Nah, it is more entertaining to watch you try to convince yourself how smart you are. It appears you are your own biggest fan. . .. congrats! Carry on . . .
Global warming - fixed!
- Thread starter bobback
- Start date
The whole idea of renewable energy and electric cars really doesn't add up. The last I heard windmills cost more to maintain then they produce. Not to mention the wildlife harm. Then there is solar power which takes up a lot of space for little electric gain. Has a study been done on the warming affect of those sun attractants.
We will always be dependant on oil. Heating, plastics, rubber, fuel, tar. Anyone who thinks a little prius makes a difference really needs to consider their batteries and what it takes to make the car on top of a regular gas or diesel vehicle.
Analysis of global warming is incomplete.. You cannot base climate change on a 100 years of data for a planet that has been around at least 100 times that.. If you really are concerned with Carbon footprint plant trees. Don't judge others but do what you feel is right and be happy with yourself.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
We will always be dependant on oil. Heating, plastics, rubber, fuel, tar. Anyone who thinks a little prius makes a difference really needs to consider their batteries and what it takes to make the car on top of a regular gas or diesel vehicle.
Analysis of global warming is incomplete.. You cannot base climate change on a 100 years of data for a planet that has been around at least 100 times that.. If you really are concerned with Carbon footprint plant trees. Don't judge others but do what you feel is right and be happy with yourself.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
So you think the earth is 10,000 years old too? There’s really no hope for you people ...
You honestly think they are only working with 100 years of data? Get a clue. Ever hear of ice cores, fossil record, even looking at old moraines to see the extent of glaciers in the last go round? That’s just a fraction of the data they have.
All the weather info from ice cores and other scientific data are theories of what the climate was at a period of time. Historical science is theory, and multiple scientist have different theories about the history of earth.
Sorry I dont agree with your theory onthe age of mother earth. Do I know the exact age no but it is a hell of a lot older then the 100 years of exact weather facts we have
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
It sure does, and it also shows that past increases in co2 without a specific event such as burning tons of oil and coal for a couple hundred years happened much slower than the current rate and didn’t swing by as much as they are now.
All theories and speculation. Again multiple theories about history. The great division of land mass, glacial lake formations, creation of Hawaii and other islands. All theories in time. No way of knowing if things happening faster or slower over time. Being the earth rotation has sped up in our short time of monitoring do we know the effect of this on history and climate. We can not possibly know the variables from way back millions or billions of years.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Do you understand the definition of scientific theory? Here’s a hint, it doesn’t mean “wild ass guess”. Creationism is not scientific theory, it’s fantasy.
Say you are out in the woods, hundreds of miles from anywhere that receives snow on a regular basis. You come across a boulder about the size of a house that looks kinda round, like maybe it was tumbled in something for a few millennia? How did it get there? Don’t have to be a climate scientist to figure that one out...
I don’t know what “theories “ you are referring to about the age of the earth, the general consensus is about 4.6 billion years. Give or take a few hundred million as it took a whole heck of a lot more than 7 days to go from a bunch of swirling dust to anything that resembles a planet...
But if you can’t get past things as basic as that then how in the heck could you understand something as simple as the fact that burning tons of oil and coal creates CO2. Introducing large amounts of CO2 quickly (150 years is a blink of an eye to “Mother Earth”) has a PROVEN effect on climate. Removing forests hampers the ability to remove co2. If everyone made reasonable decisions and reduced their consumption just a bit without really affecting their lives this effect can be slowed down exponentially.
Here’s some good insight on ice cores. Yeah, not accurate at all...
Core questions: An introduction to ice cores - NASA Science
How drilling deeply can help us understand past climates and predict future climates.
climate.nasa.gov
Never said wild guess.... your assumptions make you ignorant to possibilities. I dont doubt what the scientists find in the cores. But what is concluded is interpretation.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
So switchbackdragon had a good point, plant trees. Let's talk about the complexities of just doing that.
1. Where do you plant the trees? Your typical homeowner has a little space for a tree but that isn't enough to offset tree loss even. Wide open private land maybe? Well those owners want their open space for farms or cattle because that is where the profit is, not trees. Utilize public land? Sure you can plant in burned areas and hope it goes back in 30 years. You aren't going to import top soil in as that is too expensive
2. What kind of tree do you plant? You don't want to plant a non native invasive species that takes over and kills other trees. Not all trees will do the work you are looking to do but you have to respect bio diversity.
3. How do you ensure the trees get water so that they grow? Fresh water is also a limited resource. If the temperature is increasing they need even more water.
My point being just planting trees has complexities and the other methods being used have similar issues that get worked out. So yeah plant a tree or two but that isn't making a dent in the overall problem.
I think that most people can't comprehend a global warming issue or solution so they just day f(ck it all let's just ignore it. (Trump administration) That's ok I guess but when people are working hard to fix a known problem they should have support and not be so adamantly argued with basless theories and propaganda. Let the scientists find a way to help. They developed a vaccine for Covid19 faster and better than anyone thought possible because they had support and more importantly financing. They may be able to fix other global problems just the same with that kind of support.
1. Where do you plant the trees? Your typical homeowner has a little space for a tree but that isn't enough to offset tree loss even. Wide open private land maybe? Well those owners want their open space for farms or cattle because that is where the profit is, not trees. Utilize public land? Sure you can plant in burned areas and hope it goes back in 30 years. You aren't going to import top soil in as that is too expensive
2. What kind of tree do you plant? You don't want to plant a non native invasive species that takes over and kills other trees. Not all trees will do the work you are looking to do but you have to respect bio diversity.
3. How do you ensure the trees get water so that they grow? Fresh water is also a limited resource. If the temperature is increasing they need even more water.
My point being just planting trees has complexities and the other methods being used have similar issues that get worked out. So yeah plant a tree or two but that isn't making a dent in the overall problem.
I think that most people can't comprehend a global warming issue or solution so they just day f(ck it all let's just ignore it. (Trump administration) That's ok I guess but when people are working hard to fix a known problem they should have support and not be so adamantly argued with basless theories and propaganda. Let the scientists find a way to help. They developed a vaccine for Covid19 faster and better than anyone thought possible because they had support and more importantly financing. They may be able to fix other global problems just the same with that kind of support.
And how are you so convinced that the interpretation is so wrong?
Not convinced wrong completely but not convinced exactly right either. To try to handicap a public because of theory isn't the answer. I mean nuclear power is the most efficient power if we could find a safe/fast way to deal with waste. Electricity only working because of subsidies.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Carry on. Getting somewhere. Explain "handicap the public" please. Provide examples
Should have said steer the public. Tax breaks for electric vehicles, renewable solar and wind power. Tax hikes on fuel and limit the availability to transport more economical thus raising cost. Efficiency in everything should be pushed more then directing people with money.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
So incentives are bad? Tax rebates are extremely effective and used from something as small as using energy efficient water heaters in your house all the way up to massive industrial factories adding ways to reduce pollution.
Do you not take advantage of them? Why not? If you are already looking to improve your system why would you not get a product with a rebate? No one is forcing you to but they add the incentive to make you consider it.
Tax hikes for gasoline? Where? The federal government hasn't raise gas tax since 1993. Some states have increased it. Some have even decreased it (ND) Why would we not increase it? Our infrastructure is poor and that is an excellent finding source that is tied to usage
Your other statement alludes to the Keystone XL pipeline I think. JTK already got into that one that it is a political hot potato with anything but the facts getting tossed around. Both sides have valid points on whether a foreign pipeline across our land is a good idea or not. Does it directly impact you or us? Or does it just make one group even richer rather than the other?
Do you not take advantage of them? Why not? If you are already looking to improve your system why would you not get a product with a rebate? No one is forcing you to but they add the incentive to make you consider it.
Tax hikes for gasoline? Where? The federal government hasn't raise gas tax since 1993. Some states have increased it. Some have even decreased it (ND) Why would we not increase it? Our infrastructure is poor and that is an excellent finding source that is tied to usage
Your other statement alludes to the Keystone XL pipeline I think. JTK already got into that one that it is a political hot potato with anything but the facts getting tossed around. Both sides have valid points on whether a foreign pipeline across our land is a good idea or not. Does it directly impact you or us? Or does it just make one group even richer rather than the other?
Last edited:
Incentives directing people in one direction for ones agenda is bad. Y not Incentives for all advances in technology not just electric. The difference is the car industry was forced to comply with emissions standards or get fined. Electric gets Incentives gas gets fined. To what point is the environmental foot print any different.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Similar threads
