gatomontes99 Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 PHSY.org The simulation showed that as the sun grew hotter, 1 billion years from now, releasing more energy, carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere will begin to drop due to the gas absorbing the heat and breaking down. The ozone layer would also be burned away. Then, as carbon dioxide levels fall, plant life will begin to suffer, resulting in reduced production of oxygen. Over a period of just 10,000, years, CO2 levels will drop so much that plant life would go extinct. Without plant life, land- and sea-dwelling creatures would soon go extinct, as well, due to the lack of a breathable atmosphere. Meanwhile, the simulation also showed increasing levels of methane entering the atmosphere, speeding the demise of creatures needing oxygen to breathe. The result, according to the simulation, would be a planet without life, save for tiny anaerobic creatures such as bacteria—conditions very similar to Earth prior to the evolution of plants and animals. ‐------------------------------ According to science...yes actual science...the sun is getting hotter and that will make CO² vanish. Apparently, CO² is vital for maintaining life on planet Earth. Who knew? Well, pretty much everyone. But, my point is that CO² is not causing the planet to warm, the sun is. Also, CO² is not killing us, it is keeping us alive. No, that does not mean just dump a crap ton (technical term) of CO² into the air and pretend that's ok too. It does mean that we shouldn't destroy lives to stop CO² emissions either. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 No NEED to "destroy lives" to "stop CO2 emissions" from INCREASING the amount in the atmosphere. Duh And NO ONE said we do, except for right wing hysterics pushing a FALSE DICHOTOMY. All we have to do is use renewable energy sources (and advanced nuclear including fission reactors) INSTEAD of burning fossil fuels. Quote
Nationalist Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 16 minutes ago, robosmith said: No NEED to "destroy lives" to "stop CO2 emissions" from INCREASING the amount in the atmosphere. Duh And NO ONE said we do, except for right wing hysterics pushing a FALSE DICHOTOMY. All we have to do is use renewable energy sources (and advanced nuclear including fission reactors) INSTEAD of burning fossil fuels. Like Teslas? 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 10 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Like Teslas? There are MANY renewable energy vehicles on the road, so no need to put another dollar in Muskrat's pocket. Duh Quote
Nationalist Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: There are MANY renewable energy vehicles on the road, so no need to put another dollar in Muskrat's pocket. Duh LOL...what a hypocrite. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Nationalist said: LOL...what a hypocrite. Having choices is NOT hypocritical, but LYING like you IS. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 7 Author Report Posted May 7 27 minutes ago, robosmith said: No NEED to "destroy lives" to "stop CO2 emissions" from INCREASING the amount in the atmosphere. Duh And NO ONE said we do, except for right wing hysterics pushing a FALSE DICHOTOMY. All we have to do is use renewable energy sources (and advanced nuclear including fission reactors) INSTEAD of burning fossil fuels. Oh sweety, you should read your lwnj bible. Nuclear power isn't acceptable to you guys. And yes, carbon emissions are going to be used to limit economic activity and control your life. Per your lwnj mesiahs, carbon credits will be assigned to every economic activity. They will calculate the "impact" on the climate and assign a value. So, for example, when you checkout at the grocery store, you'll have to pay more in carbon credits for a texas steak than a California steak because it came from farther away. And you'll have to choose between going crossed town on the train or taking a vacation in Cancun. You will, effectively, be trapped at home with maybe enough credits to travel once a year or less and you'll have to eat local fruits and vegetables with only the occasional foreign delicacy like avocados. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Nationalist Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 2 hours ago, robosmith said: No NEED to "destroy lives" to "stop CO2 emissions" from INCREASING the amount in the atmosphere. Duh And NO ONE said we do, except for right wing hysterics pushing a FALSE DICHOTOMY. All we have to do is use renewable energy sources (and advanced nuclear including fission reactors) INSTEAD of burning fossil fuels. Oh but you are destroying lives. In fact, all this greenie crap does is cause inflation and increased suffering. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Legato Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 2 hours ago, robosmith said: There are MANY renewable energy vehicles on the road, so no need to put another dollar in Muskrat's pocket. Duh The only renewable energy vehicle is this...How many legpower is yours? Quote
Deluge Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 3 hours ago, robosmith said: No NEED to "destroy lives" to "stop CO2 emissions" from INCREASING the amount in the atmosphere. Duh And NO ONE said we do, except for right wing hysterics pushing a FALSE DICHOTOMY. All we have to do is use renewable energy sources (and advanced nuclear including fission reactors) INSTEAD of burning fossil fuels. No, what we need to do is stick all climate change activists in an echo chamber and watch them scream at each other. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 7 Author Report Posted May 7 30 minutes ago, Deluge said: No, what we need to do is stick all climate change activists in an echo chamber and watch them scream at each other. Oh, they are already doing that. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: Oh but you are destroying lives. In fact, all this greenie crap does is cause inflation and increased suffering. "Does nothing." LMAO "Greenie crap" is cheaper than fossil fuel power in many places. Maybe not your Siberian Tundra. At the very least it ALWAYS exposes YOUR IGNORANCE and the FACT that you've NEVER READ a peer reviewed climate science journal in your life. You probably don't even know where to find one. LMAO OTOH, I've been to the UCSD Library many times to do research. It's the building shaped like a mushroom in case you're wondering. Here's a clue for you: they have subscriptions to the vast majority of science journals. 💡 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 7 Author Report Posted May 7 31 minutes ago, robosmith said: "Does nothing." LMAO "Greenie crap" is cheaper than fossil fuel power in many places. Prove it. And if it's subsidized, that has to be calculated into the total cost. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 4 hours ago, Legato said: The only renewable energy vehicle is this...How many legpower is yours? No one else drives ^what you're driving. Quote
Fluffypants Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 Liberals you got Australia and Canada willing to double down on stupid over an American President you should move their they are obviously liberal utopias. Quote
robosmith Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Prove it. And if it's subsidized, that has to be calculated into the total cost. 81% Of Renewables Offer Cheaper Energy Than Fossil ... Forbes https://www.forbes.com › Innovation › Sustainability Sep 26, 2024 — The world added 473 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity last year, and four-fifths of it produces power more cheaply than fossil fuels ... Green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, a new study finds Science News Explores https://www.snexplores.org › article › green-energy-che... Jan 20, 2023 — Switching over to clean, renewable power — and away from fossil fuels — could save trillions of dollars by 2050, a new study finds. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 8 Author Report Posted May 8 Actually, LNG is by far the cheapest form of energy: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024/executive-summary Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
gatomontes99 Posted May 8 Author Report Posted May 8 Federal Subsidies for Renewable Energy More Than Doubled Since 2016 US Revenues from Fossil Fuels, Responsible for $138 Billion Annually And here is the rub. @robosmith thinks it is cheaper to use "green" energy but uses data that counts the cost of fossil after tax and the cost of green without subsidies. Its not a fair comparison. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 (edited) 5 hours ago, Fluffypants said: Liberals you got Australia and Canada willing to double down on stupid over an American President you should move their they are obviously liberal utopias. No, it's you CONS who are doubling down on fascism because you believe Trump has a lock on the dictatorship, but we're not letting go of democracy EVER and the blow back is going to have RepubliCONS wandering in the desert out of power for DECADES because the voters won't trust them with power for that long. Edited May 8 by robosmith Quote
Aristides Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 Greenhouse gasses trap heat and now the sun is producing more heat for them to trap. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 8 Author Report Posted May 8 10 hours ago, Aristides said: Greenhouse gasses trap heat and now the sun is producing more heat for them to trap. Actually, according to NASA, a hotter son means less CO² and that means the end of humanity. So, maybe we need more to extend the livable timeline on planet earth. Although, 1 billion years from now does kind of sound like not my problem. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.