[benj]

Reading this thread reminds me of an old saying. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

[jimjamuser]

There is a feedback loop between OCEAN health and Climate Change. They each affect the other. A healthy ocean acts like a storage area for CO2 to keep climate in balance. Today we can see many signs of adverse ocean health caused by man through overfishing. With respect to overfishing the oceans by giant national fishing fleets, the term BYCATCH comes up. This means any fish or mammal that is UNINTENDED to be caught but ends up in the huge nets and most end up dying. China is the #1 overfishing nation, but the US is also in the top 10. 1/3 of all sharks and rays are in danger of extinction due to overfishing. Bycatch is the leading cause of death of 300,000 whales and dolphins per YEAR - turtles and seals are also killed.

1/2 of the world's human population depends on fish for their major source of protein. Since 1970 global populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have declined by 70%.

Bycatch eliminates much smaller fish that eat algae that grow on coral reefs. When these fish are overfished, the algae grows uncontrollably and the reefs suffer as a result. This creates an extreme disruption in the ocean ecosystem. 75% of mankind's CO2 production needs to be absorbed by the world's oceans to keep things in balance and avoid global warming. The oceans need to be healthy to do that work. Overfishing is one of many examples of human causation of ecological problems!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The rate of change is drastically different????? Compared to WHAT?????

Compared to the last 150 years out of the last 4 million??? Yeah, right, that's meaningful

Man has control over the rate of change???? Do we???? How do we know since we don't even know what is causing "change" (if there is any). And how would we change the climate????? Alter Earth's axis or our orbit around the sun???? Which is what you would have to do since they are the causes of climate change. All this fossil fuel nonsense is just babbling unless and until we have real data for a long enough period of time. Of course, that's thousands of years. Meanwhile, don't worry about the sky falling

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "sun spots" or "solar flares"...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I would say that you can pay Mother Nature today or pay much more tomorrow. While I don't expect US net zero emissions by 2050 I DO expect that intelligent human beings will look at changes like the dying of reef coral and the rapid animal species extinction and move in the DIRECTION of zero emissions. There are some possible areas of improvement that can take place without undue cost or lifestyle changes for US Americans. In terms of electric vehicles, there have been recent discoveries of lithium in mining areas of Alaska. We may not be dependent on China for lithium batteries. The newest design of nuclear power generators has great improvements in safety and safe spent fuel disposal. The US can wean itself SLOWLY away from the internal combustion engine. California has plans for that and Finland is going to require 100% of all new car sales to be electric in one or two years. The Villages could make a similar requirement for golf carts in the future and add charging stations. It's all a matter of human willpower and a willingness to change. The technology IS CERTAINLY there. It is fixed-in-place mindsets that hold back innovation and progress, not science and technology. The younger 50 and 55-year-old Villagers arriving now may be more concerned about moving toward net zero emissions and be more flexible about the topic of climate change.

As to "the one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020"..........let me turn that around........in order to get anything worthwhile accomplished in a country as BIG as the US, you need Federal and State Government support and DIRECTION leading to BIG ideas and projects - for example, the space program of the 1960s. It might be prudent at this juncture in history to raise the Corporate tax rate a SMALL amount in order to balance the budget and allow the US government to move more aggressively toward solving the problem of environmental degradation being caused by climate change.

Imagine the incredible costs of not doing anything. We will pay dearly if the oceans rise enough to threaten the FUNCTION of the Eastern Naval bases - as is predicted by 2050. What would be the cost of losing Miami to a warming ocean and stronger hurricanes? Most scientists say that this IS happening. A small % of scientists say that it is not. Why take that chance? Simple lifestyle changes can GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen and as a fringe benefit, US air and water quality will increase. And there will be increased jobs in environmental science and engineering. It is a win-win for everyone and Mother Nature can turn her frown into a smile!!!!!!!!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I would say that you can pay Mother Nature today or pay much more tomorrow. While I don't expect US net zero emissions by 2050 I DO expect that intelligent human beings will look at changes like the dying of reef coral and the rapid animal species extinction and move in the DIRECTION of zero emissions. There are some possible areas of improvement that can take place without undue cost or lifestyle changes for US Americans. In terms of electric vehicles, there have been recent discoveries of lithium in mining areas of Alaska. We may not be dependent on China for lithium batteries. The newest design of nuclear power generators has great improvements in safety and safe spent fuel disposal. The US can wean itself SLOWLY away from the internal combustion engine. California has plans for that and Finland is going to require 100% of all new car sales to be electric in one or two years. The Villages could make a similar requirement for golf carts in the future and add charging stations. It's all a matter of human willpower and a willingness to change. The technology IS CERTAINLY there. It is fixed-in-place mindsets that hold back innovation and progress, not science and technology. The younger 50 and 55-year-old Villagers arriving now may be more concerned about moving toward net zero emissions and be more flexible about the topic of climate change.

As to "the one-quarter of all tax revenues in 2020"..........let me turn that around........in order to get anything worthwhile accomplished in a country as BIG as the US, you need Federal and State Government support and DIRECTION leading to BIG ideas and projects - for example, the space program of the 1960s. It might be prudent at this juncture in history to raise the Corporate tax rate a SMALL amount in order to balance the budget and allow the US government to move more aggressively toward solving the problem of environmental degradation being caused by climate change.

Imagine the incredible costs of not doing anything. We will pay dearly if the oceans rise enough to threaten the FUNCTION of the Eastern Naval bases - as is predicted by 2050. What would be the cost of losing Miami to a warming ocean and stronger hurricanes? Most scientists say that this IS happening. A small % of scientists say that it is not. Why take that chance? Simple lifestyle changes can GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen and as a fringe benefit, US air and water quality will increase. And there will be increased jobs in environmental science and engineering. It is a win-win for everyone and Mother Nature can turn her frown into a smile!!!!!!!!

Do you have any links to back up ANY of your claims?

Finland is NOT going to require 100% EVs in 1-2 years. There is currently ZERO legislation to back up that claim.

We can't even drill for oil in Alaska and you think they'll allow Litihum mining? LOL!

Your claim that "a small % of scientists disagree" has been debunked, several times. Yet you keep citing that false claim...

[Mortal1]

it's called "science" and while some folks prefer their version of science which includes humans able to effect the earths natural changes...well they are literally ****ing into the wind of reality.

Think of one volcano exploding...ie: mt. St. Helens. it puts more toxic, world climate changing crap into the atmosphere than 100 years of mans pollution.

So please...if you need to blame mankind for anything then blame it on making you able to live as long and well as you do. Just think that 100 years ago old age was in your 50's/60's. So if most of us would be dead, or near dead, by now fewer people, less pollution.

Get over it.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Mortal1

it's called "science" and while some folks prefer their version of science which includes humans able to effect the earths natural changes...well they are literally ****ing into the wind of reality.

Think of one volcano exploding...ie: mt. St. Helens. it puts more toxic, world climate changing crap into the atmosphere than 100 years of mans pollution.

So please...if you need to blame mankind for anything then blame it on making you able to live as long and well as you do. Just think that 100 years ago old age was in your 50's/60's. So if most of us would be dead, or near dead, by now fewer people, less pollution.

Get over it.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder! 😏

[jimjamuser]

Finland has subsidized the purchase of new EVs since 2018 by 2,000 Euros per car. They even have E-snowmobiles. Norway has set a goal that 100% of new cars sold should be zero emission (electric or hydrogen) by 2025. They even have a great E-motorcycle product. Germany is also at the top end of countries with EVs per capita. Even China is double the per capita ownership of EVs as the US.

[Byte1]

How are electric cars going to stop the Climate from Changing? They may/MAY assist in a cleaner air by eliminating SOME pollution, but we will still be pumping oil, since many of our products are created using oil. Is mining lithium good for our environment? When exposed to water, I know that lithium creates hydrogen gas, which is very volatile/combustible. Personally, I like my lithium battery powered hand tools, BUT I also know that they are not as powerful as my old fossil fuel powered tools. Just a few observations. I have not been convinced that man is powerful enough or god like that we can change the climate. If so, can someone raise the temps during the winter up in the mountains up North so that I can enjoy a warmer mountain climate? I prefer the mountains over the flat Florida landscape, but it gets way too chilly up North in the mountains.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Finland has subsidized the purchase of new EVs since 2018 by 2,000 Euros per car. They even have E-snowmobiles. Norway has set a goal that 100% of new cars sold should be zero emission (electric or hydrogen) by 2025. They even have a great E-motorcycle product. Germany is also at the top end of countries with EVs per capita. Even China is double the per capita ownership of EVs as the US.

Norway? You previously said Finland was going 100% electric?

Electric snowmobiles? I can't wait to see the battery life on those when the temp is -20°...

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "sun spots" or "solar flares"...

I'm sure that someone on here will swear that sun spots and solar flares are a result of our use of electronics and that if we were to get rid of all of our cell phones and go to land lines, we would be saving Earth from sun spots and solar flares.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

How are electric cars going to stop the Climate from Changing? They may/MAY assist in a cleaner air by eliminating SOME pollution, but we will still be pumping oil, since many of our products are created using oil. Is mining lithium good for our environment? When exposed to water, I know that lithium creates hydrogen gas, which is very volatile/combustible. Personally, I like my lithium battery powered hand tools, BUT I also know that they are not as powerful as my old fossil fuel powered tools. Just a few observations. I have not been convinced that man is powerful enough or god like that we can change the climate. If so, can someone raise the temps during the winter up in the mountains up North so that I can enjoy a warmer mountain climate? I prefer the mountains over the flat Florida landscape, but it gets way too chilly up North in the mountains.

Actually, I have studied electrical principles somewhat. Batteries produce direct current (DC) and everyone's home electricity is alternating current (AC at 120 volts). When it comes to motors inside common hand tools like drills - the DC motor is normally considered more "powerful" because the INITIAL TORQUE of a DC motor is superior to an AC motor. Even when you compare a large automobile engine like DC versus an internal combustion engine - the DC motor wins the 0 to 60 mph time trials because of the fact that DC motors have the greatest INITIAL TORQUE.

Originally Tomas Edison planned to electrify cities with DC power. But, AC won that battle because with very efficient transformers and voltage changes AC can be transferred greater distances than DC.

As to the question of "How are electric cars going to STOP the climate from changing? That requires a longer answer which could be pieced together by the posts made by myself and others. Here is the quick and dirty version...........
........When trees and plants are cut down for concrete and golf courses and the earth's ocean becomes polluted with plastic and excess CO2, the water becomes slightly acidic and bleaches and kills the new growth of coral on the reefs. Algae can also attack the coral (which was talked about in a previous post). Without coral, the fish die. And the ocean dies, in that, it can no longer act as a container or buffer to hold CO2.
Then excess CO2 ends up in the upper atmosphere and acts like an insulating blanket to the earth, which becomes hotter as a result.

The internal combustion engine (ICE) some call it infernal combustion........produces a large part of the CO2 total from burning fossil fuel. Power plants generating electricity also burn fossil fuel, but since they are at a SINGLE location (as opposed to a moving automobile) the power plants can have more potent and large-scale CO2 scrubbers. When power plants can economically burn NATURAL GAS the pollutants cast off are minimal. Note : large scale forest fires like recently out west MUST also produce CO2.

Summary........the increasing popularity and worldwide use of electric vehicles (EV) will NOT stop Climate Change instantaneously, but are a long-term solution to the problem. And they are a solution that is available and affordable to each citizen in the 1st world. Over time, they will become more affordable and more attractive to the average citizen. As such, they become a GIFT to succeeding generations !

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Summary........the increasing popularity and worldwide use of electric vehicles (EV) will NOT stop Climate Change instantaneously, but are a long-term solution to the problem. And they are a solution that is available and affordable to each citizen in the 1st world. Over time, they will become more affordable and more attractive to the average citizen. As such, they become a GIFT to succeeding generations !

Once again, it is NO SOLUTION WHATSOEVER, the reason being that CO2 emissions are NOT THE CAUSE of our current global warming. We have been warming for the last 20,000 years and will continue to warm for the next 20-30,000 years, EVEN IF THERE WERE NO CARS, NO POWER PLANTS, NO ELECTRICITY AND NO HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET It's really not that hard to understand, yet there are those that would spend over $100 trillion to "combat" this myth
80-100,000 years ago our climate was similar to today's. The planet had been warming and continued to warm for the next 20,000 years or so. Then, it started cooling, so much so that 20,000 years ago NY City was covered in 2 miles of ice. Now, we have been warming ever since and the ice is gone, and we will continue to warm for another 20-30,000 years until NY City is covered in 400 feet of water. This is due to variations in Earth's orbit, it's axis, and different reflective indices of land and water. And all this has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years, ALL WITHOUT THE HELP OF A SINGLE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE.
Despite this simple climate history, there are several that post long winded nonsense over and over about the same misinformation and dire predictions by those with an agenda, and then congratulate themselves on "great information" and "excellent post". There aren't enough little men rofl to respond to that

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And there it is! Finally, the climate change advocates have come to call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish". This must be the same crew that called people who didn't wear a mask when driving their car alone "selfish"

Manipulate/purposely obfuscate???? That 90% number has been debunked multiple times. And isn't it the climatologists who jump on the bandwagon to obtain grant money the ones who are "selfish"?

"Try to slow down the adverse effects"?---to the tune of bankrupting the world???? That would lead to consequences far worse than driving your SUV.

And anyone who thinks the peak of this cyclical warming is any closer than 15-25,000 years away----like the 12 years that was previously stated or even within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, well...........I can't write it.

LOL

Instead of spending the time to refute almost every single one of your sentences, which fit one of the below categories, I'll just repeat from my earlier post - that you have so aptly shown to be correct.

"...who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science..."


My favorite part though, is the astounding hubris exhibited in your statement..."call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish"."


I certainly don't claim to always be correct, but I am always on guard for those who are loquacious (as if quantity somehow equates to proof/correctness), have the need to be the smartest in the room and anything said in disagreement - must be instantly discounted. Have a great day.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by tvbound

LOL

Instead of spending the time to refute almost every single one of your sentences, which fit one of the below categories, I'll just repeat from my earlier post - that you have so aptly shown to be correct.

"...who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science..."


My favorite part though, is the astounding hubris exhibited in your statement..."call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish"."


I certainly don't claim to always be correct, but I am always on guard for those who are loquacious (as if quantity somehow equates to proof/correctness), have the need to be the smartest in the room and anything said in disagreement - must be instantly discounted. Have a great day.

Amazing---I'm sorry but i can hardly type because I'm laughing so hard.

Hubris????? Do you deny calling people who Joyce Whatsherface calls "Di-NYE-AHS" selfish????

Because here is your post:
From a very broad view, there are really two primary trains of thoughts on anthropogenic (human caused/contributed) climate change/warming.

1. Those who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science embraced by 90%+ of the world's legitimate scientists who are most educated on the subject, so that they are not inconvenienced in their current quality of life and bristle - at making any current sacrifice(s) for the future.

2. Those who actually care about the sustainability of the planet for their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren/Etc. and are willing to take action and make sacrifices NOW, to 'TRY' and reverse/slow down the adverse effects to our planet already occurring.


Since I can't even imagine being that selfish...count me being in the latter group.

PS: I'm still laughing