Earth's Temperature
- Thread starter Ranchdawg
- Start date
- Status
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm not too concerned with anything beyond like, 1 million. Better yet, 6,000, where time is actually existing similarly to now. So, things are definitely getting warmer.
Last edited:
Yeah. Life will survive whatever happens. What matters is how it affects human life over the next 100-200 years.
I got myself a pair of Hoka shoes, and boy are they comfortable. I dunno who managed to make orthopedic shoes cool but I'm sure glad they did. They're proud of 'em though. Still, recommend to any Sixpacker with foot/leg problems or discomfort.
I extended the graph for the next 200 million years…
I had a geology professor in the late 80s/early 90s who said the earth has warmed and cooled many times and we're coming out of an ice age, so getting warm is the natural cycle.
Follow the money on all that climate change Bullshat. It’s a scam that doesn’t solve anything. The Earth will continue to heat and cool, Climate will change. Average yearly Temps will go up and down. Everything is Cyclical. I remember the fear of the next ice age coming soon when I was in elementary school in the 70’s.
I switched from OnCloud after 3 years to Hoka because my wife found some on sale around the end of march. I've had terrible plantar fascitis since then and switched back to OnClouds mid-april. Hokas, for me, suck
I can honestly say climate change is something I’ve never worried about and never will. My horizon is way too short for it to matter.
Look back through history, What is better for life, a warm Earth or a cold one?
All I know is there must have been a hell of a lot of internal combustion engines burning tons of evil fossil fuels 100 million years ago. It was hot af back then. BTW, I would not trust any data that has been created in the last 20 years.
Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science
Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.
climate.nasa.gov
Kamala sez we're going to space and live on the moon. I'm sure they are developing an electric rocket to take us there.
I ain't worried.
I ain't worried.
Too late now to save Arctic summer ice, climate scientists find
Ice-free summers inevitable even with sharp emissions cuts and likely to result in more extreme heatwaves and floods
www.theguardian.com
Fleet Feet in Ridgeland is awesome - they measured mine and my wife's feet, had us stand and walk on their computer pad thing, modeled our ankles and feet and all, and then used all that to recommend Hoka's for my wife and Altra's for me. Most comfortable pair of athletic shoes I've ever put on, and my wife tells everyone she knows now to go there. One brand definitely isn't for everyone, but there's enough of them out there now. I've worn Brooks for the last ~8 years and these Altras blow them away in terms of support and comfortability.
Damnit. I opened the thread again specifically to read NukeDogg's take on Global Temperatures and his harebrained scheme to "save the planet" with nuclear warheads.
Alas, we're talking about shoes.
I'm not sure this has the answer you think it does. What is better for life, Canada temps or Death Valley temps? [Insert LSU joke here] Plus, human life and other large mammalian life evolved from a cold earth, relatively speaking. I'm sure the bugs and non-warm blooded animals historically did better in warm times, if that's along the lines you were thinking.
Anyway, the rate of change of temps probably matters much more in history. Unstable environments leads to ecological collapse. THAT is the worry. Arguing that in a couple million years the overall biomass of life will be larger than now is a pretty poor argument IMO.
Cool data. Have not seen that graph, or similar, before. Makes me realize that predicting the right side of the graph involves a lot of uncertainty, even if you use past (albeit millions of years old) data. We are in nobody knows territory, so we should just take the best care of the planet that we can and hope for the best.
I take the same approach to my health. As I age, I know there are some health events on my horizon, I don't know when, or what, but to the best of my ability, I'm going to try to care for myself in a way that lets me rest easy that I'm not a direct cause of them through negligence.
I've been pissing in the gulf. Temp seems to be going up by the second.
Acceptable. If the climate nazis ever come for this right I'm joining the climate deniers.
The time when Homo Erectus appeared to now is like 1.8 million years. Looking at that graph, that starts where the blue line on the far right of the graph is dropping, bottoms out, then rises.
That sliver of time is Homo Erectus thru Homo Sapiens. That is the small range in which humans and relatives have lived.
I am sure life in some forms will continue on this planet even when the average global temp reaches 80, but am more concerned about humans being part of that group which survives, and it is clear that humans thrive when the average global temp isnt so high.
This doesnt seem controversial to me, but clearly is.
I often look around and feel like this is too large an issue to ever solve. Its like cleaning my room when I was 7- too overwhelming to even know where to begin.
That sliver of time is Homo Erectus thru Homo Sapiens. That is the small range in which humans and relatives have lived.
I am sure life in some forms will continue on this planet even when the average global temp reaches 80, but am more concerned about humans being part of that group which survives, and it is clear that humans thrive when the average global temp isnt so high.
This doesnt seem controversial to me, but clearly is.
I often look around and feel like this is too large an issue to ever solve. Its like cleaning my room when I was 7- too overwhelming to even know where to begin.
You don't have to look that far back for this answer. Warmer temps are far more livable for humans. Some of this is due to natural survivability factors like food availability, etc. (compare populations of sub-Saharan Africa vs. Antarctica for relatively elementary indications) and some of this is due to the incredible adaptability, ingenuity, and technical advances of humankind over the past 50-100 years too. Electricity, Air conditioning, farming advances and whatnot. Since everyone is posting charts, see below.
While funny, are we allowed to ask if it actually makes the world better? Do government measures that supposedly reduce pollution or fossil fuel consumption actually do that? Or do they just move them to another step in the supply chain and actually increase fossil fuel consumption and pollution?
That Sub-Saharan Africa data blows my mind. Although Sub-Saharan Africa is most of Africa, it still seems crazy.
Last edited:
This isn't a pointing fingers kind of comment. It's legitimately a "my brain has a hard time reconciling these two realities" kind of comment... but I've never understood why conservatives so adamantly fight against the idea of climate change. And I say that as someone who used to be a conservative and who used to fight against the idea of climate change.
It's a stereotype for illustrative purposes but a whole lot of conservatives like to hunt or fish or spend time outside. My brain says those kind of people would be all in favor of environmental-related rules that would help keep this planet in the best possible shape for hunting and fishing and spending time outside. But that doesn't seem to be the reality.
It's a stereotype for illustrative purposes but a whole lot of conservatives like to hunt or fish or spend time outside. My brain says those kind of people would be all in favor of environmental-related rules that would help keep this planet in the best possible shape for hunting and fishing and spending time outside. But that doesn't seem to be the reality.
Sure, you can ask questions. That's a healthy approach to any topic. As for the hypothetical in your post, it's fairly broad and non-specific so I don't know how to answer it.
In general, I hope we can agree that efforts to reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption are a good thing. And reasonable people can disagree about whether specific efforts are effective or not. But I don't think we should take the approach that if something isn't 100% perfect or error free that we shouldn't do it. Sometimes two steps forward, one step back is the best option because at least you're still ultimately moving forward.
People on both sides of the political spectrum get brainwashed by their political leaders and just blindly believe what they’re told to believe. No matter how strong the evidence against it.
I don’t think conservatives fight against the idea “climate change”. They fight against the government’s bs tactics for increasing the financial burdens put on the average working man in order to line the pockets of politicians in the name of “fighting climate change” while actually increasing pollution, which according to the government is what is causing the climate change.
100% on board with responsible pollution reduction. Not on board with a lot of “green energy” such as ethanol that only increase pollution and don’t reduce fossil fuel use. And I understand that there will be set backs when trying new ideas, but I would like to see a “climate change fighter fighter” admit a lot of their ideas are failed, so let’s quit trying those instead of continuing stepping backwards with the same idea.
There are a few posts in this thread alone that either directly call it a hoax or a scam or BS or heavily imply that it is.
If it were a case where both sides of the aisle agreed climate change was an issue and there were just differing approaches on how to deal with it, that would at least fall under the "reasonable people can disagree about specific efforts" area I mentioned. But elected conservatives just flat refuse to even remotely attempt to address the issue. Many of them also call it a hoax or a scam.
And what government tactics that increase the burden on the average working man are you talking about?
I can only speak for myself. I'm not a registered member of any party. I tend to hold conservative ideas, and especially conservationist ideals as a former outdoorsman and Eagle Scout. The simple answer is what someone alluded to earlier, I don't know who to trust. Politics should never get involved in science and research. I posted a video in another thread talking about the lack of transparency and double blind studies in Environmental Research. ****, now politics are even into Medical Science which is even more ludicrous.
ETA: Super rich celebrities and politicians preaching to me about my carbon footprint while jet-setting around the world can get bent.
I believe climate change is real. Is it permanent? I don't know. Florida was supposed to be underwater 30 yrs ago, then 20, then 10. You have alarmist who've completely flip-flopped their messages on their "sandwich boards" because all they want is attention.
- Status
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.