The Anthropocene

[abu afak]

90% of the people here bloviate about things they really know nothing about. You should listen to Westwall here, he was a professional geologist and IMO knows more about the matter, Earth science and climate-related topics than probably anyone else here. West is like E. F. Hutton--- when he talks, I listen.

Wetwall is a one-line idiot who is not even in the real debate or taken remotely seriously by any of us who are.
He's a one-line wise guy who rarely even posts a link/article or graph to back the little he says.
He's the usual One-Line RW Troll across USMB. (his posts/snips much shorter than even your empty ones)
and he was demoted from mod due to bias/harassment years ago.
Clearly he was never very bright and is now demented IAC.
`

 

[toobfreak]

Wetwall is a one-line idiot

Really? I'm a pretty good judge of people and he's shown me 10,000X more smarts and character than you.

 

[toobfreak]

And to reiterate, there is no Anthropocene. It was just made up by people out of the arrogance to think they really matter on the scale of the planet and as a preamble to then use it to argue that man is relevant in the history of the Earth needing restricted in his carbon output, much like if monkeys were writing Earth history, they'd no doubt want to create a Monkeypocene, or maybe a Bananapocene.

There is nothing mankind can do up to including annihilating himself that matters one whit to the Earth and either way, 10 million years from now, a blink of the eye to planet Earth, all that will be left of humanity will be a thin dark line in the rock and some bones showing a higher than normal concentration of hydrocarbons in the sand.

And beyond that in another 5 billion years, the Sun will expand as a planetary nebula incinerating the Earth for all time.

That is man's true destiny.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it

Canada’s Crawford Lake could mark the beginning of the Anthropocene

The mud of a Canadian lake holds an extremely precise record of humans’ influence on Earth. But the Anthropocene isn’t an official geologic epoch yet.

www.sciencenews.org

…Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

Good to know we've finally accepted that physical systems work consistently.

Looking forward to the warmer days.

 

[HikerGuy83]

We are part of nature, and we are changing the planet. For the better or worse depends on the species. Why deny that humanity is having a tremendous impact on the Earth? It just is.

Because it has not been proven.

You have records that show we were warmer than now with no humans. What does that tell you ?

You have no way of telling how fast things warmed in the past, just that they did. All the climate scientists are bettting on CO2 which is failing them.

 

[abu afak]

And to reiterate, there is no Anthropocene. It was just made up by people out of the arrogance to think they really matter on the scale of the planet and as a preamble to then use it to argue that man is relevant in the history of the Earth needing restricted in his carbon output, much like if monkeys were writing Earth history, they'd no doubt want to create a Monkeypocene, or maybe a Bananapocene.

There is nothing mankind can do up to including annihilating himself that matters one whit to the Earth and either way, 10 million years from now, a blink of the eye to planet Earth, all that will be left of humanity will be a thin dark line in the rock and some bones showing a higher than normal concentration of hydrocarbons in the sand.

And beyond that in another 5 billion years, the Sun will expand as a planetary nebula incinerating the Earth for all time.

That is man's true destiny.

So much back and forth of idiots.

The main question is, Has man affected the Climate with our GHG emissions, and the answer is overwhelmingly YES.
Every relevant Scientific org on the globe agrees.
Exxon Mobil agrees.

but the TrueFreak can just declare his 100% empty contrary opinion.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Rapid and intense"? "Geological force"? Pure opinion. Speculation.

No, fact. You know literally nothing about any of this. The scientists, however, do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have records that show we were warmer than now with no humans. What does that tell you ?

Who cares? Do you think you, a relatively uneducated slob with no experience in any relevant field, will just squeeze your brain for 8 seconds and figure it out? Come on.

 

[toobfreak]

So much back and forth of idiots.

Really? There's more than one of you?

The main question is, Has man affected the Climate with our GHG emissions, and the answer is overwhelmingly YES.

So what? Honey bees affect the climate. Cows affect the climate. To live is to affect the environment around you.

Every relevant Scientific org on the globe agrees.

By relevant, you just mean the ones agreeing with you. Look, I'm all for a clean, healthy Earth, and over time, technology is gradually giving us cleaner power, cleaner transportation, et al., but you idiots came out of nowhere wanting revolutionary change overnight--- you want to throw the baby out with the bath water. You'll "save" the planet, but by making life unbearable and unlivable for 80% of humanity in the process.

You idiots just don't get it, you have some sort of cognitive blockage--- you think that if I erect a house that I have forever removed all life from where the house stands! You can't seem to get it through your head that no matter what I do with that house, that eventually, it will be torn down to an empty lot again, and when it is, life will move right back in claiming the spot as if the house were never there.

Ergo, climate change is an ongoing NATURAL process--- as soon as you remove the stresses and forces acting on it in any given way, it automatically swings back to its null point of equilibrium, it isn't as if the climate changed tomorrow, for whatever reason, that it will just stay that way forever.

 

[abu afak]

...By relevant, you just mean the ones agreeing with you. Look, I'm all for a clean, healthy Earth, and over time, technology is gradually giving us cleaner power, cleaner transportation, et al., but you idiots came out of nowhere wanting revolutionary change overnight--- you want to throw the baby out with the bath water. You'll "save" the planet, but by making life unbearable and unlivable for 80% of humanity in the process.

You idiots just don't get it, you have some sort of cognitive blockage--- you think that if I erect a house that I have forever removed all life from where the house stands! You can't seem to get it through your head that no matter what I do with that house, that eventually, it will be torn down to an empty lot again, and when it is, life will move right back in claiming the spot as if the house were never there.

Ergo, climate change is an ongoing NATURAL process--- as soon as you remove the stresses and forces acting on it in any given way, it automatically swings back to its null point of equilibrium, it isn't as if the climate changed tomorrow, for whatever reason, that it will just stay that way forever.

As well as denying the 'admissions against interest' of ALL the Major oil cos... (I mentioned Exxon specifically you POS)
Surely you've seen my thread on this Blind-denial boy. 518 replies/15K views.
Been up for 3 Years, now on page 2.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

 

[toobfreak]

Surely you've seen my thread on

No. I don't give a word you say the time of day. All you do is troll people here.

 

[abu afak]

No. I don't give a word you say the time of day. All you do is troll people here.

And of course YOU are the troll.
Now having been defeated on the claim/issue by MY post and previous OP.
I post MEAT, you post frivolous personal opinion BS.
`
`

 

[HikerGuy83]

Who cares? Do you think you, a relatively uneducated slob with no experience in any relevant field, will just squeeze your brain for 8 seconds and figure it out? Come on.

Got it.

Which is why I could care less that we are warming now.

 

[toobfreak]

And of course YOU are the troll.

That must be why you used to send me 30 serial dislikes at a time, faggot.

I post MEAT

You post SHIT, no one wants to know about your meat.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That must be why you used to send me 30 serial dislikes at a time, faggot.

Abu Ballsack is in the running for board moron.

Keep him going.

 

[westwall]

So much back and forth of idiots.

The main question is, Has man affected the Climate with our GHG emissions, and the answer is overwhelmingly YES.
Every relevant Scientific org on the globe agrees.
Exxon Mobil agrees.

but the TrueFreak can just declare his 100% empty contrary opinion.
`

Who cares. Mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget, and CO2 has ZERO climate control.

 

[ding]

No, fact. You know literally nothing about any of this. The scientists, however, do.

You didn't even know the IPCC had an estimate for TCS in their reports, dummy.

In fact, you don't even know what TCS means in practical terms.

So it's hilarious watching you talk down to people on this subject when you are the most ignorant person here.

 

[ding]

Who cares? Do you think you, a relatively uneducated slob with no experience in any relevant field, will just squeeze your brain for 8 seconds and figure it out? Come on.

You are a moron.

 

[abu afak]

You are a moron.

`

 

[ding]

View attachment 863116

`

This is the second thing you ever got correct. You are on a roll.