|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42689 Posts
On June 02 2017 08:22 Gahlo wrote:
Okay, so like, things expand when they get hot, right? And the oceans are fucking huge, right? So wouldn't a really small expansion on a large thing too?
Rhetorical questions out of the way, I'm not very good at math. Quick googling says that ΔV=Vo β ΔT is the equation for volumetric expansion in liquids. Google says the volume of the oceans is 352,670 quadrillion gallons, β for salinated water at 25C is 297⋅10^−6/oK. Could somebody figure out how much more space that water will fill?
Water is super fucking weird when it comes to volume under various temperatures and pressures. Can't tell you why but it is.
|
On June 02 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:22 Gahlo wrote:
Okay, so like, things expand when they get hot, right? And the oceans are fucking huge, right? So wouldn't a really small expansion on a large thing too?
Rhetorical questions out of the way, I'm not very good at math. Quick googling says that ΔV=Vo β ΔT is the equation for volumetric expansion in liquids. Google says the volume of the oceans is 352,670 quadrillion gallons, β for salinated water at 25C is 297⋅10^−6/oK. Could somebody figure out how much more space that water will fill? Water is super fucking weird when it comes to volume under various temperatures and pressures. Can't tell you why but it is.
I don't think we reach temperature/pressures anywhere near the levels needed for water/fluids to behave weird (i assume you mean superfluid).
edit: nevermind, might've gotten the assumption wrong.
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 Gahlo wrote:
Okay, so like, things expand when they get hot, right? And the oceans are fucking huge, right? So wouldn't a really small expansion on a large thing too?
Rhetorical questions out of the way, I'm not very good at math. Quick googling says that ΔV=Vo β ΔT is the equation for volumetric expansion in liquids. Google says the volume of the oceans is 352,670 quadrillion gallons, β for salinated water at 25C is 297⋅10^−6/oK. Could somebody figure out how much more space that water will fill?
If you manage to heat the oceans by 1 degree C(which is extremely hard btw, takes roughly 1000x the energy of an equivalent volume of air), you'll go up by about 70cm.
Peanuts compared to melting the icecaps/greenland really, which would definitely happen if you managed to raise ocean temperatures by that much.
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
Of course it is. It puts the issue decades down the road when we'll have better technology and science to combat its effects then we do today. Global warming is literally the apocalypse and not fighting it in even the minimal ways we can is the opposite of common sense.
A better question would be is it worth it to go against world opinion and not be in the Paris accord. It risks the fruits of empire that we've spent so many decades of blood and treasure on for nothing other then an obvious short term harm and long term suffering.
There is no world where the US get a better paris deal and theres no world where removing the US from the paris accord is a positive move even in the near term.
|
NPR has an annotated version of Trump's speech, complete with links and evidence to back up their fact checking. For those interested.
|
Climate change is just the oddest subject for me when it comes to conservatives. It a subject that is textbook for conservatives to use as a hammer against liberals every election and to lever away educated people. The green and environmentalists are an easy devil to make in the electorate but the republicans can't seem to figure out a way to use them anymore. Gen 4 nuclear reactor replacement would be an easy macro sell. "green energy" can be used as a knock on the left until it matures in the free market as it has and then can easily be flipped as a conservative plus to save people money and reduce government utility monopolies. The paris accord is far from something that should make leftists happy but it should be an easy conservative talking point by making it a "Us leads the world to get on the same page" Imperium of influence garbage. Hell throw in threats against other nations about how we control the seas and thus the worlds trade lanes in order to make us look strong at home and fatherly abroad. Use our control over the seas to reign in the use of unregulated fuel oil and dare the rest of the world to stop us. It makes the paris accord look like small potatoes and makes us look strong.
Theres just so much opportunity just sitting there and the right gets tripped up on petty reactionary garbage from when regean got burned on immigration.
|
United States42689 Posts
That's not what Trumpian conservatism is though. You're right that traditionally conservatism is "America will lead the world, where America goes the world follows and everyone will buy what we make". Trump's conservatism is "America does whatever the world doesn't want them do because if people like America then people must be exploiting America so if people hate America then surely that means that America must be exploiting people".
|
On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day.
Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs.
|
On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs.
Building a factory carries costs, but you can make stuff in it.
|
United States42689 Posts
On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs.
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over.
|
On June 02 2017 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? Delaying by decades is immeasurably beneficial because the biggest issue with global warming is the pending refugee crisis. Allowing for decades to prepare both socially and technologically would likely be the difference between catastrophic disaster and shitty.
It's not like the climate refugees don't have plenty of warning already. If go are really concerned about them, then the money should be spent on dealing with the impending consequences of global warming instead engaging in the futility that is trying to stop it.
|
On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs.
he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it.
Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move.
|
On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move.
Thank you.
This has nothing to do with domestic policy. Trump doesn't care about any of that. This is about Europe, "America First", pissing off allies, destroying America's stature.
|
On June 02 2017 09:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? Delaying by decades is immeasurably beneficial because the biggest issue with global warming is the pending refugee crisis. Allowing for decades to prepare both socially and technologically would likely be the difference between catastrophic disaster and shitty. It's not like the climate refugees don't have plenty of warning already. If go are really concerned about them, then the money should be spent on dealing with the impending consequences of global warming instead engaging in the futility that is trying to stop it.
So the Paris agreement was the right plan? Because slowing down the impacts of global warming is a good way to prepare.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 02 2017 08:22 Gahlo wrote:
Okay, so like, things expand when they get hot, right? And the oceans are fucking huge, right? So wouldn't a really small expansion on a large thing too?
Rhetorical questions out of the way, I'm not very good at math. Quick googling says that ΔV=Vo β ΔT is the equation for volumetric expansion in liquids. Google says the volume of the oceans is 352,670 quadrillion gallons, β for salinated water at 25C is 297⋅10^−6/oK. Could somebody figure out how much more space that water will fill?
Well instead of using a thermal expansion coefficient, we can note that it's water, so we can just use a density chart because it's so well-documented.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/waterinformation.html
Even by those standards the difference is going to be utterly trivial. And that also doesn't factor in that as water gets hotter, more of it will evaporate (i.e. Higher vapor pressure).
More concerning should be the water in the form of ice that melts as a result of temperature increases. That effect will be much more substantial.
|
On June 02 2017 09:08 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move. Thank you. This has nothing to do with domestic policy. Trump doesn't care about any of that. This is about Europe.
Problem being, i think that it hurts the US considerably more than it hurts europe which can now claim the leadership next to china. Not that i'd care, it's just interesting to see the shortsightedness of certain americans, even trying to argue that "well spend the money to fix the impending consequences of being shitty rather than the reason for it", leaving out the fact that once those consequences hit, not a single country in the world will get away from it. Just because you won't get your feet wet doesn't mean it won't concern you or collapse your economy.
Even by those standards the difference is going to be utterly trivial. And that also doesn't factor in that as water gets hotter, more of it will evaporate (i.e. Higher vapor pressure).
Yeah, there's just a slight problem with those utterly trivial numbers. Could you briefly recite what's needed to form a supercell, for example - and what feeds it?
|
On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later? What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move.
And did more damage to US relations that Bush with his attempt at strong diplomatic.
|
Facts :
US emissions peaked over a decade ago in 2007.
EU emissions peaked way back in 1990.
China has not agreed to total emissions cuts before 2030, only a increase in CO2/GDP efficiency.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? That under current agreements global emissions would continue to rise till at least 2030? Renegotiation with 'developing' nations like China agreeing to hard cuts is
the best outcome for the die hard MMGW believers.
|
i'm glad to see the USA is pulling out of the Paris accord.
good work USA.
|
On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays?
Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? And by very simplistic math, if china would act like the US, it would have a more than 200% bigger carbon footprint?
Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
