Discussion in 'Off Topic But Still Civil' started by Bob Lincoln, Aug 3, 2018.
Neither of those statements is universally true.
Answer the question.
See guys, this is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to an argument that cannot be answered. There is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other. Environmentally damaging an area is one thing, causing global weather change or making it warmer is not provable, there are too many variables that cannot be predicted ahead of time. For example, how many volcanoes were put into the global warming models? How many solar flares or star burst neutrinos affecting our magnetic field were incorporated? There is no model ever made that can predict any of these happenings, all global weather changes, that alter our atmosphere, thus weather, and it just can't be done accurately no matter how hard anyone tries. Just because man is here does not mean a direct correlation can be scientifically proven it is man's fault.
And no, nobody can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that layers of icepack on the poles has never melted. As a matter of fact, the planet was a solid ball of ice for several million years at one point in time, about two and a half billion years ago, according to science.
In the meantime, be a good steward, reduce and pollutants (because they stink and dirty things up, kill small animals and insects, etc.) and let's all get along on a topic nobody can prove one way or the other.
As I said, someone doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
I agree. Whether it is “proven” without a shadow of a doubt or not, why not just do it anyway? My main question is why people are so unwilling to give up their lifestyles for something that is certainly healthier for the planet we depend on. Is it really that bad to drive a cleaner car and be less wasteful?
Sorry, but the idea that doing something so clearly good is the result of a conspiracy baffles me. What is the agenda? To be healthier for ourselves and the planet?
This takes us to the whole purpose of the global warming agenda in the first place. I mentioned the fact the USA got out of the Paris Accord (which was never signed in the first place so wasn't valid anyway, but I digress), and yet we still put out LESS CO2 than the previous year. One major problem with all these global warming agenda requirements was the cost to businesses. Inspections, permits, permissions, mandates that were so totally off the wall, EPA gone wild and beyond common sense, it was just money grabbing at its best. That's all it is, it's all it was about. Money.
Cars are clean now, and the current standards are pretty darn clean, so at this point, just like producing gasoline and diesel to operate them, until something is found to be more efficient, use it. Don't try to make me think something less efficient and costing three times as much or more is better because it isn't, move forward. Let someone invent something better. Until then, just be a good steward and look to make the next breakthrough, like a smart phone or pizza cutter.
A major reason we put out less CO2 than the previous year is the fact that California (as large as a country) and other states decided to abide by the agreement, anyway, and reduce emissions.
It cannot be proven that Man is the cause. So called experts and their money driven advocates have never, ever answeered my question just as in this thread. Instead they divert attention to side issues.
And they never will say how a carbon tax will effect climate change especially with carbon credits.
They never admit it is wa wealth redistribution scheme.
Btw the term "firefighter" is valid. Fire can be fought and controlled.
Now...answer my qestion. Dont do the "chicken dance".
You are right, Meester Beeg, the Trillions of dollars carbon tax (model or idea) is simply a redistribution middleman means to make money. It's why I mentioned financial magazines talking about the industry and amount of money to be made through investing in it, by buying "carbon credits" and then selling them so a business could operate, that cost is then passed along to the consumer down the road. From what I recall, the idea of taxing rich countries and funneling the money to third world start-up country businesses, it just gives them more of an edge to make products cheaper than countries paying the carbon tax credit costs. A means of "spreading the wealth" on a global scale vice just within said country, that's all.
"if you can change it you can control it. If you cant control it you cant change it." I've been a firefighter. This statement is NOT necessarily true.
What was your question?
Now we get the same old chicken dance and we pretend to not know what was the question.
It happens every time.
Is this your question?
Because I feel like there have been a lot of questions so it's kind of unclear which specific one you're referring to.
If you would answer them when axed instead of the deflection game you wouldnt have any problems.
Or you could go back and read the thread but I suspect this is more dancing.
Fact: Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is known to trap heat. Not only is this basic physics, an extreme example of its effects can be viewed on the planet Venus. Venus has VERY thick clouds - so thick, you cannot see its surface. Despite the cloud cover, it's the hottest planet in the solar system - hotter than Mercury, despite being almost twice as far from the sun.
Fact: The Earth's current atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels (~408 PPM) are the highest in recorded history. Furthermore, the CO2 levels are the highest we can say, with certainty, that the planet has had since human beings have been on the planet. In fact, ice core data shows that CO2 has historically not been this high for millions of years. CO2 levels, pre-industrial revolution, were around 280-290 PPM.
Fact: CO2 isn't the only driver of climate. Other factors, such as solar activity and volcanic activity, can play a larger part in short-term climate changes, but not over the long term. Solar cycles are 11 years so if the sun were to blame for recorded global temperature changes, we would have been able to see temperatures increase and decrease - which they have not done. They have only increased.
Fact: There have been historically higher levels of CO2, but this is from volcanic activity which also results in reduced solar penetration of our atmosphere, which has a cooling effect. When the CO2 levels drop but the volcanic ash hasn't fully settled, ice ages can occur, such as the late Ordovician Ice Age, frequently mis-used to explain away global warming when it does the opposite.
Fact: The Milankovitch cycle is also often used to explain climate change, but the Earth should be cooling, not warming, if the Milankovitch cycle were the cause.
These, combined with many other indisputable facts, as well as real observations, and theories by physicists far more intelligent than I, are enough to convince me that climate change is, indeed, driven primarily by the release of nearly 2.6 million pounds of Carbon Dioxide PER SECOND, the vast majority of which is not from volcanic or geological activity, but the burning of carbon reserves that were previously stored within the planet's crust for eons (roughly 60 times higher than CO2 released by the Earth itself).
Volcanoes release more co2 than anything man does.
Hijghest in recorded hiistory...just a blink of the eye of time.
Now how do you prove by observation that man is the cause?
A tanker truck can fill a pool at once but if I leave a hose running, I can also fill the pool. Combine the two and now we have too much water for the pool to hold. Everything has a carrying capacity and once it's reached, there will be a counter effect.
One can't attempt to use facts in a "Coherent discussion" with someone blind to them. Volcanic release of CO2 is FAR LESS than human activity and we are NOWHERE CLOSE to the highest levels released by volcanic activity in recorded history. We're actually pretty low on the scale of volcanic CO2 right now.
If we compare mother nature to human activity, we're the tanker, and there're 10 others in line behind it. Mother nature is the garden hose.
We are never in our lifetimes get the answer to this issue because we won't be alive long enough to see the results. Mother Nature will do one of two things: Kill us all, or reduce us to the stoneage (because we are too ignorant to get out of it quickly and safely), or the oceans will do the job they are designed to do and reduce the CO2 to acceptable levels. I find it kind of ridiculous to consider plant food levels too high, at current levels, to be too much for plants to be fed.
The oceans can't handle that much CO2. It increases ocean acidity. It also causes algal blooms which suffocate fish. CO2 levels high enough would also directly kill fish. Fish kills are huge impacts to people who depend on fish for food. Over 100 million tonnes of fish are eaten world-wide each year, providing two and a half billion people with at least 20 percent of their average per capita animal protein intake. If they can't eat fish, they will depend on other sources for food, and we can't tear down forests to build farms and not expect global CO2 levels to not suffer further as a result.
Also of concern is the runaway effect from releasing too much at once. As the polar caps begin to melt, not only are ocean levels going to rise, stores of methane currently frozen are going to be released into the atmosphere. Methane is estimated to be 86 times (not 86%, 8600%) more effective at trapping heat than CO2! Land-based permafrost, in the Siberian arctic, was estimated in 2013 to release 17 million tonnes of methane per year – a significant increase on the 3.8 million tons estimated in 2006, and estimates before then of just 0.5 million tonnes. This compares to around 500 million tonnes released into the atmosphere annually from all sources.
The point of all this is that Earth moves in geological terms and will recover. However, humanity does not move in geological terms. 100 years is a long time for humanity. 1000 years? It's several dozen generations. To Earth, it's a blink of an eye for a planet that's been around some 4.5 billion years. What will Earth be like in 1000 years if we have runaway greenhouse gasses? Significantly higher ocean levels, stronger storms, and significantly less animal life - including humans. In 2 million years, sure, the planet will recover and whatever humans have evolved into will be just fine. But I worry about my children and their children. We're already witnessing the planet go through changes. Record storms and rainfall in many areas. Record high temperatures. Historic droughts and flooding. When will enough be enough for humanity to, as a whole, make a real stand?
Besides, I really like the idea of an "Agenda" of climate change scientists. Imagine a world where power is obtained from the wind, sun, and tides instead of dirty carbon fuels. Not smelling gas or diesel fumes when being stuck in traffic, from quicker, safer electric cars. Energy independence from utilities to where rural and suburban homeowners can generate ample electricity for their house from the wind and sun, and store it in power cells and/or their vehicles for use overnight. Cleaner rivers, lakes, streams, and most importantly drinking water. Damn that agenda!
Glad you brought up methane as it is a potent driver of warming. So many things interplaying to cause global warming and the varied consequences that are happening and will continue to develop as the changes continue.