|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
|
Climate Science
#25847954 - 03/02/19 02:38 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
|
feevers



Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,785
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
LogicaL Chaos said: Anyone study Climate Science?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Pretty interesting right?
The facts and the respected people in the field all agree it's a human caused problem. Credible scientists who argue against it are almost non-existent, those that do are typically "consultants" of oil and industrial companies. The majority of the push back comes from people who don't understand science in the slightest. I'm not a scientist, I can't say I know it's true, but with these odds I would certainly bet everything I have that it is..
Even if it was all a chinese hoax, a lot of the factors that lead to global warming also are what's causing pollution. Tackling global warming could mean cleaner air, and with that cleaner food and water. Make Air Great Again!
|
XUL
OTD Janitor



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: feevers] 2
#25864718 - 03/10/19 04:55 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Climate change isn't a hoax.
The hoax is telling us the world will end every 10 years if we don't do x, y, and z.
It's a power grab and religion to rule over the peasants who "don't know anything."
The entire world will never comply, which is why we should focus on dealing with the consequences instead of bankrupting ourselves in an effort to save the world.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
Mr. Bojangles
Breathe In



Registered: 04/08/08
Posts: 1,937
Loc: The Dirty
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: XUL] 2
#25872752 - 03/13/19 09:09 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We are most certainly going to bankrupt ourselves dealing with the consequences. I understand that there is a (somewhat) legitimate argument against investing in fixing our problem that some argue may or may not happen or may or may not fix things. However future will be much worse financially. The shitty thing is we're past the point of no return. The time to fix things was a decade ago.
New analysis's are increasingly dire as trends seem to be strengthening and we realize that change will not happen in the required time. Emissions are not slowing fast enough, government and industry efforts are fighting the problem the wrong way (going away from nuclear to bridge the energy gap and focusing too much on CO2 rather than methane and NO emissions), and there's really no way to stop the path we're on. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
This is not, and was never, a case of "the world will end in 10 years". This has always been a case of "if we don't change what we're doing in 10 years, our children will live in a very different world and our grandchildren will likely not exist".
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." Francois-Marie Arouet
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi



Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
|
The US needs to follow China's lead. Have y'all noticed that Bejing's air is getting better every winter and California is getting worse?
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
|
XUL
OTD Janitor



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: shaggyp]
#25885823 - 03/20/19 01:44 PM (5 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yes, but didn't California just install a green new speed train to curb carbon output?
Oh wait, their socialist Utopia failed them and they wasted tax payer money as well as failed to accomplish anything.
Although, the machinery that was building the train probably added some extra pollution.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi



Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: XUL]
#25887093 - 03/21/19 01:32 AM (5 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
As a communist and a Californian, I can promise there's no socialist utopia here. I have a hard time even finding where this idea came from.
We're the home of some of the most powerful *private* corporations in the world, they all get a shit ton of tax breaks (normal working people get all the taxes), and these corporate interests dictate the majority of public policy (and are run by right libertarians). It's the exact opposite of socialism.
But even if you wanna conflate centrist Democrats with socialists (we don't want them, you can have them), the initial planning stage was under Pete Wilson and the law was signed by Gov. Terminator, both Republicans.
In China the Communist Party actually has power, and they have a super dope train.
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
Edited by shaggyp (03/21/19 01:45 AM)
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi



Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: shaggyp] 1
#25887126 - 03/21/19 02:05 AM (5 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Sorry, I guess that post veers pretty far off from Science and Technology and in to politics- I think we can both agree California is full of awful politicians. But regardless, I don't really understand how we could effectively tackle some of these bigger problems like the acidity of the oceans and loss of coast line. You have a HUGE percentage of the world's population still eating and living on the coast. If you significantly reduce the number of fish and allow tons of inhabited coast line to flood permanently it's gonna be a tough problem. Where do you put all the people? How do you feed them?
Especially since the planet itself is a giant energy source, and we're orbiting around another even bigger energy source and already know how to make cheap graphene solar panels that get 50-60% efficiency, it's not really a long shot. You don't have to force people to stop anything. Very few people are attached to gasoline, and folks building classic hobby cars can keep doing it without issue, it's about everyday shipping and commuting infrastructure, which has no important culture attached to it. You don't have to force individuals, you force institutions.
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
|
|
The part about ocean acidification is really interesting. Makes acid rain much more obvious to the source. I always thought acid rain pulled pollution from the air. I was wrong.
|
XUL
OTD Janitor



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
So how do we take the acid out of the rain so we can use it as pure water.
--------------------
TRUMP 2020
|
Freakofnature
Stranger

Registered: 04/25/15
Posts: 156
Loc: South Aus
Last seen: 8 months, 22 days
|
|
Let me be clear before people read this, the earth is currently warming, satellites show that to be a fact. But it is nowhere near as dire and 'catastrophic' as they would like you to believe. And there is no guarantee that CO2 is the primary driver for temperatures, even organisations such as NOAA aren't willing to state with utter certainty that more than 50% of current warming is human activity related.
The science really isn't as settled as they would like you to believe, and whilst it is currently the 'concensus', the reason all 'respected' scientists agree is because there is a gravy train of funding to tap into. Something like 80+% of climate related papers aren't even produced by climatologists, but instead by people in related fields, who will blame CO2 for literally anything should it mean they can spin it for more funding.
Publicly mentioning any doubts about any aspect of climate science is a death sentence for your career. Many well respected scientists who gave opposing opinions had their careers/reputations destroyed. Combined with censoring/ignorance of any alternative views in the media, there's genuinely no point even trying to debate it because the conversation is completely one sided and biased and you'll be told you 'don't understand science' (lol). There are many very intelligent people who follow weather as a lifelong passion that strongly refute many of the climate change claims.
They keep kicking this 'if we don't do anything within ten years we're doomed' scenario down the road as apparently people have very short memories about the previous deadlines that have come and gone. So so so many predictions have been completely wrong, they move the goalposts every year about this theory.
My biggest problem with the theory is the doomsday aspect of it. CO2 levels have never been higher for humans..and we seem to be doing pretty damn okay despite this. On the contrary, even 2 degrees of temperature loss would be absolutely catastrophic to our farming capabilities and would likely cause mass famines, as history shows every cold period we've had humans have suffered. They tout that the current temperatures are the 'optimum', how can they know this for certain? It's just an assumption, nothing more. For all we know a 2 degree rise would be extremely beneficial to humanity. You can argue about ecosystem collapse due to the 'rapid shift' but recent studies have shown intact ecosystems to be very very resilient to change. We are doing a far better job of killing the biodiversity on earth through land clearing, river diverting/damming, pollution, pesticides, light pollution, over fishing, introduced species etc etc than the minor rise of temps over the last 40 years may or may not have done.
Weather related deaths have been plunging for decades. The only aspect of severe weather they can statistically prove has increased is heavy rainfall events, however they completely neglect to acknowledge all the coal being burnt releases huge volumes of particles into the atmosphere which act as a cloud seeding mechanism causing more rain in certain places on earth. It isn't as simple and straightforward as they would have you believe. High temps have increased in frequency slightly, but cold weather kills far more many people and many heat records stand from the 1930ies, a very extreme heat period in our history that has been all but erased in the homogenised datasets they present as absolutely fact.
Even today the sea level rises year on year haven't really accelerated in any meaningful way and have been ongoing since the last ice age. A recent survey showed 75% of islands on earth have gained land area in the last decade. Our cities were always under threat, climate change or not, because we destroyed the natural barriers between the ocean and the land, barriers that are self regulating and can easily keep up with current rises. After these are gone it is only a matter of time before you have problems.
CO2 output continues to rise, with Africas economic emergence and Asias growing population. We will be emitting huge and ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the future. Which means we will get to see how many of these dire predictions come true, if any.
There are of course negatives to the huge amount of pollution we emit, and CO2 has damaging consequences outside of the current theory it increases temps. We should shift to minimally polluting and sustainable energy production, but I don't think renewables alone can do it, I think nuclear is the future. We also need to end this global obsession with infinite growth, it isn't sustainable and it is destroying the natural world. THE destructive process that is happening now and has demonstrated impacts.
My fear is we will focus way too much on the CO2 Boogeyman into the future, while ignoring the necessary changes needed to our consumerist culture because it is easier to blame CO2 and accept we can't stop emissions thus ridding ourselves of blame, than it is to actually have to do something and reduce our over-indulgent lifestyles on an individual level.
Edited by Freakofnature (03/21/19 07:38 AM)
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: XUL]
#25887433 - 03/21/19 08:12 AM (5 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XUL said: So how do we take the acid out of the rain so we can use it as pure water.
For that, likely some simple chemistry. As in sample the rain water, determine its pH, then add basic chemicals to neutralize it back to 7 pH. Maybe do a purity check as well.
Also, distilling it would work as well. Finding the exact source of the acidic moisture would be even better, to prevent it from happening.
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi



Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: shaggyp]
#25888455 - 03/21/19 03:53 PM (5 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Can you cite any examples of speaking out as a climate change skeptic being a "death sentence for your career"? Who has been fired for this?
Considering that about half of Ph.D holders are working in the private sector, it seems like there are plenty of options. I can't imagine oil companies and military contractors are firing people for questioning climate change.
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
Edited by shaggyp (03/21/19 03:54 PM)
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Climate Science [Re: shaggyp]
#25894000 - 03/24/19 01:40 PM (5 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Cyclone Idai just recently hit Africa. Powerful cyclone, winds at over 100MPH. More here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/why-mozambique-cyclone-idai-was-so-destructive/
Its scary to think these may be more common globally
|
chibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum



Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Freakofnature said: My fear is we will focus way too much on the CO2 Boogeyman into the future, while ignoring the necessary changes needed to our consumerist culture because it is easier to blame CO2 and accept we can't stop emissions thus ridding ourselves of blame, than it is to actually have to do something and reduce our over-indulgent lifestyles on an individual level.
People focus on the CO2 because of the way that the laws of thermodynamics work. It's not a concern that people just came up with to explain global warming. Henri Poincare wrote a paper about CO2 causing climate change in the Nineteenth Century and I'm pretty sure that it was published before the discovery of the electron (which means that you don't even really have to know what a chemical bond is in order to discuss the effect).
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
|
|
Testing the effect of CO2 vs air would be super easy.
Get two air-tight glass chambers on a sunny day. Fill one with pure CO2 and the other with ambient air, slap some thermometers inside each one, and record the results.
|
chibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum



Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
That would make for good evidence, but you would still need to demonstrate the dependence of the effect on the actual composition of your samples. You could probably do it yourself if you just followed along with an undergrad level p-chem textbook.
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
|
|
Then try different gases like pure methane inside a box or mixtures, and see what happens.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
|
interesting facts about the changes we are undergoing- and it hasn't anything to do with "pollution".
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
|
around 9 minutes, it gets real good. explains how oceans have become aggregated with climate data [newly]- more of this "we aggregate everything to conflate sample data" bullshit the government keeps trying to foist on people- and people buy it.
|
|