• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biggest threat to our environment

What is the biggest threat to the environment?

  • Over fishing

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Logging/deforestation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Invasive species

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
If that is so then why is the planet overall some 15% greener than it was 40 years ago according to MODIS/CSIRO satellite observational research data ? :unsure:
Human activity mostly. Believe it or not humans cannot live on fossil fuels. They are poisonous and carcinogenic.

Leafy green areas that have been added to the Earth's surface since 2000 and were catalogued by NASA satellite MODIS appeared because of reforestation as well as agricultural activity. Especially in China and India increased human activity has caused more areas to be covered with plants.

https://www.statista.com/chart/1723...een areas that have,to be covered with plants.
 
Plants like co2 levels at least 3 times higher than today for optimum growth as any commercial greenhouse owner will confirm. The current environmental levels actually represent a co2 impoverishment of the biosphere in reality
Such considerations are moot, since continued warming will bring mass disruption to human civilization which is predicated on current temperatures and sea levels.
 
Plants like co2 levels at least 3 times higher than today for optimum growth as any commercial greenhouse owner will confirm. The current environmental levels actually represent a co2 impoverishment of the biosphere in reality 🤔

The world is not a greenhouse.
 
I chose "Other" because several of the choices are interrelated. Overpopulation, Air Pollution, Deforestation, Human Activity go hand in hand
 
I've heard cow farts are bad.
 
Such considerations are moot, since continued warming will bring mass disruption to human civilization which is predicated on current temperatures and sea levels.

There is nothing wrong with current temperatures indeed they are well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia in both their level and rate of change

Holocene Interglacial.png

Its a colder world that would be by far the real threat to our civilization yet alarmists refuse to acknowledge this because you cant bash the West with it :rolleyes:

Cold-deaths-Lomborg.png
 
So why is it greening like one ? :unsure:

It's not a greenhouse not because it's greening but for the same reason it's not a submarine: it's not a controlled environment with few factors to consider. Rather, it's much more complicated than you imagine.
 
There is nothing wrong with current temperatures indeed they are well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia in both their level and rate of change

View attachment 67505726

Its a colder world that would be by far the real threat to our civilization yet alarmists refuse to acknowledge this because you cant bash the West with it :rolleyes:

View attachment 67505727

That's what I mean. For example, it's not mentioned that in the past CO2 emissions went up naturally at a rate of 30 ppm per thousand years. Now, it's around 1 ppm per year, or at least 14 times faster.

Deniers funded Berkeley Earth in order to come up with an independent assessment of the matter. The problem is that the study they funded ended up confirming NAS assessments:


The question is, what are the consequences of that? NAS argues that because the science is complex (ironically, a point made by deniers) then the consequences go in both directions: bifurcation as a result of complexity may lead to more unintended and negative consequences. That means not only more plants but also more anomalous heat that can lead to droughts, affect various animal species, and so on.

I suspect that BEST will come up with the same conclusions. Meanwhile, we're left with simpleton arguments about the world being like a submarine or a greenhouse: people will not only survive but will enjoy it while plants thrive.
 
There is nothing wrong with current temperatures indeed they are well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia in both their level and rate of change
Modern human civilization depends on modern climate conditions--not those of thousands of years ago.
 
I've heard cow farts are bad.
They aren't good. However, contrary to common belief, it's actually cow belching caused by a process called enteric fermentation that contributes to methane emissions.
 
That's what I mean. For example, it's not mentioned that in the past CO2 emissions went up naturally at a rate of 30 ppm per thousand years. Now, it's around 1 ppm per year, or at least 14 times faster.
Yep.
1713792143372.png
 
Human activity mostly. Believe it or not humans cannot live on fossil fuels. They are poisonous and carcinogenic.

Leafy green areas that have been added to the Earth's surface since 2000 and were catalogued by NASA satellite MODIS appeared because of reforestation as well as agricultural activity. Especially in China and India increased human activity has caused more areas to be covered with plants.

https://www.statista.com/chart/17230/earth-is-greener-than-20-years-ago-2000-2017/#:~:text=Leafy green areas that have,to be covered with plants.
The problem is that our massive population came into being because of the benefits we get from the high energy density
fuels we get from oil. To replace oil, we need something else that can fill the same functions.
Batteries are not going to fill the role.
 
The world is not a greenhouse.
the atmosphere is like one giant greenhouse. that is why they call it the greenhouse effect.

Do you know how greenhouses work?
 
They aren't good. However, contrary to common belief, it's actually cow belching caused by a process called enteric fermentation that contributes to methane emissions.
What a stupid title.

Both belching and farts are called flatulence.

Shows how stupid those agenda drive journal majors are controlling that sub-site.
 
What a stupid title.
Both belching and farts are called flatulence.
Shows how stupid those agenda drive journal majors are controlling that sub-site.
I bet you're popular at parties. "Mister Fun" himself. :cool:
 
the atmosphere is like one giant greenhouse. that is why they call it the greenhouse effect.
Do you know how greenhouses work?
Here's a great explainer:

Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet

"In its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientific experts from countries all over the world, concluded that it is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere."
 
The problem is that our massive population came into being because of the benefits we get from the high energy density
fuels we get from oil. To replace oil, we need something else that can fill the same functions.
Batteries are not going to fill the role.
Batteries do a fine job of replacing gasoline in EV's. There energy density is less but the efficiency of electric motors and energy recovery during braking make a huge difference. Only 25% of the energy in gasoline goes toward moving the vehicle. The rest is wasted as heat.
 
Batteries do a fine job of replacing gasoline in EV's. There energy density is less but the efficiency of electric motors and energy recovery during braking make a huge difference. Only 25% of the energy in gasoline goes toward moving the vehicle. The rest is wasted as heat.
Batteries do an alight job of replacing small passenger cars for local trips.
If your use is beyond that, it gets much more challenging.
Tow a boat, camper or a horse trailer, or take long trips often, that is where the energy density of batteries
and the long recharge times show their limitations.
I do not think regular gasoline cars are up to a 25% Carnot Efficiency, closer to 20%.
I read the new Camry hybrid is close to a 40% Carnot efficiency (and gets 51 mpg).
my little hybrid maverick truck at 43 mpg is likely close to that.
BEV are not without their losses ether, but from the power plant to the wheel.
Power plant to home is a loss of between 8 and 15%, call it 10%.
Battery charging losses another 14% and another 10% from the battery to the wheels.
How big are Power line losses?
Model 3 home charging efficiency
Aug 9, 2020 — Working the numbers, one would expect somewhere around 85.7% charging efficiency.
Tesla Tells Us How It Keeps Beating Nearly Everyone in
Sep 18, 2020 — Tesla told Car and Driver that the motor in the Model S has gone from 80 percent efficient to 90 percent,
All told from the generator to the wheel if one started with 1000 watts,
900 watts would make it to the home, 774 to the battery, and 697 to the wheel.
so at that point you are at an efficiency of 69%, but depending on what energy powers the power plant,
you could easily be half of that, as any heat engine (Gas, Nuclear, coal, is likely below 50% thermal efficiency).
I wish they would do more work on plug in hybrids, perhaps roof top solar panels.
 
Modern human civilization depends on modern climate conditions--not those of thousands of years ago.

No modern climate conditions are currently excellent for humans and continue improving if one just looks at the precedents over the last century :)

Disasters-climate-related.png
 
There is nothing wrong with current temperatures indeed they are well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia in both their level and rate of change

View attachment 67505726

Its a colder world that would be by far the real threat to our civilization yet alarmists refuse to acknowledge this because you cant bash the West with it :rolleyes:

View attachment 67505727
The climate chart of Christian Dietrich Schonweiss and a blog from Twitter? 😂😂😂😂
 
Last edited:
No modern climate conditions are currently excellent for humans and continue improving if one just looks at the precedents over the last century :)


View attachment 67505858

But according to NAS and even BEST, problems involving AGW started in the 1970s, when CO2 ppm exceeded 300. Meanwhile, the decline in fatalities started in the 1920s.

According to this, what's been driving that isn't a decrease in anomalous weather conditions but technology and resources used against natural disasters:


But there's another problem not mentioned, and it's resource damage. Recall the large-scale forest fires affecting arable land in Russia two decades ago and flooding affecting factories in Bangkok and mines in Australia, not to mention drought leading to famine which is said to have been the real source of civil war in Syria.

In short, coupled with a decline in fatalities due to natural disasters and cheap mitigation there are also the other effects of disasters which cut down global GDP rate increase by a third, in turn affecting availability of the same resources needed for mitigation.
 
Back
Top Bottom