Shocking satellite image shows Alaska’s formerly frozen Yukon Delta is completely green

Global warming and pollution are two different things. The earth doesn't pollute itself. But it does warm up and cool down with or without mankind in tow. As for pollution, depending on the region and nation, there are any number of regulations in effect to lessen pollution and clean up what is already done. Maybe there is a need for more, better, or tighter regulations on pollution. I don't know. But I support reasonable efforts. My point about the earth warming is that it will do that no matter what we do. Even if we reduced our effect to zero, it would continue to warm because it is a natural cycle, independent of earths inhabitants. At least that's my understanding. I don't suggest closing our eyes to make it go away. But perhaps a little faith is in order, to help regulate our efforts and moderate our decisions. I mean, it's great to want to keep a sinking ship afloat. But poking holes, for instance, in the bottom to let out the water is a mindless act driven by fear. I don't want to see our nations economy and military wrecked in obeisance to a tsunami of data, ending our nation far sooner than a single degree of rise in temperature.

 

Your post #3 was a call for ignoring any damage to the human race - essentially a suicide pact.

And, yes. I will certainly push back against that idea.

 

Yes, pollution and global warming are not the same thing. One is a cause. The other is an effect.

Your comments on pollution ignores the fact that we call it pollution when it is detrimental to humans.

Yes, the Earth does warm up and cool down, subject to MYRIAD cycles.

The warming that is happening will continue to have an increasingly serious impact on humans as we have seen.

The GOOD NEWS is that we humans are the ones causing it. WE are more of a factor than any other factor at this time.

Thus, it IS in our control to lessen the damage that we have set in motion.

 

Gee - I can't even dream anything up that can match your wild imagination.

 

Do you know of any proposal for doing that?

 

The earth has only had ice five times in it's history. For example, even Antarctica was a rainforest. Not sure why people are ignorant of the past.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a32084528/antarctica-rainforest/

 

Because history began the day they were born.

 

Deflection. What happened in the distant past, when the continents were in different spots and the sun had a lower output, has no bearing on the fact that additinoal CO2 is causing harm right now.

"A trace can't affect anything!" fallacy.

No, _you_ have no idea. Your ignorance of the topic is your own problem.

Science says the world stopped greening in the 1990s. There's no need to get so belligerent with your ignorance.

Funny. This guy thinks that grow tents represent real world ecosystems. Contrary to your beliefs, CO2 is not a magical supergas that controls everything.

Great. Another denier hippie. I hate denier hippies. Everyone hates denier hippies.

If you want to live in a cave with an unshaven woman and hug trees all day, you go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. The rest of us prefer electricity and indoor plumbing. That's why we rational people are doing the work to keep the lights on after the fossile fules run out. You and your death cult here would leave humanity shivering in the dark when that happens.

 

Any evidence of Viking activity?
That delta was no doubt green
some 1,200 years ago.


Moi

​

 

Speaking of ignorance of the topic. I started by asking you 4 reasonable questions you could not answer.

And the point about CO2 being a trace gas either went over your head or you intentionally responded with a strawman, i.e., that I claimed a trace cannot affect anything. My point is that since CO2 is a trace gas there may be unforeseen consequences to global warming cult plans to capture Carbon from the air and sequester it in the ground. The exact opposite of saying a trace cannot affect anything.

The point of the grow tent (which you also missed) is that more CO2 increases plant growth, where in an earlier post you claimed reducing CO2 would increase plant growth. You don't know what the highest historical levels of CO2 were. You don't know the optimum levels. Then what the [expletive] is you basis for claiming lowering CO2 will increase plant growth?

The cave, hairy woman, hugging trees, indoor plumbing etc. is a shotgun approach with strawman fallacies. If anything, these things are what the global warming cult is proposing.

As far as fossil fuels go, I prefer the market to develop alternatives, not the government. I don't propose any of what you suggest. I propose to continue to use fossil fuels for now and let the free market develop solutions.

If you really want to debate this subject, then please don't ignore the following questions which you ignored and responded with some hippy BS. I don't think I am a hippy. I live in a large expensive house and drive an SUV and a truck.

I guess answering the answering the questions I asked was uncomfortable, because most of you people take no personal action pursuant to your global warming claims. If you cannot or will not answer them, then you will be dismissed as another global warming cult troll.

1. Do you live in a 400 square foot tiny home or apartment?

2. Do you drive a tiny electric car?

3. What personal steps do you take to have a low Carbon footprint?

4. What do you think about politicians and elite with a high Carbon footprint, e.g., those flying Carbon spewing jets to climate change conferences and celebrity birthday parties?

As a final comment, stating "everyone hates" to support an argument is an ad populum fallacy.

 

I take deep breaths to help
defend against a Day After Tomorrow
event.

Do Your Part!
Expel more CO2
and limit the coming
Cool Down maybe a Little Ice Age
as happened from 1303 - 1860!
How Soon We Forget


Moi

Processes
Ice Power​

 

This is short-sighted acquisitiveness, considered w/out regard of long-term consequence; penny-smart, but pound-foolish.

 

What are the negative long-term consequences of more snow and ice covered land thawing into farmable land? Keep in mind that our planet has already spent much of its life in periods with no icecaps whatsoever, as late as 4 or 5 million years ago, and life continued to thrive. For context, this is roughly around the same time our ancestors were starting to explore the use of tools.

 

So if Alaska is turning green all by itself... can we cancel all this spending to make things green and just let nature take its course?

 

Honest debaters can state their points directly, without playing sleazy deflection question games. You apparent can't.

Good, you're admitting that CO2 is causing fast warming. For reasons unknown, you just think stopping the fast warming is bad. You're like somenone screaming "Don't put water on the fire! We're not positive of what it might do!". That makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Pointing out the dishonesty your sleazy questions doesn't mean I don't know the answers. You're just angry because I took you off-script, and you don't know how to handle thinking on the fly.

By those examples, I was pointing out that you're lying about us. If facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that. You were trying to imply we were against all electricity use or any use of fossil fuels, and that we were hypocrites if we did use them. You deserved to have that lie flung back in your face.

No. Your stupid question games are dishonest and cowardly, and I won't play them. Seeing that trigger you over and over is just a bonus. If have a point, then make it, simply and directly. You know, .ike I do. If all you can do is play stupid question games, then clearly all you can do is recite a script, and you don't have any sensible point to make.

 

Your ad hominem style and lack of knowledge regarding simple questions concerning atmospheric Carbon is not an effective debate style. Just sayin.

Once again you fail to address my point on CO2, i.e., that lowering the percentage of a trace gas by Carbon capture and sequestering Carbon in the ground (as the global warming cult wants to do) may have a negative impact on plant growth. You don't know the minimum CO2 percentage needed for plant growth and you don't know the optimum level for plant growth. You don't even know the relevance of these questions.

As I expected. You cannot address what you are personally doing to lower your Carbon footprint which you call a "question game." You don't seem to care what your personal Carbon footprint is or that the elite have a huge Carbon footprint.

I would ask you why the global warming cult have to have their climate change meetings in Paris and other places with high class prostitutes and Haute Cuisine rather than telecommuting to these meeting? But I know you could not answer that question.

You are dismissed.

 

1. No, I live in a 160 square foot tiny home.
2. No but I do drive a tiny car with a 1 litre engine that gets over 55mpg. It is 20 years old which is over twice the average age of a car here.
3. Numerous.
I live off grid generating my electricity through solar and wind power.
I don't eat meat.
I use a composting toilet which goes back on the land and uses zero water.
I don't fly.
I take notice of food miles and try to eat local seasonal vegetables whenever I can.
I drink tap water and never buy bottled.
I wear everything out completely before I replace them clothes, shoes, electronics etc. I make things last and repair when possible.

I could go on and on, it's a way of life I've been practising for well over 30 years.

4. I think politicians, like everyone else, should take steps to reduce their carbon footprints, use fewer single use plastics etc. I do however understand that climate change is a global problem and international agreements are vital if we are to mitigate the results. That means politicians are going to have to travel to climate conferences periodically.
Getting on a plane to go to a birthday party is excessive whether you're a celebrity, a politician or anyone else.


I've never advocated that everyone should live like I do but I would like everyone to try to do something to reduce their environmental impact.
If people would just stop denying there's a problem that would be a good start.

 

Science fail.

Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al 2008.pdf

Just to make sure we're clear on the concept, 12.5°C is 22.5°F warmer than present temperatures.

From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 °C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada

Again, to make sure we're clear on the concept, 4.0°C - 5.0°C is 7.2°F - 9.0°F warmer than present.

And CO2 levels maxed out at 292 ppm in the last Inter-Glacial Period.

Got Science?

Nope. You're flailing at nothings.

The sea levels in the last 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods were all 4 meters to 14 meters higher than present.

And CO2 levels during those 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods were never greater than 292 ppm CO2.

Even if we play your stupid game, this is what happens anyway:

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

Cue the Science Denials in 3....2....1...

You just single-handedly debunked the global warming myth.

In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...imate-science/

For the first 2.5 Billion years of Earth's existence, CO2 levels were 26,000 ppm, because Earth's atmosphere was 74% Nitrogen and 26% Carbon Dioxide with the usual suspects of trace Noble gases in the exosphere.

And there was no "runaway greenhouse" effect.

The theory behind so-called global warming and the runaway greenhouse effect is not dependent on the placement of continents.

Nor is it dependent on the Suns output of energy.

The theory behind global warming and the greenhouse effect is CO2 traps heat. Period. End of story.

CO2 isn't "turned off" when the Sun's output is 3.2 x 10^26 Megawatts and then suddenly "turns on" when the Sun's output reaches 3.5 x 10^26 Megawatts.

Either CO2 traps heat, or it doesn't. Period. End of story.

After 2.5 Billion years, the Great Oxygenation Event began as cyano-bacteria started giving off Oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis and the level of O2 increases in the atmosphere over the next 500 Million years as the level of CO2 decreases due to the evolution of plant life.

You lose.

 

NO ONE ever said the Earth pollutes itself?? Regardless of the natural cycles of Earth, it is mankind who pollutes which exacerbates the issue. Global climate change and pollution and everything else on Earth is intertwined and balanced...screw with one and you effect others.

There is NO 'without mankind'! Mankind is the root problem in all of this. Therefore, mankind is a solution. Also, there are NO 'maybes'...either we need to take action or we don't. And, 'reasonable efforts' are determined by how much mankind screws the pooch!

Who cares what the Earth does without mankind? There is no such thing as 'without mankind'. 'Faith' has no relevance when discussing global climate change.

Once again, NO ONE ANYTIME has suggested 'wrecking' the economy?? When our nation ends it won't be because of a 'tsunami of information'...it will be because few bother to read and understand that information...

 

There is no question that environmental impact by humans is a problem. What I object to is designation of a trace gas that is necessary for life as the all important environmental issue. I believe the basis for doing so is to establish Carbon trading for income redistribution and to make money by turning something with no intrinsic value, i.e., a Carbon credit, into something with value. To make this work, politicians will establish arbitrary Carbon allowances (as we have seen to some degree) introducing corruption into the environmental picture on a massive scale.

It is nice to see someone post what they themselves do to address the environment and not the usual demands of what others should not.

 

As an aside:

Back in June Biden said that "Global Warming" (he did not say climate change) was the "greatest threat facing America."

Two months earlier he said "White supremacist terrorism is the deadliest threat to the United States."

So my question to liberals -- what is the greatest threat. Global warming or white people?

https://nypost.com/2021/06/09/biden-pentagon-said-global-warming-is-americas-greatest-threat/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...thal-threat-to-america-biden-says/ar-BB1gaa5Q

 

So, instead of accepting what science the world over has discovered concerning the risks of increasing levels of CO2, you decide to worry that there may be some unknown WORSE effect from returning to an earlier CO2 concentration level that we have already experienced???

Can you explain that?

Have you noticed that one of the current dreams is that we could just stop growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration?

 

The catch is that this is changing Earth's reflectivity, thus we're capturing more heat.

Also, melted tundra tends to rot. The result is increased emissions of methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than is CO2.

In both these ways, melting of the high latitude regions causes Earth to warm even faster than it is today.

 

There you go with the "trace gas" comment again.

Are you now deciding flip flopping to the belief that a "trace gas" can't be important?

 

When I see liberals claim Carbon capture is a game changer I get worried.

Did you follow the earlier discussion before jumping in? Do you know the minimum concentration of CO2 for plant growth? Do you know the optimum level?

If you don't know the answers to these questions what is your basis to claim the capture and sequestration of a trace gas will not have potential impact on plant growth -- the plants that produce the O2 we need to live?

The Carbon capture is all about the money. How about just planting more trees?