Climate change

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,819
5,589
113
Northeast SD
Another thread has been derailed with the discussion of Climate Change.


So I thought it an interesting enough topic to warrant a new thread.
Lots of theories and opinions to mitigate or prevent.
I am not a big believer that fossil fuel is a significant contributing factor. I am of the opinion that much of this is cyclical.
Case in point, the dirty thirties had several hot dry years, followed by many years of normal temps.
Again in the mid-late 70's this repeated.
This summer appears poised to be hot and dry as well.
Hot cycles, cool cycles, flooding, drought.
We see it all.
 

polaris dude

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jun 5, 2009
3,420
1,003
113
Grand Junction, CO
All I know I learned from a Colorado radio add saying their politician signed a bill allowing out-of-state oil companies to pollute the environment with methane...


Little did the people making the radio ad realize that cow farts probably contribute more than anything else :D
 

Bacon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
1,636
1,337
113
Napoleon, ND
Oh boy. This should get good. I think solar flares have more to do with warming than burning oil and cow farts. Heck in the seventies the scientists were warning we were going into another mini ice age.
 

DITCHBANGER

Well-known member
Premium Member
Nov 26, 2007
882
414
63
Why no talk of population control? Oh yeah thats off limits due to religious beliefs about an invisible man. Going from 2 billion to almost 8 billion in a century is the bigger problem than fossil fuel
 

Idcatman3

MODERATOR: Premium Member
Staff member
Nov 26, 2007
2,147
795
113
35
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Some context is missing because some of them are replies to other quotes, but it's relevant enough that I'm not going to waste my time fixing it. It's not going to convince anyone of anything anyway.

Looking it up, amazingly, someone has already done the math, and I figured you'd like that you can look up their sources:
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/world-electricity-production-map-graph-and-data.html#CO2-emissions-data-from-fuel-combustion.html

Atmospheric CO2 hadn't changed much from ~1000 CE to 1850 CE, and was ~288 ppmv in 1850. That rose to ~370 ppm in 2000, and increase of ~28%. Calculations of CO2 produced by humans over that time period would actually indicate a rise of more than twice that. So much of what we produce does indeed get absorbed by sinks in the environment, but what we produce i definitely significant compared to the amount present in the atmosphere.

Some reading on greenhouse gas sources and sinks:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/sourcesandsinks.html

reading on energy consumption, and emissions per type of vehicle:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references

Other sources:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Oh, and for the volcanoes red herring:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

In short, humans emit over 100 times the CO2 that volcanoes do every year.



Do a tiny bit of reading. The world practically completely phased out CFCs, which were what was destroying the ozone.

You can ignore the climate change part of this if you'd like, but it's pretty clear both that introducing CFCs was destroying ozone, and that banning them has allowed the ozone to start to recover.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

EDIT:
I'd also like someone, anyone, to respond to this earlier post:
https://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4076509#post4076509
I'll add in some NASA reading:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

And the idea that everyone was predicting cooling in the 70s:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
 
Last edited:

bholmlate

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,267
664
113
Reno, Nevada
Nothing really to debate here. Half the people believe the fossil fuel industry who say its a ploy to regulate their industry and cut profits. The other half say that that the climate is evolving to more extreme patterns that produce stronger storms and temperatures. Most arguments based on opinion which is not a solid footing to hold a debate. I blame Obama:face-icon-small-coo
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,819
5,589
113
Northeast SD
Let's assume for a moment that mankind is affecting climate change.
What actions are having the most significant impact?
Fossil fuels?
Deforestation?
Jet travel?
Urban sprawl?
Polluting the seas?
 

freekweet mods

Well-known member
Feb 3, 2008
694
194
43
Way to much bias from both sides here,I will say though, that we humans are capable of some incredible tasks.Let's assume we replace all oxygen producing matter with all co producing matter. Then what. Or we stop all co producing matter so the oxygen levels get so high that we kick over from that.To much of a good thing you know.
 

Idcatman3

MODERATOR: Premium Member
Staff member
Nov 26, 2007
2,147
795
113
35
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Let's assume for a moment that mankind is affecting climate change.
What actions are having the most significant impact?
Fossil fuels?
Deforestation?
Jet travel?
Urban sprawl?
Polluting the seas?

Literally the first result from Google:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse
gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine,
chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere,
causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases
in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure
1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.
• Carbon dioxide has increased from fossil fuel use in transportation,
building heating and cooling and the manufacture of
cement and other goods. Deforestation releases CO2 and reduces
its uptake by plants. Carbon dioxide is also released in
natural processes such as the decay of plant matter.
• Methane has increased as a result of human activities related
to agriculture, natural gas distribution and landfills. Methane
is also released from natural processes that occur, for example,
in wetlands. Methane concentrations are not currently increasing
in the atmosphere because growth rates decreased over the
last two decades.
• Nitrous oxide is also emitted by human activities such as fertilizer
use and fossil fuel burning. Natural processes in soils and
the oceans also release N2O.
• Halocarbon gas concentrations have increased primarily due
to human activities. Natural processes are also a small source.
Principal halocarbons include the chlorofluorocarbons (e.g.,
CFC-11 and CFC-12), which were used extensively as refrigeration
agents and in other industrial processes before their
presence in the atmosphere was found to cause stratospheric
ozone depletion. The abundance of chlorofluorocarbon gases is
decreasing as a result of international regulations designed to
protect the ozone layer.
• Ozone is a greenhouse gas that is continually produced and
destroyed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions. In the troposphere,
human activities have increased ozone through the
release of gases such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxide, which chemically react to produce ozone. As
mentioned above, halocarbons released by human activities
destroy ozone in the stratosphere and have caused the ozone
hole over Antarctica.
• Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse
gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only
a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water
vapour. Indirectly, humans have the potential to affect
water vapour substantially by changing climate. For example,
a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour. Human
activities also influence water vapour through CH4 emissions,
because CH4 undergoes chemical destruction in the stratosphere,
producing a small amount of water vapour.
• Aerosols are small particles present in the atmosphere with
widely varying size, concentration and chemical composition.
Some aerosols are emitted directly into the atmosphere while
others are formed from emitted compounds. Aerosols contain
both naturally occurring compounds and those emitted as a result
of human activities. Fossil fuel and biomass burning have
increased aerosols containing sulphur compounds, organic
compounds and black carbon (soot). Human activities such as
surface mining and industrial processes
have increased dust in the atmosphere.
Natural aerosols include mineral dust released
from the surface, sea salt aerosols,
biogenic emissions from the land and
oceans and sulphate and dust aerosols
produced by volcanic eruptions.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,819
5,589
113
Northeast SD
Interesting, but we have no idea the extent of influence by any of the above.

For example, we agreed that the chloroflorocarbon emissions were harming the ozone and we altered our behavior. We can all agree that this is good, but we are uncertain what extent of effect failing to change our behavior would have had.

Let's imagine if we would have had the ability to produce ozone in mass quantities, and done so thinking that since depleting ozone is bad, so producing mega amounts of ozone must be good.
Can we agree that this may have been just as catastrophic as depleating ozone?

Sorry for rambling, but the point I'm trying to get to is that there's so much we don't know. And assuming that we do know and understand can result in behavior that is equally destructive.
Therefore, making small changes can be more productive than the knee-jerk radical changes that the far left pushes for.

My point, we've spent billions if not trillions in technology that burns coal cleanly. Disregarding that investment would be wasteful, foolish and in the end may simply produce a new unforseen problem.
 

Red Mtn

Well-known member
Feb 29, 2016
398
339
63
When I was in college in the early '90s I had a geology professor that, at the time, presented a fairly compelling case to us young skulls of mush regarding global warming. His claim was that Minneapolis MN would have the climate of Houston Tx within 10-15 years. Here we are at nearly double that time frame and the climate in Mpls still isn't anything like Houston...


It was a lie then, it remains a lie to this day. The SUN is what controls our climate. Thinking that humans could destroy the world is ridiculous, we are just a tiny part of a massive eco system. It is extremely resilient and has always been little affected by man. Thinking you can save the world by trying to avoid climate change is idiotic and presumptuous at best.
 

Idcatman3

MODERATOR: Premium Member
Staff member
Nov 26, 2007
2,147
795
113
35
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Interesting, but we have no idea the extent of influence by any of the above.

For example, we agreed that the chloroflorocarbon emissions were harming the ozone and we altered our behavior. We can all agree that this is good, but we are uncertain what extent of effect failing to change our behavior would have had.

Let's imagine if we would have had the ability to produce ozone in mass quantities, and done so thinking that since depleting ozone is bad, so producing mega amounts of ozone must be good.
Can we agree that this may have been just as catastrophic as depleating ozone?

Sorry for rambling, but the point I'm trying to get to is that there's so much we don't know. And assuming that we do know and understand can result in behavior that is equally destructive.
Therefore, making small changes can be more productive than the knee-jerk radical changes that the far left pushes for.

My point, we've spent billions if not trillions in technology that burns coal cleanly. Disregarding that investment would be wasteful, foolish and in the end may simply produce a new unforseen problem.
The technology that burns coal "cleanly" is better than nothing, but it's like DEF on a diesel truck. Makes the whole thing less efficient, but slightly cleaner. It's a stop-gap. Never really intended as anything but that. I work in this industry. It's my job to help power plants be as efficient as possible. Both because they make more money that way, and it's better for the environment.

You keep saying we have no idea about the magnitudes of these effects. But we do. We may not be 100% right, the models are complicated. But we know enough to say we are having an effect, and that effect is very likely bad, and the potential consequences are very bad.

I agree that producing lots of low level ozone would have been bad. Ozone is toxic to living things. But if we could have produced it high in the atmosphere, where it's a good thing?

We saw that emitting CFCs was causing a problem, took action to reduce/eliminate them, and the problem is getting better.

We know that CO2 is causing warming. Even if you want to quibble on the amount, taking action now to reduce the consequences is only logical.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
 

Jaynelson

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
4,455
4,425
113
Nelson BC
Even with 0 science....pretty safe to say we're not improving the climate. Most likely we are harming it a little less than the climate change doomsday'ers say....and a little more than the oil industry says.
 

Jaynelson

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
4,455
4,425
113
Nelson BC
Why no talk of population control? Oh yeah thats off limits due to religious beliefs about an invisible man. Going from 2 billion to almost 8 billion in a century is the bigger problem than fossil fuel
Seriously ....I always figured that if the planet had the population density of, say, Canada...and you could convince people not to polute like complete *******s, be totally fine.

Youtube Bill Burr population problem and it pretty much sums up my views lol
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,819
5,589
113
Northeast SD
We know that CO2 is causing warming. Even if you want to quibble on the amount, taking action now to reduce the consequences is only logical.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Actually, it is only logical if it's cost effective.
This was the problem with the Paris Accord.
 

swampwater

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
1,247
261
83
75
Everett, Wa.
CO 2 is food not poison, in the past when climate was warmer the earth was simply more vegetative. Man caused global warming is a hoax designed to destroy america and the west. One look at the Paris agreement proves that statement!


Actually, it is only logical if it's cost effective.
This was the problem with the Paris Accord.
 

Bacon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
1,636
1,337
113
Napoleon, ND
CO 2 is food not poison, in the past when climate was warmer the earth was simply more vegetative. Man caused global warming is a hoax designed to destroy america and the west. One look at the Paris agreement proves that statement!
Yes, but some won't accept that. What do you do to convince people that don't want to hear that.
 

LoudHandle

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 21, 2011
3,871
2,738
113
Valdez, AK
Hippie Chick Deterrent, Below

If you're getting hit on by some hippie chicks or other self proclaimed ecoterrorist grouping, just share my take on the subject (they will disappear very quickly)!

"Global Warming? BS!!! They just aren't taking enough temperature trends in the right places.

What has been phrased as "Global Warming" is no different than leaving your refrigerator door open (The cold coming out the front is equal to the heat coming off the condenser coils in the back). Mix the air up and it is the same temp as if you had just left the door shut."

It is also no different than any other funded study; the results will always show whatever the financier of the study deems the most favorable.