| Pages:
1
..
86
87
88
89
90
..
111 |
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9333
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by surabi  | JZ- Calling attention to predictions that didn't unfold exactly as stated is the idiot's deflection response to discussing things that are happening,
factually, right now.
How many times are you going to post a link to that Leonard Nimoy video? It speaks to the paucity of available information to bolster your opinions
that you can't find anything new to try to debunk and trot out the same old thing endlessly.
[Edited on 11-3-2023 by surabi] |
Listen to the video. Especially around the six minute mark. They are saying all the same things you are now, but in reverse.
He's got a guy on there who says it is his life's mission to study the climate. He says we have just ended a period of wariness and have started into
an Ice age.
You aren't changing global climate. Focus on more achievable things like improving air quality and other pollution, providing energy at a lower cost,
etc. EVs have a big role to play, just not the way you think.
Also push for the use of nuclear. Stop trying to scare ppl to win votes!
[Edited on 11-3-2023 by JZ]
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5835
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
How the next Ice Age might start
I remember hearing this theory in the mid 70s, but back then the focus was on the northern hemisphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55663444
This is not my mantra, just pointing out more "science"!
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
You continually make the case that no matter how ineffective it will be we must sacrifice and try to do something. I can't argue with the try to do
something part.
That said sacrifice is the least effective and far from the only thing that we can do. We have the ability to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching
the earth today. In fact papers have been published that warn that the increased number of satellites reentering the atmosphere may already be
starting to do exactly that.
Why then is sacrifice the first choice rather than technology especially when a majority outside the US are willing to do absolutely nothing to solve
the problem except of course to be paid by us?
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9333
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
You can't make this stuff up.
European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say
https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2...
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17401
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Interesting. More evidence that species population (in this case a quasi-pandemic) affected climate prior to the industrial revolution and beginning
of petroleum addiction 
You would have to be a really dumb rube to deny that post-industrial revolution carbon emissions have not affected climate!
[Edited on 11-4-2023 by mtgoat666]
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3257
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Your language characterizes the attitude that leads to people balking at accepting that things have to change and the more people who get on board,
the better.
When you characterize something as a "sacrifice", it conveys that you are painfully giving up something that is of utmost importance in your life.
Changing things about the way we live, the products we are accustomed to consuming, the way we use things, does not equate with "sacrifice". Altering
one's lifestyle doesn't have to be a negative thing.
Sure, at first one might find it less convenient, but once you get used to it, it might result in positive things that you never anticipated.
Take stopping at a charging station to charge your EV. Friends of mine who switched to an EV, rather than feeling irritated that they had to "waste
time" waiting for it to charge or for it to be their turn, started using that time to sit back and relax, listen to a podcast, or read a book they
never used to have time for, take a nap, go through their hundreds of emails and delete and organize them.
When a lot of stores stopped using plastic bags and people had to bring their own reusable bags or buy one, people got used to it pretty quickly. At
first you might go out shopping and forget your bags, but soon new habits were formed- you hung your bags by the front door and remembered to grab
them when you left the house the next time, or had a few extras in the car in case you forgot.
As far as why changing one's habits is the first choice, for one thing, it's something everyone has personal control over, whereas there are much
fewer people who are capable of developing new technologies. So you start with the things you can personally do to make a difference, while being
supportive of those who are developing the new technologies.
Of the 3 "R"s- reduce, reuse, recycle- reduce is first. If we reduce our consumption to start with, asking ourselves "Do I really need this?" then we
don't have to find a way to reuse it when it's no longer fit for the purpose we bought it for, and we don't need to have as many facilities to sort,
transport and melt down or otherwise recycle it.
Reducing our consumption, what you refer to as "sacrifice" is the first key to a healthier environment and to the resources we do have lasting longer.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
It doesn't matter what you call it. It won’t solve the problem. The US shutting down and going to 0 immersions won't solve the problem because
we’re only a small part of a world wide problem which the world won’t solve.
That said we can solve the problem through the appropriate use of technology. The only problem is you and the rest of the human beings are the problem
faction don’t want to solve the problem that way.
Only making sure that most everyone except those in charge settle for less will do for them. Right now as we speak there is a spacecraft on its way
to an minor planet worth more by far than the world’s GDP.
There’s no shortage of opportunity or wealth out there. We need to solve the problems here and move on.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3257
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
"The US shutting down..." ? How dramatic.
Same old shtick with you- Those folks won't cooperate, so it's pointless for us to bother. I might as well throw garbage in my yard, because my
neighbors do.
Of course if the US went to zero emissions it would make a difference. Everything makes a difference. And if we all stopped buying cheap crap made in
China, China's emissions would go down, too.
"The only problem is you and the rest of the human beings are the problem faction don’t want to solve the problem that way.".
The "problem faction"? What a load of crap and where did you get the absurdly erroneous notion that we are against new technologies to help solve the
problems? Of course I support technology that will help lessen our negative impact on the planet. However, technology that has the potential to create
more disaster, like nuclear power plants, are not what we should be investing in. We need to invest in technologies which have the least potential for
harm.
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9333
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
The truth is, she isn't sacrificing anything. I'll stop there.
She expects the rest of us to give up our lives for some govt. declared "Common Good."
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
Technology might create a disaster or it might prevent one. I didn’t say don’t do anything. I said do something that will work. Use the technology
we have to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. That will actually stop the increase and reduce the average temperature. It doesn’t
require the participation of the unwilling either.
Past that it’s happening as we speak. Currently more satellites are burning up on reentry each year. The products of the aluminum being burned up
reflect sunlight back into space. Doing enough of that will stop the increases in temperature buying time for other changes to be made and take
effect..
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3257
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ |
She expects the rest of us to give up our lives for some govt. declared "Common Good."
|
Making a few changes to how we live isn't "giving up your life".
And don't try to put your words in my mouth- "govt. declared Common Good".
The people I hang with do things for the common good because they care about others and the environment, not because the govt. told them to. I know
that may be an alien concept to you, actually caring about something other than yourself.
[Edited on 11-4-2023 by surabi]
[Edited on 11-4-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
Glidergeek
Nomad
Posts: 110
Registered: 9-22-2014
Location: Hesperia Ca
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moody
|
|
Is that palm tree under water yet?
|
|
|
pacificobob
Super Nomad
Posts: 2244
Registered: 4-23-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The argument that "why should the US do anything to mitigate climate damage because other countries aren't doing so." Reminds me of a scenario of not
wanting to bail out a leaking lifeboat because the other occupants are sitting on their hands.
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9333
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by pacificobob | | The argument that "why should the US do anything to mitigate climate damage because other countries aren't doing so." Reminds me of a scenario of not
wanting to bail out a leaking lifeboat because the other occupants are sitting on their hands. |
Maybe change course on foreign policies that have enabled wars around the globe. How much C02 has been put in the atmosphere from them. Probably
more than has been reduced in the US in the last 2 years?
The climate crisis is a grift to distract youth from all their horrendous decisions.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
PB,
The issue at least from my viewpoint isn’t that we shouldn’t do anything. It’s that we should do something that will solve the problem.
What has been proposed won’t, if done unilaterally, won’t materially effect the problem and giving up on improving or even maintaining our
standard of living in the process helps no one.
Those quick to condemn the West for “not doing enough” usually won’t condemn the China-Russia axis for doing worse and usually want money as
compensation.
What we can do unilaterally, that will work is build upon what is already occurring. Reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s has been
proven to do exactly the same thing as reducing the CO2 levels. The difference is everyone must be on board to reduce CO2 enough which is not going to
happen as China alone produces enough CO2 to continue its increasing levels.
There are now papers pointing out that then amount of Aluminum Oxide in the upper atmosphere as a result of increased satellite reentries is beginning
to reflect sunlight which will effect the climate especially if that amount continues to increases.
With temperatures rising it seems that increase should be encouraged as less sunlight definitely won't make it hotter.
Only the US has the ability to cause this increase to happen. If things are really that bad we should act unilaterally.
This buys more time to allow the other green technologies to mature and spread.
[Edited on 11-4-2023 by RFClark]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
Goat,
China has invested billions in sea level military facilities and billions more in nuclear power plants. They are on a course to lead not follow
anyone. They have recently declared local wether data a state secret and ordered the more than 3000 private weather stations off the internet. They
consider StarLink a threat to their security. The current “Dear Leader” wants to be remembered as regaining Taiwan.
There will be a military action with China in the next decade that could go nuclear.
“Dear Leader Jr.” won’t even be noticed!
[Edited on 11-5-2023 by RFClark]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
So Goat,
Are you typing this on a non-chinese computer? If you have an old 8” floppy CPM system that still works please post a picture of it. If not I’ll
bet your computer cost a lot more than a “T”!
FYI, those red hats that make you vomit are made in Carson CA which has not yet been subjugated by the PLA!
[Edited on 11-4-2023 by RFClark]
[Edited on 11-5-2023 by RFClark]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
“Former head of NASA’s climate group issues dire warning on warming”
“For several years, Hansen and Simons have proposed that the recent and ongoing surge in a wide range of global climate indicators—not just
average global temperatures—may be driven in large part by a sharp reduction in tiny sulfuric particles produced by burning shipping fuels and other
fossil fuels, and by other industrial processes.“
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/former-head-of-nasas...
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
Lencho,
The Chinese and Indians do burn a lot of coal. Both are building nuclear plants to fix that. Mostly to help fix their own air quality problems and
save foreign exchange costs buying coal.
The problem is that some of those who post here think Hansen walks on water! That said it is well known and widely ignored that aerosols do reflect
sunlight. Volcanos emit lots of Sulphur compounds as did Sudbury Ontario until the Ontario Government was caught being the largest Acid rain producer
in NA.
All of that sulphur from Sudbury, ships, diesel trucks, power plants, your gas stove and more have been relentlessly persecuted by the Greens. Along
comes Hansen et al saying yes but the faster rise in temperature caused by the “clean air” is probably going to be worse!
The “good news” is we can replace the Sulphur compounds with other compounds like Aluminum Oxide which works better and is far less toxic, that
will get the Greens shorts in a knot too, because that’s “evil weather control!
You just can’t make this stuff up!
[Edited on 11-5-2023 by RFClark]
[Edited on 11-10-2023 by RFClark]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2352
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
Booming solar energy is encroaching on cropland
The rapid spread of solar power plants onto cropland is having increasingly detrimental impacts. Targeted policy and technological solutions are
urgently needed to resolve the tension between renewable energy and food production.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01304-1
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
86
87
88
89
90
..
111 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
