Talking to a moron about the weather.

a reply to: neo96

Ok then.
Question... do you have kids?

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Well, the vast majority of the mass of trees comes from the carbon molecules that they absorb from CO2, leaving just the O2 molecules in the air. The more carbon available for growth, in theory, the larger or longer the trees will grow. Of course, everything has a live span, but more carbon in the air is not nearly as destructive as is being relayed to the general public.

Hell, it's a common practice in many nurseries to artificially increase both the temperature and CO2 in greenhouses because it's better for the plants.

Unfortunately, as millennia have passed, mega-flora such as the Giant Sequoia and Northern California Redwoods (the two examples that I love, being from Cali) ceased in their proliferation, both because of climate change (not man-related) and depletion of the trees for logging (man-related).

Imagine, though, if we really put forth a multi-million dollar effort to replenish those types of trees in their native habitats--that would be a good thing, IMO, and a much better solution overall than artificial scrubbers that cause even more issues.

And then you have to couple this with the reality that massive places like the Sahara desert were once lush places full of all types of flora that aided in reducing or mitigating rises in CO2 in the atmosphere--which is now a desert which not only lacks CO2 absorption, but also aids in relatively localized heating of the air because of how hot and arid it actually is.

My point being that there is a lot more to this issue than people and what we contribute to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which, as it stands, is a trace gas that, by volume, equates to about 0.04% of the atmosphere)--I think that localized pollution of our natural resources is a bigger problem than CO2 production.

As for John Denver:

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
If I was sitting in a large room, and slowly began introducing a tiny bit of c02 in the room over a long period of time, eventually, the rooms would be full of c02 and I'd suffocate to death. That's essentially what's happening on a much larger scale with our planet

This is an absurd analogy. I regularly work in environs with a c02 concentration of 1500PPM+ and it has had no detrimental effect on my health. Current atmospheric concentrations are currently ~410PPM and are inflated by recent natural factors like the El Niño effect. The most alarmist predictions (based on actual studies) predict an atmospheric concentration within the range of 800PPM to 1060PPM maximum.


The maximum predicted atmospheric concentration would have to be exponentially larger than even the most alarmist of predictions. And then you would have to be floating about the earth, breathing in the atmosphere, to suffocate. The actual surface concentrations of c02 (the air we breathe) would be lower than this, even in the worst off scenario.


It takes a concentration of >40,000 ppm to suffocate a human. You are legally allowed to work in an environment with a maximum concentration of 5,000 ppm. The surface concentration of c02 will never reach this level under any scenario.



For more information: principia-scientific.org...

Between the gay herbicide, and declining sperm counts.

I've no idea why climate alarmists are running around screaming the end is nigh.

www.naturalnews.com...#
prostate.net...

Sounds like 'man made' climate change is a self correcting problem.

Because the earth will still be around, we won't be.

a reply to: sapien82

The problem there is that Scotland is smaller than the state of Maine in the U.S. (which is the 12th smallest state in America).

Of course great initiatives can be taken by small states and countries, but it can't always be scaled up to a country the size of, say, the U.S.

And often times, it doesn't need to be; one-size-fits-all legislation and programs rarely work well here in the U.S., where they are generally poorly designed, implemented, managed, and maintained. But if Scotland's voters and taxpayers are happy with the steps that Scotland is taking, then good on Scotland. Every little bit counts, I suppose.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

The climate is beyond our control.. always has been, and it always will be. Our perception and interpretation of "extreme" weather events is largely limited by our own memory.

There are so many self righteous 25 year olds walking around going "Gosh I don't remember a time when it did THAT!"

Then the 50 year olds walk around and say.. "I remember it, but I certainly don't remember THIS!... THIS IS BAD!!"

Then the 90 year olds go around saying... "Oh please, we got our a$$es kicked when I was just a wee lad... I remember a storm JUST like that... but this... now THIS is bad!!"

You see the problem here? Natural weather patterns and cycles stretch over periods of time that are not in unison with our lifespans and these stories aren't something we pass along. We forget about what happened last year and FREAK OUT when the weatherman says a storm is coming.

The climate is a tapestry of cycles. Some play out fairly regularly and others play out over MUCH longer periods.

Emissions are only ONE part of the problem.

I'd like somebody with some clout to discuss how run-off from all the extra concrete and roofs is practically terraforming our land every time it rains which is largely to blame for all flooding in areas that have never flooded before. It's such a known issue in the civil engineering that they have mandatory catch ponds for run off in many areas. It's directly observable and when combined with vintage aerial views of areas of land it's pretty obvious that car fumes aren't our only enemy.

They know it's a problem but they don't publicize it... remember when FEMA came around some years ago because they reworked all the flood plains and forced a lot of homeowners into buying flood insurance... then the NEXT summer there was record flooding all around the country?

Unfortunately, it all comes down to the growing population no matter which way you start slicing it... and that's something they just won't talk about.

I am old enough to have seen the climate improvements since the EPA was started in 1970. As a retired commercial pilot, I can tell you of days where not a cloud in the sky but the visibility was nearly non-existent. Detroit was my least favorite place to go to or from. Not withstanding the two near collisions just south of Detroit in "clear" weather. At altitudes above 10k feet, you could see the long trail of haze and smog streaming all the way to Cincinnati and beyond. Today it is better thanks to the efforts of the early EPA.


At that time, the major climate concern was "global cooling" as an effect of above ground nuclear testing. With the nuclear test band treaty the efforts slowly change to global warming in the 1980's. The United Nations formed the International Panel for Climate Control (IPCC) to manage global activities.


Over the next 20 years the IPCC spent millions on proving warming was indeed happening. They finally found a dubious theory from an undergraduate student called the "hockey stick" theory. The IPCC claimed 100% agreement by world scientists. Many scientists proclaimed it as pseudoscience but were shunned by the more politically connected.


Enter the huckster, VP Al Gore rushed in to form the now defunct Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange. Gore wanted to sell industries that were major polluters the carbon credits (dispensation) to continue polluting without government intervention. This was the beginning of the pollicization (weaponization) of the EPA.

Fast forward to 2008, the EPA began it's "wet land" property seizures. They claimed ruts made by farm tractors as wet land and filed to take the property. Thankfully, the local judge found that wet lands on the top of a hill does not and can not be wet lands. He found that a wet land must be wet the majority of the time not just after a rain storm. He further dismissed the case with prejudice meaning that this case was dead forever.


Moving forward to 2016, it was discovered that the earlier EPA had amassed several million dollars in unaccountable funds for unknown use. This followed the resignation of several senior EPA officials.


The US withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords when the details came to the surface. The US was to pay 3 trillion dollars over a ten year period. No other country was so invested and the effort collapsed when the US withdrew. Why didn't the major polluters pay anything for clean air and environment?


Today, we are hearing that we eat too much meat and it is killing the environment. This is the same argument they tried a few years ago..."cow fart" all over again.


Please, explain to me how we see we severe weather and it is climate change when it suits their position or just plain ole weather. Why do we see weather drama nightly on the tele. When the weather event doesn't occur all you hear is crickets. Why do you see "Weather Channel" people barely standing in the wind and people casually strolling by behind him? Is this "weather drama" a psychological conditioning of the ignorant masses? OR just cow farts?

The Earth is becoming like it's twin sister Venus again
There is no way to stop it.
It will be
It is the future
Always has been

a reply to: buddah6

While I say that the initial idea of the EPA was a worthwhile endeavor, what it has become, along with the IPCC and other overbearing and excessively expensive related bodies has long-since outrun their usefulness, and are doing more harm to the issue of climate change and pollution than they are doing good.

And it's always the same with every government idea--social security, medicare/medicaid, Obamacare, welfare, usurping the student-loan industry, public education, the VA, congress, etc.

Everything ends up in a fiscally bloated shamble, unrecognizable from its original design and really doing nothing positive, year in and year out.

You want to know 1 fail proof way to reduce the amount of CO2 you personally put out, no tree planting required.... stop eating meat!


www.independent.co.uk...< br />

but nobody wants to hear that...

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
a reply to: SlapMonkey

....and John Denver can kiss my ass

He is dead you know. Since 97

a reply to: buddah6

Today, we are hearing that we eat too much meat and it is killing the environment. This is the same argument they tried a few years ago..."cow fart" all over again.

it has little to do with methane although it doesn't help... its about water usage, deforestation, shipping emissions (we raise pork in the US and ship it to china to be processed), agricultural run off, growing massive amounts of monocrops to feed them when it could just feed people, antibiotic use. i could go on...

i get it, everyone loves eating dead animals so god forbid someone says maybe cut back on the bacon a bit... its really like saying i don't believe in climate change so i litter and drain my car oil into the sewer. it souldnt take climate change or lack their of to motivate people into caring about the environment.

This planet was a ball of molten magma at one point.
It was a frigid wasteland at another.
Life found a way.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

If we were going to try and reverse this, I'm thinking that one way would be to build massive, air-scrubbing facilities (Think of the atmosphere processor from the movie "Aliens") and place them strategically in areas of high toxic emissions. These things would be the size of pyramids, would cost trillions, and would still take decades to start to truly make a noticeable impact, but I'm all for it.

So steal my taxes which I’m never going to get back anyway to build something that will make the environment around me better?

That’s crazy communist talk.

/s

a reply to: JaredCondon

Oh my God man... you are SO smart!
Thanks for the insult and for the comment. Way to go.

a reply to: underwerks

Well they're gonna steal your taxes anyway and you won't be around by the time things get better, but maybe your kids will? or their kids? Who knows.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

How do you separate what was caused by people from what was caused by nature?


Also what makes you certain we can even reverse what nature has decided to change?

a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Thanks for the great reply and I agree with you on all of that.
For whatever reason some people just want to have attitude instead of being grown ups.

Anyway, here's something kind of funny. When I was a kid, like around 6 or 7 I remember looking through a book about all the states in the US with my dad. When we got to Florida I remember saying "Oh I want to live there where it's warm all the time and there's never any snow!" I still hate the cold and snow BTW, but anyway, I distinctly remember him saying "Honey did you know that someday the weather is going to be reversed? Like it'll be warmer here and colder in warmer places?"

It was freaky lol!

a reply to: neo96

Did I see NaturalFakeNews as a source? You know, this is an automatic strike to your arguments?


Oh, and climate scientists are running around because they like their children having that, too.
Running around.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

How do you separate what was caused by people from what was caused by nature?


Also what makes you certain we can even reverse what nature has decided to change?

How are you so sure that nature has started to increase this whatever you are talking?
Could you quote some source for this?
And why has nature so recently begun to change?

Really, this could be fascinating.