nature's way
| nature's way05-05-2024 23:44 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3330) |
Im a bm, Theoretically what would be possible events that could lead to some of nature's ways of reversing global warming. |
| 05-05-2024 23:54 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1731) |
keepit wrote: If the status quo of how humans interact with the environment continues without change, I cannot imagine ANY natural mechanism to reverse it. Unfortunately, natural mechanisms are aggravating it. Consider the melting tundra, feeding back on the warming by releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere. One very plausible event that would absolutely put the solution in Nature's hand would be the extinction of the human race. Unfortunately, there would be a lag time of at least a thousand years before ecological stability could be reestablished. The mass extinction would continue without us for a while. Things would certainly get worse before they get better. Another potentially plausible event would be that humanity gets its shit together. Then we could work with Nature to help implement her solutions ASAP. |
| 06-05-2024 00:05 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3330) |
Volcanic eruptions? Individuals sometimes get their sh t together. Humanity never does. It's like in particle physics - quarks and gluons and electrons and neutrinos always act consistently and unfettered by humanity and other macro events but macro events are always stirring up change at their level. Macro events never effect subatomic particles though. Except for people who go to great lengths to cause nuclear events. Edited on 06-05-2024 00:13 |
| 06-05-2024 00:17 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1731) |
keepit wrote: Volcanic eruptions can certainly bring about short term cooling. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo made the whole year cooler than before, making the graphs of temperature rise have a sudden dip. There is no reason that I know of to expect that volcanic eruptions are going to occur frequently enough to make much of a dent in the global temperature rise. Perhaps some lunatic might want to tip the scales and use nukes to set off some volcanic action somewhere. But then, they might be surprised how many nukes it would take to make the plates budge at all, even at the most strategic points where it is already active. I wish I could remember the number, and I might look it up. It was a big earthquake in Alaska in the mid 1960s. Scientists had translated the energy of that earthquake into 10 megaton hydrogen bombs, and it was like thousands of them. So... I really don't think volcanoes are going to be enough, although they help at times. |
| 06-05-2024 07:11 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14826) |
sealover wrote: Volcanic eruptions can certainly bring about short term cooling. Then why has it never happened? sealover wrote: The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo made the whole year cooler than before, making the graphs of temperature rise have a sudden dip. Anyone can fabricate temperature graphs for any one year time period to make anything appear to have caused the earth to violate thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann. sealover wrote: There is no reason that I know of to expect that volcanic eruptions are going to occur frequently enough to make much of a dent in the global temperature rise. Let's unpack: 1. There's no reason for any rational adult to believe that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow rising. 2. There is no reason for any rational adult to believe that volcanic activity has any bearing on earth's average global equilibrium temperature. 3. Hence, there is no "frequency" of volcanic eruptions that can somehow alter earth's average global equilibrium temperature. |
| 06-05-2024 11:46 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22383) |
keepit wrote: What 'global warming'?? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-05-2024 11:47 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22383) |
sealover wrote:keepit wrote: Nothing to reverse. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-05-2024 11:51 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22383) |
sealover wrote:keepit wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No volcano changes the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: Volcanoes do not change the temperature of the Earth. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-05-2024 17:05 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
sealover wrote: If the status quo of how humans interact with the environment continues without change, I cannot imagine ANY natural mechanism to reverse it. You absolutely refuse speak in clearly defined concepts. Maybe the operative words are those of your admission that you cannot imagine properly and that your mental limitations are your problem. sealover wrote: Unfortunately, natural mechanisms are aggravating it. What are natural mechanisms aggravating? sealover wrote: Consider the melting tundra, feeding back on the warming by releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere. Consider the freezing of tundra, feeding back on the cooling by sequestering enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere. Oh wait, neither of those gases have any effect on earth's average global equilibrium temperature. I heard that the memo that went out to inform all the biogeochemists was rejected with an error message "there is no such recipient." sealover wrote: One very plausible event that would absolutely put the solution in Nature's hand would be the extinction of the human race. Now we get to the WACKINESS of your religion. Obviously you are a Marxist and a HATER. You must be a Californian. If you loathe yourself so much, why don't you just make yourself extinct and leave everyone else to not miss you. sealover wrote: Unfortunately, there would be a lag time of at least a thousand years before ecological stability could be reestablished. Great news! We already have ecological stability all over the planet. You can feel free to off yourself and rid the world of one more cancer cell. sealover wrote: The mass extinction would continue without us for a while. Extinction is normal. I can't tell you how many species have gone extinct. I take it that once you are gone, your species will be extinct as well. sealover wrote: Things would certainly get worse before they get better. What constitutes "worse" and what constitutes "better"? sealover wrote: Another potentially plausible event would be that humanity gets its shit together. That happened long ago. I realize you were late in arriving so you missed the event. sealover wrote: Then we could work with Nature to help implement her solutions ASAP. I presume you imagine yourself as the "interpreter" who will tell us what Nature needs us to do, yes? Did your bridge protect you from this weekend's sun? |
Join the debate nature's way:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Why fight climate change? Isn't it natures way of limiting population? | 48 | 17-04-2019 19:15 |