Man Made Climate Change

Status
Not open for further replies.

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,672
Location
Aurora, CO
During the Jurassic period when pangaea was splitting and cause massive amounts of greenhouse gasses plant life thrived. Which in turn supported the age of the plant eaters and made the climate hot and humid. These plants then were destroyed when the meteorite hit and that's where we get most of our fossil fuels today that are supposedly speeding up climate change. Crazy how it can all tie together. Man science and the earth are amazing!! It really is an awesome topic when you take the politics away.
Geologic time and global events are pretty crazy when you think about them. I always nerd out in our geoscience meetings and ask the geologist to do the deep dive on why fracking pretty much only happens in the US, and not say in the middle east, which is a product of how those different reservoirs were created. Fascinating stuff. The Saudi reserve was created millions of years before and has had more time to 'bake' so the source shale doesn't hold any oil it's sitting on top, whereas our basins are newer so it's still in the source rock.

Seems like a big hang up is people taking climate change personally. Climate change wont make it impossible for life to exist, it's just going to make our lives harder and may push species to extinction. This happened before and will happen again.

The question becomes what amount of resources do we want to spend to mitigate climate change to stop it's impact on our lives. Does spending that capital now, offset later costs we would otherwise incur?
 

Zach

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
3,259
Location
Gods Country, Colorado

Fire in the hole
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,228
Location
Helena

Fire in the hole
Your source thinks the world is 6,000 years old.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,672
Location
Aurora, CO
What do you think of this idea wllm? Feel good nonsense or viable solution?

I would say I'm pro cap-in-trade in theory, but as always devils in the details. There are certain forest types, ie rain forests, that don't use fire as a regenerative factor and are most healthy with left alone (I'm thinking Brazil). In those case I think cap-and-trade monetizes natural assets that would be destroyed. I would rather have vinyl floors and jaguars than hardwood floors and a destruction of a biome.

I can't say I know enough about the SEAK forest, how useful the wood/ what effect this would have on the local flour and fauna, and the economics. In general I think people are most happy when they have a good job and earn their money through labor, this seems to be killing jobs. That might be fine if there are alternatives means of employment, also depends on how the funds are distributed. I would rather see 100 people making 45k a year than having one company write a check each year to the corp who then is responsible for divvying up the money and decides to build a casino instead of distributing it and then employs only the family members of the council members.

Lots to consider... but the idea holds water and could be very beneficial. Could be a dumpster fire.
 

3855WIN

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
854
Location
Mississippi
This is something we got involved with on my wife’s family farm. It was time to take it out of crop production. Green Tree folks planted cottonwoods between the WRP rows.
It’s easy to get frustrated with Climate Change, but we need to try to leave this earth better place when we depart.

 

beginnerhunter

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Messages
632
Why y'all? These threads go nowhere. Only thing to look forward to is Fin's picture from his childhood adventure.

We could fix climate change without resorting to destroying our economy with some watermelon fantasy. We choose not to. Nothing I can do about it.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
512
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
But i can site countless "unprecedented" floods and hurricanes from up to 150 years ago or so. What drove or caused the "unprecedented" weather/climate back then. In 1893 when South Carolina hurricane hit was it because of my 2009 silverado or my wife's 2005 4runner? Did man create it in some other way? So many holes in all of this stuff. It's about control, money, greed, votes, and power. That's it.
I really do get triggered by people that misuse climate and weather.

Democrats in the Summer - It is 90 degrees in Anchorage, see climate change is real.

Republicans in the Winter- It is -20 below in New York, see climate change is a hoax.

The science from NASA says:

2.5-10 degrees AVERAGE increase from 2000 to 2100.

So, people that say it is getting to cold or too hot right now are talking about weather and not climate.

Climate is the average increase in surface temps.

With the change in surface temps you will get an increase in rain patterns, drought, heat waves, more powerful hurricanes, growing seasons, etc none of which are in affect right now in full strength.

This is the issue with alarmists on the left and deniers on the right. There are putting gasoline on each others fires rather than using a fire extinguisher and meeting in the middle for a discussion about what to do.
 

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
6,219
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
I would say I'm pro cap-in-trade in theory, but as always devils in the details. There are certain forest types, ie rain forests, that don't use fire as a regenerative factor and are most healthy with left alone (I'm thinking Brazil). In those case I think cap-and-trade monetizes natural assets that would be destroyed. I would rather have vinyl floors and jaguars than hardwood floors and a destruction of a biome.

I can't say I know enough about the SEAK forest, how useful the wood/ what effect this would have on the local flour and fauna, and the economics. In general I think people are most happy when they have a good job and earn their money through labor, this seems to be killing jobs. That might be fine if there are alternatives means of employment, also depends on how the funds are distributed. I would rather see 100 people making 45k a year than having one company write a check each year to the corp who then is responsible for divvying up the money and decides to build a casino instead of distributing it and then employs only the family members of the council members.

Lots to consider... but the idea holds water and could be very beneficial. Could be a dumpster fire.
Thanks for the well thought out response. My thoughts of this example are it's all feel good nonsense. Rate payers in California will get to bear the cost of the program and continue to add carbon into the atmosphere, and the forests upon maturity will start to give off more carbon than they sequester.

Maybe due to the increased energy costs, some of the rate payers may decide to conserve a little more energy. Benefit there.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
512
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
You figure this one out and you have solved our two party system... 😉🙂
Libertarianism is the answer.

Other than rather than arguing about what the solution is, they would argue about how much more libertarian they are than one another.

So, it is more or less progress towards centrist infighting rather than extremes.
 

RockinU

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
74
There’s been a lot of statements made concerning changing peoples minds, or views or whatever, these conversations don’t have to be about that. It can just be about listening to the other person’s thoughts, and coming to understanding about how they got there. Views you disagree with can still be treated with respect. When it comes down to the nut cutting, I’d bet most everyone on this thread wants a better world, with clean air, clean water, and healthy habitat where we can do the things we enjoy. That’s the common ground to build on, that’s where solutions start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top