Republican Congressman Says God Will 'Take Care Of' Climate Change

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,468
    It used to be 260 ppm.
    Yep. And at one point the surface of the planet was several thousand degrees. I assume you prefer that that not happen again even though "it's natural" and "the planet gets hotter and colder."
    Some do, some don't.
    Yep. And up until about 150 years ago there was a pretty good balance going there,
    Yep. And if we reduce our CO2 emissions by about 70% (which is doable) then those "formidable mechanisms" will have a chance to keep up.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,212
    Someday, I will die. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't care about my health for the near future.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    It used to be 260 ppm.
    It used to be (est. 7,000 ppm) in the Cambrian

    Yep. And at one point the surface of the planet was several thousand degrees. I assume you prefer that that not happen again even though "it's natural" and "the planet gets hotter and colder."
    Perhaps . . . if the surface was molten (a hypothetical!). Vast odds likely against that happening! Do you REALLY anticipate that the surface of earth might again attain a temperature of several thousand degrees (Note pure magma is only ~ 2,000 deg max!) -BTW: would most likely not be anthropomorphic? An interesting 'speculation' - so, tell me (IYO) is the "planet" (not atmosphere) getting hotter and colder?

    Some do, some don't.
    MOST verdant plants DO!

    Yep. And up until about 150 years ago there was a pretty good balance going there,
    And just 'how' would you know that (CO2 and exhalation balance was pretty good) to be a fact? Do you have a source reference that states factually that 'balance' was pretty good? Or is that IYO?

    Yep. And if we reduce our CO2 emissions by about 70% (which is doable) then those "formidable mechanisms" will have a chance to keep up.
    I seriously doubt (IMPO) that a reduction of CO2 emissions by 70% is that 'doable'. BTW: those formidable mechanisms WILL continue to operate regardless of man's influence - or whether 'man' is even here! They (formidable mechanisms) have operated well for a few billion years - ever heard of the homeostatic-related term "dynamic compensation"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,468
    Right - and it was 15 degrees warmer on average. So probably not a good goal.
    It will eventually, as the Sun expands. In the short term we'd be looking at an increase of a few degrees due to AGW.
    Warmer.
    Plants that use a version of photosynthesis called C3 benefit IF there are no other limiting variables. In other words, a C3 plant won't do any better in a high-CO2 environment if there isn't enough water.

    Plants that use C4 photosynthesis cannot benefit from additional CO2.
    Because CO2 levels remained fairly constant. That meant sources and sinks were fairly well balanced.
    Of course it's doable. We have all the technology needed to do it. It would just be very hard, and we don't want to.
    Exactly - which answers your question above (i.e. "how do you know that the balance was pretty good?") We have now overwhelmed those formidable mechanisms, as evidenced by the unchecked rise in CO2.
     
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    It is a proven fact...

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...e-carbon-but-are-vulnerable-to-climate-change
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
    http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/carbon-emissions-and-sinks

    Between deforestation reducing our overall ability to sink carbon, and our increased output due to fossil fuels... we've far surpassed what the environment can simply "handle".
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    In the story of Noah's Ark, God promises that he will never flood the earth again. It is called the covenant of the rainbow.

    Genesis 9:10-12
    The Covenant of the Rainbow

    …10and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11"I establish My covenant with you; and all fleshshall never again be cut off by the water of the flood,neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations;…

    The covenant of the rainbow could explain why the true climate believers, never get their flood, no matter how hard they speculate. God undermined Al Gore's hope and dreams because of the covenant of the rainbow.

    The Paris Accord would not have had any long term impact on the climate. All this was, was a money drain from the US, to third and fourth world counties, so these countries could modernize adding more pressure on energy needs. That was supposed to drive innovation and create jobs.

    The trillions of dollars from the USA, would be skimmed and scammed, before it ever reached the end users. Many countries do this with humanitarian food and medical supplies. It was supposed to be an international slush fund as well as a money laundering scam for the Democrats, all at the expense of the American middle and lower classes.

    The money laundering was based on the model used by Obama. He gave tax dollars for solar energy. These companies give some of this startup money, back as campaign donations. The solar company goes bankrupt and each final $60,000 job costs over $1million, based on the money spent. The difference is the skim and scam.

    If you recall, George Bush also withdrew from a climate treaty called the Kyoto Protocol. What ended up happening was America went on its own and exceeded the standards set by the treaty, all without having to set up an international slush fund. This is the plan of Trump. He is businessman and not a politician who talks through two faces and is not afraid to take advantage of the tax payers.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    When there were no humans. Its not so much the absolute temperature, it's the rate of change. BTW, the significant climate change that is going on now is only warming. There was no consensus on global cooling in the 1970s, I've debunked that one a million times.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    It may prove not only doable, but involuntarily imposed - if the high sides of the possible ranges all come in at once.

    It's one of the risks we run for Gazprom and Exxon executives's profit.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,282
    Strewth. Where do you live? Rural Texas?
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,055
    The Paris accord for the first time aligned nearly all nations on Earth towards a common cause, a common purpose. ( even mores so than Daesh and terrorism) The USA had a tremendous opportunity to provide leadership and reap the benefits ( c0nsiderable) from doing so as the world moves towards a more globalized state.

    Every dollar spent (invested) on threatened 3rd world nations would have prevented a huge resentment and hostility issue and loss of trade and terrorism.. later.

    After all the USA is the worlds No 2 polluter and is currently being held to account for years of CO2 emissions. So Trump thinks he can walk away from his obligations to make payment for the pseudo enviro. free ride that the coal industry, and fossil fuel industry has been allowed?

    No free rides!

    It is time to pay up for all that "so called progress".

    "God said, "Ha....and you thought you got a bargain!?"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Even though trump pulled america out of the agreement, the corporations are committed to going green and of their own accord. most everyone realizes their very lives are at stake. you can't make money if people are dead, right? the other issue is this coal and oil is regressive. he is petty and short-sighted when it comes to economic competition. clean energy research and implementation is the wave of the future but he wants to take two steps back. go figure.

    china has already been looking to move away from heavy manufacturing industry into other commerce. it all comes at the expense of their health by doing the dirty work so people can greedily over-consume. that is not something to be envious of. and he thinks bringing back old school, pollution laden manufacturing is something to be proud of. robotics, biotechnology, clean energy and sustainability is where the real future will be, if there will be one.

     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Not only are corporations going ahead, several American states are going it alone. Trump has once again demonstrated his ignorance, incompetence, and immoral nature.
     
  16. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,273
    Texas - yes. The buckle on the bible belt.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    What Trump and his merry band don' t understand is that economic growth begins with and ends with economic demand. If he wants to grow the American economy, he needs the rest of the world, because that's where the demand is. The growth engine which fueled US economic demand was Europe and Japan. Now it's China and to a lesser extent India. A few decades from now it will be Africa. Trump is a simpleton extraordinaire.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,282
    Respect! I lived in Houston for a bit, but rural TX is another thing entirely.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,468
    Trump et al may not like the results of Revelation though:

    Revelation 11:18 - The nations raged, but your wrath has come, and the time for judging the dead, for rewarding your servants, the prophets, and the saints and all who fear your name, both small and great; And for destroying those who destroy the Earth.
     
  20. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,273
    I'm in the DFW "Metroplex" - but it's less than a 30 minute drive to more rural towns. I know people (full grown adults!) who believe that the reason dinosaurs are extinct is because they couldn't fit on the ark.
     
  21. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638

    " . . . . reducing our overall ability to sink carbon: . . . . ." No, not a major CO2 sequestration impact, IMO!
    Think about less transient CO2 sequestration . . . . . Think LIMESTONE (CaCO3)!!! Go to the Bahamas sometime, do some snorkeling, and witness limestone actually forming today! . . . . as carbonate mud!!

    (BTW: Sorry, I cannot afford to subsidize your travel! HAHA)
     
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So you are claiming that Limestone Formation is able to make up for the loss of nearly half of the world's rainforest acreage as well as nearly 18 million acres of forest PER YEAR?

    Surely you can provide evidence for this claim... otherwise it is simply spurious bullshit...
     
  23. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    For another example (see above post), also take a look at the volume of Mississippian-aged Burlington Limestone - an IMMENSE CO2 sequestration volume!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Limestone.

    Limestone deposits are constantly forming in opportune shallow (and to a lesser extent, deep) marine environments. Limestone and other calcareous deposits (shales, evaporites, etc.) throughout geologic history have (homeostatically) sequestered (almost) immeasurably largge quantities of CO2! Heck, even C as diamonds can add to the CO2 balance if they (diamonds) are burned (makes CO2)! (<--- Humorous aside!) As scientists, we should realize that, except for rare volatile-rich cometary and meteoritic (carbonaceous chondrites and other) extraterrestrial contributions, the 'total carbon content' of earth is pretty-much fixed and it just transforms its form and "location" to various inorganic and organic compounds due to natural and (now, moreso) man-made mechanisms. Because the total carbon content of earth is more or less fixed, we can at best "tweek" the preferred temporary repositories of carbon. Right now we seem to be somewhat preoccupied with carbon in the form of CO2.

    Also, as scientists, we should realize that natural 'carbon transforming' mechanisms will equilibrate via theprocesses that handle carbon - and the total carbon content (of earth) will be very little affected. To reiterate what I've posted elsewhere, we (as humans) are desirous of a more temporal equality of life versus natural processes. I doesn't work THAT way (IMO). The earth will abide - as shall we - or, better put: "Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome" Re: USMC saying, Semper Fi!)!

    Some other CO2 sequestration media: coal, other fosssil fuels, minerals, trees, concrete, other man-made infrastructures, etc. - some of these appear more 'permanent' . . . . others are more' temporary'
     

Share This Page