Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

VolsdeepVFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
698
I am just joking around. We should have a broad based energy policy. Too much money passing between Washington politicians and energy industry. No disrespect to you
No worries, I totally agree the grid needs to be diversified and probably rebuilt. Love talking this stuff I follow alot of energy news and podcasts.
 
Likes: SoilVol

Vols4us

Old Warhorse
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
19,045
Likes
21,207
Truth, there is very strong evidence that we may be in a grand solar minimum and it’s going to be colder for a while.
Exactly. There will always be trouble inferring macro effects while using micro data due to the accuracy of assumptions used in the analysis combined with no certainty of timing of past, present and future events.

But what do I know, I am a creationist. lol.
 

Adam2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
839
Likes
1,568
Here are my brief thoughts on climate change. I am not an expert, but I have some experience thinking about climate and weather. I have two degrees in meteorology.

We know that climate change is a real thing. We alter our climates every day. Some examples of this are urban heat islands, creation of snow from factory exhaust, lake-effect snow off of Wheeler lake in Alabama, etc. Additionally, we know that ancient civilizations have died off due to deforestation of their area which forced a drought in those communities.

We know that climate change is real and happens almost every day. However, we do not know the effects of changing our climate. Do not let anyone say they do...

The issue is that we rely on forecast models to determine how our climate would change. Forecast models are really cool and do a pretty good job most of the time. However, these models have errors and these errors compound on themselves the further in the future you go. This makes determining long range forecasts very difficult. For example, February by most long-range models was going to be a warm month for the eastern United States. How did that work out? Not great.

That is why I take long range prediction of temperature with a grain of salt. I think we need to continue to develop cleaner energy for the world. However, I do not think we need to destroy our world economy now based off of a 100 year global temperature prediction.
 

Ulysees E. McGill

"What's goin on Big Donde?"
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
34,272
Likes
48,419
In my lifetime we’ve “weathered” the experts telling us we’d all be dead from:

Global Ice Age
Famine and drought (starvation)
Ozone depletion (death by UV)
Acid Rain
Rising temps, leading to...
Rising oceans
California breaking into ocean (still hoping)
Coastal cities all wiped out (20 years ago)
Global ice caps melted (7 years ago)
Overpopulation
Oil gone (50 years ago)
Water depleted
Killer bees
Global warming
Killer hurricanes
Climate change
Unprecedented winter storms
Wildfires now

I’m sure I’m missing some since Covid was also a manifestation of climate change as well.

Anyhow, I refuse to live with that kind of fear. That and butter and eggs will kill you.

At the end of the day, it’s a means to and end: taxation of air, the only thing people thought you couldn’t tax and control
I read a novel by Michael Crichton called "State of Fear" that nailed this situation..and other overhyped fear mongering agendas.
 

MoCo_Vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
8,431
Likes
22,681
You know sadly religion is one of the oldest and most widely used fear mongering agendas.

I say that as a Christian myself, but I recognize how it's weaponized in a similar manner as global warming, terrorist, etc. "us vs them" will always be used against the masses cause too many buy right into it hook, line, & sinker.
 

Ulysees E. McGill

"What's goin on Big Donde?"
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
34,272
Likes
48,419
It's more a function of solar activity/inactivity. Might be able to move the needle a fraction by human activity. Sources of energy will evolve like they always have. It was less than 150 years ago that the first 4 stroke combustion engine was built, now look at things.
One big volcanic eruption like Tambora and people will be praying for it to warm back up.
 

VolsdeepVFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
698
This is a graph that charts the fluctuations in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years (measured and cross-checked by half a dozen methods such as lake sediment cores, tree rings, ice cores, etc). As you can see, the fluctuations are cyclical. The problem is that the current levels are far above the historic peak. This exponential increase is in tandem with the start of industrialization. These are just numbers, no politics. We know this has occurred.

The true question is: what do we do about it, and what does it mean? That's where answers start to vary. What does it mean? Well, given that carbon is a greenhouse gas, they extrapolate that this increase in carbon concentration will result in an increase in global temperatures to the tune of a few degrees. Then they model what effect these degree increases will have on climates and weather patterns. Are their models right? I don't know, I personally think most of it is sensationalized and hyperbolic. What do we do about it? Do we try to decrease it with technology and decrease carbon output? Some say yes. Do we do nothing? Some would argue for that.

This is my attempt at a cliff-notes synthesis of a very complex process that can't possibly be fully explained in this format. Years ago I was in serious doubt that this was an issue at all, and that it was totally made up. Then I started learning the science behind the madness and the sheer amount of data from dozens of fields (such as wildlife biology and political science, that you'd think isn't closely related) of research showing that there's some legitimacy and facts that should be accepted.

Anyway. Not looking for an argument if anyone gets triggered or disagrees. Just laying that out there for some who are honestly questioning the topic.

View attachment 352012
Worst part of this is of earths last 5 mass extinction events 4 involved an excess of carbon in the atmosphere.....I hate that climate has been made political by corporations when it's in literally everyone's best interest to address it. I'm right leaning but the more I learn the more climate becomes important to how I vote
 

VolsdeepVFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
698
No doubt things are changing due to the population and pollution but I have a hard time putting much stock in scientific studies that show research on something when they weren’t even there to research it.
Do you really think scientists can only study what they're currently living through? Apply that logic to history or literally anything else, doesn't make sense
 

Dudley Smith

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
3,091
Likes
8,696
This is a graph that charts the fluctuations in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years (measured and cross-checked by half a dozen methods such as lake sediment cores, tree rings, ice cores, etc). As you can see, the fluctuations are cyclical. The problem is that the current levels are far above the historic peak. This exponential increase is in tandem with the start of industrialization. These are just numbers, no politics. We know this has occurred.

The true question is: what do we do about it, and what does it mean? That's where answers start to vary. What does it mean? Well, given that carbon is a greenhouse gas, they extrapolate that this increase in carbon concentration will result in an increase in global temperatures to the tune of a few degrees. Then they model what effect these degree increases will have on climates and weather patterns. Are their models right? I don't know, I personally think most of it is sensationalized and hyperbolic. What do we do about it? Do we try to decrease it with technology and decrease carbon output? Some say yes. Do we do nothing? Some would argue for that.

This is my attempt at a cliff-notes synthesis of a very complex process that can't possibly be fully explained in this format. Years ago I was in serious doubt that this was an issue at all, and that it was totally made up. Then I started learning the science behind the madness and the sheer amount of data from dozens of fields (such as wildlife biology and political science, that you'd think isn't closely related) of research showing that there's some legitimacy and facts that should be accepted.

Anyway. Not looking for an argument if anyone gets triggered or disagrees. Just laying that out there for some who are honestly questioning the topic.

View attachment 352012
Appreciate this post. I'd point out that when things took off around 1950 was when China and India specifically started to industrialize their massively populated nations. I'm in the camp that it's a real thing, and that like others have said the long term effects are much more speculative and don't tend to account for advances in technology over time. I tend to think we'll innovate our way out of this problem long term, it's already happening with hydraulic fracturing increasing the production of cleaner burning LNG over oil, and nuclear power-generated electricity seems like the best hope for the future. Maybe we'll even have some sort of breakthrough on making solar and wind more efficient and productive to where they can provide something more than a tiny fraction of global power needs. We'll figure it out.

I also think that one's opinion of the greatest era in wrestling depends a lot on what was on your TV when you were between the ages of about 8 and 15.
 

Ulysees E. McGill

"What's goin on Big Donde?"
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
34,272
Likes
48,419
How dare they teach kids to respect and have some responsibility for how we treat mother nature!!! As a lover of nature and national parks I would think you would understand the need to research better ways to treat this rock. Guess not.
I agree, but not to the extremist degree.
 

VolsdeepVFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
698
Here are my brief thoughts on climate change. I am not an expert, but I have some experience thinking about climate and weather. I have two degrees in meteorology.

We know that climate change is a real thing. We alter our climates every day. Some examples of this are urban heat islands, creation of snow from factory exhaust, lake-effect snow off of Wheeler lake in Alabama, etc. Additionally, we know that ancient civilizations have died off due to deforestation of their area which forced a drought in those communities.

We know that climate change is real and happens almost every day. However, we do not know the effects of changing our climate. Do not let anyone say they do...

The issue is that we rely on forecast models to determine how our climate would change. Forecast models are really cool and do a pretty good job most of the time. However, these models have errors and these errors compound on themselves the further in the future you go. This makes determining long range forecasts very difficult. For example, February by most long-range models was going to be a warm month for the eastern United States. How did that work out? Not great.

That is why I take long range prediction of temperature with a grain of salt. I think we need to continue to develop cleaner energy for the world. However, I do not think we need to destroy our world economy now based off of a 100 year global temperature prediction.
I agree that long term projections are almost impossible to make, but there is a bigger issue at hand here than just general warming. We breathe oxygen created by plant life (which is being decimated) and our atmosphere is quickly filling up with carbon and methane.
 

Adam2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
839
Likes
1,568
I agree that long term projections are almost impossible to make, but there is a bigger issue at hand here than just general warming. We breathe oxygen created by plant life (which is being decimated) and our atmosphere is quickly filling up with carbon and methane.
Our atmosphere is not filling up with Carbon... Levels of CO2 and methane are increasing. Plants take in CO2 and create oxygen.
 
Likes: alvinkamara

SSVol

Opinionated Old Guy
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
5,408
Likes
15,402
If fossil fuels are in fact "fossil" fuels, wouldn't the associated organism have been part of the ecosystem at some point in the distant past? And as such, isn't returning them to the ecosystem functionally restoring it to a prior state, rather than destroying it?

It's honestly moot, since the ICE will rapidly recede into specialty use as battery tech continues to improve, but I've always thought that the panic over re-releasing carbon back into the ecosystem seems to miss the point that it was there to start with.
 

itsme

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,147
Likes
2,091
You know sadly religion is one of the oldest and most widely used fear mongering agendas.

I say that as a Christian myself, but I recognize how it's weaponized in a similar manner as global warming, terrorist, etc. "us vs them" will always be used against the masses cause too many buy right into it hook, line, & sinker.
If a person has a voice in society that voice is 99% likely to be used in a fear mongering way, right, left, up, down doesn't matter. Why? Because fear makes the big bucks.
 
Likes: MoCo_Vol

rikberry31

We Are Tennessee
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
1,767
Likes
2,286
Exactly. There will always be trouble inferring macro effects while using micro data due to the accuracy of assumptions used in the analysis combined with no certainty of timing of past, present and future events.

But what do I know, I am a creationist. lol.
The sun warms the earth, that’s it. CO2 doesn’t hold heat, H20 holds heat but not CO2. Junk science.
 

rikberry31

We Are Tennessee
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
1,767
Likes
2,286
Here are my brief thoughts on climate change. I am not an expert, but I have some experience thinking about climate and weather. I have two degrees in meteorology.

We know that climate change is a real thing. We alter our climates every day. Some examples of this are urban heat islands, creation of snow from factory exhaust, lake-effect snow off of Wheeler lake in Alabama, etc. Additionally, we know that ancient civilizations have died off due to deforestation of their area which forced a drought in those communities.

We know that climate change is real and happens almost every day. However, we do not know the effects of changing our climate. Do not let anyone say they do...

The issue is that we rely on forecast models to determine how our climate would change. Forecast models are really cool and do a pretty good job most of the time. However, these models have errors and these errors compound on themselves the further in the future you go. This makes determining long range forecasts very difficult. For example, February by most long-range models was going to be a warm month for the eastern United States. How did that work out? Not great.

That is why I take long range prediction of temperature with a grain of salt. I think we need to continue to develop cleaner energy for the world. However, I do not think we need to destroy our world economy now based off of a 100 year global temperature prediction.
The climate changes but we have no effect on that change. We’re in a period of low solar inactivity unseen since the Maunder Minimum in the 15th century.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
4,289
Likes
3,145
If fossil fuels are in fact "fossil" fuels, wouldn't the associated organism have been part of the ecosystem at some point in the distant past? And as such, isn't returning them to the ecosystem functionally restoring it to a prior state, rather than destroying it?

It's honestly moot, since the ICE will rapidly recede into specialty use as battery tech continues to improve, but I've always thought that the panic over re-releasing carbon back into the ecosystem seems to miss the point that it was there to start with.
CO2 is part of the carbon cycle. Some carbon is stored in the air, some in the water, some in the ground, and some in life or the biosphere.

This is a two-part problem. One, deforestation. Chopping down trees at an unsustainable rate is problematic because plants capture CO2 from the air and water and store it as sugar via photosynthesis. Two, the trillions of tons of carbon stored in fossil fuels has been part of the geosphere for hundreds of millions of years. We are pulling it out of the Earth, then releasing the majority of it as CO2 through combustion.

There is a set amount of carbon on Earth; however, we are upsetting the balance by releasing too much into the atmosphere and oceans. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (poorly named imo), so the more of it in the atmos- and hydrosohere, the more sunlight is re-reflected to Earth's surface (and higher likelihood of being absorbed and transformed into thermal energy). Should be called the pinball effect, as the mechanism is nothing like a greenhouse. Lastly, the melting ice is exposing more dark surface of the Earth... so less sunlight is reflected and even more is absorbed, heating up the Earth's surface even more so.

CO2 concentration and global temperatures fluctuate naturally, but Earth has never had CO2 concentrations of this magnitude.
 

LaagerVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
8,162
Likes
6,510
Worst part of this is of earths last 5 mass extinction events 4 involved an excess of carbon in the atmosphere.....I hate that climate has been made political by corporations when it's in literally everyone's best interest to address it. I'm right leaning but the more I learn the more climate becomes important to how I vote
Can you vote in china? Because it doesn't really matter what we do here, as long as they are spewing into the air what they and other countries in that area are. Not saying we shouldn't be prudent, but the radical agenda is nonsense. We have made massive, necessary improvements over the last 50 or so years.
 

Adam2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
839
Likes
1,568
The climate changes but we have no effect on that change. We’re in a period of low solar inactivity unseen since the Maunder Minimum in the 15th century.
We do have an affect on our weather and our climate. I just gave you several examples above. Another prime example is the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere. The world was using products that contained chrolorflorocarbons which were destroying the ozone layer over the south pole. The CFCs were banned and the ozone hole steadily improved over the south pole.
 
Likes: SoilVol

Ulysees E. McGill

"What's goin on Big Donde?"
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
34,272
Likes
48,419
If fossil fuels are in fact "fossil" fuels, wouldn't the associated organism have been part of the ecosystem at some point in the distant past? And as such, isn't returning them to the ecosystem functionally restoring it to a prior state, rather than destroying it?

It's honestly moot, since the ICE will rapidly recede into specialty use as battery tech continues to improve, but I've always thought that the panic over re-releasing carbon back into the ecosystem seems to miss the point that it was there to start with.
My issue is that I am concerned that just as I finally get to a barely good enough financial situation to travel, that they are about to make fuel so insanely expensive that I won't be able to go and pull my camper around the country and experience the places I have wanted to see my whole life.

That is not an issue to a lot of folks..but it is to me. It has become a huge fear to me now. Go ahead and make fun of me, it is the VN way.

Edit: this is not pointed at you SS.
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top