West coast fires

[Edge]

On 9/15/2020 at 5:50 PM, Curtis Reed said:

Climate change is real.  The climate always changes and always will.  But it is not human caused.

The Great Lakes were formed from melting ice caps and glaciers way before I was burning gas in my V8. 

Good distinction. But the climate doesn't change in a few years let alone centuries.

I did a climate study of the southwest for the DOD back in the 80s. The weather has only been observed and recorded in the west about 250 years with the arrival of the Catholic missions. Sorry libs no changes.

[Delw]

Aside from the South of the border year round vacationer they caught in Oregon starting fires,  they caught this lady in flag for starting 2 fires.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizona_wildfires/coconino-county-sheriffs-office-locates-woman-who-may-be-connected-to-flagstaff-fires/article_dc722088-f75b-11ea-98a6-e7fa2b9bbdf4.html

 

I think tahts a total of 8 they caught now for starting various Forrest fires that were caused by "GLOBAL Warming"   and more to come.

 

 

[452b264]

Five of earths mass extinction events were caused by volcano's. We have the biggest supper volcano in the world is sitting right here in our back yard and it can fill the grand canyon 13.4 times with magma. If it blows (about once every 650,000 years and its due) with wipe out most of the US population. I hope all the lefty's read this one.

I can see the melt down from here!

[ThomC]

If global warming is caused by humans then why dont we control humans?  I know the concept is too deep for a socialists agenda mind.  Lets blame cars and cows.  🙄😷

[nw07heavy]

5 hours ago, ThomC said:

If global warming is caused by humans then why dont we control humans?  I know the concept is too deep for a socialists agenda mind.  Lets blame cars and cows.  🙄😷

You may have a good idea here. How would you control humans? What would you allow them to do? What would you not allow them to do? Would these controls be restricted to individuals, or would some or all governments need to adhere to these regulations you may propose? Would these proposals effectiveness be quantified by qualified scientific means? Once you determined the causes of the greenhouse gasses, would you really actually work to reduce them?

If the concept of global climate change is too deep for a socialist's (human's) mind, they would likely be too deep for a democrat's (human's) mind, a republican's (human's) mind, a centrist's (human's) a communist's (human's) mind, an anarchist's (human's) mind, or dictator's (human's) mind? You may have a point here. the concept is likely too deep for all the previous minds, which is a definite problem for our survival. If we need to control people's actions what activities would be addressed, modes of transportation, means of power generation for transportation and utility use, means of agriculture as far as types and methods, and city, industrial, and commercial planning, materials allowed to be manufactured to reduce the environmental footprint etc. If the demand for maintaining civilization at the level we are used to, but realizing what is called 'earth's carrying capacity', what would you do about our fast growing population, expected to reach it's maximum of 10.9 billion by the end of this century? Should we limit it to a 'reasonable' level. The following is a little data regarding earth's carrying capacity: 

This is a little unsettling considering that as of September 2017, the global population sits at 7.5 billion, and is continuing to grow by around 80 million people per year.

But whether we have 500 million people or one trillion, we still have only one planet, which has a finite level of resources. Considering our population will continue to rise for some time, how do we accommodate everyone? The answer comes back to resource consumption. People around the world consume resources differently and unevenly. An average middle-class American consumes 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and almost 250 times the subsistence level of clean water. So if everyone on Earth lived like a middle class American, then the planet might have a carrying capacity of around 2 billion. However, if people only consumed what they actually needed, then the Earth could potentially support a much higher figure.

But we need to consider not just quantity but also quality—Earth might be able to theoretically support over one trillion people, but what would their quality of life be like? Would they be scraping by on the bare minimum of allocated resources, or would they have the opportunity to lead an enjoyable and full life?

Perhaps Ghandi was right when he said ‘The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed’.

Considering that people in developed, westernised countries are not only the highest consumers of all resources, but also the largest producers of waste, it might be time to take stock of our own consumption patterns, and consider what part we can play in ensuring a healthy future not only for Earth, but everyone on it.

We already know auto emissions, livestock methane emissions, agricultural pesticide runoff, antibiotic excesses, and our general current processes to maintain our modern lifestyles are the causes of greenhouse gas excesses. It may be like blaming guns for killing people which is false. I've never heard of any gun hurting any person, unless a careless or aggressive human uses a gun to hurt people.

 

[452b264]

The biggest contributors of CO 2  in the world is china, they use massive coal plants for their power, just look at their air quality. Good luck getting them to follow regulations. 

[trphyhntr]

12 hours ago, Delw said:

Aside from the South of the border year round vacationer they caught in Oregon starting fires,  they caught this lady in flag for starting 2 fires.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizona_wildfires/coconino-county-sheriffs-office-locates-woman-who-may-be-connected-to-flagstaff-fires/article_dc722088-f75b-11ea-98a6-e7fa2b9bbdf4.html

 

I think tahts a total of 8 they caught now for starting various Forrest fires that were caused by "GLOBAL Warming"   and more to come.

 

 

When the Australia fires were found to be started by arsonists it got quiet pretty quick. 

[Non-Typical Solutions]

58 minutes ago, nw07heavy said:

You may have a good idea here. How would you control humans? What would you allow them to do? What would you not allow them to do? Would these controls be restricted to individuals, or would some or all governments need to adhere to these regulations you may propose? Would these proposals effectiveness be quantified by qualified scientific means? Once you determined the causes of the greenhouse gasses, would you really actually work to reduce them?

If the concept of global climate change is too deep for a socialist's (human's) mind, they would likely be too deep for a democrat's (human's) mind, a republican's (human's) mind, a centrist's (human's) a communist's (human's) mind, an anarchist's (human's) mind, or dictator's (human's) mind? You may have a point here. the concept is likely too deep for all the previous minds, which is a definite problem for our survival. If we need to control people's actions what activities would be addressed, modes of transportation, means of power generation for transportation and utility use, means of agriculture as far as types and methods, and city, industrial, and commercial planning, materials allowed to be manufactured to reduce the environmental footprint etc. If the demand for maintaining civilization at the level we are used to, but realizing what is called 'earth's carrying capacity', what would you do about our fast growing population, expected to reach it's maximum of 10.9 billion by the end of this century? Should we limit it to a 'reasonable' level. The following is a little data regarding earth's carrying capacity: 

This is a little unsettling considering that as of September 2017, the global population sits at 7.5 billion, and is continuing to grow by around 80 million people per year.

But whether we have 500 million people or one trillion, we still have only one planet, which has a finite level of resources. Considering our population will continue to rise for some time, how do we accommodate everyone? The answer comes back to resource consumption. People around the world consume resources differently and unevenly. An average middle-class American consumes 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and almost 250 times the subsistence level of clean water. So if everyone on Earth lived like a middle class American, then the planet might have a carrying capacity of around 2 billion. However, if people only consumed what they actually needed, then the Earth could potentially support a much higher figure.

But we need to consider not just quantity but also quality—Earth might be able to theoretically support over one trillion people, but what would their quality of life be like? Would they be scraping by on the bare minimum of allocated resources, or would they have the opportunity to lead an enjoyable and full life?

Perhaps Ghandi was right when he said ‘The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed’.

Considering that people in developed, westernised countries are not only the highest consumers of all resources, but also the largest producers of waste, it might be time to take stock of our own consumption patterns, and consider what part we can play in ensuring a healthy future not only for Earth, but everyone on it.

We already know auto emissions, livestock methane emissions, agricultural pesticide runoff, antibiotic excesses, and our general current processes to maintain our modern lifestyles are the causes of greenhouse gas excesses. It may be like blaming guns for killing people which is false. I've never heard of any gun hurting any person, unless a careless or aggressive human uses a gun to hurt people.

 

Exactly how do you and AOC measure ......... livestock methane emissions............in relation to greenhouse gas excess??? Seriously asking...............

[nw07heavy]

3 hours ago, Non-Typical Solutions said:

Exactly how do you and AOC measure ......... livestock methane emissions............in relation to greenhouse gas excess??? Seriously asking...............

Naw, no panic, until we reach the point no return, just stuff to mull over while reloading ammo on a quiet day. The amount of auto emissions is not derived at by measuring all motor vehicles everywhere. We can take one, or a few, measure the emissions amount from those and calculate for the number of estimated motor vehicles everywhere, based on government vehicle registrations. Ditto moo cows, etc. The amount of greenhouse gasses need to remain at or around what they have been for the approximately 800,000 years previously, measured in parts per million (ppm). Here's something which can illustrate where we have been over the past 800,000 years, then reaching the heavily industrialized levels of 1950, and then the worrisome level we reached in 2020. Just follow the ppm level line from left to right. You'll notice the slight ups and downs of CO2 but all in all it has been quite constant, and good for the earth until 1950. This spike is not my truck or your truck which is spiking CO2, but the entire realm of energy source usage for all we do, and heavy industrial anthropogenic activity.  This greenhouse effect creates increased flammability due to dryness, drought, famine, extreme weather, expensive extreme weather damage, and is already causing low level flooding, among other things. Global warming does not ignite fires like people do, but the high heat accompanying it does make any fires spread faster and burn hotter. This is what we need to fix, all of us, everywhere. Now, how it gets done will be by governmental action, but only by governments that recognize they have a lot to lose if they do not (and people mobilizing who can recognize what it will mean to their grandchildren and further generations). This has been a learning experience for us, and like anything else we learn and revise our solutions along the way. This is science. Greed and ignorance can and do cause resistance to remedies, but I suspect that certain soon encroaching imminent death for all, when the time comes, may make a better motivator. The problem is once we get past the point of no return, and how far we want to push a bad situation. We'll see.

If this don't roust the chickens at midnight I don't know what will. They'll probably want to don their oxygen masks.

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO₂ record.) 

[trphyhntr]

Lol.

[bigbuckfever]

"How would you control humans? What would you allow them to do? What would you not allow them to do?"  A recent "community organizer" has been and is still trying to do just this.  He started by trying to control the peoples heath care.  Once you control that, you got em by the short hairs and they bend easier to your will in other areas.  Forget the cows, now we're talking about sheep.

Not a fan.

[Delw]

5 hours ago, trphyhntr said:

When the Australia fires were found to be started by arsonists it got quiet pretty quick. 

Some chick in Oregon, held a Antifa looking homo wearing tights at gun point for arson.

 

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Pre 1950 I’m guessing it was a thermometer malfunction 😂

[muledeerarea33?]

California must of dun burned outa fuel! I’ve seen blue sky’s and sun the past two days. 

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Thank goodness for google between ppm and anthropogenic 😂