Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 166 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That would explain why these wells that have been pumped dry years ago now are found to have oil in them again.

Oddly enough, there's also another explanation: oil fracking. It's common knowledge, but you seem uncommonly focused on interesting explanations. Good luck! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The market solved the problem of 'running out of oil' pretty efficiently, though that was not a Tragedy of the Commons.
The market is solving the electric car problem pretty well.
I think the climate change problem is too complicated for a government micromanagement solution to work.  Instead, the government needs to create incentives and disincentives and let the market take care of the complexities. 

 

Edited by Erwin Solo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Climate change (they stopped calling it "global warming") is indeed real. At the UN, I would see how certain island nations were literally in danger of disappearing into the sea and suffering all kinds of loss of livelihoods and homes. In my own home on the East River, I saw how first one hurricane, then another undermined it, and then Hurricane Sandy forced us out of our homes for weeks. Some of us had to come back and live in those dark rat-infested towers when the waters receded because the relatives' homes we fled to were also inundated. There were literally people who tried to drive their way out on the FDR drive who swam up to the plaza of our building which is technically on the third floor above street level. My son, who remained behind when we all fled because he thought it was a fascinating photo opp, helped pull them out and find them dry clothes and soup on a bunsen burner. To this day, they are struggling with huge sinkholes and now a coastal reclamation project which has paralyzed all the nice walks we used to take for miles. It's real, it's a thing.

I remember you talking about your travails with Sandy.  I also read a horrific story about a mother and her adult daughter thrust under the water as the mother watched her daughter swept away to die.

These storms are indeed getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The question is how you respond, and whether you do this with hysterical far leftist politics that are more about anti-capitalism and anti-freedom than they really are about actually saving the earth and mitigating climate change. And communities don't always have choices given the huge cost. 


A lot of people are bothered by Greta and her histrionics but she actually didn't bother me. Let her get out her message, let the adults who manipulated her have a conscience, but basically, the message is one that isn't wrong and might have an effect.

I will say that the organization that took her up in the US called 350 has been an utter disappointment, even a fraud. I originally signed up for it and went on their activist phone calls thinking, 

I'm pretty jaded at all the leftists over the years who took up this cause.

There is something every single person can do even at their individual level and if a movement can't tell you that and be reasonable about it, beware.

A movement that is brittle and rigid in ideology does not succeed, as we have seen with all this AOC nonsense about "green jobs". There has to be willingness to work through the democratic process and make compromises.

I'm undecided about The Green New Deal. I don't see it as anti-government, but would need to understand the current science better to determine if it indeed could be effective. I wonder about coming improvements that could make it a viable option (where it doesn't harm the environment as much). Also, I don't believe just because the green movement could make some wealthy we should ditch it on that basis (as some believe), as the benefits would outweigh such concerns.

I don't like the 360 movement either...but have not researched them much and am only going by other people's assessments.

I agree...we can all do something on an individual level to ameliorate the problems too -- add this factor to the necessary sweeping changes beyond any individual.

What don't you like about the 'green jobs' or why do you think they would not be effective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jackson Redstar said:

TBH, nobody argues climate change isn't real. It has been happening for 4+ billion years an will continue to happen - no matter how much we tax carbon... We have had global ice ages and periods that were much much warmer than today (when civillation's boomed) The problem now is every 10 years we have 'planetary emergencies' and all these computer models showing we are all doomed if we don't act now - and 10 years later none of those models turned out to be correct and they issue another all new set of dire warnings

Just because it's difficult to pinpoint an exact date does not mean it's not happening.

What part of the 'greenhouse effect' do you disagree with?

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jackson Redstar said:

And in general when nearly every single model used to predict their theories turn out to be wrong, it is a pretty reasonable assumption that the base theories are just wrong. In short this whole "climate change" is the biggest scientific scandal in the history of mankind.

As I said before, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact date (for example, when the arctic sea ice will be gone). Why you would use this to diss the whole theory is beyond me. You only need to look at the data to see we have a big problem, and it doesn't matter if we know EXACTLY WHEN the sea ice will disappear....we only need to see it decreasing with each passing year to know this is a continuing trend:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-minimum-arctic-sea-ice-extent

 

arctic ice.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 2:55 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

Make beef cost what beef actually costs.

Education is #1. If people know the actual cost of things, they will find alternatives like hunting, farming, or eating bugs (their choice.) So long as the bug eaters don't try to take the rifles of the hunters and the land from the farmers.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:47 PM, Ceka Cianci said:

...  there is much more to a forest that gets lost than just the trees..

You'll hear that "more trees in the last 40 years" stat, but an established forest is so much more valuable than trees in a park.

 

On 6/13/2021 at 12:00 AM, Alwin Alcott said:

best way to save this world, environment, pollution, climate, animal life etc...... reduce the human population with 75% in the next 5 years ..  ( not very popular, but effective.)

The same percentage needed to vaccinate for herd immunity. I swear if "they" didn't take advantage of this fact and stop reproduction or something then "they" are idiots who don't really exist. xD

 

On 6/13/2021 at 4:46 AM, Jackson Redstar said:

There is NO, NONE, nada. zip "planetary emergency" or whatever scary catch phrase they can come up with next. It wasn't but a few hundred thousand years ago much of  of north America was covered with a glacier - all that melted long before hamburger eating man driving his gas guzzling SUV arrived on scene

I've learned that it's okay to be annoyed with scare tactics AND understand climate change at the same time.

 

People use the "entire population of Earth could be housed in the state of Texas" theory to try and prove that there isn't a population problem.

All that does for me is make me think of a creature the size of Texas roaming around consuming the planet and trying to survive. I don't think it would last long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That would explain why these wells that have been pumped dry years ago now are found to have oil in them again.

The way the oil industry works is that, when the price of oil falls below a particular level,  it becomes uneconomic to extract it from particular wells because extraction costs are too high to make  a profit. 

When that happens, you have to mothball the well until the spot price rises again, or find a less expensive method of extraction.

That's what "pumped dry" usually means -- there's plenty of oil there still, but it's not currently a commercial proposition to extract it,

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:
14 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Citations?

I see crackpot blogs in your future.

Perhaps. I do sometimes gain understanding from seeing how others misunderstand.

Here are the two claims Arielle made, for which I requested supporting evidence...

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Oil is probably a renewable resource spanning decades rather than millions of years. That would explain why these wells that have been pumped dry years ago now are found to have oil in them again.

Though I await a response from Arielle, Desiree Moonwinder produced a citation, presumably in support. Here's the conclusion from that article...

The reality is not that we are "running out of oil," but rather that we are transitioning from a period of easily-accessible oil at low prices to an era of increasingly unconventional production, which has higher costs. Companies will not try to develop these unconventional resources unless consumers are willing to pay the price (economic and environmental) or governments heavily subsidize oil production or consumption. So far, the world has found a way to consume plenty of $100 per barrel oil. At some point, unconventional oil exploration will get so expensive that consumers will look to lower-cost alternatives. Oil will price itself out of the market before the world truly runs out.

To support Arielle's contention that oil is a renewable resource, created over decades rather than millions of years and refilling abandoned wells, Desiree produced an article that states oil will eventually price itself out of the market as it becomes more difficult and costly to extract.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

I hope one day to be a renewable resource (separate from reincarnation, etc.) - why let all those energetic flammable atoms go to waste? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Perhaps. I do sometimes gain understanding from seeing how others misunderstand.

Here are the two claims Arielle made, for which I requested supporting evidence...

I'll bet what Arielle is referring to is the abiotic origin of oil hypothesis. By hypothesis I mean insane rabbit hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Just because it's difficult to pinpoint an exact date does not mean it's not happening.

What part of the 'greenhouse effect' do you disagree with?

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

I for one believe climate change is a real thing. I also believe that our mismanagement of the earth has potentially increased its timeframe. That said, reading that article you posted doesn't show anything about population being the cause. It is all about how lifestyles have caused it. It takes no consideration into it that we can do everything possible now to reduce our footprint yet, if population continues to grow at its current pace, it will continue to happen no matter what we do.

The article talks of deforestation being a contributor. What is the action taken on this? Simply stern warnings not to cut down forests of which go unheeded because population needs the growth and land. Get rid of cows and eggs they say? What is their response to this? Grow and eat more vegetables. Herding allows trees and other vegetation to remain, whilst agriculture requires fields to be laid barren of all vegetation that is positive towards the climate. Not to mention that soil cultivation is listed as a major contributor in that article and any form of change from a simpler easier method would see huge inflation in prices.

Why also does that article (maybe cause it is old) not mention that the permafrost melting in the northern hemisphere is the number one cause currently under study for CO² emissions? It has been calculated recently that just the permafrost melting (which was going to happen due to natural climate change) is contributing 4 times the amount of CO² emissions than all human activity on earth combined. Arctic permafrost releases more CO2 than once believed -- ScienceDaily and Melting Arctic permafrost contains 4x amount of carbon ever emitted by humans

Climate change is a natural phenomena, we are still coming out of the last ice age and therefore temperature rises are expected. 100,000 (from memory) there was no ice on Antarctica. Whilst I agree we should take better care of the earth and get rid of pollution etc, any talk of mankind being the only CAUSE of climate change is rubbish. Has mankind damaged the earth by its activities? Yes, of course it has but I think one must also take into consideration climate change science is still an unknown hence those studies in the 1970's saying it was imminent have changed, likewise the ozone hole etc.

As mentioned the permafrost discovery is a new factor not realised till now and currently under study. We dont know what happened or how quick it happened during the last warming cycle or cooling cycle. It was 100,0000's of years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

... our mismanagement of the earth ...

Remember too that humans are a force of nature which includes everything they create. It's all natural. Aside from nature's move toward big brains, humans were never officially tasked with managing the Earth. If anything, nature is still responsible. She still needs to remove some of the carnal nonsense from the big brains before blame can be assigned. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Climate change is a natural phenomena, we are still coming out of the last ice age and therefore temperature rises are expected. 100,000 (from memory) there was no ice on Antarctica. Whilst I agree we should take better care of the earth and get rid of pollution etc, any talk of mankind being the only CAUSE of climate change is rubbish. Has mankind damaged the earth by its activities? Yes, of course it has but I think one must also take into consideration climate change science is still an unknown hence those studies in the 1970's saying it was imminent have changed, likewise the ozone hole etc.

As mentioned the permafrost discovery is a new factor not realised till now and currently under study. We dont know what happened or how quick it happened during the last warming cycle or cooling cycle. It was 100,0000's of years ago.

The Sun tabloid might have discovered the dangers of thawing of the permafrost recently, but this article from 2011 with references to earlier research indicates it isn't new to anyone getting their information from better sources than tabloids. https://skepticalscience.com/Permafrost-Final.html

Temperature rises might be expected based on the cycles of ice ages, but not to the extent we are seeing it. The carbon footprint in the atmosphere is all man made, the evidence is all there for why we know it is man made change. Look at the video I posted before.

Your argument seems to be "it is not just manmade" but population also ice ages. Your arguments appear to be desperate clutching at straws and for no discernible purpose

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

The Sun tabloid might have discovered the dangers of thawing of the permafrost recently, but this article from 2011 with references to earlier research indicates it isn't new to anyone getting their information from better sources than tabloids. https://skepticalscience.com/Permafrost-Final.html

Never said the permafrost melting was new. I said the recent studies related to permafrost and co2 emissions being 4 times higher than previously thought was. Not even the Sun article says that permafrost melting is new. So no idea where you got that from my post. Or is it a case of you just seeing a newspaper linking to university studies and just came to the conclusion oh a newspaper... it must say x,y,z ?

Quote

Temperature rises might be expected based on the cycles of ice ages, but not to the extent we are seeing it. The carbon footprint in the atmosphere is all man made, the evidence is all there for why we know it is man made change. Look at the video I posted before.

I disagree that the carbon footprint in the atmosphere is all man made.

So according to you, such things as permafrost melting which has resulted in enormous CO2 emissions is man made? Despite the fact that that trapped carbon under the permafrost has been there since before man really did anything and would have eventually defrosted anyway? What about volcano's they also produce CO2 every eruption or do you seriously believe that once volcano erupts with CO2 it magically disappears from the atmosphere yet mankind's carbon footprint doesn't.  Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov 

Then there is forest fires. The forest fires that were in Australia in 2019 put out half of Australia's CO2 emissions for an entire year. These large fires have happened for centuries with the Aboriginal's even recording massive fires of equal scale and smaller but large enough ones happening every year for 1000's of years.

Quote

Your argument seems to be "it is not just manmade" but population also ice ages. Your arguments appear to be desperate clutching at straws and for no discernible purpose

No I do not think it was all man made i.e. our pollution. There is no evidence of that and no scientist worth their grain of salt would even argue such a thing. That said, as I mentioned in my post that you magically ignored, I believe as well thousands of scientists that mankind is responsible for accelerating it.

As far as population goes, it has everything to do with that or are you suggesting that 1 person would need as much industry as 2?

If at the beginning of the 20th century there was 1.6 billion people, that means less trees being cut down for urban sprawl, cities, building materials you name it. That means more trees to soak up the CO2. Now 100 years later the earth is less green because of deforestation due to population that there is not enough trees to compensate. Since 1990 we have lost 1.3million km² of forest which means not enough to absorb our emissions.

To put that into perspective here is brief of the UN scientific advisor saying climate change can be stopped with the planting of 1.2 trillion trees. Here's How Many Trees It Would Take to Cancel Out Climate Change (treehugger.com)

Has mankind contributed to greenhouse gasses and climate change yes. Is mankind solely responsible for those no.

Edited by Drayke Newall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

. That said, reading that article you posted doesn't show anything about population being the cause. 

The article talks of deforestation being a contributor. What is the action taken on this? Simply stern warnings not to cut down forests of which go unheeded because population needs the growth and land. Get rid of cows and eggs they say? What is their response to this? Grow and eat more vegetables. Herding allows trees and other vegetation to remain, whilst agriculture requires fields to be laid barren of all vegetation that is positive towards the climate. Not to mention that soil cultivation is listed as a major contributor in that article and any form of change from a simpler easier method would see huge inflation in prices.

Why also does that article (maybe cause it is old) not mention that the permafrost melting in the northern hemisphere is the number one cause currently under study for CO² emissions? It has been calculated recently that just the permafrost melting (which was going to happen due to natural climate change) is contributing 4 times the amount of CO² emissions than all human activity on earth combined. Arctic permafrost releases more CO2 than once believed -- ScienceDaily and Melting Arctic permafrost contains 4x amount of carbon ever emitted by humans

Climate change is a natural phenomena, we are still coming out of the last ice age and therefore temperature rises are expected. 100,000 (from memory) there was no ice on Antarctica. Whilst I agree we should take better care of the earth and get rid of pollution etc, any talk of mankind being the only CAUSE of climate change is rubbish. Has mankind damaged the earth by its activities? Yes, of course it has but I think one must also take into consideration climate change science is still an unknown hence those studies in the 1970's saying it was imminent have changed, likewise the ozone hole etc.

As mentioned the permafrost discovery is a new factor not realised till now and currently under study. We dont know what happened or how quick it happened during the last warming cycle or cooling cycle. It was 100,0000's of years ago.

The link I provided from NASA was not intended to be a complete treatise on climate change but rather that particular page of the NASA website was presented as instruction on the greenhouse effect, as it seemed from earlier posts that Jackson did not understand how climate change could be caused by humans and their CO2 emissions which contribute to the greenhouse effect. Besides, their focus is on the scientific mechanics of climate change and not psychological and sociological factors contributing to it, like excess population.

But regarding what causes the climate to change I agree that humans are not the sole cause of the climate changing. However they are the primary cause of the change and are responsible for the phenomenon of "climate change" or "global warming". We are warming 50 times faster now than what occurs in the natural progression out of an ice age -- due to human influence (according to a new study, whereas previous studies put the figure at 20 times faster).

It is actually the speed of climate change that's the most dangerous as it doesn't give enough time for animals and plants to adapt and survive in their changed environment, and when the plants and animals die then humans die because we are dependent on them for life.

And so it's useless to raise the point that not only humans cause the climate to change because the way we are changing it (the speed) is what's important in evaluating the danger. 

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

That said, reading that article you posted doesn't show anything about population being the cause. It is all about how lifestyles have caused it. It takes no consideration into it that we can do everything possible now to reduce our footprint yet, if population continues to grow at its current pace, it will continue to happen no matter what we do.

Excess population is still considered an important variable in assessing climate change, but it's not as important as it once was. This is because the rate of population growth is actually diminishing and it's believed the trend will continue and population will level off in the 2050's.

As more women are educated, and as people continue to increasingly move from rural areas to cities, they have less children. Less children are needed to work on the farm, and women are fulfilled by work activity as well as childrearing. The leveling off has already occurred in the more industrialized world, which is especially good because the so-called 'first world' uses more resources and emits more CO2 per capita than less developed countries.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can determine the source of the CO2 that mysteriously started accumulating in the atmosphere about the same time we started burning dinosaur juice by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes. No prizes for guessing where it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 166 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...