Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

USA Politics/Election Thread: Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Democrats, Republicans, et al.


DonLever

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Please don't use an icon to try and cover up your ignorance 

 

8 hours ago, 4petesake said:

George is the best! Now you do realize this performance is from 1992, right? I think we’ve learned a little about climate change since then. But hey, not all of us I guess.

Here's what me and I bet George believe . Let me know which part is ignorant or was not relevant in 1992. Credit to Mike Creamer.

 

An interesting, and for some reason emotionally charged, question. The full answer is quite long - this is highly abbreviated, but you can go look stuff up if you’re interested.

When it was formed, Earth had an atmosphere with high methane and CO2 levels, amongst other things, helpful at the time because we had a ‘young sun’ which produces way less radiation. So these greenhouse gasses held in the sun’s heat allowing early organisms to evolve. Some of these produced a highly poisonous (to them) gas called Oxygen, starting (slowly) about 2.7bn years ago.

Luckily for early photosynthesis the O2 mixed with the methane to give (more) CO2 and H2O. It’s called ‘The Great Oxidation Event’ if you’re interested. That was probably the peak of CO2, maybe 7,000ppm. But methane is a 25 times better greenhouse gas than CO2, so there was a minor cooling effect too.

About 750m years ago there was a giant ice age, despite the high CO2 levels. What triggered it is unknown, but with a sun that was at about 40% maximum output and an ‘insulating blanket’ that was being removed by O2 it’s probably just bad timing.

Glaciers were totally devastating for the ecology but there was no way to control the slow descent into a bitterly cold hell. Despite a ‘snowball earth’ and 200m years of glaciers, eventually the warming sun had an impact and the glaciers melted. This is an important point - the combination of solar radiation and greenhouse gasses defeated the glaciers and allowed life to start up again.

Imagine you’re in bed, it’s a hot night, and some fool puts a blanket on the bed. You heat up, probably in more ways than one. Another blanket, and you heat up more - not that you care, but for complex physics reasons you heat up less with the second blanket. Add five more blankets and, apart from your temper, there’s no impact from adding #6 through #10. And, importantly, taking away blankets makes no difference for a while - until you get to low numbers and suddenly one less blanket makes a big difference. Keep that image in mind.

500m years ago the CO2 had dropped to maybe 5,000ppm and kept on dropping - for various reasons. It got used to build plants and animals, it got stuck in the ground (as oil and coal), and it got bound up in rock weathering and sea shells. To an extent the drop in CO2 was balanced by a warming sun so the average temperature stayed at a global average of 26C (down from 32C) over that time. But also there were enough ‘blankets’ that removing some had little impact.

But about 50m years ago the CO2 started to drop below the level needed to sustain 26C and so the world got slowly colder, again, and 2.5m years ago we started our current ice age. But let’s be clear, CO2 doesn’t drive our temperatures- irradiation from the sun does. CO2 is the blanket on our bed - on a cold night we want more, on a hot night we want less. When you don’t have enough blankets, orbital mechanics (Milankovitch Cycles if you’re interested) decides if you’re having a hot night or a cold one, not your single blanket.

We’ve had about 40 warm periods during our current ice age, ‘interglacials’, and we are in one of those now. Out of interest, we lost a blanket along the way (CO2 dropped to an all time low of about 200ppm) and now the warm interglacials have moved from every 40k years to every 100k. We’re cooling down, possibly heading back to another snowball earth.

During an interglacial, for a brief period, we get enough irradiation to defeat the glaciers. Again, orbital mechanics at play. After that the glaciers come back, sometimes faster than others. To state the obvious the glaciers cover the planet and when they melt the sea level rises about 130m and we get clouds and rain - when the glaciers come back, the sea level drops and there is no rain (and therefore very little food). That is, melting populates the planet and glaciation kills the planet.

But the heated (excuse the pun) arguments about current global warming, to me, miss the point. Temperatures are undoubtedly increasing, currently about 15C, driven by orbital mechanics but helped by increasing CO2 (currently about 415ppm). These are facts. The problem is what comes next. Orbital mechanics means winter is coming, in about 1,500 years. Humanity might like to think that through. Those blankets may yet be useful.

The options are to manage the CO2 or not, but the discussion is about extremes and the implications are heavily disputed. The argument looks like this.

  1. If we don’t manage the CO2 then it will increase the temperatures and sea levels will rise. Because sea levels are already 120m higher than minimum we will get at most 10m more. Temperatures are 7C higher than minimum and could be 11C more. Thousands of humans will die, and other species will be hit too. There is a group who argue this is a catastrophe and it must be stopped.
  2. If we reduce the CO2, down to 210ppm (approximately the lowest ever level in earth’s history), then global warming will slow down today but we are entirely at the mercy of orbital mechanics- meaning within 1,500 years the glaciers start to return. There is a group who argue this is a catastrophe and it must be stopped.

I’m not saying 210ppm is wrong. As the sun continues to warm up, in 2bn years or so, that level will probably be enough to stop glaciation. But right now, at basically half strength, the sun alone is not enough. It’s all about timing.

Let’s be honest, for the past 40 times the return of the glaciers has not been kind. Not only do they sit 2km high over considerable land area, they kill a significant number of plants by cold air and no rain. With much reduced food production human deaths alone will be in the billions.

In my simple view of the world, on a scale of good to bad, glaciers are bad. Personally I would really prefer that we avoid the glaciers.

Best estimate is that preventing the glaciers with our current age sun requires a CO2 level of at least 500ppm, maybe as high as 700ppm. Would that create issues? Yes, of course. Billions of human deaths? No. If we had to choose between warming issues and glacier evil, I personally would choose the lesser evil. But maybe that’s not the choice.

Humanity can, at times, be great. And we can at times be fools. In my humble opinion what’s described above are just the two ends of the spectrum and arguing one or the other would make us fools. Somewhere between these is a level of ‘best’ that will give us most food production, least mosquitos, and no glaciers. It’s not a fixed number though.

As orbital mechanics cools our nights we need more insulation. As a warming sun heats our nights we need less. So what we NEED is control. Control of the insulation to have less when it’s hot and more when it’s cold. And some kind of agreement on what that ‘best temperature’ is that we need to aim for.

 
27 views
View upvotes
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 

 

So-called Christians eat this this up.  Here’s a guy that was jailed for defrauding this very target audience on a Jeebus TV network (not to mention this preacher was caught playing hide the salami with somebody that wasn’t his wife) is spreading this crap on yet another Jeebus network.  And no doubt this GOP target audience will believe it.

 

 

 

if the nasal ones turn us into zombies, what do the Chinese anal swabs do :shock:

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Moscow Mitch:  

 

"The next day, after reiterating his warning to corporations to “stay out of politics,” McConnell clarified that he did not mean to discourage their continued donations. Corporate money is speech, but speech isn’t speech."

 

Seriously, you can't make this **** up!

 

169C4811-56A1-4AE2-99E2-67305E2E69EC.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

I'm worried aboutcha buddy. 

Oh no, I'll do fine in the world you wished for. I fought against the bourgeousie, swamp, establishment, ruling class, bureaucracy etc. for your benefit, not mine. I get along fine with them. I was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chesster said:

Oh no, I'll do fine in the world you wished for. I fought against the bourgeousie, swamp, establishment, ruling class, bureaucracy etc. for your benefit, not mine. I get along fine with them. I was one.

A beneficiary of bureaucracy I mean. Have to figure out editing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

if the nasal ones turn us into zombies, what do the Chinese anal swabs do :shock:

 

 

Turns you into a white supremacist Republican.

Edited by Curmudgeon
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 

I actually employ the services of Mistress Diana to do that to me on Sundays but it ain't to test if I have COVID.:ph34r:

Great, Newbie on a stick. Now I have to try and get that picture out of my mind. :sick:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 

 

So-called Christians eat this this up.  Here’s a guy that was jailed for defrauding this very target audience on a Jeebus TV network (not to mention this preacher was caught playing hide the salami with somebody that wasn’t his wife) is spreading this crap on yet another Jeebus network.  And no doubt this GOP target audience will believe it.

 

 

Well they believe in an invisible sky daddy....they're a gullible lot. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta say, I don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed that my post total ITT is more than double the next closest poster and more than the combined totals of the #2 and #3 posters....:blush:

 

Also, it's a bit shocking that Harv and (to a lesser extent) Strome are still in the top 4. Goes to show just how dedicated a sh** disturber Harv was in the early days ....

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Gotta say, I don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed that my post total ITT is more than double the next closest poster and more than the combined totals of the #2 and #3 posters....:blush:

 

Also, it's a bit shocking that Harv and (to a lesser extent) Strome are still in the top 4. Goes to show just how dedicated a sh** disturber Harv was in the early days ....

Harv’s era was peak insanity in this thread. A true crap-flinging fight for the most part. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

Harv’s era was peak insanity in this thread. A true crap-flinging fight for the most part. 

I was mainly a lurker then but I can't help but think it was all part of an act.

 

(or at least I hope :lol:)

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I was mainly a lurker then but I can't help but think it was all part of an act.

 

(or at least I hope :lol:)

He actually admitted that it was.

 

I don't remember the exact situation, but there were a few times where I called him on his BS and challenged him to a "Loser deletes his account" bet....

 

After declining my offer a couple of times, he finally admitted that he was trying to get a rise out of people.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

 

Turns you into a white supremacist Republican.

I thought it would be communist.   Cuz ya know, the swab came from China.

Edited by BPA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

So, this means all the Trump supporters should love him now?

 

The article may be misleading or at least not enough info. 

From what i understand there has always been areas with a wall.

Are these the areas that need some renos/'gaps' filled in? If so, his claim to not build another foot of the wall may still be true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • DonLever changed the title to USA Politics/Election Thread: Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Democrats, Republicans, et al.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...