U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change

[aboutime]

Here is what you do gunny. Go into your garage. Close it. Turn the car on. See how long you last and tell me it's the universe causing you to choke.

Great idea for you to try petey. So tell us. How often do you WALK down the Interstate, or walk to the other side of your state without using, or creating CO2?
HINT: Either way..if you exhale..you are damaging the environment. Which do you choose to hide your hypocrisy?

[pete311]

Great idea for you to try petey. So tell us. How often do you WALK down the Interstate, or walk to the other side of your state without using, or creating CO2?
HINT: Either way..if you exhale..you are damaging the environment. Which do you choose to hide your hypocrisy?

hypocrisy? when did I claim to be carbon negative or even neutral?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

These are Trump admin scientists. You have no more ammo in that excuse.

I couldn't care less who you think these people are, the point is, it's your GLOBAL WARMING BS.

Sorry, I don't buy into that conspiracy theory garbage.

[darin]

I tell ya what - tempers sure flare up when faced with disagreement. We don't have to be always so quick to attack.

[Gunny]

Here is what you do gunny. Go into your garage. Close it. Turn the car on. See how long you last and tell me it's the universe causing you to choke.

Okay. Where have I stated I don't believe in man-made pollution WITHIN Man's control? I am, as a matter of fact, quite against unnecessary pollution. And I say "unnecessary" because no matter WHAT exists, it impacts its environment. I'm not against minimizing it as much as possible.

At the same time, reality dictates that we are going to affect our environment. I am also well-aware $ dictates a lot of it. That doesn't excuse buying off on some quackery fix that is just one more gimmick to separate you from your dollars.

It also has little do with the topic, but a LOT to do with YOU. This id the second thread where you have placed Man above the God you think doesn't exist. Science is great at explaining Man within the limitations of Man's intellect and scope. When science attempts to explain things outside it's aforementioned purview, you get unsubstantiated opinions that most defy the very laws of science they claim to support.

We impact our environment? Sure. We're even a blip on the radar of controlling the Earth's place in the Universe? Not. And "studies", especially scientific and medical ones always support the position they looking for, but never quite seem to come up with a cure. A cure means end of the road for that gravy train.

[pete311]

Okay. Where have I stated I don't believe in man-made pollution WITHIN Man's control? I am, as a matter of fact, quite against unnecessary pollution. And I say "unnecessary" because no matter WHAT exists, it impacts its environment. I'm not against minimizing it as much as possible.

At the same time, reality dictates that we are going to affect our environment. I am also well-aware $ dictates a lot of it. That doesn't excuse buying off on some quackery fix that is just one more gimmick to separate you from your dollars.

It also has little do with the topic, but a LOT to do with YOU. This id the second thread where you have placed Man above the God you think doesn't exist. Science is great at explaining Man within the limitations of Man's intellect and scope. When science attempts to explain things outside it's aforementioned purview, you get unsubstantiated opinions that most defy the very laws of science they claim to support.

We impact our environment? Sure. We're even a blip on the radar of controlling the Earth's place in the Universe? Not. And "studies", especially scientific and medical ones always support the position they looking for, but never quite seem to come up with a cure. A cure means end of the road for that gravy train.

C02 is the pollution that impacts climate change the most. Don't mix science and politics. The research is on climate change, not controlling the earth's place in the universe, whatever that means.

[Gunny]

C02 is the pollution that impacts climate change the most. Don't mix science and politics. The research is on climate change, not controlling the earth's place in the universe, whatever that means.

I'm not mixing science and politics. You did. Thread title ring a bell? Where you attempted to use the fact the report came from somewhere in the Trump Admin as somehow giving credence to man-made global climate change to all us "rightwingers"?

C02 is the waste product of all mammals and is required for plants to live. Get rid of either one and you kill the other. If you want to lessen your impact on the environment, jump off the planet. Take a buddy with you (preferably an office-holding Democrat ).

Again, man-made global warming and man-made environmental impact are not the same things and no REAL evidence supports the latter causing the former.

[pete311]

I'm not mixing science and politics. You did. Thread title ring a bell? Where you attempted to use the fact the report came from somewhere in the Trump Admin as somehow giving credence to man-made global climate change to all us "rightwingers"?

C02 is the waste product of all mammals and is required for plants to live. Get rid of either one and you kill the other. If you want to lessen your impact on the environment, jump off the planet. Take a buddy with you (preferably an office-holding Democrat ).

Again, man-made global warming and man-made environmental impact are not the same things and no REAL evidence supports the latter causing the former.

I don't know how you keep responding to this thread while still refusing to read the report. I'm done with you until you do.

[NightTrain]

C02 is the pollution that impacts climate change the most.

Ummm... no, Petey.

Want to take another stab at it?

[pete311]

Ummm... no, Petey.

Want to take another stab at it?

"The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally"
https://science2017.globalchange.gov...utive-summary/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

"The magnitude of climate change...

You mean GLOBAL WARMING.

Why did you leftists have to change the name?

[pete311]

You mean GLOBAL WARMING.

Why did you leftists have to change the name?

First, this report is from trump admin scientists. Second, no, climate change is effected by global warming. They are not the same thing.

[NightTrain]

"The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally"
https://science2017.globalchange.gov...utive-summary/

I don't know how many times I have to spank you on your Global Warming nonsense, but whatever.



CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.



Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.



Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.



Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/und...ing-potentials



Read up, little fella.

[pete311]

I don't know how many times I have to spank you on your Global Warming nonsense, but whatever.



CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.



Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.



Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.



Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/und...ing-potentials



Read up, little fella.

I guess we're debating semantics now on my usage of the word "impact". It's well known C02 is not by molecule the most harmful greenhouse gas. However the sheer amount of it in the atmosphere is what makes it at this time the greatest contributor to global warming. Thus my quote from the trump admin study.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

First, this report is from trump admin scientists.

Well wait a minute now... didn't you just get done telling Gunny NOT to mix politics with global warming?

Second, no, climate change is effected by global warming. They are not the same thing.

I don't know who you think you're fooling, but certainly not me. It's nothing more than your leftist name change game.

GLOBAL WARMING = CLIMATE CHANGE
CLIMATE CHANGE = GLOBAL WARMING

You held your focus groups and dreamt up a new name for GLOBAL WARMING because that name wasn't getting you all anywhere, so you needed to call it something else that wasn't as descriptive, and didn't immediately expose you people for who you are, so botta bing, botta boom, GLOBAL WARMING is now CLIMATE CHANGE, and we all know the climate does change, so who can argue with that... GENIUS.

Sorry... no... you people aren't fooling anyone other than those of you who were buying this snake oil garbage in the first place.