Humans CANNOT change the climate of a planet

[SNOWFLAKE]

45 minutes ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

It is actually financial, the oil conglomerates, pay and bribe to push the "Human cannot change climate view" because they do not want their product replaced. The major car companies help them because of the cost to redesign their product. The politicians let themselves be bribed because they know we are no where near a solution yet. So hey profit.  

Oh I get all that. But there MUST BE a reason for common folk, even knowing the greed of oil and gas, to still refuse to believe man made climate change.

1. Political: my party says it isn't a big deal then it isn't a big deal.

2. Self-interest: I am not giving up my gas guzzler, I don't want to change anything in the way I live my life.

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Scary" isn't a word that is found in science, sorry.  You cherry picked temperature values that you wanted and still came up with 1 degree per century.  So you agree that temperature is changing, and presumably could change by more.

Would you like a term that is found in science? "Climate Sensitivity," look it up.

I'll tell you what it says regarding CO2. It says CO2 provides one degree of warming per doubling of CO2 in a closed environment experiment.

In our open environment they've told us that's worked out to about 1 degree per this century so far.

As to scary, let's not pretend this hasn't gotten political and it's really just about scaring the populace into supporting greater governmental control.

The conglomeration of "They" above have offered you the comfort of believing somebody's on your side fixing the non-problem they've scammed you into believing is a horrible unnatural thing caused by the rest of us and they can fix it. You don't think that matters. I do.

Don't tell me not to notice the obvious political influence on the problem. If you don't see it that's your problem.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

1 minute ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Oh I get all that. But there MUST BE a reason for common folk, even knowing the greed of oil and gas, to still refuse to believe man made climate change.

 

It is not so much that most do not believe in man made climate change most are intelligent enough to realize the facts. Humans can not live in a environment and not change it. It is more a fact of the cost of changing out said gas guzzler is beyond most starting middle class and lower class individuals or even families. It is that there is no real affordable viable solution yet and the fact the both sides are to busy arguing about semantics, volcanos, large cities other man made pollutants, and finally x country is ignoring environmental stuff so why should we bother. 

To be honest to the average person the environmental debate comes off as a bunch of children arguing on a playground and we tend to tune out rather quickly when the muck starts being thrown.  That is why the average person does not realize just what the situation is. While not dire yet, dire is approaching. Which is the other problem. 

"Oh this won't really be a problem for 100 years won't effect me." Continues with boring uneventful life that barely is a blip in the annuals of the history of this planet.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

1. let's not pretend this hasn't gotten political  

2. Don't tell me not to notice the obvious political influence on the problem. If you don't see it that's your problem.

1. 2. I am not doing that - I'm just saying I won't be describing anything as 'scary' since you asked me.

[Infidel Dog]

Let me repeat the bit you didn't quote then.

The CAGW scare is about scaring you into believing you need greater governmental control.

'Scary' is a necessary and accurate term. Again, if you don't like it that's your problem but don't be thinking that will make me stop using it. Run and tell the king if it bothers you. Isn't that what Chicken Littles do? 

[Nationalist]

56 minutes ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Oh I get all that. But there MUST BE a reason for common folk, even knowing the greed of oil and gas, to still refuse to believe man made climate change.

1. Political: my party says it isn't a big deal then it isn't a big deal.

2. Self-interest: I am not giving up my gas guzzler, I don't want to change anything in the way I live my life.

Its 3. Instead of shitting on the method or power generation we have now, at a cost to the average citizen that is both unnecessary and unaffordable, why not just focus all this energy into finding a realistic and reliable replacement?

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. The CAGW scare is about scaring you into believing you need greater governmental control.

2. 'Scary' is a necessary and accurate term.

3. Again, if you don't like it that's your problem but don't be thinking that will make me stop using it. Run and tell the king if it bothers you. Isn't that what Chicken Littles do? 

1. Ok it's a conspiracy to establish more government control.  Extraordinary.  Lay out the evidence for that if you want, but you should be able to do it without making all the science mistakes that the hoaxers make.  

2. If you are spreading a conspiracy theory, I guess it is.

3. Look at you getting all ruffled... you seem to be scared that I'm not scared ?  I dunno.  To me life is about assessing risks and living accordingly.  I wear a seat belt, for example, but I'm not afraid of driving.  So I guess we can stop talking about 'scared' now: I am not scared.

[reason10]

12 hours ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

I really do want to be insulting but BRAH....... Just by living on the planet we effect the environment. Fossil fuel consumption, asphalt, concrete, glass, major cities and neighborhoods taking up grazing land of wild animals. Humans have been effecting the environment since the bronze age. Time to smell the coffee, the first time we domesticated an animal we effected the environment, planted crops; effected the environment. Not all of the effects have been bad, But after the industrial revolution most were and are. While I admit Fossil fuel are not the only bad effect out there nor are they the only human controlled bad effect out there, At the moment it is the biggest effect, right behind volcanic eruptions, Which happen so often, try going with things that can be proven like the volcano thing. Or how much oil those turbines need, the effects of lithium batteries on the environment. 

 

But saying human cannot effect the environment. 

 

Yeah no not buying it. I have common sense.

Go buy a globe. Study it.

WATER makes up the vast majority of the surface. Probably explains why WATER VAPOR makes up 97 percent of the greenhouse gasses that prevent the EArth from becoming the surface of the moon.

Most of the land surface of the earth is not only wilderness, but UNEXPLORED wilderness. The United States is not that large of a mass, when compared to Asia, Europe, etc, but this country is on the cutting edge of natural resource conservation. We make the cleanest fossil fuel energy on the planet.

If you EnviroKarens want to point a finger, just head over to China, THE LARGEST COAL USER ON THE PLANT, and bitch at them about their masses of automobiles, polluted skies, etc.

Oh, and if you're one of those individuals who somehow equate cattle ranching with somehow adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, (which is about as dumb as it gets) just remember that TERMITES release more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity combined.

If you don't like commercial meat production, don't eat meat. And leave the rest of us alone. We're not polluting anything or changing any climate. We do not have that kind of power.

Oh and remember, the United States is the home of the renewable timber industry. Older growth trees (which are low on the photosynthesis scale) are cut down and made into useful items, and they are replaced by young, growing trees, that process a lot of CO2 and make oxygen for humans and animals to breathe.

Jungles of South America (yeah, I know, idiots call them rain forests) are NOT being clear cut by American companies.  You need to go there and get into the faces of the indigenous people who are doing that and KARENIZE them.

We know that Haiti's clear cutting of its jungles led to the crappy environment, mudslides, etc, that makes life a living  hell on that island. Again,  AMERICANS had nothing to do with that.

Go bother China, South America, Haiti. Leave the American worker/taxpayer alone.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

2 minutes ago, reason10 said:

If you don't like commercial meat production, don't eat meat. And leave the rest of us alone. We're not polluting anything or changing any climate. We do not have that kind of power.

You are a sad little insane clown.

It is not EnviroKarenism to admit that Human HAVE and CAN changed the environment you mouth breather.  

[reason10]

2 minutes ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

You are a sad little insane clown.

It is not EnviroKarenism to admit that Human HAVE and CAN changed the environment you mouth breather.  

It is actually enviroFASCISM to imagine the lies you are spewing.

America has passed the laws that gave us cleaner water and cleaner air. Of course, the DIRTIEST air in this country would be the smog over the BLUE STATE LOS ANGELES.

As far as changing planetary environment, not possible. I would say read some science, but you probably didn't get far enough in the elementary grades to even learn how to SPELL science.  And apparently you've never seen an actual GLOBE either.

 

This is not a science issue. It is a political issue, and dim bulbs like you latch on to whatever whacko Facist crap that comes your way without having any idea what you're talking about.

You are a sad, insane KAREN. And you need to get out of people's faces with that crap. Mind your own business. Leave law abiding citizens alone. We're not hurting you. We just have facts, and

[Michael Hardner]

This is what Democracy has become... insult comics.

The science says that CO2 is causing temperature increase.  If we had a functioning public we would then set to discussing:
- should we mitigate ?  adapt & accept ?
- what are the costs ?
- who is potentially impacted etc. etc.

But in the world of clowns and karens, the need for entertainment supplants our duty as a public.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

Fascism is it environmental fascism to admit that over the THOUSANDS of years that humans have lived on this planet that they have in fact effected the environment. 

You original post did not say China.

It did not say South America.

It did not say Asia or Europe. 

It SAYS HUMANS. 

Do not call people that disagree with you fascist unless you are ready to be proven to be an idiot of the highest order. 

Fascist do not debate about whether they are right or wrong they simply kill anyone that disagrees with them. Much easier to maintain order that way. 

Fascist do not quote science, articles different speakers to improve their arguments. They argue with firing squads and hangman nooses. 

You said HUMANS, and THAT is WHY YOU ARE WRONG and will STAY WRONG until you realize your error. Now I am willing to bet NO ONE on this site disagrees with ANYTHING you said about the United States being one of if not the cleanest country in the world. 

But you said HUMANS not the UNITED STATES. Humans have built Dams, canals cities, roads, farms, and none of these things effected the environment? Dams do not flood areas when they are finished? Canals do not produce new water ways that connect to previously not touching bodies of water? This ALL effects the environment. and changes the climate of the world. 

You sir are a primidone, who throws insults when proven wrong. 

YOU SAID HUMANS CANNOT CHANGE THE CLIMATE. 

We have proven you wrong while you argued about individual countries. If you want to argue about what individual countries are doing do not say HUMANS. HUMANS means we get to include ALL of human history, and the ENTIRE PLANET in our argument against you. 

Admittedly I started it by calling you a sad insane little clown, and while I do apologize for loosing my cool.

If the shoe fits.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Jedi_Master_Tallyn

[ironstone]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

Not necessarily. Grimsby wind farm is claiming 98% reliability, but that is probably on the very high side of feasible.

We'll need SOME backup from nuclear, hydro, and fossil fuels. At least until storage is more practical.

I am a bit curious about what you said about the Grimsby wind farm. You say they claim 95% reliability but that seems like an evasive term. I would ask what the capacity of that particular wind farm is and what the actual average output is.

What I have read about wind turbines is that the average actual output is almost never anywhere near the rated capacity.

They will suck up an enormous amount of land and offshore space.

 

[robosmith]

Just now, ironstone said:

I am a bit curious about what you said about the Grimsby wind farm. You say they claim 95% reliability but that seems like an evasive term. I would ask what the capacity of that particular wind farm is and what the actual average output is.

What I have read about wind turbines is that the average actual output is almost never anywhere near the rated capacity.

They will suck up an enormous amount of land and offshore space.

 

Grimsby wind farm as featured on 60 Minutes, is entirely offshore, so no land is utilized.

They are claiming 98% availability of power due to nearly continuous winds at that location.

Maybe some ships have to go around it.

[SNOWFLAKE]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Its 3. Instead of shitting on the method or power generation we have now, at a cost to the average citizen that is both unnecessary and unaffordable, why not just focus all this energy into finding a realistic and reliable replacement?

Isn't that what we ARE doing? 

[ironstone]

11 minutes ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Isn't that what we ARE doing? 

I don't think so. All I keep hearing about is wind and solar, with nuclear barely getting any mention. It makes no sense to move so quickly to these kinds of energy sources without having reliable backup. Think of the situation in Europe now.

Energy crisis has Europe hoarding wood, cleaning chimneys, mulling dung | Fortune

They caved in to the environmentalists and drastically shackled their own oil and gas industry and this is the result. So much for affordability.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

Go buy a globe. Study it.

WATER makes up the vast majority of the surface. Probably explains why WATER VAPOR makes up 97 percent of the greenhouse gasses that prevent the EArth from becoming the surface of the moon.

Most of the land surface of the earth is not only wilderness, but UNEXPLORED wilderness. The United States is not that large of a mass, when compared to Asia, Europe, etc, but this country is on the cutting edge of natural resource conservation. We make the cleanest fossil fuel energy on the planet.

If you EnviroKarens want to point a finger, just head over to China, THE LARGEST COAL USER ON THE PLANT, and bitch at them about their masses of automobiles, polluted skies, etc.

Oh, and if you're one of those individuals who somehow equate cattle ranching with somehow adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, (which is about as dumb as it gets) just remember that TERMITES release more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity combined.

If you don't like commercial meat production, don't eat meat. And leave the rest of us alone. We're not polluting anything or changing any climate. We do not have that kind of power.

Oh and remember, the United States is the home of the renewable timber industry. Older growth trees (which are low on the photosynthesis scale) are cut down and made into useful items, and they are replaced by young, growing trees, that process a lot of CO2 and make oxygen for humans and animals to breathe.

Jungles of South America (yeah, I know, idiots call them rain forests) are NOT being clear cut by American companies.  You need to go there and get into the faces of the indigenous people who are doing that and KARENIZE them.

We know that Haiti's clear cutting of its jungles led to the crappy environment, mudslides, etc, that makes life a living  hell on that island. Again,  AMERICANS had nothing to do with that.

Go bother China, South America, Haiti. Leave the American worker/taxpayer alone.

China is the worlds largest producer of electric cars and solar generated electricity.

Imagine what the world would be like if every average Chinese had the same carbon footprint of the average North American.

[Aristides]

Aside glacial melt,  every 1 degree increase in the top 100 metres of ocean results in a 3 centimetre rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion alone.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Aside glacial melt,  every 1 degree increase in the top 100 metres of ocean results in a 3 centimetre rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion alone.

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

^Intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated by hyperbolic strawman mocking.

[ironstone]

Speaking of sea level rise not accelerating - Climate Discussion Nexus

Sea level rise: Unprecedented, except in the past - Climate Discussion Nexus

I wonder how the Obama's are making out in their new WATERFRONT mansion. I seem to recall him going on and on about climate change blah blah blah. He's clearly not worried about rising sea levels.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Speaking of sea level rise not accelerating - Climate Discussion Nexus

Sea level rise: Unprecedented, except in the past - Climate Discussion Nexus

I wonder how the Obama's are making out in their new WATERFRONT mansion. I seem to recall him going on and on about climate change blah blah blah. He's clearly not worried about rising sea levels.

Maybe he's got Federal flood insurance so he can rebuild on stilts.

[Aristides]

43 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

Eventually. Humans have no right to survive than any other species.

[Aristides]

34 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Speaking of sea level rise not accelerating - Climate Discussion Nexus

Sea level rise: Unprecedented, except in the past - Climate Discussion Nexus

I wonder how the Obama's are making out in their new WATERFRONT mansion. I seem to recall him going on and on about climate change blah blah blah. He's clearly not worried about rising sea levels.

Who are these people? Not scientists. The director has a doctorate in history.

I'll follow real scientists at NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3002/sea-level-101-part-two-all-sea-level-is-local/

[Nationalist]

57 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated by hyperbolic strawman mocking.

Ya gits wut ya pays fer. 

Find a realistic and reliable replacement BEFORE you trash the base of the global economy.