Earth's Temperature

[MSUDAWGFAN]

These are two questions I ask anyone to ponder. No looking up answers. I want what you believe to be the answer without cheating.

1) Do more people die each year due to heat or cold?

2) Did more people die from climate relate deaths 100 years ago or today?

 

[FQDawg]

There is a correlation between income levels and pollution. If you are just trying to survive then pollution and the environment kind of take a back seat to eating.

Now, if more people were able to be lifted out of extreme poverty then naturally the correlation would say pollution would go down and probably by a greater magnitude than what we are trying to do in developed nations. How do you do that? You provide an all in energy policy (everything)until you can go 100% green. You don't just shove green down everybody's throat especially countries who have no chance of being successful right now with premature green alternatives.

You seem a little all over the place. Other than where you get a little hyperbolic at the end, the post above is part of a reasonable and rational discussion.

The post below is the overly emotional ravings of a lunatic. It's almost like they were written by two different people.

Because leaders of the hard core climate movement have turned it into a religion. The earth is their God and man is destructive and evil unless they buy into their religious dogma of overpopulation, green energy and saving the planet. It's a freakin cult rooted in Marxist principles.

 

[ChE1997]

Don't you have to have a pretty massive amount of water for these type plants? Not saying you're not right, just that it severely limits where they can be built. Further complicated by the fact that Americans love to live near the water.

you need massive water for cooling any power plant. But it is an issue.

And some of the gen iv tech is a nuclear "battery" that could be neighborhood scale and buried for 50 years of power.

 

[HRMSU]

You seem a little all over the place. Other than where you get a little hyperbolic at the end, the post above is part of a reasonable and rational discussion.

The post below is the overly emotional ravings of a lunatic. It's almost like they were written by two different people.

Surely you understand the construct of a religion? I'm not saying everybody wanting green energy is part of a cult.

 

[ChE1997]

These are two questions I ask anyone to ponder. No looking up answers. I want what you believe to be the answer without cheating.

1) Do more people die each year due to heat or cold?

2) Did more people die from climate relate deaths 100 years ago or today?

you are confusing weather the climate.
Can our food crops and animals survive with hotter temperature and more extreme weather events?

 

[FQDawg]

These are two questions I ask anyone to ponder. No looking up answers. I want what you believe to be the answer without cheating.

1) Do more people die each year due to heat or cold?

2) Did more people die from climate relate deaths 100 years ago or today?

Question 1 is pointless because it's talking about relatively normal swings of temperature. The discussion about climate change is about the earth pushing past the top limit of normal into a range where sustaining life is harder and harder to do (because of things like crop loss, a decrease in bio diversity, an increase in severe weather and land being lost to rising sea levels).

Question 2 is also pointless because we don't have a time machine.

 

[HRMSU]

Yeah. That's the thing. our current system is to dump the bad stuff for free into the air.

Same as when Europe had to solve Cholera. Had to spend money to make sewers for people to put their **** in. It was way cheaper just to dump it in the gutter. But noooo, had to spend money to build a sewer system****

Yes, this Global green movement should go after low hanging fruit if saving the planet is the true goal. The low hanging fruit is 3rd world countries who need energy and energy development. You may have to....God forbid.....let them use oil and natural gas for a period of time but it's better than coal and wood. You could also combine it with cleaner energy. That's where the focus and money should be spent BUT....nobody makes any money off that.

 

[ChE1997]

This is not meant to be a cut. Pure science by it's very nature is atheistic. And yes humans are unique and I believe that uniqueness is of Divine origin. It actually makes more sense for people who believe this to favor combating climate change if it were possible than those who truly believe everything we are now is a result of physical happenings billions of years ago and evolutionary processes.

That's fine, unless you assert that " God Will take care of it" Like the joke says, he sent 2 boats and a helicopter...

The Bible says humans runied the world.

But when scientists say that Humans are ruining the world, many in the religious right in the US are saying " Nope. fake news. not happening"

 

[ChE1997]

Yes, this Global green movement should go after low hanging fruit if saving the planet is the true goal. The low hanging fruit is 3rd world countries who need energy and energy development. You may have to....God forbid.....let them use oil and natural gas for a period of time but it's better than coal and wood. You could also combine it with cleaner energy. That's where the focus and money should be spent BUT....nobody makes any money off that.

Why do you " have to let them"?

We did because that's all we had. They have access to our developments. They can use Wind, Solar, LED lights, Induction stoves, CCGT, etc.

And burning wood is not bad for the global warming. Because the trees took the carbon from the air. Coal and Oil took carbon from millions of years ago.


And the biggest bang for the buck is having the countries that can afford it to change....

 

[thekimmer]

I submit that God gave us the ability to discover new things. among them is to be able to get power from the sun, the wind, and the atom. if we use those as primary power, instead of carbon trapped for 100,000's of millions of years, we can survive longer as a populace.

But you don't think the 100,000's of millions of years is a real number. So i'll never get you to agree that the earth bing that hot then was a problem...

I agree that we should try to develop all of these but they cannot be mandated before they are commercially viable or even feasible on a large enough scale. Nor can one country (US) unilaterally take such drastic steps to combat climate change when a substantial portion of the world does not and probably never will until motivated by cost.

The history of mankind is a history unlike no other species because we have the intelligence to to accumulate knowledge and technology over time to achieve astounding accomplishments. The history of mankind also demonstrates that while humans are smart, human nature has a bad side that will never change and while all of this accumulation of knowledge and innovation is used for good it has and will also always be used to do evil and harm. Unfortunately we now have passed the point where we have accumulated enough knowledge and technology to destroy ourselves and eventually God will let us do it or do it himself.

 

[HRMSU]

I thought the jewish and Christian default man is "distructive and evil".

Fallen and sinful is what my Bible says... And our Fall corrupted all nature...

And overpopulation, Green energy and saving the planet are not "Marxist". Ol' Karl had no idea what green energy or saving the planet was.

Yes, I'm saying it's the same construct as Judeo Christian religion which most cults are....they just replace the characters and beliefs. It's why people fall into cult movements. They are familiar with the construct. A lot of cult members come from religious backgrounds because the construct is familiar just tweaked and bastardized enough to serve the leaders and the organization.

As for the Marxist comment....ole Karl created principles right?

 

[HRMSU]

Why do you " have to let them"?

We did because that's all we had. They have access to our developments. They can use Wind, Solar, LED lights, Induction stoves, CCGT, etc.

And burning wood is not bad for the global warming. Because the trees took the carbon from the air. Coal and Oil took carbon from millions of years ago.


And the biggest bang for the buck is having the countries that can afford it to change....

Agree to disagree.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

Question 1 is pointless because it's talking about relatively normal swings of temperature. The discussion about climate change is about the earth pushing past the top limit of normal into a range where sustaining life is harder and harder to do (because of things like crop loss, a decrease in bio diversity, an increase in severe weather and land being lost to rising sea levels).

Question 2 is also pointless because we don't have a time machine.

They aren't pointless questions. I certainly have a point, but you don't even want to give it a chance.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

you are confusing weather the climate.
Can our food crops and animals survive with hotter temperature and more extreme weather events?

No I'm not. I have a point in asking these questions. And believe it or not, it has nothing to do with weather.

 

[Podgy]

Climate change is happening. The science is pretty clear on this as well as the impact of CO2 generated by the use of fossil fuels. But it can be mitigated, or managed, through the application of science and technology. Don't believe the alarmists. Don't ignore the science. We just need to do reasonable things without most of us having to dramatically change our lives. And don't say it isn't real because you don't like Democrats or liberals. I know a lot of people who deny climate change but not because they're well-versed in climate science. They typically just repeated what they heard from some dude on AM radio and don't know the difference between climate and weather. And don't claim the world is gonna end because you don't like Republicans either. It's a problem to solve or manage. We've done that throughout our history.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I wouldn't say I 100% agree with you. Your end use of a tank of ethanol gas isn't remotely the whole story when it comes to potential benefits/drawbacks to something as massive and multi-faceted as energy production. As I mentioned yesterday, there seem to be some conflicting studies about ethanol out there. I read a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff but I haven't pored over all those various studies in any great detail. So I'll concede that what little knowledge I have about ethanol may be out of date. And I am always willing to read new info and change my views on things.

**Besides, I just do what Greta Thunberg and Al Gore tell me to do.**

I think we just became best friends. We should carpool to the next SPS tailgate. In an Rivian, of course.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

Climate change is happening. The science is pretty clear on this as well as the impact of CO2 generated by the use of fossil fuels. But it can be mitigated, or managed, through the application of science and technology. Don't believe the alarmists. Don't ignore the science. We just need to do reasonable things without most of us having to dramatically change our lives. And don't say it isn't real because you don't like Democrats or liberals. I know a lot of people who deny climate change but not because they're well-versed in climate science. They typically just repeated what they heard from some dude on AM radio and don't know the difference between climate and weather. And don't claim the world is gonna end because you don't like Republicans either. It's a problem to solve or manage. We've done that throughout our history.

Was this directed at me? I never said climate change isn't happening. It certainly is. But I was asking those questions for a specific purpose, but noone will answer them. It isn't a trap. They are honest questions.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

Question 2 is also pointless because we don't have a time machine.

56 minutes from now

Who is this WE? Speak for yourself.

 

[ChE1997]

I agree that we should try to develop all of these but they cannot be mandated before they are commercially viable or even feasible on a large enough scale. Nor can one country (US) unilaterally take such drastic steps to combat climate change when a substantial portion of the world does not and probably never will until motivated by cost.

The history of mankind is a history unlike no other species because we have the intelligence to to accumulate knowledge and technology over time to achieve astounding accomplishments. The history of mankind also demonstrates that while humans are smart, human nature has a bad side that will never change and while all of this accumulation of knowledge and innovation is used for good it has and will also always be used to do evil and harm. Unfortunately we now have passed the point where we have accumulated enough knowledge and technology to destroy ourselves and eventually God will let us do it or do it himself.

LOL The US is DECADES behind the rest of the world in energy transition.

No where else on the planet does this debate happen. Period.

To put it more clearly, it's a joke and absurd to everyone else that the US GOP denies climate change. Literally laughing at us.

That you think the US is the leader in this shows how far behind you are in understanding this...

That you think it "unilateral" by the USA is just absurd.

 

[ChE1997]

No I'm not. I have a point in asking these questions. And believe it or not, it has nothing to do with weather.

more people die from cold.

Cold will still happen with gloabal warming.
More die today. because we have billions more people.

 

[Podgy]

Yes, I'm saying it's the same construct as Judeo Christian religion which most cults are....they just replace the characters and beliefs. It's why people fall into cult movements. They are familiar with the construct. A lot of cult members come from religious backgrounds because the construct is familiar just tweaked and bastardized enough to serve the leaders and the organization.

As for the Marxist comment....ole Karl created principles right?

The european green movement had it's origins in the Nazi movement. A number of Nazis supported environmentalism, organic farming, etc. Of course, other issues were more important. Green parties today are likely to be more Marxist in orientation than capitalist. It's also not hard to observe some environmentalists and notice how cultish they are. The bizarre appeal of Greta comes to mind.

 

[ChE1997]

Agree to disagree.

lol ok

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

LOL The US is DECADES behind the rest of the world in energy transition.

No where else on the planet does this debate happen. Period.

To put it more clearly, it's a joke and absurd to everyone else that the US GOP denies climate change. Literally laughing at us.

That you think the US is the leader in this shows how far behind you are in understanding this...

That you think it "unilateral" by the USA is just absurd.

Would you please answer my 2 questions?

1) Do more people die from climate related deaths 100 years ago or today?

2) Which kills more people related to climate - cold or heat?

 

[Podgy]

Was this directed at me? I never said climate change isn't happening. It certainly is. But I was asking those questions for a specific purpose, but noone will answer them. It isn't a trap. They are honest questions.

Nope. Just an observation after reading maybe 4 random posts.

 

[ChE1997]

Yes, I'm saying it's the same construct as Judeo Christian religion which most cults are....they just replace the characters and beliefs. It's why people fall into cult movements. They are familiar with the construct. A lot of cult members come from religious backgrounds because the construct is familiar just tweaked and bastardized enough to serve the leaders and the organization.

As for the Marxist comment....ole Karl created principles right?

Pretty sure principles were around before karl... Since it's a latin word....

 

[Podgy]

Would you please answer my 2 questions?

1) Do more people die from climate related deaths 100 years ago or today?

2) Which kills more people related to climate - cold or heat?

1. Not sure. Are some diseases more likely in warm climates? I suspect it's cold weather, though
2. More people die from being murdered in America.

 

[ChE1997]

Would you please answer my 2 questions?

1) Do more people die from climate related deaths 100 years ago or today?

2) Which kills more people related to climate - cold or heat?

ok. i'll play.

I assume you are baiting to say that more died from cold and more died 100 years ago.

What's your point?

 

[Podgy]

LOL The US is DECADES behind the rest of the world in energy transition.

No where else on the planet does this debate happen. Period.

To put it more clearly, it's a joke and absurd to everyone else that the US GOP denies climate change. Literally laughing at us.

That you think the US is the leader in this shows how far behind you are in understanding this...

That you think it "unilateral" by the USA is just absurd.

Who exactly is the US "decades" behind? That's not true.

 

[Podgy]

FYI, most people around the world don't care about climate change, especially all those people in non-western countries. They want better lives and material prosperity.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

ok. i'll play.

I assume you are baiting to say that more died from cold and more died 100 years ago.

What's your point?

Those are actually the correct answers. My point was that if you ask most people they will say more people are dying today and they are dying more often from heat than cold - both wrong answers. And they answer that way because the media has a lot of people believing those wrong answers are correct.

That isn't to say that there aren't people that do their own research or that know more facts. But the average person doesn't and just takes what the media gives them and accept it as fact.

 

[FQDawg]

They aren't pointless questions. I certainly have a point, but you don't even want to give it a chance.

Just make your point then.

 

[HRMSU]

The european green movement had it's origins in the Nazi movement. A number of Nazis supported environmentalism, organic farming, etc. Of course, other issues were more important. Green parties today are likely to be more Marxist in orientation than capitalist. It's also not hard to observe some environmentalists and notice how cultish they are.

Watch out there are people on here that will resort to name calling and call you an emotional raving lunatic for holding that thought or belief. They probably don't even realize the first part of your post ever happened; sometimes name calling and trying to shame or marginalize people is the easy button used by both sides.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

Those are actually the correct answers. My point was that if you ask most people they will say more people are dying today and they are dying more often from heat than cold - both wrong answers. And they answer that way because the media has a lot of people believing those wrong answers are correct.

That isn't to say that there aren't people that do their own research or that know more facts. But the average person doesn't and just takes what the media gives them and accept it as fact.

One of the things the models out there don't have in them and it's why they are all wrong - is that they don't account for the ability of humans to adapt.

 

[dorndawg]

The european green movement had it's origins in the Nazi movement. A number of Nazis supported environmentalism, organic farming, etc. Of course, other issues were more important. Green parties today are likely to be more Marxist in orientation than capitalist. It's also not hard to observe some environmentalists and notice how cultish they are. The bizarre appeal of Greta comes to mind.

You're *so* close - why not just go ahead and blame it on the Jews?

 

[dorndawg]

ok. i'll play.

I assume you are baiting to say that more died from cold and more died 100 years ago.

What's your point?

I assume your username means Chem Engineering, in which case - it's nice having someone who knows what they're talking about in the thread. As opposed to... the rest of us.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

I assume your username means Chem Engineering, in which case - it's nice having someone who knows what they're talking about in the thread. As opposed to... the rest of us.

Why thank you. I'm a Chem. E. also.

 

[HRMSU]

Pretty sure principles were around before karl... Since it's a latin word....

I'm talking about his writings his theories and tactics not the word principle.

 

[Podgy]

You're *so* close - why not just go ahead and blame it on the Jews?

You're so ignorant and intellectually challenged. Why not just go ahead and keep posting proof that you're a dullard. FYI, my wife is part Jewish you silly little nitwit.

 

[dorndawg]

Why thank you. I'm a Chem. E. also.

Well, I guess someone had to graduate last in their class***

 

[dorndawg]

One of the things the models out there don't have in them and it's why they are all wrong - is that they don't account for the ability of humans to adapt.

I think I probably agree with you here - my guess is some sort of geo-engineering will get us out of the true worst-case scenarios of global warming