Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2023, 09:13 PM
 
8,735 posts, read 6,657,018 times
Reputation: 8454

Advertisements

Even the oil companies acknowledge the human role in climate change. And the sum total of the entire scientific world minus some paid stooges is unified on this point.

At this point literally nobody with both information/intelligence and ethics debates this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2023, 05:53 AM
 
Location: Central CT, sometimes FL and NH.
4,476 posts, read 6,725,202 times
Reputation: 5882
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina View Post
Emission cuts alone won't stop climate change, but every step counts. We have to take the first step so the next steps can follow.
Saving forests is a great next step. Goals for a sustainable development should be set. Reducing waste and recycling. Investing in renewable energy. Switching to sustainable transport.
Etc...
I agree with you. Personal conservationism is the key to true change. It requires an attitudinal and behavioral change. It also requires a public marketing and reimaging campaign that convinces people that less is more, environmentalism and conservationism is cool, their moral responsibility, etc.

One of the biggest challenges is that reduced usage runs counter to our economic structure which is dependent on growth and consumerism. The minute that people start buying and using less, our economy slows down and the layoffs begin, the stock market tanks, and pressure builds on the government leaders to find a way to get people money to spend to start buying "stuff" to get thing growing again! It is hard to get people on board to conserve and use less if the result is that they lose their job and have less money in their pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2023, 01:00 PM
 
8,735 posts, read 6,657,018 times
Reputation: 8454
Not necessarily. People can still spend on experiences for example. Instead of replacing the eight-year-old couch maybe go to a few games or eat better food. The money would still cycle through the economy the same way.

There's also benefit to saving for the broader economy (and the personal one!), though a savings trend does tend to be a short-term headwind for the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2023, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,032,834 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina View Post
Emission cuts alone won't stop climate change, but every step counts.
The only thing that will stop climate change is the total destruction of the Earth.

If there were 50,000 people on Earth right now living in caves with zero technology the sea levels will rise 4 meters to 14 meters and temperatures will increase 7.5° to 15.2° F.

And there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2023, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,032,834 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
Can you show scientific evidence of this? I had read that this summer was the hottest in global record.
That record is not a record. It's propaganda.

In every Inter-Glacial Period the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted almost in its entirety causing sea levels to rise at least 4-6 meters just from that alone.

What Romans loved most was English wine. Yeah, 2000 years ago it was so warm in England they had vineyards all over southern England.

I was at RAF Greenham Common doing the nuclear thing and we went on one of those Roman tours and saw the remnants of the vineyards they had.

Aren't you curious to know what your own government says?

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

While that is the State of Utah, this is your pseudo-federal government:

Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/

You wanna know what is truly "unprecedented" and "abnormal" and "unusual"?

This is the coldest Inter-Glacial Period with the lowest sea levels in the last 800,000 years.

Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2023, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,032,834 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Your conclusion is correct but your stated data is probably exaggerated.
Then you need to tell the United States government and the Kingdom of Denmark to stop exaggerating.

Maybe if they stop exaggerating other governments will stop so's you don't have to send nastygrams to them to stop exaggerating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
The fact of the matter is that climate change, like +4-6F is going to happen by the next 1-200 years.
And that is true whether humans exist or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
That's why any sort of geoengineering to stop it is horrible..
No, that is not why.

Any attempt to geo-engineer will result in a civil war to stop it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2023, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,032,834 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
The earth has been evolving and changing for 4.5 billion years.
And we think we can change it ?
There are some very sick people in this world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
We can adapt to the changes but I don't think we can stop the changes.
Warmer temperatures are beneficial. Ask the dinosaurs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2023, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,032,834 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Even the oil companies acknowledge the human role in climate change.
That isn't quite true. You've been lied to.

Since you weren't alive in the 1970s you don't remember His Supreme Excellency the Majestic Royal Highness Governor-General-Colonel Grand Imperial Kleagle Wizard President Emperor-for-Life Doctor Carl Sagan dada standing on Jimmy Carter's desk in the Offal Office screaming that glaciers would be rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue if Carter didn't do something right this minute!

Sagan was wrong, of course, just like the pompous ass was wrong about a great many things and even worse he lied about things like nuclear winter and it was probably because he was a dope-smoking fiend.

You do understand that if we have another mini-Ice Age at least 2 Billion people on this Earth will die, right?

No, I didn't stutter. 2 Billion people will die. At least. I would put it at 3-4 Billion.

Why?

Well, your government already uses/used the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, mercenaries, agents provocateur and the CIA to overthrow governments and steal all oil, natural gas, coal, rubber, iron, nickel, aluminum, rare earth minerals/metals and coffee, chocolate, sugar cane, bananas and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Plus steal 100% of the profits (because US companies commit fraud and devalue their assets to avoid paying taxes or the paltry 8% profit royalty owed under the treaties).

If you think West Africans are gonna fall on their swords and keep growing coffee, chocolate and sugar cane so's you can drink lattes and eat candy while the starve to death you better think again.

They'll plow under those fields and start growing food crops.

And then the Army will go and steal it all.

Your life will be a living hell. Food will be rationed and if you have at least one part-time wage earner in your household it will be a banner day and all of your income will go to rent and food.

And heat.

During the mini-Ice Age the growing season for everything above 40°N/40*°S was 6 weeks. That's basically everything north of I-80 in the US.

For 30°N/30°S to 40°N/40°S the growing season was 10 weeks.

Crop yields were drastically reduced which is one reason why the 100+ New England Colonies merged into one giant super-Colony called the Dominion for a few years before breaking up into smaller colonies and then the colonies we know and love.

I'm guessing you don't farm. You take a 2 pound sledgehammer and a 4' standar rebar rod out into the fields and hit the rebar with the sledgehammer.

If it goes 2 inches into the soil you can clear your fields and plant. If not, you'll have to wait until the ground thaws.

Ain't no technology on this Earth gonna save you.

Which brings us to Exxon, formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey.

If there's gonna be glaciers rumbling down Pennsylvania Avenue like His Supreme Excellency the Majestic Royal Highness Governor-General-Colonel Grand Imperial Kleagle Wizard President Emperor-for-Life Doctor Carl Sagan dada says there will be, the oil companies need to know that.

Yes, they have pumps that can work in arctic/cold weather conditions but the normal pumps don't so they'd have to be modified/weatherized at great cost and expense.

The colder it gets the more viscous oil gets making it harder to flow through pipelines so you have to add chemicals which costs even more.

At the processing facility (not the same thing as a refinery) you have to remove the water/sea-water, and particulate matter like dinosaur bones and heavy metals like Uranium, Vanadium, Nickel and Mercury plus the chemicals which costs more.

That was the 1970s and there were Millions of homes heated by oil. Ours was. Are you going to be able to get them enough oil?

Remember, all oils are not created equally.

The rest of the world has the Dom Perignon of oils and you got the Mad 20/20 of oils with a little Thunderbird and Boone's farm thrown in.

Canadian Tar Sands = 3-4 gallons of gasoline
California Heavy/Oklahoma Heavy = 9 gallons of gasoline.
Illinois Intermediate = 13 gallons gasoline
West Texas Intermediate = 19 gallons gasoline
Brent Blend = 21 gallons gasoline
Tijuana Light =24 gallons gasoline
Arab Light = 26 gallons gasoline
Murban = 29 gallons gasoline.

Green River Shale?

ZERO gallons gasoline. Like most shale oils that you're fracking away destroying everything it has no C8H18 (that's Octane aka gasoline).

Diesels, kerosenes and fuel oils are the same way. You need #1 fuel oil mixed with #2 fuel oil (which is not the same as #1 diesel and #2 diesel).

So, Exxon hires scientists to see if this global cooling thing is real and they report no it isn't and not only will it not cool but temperatures might actually rise.

How accurate were they?

63% to 83%.

When I taught Intro to International Relations and Intro to Foreign Policy and US Foreign Policy students who scored 63% got an F and 83% got a C.

So, no, Exxon did not get an A or B.

Why 63% to 83%?

Their short-range projections were more accurate than their long range projections.

As the scientists discovered, modeling climate is really, really complicated.

That's attorney work product or proprietary info and Exxon had no legal, moral or ethical duty to disclose it.

Global warming is preferable to global cooling and there's no harm.

Earth is warm and wet or cold and dry but never in its history has Earth been warm and dry or cold and wet.

That's because water vapor is the driver of climate and not CO2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top