ADVERTISEMENT

Global Climate Changes


Hearing the term "primitive superstition" said by someone who believes in some magical fairy in the sky and that the rapture is coming any day now so we don't have to worry about all this silly climate change for future generations is.... f'n hilarious.

It'll probably take another 50 years, but conservatives will ultimately be dragged kicking and screaming into the correct side of the climate change issue.
 
Hearing the term "primitive superstition" said by someone who believes in some magical fairy in the sky and that the rapture is coming any day now so we don't have to worry about all this silly climate change for future generations is.... f'n hilarious.

It'll probably take another 50 years, but conservatives will ultimately be dragged kicking and screaming into the correct side of the climate change issue.

Again, other than using coal generated electrons to post shit on the internet what are you suggesting we do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailman85
Again, other than using coal generated electrons to post shit on the internet what are you suggesting we do?
Do? Despair Lite. We aren't doing anywhere near enough. And won't. The first time that people saw a coal powered engine pump water our goose was cooked.
 
Again, other than using coal generated electrons to post shit on the internet what are you suggesting we do?

Courage from our policymakers. I mean, there are certainly things I as an individual can do better, and it's something I try to be conscious of the older I get, but the real culprits kind of boils down to about 10 or so companies and the U.S. military.

I mean, B.P. basically coined the term "carbon footprint" as PR to deliberately pass the buck onto the consumer and the individual rather than the corporations. And it was so damn effective (as observed by your post and others). The big uphill battle is we have old-ass politicians who really don't care what things will look like 40-50 years from now, or that hey Jesus is coming back any day now so why bother (and God wouldn't let us seriously harm this planet to begin with, at least that's what Rush Limbaugh was writing about 30 years ago). But just because it's basically an impossible task doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
 
Congrats on complaining and blaming. Here is what I am for:

1) more nuclear
2) carbon capture
3) blocking the sun via sulfur dioxide
4) planting zillions of trees
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Caveman Catfan
So do you agree global warming is a real thing and that transition is necessary? If you do, then we can have a reasonable discussion.

With all due respect, a reasonable discussion can be held "knowing" that global warming is an inflated phenomenon instituted by the left. Not saying that we need to do better to take care of the earth we live on, but getting rid of all the water heaters, gas appliances, and cans of hair spray isn't going to do one thing to help that. And getting rid of coal completely is one of the most asinine thoughts in the history of ever.
 
3) blocking the sun via sulfur dioxide

The “experts” have been caught manipulating numbers multiple times, can’t tell me the weather ten days from now, let alone 10 years from now, and their models and dire claims have continuously been laughably inaccurate.

They still can’t accurately, measurably tell you how the “greenhouse gases” impact the earth.

So if they think pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is going to block the sun, maybe we should stop and ask if they’re using the same climate models that have consistently been wrong in the past.

Unless you’re a sulfur dioxide supplier focused on short term profits and plan to pull all cash out of the company and store it in untouchable trusts like the Sackler family, I see no reason why anyone would support this plan.

Have we progressed as a species when we’re looking for ways to control the sun rather than worshipping it like in the good old days?
 
Courage from our policymakers. I mean, there are certainly things I as an individual can do better, and it's something I try to be conscious of the older I get, but the real culprits kind of boils down to about 10 or so companies and the U.S. military.

I mean, B.P. basically coined the term "carbon footprint" as PR to deliberately pass the buck onto the consumer and the individual rather than the corporations. And it was so damn effective (as observed by your post and others). The big uphill battle is we have old-ass politicians who really don't care what things will look like 40-50 years from now, or that hey Jesus is coming back any day now so why bother (and God wouldn't let us seriously harm this planet to begin with, at least that's what Rush Limbaugh was writing about 30 years ago). But just because it's basically an impossible task doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
It is not so much that is an impossible task. It is more a matter of catastrophic cost and even bigger problems are being perpetrated over a task that is wholly unnecessary. Those most responsible for very real ecological damage are the very ones selling this hoax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
It is amazing that ocean water temperatures are registering over 100 degrees ... !!

That temperature monitor is apparently like being in a shallow swimming pool with a dark liner.

It was over 102 degrees in 2017. Over 100 in 2010.

I assume triple digits going back further, but don’t care to look.
 
That temperature monitor is apparently like being in a shallow swimming pool with a dark liner.

It was over 102 degrees in 2017. Over 100 in 2010.

I assume triple digits going back further, but don’t care to look.
The media is using persuasion techniques to trick us into supporting their agenda.

I want nuclear because I think exhaust makes the air dirty and I want it to be colder because I want to ski more.
 
Last edited:
Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere currently (400ppm)
0.0004​
Human caused CO2 (3.2%)
0.032​
Total
0.0000128​
US Caused CO2 (21%)
0.21​
0.000002688

Causes and Impact of US Caused CO2
Breakout of US Caused CO2 by Source% of US CO2Resulting % of total Human Caused CO2Total Global CO2 by SourceTotal Global CO2 by Source as %
Transportation (28%)
0.28​
0.0588​
0.0000001580544​
0.000016%​
Electric Power (25%)
0.25​
0.0525​
0.0000001411200​
0.000014%​
Industry (23%)
0.23​
0.0483​
0.0000001298304​
0.000013%​
Agriculture (10%)
0.1​
0.021​
0.0000000564480​
0.000006%​
Commercial & Residential (13%)
0.13​
0.0273​
0.0000000733824​
0.000007%​

So if every single car, bus, boat, plane, train, etc in the US was 100% carbon neutral they would improve the overall atmosphere by 0.0000001580544 parts per hundred or .000016%.

So please, explain to me how the hell it makes sense to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on something that will likely never any significant impact on CO2 levels globally. Even if every single source of CO2 in every single country were completely turned to CO2 neutral it would have a .0013% impact on overall CO2 in the atmosphere. This is 100% by the numbers so feel free to shoot holes in the numbers all you want. You can get a 10th of a percentage point here and there but ultimately this is the mathematic view of the issue and tends to put it into perspective for me.
 
Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere currently (400ppm)
0.0004​
Human caused CO2 (3.2%)
0.032​
Total
0.0000128​
US Caused CO2 (21%)
0.21​
0.000002688

Causes and Impact of US Caused CO2
Breakout of US Caused CO2 by Source% of US CO2Resulting % of total Human Caused CO2Total Global CO2 by SourceTotal Global CO2 by Source as %
Transportation (28%)
0.28​
0.0588​
0.0000001580544​
0.000016%​
Electric Power (25%)
0.25​
0.0525​
0.0000001411200​
0.000014%​
Industry (23%)
0.23​
0.0483​
0.0000001298304​
0.000013%​
Agriculture (10%)
0.1​
0.021​
0.0000000564480​
0.000006%​
Commercial & Residential (13%)
0.13​
0.0273​
0.0000000733824​
0.000007%​

So if every single car, bus, boat, plane, train, etc in the US was 100% carbon neutral they would improve the overall atmosphere by 0.0000001580544 parts per hundred or .000016%.

So please, explain to me how the hell it makes sense to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on something that will likely never any significant impact on CO2 levels globally. Even if every single source of CO2 in every single country were completely turned to CO2 neutral it would have a .0013% impact on overall CO2 in the atmosphere. This is 100% by the numbers so feel free to shoot holes in the numbers all you want. You can get a 10th of a percentage point here and there but ultimately this is the mathematic view of the issue and tends to put it into perspective for me.
You appear to believe that trace gases have negligible effect. The background amount of CO2 in the atmosphere -- pre-industrial levels -- was around 280 ppm. It's around 420 ppm today. If we had one year of 420 ppm we wouldn't notice it. But we have the miracle of compound interest. Due to the heat carrying capacity of the oceans, that little unnoticeable increase in temps sticks around. A little more each year. That warmer water expands. It congregates at the poles and melts ice. It works its way between rock and ice in Antarctica and melts a continent from underneath. It reduces the difference in temps in the North Atlantic so that the natural tendency of water to overturn into the deep (AMOC) slows down. That overturning helps spread heat to northern latitudes. That circulation brings nutrients north for North Atlantic fisheries. The warmer water produces unexpected massive rainfalls and exacerbates droughts. But it does that largely because of the sizeable difference between Arctic water and equatorial water. When that gap narrows, the overturning slows down.

That tiny little 140 ppm of CO2. You can't feel it immediately, but you can measure it. And overtime that has meant 1.4C-1.5C global increase in average temps. Science has lots of facets, but one important one is to check your work. There was a scientist who shared your view that temps hadn't increased as other scientists claimed -- Richard Muller -- so he set about to make his own dataset. After years of work, the results were in: Muller's record tracked the other data sets so closely that today they're virtually identical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
All of this talk about how hot the weather is right now reminds me of this…

In 1988 Al Gore & Tim Wirth organized the infamous Hansen Hearings…a congressional hearing on global warming. The hearing that day was carefully stage-managed to present a bit of political theater, as was later explained by Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO), who served alongside Gore in the Senate and, like Gore, was also interested in the topic of global warming…

We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room.”
 
Worldwide coal usage soared to record levels last year even as the US and Europe cut their use by double digits. We are incurring trillions of expense in a race be "green" while China, India, Russia, etc. laugh.

Chinese can’t laugh because the coal smog is so strong. No one should be envious of coal. It’s the dirtiest form of energy and causes huge health problems and kills many each year
 
Chinese can’t laugh because the coal smog is so strong. No one should be envious of coal. It’s the dirtiest form of energy and causes huge health problems and kills many each year
And, yet, third world countries desire to bring energy to their people to save lives and first world hypocrisy attempts to stop them.
 
Chinese can’t laugh because the coal smog is so strong. No one should be envious of coal. It’s the dirtiest form of energy and causes huge health problems and kills many each year
China is laughing all the way to the bank. They continue to use the cheapest/dirtiest forms of energy that they can. They are the worlds biggest polluter. Then they get rich selling US/Europe the minerals, batteries and solar panels needed for our "clean energy". Maybe we should reconsider nuclear power and keep our cleaner domestic natural gas generation (half the carbon of coal) for the next several decades.
 
Last edited:
F2JJMfWWsAkhTT8
 
False.

Science is a wonderful process of learning and discovery. Sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. History is full of well established scientific conclusions that later proved to need reconsideration. Many of which weren't as complex and politically corrupted as climate change.

To say "science is true" is a kind of religious arrogance. Any scientist who believes this should know better. It may make them and their ignorant followers feel smart, but they look stupid.
 
I always wondered
False.

Science is a wonderful process of learning and discovery. Sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. History is full of well established scientific conclusions that later proved to need reconsideration. Many of which weren't as complex and politically corrupted as climate change.

To say "science is true" is a kind of religious arrogance. Any scientist who believes this should know better. It may make them and their ignorant followers feel smart, but they look stupid.

I was always really good at physics (the common sense, high school variety). Made perfect sense and seemed provable. Then they told me "oh yeah, you know all that Newtonian Physics you were good at? Well, there's actually this guy Einstein who has proven that gravity is a curvature in a 4-dimensional space-time fabric proportional to object masses. Moreover, gravity is more of a push rather than a pull." Thanks man, I'm out on this. F Science.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Caveman Catfan
Worldwide coal usage soared to record levels last year even as the US and Europe cut their use by double digits. We are incurring trillions of expense in a race be "green" while China, India, Russia, etc. laugh.


Apparently coal is only bad when we use it. Not bad when others use it
 
Hearing the term "primitive superstition" said by someone who believes in some magical fairy in the sky and that the rapture is coming any day now so we don't have to worry about all this silly climate change for future generations is.... f'n hilarious.

It'll probably take another 50 years, but conservatives will ultimately be dragged kicking and screaming into the correct side of the climate change issue.
Republicans huh? If CC exist...please tell me how you are going to "drag" your CCP Lord's, India and others to the "correct" side, and why do "your Gods" keep buying ocean front property with restrictions against windmills , fly everywhere in private jets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
China is laughing all the way to the bank. They continue to use the cheapest/dirtiest forms of energy that they can. They are the worlds biggest polluter. Then they get rich selling US/Europe the minerals, batteries and solar panels needed for our "clean energy". Maybe we should reconsider nuclear power and keep our cleaner domestic natural gas generation (half the carbon of coal) for the next several decades.
Makes too much sense and doesn't give them the POWER they crave.
 
I always wondered


I was always really good at physics (the common sense, high school variety). Made perfect sense and seemed provable. Then they told me "oh yeah, you know all that Newtonian Physics you were good at? Well, there's actually this guy Einstein who has proven that gravity is a curvature in a 4-dimensional space-time fabric proportional to object masses. Moreover, gravity is more of a push rather than a pull." Thanks man, I'm out on this. F Science.
Gravity, separating the men from the boys. Still having its way with physicists and the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
There is a psy op going on right now re: climate change. This summer isn't that much different than others. But CNN is acting like we're in the 7th circle of hell.

It isn't even hotter at all. They used cherry picked data saying it was. They were called out on it and retracted that stance, not that it stops the perpetual echo chamber
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
Congrats on complaining and blaming. Here is what I am for:

1) more nuclear
2) carbon capture
3) blocking the sun via sulfur dioxide
4) planting zillions of trees
Back in 1988, if everyone had gotten on board with nuclear to stem AGW and we now had enough nuclear power plants to produce all of our power, how many new nuclear plants would we have?

I don't know the answer here but I suspect the number would be huge. We produced 4.25 terawatts of energy in 2022. The average nuclear power plant produces 1 gigawatt of energy. So, that looks like 4250 nuclear power plants. That's a "cocktail napkin" analysis that I've just done while writing this comment. There are currently 92 nuclear plants in the US so that looks like we'd need around 45 times the current number of nuclear power plants. A nuclear plant costs around $6-$9 billion dollars to build. So, round up the price and shave a little off the number of plants and around $25 trillion to switch to nukes. That price doesn't include the cost of nuclear waste disposal or the increased costs to produce nuclear fuel and to guard the supply chain to keep the material out of the hands of non-state actors. Or the cost to produce the water necessary for that number of new plants. I'm just pointing out that we can't snap our fingers and have it done.

We may hit 1.5C of warming above the 19th century this year or next. We'll have jumped around 0.15C in 2 years by next summer. Some of that is El Nino. At 2C of warming above 19th century levels a lot of co2 sinks -- things that naturally absorb co2 -- become co2 sources. The land and sea will become sources of CO2 simply due to atmospheric temperature. So, we have to rein in warming to less than 0.5C more before our problems become qualitatively different.

Given our typical divides over COVID, treason, sexual orientation, and Russian imperialism (for starters) I'd like to see a show of hands on whether they believe we'll band together to defeat AGW.. And that doesn't include the people who think we can -- and should -- force God's hand to bring about the end of the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
You mean this board, right?

If you mean those that only repeat the popular message. One group of people use rational and logical thought to debate issues and offer reasonable solutions.

The other just blindly repeat the same claims over and over. The same claims that had the world ending in 2000 and various points after. The same claims scientists were busted making up, when we saw their emails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
If you mean those that only repeat the popular message. One group of people use rational and logical thought to debate issues and offer reasonable solutions.

The other just blindly repeat the same claims over and over. The same claims that had the world ending in 2000 and various points after. The same claims scientists were busted making up, when we saw their emails.
So, I'm guessing you're not on board with helping to end AGW.
 
With all due respect, a reasonable discussion can be held "knowing" that global warming is an inflated phenomenon instituted by the left. Not saying that we need to do better to take care of the earth we live on, but getting rid of all the water heaters, gas appliances, and cans of hair spray isn't going to do one thing to help that. And getting rid of coal completely is one of the most asinine thoughts in the history of ever.
The science behind AGW was first pointed out in the 19th century. Kerry Emmanuel at MIT would also be surprised to discover that he's left wing. Ditto Richard Muller of Berkeley. And thermometers. I don't think thermometers are particularly political.
 
Never really understood the anger and frustration this topic occasionally brings out in people. There are alarmists who'll say one thing and then it doesn't happen. And yet, there are folks who decided to take a stance decades ago and nothing will change their view now. Stubbornness, we all have it. I tend to believe the Earth is warming but that we're not all going to burn up within a hundred years. I'm unsure if we play a big part in this progression or if it's just Earth doing it's own thing, and in 500 years there could be a slight cooling period. It's a topic where everyone circles the wagons though, since each side gets to provide graphs to support their claims.

The alarmists do hurt the discussion but so do the folks who decided long ago that this is another conspiracy, another con that hurts them. Once you accept that as your view, then nothing is changing your mind, I don't care if we have the hottest summer on record for the next twenty years. Both sides have dug in now.
 
So, I'm guessing you're not on board with helping to end AGW.

This is a variation of your go-to bs strawman. The foundational strawman is "so you don't want to save the planet?"

Everyone agrees we should do the best we possibly can. The fact your group can't discuss the issues without strawman or other fallacies
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
Never really understood the anger and frustration this topic occasionally brings out in people. There are alarmists who'll say one thing and then it doesn't happen. And yet, there are folks who decided to take a stance decades ago and nothing will change their view now. Stubbornness, we all have it. I tend to believe the Earth is warming but that we're not all going to burn up within a hundred years. I'm unsure if we play a big part in this progression or if it's just Earth doing it's own thing, and in 500 years there could be a slight cooling period. It's a topic where everyone circles the wagons though, since each side gets to provide graphs to support their claims.

The alarmists do hurt the discussion but so do the folks who decided long ago that this is another conspiracy, another con that hurts them. Once you accept that as your view, then nothing is changing your mind, I don't care if we have the hottest summer on record for the next twenty years. Both sides have dug in now.
Humans are in a warmer planet that they've ever known. So, there's grave uncertainty about our future. Why? Food and water. Society after society have vanished because of drought and crop failures. That isn't alarmism. That's our past. Around seven years ago 3 of the 4 largest wheat producers all had huge crop failures. That wasn't accidental. Our population hasn't shrunk in the interim. One of the consequences will be a huge increase in refugees. And we all know how welcome refugees are.

"Alarmist" is just a pejorative term to justify doing nothing. The IPCC has never been alarmist. It's often criticized for being too cautious.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT