Climate Change is not real!

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Jul 26, 2019.

  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    But ... but that's what I am talking about dude. Our current lifestyle and waste of resources is the source of the problem not what ever if we use coal, oil or renewable energy. Yes we can not just do everything with renewable energy if we don't tackle the issue of Energy Sufficiency accordingly. Right now the need for energy is growing globally by 4% each year - if I am not mistaken. And that's what we have to change one way or another. It's like loosing weight. It doesn't matter how efficiently you eat your cake. At the end of the day you have to lower the intake of calories if you want to lose fat. But even if you switch to only vegetables it doesn't help you much if you still eat to many calories. Which means you can eat sometimes cake but not all the time.

    The increasing amount of energy we consume today is the unhealthy part.

    It left out some of the most important parts. We have to take in to account the increasing number of extreme weather patterns because they are one of the effects of global warming. That's hard physics. More energy in the atmosphere means more energy in storms and so on.

    And I am telling you we are past that point. We could have done things "smart" 30 or 40 years ago. But we have a few years left maybe 10 at most where we could avoid the worst effects from taking place. So we have only a very short amount of time to complete decarbonisation our industry. But I see no way how we will achieve those things.

    Same issue as you correctly said with wind energy pall ... it is not an issue of efficiency anymore. We have plenty of already efficient technology out there. We simply use to much of it. It is like with loosing fat. As I said. Even if we replace 1000 calories of cake with 2000 calories of vegetables. We still eat to much. Our industries become more and more efficient each year yet pollution is increasing. This is called a re-bound effect in energy terms which became known with the use of more efficient car engines if I remember correctly or light bulbs I am not sure. People thought with more efficient technology we would also use less energy. But the exact opposite happend. Why? Because it became cheaper. Instead of simply replacing 1 ordinary light bulb with LED lights, you had now 3 or more LED lights in place of 1 light bulb. And thus the need for energy increased. More energy had to generated. Which in turn increased the emissions of Co2 and other green house gases and so on and so forth. And we saw this taking place in many industries. We have become also very good in outsourcing pollution. Entire production lines like for electronical devices and mining of rare minerals have been shifted to the third world. This is really a very complex problem which would require to change our economies and the way we trade.

    We would have to drastically lower our lifestyle and change it in almost radical ways compared to what we did for the last 40 years. And I just don't see that happen. I really don't. People won't give up freely on their gadgets. I do not see people giving up on their cars, be it electrical or fuel and I don't see people giving up on flying around and all the other convenient stuff, like eating only meat once per week or something. But those are the things we would have to do at this point.

     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  2. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    Jul 29, 2016
    I don't agree that everything we have to do is so major. Keep manufacturing jobs close to home, invest in technologies like carbon capture, better recycling programs, planting more green space in cities, and re-doing our building standards would account for lots. I brought up the rare earth metals as kind of a trap sorry, but this is one that can be solved with better technology. We are about 10 years away from a technology (currently being scaled upwards) that would allow us to safely recycle the rare-earth metals from electronics using carbon dioxide. Economies could continue to grow, but population cannot, and that is not a problem of the western world where we have declining population. Like I have said technology will be our best answer for this as it is for most things. Imagine what we could do if we could capture 110% of the carbon we output?
     
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I absolutely agree here Gonz! But how likely is it that those things will happen? We have to do all of those things and much much more. And on a global scale! That's the point. Canada can do what ever it wants - which it should don't get me wrong! But it's just a drop in the bucket if Germany isn't finally starting to investing in more and better technologies or Brazil doesn't stop ravaging it's rainforest or China building new coal plants or Australia protecting their wildlife and so on. And currently I do not see even a try in reducing our carbon foot print and pollution. in fact the Trump administration Revised the endangered species actto include 'economic considerations' for protecting a species and Bolsonaro is on a mission to destroy the rain forest for ever. Many countries are now on their way of performing massive deregulation of environmental protections. I remember not long ago the minister for the environment in France or something vacated his position because he said he had no power to make any changes. And this the reality with many nations.

    We do one or two good things on one side and 1000 bad things on the other ...

    We are fucked Gonzo. We really are.

    10 Years is to late. That's the simple truth man. We're very close to the point of no return here. This is the problem with emissions like Co2. What we throw out now will stay in the atmosphere for generations so even if we stop to use certain technologies in 10 years it won't help us because the damage is already done. It's like Asbestos. If you want to avoid cancer you have to remove it as soon as you spot it and not once you have cancer because it's to late to prevent it you can now only deal with the consequences.

    You also mentioned trapping carbon. Sadly this isn't as simple as it sounds. Most of the carbon emissions end up in the higher parts of the atmosphere and actually the ocean. Yep. The ocean is one of the largest absorbers for Co2 which is a major cause for the acidification of the oceans which has the potential to collapse all of marine live, for example we could loose all coral reef habitats - they are only now really starting to actually research the subject. Geo engineering is also not without it's own issues.

    And once those things are gone they are gone. Eco systems which have collapsed can not be restored.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  4. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    It's not a doom spiral. Emerging technology can just as likely remedy and reverse the issue as much as its more harmful counterparts.

    You can create new ones - see sinking old ships to create ecosystems for new life.
     
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    That's not creating new eco systems that's expanding existing ones. When we talk about ecosystems we're talking about structures which have been created over a very long time like 1 000 if not 10 000 of years I quote "(...)An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment, interacting as a system". How do you 're-create' something like a forest which has grown for millenniums in to the ecosystem it is now with trees which alone require 100 of years to grow to the size they are? The answer is you can't. If you cut down the rain forest you can't "reverse" it. A tree which took 100 years to grow is like killing someone who's an adult. You can't just reverse it. A species for example that's gone is gone pretty much for ever, if the great barrier reef or all reefs in the ocean are destroyed they won't come back, if Flying foxes (a type of mega bat) are extinct they don't come back and you're missing a pollinator which means certain plants will become extinct which again are the food source for certain insects which are the source for birds and so on and so forth. The complexity here is staggering and we have only started to actually understand this.



    So I am sorry no you can not just create new ones just like that.
     
  6. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    Why are you arguing in such bad faith? Reforestation efforts are a thing. The process of sinking a ship is not limited to expanding an existing environment. It can create an entirely new one. It can be used to expand existing ecosystems.
     
  7. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Don't argue. Experts say that only state-enforced askesis will save us. No other solution is possible or sufficient.
     
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    If a biologist tells you we're facing the 6th mass extinction and it happens in our life time, right now what does that mean to you Has? I love you dude but I do not see how your snarky comment are better arguments in this.

    This isn't some kind of joke or alarmism. This happens right now. We can measure it.



    Are we in a sixth great mass extinction?

    Scientists, chiefly conservation biologists, zoologists, ecologists, paleobiologists, and environmental scientists, are increasingly becoming more certain that humans are causing massive changes to the biosphere, with many claiming we are entering the early stages of a sixth mass extinction event that will occur on earth, also referred to as the "Holocene extinction" or the "Anthropocene extinction". These changes are taking place on a scale that occurred during the previous five mass extinctions events on earth. A mass extinction event is classified as an extinction event where 75% or more of all species on Earth go extinct. That's a whopping figure. To give this some perspective, there's thought to be about 10 million species on earth, and the number of individual animals is much, much higher. According to the fossil record, about 99.9% of all life on earth has gone extinct, due to either evolving into other species or reaching an evolutionary dead-end (this would usually be caused by environmental pressures). So, yes, extinction is a very common occurrence in evolutionary history, there is no need to debate that point. An estimated 1% of species on earth have gone extinct since 1500, and a mass extinction event would take tens of thousands of years if this trend were to continue. The problem is that scientist think that this trend is not going to continue and that we could reach the point of mass extinction much sooner, even in the next century or two.

    I really do not understand what you're trying to achieve Hass. "Experts say that only state-enforced askesis will save us". No experts says this but it certainly would be a choice. Because who else is going to do it if not governments trough regulations and laws. Again what is your solution to this man-made extinction event? What should we do about it? Do you have some proposals? Suggestions? I want to hear your ideas on it and not another snarky "luzl goberment!".

    Ok. How do you recreate a tree that has grown for 100 years? Or a coral reef that has grown for 1 000 years? How do you get an extinct species back to repopulate an area?
     
  9. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    You regrow it? This isn't the ship of Theseus.
     
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Is this a language thing? Did you understand the underlying issue here? And I mean this as a serious question. Did you carefully read my whole post? Did you understand the quote and the video I posted? You couldn't have watched it in its entirety already by now.

    I am not attacking you I really try to understand where you're coming from because I really feel you haven't grasped the gravity of the issue here. We need those eco systems right now and you tell me we should regrow something that takes 100 years possibly even more to regrow while we also at the same time destroy the conditions that actually created those systems in the first place. How is that supposed to work? You could as well try to recreate Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy by digging up their bodies with the same success.

    For example. Right now a large part of our world is using the ocean as a food source. Overfishing and pollution though could bring an end to this. In a couple of years there will be more fish than plastic in our oceans. Again how do you recreate this ecosystem that we need right now without hundred millions of people ending up in starvation?
     
  11. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    Because people here have the time to shift through the countless tomes of endless length you seem to crank out on the regular.
    Because you, yes you aren't out there beating up Lumberjacks and Oil workers apparently.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  12. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    Idk maybe. We grow chickens in the span of 8 weeks with growth hormones and selective-breeding. Years from now we probably might have efforts from the lumber industry trying to grow a tree in 50, 25, or 10 years using seeds injected with steroids or something.

    I think really smart people will come up with really smart ideas. Like when they built the pyramids. They figured out that water-soaked, wooden pegs could be used crack and shape blocks when the wood expanded again. We're basically on the verge of self-driving vehicles being safer than regular drivers. Modern dams already provide water-steps for salmon so they can climb it back to their birth-place. We've also got steps being taken for plant-based meat alternatives and cloning technology. Who knows.

    Humans are pretty smart people even under pressure.

    Last guy I'm messing with is a Lumberjack. I'VE SEEN X-Men Origins.

     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  13. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    They don't make the chickens grow faster just bigger. You can't accelerate growth like that really. Not yet anyway. Even more difficult with eco systems.

    Really we are much much better of to preserve them than building new ones.

    But what if all those smart people come up with the idea that we should really stop destroying eco systems? Because that is what many of them tell us right now.

    No.

    You misunderstand my intention. I am not demanding from anyone here to change their life or habits. I also don't blame anyone of you. Drive your SUV if you want buy a second or third one. Go and eat as many pork chops and BBQs you want. Drive around in the arctic with a cruise ship, kill a baby seal and throw oil canisters in your garden while dancing around a camp fire made of batteries. Do what ever you want. I will not stop you. I will not hold it against you. Seriously. I am not joking here.

    I accepted by now if people want to continue with this behaviour they will. There is nothing I or anyone else can do about it. And that's ok.

    There is only one thing I do not want. That no one can say he didn't knew about the consequences. Let us assume I am right just for a second and we could have prevented it. When the shit really hits the fan and the next generation asks you why you did all those things then I do not want you to say I didn't knew about the consequences. The fact alone that you're making a comment here is enough for me. That you're aware. Even if you don't see it. You can decide to not believe it or to have a different opinion. That's absolutely ok. This is freedom, liberty. But you can not say that you're ignorant about it. Simply because you have an opinion. So I already achieved my target. You can not lie to your self if things really become worse.

    That's why I love doing this. It gives me a lot of joy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  14. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    Both actually. 48 days @ 6.2 pounds (today) v.s. 112 days @ 2.5 pounds (1925).

    It's not effective enough.
     
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yes it's more efficient not accelerating the biological clock. This might happen one day as well maybe trough gene splicing or what ever. But for the moment it's still science fiction. What you observe with the chicken here would also happen in nature given the right circumstances. But as the article mentioned this comes at a price, I quote:

    Animal welfare groups say this progress was achieved at the expense of animal health as today’s chickens have increased leg disorders and other issues associated with rapid growth. In an undercover video investigation at a North Carolina broiler farm released this week, the group Mercy For Animals claimed, among other things, “Chickens are bred to grow so fast they became crippled under their own weight and died from heart attacks.”

    Giving chickens some hormones and special nutrients to have a grow rate that's closer to cancer is not comparable to repairing whole eco systems. That's like as if you said driving a car was the same like flying to mars. Technically both are a form of travel. But in reality there is a huge difference between it.

    Efficient compared to what exactly? You lost me here. I am talking about the los of the rain forest and our oceans here. How are we supposed to rebuild that?
     
  16. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    Idk I don't care anymore.
     
  17. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Fair enough.
     
  18. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    Jul 29, 2016
    Domt worry i will pick up again hahaha. First

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-extinction

    Bam, how to rebuild ecosystems.

    I fully think that technology is our only answer. We are not completely fucked yet. It will take a long time to get there and besides how we are currently fucking up our planet will teach us how to terraform mars hahaha. Joking aside, carbon capture technology will help us reverse course. The Canadian pil patch was at one time helping to fund this technology, but we then got a progressive new government who decided light bulb rebates and new taxes would somehow do better for the enviroment. Then they reduced funding for this technology and with the added new taxes, pipeline bottlenecks due to enviromental protestors, and global slump of oil prices the oil patchs funding has also been drastically reduced. Go enviromentalist yeah. See where i get my jaded view on this from. Big oil buisness funding green technology, until enviromentalist fuck up there buisness ending up reducing the fu ding for green funds.

    Unfortunatly some things will have to get worse before they get better for us but arguing that its big buisness wants to kill the enviroment for profit is stupid from what i see, its more like profit needs to be made to fund the research that will save us all. Government funding does not just come from nowhere no matter what governmemt is in charge.
     
  19. Risewild

    Risewild Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    Gimme all the images you want and I'll see if I can do it for you.
     
  20. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    The fact you think we're gonna make it to the next generation is endearing. Like Aww shucks this dude still has hope n' shit. These dominoes have been falling since some ape monkey cracked another ape monkey the head with a rock long before I got here and we're just reaching End Game now. And considering just how stupid and gay this planet has become it can't happen soon enough.