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.
Pardon me for interjecting here, but the crazy North Korea guy is regularly blowing up ballistic missiles into the Pacific Ocean. I looked up the meaning of ballistic. It's not good. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't even care about people never mind the environment, then there's all the rest of it. I've read that these electric cars that the current president is pushing has parts that are necessary and made ONLY in China. It's nice that we as Americans are trying as individuals to be conscious of the environment and be as grateful and respectful as we can, but we are NOT the problem and the present United States government trying to control our every move is CERTAINLY not the solution.
Pardon me for interjecting here, but the crazy North Korea guy is regularly blowing up missiles into the Pacific Ocean, the Chinese Communist Party doesn't even care about people never mind the environment, then there's all the rest of it. I've heard that these electric cars that the current president is pushing has parts that are necessary and made ONLY in China. It's nice that we as Americans are trying as individuals to be conscious of the environment and be as grateful and respectful as we can, but we are NOT the problem and the present United States government trying to control our every move is CERTAINLY not the solution.
My view entirely. Who can fault the Fourth Grade Civics class mentality of "we as Americans are trying as individuals to be conscious of the environment and be as grateful and respectful as we can." Or "we have to start somewhere" even if it's unnecessary or futile.
...we are NOT the problem and the present United States government trying to control our every move is CERTAINLY not the solution.
Okay... The issue that we're discussing in this thread, is human activity's emissions contribution to the natural collecting of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which over time amplifies global warming, and thereby climate change effects. It's not about a "problem", or a "solution"- it's just simply, we should be doing what we can to do less and less of the thing which we can clearly see is affecting our planet and environment in an undesired way, and which has the potential to accelerate in the future, if unchecked.
"Trying to control our every move"... I'm not sure what that is specifically referring to, but you seem to have conflated this particular, narrowly-focused topic, with something else. There are lots of things that the government shouldn't be doing- I agree with that sentiment. But the regulation and protection of the environment and emissions into the air, is something that the government should be doing. Steering/guiding towards a sensible long-term goal of sustainability of our one and only planet we call home, is something that is definitely the place of government, if government exists at all. For all of capitalism's strengths, it tends also to be myopic, especially towards this type of thing.
For all of capitalism's strengths, it tends also to be myopic, especially towards this type of thing.
One can deduce that you've never run a business....Capitalism is anything but myopic. It runs by the rule "Don't kill the goose that lays the Golden Eggs."
Take forestry, for example. One hundred and seventy y/a, it seemed like our forest s were endless. After 50 yrs of disregard, they finally caught on and started sustainable techniques, and by a century ago foresters were among the most environmentally conscious and friendly among us...Similar course in the steel industry, etc.
Now, it looks like those advocates of Unreliable Energy & EVs arre among those who have the least regard for the environment. I used to ask what resource is in danger of being depleted in the next 200 yrs? Nobody ever came up with an answer (except for petroleum)....Now with The Green New Deal mentality, we see copper, Ni, Li and other metals all heading that list....and most of those are open pit mined by slave labor. Not at all good for the environment and not sustainable.
BTW-- Mother nature is a capitalist. She is constantly encouraging new start ups (mutations) and hoping at least some succeed (natural selection).
In reference to China as major supplier of so much material & equipment required for The Green New deal, without getting into the politics nor the criminology of it all, it's downright stupid from the strategic point of view....Anyone care to bet who our opponent in the next World War is going to be?...But take heart. With China as our source of energy and equipment, that war won't take long to settle....
...Are The Puppeteers running things now for Senile Joe myopic, or is it part of The Plan?
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has been exposed as a climate hypocrite using his private jet even amid his climate change activism.
In 2022, July & August, just two months, for instance, Zuckerberg’s jet created a carbon footprint that was 15 times larger than the average American’s annual carbon output.
In that two-month period, Zuckerberg’s Gulfstream G650 has burned up more than $158,000 worth of jet fuel.
One can deduce that you've never run a business....Capitalism is anything but myopic. It runs by the rule "Don't kill the goose that lays the Golden Eggs."
Nah. Capitalism runs by the profit motive. Which sometimes might coincide with long-range wisdom and the good of the people and species, and sometimes might not. Sometimes very efficient, and sometimes not as efficient as a particular government regulation could be. Ideal for some pursuits, not ideal for others.
Government has an ideal role to play in encouraging/guiding benevolent externalities-related outcomes, and discouraging the opposite. Letting the goods and services markets flourish around the profit motive drive, as is capitalism's great area of strength, while balancing that engine with mindfulness of the greater human and social overarching goals and concerns. Capitalism is disorganized and doesn't have a plan- which is by all means a great strength as a booming and bustling economic system, but it's equally a weakness as a visionary benevolent system. And both the market and the government are just mere tools of social organization, to apply where each makes the most sense. They're not religions to worship.
As I said earlier, I'm not onboard with the climate alarmism. I think everyone should take a chill pill on the topic, but also be open minded and fair and reasonable about this topic. Can we still have fossil fuels for a while? Yes. And in some reduced capacities maybe for a long while to come of still using them. But we should also be seeking to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels make people slaves to Russia and the Middle East. When we adapt other forms of energy generation and become more independent from those imports, it's giving a middle finger to Putin and making a statement that we love America. So there's that angle as well.
Fossil fuels make people slaves to Russia and the Middle East. When we adapt other forms of energy generation and become more independent from those imports, it's giving a middle finger to Putin and making a statement that we love America. So there's that angle as well.
Well, if we let Keystone XL in, slaves to Canada. I can think of worse.
Sorry. I stopped reading the rest as soon as I read that--> It shows you don't know what the Greenhouse Gas Effect is....The GHGE has to do with the availability of polyatomic molecules to absorb "extra" energy at a specific resonant frequency due to their having a third degree of freedom (vibration) not possessed by mono- and di-atomic molecules which have only two degrees of freedom (translation & rotation) to pick up energy.
98% of the atmosphere consists of N2 & O2. ..co2 is only 0.0004% of the atmosphere. They all get warmed basically by direct conduction (ie- touching) the surface warmed directly by the Sun, then convecting (hot air rises) to mix with upper levels....Given that co2 only absorbs "extra" photons at a very limited portion of the EM spectrum, and that it's present in such low quantities, it's not even logical that the GHGE contributes very much to warming.
Many poorly educated "Warmists" like to point to Venus to "prove" their point claiming that Venus is 9x warmer than Earth and that Venus has a [co2] 9x higher than Earth...But they have apparently forgotten their lessons in hi school chemistry/physics class--
The Ideal Gas Law-- PV = nRT--> rearrange it to
T = PV/nR...if P goes up 9x (like on Venus) then T goes up 9x--- it has nothing to do with the type of gas.
I would just like to note that the vast majority of CD members are not scientists and I imagine that very few people here have taken the college level physics classes which would allow them to be comfortable with some of the terms you are tossing out like "polyatomic molecules", "degrees of freedom" and so forth. Talk about getting people to stop reading! Also, I'm pretty sure most of your readers would be interested to know what the equation for the Ideal Gas Law translates to:
P = pressure
V = volume
n = amount of substance
T = temperature
R = ideal gas constant (The gas constant (symbol R) is also called the molar or universal constant.
It is used in many fundamental equations)
I have noticed that deniers often seem to fall back on the tactic of throwing in advanced scientific concepts that are often meaningless to the layperson. This is a clever ruse which allows deniers to argue almost anything they please, knowing that for almost all their audience the explanation provided might as well be written in Sanskrit. For this reason, I usually don't reply to posts like this one of yours because it just deteriorates into an esoteric argument that a general audience has no patience for. However, I just wanted to make a couple of general comments.
Saying that CO2 is "only a trace gas" is like saying that arsenic is "only" a trace water contaminant. Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects. Would you let your child drink water that contains only a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit)?
Here's another example. A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to water.
Although percentage is a convenient way to talk about the amount of gas in the atmosphere, it only tells how much is there relative to everything else; percentage doesn’t give an absolute amount.
For example, you have trouble breathing on top of Mount Everest even though the atmosphere still contains 21% oxygen just like at sea level. The percentage isn't important, you need a certain number of oxygen molecules with each breath, regardless of how much or little they are diluted by inert gases. At an altitude of 8000 m the whole atmosphere is diluted.
The total number of CO2 molecules above our heads in the atmosphere is more important than their percentage in the atmosphere. If the amount of inert nitrogen gas (N2) in the atmosphere were to be cut in half then the percentage of CO2 would jump (to about 600 ppm; 0.06%) without a change in the absolute amount of CO2 and no substantial change in the energy balance of the Earth. Adding a huge number of energy-absorbing CO2 molecules to the atmosphere doesn’t change its percent number very much, only because it's being added to a vast inert N2 background.
We know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased because we have measured it. We know the climate has warmed from current and historical data. The link between increasing greenhouse gases and increasing temperature is clear: just as ink makes water more colored, CO2 makes the atmosphere more absorbing. The extra CO2 in our atmosphere is trapping energy that would otherwise escape to space. The measured global warming matches closely with the amount of energy trapped from the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere.
A doubling of the trace molecule CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is still a trace, but just like with arsenic, the difference between a small trace and a larger trace is fatal.
Skeptical Science also has an easy to understand explanation of why we all don't need to "stop drinking water."
For this reason, I usually don't reply to posts like this one of yours because it just deteriorates into an esoteric argument that a general audience has no patience for.
Seriously. Thank you. Also, the poster started off their post by saying that that they didn't bother to read my post. Were they then expecting me to read their post?
Since I am not a scientist or a technical expert in the field, I have 2 things I can do. I can try to look at and analyze these things logically, reasoning as to what I think is the more likely reality of it, and I can trust the science, to the consensus of scientists. I trust the climate science to the community of climate scientists, as a whole. If the consensus of the majority of the scientists is that our activity is contributing to/accelerating global warming, then logically I accept that, rather than a fringe/minority/contrarian conclusion that it isn't.
Which, they have every right to be skeptics, and have their own opinions and conclusions, and whatever. I'm cool with the skepticism existing, but if we are talking about a field that I am not at a technical expert level of understanding about, then, why logically should I believe the minority, over the majority, in that given field?
At a gut instinct level, I do think that "yes, our actions are having effects on things" is logically more likely to be the reality of it, than the more convenient (to the industries and interests involved), "no, somehow all the carbon dioxide that we add to Earth's atmosphere, has no effect on the planet. We can just do whatever we want, with no tangible consequences."
That, to me, doesn't pass the basic sniff test of making sense. We trash our oceans, and we trash our atmosphere. That's what we humans do, in the name of our convenience and comfort. There are biased interests, that are trying to protect the fossil fuel industry, for selfish reasons. Or myopic reasons.
And it's like the big tobacco situation of a few decades ago. They fought tooth and nail to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, etc. The reality of it was against their interests. We all liked smoking. They loved making money. Inconveniently, unfortunately, it was killing us. So, we had to stop the habit and pastime. It would be nice if burning all the gasoline forever did nothing to the planet at all, but, it does. Denial of reality is not productive.
Alarmism is the other extreme that I don't agree with. We'll still be mostly fine for a while, but we can't keep doing what we're doing without making some changes and shifts. Or, rather we can, but there will be consequences. I don't want things to get much worse. This is our home...
Seriously. Thank you. Also, the poster started off their post by saying that that they didn't bother to read my post. Were they then expecting me to read their post?
Since I am not a scientist or a technical expert in the field, I have 2 things I can do. I can try to look at and analyze these things logically, reasoning as to what I think is the more likely reality of it, and I can trust the science, to the consensus of scientists. I trust the climate science to the community of climate scientists, as a whole. If the consensus of the majority of the scientists is that our activity is contributing to/accelerating global warming, then logically I accept that, rather than a fringe/minority/contrarian conclusion that it isn't.
Which, they have every right to be skeptics, and have their own opinions and conclusions, and whatever. I'm cool with the skepticism existing, but if we are talking about a field that I am not at a technical expert level of understanding about, then, why logically should I believe the minority, over the majority, in that given field?
At a gut instinct level, I do think that "yes, our actions are having effects on things" is logically more likely to be the reality of it, than the more convenient (to the industries and interests involved), "no, somehow all the carbon dioxide that we add to Earth's atmosphere, has no effect on the planet. We can just do whatever we want, with no tangible consequences."
That, to me, doesn't pass the basic sniff test of making sense. We trash our oceans, and we trash our atmosphere. That's what we humans do, in the name of our convenience and comfort. There are biased interests, that are trying to protect the fossil fuel industry, for selfish reasons. Or myopic reasons.
And it's like the big tobacco situation of a few decades ago. They fought tooth and nail to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, etc. The reality of it was against their interests. We all liked smoking. They loved making money. Inconveniently, unfortunately, it was killing us. So, we had to stop the habit and pastime. It would be nice if burning all the gasoline forever did nothing to the planet at all, but, it does. Denial of reality is not productive.
Alarmism is the other extreme that I don't agree with. We'll still be mostly fine for a while, but we can't keep doing what we're doing without making some changes and shifts. Or, rather we can, but there will be consequences. I don't want things to get much worse. This is our home...
I agree with your thought process. However, there is no easy or affordable way to transition off of fossil fuels. Not wanting things to get much worse does not work either. We have to acknowledge we have a terrible problem with no real solution. Industry still relies on fossil fuels regardless of how many EVs are manufactured (using fossil fuels). The rich can virtue signal with their $100,000 Tesla's; but, then how many flights did they take? Maybe I drive my ICE vehicle only 50 miles a week is better than paying to manufacturing me a new EV (using fossil fuels). The masses can all afford new EV's? EV's manufactured with fossil fuels...
The problem with no viable solution in sight that requires the entire world to cooperate (major parts of the world that are only now developing being told they can never have what the US has had all these years as a high living standard).
The majority of our neighborhoods are set up with vehicles in mind. So, we are going to totally redesign the entire US housing market to be walkable to all work, medical care and grocery shopping?
All we can do is live right each day to the best of our ability. I do not see a reason to hope for a miracle here. You can self delude if you need to; but, I do not see where that helps.
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.
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.
