Assess this statement re. climate change.

[op2]

Of course you can google who said it but that wouldn't be sporting.

"Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that. What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

 

[atlkvb]

Of course you can google who said it but that wouldn't be sporting.

"Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that. What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

It's a hoax. We can't even launch a near earth orbit space capsule when we plan to unless the weather clears up and allows it. How can we "change" the climate?

 

[mule_eer]

Of course you can google who said it but that wouldn't be sporting.

"Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that. What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

That's obviously a Benjamin Franklin quote. The man is on the $100 bill for a reason.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Of course you can google who said it but that wouldn't be sporting.

"Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that. What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

Wasn’t a Republican. It’s a well known fact we don’t want clean air and water. We like it dirty.

 

[30CAT]

Of course you can google who said it but that wouldn't be sporting.

"Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that. What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

I don't know why the left is always whining about global warming...er...I mean climate change. America's private sector is constantly working on cleaner energy.

If man does anything to affect the climate, no one knows to what extent. Just another leftist tool (coronavirus being another) to use to gain power and control of The People.

 

[op2]

The quote was from Dan Crenshaw. It sounds very reasonable and level headed to me. "Cost-benefit," with regards to global warming or anything else is just plain common sense although in politics common sense often gets pushed to the side in favor of emotion.

Dan Crenshaw, in case you don't know, is a GOP member of the House from Texas (Houston area, I think) and it well thought of lots of people. If the GOP future is guys like him then the GOP has a good future, if not then not. We really need both parties to promote their sensible people rather than their nuts.

 

[op2]

ETA: I forgot to add, he's like 36 or so, thus the part about "future," since he'll probably be around awhile.

 

[atlkvb]

I just remain perplexed over how we have the ability to adjust or alter Earth's climate yet we cannot force rain in the midst of a drought or cooler weather in the middle of a heat wave. Those would be relatively easy vs adjusting the climate to the point of melting polar ice caps or sending half the earth's livable land underwater in the next 50 years 'ya think?

 

[mule_eer]

I'm just remain perplexed over how we have the ability to adjust or alter Earth's climate yet we cannot force rain in the midst of a drought or cooler weather in the middle of a heat wave. Those would be relatively easy vs adjusting the climate to the point of melting polar ice caps or sending half the earth's livable land underwater in the next 50 years 'ya think?

I don't think so at all.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't think so at all.

All I know is we can't make it rain when we need it to, or cool it off when we're baking like Turkeys so I'm not worried about us melting the polar ice caps or flooding the earth anytime soon. If we can't do the small things yet, those hard things will just have to wait until we can figure out the easy stuff.

 

[mule_eer]

The quote was from Dan Crenshaw. It sounds very reasonable and level headed to me. "Cost-benefit," with regards to global warming or anything else is just plain common sense although in politics common sense often gets pushed to the side in favor of emotion.

Dan Crenshaw, in case you don't know, is a GOP member of the House from Texas (Houston area, I think) and it well thought of lots of people. If the GOP future is guys like him then the GOP has a good future, if not then not. We really need both parties to promote their sensible people rather than their nuts.

I've seen or heard several interviews of Dan Crenshaw. I don't agree with him on all issues, but he's a rational person who is willing to discuss issues with folks regardless of party. I respect that a lot, and I agree that we need more like him.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't think so at all.

Oh I very much think so. Hell we can't even accurately predict tomorrow's weather let alone make it rain if we need it to! How is it we're so capable of systemic global climate change, yet so inept at predicting which way the winds will blow tomorrow in Topeka Kansas?

 

[mule_eer]

All I know is we can't make it rain when we need it to, or cool it off when we're baking like Turkeys so I'm not worried about us melting the polar ice caps or flooding the earth anytime soon. If we can't do the small things yet, those hard things will just have to wait until we can figure out the easy stuff.

We've been down this rabbit hole before. All I'll say is that you are conflating climate and weather.

 

[atlkvb]

We've been down this rabbit hole before. All I'll say is that you are conflating climate and weather.

When climate ceases to be effected by weather, call me. Let's talk what we're dealing with then OK Mule?

 

[mule_eer]

When climate ceases to be effected by weather, call me. Let's talk what we're dealing with then OK Mule?

A rainy day in the desert doesn't mean that the desert isn't arid. A cold day on the equator doesn't mean we are entering an ice age.

 

[atlkvb]

A rainy day in the desert doesn't mean that the desert isn't arid. A cold day on the equator doesn't mean we are entering an ice age.

We can't stop the Earth from turning on its axis into or away from the Sun. That controls 99.9% of our "climate". We'll never be able to control that, so controlling the climate is just fantasy.

 

[mule_eer]

We can't stop the Earth from turning on its axis into or away from the Sun. That controls 99.9% of our "climate". We'll never be able to control that, so controlling the climate is just fantasy.

If we removed all vegetation from the earth, would that impact the concentration levels of different gases in the atmosphere?

 

[atlkvb]

If we removed all vegetation from the earth, would that impact the concentration levels of different gases in the atmosphere?

Maybe, but we can't do that either. We can't even make dirt.

 

[atlkvb]

If we removed all vegetation from the earth, would that impact the concentration levels of different gases in the atmosphere?

Does that include what's growing on the Ocean floors? Underground water tributaries? What's growing on Mountain tops, Forrests?

It's impossible, humans aren't that capable to remove all vegetation. We can't even make seeds.

 

[op2]

We can't stop the Earth from turning on its axis into or away from the Sun. That controls 99.9% of our "climate". We'll never be able to control that, so controlling the climate is just fantasy.

You need to do some reading on these topics. It's been known in principle how carbon in the Earth's atmosphere could heat up the planet for something like 150 years. And remember when people talked about "nuclear winter" and how if we had a nuclear war the stuff in the atmosphere would cool the planet? When a big volcano goes off the stuff in the atmosphere cools things a bit. The notions that humans can't affect climate on Earth because, well, they just can't, is nonsense.

The closest planet to the Sun in our solar system isn't the hottest planet in our solar system. That should tell you something.

 

[WVUALLEN]

If people would hold their farts in we would have cleaner air!

 

[EEReverent]

 

[atlkvb]

You need to do some reading on these topics. It's been known in principle how carbon in the Earth's atmosphere could heat up the planet for something like 150 years. And remember when people talked about "nuclear winter" and how if we had a nuclear war the stuff in the atmosphere would cool the planet? When a big volcano goes off the stuff in the atmosphere cools things a bit. The notions that humans can't affect climate on Earth because, well, they just can't, is nonsense.

The closest planet to the Sun in our solar system isn't the hottest planet in our solar system. That should tell you something.

Actually it's not possible for humans to change anything earth does. We can't make water, air, sunlight, trees, clouds, wind, or any of the things that combine to form our "climate" enough to change how any of those things operate.

In fact if you really are honest about it, we are essentially impotent when it comes to how earth operates. We have zero control over its vital functions, and we have zero to do with how those all interact.

So while it's certainly interesting speculation about how much control if any we humans can exert over the earth, in the final analysis it's like trying to count the individual grains of sand on a beach, or taking full inventory of all the fish in the sea or birds in the air or ants in the ground or leaves on all the trees.

We put none of them where they are, control nothing of how they populate or regenerate, offer nothing for their survival, and can do nothing to them or for them. We are powerless and they get along just fine without us. Earth does too.

 

[op2]

Actually it's not possible for humans to change anything earth does. We can't make water, air, sunlight, trees, clouds, wind, or any of the things that combine to form our "climate" enough to change how any of those things operate.

In fact if you really are honest about it, we are essentially impotent when it comes to how earth operates. We have zero control over its vital functions, and we have zero to do with how those all interact.

So while it's certainly interesting speculation about how much control if any we humans can exert over the earth, in the final analysis it's like trying to count the individual grains of sand on a beach, or taking full inventory of all the fish in the sea or birds in the air or ants in the ground or leaves on all the trees.

We put none of them where they are, control nothing of how they populate or regenerate, offer nothing for their survival, and can do nothing to them or for them. We are powerless and they get along just fine without us. Earth does too.

Wow. You are out there. As least your conclusion that we should do nothing about the environment is consistent with your (completely unfounded) believe that we have no effect on the environment. We can't affect anything, therefore anything we do is pointless. It's logically consistent, I'll give you that.

 

[atlkvb]

Wow. You are out there. As least your conclusion that we should do nothing about the environment is consistent with your (completely unfounded) believe that we have no effect on the environment. We can't affect anything, therefore anything we do is pointless. It's logically consistent, I'll give you that.

Thank you. While you walk around insisting we humans can control the environment, or even change it...adopt a tree...any tree...and see how much of what it does year to year you can do to change it? Even if you cut it down, you'll have billions more that will go on and replace whatever damage you do to that one. You couldn't remove all of earth's vegetation if you tried, the amazon rain Forrest alone would bog you down before you even get started. So you keep on insisting man can control the earth, you will soon become convinced earth has been here far longer, and is far more powerful than we mere humans.

 

[BigLickMountee]

Of course you can google who said it but that wouldn't be sporting.

"Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that. What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

what are the other parts of climate change not man-made?

And what do you want to do and what outcome do you want from it?

 

[atlkvb]

Wow. You are out there. As least your conclusion that we should do nothing about the environment is consistent with your (completely unfounded) believe that we have no effect on the environment. We can't affect anything, therefore anything we do is pointless. It's logically consistent, I'll give you that.

You have not heard me say we should do nothing about the environment. We should be good stewards. Clean up our messes which we do btw better than anyone and care for the earth. But our control over earth ends there. We cannot control the climate, or alter how it functions, or change it into something else. Sorry, we just don't have that type of power Thank Almighty God.

 

[op2]

what are the other parts of climate change not man-made?

And what do you want to do and what outcome do you want from it?

I don't know what you're asking. What I'm saying is that idea that we can't affect the climate on Earth because, well, we just can't, is dogma.

X: Something is true.
Y: Why is it true?
X: Because it just is.

That's dogma.

I don't know the details but I think if for some strange reason humanity unanimously decided they wanted to heat up or cool down the Earth, we'd have the technology to do it. And I'm certain that we could in principle develop the technology to do it.

 

[BigLickMountee]

I don't know what you're asking. What I'm saying is that idea that we can't affect the climate on Earth because, well, we just can't, is dogma.

X: Something is true.
Y: Why is it true?
X: Because it just is.

That's dogma.

I don't know the details but I think if for some strange reason humanity unanimously decided they wanted to heat up or cool down the Earth, we'd have the technology to do it. And I'm certain that we could in principle develop the technology to do it.

let's take what you posted in pieces. You said "Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that". So, what are the other parts of climate change not man-made?

 

[atlkvb]

I don't know what you're asking. What I'm saying is that idea that we can't affect the climate on Earth because, well, we just can't, is dogma.

X: Something is true.
Y: Why is it true?
X: Because it just is.

That's dogma.

I don't know the details but I think if for some strange reason humanity unanimously decided they wanted to heat up or cool down the Earth, we'd have the technology to do it. And I'm certain that we could in principle develop the technology to do it.

Well so far we haven't figured out how to replace the Sun. So it seems to me we have to solve that little dilemma before we develop our own alternative heat source for the planet.

While we're at it, maybe we can also figure out how to stop earth from rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun which is the way it currently draws both its heat source and climate change.

I mean if we're going to change or control the climate on earth, don't we have to change or control that too?

 

[mule_eer]

Well so far we haven't figured out how to replace the Sun. So it seems to me we have to solve that little dilemma before we develop our own alternative heat source for the planet.

While we're at it, maybe we can also figure out how to stop earth from rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun which is the way it currently draws both its heat source and climate change.

I mean if we're going to change or control the climate on earth, don't we have to change or control that too?

Short answer is no.

 

[cam_blev]

If you understand relatively basic physics that energy can not be created nor destroyed only transferred, then understand the amount of energy that has been extracted form the inside of the earth and used over the past 100 years, the question is where has that transfer of energy ended up? Consider the amount of energy required to build every modern city in the world.

 

[atlkvb]

Short answer is no.

Then with all due respect for the destructive capability of human beings, we're not going to fundamentally or even significantly alter the normal ebbs and flows of how Earth's climate "changes". It will change. Always has, always will. We however have very little to do with that, and can "change" it even less.

 

[BigLickMountee]

If you understand relatively basic physics that energy can not be created nor destroyed only transferred, then understand the amount of energy that has been extracted form the inside of the earth and used over the past 100 years, the question is where has that transfer of energy ended up? Consider the amount of energy required to build every modern city in the world.

is this the sole reason for climate change...…...the first rule of themodynamics?

edit: let me rephrase. Is the transference of extracted energy the sole reason?

 

[op2]

let's take what you posted in pieces. You said "Climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that". So, what are the other parts of climate change not man-made?

I didn't say it, rather it was a quote from Dan Crenshaw.

I'm still confused by your question. Are you leaving out the word "are" and do you mean "What other parts of climate change are not man-made?" I'm going to guess so and guess that your point is that the climate varied over time long before humans had technology, thus variation is normal and therefore how can we know that our technology is causing it? IOW, how can we know whether a change is the result of (a) natural variation or (b) human activity?

Well if we're talking about 100% absolute dead certainty then we can't know, but then again that applies to lots of other things too. If we know general conditions under which the Earth will likely heat up (or cool down) and then we bring about those conditions then it's likely that our actions is causing the Earth to heat up (or cool down). "Likely" can be seen as a weasel word in the sense that it can run the spectrum from "a little likely" to "a lot likely" but the general point still holds.

The DEGREE to which the change is caused by humans is where the uncertainty lies because there are other sources of variation in the system.

 

[BigLickMountee]

I didn't say it, rather it was a quote from Dan Crenshaw.

I'm still confused by your question. Are you leaving out the word "are" and do you mean "What other parts of climate change are not man-made?" I'm going to guess so and guess that your point is that the climate varied over time long before humans had technology, thus variation is normal and therefore how can we know that our technology is causing it? IOW, how can we know whether a change is the result of (a) natural variation or (b) human activity?

Well if we're talking about 100% absolute dead certainty then we can't know, but then again that applies to lots of other things too. If we know general conditions under which the Earth will likely heat up (or cool down) and then we bring about those conditions then it's likely that our actions is causing the Earth to heat up (or cool down). "Likely" can be seen as a weasel word in the sense that it can run the spectrum from "a little likely" to "a lot likely" but the general point still holds.

The DEGREE to which the change is caused by humans is where the uncertainty lies because there are other sources of variation in the system.

so if we don't know, then speculate.

You have far more interest in this topic than I do so I might learn something.

Now what do you want to do about what part of climate change humans are responsible for?

 

[op2]

Well so far we haven't figured out how to replace the Sun. So it seems to me we have to solve that little dilemma before we develop our own alternative heat source for the planet.

While we're at it, maybe we can also figure out how to stop earth from rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun which is the way it currently draws both its heat source and climate change.

I mean if we're going to change or control the climate on earth, don't we have to change or control that too?

Affecting the climate on Earth for all of eternity is one thing and affecting it on a time scale relative to our current civilization is another. If we set off all the nukes in the world all at once then the Earth would cool down. It wouldn't cool down FOREVER but it would cool down for a long enough time scale to affect our civilization.

 

[cam_blev]

is this the sole reason for climate change...…...the first rule of themodynamics?

its probably a little basic and a blanket explanation with much finer points but ya
We have extracted and used a **** ton of energy in a very short time that has been underground for millions of years. That energy has to go somewhere.

 

[op2]

so if we don't know, then speculate.

You have far more interest in this topic than I do so I might learn something.

Now what do you want to do about what part of climate change humans are responsible for?

I don't know. I'm not a climate expert. But I know that more carbon in the atmosphere generally corresponds to a warmer climate and not just because it randomly seems to be so but rather because of a plausible mechanism that was first articulated in the 1800s. That was when people first discovered that if we put enough carbon in the atmosphere, we could actually affect the climate on the entire planet.

I'm not sure what to do about climate change that humans are responsible for but I know that the best general approach is to have a DISCUSSION and that is what excited me about a quote coming from a young Republican politician that started this thread. If we start to have a discussion about what to do then we're more likely to get a good solution. OTOH, if one side denies, denies, denies then eventually we'll end up with the proposed solutions of the other side, which won't necessarily be the best solutions since they won't have had to beat out any other solutions in a battle of ideas, since the first side isn't throwing out any ideas.

 

[atlkvb]

Affecting the climate on Earth for all of eternity is one thing and affecting it on a time scale relative to our current civilization is another. If we set off all the nukes in the world all at once then the Earth would cool down. It wouldn't cool down FOREVER but it would cool down for a long enough time scale to affect our civilization.

Well I suppose we could try that...wouldn't remove the Sun though, or stop Earth from rotating around it. Wouldn't destroy the Oceans, or the atmosphere over them. So what fundamentally would change on earth regarding our climate if we set off a nuclear conflagration? It would kill us no doubt. But not everything and certainly not the Sun.