How beautiful is our fight against climate change?

[JGalt]

It is amazing and disgusting how many russan moles travel these threads.

I have only one thing to say to these un-american moles with flees--
View attachment 602330
-

Apparently that's your IQ, Mr. Genius. You can't even spell "Russian" or "fleas", and America is always capitalized.

Gawd, you really are a stupid sonofabitch, aren't you?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Gawd, you really are a stupid sonofabitch, aren't you?

So I was right, you are a mole from ruskie land.
You have one thing on your side, your spell checker is working.
-

 

[Woodznutz]

Just pay more in taxes and use less of everything and the lamb and lion will lie down together and all our problems will magically go away.

The lamb and the lion may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

 

[Rigby5]

What exactly is Earth's ideal climate anyways?
Ice world? Dune? Or about thirty years ago?

The Greta Cult sees the Earth as static, with no deviations allowed since upright primates stupidly built mega cities in flood prone areas.

Next up.
Stopping tectonic plate shifting before the Cities of the west coast fall into the ocean as the California plate slides towards Alaska, plus volcanoes pollute.

STOP THE SHIFT!!!

Wrong.

Human addition of 50 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each years does trap more solar heat and prevent it from leaving the earth's atmosphere.
We know that from experimental fact.

We know there are natural warming/cooling cycles, but they are about 110,000 years long, so we are speeding it up by a factor over 1000.
We know that will be much more expensive and hard to adapt to.
All farming will have to move thousands of miles, in less than a lifetime.

And plate tectonics is even more inappropriate, because that is insignificant until you get to a time scale of over millions of years.

So to recap, burning so much fossil fuel is and must cause such massive and rapid global warming that it will be extremely harmful.
It will accelerate due to the melting methane hydrate that is currently frozen, and from additional atmospheric water vapor.
It will ruin almost all current farming in during our lifetime, and force almost all farming to have to relocate.
It will be a massive economic catastrophe, less than 100 years from now.
If we do not stop it, our grandchildren will hate us, with good reason.

 

[Rigby5]

Climate change is just the Democrat's way of making every American worker and taxpayer poor, pissed off and dependent on government. It's a method of enslaving the American people which has always been a big Democrat goal.

Nonsense.
No one gains a thing from the fact we are causing global warming and should try to stop it.
The main strategy we can use to stop global warming, is to just burn less carbon, and that saves money for everyone.
The only people who do not like that are the ones selling fossil fuel.

 

[Rigby5]

Biden can't even control inflation and he wants to control the weather.

Wrong.
Climate is the sum of all weather, and is not the weather itself.

 

[Rigby5]

I would actually like to put a challenge out to Biden and the global warming alarmists....

Since cow farts are such a huge menace to the environment, I am willing to lock myself in a garage with a cow (or Farting Joe
Biden) overnight....

And considering that Senile Fucktard has proposed releasing fuel from the Strategic Reserve (possibly contributing to global warming from running our vehicles), they can lock themselves in a garage with a running car overnight.....

We can meet in the morning to discuss the results!!!!

That is silly because what it toxic to humans ( a lack of oxygen ), does not have to be harmful to the environment ( global warming ).

 

[B. Kidd]

The new KKK;

KLIMATE
KLOWN
KULTISTS

 

[Rigby5]

What do the climate change Bozo's plan to do? Dig up and try to neutralize all of the Permafrost that contributes uber methane naturally into the climate??

If permafrost NATURALLY contributed methane to the climate, then there would not be all those hundreds of millions of years old deposits of frozen methane hydrate.
But the reality is that those deposits of frozen methane hydrate have NEVER ever melted before, in the hundreds of millions of years they have been sequestered.
We now are causing them to melt, for the very first time.
We are going to force the frozen remains of the dinosaurs to evaporate.

 

[B. Kidd]

If permafrost NATURALLY contributed methane to the climate, then there would not be all those hundreds of millions of years old deposits of frozen methane hydrate.
But the reality is that those deposits of frozen methane hydrate have NEVER ever melted before, in the hundreds of millions of years they have been sequestered.
We now are causing them to melt, for the very first time.
We are going to force the frozen remains of the dinosaurs to evaporate.

Did the same idiots who convinced you that you can change the climate also tell you that you can cap an active volcano?
-bend steel with your bare hands?
-run faster than a speeding bullet??

 

[Woodznutz]

Wrong.
Climate is the sum of all weather, and is not the weather itself.

True, and if man changes the weather in enough places the climate will change.

 

[Woodznutz]

We could reduce atmospheric CO2 if we utilized dead and dying trees and brush. Live trees are 40-50 percent carbon. Dry, dead trees can be up to 80 percent carbon. When they decompose most of the carbon is released into the atmosphere as CO2.

 

[Rigby5]

The Climate Change myth finally busted !!!
Fight as hard as you may, climate change began when our planet developed an atmosphere.

In the Beginning earth was a molten blob of rock with a high concentration of oxygen and hydrogen gas and a few others like nitrogen & argon.

The nitrogen and oxygen gases were heated up by an external force until a spontaneous combustion reaction took place.

In the process a great deal of heat was released. This heat energy began cooling and as it cooled the water molecules clung to each other producing ice. This Ice originally covered our plant.


View attachment 600801

Snowball Earth: The times our planet was covered in ice

Ancient rocks suggest that ice entirely covered our planet on at least two occasions. This theory may help explain the rise of complex life that followed.

By Laura Poppick | Published: Friday, April 5, 2019
The story of Snowball Earth | Astronomy.com

The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that, during one or more of Earth's icehouse climates, the planet's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen. It is believed that this occurred sometime before 650 Mya during the Cryogenian period. Wikipedia
The story of Snowball Earth

Snowball Earth

Introduction​

Our planet is thought to have been completely frozen over during the Neoproterozoic. From space, Earth would have looked like a big snowball.
Callan Bentley art
The “Snowball Earth” glaciations were a series of ice ages during the Neoproterozoic era of geologic time, mainly confined to the Cryogenian period, but perhaps also into the Ediacaran period, too. These ice ages were thought to have been so profound that perhaps the entire surface of the planet froze over, all the way from the poles to the equator. In a 1992 paper, Caltech geophysicist Joe Kirschvink quipped that from a vantage point in outer space, the planet would have looked like a giant snowball. The evocative name stuck, and there has been an avalanche of scientific studies investigating the Snowball Earth glaciations ever since.

The earths climate has been in a flux of change since day one and all along this massive ice sheet has been slowly melting.

It is time for climate change deniers to wake up and smell the roses.

The snowball earth theory is not true in my opinion.
At one time that earth was just a loose collection of asteroid rock and ice, but once concentrated, it was NEVER an ice ball. Gravity generated too much heat for that to be true, and once there is an atmosphere, too much solar heat would be trapped.
The earth also used to be closer to the sun, so warmer.
Even those who do believe in the snowball earth theory, admit it would have to have been more than 650 million years ago.

 

[Rigby5]

True, and if man changes the weather in enough places the climate will change.

Man does not and can not change weather.
Weather is the movement of high and low pressure areas in the atmosphere.
All we can do is to cause hot dust dome over urban centers, that deflect weather.

The climate is based on solar heat in and solar heat out.
Obit precession and nutation can effect solar heat in, and upper atmosphere carbon can effect the rate of solar heat out.
That is pretty much all there is.

 

[Rigby5]

We could reduce atmospheric CO2 if we utilized dead and dying trees and brush. Live trees are 40-50 percent carbon. Dry, dead trees can be up to 80 percent carbon. When they decompose most of the carbon is released into the atmosphere as CO2.

Yes.
In fact, the more trees we grow, the better.
But instead, we are harvesting and burning, more than we plant.

 

[Woodznutz]

Man does not and can not change weather.
Weather is the movement of high and low pressure areas in the atmosphere.
All we can do is to cause hot dust dome over urban centers, that deflect weather.

The climate is based on solar heat in and solar heat out.
Obit precession and nutation can effect solar heat in, and upper atmosphere carbon can effect the rate of solar heat out.
That is pretty much all there is.

If volcanic ash can change the weather couldn't we by dumping ash into the atmosphere? If we planted more grasslands wouldn't the weather change? If we reduced atmospheric CO2 would that change the weather?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Just pay more in taxes and use less of everything and the lamb and lion will lie down together and all our problems will magically go away.

...and don't define "woman."

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes.
In fact, the more trees we grow, the better.
But instead, we are harvesting and burning, more than we plant.

Actually we are planting more than we are harvesting. And there are global campaigns to plant more trees as well. The downside is that many of these trees are 'forest crop' trees that will be harvested before their potential to sequester CO2 is reached. The bright side is that much of the wood will be sequestered as building material, some will be turned into paper products and recycled (although much will be 'sequestered' in landfills). Some will eventually be burned for fuel, which isn't a bad use as it spares using some fossil fuel.

If dead and dying tree were harvested for fuel it would reduce some fossil fuel use, with a net-zero CO2 effect in the long run. And the ash makes great fertilizer.

 

[Rigby5]

If volcanic ash can change the weather couldn't we by dumping ash into the atmosphere? If we planted more grasslands wouldn't the weather change? If we reduced atmospheric CO2 would that change the weather?

Well you are sort of right, in that we can change weather somewhat, like seeding clouds in order to make it rain.

But your other examples are not really valid.
For example, a volcano releases more energy that all human efforts do in 100 years.
Planting more grasslands might have some effects on weather, but not specific changes at specific times.
Reducing atmospheric CO2 would make the world colder, but would not cause a specific change to the weather at any specific time.

 

[badger2]

We're back in the Paris Accord (puke). Trump dropped it because it was worthless though benefitted China to our detriment, so thank golly Biden re-entered the accord, because he's bitch'n.

I wonder if this is all just a scare tactic hence money grab? Is it realistic to believe humans can curb climate change, really? Fuck I don't know, if anything seems there are just too many people no matter what we do, climate change sounds like BS to me. Say, did you know China makes most of the solar panels? Same with batteries, what a surprise.

How beautiful are solar, wind & batteries? Since when are any of these things done without harming the environment & processing fossil fuels?

The materials extracted from the earth to fabricate wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries (to store grid electricity or power electric vehicles) are out of sight, located at remote quarries, mine sites, and mineral-processing facilities around the world. Those locations matter in terms of geopolitics and supply-chain risks, as well as in environmental terms. Before considering the supply chain, it is important to understand the scale of the material demands. For green energy, it all begins with the fact that such sources are land-intensive and very diffuse.

For example, replacing the energy output from a single 100-MW natural gas-fired turbine, itself about the size of a residential house (producing enough electricity for 75,000 homes), requires at least 20 wind turbines, each one about the size of the Washington Monument, occupying some 10 square miles of land.[4]

Building those wind machines consumes enormous quantities of conventional materials, including concrete, steel, and fiberglass, along with less common materials, including “rare earth” elements such as dysprosium. A World Bank study noted what every mining engineer knows: “[T]echnologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.”[5]

You forget, Einstein that the nazi-dem POSPOTUS won't be leading Homo sapiens in any innovative thought. That would be his handlers, should it happen. The amnesia includes lithium recycling from the US., rather than giving it back to China. How economical is that, Geo Breath?