Global warming cannot be stopped, per UN

[thegeneral 3,141]

1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Paris agreement allows China to increase their carbon emissions until 2030. The United States has to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.

As of 2015 Chinas CO2 emissions were more than twice the emissions of the USA.

Yeah. No way we are meeting these goals either. Shame there.

They do have a billion people so I’d expect them to have more emissions. Have they not taken steps to produce more energy outside of fossil fuels? Their air is focked so they realize they have to take steps. But yeah they also have to provide energy as they try to grow, same as India. 

In any case we can be better than China and India I’d like to think..

We are talking goals here and what we’d like to see. Would you prefer to have a plan or a goal of using less fossil fuels? Does it not make sense to use less of these as a long term plan?  If no then we can wrap this up.

[RogerDodger 798]

16 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Why am I not surprised to see that you too think that absorbing heat makes something cooler.

No, you're mostly correct.  It's your 1st grade explanation of it that was amusing.  

Most of the reflecting is done by the atmosphere, very little by the surface.  One third of what is not reflected is absorbed by the atmosphere.  Two thirds is absorbed by the earth surface, but it doesn't stop there, its radiated back out to the atmosphere and would end up back in space if it were not for the greenhouse effect leaving us an ice planet.  We need the greenhouse effect for our atmosphere to trap heat and keep us all warm   What is up for debate is if the CO2 released into the atmosphere is causing more of a greenhouse effect than is desired.  

[RogerDodger 798]

14 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Yeah. No way we are meeting these goals either. Shame there.

They do have a billion people so I’d expect them to have more emissions. Have they not taken steps to produce more energy outside of fossil fuels? Their air is focked so they realize they have to take steps. But yeah they also have to provide energy as they try to grow, same as India. 

In any case we can be better than China and India I’d like to think..

We are talking goals here and what we’d like to see. Would you prefer to have a plan or a goal of using less fossil fuels? Does it not make sense to use less of these as a long term plan?  If no then we can wrap this up.

It's meaningless what we do if China and India don't lead the way.  They aren't so we are better economically if we just change with technology instead of forcing legislation.  

/thread

[GutterBoy 2,899]

8 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

No, you're mostly correct.  It's your 1st grade explanation of it that was amusing.  

Most of the reflecting is done by the atmosphere, very little by the surface.  One third of what is not reflected is absorbed by the atmosphere.  Two thirds is absorbed by the earth surface, but it doesn't stop there, its radiated back out to the atmosphere and would end up back in space if it were not for the greenhouse effect leaving us an ice planet.  We need the greenhouse effect for our atmosphere to trap heat and keep us all warm   What is up for debate is if the CO2 released into the atmosphere is causing more of a greenhouse effect than is desired.  

Yes, exactly.

I was trying to keep things simple for the guy that thinks absorbing more heat is the solution to rising temps.

[Baker Boy 1,698]

20 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Yeah. No way we are meeting these goals either. Shame there.

They do have a billion people so I’d expect them to have more emissions. Have they not taken steps to produce more energy outside of fossil fuels? Their air is focked so they realize they have to take steps. But yeah they also have to provide energy as they try to grow, same as India. 

In any case we can be better than China and India I’d like to think..

We are talking goals here and what we’d like to see. Would you prefer to have a plan or a goal of using less fossil fuels? Does it not make sense to use less of these as a long term plan?  If no then we can wrap this up.

If the long-term plan doesn’t include technology it is meaningless. To shut down natural gas and nuclear power shows this has nothing to do with clean energy and MMGW. To rely on thousand year old technology (wind and solar) to solve our current energy problems is just stupid. This whole movement is about money and power and we are not part of it.

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

6 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

Humanity will not be wiped out even in the worst case scenario. Our technology is evolving too fast, how could global warming possibly wipe out humanity?

We are already getting good at GMO food, we can make it even more heat resistant as we are just getting started, not just plants but also animals. The water issue is overblown, because while there may or may not be areas that have more droughts, the change in climate will make previously unlivable areas livable.

Even areas that are in droughts right now like the american west, the lack of water is not caused by people. Even if there is more of a drought in American west they could still support twice the people. The real cause of lack of water in this west is because we let foreign nations grow water intensive crops and use up our water. If we shifted the crops we grow in the west to crops that are designed to grow with little water the water crisis would solve itself. IIRC 70% of our water in the west goes to agriculture.

 

I am not saying we should not try to stop global warming, because it will have major negative effects like killing off many animals, coral reef's, etc. However humanity will be fine.

 

Point 2:

The high temperature's in the keys have been recorded before. this specific buoy that recorded the high temperature was back in a bay. These high water temperatures are caused by lack of water turnover, ie water stagnation.

The florida keys were hotter in 1972 and 1987, however this year the strong el nino is suppressing storms in the atlantic. What they really need to drop water temperature is a tropical depression/storm to turn water over from the deep and pull it into the shallows. However, this unlikely to come anytime soon due to the aforementioned el nino.

This is similar to the fish kill we had in June in Texas, everyone was blaming it on the heat, however it is warmer now than it was in June and we are not getting fish kills now. The difference is in June we had a week straight of less than 5 knot winds, now every day we are averaging 10-15 knot winds.

 

You’re hiding your head in the sand. Might be hyperbole to say humanity will be completely wiped out, but if it survives, it will not look pretty. Not at all

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re hiding your head in the sand. Might be hyperbole to say humanity will be completely wiped out, but if it survives, it will not look pretty. Not at all

 

I read quite a few science journals, I am not sure why you would say I have my head in the sand.  I try not to attack the person on this site and while I sometimes fail I think I do a better job compared to other geeks.

If you have specific problems with what I typed out you should address the specific point. If you need a scientific reference for how I have come to my opinion I am more than happy to provide it.

 

[seafoam1 2,964]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re hiding your head in the sand. Might be hyperbole to say humanity will be completely wiped out, but if it survives, it will not look pretty. Not at all

This dude was a prime liberal target. Ouch. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,325]

3 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

No but it does.  See, when heat is reflected back away from the earth and back out into space, that means less heat at the surface.  When the earth absorbs heat, that means more heat at the surface.  Make sense?

Incorrect. If you put a heater outside the heat stays within the atmosphere. It never escapes it eventually cools down. It takes solar rays to penetrate the atmosphere not regular heat or light 

[lickin_starfish 1,923]

How did the climate change before mankind? It seems infeasible that there could have been glacial and warming periods before fossil fuels.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

55 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

I read quite a few science journals, I am not sure why you would say I have my head in the sand.  I try not to attack the person on this site and while I sometimes fail I think I do a better job compared to other geeks.

If you have specific problems with what I typed out you should address the specific point. If you need a scientific reference for how I have come to my opinion I am more than happy to provide it.

 

Sorry I’m not trying to be personal. Just saying you’re focused on the minutiae where big picture is this planet is going to hell, and quickly. That is essentially what all the science says too, though they do have to be more careful in how they couch it 

[Dizkneelande 1,095]

5 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

How did the climate change before mankind? It seems infeasible that there could have been glacial and warming periods before fossil fuels.

There was nothing for the left to grift back then 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,325]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Sorry I’m not trying to be personal. Just saying you’re focused on the minutiae where big picture is this planet is going to hell, and quickly. That is essentially what all the science says too, though they do have to be more careful in how they couch it 

Of course they say it. Meanwhile every politician and scientist that is funded by it owns beach from acreage. The real estate and banks wouldn’t allow these massive loans on properties that weren’t safe

the scientific and political communities operate on fear 

[MDC 7,326]

It’s not happening. Or it’s happening, but it’s not widespread. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, MDC said:

It’s not happening. Or it’s happening, but it’s not widespread. 

It’s happening and it’s widespread, but it’s not caused by man. Ok well maybe it’s happening and widespread and mostly caused by man, but there ain’t sh1t we can do about it

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,325]

Just now, MDC said:

It’s not happening. Or it’s happening, but it’s not widespread. 

Or the likely is it’s happening slightly and it’s not the end of the world and that mankind has the ability to adapt and that throwing trillions of dollars we don’t have at it aren’t the solution 

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Sorry I’m not trying to be personal. Just saying you’re focused on the minutiae where big picture is this planet is going to hell, and quickly. That is essentially what all the science says too, though they do have to be more careful in how they couch it 

 

But what specifically is going to cause humanity to fall apart when it is warmed up?

I am not disagreeing with you on temperatures warming up, but what happens after that which will cause issues?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,325]

Just now, MTSkiBum said:

 

But what specifically is going to cause humanity to fall apart when it is warmed up?

I am not disagreeing with you on temperatures warming up, but what happens after that which will cause issues?

Obamas house will sink. BLM

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, MTSkiBum said:

 

But what specifically is going to cause humanity to fall apart when it is warmed up?

I am not disagreeing with you on temperatures warming up, but what happens after that which will cause issues?

Everything. Food supply, fresh water supply, disaster, famine, disease, on and on. I mean are you seriously saying we can completely destroy our own habitat and suffer no significant consequences?

[GutterBoy 2,899]

19 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Incorrect. If you put a heater outside the heat stays within the atmosphere. It never escapes it eventually cools down. It takes solar rays to penetrate the atmosphere not regular heat or light 

Incorrect.  The Earth's heat does escape the atmosphere.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Everything. Food supply, fresh water supply, disaster, famine, disease, on and on. I mean are you seriously saying we can completely destroy our own habitat and suffer no significant consequences?

 

Each of these would take a while to discuss, although some of them are redundant famine/food supply. Give me some time.

[Dizkneelande 1,095]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Everything. Food supply, fresh water supply, disaster, famine, disease, on and on. I mean are you seriously saying we can completely destroy our own habitat and suffer no significant consequences?

No one can show from the scientific literature that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Fact.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,325]

8 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Incorrect.  The Earth's heat does escape the atmosphere.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

I concede some but this is interesting 

About 3 percent of the energy that strikes the ground is reflected back into the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by rocks, soil, and water and then radiated back into the air as heat.

notice it doesn’t say absorbed by concrete asphalt or buildings 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I concede some but this is interesting 

About 3 percent of the energy that strikes the ground is reflected back into the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by rocks, soil, and water and then radiated back into the air as heat.

notice it doesn’t say absorbed by concrete asphalt or buildings 

Why is that interesting?  Do you think it isn't absorbed by asphalt? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,325]

12 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Why is that interesting?  Do you think it isn't absorbed by asphalt? 

No I’m saying only 3 % is reflected is interesting. Yes asphalt absorbs intensifies and heat dissipates eventually 

[Reality 3,121]

5 hours ago, thegeneral said:

This is the gist

China carbon emissions at an all time high but, we're gonna lower that down the road.

Source, trust me bro.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,317]

9 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

When I was in college back in the early 90s, one of my friends was a biology major and he talked a lot about global warming and the gulf stream collapse, and once that happens in 30 to 50 years, then we're all focked.

It's happening.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w

 

Did you believe him? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,317]

Hillary says it’s the MAGA’s fault. That was quick.  MAGA’s caused global warming in 6 years? What can’t they do then, besides get a fair election? 

[thegeneral 3,141]

9 minutes ago, Reality said:

China carbon emissions at an all time high but, we're gonna lower that down the road.

Source, trust me bro.

Is this fake news

Time will tell where they are at in say 20 years.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

4 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

Each of these would take a while to discuss, although some of them are redundant famine/food supply. Give me some time.

Don’t bother. I know you’re the scientific type and you’ve also got a vested interest being in non renewable energy. I’m not interested in the nitty gritty. Sure maybe we can survive by drinking our own piss and growing potatoes out of whale dung, but who would want to?

Hell that’s the whole reason Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are desperate to get to Mars. But even Bezos eventually saw the futility in it and figured he’d live out his days with a fake plastic fock doll

[seafoam1 2,964]

33 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

 we can survive by drinking our own piss and growing potatoes out of whale dung,

What a focking idiot.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Don’t bother. I know you’re the scientific type and you’ve also got a vested interest being in non renewable energy. I’m not interested in the nitty gritty. Sure maybe we can survive by drinking our own piss and growing potatoes out of whale dung, but who would want to?

Hell that’s the whole reason Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are desperate to get to Mars. But even Bezos eventually saw the futility in it and figured he’d live out his days with a fake plastic fock doll

I think you are greatly misunderstanding my position. I was hoping to have a discussion, but I guess I will not bother.

 

I do hope all is well and I wish you the best.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

4 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

I think you are greatly misunderstanding my position. I was hoping to have a discussion, but I guess I will not bother.

 

I do hope all is well and I wish you the best.

Okay, sorry bud. You’re a cool dude and I don’t mean to be a d1ck. Let’s have a discussion. What’re you thinking, carbon capture? Can that reverse effects?

[seafoam1 2,964]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Okay, sorry bud. You’re a cool dude and I don’t mean to be a d1ck. Let’s have a discussion. What’re you thinking, carbon capture? Can that reverse effects?

Damn you are dumb. Liberal sheep. 

[Dizkneelande 1,095]

9 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Okay, sorry bud. You’re a cool dude and I don’t mean to be a d1ck. Let’s have a discussion. What’re you thinking, carbon capture? Can that reverse effects?

Plant more trees sh!tlib

[Dizkneelande 1,095]

 

[League Champion 1,909]

STUPID GAS STOVES!!! 

[seafoam1 2,964]

7 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

 

Yep. The experts. And someone on this site once refuted that by saying "we know more now than we did then". 

Thing is we knew more then vs. what we knew in 1920. So...

"Global warming" is a focking fear mongering scam.

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

Yeah doctors used to use leeches to cure schizophrenia.  Experts.

So no I'm not listening to no doctor since they were wrong before.

Maga logic.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

10 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Okay, sorry bud. You’re a cool dude and I don’t mean to be a d1ck. Let’s have a discussion. What’re you thinking, carbon capture? Can that reverse effects?

I do have a fishing buddy who is project manager of carbon capture research for one of the super majors. However, that technology is at best 20-30 years away from even starting and would be 50 years away from working on scale. The reason this is so far away is two reasons.

To pump carbon dioxide back into the earth you have to first convert it into a super critical fluid, this is an extremely energy intensive process when you are talking about needing to compress 8 billion tons of CO2 to reduce the carbon dioxide footprint by 1 part per million. We would need to reduce CO2 by ~200ppm, so we are talking about compressing 1.6 trillion tons.

However, while this is a hurdle we need to overcome it is not the major hurdle. We have the technology to today, they convert CO2 to a supercritical fluid before using that fluid to remove caffeine from coffee. Also, luckily for us, many depleted oil fields where we would inject the carbon dioxide are located in places where we can easily produce an excess of renewable energy: west texas/north dakota for wind, Saudi Arabia/Algeria for solar, etc.

The major technology hurdle we have to overcome is that carbon dioxide only makes up 416 ppm of our atmosphere. We need to pull that very small amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and convert it into a gas that is 100% carbon dioxide prior to converting the CO2 to a super critical fluid. To do this we need to invent a material that only lets CO2 through it and only in a single direction. This material will have to be one we can manufacture at scale and will need to have durability to stand up to industrial processes.  Our materials technology is pretty amazing today, however this new material we need is multiple technology breakthroughs away.

 

Long story short, carbon capture is not the reason I am less pessimistic about MMGW than the majority of people that believe it is happening.