Climate Change

[Cljxc50]

You cite many data points in your post, and none of them are wrong. However, you miss the bigger picture:

First of all, there is almost nothing in our current "Western lifestyles" that is sustainable. That photo you pasted above could just as easily be a photo of a tractor on its way to extract the minerals that went into your smartphone or computer. Or, it could be mining the gold that's in your wedding ring. Hell, it could even be digging up the metals that will eventually go into our Emiras! Or, it could be generating the plastic that goes into an artificial limb.

Point being: it doesn't matter what the end result is, whether it's a bomb or a new kitchen sink; the end result is fundamentally unsustainable.

And I agree with you that humanity seriously needs to "pump the brakes" on all of this expansion, in order to buy us more time to figure out all of the bugs of our modern civilization. And believe me, there are MANY bugs:

• Destruction of wildlife and biodiversity
• Microplastics leaching out into every part of the globe
• Factory farming and degradation of topsoils
• Global warming, increased wildfires, and rising sea levels
• etc.

I argue that the ONLY way to achieve this is to immediately reduce our human population across the board — through completely voluntary, non-violent, and ethical methods, of course! (I've had this discussion enough times by now to know how people tend to interpret such a statement without that disclaimer ) We're in the "everything crisis", and we won't make it out alive just by switching to paper straws.

However, if people don't like the above suggestion, then here's an alternative: immediately cut your energy use by 90%, take no more than one flight every 3 years, and live in a 640 sq.ft. home. But of course, nobody's going to do that. We all want someone else to fix all of our problems without any impact on our lifestyles.

And so, if people don't like THAT answer, then here's one last alternative: human civilization will collapse.

Dont worry, we are living in a time where there are the most humans that will ever exist. the global population is not reproducing at a rate fast enough to sustain its current numbers anyway. certainly this is the case in the west.
so im sure the problem will be short lived!!

 

[Wolfram]

Are we measuring the magnetic fields of the sun to create a history? Have we been doing that for the past 50 years?

Yes, of course we are. We have been doing it since 1908!

You can get a 'space weather' forecast from the Met Office in London:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/space-weather

 

[NicolasB]

And now the curtain is lifted….
So yes, you are an idealist, you gender response confirms it. You do not practice science, you have subscribed to a religion. A religion where truth has no meaning; in its place is the dogmatic religion that you’ve been spoon fed by globalist totalitarians. To make it worse, it’s a religion that you’ve bought wholesale and without question- all components intact and present; from man made global warming to gender theory to global overpopulation. I’ll just go out on a limb here and say that you also think that race is your defining characteristic, meritocracies shouldn’t exist, gender affirming mutilation of children is acceptable and (coming soon to campuses and Marxist lectures near you) pedophelia isn’t evil, it’s just a preference. Sorry, I’m not in your cult religion.

Sorry we are not in your cult (not sorry). Your Trump flag is so big it got in the way of you actually making a point. I just love people that are so divisive and close minded. I'm surprised you drive a purple Evora, people might think you were gay!

 

[Eagle7]

...Except the Earth has its own magnetic field, generated by the molten iron in the core, which is literally a force field protecting us from space-borne radiation that would be lethal to all life. Magnetic field lines can not cross, so although the sun's magnetic field can interact with the Earth's it simply cannot interact directly with the Earth's core; the mere existence of Earth's magnetic field is proof of that.

Moreover, the sun's magnetic field is relatively chaotic; it even completely reverses polarity every eleven years or so! That last happened in 2012-2012. There has been no increase in solar magnetic activity activity over the past 100 years that could explain the warming, and the vast majority of the heat in the Earth's core is generated by radioactive decay which is a very, very stable process (e.g. it is used for the most accurate atomic clocks).

And a conductor that continuously passes through a magnetic field, itself becomes magnetic with its own field. Iron has to be magnetized by something else to gain magnetism. An overwhelmingly more powerful magnetic field can certainly continue to have an effect on an object with a lesser strength magnetic field.

The sun has multiple magnetic fields, it isn't just one big field. Where did you get the idea that the majority of heat in the earth's core is due to radioactive decay? The iron core is molten because of the electricity being generated in it.

 

[Mangoose]

No offense to anyone, but I was somehow easily able to guess the country of residence of a few users in this discussion solely based on their views on global warming It's both funny and sad to me.

 

[NicolasB]

I think you could state that polar bears are white and @Eagle7 would make a 2 page argument to disagree with you. 😜

 

[Nova]

But what do the dolphins 🐬 think about this? 🤔 💭

Do we know if dolphins ponder the meaning of life, much less the porpus of the earth?

 

[Nova]

I will absolutely answer your questions once you have answered mine. You met my inquiry with just additional questions- the hallmark of ignorance (I don’t mean as an insult, using the word in its literal form).

The very nature of scientific inquiry is that an answer usually leads to more questions than the original one.

 

[Nova]

Looking at the highest emissions per captia is the best way to understand the actual pollution a country is producing. If you want to start somewhere then the countries with highest per captia levels and a significant population would the best ones to focus on. It also helps if they are well developed and wealthy as they are then well placed to act.

Tons per capita with population of over 10 Million

• Canada - 18.58
• Australia - 17.10
• Saudi Arabia - 15.94
• United States - 15.52
• ... (Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium, Iran, South Korea, etc...)
• China - 7.38
• ... (loads more countries)
• India - 1.91

Note these values are simple emissions values and hence do not include emissions generated in a country as a result of producing items that are consumed in another. Factoring that in would bump both Saudi and the US above Canada and Australia, and drop China and India further down the list.

This has to be balanced with quality of life. Half of the US population isn't living on 200 dollars a month or less, sheltering in huts with dirt floors and missing half our teeth by 40.

One specific thing to note with your list is that the polution problem is far FAR worse in China and India than either US or Canada. Yet based on your list, it should be the US and Canada with the worse environments.

 

[Green]

Thank god Tom suggested this topic get moved to its own thread! Who new climate change was so divisive I prefer to lean towards science even if some discount it. I love nature and the planet If there is even a question error towards protecting nature.

 

[Nova]

Thank god Tom suggested this topic get moved to its own thread! Who new climate change was so divisive I prefer to lean towards science even if some discount it. I love nature and the planet If there is even a question error towards protecting nature.

Nature demands that your wife give up her 10 most favorite things. You are tasked with explaining this predicament to her. You suspect that the demands are based on shaky science. The plot thickens…

 

[Green]

Nature demands that your wife give up her 10 most favorite things. You are tasked with explaining this predicament to her. You suspect that the demands are based on shaky science. The plot thickens…

To save the planet I divorced her!

 

[eriegz]

@Eagle7 @Racer X You both seem like you've already made up your minds that climate change is all a big lie, because... well... it must be!

So my question to you is, What would it take to change your minds? What evidence — if it existed — would convince you that climate change is real, and human beings are the ones driving it?

 

[mjw930]

I don’t think either one of them are denying climate change. What they, as well as myself, disagree with are the solutions, policies and hysteria our collective governments are using to address the issue. Collectively spending trillions of dollars, directly and indirectly (increasing the costs of basic services) for solutions that even the scientists I disagree with admit will, at best, have a 1% net effect vs. doing nothing is insanity.

Banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard of and will have no measurable effect on climate change. Actually I think that will be extended or struck down but that’s just a prediction. The only way you are going to get people to switch from ICE is to make the alternative more cost effective, not by fiat.

And stop with all the hysteria and direct your efforts on making the world a better place for the Billions who still have to burn wood and dung to cook their food and heat their homes.

 

[eriegz]

I don’t think either one of them are denying climate change. What they, as well as myself, disagree with are the solutions, policies and hysteria our collective governments are using to address the issue. Collectively spending trillions of dollars, directly and indirectly (increasing the costs of basic services) for solutions that even the scientists I disagree with admit will, at best, have a 1% net effect vs. doing nothing is insanity.

Banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard of and will have no measurable effect on climate change. Actually I think that will be extended or struck down but that’s just a prediction. The only way you are going to get people to switch from ICE is to make the alternative more cost effective, not by fiat.

And stop with all the hysteria and direct your efforts on making the world a better place for the Billions who still have to burn wood and dung to cook their food and heat their homes.

Alright, if you believe that climate change is really happening, and poses a threat to human beings (not to mention wildlife), then how would you stop it?

 

[695 to Emira]

Alright, if you believe that climate change is really happening, and poses a threat to human beings (not to mention wildlife), then how would you stop it?

Does anyone know the CO2 cost of ICE - v - the CO2 cost of fossil fuel central heating/ sash windows etc?

I know that the marginal generation of electricity may not be green yet but ASHP will help?

Not convinced that ICE is the biggest sinner here.

 

[Eagle7]

I think you could state that polar bears are white and @Eagle7 would make a 2 page argument to disagree with you. 😜

LOL. Just to prove you're wrong, no. They are not white. Their skin is actually black, and their hair is clear and tubular. They appear white because of the way light reflects through their hair. Their hair is tubular because the air inside provides insulation which enables them to survive in the harsh cold of their environment.

 

[Eagle7]

Thank god Tom suggested this topic get moved to its own thread! Who new climate change was so divisive I prefer to lean towards science even if some discount it. I love nature and the planet If there is even a question error towards protecting nature.

Actually he didn't suggest this topic get moved to its own thread, I did earlier. Tom agreed.

It's nearly impossible to discuss anything nowadays because the standard go-to response from certain types is to begin mocking and laughing at someone who dares to question, or present ideas that differ from what the accusers have or might think. I think it's either because they don't already have anything of substance to offer, or simply aren't able to come with anything. Either way they change their status from being a possible participant, to nothing more than an annoying pest.

So I will ask politely: if you don't have anything reasonable or sensible to ask, offer, or comment on, please keep your derision to yourselves. If you don't like what's being discussed, stay out of the thread and don't read it, so those who do want to discuss it intelligently can do so without your harassment and interference.

 

[duff]

This has to be balanced with quality of life. Half of the US population isn't living on 200 dollars a month or less, sheltering in huts with dirt floors and missing half our teeth by 40.

One specific thing to note with your list is that the polution problem is far FAR worse in China and India than either US or Canada. Yet based on your list, it should be the US and Canada with the worse environments.

I think you are misunderstanding what the figures I posted demonstrate.

Localised pollution may be worse in China, India and other developing nations but this, while bad for all species in the locality, it is not a good measure of whether that country is large contributor to Climate change.
It is emissions per captia that highlights the contribution any particular nation is having on the rapid increase in green house gases that have been measured over the last century. The US and Canada produce double the emissions of China and 15 times that of India.

 

[Eagle7]

Alright, if you believe that climate change is really happening, and poses a threat to human beings (not to mention wildlife), then how would you stop it?

If you're willing to discuss this intelligently without mocking and derision, then the first thing you have to examine is how and why did the climate change before we could possibly have any influence on it? What are the normal cycles, and why?

There's a tendency among certain types to be dramatic and want to use issues to elevate themselves to positions of importance, and it seems they always wrap themselves and what they're claiming in the illusion of "saving" us from certain doom if we don't listen to them, believe them, and of course...make them rich and famous in the process. Remember Al Gore who claimed we only had 7 years to stop the ice caps from melting due to global warming, and the only way to save us was to give him trillions of dollars? Wins the Nobel Prize, on the cover of Time Magazine, invited to speak everywhere, the darling of the media, etc. And like all those before him who for decades have claimed we only had 5-10 years to save the world... he was wrong. They always have lots of charts, graphs and 'scientific data' along with celebrity endorsements to convince us to believe them. How many of those episodes does it take before anyone with any kind of intelligence learns to start questioning, and examining first instead of just jumping on the "save the planet" bandwagon?

What you describe as a threat to human beings and wildlife, seems to be more like environmental pollution, which is completely different from climate change. I completely agree we need to pay attention to environment pollution and figure out a SENSIBLE way to still maintain civilization without ruining the environment. I believe it can be done, but since the whole thing is complicated with a considerable range of causes and effects, we need to look at it carefully and thoroughly to make sure any changes we make are actually beneficial.