• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists

wellwisher

Well-Known Member

Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists​


I would like to bring the discussion back to the original topic instead of discuss the politics of climate change. The topic is the behavioral root from which the crisis or the presumed crisis appeared to make sense.

I was a liberal back in the 1970's. It was the hippie and love generation. It was time of going back to simplicity and nature; communes. In a sense, what are being sold downsize fossils fuels; back to commune living, are the needed steps to end man made climate change; throw back to the communes of the 1960's and 1970's.

That time for the Baby Boomers, was about a simple natural life with little need for drilling and fossil fuels. We could live off the land, like modern homesteaders; more Conservative now. This could be part of the behavioral root since climate change was not a big deal back then, but rather the push was to become natural again and avoid the excesses of materialism. The needed changes, said to combat the manmade climate change emergency, will amount to that for many more people, as fossil fuel based economies are sent to the Stone Age.

Even back then, Big Oil was an enemy of Liberalism, but not due to climate change. Big Oil was a symbol of killing mother earth; black liquid from the deep, drilling and using up all the oil; Jimmy Carter oil shortages of the late 1970's. Those manufactured shortages would force changes in auto compliance and all things fossil fuel related; clean air. The young people of that time would now be in the their 60's and 70's, many in government power, with the chip on the shoulder for big oil, still there.

There were many tactics to kill Big Oil, from using and inventing new environmental laws to delay and make oil wells more expensive. There was also protests about new gasoline refineries, such that we still have only a few gasoline refineries dating from the 1960's.

Climate change was a lucky break and sen as the final big gun, that could take out Big Oil. Big Oil refused to pay Democrat Politicians, due to so many decade of harassment and legal costs. The Big Oil moving target is a linear root; nemesis, to the Democrats. I was once hypnotized thinking this was about the earth and not just money and wielding power against enemies.

This root fixation on Big Oil, could also explain why El Niño is being blamed on manmade climate change, even though its climate altering effect has been around since at least the 1600's, way before Big Oil. El Niño appears to be connected to the geological ring of fire of active crustal plates below the rim of the Pacific Ocean.

800px-Pacific_Ring_of_Fire.svg.png


On the right, the ocean heat of the ring of fire, is rising into the oceans and atmosphere and pulling in air toward rising heat. When thunderstorms form the warm air rises and it gets windy as new air is pulled into the vacuum left behind.

The problem is this natural occurrence, although a big player in climate change, it will not stick it to Big Oil, nor can it can used as a pretense to control economies, by controlling their fossil fuel dependency. This ring of fire observation does not preclude climate change or the warming of the earth, but it places a natural effect near the forefront; natural El Niño can control the climate. Science has this well documented.

If you look at the ring of fire graph, east of Australia and find the Tonga trench (below where it says equator), there was a huge set of underwater volcanic explosions from Dec 2021 to Jan 2022, one of which was the most powerful explosion ever witness by modern instruments. It blew enough water into the atmosphere to alter the world's climate last summer; extreme heat zones not predicted by any computer model, also leading to all the extra rain water that needed to fall to earth last summer. Water even reached the stratosphere, adding an extra 10% to the usual total water, there. The ozone layer was even affected. The explosion can seen at the Wiki link below.

Why did fake news not make a big deal? Why did fake news go radio silent and why did they let the summer of 2022 be blamed on Big Oil and manmade? The hate of Big Oil appears to be a root cause that causes even science to lie for revenge; root cause appears to be Big Oil not being subdues for 70 years years and now there is a chance unless the earth fixes the delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻapai_eruption_and_tsunami
 
Last edited:

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Huh, a problem? Are you saying that somehow lack of action has made the earth hotter?
He didn't say that .. he means that this blasé attitude means that mankind will carry on as "normal".
..and it is "normal" that is the cause of man-made climate change.
People are causing climate change (aka warming) not by lack of action but by "normal". Somehow translating that into real life is a bit daunting...
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So now we're talking about CO2 instead of temperature.

CO2 is a green house gas. Pumping large amounts of it in the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gasses like methane) is what causes the warming.

Some say that man-made CO2 is agravating a greenhoue effect that raised the temperature of the earth 1C over the past century. Do you believe that?
That's a fact. It's been known since the 50s that raising temperature was going to be the inevitable effect of continued pumping of CO2 into the air.
It traps heat. It's not that complicated, really...
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So now we're talking about CO2 instead of temperature. Some say that man-made CO2 is agravating a greenhoue effect that raised the temperature of the earth 1C over the past century. Do you believe that?

Methane gas also has been involved, and it has 20 times more heat retention capabilities per unit than does CO2. With massive tons of methane trapped under the tundra, it's melting could accelerate global warming, and it appears to be doing so already.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Yes. "normal" today is not the same as "normal" a few centuries ago.
What we're overlooking here is the nuts'n'bolts of the whole climate shtick, and that's something I see as key. Outside of that, I see the world/humanity as something that's getting better. I like reality. That's why I don't see an evolving "normal" as being worse.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
...Some say that man-made CO2 is agravating a greenhoue effect that raised the temperature of the earth 1C over the past century. Do you believe that?
...That's a fact...
Interesting, for me I'd be super grateful if we could examine that statement together. It would only involve some middle school science to show why I find the statement to be preposterous, but only if you willing. Would you be interested in examining the idea w/ me?
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Methane gas also has been involved, and it has 20 times more heat retention capabilities per unit than does CO2. With massive tons of methane trapped under the tundra, it's melting could accelerate global warming, and it appears to be doing so already.
It all boils down to the whole global warming shtick, and like my post above I'd be deeply grateful if we could examine the concept w/ some basic science. Are you willing to consider scientifically w/ me of why I find the idea of a greenhouse heating the earth 1C in a hundred years to be preposterous?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It all boils down to the whole global warming shtick, and like my post above I'd be deeply grateful if we could examine the concept w/ some basic science. Are you willing to consider scientifically w/ me of why I find the idea of a greenhouse heating the earth 1C in a hundred years to be preposterous?

I 100% use scientific sources, and I'm appalled that so many people put politics ahead of the scientific community and what the overwhelming research clearly shows.

So, post what you find supportive of your position, but please only use peer-reviewed sources. "Scientific American", for just one example, would suffice.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Please .. do tell..
OK, so if we're talking about a greenhouse effect w/ the earth then we're into the basic heat transfer between the sun and the earth. What I started out to do was calculate the % effectiveness of the greenhouse effect that we got to see how much our CO2 was affecting that % retention. So if we say we got 100% retention of solar energy --a complete greenhouse-- then we can calculate how long it would take the earth to heat up.

Let's think back to our middle school science class when we were 12 years old. Back then we were able to understand that one calorie could heat p one gram of water one degree C. The sun radiates 200 teraWatts of energy at the earth. This means that every minute the earth recieves 2.86806883502e+15 calories. That's a lot of calories for every minute but the earth is big, it's = 5.9722×10²⁴ kg. OK so the earth isn't water, it's like rock and stuff. We can assume it's got a specific heat of 0.8 --granite. We can plug the mass and the calories into our middle school formula and we find out that even if we had a 100% retention of ALL solar heat, it would still take 10,000 years for the sun to heat up the earth 1C.

The idea that that CO2 could cause a 1C in just 100 years does not make sense. There's something else happening here and the earth heating up that fast isn't it.

Let me know if you follow this and what u got.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
I 100% use scientific sources...
That's nice, and I understand that every single one of the sources you've checked all agree completely and you've never come across a single scientific source with any point of view that diverges in any way.

For me that's very impressive and it seems rather significant.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
..We can plug the mass and the calories into our middle school formula and we find out that even if we had a 100% retention of ALL solar heat, it would still take 10,000 years for the sun to heat up the earth 1C.

The idea that that CO2 could cause a 1C in just 100 years does not make sense. There's something else happening here and the earth heating up that fast isn't it.

Let me know if you follow this and what u got.
You are talking about the earth itself, whereas everybody else is talking about earth's atmosphere?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's nice, and I understand that every single one of the sources you've checked all agree completely and you've never come across a single scientific source with any point of view that diverges in any way.

When you added "in any way", that's not what I'm implying at all. However, the main fact that has pretty much full agreement in that higher rates of CO2 and methane gas are the main cause of the overall increase over the last century. It's been know since the late 1800's that both have heat retention qualities.

BTW, maybe cut out the sarcasm as it's really not helping your cause. Do you do this a lot?
 
Top