The easiest way to understand climate change

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 27
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    "Climate Change" has become a cultural mantra that has turned into a product as a questionable, essential, subject to breakdown, and just the greatest thing around since peanut butter as the internal combustion engine automobile. First, it must be a constant, or the whole idea is something like trying to understand what infinity means. Thus, we have developed the idea that climate change can be solved only by reaching a desired singular, ideal climate that fluctuates only within a low, single-digit range of temperature, and a low, single-percentage range of atmospheric content, and, forgetting that the Earth, even without a single human on it to cause aberrant fluctuation, has not one, but a multiple of "ideal" climates.

    That said, the idea that climate change has become a taxable concept that is so akin to the idea of indulgences as a means to redeem humankind from sin, it is amazing that proponents of the idea rankle at it being called a religion. No one said this idea made sense, except those who espouse it. To me, that's religion, in a nutshell.

    So, what is this marvelous solution to the question of the meaning of climate change? A clock. Not digital, because most of the digits involved in that model change too quickly to see them change; it's a blur. This image actually helps the idea: climate change is happening so precipitously quickly, it's a blur. That cannot be a good thing. No, my model is the analog clock. The fastest thing in that model is the second hand, and the slowest things, the digits, which don't move at all. That's kind of the point of the model. Think of the separate digits as the Earth, herself; a complete system whose moving parts are, in fact, observable over time, a questionable concept of its own, but we'll ignore that wrinkle. See, all systems have wrinkles, even CLIMATE CHANGE.

    If your clock is large enough, we see the minute hand, the longer one, you know, move, advancing in little ratchet-moments through an entire minute. Watching the shorter hand, the hour hand, actually move is more difficult, but it clearly does move. There, boys and girls, is your erfect model of climate change. Some changes are relatively rapid. Like changing cloud formations. Some changes are observable, but happen too slowly to make a habit of focus only on that one thing. Like the sun rising at setting very day, and we note, eventually, that its rising and setting are somewhat synonymous with the passage of twelve hours on our clock; the complete single rotation of the hour hand, and that it does so twice in 24 hours. 

    Such is the nature of climate change. It does so, slowly in some respects, more quickly in others. The point is, it is a cycle. It is not in stasis, even an ideal one. Man can effect, but is not the ultimate mover-shaker of the system. You, who espouse the precipitousness of change, just happen to take a five-minute segment of the whole cycle, and say, "See? It's changing!" And you act like Paul Revere. Well, buy a copper pot from him, and let him move on. He is a capitalist, after all, and his warning of impending war has some reason, but it's no reason to think we're doomed. Maybe we'll win the war, and, because we are defending hearth and home, we probably will.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 36
    Forum posts: 1,312
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    Sorry folks, but you can't stop Milankovitch cycles no matter how hard you try.
  • SirAnonymous
    SirAnonymous avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 2,573
    3
    6
    10
    SirAnonymous avatar
    SirAnonymous
    --> @MisterChris
    Well, if you were to invent an engine of sufficient power and you had enough of them, you could move the earth out of its current orbit and stop them. That would require technology more advanced than what they have in Star Wars, though.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 36
    Forum posts: 1,312
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @SirAnonymous
    I lol'd at this. That will be the final phase of environmentalist rhetoric
  • SirAnonymous
    SirAnonymous avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 2,573
    3
    6
    10
    SirAnonymous avatar
    SirAnonymous
    --> @MisterChris
    Don't like the weather? No need to stay indoors! Just move the earth, and the outside temperature will change. If you buy our MoveTheEarth Pro, you can adjust the temperature of the outdoors with precision of half a degree. Buy them soon while they're on sale at half price. But wait! there's more. If you call within the next five minutes, we will throw in a Planetary Hyper Drive so you can tour the stars from the comfort of your own planet. Call now!
  • skittlez09
    skittlez09 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 965
    3
    3
    9
    skittlez09 avatar
    skittlez09
    bruh ppl with their houses near the ocean could just sell their houses move
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @MisterChris
    Well, there is that, of course, but I was targeting a nine-year-old mentality, where I believe most climate alarmists reside. Assuming, of course, any nine-year-olds out there know what an analog clock is.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 36
    Forum posts: 1,312
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @fauxlaw
    fair
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @MisterChris
    check out my new topic in technology section.
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 30
    0
    0
    2
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @fauxlaw
    Suppose you build a plastic sphere and in that sphere you put a CO2 generator and a CO2 absorber. You initially set them so that the generator and absorber flows are of equal value. Now you turn up the generator and slow down the absorber. What is going to happen to the CO2 concentration?
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 30
    0
    0
    2
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    Between 1990 and 2016, the world lost 502,000 square miles (1.3 million square kilometers) of forest, according to the World Bank.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @FLRW
    Suppose you try to create a model that is somewhat approximate to the natural world. You offer a model that is exactly as absurd as the models representing the effects of a tsunami: a rectangular, flat-bottomed, flat-sided steel tank with a bid paddle at one end, and a miniature sandy beach on the other, a container that is almost exactly, so "science" says, identical to every ocean in the world. Sure. I've been in all five oceans. Not one looks like that. Nor does your model look like earth, other than by approximate shape. There's more involved than shape, my friend.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @FLRW

    400 years ago, the land mass that is now USA had 1B acres of forest. That declined to a low in 1910 to 700M acres. Since 1910, despite a 200% rise in population, in the U.S. forest land has risen to 770M acres. Most of the 300M acres last has been converted to agricultural land.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,935
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @fauxlaw
    Criticism of the policies surrounding man made climate change and any solution to the problem aside man made climate change is a very real and looming extinction level event which has in fact already caused multiple extinctions. My biggest concern is not how the problem is addressed it is the possibility of human extinction. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @secularmerlin
    Anthropogenic climate change is one of very small percentage of influence, suggested by the fact that Earth has seen climate change of far greater fluctuation prior to man's entry on stage than by his actions while on stage, ignorantly or by choice. We will end our existence far sooner by our choice to combat one another than we will by our poor environmental choices. Both we, and the environment, are amazingly resilient to our effect on the environment, witnessed by, for example, the growth of ice in some regions of Antarctica and Greenland while other sites see ice reduction. Besides, who said the Earth has one, ideal climate we should strive to achieve? We are a planet of numerous ideal climates, all dependent on location, location, location. Real estate, natural and cultivated, uses that mantra.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,935
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @fauxlaw
    That is not the consensus of the scientific community and the findings straddle many different branches of science. Man made climate change is an indisputable fact.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @secularmerlin
    Man made climate change is an indisputable fact.
    Did I say it wasn't? No, I did not! Why doesn't anyone read with whole comprehension, anymore? This is not a cafeteria. You don't pick and choose. It's how y'all read the Constitution, and come up with idiotic ideas like "separation of church and state," which it does not say, "right to privacy," which it does not say, "birthright citizenship," which it does not say. Hell, it doers not even say "congressional investigation," yet it seems that's all they do.
    Anthropogenic climate change is a fact. I don't deny it. What I contend is that it does not have a majority influence, and never did. The "scientific community" is as diverse as is "Congress." Neither are one-sided organizations. Is that so hard to understand?
    The "scientific community" does NOT say that there is one, ideal climate. Hell, they don't even say that any climate is in stasis. Is that so hard to understand?
    Look. When we land on Mars, we will discover the ancient ruins of a once intelligent civilization that became obsessed with a concept they called "climate change." We will witness the vast wasteland resulting from their solution: net zero emissions. To accomplish it, they eliminated all sources of GHG emissions, meaning they eliminated all lifeforms that lived, died, and decomposed to an organic petroleum crude. Thus, the achievement of net zero. However, as we learned from Jurassic Park, life finds a way, and the cycle begins again. Net, plus. Congratulations.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,935
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @fauxlaw
    I read your whole message and simply think you are uncorrect and since you are the one claiming that the majority scientific consensus which by the way is independently verifiable by more than one method you are the one who must demonstrate that deforestation and the emission of greenhouse gasses through human enterprise is not exactly what is causing the majority of impact. 

    Denying human effect on the climate (and I presume by proxy human responsibility for finding a solution) is dangerously irresponsible. 

    This is not an argument it is an observation.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @secularmerlin
    Again,. you misread my commentary. I do not claim that deforestation and anthropogenic greenhouse gases do not affect the climate. I'm just saying there is no evidence anthropogenic cause is the only cause. In fact, the most damaging GHG is not CO2, but CH4, and every living thing on the planet emits CH4 every day from every organism, and they will every day of their entire lives. Therefore, the idea of eliminating its emission is absurd. However, the fact also is that5, at least in the U.S., Reforestation has been on the increase since the 1920s. According to https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html  "The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land..." and "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period."  This is an argument. Cited by source.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,935
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @fauxlaw
    I agree that humans will not (arguably are incapable of) completely eliminating emissions. Steps should still be taken to lower them (especially from commercial enterprise whose carbon footprint makes the emissions produced any individual person negligible). Rain forest deforestation is a larger issue that the relatively small reforestation in north America does not offset. Beef farming is actually a pretty serious part of the problem. Also air conditioners use refrigerants that once released into the atmosphere are actually trap heat much more efficiently than CO2 or CH4. The effect will be exponential.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @secularmerlin
    So, you claim beef production is a problem. Then, why not admit that rice production is problematic, too. It is, but you will never admit it.  The fact is, rice paddies [cultivated wetlands] in combination with natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans emit more methane than do cows. Oops.
    Bottom line: go ahead, eat your rice, but leave my steak alone. thanks.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,935
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @fauxlaw
    I eat steak and rice may be a contributing factor too I'll have to look into it. You are becoming to focused on the specifics. The larger issue is that denying that humans have created an ecological problem that we should take steps to alleviate (or at least slow the progress of) is irresponsible and reckless. It is fine to debate about what to do about man made climate change but it is dangerous to pretend that humans are not responsible and/or that nothing significant should be done. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,087
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @secularmerlin
    Again [ad nauseam], I did not deny it. I merely claim it is less of an effect than the whackos claim. It is not the only factor affecting climater change, but that is all to which your ilk point. Allow for other causes, please, some of which, when they occur, emit more issue than man could contribute in a thousand years, and more. Or are you into banning vulcanism? Let alone farting.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,935
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @fauxlaw

    According to the leading experts you are incorrect about the 'insignificance' of human impact on the climate. 
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 30
    0
    0
    2
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @fauxlaw
     All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day sub aerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. It has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions.