And climate scientists are aware of what has driven climate change in the past so if you're not going to explain how what has driven climate in the past is driving it now this whole "the climate is always changing" is just a cop-out.
@Ad_Quid_Orator OK, regardless of what we do the climate will always change. Maybe we do have some effect on the climate but think of the Earth as a healing organism.It is not a cop out to recognize that Earth goes through phases that may last thounsands or millions of years. I am not saying that our activities have no effect- they very much do. But the things is that pretty much everything we do will have some effect on the climate; more cars, more land for agriculture , more construction, more energy usage. There is no perfect solution - even renewable energy sources ( i. e. solar, geothermal, tidal, etc ) have their drawbacks.The only way for us to stop effecting the Earth is would be for all of us to die out- and even then it would take the planet at leats 100,000 years to wipe out what we left behind.
"It is not a cop out to recognize that Earth goes through phases that may last thounsands or millions of years." but it is to use that to argue against a rapid change over the course of ~100 years. And there is no perfect solution but there are sustainability thresholds.
thanks for the MHO!
Ty for mho! :)
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Thanos, please spare me!
People don’t care because they think ‘not in our lifetime’ but if we don’t try to prevent it, the world could cease to exist by 2050 or so newspapers say
Or big things, like fuck coal power and make some more efficient nuclear power plants. *Looks at china who has the largest coal industry in the worls*.
I also think capitalist systems with a strong market-driven economy, driven by competitive market forces, are more likely to innovate solutions in the private sector to these worldwide problems than centrally-controlled economies in the public sector. I put more stock in like an Elon Musk type to come up with something, even if he's largely motivated by profits than a Nicolás Maduro or Kim Jong-un let alone Trump. The only exception I make is during wartime and crisis, where people absent market forces might innovate their way to a way to survive absent market forces and economic incentives.
I saw someone posting who they think is the countries that generate the most pollution, not going to search for it again but here is a list it may be from 2015 but still shows who really generates pollution1. China 6.59 tons carbon emissions per capita2. USA 15.53 tons carbon emissions per capita3 India 1.53 tons carbon emissions per capita4. Russia 10.19 tons carbon emissions per capita
Actually the thermal stratification of the atmosphere (warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere) indicates that the warming is due to a greenhouse effect.
Then why have CO2 levels been out of sync with global temperature across millenia?
Because back then other factors were driving climate patterns.
Then focusing on CO2 would be misplaced
No, because the aforementioned pattern of warming is consistent with a greenhouse effect.
There are many cyclic patterns that have driven the Earths' climate. Think of it like adding a bunch of sin wave functions with different amplitudes and wavelengths together. No one factor is going to be in sync with the climate and its impact can only be teased out by a Fourier transform. But if instead of going in a wave pattern, one of those variables begins to increase linearly, eventually it will overtake the other cycles as the main driver of climate change and the temperature will more closely correlate with it.
What do we do to stop global climate change? End the UN.
How do you figure that it's a hoax?
@Ad_Quid_Orator The Marxist left has admitted it's a hoax.
@Ad_Quid_Orator The earth has heated and cooled for thousands of years on end. Let me ask you, if they tax the crap out of you, who's are they going to pay that money to in order to remedy it? Do you think mother nature accepts cash or credit? Then ask yourself why would they tax the hell out of everybody? It's about redistributing wealth IE Marxism socialism, that's why.
The Earth has heated and cooled but climate scientists have tracked those changes and have employed Fourier transforms to find out what was driving those changes and they can't find anything that impacted climate in the past that is warming it now. Not only that, the thermal stratification of the atmosphere is characteristic of a greenhouse effect. The lower atmosphere is getting warmer while the upper atmosphere is getting cooler. This is because greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earths' surface warming it while not reaching the upper atmosphere making it cooler. And we can tax fossil fuels and put that toward renewable energy so less greenhouse gases wind up in the atmosphere. And that's not Marxism, that's just cleaning up your shit.
@Ad_Quid_Orator If you think for one second that renewable energy is sustainable you need to talk to those that know differently. And if pollution is a problem and taxing it will help, then your talking about taxing the wrong countries. One of the countries that least contributing more to pollution happens to be the US. If taxing it will fix the problems, go tax Mexico and south of the border, tax India and China, not the country that has the least to do with it that being the US.
It isn't sustainable NOW which is why we're investing in R&D to make it sustainable genius.
@Ad_Quid_Orator It will always involve the use petroleum products to make your green energy devices etc etc with. And so it will never be sustainable, either, genius.
Petroleum based parts can be recycled dumbass; you can't do that when using it as fuel (at least not without defeating the purpose).
@Ad_Quid_Orator I don't need a lecture on petroleum, dumbass. I've lived around it worked with it all my life. And it takes petroleum to recycle it, too.
It takes energy to recycle petroleum products and if said energy is obtained from an alternate source, that's not an issue. And either way if we are using it to make parts for renewables instead of burning it the petroleum reserves are going to last a lot longer.
I mean we can even synthesize alkanes in a lab. We can't use this for energy because it takes as much energy to make as you get out (well more if you factor in the second law) but if you're getting your energy from elsewhere and using the petroleum to make plastics this isn't an issue.
We already have it... does it need to be written out? Its pretty evident unless you're an idiot. Research some more
No we don't, people can have as many children as they want, at least in Europe.I see families with 3+ children quite commonly. They aren't all just twins.If ever family was limited to 2 children then the population wouldn't go up, in theory.In practice it still rises however.
Oh you live in Europe. Thats why it dosnt make sense.Ok that is different then compared to US
BUT we are responsible for the increase because the carbon dioxide released by the biosphere gets re-absorbed by it.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Levels of carbon dioxide have varied throughout the history of this planet. BUT - why don´t the environmentalists protest against deforestation of the Amazonas? Rain forests especially absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, and deforestation is the single most important factor in the tiny percentag of increasing levels that´s caused by humans.
And of course, overpopulation of the world.
And we know what has driven carbon dioxide levels in the past so unless you're going to explain what factors that have driven carbon dioxide levels in the past are driving it now, this "carbon dioxide levels have varied in the past" argument is just a cop out. And I don't know where you've been but most environmentalists also oppose the deforestation of the Amazon.
@Ad_Quid_Orator What about the levels during the Cretatious period? The highest they have ever been. Did the dinos fart too much?
The problem with farting is methane release, not carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide in the cretaceous period was absorbed and turned into lipids by algae which upon dying, sank into anoxic basins where decomposition rates were very low. There it got buried and pressure cooked to become oil. There was a big stagnant (anoxic) basin in the Tethys Ocean which is why there is so much oil in the Middle East. But what makes climate change dangerous is not how much it changes but the rate at which it changes.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Are you aware the average temps on earth were WAY higher than now? They also were in The Bronze Age, when Scandinavia had a mediterranean climate. Guess Bronze Age people used too many plastic straws.
Actually, it was more comparable to Germany and northern France but (ignoring for the moment that you're talking about regional scale variability and what we're experiencing now is global) climate scientists have studied climate variability in the past and are aware of what has driven it. So unless you can explain how factors that have driven climate change in the past are driving it now this whole "the climate changed in the past" argument is just a cop-out and all it debunks is the notion that you have any clue about how people study climate patterns.
@Ad_Quid_Orator There is no scientifically valid proof that humans affected climate at all.
You mean except the correlation between the increase in carbon dioxide and global temperature along with the lack of any other forces acting on the climate that can explain the recent trend (if you're going to pull that "correlation doesn't equal causation")?
@Ad_Quid_Orator That´s a big lie. Rises in temperature are driven by changes in sun activitity. The rain forests, on the other hand is a real concern, and not only of regional importance. The sun´s activity has increased a lot over the last few centuries, and that has nothing to do with humans.
Wrong, solar activity peaked in the mid 20th century and now it's decreasing:www.technocracy.news/.../
And if the sun was the cause the stratosphere would be warming faster than the troposphere but the stratosphere is cooling which is what you'd expect from a greenhouse effect.
Because greenhouse gasses trap IR radiation released from the surface preventing it from reaching the stratosphere.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Wrong. It has incresed from the 80s and on according to some sources. You are making yourself useful idiot to the extreme left, which are the once promoting the climite change narrative. Many of the scientists they (and you) refer to are heavily politically invested.
Oh really, which sources and how do they explain the stratosphere getting cooler while the troposphere getting warmer? If these sources can't explain this pattern then you're a moron if you think solar activity is causing climate change. I guess reality has a liberal bias.
The population is the main problem.I'd rather have 3 billion people living in relative luxury, rather than 10 billion struggling for resources.
@A-man-22 luxury is probably different to everyone
Yeah like most things, it is subjective.Personally I think luxuries are:Expensive machines (cars, air conditioning, ect)Manufactured unnecessary goods ( toys, accessories, toiletries ect)Non renewable fuelThings some people would class as luxury that I class as necessary:MeatClothesLow emission transport
@A-man-22 I consider being healthy, feed, in a relationship with warmth a luxury
You're right. We'd largely have to go back to not having electricity, refrigeration, cars, manufacturing, etc. Or we'd have to have significantly more expensive sources for power. Money rules people.
Or give them aid in the form of education and birth control.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Which has been working great the last 50 years, right? Except those 3rd world countries all exploded in population - but somehow europeans and north americans need to be less people. Smart stuff.
Europeans and North Americans need more people but no we haven't been trying to educate people about birth control in the third world.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I'm out. You are clearly spouting nonsense and got no clue. What you say is what we have been doing for at least 20 years.
Nuclear power is both a safer bet but also much more efficient than anything solar, wind or water power can give.
They should makes laws on having a limit of one child in countries like China and Africa and all those overpopulated countries
U mean cut down on racist pricks like u. I’m for it👍
Wow you're such a good person. So virutuous.Just kill yourself.
Lol u first. In fact I’ll give u the gun ok👍 then u can go to hell where u belong ok. Thanks! 🙏appreciated.
I would appreciate you'd learn some grammar first.Second, ladies first.Third, I'm on the right, you're wrong.
“I’m on the right, you’re wrong” yeah good grammar genius.
You're not fooling anybody. You're still wrong.