ADVERTISEMENT

Climate changes already affecting you

W

Watu3

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 17, 2017
1,375
185
63
While climate deniers claim mankind's activities do not change the climate, mankind created activities are already affecting everyone right now in the form of pollution. Two examples are

Air pollution is a result of pumping CO2, NOX, and other gases and particles into the air. Even what we now consider clean air is reducing life spans and causing illnesses around the world, even here. It's not as bad as it used to be in the US before the Clean Air Act, but reducing the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act will reverse our gains.

Ocean pollution can affect you whether or not you live near the ocean.
 
Watu3 said:
While climate deniers claim mankind's activities do not change the climate, mankind created activities are already affecting everyone right now in the form of pollution. Two examples are

Air pollution is a result of pumping CO2, NOX, and other gases and particles into the air. Even what we now consider clean air is reducing life spans and causing illnesses around the world, even here. It's not as bad as it used to be in the US before the Clean Air Act, but reducing the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act will reverse our gains.

Ocean pollution can affect you whether or not you live near the ocean.
Click to expand...

Amazing that you have internet in your mud hut...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and maverickfp
Brought to you from the same people who believe Miami will cease to exist in three years and mankind will be gone in eleven....and the sheep just continue to believe the nonsense without a second thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4tu2
"THE CLIMATE IS IN CRISIS" I type using my computer connected to wifi on the jet I'm flying to China, the greatest country on earth.
 
Wouldn’t those most concerned about climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, etc..be supportive of the shortening of life spans? Less people = lower carbon emissions, lower consumption of resources, etc. Seems like a positive as it relates to this topic.
 
I was worried whether Tea that I get when I eat out was made with micro plastics . I can control what I have in my own kitchen but when I go out I have no idea if the bag is plastic or if it is paper . So what I did was buy a case of German beer .
 
California has scheduled rolling blackouts. Many thought, no problem, I have solar panels. Not so fast my friend. Solar panels don't work when the grid is down, and battery backups only last 6-8 hours.

It seems that the solar panels are not connected the home. The solar panels send kw to the grid, and the house gets it power kw from the grid.

Ouch!! not exactly as one would think.
 
There are panels located in neighborhoods that may be hooked up to the houses first. Can't remember if it works that way for sure in that setup. I'm wondering if you could have it rewired that way in an emergency with the electric company's approval.
 
Gmoney4WW said:
There are panels located in neighborhoods that may be hooked up to the houses first. Can't remember if it works that way for sure in that setup. I'm wondering if you could have it rewired that way in an emergency with the electric company's approval.
Click to expand...
My information was from a solar panel salesman in California.
 
Everything influences climate. Always has. Volcanoes to diarrhea to sun spots. Here is an interesting fact, T. rex is extinct and nobody cared. If he were here he would have you for lunch. Climate enabled people to walk to the Western Hemisphere. Man has always caused problems. Horticulturists shipped plants to Europe, including poison ivy, no need to thank them.

Sapiens is smarter than Neanderthal although the latter were human. If I were to get an electric car that will not by some magic stop billions of people in China and India from polluting nor will Al Gore's prediction which has long ago expired.

And the beat goes on...
 
I was hiking in Big Bend national park near the border of Mexico, ascending a mountain when about a third of the way up were fossilized sea organisms. The whole area was once a huge ocean.
Up till about 9000 years ago, Chicago was covered in a mile of ice. There have been times in the earth’s history when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today.

Now I remember why I never visit the crossfire board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverickfp
Henry Kendall said:
I was hiking in Big Bend national park near the border of Mexico, ascending a mountain when about a third of the way up were fossilized sea organisms. The whole area was once a huge ocean.
Up till about 9000 years ago, Chicago was covered in a mile of ice. There have been times in the earth’s history when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today.

Now I remember why I never visit the crossfire board.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is we weren't around to have to deal with the changes that happened then. I'm fairly certain that when the changes happened naturally(15M years ago) to drive CO2 that high, humans would have suffered massive tragedies. If they were about the planet in the places where we currently occupy space, human tragedy would have been unavoidable.

As lawpoke is constantly saying, we must find technological solutions to deal with the changes. The democrats desperate desire for a vain attempt is a lost cause. Bankrupting the entire world is not a solution. Bankrupting only the US is even more vain than that. Neither are likely to eradicate the problem. That essentially would be paying massive amounts of money to spray liquid from an orifice...

into the wind.
 
Actually, when the CO2 was 4000 ppm, there was a solar minimum so things weren’t affected as much as you’d think. I’m for clean air. My point is, thinking that we can reduce a trace gas from 400 ppm to 350 and it will be like adjusting the thermostat on the earth, is just plain asinine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and maverickfp
The issue is rate of change. With the exception of catastrophic events such as when a huge meteor hit the earth and wiped out 80% of life on the planet almost immediately including the beloved dinosaurs, the climate has never changed this rapidly. Which means that life doesn't have time to adjust.

Waiting around for things to get worse is economically nuts. Prevention is far cheaper than allowing things to go beyond a tipping point which may be irreversible. In thinking about tipping points there are vast reservoirs of carbon pent up in northern permafrost and deep lakes in Siberia which if allowed to continue to warm could release untold amounts of carbon to the atmosphere rapidly. Not just CO2 but methane.

Apparently the climate deniers posting are already experts, but just in case someone is interested in learning about climate change and extinction consider the following:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/03/choked-by-beth-gardiner-review

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Sixth_Extinction.html?id=Ra9RAQAAQBAJ

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691173993/brave-new-arctic

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/northeastern-siberia.html


QUOTE="Henry Kendall, post: 269370, member: 148"]I was hiking in Big Bend national park near the border of Mexico, ascending a mountain when about a third of the way up were fossilized sea organisms. The whole area was once a huge ocean.
Up till about 9000 years ago, Chicago was covered in a mile of ice. There have been times in the earth’s history when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today.

Now I remember why I never visit the crossfire board.[/QUOTE]
 
Watu3 said:
The issue is rate of change. With the exception of catastrophic events such as when a huge meteor hit the earth and wiped out 80% of life on the planet almost immediately including the beloved dinosaurs, the climate has never changed this rapidly. Which means that life doesn't have time to adjust.

Waiting around for things to get worse is economically nuts. Prevention is far cheaper than allowing things to go beyond a tipping point which may be irreversible. In thinking about tipping points there are vast reservoirs of carbon pent up in northern permafrost and deep lakes in Siberia which if allowed to continue to warm could release untold amounts of carbon to the atmosphere rapidly. Not just CO2 but methane.

Apparently the climate deniers posting are already experts, but just in case someone is interested in learning about climate change and extinction consider the following:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/03/choked-by-beth-gardiner-review

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Sixth_Extinction.html?id=Ra9RAQAAQBAJ

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691173993/brave-new-arctic

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/northeastern-siberia.html


QUOTE="Henry Kendall, post: 269370, member: 148"]I was hiking in Big Bend national park near the border of Mexico, ascending a mountain when about a third of the way up were fossilized sea organisms. The whole area was once a huge ocean.
Up till about 9000 years ago, Chicago was covered in a mile of ice. There have been times in the earth’s history when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today.

Now I remember why I never visit the crossfire board.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

You simply don’t get it. We can bankrupt this country and wreck our economy and in the end the earth will still exceed the drop dead number set by the scientific community. It’s simple mathematics. If we would take this path we would have zero resources to deal with our warming climate. Add a huge debt we can’t service, hyper inflation and millions upon millions out of work with no tax revenue to care for them.

I’m all for a cleaner planet. I’m all for reducing our carbon footprint. I’m absolutely against using all our resources which we will need to deal with the coming changes in a futile effort. The number of sheep constantly amaze me. Common sense be damned. Loyalty to a political ideology is outweighing critical independent thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and Gmoney4WW
aTUfan said:
California has scheduled rolling blackouts. Many thought, no problem, I have solar panels. Not so fast my friend. Solar panels don't work when the grid is down, and battery backups only last 6-8 hours.

It seems that the solar panels are not connected the home. The solar panels send kw to the grid, and the house gets it power kw from the grid.

Ouch!! not exactly as one would think.
Click to expand...
Depends. The actual panels themselves are cheap as hell. You could get enough to power a 4000sf house in Tulsa relatively cheap. Its the ability to store the power created that is expensive. CA is using both solar and wind power generation...but that power is still generated and stored at power hubs throughout to supply communities, the same as hydro, coal or nuclear powered plants. From those sources they are disbursed. I was just in Oakland/SF area and they talked about rolling blackouts this week because it is extremely dry and bay area temps were expected to be in the mid 80s to low 90s through SF, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin Counties. PG&E is trying to limit/mitigate it's culpability if fires occur by cutting power to locations vulnerable to wildfires. PG&E is being sued by hundreds of people for their role in the huge fire last year that destroyed an entire town in central CA. As of yesterday there was a big fire in Sonoma County (we visited a state park in northern Alameda Co. to see the redwood forest. The ground is covered with branches and brush and dry pine needles. The park has signs everywhere right now about fires, smoking, etc. not being permitted within park boundaries due to high fire danger). Everything along the highways is dry and brown too.
 
The excuses change but the answer does not. Do nothing. Deny climate change exists back when it was manageable problem (Recall the claims that NOAA and NASA conspired to fake temperature readings) then move to “it may exist but it is not man made” to now: “it’s too late and too expensive!!” This is the “common sense” that continually disparages science with a chain of excuses that regardless of the facts always leads to the same conclusion: do nothing. That is the definition of “ideology”.
 
Last edited:
Watu3 said:
The excuses change but the answer does not. Do nothing. Deny climate change exists when it was manageable problem (NOAA and NASA conspired to fake temperature readings) then move to “it exists but not man made” to now: “it’s too late and too expensive!!” This is the “common sense” that has continually disparaged science with a chain of excuses. So just one more excuse: label the idea of addressing the issue as ideology. But whatever the it takes...Do nothing!
Click to expand...

I'll play. What do you suggest the US which will be successful in keeping the world from the stated "point of no return"? Please be specific and include the costs. Your analysis should include an explanation on how our reduction will keep the world-wide emission number under the stated limit. Also....please be mindful that the US has limited resources and money spent on your plan will take away and equal amount of money coping/dealing with our warming climate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
Climate change is effecting me, mostly my memory and my right knee. This cold wind and rain has that knee hurting. Don't say its old age because both knees are the same age.
 
TUMe said:
Climate change is effecting me, mostly my memory and my right knee. This cold wind and rain has that knee hurting. Don't say its old age because both knees are the same age.
Click to expand...
That's the weather causing your old man problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87
TU_BLA said:
That's the weather causing your old man problems.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is good to know. But I thought the weather problems were supposed to be warming. I get it now climate change can be warmer or colder. Hey, maybe we could remove CO2 in the Summer and release it in the Winter. They already do that with butane. Butane is bad in the Summer because it makes the vapor pressure of gasoline go up and increases emissions, but good in the Winter because (at least in older cars) makes for smoother starts. Store CO2 in the Summer and bring it back in the Winter. That was mostly a joke.

Yes, I am an old man but I made it to the gym twice today and now my knee quit hurting. My memory, however, is still no better.
 
One thing I've always wondered is: If we're to believe that the effects of man made warming will be catastrophic and that they require drastic measures to save the planet, would the same not also be true in the case of warming due to some natural phenomenon? It seems to me that based on this logic we are obligated to control the climate regardless of man's impact. And if warmer climate means more catastrophic weather events, then we're also obligated to find a way to cool the planet beyond it's natural temperature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a
URedskin54 said:
One thing I've always wondered is: If we're to believe that the effects of man made warming will be catastrophic and that they require drastic measures to save the planet, would the same not also be true in the case of warming due to some natural phenomenon? It seems to me that based on this logic we are obligated to control the climate regardless of man's impact. And if warmer climate means more catastrophic weather events, then we're also obligated to find a way to cool the planet beyond it's natural temperature.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's supposed to be some moral obligation. I think of it more in the lines of survival. It's only moral in the sense that if we don't do something all of humanity may have major difficulties in surviving. At least that's how I view it. The issue is whether the catastrophe will be more or less severe than some are predicting, and what we can do technologically to ease our ability of dealing with it.

Yeah if a meteor hit the planet right now we would have to react. We'd have to hope it was enough for some of us to survive, and hope the survivors would have some sort of normalcy to life.
 
URedskin54 said:
One thing I've always wondered is: If we're to believe that the effects of man made warming will be catastrophic and that they require drastic measures to save the planet, would the same not also be true in the case of warming due to some natural phenomenon? It seems to me that based on this logic we are obligated to control the climate regardless of man's impact. And if warmer climate means more catastrophic weather events, then we're also obligated to find a way to cool the planet beyond it's natural temperature.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting ethical question. I tend to think that yes, even if the warming were natural, if we can show it will lead to extinction level events and disrupt the world economy that we should seriously consider trying to stabilize the climate, or at least slow it down to a point that nature can adapt without mass extinctions and mass human migrations.

But that is a much thornier ethical issue. As controversial as climate change is, that would be ten times more controversial and I can sympathize with the opposing viewpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05 and URedskin54
Gmoney4WW said:
I don't think it's supposed to be some moral obligation. I think of it more in the lines of survival. It's only moral in the sense that if we don't do something all of humanity may have major difficulties in surviving. At least that's how I view it. The issue is whether the catastrophe will be more or less severe than some are predicting, and what we can do technologically to ease our ability of dealing with it.

Yeah if a meteor hit the planet right now we would have to react. We'd have to hope it was enough for some of us to survive, and hope the survivors would have some sort of normalcy to life.
Click to expand...

I have yet to find an activist on either side of any issue that doesn't believe they have a moral obligation to push their preferred policy.

But really what I meant is if climate change is going to harm people in the way that some are saying it will, other than picking the right remedy, why would it actually matter if it were caused by humans? And to what extent will we attempt influence the climate when earth warms or cools naturally? If for whatever reason earth naturally begins to rapidly cool and growing seasons are shortened in many areas, would we then attempt to pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to hold in heat?

Add in the fact that global carbon output isn't going to stop rapidly climbing for decades and the whole approach just kind of seems shortsighted to me. Trying to manage the climate seems like it will ultimately be fruitless and our efforts might be better spent on mitigating effects of a changing climate rather than trying to prevent them.

Then again maybe that's my first world privilege talking, and I am admittedly quite ignorant of the science of it all.
 
Last edited:
Clong83a said:
It is an interesting ethical question. I tend to think that yes, even if the warming were natural, if we can show it will lead to extinction level events and disrupt the world economy that we should seriously consider trying to stabilize the climate, or at least slow it down to a point that nature can adapt without mass extinctions and mass human migrations.

But that is a much thornier ethical issue. As controversial as climate change is, that would be ten times more controversial and I can sympathize with the opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess the real determinant for me would be if we came up with a way to do this independent of large scale human social / economic behavioral changes. That's where I really begin to question if solutions do more harm than good.
 
URedskin54 said:
I have yet to find an activist on either side of any issue that doesn't believe they have a moral obligation to push their preferred policy.

But really what I meant is if climate change is going to harm people in the way that some are saying it will, other than picking the right remedy, why would it actually matter if it were caused by humans? And to what extent will we attempt influence the climate when earth warms or cools naturally? If for whatever reason earth naturally begins to rapidly cool and growing seasons are shortened in many areas, would we then attempt to pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to hold in heat?

Add in the fact that global carbon output isn't going to stop rapidly climbing for decades and the whole approach just kind of seems shortsighted to me. Trying to manage the climate seems like it will ultimately be fruitless and our efforts might be better spent on mitigating effects of a changing climate rather than trying to prevent them.

Then again maybe that's my first world privilege talking, and I am admittedly quite ignorant of the science of it all.
Click to expand...
Those people specifically pointing out that it is caused by humans are laying blame on us. The idea is that those they are speaking to will feel responsibility to fix what humans have caused. But in reality it doesn't matter what caused it, just that winter is coming. The real issue is we must stop it, or mitigate it's effects or suffer the consequences. The blame doesn't really matter, the need to deal with it is still there, one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
Further evidence that the US better have a Plan B sooner rather than later regarding climate change. It appears we aren’t going to be able to reduce global emission regardless of how much money we throw at it much less keep us under the drop dead emissions number. When will those on the left start living in reality instead of their climate fantasy world which they’ve occupied the last ten years ? Time to devote resources into dealing with a warming climate

Sobering tidbit....China has more coal fired plants currently under construction than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tions-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
Watu3 said:
The excuses change but the answer does not. Do nothing. Deny climate change exists back when it was manageable problem (Recall the claims that NOAA and NASA conspired to fake temperature readings) then move to “it may exist but it is not man made” to now: “it’s too late and too expensive!!” This is the “common sense” that continually disparages science with a chain of excuses that regardless of the facts always leads to the same conclusion: do nothing. That is the definition of “ideology”.
Click to expand...
Why do you call people climate deniers? I don't know one person who denies climate change. What people don't go along with is dangerous global warming. It is handy to change the title of the perceived danger but it doesn't mean that we are not still talking about global warming. Climate will always change or there wouldn't be such a thing as climate. The low would always be 60 and the high 80 and the winds light and variable everywhere with a 30 percent chance of light to moderate rain.
 
TUMe said:
Why do you call people climate deniers? I don't know one person who denies climate change. What people don't go along with is dangerous global warming. It is handy to change the title of the perceived danger but it doesn't mean that we are not still talking about global warming. Climate will always change or there wouldn't be such a thing as climate. The low would always be 60 and the high 80 and the winds light and variable everywhere with a 30 percent chance of light to moderate rain.
Click to expand...

Much easier to just keep repeating the same meaningless phrase than partake in an intelligent discussion of a solution (or solutions) which will work based on the current global realities.
 
If climate change were ‘natural’ the changes would not be occurring at the rates they are which would allow for adjustments.

As you point climate science may project a range of different projected outcomes, but none are salutary.

Addressing the risks of man made climate change offers us a huge set of new opportunities, yet US policies and public investments largely ignore them compared to other countries among our peer group.

In the ethical terms you suggest, is it ethical for the US to continue to produce twice the carbon emissions than China, yet complain about Chinese pollution?

Or is it ethical to actively import pollution from other countries that undermine the health of Americans. See link

What Could Happen if a $9.4 Billion Chemical Plant Comes to “Cancer Alley”


https://www.propublica.org/article/...-billion-chemical-plant-comes-to-cancer-alley
 
I was watching a show the other day, not having a thing to do with climate change, that showed the waterline on some mountains in the California dessert, where the ocean was once 300 feet deep there. In the 1700’s. They were looking for a pirate shipwreck in the dessert. So yeah, things can change in a hurry on this earth.

As far a carbon emissions, the fearmongers seem to forget that the CO2 greenhouse effect is logarithmic, not linear. So as the concentrations go up, the effect becomes relatively less and less. And besides as a proportion CO2 is not the major driver of greenhouse effect anyway.

Why do these projections of global warming never seem to include solar output? It seems to be treated as a constant. Isn’t the sun the major cause of global warming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Harmon

College sports are out of control

Replies
1
Views
752
Hurricane Alley
TUMU
T
E

How will climate change affect the future of the planet?

Replies
27
Views
1K
Crossfire
aTUfan
A
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back