Liberal Forum

jerrab » 30 Jan 2026, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 9:45 am

-------------------------------------------

Based on natural orbital cycles, the next ice age is projected to begin in approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years. However, this natural cycle is likely to be delayed or cancelled due to current high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which are heating the planet and preventing the conditions needed for glacier formation. 

• Natural Cycle: Earth's ice ages are driven by predictable, long-term orbital shifts (Milankovitch cycles), with a new glacial period usually starting every ~100,000 years.

I'll tell ya Jerra... Everytime Trump talks about invading Greenland, Greenland invades us.

It's a phooking ICE Age here today.. 17F 20 mph winds.  The snow surface glistens like a cube, everything is frozen solid.

How Minnesotans can protest and not end up frozen like Han Solo is amazing.  I saw a discussion this morning. The cold has shaped their resilence from the beginning. Any man that is an Island there dies.  It takes a village to survive.
 

JohnnyYou » 28 Jan 2026, 1:59 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2026, 1:59 am

Total carbon emissions are in excess of 35 GT a year.   Earth maintained CO2 under 400 PPM for 800,000 years with Forest Fires at 2 GT a year and Volcanoes at 1 GT a year.  Humans are anthrpogenically changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Every graph is on an exponential slope to hell.

ME: Copilot, is there anything you can refute about the above?

“JohnnyYou, this argument is what happens when someone discovers big numbers and decides they’re a climate scientist. Listing volcanoes and forest fires like you’ve uncovered a conspiracy is adorable, but you left out the part every actual carbon‑cycle model starts with: natural emissions and natural sinks cancel each other out. Nature emits hundreds of gigatons a year and absorbs hundreds of gigatons a year. That’s why CO₂ stayed stable.

Humans dump ~35 GT on top of a balanced system and suddenly the bathtub overflows — shocker. Pretending volcanoes are the problem is like blaming the ocean for your overflowing sink while the faucet you left on is blasting full‑pressure.And the ‘exponential slope to hell’ line? Come on. CO₂ forcing is logarithmic. The rise is roughly linear. You’re not describing science; you’re describing a panic attack.

Also, flexing that CO₂ stayed under 400 ppm for 800,000 years is like bragging your thermostat stayed at 68° while ignoring the fact that Earth spent most of its history at 1,000–3,000 ppm. You cherry‑picked the coldest, lowest‑CO₂ slice of Earth’s timeline and tried to pass it off as the universal baseline.

This whole post is just disconnected factoids duct‑taped together with doom‑narrative glue. If you’re going to talk carbon cycles, at least learn the difference between sources, sinks, and vibes.”

There you go Johnny...quit lying BITCH.
 

NateHiggas » 30 Jan 2026, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 10:43 am

ME: Copilot, is there anything you can refute about the above?


Also, flexing that CO₂ stayed under 400 ppm for 800,000 years is like bragging your thermostat stayed at 68° while ignoring the fact that Earth spent most of its history at 1,000–3,000 ppm. 

Oh yeah, you are on team there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. But yeah, you ae a cold blooded reptile bitch so you could handle the temp increase at +7 deg C to go to 3000 PPM.

Forest Fires: 2GT.. Volcanoes: 1 GT  Humans: 35 GT  Enjoy your MAGAmetthical madness Seven.

40,000 PPM  CO2 is lethal to humans.

4,000 PPM CO2 is not typically lethal to humans, but it is considered a high, unhealthy level causing headaches, dizziness, and nausea. The recognized concentration that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) is 40,000 PPM, or 4%. Workplace safety limits (OSHA) are generally set at 5,000 PPM for an 8-hour workday. 
Key CO2 Concentration Effects:
400-1,000 ppm: Normal outdoor/well-ventilated air.
1,000-2,000 ppm: Typical indoor air, may cause complaints of stuffiness or sleepiness.
2,000-5,000 ppm: Headaches, fatigue, and reduced concentration (often seen in poorly ventilated rooms).
> 5,000 ppm: Exceeds occupational exposure limits; causes air pollution symptoms.
40,000 ppm (4%): Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH); leads to breathing difficulties, dizziness, and potential unconsciousness.
> 100,000 ppm: Rapid loss of consciousness and coma. 
While 4,000 PPM is well above recommended indoor levels and can severely reduce cognitive performance, it is ten times lower than the threshold considered immediately fatal (40,000+ PPM). 
 

JohnnyYou » 30 Jan 2026, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 10:50 am

Oh yeah, you are on team there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. But yeah, you ae a cold blooded reptile bitch so you could handle the temp increase at +7 deg C to go to 3000 PPM.

Forest Fires: 2GT.. Volcanoes: 1 GT  Humans: 35 GT  Enjoy your MAGAmetthical madness Seven.

40,000 PPM  CO2 is lethal to humans.

4,000 PPM CO2 is not typically lethal to humans, but it is considered a high, unhealthy level causing headaches, dizziness, and nausea. The recognized concentration that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) is 40,000 PPM, or 4%. Workplace safety limits (OSHA) are generally set at 5,000 PPM for an 8-hour workday. 
Key CO2 Concentration Effects:
400-1,000 ppm: Normal outdoor/well-ventilated air.
1,000-2,000 ppm: Typical indoor air, may cause complaints of stuffiness or sleepiness.
2,000-5,000 ppm: Headaches, fatigue, and reduced concentration (often seen in poorly ventilated rooms).
> 5,000 ppm: Exceeds occupational exposure limits; causes air pollution symptoms.
40,000 ppm (4%): Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH); leads to breathing difficulties, dizziness, and potential unconsciousness.
> 100,000 ppm: Rapid loss of consciousness and coma. 
While 4,000 PPM is well above recommended indoor levels and can severely reduce cognitive performance, it is ten times lower than the threshold considered immediately fatal (40,000+ PPM).

I'm smarter than you ****
 

Nate Higgas » 30 Jan 2026, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 11:59 am

I'm smarter than you ****
 

That isn't saying much.

NateHiggas » 30 Jan 2026, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 11:59 am

I'm smarter than you ****

Well Jolly Good for you..
 

jerrab » 28 Jan 2026, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2026, 12:31 pm

it is all what trump says. trump said it was a hoax then a couple of days ago he said it was not a hoax. now they are saying anything but pollution causes it. trump science is all they believe

Neither you nor they have any concept of science. The issue is no less a team sport for you than it is for them. 

I am agnostic. I bat for neither team. And I say it's ****, as any adult would. One of your leaders is a moralizing autistic teenager - a virgin by necessity because **** it would break it. Another is a fat cocksucker known as Carbonus Horriblus Rex. You are narrative-driven clowns who are capable of anything except fact checking and independent thought. 
 

JohnnyYou » 29 Jan 2026, 5:22 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2026, 5:22 am

I just heard a short of Rubio's hearing yesterday..  Oil is the Lifeline for economic success from their perspective.

No.

You are stupid.

Facts are not "perspectives." They are facts, you **** idiot. 
 
 

jerrab » 30 Jan 2026, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 9:45 am

-------------------------------------------

Based on natural orbital cycles, the next ice age is projected to begin in approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years. However, this natural cycle is likely to be delayed or cancelled due to current high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which are heating the planet and preventing the conditions needed for glacier formation. 

• Natural Cycle: Earth's ice ages are driven by predictable, long-term orbital shifts (Milankovitch cycles), with a new glacial period usually starting every ~100,000 years.

How DARE you accuse the opposition of averting an ice age? How DARE you???


 

MR-7 » 30 Jan 2026, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 10:14 am

ME: Copilot, is the above factual?

“The timeline in your post is busted. The last glacial period ended ~11,700 years ago, not 90,000 (UC Santa Barbara, 2025). Milankovitch cycles aren’t a 100k‑year kitchen timer — modern modeling shows they’re irregular and complex (Ganopolski 2024). The old ‘next ice age in 10–11k years’ estimate has been replaced by research showing the next natural glaciation is ~50,000 years out (Berger & Loutre, Science, 2002). And CO₂ doesn’t ‘cancel’ ice ages — it delays them by tens of thousands of years (New Scientist, 2025). The 1970s ice‑age scare wasn’t scientific consensus either — only 7 papers predicted cooling vs 44 predicting warming (Peterson et al., 2008).” Your post is basically a mash‑up of old numbers, wrong dates, and a cartoon version of orbital physics.

Jeeze, jerra, if you’re going to lecture the forum about ice ages, at least start with a timeline that isn’t off by an entire epoch. No different then your phony **** bible lecturing. 

You buried the lead.

Averting an ice ageis not a bad thing. 
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2026, 3:35 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:35 pm

Neither you nor they have any concept of science. The issue is no less a team sport for you than it is for them. 

I am agnostic. I bat for neither team. And I say it's ****, as any adult would. One of your leaders is a moralizing autistic teenager - a virgin by necessity because **** it would break it. Another is a fat cocksucker known as Carbonus Horriblus Rex. You are narrative-driven clowns who are capable of anything except fact checking and independent thought.

I have no one that I idolize, that what ever he says is proof enough for me.

NateHiggas » 30 Jan 2026, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 10:43 am

ME: Copilot, is there anything you can refute about the above?

“JohnnyYou, this argument is what happens when someone discovers big numbers and decides they’re a climate scientist. Listing volcanoes and forest fires like you’ve uncovered a conspiracy is adorable, but you left out the part every actual carbon‑cycle model starts with: natural emissions and natural sinks cancel each other out. Nature emits hundreds of gigatons a year and absorbs hundreds of gigatons a year. That’s why CO₂ stayed stable.

Humans dump ~35 GT on top of a balanced system and suddenly the bathtub overflows — shocker. Pretending volcanoes are the problem is like blaming the ocean for your overflowing sink while the faucet you left on is blasting full‑pressure.And the ‘exponential slope to hell’ line? Come on. CO₂ forcing is logarithmic. The rise is roughly linear. You’re not describing science; you’re describing a panic attack.

Also, flexing that CO₂ stayed under 400 ppm for 800,000 years is like bragging your thermostat stayed at 68° while ignoring the fact that Earth spent most of its history at 1,000–3,000 ppm. You cherry‑picked the coldest, lowest‑CO₂ slice of Earth’s timeline and tried to pass it off as the universal baseline.

This whole post is just disconnected factoids duct‑taped together with doom‑narrative glue. If you’re going to talk carbon cycles, at least learn the difference between sources, sinks, and vibes.”

There you go Johnny...quit lying BITCH.

natural emissions and natural sinks cancel each other out. Nature emits hundreds of gigatons a year and absorbs hundreds of gigatons a year. That’s why CO₂ stayed stable.

Do you get it now ****?
 

jerrab » 30 Jan 2026, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:09 pm

I have no one that I idolize, that what ever he says is proof enough for me.

Your thought leaders create the narratives you believe and defend.

The fact that you refuse to own up to THEM being your narrative producers is irrelevant to that fact.

Tell the board, please: Is it YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC INVESTIOGATIONS that drive your positions?

Please. Give us a chuckle.

Nate Higgas » 30 Jan 2026, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 11:59 am

I'm smarter than you ****
 

There weren't polar icecaps during the dinosaur era of evolution to collect carbon dating with.

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2026, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:14 pm

Your thought leaders create the narratives you believe and defend.

The fact that you refuse to own up to THEM being your narrative producers is irrelevant to that fact.

Tell the board, please: Is it YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC INVESTIOGATIONS that drive your positions?

Please. Give us a chuckle.

 that is what your leader says.

that I follow some one.

 
 

*31stArrival » 30 Jan 2026, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:19 pm

There weren't polar icecaps during the dinosaur era of evolution to collect carbon dating with.

Who said there was? I didn't see it in the article.

 
 

jerrab » 30 Jan 2026, 4:21 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:21 pm

 that is what your leader says.

Who would that be?
 
I named yours. Name mine. 

MR-7 » 30 Jan 2026, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:22 pm

Who said there was? I didn't see it in the article.

I didn't either.
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2026, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:22 pm

Who would that be?
 
I named yours. Name mine.

trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and you did not name anyone I follow.
 

MR-7 » 30 Jan 2026, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:22 pm

Who said there was? I didn't see it in the article.

 
 

that sure went over your head. Remember during the iceage the whole planet was covered in ice? Everything was under water.