|
On September 28 2013 01:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 01:20 Kipsate wrote:On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc) Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems. What the fuck are you smoking man? "The larger the molecules are"? Water volume actually changes very little as a function of temperature. Less than 0.01% per Kelvin. Water level is rising because of melting ice.
Yes, but it is still a significant amount of expansion when your volume is as large as the oceans. Conversely, melting sea ice has a minimal effect on sea levels because it already displaces the water it is floating in.
|
Yes, but it is still a significant amount of expansion when your volume is as large as the oceans. Conversely, melting sea ice has a minimal effect on sea levels because it already displaces the water it is floating in.
Think of glaciers and antarctica, there is solid land beneath the ice, so it´s melting adds to oceans volumina.
Okay, since 100 years we use cars. since 150 years we burn coal to make steam. No we ruined it all ?
|
|
|
I'm not optimistic. Even the Guardian comments have been taken over with wall-to-wall, climate-change-denying fanatics, who never shut up about the "pause", even after it's been amply rebutted by the scientific community.
It's not only the result of how effectively big business can spread propaganda. Another factor is that these people are soulless husks without a moral sense or indeed any sense of shame. These are people who consciously tell lies for a living. People who pride themselves on their careers of enriching themselves at the expense of their employees.
You have a community whose job it is to find out the truth, guided by a tradition that safeguards intellectual integrity, pitted against businessmen who are thoroughly immersed in a culture of greed and lies and deception.
|
My opinion and I apologize if I offend people that studied the issue closely (unlike me) is that the change in atmosphere composition being the cause of global warming is bullshit.
However I agree that if there is a global warming it is caused by humans.
My opinion based on what I experience as a single individual is that the global warming is caused by agriculture and urbanization.
It is well know the fact that the heat transfer is made in 3 ways: conduction, convection and radiation.
We are interested in heat transfer by radiation since our sun is not directly or indirectly to earth.
It is also well known that the color of the surface of irradiated object has a strong influence in heat transfer due to radiation absorption/refraction. (try wearing a black versus a white shirt in the summer)
So where does that leave us?
The urbanization came with an ever increase length in roads. In the last century the surface covered by asphalt has increased exponential.
You can notice the effect quite easily by alternating moving between a medium size city and country side during summers.
Also the increase in agriculture came with a drop in forests surface and barren lands.
During the winter in temperate climate the cultivated area is usually plowed resulting in a darker shade of brown than that of the foliage and/or dead vegetation.
For me it seems absurd that the change in the composition of a medium without changing its refraction, conduction and absorption indices could result in a temperature change. (Ie changing the CO2 composition in atmosphere)
But than again I paid attention to elementary physics lessons instead of sensationalist media.
My opinion is that most of the people debating this subject read something they do not understand diagonally and draw the wrong conclusion.
|
On September 28 2013 02:18 tertos wrote:
For me it seems absurd that the change in the composition of a medium without changing its refraction, conduction and absorption indices could result in a temperature change. (Ie changing the CO2 composition in atmosphere)
But than again I paid attention to elementary physics lessons instead of sensationalist media.
Because carbon dioxide is transparent (mostly) to the solar radiation, but is opaque to reflected thermal radiation. So solar energy reaches the earth, passes through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to it's higher energy, gets absorbed by the earth and then re-released as lower energy radiation that attempts to leave the planet - but is partly blocked from leaving by the carbon dioxide. The blocked heat is re-emitted back to earth as additional heat.
So increasing the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air (and some other gases as well, I think methane?) increases the amount of heat energy retained by the atmosphere.
Venus is the prime example of greenhouse gas effect.
|
I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion:
The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s.
|
On September 28 2013 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion: Show nested quote +The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s.
Exactly what I thought, though my mind was more like, "why do we need to study what we can safely assume."
|
On September 28 2013 02:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion: The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s. Exactly what I thought, though my mind was more like, "why do we need to study what we can safely assume."
This is exactly how we should do science from now on. We just assume shit. That should work nicely.
|
On September 28 2013 02:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion: The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s. Exactly what I thought, though my mind was more like, "why do we need to study what we can safely assume."
When you have people spending just as much money to say "we aren't going to do anything about this because you have no proof", then it becomes difficult to just "assume".
|
So two items out of hundreds are faulty and you try to point out problems with IPCC by citing sources that cannot be trusted at all  Especially the Fox News article is funny, its thrust based completely on "what-she-said" of activist with clear agenda. I think IPCC is more trustworthy than most organizations out there, considering how much their work is under scrutiny and how little problems were actually found out. People expecting no problems in massive collaborative effort are delusional. Plus you can also just used the peer-reviewed part of IPCC work and base your opinions on that, which is the main part of the OP anyway. Plus they were not using papers from GP and WWF as their own, I think they just used them as sources and cited them ?
|
You try to make a case that IPPC, a very well respected organisation, is somehow untrustworthy, and to support this assertion you link to something from Fox News?
It's like saying NASA is full of stupid people because Krusty the Clown said so.
|
The problem I have is when people make the leap from saying humans cause global warming to saying we need green legislation. If you look at the data, it essentially says there is nothing humans can do to stop global co2 from increasing in the atmosphere, short of going back to the dark ages. So long as we burn fossil fuels, we will increase co2. Carbon trading and emissions caps and alternative subsidies do not change the fundamental fact that fossil fuels are still burning and will continue to burn, and therefore atmospheric co2 will continue to increase.
At the moment, it is simply impossible for modern civilization to run on green energy. There is no alternative or combination of alternatives that can meet the current demand, or even significantly less than the current demand. Most people don't look at the actual numbers involved here, they just think "we can do it." We can only do it if some truly incredible technological advance comes along, because the options we are looking at now don't come close to cutting it. In that sense R&D subsidies are probably the only legislation that makes sense or has any hope at all of changing the current reality. Then of course you have the other harsh fact that even if the US and Europe jump through all these hoops trying to get emissions reduced, it will all be offset and surpassed by the impoverished nations industrializing, primarily China.
The way I look at it, there are only two options for humanity. Return to a state of permanent global poverty and low population, or accept whatever consequences come from climate change. Obviously the first option isn't an option at all, no one wants to choose mass death and mass impoverishment. I don't know what will come of climate change, but I do know the people who are demanding we buy dixie cups to try and hold off the coming flood are delusional and dangerous.
|
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
|
On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population.
Obligatory: ignorance is bliss.
|
The people who continue to deny the role of humans in global warming, despite the ever-increasing body of evidence, completely blow my mind... I don't understand why people think they can dismiss a shitload of evidence with a few little papers which challenge small details in the data.
More importantly, I don't know what the motivations could possibly be. I understand that certain people are here to defend free market capitalism and those types of ideals, but at some point it's important to understand that short-termism is not without its limits.
I think that people from all perspective are aware that pollution is bad. Oil spills, smog, polluted air that damages our lungs over time and kills birds and various animals... Certainly, there are hippies who want to drag down capitalism and do that whole "degrowth" thing where people would live in dirt huts and whatever, but most of us just want people and enterprises to be careful. Even if there was no global warming, it's still virtuous to take the extra step and try not to pollute, when you can.
On September 28 2013 03:00 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
The problem I have is when people make the leap from saying humans cause global warming to saying we need green legislation. If you look at the data, it essentially says there is nothing humans can do to stop global co2 from increasing in the atmosphere, short of going back to the dark ages. So long as we burn fossil fuels, we will increase co2. Carbon trading and emissions caps and alternative subsidies do not change the fundamental fact that fossil fuels are still burning and will continue to burn, and therefore atmospheric co2 will continue to increase.
There are other sources of energy which can be worked toward gradually. Until we get there, there's no reason not to encourage people to try to be reasonable. I'm not saying we need to stop emitting co2 and pollution, but the efforts to slow down or stop the increase are noble and could possibly give us enough time to perhaps invent new technologies so that we don't have to suffer the consequences of our disregard of the environment since the industrialization.
Certainly there are many concerns about what happens if we hit some sort of critical mass of pollution. Perhaps we'd be better off making radical changes to our lifestyles but for now let's just try to change a few bad habits.
|
On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom. In the UK politics thread, I was advocating an idea that's even more moderate. Namely, that we should aspire toward a stable population here in the first world, and one implication of that is controls on immigration.
I was assailed by fanatics from both the left and right (although mainly from the right) who are adamant in their belief that the borders should be opened and people should be free to migrate wherever they like.
It's one of the most batshit-insane-crazy, stark raving mad, lunatical ideas that the human mind has ever devised, and it's rapidly gaining currency on the fringes of both the race-obsessed left and the corporate-crony right.
|
On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss.
You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe.
I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed.
In the UK politics thread, I was advocating an idea that's even more moderate. Namely, that we should aspire toward a stable population here in the first world, and one implication of that is controls on immigration.
I was assailed by fanatics from both the left and right (although mainly from the right) who are adamant in their belief that the borders should be opened and people should be free to emigrate wherever they like.
It's one of the most batshit-insane-crazy, stark raving mad, lunatical ideas that the human mind has ever devised, and it's rapidly gaining currency on the fringes of both the race-obsessed left and the corporate-crony right.
It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Not ideal, but we are at a stage in our civilisation where children and parenthood should be a privilege, not a right. China managed to avert their impending population cataclysm though their 1-child policy, something similar on a global scale would likely be a good idea.
|
It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective.
|
On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective.
So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then?
Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"?
Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
