Gulf Stream

[Leftfield 2,601]

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Bottom line. People denying there’s even a problem caused by man looks silly and prevents a practical dialog.

Agreed, this is the biggest issue. It's difficult to get momentum going when a sizeable portion of the population doesn't think it's happening. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I agree. I do think the planets population growth in 2nd/3rd world countries is the other existential root cause driver of the problem (temp increase is almost symmetrical to it) - but you can control only what you can. We need lower our footprint in sane  reasonable steps  and hopefully the technology and policy will spread across the  planet over time.

Bottom line. People denying there’s even a problem caused by man looks silly and prevents a practical dialog.

What an unbelievable statement.  So now you blame 2nd/3rd world populations as the existential root cause?  And then you have the audacity to state you can only control what you can.  We sacrifice people through abortion, wars and who knows what else.  To save the earth why would it not be appropriate for you people to eliminate the people that either don’t know about the threat or deny it?  Is a simple solution.  Look at all the CO2 you could eliminate by reducing the population of the earth.

I will remind everybody that China and India are the countries that create the most CO2 and they are designated as developing countries and are, therefore, given a pass that the developed countries are *required* to adhere to.  China is still building coal plants.

If you want practical dialog, maybe you shouldn’t be such an elitist.

[auburnatl1 4,920]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Agreed, this is the biggest issue. It's difficult to get momentum going when a sizeable portion of the population doesn't think it's happening. 

For 30 years people debated the science and statistics that cigarettes were … not a really good idea.  But is was cultural and people  would find a doctor somewhere that would argue the findings.  Versus simply asking themselves - is directly inhaling smoke 2 hrs/day for 30 years going to have a happy ending?

Is  1.47 billion cars plus industry  - and growing - a good thing fora very thin layer of atmosphere. Why is Venus hotter than mercury even though it’s over twice as far from the sun? This doesn’t require really big thinking.

[auburnatl1 4,920]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What an unbelievable statement.  So now you blame 2nd/3rd world populations as the existential root cause?  And then you have the audacity to state you can only control what you can.  We sacrifice people through abortion, wars and who knows what else.  To save the earth why would it not be appropriate for you people to eliminate the people that either don’t know about the threat or deny it?  Is a simple solution.  Look at all the CO2 you could eliminate by reducing the population of the earth.

I will remind everybody that China and India are the countries that create the most CO2 and they are designated as developing countries and are, therefore, given a pass that the developed countries are *required* to adhere to.  China is still building coal plants.

If you want practical dialog, maybe you shouldn’t be such an elitist.

I really don’t understand your points other than you seem to disagree.  However, if rudimentary problem solving is now “elitist “as well (which is a pretty low bar) - guilty. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Agreed, this is the biggest issue. It's difficult to get momentum going when a sizeable portion of the population doesn't think it's happening. 

Says the man that is still driving an internal combustion car.  If this is such a threat why would someone who wholeheartedly believes in the eventual demise of the earth not drive an EV?

Could it be it doesn’t fit into your present lifestyle and you are resisting change just because the CO2 is 50% more than 100 years ago?  What is your personal thresh hold?

Of course the 50% raise in CO2 does seem horrendous, it has increased from .028% to .04% during that time.  Climate sciencist are worried it *might* increase to .1% by 2100.

This excuse is being used by most climate elites.  They still fly private jets to Davos, use limos to get around and generally do not want to change their lifestyle.  It is better to tell other people what they should do.  Again, I am not a denier, I just don’t believe we have a *existential* threat.  

What really is hilarous is you and @auburnatl1 believe people who deny humans contributions to climate change will look silly if it is proved that it does.  Guess what; the people who will find out for sure aren’t even born yet.  Rediculous.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I really don’t understand your points other than you seem to disagree.  However, if rudimentary problem solving is now “elitist “as well (which is a pretty low bar) - guilty. 

Rudimentary problem solving of a problem that is so complex is your first elitist moment.  Water vapor is what traps the heat, why not go after lowering the water vapor in the atmosphere?  

You blame the uneducated of climate science as the problem and you can’t see how elitist that is?

[Leftfield 2,601]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Says the man that is still driving an internal combustion car.  If this is such a threat why would someone who wholeheartedly believes in the eventual demise of the earth not drive an EV?

Could it be it doesn’t fit into your present lifestyle and you are resisting change just because the CO2 is 50% more than 100 years ago?  What is your personal thresh hold?

Of course the 50% raise in CO2 does seem horrendous, it has increased from .028% to .04% during that time.  Climate sciencist are worried it *might* increase to .1% by 2100.

This excuse is being used by most climate elites.  They still fly private jets to Davos, use limos to get around and generally do not want to change their lifestyle.  It is better to tell other people what they should do.  Again, I am not a denier, I just don’t believe we have a *existential* threat.  

What really is hilarous is you and @auburnatl1 believe people who deny humans contributions to climate change will look silly if it is proved that it does.  Guess what; the people who will find out for sure aren’t even born yet.  Rediculous.

So driving a Honda Civic is elitist? Who knew?

You have no idea of my personal situation, yet you just assume I can run out and buy any car I want at any time. A bit presumptuous, no? 

Your posts are still getting more and more unhinged. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

14 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Why is Venus hotter than mercury even though it’s over twice as far from the sun? This doesn’t require really big thinking.

No, it requires science. Venus has 90+X the atmospheric pressure and density of Earth. Mercury has little or no atmosphere at all. 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Says the man that is still driving an internal combustion car.  If this is such a threat why would someone who wholeheartedly believes in the eventual demise of the earth not drive an EV?

Could it be it doesn’t fit into your present lifestyle and you are resisting change just because the CO2 is 50% more than 100 years ago?  What is your personal thresh hold?

Of course the 50% raise in CO2 does seem horrendous, it has increased from .028% to .04% during that time.  Climate sciencist are worried it *might* increase to .1% by 2100.

This excuse is being used by most climate elites.  They still fly private jets to Davos, use limos to get around and generally do not want to change their lifestyle.  It is better to tell other people what they should do.  Again, I am not a denier, I just don’t believe we have a *existential* threat.  

What really is hilarous is you and @auburnatl1 believe people who deny humans contributions to climate change will look silly if it is proved that it does.  Guess what; the people who will find out for sure aren’t even born yet.  Rediculous.

Never judge a religion by those who practice (and inevitably pervert) it.  Same with the climate science. The fact that you find hypocrisy with the Al Gore/Hollywood extremists types is totally fair. China - fair. My point is simply there’s a problem and circular firing squad’ing and dismissing it because Lenard DiCaprio is a clueless idiot doesn’t change the facts or solve the problem.  

[Leftfield 2,601]

3 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, it requires science. Venus has 90+X the atmospheric pressure and density of Earth. Mercury has little or no atmosphere at all. 

Well, at least you're on the right track.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Just now, Leftfield said:

So driving a Honda Civic is elitist? Who knew?

You have no idea of my personal situation, yet you just assume I can run out and buy any car I want at any time. A bit presumptuous, no? 

Your posts are still getting more and more unhinged. 

I don’t need to have and idea of you personal situation, you told us.  You like to keep your cars a long time and only buy used.  This tells me you are not willing to change your lifestyle to help the planet that is dying.  You can discuss why this is, but most can guess.

Unhinged?  Because I disagree with your assement?

What is your personal thresh hold for changing you lifestyle concerning CO2 levels?

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

Never judge a religion by those who practice (and inevitably pervert) it.  Same with the climate science. The fact that you find hypocrisy with the Al Gore/Hollywood extremists types is totally fair. China - fair. My point is simply there’s a problem and circular firing squad’ing and dismissing it because Lenard DiCaprio is a clueless idiot doesn’t change the facts or solve the problem.  

The problem here is the talking heads who are mostly politicians and actors have not changed their lifestyles, therefore, they really don’t believe we are in trouble yet.  When we are in trouble, let them lead.

Same with several posters on this board.  

[Leftfield 2,601]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t need to have and idea of you personal situation, you told us.  You like to keep your cars a long time and only buy used.  This tells me you are not willing to change your lifestyle to help the planet that is dying.  You can discuss why this is, but most can guess.

Unhinged?  Because I disagree with your assement?

What is your personal thresh hold for changing you lifestyle concerning CO2 levels?

So you put no thought into why I buy used? You just assume it's my preferred lifestyle?

I say unhinged because your "arguments" are now simply rants, attacks, and ridiculous conjecture (Water vapor traps all the heat? Really?). You have no facts and simply lash out. 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

52 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, it requires science. Venus has 90+X the atmospheric pressure and density of Earth. Mercury has little or no atmosphere at all. 

I kinda get that. The point was simply people were denying  that co2 is a green house gas.

Edited March 14 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

8 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, it requires science. Venus has 90+X the atmospheric pressure and density of Earth. Mercury has little or no atmosphere at all. 

We are very fortunate to be the *Third Rock From the Sun*.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Neither water vapor nor CO2 trap heat. Heat isn't trapped. It's rate of release to space is somewhat slowed, but never trapped. Water vapor provides the vast majority of any greenhouse effect. CO2 at an atmospheric concentration of 4.2 molecules/10,000 (only 1.4 molecules/10,000 can possibly be attributed to mankind) isn't exactly a "thermal blanket".  It's like an extremely sparse thermal spider web. It isn't altering the climate in any significant manner. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So you put no thought into why I buy used? You just assume it's my preferred lifestyle?

I say unhinged because your "arguments" are now simply rants, attacks, and ridiculous conjecture (Water vapor traps all the heat? Really?). You have no facts and simply lash out. 

Again, not the point.  If you really thought climate change was a real threat you would adjust anything you could to prevent earth from dying.

Observing the greenhouse effect

Have you ever noticed that deserts are often colder at night than forests, even if their average temperatures are the same? Without much water vapor in the atmosphere over deserts, the radiation they give off escapes readily to space.

In more humid regions radiation from the surface is trapped by water vapor in the air. Similarly, cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights because more water vapor is present.

https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-is-only-a-tiny-part-of-our-atmosphere-but-it-has-a-huge-influence-here-s-why

Authored by an Evironmental Science professor from UNC.  He explains why CO2 levels are important, but he seems to say clouds trap the heat (Green House Affect).  Have we explored how we could reduce water vapor that trap the heat?  

[Leftfield 2,601]

7 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

CO2 at an atmospheric concentration of 4.2 molecules/10,000 (only 1.4 molecules/10,000 can possibly be attributed to mankind) isn't exactly a "thermal blanket".  It's like an extremely sparse thermal spider web. It isn't altering the climate in any significant manner. 

Citations?

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Agreed, this is the biggest issue. It's difficult to get momentum going when a sizeable portion of the population doesn't think it's happening. 

Unfortunately, Nature (physics) doesn't care what you think.

I am curious as to how many of these deniers have children.  It's their future at stake.

Edited March 14 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,601]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, not the point.  If you really thought climate change was a real threat you would adjust anything you could to prevent earth from dying.

Observing the greenhouse effect

Have you ever noticed that deserts are often colder at night than forests, even if their average temperatures are the same? Without much water vapor in the atmosphere over deserts, the radiation they give off escapes readily to space.

In more humid regions radiation from the surface is trapped by water vapor in the air. Similarly, cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights because more water vapor is present.

https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-is-only-a-tiny-part-of-our-atmosphere-but-it-has-a-huge-influence-here-s-why

Authored by an Evironmental Science professor from UNC.  He explains why CO2 levels are important, but he seems to say clouds trap the heat (Green House Affect).  Have we explored how we could reduce water vapor that trap the heat?  

You said it traps all the heat. That's what I was taking issue with.

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that with the increase in temperature more water will evaporate, leading to more cloud cover, trapping more energy, and so on?

 

[homersapien 11,373]

49 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Neither water vapor nor CO2 trap heat. Heat isn't trapped. It's rate of release to space is somewhat slowed, but never trapped. Water vapor provides the vast majority of any greenhouse effect. CO2 at an atmospheric concentration of 4.2 molecules/10,000 (only 1.4 molecules/10,000 can possibly be attributed to mankind) isn't exactly a "thermal blanket".  It's like an extremely sparse thermal spider web. It isn't altering the climate in any significant manner. 

Sez you.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-effect-101

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

 

Edited March 14 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

13 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You said it traps all the heat. That's what I was taking issue with.

Really?  You couldn’t express that before calling the information a rant with nothing to back it up.  Typical lefty.

15 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that with the increase in temperature more water will evaporate, leading to more cloud cover, trapping more energy, and so on?

You’ve convinced me.  We’re doomed and we are all mostly likely going to die.

So what is your personal thresh hold before you change your lifestyle?

[Leftfield 2,601]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Really?  You couldn’t express that before calling the information a rant with nothing to back it up.  Typical lefty.

Well, gee, I'm sorry you can't proofread your own s**t before you post. 

And that's hardly the only rant you've gone on. 

 

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So what is your personal thresh hold before you change your lifestyle?

I've already changed. Just because I haven't bought a hybrid or EV yet doesn't mean I haven't changed in other ways that I can afford to. My thermostat is colder than it used to be in winter, warmer than it used to be in summer. All bulbs in the house are LED and I constantly tell the kids to turn lights off, keep the garage doors closed, etc. Don't use single-use plastics where possible, recycle, and generally look for ways to avoid wasting things. 

Not everyone can afford to get the vehicle they'd prefer. I'm like anyone, I have to budget and buy things that work best for my overall situation. I'm sure you're thrilled that lets you be a jackass and yell "hypocrisy" in this situation, but it's the reality of it. Tell you what, if science tells me that if I buy an EV - just me - and the world will be saved, I'll make the sacrifice to run out and buy one today, but we both know it's not as simple as that. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I've already changed. Just because I haven't bought a hybrid or EV yet doesn't mean I haven't changed in other ways that I can afford to. My thermostat is colder than it used to be in winter, warmer than it used to be in summer. All bulbs in the house are LED and I constantly tell the kids to turn lights off, keep the garage doors closed, etc. Don't use single-use plastics where possible, recycle, and generally look for ways to avoid wasting things. 

Not everyone can afford to get the vehicle they'd prefer. I'm like anyone, I have to budget and buy things that work best for my overall situation. I'm sure you're thrilled that lets you be a jackass and yell "hypocrisy" in this situation, but it's the reality of it. Tell you what, if science tells me that if I buy an EV - just me - and the world will be saved, I'll make the sacrifice to run out and buy one today, but we both know it's not as simple as that. 

Good for you and I didn’t yell hypocrisy as everybody is a hypocrite about one thing or another.  I’m just trying to bring up the point that no matter how hard the average Joe cares about CO2 emissions the ones that say they care and don’t cancel you out.  Everybody has to live their lives according to their beliefs.  I only have a limited time on this earth (as everybody does) and I am not spending it sacrificing anything to the pagan god of climate.

Every day an airline is flying from the US to Europe and burning 3,000 gallons of jet fuel on each trip one way.  Elon just sent a 500,000 ton space craft up for a jaunt half way around the earth.

 

 

Probably well worth it for the future.

Life is a balancing act and we get to call our own shot unless the government force feeds us.  If EV’s came about naturally and, therefore, the fossil fuel industry is curtailed so be it, but when the silly old man in the WH supplements his pet industry with our tax dollars by building 500,000 charging stations that will be underutilized there is a problem.  He is publicly stating he will end the fossil fuel industry and I think that is a big mistake as we are not ready for that, anywhere in the world.

[auburnatl1 4,920]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Good for you and I didn’t yell hypocrisy as everybody is a hypocrite about one thing or another.  I’m just trying to bring up the point that no matter how hard the average Joe cares about CO2 emissions the ones that say they care and don’t cancel you out.  Everybody has to live their lives according to their beliefs.  I only have a limited time on this earth (as everybody does) and I am not spending it sacrificing anything to the pagan god of climate.

Every day an airline is flying from the US to Europe and burning 3,000 gallons of jet fuel on each trip one way.  Elon just sent a 500,000 ton space craft up for a jaunt half way around the earth.

 

 

Probably well worth it for the future.

Life is a balancing act and we get to call our own shot unless the government force feeds us.  If EV’s came about naturally and, therefore, the fossil fuel industry is curtailed so be it, but when the silly old man in the WH supplements his pet industry with our tax dollars by building 500,000 charging stations that will be underutilized there is a problem.  He is publicly stating he will end the fossil fuel industry and I think that is a big mistake as we are not ready for that, anywhere in the world.

 In most cases I agree with you - let the technology evolve and let the market decide naturally. However there’s an occasional bug that comes up in capitalism. Long term thinking. Most consumers think short term and with rose colored glasses.  Not big picture. Theres a reason car minimum insurance has to be legally required.  And big picture can’t inconvenience people too much - everybody wants a cell phone until they put a tower next door.

One of the few advantages autocracies have is that they can afford to think long term  - Chinas Grand Aquaduct took almost 50 years from design to completion.  Democracies suck at that. It’s a formidable advantage. 

Bottom line. Theres no point in debating climate to many because unless if you can 110% prove that their backyard  with be under water by Christmas - it’s interesting but irrelevant.