Some random thoughts on climate change

[renz20003]

I’m gonna assume anyone that was in school in the 80s and 90s will remember learning about the hole in the ozone layer. As a matter of fact NASA released this info last year.

2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery - NASA

Abnormal weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica dramatically limited ozone depletion in September and October, resulting in the

www.nasa.gov

My grandfather told me when I was young that if you went into a city and it was covered in smog that was a sign it was a successful city. I’ve never even seen smog, my point is the pollution had to be considerely worse back in the 40s and 50s. (Plus the use of leaded gasoline)

Could it be the the rise of industry in other countries hurting the climate or is the earth gonna do what it’s gonna do?

 

[Muse]

Could it be the the rise of industry in other countries hurting the climate or is the earth gonna do what it’s gonna do?

WTF is that supposed to mean???

Could you correct your OP with sensible and well thought out and grammatically correct English, please?

And could you please bother to reread your posts before hitting [POST REPLY]? Especially when it's an OP?

 

[renz20003]

Please stay on topic thx

 

[Muse]

Please stay on topic thx

I'm dead on topic, get your act together and address the concerns I posted above.

 

[renz20003]

I'm dead on topic, get your act together and address the concerns I posted above.

Topic isn’t about proper grammar

 

[Muse]

Topic isn’t about proper grammar

Topic doesn't mean shit if you can't understand the language it's presented in. Address my remark and edit your OP.

 

[renz20003]

Topic doesn't mean shit if you can't understand the language it's presented in. Address my remark and edit your OP.

If you can’t understand that I meant the earth is controlling the climate by my wording you don’t have a very firm grasp of English. Use your head think a little.

 

[extide]

So, it seems you are using two argument to attempt to dismiss climate change.

1) The Ozone hole
2) "Smog in cities"

First of all Climate change is about thousands of effects, probably more, not just a couple -- but they are all directly related to human activity.

The hole in the ozone layer is a very specific thing that happened because of very specific chemicals being introduced into the atmosphere. The fact that you agree it happened means you acknowledge that humans can affect the environment. Thankfully we recognized this and fixed the problem, and voila -- the earth has healed.

Now as far as you are to talk about "Smog in cities" -- this is purely anecdotal. 100% not scientific at all. A proper argument would include measurements with actual numbers over time.


I mean I realize you are a lost cause and will never understand climate change because you are set in your ways, but it is a real thing and it is happening because of us.

Go tell your kids you are sorry.

 

[Muse]

If you can’t understand that I meant the earth is controlling the climate by my wording you don’t have a very firm grasp of English. Use your head think a little.

I don't come here to try to divine the meaning of ill-composed messages. This shouldn't be an exercise in language interpretation.

Your post would better belong in Politics and News, FYI.

I also don't think your concept has validity. Climate science is a major area of investigation now. Study the science, don't expect confirmation of your hair-brained deconstrutivism.

Read a few books (I have):

The Sixth Extinction

We're Doomed, Now What

Learning to die in the Anthropocene

 

[sandorski]

No and No.

 

[nutxo]

What we need is a good virus to get rid of some people.

 

[Greenman]

I don't come here to try to divine the meaning of ill-composed messages. This shouldn't be an exercise in language interpretation.

Your post would better belong in Politics and News, FYI.

I also don't think your concept has validity. Climate science is a major area of investigation now. Study the science, don't expect confirmation of your hair-brained deconstrutivism.

Read a few books (I have):

The Sixth Extinction

We're Doomed, Now What

Learning to die in the Anthropocene

I can't help but notice a common theme in those titles.

 

[Muse]

I can't help but notice a common theme in those titles.

Scientists are pretty much in agreement about what's going on. It's no coincidence that the literature has some commonality.

Try reading those 3 books. I read them to completion. That's something I have not done with a great many books that deserve it. It speaks to the quality of the writing, journalism and the interesting nature of the subject matter. I recommend all those titles.

 

[Greenman]

Scientists are pretty much in agreement about what's going on. It's no coincidence that the literature has some commonality.

Try reading those 3 books. I read them to completion. That's something I have not done with a great many books that deserve it. It speaks to the quality of the writing, journalism and the interesting nature of the subject matter. I recommend all those titles.

I'm actually much more interested in the process than the conclusion, and I've never found a detailed description of the process that I can understand. I found one with enough greek letters in it to give me a headache, and a whole bunch that say "CO2 makes the atmosphere hotter, we're doomed". A layman's translation of the entire subject and the calculations involved would be fascinating, but probably wouldn't sell.
One of the questions I tried to find an answer to a while back was how so little CO2 (in the atmosphere as a whole) could cause such a large increase in energy retention. I found a couple of articles that were well beyond my comprehension, but nothing simplified enough that a dumb old contractor could understand it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

There was tons of awareness on how bad CFCs were, and over time there were efforts to reduce/eliminate them. And that fixed the ozone. The ozone is still not o100% but it's better.

Climate change is now the more serious threat, that and all the pollution that ends up in the ocean and just everywhere in general. There are islands the size of texas of nothing but plastic floating. It's nasty. Most of the plankton in the ocean has been killed off as well, and it turns out they produce more oxygen than the trees. But the trees are also being mass cut and burnt. Here in north america logging companies are pretty good for replanting, they may even replant more than what they took, but in other parts of the world like the amazon they've been clear cutting and burning it at a crazy pace. Most of it is gone now. Before the fire about half of it had been claimed by humans and most of the rest burnt down.

But even if we were to plant trees on every square inch of land, without the plankton we would still be in trouble if we don't stop greenhouse gas emissions. Methane from cows is also surprisingly bad. You would not think, because it's just an animal and is natural, but what is not natural is having that many cows in one place. Overall we're fucked unless the powers that be stop beating around the bush and let go of their fossil fuel, and that's never going to happen. The world runs on it and the economy runs on it, and they arn't willing to change that.

Even if we go all electric it's not going to be 100% good as the rare metals to make batteries are only found in a few places. For EVs to really take off we really need to come up with a better battery tech. It's not just cars that need to be electric, it's everything from heavy equipment to even cargo ships. 1 cargo ship pollutes more in one hour than a million cars in a year, or something like that.

 

[sdifox]

Random, sure. Thoughts, not so much.

 

[sandorski]

I'm actually much more interested in the process than the conclusion, and I've never found a detailed description of the process that I can understand. I found one with enough greek letters in it to give me a headache, and a whole bunch that say "CO2 makes the atmosphere hotter, we're doomed". A layman's translation of the entire subject and the calculations involved would be fascinating, but probably wouldn't sell.
One of the questions I tried to find an answer to a while back was how so little CO2 (in the atmosphere as a whole) could cause such a large increase in energy retention. I found a couple of articles that were well beyond my comprehension, but nothing simplified enough that a dumb old contractor could understand it.

You love the Process, but you don't understand it, thus you reject the Conclusions of others using the Process.

Congrats.

 

[Greenman]

You love the Process, but you don't understand it, thus you reject the Conclusions of others using the Process.

Congrats.

Odd statement, and completely inaccurate. I haven't rejected anything, I would simply like to understand it. Why be defensive about it? Why is my interest in the process a threat to your knowledge or belief? A deeper understanding of what's happening and why can't be detrimental to the situation or the solution.

 

[sandorski]

Odd statement, and completely inaccurate. I haven't rejected anything, I would simply like to understand it. Why be defensive about it? Why is my interest in the process a threat to your knowledge or belief? A deeper understanding of what's happening and why can't be detrimental to the situation or the solution.

Then learn the "Greek". Don't disparage the Conclusions from Ignorance.

 

[Brainonska511]

What we need is a good virus to get rid of some people.

That's a pretty horrific thought.

 

[renz20003]

A simple explanation of why my points are inaccurate would have been sufficient. Way to treat people with kindness and respect.

 

[Brainonska511]

My grandfather told me when I was young that if you went into a city and it was covered in smog that was a sign it was a successful city. I’ve never even seen smog, my point is the pollution had to be considerely worse back in the 40s and 50s. (Plus the use of leaded gasoline)

Could it be the the rise of industry in other countries hurting the climate or is the earth gonna do what it’s gonna do?

Smog was directly related to a lack of pollution controls on vehicles and industry. Even before offshoring, instituting mandatory pollution controls greatly reduced smog in urban areas.

As for the idea that the "earth is gonna do what's it's gonna do" - that's just straight-up climate change denialism. It's extremely well documented that human actions have been dramatically affecting the climate - it doesn't matter if they are in this country or in another country. Per capita, the US is one of the largest GHG emitters per capita; your statement reads like you're trying to pass the buck to other countries to shirk our own responsibility in fixing this mess.

 

[Greenman]

Then learn the "Greek". Don't disparage the Conclusions from Ignorance.

I don't understand why you keep responding to things I didn't say. I never disparaged the conclusions. I never claimed that climate change wasn't a real condition. I never questioned the science. I stated that I haven't been able to find an in depth layman's explanation.
This is the second defensive response from you, over words I never said, why?

 

[JEDIYoda]

A simple explanation of why my points are inaccurate would have been sufficient. Way to treat people with kindness and respect.

fat chance that happenning in OT!!! Now had you posted this oin P&N where it belongs you would find kindness to a point! But respect is earned!

 

[EliteRetard]

This is my attempt at a simple example:

A+B+C = X treated energy

Messing with A traps a bit more energy, which melts a bit of B, which reflects less meaning a bit more trapped energy, which messes with C reducing reflection and absorption of substances that mess with A. Normally a cycle like this happens incredibly slow, and plants/animals can adapt. In certain situations (natural or man made) it happens to fast for adaptation and can become a snowball effect. We have been forcing cycles like this harder and faster than nature can cope with and have reached snowball point. Even if we stopped now, the snowball effect will continue...we actually need to take steps to reverse what we have done to stop the snowball.

Rapid changes like this are a problem:

Even if people refuse to believe humans are having any effect, NOBODY can refute the massive rapid changes happening to the planet.
Even if we aren't causing it, we desperately need to do something about it. Almost nothing can adapt to such changes so rapidly (as little as a single lifetime).
Despite how high and mighty we think we are, we absolutely require the plants and animals (and the earth/water) for our own survival.