UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

and not simply your opinion.

...climate change...as I haven't seen any glaciers...the entire time I've lived here.

but maybe the fabulous lifestyle you enjoy while sitting atop your hill should be preserved for decades to come by celebrating the opportunity to do something about the now fast moving global climate crisis.

There are multitudes of science papers and programs as well as vast amounts of recorded anecdotal accounts of the self destruction of our now lifestyles by man available for reference. All one needs to do is look. It’s difficult from your lofty perch I know but it is there for the caring. ;-)

like it over the last 800,000 years?...we're already at 416 ppm, and at current FF burning rates, in 80 years we'll be near double the amount of CO2 currently in our atmosphere...pushing 800 ppm, and almost triple what it was when the glaciers receded...imagine how that will look on the graph (just get out your 'Sharpie' ;-)).

btw, the glaciers were formed when CO2 was at 180 ppm...they receded when the level was near 300 ppm...just think what 800 ppm will do to the glaciers we currently have...think it might have any effect on this planet's environment?...seriously...what do you think might happen?

The climate has always changed. There is a consensus on that. No one challenges that.

But, the left tries to trap people into denying "it" by equating "Climate Change" with "Urgently Harmful, Anthropogenic Global Warming." You use the former term to refer to the latter concept. Then when someone tries to deny the latter concept using your term for it, you retreat to the more generally accepted meaning of CC, and try to ridicule your debate opponent by pretending that their policy disagreement with you is really a disagreement with science, which it is not. You (the Left) switch definitions when it suits you, and that is disingenuous, and shows that you really do not want to have an honest discussion on the issues; you just want to shut down debate from people who don't want to increase the national debt with nothing to show for it.

As for me, my disagreement regards how harmful and how urgent it is. After all, Global Warming has occurred, and there is no doubt that it has been the single greatest natural event that has happened to humanity. It allowed civilization to develop. Chicago would be under a mile of ice without it. Mankind would have never left Africa to dominate the world. The oceans have been rising for 18,000 years, long before the first internal combustion engine was built. Alaska used to be united with Siberia by a 1000 mile wide continent-sized "bridge." England and Ireland used to be a part of the mainland of Europe. People lived in caves 160 meters below sea level near the coast of Spain. The question for me isn't whether we can stop it...I don't think we can. (And, we are near a natural peak anyway; and global cooling is a far greater threat to humanity.) It is too costly to stop it, and we won't be able to get countries like China and India to do it, and unilateral action by the US will only harm Americans for no reason since it will not achieve the stated goal. Therefore, it is better to adapt. And, humans are good at adapting.

Either way, I know this: Global Warming cannot be successfully managed by putting the last great free country into existential threatening debt by spending like a drunken sailor to line the pockets of Democrat donors with government handouts. If the Left took this threat seriously, they would be calling for austerity on non-CC projects, but they don't. So, that tells us that it is just an excuse to justify more government spending.

ppm, with no let up (see link)...if we continue to burn FFs at our current rate, in 80 years the concentration will be TRIPLE what is was when those glaciers receded...btw, the estimated CO2 concentration during the last ice age was 180 ppm...does that not give you pause?

There is a momentum to these Climate Changes...CO2 takes a long time to be absorbed by oceans and the biosphere... some never comes out of the atmosphere, so we can never just 'flip a switch' make it all our troubles go away....we have to act now to minimize the damage.

Again...we'll be burning FFs to "keep the plane flying" for awhile...hopefully, not too long as we hopefully adopt a new worldwide energy strategy that includes Nuclear Power, Renewables and as little FFs as possible...as I've said before, China has over 220 nuclear plants in various stages of development, and Russia is operating the world's largest Fast Breeder Reactor...we need to get moving...hopefully, together.

I always have to put in this reminder...the EIA, BP and others, all say we have but 47 years of "Proven" oil reserves...and right now, we're reduced to having to squeeze it out of rocks...no one's stumbling across big pools of oil...(note that the Alaska drilling project is predicted to give the U.S. just 6 months of additional reserves)..."Un-proven" reserves 'might' increase those numbers by a factor of 3-6...but, we are not in "High Cotton" when it comes to oil, and we REALLY need it for other uses....unless you don't expect civilization to last all that much longer.


Link: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That is just an ad hominem attack. Logical fallacies are used to support arguments that cannot be supported with logic. You show weakness when you say that.

We disagree on expected harm, magnitude of expected harm, urgency of need for action, and what types of action are warranted. None of those things are dictated by science as fact. I can disagree with your entire policy, without "denying climate change."

Policy makers use science as an input to the decision process. We elect policy makers who weigh the inputs, and decide the policies. That's the way it should be for climate change. That's the way it should be for pandemics. You guys always try to denigrate and diminish your opponent by saying your opponents deny science, when, of course, they are not denying science at all, they are just disagreeing with you on policies. Science does not dictate government action.

So far, the policies I see implemented just benefit Dem donors and gin up the Dem voters with fears, while not solving the global problem. When you have a global solution, come talk to me. When you are counseling for government austerity, I will know you are serious. I have said many times I would cut every government program 20% on day one, and reduce further. Once we get our financial house in order, we can do something...but only if other nations follow, and of course, they will not. So, we should just work on adaptation, not tilting at windmills like you want us to do.

Fossil fuels will run low eventually. Until then, we should work on will replace them. I support nuclear, of course. It is the cleanest energy production we have (although, we need to use reactors that won't meltdown if electricity gets cut to them suddenly, like Fukushima, and almost every reactor in the US.

atmospheric CO2 levels far above what they have been for 800,000 years...and, if we don't stop what we're doing right now, we're headed for a doubling of that concentration in 80 years..

We know for sure that glaciers will melt...indeed, reports show them melting already...also, established agricultural regions are under stress now...I viewed a report on, I think it was '60 Minutes that showed numerous vineyards in France were suffering from a fungus due to warmer temperatures and their entire crop was ruined...first time ever...while at the same time, new vineyards in England were now producing the exact same grapes...i.e. the climate had shifted north by just enough to make them successful...a small, but telling example of what the future might hold..

In truth, we don't know exactly what the problems will be, or how significant each one could be...but we know they COULD be massive, IF we keep pumping unnaturally high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere...it's not very smart to appreciate that the potential damage could indeed be large and simply not do anything about it.

Also, given that oil and gas supplies are limited, why burn them up when other energy sources can provide the same benefit without producing CO2?...The Democratic Party has been crystal clear on their policy...shift our energy strategy away from FFs to Nuclear and Renewables (where appropriate)...however, in a representative democracy, those things don't get done without legislation, and right now, the GOP has not publicized a strategy...in fact, all the CC deniers are Republicans...so they are impeding any serious progress...personally, I think there are responsible GOPers who would support the same plan as the Dems (e.g. the bi-partisan Infrastructure Bill has significant funding for new GEN-IV reactors), so there is hope...IF responsible legislators are elected and not the Trump followers, who by definition, are irresponsible. (Note: the Dems have their own issues with a fringe element of rabid anti-nukes)

To me, it's an easy call...a) we forestall a major shock to our planet's ecosystem, and b) save our precious FFs for their unique uses for millennia by recycling them instead of destroying them...by switching over to Nuclear and Renewables for heat and transportation.

We need to come together on this to speed the creation of a strategy and plan of action that takes EVERYONE into account...even those in the O&G industry who have helped get our civilization to this point...I thank them for all the good that they've done (in spite of some not-so-good things)...and hope that this transition creates as little pain as possible.

(no message)

woods has what’s known as Boulder Field (you can google it and see the pictures) It’s about two football fields long with nothing but boulders. This was a result of when the glacier receded 10k years ago and left these boulders. So if the glacier came down this far years ago, why did it recede? Because the earth warmed. A convenient fact that liberals seem to ignore.

(no message)

(no message)

All you do is float theories and opinions from your endless cache of left leaning websites.

Who actually IS paying your wages?

Looks something like this...

>Before the Industrial Age....1,900 GTns of CO2
>Industrial Age additions......1,300 GTns (Total Now: 3,200 GTns)
>Annual additions......................40 GTns
>Time to remove CO2 from the atmosphere..........20-200 yrs, for 'most' of the CO2, but not all

Now fast forward 80 yrs (approximate newborn's lifetime)...that's 40 x 80 = 3,200 GTns added at "current" rates...or a near "Doubling" of of today's CO2 concentration (not counting some degree of 'scrubbing' out)...or 3.37 times what the pre-industrial age concentration was....note that global temperatures are indeed rising (Google "Roy Spences Global Temperature Data" to see his very accurate satellite data chart from 1978 to now)...it is not to anyone's advantage to delay the process of shifting away from FFs.

Please explain to everyone here that a Tripling of the earth's CO2 atmospheric concentration in 80 years WON'T have ANY negative impact our our...or our children/grandchildren's lives...in spite of the fact that global temperatures ARE RISING in response to increasing amounts of a greenhouse gas....note that the average CO2 concentration before the Industrial Revolution had been at 280 ppm..for several hundred thousand years...now in less than 200 years our atmospheric concentration is 416 ppm...and climbing steadily.

Surely, you have comforting data and analyses to will make all the 195+ Paris Agreement nations breathe a sigh of relief...and cause all the car manufacturers of the world to return to a Fossil Fuel Only energy policy...PLEASE...WE'RE ALL BEGGING YOU...show us your data!

Let me know when you are willing to take this issue seriously by cutting government spending on almost every current spending project to re-allocate it to forcing China and India to address the issue.

be no negative impact due to the steadily rising temperatures I've shown in previous links?...the ball is in your court for a change...do some real work instead of throwing spitballs...

of course this is all rhetorical...there is no such data, study or analysis...you don't want to admit the obvious...for any number of reasons...too lazy...it's a "Lib" issue, so you're not interested...take your pick.

This is real...the stakes are incredibly high...big changes need to be made, and the sooner everyone understands why, be better off we'll be. Right now, you and others who won't even put in a moments worth of serious investigation and education are voters who will be prolonging the adoption of those changes...real 'boat anchors' to progress.

...so, stop acting childish and face reality...get educated and stop being a speed bump.

If the stakes were high, you would act like they were high. You don't, because you support all kinds of debt inducing nonsense that could be used to stop this supposed existential threat. Given your party's voting record, you do not actually believe there is an existential threat. We actually agree on this. What we don't agree on is your cynical use of fear to garner votes. You use CC to generate false fear to harvest votes. I think it is the same with your race mongering. I think you realize that this is a systemically fair country, and you seek to make it otherwise through racial favoritism solely to power your political engine. It is all about political power with you, not about solving problems.

In the end, you are the one with the burden of proof about harm, and there is no science regarding future harm, just speculation that the past (in which global warming was an undeniable benefit to humanity) will somehow be different than the future. That is the opposite of science. I made my case; you decline to comment on it. I will continue to vote against you, as you act like this is not serious by not calling for austerity and failing to put forth a reasonable plan. I will continue to plan on human adaptation, which has carried the day for many millennia. And I will continue to believe you will continue to act as you do, making bald plays for power based on the generation of fear.

electric vehicle yet to save the planet.

(no message)

'Climate Change' (titles don't matter to me), then I'm at a loss as to why you don't simply say that it's because of mankind's burning of FFs and that needs to be sharply diminished...let's get that part "perfectly clear" before moving onto politics and strategies for dealing with the problem...which I'm happy to discuss.

Climate Change is changing climate. Always happens, ever since the beginning of the Earth. I assume we agree on that. There is general scientific consensus on that.

Global Warming is climate change that warms the Earth. There can be Global Cooling as well. Climate is cyclical. Most recently, the Earth has been warming naturally since the beginning of the end of the last Ice Age. Man had nothing to do with it. We are near a natural peak, such that if man had never lit a campfire, we still would have seen warming all this time, on average (setting aside dips like the Little Ice Age). I assume we agree on that. There is general scientific consensus on that.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is man-made global warming. I'm sure we agree that mankind is contributing something to global warming, whether minimally, or substantively. That is an easy thing to agree on. We likely disagree on the magnitude, and the potential irreversibility of it.

Beneficial Global Warming is helpful to man. I pointed out that the natural global warming we've seen for the past 18,000 years has been immensely beneficial to humankind. Can you agree that mankind is better off without a mile of ice over Canada, northern US, Europe and Northern Russia? If you can agree with that, then we can talk about what is changing to make it bad in the future. But, if you can't agree it has been good up to this point, then I don't see the point of talking further if you are willing to deny historical fact.

Harmful Global Warming is harmful to man. This is a judgement about the future, not a proven scientific principle. (Climate science is not like predicting the action of a billiard ball on a pool table.) We likely disagree on this aspect, or even if we agree, we likely disagree on solutions which are possible and when those solutions should be implemented, and whether we should be wasting money on Dem & GOP bullshit in the face of this threat.

Imminently Harmful Global Warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) requires immediate action. We likely disagree on whether immediate action is required, what that immediate action should be, and whether immediate action is even possible given current geopolitical realities.

The above is why I don't simply say that it's because of mankind's burning of FFs (99.999% of it has not been due to mankind burning FF) and that needs to be sharply diminished (it will be sharply diminished when we run out of most of it this century...the question is, can we get other nations to stop using it? We cannot. Virtue signaling, like with the Paris Agreement, is harmful, not helpful, since it makes people think change is happening when it is not.

fossil fuels...so given that ice core data has been gathered since the 1950's to learn what CO2 concentrations were hundreds of thousands of years ago, and current data from observatories, like Mauna Loa are highly accurate, we know that for the last 800,000 years...including ice ages and warming periods...CO2 never exceeded a band of between 180 and 300 ppm...we are now at 416 ppm and headed for 800 ppm at current rates of CO2 production from fossil fuels (see my earlier posts).

What do you think this dramatic increase will do to the existing glaciers we currently have?...never mind the likely effect on jet streams and ocean currents that are powered by the sun's energy trapped in our atmosphere. Will there be fluctuations?...certainly...most likely due to Milankovitch Cycles...but the trend in temperature is inexorably upwards...and rapid.

btw, no need to play word games...we're talking CO2 concentrations rising that will produce higher and higher global temperatures...again, there will be fluctuations...there will be winters and snowfalls, but the average temps will rise and power major environmental changes...far too quickly for mankind to deal with ''at our leisure'.

As to the urgency of this issue...note that it takes 20-200 years to 'scrub out' a significant portion of that added CO2...once we add it to the atmosphere, we can't just undo the damage, so the sooner we stop burning those FFs, the less stress we, our kids and grandkids will be under.

Oh, there's another thing...there stakes for blowing this, are very, very high...so if you really don't want to take action, you'd better be darn sure you're right...which is why I'm asking you and others to explain yourselves with convincing arguments.

Just for example, without petroleum, will we revert back to wood and metal for everything?...bye-bye plastics??

I don't care about preserving glaciers.

The "likely" effects are unknown. Mankind will have to adapt, like we always have. Without a global authoritarian government, there is no way to get other nations to stop their bad environmental behavior. Indeed, many Leftists will argue that they can continue because of anti-colonial equity or some such theory. There is no global solution.

And as far as urgency...I don't see it from the people who say it is urgent. They are still putting our country into an existential threat level of debt on things that are totally unrelated. They are borrowing from future generations to pay people today for "equity." When your side stops borrowing from the future, I will stand up and take notice, and give you credit for actually being concerned about the future.

proven oil reserves...a bit more for gas reserves (--> plastics), but still, not all that long a horizon...actually, this realization is what got me to "take my talents" to a nuclear Fast Reactor project back in 1974 ;-)...that, and the political shock of the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo...btw, acceptance of the 'Global Warming' issue took a bit longer, so I can appreciate your reluctance...nonetheless, back to our shared concern...

This is by any definition a major issue that MUST be addressed...i.e. we need to shift away from the practice of incinerating a unique and precious resource, to other energy sources that provide the same benefit (heat and motive power), yet are vastly more sustainable and more accessible by everyone (and thereby preserving FFs for better uses)...Nuclear Power, and Renewables (where appropriate).

We can do this...all we need to do is gather conservatives like you and liberals like me...Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, Corey Booker and others to demand a plan of action and then implement it. Sadly, right now the GOP position is MORE consumption of FFs, with no acknowledgement of the near term horizon we both see...on the other side, there is a Dem contingent that refuses to accept nuclear power....that's got to change.

Can we find a way to work together on this?

NOTE: you may have seen the link before, but I've included it for your convenience, and that of any other viewers who hadn't seen it...it's a great, un-emotional overview of the challenge and possible strategies for dealing with it...whether you believe in FF shortage, or Global Warming...or both.


Link: https://withouthotair.com

Jesus you're a fucking bore. It's clear now after all your hard work you can't save the great unwashed from themselves. We're an irredeemable lot destined to wallow in our own ignorance until our insatiable lust for oil consumes us all.

Nothing more can be done here. You have cast your pearls before swine, Tyrone. Go now my son. Rest your weary mind and care no more for we heathens. One day, our children's children may look again for someone like you to hoist our unworthy souls from the muck to follow the guidance you have faithfully laid before us here. You have come before your time, sadly. Whilst your earnest efforts may go unrewarded in this life know that your legacy will echo in eternity!

(no message)

was this too big a task for you?

btw, this is a forum with my university's name on it...I'm not going anywhere...deal with it ;-).

(no message)

You may have gone there. Although your dishonesty makes one doubt the veracity of this claim. But make no mistake you shit on ND everyday. I know subways that are more Notre Dame man than you'll EVER claim to be...

virtually every thread here has opposing views...but what makes things work on this forum is posters sticking as close as possible to the subject matter and trying to present their opinions convincingly...doesn't always work, but occasionally points are scored...and...occasionally, someone you wouldn't think of, agrees with you...

Now, back to Climate Change...do you, as Ned apparently does, agree that mankind is pushing the CO2 level in the atmosphere up above its naturally established level?...if so, does a level of 800 ppm in 80 years worry you, when it used to be no higher than 300 ppm for 800,000 years?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)