View Full Version : Global Climate Disruption.
Allright then Fragsy, bring on your calculus:
Give me a mathematical proof how this is impossible. Constructed by you, of course.
Take weight, everything frozen allready has less volume than actual liquid water. Weight pushes water down and drives it up, less ice underwater will thus de facto have less volume, so underwater melting will actually lower the sea level. Take the ice above the sea-level, how do you see that raising the sea, which is about 2/3 of the planet, with 2 meter? Not enough water.
And especially not with 70 meter. Al Gore knows that, he bought a very nice house at the coasts. Clever guy, got to give it to him.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 20:31
Take weight, everything frozen allready has less volume than actual liquid water. Weight pushes water down and drives it up, less ice underwater will thus de facto have less volume, so underwater melting will actually lower the sea level. Take the ice above the sea-level, how do you see that raising the sea, which is about 2/3 of the planet, with 2 meter? Not enough water.
And especially not with 70 meter. Al Gore knows that, he bought a very nice house at the coasts. Clever guy, got to give it to him.
LOL
Arctic ≠ Antarctic
And ice most certainly has a larger volume than water. Its mass, however, is smaller.
Sarmatian
02-22-2014, 20:42
The Earth IS warming up, Frags, do try to keep up. It's how much the human factor is responsible that's debated
LOL
Arctic ≠ Antarctic
And ice most certainly has a larger volume than water. Its mass, however, is smaller.
No it isn't, mass is the same. Volume isn't, so it displaces more water. Less volume, less water rising because of less displacement.
The Earth IS warming up, Frags, do try to keep up. It's how much the human factor is responsible that's debated
Sure it is. But we got nothing to do with it.
Clockwork http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/global_temperatures.jpg
There must have been a lot of industrial periods I never heard about
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 20:53
No it isn't, mass is the same. Volume isn't, so it displaces less water. Less volume, less water rising because of the weight put upon it.
Whoopsie, made a mistake there: ice and water have the same mass, but water has a greater density than ice.
Anyway: the North Pole ice melting won't affect sea level(but not because "ice has less volume than water"). Nobody has ever claimed it would.
Anyway: the North Pole ice melting won't affect sea level(but not because "ice has less volume than water"). Nobody has ever claimed it would.
I kinda remember someone who did, someone who started this whole scare. An inconvinient truth-technically. Clever guy that Al Gore, some people will believe anything if they can blame everything.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 21:02
I kinda remember someone who did, someone who started this whole scare. An inconvinient truth-technically. Clever guy that Al Gore, some people will believe anything if they can blame everything.
Al Gore does not refer to the arctic sea ice in "An Inconvenient Truth", no.
gaelic cowboy
02-22-2014, 21:14
I kinda remember someone who did, someone who started this whole scare. An inconvinient truth-technically. Clever guy that Al Gore, some people will believe anything if they can blame everything.
Your wrong Frag however he does refer to Greenland and the Antarctic which are land ice and WOULD increase water levels.
Al Gore does not refer to the arctic sea ice in "An Inconvenient Truth", no.
I think he did, but I never attended his church so I don't know for sure. I believe he did though, where else would it be comming from. Kinda full of it Horrie. As far as I know he specifically mentioned the north- and southpole melting. Can't you just accept that you have been fooled.
gaelic cowboy
02-22-2014, 21:20
I think he did, but I never attended his church so I don't know for sure. I believe he did though, where else would it be comming from. Kinda full of it Horrie. As far as I know he specifically mentioned the north- and southpole melting. Can't you just accept that you have been fooled.
No frag he refers to a problem where melting sea ice allows more land ice into the oceans
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 21:22
I think he did, but I never attended his church so I don't know for sure. I believe he did though, where else would it be comming from. Kinda full of it Horrie. As far as I know he specifically mentioned the north- and southpole melting. Can't you just accept that you have been fooled.
I watched the film in class on Monday, so no, you're completely wrong. As you always are.
He talks about Greenland and Antarctica. Not the Arctic sea ice. And yes, I'm damned sure of this: the reason why he specifically mentioned Greenland and Antarctica, but not the Arctic, was one of the question I posed to the class after they had watched it.
As for where your misconception comes from, I would suggest that you made it up in your own confused mind, alternatively that you have read some nutty blogger who made it up in his mind.
I watched the film in class on Monday, so no, you're completely wrong. As you always are.
He talks about Greenland and Antarctica. Not the Arctic sea ice. And yes, I'm damned sure of this: the reason why he specifically mentioned Greenland and Antarctica, but not the Arctic, was one of the question I posed to the class after they had watched it.
As for where your misconception comes from, I would suggest that you made it up in your own confused mind, alternatively that you have read some nutty blogger who made it up in his mind.
I can think for myself, thank you very much.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 21:27
I can think for myself, thank you very much.
You have just shown yourself completely incapable of doing that.
You have just shown yourself completely incapable of doing that.
I sell art, so I don't have to know the difference between volume and weight. You teach math, and made a mistake there. Joke is on you mia muca.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 21:50
I sell art, so I don't have to know the difference between volume and weight. You teach math, and made a mistake there. Joke is on you mia muca.
I blame that mistake squarely on TV2 showing Dzeko's lolmiss at the same time as I wrote that. Anyway: I do sloppy mistakes like that in every class I teach, and I don't consider it a negative. Keeps the little buggers pay attention if there's a good chance at pointing out mistakes done by the teacher...
Anyway: your mistake was not about the difference between volume, mass and density. The mistake was about which ice sheets could raise the sea level. It's always been the land ice, yet you have somehow managed to get the idea that everyone's talking about sea ice.
i made no mistake, you did.
Do we have to make a calculation on how much water it would take to raise the sea level with two meters, or Al Gore's 70 meters. It's just replacing a few variables, you will immediatly see how rediculous it is.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 22:13
i made no mistake, you did.
You claimed Al Gore/climate science claimed melting the arctic sea ice would raise sea levels. He/they do not, and never has.
Do we have to make a calculation on how much water it would take to raise the sea level with two meters, or Al Gore's 70 meters. It's just replacing a few variables, you will immediatly see how rediculous it is.
Yes. Do that. Calculate how much the water level will rise if the Antarctic melted. Please do, I'm waiting in anticipation.
The Earth IS warming up, Frags, do try to keep up. It's how much the human factor is responsible that's debated
Actually it is more like a debate about how fast and how bad it will be.
That deniers are still struggling with Michael Mann just shows how little they understand. It is the equivalent of trying to prove that Robert H. Goddard was a fraud and that would make those faked Moon landings go away. That the lawsuit still seems to be going on just shows what a fantasy world the author lives in.
You claimed Al Gore/climate science claimed melting the arctic sea ice would raise sea levels
Yes he did, I wildly exxagerated it though, just for fun.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhTsI
HopAlongBunny
02-23-2014, 05:22
It happened before, It's happening now...exactly why it's happening now is speculation...some are better than others
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-glacier-thinned-as-rapidly-in-the-past/
Ironside
02-23-2014, 10:05
Yes he did, I wildly exxagerated it though, just for fun.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhTsI
What part of Greenland and Western Antartica sound like the Artic sea to you? :inquisitive:
What Al Gore does is is giving an accurate number for a situation that will take way longer than 100 years to occur. That's scare mongering, but not inaccurate.
As for the ice melting. Fragony, I'm sure you've noticed that floating ice has some volume above the water surface? And while doing the dishes, an empty pot displaces more water (=water level rises) when you push it down (faking increased density), until the water starts to pour in?
So if you push down the ice so all of it is covered by water, you'll rise the water level a little bit more, agreed?
That means that ice floating on water normally doesn't use all of it's volume to displace water. And the lighter something is, density wise (think that a pot's average density is the weight of the metal pot+the weight of the air inside it and divide by it's total volume), the less water it will displace while floating. And that direct correlation.
Or in short form. The extra volume water gets by freezing it to ice is exactly the same volume that'll be above the water surface if you place that ice in water.
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 10:21
Yes he did, I wildly exxagerated it though, just for fun.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhTsI
I see you have no intention of calculating what will happen if the antarctic ice happened. It's a short and simple calculation, yet you refuse to do it.... Afraid of the answer, frags?
I see you have no intention of calculating what will happen if the antarctic ice happened. It's a short and simple calculation, yet you refuse to do it.... Afraid of the answer, frags?
Why would I be worried, there is nothing to be worried about. But it should be easy if you have land ice mass, detract sea-ice volume shrinkage, and wrap it around a three-dimensional sphere, going from water covering 2/3 of the world. But why would you do such a thing when the earth isn't warming up. Give me the data and I'll do it.
I am bluffing by the way, I can do it but it has already been done, a few centimeters.
the earth isn't warming up. Give me the data and I'll do it.
12313
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 11:00
Why would I be worried, there is nothing to be worried about. But it should be easy if you have land ice mass, detract sea-ice volume shrinkage, and wrap it around a three-dimensional sphere, going from water covering 2/3 of the world. But why would you do such a thing when the earth isn't warming up. Give me the data and I'll do it.
I am bluffing by the way, I can do it but it has already been done, a few centimeters.
The data:
World ocean area: 361 000 000 km2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean#Physical_properties)
Antarctic ice sheet: 26 500 000 km3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet)
GO!
Let me know if you need anything more.
Yeah I do, the amount of underwater ice and it's volume. Start is easy, 26.500.000/361.000.000, let's wrap that around a sphere minus 1/3. Not accurate of course but close enough.
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 11:37
Yeah I do, the amount of underwater ice and it's volume.
The number above refers to land ice only, sea ice is excluded.
The number above refers to land ice only, sea ice is excluded.
Than it's useless no, as when sea-ice melts oceans-levels lower. What do they say about tip of the iceberg?
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 11:48
Than it's useless no, as when sea-ice melts oceans-levels lower. What do they say about tip of the iceberg?
Sea ice melting will not affect sea levels, so this is fortunately not something you need to calculate to solve the problem.*
*We'll simplify things a bit, and not worry about freshwater ice melting in salt water.
Sea ice melting will not affect sea levels, so this is fortunately not something you need to calculate to solve the problem.*
*We'll simplify things a bit, and not worry about freshwater ice melting in salt water.
Of course it does, as sea-ice has more volume than liquid water. That is why you put anti-freeze in your car's cooling system in the winter. Ice will destroy your engine if you don't.
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 12:14
Of course it does, as sea-ice has more volume than liquid water. That is why you put anti-freeze in your car's cooling system in the winter. Ice will destroy your engine if you don't.
Yes, and the extra volume that would have caused your car tubes to burst is what you see floating on top of the sea surface. When sea ice melts in water, however, it results in the same sea level. That's assuming the iceberg is made of sea water, of course. If the iceberg is made of freshwater and melts in sea water, the sea level will rise a tiny bit(due to the difference between fresh and sea water). Since the rise is so small, however, we can safely disregard it for our simplified calculation.
Now, get back to thy calculations!
Yes, and the extra volume that would have caused your car tubes to burst is what you see floating on top of the sea surface. When sea ice melts in water, however, it results in the same sea level. That's assuming the iceberg is made of sea water, of course. If the iceberg is made of freshwater and melts in sea water, the sea level will rise a tiny bit(due to the difference between fresh and sea water). Since the rise is so small, however, we can safely disregard it for our simplified calculation.
Now, get back to thy calculations!
What you see floating in the water isn't replacing any water underwater anymore. So it's a factor. But why don't we start with the obvious, the outcome. The outcome is that water-level hasn't been rising. So we have a whatever = zero, or very close to it. So the melting of land-ice and the melting of sea ice must keep eachother in check no? I will continue once you give me something to work with.
Let me remind you, Gorists furiously scream that rising sea-levels are going to destroy America's coastlines. (Where he bought a house I might add)
Ironside
02-23-2014, 12:28
Of course it does, as sea-ice has more volume than liquid water. That is why you put anti-freeze in your car's cooling system in the winter. Ice will destroy your engine if you don't.
Sigh. Fill a bottle half full of water. Mark the water line. Let it freeze. Mark the ice line. I expect you'll get the result you expect. That's a reference.
Now. Fill a bowl with water. Put in ice, as much as you want to. Make absolutly certain that all the ice is floating, otherwise you'll do an entirely different experiment*. Mark the water line. Cover it up (to ensure that you'll get minimal vaporisation, I'm not sure how needed it is, but it's a factor). Let the ice melt. Mark the water line. Compare results.
Don't post on that specific topic until you've done that. You'll see why.
*Well technically, you can do two more that way. The first one is about bottom frozen ice and that's somewhat relevant (there's some of that on Antartica) and is simply to have enough ice that some of it gets stuck on the bottom. The second one is if you're activly weighting the ice down somehow like putting a stone on top. That's result skewing and not naturally occuring on any larger scale.
Sigh. Fill a bottle half full of water. Mark the water line. Let it freeze. Mark the ice line. I expect you'll get the result you expect. That's a reference.
Now. Fill a bowl with water. Put in ice, as much as you want to. Make absolutly certain that all the ice is floating, otherwise you'll do an entirely different experiment. Mark the water line. Cover it up (to ensure that you'll get minimal vaporisation, I'm not sure how needed it is, but it's a factor). Let the ice melt. Mark the water line. Compare results.
Don't post on that specific topic until you've done that.
No need for that, the ice we are talking about is already there.
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 12:55
Sigh.
Seconded.
Seconded.
Must be a bonding experience.
Little hint, ice that is totally subdued is not floating ice. Water displacement is different. Even my four year old nephew understands that.
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 13:23
Must be a bonding experience.
Little hint, ice that is totally subdued is not floating ice. Water displacement is different. Even my four year old nephew understands that.
Re-read Ironside's post.
I already concluded why sea ice wouldn't touch the water levels a lot without actually knowing the answer, it's not that hard to understand.
The volume difference between the underwater part of an iceberg in comparison to liquid water = the part of the iceberg that is floating above the water line. As a result, when the entire iceberg melts, the underwater part loses some volume but that is made up for by the molten ice that was previously above the water line. As such, we can ignore sea ice since it's more or less a zero sum game and does NOT lower the water level.
You can calculate now Fragony.
Of course water levels lower when sea ice melts, what's so hard about it. Less volume = less replacement. Am I that smart or are you that stupid.
HoreTore
02-23-2014, 20:00
Of course water levels lower when sea ice melts, what's so hard about it. Less volume = less replacement. Am I that smart or are you that stupid.
Ironside described an experiment you could do to test your hypothesis.
Why haven't you done that yet?
EDIT: meh, since I know you're both lazy and love the idiotchannel(youtube), here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOCqHRpQh88) is a filmed experiment showing what happens when ice melts in a glass of water.
gaelic cowboy
02-23-2014, 20:34
Of course water levels lower when sea ice melts, what's so hard about it. Less volume = less replacement. Am I that smart or are you that stupid.
NO the weight of the ice equals the displaced volume of the water.
Of course water levels lower when sea ice melts, what's so hard about it. Less volume = less replacement. Am I that smart or are you that stupid.
What gaelic cowboy said. You forget the ice that is above the water in cube form an will sink below the surface when the cube melts. It is pretty much exactly the amount of water needed to make up for the loss in volume.
Ironside
02-23-2014, 20:46
Of course water levels lower when sea ice melts, what's so hard about it. Less volume = less replacement. Am I that smart or are you that stupid.
Fragony, if you stand on a large floating ice sheet, do your feet get wet by seawater?
If they don't, then it has to mean that some of the volume of the ice is above sea level.
Does ice above sea level displace any water?
If it does, then pushing down a floating pot into the dishwater won't rise the water level of the dishwater.
When does things float?
It's when they diplace the same weight of water as thier own weight. As in 100 kg ice will displace 100 kg water.
What happens with extra volume of the item that lighter than water and floats?
The extra volume will remain above water. That's the principle that boats works on.
I'll also point out that the important line is the one where you added the the ice to the water. You know when the ice "is already there". The final line is obviously important, but the rest are only there for comparison. Submerged ice and bottom frozen ice are special cases and follows their own rules, that's why I talked about them.
As HoreTore said, there can even be a rise because of the salt water and fresh water difference:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html
4 centimeters more may not be a lot, but it's certainly not less as Fragony claims.
As HoreTore said, there can even be a rise because of the salt water and fresh water difference:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html
4 centimeters more may not be a lot, but it's certainly not less as Fragony claims.
Certainly less than what Gorists furiously scream. All ice gone, effect: nada. Besides of that, it isn't happening, the earth is not warming up. This is all just a great scare, there have been many. It's a religion, nothing more. Like scientoligy the ultimate goal is loads of pecunia's.
Isn't some of the Ice on land, thus there is no water displacement? (Antarctica)
Then isn't the Artic also frozen to the sea bed in some places and has had a buildup of moisture/ice placed upon the top of that?
Then there is Freshwater/Saltwater displacement difference which has been mentioned.
Can think of quite a few scenarios which means there is an excess of water.
There is something like 30 million km^3 of ice on land and maybe 30-40 thousand km^3 sea ice. Even if applying some magic à la Fragony the sea ice is not going to cancel out the land ice melting.
It really is a waste of time arguing with Fragony about this. Either he is a very persistent troll or the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. To think that the effect of melting sea ice is something to debate about...if I was religious I would pray to Jesus to make this thread go away.
Isn't some of the Ice on land, thus there is no water displacement? (Antarctica)
Then isn't the Artic also frozen to the sea bed in some places and has had a buildup of moisture/ice placed upon the top of that?
Then there is Freshwater/Saltwater displacement difference which has been mentioned.
Can think of quite a few scenarios which means there is an excess of water.
Serious scientists calculated the effect, hardly noticable. We will never know anyway because the earth isn't warming up in the first place. It's more likely to cool down.
Serious scientists calculated the effect, hardly noticable. We will never know anyway because the earth isn't warming up in the first place. It's more likely to cool down.
Actually, it heated up a lot in the Artic due to the jetstream. That will be the main accelerant as there are signs that it is changing by being slower, which is why it is producing all the effects such as the prolonged flooding in the United Kingdom. The weather has been getting worse over here in the isles over the last couple of decades and it is noticeable.
InsaneApache
02-24-2014, 12:15
The weather has been getting worse over here in the isles over the last couple of decades and it is noticeable.
Really? :inquisitive:
The winter of '63 was a tad harsh.
Besides of that, it isn't happening, the earth is not warming up.
We will never know anyway because the earth isn't warming up in the first place. It's more likely to cool down.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?130795-Global-Climate-Disruption&p=2053580400&viewfull=1#post2053580400
How hard is it to understand a relatively simple graph or post one that proves the opposite?
How often do you plan to repeat something after someone proved it to be wrong?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?130795-Global-Climate-Disruption&p=2053580400&viewfull=1#post2053580400
How hard is it to understand a relatively simple graph or post one that proves the opposite?
How often do you plan to repeat something after someone proved it to be wrong?
Isn't proven wrong. And I will continue as long as people believe in manmade climate change. 10 years from now you will know what kind of idiots you are as there is a new scare by then, difference is that I already know you are idiots right now.
Isn't proven wrong. And I will continue as long as people believe in manmade climate change. 10 years from now you will know what kind of idiots you are as there is a new scare by then, difference is that I already know you are idiots right now.
Ok, there is no global warming.
Ok, there is no global warming.
Indeed, there isn't. Doesn't mean there is no climate-change but that is normal.
InsaneApache
04-17-2014, 06:56
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/16/earth-serially-doomed-un-issues-new-15-year-climate-tipping-point-but-un-first-issued-10-year-tipping-point-in-1989/
It really is a religion isn't it? Like those looneys who used to walk around with boards on proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh. Very attractive to the hard of thinking though.
We are all doomed again? That's nice for a change.
Montmorency
04-17-2014, 08:14
The world is only as deep as you can see. Thus the blind lay claim to profound insight.
Greyblades
04-17-2014, 11:44
The phrase dont shoot the message comes to mind.
The phrase dont shoot the message comes to mind.
More: You've made your bed and you'll have to lie in it.
The world is only as deep as you can see. Thus the blind lay claim to profound insight.
One has to be blind AND deaf to believe in anything Marc Morano says about science,
At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media's attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 "Climategate" controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/13852/Climategate-20-Scientists-frankly-admit-to-each-other-that-much-of-the-science-is-weak-and-dependent-on-deliberate-manipulation-of-facts-and-data) exposed "deliberate manipulation of facts and data" by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545#heartland). He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/15922/Climate-Depots-Morano-Every-day-now-skeptics-are-compared-to-Holocaust-deniers--the-media-yawns--MSM-Condemns-Heartlands-Billboard-Ignores-What-Alarmists-Do-Everyday) their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
What a lovely guy! (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-marc-mor/191878)
One has to be blind AND deaf to believe in anything Marc Morano says about science,
What a lovely guy! (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-marc-mor/191878)
But that doesn't sound biased at all, lololol. Slap it on a church-door
InsaneApache
04-17-2014, 16:01
Playing the man I see.
So that means everything on that blog was a lie then. Heretics like him should be thumbscrewed and put on the rack for spreading such wicked lies.
Except they arent lies are they? They're a matter of record.
God loves a sinner who comes to repent.
Greyblades
04-17-2014, 17:24
One thing I dont get; If we're right and we do nothing we pretty much lose 20% of earth's usable landmass, most of it our most usable farmland either to the rising waters or to the increased climate making some surviving areas uninhabitable. hundreds of millions will become homeless refugees, it's likely earth's population will shrink significantly from starvation. Even if we're wrong and climate change doesnt happen the changes we'd have done to lower our carbon emissions would still do much to stop the smog clouds, depleted oceans, polluted rivers, acid rain and all those other nasty side effects of uninhibited pollution that we are currently experiencing right now.
Both scenarios where we act bring huge benefits and the cost we'd endure averting it is no more than the amount of money we waste year upon year in failed wars. Whereas if we do nothing, nothing happening is litterally the best thing we will get, so what's the problem exactly?
Even if we're wrong and climate change doesnt happen the changes we'd have done to lower our carbon emissions would still do much to stop the smog clouds, depleted oceans, polluted rivers, acid rain and all those other nasty side effects of uninhibited pollution that we are currently experiencing right now.
Que wut
Greyblades
04-17-2014, 18:14
Que wut
I'm starting to think you are very sheltered frags, or willfully ignorant, either way:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/beijing-smog_n_4777506.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-26339668
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/03/half-all-us-rivers-are-too-polluted-our-health/63579/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5290236.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html
Pollution's a problem regardless of the eventual climate change and the effects of any attempt to prevent climate change would also help stop these problems.
InsaneApache
04-17-2014, 19:13
Both scenarios where we act bring huge benefits
Aye for those at the top.
The biggest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in the world.
Still they've always needed they're useful idiots.
Greyblades
04-17-2014, 19:36
...Que wut.
The richest in the world are the ones most opposed to doing anything about climate change, Big Oil, Bigf Gas, Big Coal, all stand to have lowered profits from having to actually give a damn when disposing thier waste. They're the one's funding the climate change denyer organizations. Where'd you get the idea that retaining 20% of all the earth's landmass only helps the rich?
HoreTore
04-17-2014, 22:40
...Que wut.
The richest in the world are the ones most opposed to doing anything about climate change, Big Oil, Bigf Gas, Big Coal, all stand to have lowered profits from having to actually give a damn when disposing thier waste. They're the one's funding the climate change denyer organizations. Where'd you get the idea that retaining 20% of all the earth's landmass only helps the rich?
...Are you suggesting that it might be the capitalist system itself, and not environmental taxation, which leads to the wealthy getting wealthier...?
Surely you jest! What outlandish thoughts!
On a more serious note, IA's comment of "biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich" is little more than clueless conspiracy thinking mixed with general ignorance and a distrust of smart people who says things he doesn't like. Nothing more to it, really.
Playing the man I see.
No, I provided a link to show you how untrustworthy the man is. You have apparently no interest in the actual science and seemingly only believe people when they say that nothing bad is happening.
Your claim of "The biggest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in the world" is just absurd. It is not the rich who will suffer from rising food prices or droughts.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-18-2014, 14:46
One thing I dont get; If we're right and we do nothing we pretty much lose 20% of earth's usable landmass, most of it our most usable farmland either to the rising waters or to the increased climate making some surviving areas uninhabitable. hundreds of millions will become homeless refugees, it's likely earth's population will shrink significantly from starvation. Even if we're wrong and climate change doesnt happen the changes we'd have done to lower our carbon emissions would still do much to stop the smog clouds, depleted oceans, polluted rivers, acid rain and all those other nasty side effects of uninhibited pollution that we are currently experiencing right now.
Both scenarios where we act bring huge benefits and the cost we'd endure averting it is no more than the amount of money we waste year upon year in failed wars. Whereas if we do nothing, nothing happening is litterally the best thing we will get, so what's the problem exactly?
But the failed wars will continue, as they always have, so you are not likely to offset THESE added costs. Still, you've advanced the most reasonable argument vis-a-vis global climate shift that I have yet heard.
There can be little doubt of the change in climate. Arguing the anthropogenic character of this change is, in many ways, moot. With the climate changing, we must adapt. Thoughtful efforts to make this adaptation as smooth as possible are a reasonable response.
HopAlongBunny
04-18-2014, 16:35
The inertia of the present energy arrangements are the best argument for "no change".
With literally trillions in the ground, to expect the existing "energy companies" (oil, gas and coal) to initiate any meaningful change is not realistic.
Governments could act decisively, but until the political calculus lines up it is also unlikely.
By the time we act, the freight train we knew was coming will have flattened a nice chunk of the population and we will be in a situation of "damage control".
Greyblades
04-18-2014, 16:50
But the failed wars will continue, as they always have, so you are not likely to offset THESE added costs.
I am under no illusions that the useless wars will stop. I do however feel that if we as societies are spending trillions yearly on millitaries (that spend most of thier time doing nothing except intimidating everyone around us into inaction,) yet we're still be able to waste money on useless crap like the George W Bush museum and bankers bonuses without decending into complete bankruptcy, why cant we spend one or two hundred billion making sure the people paying for the useless crap dont find the ocean lapping at thier top floor windows?
Fisherking
04-18-2014, 17:47
You know what! Both sides right and at the same time, both wrong.
Now, just how can that be?
The warming is man made but it is not driven by greenhouse gasses.
Anyone knowing climate science will tell you that the upper atmosphere warms markedly when greenhouse gasses are involved. They will also tell you that CO2 rise is an indicator that warming has taken place but not the cause of it. The atmosphere is not heating from greenhouse gasses.
Anyone monitoring surface data will tell you that the warming is at the surface. Sea temperatures are climbing and a more serious greenhouse gas is being released. Methane is being released from the sea floor, also large areas of the ocean are turning into dead zones from a lack of free oxygen.
What ever is going on, what ever is happening, it doesn’t match previous models. Whether it is pollutants from chemicals or some other cause the atmosphere is not acting as it should.
Either that or someone is lying.
Warming has not occurred for the last 15 years but still we have conformation that UV-B has drastically increased and even some UV-C is reaching the surface. These are alarming. Rather than telling us something is wrong, we need to know what is wrong and what caused it. It is not carbon or CO2. That is a Red Herring. It is highly likely that the cause is man made but we need to know HONESTLY what that cause is and what did it.
Quit buying Ideological lines and look for your self.
Fisherking
04-18-2014, 18:46
The first step in fixing the problem is assigning blame. I'd first look to coalitions that make a living lobbying to deny climate change, like the American Legislative Exchange Council for example. Whether its green house gasses or some as yet undetermined pollutant, the obvious culprits are global industrial interests, and they are the ones who should pay to adapt. Barring that, they should be forcefully replaced or dismantled, though such a thing smells enough like communism that reactionary groups will be able to push denial until we are drowning in radioactive sea water or whatever.
What?
Look get it straight. Fixing blame does not fix problems.
The Global Warming crowd has lied about the cause and lied about the science. So the other side is right to point that out. So, if denial is the problem, it is the fault of those who obscured the facts.
But you would ban speech and just swallow the lies?
That is not going to get the answers and is not going to fix the problem.
The warming is not the problem. The warming is not at threat levels. UV is a problem, and sunscreen is not going to fix it. In fact it may be one of the problems.
Science has mislead us. Given us a false reason and a false fix. One they will still be happy to run with.
Yet, you still want to silence the opposition before the issue is clarified?
HoreTore
04-18-2014, 22:27
Warming has not occurred for the last 15 years but still we have conformation that UV-B has drastically increased and even some UV-C is reaching the surface. These are alarming.
Do you know what you are talking about...?
Do you know what you are talking about...?
UV exposure has increased over last 30 years but have stabilized since late 90's (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html) , thanks to the Montreal Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol). That seems to be only thing in his two posts that was even close at being correct. For the remaining the best response is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVfkYZmXHAg
Instead of making up stuff or reading weirdo/conspiracy blogs, maybe check out some science https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Fisherking
04-19-2014, 08:48
CBR
Sorry to disappoint you. But no conspiracies, just data. I know you likely only take someone else’s word for that and never bothered to look your self.
Both views are locked into an ideological viewpoint. Try checking a wider data sets and understand the science. Not just mouth the words of others.
What the data shows:
Atmospheric heating has reversed over the last 15 year. If you don’t know that you have not looked at the data.
Making it all about CO2 levels is putting the cart before the horse.
At the same time average sea temperatures, and land surface temperatures continue to climb. Atmospheric cooling should also reflect surface cooling, but it has not.
That means something is amiss. Either everyone is lying or some change has taken place that renders the old models useless.
That is as far as I have gotten. If you feel comfortable with revising climate theories go ahead.
Montmorency
04-19-2014, 09:16
^^^ This is hypocrisy unless you have personally collected the "data".
HoreTore
04-19-2014, 10:30
UV exposure has increased over last 30 years but have stabilized since late 90's (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html) , thanks to the Montreal Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol). That seems to be only thing in his two posts that was even close at being correct.
I know, the reason I asked was because I failed to see the relevance, and the writing style lead me to believe that he did not really know what the terms he's using actually mean.
@CBR (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=2612)
Try checking a wider data sets and understand the science.
Why don't you show us the data?
It was predicted, and has been measured, that one consequence of AGW would be cooling in the upper atmosphere. It is complex and not everything is yet understood, but it is cooling (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html)
Making it all about CO2 levels is putting the cart before the horse.
It is not just about CO2. But CO2 is the main culprit:
12794
At the same time average sea temperatures, and land surface temperatures continue to climb.
Correct!
Atmospheric cooling should also reflect surface cooling, but it has not.
Hm? Upper atmosphere is as predicted. Maybe you mean the lower atmosphere? (https://www.skepticalscience.com/james-taylor-Forbes-UAH-rebuttal.html)
Either everyone is lying or some change has taken place that renders the old models useless.
As the scientists obviously don't know everything, models might need big or small adjustments. That is quite normal and does not mean anyone is lying or that a model is useless.
If you feel comfortable with revising climate theories go ahead.
I'm not the one doing the revising as I'm with the scientific consensus. A few contrarian scientists might have convinced you, but they don't make much of an impact among their fellow scientists. Science marches on and leave the few stubborn ones back in the dustbin, it has always been like that.
HopAlongBunny
04-22-2014, 01:24
A lot of the rap against global warming comes down to economics.
It's just too expensive to change! "Green techs" just don't work w/o government subsidies!!
But if we're going to face facts: Our present carbon based energy sources are massively subsidized:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks
So what is the problem with simply switching the "subsidy focus" from carbon to renewables?
Yes, it is a transfer of resources (public expenditures) from one pocket to another (howls of rage from coal, gas, petroleum) but the public benefit seems to favor it.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-22-2014, 01:32
A lot of the rap against global warming comes down to economics.
It's just too expensive to change! "Green techs" just don't work w/o government subsidies!!
But if we're going to face facts: Our present carbon based energy sources are massively subsidized:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks
So what is the problem with simply switching the "subsidy focus" from carbon to renewables?
Yes, it is a transfer of resources (public expenditures) from one pocket to another (howls of rage from coal, gas, petroleum) but the public benefit seems to favor it.
The better answer, short term, is nuclear power. Renewables are not yet mature enough as a tech set, but will be with expanded emphasis and 20-30 years more research. They will be well positioned to take up the slack as nuke power becomes more problematic with aging facilities and the like.
a completely inoffensive name
04-23-2014, 09:01
It took the most powerful recorded earthquake to ever hit Japan (not hyperbole) coupled with a gigantic tsunami with waves that reached over 40 meters tall, coupled with gross (and possibly highly illegal) negligence of a company to adhere to modern safety standards to partially take out a nuclear plant built in the late 1960s.
If some bean counter didn't refuse to implement safety updates that had been advised since the 1990s, everyone would still be pointing to an event almost 30 years ago.
For base load, nuclear would be ok'ish. There is just not that much uranium for everyone to go nuclear.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm table 1 shows that nuclear is not cheaper than wind (columns Levelized capital cost and especially Total system LCOE are the important ones) Table 2 shows the regional differences, which makes solar competitive if used in the right places. Of course all that is moot unless there is a big government banning/taxing fossil fuels and/or subsidizing alternative energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/krugman-salvation-gets-cheap.html?ref=paulkrugman
So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong? Oh, wait.
At least things improving, sort of. In 2013, Fox News, the most watched cable news network, was 28% correct when it reported on the climate (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2490). A huge improvement over the 7% in 2012
For base load, nuclear would be ok'ish. There is just not that much uranium for everyone to go nuclear.
Obligatory thorium comment here.
Obligatory thorium comment here.
Heh, I know. Just need some R&D on that first before it is an option.
edit: I'll throw in this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
It is Lockheed Skunk Works so maybe it is not all hype.
With that fixed we just need something for the transportation sector and the future is bright!
a completely inoffensive name
04-23-2014, 21:52
For base load, nuclear would be ok'ish. There is just not that much uranium for everyone to go nuclear.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm table 1 shows that nuclear is not cheaper than wind (columns Levelized capital cost and especially Total system LCOE are the important ones) Table 2 shows the regional differences, which makes solar competitive if used in the right places. Of course all that is moot unless there is a big government banning/taxing fossil fuels and/or subsidizing alternative energy.
I am going to request a source for the first sentence there.
Second I think, the LCOE is obviously not the whole picture. Wind may be cheaper, but it is not consistent and this is highlighted very well by the difference in capacity factor, 35/37 for wind vs. 90 for nuclear. For base load I believe that nuclear is as close to perfect as possible and absolutely the way to go, especially as we transition to electric cars which from some books I have read, will level off the daily fluctuations of power consumption (i.e. more consumption at night for recharging the car).
I am going to request a source for the first sentence there.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/
Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.
With just 11% of global electricity provided by nuclear, a major increase in consumption would quickly exhaust the current stocks and force prices up. I'll assume that more of it can be found but it will still mean operating costs would go up.
Second I think, the LCOE is obviously not the whole picture. Wind may be cheaper, but it is not consistent and this is highlighted very well by the difference in capacity factor, 35/37 for wind vs. 90 for nuclear.
Yes, which is why wind needs to be supplemented with solar energy, and ways of storing it in batteries (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523251/new-battery-material-could-help-wind-and-solar-power-go-big/) or maybe liquefied air (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514936/liquefied-air-could-power-cars-and-store-energy-from-sun-and-wind/)
edit: and a better power grid too.
a completely inoffensive name
04-24-2014, 04:03
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/
With just 11% of global electricity provided by nuclear, a major increase in consumption would quickly exhaust the current stocks and force prices up. I'll assume that more of it can be found but it will still mean operating costs would go up.
Come on, CBR, you can't cherry pick that one statement and expect me to not read the entire page.
An initial uranium exploration cycle was military-driven, over 1945 to 1958. The second cycle was about 1974 to 1983, driven by civil nuclear power and in the context of a perception that uranium might be scarce. There was relatively little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2003, so the significant increase in exploration effort since then could conceivably double the known economic resources despite adjustments due to increasing costs. In the two years 2005-06 the world’s known uranium resources tabulated above and graphed below increased by 15% (17% in the cost category to $80/kgU).
[...]
Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its "fertile blanket", can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor.
[...]
Supply forecasters are often reluctant to consider the additive impacts of exploration on new supply, arguing that assuming discoveries is as risky and speculative as the exploration business itself. Trying to predict any single discovery certainly is speculative. However, as long as the goal is merely to account for the estimated total discovery rate at a global level, a proxy such as estimated exploration expenditures can be used. Since expenditures correlate with discovery rate, the historic (or adjusted) resources discovered per unit of expenditure will provide a reasonable estimate of resource gains to be expected. As long as the time lag between discovery and production is accounted for, this kind of dynamic forecasting is more likely to provide a basis for both price increases and decreases, which metals markets have historically demonstrated.
Without these estimates of uranium resource replenishment through exploration cycles, long-term supply-demand analyses will tend to have a built-in pessimistic bias (i.e. towards scarcity and higher prices), that will not reflect reality. Not only will these forecasts tend to overestimate the price required to meet long-term demand, but the opponents of nuclear power use them to bolster arguments that nuclear power is unsustainable even in the short term. In a similar fashion, these finite-resources analyses also lead observers of the industry to conclude that fast breeder reactor technology will soon be required. This may indeed make a gradual appearance, but if uranium follows the price trends we see in other metals, its development will be due to strategic policy decisions more than uranium becoming too expensive.
And here is in my opinion, the real thing to consider.
Since uranium is part of the energy sector, another way to look at exploration costs is on the basis of energy value. This allows comparisons with the energy investment cost for other energy fuels, especially fossil fuels which will have analogous costs related to the discovery of the resources. From numerous published sources, the finding costs of crude oil have averaged around US$ 6/bbl over at least the past three decades. When finding costs of the two fuels are expressed in terms of their contained energy value, oil, at US$ 1050/MJ of energy, is about 300 times more expensive to find than uranium, at US$ 3.4/MJ. Similarly, the proportion of current market prices that finding costs comprise are lower for uranium. Its finding costs make up only 2% of the recent spot price of US$ 30/lb ($78/kgU), while the oil finding costs are 12% of a recent spot price of US$ 50/bbl.
By these measures, uranium is a very inexpensive energy source to replenish, as society has accepted far higher energy replacement costs to sustain oil resources. This low basic energy resource cost is one argument in favour of a nuclear-hydrogen solution to long-term replacement of oil as a transportation fuel.
And if we are going to be honest here, lets take the original argument that further increase in nuclear will only result in a higher cost due to resource scarcity. This argument also applies to solar power which heavily relies on various elements that are also comparable if not more scare in the Earth's crust than Uranium (if I am not mistaken). So then the most rational thing to do would be to stick with conventional coal which in the first link you provided, already provided a lower LCOE. But clearly, we can agree that is not the answer.
Yes, which is why wind needs to be supplemented with solar energy, and ways of storing it in batteries (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523251/new-battery-material-could-help-wind-and-solar-power-go-big/) or maybe liquefied air (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514936/liquefied-air-could-power-cars-and-store-energy-from-sun-and-wind/)
edit: and a better power grid too.
I completely agree about a better grid, and I am sure eventually politicians will wake up to that fact and get on it. However, in my opinion, trying to introduce batteries or liquefied air will only add on more inefficiencies and take up resources that would be better utilized elsewhere than if we simply increased nuclear power as a percent of our total electrical generation.
On the contrary, I like it when people read my links.
I can see that Hitachi apparently does have a fast breeder design although skeptics claim it might still be 25 years away. The nuclear industry is rather notorious for delays and cost overruns, so it becomes a bit meh; yes it is potentially a great thing but how long are we supposed to wait. But OK, in the long term next-gen technology means uranium shouldn't be a problem.
One could argue solar power might get more expensive the more widespread it is, but so far the price has been dropping and there is also the potential of using other materials. Storage technologies will cost extra but that does not mean it will cost more than nuclear. IMO there are uncertainties on the costs which makes it rather difficult to declare which one is best, so I prefer to keep all options open. Bigger budgets for R&D would be nice.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-24-2014, 18:11
My own personal hope is that we can get to a combination of renewables and fusion.
Me in charge?: Manhattan-style effort on fusion power dev; second, not quite manhattan, on battery improvement; expand fission and natural gas while renewables tech is ramped up (coal and especially oil have huge value in other usages that aren't burnt); greenlight NASA for Lunar colony, Mars exp, research on extra terrestrial mining.
But don't worry, I won't be in power ever....even in my own family :grin3:
HoreTore
04-24-2014, 21:59
My own personal hope is that we can get to a combination of renewables and fusion.
Fusion, eh? (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fusion_woo)
a completely inoffensive name
04-24-2014, 23:54
Nuclear power will come unless:
1. We decide to keep using fossil fuels.
2. We decide to die as a species.
Many of the elements needed for solar are mined (almost exclusively) by China. I would consider it a failure on a colossal scale if we managed to remove our energy dependence on the Middle East and decided to hand it over to China. Sad thing is that many of you wish to do just that.
If we want energy independence for good, the way is a nuclear-hydrogen economy or bust.
HoreTore
04-25-2014, 12:45
Nuclear power will come unless:
1. We decide to keep using fossil fuels.
2. We decide to die as a species.
Many of the elements needed for solar are mined (almost exclusively) by China. I would consider it a failure on a colossal scale if we managed to remove our energy dependence on the Middle East and decided to hand it over to China. Sad thing is that many of you wish to do just that.
If we want energy independence for good, the way is a nuclear-hydrogen economy or bust.
Who are "we"?
While I don't doubt that we'll figure out a way to replicate what's happening at the sun eventually, the emphasis is on eventually. We're miles away from using fusion, and most of the claims of its awesomeness are just hackery. I'm sure it'll be a nice fuel when we build the first Milennium Falcon, but for the time being we should focus on more realistic options.
Fission still works wonders though.
Who are "we"?
Human beings, Society, Everyone.
HoreTore
04-25-2014, 12:51
Human beings, Society, Everyone.
So, the Chinese needs to find resources outside China so that the Chinese have energy indepedence?
Or are the Chinese not considered humans?
It's not like computer technology wasn't heavily dependent on rare earths from China, but you rarely see people saying we should stop using computer technology on the Internet. I wonder why.
So, the Chinese needs to find resources outside China so that the Chinese have energy indepedence?
Or are the Chinese not considered humans?
I was speaking generally, but in that specific example, 'Murica.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-25-2014, 15:20
Fusion, eh? (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fusion_woo)
It's been pretty clear for a while that only the magnetic bottle approach might yield net power. Some of the other stuff is way cool to think about, but just cannot do it (using more power than is created is pointless). My "Manhattan" reference was geared at reducing the overall development time. I'm 50 and I would love to see it happen before I drop dead of old age. Current estimates leave me a centenarian+ before fusion really gets doable. It is possible, of course, that throwing money at the problem wouldn't make a difference to the time scale. As an American I find that frustrating, since it is what we do best.
HopAlongBunny
04-26-2014, 00:19
I'm 50 and I would love to see it happen before I drop dead of old age.
I am with you on that point! The good thing about throwing money at the problem is it keeps the game going.
As long as they can get funding, scientists will continue to poke and prod at fusion; I hope the "Aha" moment comes in my lifetime.
Many of the elements needed for solar are mined (almost exclusively) by China. I would consider it a failure on a colossal scale if we managed to remove our energy dependence on the Middle East and decided to hand it over to China. Sad thing is that many of you wish to do just that.
Just because China does most of the mining right now does not mean they have a monopoly. They just took over because it was the cheapest. They have about 37% of known global reserves while USA has another 13%. Might as well let them use theirs first, if it is so important to think in such terms.
Then there is the research with other materials like zinc, so maybe it won't be as bad as you fear.
InsaneApache
04-27-2014, 08:14
Oh dear me. Another sinner who hath come to repent......
The contact group included representatives from of a diverse set of countries, ranging from small to large, and from poor to rich. Hence, I do not believe that the responsibility for the problems that arose are attributable to any specific country or even set of countries. On the contrary, nearly all delegates in the meeting demonstrated the same perspective and approach, namely that any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable. In fact, several (perhaps the majority) of the country representatives in the SPM.5.2 contact group identified themselves as negotiators in the UNFCCC negotiations. To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties, created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Thus, the country representatives were placed in an awkward and problematic position by the nature of the process.
Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/
Well, well, well.....
Ironside
04-27-2014, 08:32
Oh dear me. Another sinner who hath come to repent......
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/
Well, well, well.....
So, you're telling us that the nations have done a bad job on climate migation and wants to cover that up? Those sinners!
Original version. (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/IPCC/Item_A.pdf) Shortened version. (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/IPCC/Item_B.pdf)
They've removed most criticism and most suggestions.
InsaneApache
04-27-2014, 08:45
It's hardly science though is it?
Pannonian
04-27-2014, 14:05
It's hardly science though is it?
It's politics as well, which isn't such a bad idea as you'd want to paint it as. For all that you want to discredit those who push the green agenda, there is a political argument which you've hardly approached. Our current energy over-use leaves us uncomfortably dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia. If we decrease our usage by tightening up our efficiency, we'd be more independent of governments whom I'd rather not touch with a bargepole.
InsaneApache
04-27-2014, 14:10
Oh I am sorry. I thought the whole thing was about stopping us frying from all that warming.
It all makes sense now.
It's hardly science though is it?
Before returning to the topic of today’s blog entry — the SPM process and outcome — I want to emphasize that the IPCC’s Working Group III “Technical Summary” and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products – the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 – retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention. Now, back to the SPM process and outcome …
So it does not affect the science in any way. Since you appear not to understand what his blog post was about maybe this article will make it more clear:
http://theconversation.com/censored-ipcc-summary-reveals-jockeying-for-key-un-climate-talks-25813
At the plenary meeting in Berlin last week, significant changes were made to the draft summary. The approved SPM (http://mitigation2014.org/report/summary-for-policy-makers) emphasises justice and sustainability more than the draft did, and downplays the need for countries to cooperate to deal with climate change.
Delegates also deleted all of the graphs and text that describe the greenhouse gas emissions of specific regions and groups of countries. The approved summary only presents data on global totals.
...
Many countries have good reasons for not wanting specific information about their own emissions to make it into the IPCC summary. If the SPM includes details of regional trends as well as global ones, that might be seen as an endorsement of a particular approach to burden-sharing.
In other words, some countries don't like a SPM that means less freedom in negotiations.
Pannonian
04-27-2014, 16:00
Oh I am sorry. I thought the whole thing was about stopping us frying from all that warming.
It all makes sense now.
So if there are 2 sets of benefits from following the green agenda, one scientific/environmental which you dispute, and one political which is indisputable, you want us to forgo the political benefits just because you disagree with the scientists? It doesn't harm us to follow the path they prescribe, and if you agree with their argument, it will benefit us. So it's a no risk path on the scientific side with the possibility of benefits. But on the political side, anything that lessens our dependence on the Saudis and Russians is a good thing. And against that, all you have is a HIGNFY-style "witticism".
Ironside
04-28-2014, 12:15
Oh I am sorry. I thought the whole thing was about stopping us frying from all that warming.
It all makes sense now.
I'm still not seeing your point. The green agenda, as you put it, has the claim that global warming is real and without radical measurements to reduce CO2 emissions, we'll have a lot of problems in the future. A lot of countries agrees with that, but won't put money where their mouth is. Their influence has done the report much more vague on the specific parts.
It's proof of current narrative. Yet it's supposed to prove that IPCC is cheating on the science to show that global warming is much worse that it really is. That's by reducing criticism. (Rape is worse than murder! Let us change the punishment of this hideous crime to fines!)
It's like saying that capturing Russian soldiers in Ukraine (the narrative) shows that American soldiers are manipulating things.
Owww, nice report comming up, hasn't been released yet but this is going to be fun.
Think about the children, I mean 'agents of change'
Owww, nice report comming up, hasn't been released yet but this is going to be fun.
Think about the children, I mean 'agents of change'
Papewaio
05-07-2014, 07:44
Here is an easy to read one from the US:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
Think about the children, I mean 'agents of change'
You make that sound sinister but it is a fact that children and young people adapt far more quickly than older people. They usually are not have rooted ideologically either so they can see the evidence and pick what is the right direction (usually).
For example with technology, my parents never ever used the computer and they avoided it like an alien device, even now when they have their own laptop, they have no sense of direction near it. On the other hand being younger, I saw the benefits almost instantly and very versatile around a computer system. Even as I have grown older, there are some trends which I haven't caught on which I have noticed in my nieces and nephews, luckily, they are not anything important or worthwhile. So technically speaking, children and young adults are agents of change in society.
It's similar to the lifetime of a product, ideally it goes from stars via cash cows to old dogs.
I.e. young people are highly innovative and very promising, then they just have to rake in the money to keep society working before they can retire and are discontinued. Thus human resources. Capitalism just follows the path nature has carved out for all of its products.
HopAlongBunny
05-07-2014, 19:51
It's real.
It's happening.
We're pretty much already at the point of dealing with its effects, rather than preventing those effects.
Enjoy!
:elephant:
Addition:
U.S. focused assessment:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/white-houses-sprawling-climate-report-change-is-already-here/
It's real.
It's happening.
We're pretty much already at the point of dealing with its effects, rather than preventing those effects.
Good timing to vote Green in the EU election then.
HopAlongBunny
05-13-2014, 02:37
A little comment on "balance" in climate debate:
http://happynicetimepeople.com/john-oliver-and-bill-nye-fix-everything-wrong-with-climate-change-reporting-video/
HopAlongBunny
08-30-2014, 11:16
This more about "sinking land" than rising seas, and less about climate change than about unintended consequences.
It strikes me as a very visual illustration of the cost of commerce (in some cases)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/losing-ground-southeast-louisiana-is-disappearing-quickly/
HopAlongBunny
09-05-2014, 23:33
Back on topic :yes:
I just watched an interesting DVD; it makes the case that fossil fuels pale in comparison to the GHG contributions from agriculture. Its a dirty little secret that goes to the bottom line of environment, industry, and government:
http://cowspiracy.com/
.com link back up; here is the facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/cowspiracymovie?_fb_noscript=1
a completely inoffensive name
09-07-2014, 02:00
Methane is a lot more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of the greenhouse effect. Methane eventually breaks down into carbon dioxide after two decades (has a half life of two decades), but the damage is immense.
HopAlongBunny
09-07-2014, 03:41
That's more or less why I thought we were headed for the inevitable with the melting of permafrost in Canada and Russia; turns out there is a more prolific source of methane.
The DVD is quite informative, aside from the numbers (which are of course highly disputed) the legal bulwark agri-industry has built up is jaw dropping.
As one rancher points out; He could defend himself because what he had said on Oprah was true; since that time, even if what you say is true you can be found guilty thanks to the Patriot Act.
HopAlongBunny
09-07-2014, 13:56
The DVD raises issues along the lines of this:
http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2
Deforestation for livestock and other uses (with pasture being dominant):
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0262e/a0262e00.pdf
Ocean dead zones and habitat degradation (agi run-off, algae and creation of deadzones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29
I'm sure there are better sources to illustrate each point, but I'm not interested in paying for the articles that caught my eye :curtain:
The DVD raises issues along the lines of this:
http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2
The slightly depressing thing is that you are making this sound as if it is all brand-new. I remember being taught over 16 years ago that Cows (and Agriculture) played a big impact. Biggest man made contributor.
HopAlongBunny
10-14-2014, 22:59
Like any good scam the DoD is all over it ~;)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immediate-risk-to-national-security-posed-by-global-warming/
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2014, 01:55
So euthanize half the human population of the planet; allow all meat animals to die of a ripe old age; revert the remainder of the human population to organic agro-subsistence with a vegan diet augmented with plenty of downloadable music and scads of internet porn; outlaw personal wealth or the acquisition of same past a pile 10-years current salary or higher; set production standards etc. for required industries by standing government regulatory committees; prohibit indirect ownership via stocks and prohibit separate corporate "persons."
Problem solved, climate returns to natural-fluctuation within a century.
InsaneApache
10-15-2014, 11:00
Great isn't it?
Fisherking
10-24-2014, 14:04
Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
Consensus is not science. It is popular opinion. How scientific is that?
On the other hand calls to obey consensus is quite authoritarian. Right there with an agenda. Tax and control.
Why you cite a tabloid, a paper of limited value and makes money from popularizing viewpoints and claims beyond any evidence (like the Daily Mail in the other thread) in exchange of money, as your source? Especially when you purposefully speak against popularization in your statement.
Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.
Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.
Still, their potential financing by certain interests might influence their objectivity. Also, their shareholders usually tend to invest in other sections of the economy, which is inevitably going to also affect their credibility.
Sir Moody
10-24-2014, 16:46
Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.
are you being serious here? Tabloids are part of the "quality media".
They, much like any media company, cater to their readers bias - its how they make sure they sell enough papers!
Gilrandir
10-24-2014, 16:48
Perhaps someone has already brought it up, so they will direct me to where I belong.
My wife is sure of the existence of so called chemical trails which the planes leave after them. She claims that these are not inversion traces (since the latter are soon to disappear while chemical trails are long to stay visible in the sky), but some chemicals (namely some compounds of barium, aluminium and ferrum) sprinkled from passing planes with the purpose either of expanding some reflecting surfaces for satellite surveillance or of contaminating soil in third world countries (to make them dependent on GM foods).
How much truth is you think in such assumptions fed by internet?
I don't really care all that much about whether we cause global warming or not.
If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the stuff we blow into the air is unhealthy for us anyway, whether it's through global warming or causing lung cancer. So we should probably stop polluting the earth anyway. I would in no way ever endorse getting even more combustion engines onto the roads in our cities even if combustion engines were 100% proven to cause global cooling. At the moment it seems even worse than passive smoking, which is far more easy to avoid.
Greyblades
10-24-2014, 23:10
Firstly, I would like to point out that the climate change deniers frequently give out huge sums to any scientist who would back their side, do you really believe that less than 5% of scientists take the money if climate change is a hoax.
Secondly, in what universe does one tabloid's word overule the testimony of basically every authority on the subject (that isnt obviously in the pocket of those who will make less profits if humanity actually acts against climate change.)?
Thirdly:
If we're right and we do nothing we pretty much lose 20% of earth's usable landmass, most of it our most usable farmland, either to the rising waters or to the increased climate that will make some surviving areas uninhabitable. Hundreds of millions will become homeless refugees and earth's population will shrink significantly from starvation. Even if we're wrong and climate change doesnt happen the changes we'd have done to lower our carbon emissions would still do much to stop the smog clouds, depleted oceans, polluted rivers, acid rain and all those other nasty side effects of uninhibited pollution that we are currently experiencing right now.
Both scenarios where we act bring huge benefits and the cost we'd endure averting it is no more than the amount of money we waste year upon year in failed wars. Whereas if we do nothing, nothing happening is litterally the best thing we will get, so what's the problem exactly?
I posted this six months ago. I have yet to hear even one remotely serious attempt to counter it.
HoreTore
10-24-2014, 23:42
My wife is sure of the existence of so called chemical trails which the planes leave after them.
She's wrong.
Plain and simple. It's complete nonsense (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemtrails). Tell your wife to stop attending lectures at Google University.
Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.
Billions, eh?
You know what's a trillion-dollar business?
Oil, gas and coal.
And they're looking to hire. They're ready to shower gazillions on whoever can back their case up and say global warming isn't really such an issue. If scientists are the corrupt bastards you claim they are, why on earth don't they take that money instead of the pennies you believe they get from "BigEco"...?
Your case doesn't even make logical sense, much less factual.
Consensus is not science. It is popular opinion. How scientific is that?
You just failed the Science 101 class.
Sign up again next year.
Oh, and John Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28news_weathercaster%29) isn't a "top meteorologist". He's a weather presenter and broadcaster. He has 0 knowledge on climate. He has no related education.
He has done absolutely no research, and he is not a scientist. He's worth as much as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
It's quite telling how weak the case of the climate deniers is when all they can bring to town is one charlatan after another. Never anyone with actual knowledge.
Oh, and for some comedy relief, here's John Stewart on what happens when the bungling morons in the US committee on science and technology encounters people who know what they're talking about (http://www.upworthy.com/these-congressmen-think-theyre-smarter-than-scientists-jon-stewart-disproves-that-real-quick?g=2&c=ufb1).
Of course planes leave chemtrails, just like cars do.
HoreTore
10-25-2014, 09:34
Of course planes leave chemtrails, just like cars do.
And just like you do ~;)
a completely inoffensive name
10-25-2014, 09:46
Some people don't recognize danger unless it is evident right in front of them. It is what it is, and I am accepting that many jobs I hold in the future may very well be the beginning stage of helping the US cope with a hotter Earth for centuries to come.
Some people don't recognize danger unless it is evident right in front of them.
True that
Oh, and for some comedy relief, here's John Stewart on what happens when the bungling morons in the US committee on science and technology encounters people who know what they're talking about (http://www.upworthy.com/these-congressmen-think-theyre-smarter-than-scientists-jon-stewart-disproves-that-real-quick?g=2&c=ufb1).
I find that is comedy shows in the USA are more informative than many of the actual 'news' stations is a rather embarrassing trait.
I find that is comedy shows in the USA are more informative than many of the actual 'news' stations is a rather embarrassing trait.
I find it makes the actual news more pleasant to watch. ~;)
Gilrandir
10-25-2014, 19:28
She's wrong.
Plain and simple. It's complete nonsense (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemtrails). Tell your wife to stop attending lectures at Google University.
The latter we all do so it will meet a strong opposition on her part.
Your link to a wikipedia article (which is a result of a Google search itself, no doubt) doesn't seem reliable just because of the reputation wikipedia has.
But the fact I eye-witnessed more than once myself is that the trail after some planes is quick to disappear, while after others it is long to stay and proliferates in all directions. I think a specialist would find it easy to explain, so I hoped for a professional opinion. And I still do.
Some people don't recognize danger unless it is evident right in front of them.
I. Azimov exemplifies it in his "The Gods themselves" very vividly. One of my favorite books.
Your link to a wikipedia article (which is a result of a Google search itself, no doubt) doesn't seem reliable just because of the reputation wikipedia has.
It is rationalwiki, not wikipedia. It is a wiki about arguments and debunking myths.
But the fact I eye-witnessed more than once myself is that the trail after some planes is quick to disappear, while after others it is long to stay and proliferates in all directions. I think a specialist would find it easy to explain, so I hoped for a professional opinion. And I still do.
Different flight altitudes and atmospheric conditions.
Although, coming from me it could be one of Putin's lies. :laugh4:
Gilrandir
10-25-2014, 20:54
It is rationalwiki, not wikipedia. It is a wiki about arguments and debunking myths.
As far as I know, wiki is notorious for the fact that any contributor may post there no matter how qualified he is. Don't know how rationalwiki is different from it, but the connected name doesn't reflect a great credit on it.
If it were something like "unwiki" or "dewikiwise it" it would sound more reliable.
Different flight altitudes and atmospheric conditions.
Although, coming from me it could be one of Putin's lies. :laugh4:
Unlike others I'm not biased to any opinions voiced by anyone. The only condition I make is qualification of the answerer. If you meet the requirement and elaborate your claim I can accept it. I'm a disinterested person here since it is my wife who believes in this conspiracy, I'm more skeptical about the theory, yet ready to hear both sides of the story.
HoreTore
10-26-2014, 02:18
The latter we all do so it will meet a strong opposition on her part.
Your link to a wikipedia article (which is a result of a Google search itself, no doubt) doesn't seem reliable just because of the reputation wikipedia has.
But the fact I eye-witnessed more than once myself is that the trail after some planes is quick to disappear, while after others it is long to stay and proliferates in all directions. I think a specialist would find it easy to explain, so I hoped for a professional opinion. And I still do.
Oh for crying out loud...
Are you sure it's only your wife who believes in chemtrails...?
Anyway, the link was, as has been pointed out already, not from wikipedia. It's from rationalwiki, a site devoted to debunking wingnuts, conspiracy theories and assorted other crap. With a snappy attitude as well, which I very much enjoy. And it's scientifically accurate, though it assumes familiarity with the subject from the reader.
The linky gives a good summary of the claims. I linked to it because I simply can't be bothered to prove a negative today. The chemtrails crowd has absolutely no evidence, not even attempted evidence. It's just a collection of freaks looking at the sky while being clueless about chemistry.
That contrails linger around for hours while others disappears quickly is completely normal behavior. I suggest you read a chemistry book.
Still, chemtrails is a harmless delusion. If she starts to call herself a Freewoman-on-the-land, however, I suggest you run for the hills.
Gilrandir
10-26-2014, 11:20
Anyway, the link was, as has been pointed out already, not from wikipedia. It's from rationalwiki, a site devoted to debunking wingnuts, conspiracy theories and assorted other crap.
I don't think much of the site which is designed to counter rather than explain something. The purpose of denying is in itself a flawed one.
With a snappy attitude as well, which I very much enjoy. And it's scientifically accurate, though it assumes familiarity with the subject from the reader.
A scientist shouldn't be snappy when explaining some elementary (as he believes) things to a layman. As someone said once: "If you can't explain to the woman who cleans your lab what you do here, you are wasting your time as a scientist."
The linky gives a good summary of the claims. I linked to it because I simply can't be bothered to prove a negative today. The chemtrails crowd has absolutely no evidence, not even attempted evidence. It's just a collection of freaks looking at the sky while being clueless about chemistry.
That contrails linger around for hours while others disappears quickly is completely normal behavior. I suggest you read a chemistry book.
The only problem is that such "normal behavior of contrails" has been spotted only lately and was not in evidence 20-30 years ago.
Still, chemtrails is a harmless delusion. If she starts to call herself a Freewoman-on-the-land, however, I suggest you run for the hills.
This is the reason you ran for the hills from a Norwegian school? Or do Norwegian hills look so attractive?
HoreTore
10-26-2014, 11:32
I don't think much of the site which is designed to counter rather than explain something. The purpose of denying is in itself a flawed one.
A scientist shouldn't be snappy when explaining some elementary (as he believes) things to a layman. As someone said once: "If you can't explain to the woman who cleans your lab what you do here, you are wasting your time as a scientist."
Rationalwiki is intended to be a library detailing all the whacky theories of the intertubez. It does the job well.
There's no need to deny anything.
The only problem is that such "normal behavior of contrails" has been spotted only lately and was not in evidence 20-30 years ago.
False.
That's a completely made up claim. This behaviour has been observed since the invention of the jet engine.
This is the reason you ran for the hills from a Norwegian school? Or do Norwegian hills look so attractive?
There isn't much else than hills here.... Anyway, a local "freewoman-on-the-land" just got evicted this week, which is what happens to you when you subscribe to that conspiracy.
HopAlongBunny
10-26-2014, 11:46
The only problem is that such "normal behavior of contrails" has been spotted only lately and was not in evidence 20-30 years ago.
Some of us are old enough (raises hand) to provide eye-witness testimony that this claim is false :p
Unlike others I'm not biased to any opinions voiced by anyone. The only condition I make is qualification of the answerer. If you meet the requirement and elaborate your claim I can accept it. I'm a disinterested person here since it is my wife who believes in this conspiracy, I'm more skeptical about the theory, yet ready to hear both sides of the story.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/what-are-chemtrails.htm
When a jet engine is spewing out hot, humid air into an atmosphere that is cold and has low vapor pressure, the result is condensation. The water vapor coming out of the engine quickly condenses into water droplets and then crystallizes into ice. The ice crystals are the clouds that form behind the engine. This is why the streaks are called contrails, short for "condensation trails." To help explain it, scientists liken it to seeing your breath on cold days. You may have noticed that puffs of breath dissipate quickly on dryer days. The same is true of contrails: When the atmosphere is more humid, the contrails linger, but when the atmosphere is dry, the contrails disappear more quickly.
It's not even hard to look it up, you can probably find a lot more sources with exaplanations if you think this is a government misinformation source. I didn't read past the first page, but they also seem to cover various conspiracy theories there.
Gilrandir
10-26-2014, 14:50
It's not even hard to look it up, you can probably find a lot more sources with exaplanations if you think this is a government misinformation source. I didn't read past the first page, but they also seem to cover various conspiracy theories there.
I saw two planes flying across the same space with approximately 2 minutes interval between them yet one left a trail to linger for some time, the other's trail dissipated almost at once. So it can't be explained by different humidity conditions. On my assumption which I offered as an explanation to my wife, it may have something to do with different kinds of fuel the planes may use.
But thanks everybody who took this discussion to heart. Only there is no need to accuse others of stupidity and illiteracy if their viewpoint differs, after all tolerance is the keystone of European values, is it not?
I saw two planes flying across the same space with approximately 2 minutes interval between them yet one left a trail to linger for some time, the other's trail dissipated almost at once. So it can't be explained by different humidity conditions. On my assumption which I offered as an explanation to my wife, it may have something to do with different kinds of fuel the planes may use.
But thanks everybody who took this discussion to heart. Only there is no need to accuse others of stupidity and illiteracy if their viewpoint differs, after all tolerance is the keystone of European values, is it not?
Are you sure they were flying at the same altitude? Because "across the same space" is a pretty vague statement when we're talking about space...
Altitude really matters, otherwise the existence of clouds in the sky would also necessitate fog on the ground and so on.
Gilrandir
10-26-2014, 16:17
Are you sure they were flying at the same altitude?
Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.
Gilrandir
10-26-2014, 16:18
Are you sure they were flying at the same altitude?
Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.
Shoot! Again this repetition.
HoreTore
10-26-2014, 16:28
I saw two planes flying across the same space with approximately 2 minutes interval between them yet one left a trail to linger for some time, the other's trail dissipated almost at once. So it can't be explained by different humidity conditions.
Yes, it can.
Why don't you seek out actual information instead of making assertions like this?
after all tolerance is the keystone of European values, is it not?
You propose that there's a plot to kill off a significant portion of the world's population through covert means.
There's no tolerance for extremist ideas like that.
Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.
And how can you then claim the atmospheric conditions were the same?
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/
http://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/
I don't know whether I should find it great or sad that there seems to be a site dedicated to the "issue" of contrails.
Papewaio
10-27-2014, 04:44
Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.
You can, it's called trigonometry. People have used it since the ancient greeks to figure out the diameter of the earth, distance to the suns and using parallax the distance to other starts.
Also the contrails are effected by the attitude of the plane. Not that it has a cool attitude, the angle of the wings to the air causing the air to be more or less compressed. If one plane is changing altitude faster it will have a different angle of attack, hence the air will be compressed differently. End result will be different contrails even if everything else is the same (which likely isn't).
To see how quickly air changes look at trees on a gusty day, it is quite possible to see tall trees blowing one direction and the wind on the ground another (Coriolis force etc). Or send off a bunch of ballons and see how they move in different directions as they rise.
HopAlongBunny
10-27-2014, 11:15
In any case a new IPCC report will drop in November, renewing the cycle of evasion and misinformation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-n-climate-change-draft-sees-risks-of-irreversible-damage/
I do like the articles on Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/) by Ben Goldacre. But the reason I raise him is because he has an old article on Climate Change, here: Copenhagen Climate Change Blah Blah (http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copenhagen-climate-change-blah-blah/#more-1429)
Then obviously, there is http://www.realclimate.org/ another good source.
If anyone still doubts that this is a man-made problem, maybe the communist-agenda-friends over at the pinko-liberal climate-hoax centre called NASA can help you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
Furunculus
11-23-2014, 11:06
If anyone still doubts that this is a man-made problem, maybe the communist-agenda-friends over at the pinko-liberal climate-hoax centre called NASA can help you:
How much of it:
All of it?
Most of it?
Some of it?
I don't know anyone who claims we have no impact, and believe that would be absurd?
Following on from the previous question - we have the inverse:
How much was natural variability?
Once we think we have a decent grasp on that immensely trick question, we can then ask ourselves how catastrophic this combined climate variation will prove to be to human civilisation, i.e. how great the change in how limited a timeframe, thus minimizing the ability of flora and fauna to adjust without mass extinction.
At that point we have the science and economics sorted out, we can then approach the politics of the matter; how much do we spend, and where to spend it, to achieve an outcome the minimises the catastrophic impact of climate change without catastrophically impacting the economic growth which has saved billions from disease, starvation, and exposure in the last half century?
The cost benefit analysis at the end of the process isn't too tricky, understanding the complex system that underpins it is.
Once we think we have a decent grasp on that immensely trick question, we can then ask ourselves how catastrophic this combined climate variation will prove to be to human civilisation, i.e. how great the change in how limited a timeframe, thus minimizing the ability of flora and fauna to adjust without mass extinction.
So basically we just wait until we have maybe figured some things out based on the word of the two scientists who say the other thousands are wrong.
At that point we have the science and economics sorted out, we can then approach the politics of the matter; how much do we spend, and where to spend it, to achieve an outcome the minimises the catastrophic impact of climate change without catastrophically impacting the economic growth which has saved billions from disease, starvation, and exposure in the last half century?
You mean then we get to the point where we are now, where some countries think it does not matter to them that some islanders will drown and short-term competitiveness wins the day. Although we may only get there by the time the islanders have drowned and all of Africa is a desert. But I'm sure Britain will happily let them all immigrate when their home countries become uninhabitable.
And where do you get those billions from? Did you adjust them by the billions who died from cancer and other diseases caused by the pollution and other side effects of industrialization that kill people even if we do not count global warming?
The cost benefit analysis at the end of the process isn't too tricky, understanding the complex system that underpins it is.
What would be costs and what would be benefits? Are we measuring in human lives, dollars or both?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-23-2014, 18:45
Depending on which alarmist to whom you choose to listen, we need to cut emissions in half either a) yesterday or b) don't bother cause we're _______ed already.
Reducing emissions by 50% in less than a decade would likely necessitate global economic depression and a fair degree of famine.
The USA, despite a significant minority of persons who doubt the anthropogenic character of the global warming trend, has REDUCED greenhouse gas emissions to levels equivalent to that experienced 20 years ago. Note, we had a population of roughly 264 millions then, and 313 millions now. This number will continue to be reduced, and should be, but do you expect a first world nation to beggar itself overnight? The result of that would be revolution and MORE greenhouse emissions.
Furunculus
11-23-2014, 20:14
So basically we just wait until we have maybe figured some things out based on the word of the two scientists who say the other thousands are wrong.
You mean then we get to the point where we are now, where some countries think it does not matter to them that some islanders will drown and short-term competitiveness wins the day. Although we may only get there by the time the islanders have drowned and all of Africa is a desert. But I'm sure Britain will happily let them all immigrate when their home countries become uninhabitable.
And where do you get those billions from? Did you adjust them by the billions who died from cancer and other diseases caused by the pollution and other side effects of industrialization that kill people even if we do not count global warming?
What would be costs and what would be benefits? Are we measuring in human lives, dollars or both?
Is that an argument for the precautionary principle, i'm not quite sure where you're going with that?
No, i mean the policy response to the conclusion of catastrophic climate change has until now been woeful, quite like to kill as many through disease, poverty, and exposure, as it saves from a more clement climate. Who knows, it might continue to be woeful, but i'm quietly hopeful that the combination of better understanding and less hysteria this decade will better than the noughties.
Both, why would you think otherwise?
I'm not saying we should blow up our industry, but quite a few people seem to advocate doing nothing. At the same time we laugh at China for their heavily polluted cities. It's not like the restrictions we placed here in the past to reduce such pollution ruined us.
What I'm saying is that:
a) waiting 20-50 years until we are 100% sure how the climate works and can predict everything before we do anything is stupid if our current predictions are even remotely correct.
b) reducing pollution is never a bad idea, there are enough bad side effects if even the climate change should turn out to be wrong
c) the video clearly shows that the industrial parts of the world regularly emit loads of pollution which then spreads all over the place
d) I live next to a big road, it would be a much nicer and healthier place to live in without combustion engines everywhere, filters just aren't enough. I do intend to move next year but that only means someone else gets the exposure and I get it from a bit farther away, it's not like it doesn't spread...
Seamus Fermanagh
11-23-2014, 20:56
I'm not saying we should blow up our industry, but quite a few people seem to advocate doing nothing. At the same time we laugh at China for their heavily polluted cities. It's not like the restrictions we placed here in the past to reduce such pollution ruined us.
What I'm saying is that:
a) waiting 20-50 years until we are 100% sure how the climate works and can predict everything before we do anything is stupid if our current predictions are even remotely correct.
b) reducing pollution is never a bad idea, there are enough bad side effects if even the climate change should turn out to be wrong
c) the video clearly shows that the industrial parts of the world regularly emit loads of pollution which then spreads all over the place
d) I live next to a big road, it would be a much nicer and healthier place to live in without combustion engines everywhere, filters just aren't enough. I do intend to move next year but that only means someone else gets the exposure and I get it from a bit farther away, it's not like it doesn't spread...
And if THAT was the tenor of most of the climate change argument that I heard, I would be far less bothered.
A may or may not be true, but countermeasures to A are still a net gain even if A is not true = much more reasonable tone to start convincing your skeptics.
Hard to argue against reasonable measures to reduce pollution. In addition, I have often wondered why the "green" folks don't pick up the argument that burning fossil fuels is a colossal waste as it burns up our source of those long chain hydrocarbon molecules that are useful in so many other ways.
HopAlongBunny
12-08-2014, 12:49
The climate change marches on:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-s-drought-may-be-worst-in-a-millennium/
Probably only a problem for those of us who get our fresh veg from California (which turns out to be a lot of us) but still...
HopAlongBunny
04-28-2015, 07:35
God gets on board.
The Vatican convenes a meeting of climate scientists and clergy:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vatican-convenes-major-climate-change-meeting/
Over compensating for Galileo?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-28-2015, 15:16
This Holy Father is convinced that the scientists are correct regarding mankind's impact on the global ecosystem. He also takes the "dominion over" clause from Genesis to mean good stewardship and not tyranny.
HopAlongBunny
05-19-2015, 20:03
A little ironic: if we stop subsidizing our self-destruction we might just have enough money to do all sorts of things:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-subsidies-cost-5-trillion-annually-and-worsen-pollution/
HopAlongBunny
05-21-2015, 04:19
White House and Pentagon get on same page:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/obama-climate-national-security
a completely inoffensive name
05-24-2015, 10:49
Global climate change has already drained my states reservoirs. They should just start filming the next mad Max here
Global climate change has already drained my states reservoirs. They should just start filming the next mad Max here
What about desalination plants?
http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/05/22/california-could-use-desalination-to-replenish-water
You can probably power them with solar power even.
HopAlongBunny
05-25-2015, 22:27
All the water you need and less energy intensive than desalination:
http://http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/watch-bill-gates-drink-water-5-minutes-after-it-was-sewage (http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/watch-bill-gates-drink-water-5-minutes-after-it-was-sewage)
Get used to the "ick" factor as population continues to expand.
All the water you need and less energy intensive than desalination:
http://http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/watch-bill-gates-drink-water-5-minutes-after-it-was-sewage (http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/watch-bill-gates-drink-water-5-minutes-after-it-was-sewage)
Get used to the "ick" factor as population continues to expand.
Oh that, yes, well, you cannot tell people here that their water comes from that. I think there are also ways to get water from the air, or just settle in a place that is not a desert or at least not turned into a desert by your settling there and draining it.
a completely inoffensive name
05-26-2015, 22:01
Recycling water from sewage is not novel. There are several such large scale facilities in California. It is a good idea however and really should be implemented everywhere from the rural to the urban.
HopAlongBunny
05-27-2015, 15:57
Recycling water from sewage is not novel.
Yes, the science is solid and the water is pure.
I await vitamin and nutrient additives for "designer water"... wait a minute...
Greyblades
05-27-2015, 16:36
California wont allow it because of complaints from homeopathy believers
InsaneApache
06-05-2015, 13:07
I see the temperature readings have been 'adjusted'. If I did that in business it would be called fraud.
I see the temperature readings have been 'adjusted'. If I did that in business it would be called fraud.
When new and more detailed data pops up, science always adjusts. Just like the age estimates of "mitochondrial Eve" and Y-chromosome Adam" changed because of better DNA analysis.
To continue with your business analogy: if you discover your accountant has written £ instead of €, I'm quite certain you would demand an adjustment somewhere. If a whole business deal somehow was left out, you would demand an adjustment.
Science now has a better understanding of the temperature rise in the polar regions and more details of how sea temperature was measured (buckets, water intake thermometers or buoys) Hardly a surprise someone "adjusted" something, somewhere. Link to the paper here: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full)
Or maybe this article describes it better for us mere mortals: NOAA: No pause in the global surface temperature (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/noaa-no-pause-in-global-surface.html)
InsaneApache
06-06-2015, 12:36
It's like the story of the Emperors new clothes.
Papewaio
06-06-2015, 15:33
I see the temperature readings have been 'adjusted'. If I did that in business it would be called fraud.
Not even remotely accurate. Closest science you can get to is economics (which uses seasonal adjustments for trade, employment and may other indices) or look at how companies include soft items like goodwill in their bottom line.
Papewaio
06-06-2015, 15:34
It's like the story of the Emperors new clothes.
For how many centuries have we been able to ship all around the north of Russia from UK to the U.S.?
Fisherking
06-06-2015, 21:34
For how many centuries have we been able to ship all around the north of Russia from UK to the U.S.?
Who would know? No one was keeping records.
Who would know? No one was keeping records.
World Maps (however crude) were around in the 1000's, like this one -
http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Maps/Images/Old_Maps/al-Idrisi/al%20Idrisi%20map%20for%20Roger%20II%20BR.jpg
Whilst no-one had travelled to America's and around the Horn of Africa either, so no one "knows" of those routes. We do, however, have an idea of when we could as records did exist of what we were doing.
Besides, that map is quite accurate given the time.
Given the topic I assumed that the answer was something like 2011 or so.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/05/arctic-shipping-trade-routes
InsaneApache
06-07-2015, 17:48
Has Mann sued Steyn yet? If not, why not?
Interesting.
Has Mann sued Steyn yet? If not, why not?
Interesting.
What does the Mann vs. deniers defamation lawsuit have to do with the new NOAA study?
HopAlongBunny
07-21-2015, 00:22
As studies get better, the news...well:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuels-must-be-phased-out-to-avoid-drowned-coastlines/
InsaneApache
10-10-2015, 14:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4baOeuRDK8
:laugh4: oh my aching sides!
Painfull lol, do he should have taped it so he doesn't have to say 86% so many times, less CO2. They have absolutily nothing on serious scientists. Figure out another apocalypse believers, I suggest an alien-invasion, they probably found life on Mars.
Hooahguy
10-10-2015, 19:12
Yeah, one should never try to argue with Cruz, hes a master debater.
Completely silly talk.
Mister Mair (?) did apparently have no idea and resorted to one of the worst possible replies.
I saw no master debater in Cruz, I would have asked him which factors affect the temperatures measured by the satellites and how those factors developed in the same timeframe. Plus what region was he talking about? Just the US, global average, only Panama? And how is temperature stability good if the poles are melting anyway?
Not that I have any idea what they were talking about or what these numbers are, but everybody in that video just seemed silly to me.
If anyone cares, my opinion is that we are probably ruining the planet with or without global warming. Plastic bags are bad either way for example, and throwing them into the next bush hardly helps. Neither do VW cars that release too much poisonous gas that kills people(and not so much the climate).
And even if human contribution is smaller than natural contribution to greenhouse effects, why contribute to our demise at all? Does everybody have a death wish because it's convenient? Or is it just old people who think they'll be dead anyway by the time the effects hit, so why forgo the 5th luxury yacht to save the rainforest? Environmental destruction often seems like old peoples' YOLO to me. :shrug:
Papewaio
10-10-2015, 22:13
To be fair if you understand global warming a couple of spare yachts is a good investment with rising sea levels... Much better then a seafront property.
Hooahguy
10-11-2015, 01:26
I saw no master debater in Cruz
Im actually in agreement with you, but I was going for a joke with that term...
:rolleyes:
But seriously, Cruz is a great debater. He won some national Ivy League debate competition or something, Ive seen some of his real debating skills, hes very good at confusing his opponent to make them seem stupid, like we saw in this case.
Montmorency
10-11-2015, 01:36
Do you hold there to be a difference between "debate" and "rhetoricism"?
If not, then "arguing" and "debating" really are the same thing.
Ironside
10-11-2015, 12:02
Yeah, one should never try to argue with Cruz, hes a master debater.
I couldn't see far because his opponent was ridiculously crappy. It's painful to watch.
For starters, 18 years ago is 1997 and Cruz entire argument is based on 1998 and utterly fails when talking with 1997 data (and currently all other data, since 2014 was the warmest year on record). That's not counting that peak temperatures are a poor measurement and that 2015 is currently by far the warmest year on record and looks to be that way the year out. So Cruz is a) wrong on the date, b) using selective data, c) using poor data, d) wrong in his argument (to be fair, he would been correct 2013 on this point).
Settled science is what you base policies on. You have to call something a fact strong enough for regulation at some point, otherwise we'll still end up insane from eating lead sweeteners. Paradigm shifts and new data can change this and that is what it means that science are never 100% certain.
It's not my field, and I could own Cruz 3 times over within 2 minutes.
InsaneApache
10-11-2015, 14:00
Settled science is what you base policies politics on
Fixed it for you.
Science is never settled. Anyone who tells you differently is ignorant of how science is conducted.
It's not my field, and I could own Cruz 3 times over within 2 minutes.
Go on then, explain why is not getting warmer then.
Montmorency
10-11-2015, 15:49
Science is never settled. Anyone who tells you differently is ignorant of how science is conducted.
So the moon landing really was staged? :on_swoon:
InsaneApache
10-11-2015, 16:08
So the moon landing really was staged? :on_swoon:
WTF are you going on about?
Papewaio
10-12-2015, 05:45
WTF are you going on about?
Well since science is never settled...never use an absolute ;).
Monty is using an absurd position to counter that statement.
Whilst science can always improve with new information, that isn't quite the same as saying that science never settles, and certainly isn't the same as facts. Science is the interpretation of facts. So whilst the moon landing has happened the arguments could (fail to do so) argue all the reflectors and equipment was mechanically deployed sans humans.
Ironside
10-12-2015, 08:18
Fixed it for you.
Science is never settled. Anyone who tells you differently is ignorant of how science is conducted.
So, are you approving of lead sweeteners? According to science, it gives you brain damage, but since the matter isn't settled... The aerodynamics behind a flying plane isn't settled, but evidently we know enough to fly planes.
Certainly, occasionally further research do change things, but at some point, you have to accept the science to be true enough to act upon.
It the same as probability, going to the kitchen has a very small risk of killing you. Yet at some point you have to accept that an action is most likely better than inaction.
Add that to describe reality, you only need to figure out how something works, rather than why. We don't know why there's friction. We know how it works, but not why.
Go on then, explain why is not getting warmer then.
I don't know the exact reasons (not my field), but it's not uncommon for the temperatures to be stagnant or even dropping for about a decade. That has happened twice after 1940. If you look at the more accurate averages, rather than peak temperatures, you'll see that the stagnation started around 2005 rather than 1998 (98 is the freak that has became the new normal).
Add that both 2014 and 2015 is having record temperatures, so by the looks of it, the average is moving up again.
a completely inoffensive name
10-12-2015, 10:32
Temperatures fluctuate across multiple timescales because of regression to the mean.
InsaneApache
10-12-2015, 10:56
An example of settled science for you, since you don't appear to know the difference.
The Sun orbits the Earth.
Greyblades
10-12-2015, 11:13
As much as I enjoy waiting for the annual pointless handwringing over climate change to end I'd like to share something I found amusing; apparantly after around 500 years of searching we now have a north west passage. And a north east passage.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/10/n_extn_hires-350x417.png
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Gilrandir
10-12-2015, 12:24
I don't know the exact reasons (not my field), but it's not uncommon for the temperatures to be stagnant or even dropping for about a decade. That has happened twice after 1940.
And if we go deeper into the history we might remember several ice ages and several meltdowns.
Go on then, explain why is not getting warmer then.
It is getting warmer. The current trend for the lower troposphere ( according to the satellite data) is 0.11 C per decade. The data has also seen a lot of revisions as they can't get each satellite to produce same numbers. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Didn't someone call it fraud because scientists had revised data...can't remember who.
Geocentrists would say the science of the earth orbiting the sun is still up to debate. But we all know they are crazy, right?
Climate Change is a natural phenomena being accelerated by humanity. In some areas, this could be for the better, but for a lot more, it is for the worst. This is so things which might usually take 10,000 years might occur within 1000. There is also the issue where human input at the current rate could hit a tipping point where equilibrium would fail to be reached naturally.
So whilst there have been Ice Ages in the past, whilst the world has been hotter in the past, what actually matters is the present and the future, as humanity would be forced to react to these changes and cause significant shifts within a far shorter time scale. This would be prove to be extremely expensive in the future on a scale almost unimaginable.
Unfortunately, some people can only think as far as their nosetip, so they wouldn't notice until it slaps them into the face and they end up losing their homes due to the floods, coast-line shifts, droughts, tsunamis, tornadoes and other natural disasters. Then maybe they will think "if I simply used an energy saving lightbulb.."
Pannonian
10-12-2015, 18:48
Climate Change is a natural phenomena being accelerated by humanity. In some areas, this could be for the better, but for a lot more, it is for the worst. This is so things which might usually take 10,000 years might occur within 1000. There is also the issue where human input at the current rate could hit a tipping point where equilibrium would fail to be reached naturally.
So whilst there have been Ice Ages in the past, whilst the world has been hotter in the past, what actually matters is the present and the future, as humanity would be forced to react to these changes and cause significant shifts within a far shorter time scale. This would be prove to be extremely expensive in the future on a scale almost unimaginable.
Unfortunately, some people can only think as far as their nosetip, so they wouldn't notice until it slaps them into the face and they end up losing their homes due to the floods, coast-line shifts, droughts, tsunamis, tornadoes and other natural disasters. Then maybe they will think "if I simply used an energy saving lightbulb.."
I prefer to see it as reducing our dependence on the slave-owning barbarians in the middle east. We fawn over people like the Sauds because their countries have oil. If we could pick and choose from our suppliers, due to a lessening demand for energy, then we won't need to rub our faces in the dirt.
There are many benefits. Defense like that, Economy, more efficient products... if anything, there is a lot of pluses by investing into green technology.
Papewaio
10-12-2015, 21:51
That's one of those funny things.
Want to be independent, not as beholden to the corp and the government?
Simple go off grid using your own solar and wind energy generation into your own battery bank. Use LEDs and other power efficient tech and lessen your demand.
Go green and stop funding oil funded extremists.
So the real conservatives should be weaning themselves off Putins gas and the Saudi's oil. Just remember kids we went to war against two countries to rid the world of terrorists. However all the time oil money was funding extremists groups. Fun fact three quarters of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.
We go to war, oil price goes up. Saudi and Russia profit.
Go green and see how their economies handle it.
I stopped worrying about global warming when I read an article about Goethe and a Frankfurt university discovering palm and baobao trees near the antarctic regions in their core samples.
Although I seriously don't know how people can blindly buy into the current equine feculence and think a trace gas in the atmosphere is somehow more effective in upping the thermostat than changes in radiant light and heat being emitted by Sol.
As for the moon landing...and whether or not Kubrick was the director that faked it. Or humans have actually been there. Again, I quit caring about that too. The 'muricans had a space race against the commie red army and had to beat them to the moon first!
Papewaio
10-13-2015, 02:59
What is the nearest planet to the sun: Mercury
What is the hottest planet in the solar system: Venus
Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
You would have to disprove that Venus exists to say that gases cannot keep a planet warm. Good luck.
Red herring obfuscation. That's like comparing apples to bowling balls. Hey they are both round.
Mercury has no atmosphere. Venus, well...can we even call it an atmosphere? CO2 is hardly a trace element and what, 75 times the pressure of earth's? Are you trying to say that CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere could reach that of Venus?
What's next, are you going to compare water to lighter fluid? After all, they are both liquid in nature. :rollseyes:
There, for all intents I have disproved that Venus exists (with an atmosphere anywhere close to comparing to earth).
There are also too many peculiarities regarding Venus. Why is the rotation so slow (and measurably slowing down)? And yet the wind speed is crazy fast. Why does it counter-rotate? Based upon surface impacts why does it appear so "young" compared to the other planets in the solar system? It's also largely covered with volcanic plains, I think roughly the surface area as our earth's oceans. Too many questions and no answers. Only conjecture. Quick, someone post a pic of that crazy guy from the History channel stating it was aliens.
Papewaio
10-13-2015, 05:44
The point is atmosphere acts as blanket.
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, nor is it the strongest that is emitted by industry.
I do agree with one point being the red herring is the animal gases. That is a cycle of air to grass to animal to air. It is essentially on a millennium scale a closed cycle.
On the other hand digging up fossil fuels and burning them adds net to the atmosphere.
CrossLOPER
10-13-2015, 06:33
discovering palm and baobao trees near the antarctic regions in their core samples
Yeah, it's like this planet has been here a while and continents have shifted about.
I seriously don't know how people can blindly buy into the current equine feculence...
Probably the publicly available research articles and through the consensus reached by reputable resources, much like these:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html'
Stop getting your information from conspiracy sites; it rots your brain.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2015, 08:01
An example of settled science for you, since you don't appear to know the difference.
The Sun orbits the Earth.
What?
This thread is as bad as 9/11. A while back I remember arguing with Myth about always discussing with those that hold ridiculous ideas, even if they infuriate you to your core. I wish I could apologize to her (him?). Holy fuck do I wish I could take it all back. Once you realize that there is a world outside of internet dickwaving, the masochistic pleasure just becomes pain.
Gilrandir
10-13-2015, 11:31
So whilst there have been Ice Ages in the past, whilst the world has been hotter in the past, what actually matters is the present and the future, as humanity would be forced to react to these changes and cause significant shifts within a far shorter time scale.
Studying the climate of the past is also important since if you can find some regularities in the changes it will help you predict the ones to come.
Yeah, it's like this planet has been here a while and continents have shifted about.
Probably the publicly available research articles and through the consensus reached by reputable resources, much like these:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html'
Stop getting your information from conspiracy sites; it rots your brain.
https://www.marum.de/en/Tropical_climate_in_the_Antarctica_-_Palm_trees_once_thrived_on_todays_icy_coasts_52_million_year...html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Damned conspiracy sites...I gotta stop reading them. Stop blindly following and spewing the biases of people who have a vested financial interest in the maintaining the status quo, it rots your brain. Tell you what, when Al Gore reduces his carbon footprint down to mine I'll start caring more.
And yes, I know all about continental shift. It happened about 4200 years ago and is mentioned in the bible. Crazy! How the heck did that get written down on some parchment thousands of years ago? It also documents certain other cataclysmic events that help explain some of what we observe. Global warming is in the bible too, although I'm sure you really don't want to talk about that.
The truth is we humans are pathetic and know far less than we think we do.
Greyblades
10-13-2015, 13:42
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/770/871/1a9.gif
/thread.
The truth is we humans are pathetic and know far less than we think we do.
Why not apply that line of thinking to yourself and your own lack of scientific understanding?
Conspiracies, religious books, moronic journalists, senile Nobel prize winners and sleazy lawyers. Just about anything but dealing with the actual science. Motivated reasoning is one hell of a drug.
Ironside
10-13-2015, 15:58
https://www.marum.de/en/Tropical_climate_in_the_Antarctica_-_Palm_trees_once_thrived_on_todays_icy_coasts_52_million_year...html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Damned conspiracy sites...I gotta stop reading them. Stop blindly following and spewing the biases of people who have a vested financial interest in the maintaining the status quo, it rots your brain. Tell you what, when Al Gore reduces his carbon footprint down to mine I'll start caring more.
I really don't follow that argument. Those with wrested interest of status quo and big financial power are the oil companies and similar organisations. The climate scientists gets very little money in comparison.
As for the forests on Antarctica, they show that the earth is habitable when warmer than now. But that would flood a few billion homes (since we're talking about all the ice melting away) and that's talking about how hard it is to keep up with agriculture when the weather patterns and climate zones changes.
The WSJ article is behind a pay wall. From what I can read, I do get the vibe that they're going to be smartass and tell us that scientist and climate scientist are two different things.
CrossLOPER
10-13-2015, 16:14
https://www.marum.de/en/Tropical_climate_in_the_Antarctica_-_Palm_trees_once_thrived_on_todays_icy_coasts_52_million_year...html
I never disputed this.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bast
Bast is in the same group of people as Rush Limbaugh. He is a nutcake.
Damned conspiracy sites...I gotta stop reading them. Stop blindly following and spewing the biases of people who have a vested financial interest in the maintaining the status quo, it rots your brain.
So you agree with me, or are you trying to push that old canard that scientists are conspiring to prop up man-made global warming for grant money? Since you are asserting this, I want you to produce one piece of solid evidence that scientists are doing this.
Tell you what, when Al Gore reduces his carbon footprint down to mine I'll start caring more.
I am not sure what Al Gore has to do carbon concentration in the atmosphere. Really, he isn't that important, and bringing this up is borderline to an appeal to authority.
And yes, I know all about continental shift. It happened about 4200 years ago and is mentioned in the bible. Crazy! How the heck did that get written down on some parchment thousands of years ago? It also documents certain other cataclysmic events that help explain some of what we observe. Global warming is in the bible too, although I'm sure you really don't want to talk about that.
Your writing skills need work, as I have no idea whether this is sarcasm, or what. Are you trying to tell me that you only believe what's in the bible? Are you arguing that science must absolutely match the Bible?
Help me out.
The truth is we humans are pathetic and know far less than we think we do.
I agree that humans do not know everything, but hiding behind excuses, conspiracy assertions and claims of religion is unproductive. Think of science as a camera focus; it goes over, it goes under, but each time it gets a little closer to the truth.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2015, 18:02
Just create a government program that subsidizes beach side homes for people suffering from climate change denial. Problem works itself out.
I never disputed this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bast
Bast is in the same group of people as Rush Limbaugh. He is a nutcake.
Fruitcake would have been better. Neither fruit nor cake...
So you agree with me, or are you trying to push that old canard that scientists are conspiring to prop up man-made global warming for grant money? Since you are asserting this, I want you to produce one piece of solid evidence that scientists are doing this.
Right, I forgot that they work for free, out of their kindness for humanity. I'm sure there are no political repercussions either if they don't toe the line and dissent.
My point was that it's not an overwhelming majority of scientists as is always sold. It's a BS fact used as 7 second soundbite. Lies, damned lies and statistics. It reminds me of a Penn and Teller episode on their show regarding numbers and statistics.
I also had no idea that WSJ or Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/) were conspiracy theory sites. But, whatever.
I am not sure what Al Gore has to do carbon concentration in the atmosphere. Really, he isn't that important, and bringing this up is borderline to an appeal to authority.
My point is Al Gore, and all of these elite 1%'ers are the pot calling the kettle black. You go digging and they are reaping financial benefits from pushing their agenda regarding global warmi...err climate change, whatever they call it now. Meanwhile jetting around doing the very things they tell us not to. "Do as I say, not as I do".
Your writing skills need work, as I have no idea whether this is sarcasm, or what. Are you trying to tell me that you only believe what's in the bible? Are you arguing that science must absolutely match the Bible?
Help me out.
I'm probably wasting my time, but okay: Bible > Science. Scientists don't have a good track record in...ever. Heck, I remember my grade school days. When I was a wee lad they were saying the universe was 3 billion years old. Now it's 14 billion, or have they amended it again?
True science is the study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. That does not mean it can accurately ascertain origin.
Bible is a historical account written by an eye witness. So the bible says the Lord Jesus Christ is the creator of the heavens and the earth. It says he also framed time. It also says Jesus Christ is holding the whole thing together, right now. If he didn't it would go fissionable and explode (or implode?). What it doesn't say is how old the earth actually is (it could actually be pretty old).
Approximately 6000 years ago it suffered an extreme cataclysmic event, due to the fall of an angel named Lucifer (aka Satan, the Devil, Diablos). The earth that then was being overflowed with water. It was then rebuilt and humanity was created. Then roughly 4400 years ago due to the genetic corruption and wickedness of mankind, to actually preserve the human race, there was a second worldwide flood event and the account of Noah. This was a pretty big deal, and can explain some of what we can observe through science today.
Anyway, I'm sure all of that is crazy talk to you and you should probably ignore me before I start talking more about Jesus Christ and how he is God and coming back some day to rule over all of humanity.
I agree that humans do not know everything, but hiding behind excuses, conspiracy assertions and claims of religion is unproductive. Think of science as a camera focus; it goes over, it goes under, but each time it gets a little closer to the truth.
My claim is I have the writings of the Author of the universe as my reference. You could crack it open too, you know and actually see what it says. Although clearly that's not good enough for you. I suppose God doesn't have enough initials after his name...
CrossLOPER
10-13-2015, 20:58
I have the writings of the Author of the universe
i give up
Papewaio
10-13-2015, 22:57
Yes and HTML was also written in the Bible not CERN. /s
i give up
Some battles you choose to fight, others you simply walk away. This is a moment of the latter.
Pannonian
10-13-2015, 23:44
My claim is I have the writings of the Author of the universe as my reference. You could crack it open too, you know and actually see what it says. Although clearly that's not good enough for you. I suppose God doesn't have enough initials after his name...
Science is good enough to produce the computer which you're writing on and the internet which you're sending your posts into.
My claim is I have the writings of the Author of the universe as my reference. You could crack it open too, you know and actually see what it says. Although clearly that's not good enough for you. I suppose God doesn't have enough initials after his name...
Can you give me chapter and verse on what to do when my internet connection goes down?
Can you give me chapter and verse on what to do when my internet connection goes down?
Sure I can help you with that. Psalm 2:12
Or make time and start at the beginning and just start reading until your internet comes back online...if you want I can just ask the Lord to take it down for you so you can focus on reading it? :laugh4:
Pannonian
10-14-2015, 00:50
Sure I can help you with that. Psalm 2:12
Or make time and start at the beginning and just start reading until your internet comes back online...if you want I can just ask the Lord to take it down for you so you can focus on reading it? :laugh4:
Also, if you believe so much in the author of the universe, shouldn't you be worshipping Baal and Mammon instead? They've got a better literal claim to be author of the universe than the Abrahamic deity.
Hey, if you don't want to believe in the Jesus Christ, that can save you from eternal judgment...no skin off my nose. I'm probably just some nutter, you should just ignore me. After all, God doesn't exist, I'm just blowing smoke. Then you have nothing to fear.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Ironside
10-14-2015, 09:09
Right, I forgot that they work for free, out of their kindness for humanity. I'm sure there are no political repercussions either if they don't toe the line and dissent.
My point was that it's not an overwhelming majority of scientists as is always sold. It's a BS fact used as 7 second soundbite. Lies, damned lies and statistics. It reminds me of a Penn and Teller episode on their show regarding numbers and statistics.
I also had no idea that WSJ or Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/) were conspiracy theory sites. But, whatever.
So 97% of the articles agrees that man made global warming is real? But they aren't agreeing that much on how large percentage of the warming that is man made?
You do understand that the political discussion would be claiming that man made global warming is real, but the skeptics would be arguing that our impact is small enough to ignore, if they would be following science in that case? If the choice of words from Mr James Taylor didn't tip you off, he's the one BS:ing.
My point is Al Gore, and all of these elite 1%'ers are the pot calling the kettle black. You go digging and they are reaping financial benefits from pushing their agenda regarding global warmi...err climate change, whatever they call it now. Meanwhile jetting around doing the very things they tell us not to. "Do as I say, not as I do".
Considering that the largest block of buyers of political power (main donors the US election) are oil billionaires and finance (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html#donors-list), those climate scientists are betting on the wrong horse if they wanted money.
The 1% elites you're talking about? They are earning their money from oil, coal and natural gas, not solar and wind. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:World_energy_consumption.svg) See the graph? You're claiming that those people owning the three top lines want to get the profits in the lowest line, by ruining the three top lines.
Al Gore got his fortune mostly from Apple and Google.
Gilrandir
10-14-2015, 11:27
Bible is a historical account written by an eye witness.
Accounted in the Bible events span about 7000 years (if we believe the dating given in it), so definitely it is too chronologically protracted to speak of ALL of it written by AN eyewitness. Even the New Testament having been written by an (or several) eyewitness(es) is doubtful. And if we remember the complicated history of choosing what must be included into the Bible and the story of its compilation it dates back to about IV century a.d.
Hardly a history book written by those who saw everything with their own eyes.
So the bible says the Lord Jesus Christ is the creator of the heavens and the earth. It says he also framed time.
Que? Jesus =/= God the Father!!!
Pannonian
10-14-2015, 12:07
Que? Jesus =/= God the Father!!!
It's the new Risasi heresy. When people are encouraged to interpret the scriptures in any way they wish, they come up with some darn strange readings. The son is the father. It's like Oedipus Rex transplanted to downtown hickland.
Greyblades
10-14-2015, 12:50
I suppose, seeing as jesus hadn't separated from god at the time of genesis we could technically say jesus created reality and time.
Accounted in the Bible events span about 7000 years (if we believe the dating given in it), so definitely it is too chronologically protracted to speak of ALL of it written by AN eyewitness. Even the New Testament having been written by an (or several) eyewitness(es) is doubtful. And if we remember the complicated history of choosing what must be included into the Bible and the story of its compilation it dates back to about IV century a.d.
Hardly a history book written by those who saw everything with their own eyes.
Que? Jesus =/= God the Father!!!
God uses men as eye witnesses, and also dictates to them what to write. "Hey you! Write this down". He then would give them street cred by endowing great works of awe to these men.
I didn't say 7000, btw. To be accurate, so far, roughly 6000'ish years of human history have transpired. There is an unknown period of time which precedes this. It could be mere days or it could be thousands, millions, I suppose billions of years.
There is also 1000+ years of future history yet to be fulfilled, which is referenced in the scriptures. Then comes global warming.
You bring up a valid criticism worth an answer. There have been a great many false epistles, corrupted texts, etc. What to believe?...so most men discount it as a work of fiction and never look at it. "Fairy tales", they say. It is still the greatest single compilation of literature from the annals of history, yet it is largely ignored.
The majority texts from many different locales, written over a great period of time are in agreement. The original source languages are the inspired Word of God. Not the translations. Many translations are good, some just plain suck. I use a few different translations; KJV, NKJV, Rotherham, Geneva, ASV. But I also study the original words in their Hebrew and Alexander's Koina Greek. Aramaic and Chaldee are also found in there. Notice Latin is not in there. The tools to study these languages are readily available, thanks to technology. I never said tech or true science are worthless, just inferior to what God has to say.
---
I suppose, seeing as jesus hadn't separated from god at the time of genesis we could technically say jesus created reality and time.
Careful, if you start thinking logically through this and investigating what the scriptures actually say, you might start believing as I do:
John 14:5-9; Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Papewaio
10-14-2015, 23:25
Tangent, but I have to ask.
Why are so many ultra conservatives against stem cell research and human cloning? Clones are just identical twins with a large time offset (and aged cells).
See if God sacrifices his Son/Himself to remove the need of all future sacrifices surely stem cell research is in the same vein?
Jesus is a clone of God put into Mary the (surrogate) Mother.
So if God can do good things by sarificing a clone, why can't humans do stem cell research or raise (but not sacrifice) clones?
I will gladly answer any questions you have. But rather than continue to junk up the climate disruption thread how about I create a separate one? I will label it something very tongue in cheek and you fellows can lambaste me to your heart's content. :yes: The only reason I even brought up bible is because it specifically affects how I view the whole "global warming" thing. So there is no reason to drift this thread any longer.
---
P.S. I can't speak for every christian, but I can give you my viewpoint and perhaps that of "mainstream" christendom...or churchianity, whatever you would like to call it.
I'm not ultra-conservative. I'm also not mainstream, not anymore. And while I will happily talk to someone from a different denomination, I'm actually anti-denominational. According to the bible denominations should not exist. I'm rather a-political too. Example; I'm amused by the POTUS thread, but don't really care that much any longer who is elected.
I'm also not really religious, although many who don't know me well would probably be surprised to hear that. Just as an example I despise the "pontifex", all of his hocus-pocus, and everything his pederastic order stands for. So while offended by their hierarchy, I will gladly talk to the average joe roman catholic about their beliefs and the scriptures, or a mormon...or a muslim. In fact I have talked to a few, even a Kuwait citizen who used to frequent this board. I find all cultures very interesting and have operated in several.
My point is I like to dialog with people who are sincere and wish to debate. Even if our beliefs are not the same. I am merely a student of the bible and meet with other individuals in a local church, and we dialog and discuss about what the bible says. I think that's unique, but 50-100 years ago it was not.
Anyway, I'm a bit tired right now as it's late. And I have had a very long day dealing with corporate. I don't think I can do your question justice. I'll post tomorrow or the next day, how about that?
Sarmatian
10-15-2015, 07:08
You would... talk... to a... to a... Muslim??? And a Catholic and a Mormon? Really? As in, face to face? Like, at a dinner table or something?
I don't know about others, but I'm convinced.
a completely inoffensive name
10-15-2015, 10:19
You would... talk... to a... to a... Muslim??? And a Catholic and a Mormon? Really? As in, face to face? Like, at a dinner table or something?
I don't know about others, but I'm convinced.
Yes, but can he talk to a woman?
Pannonian
10-15-2015, 10:29
Someone who takes the bible literally who doesn't think he's ultra-conservative.
Sarmatian
10-15-2015, 10:46
But he would talk to a Muslim...
Just like that, no preconditions. You're being unfair.
Greyblades
10-15-2015, 10:46
Tangent, but I have to ask.
Why are so many ultra conservatives against stem cell research and human cloning? Clones are just identical twins with a large time offset (and aged cells).
See if God sacrifices his Son/Himself to remove the need of all future sacrifices surely stem cell research is in the same vein?
Jesus is a clone of God put into Mary the (surrogate) Mother.
So if God can do good things by sarificing a clone, why can't humans do stem cell research or raise (but not sacrifice) clones?
I'm fairly sure the church has been arguing the degree of influence Mary had in Jesus' birth since it's beginning.
To me it makes more sense that Jesus is a child of both god and Mary (not a clone) under the logic that if god's intent was to have a vessel to walk about on earth without changing himself in any way he wouldn't bother with a mother.
Gilrandir
10-15-2015, 15:35
I didn't say 7000, btw. To be accurate, so far, roughly 6000'ish years of human history have transpired. There is an unknown period of time which precedes this. It could be mere days or it could be thousands, millions, I suppose billions of years.
That is why it is impossible to call the Bible "Memoirs of AN eyewitness". Too many eyewitnesses, consequently too many incompatibilities probably stemming from different agendas and intentions of those who wrote them and those who chose what is to be eventually "The Bible".
It is still the greatest single compilation of literature from the annals of history
I disagree. "The Silmarillion" rules.
John 14:5-9; Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
The Father has no visible shape. One can't see him at will, only when He wishes to. So Jesus is kinda Deputy God to communicate to on petty matters when it is not worth bothering the Boss. As simple as that.
Jesus is a clone of God put into Mary the (surrogate) Mother.
AFAIK, cloning and surrogate motherhood are different. The former doesn't require any intermediary organism to produce the offspring.
Papewaio
10-16-2015, 02:32
Dolly the sheep was not grown in a vat. Current technology still needs a surrogate womb for complex organisms.
a completely inoffensive name
10-18-2015, 08:36
Risasi is the kind of guy that probably leaves a hand written note about finding the Lord instead of a tip at a restaurant.
I think tracts are kind of hokey. I usually just talk to people.
And not that it's any of your biz, but if it's good service I usually leave 20%. But I've left as much as 50% and as low as zero if it's terrible service. How much do you leave?
And thanks for the good idea on your part. Maybe I'll start writing bible verses on my bills. :-p
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.