Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I wonder how much the aggressive deforestation of land to make room for the billions of growing people contribute to climate change.

    We are essentially getting rid of the lungs that converts CO2 back into O2. To make matters worse we usually burn the removed plants which adds CO2 to the air.
    Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

    Comment


    • #32
      I think the good news is Earth will kill humans long before humans kill the Earth. If it took the Earth 5000 years to recover from what humans did that would be like a bad 8 minutes just taking into account the 3.5 billion years Earth has had life on it.

      Unfortunately to save the Human Race I think Humans need to find the Will to control big business and I see nothing that tells me that is going to happen. In fact the last 4 decades tell me just the opposite.

      Humans tend to allow other issues to distract them from the bigger goals that are more complex and take more time to understand. I have found reason to have hope in the younger generations...we will see what they do with the tools being given to them.
      Last edited by Hadez; 07-13-2021, 07:09 AM.
      Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hadez View Post
        I think the good news is Earth will kill humans long before humans kill the Earth. If it took the Earth 5000 years to recover from what humans did that would be like a bad 8 minutes just taking into account the 3.5 billion years Earth has had life on it.

        Unfortunately to save the Human Race I think Humans need to find the Will to control big business and I see nothing that tells me that is going to happen. In fact the last 4 decades tell me just the opposite.

        Humans tend to allow other issues to distract them from the bigger goals that are more complex and take more time to understand. I have found reason to have hope in the younger generations...we will see what they do with the tools being given to them.
        If you want a good laugh and some intellect, watch George Carlin's "Saving The Planet". It's got a little vulgar in it, otherwise I'd have posted it here. It's amazing stuff though, given when he performed it.

        One of the most basic comments he makes in the show is....

        "The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system."

        Although I do believe in environmentalism, given how little we've done to correct our errors, his take on things is truly worth listening to.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by CanDB View Post

          If you want a good laugh and some intellect, watch George Carlin's "Saving The Planet". It's got a little vulgar in it, otherwise I'd have posted it here. It's amazing stuff though, given when he performed it.

          One of the most basic comments he makes in the show is....

          "The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system."

          Although I do believe in environmentalism, given how little we've done to correct our errors, his take on things is truly worth listening to.
          I love Carlin. He has a great way of putting things into perspective.

          If the Earth has to it will self correct the Human Race into extinction. So many species have gone extinct over 3.5 billion years the Earth would not even remember us.

          IMO it is the test of a species. Can the species as a whole learn to pass on the selfish things and things that do not matter and as a team...as a species...work on the things that do matter.
          Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hadez View Post

            I love Carlin. He has a great way of putting things into perspective.

            If the Earth has to it will self correct the Human Race into extinction. So many species have gone extinct over 3.5 billion years the Earth would not even remember us.

            IMO it is the test of a species. Can the species as a whole learn to pass on the selfish things and things that do not matter and as a team...as a species...work on the things that do matter.
            We will need to learn how to survive the next ice age, wait for the big thaw and then we will immediately start polluting and screwing up the climate all over again.

            Dumb human beings. They rarely do the correct thing until they have exhausted all other incorrect options. "A day late and a dollar short" is our M.O.
            Utah Bronco Freak

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post

              Exactly, and referring back to our earlier argument which I apologize for, sorry man, I think a large part of the push back on the issue from people might be around that point. The incessant need to classify every weather event as a direct result of climate change even as it is happening, when really it is unknown. It could be, and sure, some people still may not acknowledge it, but I think for an issue as complex as that, the science and the experts need to break it down, and I would hope that is actually happening.

              Onto your other points, do you think this huge ecosystem of earth, one that is so expansive, so vast, and so far and wide, is really that vulnerable to the impacts of human activity over just the last 50 years? That we are now at a point that in just 10 years we will arrive at mass disaster? The earth is billions and billions of years old, and when you compare 50 years of human negative impact with pollution and predict in 10 years we will be met with the full force of mother nature, I just can't see it, that is alarmist in my opinion and not realistic.

              And I understand it may have come from the mouth of an "expert" or someone in the field, but correct me if I am wrong, experts in a variety of scientific fields have predicted similar things in the past, have they not? We can see how far off some "experts" were back in the day with their predictions which at the time were accepted. Look 10 years ago, 20 years ago, in the 70s and even prior to that. Predictions of famine, mass death, eradication of fish, oil running out, the earth being dark, half of all animal species becoming extinct, and the list goes on and on.

              As I have said, I am no expert, but a lot of the fear around this topic is created in my opinion by the media. I saw an amazing list the other day of events that were apparently going to end civilization as we knew it, and it went year by year back into the 90's, and it was just interesting that at the time how it felt like it was true, but with hindsight it was quite laughable at how overblown the threats actually were.
              This has been around a lot longer than 50 years and started with the Industrial Revolution. The first paper I'm aware of that proposed CO2 is a greenhouse gas was in 1852. Another was in 1898(?). Carl Sagan wrote a college thesis on the topic in 1960. During the 1950-60s, climate computer models were first being established. Some models at that time predicted cooling due to man-made CO2, but the majority predicted warming. All of them at that time said there was a big margin of error and they could be wrong. However, over the next 50 years both computers and the models have greatly improved.

              It's possible to tell if the CO2 molecules in our atmosphere are natural or caused by man burning carbon fuels. The increased CO2 is caused by man.

              We also know if global warming was a natural occurrence caused by something like Sun activity, that days and summers would see the biggest increases in temps as they are the times most affected by the Sun. If it were a naturally occurring event on Earth, like volcanic activity, that day/night and winter/summer temps would increase at about the same rate. However, what is happening is that night and winter temps are increasing far more than other times. This is evidence that heat is being retained, signs of the greenhouse effect.

              If we were to "follow the money" we'd find that Big Oil is the most profitable industry in the history of mankind. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) is considered to be the wealthiest American of all time and the second-wealthiest person in all history by some. Big Oil's ties with the US industrial military complex can not be underestimated. A little research will show that Putin is the actual wealthiest person in the world now, but the typical lists don't include heads of state or folks that may not have gotten their money in legit ways. And Russia really only has one source of wealth and that's oil. What two countries have the biggest militaries? US and Russia. Every alternative energy option has had "competition" from the wealthiest, most powerful industry in the history of Earth.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by lvbronx View Post

                This has been around a lot longer than 50 years and started with the Industrial Revolution. The first paper I'm aware of that proposed CO2 is a greenhouse gas was in 1852. Another was in 1898(?). Carl Sagan wrote a college thesis on the topic in 1960. During the 1950-60s, climate computer models were first being established. Some models at that time predicted cooling due to man-made CO2, but the majority predicted warming. All of them at that time said there was a big margin of error and they could be wrong. However, over the next 50 years both computers and the models have greatly improved.

                It's possible to tell if the CO2 molecules in our atmosphere are natural or caused by man burning carbon fuels. The increased CO2 is caused by man.

                We also know if global warming was a natural occurrence caused by something like Sun activity, that days and summers would see the biggest increases in temps as they are the times most affected by the Sun. If it were a naturally occurring event on Earth, like volcanic activity, that day/night and winter/summer temps would increase at about the same rate. However, what is happening is that night and winter temps are increasing far more than other times. This is evidence that heat is being retained, signs of the greenhouse effect.

                If we were to "follow the money" we'd find that Big Oil is the most profitable industry in the history of mankind. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) is considered to be the wealthiest American of all time and the second-wealthiest person in all history by some. Big Oil's ties with the US industrial military complex can not be underestimated. A little research will show that Putin is the actual wealthiest person in the world now, but the typical lists don't include heads of state or folks that may not have gotten their money in legit ways. And Russia really only has one source of wealth and that's oil. What two countries have the biggest militaries? US and Russia. Every alternative energy option has had "competition" from the wealthiest, most powerful industry in the history of Earth.
                While true, as that graph posted above denotes, it is from 1950 onwards where the carbon dioxide levels have risen to astronomical rates unseen throughout human history. According to that graph, up until 1950, it looks just like it was the usual fluctuations that had been evident throughout recorded times, before it then continued to climb all the way until we have reached present day. So I think if anything my comment in regards to the last 50 years is warranted based on that piece of evidence posted by Peerless. It then becomes a matter of, are the doomsayers going to be right in saying that the catastrophic consequences of these negative behaviours which have occurred over such a small moment of time, will be seen in the next 10 years?

                Also, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that extreme weather events are not the cause of human long-terms negative behaviours in relation to the environment. My point there was around people classifying every single weather event as a cause of global warming with no understanding if that is the case or not. There is no way on the day of an event the media, regular people, or even science surely can make that claim. As you noted, the trends need to be analysed and that determination can be made, but knee jerk claims of every specific event being "our fault", time to act, that is pointless in my opinion. Reminds me of the way the discussion goes around any mass shooting which occurs, you know what the first reaction and blame game for that is, whether right or wrong, I think details and context matter, and not everything needs to be diagnosed instantly.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post

                  While true, as that graph posted above denotes, it is from 1950 onwards where the carbon dioxide levels have risen to astronomical rates unseen throughout human history. According to that graph, up until 1950, it looks just like it was the usual fluctuations that had been evident throughout recorded times, before it then continued to climb all the way until we have reached present day. So I think if anything my comment in regards to the last 50 years is warranted based on that piece of evidence posted by Peerless. It then becomes a matter of, are the doomsayers going to be right in saying that the catastrophic consequences of these negative behaviours which have occurred over such a small moment of time, will be seen in the next 10 years?

                  Also, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that extreme weather events are not the cause of human long-terms negative behaviours in relation to the environment. My point there was around people classifying every single weather event as a cause of global warming with no understanding if that is the case or not. There is no way on the day of an event the media, regular people, or even science surely can make that claim. As you noted, the trends need to be analysed and that determination can be made, but knee jerk claims of every specific event being "our fault", time to act, that is pointless in my opinion. Reminds me of the way the discussion goes around any mass shooting which occurs, you know what the first reaction and blame game for that is, whether right or wrong, I think details and context matter, and not everything needs to be diagnosed instantly.
                  There is a difference between how the CO2 levels were obtained 1958 and beyond. We actually measured CO2 starting 1958. Levels before that date are determined by looking at bubbles of air in the ice. It is a very interesting science.

                  Carbon dating is also very interesting. We did not get it accurate the first time. We actually used bristlecone pine trees to calibrate carbon dating. I went to the bristlecone pine tree "forest" ... it was a very interesting learning experience.

                  I wonder what...if any...calibration has been done to the CO2 measuring.
                  Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Two thoughts for today...

                    1) It might take everyone to space travel to really appreciate our "home". (Off topic, but it might help the "flat earthers" to change pages)
                    2) I have concurred on many occasions that individual climate events do not necessarily equate to climate change. But the cumulate effect...yes. The staggering aspect is these changes to the weather systems that are causing more and more stalling of systems, leading to longer droughts, longer lasting storms, and all that comes with it. BUT my 2nd point comes down to one question to those who do not think individual events are relevant in the CC discussion....Even if you are correct about these individual events, what are we doing as a global team to reverse climate change? Why is it ok to justify what is not CC, but fail to come up with the real serious question....how do we slow it down and even reverse it?

                    Sure, some countries are doing their part, but few are making a big difference. So again, who cares what isn't CC, rather what are we doing collectively, to fend this off and improve it?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X