Pages:
Author

Topic: On the topic of climate change... (Read 2606 times)

legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1029
December 23, 2013, 07:59:11 PM
#54
Nuclear power is useless because our methods of building and maintaining the plants currently involve burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

No. Definitely wrong. Do you have any proof for this? The energy required for constructing a nuclear power plant is almost similar to that required to build thermal plants.

Well, I admit my opinion on this has been guided by an expert I know, I will try and find some proof to back up what I said.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
December 22, 2013, 02:30:45 PM
#53
....
Fortunately we don't have many big volcano erutions right now:
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf
Quote
Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.
I have had the time to review this article you quoted and no, hell no.

Best to listen to what the solar scientists are trying to tell us, than to listen to people who have a vested interest in propping up the old theories.
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 514
December 22, 2013, 11:51:38 AM
#52
Further, the basic solar argument is very understandable. 
A) there was a decrease in solar sunspots leading up to the Little Ice Age.
B) there is now a similar decrease in sunspot activity.
Really, the consequences of a LIA today would be extremely serious because of the higher population density and it's distribution.
Fortunately we don't have many big volcano erutions right now:
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf
Quote
Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
December 22, 2013, 11:27:55 AM
#51
....
Curious what you think of the ice age argument.....

This is an interesting question, because prominent solar scientists tell us to be concerned about it.  There is not one group of solar scientists saying one thing, and another saying the opposite, such as their is cast to be with the general AGW discussion.

Further, the basic solar argument is very understandable. 

A) there was a decrease in solar sunspots leading up to the Little Ice Age.
B) there is now a similar decrease in sunspot activity.

Really, the consequences of a LIA today would be extremely serious because of the higher population density and it's distribution.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
December 22, 2013, 11:05:59 AM
#50
I know many of us have been taught so HARD that it's real and it's bad and it's just gonna get worse because "Scientists" say so, but those who actually look at the numbers and dig into the research find that the numbers have been fudged so much that those graphs should look nothing like that.

I am saying this quite a few times. If you think that the data is fudged, then give me the proof. Do you have any proof to contradict the argument that the CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 100 years?
Curious what you think of the ice age argument. And anyone else for that matter.

Also, everyone, please keep in mind that in science you call things what they are. Emotional arguments are not useful.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1217
December 22, 2013, 10:57:19 AM
#49
I know many of us have been taught so HARD that it's real and it's bad and it's just gonna get worse because "Scientists" say so, but those who actually look at the numbers and dig into the research find that the numbers have been fudged so much that those graphs should look nothing like that.

I am saying this quite a few times. If you think that the data is fudged, then give me the proof. Do you have any proof to contradict the argument that the CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 100 years?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
December 22, 2013, 10:51:56 AM
#48
But don't they say we are now on year seventeen of no increase in temperature?  That's contrary to all the predictions, right?

From where did you get the idea of 17 years of static temperature?





Those hockey stick graphs are widely discredited in the scientific community, they are only used to scare schoolchildren and make hype on tv about how we must do EVERYTHING to prevent global warming climate change.

I know many of us have been taught so HARD that it's real and it's bad and it's just gonna get worse because "Scientists" say so, but those who actually look at the numbers and dig into the research find that the numbers have been fudged so much that those graphs should look nothing like that.

Nowadays, people forget that just a few decades ago, liberals in the US told everyone that because of human society that we were about to head into the next ice age (not warming, cooling) and now it seems they are doing it again.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.



We have always been at war with Eurasia.



We have always been at war with Eurasia.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
December 22, 2013, 10:40:27 AM
#47
It's also incredibly arrogant to think that we're actually a threat at all to the planet.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
December 22, 2013, 10:34:11 AM
#46
The earth doesn't care what we do. It is a planet, it doesn't need us, or any life at all. That is an emotional argument trying to sound reasonable.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1217
December 22, 2013, 09:52:01 AM
#45
But this doesn't matter, of course. Climate change is entirely a political/religious issue.

If you think so, then nothing can be done. If you think that burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels is good for the earth, then go ahead. Burn some more.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
December 22, 2013, 08:45:27 AM
#44
Ice age.

If we are in fact having a meaningful impact on the climate and we had done nothing we would eventually get another ice age. It could be here already statistically speaking. Therefore, burn more. It may or may not help, but it probably won't make things worse.

And if not then all is well and we will still get another ice age soon.

But this doesn't matter, of course. Climate change is entirely a political/religious issue.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1217
December 22, 2013, 08:34:52 AM
#43
Nuclear power is useless because our methods of building and maintaining the plants currently involve burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

No. Definitely wrong. Do you have any proof for this? The energy required for constructing a nuclear power plant is almost similar to that required to build thermal plants.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1029
December 21, 2013, 06:09:38 PM
#42
The CO2 levels in the atmosphere has increased by around 30% during the last 150 years or so. And the lion's share of that increase occurred within the last 50 years. Scientific study has proven that the burning of fossil fuels, both by thermal power plants and by automobiles has caused much of that increase.

The only options to save our planet are:

1. Replace thermal energy with nuclear energy

2. Replace gasoline / diesel oil with bio-fuels

3. Prevent the loss of forest, especially in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Central Africa

Nuclear power is useless because our methods of building and maintaining the plants currently involve burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. They look good on paper but end up consuming more in carbon than they will ever produce, but because crude oil is so cheap (considering what it is), governments like it for economic reasons. As a means of saving our planet, it sucks.

Wave power.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
December 21, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
#41
.....But when you have representatives in power (US at least) which claim that climate change can't be a problem because god told Noa that the flood wouldn't happen again ....

.....And when you have representatives in power (US at least) which claim that climate change is a problem because Gaia told James that the flood will happen again ....

...(or some such nonsense), then we've got a more fundamental problem to deal with first.
...didn't exactly FIX your statement, made it worse, actually...
legendary
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1071
December 21, 2013, 03:34:26 PM
#40
I think this poll is irrelevant, because belief doesn't enter into it. That's the beauty of scientific facts - they're going to stay the same, no matter what you think about them. The world is going to stay round even if you really believe it's flat.

As for the policy enacted in regard to these scientific facts, that's something we should all debate. We're all entitled to our political opinion, and we should certainly have our say when it comes to responding to climate change. Hence, a better poll might ask whether or not we believe in carbon regulation and taxation, cap and trade schemes, alternative energy subsidies, and other such environmental policy. But whether or not we believe in the existence of anthropogenic climate change is entirely irrelevant.

True, it doesn't matter if we believe in gravity; we'll still fall to the floor (unless you miss the ground apparently). But when you have representatives in power (US at least) which claim that climate change can't be a problem because god told Noa that the flood wouldn't happen again (or some such nonsense), then we've got a more fundamental problem to deal with first.

EDIT: and I note that while the numbers involved are obviously too low to take any broader conclusions, out of 32 votes, 40.6% are from people that don't believe humans have had a substantial impact on climate, which is worrying. Furthermore, and considering the other thread about this, they are far more vocal.
legendary
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1071
December 21, 2013, 03:11:48 PM
#39
too late to stop it

Did you mean to say: humans have had a significant impact in changing the climate, but are now powerless to stop it? If so, that's kind of a defeatist attitude, considering it is acknowledging that humans at least helped create the problem in the first place... but it's also a valid point of view, and if some of the people that hold this view are voting in the "climate change is real, but humans have no impact", I should probably add this option to the poll, I guess... though it's kind of conflating two different things.  Roll Eyes
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
December 21, 2013, 01:01:11 PM
#38
too late to stop it
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 514
December 21, 2013, 12:51:01 PM
#37
The important thing here is not that there were 17 years of no warming, but that it illustrates obvious and glaring errors in the premises and constants used in computer modeling.  Which means, don't believe their computer models.
There's a problem with the existing temperature data:
We have barely any data from the artic / antarctic region and parts of central africa.
And there's a problem with some computer models:
They didn't predict the extreme solar minimum.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
December 21, 2013, 12:48:32 PM
#36
I'll say it more simply in this thread.

"Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?

  • Cheaper energy prices (fossil fuels are finite and running low)
  • Greater potential for local and/or individualised energy independence
  • Less/zero non-controversial atmospheric pollutants
  • More efficient altogether (less waste in acquisition, in processing, in transporting the resources, in using them... etc)
  • Further research into alternative energy will have spin-offs, i.e. not only vehicle fuels and electricity production will benefit


So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
Solyndra.

Wow. It seems like the global warming debate really is defined by extremists. If somebody isn't screeching inflammatory retorts or whipping out provocative one-liners, then they won't be respected. If somebody tries to take any non-polarised position, those from either side can attack you, saying "you're just one of them".

Think I'm going to sit this "debate" out permanently, it seems like fighting is all that most people are interested in. Presumably all the shriekers also have a strong ethical position against aggressive and intolerant behaviour too
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
December 21, 2013, 12:43:20 PM
#35
I won't call for hanging him from the nearest tree.  But could we just all agree to jail Al Gore for life?
Pages:
Jump to: