Climate Change... Pass this along. "It's a hoax."

Left is so retarded. Been egging on a country with 6000 nukes pointed at us (as vise versa) which would effectively end life on earth within a week, most ppl would die within first 30 minutes ( and its not like we have no been close a few times by accident) and instead worry about minuscule changes in temps and we have to change our whole life for it. Talk about not seeing Forrest for the trees.

"

deathflower wrote:

If the questions have already been refuted, why do people keep asking the same questions? Do they really not know or just refuse to accept it?

I would say the simplest explanation is that people need better first-hand evidence -- yeah, that they refuse to accept dictum.

A pillar of science is repeatable tests. If there was an experiment that could be run in a backyard in a week for small amounts of dollars, there wouldn't be a debate.

We don't have a control planet, the timescales involved are enormous, the variables aren't all known, and of course, fucking it up is catastrophic. It's the worst possible place to do science, but we must try anyway.

---

For the record, I think that CO2 is unabashedly a greenhouse gas that causes temperatures to rise; that humans are the primary cause of CO2 increases; that there is a natural balancing response to this (plant growth), but that the natural response is not a "fast" one; that in the interim, there will be much loss of life and resources that are difficult to claw back; that it is in our best interests to hedge against fossil-fuel-based CO2 in some way.

My current favorite solution revolves around nuclear energy as a transitional power source and hoping that renewables continue to improve as they have been improving, spurred by R&D investment ideally from philanthropy or in the worst case by central planning. It's somewhat bleak, but I feel is the least bleak of all available options.

---

For shits and giggles, consider also the argument that we are potentially one bad day away from mass death due to asteroid impact. Every day that we "chill" our technological growth by restricting access to our cheapest energy source is one more roll of the dice. There is thus a strong argument for slamming down on the gas pedal, even while accepting that doing so will also kill many people due to CO2 emissions.

You can replace asteroid with supervolcano explosion, nuclear war, or any other existential threat. So, how do you prioritize in such a situation?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What about severely increasing the growth of the global plant population? Is the problem the carbon footprint, or the ratio of carbon footprint to oxygen footprint?

It's not just about CO2, but also about pollution in general and resource consumption / exploitation. More people = more demand for power, food and resources = more exploitation = more strain on the environment. More people does not necessarily mean more educated people or more ecology standards, so while in the West we have our strict regulations and play environmentalists, masses in the 3rd world will consume everything they can get their hands on. (including trees)

If you want balance, then you can only have such a population that can somewhat replenish resources. Currently the West is artificially helping places like Africa to overpopulate beyond their means, creating an artificial demand for more and more power in the future. If they can't support themselves now at population X, why do we expect they'll be able to manage at population 5X?? They won't, but be constantly dependent on help.

It's not like helping the 3rd world hasn't been going for half a century now. What did it achieve, except an artificial inflation of population? The % of power from renewable sources is very low even in the West, does anyone here expect that 20 billion of people will all be able to run their macbooks on "green energy"? "A laptop for every child in the world"... lol, no. Not unless you limit procreation.

"

pneuma wrote:

For shits and giggles, consider also the argument that we are potentially one bad day away from mass death due to asteroid impact. Every day that we "chill" our technological growth by restricting access to our cheapest energy source is one more roll of the dice. There is thus a strong argument for slamming down on the gas pedal, even while accepting that doing so will also kill many people due to CO2 emissions.

You can replace asteroid with supervolcano explosion, nuclear war, or any other existential threat. So, how do you prioritize in such a situation?

Or we could use the innovative growth to bioengineer a supertree that gobbles up CO2 and belches out oxygen in an absurdly effective manner.

But I think we're spending too much collective energy virtue-signaling in academia to get published, thinking up new and flashy ways to make money entertaining welfare recipients, and fueling the military-industrial complex (edit: and I guess what morbo said) to devote significant resources to technological innovation.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

Any sort of "countering human impact on the environment" program, which doesn't include severely limiting the growth of the global population, is a scam.

What about severely increasing the growth of the global plant population? Is the problem the carbon footprint, or the ratio of carbon footprint to oxygen footprint?

Hmm... Ecoalarmism, left-wingers, urban areas... I think I found a correlation. Hard to convince woodsmen that carbon in the atmosphere will bring on the apocalypse.

The problem isn't so much about what dioxyde carbon do for the plants or against us but rather how it trap heat from the sun in our atmosphere. That said, "carbon footprint" really mean our dependence on fossil energy rather than the emission of CO2. The truth is that there's far worse gas emission that CO2 that comes from burning oil. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf

And that's for traditional oil. There's obviously other stuff that's far nastier when burnt (plastic for example). Really, reducing the carbon footprint means reducing air pollution. It's just that CO2 is widely known (compared to say, sulfur dioxyde or nitrogen oxyde) and it's simple to identify.



As for growing plants, it's not viable for one reason. Soil desertification. In many place in the world, the soils are getting less and less fertile despite the growing need for food. Replacing crops for plants that do not generate food is akin to ask people to starve to death. Not a good idea. To put it simply, we need the room for our own food.

"

faerwin wrote:

The problem isn't so much about what dioxyde carbon do for the plants or against us but rather how it trap heat from the sun in our atmosphere. That said, "carbon footprint" really mean our dependence on fossil energy rather than the emission of CO2. The truth is that there's far worse gas emission that CO2 that comes from burning oil. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf

And that's for traditional oil. There's obviously other stuff that's far nastier when burnt (plastic for example). Really, reducing the carbon footprint means reducing air pollution. It's just that CO2 is widely known (compared to say, sulfur dioxyde or nitrogen oxyde) and it's simple to identify.



As for growing plants, it's not viable for one reason. Soil desertification. In many place in the world, the soils are getting less and less fertile despite the growing need for food. Replacing crops for plants that do not generate food is akin to ask people to starve to death. Not a good idea. To put it simply, we need the room for our own food.

Now I know who will get top score for science.

"

adghar wrote:

"

solwitch wrote:

People need to understand time doesn't exist, just because you see a clock on the wall doesn't mean time is relevant.

that's deep man

To see the forest, you must step outside of it. Likewise with time:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460740/

"

Feins_ wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

If the questions have already been refuted, why do people keep asking the same questions? Do they really not know or just refuse to accept it?

Temperatures are rising, that's essentially it. Everything else, the WHY, is a theory, just like evolution is still a theory, a good one, in fact, the best one we have at the moment, with lots of "evidence", for lack of a better word, to support it, but it still is a THEORY. That's why we call it "Evolutionary Theory". Same applies to "global warming".

But i am curious to see the definitve proof that carbon emissions cause "global warming".

Carbon, which is the basis for almost every life form on this planet, which plants need to grow...yeah...

There are far more dangerous things to worry about which could really have a devastating effect on the planet, nuclear waste for example or Methane.

A theory is the most well founded of scientific concepts, theories are backed by established facts. You will never see a "Fact of Evolution" because Theory is as high as you get, a theory is backed by many facts.

Global warming isn't increased by carbon, that has never been the claim. It is increased by carbon dioxide, which is very different. Carbon dioxide allows the penetration of sunlight to reach the surface but inhibits the release of the infrared radiation back out of our atmosphere. The more carbon dioxide, the more heat that is trapped in the earths surface, the higher the average global temperature will be become.

Global warming as a result of both natural and man made processes, like evolution, is undeniable at this point. We know how this all works. We know what carbon dioxide is, what creates it, and how it affects light and radiation. These things are firmly established to a point that they will never be rejected. What can be debated however is the magnitude of man made versus natural cause.

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

"

Feins_ wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

If the questions have already been refuted, why do people keep asking the same questions? Do they really not know or just refuse to accept it?

Temperatures are rising, that's essentially it. Everything else, the WHY, is a theory, just like evolution is still a theory, a good one, in fact, the best one we have at the moment, with lots of "evidence", for lack of a better word, to support it, but it still is a THEORY. That's why we call it "Evolutionary Theory". Same applies to "global warming".

But i am curious to see the definitve proof that carbon emissions cause "global warming".

Carbon, which is the basis for almost every life form on this planet, which plants need to grow...yeah...

There are far more dangerous things to worry about which could really have a devastating effect on the planet, nuclear waste for example or Methane.

A theory is the most well founded of scientific concepts, theories are backed by established facts. You will never see a "Fact of Evolution" because Theory is as high as you get, a theory is backed by many facts.

Global warming isn't increased by carbon, that has never been the claim. It is increased by carbon dioxide, which is very different. Carbon dioxide allows the penetration of sunlight to reach the surface but inhibits the release of the infrared radiation back out of our atmosphere. The more carbon dioxide, the more heat that is trapped in the earths surface, the higher the average global temperature will be become.

Global warming as a result of both natural and man made processes, like evolution, is undeniable at this point. We know how this all works. We know what carbon dioxide is, what creates it, and how it affects light and radiation. These things are firmly established to a point that they will never be rejected. What can be debated however is the magnitude of man made versus natural cause.

Thank you for explaining what i already know. I heard this information alot of times, ever since i was a child, doesn't make it the ultimate truth. Sadly. Would be nice to know something for certain, once...

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

You will never see a "Fact of Evolution" because Theory is as high as you get, a theory is backed by many facts.

And isn't that the entire issue? I also never said that i think "global warming" it is a hoax in itself. I think the whole topic is so diluted and ab/used by certain interests to further an agenda. It is ab/used as political tool all the time, which makes me doubt the official narrative, or makes me suspicious, that's all.

I also have no doubts about the functions of CO², but maybe, just maybe it doesn't have that big of an influence we think it has. I also don't think environmental pollution caused by humans has no effect at all. It is observable after all. But to me it seems like CO² isn't really the worst offender when it comes to pollution.

Just one example. The magnetic pole of the earth moves by ~50 kilometers (~31 miles) each year and the magnetic field is getting weaker. Maybe that has an influence as well? Who knows?

Why is the artic melting, but antartic sea ice gains mass?

Just to be clear, i am not a scientist, but i prefer to keep an open mind, especially since so many variables are involved, some might not be known yet or have been overlooked?!

"

Feins_ wrote:

Thank you for explaining what i already know. I heard this information alot of times, ever since i was a child, doesn't make it the ultimate truth. Sadly. Would be nice to know something for certain, once...

Ultimate truth? No. But science can and frequently does prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

"

Feins_ wrote:

And isn't that the entire issue? I also never said that i think "global warming" it is a hoax in itself. I think the whole topic is so diluted and ab/used by certain interests to further an agenda. It is ab/used as political tool all the time, which makes me doubt the official narrative, or makes me suspicious, that's all.

I also have no doubts about the functions of CO², but maybe, just maybe it doesn't have that big of an influence we think it has. I also don't think environmental pollution caused by humans has no effect at all. It is observable after all. But to me it seems like CO² isn't really the worst offender when it comes to pollution.

Just one example. The magnetic pole of the earth moves by ~50 kilometers (~31 miles) each year and the magnetic field is getting weaker. Maybe that has an influence as well? Who knows?

Why is the artic melting, but antartic sea ice gains mass?

Just to be clear, i am not a scientist, but i prefer to keep an open mind, especially since so many variables are involved, some might not be known yet or have been overlooked?!

I mean we're all just keyboard scientists here anyway. You're right that parties on both sides of the debate have a vested financial interest. All the rest of us can do is examine the information at hand and come to the best informed conclusion that we can.

In regards to the antarctica study you are referring to, you are right that the sea ice has been gaining mass on average but there other factors that need to be considered. Antarctic land ice has been losing mass on average. Land ice is the accumulated snowfall over thousands of years, whereas sea ice is the seasonal freezing and thawing that occurs every year. The important distinction is that while overall there is a net gain, there is also a net loss. The net loss is increasing by more magnitude than the net gain, to the point that in the next 20 years it will just be a straight loss in total mass each year. Then antarctica will join the rest of the glacial areas like the arctic and greenland which already lose mass every year.

CO2 is definitely not the only issue that is contributing to the warming. We have put many negative chemicals into the atmosphere since the industrial age, and that also does not count the contributing factor of widespread deforestation which has reduced the planets ability to process these emissions, estimated at about 18 million acres every year.