Lol. It would take a big as bike and a lot of people for me to get my boat down on Cumberland so they are going to have to wait until my diesel truck dies before they can make me get on a bike.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
Except I didn't say that. They are cutting nitrogen and ammonia useage for plant too genius. They aren't just cutting 30% of livestock they are cutting 30% of agriculture production. If you reduce the ammount of crop you can grow on an acre you end up making some ground unprofitable for agriculture so we actually see more than a 30% drop in Europe over the next 2 years. I love how you make up stuff I said to prove your point instead of just addressing how we are going to feed 8 billion people without fertilizers?Because raising cattle is not exclusively agriculture and yet hmt5000 acts like because "environmentalists" correctly point out that cattle are a catastrophic impact on the planet that it means things like raising crops and such are also equally bad. He doesn't say "cattle" he says "agriculture" because he is purposefully trying to run away from this:
Whatever the effect of AGW we're going to catch it full.
People imagine that the "solution" can be effected in a couple of weeks or so. We don't have to do anything until everyone's on board.
Just going off what people predict Earth can feed without modern tech, gas, diesel, and fertilizers. There isn't a replacement yet and people who want to swich before we get a solution are asking for mass starvation and disease.
Fertilizer absolutely is a critical issue and it is exactly why we don't want to hand Ukraine over to Russia but that is a different issue already being discussed in a different thread.
Let's cut to the chase as people are raising all kinds of red herrings and even some folks got mad at me for undermining great ideas like cleaning up the environment and a host of other good ideas that will greatly improve the planet.
Those are all fine worthy goals and they are good things for people to do, but they mean exactly nothing if there is no planet left to save.
We must concentrate in the immediate now on the impending existential danger that is right now, today. We must, by any means necessary, prevent the arctic from going ice free in late summer. I don't care if it is Bill Gates' cloud seeded project with Harvard, reflective surface objects floating in the arctic ocean, towed reflective sheets from barges, satellites partially shielding the sun, or some combination of all these things or something else that I haven't already mentioned.
Priority #1 in the immediate NOW is to stop the climate from completely spinning out of whack this coming August-September by going ice free.
'If we lose the Arctic, we lose the globe' - Finnish President Sauli Niinisto
Let's cut to the chase as people are raising all kinds of red herrings and even some folks got mad at me for undermining great ideas like cleaning up the environment and a host of other good ideas that will greatly improve the planet.
Those are all fine worthy goals and they are good things for people to do, but they mean exactly nothing if there is no planet left to save.
We must concentrate in the immediate now on the impending existential danger that is right now, today. We must, by any means necessary, prevent the arctic from going ice free in late summer. I don't care if it is Bill Gates' cloud seeded project with Harvard, reflective surface objects floating in the arctic ocean, towed reflective sheets from barges, satellites partially shielding the sun, or some combination of all these things or something else that I haven't already mentioned.
Priority #1 in the immediate NOW is to stop the climate from completely spinning out of whack this coming August-September by going ice free.
'If we lose the Arctic, we lose the globe' - Finnish President Sauli Niinisto
Maybe a few nukes here and there would kick up enough dirt to block the sun? What do you think?
I'm digging this global warming... hope it lasts the whole month of February
Cold is far more lethal than heat! If we are warming the planet, I just call it evolution based on our survival instincts.
I just finished snow throwing 4 feet deep snow drifts at my house. I've got 7 foot deep piles in my yard. Glad I bought the biggest badass snow thrower I could find when I moved here in 1995. I've been waiting 27 years and still no global warming.
They have their lemmings and that is all they care about.
All it takes is one nuclear capable country to decide unilaterally that a nuclear winter is our last best hope. Putin has completely flipped on climate change. Probably when he sent his two best scientific experts (Semiletov and Shakhova) on methane to the arctic and they came back and gave him their horrendous report on Methane pulsing out of ESAS in October of 2019. Normal methane levels should have been 1.7 ppm as that is the atmospheric average but they were getting readings in areas as high as 16 ppm.
17 months later Putin launched the war in Ukraine.
The odd thing about arctic methane from the tundra is that it's incredibly dramatic looking -- you look at a map of the landscape and its pocked by these huge, huge hole. The tundra melts and the pressure that has contained these enormous bubbles of methane gives way and leaves a hundred foot hole. And, yes, methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. But if you look at the methane concentrations in the atmosphere, these blowouts really don't show up.
72 degrees today and we get another top 20 all time hottest February day on record in Lexington.
One of the interesting things about this chart occurs in 1998. 1998 was very big El Nino year. During El Nino years, the ocean overturns a bit and releases higher than normal amount of the heat that's been stored there. You can just eyeball it and see that at that time, 1998 was a huge outlier -- 0.2 of a degree warmer than any previous El Nino year in the record. Since then, 3 of the 4 El Nino years have been warmer.
This thread has become the weather channel. LOL.
Did seve1 make any comments about Kentucky hitting the lowest mark in 15 years back in December? Hard to play golf in -7 weather.
Stop it. That's as ridiculous as LOLstradamus's contention that the end of the world is imminent and unavoidable. Both are fringe beliefs with which few, if any, credible experts agree. A basic understanding of how the earth's climate works yields no other conclusion than that the earth is warming. The extent to which that's an existential threat and what we should do in response is where the true debate lies.
Soooo...we going back to calling it Global Warming now or nah?
Climate change is historically indisputable. Evidence seems to suggest the planet constantly heats and cools, sometimes dramatically. Whether our narcissistic human-centric perspective on all things applies much, or if at all, is another fair question and subject to dispute. Some scientists who believe human behavior has some impact, believe it is less than 3% of the total. If true, the question then must be asked whether dramatic changes that impact the wellbeing of humanity are justified as a method of dealing with a global warming.
Pretty much exactly what I feel as well. Basically it's like saying we want to cure cancer or we are all going to die from it so we are going to spend trillions and trillions of dollars but will only move the needle, AT BEST, by 3% total.
"Some" scientists? Name the ones who don't. I read of one guy who blamed the increase on con trails. Since the amount of energy involved due to the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere can be calculated from quantum mechanical principles, people who deny the effect of GHGs have an interesting problem. Explain the mechanism which vamooses that heat from the atmosphere.
I don't understand denialism at all. Are all of you childless?
Our conclusions should be based upon whether we have children or not? Odd take Dread.
Are you claiming there are no actual scientists who believe the human impact on warming is no more than 3%? Is that your claim?
My anecdote is as legit as those claiming evidence of doom because they've got a few days of 70 degree weather in the southeast.
No, I read climate boards. I've seen the references, I do doubt the authenticity of those beliefs. People claim to believe lots of things, and I don't believe them. 3% is a ludicrously small amount. It seems calibrated for political purposes.
Your take on my reference to children is a "pretzel" interpretation of what I said.
Practically all scientists believe human behavior has some impact. How can it not? Climate sensitivity, though, is widely debated. Even some of the most pessimistic projections put the global temperature increase over the next 100 years at around 2-3 degrees C. That's not an existential threat - the earth is not going to become an uninhabitable fireball. There will be negative consequences, though, requiring adaptation and innovation. We can't wind-and-solar our way out of this, so throwing trillions of dollars at those technologies while de-investing in fossil fuels and nuclear does nothing but restrict human flourishing. We should be throwing everything we can at nuclear. It's by far the cleanest, most efficient source of energy we have. And it's safe. We should be focusing on geoengineering. Can we recapture some of the CO2 that's been released into the atmosphere? Can we burn natural gas in a closed system, at scale, introducing only pure oxygen into the process? The hard truth that the climate extremists don't want to accept is that we're going to need fossil fuels in order to get to the point technologically where we no longer need them.
I said early on in this thread that the early depictions of the effects of AGW doomed us because the chief threats will be to agriculture and the ensuing political unrest. Not from tsunamis or even sea level rise. We're in low gear with the mass movement of populations and the din of anxiety threatens our democracy. Now amplify that 20 times. Putin's desire for Russua's former empire has brought with it the threat of nuclear weapons. Everyone wants a cushier life, and lots of people are willing to kill to get it. So, I don't know why you blithely dismiss AGW as a non-existential threat.
There's a larky/dumbo belief that the Earth itself is sentient. The Gaia Hypothesis. Gaia got tired of humans and so she showed 1 guy how coal could be used to pump water. The rest, as they say, is history. Who wants to go back to the 17th century, eh?
Are the global warming experts better than the Covid experts? Because man those experts were ******* idiots.
So after what we got with covid and the VAX... you are willing to let Gates shoot stuff into the atmosphere to stop global warming? Jesus we are doomed.
Global average temperature going back to 1850. I'm sure this is accurate.
One of the interesting things about this chart occurs in 1998. 1998 was very big El Nino year. During El Nino years, the ocean overturns a bit and releases higher than normal amount of the heat that's been stored there. You can just eyeball it and see that at that time, 1998 was a huge outlier -- 0.2 of a degree warmer than any previous El Nino year in the record. Since then, 3 of the 4 El Nino years have been warmer.
The mercury in a glass column thermometer was invented in 1714. Well before 1850. And people have been interested in reliable weather data for a long time. Agriculture spawned all kinds of endeavors. And there are other forms of taking temps.
Is sarcasm really you're only argument?
Accurately measuring the average temp of the entire planet is not without a margin of error even in the modern age of satellites. I've read about how they estimated past values using sparse data points, written anecdotes, and inferences.
You guys just throw up graphs like it's gospel, applying zero healthy skepticism.
Such a rational approach leaves no room for Covid-style power grabs from unelected bureaucrats.
This makes you a white supremacist fascist. Thems the rules of modern logic.