Remember me
▼ Content

The truth


The truth15-09-2017 20:31
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
I suppose this is the right place to share this information, and I think most of you are more or less aware of how dire the situation is on this planet when it comes to climate change.
Our entire civilization is facing an imminent ecological catastrophe (global extinction event) and nobody is talking about it. 'Climate change' usually conjures images of hot summers and losing beachfront property, however that is not even close to the ripple effects of what we will see unfold over the next century.

Roughly 30,000 species are going extinct every year, 7 million species globally, means life will be non existent on earth by 2200. Humans will not make it that long however, only extremophiles will. Human population will peak around 2060 (between 11-16 billion people) as earths ecosystems fail will we see a steep spiral downward as the horror of our situation and what we have done dawns on us, and in the ultimate act of chaos will bring about an end to life on planet earth. Human population pass through zero in a little over a century (about 2125).

How will this occur?

Essentially, you have become accustomed to hearing arguments in the news about air temperatures changing or not changing over time, calling Global Climate Change a hoax and so on. Global air temperatures take many decades to follow the ice trend, as the ice causes the shift in the AMOC system (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). The Gulf Stream is part of this system, called thermohaline circulation, a system of currents that brings warm currents floating on top, delivering warm air, then cool, and drop to hundreds of meters and can take decades to circulate back to their point of origin. The Gulf Stream is an example of this. The change in density by adding cool fresh water will change the thermohaline system, it has done so in the past, and the planet froze under miles of ice.

The model is basic, ice loss changes the albedo, the reflectivity of the surface, causing a dramatic rise in surface temperatures to any degree. Then the failure of the thermohaline system causes a massive freezing over of the surface, Snowball Earth.

The North Polar Region has lost 8% albedo from loss of ice and the Antarctic has gained that albedo and ice. Thus, the waxing waning figures we see are not random noise but Chaotic Trends. (We know that they are not random because we know that they represent shifts in ice and not 'noise'). At a certain point, what seems like random noise will suddenly become a strong and solid trend toward loss of albedo and ice in the Arctic, which is now at 40% permanent loss of year round ice.

The surface temperatures will spiral upward quite suddenly as the albedo breaks past that magic number where we are losing reflectivity and absorbing heat from the sun. How high the temperatures can go is unknown, but certainly enough to bring about a 7th global extinction.

At that point, all of the Northern ice has melted, causing a complete breakdown in the AMOC system. This is where the Big Freeze we see in the Antarctic takes control of the entire ecosystem. The change in density brings about the collapse of the AMOC system in the Northern hemisphere. By now the entire Southern hemisphere is as Antarctica, under miles of ice, and creeping northward. Where once Antarctica was a tropical paradise now frozen under 4 miles of ice, so the entire planet will be consumed by ice, miles thick, and forever frozen.
15-09-2017 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
Great. Another religious nut.
15-09-2017 21:11
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Where did I mention religion? Read my post again, and this time, pay attention.
15-09-2017 21:35
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Into the Night, after reading through your replies on other posts, it is clear that you are not here to attempt to have any sort of constructive conversation. You are only trying to convince others your cognitive beliefs are correct and theirs are wrong, which is oddly what religious people do.
15-09-2017 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
L8112 wrote:
I suppose this is the right place to share this information, and I think most of you are more or less aware of how dire the situation is on this planet when it comes to climate change.

Our entire civilization is facing an imminent ecological catastrophe (global extinction event) and nobody is talking about it.

'Climate change' usually conjures images of hot summers and losing beachfront property, however that is not even close to the ripple effects of what we will see unfold over the next century.

Predictions of gloom and doom from vague or unspecified causes: check
L8112 wrote:
Roughly 30,000 species are going extinct every year, 7 million species globally, means life will be non existent on earth by 2200. Humans will not make it that long however, only extremophiles will.

Argument from randU (the use of random numbers as 'data'): check.
L8112 wrote:
Human population will peak around 2060 (between 11-16 billion people) as earths ecosystems fail will we see a steep spiral downward as the horror of our situation and what we have done dawns on us, and in the ultimate act of chaos will bring about an end to life on planet earth. Human population pass through zero in a little over a century (about 2125).

Predictions based on nothing more than chicken entrails: check.
L8112 wrote:
How will this occur?

Essentially, you have become accustomed to hearing arguments in the news about air temperatures changing or not changing over time, calling Global Climate Change a hoax and so on.

Attack against Outsiders of the Religion: check.
L8112 wrote:
Global air temperatures take many decades to follow the ice trend, as the ice causes the shift in the AMOC system (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). The Gulf Stream is part of this system, called thermohaline circulation, a system of currents that brings warm currents floating on top, delivering warm air, then cool, and drop to hundreds of meters and can take decades to circulate back to their point of origin. The Gulf Stream is an example of this. The change in density by adding cool fresh water will change the thermohaline system, it has done so in the past, and the planet froze under miles of ice.

Reference to bad movie as 'science': check.
L8112 wrote:
The model is basic, ice loss changes the albedo, the reflectivity of the surface, causing a dramatic rise in surface temperatures to any degree. Then the failure of the thermohaline system causes a massive freezing over of the surface, Snowball Earth.

Use of bad science and arguments from randU as 'science': check.
L8112 wrote:
The North Polar Region has lost 8% albedo from loss of ice and the Antarctic has gained that albedo and ice.

More argument from randU: check.
L8112 wrote:
Thus, the waxing waning figures we see are not random noise but Chaotic Trends. (We know that they are not random because we know that they represent shifts in ice and not 'noise'). At a certain point, what seems like random noise will suddenly become a strong and solid trend toward loss of albedo and ice in the Arctic, which is now at 40% permanent loss of year round ice.

Use of buzzwords and bad science: check.
L8112 wrote:
The surface temperatures will spiral upward quite suddenly as the albedo breaks past that magic number where we are losing reflectivity and absorbing heat from the sun. How high the temperatures can go is unknown, but certainly enough to bring about a 7th global extinction.

Jumping to conclusion: check.
L8112 wrote:
At that point, all of the Northern ice has melted, causing a complete breakdown in the AMOC system. This is where the Big Freeze we see in the Antarctic takes control of the entire ecosystem. The change in density brings about the collapse of the AMOC system in the Northern hemisphere. By now the entire Southern hemisphere is as Antarctica, under miles of ice, and creeping northward. Where once Antarctica was a tropical paradise now frozen under 4 miles of ice, so the entire planet will be consumed by ice, miles thick, and forever frozen.

Finishing off with more doom and gloom: check.


ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. Failure to recognize a circular argument is a fallacy. Your religion, which I refer to as the Church of Global Warming, is based on the initial circular argument that the 'globe is warming' or that 'climate is changing'.

Want to see the proof?

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using a circular definition.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
L8112 wrote:
Into the Night, after reading through your replies on other posts, it is clear that you are not here to attempt to have any sort of constructive conversation. You are only trying to convince others your cognitive beliefs are correct and theirs are wrong, which is oddly what religious people do.


Inversion fallacy.

It is also attempting a redefinition of formal logic, mathematics, and theories of science as a 'religion'.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 22:12
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
"Predictions of gloom and doom from vague or unspecified causes: check"

"Argument from randU (the use of random numbers as 'data'): check."

"Predictions based on nothing more than chicken entrails: check.

"Attack against Outsiders of the Religion: check."

"Reference to bad movie as 'science': check."

"Use of bad science and arguments from randU as 'science': check."

"se of buzzwords and bad science: check."

There is no substance here, this is a void rebuttal. You are typing, yet nothing of any value is added.

Given 97% of scientists unanimously agree climate change is real, then you are obviously in the minority, and you have to provide compelling evidence that it is fake. If you can do this, then you need to go public and collect your Nobel prize. The 3% that disagree are a vocal minority, you can find such people on any topic-flat earthers are good example of this. You are engaged in a cognitive belief system AKA a religion. You 'believe' that climate change is a hoax that 97% of scientists are in on.

I also see that 4,000 of the the 24,000 replies on this forum are from you alone, its obvious you get some sort of 'rush' out of being the contrarian. This is similar to the 'rush' conspiracy theorists get when telling the 'sheep' that 9/11 was an inside job or the world is ruled by shadow reptilians. Not only is it bizarre that 1/6 of the entire comments are from you screaming like a child that climate change is false, it is borderline mental illness. You obviously can't handle the truth on climate change because it is 'bad' and 'scary', and anything this bad and scary is 'fake news'.
Edited on 15-09-2017 22:17
15-09-2017 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
L8112 wrote:
"Predictions of gloom and doom from vague or unspecified causes: check"

"Argument from randU (the use of random numbers as 'data'): check."

"Predictions based on nothing more than chicken entrails: check.

"Attack against Outsiders of the Religion: check."

"Reference to bad movie as 'science': check."

"Use of bad science and arguments from randU as 'science': check."

"se of buzzwords and bad science: check."

There is no substance here, this is a void rebuttal.

Fallacy fallacy.

You are using bad 'science', manufactured data, and making predictions using nothing more than chicken entrails coupled with your religious scripture.
L8112 wrote:
You are typing, yet nothing of any value is added.

Argument of the Stone.
L8112 wrote:
Given 97% of scientists unanimously agree climate change is real,

Science does not use consensus. Consensus is only use in politics and religions.
L8112 wrote:
then you are obviously in the minority,

Makes no difference to science.
L8112 wrote:
and you have to provide compelling evidence that it is fake.

I do not have to prove a negative. You have just revealed, like so many before you, that you have no understanding of formal logic.

YOU have to prove the positive claim, i.e. that the globe is actually warming or that the climate is actually changing. To do that, you must first define these terms.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

L8112 wrote:
If you can do this, then you need to go public and collect your Nobel prize.

The Nobel Prize is not awarded for not doing anything. I do not have to prove a negative.
L8112 wrote:
The 3% that disagree are a vocal minority,

Consensus is not used in science.
L8112 wrote:
you can find such people on any topic-flat earthers are good example of this.

Argument of ridicule, coupled with a strawman.
L8112 wrote:
You are engaged in a cognitive belief system AKA a religion.

A belief system is not a religion. It seems you have no understanding of philosophy as welll.
L8112 wrote:
You 'believe' that climate change is a hoax

You have not been able to prove it otherwise.
L8112 wrote:
that 97% of scientists are in on.

Argument from randu. Consensus is not used in science. Do you know how many people have tried this argument on this forum?
L8112 wrote:
I also see that 4,000 of the the 24,000 replies on this forum are from you alone, its obvious you get some sort of 'rush' out of being the contrarian.

Strawman.
L8112 wrote:
This is similar to the 'rush' conspiracy theorists get when telling the 'sheep' that 9/11 was an inside job or the world is ruled by shadow reptilians.

Non-sequitur. Strawmen. Psychobabble.
L8112 wrote:
Not only is it bizarre that 1/6 of the entire comments are from you screaming like a child that climate change is false, it is borderline mental illness.

More psychobabble.
L8112 wrote:
You obviously can't handle the truth

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that can't handle the truth, and must couch yourself firmly in the Church of Global Warming. It is YOU that is quoting scripture at me with no understanding, just as any fundamentalist Christian would. It is YOU that just repeats claims that your scripture and your Church is true, and condemning any Outsider through insults and arguments of ridicule.
L8112 wrote:
on climate change because it is 'bad' and 'scary',

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. I am not scared of what you can't define.
L8112 wrote:
and anything this bad and scary is 'fake news'.

Non-sequitur. Argument of ridicule. You have now admitted that your entire argument is based on news stories and not science.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 22:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
L8112 wrote:
I suppose this is the right place to share this information, and I think most of you are more or less aware of how dire the situation is on this planet when it comes to climate change.
Our entire civilization is facing an imminent ecological catastrophe (global extinction event) and nobody is talking about it. 'Climate change' usually conjures images of hot summers and losing beachfront property, however that is not even close to the ripple effects of what we will see unfold over the next century.

Roughly 30,000 species are going extinct every year, 7 million species globally, means life will be non existent on earth by 2200. Humans will not make it that long however, only extremophiles will. Human population will peak around 2060 (between 11-16 billion people) as earths ecosystems fail will we see a steep spiral downward as the horror of our situation and what we have done dawns on us, and in the ultimate act of chaos will bring about an end to life on planet earth. Human population pass through zero in a little over a century (about 2125).

How will this occur?

Essentially, you have become accustomed to hearing arguments in the news about air temperatures changing or not changing over time, calling Global Climate Change a hoax and so on. Global air temperatures take many decades to follow the ice trend, as the ice causes the shift in the AMOC system (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). The Gulf Stream is part of this system, called thermohaline circulation, a system of currents that brings warm currents floating on top, delivering warm air, then cool, and drop to hundreds of meters and can take decades to circulate back to their point of origin. The Gulf Stream is an example of this. The change in density by adding cool fresh water will change the thermohaline system, it has done so in the past, and the planet froze under miles of ice.

The model is basic, ice loss changes the albedo, the reflectivity of the surface, causing a dramatic rise in surface temperatures to any degree. Then the failure of the thermohaline system causes a massive freezing over of the surface, Snowball Earth.

The North Polar Region has lost 8% albedo from loss of ice and the Antarctic has gained that albedo and ice. Thus, the waxing waning figures we see are not random noise but Chaotic Trends. (We know that they are not random because we know that they represent shifts in ice and not 'noise'). At a certain point, what seems like random noise will suddenly become a strong and solid trend toward loss of albedo and ice in the Arctic, which is now at 40% permanent loss of year round ice.

The surface temperatures will spiral upward quite suddenly as the albedo breaks past that magic number where we are losing reflectivity and absorbing heat from the sun. How high the temperatures can go is unknown, but certainly enough to bring about a 7th global extinction.

At that point, all of the Northern ice has melted, causing a complete breakdown in the AMOC system. This is where the Big Freeze we see in the Antarctic takes control of the entire ecosystem. The change in density brings about the collapse of the AMOC system in the Northern hemisphere. By now the entire Southern hemisphere is as Antarctica, under miles of ice, and creeping northward. Where once Antarctica was a tropical paradise now frozen under 4 miles of ice, so the entire planet will be consumed by ice, miles thick, and forever frozen.


I've read this post 3 times and you've only made predictions of what is going to happen, but you don't say how or why it is going to happen. That is quite a bit worse than other predictions I've heard. What can we do to avoid this and what can I as an individual do to help prevent this disaster for future generations?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
15-09-2017 23:03
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Read the threa I just created titled 'greenhouse gases'....don't skim it, actually read it. Perhaps that will clear up some of the confusion behind the mechanism of global warming, which is leading to the collapse of the AMOC system and the inevitable 'snowball earth'.
15-09-2017 23:06
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Into the Night, 4,000 of the 24,000 comments on here are from you, let that sink in....you don't have any hobbies do you? You get a large portion of your identity on being a 'climate truther' fighting against those evil scientists. What a sad little man.

You like to dissect arguments into logical fallacies, yet are scientifically illiterate. The cognitive dissonance here is stunning.
Edited on 15-09-2017 23:08
15-09-2017 23:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
L8112 wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".... oddly what religious people do.

It is odd to state that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is religious.
15-09-2017 23:24
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Many religions are characterized by believing something regardless of evidence that supports or denies that belief. In your case it is 'believing' climate change is false, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You are engaged in a religious belief, I am threatening your cognitive belief system, and so you are lashing out.
15-09-2017 23:42
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
L8112 wrote: In your case it is 'believing' climate change is false.....

AGW occurs & will increase its effects.
16-09-2017 02:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
L8112 wrote:
Into the Night, 4,000 of the 24,000 comments on here are from you, let that sink in.

You seem to want to make this an important point. You DO realize, don't you, that I've been here on this forum far longer than you? Why are you chasing this strawman? It has nothing to do with you explaining what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually IS.
L8112 wrote:
...you don't have any hobbies do you?

Ah. Now comes the attack of an Outsider. Actually, I do have quite a few hobbies. Among them is etymology, aviation, electronics, history, cultural studies (especially how Western and Eastern cultures are the the same and how they are different), model aircraft and ship building, sailing, and yes...playing with small minds such as yours on forums. Like other religions, I find the Church of Global Warming interesting in its dedication to its belief.

L8112 wrote:
You get a large portion of your identity on being a 'climate truther' fighting against those evil scientists.

There is no science in 'global warming'. You can't even define it.
L8112 wrote:
What a sad little man.

Another typical attempt to insult an Outsider. Care to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' in any way besides a circular definition?

L8112 wrote:
You like to dissect arguments into logical fallacies,

Nope. I just point out your logical fallacies. Fallacies are not valid arguments.
L8112 wrote:
yet are scientifically illiterate.

*yawn* yet another vague claim use to try to insult an Outsider.
L8112 wrote:
The cognitive dissonance here is stunning.

I agree. Would you care to define some terms that are cognitive?

Assume I know absolutely nothing. What IS 'global warming'? Just exactly what IS it? What IS 'climate change'? Just exactly what IS it?

Can you define them without resorting to circular definitions?


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 02:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
L8112 wrote:
Many religions are characterized by believing something regardless of evidence that supports or denies that belief.

WRONG. Every religion DEPENDS on supporting evidence. It is where the initial circular argument that the religion is founded upon puts you.
L8112 wrote:
In your case it is 'believing' climate change is false,
You have not proven otherwise. I do not have to prove a negative. You have presented no theory. All you have presented is 'evidence' of something you can't even define!
L8112 wrote:
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Did you know science does not use supporting evidence at all? Only religions do.
L8112 wrote:
You are engaged in a religious belief,
Inversion fallacy. If you can present a theory of science for either 'global warming' or 'climate change', I'll be happy to listen to it and seriously consider your argument.
L8112 wrote:
I am threatening your cognitive belief system, and so you are lashing out.

Trying to redefine 'science', 'logic', and 'mathematics' as 'religion' again?


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 02:38
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
"Another typical attempt to insult an Outsider. Care to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' in any way besides a circular definition?"

Half of what you have replied has been ad hominem attacks, 'twit' for example. im still waiting for substance, keep crying little man...this is honestly hilarious seeing you flail, you have nothing to back up what you are saying other than "WAAAAAAA CLIMATE MODELS ARENT ACCURATE". ok, tell me how climate models are developed in detail, surely you know this, correct?
16-09-2017 06:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
L8112 wrote:
"Another typical attempt to insult an Outsider. Care to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' in any way besides a circular definition?"

Half of what you have replied has been ad hominem attacks, 'twit' for example. im still waiting for substance, keep crying little man...this is honestly hilarious seeing you flail, you have nothing to back up what you are saying other than "WAAAAAAA CLIMATE MODELS ARENT ACCURATE". ok, tell me how climate models are developed in detail, surely you know this, correct?


Who cares? Models aren't data.

Saying you attack an Outsider is not an ad hominem. Fallacy fallacy, based on an inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2017 09:42
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
L8112 wrote:
I suppose this is the right place to share this information, and I think most of you are more or less aware of how dire the situation is on this planet when it comes to climate change.
Our entire civilization is facing an imminent ecological catastrophe (global extinction event) and nobody is talking about it. 'Climate change' usually conjures images of hot summers and losing beachfront property, however that is not even close to the ripple effects of what we will see unfold over the next century.

Roughly 30,000 species are going extinct every year, 7 million species globally, means life will be non existent on earth by 2200. Humans will not make it that long however, only extremophiles will. Human population will peak around 2060 (between 11-16 billion people) as earths ecosystems fail will we see a steep spiral downward as the horror of our situation and what we have done dawns on us, and in the ultimate act of chaos will bring about an end to life on planet earth. Human population pass through zero in a little over a century (about 2125).

How will this occur?

Essentially, you have become accustomed to hearing arguments in the news about air temperatures changing or not changing over time, calling Global Climate Change a hoax and so on. Global air temperatures take many decades to follow the ice trend, as the ice causes the shift in the AMOC system (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). The Gulf Stream is part of this system, called thermohaline circulation, a system of currents that brings warm currents floating on top, delivering warm air, then cool, and drop to hundreds of meters and can take decades to circulate back to their point of origin. The Gulf Stream is an example of this. The change in density by adding cool fresh water will change the thermohaline system, it has done so in the past, and the planet froze under miles of ice.

The model is basic, ice loss changes the albedo, the reflectivity of the surface, causing a dramatic rise in surface temperatures to any degree. Then the failure of the thermohaline system causes a massive freezing over of the surface, Snowball Earth.

The North Polar Region has lost 8% albedo from loss of ice and the Antarctic has gained that albedo and ice. Thus, the waxing waning figures we see are not random noise but Chaotic Trends. (We know that they are not random because we know that they represent shifts in ice and not 'noise'). At a certain point, what seems like random noise will suddenly become a strong and solid trend toward loss of albedo and ice in the Arctic, which is now at 40% permanent loss of year round ice.

The surface temperatures will spiral upward quite suddenly as the albedo breaks past that magic number where we are losing reflectivity and absorbing heat from the sun. How high the temperatures can go is unknown, but certainly enough to bring about a 7th global extinction.

At that point, all of the Northern ice has melted, causing a complete breakdown in the AMOC system. This is where the Big Freeze we see in the Antarctic takes control of the entire ecosystem. The change in density brings about the collapse of the AMOC system in the Northern hemisphere. By now the entire Southern hemisphere is as Antarctica, under miles of ice, and creeping northward. Where once Antarctica was a tropical paradise now frozen under 4 miles of ice, so the entire planet will be consumed by ice, miles thick, and forever frozen.


L81112, you appear to have a very good understanding of what is going on, including the impending swing into a Glacial Period [or Ice Age]. Not many people are aware of that. But you are right about that, as far as I can tell. Not sure about how much ice there will be then, but all indications are that the earth will become frozen again, at least as bad as it was during the previous Glacial Event.

Most think we are either headed towards a warmer earth or nothing at all is going on. And in fact, we are headed towards a peak in temperature, before it starts getting cold again, but I'm sure you are aware of that also. The ice will take thousands of years to form, and there will be many migrations between now and then, as the sea levels continue to encroach until they start heading back the other way. I'm thinking the survivors of the "peak event" will be prepared to handle the sudden plunge in temperatures brought on by whatever cools us off. I think that is going to be a Supervolcano, as I posted in another reply. Before then, there will be a lot of problems related to weather and natural disasters like forest fires, and coastal inundations that we will have to be concerned about. Not to mention wars that are already going on, and those that will come as we begin to fight over remaining resources, including land that is capable of producing food.

But anyway.......back to why I am responding to this post, really.

Your understanding of what our future holds appears to be from science, as opposed to where my understanding comes from. Science supports the notion that we are headed for a peak average temperature event, followed by a plunge [to use the term loosely - it will take thousands of years to actually bottom out] into the next Ice Age. I didn't realize that until I studied the earth's past climate, during my original research into Global Warming. My understanding originally came from the Bible, when I tried to figure out where the term, "End of the World" came from. To me, that is an obvious misnomer, since there are those who survive the supposed end of the world. What I found out is that the term originates from yet another term, that appears to be either a paradox or misnomer. That term is "End of Days." If you consider that term, then you can understand why it got twisted into the "End of the World," because if days ever end, so does the world. Well, at least for those who count on another day. I'm sure the world gets to keep right on spinning regardless.

The term "End of Days" does not mean that days will end. But two thousand years ago, when the understanding of that term was locked into religious dogma, that was the only conclusion a person could make from it, when taken literally. To the Hebrews, it meant either the End of Days, or the End of Summers though, because the Hebrew word that is translated to "Day" actually means "warm part of a cycle," literally. And it was what they called both daytime and summertime, as opposed to nighttime and wintertime. That was the only two warm/cold cycles that people were aware of then, so the meaning was totally lost on them.

We know of another meaning now, which we refer to as Glacial/Interglacial Periods. So what the prophets were actually warning us about was what would happen at the end of this warm period.

Sounds to me like you basically got that figured out. Just wanted to agree.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 17:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
L8112 wrote:
Into the Night, after reading through your replies on other posts, it is clear that you are not here to attempt to have any sort of constructive conversation. You are only trying to convince others your cognitive beliefs are correct and theirs are wrong, which is oddly what religious people do.


Here is another loony leftist without any education in science pretending that he does because he read an article in what - Time Magazine? Or was it Newsweek?

The small increases in CO2 make it FAR LESS LIKELY that man will overrun the environment before he achieves sufficient living conditions whereupon he reduces his population growth. Even in India reproduction is down sharply as standards of living increase. In the US among natural Americans the replacement rate is already zero or even below. The same with the majority of European countries.
02-10-2017 17:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
L8112 wrote:
I suppose this is the right place to share this information, and I think most of you are more or less aware of how dire the situation is on this planet when it comes to climate change.
Our entire civilization is facing an imminent ecological catastrophe (global extinction event) and nobody is talking about it. 'Climate change' usually conjures images of hot summers and losing beachfront property, however that is not even close to the ripple effects of what we will see unfold over the next century.

Roughly 30,000 species are going extinct every year, 7 million species globally, means life will be non existent on earth by 2200. Humans will not make it that long however, only extremophiles will. Human population will peak around 2060 (between 11-16 billion people) as earths ecosystems fail will we see a steep spiral downward as the horror of our situation and what we have done dawns on us, and in the ultimate act of chaos will bring about an end to life on planet earth. Human population pass through zero in a little over a century (about 2125).

How will this occur?

Essentially, you have become accustomed to hearing arguments in the news about air temperatures changing or not changing over time, calling Global Climate Change a hoax and so on. Global air temperatures take many decades to follow the ice trend, as the ice causes the shift in the AMOC system (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). The Gulf Stream is part of this system, called thermohaline circulation, a system of currents that brings warm currents floating on top, delivering warm air, then cool, and drop to hundreds of meters and can take decades to circulate back to their point of origin. The Gulf Stream is an example of this. The change in density by adding cool fresh water will change the thermohaline system, it has done so in the past, and the planet froze under miles of ice.

The model is basic, ice loss changes the albedo, the reflectivity of the surface, causing a dramatic rise in surface temperatures to any degree. Then the failure of the thermohaline system causes a massive freezing over of the surface, Snowball Earth.

The North Polar Region has lost 8% albedo from loss of ice and the Antarctic has gained that albedo and ice. Thus, the waxing waning figures we see are not random noise but Chaotic Trends. (We know that they are not random because we know that they represent shifts in ice and not 'noise'). At a certain point, what seems like random noise will suddenly become a strong and solid trend toward loss of albedo and ice in the Arctic, which is now at 40% permanent loss of year round ice.

The surface temperatures will spiral upward quite suddenly as the albedo breaks past that magic number where we are losing reflectivity and absorbing heat from the sun. How high the temperatures can go is unknown, but certainly enough to bring about a 7th global extinction.

At that point, all of the Northern ice has melted, causing a complete breakdown in the AMOC system. This is where the Big Freeze we see in the Antarctic takes control of the entire ecosystem. The change in density brings about the collapse of the AMOC system in the Northern hemisphere. By now the entire Southern hemisphere is as Antarctica, under miles of ice, and creeping northward. Where once Antarctica was a tropical paradise now frozen under 4 miles of ice, so the entire planet will be consumed by ice, miles thick, and forever frozen.


L81112, you appear to have a very good understanding of what is going on, including the impending swing into a Glacial Period [or Ice Age]. Not many people are aware of that. But you are right about that, as far as I can tell. Not sure about how much ice there will be then, but all indications are that the earth will become frozen again, at least as bad as it was during the previous Glacial Event.

Most think we are either headed towards a warmer earth or nothing at all is going on. And in fact, we are headed towards a peak in temperature, before it starts getting cold again, but I'm sure you are aware of that also. The ice will take thousands of years to form, and there will be many migrations between now and then, as the sea levels continue to encroach until they start heading back the other way. I'm thinking the survivors of the "peak event" will be prepared to handle the sudden plunge in temperatures brought on by whatever cools us off. I think that is going to be a Supervolcano, as I posted in another reply. Before then, there will be a lot of problems related to weather and natural disasters like forest fires, and coastal inundations that we will have to be concerned about. Not to mention wars that are already going on, and those that will come as we begin to fight over remaining resources, including land that is capable of producing food.

But anyway.......back to why I am responding to this post, really.

Your understanding of what our future holds appears to be from science, as opposed to where my understanding comes from. Science supports the notion that we are headed for a peak average temperature event, followed by a plunge [to use the term loosely - it will take thousands of years to actually bottom out] into the next Ice Age. I didn't realize that until I studied the earth's past climate, during my original research into Global Warming. My understanding originally came from the Bible, when I tried to figure out where the term, "End of the World" came from. To me, that is an obvious misnomer, since there are those who survive the supposed end of the world. What I found out is that the term originates from yet another term, that appears to be either a paradox or misnomer. That term is "End of Days." If you consider that term, then you can understand why it got twisted into the "End of the World," because if days ever end, so does the world. Well, at least for those who count on another day. I'm sure the world gets to keep right on spinning regardless.

The term "End of Days" does not mean that days will end. But two thousand years ago, when the understanding of that term was locked into religious dogma, that was the only conclusion a person could make from it, when taken literally. To the Hebrews, it meant either the End of Days, or the End of Summers though, because the Hebrew word that is translated to "Day" actually means "warm part of a cycle," literally. And it was what they called both daytime and summertime, as opposed to nighttime and wintertime. That was the only two warm/cold cycles that people were aware of then, so the meaning was totally lost on them.

We know of another meaning now, which we refer to as Glacial/Interglacial Periods. So what the prophets were actually warning us about was what would happen at the end of this warm period.

Sounds to me like you basically got that figured out. Just wanted to agree.


Sorry again - Ice Ages now will not be the "Snowball Earth" of the very earliest. They will only be heavy snow and ice down to about 37 degrees of latitude. You lose again and everyone is not going to die with you.
02-10-2017 17:42
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: In the US among natural Americans....


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" defines "unnatural Americans" as those people who arrived "after" it got here.




Join the debate The truth:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Uncertain projections help to reveal the truth about future climate change719-03-2019 16:10
Is this man telling a lot of truth about our world??? (YouTube Video)020-02-2019 22:54
100% Truth about Global Warming, Climate Change1004-12-2017 04:56
The truth about sea level rise3414-10-2015 11:44
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact