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.
While I don't know how immediate the threat is, I can't imagine why considering how to use our resources more effectively and minimizing environmental impact is a bad thing.
I think we have over politicized this issue.
The Green Deal is an outline. It's not law, it hasn't been formaly presented. It's like the beginning of a negotiation. Could be some of the policies aren't practical or realistic but what can we do to move in that direction on a more practical path.
If we keep saying - oh too much work, too expensive, we should never move forward....we won't.
No, it's a wish list for the ultra-left for a government take-over. That's behind this global warming aka climate change: more government control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty
Here's a simple question to climate change deniers: Let's say you are 100% correct. Human activity has nothing to do with global-warming, it is 100% due to natural cycles of the earth warming and cooling.
HOWEVER, if there is still something we humans can do to help slow down global warming, are you still against it? Or would you be open to it?
I'm trying to figure out if everyone who believes climate change wasn't caused by mankind is also against mankind trying to do anything they can to help slow down climate change.
A denier? Nice. Now how do we slow down climate change if it's not man made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
You doubt #2. You say that as "a logical person". Well to me, it doesn't seem logical that a particle can be in two places at the same time, yet this is what quantum mechanics implies. You say there is not enough data. But you 1) don't have access to all of the data, 2) don't have the tools to analyze the data you have and 3) don't have the credentials to decide what is 'enough data'. Even the climate experts will concede that you can never have enough data to prove something irrefutably, so they express it in terms of probability. And most find a high probability that man is contributing to climate change.
There is no data available for, let's say 1,000,000 years ago. None. How much CO2 was in the atmosphere? Did the North Pole melt? I can go on and on and on. No one knows.
When one looks at the composition of the atmosphere one has to ask what is really driving the warming of the planet. Is it really CO2 or are other processes involved?
We measure CO2 in parts per million or PPM, so lets look at a million molecules in our atmosphere, 78% nitrogen (780,000 molecules), 21% Oxygen (210,000 molecules) .04% CO2 (400 molecules) out of the 400 ppm of CO2 mankind is responsible for about 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. What does that mean, out of 1,000,000 molecules in the atmosphere mankind's contribution is 16 molecules. One has to ask, are we really having that much influence on the atmosphere, or is something else drive this.
We have contributed a lot more than 4% of the CO2:
"Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years." https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...evolution.html
But I'm not here to argue the science. Because this is my basic point - you try to make some "logical" argument based on PPM of CO2 that this can't possibly be responsible for warming, yet you have no knowledge of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming or the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that would be required to cause warming. Atmospheric physicists do have this knowledge and if they say that an increase from 280 to 390 ppm is enough to warm the planet, who are you to argue with them?
Suppose humans are going to extinct in 800 years if we do something, and 500 years if we try to slow down the warming.
What difference does it make? I'm not going to live that long. Whether the human race has 500 years or 800 years left doesn't concern me at all.
Good. You are moving on from debating whether climate change is real or not and focusing on what to do about it. And doing nothing is certainly one option. If we collectively decide that we don't care because none of us will live to see the worst effects, so let our grandchildren deal with it, that at least is an honest position.
The Earth has been in a constant state of change for its entire 4.5 billion years and nothing has changed. The polar bears will adapt or die, that’s what wild animals do.
Well this time the change is heading into the "warming" direction.
Why exactly it's taking place - this is a different question, but it's happening.
Good. You are moving on from debating whether climate change is real or not and focusing on what to do about it. And doing nothing is certainly one option. If we collectively decide that we don't care because none of us will live to see the worst effects, so let our grandchildren deal with it, that at least is an honest position.
We can't do anything about it. Whatever we try, it won't change this 4.5 billion old planet. The only thing we should really reconsider is the deforestation of our planet.
The rapidity of climate change is not without precedent. Rapid climate fluctuations contributed to human evolution. They had to adapt or die. Just as we will now.
Depends on what you mean by rapidity. Currently the rate of change is about 1 degree per 50 years. The rate of warming between a glacial and an inter-glacial period of the current ice age is estimated [1] to be about 5 degrees per 1000 years, or 1 degree per 200 years. So temp increase is more rapid now then anytime in the last million years or so.
We can take a "survive or die" approach to this. Or we can stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The choice is ours.
those 'zero emission' electric cars are actually powered by coal and/or natural gas. They've just moved the emissions to a different location.
I have no problem with the Feds subsidizing renewable energy to get it off the ground, but it's got a LONG way to go before it replaces fossil fuels. And that may never happen... definitely not in our lifetimes.
From the power company in Florida--
Quote:
Already one of the cleanest energy companies in the nation, FPL recently announced a groundbreaking ’30-by-30’ plan to install 30 million solar panels by 2030, making Florida a world leader in solar energy. This year, solar will outpace coal and oil combined as a percentage of FPL’s energy mix. In other words, we’ll soon be generating more energy from the sun than from power plants fueled by coal and oil.
Good. You are moving on from debating whether climate change is real or not and focusing on what to do about it. And doing nothing is certainly one option. If we collectively decide that we don't care because none of us will live to see the worst effects, so let our grandchildren deal with it, that at least is an honest position.
Emotionally, I'll feel bad if my children or grandchildren have to personally witness the end of the world. So, I may care about things that are going to happen in the next 100 years, but no more. Everybody has to die eventually, and I don't see why human extinction is a bad thing. Humans are not exceptional, we as a species should go away just like dinosaurs did. After the extinction of human beings, the earth may restore/change to whatever it wants to and at some point, there will be a new kind of creatures dominating the earth.
The earth may not want to see humans being around indefinitely.
Well this time the change is heading into the "warming" direction.
Why exactly it's taking place - this is a different question, but it's happening.
Deep sea venting warming the oceans as per a natural cycle. I’ve been saying for years it’s the only thing that makes sense and now science is finally catching up with my theory.
We have contributed a lot more than 4% of the CO2:
"Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years." https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...evolution.html
But I'm not here to argue the science. Because this is my basic point - you try to make some "logical" argument based on PPM of CO2 that this can't possibly be responsible for warming, yet you have no knowledge of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming or the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that would be required to cause warming. Atmospheric physicists do have this knowledge and if they say that an increase from 280 to 390 ppm is enough to warm the planet, who are you to argue with them?
There are a lot of scientist that would argue with them. CO2 is not the driver of the planet warming, the main driver is solar activity and water vapor, CO2 plays a very, very small role in this. If we cut the CO2 levels in our atmosphere by half the we run the risk of starving millions of people who depend on agriculture for subsistence, plants do not do well with CO2 levels below 200 ppm, and do much better with CO2 levels between 1500 -2000 ppm. Animals can survive with CO2 levels much higher than they are. So, just who are they trying to scare and why? Science has shown that CO2 levels increase when it gets warmer, it is an effect and not a cause, it is a product of a warmer planet.
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.
