Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not sure where to go with this response, you have a very unique perspective. I'm hoping we start colonizing other planets or moons in our solar system but I don't think that is what you mean by "permanently removing roughly 6 billion people (I wish they had a nervous laughter emoji, I could surely use it right now)."
I'm not crazy about the way a lot of human act on this planet too (throwing garbage wherever they wany, hording water and bread whenever a crisis arises, driving gas guzzling vehicles or loud noisy vehicles everywhere) BUT God created these people too and I will always follow God's command of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "love thy enemy". If you think about it, our world would be at peace if we tried to tolerate pretty much all people (I didn't say like what they do, I said love them as a fellow human being). God will lead us to peace.
Europe, China, Japan have created a decent subway/train system. It would be a slow startup but it could be done here (wow, did you see that! A firework just blew up on the word "here" - spectacular ). None of these countries started out with a full blown train system but they started and added through the years. Build it and they will use or for those who don't use - imprison on a maximum security island .
I guess I have to use the Christian Forum's Emojis, mine don't come out.
Europe, China, Japan have created a decent subway/train system. It would be a slow startup but it could be done here (wow, did you see that! A firework just blew up on the word "here" - spectacular ). None of these countries started out with a full blown train system but they started and added through the years. Build it and they will use or for those who don't use - imprison on a maximum security island .
Am an earth scientist. You guys have to stop buying into the opinions of both sides of the debate. First of all, climate change is natural & we have been experiencing it the last couple decades. The heart of the debate has little to do with climate as it does with redistribution of income be it redistribution to the renewable side of energy or carbon markets. Govts have run out of money. What I can tell you about the ocean is this. The currents
Earth scientist here. Folks please don't get bent out of shape by the numerous pundits on both sides. First, ocean currents derive from the rotation of the planet & the last I knew plantets rotate & keep rotating. The fundamental concept with ocean transport is this: the vertical column of ocean water is staggered by density which is facilitated by temp. & salinity. The coldest & saltiest water always sink to the bottom. Tropical waters are tasked with transporting warmer water & hence heat to the polar regions while polar waters are tasked with transporting cooler water to the tropics. This occurs because of planet rotation & it happens to a spherical solid (some differential geometry in there). This is the way it has always worked. Now in recent years we have had some glacial melt & this is fresh water but as cooler fresh water it will look to situate mid-column. Arctic sea ice is always seasonal. Unlike Antarctica which is a solid mass under an ice sheet the Arctic Sea is straddled with sea ice that melts back every summer. Now with regard to the ENSO phenom, it has only been diagnosed in the last couple of years that it is the volcanos, seamounts, & hydrothermal vents located along the Ring of Fire that has supplied the magma that migrates to the surface warming it to give El Nino. Warm stuff is less dense so it wants to migrate up to the surface. The SE trades here may weaken or reverse & so the winds blow outward the tongue of warm surface water. In recent years we have been swapping back & forth El Nino & La Nina. So this is a list of the naturally occurring macroscopic climate mechanisms. Indeed climate patterns or climate steadiness can change. I urge people don't get so lost in the debates. The heart of the debate is redistribution of income, not climate. Banning CO2 is not going to allow one to continue to live on the Florida coast & not see any hurricanes. That is complete nonsense. Likewise, it's not going to stop the very active volcano scene in Iceland. The jetstream (polar jet) & the polar vortex are driving lots of the different seasonal climates. In my New England region, we have not seen any precipitation & if you study & view the polar jet you can see that this deep valley strides down to the Tennessee valley ushering in much cooler weather & snow/ice there. But this trough is centered more over the rust belt & not the northeast so we are not seeing the usual swath of Canadian polar air coming straight in from the west & hardly any fronts. Now occasionally this mass of precip that settles over the Tennessee will begin to move straight eastward to the Atlantic & then climb northward up thru New England, providing us with the so-called Nor-Easter. However, given the plunging latitude we have not had cold enough conditions to usher in snow & even rain has been rare. The point I'm trying to make is that on a planet like ours, atmospheric dynamics are very complex & please don't follow models. They don't work. The IPCC is there to give interpretation to the graphs (theirs) & not what is actually going on. We are having many disruptions to the planetary climate. Most temp changes affect the high latitudes, not so much temperate zones. The tropics are always monolithic. Media will always hype issues into fear because this is A) how they sell more readers/viewers & B) they are looking to appoint govt as the moral arbiter of everything. The first part of the redistribution scheme is that the renewable industry wants a part of the market & they want to replace the fossil sector. So they look to govt & the key is they have scare the people into making a wholesale change. The problem is they cannot survive without subsidies. My simple question has been why can't everyone be on. Any player in industry always looks to be the dominant player--it's human behavior. The next mechanism is to make carbon taxing as acceptable because the world has spent itself out & requires new revenues. The problem with carbon markets is they require the so-called polluter to remain on the market to contribute to the revenue in the form of fines for going over a threshold. So some region on the globe will be convinced this is good but it does not remove the polluter. BTW CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a gas that can be a reactant & a product. It is odorless & invisible. Ditto methane. Natural gas has no odor. Be careful of what you read. What people associate with the smell of cattle refers to 2 things: their fecal waste (they are ruminants) & the bacteria decomposing their waste. That is the odor. In terms of furnaces, HVAC manufacturers require a compound to be installed in the mix so as to warn people of a potentially dangerous leak. Methane is flammable; CO2 is not flammable. Now with regard to pundits on the right, it appears they have a dislike of renewables based on cost, incontinuity, resources, etc This is all very true but likewise petroleum does not last forever & this is why a multi-grid is the best option. A grid with all sources has more resiliency to tolerate the stress of natural hazards & things like wars, terrorism, pandemics. It also leads to better price stability. Energy is a geopolitical issue & does not follow strict laws on supply & demand. Petroleum based on current science has 150-200 yrs left in the tank. We use most of it in transportation & mostly aviation. Heating fuel assumes the least because it is seasonal. Coal has one of the longest reserves with 3 nations topping out at 400 yrs each & then another 4 nations at 200 yrs each. Natural gas has reasonable continuity because it is a natural decomposition process of vegetation. You don't want to place yourself in a position to trust lawmakers on how to handle supply. Govt cannot do anything right & is hardly a moral arbiter. The current emphasis on all electric economies grossly underestimates the demand on the grid by the world. There would be blackouts because energy density is sub-par. Lawmakers are never proactive & would just go into reactive stage & ration out residences in order to keep the main sectors of society operating. I can't stress enough that the metallics in the earth are finite & when you look at the sheer amount of metal it takes to manufacture anything, there is simply not enough. I might add it also require mining & quarrying & drilling. So there are some pesky enviro concerns there.
Sorry it took me so long to reply to your post. I'm starting off the New Year trying to avoid contentious situations. I use to stand and react to many opposing views but as I get older, I see nothing ever comes of it. Your response has merit and I will tuck that away in my mind of knowledge and move on. No counter argument from me. As for the original argument with
Well, I guess I just lost everything that I was writing to you in response. I'll try again. Sorry it has taken me this long to respond to your post. I am starting off the New Year by avoiding contentious situations. They are not worth it in my eyes anymore. Your response has very good merit and I understand your position. I will tuck your response away in my mind for future use. As for my original response to EclipseNow, my mind has not changed on Climate Change and/or Global Warming. If anything should be done, we need to prepare the people for this change by relocating, creating cooler or warmer havens and supply people for the change. If it is going to happen, it's going to happen. The carbon footprint idea is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life.
Why? No climatologists are saying the earth's climate hasn't changed until now. Instead, they're saying that past warming trends had identifiable natural causes whereas the current warming trend doesn't and only has human activity as an identifiable cause.
My whole point in my original comment is that the Earth has gone through many climate changes over the millions of years. And this climate change may be mainly contributed to by man-made activities but it's climate activist's ways that I disagree with. Carbon footprint? Those who have a larger carbon footprint pay more money? Who gets this money? Why do they get the money? This is their plan? Who is this saving? Industries are going to continue doing what they do or totally ignore the whole idiotic idea. These are people's livelihoods we are talking about. A lot of people work at those jobs that are contributing to the carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
Ok, but I'm not sure why that's significant since no one is saying otherwise.
What to do about global warming is definitely a different discussion than whether or not we're in a warming trend and what the cause is.
I feel it is significant to let people know that the Earth has gone through many different periods of different climates. There are a lot of people who do not realize that climate change is a natural part of our Earth. And please don't lecture me on that this climate change is not natural and it is due to human's causing it. I know that but we differ in how much of the cause is from humans. You seem to claim it all is, I go more with a large percentage of it is. If the climate is going to change then maybe we as a people should work together to prepare for it instead of trying to prevent it. Unless you know of a better way to get billions of people to stop using fossil fuels quickly.
Is that something people don't know? I don't think I've ever met someone who thinks the climate has always been the same.
What else do you think is causing it? I'd like to see your data.
I hope you understand it's not an either-or choice. We can both reduce our GHG emissions and prepare for future effects.
We obviously can't keep cranking out GHGs, let alone at an increasing rate. So what do you propose we do to reduce our GHG emissions?
I made my suggestion to another poster to this thread. You may look for it if you want. My main job here and to people I talk to is to let them know the Earth has gone through several climate changes. I will tell people to not get upset when pushy people such as climate activist get in their face and tell them that the "sky is falling" and something needs to be done - now. The right people will make better decisions when needed to react to the situation.
I guess that's true. I don't know anyone who is completely unaware of the ice ages.
Ok.
I still find it hard to believe that anyone at all interested in the earth's climate has never once heard of the ice ages. That's like someone saying they're interested in US history but have never heard of this thing called "the civil war".
Why don't you think something needs to be done now?
