Something Completely Different: Geothermal-Centric Global Warming

GrundleStiltzkin

I understand perhaps 25% of this but a fascinating read.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/

LebamDawg

I will come in at 12% but agree on fascinating. I checked out his twatter also


I definitely do not think that the global warming is all because of mankind - this makes more sense but this guy will be assassinated by Greta

GrundleStiltzkin

I am not all qualified to judge whether he's got something or not. However, I always thought something was missing from the "science" on this, but had no clue what it might be.

LebamDawg

I just want to see a ton of volcanic activity before I move on - maybe one of the super volcanos? Yellowstone? be the death of man in Coronavirus proportions - Fauxi will be impressed

Bob_C

This seems logical. The core must be driving more heat to the surface than the atmosphere. No idea if that is true or not. It must be true because it’s counter intuitive that a place like Death Valley is way hotter than the Rocky Mountains even though the mountain is closer to the sun.

Kaepsknee

Bob_C said:

This seems logical. The core must be driving more heat to the surface than the atmosphere. No idea if that is true or not. It must be true because it’s counter intuitive that a place like Death Valley is way hotter than the Rocky Mountains even though the mountain is closer to the sun.

UW_Doog_Bot

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

GrundleStiltzkin

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

Your one I wanted an article explainer from. Chop chop.

UW_Doog_Bot

GrundleStiltzkin said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

Your one I wanted an article explainer from. Chop chop.

Started to read it. Too much apologises for having a differing opinion from dogma. Maybe I'll finish it later.

GrundleStiltzkin

UW_Doog_Bot said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

Your one I wanted an article explainer from. Chop chop.

Started to read it. Too much apologises for having a differing opinion from dogma. Maybe I'll finish it later.

That tails off after the first couple scrolls. Lotta jargon, which can be a yellow flag.

DoogieMcDoogerson

TL;DR

RoadTrip

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

70%? I'm not buying that.

jhfstyle24

Bob_C said:

This seems logical. The core must be driving more heat to the surface than the atmosphere. No idea if that is true or not. It must be true because it’s counter intuitive that a place like Death Valley is way hotter than the Rocky Mountains even though the mountain is closer to the sun.

But in all seriousness, interesting read. Did a good job stressing that nothing is conclusive because we don't have enough year-by-year data to say it's not random. Also did a good job stressing that this isn't *the* explanation, but that the addition of this model in conjunction with human-produced warming (CO2 warming) is hypothetically enough to describe the changes noted in this post.


The main issue with this piece is, like the author said, there isn't enough precise data on a lot of the things cited to draw long term conclusions. So, in other words, this is a hypothesis and it's concise and clear enough to explore research upon, but in no way can legitimate conclusions be taken. It's definitely something to look into.

Most of the hypothesis seems to be based on the argument that, as opposed to the surface level temps of the ocean we measure, we need to look between 2k-6k meters, where there is heating that could be described as an anomaly, which in turn may prove that the accelerated atmospheric heating we are witnessing has something to do with the core.

One thing the author conveniently skips over, though, is the note that the warming at this depth is in the southern basins only. So, it's possible that the anomaly recorded is entirely due to a certain planetary shift that has short-term effects - in other words, this is like a little blip, which we notice because we're little blips ourselves.

In all, though, it's an explanation worth at least exploring.

UW_Doog_Bot

DuckHHunterisafag said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

70%? I'm not buying that.

Since the beginning of all human activity? The whole middle east used to be significantly more forested. Europe used to support lions. The Americas were forested bigly within the last 10,000 years.

Meh, pick a number, it's significant. Desertification and deforestation are significant now.

Not really here to argue that point. Pick a model you prefer and it's still a yuge number.

RoadTrip

UW_Doog_Bot said:

DuckHHunterisafag said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Deforestation leads to reduced cloud cover, reduced cloud cover means less precipitation, less precipitation means more desert, more desert means more extreme temperatures. Odds are we've deforested around 70% of the planet since humanity became a thing.

Even if you subtract the climate change element of it desertification is a very real problem. The good news is that in many ways it's fairly easy to correct.

70%? I'm not buying that.

Since the beginning of all human activity? The whole middle east used to be significantly more forested. Europe used to support lions. The Americas were forested bigly within the last 10,000 years.

Meh, pick a number, it's significant. Desertification and deforestation are significant now.

Not really here to argue that point. Pick a model you prefer and it's still a yuge number.

No argument just an interesting guestimate. Whatever the number is, I would think some areas have flourished and reforested over the eons.

PurpleThrobber

TL;DR

Are there joobs?