Parent? Read this important info about their behaviors and what they mean.

[johntt44]

What about the hole in the ozone that doesnt exist anymore? They jump from one thing to another.

 

[johntt44]

Okay, we were talking about the definition of a pollutant and GDL was saying that he didn't think CO2 would fall into the classification of a pollutant. Which you can read the definition above.

My point was that CO2 isn't good for you. If you disagree, that's fine.

Dont disagree it's a waste product of ours.

 

[Sworder]

What about the hole in the ozone that doesnt exist anymore? They jump from one thing to another.

Who is "they?"

 

[Sworder]

What about the hole in the ozone that doesnt exist anymore? They jump from one thing to another.

Are you talking about this?
The southern hemisphere ozone hole split in 2002
The southern hemisphere ozone hole split in 2002

Abstract
Among the most important aspects of the atmospheric pollution problem are the anthropogenic impacts on the stratospheric ozone layer, the related trends of the total ozone content drop and the solar ultraviolet radiation enhancement at the Earth’s surface level.

During September 2002, the ozone hole over the Antarctic was much smaller than in the previous six years. It has split into two separate holes, due to the appearance of sudden stratospheric warming that has never been observed before in the southern hemisphere.The analysis of this unprecedented event is attempted, regarding both the meteorological and photochemical aspects, in terms of the unusual thermal field patterns and the induced polar vortex disturbances.

 

[LeoTC]

No we can't...

Yes.

We can actually, a lot of very wealthy people just lose out on a lot of money. Which is largely why it'll never happen.

What’s cleaner than natural gas?
Fuck the trees, they helped to almost cause the collapse of our ecosystem. Partly kidding

Alcohol or Hydrogen.

Alcohol being the most stable and economically produced option. Scraps from the bakery can even be broken down and fermented.

Meaning you could potentially build multiple industrial distilleries in each state. Avoid the issue of transport that fuel, and more than likely cut subsidies to farmers in heavy AG states. Most crops take well to fermentation, this allows for more crop rotation - corn > beets > cane > etc - and in time improves soil quality as well.

Fuel costs go down.

Emissions are or are close to non-existent. Vehicles last longer as their fuel now burns much cooler and puts considerably less wear on the powerplant. They're also considerably more powerful for their size.

Volvo developed an all alcohol engine a few years ago now. I believe it was either 2.2 or 2.4 litres putting out power equivalent to a 6.4 litre diesel.

We look to Terran forms of heating like Geothermal. Cooling is handled in how we build. Take New Orleans for example, the French quarter is built in such a way that it actually promotes airflow and cooling.

Imagine what we might be able to do with some of the innovations we've had since then?

But it takes a LOT of work and a lot of people in high places get shafted.

On the fuck the trees comment: the entirety of the plains disagrees. Trees are largley what, inevitably, brought the dust bowl era to its end. Willows and Maples in particular in the upper plains.

 

[LeoTC]

Well then I stop debating this with you. Those are actual scientists being interviewed. The first one is the scientist that spent 38 years of his life studying co2 and it’s effects on climate. He was also a colleague with the man whom invented the original climate model. Too bad you are too closed minded.

Btw scientists agree that climate change is happening, but cannot agree if we are causing it.

That's largely untrue.

Climate deniers cling to Malenkovich climate theory as evidence that climate change happens naturally. Most do so because it's what they've read with no understanding of the timescale of just one cycle.

The orbital arrangement our planet currently finds itself in would likely keep us in the current interglacial period (not a widespread ice ace, and not an ice-free world) we currently find ourselves in for another 50K years. Malenkovich cycles don't speak to the rapid changes we see in human time scales.

 

[Sworder]

That's largely untrue.

Climate deniers cling to Malenkovich climate theory as evidence that climate change happens naturally. Most do so because it's what they've read with no understanding of the timescale of just one cycle.

The orbital arrangement our planet currently finds itself in would likely keep us in the current interglacial period (not a widespread ice ace, and not an ice-free world) we currently find ourselves in for another 50K years. Malenkovich cycles don't speak to the rapid changes we see in human time scales.

This

At present, climate scientists regard warming of two degrees above pre-industrial levels as the threshold for global warming. After this point, extreme weather will become more likely—increasing the risks of storms, droughts and a rise in sea levels. Consequences include food and water scarcity, and increased migration as parts of the planet become uninhabitable.

 

[GDL]

That's largely untrue.

Climate deniers cling to Malenkovich climate theory as evidence that climate change happens naturally. Most do so because it's what they've read with no understanding of the timescale of just one cycle.

The orbital arrangement our planet currently finds itself in would likely keep us in the current interglacial period (not a widespread ice ace, and not an ice-free world) we currently find ourselves in for another 50K years. Malenkovich cycles don't speak to the rapid changes we see in human time scales.

You didn't watch the video?

There hasn't been rapid changes. See the graphs they use are always cropped to show what they want to happen. I will post a video from Tony Heller later today, that shows exactly what they do. Once you see the dubious practices they use to skew the data, you have to wonder why everyone is screaming so loud. These are graphs from accepted orginizations, just not cropped and then the effect they wanted to achieve is lost.
Anyhow religious climate believers figure that the orbit around the sun and our sun has very little to do with climate change.
In 20 years we can talk again and realize that the oceans will have rose another 1/16 of an inch, like is has for the last 5,000 years and that the increasing amounts of CO2 being released by China and India has not effected the climate as much as predicted, like all the other failed predictions thru out history.
It is wonderful that we are using our technology to reduce oil dependence, because we want it to last longer. So pretty much you agree with me that no one has dropped the ball, people have been working on the cleaning up the climate for decades, without screaming all fanatically about it.

Also just because someone doesn't believe that the climate is going to be destroyed in a decade is not a denier. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the climate is changing. And has changed since earth began. Deny means you do not believe it is changing at all. We just are not religious CO2 fanatics.

Btw until trees evolved the earth co2 levels were well over 2000 ppm. And its funny that life existed. It was a lot more diverse as well. We haven't created oil or coal since those damn trees consumed all the carbon. The biggest laugh is when people think the earth is a balanced system, it is not. Its chaotic. Organisms consume until there is nothing left to consume, then evolve or die off. If left to their devices trees would have eventually starved the earth of co2, just like shell fish had captured a lot of carbon in the past.

Its funny but humans demonize the very thing that has given us life. CO2, if the plants had not changed our extremely high co2 planet in one with oxygen, we would not be alive. So yeah, lets stop giving plants their food, and helping them with drought resistance, because, shit, I don't need food or O2 to survive. Damn I'll adapt, lol
Humans are the only organism that has the ability to understand and reduce or stop its consumption before something catastrophic happens.

 

[Sworder]

@GDL You disregard things you don't understand and then keep ranting.

 

[LeoTC]

You didn't watch the video?

There hasn't been rapid changes. See the graphs they use are always cropped to show what they want to happen. I will post a video from Tony Heller later today, that shows exactly what they do. Once you see the dubious practices they use to skew the data, you have to wonder why everyone is screaming so loud. These are graphs from accepted orginizations, just not cropped and then the effect they wanted to achieve is lost.
Anyhow religious climate believers figure that the orbit around the sun and our sun has very little to do with climate change.
In 20 years we can talk again and realize that the oceans will have rose another 1/16 of an inch, like is has for the last 5,000 years and that the increasing amounts of CO2 being released by China and India has not effected the climate as much as predicted, like all the other failed predictions thru out history.
It is wonderful that we are using our technology to reduce oil dependence, because we want it to last longer. So pretty much you agree with me that no one has dropped the ball, people have been working on the cleaning up the climate for decades, without screaming all fanatically about it.

Also just because someone doesn't believe that the climate is going to be destroyed in a decade is not a denier. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the climate is changing. And has changed since earth began. Deny means you do not believe it is changing at all. We just are not religious CO2 fanatics.

Btw until trees evolved the earth co2 levels were well over 2000 ppm. And its funny that life existed. It was a lot more diverse as well. We haven't created oil or coal since those damn trees consumed all the carbon. The biggest laugh is when people think the earth is a balanced system, it is not. Its chaotic. Organisms consume until there is nothing left to consume, then evolve or die off. If left to their devices trees would have eventually starved the earth of co2, just like shell fish had captured a lot of carbon in the past.

Its funny but humans demonize the very thing that has given us life. CO2, if the plants had not changed our extremely high co2 planet in one with oxygen, we would not be alive. So yeah, lets stop giving plants their food, and helping them with drought resistance, because, shit, I don't need food or O2 to survive. Damn I'll adapt, lol
Humans are the only organism that has the ability to understand and reduce or stop its consumption before something catastrophic happens.

I checked out about halfway through the first when I realized it was more of the climate change denying rhetoric I've heard hundreds of times over.

Natural climate change exists, on a macro scale of tens of thousands of years.

Zero people deny this and it's never been a debate. I'm not sure why deniers cling so staunchly to this.

But to believe that we're actively altering out atmospheric make-up, and there's zero impact?

Come on, that's a fool sticking their head in the sand to avoid upending their dearly beloved way of life. Because change of substance is uncomfortable and never easy.

There's a reason the vast majority of theoretically terraforming Mars involve inducing warming the planet via importing greenhouse gasses such as Methane, Ammonia, and a variety of Flourine compounds.

The biggest obstacles to making this work being importation, local sourcing, and Mar's lack of a magnetosphere.

Also - the conversation doesn't even remotely begin or end with CO2.

 

[Sworder]

Zero people deny this and it's never been a debate. I'm not sure why deniers cling so staunchly to this.
But to believe that we're actively altering out atmospheric make-up, and there's zero impact?
Come on, that's a fool sticking their head in the sand to avoid upending their dearly beloved way of life. Because change of substance is uncomfortable and never easy.

Keep in mind that the media has a MO when changing public opinion.

There's a reason the vast majority of theoretically terraforming Mars involve inducing warming the planet via importing greenhouse gasses such as Methane, Ammonia, and a variety of Flourine compounds.

The biggest obstacles to making this work being importation, local sourcing, and Mar's lack of a magnetosphere.

It is crazy that we can actually terraform Mars in such a short period of time. You are right about most of what you say.

Cost of sending goods out of orbit are too high currently. I think Mister Musk single-handedly is responsible for being able to reduce transportation costs however more is needed.

 

[GDL]

I checked out about halfway through the first when I realized it was more of the climate change denying rhetoric I've heard hundreds of times over.

Natural climate change exists, on a macro scale of tens of thousands of years.

Zero people deny this and it's never been a debate. I'm not sure why deniers cling so staunchly to this.

But to believe that we're actively altering out atmospheric make-up, and there's zero impact?

Come on, that's a fool sticking their head in the sand to avoid upending their dearly beloved way of life. Because change of substance is uncomfortable and never easy.

There's a reason the vast majority of theoretically terraforming Mars involve inducing warming the planet via importing greenhouse gasses such as Methane, Ammonia, and a variety of Flourine compounds.

The biggest obstacles to making this work being importation, local sourcing, and Mar's lack of a magnetosphere.

Also - the conversation doesn't even remotely begin or end with CO2.

First off I never said we didn't have an impact, what I question is that is it negative like everyone states. I guess the scientist that studied Co2 and green house gasses for 38 years is only spewing rhetoric? Lol, funny man.

My thought is what would happen to planet earth if we fell below the threshold for CO2 needed to support plantlife? They have calculated it to be 150 ppm, we were at 180 ppm before we started to rerelease more back into the atmosphere. Thing is it was there originally. Shell fish and trees did a good job of trapping it. Now since we all know that the earth is not a balancing act, that organisms that evolve to consume something that is plentiful will continue consuming until they reach a point of starvation, or run very low on the resource, then some will evolve and move on to the next resource and the rest eventually barely survive or die.
You think tress or shellfish, said, shit man, maybe we should stop trapping this co2 because we might kill off a bunch of the ecosystem of plantlife, and the food source for the shellfish.

See you got it wrong, I am not a denier, I am a realist. I am not following the religion of co2 climate change being bad. And it is a religion, because as of so far, you can't prove it, you cant see it, but you need to believe in it, lol

BTW, you can never terraform Mars, it doesn't have enough of a magnetic field to sustain an atmosphere. The suns radiation would blow it off. See in the past, when I was following the theory that co2 was going to increase temperatures, I thought releasing it was a good thing, because if the earth continued to cool too much (and they can prove that every cycle we are colder than the one before) that we would warm up the planet and keep the molten core spinning to save our magnetic field, which we need to keep our atmosphere and survive. I was right about co2, but for the wrong reasons.

We have changed our ecosystem so much. most of the plants in your country are not native to there, but to Europe ( I watched a very interesting documentary on that). Looking down while in a plane shows the true extent we have changed our world, but at our levels of population, there is no way to go back. We could not sustain our population without oil. Now hopefully overtime more things will come online, and its being worked on already, I look forward to that day. But I would bet you in 50 years they will look back on us and laugh about how we thought that we could control the climate.

 

[LeoTC]

So a handful of hold outs trumps every space agency and the vast majority of remaining climate scientists?

Cool story.

The holocaust must not have happened because a couple of right wing alt history nutjobs insist that to be the case.

That logic doesn't follow, it's called a consensus for a reason.

Again, there are more pieces to the puzzle than CO2.

And you touched on the Mars example by restating exactly what I said? O-kay.

I'm out.

 

[Sworder]

@GDL You are making it hard to have a discussion with you.

You aren't reading Leo's points and responding to them directly. And if you don't know what somebody is talking about you don't take the time to look it up and then attack their point.

I mentioned it earlier I don't know if you think it was an attempt to disrespect you. It was an attempt to steer you in a more productive direction.

 

[Sworder]

The holocaust must not have happened because a couple of right wing alt history nutjobs insist that to be the case.

The Nazis were sterilizing people with disabilities and of certain ethnic groups. Even killing some. Do you hate and condemn the Nazis for that reason?

 

[GDL]

So a handful of hold outs trumps every space agency and the vast majority of remaining climate scientists?

Cool story.

The holocaust must not have happened because a couple of right wing alt history nutjobs insist that to be the case.

That logic doesn't follow, it's called a consensus for a reason.

Again, there are more pieces to the puzzle than CO2.

And you touched on the Mars example by restating exactly what I said? O-kay.

I'm out.

And every space a gent doesn’t believe it. Russia for one thinks it isn’t true. I could likely look it up and realize there are more.

Sorry but its more than just a handful of holdouts. Literally thousands. I’d have to look it up, but it think about a year ago they already had over 3000 scientists that signed, ranging from ones that examine the sun, to basic climate scientists.
They believe the whole thing is a fraud.

As for Mars I went into way more detail. You were trying to site one specific example to draw to a conclusion.

There are more pieces than co2, especially water and clouds which account for Around the other 70%, which most modellers leave out of their calculations.

Mind you with all that we have been talking about, you have not given me one actual piece of evidence. Saying its so doesn’t make it so. You can supply graphs if you wish, of you tube vids, and if the graphs are cropped I will find the originals so we see the whole picture.

The Maelenkivoch cycle hays been plotted to occur multiple times. Like real science the have been able to prove that it is repeatable.

I don’t just look at one item, but numerous different angles. Once you do that, then you realize that the impact we are having (not withstanding radiation, pollution, chemical wastes) is not damaging the ecosystem.

See unfortunately the religious zealots like to only use certain parts of time line graphs to suit their agenda. Hey we want to show its a uphill temperature curve, let’s start at 1970 because that was when we were at the coldest, actually worried that we were going into an ice age, then it shows that the temperature is steadily rising since then, fuck lets leave out 1920’s because we are about 10-15 f colder now than then.
Plus if the data doesn’t suit us, lets rewrite it. You can literally go on Nasas website and look at the 1970 graph, the 1980 graph 1990 graph and so on and see how they changed the data for the 2015 graph to show ther hockey stick temperature rise. Damn you think they would have been smart enough to remove old data if you are going to change it.

Shit greenhouse gases and co2 was lower in the 1920, so how do we convince the masses that co2 causes heating when the effect was way less than we kept screaming about.

Plus the data is there to prove that major storms like tornados and hurricanes are actually at an all time low. Noah has it right on their website. Fires are down as well, they were at a peak in the 1920’s when green house gases were at a lower limit as well. Also they have proven that drought and fires are cyclical. It has been repeatable, and things that are repeatable are real true science.

So please pos up items proving your case. A couple at a time, I may have to do research and we can debate instead of having an emotional argument like how you are trying to steer it towards (seriously the holocaust, That as bad as using a handicapped girl to push an agenda. If you try to debunk it you still look like a jerk)

 

[LeoTC]

I wasn't making an emotional plea. I was pointing out the fallacy of hanging your hat on one person.

I've had the debates and I've had the conversations. They're honestly not worth repeating ad nauseam.

Fact is, neither of us are going to change our stance and I've better things to do than argue for the sake of it.

Like I said, I'm out.

 

[GDL]

Sure. You know that was only one of hundreds examples. But its fine, I used to be like you at one time. I guess in 20 years we will know who was right-er, lol

 

[Sworder]

The Maelenkivoch cycle hays been plotted to occur multiple times. Like real science the have been able to prove that it is repeatable.

Do you understand what you are saying when you want repeated trials of the Milankovitch cycle?
You know why evolution is a theory right?