What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

"What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?"

How about 87,500,000 semi trucks loaded at 80,000 lbs. each.
If the cabs and trailers where parked end to end they would stretch for 1,325,757 miles, or,
53.3 times around the earth at the equator.

That's a lot of water!

Feel free to check my math. In my haste to get the real answer I may have made a mistake. But, I encourage you to find other things that equate to 10 Trillion Gallons of Water.

Hmmmm..... How many 8 oz. glasses would I need to drink to finish off 10 Trillion gallons? I could be a while on this project!

Yawn, denier repetitive argument #6: Models are unreliable:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

RambleOnNW wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
Sigh, just more name calling Rambleon. Funny how you hear that no matter where you want to discuss climate.

Just what do these carbon offsets accomplish? I can think of a couple things, but maybe you can explain it in a paragraph or 2?

Humans are the primary drivers of climate? We are smarter than I thought. So much for the sun and it's minor effect.

Back to my safe space with the puppies and kittens to salve my wounded spirit. ;)

Look at some of the projects: https://terrapass.com/projects/project-list.

It is simple. Preventing other emissions of greenhouse gases is equivalent to me not emitting them in the first place.

In the case of preventing emissions of methane or nitrous oxide it is more critical since methane has 25x the heat trapping effect of CO2 and nitrous oxide 298x. A lot of projects are on dairy farms and landfills to capture and burn methane. Sure that produces CO2, but removes the 25x worse methane.

CO2 absorption is needed too. Permanent new forests are in the projects. There are also projects underway to turn CO2 into solid rock.

There have also been projects to pay for utility hook-ups for semi-trucks at truck stops so they don't have to idle all night. That seems like a win/win, truckers sleep better and no diesel fumes.

I rarely argue with deniers anymore as it is a complete waste of time.

I just ask the question, were scientists wrong about CFCs harming the ozone layer? No, the ozone hole is closing over Antarctica as predicted after CFCs were phased out. Were scientists wrong about smoking causing cancer. No. Did scientists and engineers create the technology that allows you to post from your home on your own computer with its tiny silicon brains? Yes.

Therefore, why does anyone think thousands of climate scientists worldwide will be wrong in their predictions? Unlikely. The only debate is on the magnitude of the effect.

Back with labeling people who don't drink your kool-aid "deniers" in a derogatory manner. I ask who is the denier here? Me who wants further study and further information because the theories don't fit properly or you who denies that there are many climate scientists who don't agree with your conclusions. Perhaps the science isn't as settled as it's loudly proclaimed to be, yet you also deny that.

I read some about the projects they are happily doing with your money. I ask how will they make any measurable impact whatsoever? Aside from someone else's wallet.

I'm certainly not saying scientists are always wrong, but they are wrong a lot. I would ask why would anyone make a multi-trillion dollar bet based on incomplete information with a potential payoff of what exactly? Even if they are all 100% right, we lower average temps 1 degree as the reward? (While making a select handful of people multi-billionaires) I'll pass.

BTW, that was quite the monumental leap from the existence of computers and internet to "how can they all be wrong about climate"?

Why do the climate models that predict all the gloom and doom fail to predict the last 100 years of climate? Yet those same models being right in their future predictions is a certainty?

fj12ryder wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
Well, I'm just going to cherry pick a ridiculous statement out of that diatribe: " I admire science, but it is wrong far more than it's right." Okaaaay. :)

Please enlighten me on what is ridiculous about that statement?...

Part of the ridiculousness of the statement is there is a huge difference between "Science" and "Scientists". Science is a system of study, not the results of that study. "Scientists" can use "Science" to prove, disprove, or advance hypotheses. "Bad Science" is what the media call it and it's accepted too much of the time. It's not "Bad Science", it's poor methodology, poor interpretation of results, or any one of a dozen other problems.

Science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Like many things it can be done poorly, but that isn't the fault of science, it's the problem with the people doing the science research and interpretation.

Scientists may be wrong more often than they're right, but not "Science". Hypotheses may be wrong more often than right, but that's part of the process of science, not science itself.

We don't get pure science as you define it to review, it's filtered through scientists. Scientists who as you say are wrong a lot. That's what I meant. Think we are splitting hairs. :)

Discarded Plastics, polys, microfibers, etc are a much larger problem than CO2 as they are for real and so vast! Their full decay and half life breakdown far exceed any organic materials and they get into every facet of our lives, food, and waters etc. Why aren't they brought to the forefront then? Easier and more profit in blaming CO2 caused supposedly by humans of course!

Brazil is famous for decades of mowing down the rainforests which had consumed so much the CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the level in balance but not one word about that! WHY? O'wise ones? No profit in it maybe? Follow the money!

GW bullies always seem to have a one track mind and a single common factor they blame. Automotive and factories ! The 2 very important needed requirements for a thriving economy or basically any economy that can endure. First, you must be able to get to a place of work as it won't come to you. Then and only then can you have that employment that provides a paycheck to pay for food and shelter. GW yo yo's are famous for placing the cart before the horse which assures failure! Maybe we should all walk to work on unpved paths(horses pollute) and CO2 spewing machines/veicles can't be used to pave roads or walkways as they pollute too. At work. we must use machinery powered by foot pedals. Whoops, no machines as making them pollutes so much! All work will be done by hand as it must happen. Then we walk back to our tents we call home and have whatever grasses, leaves, and ground up twigs we can find for dinner? Bet the family isn't going to be happy about it!

According to Milankovitch cycles as confirmed by ice cores the Earth should be in a slight cooling cycle right now. Yet CO2 is increasing and the Earth is getting warmer.

The debate over the coming magnitude of the warming is whether it will be some or a lot.

Ocean acidification from CO2 is proven and here to stay. The ocean is 35% more acidic compared to pre-industrial revolution times.

I don't get it how people can RV and not be concerned about the environment. At least 12 million trees died in the California drought. Where are you going to camp, the Walmart parking lot........

This is the question that resides in the back of my mind. How much of the current climate "warming" trend is cyclical and how much is man-influenced? And, within reason, how much of an impact can we make short term, vs long term.

I'm a big proponent of wind and solar energy generation, but I also see the endless legal hurdles that every single project must overcome before coming to any sort of completion. The same Greenies who rail against fossil fuels are opposed to offshore wind farms. Every locality faces opposition to wind turbines and solar farms and the NIMBY groups. Here in New England, it's on the verge of becoming a serious problem.

We cannot simply abandon fossil fuel supplies without subsidizing and fast-tracking alternative energy projects. We cannot bring the country to its knees, hoping that things will work out.

RambleOnNW wrote:
The only debate is on the magnitude of the effect.

ExxWhy wrote:
Sigh, just more name calling Rambleon. Funny how you hear that no matter where you want to discuss climate.

Just what do these carbon offsets accomplish? I can think of a couple things, but maybe you can explain it in a paragraph or 2?

Humans are the primary drivers of climate? We are smarter than I thought. So much for the sun and it's minor effect.

Back to my safe space with the puppies and kittens to salve my wounded spirit. ;)

Look at some of the projects: https://terrapass.com/projects/project-list.

It is simple. Preventing other emissions of greenhouse gases is equivalent to me not emitting them in the first place.

In the case of preventing emissions of methane or nitrous oxide it is more critical since methane has 25x the heat trapping effect of CO2 and nitrous oxide 298x. A lot of projects are on dairy farms and landfills to capture and burn methane. Sure that produces CO2, but removes the 25x worse methane.

CO2 absorption is needed too. Permanent new forests are in the projects. There are also projects underway to turn CO2 into solid rock.

There have also been projects to pay for utility hook-ups for semi-trucks at truck stops so they don't have to idle all night. That seems like a win/win, truckers sleep better and no diesel fumes.

I rarely argue with deniers anymore as it is a complete waste of time.

I just ask the question, were scientists wrong about CFCs harming the ozone layer? No, the ozone hole is closing over Antarctica as predicted after CFCs were phased out. Were scientists wrong about smoking causing cancer. No. Did scientists and engineers create the technology that allows you to post from your home on your own computer with its tiny silicon brains? Yes.

Therefore, why does anyone think thousands of climate scientists worldwide will be wrong in their predictions? Unlikely. The only debate is on the magnitude of the effect.

ExxWhy wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
Well, I'm just going to cherry pick a ridiculous statement out of that diatribe: " I admire science, but it is wrong far more than it's right." Okaaaay. :)

Please enlighten me on what is ridiculous about that statement?...

Part of the ridiculousness of the statement is there is a huge difference between "Science" and "Scientists". Science is a system of study, not the results of that study. "Scientists" can use "Science" to prove, disprove, or advance hypotheses. "Bad Science" is what the media call it and it's accepted too much of the time. It's not "Bad Science", it's poor methodology, poor interpretation of results, or any one of a dozen other problems.

Science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Like many things it can be done poorly, but that isn't the fault of science, it's the problem with the people doing the science research and interpretation.

Scientists may be wrong more often than they're right, but not "Science". Hypotheses may be wrong more often than right, but that's part of the process of science, not science itself.

NYCgrrl wrote:

RambleOnNW wrote:

RVs are extreme fun but heavy CO2 polluters. We personally purchase carbon offsets to offset 133% of our total carbon use from all sources.

You can too. For $0.10 per gallon of gas.

:c: and thank you for the link.

Glad to hear, NYCgrrl, also search on "carbon offset companies". Some are non-profits so are tax deductible.