Ha ha.
You show your colors (& intelligence) when you you criticize our great President Trump for sitting with the Pope!
How about our great President!!!
- Thread starter Mafesto
- Start date
Ha ha.
You show your colors (& intelligence) when you you criticize our great President Trump for sitting with the Pope!
He is not criticizing Donny for meeting with the pope, he is clearly highlighting the hypocrisy of Donny preaching peace and happiness after a campaign centred on bombing the sh*t outta em...
My boy Kyrie told me the Earth is flat....
And quite frankly I don't think it is wrong to be proud of our military achievements/people and be a proponent of peace.
I also do not agree with maintaining our current military budget. To me, it doesn't seem logical to fly 350 million+ dollar planes when it isn't better than 3 100 million dollar planes.
I could only handle replying to one part of this post as the rest was so far off in left field I wasn't sure where to even start.
The earth is a system, much like our body, very complex and able to handle and adapt to great change as you pointed out. The problem is, like our bodies, their are constraints. Take consuming alcohol. You have a few drinks, get buzzed, your body processes the alcohol and you go back to normal. Drink 100 shots at once and you exceed its ability to handle it and you die.
Same with the earth, exceed its ability to react and you are going to exceed its ability to react and balance things. While the physical planet may remain, an environment able to sustain human life will not. So in a way, you are right, the earth will balance things out as once the planet is rid of its human parasites it can go back to balancing things.
DING DING DING
I personally agree with a LOT of the thing Trump says and acts on. Where I find most of my reservations is the fact that he VERY frequently contradicts direct written Tweets, statements, etc that he HAS SAID. These aren't the media digging things up and trying to make him seem like a hypocrite.
Newtons 4th law - The Trump Law.
For each and every Tweet there is an equal and opposite Tweet.
That's exactly my point. Not sure why you think the rest of my post is so far off in left field, it's a fact. You really think C02 released in an area less than 1% of the surface area of our planet is what's causing extreme weather patterns? The volume is statistically insignificant in relation to the total volume of our atmosphere. Look at climate science theories back to the 70s, EVERY SINGLE doomsday prediction has failed to materialize, obviously.
Do some math on how much power we generate, how much coal/oil/gas we burn to do it, and how much CO2 that generates. The math isn't too complicated, let me know if you have trouble.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
The math isn't too complicated, I'm a mechanical engineer. How about you calculate those numbers in relation to our atmospheric volume. I'll be waiting. Also compare them to the volume of a large volcanic eruption.
F
freekweet mods
Well-known member
Now wait a minute mafesto every thing bad up to trumps inauguration was obamas fault. Don't be afraid to share the blame.
Well yea, anything resulting from his policies certainly were.
Considering the cause was CFCs and that the use of them was dramatically reduced a couple decades ago I'd say it has performed about as expected. I spent a bunch of time in the southern Andes mountains in the late '90s and I can tell you from personal experience that it was a real issue down there around that time. At a similar latitude and elevation to Colorado and comparing similar seasons the sun was way more intense. We used the same sun protection that we would have used in NA on day 1 of a 2 week climbing trip and were cooked by 12:00. The locals were concerned about the hole and made sure to tell us that we had to be extra careful due to the ozone issues-they were right. Ask anyone else who was in that area around then and you'll get the same answer.
But hannity has never been there so I'm sure he knows way more about it than me.
If CFCs went unchecked I'd confident that it would be a major issue right now. Maybe Donny will bring em back so we can find out.
Looking it up, amazingly, someone has already done the math, and I figured you'd like that you can look up their sources:
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/world...#CO2-emissions-data-from-fuel-combustion.html
Atmospheric CO2 hadn't changed much from ~1000 CE to 1850 CE, and was ~288 ppmv in 1850. That rose to ~370 ppm in 2000, and increase of ~28%. Calculations of CO2 produced by humans over that time period would actually indicate a rise of more than twice that. So much of what we produce does indeed get absorbed by sinks in the environment, but what we produce i definitely significant compared to the amount present in the atmosphere.
Some reading on greenhouse gas sources and sinks:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/sourcesandsinks.html
reading on energy consumption, and emissions per type of vehicle:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
Other sources:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
Oh, and for the volcanoes red herring:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
In short, humans emit over 100 times the CO2 that volcanoes do every year.
Do a tiny bit of reading. The world practically completely phased out CFCs, which were what was destroying the ozone.
You can ignore the climate change part of this if you'd like, but it's pretty clear both that introducing CFCs was destroying ozone, and that banning them has allowed the ozone to start to recover.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/
EDIT:
I'd also like someone, anyone, to respond to this earlier post:
https://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4076509#post4076509
Last edited:
You could google it yourself easily enough, but ice cores:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
And these paragraphs?
?
If that's the one you're talking about, yes, that is short lived, low level atmospheric ozone. Either you're conflating it with the ozone layer, conflating it with CO2 emissions, or trying to make some other point that I missed. That's irrelevant to either the ozone layer or CO2 discussion.
This past week I had heard on NPR, that deforestation effects climate change negatively more than all the cars, factory's, power plants, etc combined.
A blast from the past from the greatest President we ever had. (Apprentice president Trump couldn't hold a candle to this great man.)
A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
And a quote from a very well respected republican and former speaker of the house.
John Boehner unloads on Trump: A ‘complete disaster’
A blast from the past from the greatest President we ever had. (Apprentice president Trump couldn't hold a candle to this great man.)
A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
And a quote from a very well respected republican and former speaker of the house.
John Boehner unloads on Trump: A ‘complete disaster’
B
Bacon
Well-known member
I'm tired of arguing. It's like the gulf fishing stuff you posted. They claim how severely impacted the fishing was and when you get to the end of the story, they report a 10% drop in catching as compared to 02-09. A whole 10%. I could see if it was 50% they would have a bitch. I would imagine it would fluctuate that much without anything happening. Do you think the fisherman might have a reason to say fishing is down cause they will get a big check from BP. Naw, that couldn't be it.
