking of methane (CH4), which is an organic chemical often produced in the digestive tract of animals such as cows. It is known as a greenhouse gas, but still somewhat plentiful on the planet.
My main point is that there are quite a few factors governing the change in Earth's environment. To attempt to pinpoint just one factor is (IMO) short sighted. And, should the planet be undergoing climate change as many people seem to theorize....
WHAT THE HELL is YOUR answer?!?!?
ooby_dooby
Thank you for correcting me, as I said, I wasn't sure about Nitrogen. Methane is the gas I was searching for.
Nov 29JimNastics
Perhaps that's why I still have lots of hair.
Nov 29Oh, wait. I missed that little sliver at the end of the graph.
Yeah, that's the important part. Yes, there is a cyclic nature to the CO2 content in the atmosphere.
And we are about double the highest cyclic part now.
So you assert that an increase from 260 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 to 380 PPM will cause catastrophic damage? Not by itself. However, it starts a chain reaction of global warming which unstabilizes the polar
streams, which result in unorthodox violent weather patterns leading to much more higher
temperatures in the polar regions where ice melts in response to the higher temperatures.
This initially raises sea levels and removes an ice shield overlaying huge reserves of solid methane which have been preserved for billions of years. The methane has an even greater impact on
global warming as does the removal of the ice from the polar caps.
Once the ice is melted more stores of methane become gasous and the higher temperatures
are no longer absorbed by ice melting. It now affects both the seas and the land and climate
even more drastically.
Some predict a 6th great extinction where most life forms will become extinct.
You DO realize that 380-260=120, and 120/1,000,000 (that's one hundred twenty parts PER MILLION) is the definition of miniscule?!? Not as miniscule. as our chances of survival, if global warming isn't reversed.
Incidently, there are 1 million micrograms in a gram and 1,000 grams in a kilogram.
Thus, there are 1,000 million micrograms in a kilogram.
Yet simply inhaling about 22 micrograms of ricin can kill a person.
That's miniscule.
It doesn't mean it can't have a huge biological affect.
So, then, what's YOUR solution?!? Gonna give up your car? Your hair dryer? Your video games? How do YOU plan to save the planet?!?!? First of all, I don't have a hair dryer, nor video games.
Regardless, there needs to be some concerted change and me getting a hair dryer is not part of it.
First human population growth increases need to be reversed through sane measures.
We need to stop giving tax breaks to those with kids and start taxing people who have kids more than those who don't, especially those couples with more than 2 kids. The parents of each additional kid over two should be heavily taxed as these extra kids are taxing the environment. This could be phased in, rather than all at once.
Secondly, a switch to carbonless fuel needs to be a high priority. Higher incentives to those who opt for carbonless fuels. More development on fuel efficiency.
Better restrictions on emissions for both transportation methods and manufacturing.
These are the main 3 things.
Additionally, better usage of water with reasonable limits on consumption
and a switch to a more plant diet, than meat based diet.
Candidates who continue to push carbon based fuels or whose funding comes from carbon based fuels should be voted out of office.
xquseme
So you assert that an increase from 260 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 to 380 PPM will cause catastrophic damage?
FYI, methane melts at -295.60°F (-182°C) . Any solid methane on the PLANET was condensed and frozen by HUMANS!!
There may be solid or liquid methane on Mars, but certainly not HERE!! 
Nov 29Not by itself. However, it starts a chain reaction of global warming which unstabilizes the polar
streams, which result in unorthodox violent weather patterns leading to much more higher
temperatures in the polar regions where ice melts in response to the higher temperatures.
This initially raises sea levels and removes an ice shield overlaying huge reserves of solid methane which have been preserved for billions of year
SOLID METHANE?!?
Secondly: The only fuel that I can think of which gives off no carbon-free constituents would be hydrogen. In this case the only exhaust would be water. Just about any larger molecule will have some constituent of carbon or another pollutant, such as sulfur.
You may not be familiar with the properties of compounds such as hydrogen and water, but hydrogen does make a marvelous fuel. The problem is that separating water into its constituent parts requires just as much energy as you get when you burn hydrogen. Thus, it's a no-win situation if you wish to use a material like hydrogen as a fuel if you wish to electrolyze it first.
I agree that the present situation is unacceptable. Unfortunately, CO2 is a small, rather basic molecule that plays a part in everyone's life. That's why I keep asking, "What's YOUR solution?"....because there isn't an easy one.
xquseme
And BTW, if I were you I'd quit holding that Steven Colbert idiot up as a hero. That guy is a BUFFOON!
Nov 29JimNastics
OK, let me make it clearer to you. There are large stores of methane in solid permafrost,
Nov 29that have been preserved for millions of years.
As first the outer layer of ice melts and then the permafrost melts, it releases the methane into the air.
The methane has an even stronger influence on global warming than the carbon dioxide.
Clear ?
As you pointed out Nitrogen is a very common component of air.
However, at certain levels it also can be dangerous.
Rather than giving up, or denying the data, changes that are most likely to improve the situation need to be effected, even if they are not politically popular. This is an issue far more important than politics.
xquseme
Oh--methane stored in frozen glaciers, so that it already existed rather than produced by global warming.
Nov 29I kinda think that a single volcano would be more of a risk!!
Just sayin'
Oh--don't bother making it simple for me; it sounds like my background in chemistry is a little stronger than YOURS!!
1_SPCTR
I think that the whole world gas to shut everything down at the same time, factories that has smoke coming out of large chimey's, all vehicles, any oil or gas products or machines, (between seasons), n of course, with a limit to everything, except aircract n all emergency vehicles. We should be in complete darkness, with the help of sunlight, for a short time period.
Nov 29(Environmental)
JimNastics
X - it somewhat interesting that you say that, because there is a tectonic plate near Greenland.
Nov 29As the ice melts on Greenland and flows into the sea, Greenland is less heavy.
It has caused frequent shifts and earthquakes in that area, which have released more pockets of methane.
The other thing, is that higher global temperatures also influence volcanic activity.
So again, more carbon dioxide is released.
Something drastic, like I suggested, needs to be done, or we may reach a point of no return.
JimNastics
Ignoring the problem just does more harm and it is more than simply additive.
Nov 29Each has multiple facets that compound the effects. They are more like interrelated triggers.
xquseme
As the ice melts on Greenland and flows into the sea, Greenland is less heavy.
Nov 29It has caused frequent shifts and earthquakes in that area, which have released more pockets of methane.
Once again, all of this is part of a VERY LARGE system. It's hard to believe that this all occurred within ten or twenty years. Likewise, IF ANY of this were caused by a phenomenon such as you describe, it would take JUST AS LONG to reverse it (that is, OVER A CENTURY). That means NO internal combustion engines, NO artificial heating or cooling, NO fossil fuels, NO electricity...well, YOU get the drift!
I don't see that happening. Like I said, the world seems to run in cycles. This is just another example.
Something drastic, like I suggested, needs to be done, or we may reach a point of no return.
If global warming is indeed a fact, we passed the point of no return DECADES ago. I happen to believe there is more at work than carbon dioxide causing heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.
My_Lover
Did you know "THE SUN" dictates the weather on the planet
Nov 30Where the Hell do you think the Deserts come from? Were they man made Too
epirb
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/?fbclid=IwAR1JR4pSVBNKrtZ1xgkP4umXlxgWPOug0kfN1CZ4zpWC2CjHQogNOIBvhjI
Nov 30I would trust NASA before any half baked leftwing knowit alls full of bulldust .
miclee
This from the lead researcher of the International Arctic Research Center...
Nov 30https://youtu.be/JzqaL0wPgfY
https://youtu.be/kx1Jxk6kjbQ
@ 7:55 'til the end of the 2nd vid - Worst Poker Face Ever
She does science the old fashioned way - mukluks on the icecap & research vessel...
making and reporting actual observations rather than getting grants to do computer modeling.
Love her Russky accent