tinfoil hat or legit?.. the data is kinda scary

[Holyghost23]

so I was hearing an argument about global warming.

one guy said it was due to humans putting out tons of pollution, the other guy said that was a lie used by the govt to make us think we can prevent climate change.
he agreed that global warming was a thing, but humans had little to nothing to do with it.

he said that it was mostly due to polar shift. that our weather follows the poles more than any other factor, he also said they are moving faster than people have ever recorded, and the movement trends coincide with global warming charts..

he said all you have to do is compare magnetic declination from 1590 to 1900, then compare it  to 1900 to 2018, if you put the graphs beside each other and then put them beside global warming charts. they match almost perfect.

well I spent the time to look at declination over the years from 1590 to 2018.. and the data kinda speaks for itself.

https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/

just check the box where it says " Modeled Historical Track of Poles ". . the second you click that and look at the map.... you can tell something is fishy..

[Volbet]

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey. 

The map you linked sure shows the shifting of magnatic north and south, but I fail to see how it shows a correlation between the shift in the poles and the shifting climate. 

[YedZed]

Correlation does not equal causation. I haven't studied this in depth, but keep that in mind.

[Ithanul]

Basing the weather pattern on one sole variable does not necessarily mean that variable is the major cause.  One has to also considering the effects of the major jet streams, the temperature of the oceans, el nino/la nina, and many other variables.  The weather system is a very complex system.

 

Still, the shifting of the poles is a concern considering the magnetic fields weaken during a shift making the planet far more venerable to the sun's activity.  I be more worried about another Carrington Event instead.

[Froody129]

“People pumping out tons upon tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere that we all breathe could NEVER cause issues!” 

 

OP’s friend 

[Jumper118]

tinfoil hat. global warming is due to me getting hotter every day

[Hiitchy]

I once had a science project in grade 5. Instead of calling it global warming, I called it global warning. 

 

Anyway, there are other variables to consider not just one but they can cone in at the dozens to even more than that. 

[bomerr]

5 hours ago, Froody129 said:

“People pumping out tons upon tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere that we all breathe could NEVER cause issues!” 

 

OP’s friend 

technically CO2 Isn't toxic but point taken. 

[Atmos]

7 hours ago, Holyghost23 said:

so I was hearing an argument about global warming.

he agreed that global warming was a thing, but humans had little to nothing to do with it.

he said that it was mostly due to polar shift.

 

the movement trends coincide with global warming charts..

well I spent the time to look at declination over the years from 1590 to 2018.. and the data kinda speaks for itself.

1. Welcome to entry level political discussion

2. That's more right than it is wrong. We simply don't know the depth of the effect we've had dumping the waste we've had. We also know that global climate change happens normally, and can happen faster, and for longer periods than we're experiencing. So are we responsible almost entirely for this like many climate change orgs and activists want you to think? No, not at all. Its their business to make you believe, and they damn well will try their best. Are we helping? No, not at all. We're accelerating and compounding an already massively destructive force. Kind of like throwing bottles of gasoline into a burning barn.

3. While that does affect to a degree weather, minimally. Weather and regional climate are decided by the axis of rotation and tilt in correlation to the sun. Global climate is not affected in a broad sense by that, and global climate is not regional weather, those are two entirely separate things. Global cooling and warming periods are caused much more by carbon dioxide saturation in the atmosphere, which is naturally absorbed and expunged by the earth as various cycles take place. 

4. Did you know that there is a 99.79% degree of correlation between suicides by hanging/suffocation and the US spending on science and technology? Does that mean that investing in the future causes people to kill themselves by choking in particular?

Graph below

Spoiler

Or that there is a 94.7% correlation of per capita cheese consumption, and the number of people who've died by getting tangled up in their bedsheets?

Graph below

Spoiler

 

You probably get it at this point. You need verifiable proof to link two events to each other. The world is a big place, with a lot of weird shit, and just because two things appear to follow the same curve, doesn't mean they are linked.

[Eduard the weeb]

tinfoil hat 

A lot of the things that we do right now that hurt the environment are kinda easy to fix ex less food waste, more reusable items etc 

and the harder stuff can also be dealt with if more money is spent on improving rechargeable batteries and investing in better energy sources like wind, solar, water, geothermal, nuclear, etc.

 

and also there are things that are helping EX California Carbon tax is estimated that with in thr next 5 years will bring down Cali's carbon production to less then 1990 levels. 

[Holyghost23]

has anyone actually looked at the data though? the poles shifting have to have some sort of effect on the earth. especially if they are shifting significantly faster than they have since we started recording them.. the industrial revolution coinciding with the pole shifting and the amount of co2 output also coincides with the increase of pole shift.

If i could make a  graph I would. the lines would be a fairly good match.. it just seems odd to me that co2 levels and the movement of the poles are so similar in the rates that they have increased.  the pole shift must have some sort of effect on the earth. the fact that the south pole and north pole are starting to meet. should be worrying.. north and south can't usually meet in magnesium.  if this lowers our magnetosphere that could open us up to all kinds of cosmic radiation and more UV exposure from our sun.

as far as conspiracy theories go for ELE's the polar shift causing one has the most evidence behind it.. either that or my research on the sun going into solar minimum ( another one with hard scientific evidence).. a combo of both could cause an ELE as well.

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, Holyghost23 said:

as far as conspiracy theories go for ELE's the polar shift causing one has the most evidence behind it.. either that or my research on the sun going into solar minimum ( another one with hard scientific evidence).. a combo of both could cause an ELE as well.

By research you mean random Google searching of internet cranks or testing out a theory with the most up to date methodology from meteorologists and geologists and consulting peer reviewed data from experts?

[Guest]

On 29/01/2018 at 8:04 AM, bomerr said:

technically CO2 Isn't toxic but point taken. 

Your lungs say otherwise

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, Holyghost23 said:

has anyone actually looked at the data though? the poles shifting have to have some sort of effect on the earth. especially if they are shifting significantly faster than they have since we started recording them.. the industrial revolution coinciding with the pole shifting and the amount of co2 output also coincides with the increase of pole shift.

If i could make a  graph I would. the lines would be a fairly good match.. it just seems odd to me that co2 levels and the movement of the poles are so similar in the rates that they have increased.  the pole shift must have some sort of effect on the earth. the fact that the south pole and north pole are starting to meet. should be worrying.. north and south can't usually meet in magnesium.  if this lowers our magnetosphere that could open us up to all kinds of cosmic radiation and more UV exposure from our sun.

as far as conspiracy theories go for ELE's the polar shift causing one has the most evidence behind it.. either that or my research on the sun going into solar minimum ( another one with hard scientific evidence).. a combo of both could cause an ELE as well.

As @Atmos said, just because two sets of data trend the same way, in no way proves that one causes the other (or that they are linked at all).

 

Not saying the shifting magnetic poles might not have some sort of relationship with Global Climate Change (a more apt description, compared to "global warming") - but as any scientist worth their weight will tell you: Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Humans most definitely are contributing. Have we gone too far to stop/prevent/mitigate it? I don't know, but I sure as hell would rather try, than just give up and resolve myself to the destruction of the climate as we know it.

 

Warming and cooling periods are normal. That's not the problem. The problem is the rate of change. Normally a warming period happens over thousands to tens of thousands of years - if not even longer. This gives the various ecosystems of the world time to slowly adapt, and ensures the weather doesn't go batshit crazy.

 

When the same amount of warming happens over a ~150 year period, instead of a 10,000 year period? The climate doesn't get the chance to adapt properly, and "climate change" happens.

[EPENEX]

Climate change happens on its own. We are speeding up the process, though. 

[DutchTexan]

Climate change is real in the sense that Earth's climate has been changing forever. 'Climate change' in a political context is completely different and a total waste of time and money 

 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

As @Atmos said, just because two sets of data trend the same way, in no way proves that one causes the other (or that they are linked at all).

 

Not saying the shifting magnetic poles might not have some sort of relationship with Global Climate Change (a more apt description, compared to "global warming") - but as any scientist worth their weight will tell you: Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Humans most definitely are contributing. Have we gone too far to stop/prevent/mitigate it? I don't know, but I sure as hell would rather try, than just give up and resolve myself to the destruction of the climate as we know it.

 

Warming and cooling periods are normal. That's not the problem. The problem is the rate of change. Normally a warming period happens over thousands to tens of thousands of years - if not even longer. This gives the various ecosystems of the world time to slowly adapt, and ensures the weather doesn't go batshit crazy.

 

When the same amount of warming happens over a ~150 year period, instead of a 10,000 year period? The climate doesn't get the chance to adapt properly, and "climate change" happens.

'Correlation does not equal causation' is almost as purposeful as the phrase 'that's problematic'. You might as well tell people, "Hey, your point is no good because science is literally science." or find some other way of saying a premise is true, but you reject it because you reject any logical conclusion it may surface. 

 

Let me try that now.

 

In the same way you said, "Humans most definitely are contributing." I can say, ". . .just because two sets of data trend the same way, in no way proves that one causes the other." But the polar shift most definitely is 'contributing'. You can't say it's not happening. Same thing with CO2 releases coming from vents all over the bottom of the ocean. You can't say it's not happening.

 

I am glad you mentioned the possibility of human over-reaction to past human action. That happens a lot today. If you work in any real industry that produces waste, then you are 100% aware of excessive regulation and procedures. People who don't want to disrespect the environment, but have 0 awareness of modern industrial processes, tend to assume and advocate that we are a century behind in regulation. So, when you say, ". . .just give up and resolve myself to the destruction of the climate as we know it." You are implying that never-ending restrictions are normal? Good? Do you think stopping right where we are or going back to reasonable restrictions is the end of life as we know it? Or how about holding those nations who pollute the most accountable? Rather than castrating ourselves in such a way so that those bad actors actually ruining the planet end up dominating everything and anything industrial?

 

Just for a personal example: I work in a big, scary chemical plant. We make big, scary chemicals and end up ridding water that we have used (cooling applications) into a nearby river, ten way it's always been done. Isn't that awful? The only thing is, one of our biggest expenses is actually making sure that that water ends up being dozens of times more pure, balanced and clean than the river it is actually going into. The regulations are extremely restrictive and expensive. 

 

Industrial plants under modern restrictions are literally cleaning the air and water around them.

 

[DutchTexan]

1 hour ago, JayKay3000 said:

I blame the cows personally.

 

Damn their farts https://gizmodo.com/we-ve-grossly-underestimated-how-much-cow-farts-are-con-1818993089

Or when it rains and their waste drains into large bodies of water. Not to mention the damage agriculture (in general) does to the largest unknown ecosystems, soil.

 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

Climate change is real in the sense that Earth's climate has been changing forever. 'Climate change' in a political context is completely different and a total waste of time and money 

 

'Correlation does not equal causation' is almost as purposeful as the phrase 'that's problematic'. You might as well tell people, "Hey, your point is no good because science is literally science." or find some other way of saying a premise is true, but you reject it because you reject any logical conclusion it may surface. 

 

Let me try that now.

 

In the same way you said, "Humans most definitely are contributing." I can say, ". . .just because two sets of data trend the same way, in no way proves that one causes the other." But the polar shift most definitely is 'contributing'. You can't say it's not happening. Same thing with CO2 releases coming from vents all over the bottom of the ocean. You can't say it's not happening.

 

I am glad you mentioned the possibility of human over-reaction to past human action. That happens a lot today. If you work in any real industry that produces waste, then you are 100% aware of excessive regulation and procedures. People who don't want to disrespect the environment, but have 0 awareness of modern industrial processes, tend to assume and advocate that we are a century behind in regulation. So, when you say, ". . .just give up and resolve myself to the destruction of the climate as we know it." You are implying that never-ending restrictions are normal? Good? Do you think stopping right where we are or going back to reasonable restrictions is the end of life as we know it? Or how about holding those nations who pollute the most accountable? Rather than castrating ourselves in such a way so that those bad actors actually ruining the planet end up dominating everything and anything industrial?

 

Just for a personal example: I work in a big, scary chemical plant. We make big, scary chemicals and end up ridding water that we have used (cooling applications) into a nearby river, ten way it's always been done. Isn't that awful? The only thing is, one of our biggest expenses is actually making sure that that water ends up being dozens of times more pure, balanced and clean than the river it is actually going into. The regulations are extremely restrictive and expensive. 

 

Industrial plants under modern restrictions are literally cleaning the air and water around them.

 

A lot of what you just said has no direct application to my post.

 

I have not once claimed that we should over regulate for infinity.

 

I agree that over regulation can be problematic.

 

I also agree that we should definitely hold nations who pollute the most accountable. But we must also consider that over the span of the industrial revolution, the US has been one of the largest contributors of pollution and green house gas production - and they benefited the most from it.

 

It's all well and good to tell some third world country "hey don't pollute", but when we (the "collective" we, meaning industrialized Europe and North America) already got to benefit from the lack of environmental regulation early on, and we were able to use it to our advantage to boost us above most other nations, economically.

 

Now, you, nor I, nor anyone, was alive back then. But we still benefit from the foundation that was built on pollution and green house gas emission.

 

Also, you working in a "chemical plant" - what does that have to do with this conversation? You yourself admit that your company sends heavily to ensure they don't pollute the water source.

 

Chemicals are literally everything. So unless there are some anti-vaxxers hidden among us, that are afraid of the word "chemical", let's not introduce scare tactics that weren't brought up before. I have no particular fear for "chemicals", because I know that without dihydrogen monoxide, I'd be dead. I also know that if I consume too much dihydrogen monoxide, I'd also be dead.

 

Chemicals, in and of themselves, are not inherently dangerous, nor safe. They just are. Some are good. Some are bad. And even the "good" ones will tend to kill or harm you in too large of quantities or concentrations (just like literally everything, including oxygen).

 

I think we can all agree that some people, on the extremes, overreact when it comes to climate change, and how if we don't do something RIGHT NOW, we're all gonna die next week. Obviously that's not true.

 

But we also cannot simply dismiss human contributions to climate change. As I noted above, perhaps polar magnetic shifts also have something to do with it. I am not dismissing this. But I am also not laying all the blame on it either.

 

Even if we totally disregard climate change contributions by humans, we should still act anyway, because our overall health and welfare will benefit.

[Anghammarad]

As for the pole shift... 

 

we had this in earth history quite a few times. 

 

The problem regarding this, the earths magnetic field is losing strength more and more until the pole shift has been accomplished. Afterwards it will rebuild itself. 

 

Now, this magnetic field is protecting us form a lot of "stuff" coming in from space. Radiation, cosmic rays etc... when the field loses its strength, more of that will come through and hit us literally right in the face. 

 

This for sure will bring health issues, technological issues etc... 

 

As for climate change and CO2 rising... well just think about the rain forests removed due to being converted into quick to abuse farmland. 

 

All in all we as human race should learn to make a few steps back in consumerism. Do you need a new phone every year? Do we need all this overproduction of goods that will become obsolete or rot?

 

Why the heck are here in my local supermarkets potatoes form Israel and Africa if we have enough potatoes planted here in germany? Why spend ressources on this madness?

 

Learn more about the old ways of farming... change the planting on the field, so it will not become not usable without tons of chemistry, keep each field for itself or cattle every 7th year for the earth to regain nutrition. And so on... 

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

On 1/28/2018 at 10:04 PM, Froody129 said:

“People pumping out tons upon tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere that we all breathe could NEVER cause issues!” 

 

OP’s friend 

**Laughs in Volcano**

[LTTfanfromSweden]

19 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Your lungs say otherwise

well the only way its deadly is if you are in a room filled with it and cant breath any oxygen becase its all co2 but then you'd die from lack of oxygen not from the CO2.

co2 is not known to cancers or other health things even with long term exposure (if the amount is not enough to displace oxygen levels)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LTTfanfromSweden said:

well the only way its deadly is if you are in a room filled with it and cant breath any oxygen becase its all co2 but then you'd die from lack of oxygen not from the CO2.

co2 is not known to cancers or other health things even with long term exposure (if the amount is not enough to displace oxygen levels)

HCO3 is a thing fam dat respiration happens for a reason.

[LTTfanfromSweden]

6 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

HCO3 is a thing fam dat respiration happens for a reason.

well that happens no matter what when your body can't get oxygen so its not like its anything special. 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, LTTfanfromSweden said:

well that happens no matter what when your body can't get oxygen so its not like its anything special. 

in one instance

[grimreeper132]

I don't get how people can't get that global warming is a thing, it is. Over 95% of all scientific reports say it is a thing and that we are either causing or speeding it up, and even if the 95% of reports are wrong, the fact still stands we are pumping a massive amount of toxic gasses into our atmosphere which is affecting or going to affect out health very soon. The arguement of wether it is happening or not needs to stop and we need to deal with the problem, and that means the two top contributers, China and America need to take serious steps, as between the 2 of them they make almost half of all the CO2 (45% roughly, 15% america, 30% china), while the european union makes 10% with a population which is 50% bigger than america, and I would say in most parts of europe the living standards the same as America. The arguement needs to move on from is it happening to what are we going to do about it, do we want to let it happen or do we want to prevent it, and if we want to prevent it, how? Cause it's happening, we can see that, but how we are planning to deal with it still seams to be an arguement that only seams to happen in europe or other smaller contributers, and not in the top 2  where they either don't care or can't even agree that it is happening.