bggamers Loc: georgia

Cuda2020

You're like one who pisses in his pool and thinks the color of yellow green water is its natural state. LOL

son of witless

Why is it that none of you Left Wing Liberal enviro-types ever research history. Y'all have this little teeny tiny viewpoint that the Big Bang happened on the day you were born. Nothing that happened before you came into the World has any relevance at all.

The big bad wild fires a burnin in California are nothing new. Nothing new at all.

It seems that it is always left to me and a few others on OPP to try to educate you Chicken Littles. What is happening now has happened before and it will happen again and again, no matter whether you guys ban f****l f**ls or not. Read and learn. Well at least read.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/10/why-environmental-alarmism-makes-forest-fires-worse/#4f5671c93712

" “California was a very smoky place historically,” says Malcolm North of the US Forest Survey.“Even though we’re seeing area burned that is off-the-charts, it’s still probably less than what used to be burned before Europeans arrived.” "

Rose42

Its not just California. Check this out -

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

You are like a bad tempered child that screams because daddy won't give him a pony. You have no understanding that humanity lives in a thin spherical sheath, only a few miles thick, and covering another thin spherical sheath of rock, which floats on top of an 4000 mile radius ball of molten rock and super compressed material. We are at the mercy of the massive forces governing this globe What you want to do is spend all of our resources buying fans to 'counter' a tornado. Not only impractical and unworkable, but STUPID! Man made 'g****l w*****g' is no more responsible for what is happening to our planet than a water pistol contributes to a rainstorm. If we are serious about adapting to our planet's current warming trend, with a minimum loss of resources and life, then we need to
1. develop alternate energy sources that WORK, such as safe nuclear power. Solar energy is too weak and unconcentrated, and wind energy is an expensive toy that is does not even pay for itself. Both are undependable and have their own severe adverse affects on the environment. 2. Develop practical space craft so that we can industrialize space and use our biosphere for living. And we can then get some of mankind's eggs out of this one, very fragile, basket. 3. STOP wasting time and energy on h**xes that are actually intended only to give to the governments the wealth, power, and control over people thet all bureaucracies crave.

SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now

Ha!! Never thought about that, but you are precisely "right"! 😂😂👍

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

[quote=Barracuda2020]You're exactly right,
See what I mean?!!!

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

Well put!

Cuda2020

Your scope of the environment and our role in it is nothing less then looking through a telescope backwards, but that is the right...backward thinking.

Rose42

And that kind of post typifies the problem with this country. The utter stupidity of the OP, followed by trying to blame it on liberals which is just as dumb and then this.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

There are a lot of differences between l*****t and conservatives. But the primary one is that conservatives base their beliefs on evidence and proven workable solutions. L*****t base their beliefs on wishful thinking, pipe dreams, and bumper stickers.

SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now

Yup😄👍👍👍🇺🇸

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Democrat supporters burn their cities.
And you attempt to blame Republican supporters?

BTW; Who blocks forest management?
The Left has for decades.

DaWg44

We grew pine timber for poles, pulpwood, & turpentine when I was growing up. Every 10 acres had firebreaks that were 100ft. wide, that were plowed regularly & used as roads to haul the timber & rosin out. We burned underbrush every two years to k**l bugs, keep deadfall cover low enough to keep the trees from catching on fire, & get water to the tree roots.

We had water trucks to fill our 10gal. steel backpack water sprayers. We all carried rakes too, spray, rake, spray, rake, until you could stick your hand in the ground. We called the closest fire tower to watch for smoke for 8 hours after we put out hot spots.

We had fires started by lightning, but because of good neighbors & Forestry Service, we had very few that weren’t put out quickly by controlled back fires.or running into a firebreak.

Cuda2020

Bad tempered, I see no bad temper at all, I see a poignant analogy, maybe you're overly sensitive who typically wants to give it out but can't take it.

We who are speaking of man's impact has a much better understanding of the impact we are having on our little bubble. This is 2020 and we have plenty of data from all forms of life on what consequences have been happening from surmountable waste.

What we want to do is rectify that. Understand, that the only thing we DO have control over is what we do with our waste, in every for. Got it? Who should be absorbing THAT expense are the companies benefiting by their extreme profits. Yes extreme.

Your water pistol analogy is ignorance to the highest degree.

Natural greenhouse gas emissions vs. manmade: what’s the difference?
Before the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the last century, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were rather steady. This was not a snapshot: they were steady for thousands of years.

That’s because natural CO2 is not static, meaning it is not simply in the air, sitting there. Naturally-generated CO2 is a part of a very natural cycle in the atmosphere. That’s why the levels remained stable.

The carbon on land and in the ocean has stayed in balance. By measuring ice cores and using proxies, we have been able to study historic CO2 levels both directly and indirectly. The Earth has been able to generate, absorb, and cycle through carbon dioxide naturally for generations.

Now, consider what happens when manmade carbon dioxide sources begin their ascent. Yes, the natural cycle of carbon in the atmosphere has been handling 750 gigatons of CO2 every year. Our 32 ½ gigatons seem paltry and inconsequential compared to that, right?

Well, not so much. Our world is made to handle the 750 gigatons naturally. Adding more than 30 gigatons is devastating because the land and the ocean do not have the capability to absorb that CO2.

Picture the Earth as a 2-quart bowl. Now imagine it filled with exactly two quarts of water. The bowl can easily handle that 2 quarts. But now, take another cup of water and dump it into the bowl. Immediately, you see the problem: that cup of water is going to overflow the bowl.

There are some who consider naturally-occurring sources of carbon dioxide to be proof that man made CO2 isn’t that big of a deal. But think of that bowl: the problem isn’t that the bowl has two quarts of water in it - the bowl is designed to handle that much water. The problem is the extra cup of water.

The same is true for us: the problem isn’t the 750 gigatons of CO2 that our planet can already handle - it’s the extra CO2 that we’re releasing into the atmosphere that it can’t handle.

The Earth is doing its best: about 40% of the extra CO2 in the air is being absorbed. But what happens to the rest of the CO2? It sits in the atmosphere.

What is the effect?
Because greenhouse gases have increased 31% since the Industrial Revolution, there is an extra buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to increase.

Yes, natural carbon dioxide contributes to this. But human activities are devastating the carbon cycle. The National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts a 90% chance that human activities - like the f****l f**l burning we’ve discussed here - will cause an increase in global temperatures of 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

http://www.arcadia.com/energy-101/environmental-impact/greenhouse-gas-emissions-natural-vs-man-made/


Another age-old climatic skeptic myth, is that the CO2 is coming from volcanoes – first time I had to rebut this was as a young postdoc in the 1990s. The total volcanic emissions are between 0.04 and 0.07 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, compared to the anthropogenic emissions of 12 gigatons in 2016. Anthropogenic emissions are now well over a hundred times greater than volcanic ones. The volcanic emissions are important for the long-term CO2 changes over millions of years, but not over a few centuries.