There is hope for spring | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

There is hope for spring

But RG, you yourself suggested that there was an ice age. Doesn't there not being an ice age now suggest to you that the climate is different now than it was during the ice age? Isn't that the climate changing?

Yes, "Global Warming" was the layman's term I had heard way back in the day. I've never heard of "Global Cooling". People smartened up and started calling it man made climate change because it's a more precise term.

This isn't a tax debate buddy...

I did admit that the climate was changing, see previous few post. What's your argument?


Nope, it means they have no clue what they're talking about. It means they flip flopping. Try that in court & see how far you get.
 
I did admit that the climate was changing, see previous few post. What's your argument?

Nope, it means they have no clue what they're talking about. It means they flip flopping. Try that in court & see how far you get.

Welp, can't say I have a reply to that sort of logic... the gap in reasoning is honestly just too big to be bridged on a motorcycle forum...
 
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

As Java said, stop getting your education from 20 sec videos from TV.

LOL, did you even read the paragraph you posted? Here it is, with bolded words to aid in reading comprehension for the mentally challenged.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

You're right, unless you're some sort of intellectual in the field, I am just wasting my time.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

This is talking about cyclical warming and cooling, literally the natural phenomenon of climate change MacDoc and I mentioned earlier. Man made climate-change refers to an acceleration of this process. You have indeed been wasting your time... you don't need to be an expert in the field, you need only know how to read.
 
Last edited:
LOL, did you even read the paragraph you posted? Here it is, with bolded words to aid in reading comprehension for the mentally challenged.



This is talking about cyclical warming and cooling, literally the natural phenomenon of climate change MacDoc and I mentioned earlier. Man made climate-change refers to an acceleration of this process. You have indeed been wasting your time... you don't need to be an expert in the field, you need only know how to read.

You never heard of global cooling, I posted it for you. It just proves they flip flopping.


How do we know what is human influence & what is natural? Show me a gauge that we can use to measure.
 
You never heard of global cooling, I posted it for you. It just proves they flip flopping.

How do we know what is human influence & what is natural? Show me a gauge that we can use to measure.

The article you posted literally says that the "global cooling" argument you were making is a myth. I keep making the distinction between natural cycles and man made effects to point out to you that everyone acknowledges natural cycles (which implicitly means that at some point, on geological timescales, climate warms and cools on an overall global scale), but people are talking about human impact in the context of greenhouse gases which means overall warming, but because the effect isn't uniform warming, it is now being called man made climate change.

As for proof or a gauge, I'm not here to replace 12 years of public school education for you. MacDoc gave you more than enough information to show you a deviation from the norm. A good place to start would be the article you posted like a condescending dipshit before you even read it. It'll tell you all about the logical fallacies you're trying to argue here. Where I'm from we have a saying that says "the stupid aren't stupid enough unless they're also arrogant"; say what you will about eastern European farmers but they nail it every now and then.
 
stop getting your education from 20 sec videos from TV.

Extreme-Irony.gif
 
To the people who think they know more than the scientists, kindly print these out and save some Google some postage mailing them to you.

googleuniversity.jpg
 
Lol, you started getting condescending with "the gap in reasoning is honestly just too big to be bridged on a motorcycle forum..." and you don't expect me to respond in equal magnitude.

We can't distinguish between man-made climate change or natural climate change but we can just jump to a conclusion, right?

A deviation of a couple degrees in a billion years is just enough evidence, right?
 
Lol, you started getting condescending with "the gap in reasoning is honestly just too big to be bridged on a motorcycle forum..." and you don't expect me to respond in equal magnitude.

We can't distinguish between man-made climate change or natural climate change but we can just jump to a conclusion, right?

A deviation of a couple degrees in a billion years is just enough evidence, right?

Good Lord have mercy...

The exact article you posted will answer both of your questions in the body of the article.
 
Good Lord have mercy...

The exact article you posted will answer both of your questions in the body of the article.
Quick question, if we have so many people believing climate change is due to fossil fuels, why do these people on the forum ride around uselessly on a motorcycle?? Genuine question
 
You don't need to live in a cave with a hair shirt to

a) acknowledge there is a problem
b) do things to ameliorate the problem

A carbon neutral civilization can be achieved with existing technologies within a couple of decades.

Ontario is well on it's way having eliminated coal and many, including riders, will adopt EV ( and are ).

Voting for govs that are committed to carbon neutral is the best step an individual can make.

Buying carbon credits to neutralize your carbon footprint gets rid of that aspect as it does not matter how the carbon is reduced
It's not expensive at all to zero out your personal fooprint.
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/carbonoffset.html

Maybe $150 a year. I offset my flights and recently zeroed out the carbon for the biz/home. Working from home of course saves commuting which represents a major obstacle to carbon neutral

New vehicles like the Boeing Dreamliner get better mileage per pssenger than a Prius with 4 people in it. So many companies move toward solutions.

The world is moving toward low carbon .....pace is not ideal but there a few naysayers remaining.

The changed climate will make for interesting times .....already is. :rolleyes:

......


How do we know what is human influence & what is natural? Show me a gauge that we can use to measure.

Isotope analysis shows how much C02 is derived from the use of fossil fuel ....
That's been clear for a decade

Isotopes of Carbon Dioxide - NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
by EW Team - ‎2005
As an example of these isotopic fingerprints, and how they can help scientists, consider this: fossil fuels do not contain 14C. By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions.

But if won't believe the scientists then it's entirely hopeless to even discuss it with you

You never heard of global cooling, I posted it for you. It just proves they flip flopping.

as to this ...yes there was some global cooling due to SO2 emissions in ( acid rain ) which effectively neutralized CO2 influence until it was cleaned up.
( education break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling )

Injecting SO2 into the stratosphere is still being bandied about as a geo-engineering solution tho it's a pretty dire one.
A big volcano emits enough SO2 to cool the atmosphere a bit

9r2lix.jpg
but the affect is short lived.
 
Last edited:
Quick question, if we have so many people believing climate change is due to fossil fuels, why do these people on the forum ride around uselessly on a motorcycle?? Genuine question
While I don't read most of the vitriol that is spouted in so many threads here, this is a good question.
I like to think I live a pretty clean and balanced life. Save energy, don't buy or use in excess, etc...
And yet I certainly love to ride my bike. Trips taken with the intent of taking the long way. Day rides up to Algonquin, for the sake of hitting up some nice roads and nothing more. The same could be said for travel by plane. The impact of taking a plane just to go visit somewhere is pretty significant. And I travel a fair bit. Even driving a car for 10-15 years and chucking it and getting another one is really impactful when multiplied out by the number of times this occurs over and over again.

It's a good question and most who know me would consider me an environmentalist (but not extremist or alarmist). As society and the world around changes, I think the potential to waste will probably become more possible to the masses, but so will the knowledge and ability to make other mindful decisions.
It's about some semblance of balance is how I look at it.
 
There's only so much that the average person can do in our modern reality to make "positive decisions" regarding their environmental impact. Some do more than others, but most are doing something...even if it's just recycling vs just tossing everything in a landfill like we used to only a few decades ago.

That doesn't mean that we should just give up accordingly and not support a long term vision on some of the biggies (renewable/clean energy, better battery/storage technology, reducing dependence on oil, etc) just because we are struggling with our current level of technology to make bigger impacts today, versus tomorrow.
 
Save energy, don't buy or use in excess, etc...

You are mixing a few issues there.

Saving electricity say in Ontario does nothing for AGW - it's purely economic choice of your own.
Turning lights off is good economics ..does zilch for carbon.

If you are natural gas heated then turning down the heat a bit helps but gas furnances are so efficient it's pretty much meaningless and again can be offset.

Carbon neutral actions like buying an offset for your riding are a good method and cost little.
https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=5

Sustainable decisions are another thing entirely.
Choosing your packaging, reusing bags, supporting things like sustainable fishing again are not AGW issues but are simply good practice as a human with one planet being used up rapidly.

Get out there and ride try and make some sustainable decisions.....the AGW issue is playing out at a global scale ...ie China's dramatic reduction in coal use....UK as well ....almost no power from coal.
Individuals in Ontario have been made largely exempt from worrying about their contibution to AGW with the exception of ICE vehicles and there a horizon for that.
 
But RG, you yourself suggested that there was an ice age. Doesn't there not being an ice age now suggest to you that the climate is different now than it was during the ice age?

Yes, "Global Warming" was the layman's term I had heard way back in the day. I've never heard of "Global Cooling". People smartened up and started calling it man made climate change because it's a more precise term.

Ice ages come in cycles of every 11K to 12K years. And we can burn all the fossel fuels to our hearts content, and it won't make a string bean of difference. You are not going to stop Father/Mother Nature. It was always thought that ice ages came on gradually over a few hundred years, then peaked with a 2 kilometre thick mantel of solid ice down to almost Mexico.

But in the last couple years scientists pulled up a 2.5 kilometre ice core sample in Greenland and discovered the time from when the spring snow took longer to melt, to the year when it stayed all through the summer was a grand total of 25 years! So it comes on fast. Can you imagine from Canada and northern USA down to Mexico? If Trump builds the wall, then how the heck are we Canadians supposed to get into Mexico?
 
Last edited:
Ice ages come in cycles of every 11K to 12K years. And we can burn all the fossel fuels to our hearts content, and it won't make a string bean of difference. You are not going to stop Father/Mother Nature. It was always thought that ice ages came on gradually over a few hundred years, then peaked with a 2 kilometre thick mantel of solid ice down to almost Mexico.

But in the last couple years scientists pulled up a 2.5 kilometre ice sample in Greenland and discovered the time from when the spring snow took longer to melt, to the year when it stayed all through the summer was a grand total of 25 years! So it comes on fast. Can you imagine from Canada and northern USA down to Mexico? If Trump builds the wall, then how the heck are we Canadians supposed to get into Mexico?

You can absolutely change nature. On the human scale if you drink enough or abuse opioids you change brain chemistry, demonstrably, quantifiably ....you do that. If you ingest potent carcinogens you cause proliferated unchecked cell growth. Man made climate change is just the same thing on a larger scale. It’s an upset to homeostasis/natural cycles caused by us that exacerbates effects. There is/was a buffer I believe, but buffering capability is only so much and we exceeded that a while ago.
 
Ice ages come in cycles of every 11K to 12K years.

they don't - you are out by a magnitude plus

historicco2levels.jpg


There can be little ice ages as the lead out tapers off from the great ice ages. There is still an argument going on about the last one .... the Younger Dryas
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The Younger Dryas

The climate shifted to warming steadily then back to a small ice age

The Younger Dryas

The Dryas octopetala flower
This near-glacial period is called the Younger Dryas, named after a flower (Dryas octopetala) that grows in cold conditions and that became common in Europe during this time.
The Younger Dryas is one of the most well known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions. This near-glacial period is called the Younger Dryas, named after a flower (Dryas octopetala) that grows in cold conditions and that became common in Europe during this time. The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000 (link is external)). Other proxy records, including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts (Brauer et al. 2008 (link is external)).

then out again to our current Holocene.
It looks like it was a comet that kicked the atmosphere back to the cold cycle but the evidence has been controversial

What is not controversial ....we're cancelled the next one.

Human emissions just cancelled the next ice age. Here's why we ...
https://www.edf.org/.../human-emissions-just-cancelled-next-ice-age-heres-why-we-sh...
Feb 11, 2016 - During those two short seconds we managed to affect Earth's climate for tens of thousands of years. So much so that we essentially cancelled the next ice age, new research shows. It means that we've not just altered today's climate, but that we're also changing the distant future of the Earth with potentially ...
 

Back
Top Bottom