What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What I Don't Understand About "Climate Change"

watchingfromafar

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
710
Points
140
I stopped reading at [1] Fossil fuels are running out.
My eight (8) year old son told me the same thing
Peak Oil = lol
What so many people fail to realize is that there are two (2) dynamics going on here which on the surface seem unrelated which is our biggest mistake

World Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
47 years of oil left
(at current consumption levels)

World Oil Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info)
This means, at current consumption all the known oil reserves will be sucked up and burned in 47 years.

Which means that the world’s major energy source will not be able to meet demand in 20+/- years.

If the world acts now to gradually switch from oil to renewables the transition will a peaceful one. If we do not do this, a world global fight will occur to control what oil is left. This will lead to WW3 which in itself will burn up what is left.
The term Armageddon comes to mind.

used in a generic sense to refer to any end of the world scenario.
Armageddon - Wikipedia

This may not concern you because you will not be around then; but your grandchildren will !!

Fighting climate change and discovering new renewable energy resources are fighting to achieve the same thing. The survival of the human race.

CrusaderFrank, the debate has begun, may the loser lose gracefully

:)-
 
Last edited:

watchingfromafar

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
710
Points
140
What I said is that the NORMAL climate cycle of cold and warm is about 110,000 years long.
But we have condensed that cycle into a much shorter period.
That is why I am investing heavily in FrigCoolMeoF air conditioners
FrigCoolMe.jpg

:)-
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
124,428
Reaction score
40,924
Points
2,290
My eight (8) year old son told me the same thing

What so many people fail realize is the there are two (2) dynamics going on here which on the surface seem unrelated which is our biggest mistake

World Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
47 years of oil left
(at current consumption levels)

World Oil Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info)
This means, at current consumption all the known oil reserves will be sucked up and burned in 47 years.

Which means that the world’s major energy source will not be able to meet demand in 20+/- years.

If the world acts now to gradually switch from oil to renewables the transition will a peaceful one. If we do not do this, a world global fight will occur to control what oil is left. This will lead to WW3 which in itself will burn up what is left.
The term Armageddon comes to mind.

used in a generic sense to refer to any end of the world scenario.
Armageddon - Wikipedia

This may not concern you because you will not be around then; but your grandchildren will !!

Fighting climate change and discovering new renewable energy resources are fighting to achieve the same thing. The survival of the human race.

CrusaderFrank, the debate has begun, may the loser lose gracefully

:)-
IV-AA671_Peak19_G_20140926120010.jpg
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Let me explanterate climate change for you. Their was 4 feet of snow in Chicagger, back in 1967. In 1970 it flooded like a motherfucker in May, I recall ?
Whole basement full and even made it to the first floor of the house Kitchen and stuff .
In 1992 there was a hurricane, named Andrew, that visited Miami for 2-3 hours. One old man I worked for AND LOVED LIKE A DAD, SAID " BOY HANG ONTO YOUR BALLS. iT'S GONNA BE A BLOW JOB LIKE YAINT EVER SEEN
I left the house at 6 am, want to the gas station(closed) and barely could find my way home, Climate changed a lot that night. Thank gAwg for a 454 Chevy dually and a couple chain saws...and some chains to remove a few CONCRETE power poles that magically blew over
When the 82nd (or 101---whatever) meatheads showed up, with no ammo. I traded 223 for diesel for my backhoe. Made us both happy ! Thanks for paying your taxes amigos !

Weather is how heat and moisture move around on the planet, causing concentrations some places and deficiencies in others. But net neutral.
Climate is net change from one year to to the next, whether up or down.

There is a normal climate cycle of warming and cooling, but it is 110,000 years long.
The change from 1967 to 1970 is weather, not climate.
But the first opening of the Northwest Passage in 2007 was climate change.
{...
On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute, this was the first time the Passage has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972. The Northwest Passage opened again on August 25, 2008.
...}
( the 1972 Northwest Passage was actually coastal and not commercially useful. The current Northwest Passage is clear ocean that was never before open to shipping in human history.)
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
The comments made about the earth's climate changing because of man made activities are nothing more than unproven science and speculation. There are no real data to back it up. Just simple bogus correlations and shit in shit out computer models paid for by research grants from organizations looking for a particular outcome.

That is why the assholes spouting the AGW bullshit have been caught creating fraudulent data and cherry picking data time and again and none of their dire predictions ever come true.

The earth's climate is changing just like it has done many times in the past but man's contribution to that is minimal and no excuse to wreck the world's economy.

In no way does it wreck the world economy to reduce the consumption rate of fossil fuels, since they are running out anyway.
Since fossil fuels are expensive, being more conservative with fossil fuels saves money.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
AGW destroyed in 2 graphs by real science

vostok_T_CO2.png



CO2 LAGS temperature, it does not DRIVE climate on planet Earth

co2_trend_mlo.png


Irrespective of the first graph, to the contrary of the AGW Theorem, human activity has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on CO2

Wrong.
First of all, with ice cores it is extremely difficult to correlate since temperature data comes from tree rings, not ice cores.
And of course seasonal changes change the plant CO2 output on Mauna Loa.
The fact temperature changes CO2 concentration does not at all in any way imply that CO2 does not change temperature.
They both have to effect each other, or else you would not get a 110,000 year long repeating cycle.
If both did not effect each other, then you would not see a repeating cycle, you would instead just see a single steady change, either up or down.
 

watchingfromafar

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
710
Points
140
Science says we have artificially almost doubled the CO2, and that it is CO2 that is the main factor in the 110,000 year long natural climate cycle.
Many people believe increases in CO2 signals the end of us as we know it.

Those folks are wrong.

Animals, including ourselves breath in O2 and exhale CO2
Plants, including seaweed breath in CO2 and exhale O2

It is called the cycle of life
1632069144417.png

Deforestation is bad for us all
https://tinyurl.com/22xmd2b
:)-
 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
I stopped reading at [1] Fossil fuels are running out.

Peak Oil = lol

Wrong.
While there will always be some small fossil fuel reserves, they will become increasingly expensive, to the point they will be unusable.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Many people believe increases in CO2 signals the end of as we know it.

Those folks are wrong.

Animals, including ourselves breath in O2 and exhale CO2
Plants, including seaweed breath in CO2 and exhale O2

It is called the cycle of life
View attachment 541392
Deforestation is bad for us all
https://tinyurl.com/22xmd2b
:)-

The reason people do not understand this is that there is such a huge buffer.
If we killed all the plants, we would still survive for hundreds of year on the remaining buffer, before the human race finally went extinct.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
56,356
Reaction score
16,211
Points
2,180
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

Two retired environmental engineers did a 6 month study at my request (1 a flaming LibBot relative and 1 a member of my community).
They both came to the conclusion that at the current rate of technological advancement that the temperatures along the Eastern sea coast might increase by 5 degrees within the next 100 years.
They also stated that based on the last 10 years of technological advancement that no one receiving a paycheck will admit it will take way more than 100 years.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
30,049
Points
2,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.
That is right. Coincidence does not mean correlation. By my count, the Earth has had seven major heating events that dwarf our so called climate change now. Likewise, the Earth has had at least seven major Ice Ages as well where the Earth practically turned into one big frozen snowball. None of it was caused by man. That is not to say that exhaust from factory and cars don't have some reenforcing or contributory influences.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.
A little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Much like the Left's Covid response, their shutdowns did more harm than the virus itself, if we did what the Left wants now, we might effect some cooling or blunt some of the heating, but to what end? We might save a polar bear or a penguin, but at the expense of wrecking human civilization.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?
Not much. Rather foolhardy to leap into an agreement which punishes you the most while leaving the planet's greatest polluter, ie, CHINA, scott free. Does that mean I'm against a cleaner planet, smaller footprint and greener energy? Not at all, but these things WILL COME, but they must come naturally because their time has come, they are practical and effective and MARKETABLE to the human community at large as attractive, easy and affordable, not because some blowhard in the Oval Office orders it to placate his pathetic ego.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
LOL. Damn, you just keep on proving my points. 23 million years ago man was not on the planet and there was no ice in Greenland or Antarctica. You are really making a fool out of yourself.
You are the fool here. Apparently you have zero understanding of the history of the Earth, or of natural geological processes. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied of the history of the Earth for a number of natural reasons. That hardly means that we can double the amount of GHGs without affecting the temperature of the Earth.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
17,032
Reaction score
5,253
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Two retired environmental engineers did a 6 month study at my request (1 a flaming LibBot relative and 1 a member of my community).
They both came to the conclusion that at the current rate of technological advancement that the temperatures along the Eastern sea coast might increase by 5 degrees within the next 100 years.
They also stated that based on the last 10 years of technological advancement that no one receiving a paycheck will admit it will take way more than 100 years.

Not totally accurate because all we have to do in order to greatly increase CO2 is just more tropical slash and burn agriculture.
It does not at all require any increase in technical advancement.

But assuming it would take 100 years to increase climate by 5 degrees, what is your point?
A change of 5 degrees is huge and could cause massive starvation and dislocation as coastal cities become unlivable.
To give you a perspective, they estimate an 11 degree increase would cause human species extinction.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Irrelevant.
Of course at one time the planet had more CO2 than it does not, but that was changed by plants absorbing it and it turning into fossil fuel.
Obviously the fossil fuel remains show that at one time CO2 was very high, the planet was very warm, and it was covered in swamp.
But obviously these swamps absorbed all that extra carbon and left the planet with a much cooler atmosphere.
And since then, there have been at least 4 climate cycles of ice age and warming, with about a 110k year cycle.
b82f51aa6fbc5374bc9c389176b870cb.jpg
There is also the factor of orogeny. That is, mountain building. When rocks weather, they pull CO2 out of the air. In times of active orogeny, like the present, are times when the CO2 is low.
 

watchingfromafar

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
710
Points
140
Much like the Left's Covid response, their shutdowns did more harm than the virus itself,
I agree, yet I understand why people are trying to save as many lives as they can.

Having said that we need to just let it go, some will die as a result but in the end that old term herd immunity will set in and life will go on.
Oil is finite and the world will recover with or without us
:)-
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Wrong.
Per capita is all that matters.
That establishes the economic baseline everyone has to try to compete against.
No one else is going to reduce emissions until we do on a per capital basis.
Anything else would just be deliberate deception.
The US is the entire and ONLY problem.
Fix the US, and the rest of the world will stop polluting then as well.
Find the most economic way of doing it, build it, and sell it to the world. More wealth for all. The poor nations are the very ones that will feel the worst effects of climate change.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top