Global Warming Discussion (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hust
- Start date
so wait the logic here is that governments invented climate hoax to charge more money on taxes, when they could simply accept more billions of dollars of easily developed existing fuel companies?
is this the logic here, they want less money when they could have easily made more money on current easily producable fuel?
is this the logic here, they want less money when they could have easily made more money on current easily producable fuel?
You guys need to consider a few things.
1) Climate science is still an evolving science. It's not easy to predict weather pattern changes on a synoptic and mesoscale level, let alone thousands and thousands of years.
2) The seemingly rare occurrences of "weather" that is reported to be occurring more frequently may or may not be the case, looking at a sufficient timespan.
3) The climate on a yearly basis is controlled largely by atmospheric teleconnections, or areas of high and low pressure, Rossby waves, and oceanic SST's. They all impact one another and are in constant motion. There are all sorts of different permutations of teleconnections that create the weather you see on a daily basis. https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...relationships or,that span thousands of miles.
4) Just because temperatures are rising in one area, or cooling in another, isn't evidence of anything, other than that teleconnections are working to redistribute areas of high and low pressure across the globe.
5) For example, you will soon hear about the "Polar Vortex" in the news this week, as there will be an influx of record-breaking cold into CONUS due to a "stratospheric warming" event that is caused by a displacement in air masses between the North Pole, Northern Pacific, and Canada. Some will say this is caused by global warming, which is false, and others will say this negates climate change arguments, which is also false.
6) Climates have always changed, and they will always change.
7) Of course humans impact climate. The urban heat island (UHI) effect is a good example where humans building massive cities with asphalt, steel, and concrete increase local temperatures by a few degrees on average compared to areas in the countryside. For some reason this is never mentioned. So, if my dream is to turn the entire planet into Asphalt like my dreams for the country of Chad, then yeah, it's gonna be fucking hotter than it would be otherwise.
8) Since CO2 is probably the Earth's most important greenhouse gas, I find it very funny that some people consider it a deadly toxin to the planet. It's not. Sure, more of it may increase the greenhouse effect, which could in turn raise temperatures, but without it we would be screwed for obvious reasons.
9) Other than investing in renewable energy or killing off half the planet, there really isn't much else governments or humans can do about it. Me paying Joe Biden more in taxes isn't going to solve anything, and in fact probably just make things worse since I would be less likely to consume more expensive options for energy.
10) Ultimately, the planet is doomed anyway once our star becomes a red giant, so at the end of the day... who really cares.
1) Climate science is still an evolving science. It's not easy to predict weather pattern changes on a synoptic and mesoscale level, let alone thousands and thousands of years.
2) The seemingly rare occurrences of "weather" that is reported to be occurring more frequently may or may not be the case, looking at a sufficient timespan.
3) The climate on a yearly basis is controlled largely by atmospheric teleconnections, or areas of high and low pressure, Rossby waves, and oceanic SST's. They all impact one another and are in constant motion. There are all sorts of different permutations of teleconnections that create the weather you see on a daily basis. https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...relationships or,that span thousands of miles.
4) Just because temperatures are rising in one area, or cooling in another, isn't evidence of anything, other than that teleconnections are working to redistribute areas of high and low pressure across the globe.
5) For example, you will soon hear about the "Polar Vortex" in the news this week, as there will be an influx of record-breaking cold into CONUS due to a "stratospheric warming" event that is caused by a displacement in air masses between the North Pole, Northern Pacific, and Canada. Some will say this is caused by global warming, which is false, and others will say this negates climate change arguments, which is also false.
6) Climates have always changed, and they will always change.
7) Of course humans impact climate. The urban heat island (UHI) effect is a good example where humans building massive cities with asphalt, steel, and concrete increase local temperatures by a few degrees on average compared to areas in the countryside. For some reason this is never mentioned. So, if my dream is to turn the entire planet into Asphalt like my dreams for the country of Chad, then yeah, it's gonna be fucking hotter than it would be otherwise.
8) Since CO2 is probably the Earth's most important greenhouse gas, I find it very funny that some people consider it a deadly toxin to the planet. It's not. Sure, more of it may increase the greenhouse effect, which could in turn raise temperatures, but without it we would be screwed for obvious reasons.
9) Other than investing in renewable energy or killing off half the planet, there really isn't much else governments or humans can do about it. Me paying Joe Biden more in taxes isn't going to solve anything, and in fact probably just make things worse since I would be less likely to consume more expensive options for energy.
10) Ultimately, the planet is doomed anyway once our star becomes a red giant, so at the end of the day... who really cares.
pretty interesting story. They used to be super abundant and then once Japanese chestnuts were introduced, they were almost wiped out due to a fungal disease. Still very susceptible to it, especially if they’re young.
some scientists are working on a strain that is resistant to that fungus, so they’re making a bit of a comeback.
very rare tree tho, you should be proud of having those
some scientists are working on a strain that is resistant to that fungus, so they’re making a bit of a comeback.
very rare tree tho, you should be proud of having those
Yep tracking all that.
im pretty pumped about it actually. They are actually 6-8 inches in diameter I would guess.
Couple little saplings too
- - - Updated - - -
As much as I like eating nuts I don’t know yet
but yes generally they are good to eat
im pretty pumped about it actually. They are actually 6-8 inches in diameter I would guess.
Couple little saplings too
- - - Updated - - -
As much as I like eating nuts I don’t know yet
but yes generally they are good to eat
https://tacf.org/resources/faqs/#:~:text=Please let us know if,Locator Form and leaf sample.
There are arguments against this. You could easily be a politician who’s ideologically driven. There are diehard environmentalists who will push their agenda within politics.
Besides that it would be naive to think that we have lobbyist for all kinds of things but not for this. There are people who will earn a lot due to the energy transition and therefore lobby for more change.
It also works the other way around, where rich environmentalists become shareholders at (for example) Exxonmobile to push for their agenda from within.
Than there’s the scientific argument. Scientists need funds. Not all science is unbiased, it’s a complain you’ll hear more often if you listen to scientists. And even though I’m convinced that most scientists will do their work as unbiased as possible the question of how we interpret the data remains a question. A simple example was seen during the pandemic: everyone who died during infection was a death due to covid for the data, yet many died due to underlying problems even though they had the infection. It didn’t stop policymakers presenting the data in a way it would justify their ideas of how to manage the pandemic.
Besides that it would be naive to think that we have lobbyist for all kinds of things but not for this. There are people who will earn a lot due to the energy transition and therefore lobby for more change.
It also works the other way around, where rich environmentalists become shareholders at (for example) Exxonmobile to push for their agenda from within.
Than there’s the scientific argument. Scientists need funds. Not all science is unbiased, it’s a complain you’ll hear more often if you listen to scientists. And even though I’m convinced that most scientists will do their work as unbiased as possible the question of how we interpret the data remains a question. A simple example was seen during the pandemic: everyone who died during infection was a death due to covid for the data, yet many died due to underlying problems even though they had the infection. It didn’t stop policymakers presenting the data in a way it would justify their ideas of how to manage the pandemic.
Coincidentally some news, interesting article to translate: https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/629789...-zeeuwse-windmolens-op-zee-doen-het-goed.html
