Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Earth Day ' Restore our Earth ' ...what would it take ? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848094)

  • Apr 24, 2021, 05:44 AM
    tomder55
    Earth Day ' Restore our Earth ' ...what would it take ?
    All this green talk got me wondering about what it would take to "restore our Earth " (whatever that means ) . I think it is a whole lot of Malthusian nonsense .

    Restore our Earth proposed to focus on " natural processes, emerging green technologies, and innovative thinking that can restore the world’s ecosystems. In this way, the theme rejects the notion that mitigation or adaptation are the only ways to address climate change. "
    Toolkit | Earth Day 2021: Restore Our Earth | Earth Day

    To what condition should the Earth be restored to ? Humans have impacted the earth environment for over 5,000 years and probably more (I based that on when agrarian society roughly began) .

    Do we want to restore the earth to pre-industrial revolution ;a time when human life expectancy was less than 30 years ? Today the average life expectancy is over 70 years .Median age has increased from 21.5 in 1970 to 30.9 in 2020.

    Maybe go back to the 1970s where 8.4/100,000 people died from famine compared to 0.5/100,000 in the last decade?

    Do we wish to reverse some of the positive gains to the human condition that advances have made ? Death rates from air pollution per 100,000 declined from 111.3 in 1990 to 63.8 in 2017.Deaths from poor people burning dung, crop waste, charcoal, and coal for heat and cooking- has declined from 5.8% to 2.9 % over that same period .
    Human emissions of ozone depleting gasses have declined from 215,000 tons in 1961 to 155,000 tons in 2014. (Natural emissions are about 165,000 tons annually.)Deaths from polluted water has declined from 4.5 percent in 1990 to 2.2 percent in 2017 Death from unsafe sanitation has declined from 31.4/100,000 to 10.7/100,000 .

    So restore the earth to when ?????????? ...a time where humans were smaller ,poorer per capita and had a shorter life expectancy ??????
    My own sense is the the environmentalists believe humans are the plague that has to be eradicated .
  • Apr 24, 2021, 06:43 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    All this green talk got me wondering about what it would take to "restore our Earth " (whatever that means )

    Pretty simple. It means to stop polluting the environment. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Reminds me of how some people can't understand "Black Lives Matter". They think it means ONLY black lives matter, when it obviously refers to the careless and murderous killing of unarmed blacks by cops.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 06:58 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Pretty simple. It means to stop polluting the environment. Why is that so hard to understand?
    if it was that simple . you mean simplistic .

    Like JFKerry telling the climate conference that not only do we need to go carbon neutral ; but we need "to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere."

    Again ,no thought process there . Carbon dioxide is an essential gas . But let's rush to it because Greta and All Out Crazy say we only have a few years left

    "And that means we need the innovative technologies to do that, or to be able to know that we can store it and – or turn it into something. We haven’t discovered that yet."
    John Kerry's Closing Remarks at Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate - United States Department of State John Kerry Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate Day One Closing Remarks
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:08 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Like JFKerry telling the climate conference that not only do we need to go carbon neutral ; but we need "to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere."

    Could the context have referred to EXCESS carbon dioxide? Too much can cause all life on earth to die.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:37 AM
    tomder55
    John (a private jet is the only choice for someone like me ) should lead by example . Maybe he can start by sucking all the Co2 from his jet .

    What level of C02 in the atmosphere is excessive ? During the Ordovician period atmospheric CO2 concentration was at 3000 to 9000 ppm! Still the average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today's temps .

    There were also higher concentrations during the Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods.

    The assumption is that Co2 levels are the only drivers of climate change . It is not . I can think of at least 3 other non-anthropological reasons that the climate changes ...volcanic activity ; solar cycles ; El Nino in the Pacific .
  • Apr 24, 2021, 08:26 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    John (a private jet is the only choice for someone like me ) should lead by example

    Legitimate point. But not really germane.

    Quote:

    The assumption is that Co2 levels are the only drivers of climate change
    No one has made that assumption. It gets publicity because it is relatively easy for the average person to understand.

    Quote:

    I can think of at least 3 other non-anthropological reasons that the climate changes ...volcanic activity ; solar cycles ; El Nino in the Pacific .
    That does not eliminate man-made causes.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 09:46 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    "to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere."
    That was a really funny comment and reflects perfectly the non-thinking approach to so many subjects. There is, at present, no technology available or even conceivable which could "suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere" in anything that even comes within sight of meaningful amounts. He might as well have suggested we "suck the excess heat out of the atmosphere", or that we simply cool off the sun in some marginal amount. And in an age of beyond reckless spending and deficits, with no solution in sight for any of that, to propose these kinds of massive spending programs would be laughable if not for the fact that he, and other liberal dems like him, actually take all of this seriously.

    It's beyond incredible.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 11:29 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    It's beyond incredible.


    "And in terms of innovation, there are great possibilities, I think, and I’ve been amazed by the number of countries that are already really chasing after green hydrogen, blue hydrogen. And hydrogen, I think, is something that makes a lot of us salivate a little bit. "
  • Apr 24, 2021, 12:08 PM
    jlisenbe
    Hydrogen is an attractive fuel in that the only product of combustion is water. Now coming up with lots of hydrogen?? There’s the rub, and water vapor is a green house gas itself.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 01:04 PM
    Athos
    Tomder --

    How do you explain the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making? Also, ordinary run-of-the-mill scientists in agreement?
  • Apr 24, 2021, 01:41 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    How do you explain the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making?
    Very simple. The basic premise (the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making?) is not true.

    Quote:

    If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
    Quote:

    2. How do we know the 97% agree?
    To elaborate, how was that proven?
    Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.
    Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
    One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
    Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
    This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
    But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
    Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
    The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
    “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...h=1bb7e5623f9f

    Quote:

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) What We Know site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening."
    That is far, far removed from your "catastrophe" addition.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...global-warming
  • Apr 24, 2021, 03:09 PM
    paraclete
    The catastrophe is that many people believe this new religion
  • Apr 24, 2021, 03:31 PM
    jlisenbe
    All too true.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 04:32 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Tomder --

    How do you explain the great majority of climate scientists warning that man-made climate change is a not very distant catastrophe in the making? Also, ordinary run-of-the-mill scientists in agreement?



    When did science become something of consensus? Can a skeptic get funding to do research ? Consensus is the business of politics. Think the Goracle who in 2006 made a fortune by claiming the earth sea levels would rise by 20 feet in the near future . Still waiting . The sea levels have not significantly changed since then. (he also admitted that he used his influence as a climate guru to promote ethanol . He later admitted to that being a hoax to prop up corn producers. )



    Science only needs one person to be right and then the consensus becomes irrelevant even if the 'great majority' disagree .
    I have seen consensus proven wrong too many times . Galileo is too easy . How about all that consensus in the 1970s that said that a coming ices age was the result of anthropologic activity ?


    Remember when that hole in the ozone layer was going to lead to human extinction ?


    'We want action now !'is the battle cry . What action ? That is less clear . ]Nobody ever seems to articulate very well what the action entails except it involved more tax and spend ;more power to the leviathan ,with more control over citizens and how they live their lives . The pattern is the same . The left seizes on the idea that we are in crisis and then acts the way Rahm Emanuel advised ..... don't let a crisis go to waste .
    Quote:

    The catastrophe is that many people believe this new religion
    https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.9434...97ab1c12de.jpg
  • Apr 24, 2021, 04:37 PM
    jlisenbe
    https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...47&oe=60A9FB21
  • Apr 24, 2021, 06:11 PM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    When did science become something of consensus?

    Science has always been about consensus. I'm surprised you appear not to know that, or criticize it. A theory is proposed after research (sometimes years) is tested, and is tested again. The testing goes on until science is satisfied the theory is correct. The tests may have been done thousands of times yielding the same result until a consensus is formed. That's how science becomes science.

    Your idea of consensus is more like a political compromise. That is NOT scientific consensus. You may also be confusing consensus with prediction based on observation. Predictions are never 100% but they are never 0% either. One prediction that is coming true is the rise in sea level.

    Sea level rise is significant over the last 25 years and is the result of global warming leading to future (not very distant) catastrophic coastal flooding affecting 300 million people. Global warming melts glaciers (observed) and water expands as temperatures increase taking up more volume (proven science). The attached Forbes article below estimates this starting to occur by 2050.


    Quote:

    'We want action now !'is the battle cry. Nobody ever seems to articulate very well what the action entails except it involved more tax and spend ;more power to the leviathan ,with more control over citizens and how they live their lives . The pattern is the same . The left seizes on the idea that we are in crisis
    I appreciate your including this last paragraph. It tells me what I suspected all along. The opposition comes from the right-wing and it is not about science at all, it is about politics. I needed to see it in black-and-white, which you have done. Thank you.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobs...h=2c305b40456c
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:08 PM
    Wondergirl
    Have you seen the Texas-size area of discarded plastic that's in the Pacific, or the incredibly enormous sea of discarded plastic near the Philippines? And there are too many more sites to count! Animals (birds and large fish) get trapped in discarded fishing nets and plastic bags, land mammals get their heads stuck in the mouths of mostly empty and discarded glass and plastic jars.

    We are killing this Earth!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GBJjKaX7u8

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yomf5pBN8dY

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jCmYUQ1Q88
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:19 PM
    paraclete
    the petrochemical industries are to blame, every product should be sold with a requirement to be recycled
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:43 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    Have you seen the Texas-size area of discarded plastic that's in the Pacific, or the incredibly enormous sea of discarded plastic near the Philippines?
    One of the great exaggerations on the planet. There are some patches of plastic, but hardly the entire area. At any rate, what does that have to do with climate change?
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:59 PM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    One of the great exaggerations on the planet.

    The Pacific patch is between 275,300 and 698,000 square miles depending on how it is measured. Texas is about 270,000 square miles. The patch is three times the size of France.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 07:59 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    One of the great exaggerations on the planet. There are some patches of plastic, but hardly the entire area. At any rate, what does that have to do with climate change?

    Sorry to disappoint you -- not an exaggeration.

    Please google how all that trash and plastic is affecting the climate. I'd give you links but you will trash them.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UynITtG7HLE
  • Apr 24, 2021, 08:24 PM
    jlisenbe
    And in most of it, there is no plastic. People try to conjure up images of solid masses of large plastic materials. That simply is not true.

    Quote:

    Garbage patches aren’t a solid patch. The name conjures images of a floating landfill in the middle of the ocean, with miles of bobbing plastic bottles and rogue yogurt cups. While it's true that these areas have a higher concentration of plastic than other parts of the ocean, much of the debris found in these areas are small bits of plastic, or microplastics, smaller than 5mm in size that are suspended throughout the water column. The debris is more like flecks of pepper floating throughout a bowl of soup, rather than a skim of fat that accumulates or sits on the surface. Microplastics are nearly ubiquitous today in the marine environment and may come from larger pieces of plastic that have broken down over time, from fleece jackets or plastic microbeads added to face scrubs. The impacts of these microplastics on marine life is an area of active research.
    https://response.restoration.noaa.go...e-vs-myth.html

    Quote:

    I'd give you links but you will trash them.
    In other words, you have no links. Thankfully, I do.

    Are garbage patches really islands of trash that you can actually walk on?
    Quote:

    Nope! Although garbage patches have higher amounts of marine debris, they’re not “islands of trash” and you definitely can’t walk on them. The debris in the garbage patches is constantly mixing and moving due to winds and ocean currents. This means that the debris is not settled in a layer at the surface of the water, but can be found from the surface, throughout the water column, and all the way to the bottom of the ocean. Not only that, the debris within the garbage patches is primarily microplastics, tiny plastic pieces less than five millimeters in size. Many of these microplastics are the result of larger plastic debris that has broken into small pieces from exposure to the sun, salt, wind, and waves. Others, such as microbeads from products like facewashes or microfibers from synthetic clothing, are already small in size when they enter the water. With such small debris items making up the majority of the garbage patches and the constant movement of this debris, it’s possible to sail through a garbage patch without even realizing it.
    The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the size of Texas and you can see it from space!
    Quote:

    Not so much. Since the garbage patches are constantly moving and mixing with winds and ocean currents, their size continuously changes. They can be very large, but since they’re made up primarily of microplastic debris, they definitely can’t be seen from space.
    https://response.restoration.noaa.go...e-patches.html

    Both of those links, you will notice, are from NOAA.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 08:29 PM
    Wondergirl
    Did you look at the videos I posted?
  • Apr 24, 2021, 08:44 PM
    jlisenbe
    I looked at two, neither of which was anything more than internet speculation. I told you what NOAA said. Believe TOMONEWS or believe the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There is no giant garbage patch. It cannot be seen from space. It is almost entirely micro sized plastic particles that are not concentrated. Believe what you will. Your choice.

    In the U.S., trash is not dumped at sea so we are not the source of the problem one way or the other.
  • Apr 24, 2021, 08:56 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    In the U.S., trash is not dumped at sea so we are not the source of the problem one way or the other.

    I can't believe you looked at those videos and posted what you did. Like Doubting Thomas.

    Yes, Americans dump their trash all over creation. On our trips to the hospital for my transfusions or blood draw appointments, trash lines the highways, is in the gutters. The strip malls' business owners regularly send employees outside to pick up the debris.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 03:52 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Science has always been about consensus. I'm surprised you appear not to know that, or criticize it.
    Science is about testable hypothesis that have duplicatable results . You don't get that from suspect data being entered into computers that spit out predetermined models . (ie East Anglia emails confirming that they used "Michael Mann's trick " to "hide the decline " when producing a graph showing a hockey stick like increase in global temps ) .
  • Apr 25, 2021, 04:47 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    Yes, Americans dump their trash all over creation. On our trips to the hospital for my transfusions or blood draw appointments, trash lines the highways, is in the gutters. The strip malls' business owners regularly send employees outside to pick up the debris.
    That has nothing to do with plastic in the ocean. Didn't you listen to your own video which stated that the offending nations were all from Asia?

    If you listen to TOMONEWS rather than NOAA, then I can't help you.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 05:03 AM
    tomder55
    This was an old trick the Excon used to use. When discussing climate change he would talk of all types of pollution and would avoid the discussion about climate change. Is there a relationship between plastics in the ocean and atmospheric temperature ? If there is then please explain how plastics in the ocean affect the atmospheric temperatures.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 05:09 AM
    paraclete
    Perhaps they reflect sunlight
  • Apr 25, 2021, 10:16 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    That has nothing to do with plastic in the ocean.

    The town you live in is squeaky clean of trash dumped along the streets and sidewalks? (My point was that humans are pigs!)

    Quote:

    Didn't you listen to your own video which stated that the offending nations were all from Asia?
    Yes, and much of that trash bobbles along the coasts of the Philippine Islands.

    ***What and Where Are Garbage Patches?

    Garbage patches are large areas of the ocean where litter, fishing gear, and other debris - known as marine debris - collects. They are formed by rotating ocean currents called “gyres.” You can think of them as big whirlpools that pull objects in. The gyres pull debris into one location, often the gyre’s center, forming “patches.”

    There are five gyres in the ocean. One in the Indian Ocean, two in the Atlantic Ocean, and two in the Pacific Ocean. Garbage patches of varying sizes are located in each gyre.

    The most famous of these patches is often called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It is located in the North Pacific Gyre (between Hawaii and California). “Patch” is a misleading nickname, causing many to believe that these are islands of trash. Instead, the debris is spread across the surface of the water and from the surface all the way to the ocean floor. The debris ranges in size, from large abandoned fishing nets to tiny microplastics, which are plastic pieces smaller than 5mm in size. This makes it possible to sail through some areas of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and see very little to no debris.

    The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.


    The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and California. It is the most well known patch. While some areas of the patch have more trash than others, much of the debris is made of microplastics (by count). Because microplastics are smaller than a pencil eraser, they are not immediately noticeable to the naked eye. It’s more like pepper flakes swirling in a soup than something you can skim off the surface. You may come across larger items, like plastic bottles and nets, but it’s possible to sail through some areas of a garbage patch and not see any debris at all. Garbage patches are huge! It’s difficult to determine an exact size as the trash is constantly moving with ocean currents and winds.

    The Impact of Garbage Patches on the Environment.


    Garbage patches, especially the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, are far out in the middle of the ocean where people hardly ever go. Because they are so remote, it can be hard to study them.

    Scientists rarely get to see the impacts of garbage patches on animals first hand. So far, we know that marine debris found in garbage patches can impact wildlife in a number of ways:

    • Entanglement and ghost fishing: Marine life can be caught and injured, or potentially killed in certain types of debris. Lost fishing nets are especially dangerous. In fact they are often called “ghost” nets because they continue to fish even though they are no longer under the control of a fisher. Ghost nets can trap or wrap around animals, entangling them. Plastic debris with loops can also get hooked on wildlife - think packing straps, six-pack rings, handles of plastic bags, etc.
    • Ingestion: Animals may mistakenly eat plastic and other debris. We know that this can be harmful to the health of fish, seabirds, and other marine animals. These items can take up room in their stomachs, making the animals feel full and stopping them from eating real food.
    • Non-native species: Marine debris can transport species from one place to another. Algae, barnacles, crabs, or other species can attach themselves to debris and be transported across the ocean. If the species is invasive, and can settle and establish in a new environment, it can outcompete or overcrowd native species, disrupting the ecosystem.***
      https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html

      Quote:

      That has nothing to do with plastic in the ocean.
      Especially read and memorize the Entanglement and Ingestion points above.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 10:43 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Especially read and memorize the Entanglement and Ingestion points above.

    Excellent, WG! You saved me the time doing that.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 10:49 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Science is about testable hypothesis that have duplicatable results

    Didn't I say that? You must have missed it. Here it is again ---

    Science has always been about consensus. I'm surprised you appear not to know that, or criticize it. A theory is proposed after research (sometimes years) is tested, and is tested again. The testing goes on until science is satisfied the theory is correct. The tests may have been done thousands of times yielding the same result until a consensus is formed. That's how science becomes science.

    Quote:

    You don't get that from suspect data being entered into computers that spit out predetermined models . (ie East Anglia emails confirming that they used "Michael Mann's trick " to "hide the decline " when producing a graph showing a hockey stick like increase in global temps
    Anecdotes are not science.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 11:21 AM
    jlisenbe
    So you simply reposted what I have already posted because...?

    The most famous of these patches is often called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It is located in the North Pacific Gyre (between Hawaii and California). “Patch” is a misleading nickname, causing many (like Wondergirl) to believe that these are islands of trash. Instead, the debris is spread across the surface of the water and from the surface all the way to the ocean floor. The debris ranges in size, from large abandoned fishing nets to tiny microplastics, which are plastic pieces smaller than 5mm in size. This makes it possible to sail through some areas of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and see very little to no debris.

    So your idea that this so called "Garbage Patch" is an area of visible, serious plastic debris the size of Texas is thus shown to be a wild exaggeration which is basically untrue. Now is this something we should be concerned about? I would agree with that, but it is not the problem you have attempted to portray it as being, and not even close.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 11:29 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    So you simply reposted what I have already posted because...?

    The most famous of these patches is often called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It is located in the North Pacific Gyre (between Hawaii and California). “Patch” is a misleading nickname, causing many (like Wondergirl) to believe that these are islands of trash. Instead, the debris is spread across the surface of the water and from the surface all the way to the ocean floor. The debris ranges in size, from large abandoned fishing nets to tiny microplastics, which are plastic pieces smaller than 5mm in size. This makes it possible to sail through some areas of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and see very little to no debris.

    So your idea that this so called "Garbage Patch" is an area of visible, serious plastic debris the size of Texas is thus shown to be untrue.

    Please reread my (and your) post about what's in the Pacific Ocean. Especially note: "You may come across larger items, like plastic bottles and nets, but it’s possible to sail through some areas of a garbage patch and not see any debris at all. Garbage patches are huge! It’s difficult to determine an exact size as the trash is constantly moving with ocean currents and winds."
    And what about the videos I posted of very visible and identifiable trash on Philippine et al. beaches?

    And I had asked, "Have you seen the Texas-size area of discarded plastic that's in the Pacific?" You even confirmed there's plastic in the ocean -- microplastics, yes -- but plastic that messes up marine life.

    Once a cherrypicker, always a cherrypicker.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 11:48 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    And what about the videos I posted of very visible and identifiable trash on Philippine et al. beaches?
    You mean like the one from that famous science sight, TOMONEWS? I already told you I watched two of them. They are using a robot voice to read prepared text. It's plainly just a collection of largely still photos glued together to make an internet video for a profit.

    But like I said, you can believe TOMONEWS, or you can believe NOAA.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 12:07 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    You mean like the one from that famous science sight, TOMONEWS? I already told you I watched two of them.

    Watch the others. I dare you. How about this one (Mount Everest):
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jCmYUQ1Q88

    I'll post more! Plan on a swim vacation on the Philippine coast or a hike up Everest.

    More!!!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fCYB7kyRyYo

    Worth a second viewing!!!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yomf5pBN8dY

    It was on the weekend news -- a lake in the West, and a major water source for nearby cities and towns -- is going dry from overuse. One solution is to recapture and purify water from toilets et al., sewer water.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 01:16 PM
    jlisenbe
    You do realize the topic is climate change?

    should I post a video on how to change a flat tire???

    I am sticking with NOAA.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 01:36 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    You do realize the topic is climate change?

    should I post a video on how to change a flat tire???

    I am sticking with NOAA.

    Yep. Climate change is happening also because we humans are such pigs and so uncaring about what we dump into and onto our beautiful world. All that plastic -- especially the manufacturing of it -- affects our climate.

    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...limate-change/
    And that's what I used too. Another NOAA quote: "Plastics are the most common form of marine debris. They can come from a variety of land- and ocean-based sources, enter the water in many ways, and impact the ocean and Great Lakes. Once in the water, plastic debris never fully biodegrades."
    https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/images...an-infographic
  • Apr 25, 2021, 01:48 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    we humans are such pigs
    Speak for yourself.

    Quote:

    we dump into and onto our beautiful world. All that plastic -- especially the manufacturing of it -- affects our climate.
    Complete nonsense for which you have, as usual, no evidence at all.

    Quote:

    And that's what I used too. Another NOAA quote: "Plastics are the most common form of marine debris. They can come from a variety of land- and ocean-based sources, enter the water in many ways, and impact the ocean and Great Lakes. Once in the water, plastic debris never fully biodegrades."
    And that relates to climate change not at all. As I've said before, I'm all for resolving the issue, but not at the expense of your shrill, over the top rhetoric.
  • Apr 25, 2021, 02:05 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Speak for yourself.

    Did you watch the Everest video? Do you ever walk in urban and suburban areas and along trafficked roads? Take a paper garbage bag with you. Hey, go to a fast-food restaurant and observe people throwing wrappers out of their car windows as they leave the driveup and get back onto the main road. Humans are pigs.

    Quote:

    Complete nonsense for which you have, as usual, no evidence at all.
    Google "plastic manfacturing climate change" (minus the quote marks)
    Quote:

    And that relates to climate change not at all. As I've said before, I'm all for resolving the issue, but not at the expense of your shrill, over the top rhetoric.
    You didn't read this that I posted (and there are many other sites like it by other science people and groups):
    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...limate-change/

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 AM.