1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Climate change in Asia

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by myst33, Jul 22, 2022.

  1. rjs330

    rjs330 Well-Known Member

    +4,375
    Pentecostal
    The climate hysteria is real, as is climate change.

    The climate change is not going to kill us all or even render our lives unlivable or unbearable. As humans have done forever we can adapt to the changing climate. Getting rid of food sources such as cattle or making people all get electric cars and turn off their air conditioning won't do a darn thing to stop it. It's coming and we better get used to it.

    We have great mileage vehicles with very low emissions. We have strong controls on industry pollutants. And yet the climate keeps changing. Folks it ain't gonna stop.

    So what do we do? Prepare for it. Use our excellent resources to the human engineering and ingenuity. I for one suggest getting out of the cities. That's where everyone is going to suffer. Move into the smaller towns and get more rural.

    Make sure ALL the farmers have everything they need to maintain their crops for our food supplies. Make sure our truckers have all they need to get those supplies to market. Make sure our food factories are strong to keep the food production coming. Fortify our electrical grid.

    Get mining back on track to mine for the materials we will need for the creation of electrical parts for counters, batteries for the electrical vehicles, and houses that get solar panels. Make sure that areas that are near the coasts have the sea walls that will be necessary.

    And for heavens sake do not treat every area of the country the same. Montana is not the same as Arizona. Washington Coast is not the same as Texas. We cannot all have solar panels. We cannot all have wind turbines. We cannot all bike to work or have public transportation.

    Air-conditioning is not the enemy. It will save lives. It may not snow as much as it used to, but it still gets very very cold in places in the country. And heating requires natural gas.
     
  2. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,154
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    It's always a "top scientist", but it's never the
    North Poll. :D
    You do know how you kinda contradict yourself with your
    " No all agree"?

    Then you are talking how science says
    this then opps it says that.

    All it takes is one so called top scientist to call up
    a reporter and announce whatever he thinks (top
    doctors do this too) and " science" says Atlantis is
    coming up, or Camel cigarettes are good for you.
    That is not about science agreeing or disagreeing.
    No more than a few scientists trying to disprove
    evolution with math tricks or ancient tracks that
    look sorta human if you squint right is a sign that
    not all agree about evolution. ( You figure ToE is also
    fake?)

    People with interest in what is real and true need to
    do better by themselves than to be gullible.
    Being oredulous. Or sneering, however much it
    may make a person feel smarter than them
    silly scientists


    Anyone who looks into it more than reading
    tabloids or the opposite over credulous of
    scoffing at all of science is aware that ice
    miles thick once covered most of North America
    not so long ago.

    It's been melting since. Faster, slower, growing again.
    but overall it's for sure melting.

    That is climate change. Argue or sneer as one will
    about causes, but climate changes, a lot.
    Giant sea turtles used to nest on Wlyoming beaches.

    And polar ice is rapidly diminishing, along with most
    mountain glaciers.

    What do you think is funny?
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2022
  3. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Well-Known Member Supporter

    866
    +563
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    The most recent 100 years has accelerated climate change much more than any previous man-made effect.

    Those are all replaceable uses of carbon that was already involved in the on-going carbon cycle. Trees die, decompose, and their carbon is released to the atmosphere, which finds its way back to new trees and other plants. Fossil fuels, on the other hand release carbon that was taken out of circulation thousands and millions years ago. The concentration of CO2 over time has risen drastically.

    No, it has not. Thousands of years of agriculture simply recycled the same carbon over and over again. Industry released long-sequestered carbon that has not been part of the carbon cycle any time when man walked the earth. It is a fallacy to equate agriculture with the damage caused by burning fossil fuels.

    That is just made-up stuff, preceded by the words "according to climate science."
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2022
  4. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,154
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    Not that one can prepare for it but very
    rapid and extreme image changes have
    happened in the past 10 or 12 thousand
    years, changes far beyond what our
    civilizations could endure.

    Yes, people or their ancestors never went
    extinct through all the violence if the past.

    All but one human species did though,
    and H sapiens was close to it more than once.

    We could get real close to it again.
     
  5. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Well-Known Member Supporter

    866
    +563
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Not all of us, buy many of us. Some have already died because of it. Many more have been made homeless. Many more still are enduring famine because of it.

    Oh, there will almost certainly be a remnant. The Black Death only killed between 30% and 60% of the people in Europe. Many, perhaps most of them, survived. They "adapted". But it was still a major concern.

    Encouraging electric cars is not the same thing and making everyone get electric cars. And air conditioning need not be turned off if the electricity is coming from solar power. Fortunately the time when air conditioning is most needed is also the time when the sun is shining the brightest, so it is a good match between supply and demand. No one single thing will reverse climate change, but taken together, a lot of small things can.

    Yes, definitely. Even if we do everything we can now, we are in for a lot of climate change because of the decades we spent making matters worse. (And when I say "we" I mean the whole world, not just one country.)

    People living in a rural environment cause more carbon emissions per capita than people living in a dense city environment. There is not enough good rural land available cheaply for even a tiny fraction of people in the city to move out and get more rural. And if somehow there was a mass exodus of city people into the countryside demanding land, they will be opposed by force, just like the victims of Hurricane Katrina from New Orleans who were fleeing the floods, but were stopped at the bridge to Gretna by police who did not want all these people just trying to escape the flood waters from messing up their nice pretty town. No, such a flood of city folk will not be welcome in the countryside. Only a few rich folk can mange that move.

    Farmers are already suffering from climate change. If you want to help them, reduce climate change.

    That will soon become uneconomical on the scale that would be needed. Most likely we will be forced into what they call "managed retreat" by simply abandoning certain areas that are no longer maintainable. Then we will have to find homes and business locations for all those people displaced. It can be done. But not without a lot of pain.

    They are already doing that, making careful studies of where they can most economically use wind and solar power.

    Not all of us. But bike lanes and public transportation can be improved so that many more people can use it instead of their private cars. I just returned from a trip to Sweden and Denmark. The public transportation there is amazing! Electrified trains travel not just in cities but between cities through rural areas of Sweden. And they travel at 125 MPH. And bike commuting is a real thing in cities that foster it. In Copenhagen a majority of the residents to work by bike or public transit. There are still cars for those who feel the need. But with such good options, fewer people feel the need.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  6. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +12,795
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    Im not sure the USA is technically capable of this sort of thing, let alone politically.

    And Americans, they need their huge trucks etc like children need toys. Its way deeper than practicality. Its emotional.
     
  7. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,154
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    Except that there have been much more rapid
    changes in the past. The past 100 yrs is nothing
    by comparison.
     
  8. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Well-Known Member Supporter

    866
    +563
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    I'm not sure which changes you mean. CO2 concentration? Temperature? There have been larger changes in the past, but those changes were either spread over a much longer time period, or they were associated with conditions millions of year before man and when conditions on earth were not so friendly to the size and spread of the human population today. With respect to that population, the recent changes in climate have been unprecedented. We cannot take comfort in the fact that conditions were much worse for human life in the past because that was when there was no human life.
     
  9. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +12,795
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    For example...?
     
  10. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,154
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    Thought you were posting as one informed
    on the topic
     
  11. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +12,795
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    I want to know what you have in mind.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  12. Erik Nelson

    Erik Nelson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,628
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Rate of change, yes

    Magnitude of change, no


    Increasingly so, for thousands of years


    Simple, yes

    What does slash & burning the Amazon do?

    Nothing?

    Or something (like put net CO2 into the air)?
     
  13. Pommer

    Pommer CoPcEtiC SkEpTic Supporter

    +6,581
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    The Earth will be fine, human civilization, however seems to have peaked already.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  14. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Well-Known Member Supporter

    866
    +563
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Are you including changes that were not caused by human activity? I know there were larger changes in the past, but they were not caused by human activity. The more recent change have been caused by human activity.

    Look at the graph here. CO2 has risen in the past 100 years three times as much as in all of human history before then.

    Yes, it puts CO2 into the air, but the change is reversible in principle. Just replant the Amazon. In practice it is not so easy because once the rain forest is destroyed, the soil conditions are altered so that the rain forest cannot be easily replanted. It is a serious problem for climate change, but it is just one very exceptional instance of agriculture releasing CO2. Most modern agriculture is sustainable and not causing this problem.

    The intent of bringing agriculture into the discussion in the first place was to link climate change remediation with something no one wants to live without - agriculture. That is a red herring because we can - in fact we must - continue to have agriculture to live. But agriculture is not inevitably linked with causing climate change. I am in total agreement that the burning of the Amazon rain forest for benefit of unsustainable agriculture is a travesty and should be opposed. But I am not willing to link all agricultural necessity with not being able to do anything about climate change.
     
  15. Nithavela

    Nithavela Killin' time livin' with it

    +17,506
    Germany
    Other Religion
    Single
    Good riddance.
     
  16. Desk trauma

    Desk trauma Chronic political homeless Supporter

    +13,200
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Others
    upload_2022-8-15_13-27-1.jpeg
     
  17. Erik Nelson

    Erik Nelson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,628
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    CO2 is not the only Green House Gas

    Methane is even more potent -- that's why Agriculture outweighs Industry in total Green House Emissions / Impact even though Agriculture doesn't emit any (net) CO2

    The total Climate Impact of many thousands of years of Agriculture is about the same as the total Climate Impact of a few centuries of Industry

    (Without Agriculture slashing, burning & clear-cutting continents' worth of forests for farms & pastures, earth would have re-entered an Ice Age about 5000 years ago)
     
  18. Belk

    Belk Senior Member Supporter

    +11,139
    Agnostic
    Married
    Actual experts disagree.

    Climate Change Research | US EPA
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  19. Pommer

    Pommer CoPcEtiC SkEpTic Supporter

    +6,581
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    The atmospheric half-life of CH4 is about twenty years.
    More potent but not around as long. js.
     
  20. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Well-Known Member Supporter

    866
    +563
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it also dissipates in 12-20 years, whereas CO2 stays in the atmosphere 300 to 1000 years. So you cannot blame 19th or 20th century agriculture for any methane in the atmosphere today.

    Nonsense. Mass deforestation did not start until the industrial age. Before then agriculture has minimal impact on CO2 emissions because it was just recycling the same carbon over and over again.

    Very much nonsense.
     
Loading...