Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-20-2019, 02:47 AM   #5031 (permalink)
In the fasting lane
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,718

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 53.47 mpg (US)

It - '09 Hyundai I10 Active Cool
Team Hyundai
90 day: 28.5 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,494
Thanked 2,037 Times in 1,310 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
I can't believe how many posts are on this topic. I'm all for being more efficient, though more for the economic sense of it and to better utilize our resources. Has anyone considered here that efforts to curb CO2 production are futile? Supposedly there has been 6 mass extinctions in earth's history, and multiple cycles of heating and cooling. I theorize that nothing humans do will change what the climate will ultimately do. According to one source, we are in an interglacial warm period. After some thousands of years, the earth will cool off again, which will cause many of its own problems for us.
You can theorize based on your knowledge and insight. But you are not an expert.
Climate scientists are the experts, and they overwhelmingly agree we are ruining the planet by burning excess amounts of fossil fuel.
You don't have to agree with them, but that means you believe you know better than the specialists.

The specialists calculate the speed at which the sea level will rise based upon the speed at which the large bodies of ice are melting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


We've doubled the CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.
So we doubled the amount of heat that gets reflected back to the earth, hence the raising global average temperature, hence the melting ice and raising seas.
We need to reduce CO2 output as much as possible, even if the effects of that won't be felt immediately nor prevent a massive climate change. It will just be slightly less bad.

Futile? Depends on who you ask.
Check out the historic CO2 emissions per capita per country.
You can see big differences between countries, also many developed countries actively reducing carbon emissions.
Even the United States, though the per capita emissions are still very high compared to European countries.

Earths history spans almost 5 billion years. I'm not too concerned about what is going to happen in a billion years from now. Or in a thousand for that matter.

But what we are doing now impacts the world right now. By the time my kids are old we already may have lost large parts of our country to the rising seas. Carbon emissions will have impact on their life. And no doubt they'd worry about the future for the kids they may get.

__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.16 Gmeter or 0.1 Mmile.



Most people are in the longest queue.

Last edited by RedDevil; 02-20-2019 at 03:00 AM..
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedDevil For This Useful Post:
aerohead (02-20-2019), NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-20-2019, 03:07 AM   #5032 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 8,669

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 210
Thanked 2,862 Times in 2,238 Posts
What we know so far.
Few are willing to pay more than $10 a month to fix climate change, this includes a good portion of the believers.
Even fewer people would allow government to expand size and power to fix climate, most people are against that idea.
Anything the United States does will be eclipsed by china.
Warming is better than cooling (unless you're below sea level, then your poor choice in lack of elevation is not my problem).
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 04:35 AM   #5033 (permalink)
In the fasting lane
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,718

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 53.47 mpg (US)

It - '09 Hyundai I10 Active Cool
Team Hyundai
90 day: 28.5 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,494
Thanked 2,037 Times in 1,310 Posts
It is blatantly obvious that many choose to ignore the problems they cause by emitting excess amounts of carbon.

You can blame people for not willing to spend money 'fixing' the 'problem' of cleaning somebody else's waste. Do they understand they are not willing to pay for the waste they produce themselves?
I bet the survey did not point that out.
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.16 Gmeter or 0.1 Mmile.



Most people are in the longest queue.
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedDevil For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019), niky (02-21-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 10:10 AM   #5034 (permalink)
Tyrant-at-large
 
Vman455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 1,606

Little Red - retired - '05 Honda Civic EX
90 day: 49.03 mpg (US)

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
SUV
90 day: 58.55 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 1,388 Times in 728 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil View Post
We've doubled the CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.
So we doubled the amount of heat that gets reflected back to the earth, hence the raising global average temperature, hence the melting ice and raising seas.
No, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide =/= doubling the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is only one of many heat-absorbing gases, and we would have to double the concentration of all of them to double the heat-absorbing capacity of the atmosphere as a whole.
__________________

 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vman455 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (02-20-2019), freebeard (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 10:53 AM   #5035 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,229
Thanks: 17,998
Thanked 5,976 Times in 3,633 Posts
graphs

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
So then you launch into your own whataboutisms?

Why would we expect a continual 50% poorer crop production? People aren't stupid; we grow what the climate allows us to grow. That might mean crops that are no longer able to be efficiently grown in one location will move to another location.

Tell me, what year should we expect even 1% lower crop yields? Let's start with that before we proclaim a 50% reduction. That 50% number is very convenient too. Does the science really say 50% loss rather than 32%, or 44%? Very interesting that we are ruining things to exactly get 50% loss.





Should we also expect no progress with GMOs, too?
If we're going to limit the discussion to climate change,then we ought to represent global-scale quanta,rather than regional data.
Western Europe and USA agricultural output would in no way represent the global food supply.
I'm not saying that you're cherry-picking,but it's an incomplete data set.
There are other food security issues some of us have already shared, and I'm given to presume that none of it matters,and what's the point of busting our balls to research data and present it, when it appears to just pass without consideration.You --ss on our gifts without a thank you or a --ck you,and ignore it as if it doesn't exist.
'Cast not your pearls before swine.' Jesus
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019), RedDevil (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 11:09 AM   #5036 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,229
Thanks: 17,998
Thanked 5,976 Times in 3,633 Posts
fertilizer

Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
Natural gas for fertilizer (and heat). 70 years. Liquid fuel for farm equipment and transportation to the megacities, and for digging up Phosphorous. 30 years. And Phosphorous. ??? Which could turn out to be the first limiting input. 10 Billion hungry people.
*The Haber-Bosch process can fix nitrogen directly from the atmosphere.It does require heat,but that could come from renewable energy.
*Farm equipment could be electrified.The present,water-filled ballasted tires could become the batteries.
*We presently have EV tractor-trailers in the pipeline.Transportation doesn't seem to be a big deal.
*Mining can be electrified.Some of it already is.
*Phosphorous IS an issue.Regardless of climate change.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/

Last edited by aerohead; 02-20-2019 at 12:02 PM.. Reason: spell
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 11:20 AM   #5037 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,229
Thanks: 17,998
Thanked 5,976 Times in 3,633 Posts
theorize

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
I can't believe how many posts are on this topic. I'm all for being more efficient, though more for the economic sense of it and to better utilize our resources. Has anyone considered here that efforts to curb CO2 production are futile? Supposedly there has been 6 mass extinctions in earth's history, and multiple cycles of heating and cooling. I theorize that nothing humans do will change what the climate will ultimately do. According to one source, we are in an interglacial warm period. After some thousands of years, the earth will cool off again, which will cause many of its own problems for us.
The issue is non-linear,abrupt climate change,with feedback-loop-fed,accelerating acceleration,in which we,the flora,and fauna cannot possibly adapt to,due to the speed at which it will happen.
We'll quite literally be living on a different planet than the one everything evolved for.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 11:31 AM   #5038 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 332

Jeep - '97 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)

Blueberry - '07 Toyota Camry SE
Thanks: 118
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil View Post
You can theorize based on your knowledge and insight. But you are not an expert.
Climate scientists are the experts, and they overwhelmingly agree we are ruining the planet by burning excess amounts of fossil fuel.
You don't have to agree with them, but that means you believe you know better than the specialists.
Very good point. I see this all the time in my field. I suppose it is my duty as a student of science to give more value to the data and conclusions they have reached. However, there is much we do not understand, and climate science is complex. I believe it was only 60 years ago that the experts of the day expected us to enter another ice age soon. Global cooling was the panic back then. That kind of flip flop makes me hesitant to accept what the current theory is now.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to Taylor95 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 11:34 AM   #5039 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,229
Thanks: 17,998
Thanked 5,976 Times in 3,633 Posts
isn't the problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
What you have stated has been mentioned dozens of times throughout the life of this thread.

The warming period we're in began long before humans were prolific, but we're accelerating the warming. Warming itself isn't the problem, rather the rate of change. Slow enough change, and things have time to adapt. Rapid change, and things struggle to adapt.

Cooling would certainly be worse.
*The anthropogenic component of the warming is all we ever had an ability to address.
*This warming is the driver for the non-natural-variability-related rates of change we're experiencing.
*We are presently witnessing the inability for natural systems to adapt.
*Scientists caught hell in the 1970s when they mentioned a global cooling trend they were observing.
*They can't win for losing.
*Scientists are the new black.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019)
Old 02-20-2019, 11:49 AM   #5040 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,229
Thanks: 17,998
Thanked 5,976 Times in 3,633 Posts
few willing $10

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
What we know so far.
Few are willing to pay more than $10 a month to fix climate change, this includes a good portion of the believers.
Even fewer people would allow government to expand size and power to fix climate, most people are against that idea.
Anything the United States does will be eclipsed by china.
Warming is better than cooling (unless you're below sea level, then your poor choice in lack of elevation is not my problem).
*Has it been established that we need to spend anything extra to address climate change? Specifics?
*If all Americans vote for climate change mitigation with their dollars,in a free market,would that leave the government anything to do?
*What China does is up to China and any UN conventions that they're a signatory to.
*We're responsible for the USA.
*The warming/cooling comment would be contextual/conditional

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019)
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, opinion, reality, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com