Global climate change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 06:37 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I agree with Heathen.

So the guy named evenheathen agrees with the guy named Heathen.
...
Dodgy

(24-10-2013 06:37 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  The jury is still out on why, but there is no question that the climate is changing. It is a bit of Pascal's wager.

Hardly.

We know exactly what's what. Well; I say 'we'. A man can dream.

(24-10-2013 06:37 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  But what do we gain from taking a safe approach and doing what we can to treat the earth as a the ultimate limited resource? If we are wrong: a cleaner, healthier environment in which to thrive.

What do we get if we say fuck it and continue to rape the earth and pollute the skies?
If we are wrong: well, it'll be a slow, suffocating death for our species.

No, because job creators climategate liberal media propaganda science conspiracy titty sprinkles. Or something.

As a scientist I am naturally fully complicit in the ideologically-motivated sham that is global climate change. Or was I only involved in perpetuating the evolution conspiracy, the cosmological conspiracy, the anti-supernatural conspiracy... I mean, there're just so many, it's hard to keep track sometimes.

(24-10-2013 06:44 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Don't have the resources to investigate comprehensively.
So much bullshit from both camps, but most skeptics are politically Motivated (bad science).

Siding with the doomsdayers for now only because occam says so, but they need to keep this scientific or people will think they are crying wolf.

Yeah. No. Not at all.

But given a mass media which is paralytically terrified of portraying any disagreement whatsoever as anything less than a perfectly balanced and stable equilibrium...

Take the video in the OP. 'Debate'? There's no fucking debate. Sticking your thumb up your ass and shouting "NUH UH" as loud as you can doesn't constitute a 'debate'.

...

We're pretty fucked.

Although on the other hand, at least fossil fuels won't be an issue in a couple decades.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
24-10-2013, 11:22 PM
RE: Global climate change
Quote:Although on the other hand, at least fossil fuels won't be an issue in a couple decades.

I thought that was just oil that was supposedly running out until they discovered enormous amounts of the shit all over the world?
I know we (New Zealand) have reserves off shore that we don't drill for environmental reasons and because Kiwi's as a general rule of thumb are mindless idiots when it comes to the economy.
Unless I'm wrong on the whole "we aren't really running out of oil" thing, I can't even remember where I read that so probably.

But what about coal? I didn't know we were running out of coal. And what's to stop coal plants just switching to charcoal? That is created from trees which are renewable. Sure it's probably a lot less efficient but if there's no more coal it's probably a viable alternative.
It's what they use in places like Brazil, illegally, people come along, wack down the rainforest a bit, burn up all the wood to make charcoal and sell it to local iron smelting plants. All because it's cheaper than coal. But if it can melt iron in huge blast furnaces I'm sure it could light a few lightbulbs.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 12:55 AM
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Although on the other hand, at least fossil fuels won't be an issue in a couple decades.

I thought that was just oil that was supposedly running out until they discovered enormous amounts of the shit all over the world?
I know we (New Zealand) have reserves off shore that we don't drill for environmental reasons and because Kiwi's as a general rule of thumb are mindless idiots when it comes to the economy.
Unless I'm wrong on the whole "we aren't really running out of oil" thing, I can't even remember where I read that so probably.

But what about coal? I didn't know we were running out of coal. And what's to stop coal plants just switching to charcoal? That is created from trees which are renewable. Sure it's probably a lot less efficient but if there's no more coal it's probably a viable alternative.
It's what they use in places like Brazil, illegally, people come along, wack down the rainforest a bit, burn up all the wood to make charcoal and sell it to local iron smelting plants. All because it's cheaper than coal. But if it can melt iron in huge blast furnaces I'm sure it could light a few lightbulbs.

yeah sure, we would run out of forests in a week or two, but sure, we can do that Smile

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
25-10-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Although on the other hand, at least fossil fuels won't be an issue in a couple decades.

I thought that was just oil that was supposedly running out until they discovered enormous amounts of the shit all over the world?
I know we (New Zealand) have reserves off shore that we don't drill for environmental reasons and because Kiwi's as a general rule of thumb are mindless idiots when it comes to the economy.
Unless I'm wrong on the whole "we aren't really running out of oil" thing, I can't even remember where I read that so probably.

But what about coal? I didn't know we were running out of coal. And what's to stop coal plants just switching to charcoal? That is created from trees which are renewable. Sure it's probably a lot less efficient but if there's no more coal it's probably a viable alternative.
It's what they use in places like Brazil, illegally, people come along, wack down the rainforest a bit, burn up all the wood to make charcoal and sell it to local iron smelting plants. All because it's cheaper than coal. But if it can melt iron in huge blast furnaces I'm sure it could light a few lightbulbs.

It's not all Oil it is easy (and therefore cheap) to dig oil that is running out. Deep sea wells are not as profitable and when something goes wrong (and something will go wrong) the results are disastrous. Eventually you get to the point where the global production no longer meets the global demand and to your point it is not Power plants that are the main uses of petroleum products.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:47 AM
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-m...te-7?c=cp2

Urgh! I click the link and immediately get a leading question. Kind of discredits the site IMO. Couldn't even bear to check it out.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Global climate change
What makes the 'debate' pointless to me is that whether or not humans are responsible for climate change isn't the most important issue. The fact is, humans have removed entire likes, rivers, and inland seas from existence. We've cut down large percentages of the world's forests and replaced it with water-wasting, river-polluting farms, and asphalt jungles. We've polluted the water and caused massive blooms of algae and jellyfish. We've decimated animal populations in the sea and on land. We've polluted the air so that in many places people are at a higher risk for diseases, including cancer, just by breathing. We've irradiated some land and covered some with oil and toxic industrial chemicals. We've destroyed entire mountains in pursuit of minerals...

Those are all serious problems we have to deal with regardless of changes in climate, and those are all problems undeniably caused by humanity. So much of what we should be doing in order to slow or reverse the effects of human-induced climate change are things we should be doing anyway to treat the aforementioned problems.

Activists shouldn't be so focused on the AGW thing, because opponents of environmentalism use popular doubt about the issue as a way to argue against environmental protections and "environmentally-friendly" technologies. And people fall for it. "Why do we need solar panels if we aren't causing climate change? We could just keep burning coal!" or "Why do I care if the world warms up a bit? I want oranges in Alaska!" Environmentalism is treated as a response to human-induced climate change, rather than activism about undeniably important issues like flaming tap water. The focus on AGW has brought environmental activism in the wrong direction, I think. Whether or not we are driving climate change (and we are), we still have to do a lot to solve human-caused crises that are going to kill us faster than climate change ever will. And in solving some of those crises, we'll be treating the AGW problem too.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elesjei's post
25-10-2013, 08:39 AM
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Although on the other hand, at least fossil fuels won't be an issue in a couple decades.

I thought that was just oil that was supposedly running out until they discovered enormous amounts of the shit all over the world?
I know we (New Zealand) have reserves off shore that we don't drill for environmental reasons and because Kiwi's as a general rule of thumb are mindless idiots when it comes to the economy.
Unless I'm wrong on the whole "we aren't really running out of oil" thing, I can't even remember where I read that so probably.

But what about coal? I didn't know we were running out of coal. And what's to stop coal plants just switching to charcoal? That is created from trees which are renewable. Sure it's probably a lot less efficient but if there's no more coal it's probably a viable alternative.
It's what they use in places like Brazil, illegally, people come along, wack down the rainforest a bit, burn up all the wood to make charcoal and sell it to local iron smelting plants. All because it's cheaper than coal. But if it can melt iron in huge blast furnaces I'm sure it could light a few lightbulbs.

The way I understand it we are running out of 'clean' and 'easy' sources of oil... Of course there is all that nasty shale shit up in Canada that is far, far dirtier than other sources and far harder to extract and there must be a lot of it because they are desperate to build a pipeline to gulf and send it all to China to be used to make new happy meal toys and other assorted garbage.

Unless we have some real strict standards about the quality of the stuff being burned and we draw some lines about where we will and won't allow drilling, pollution and fracking slurry it will take a long, long time for big fossil energy's profit margins to go negative.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
25-10-2013, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2013 09:39 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I thought that was just oil that was supposedly running out until they discovered enormous amounts of the shit all over the world?
I know we (New Zealand) have reserves off shore that we don't drill for environmental reasons and because Kiwi's as a general rule of thumb are mindless idiots when it comes to the economy.
Unless I'm wrong on the whole "we aren't really running out of oil" thing, I can't even remember where I read that so probably.

No one ever used the claim "we'll never find any more oil". That is a misunderstanding (or a deliberate obfuscation by opponents - take your pick).

The issue is not and never has been "there will not be one single drop of oil left in the ground". The problems will start long before we could get to that point.

(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But what about coal? I didn't know we were running out of coal. And what's to stop coal plants just switching to charcoal? That is created from trees which are renewable. Sure it's probably a lot less efficient but if there's no more coal it's probably a viable alternative.

We are running out of coal. The alternatives running out first will only make it run out that much faster. Assuming all else is constant (and keeping in mind that all else is not constant, and that virtually any change in parameters will mean an increase in consumption) it is the difference between a twenty-year problem and a sixty-year problem.

(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's what they use in places like Brazil, illegally, people come along, wack down the rainforest a bit, burn up all the wood to make charcoal and sell it to local iron smelting plants. All because it's cheaper than coal. But if it can melt iron in huge blast furnaces I'm sure it could light a few lightbulbs.

Yes. At the cost of not only catastrophic ecological devastation (above and beyond what we already do), but that the process itself is incredibly inefficient.

The last time society was primarily dependent on wood-based fuel was the mid-1700s. It's not like we'd have to go all the way back to that, but we sure as hell couldn't keep this up.

...

There are a couple foundational premises on which the above rests. The most important is that on a short timescale (ie several human generations) the amount of fossil fuels on the planet is finite. More is produced through natural means, but only the looniest of loonies (or the shillingest of shills) would contend that this can occur within a couple years.

There are several exponential curves to consider. Basic human intuition is woefully inadequate to comprehend exponential patterns, let alone their intersection. And yet a combination of politics and denial lead people to believe that mathematics can be countermanded by fiat conviction...

The population is increasing exponentially. This will continue for the foreseeable future (global population may plateau within the next century). The consumption of resources per capita is increasing concomitantly. This will continue for the foreseeable future.

Production of fossil fuels cannot be taken as one single curve. Oil largely superseded coal (and yet high-quality coal is long gone!), and so coal production has grown much slower. But reserves are finite. As demand increases, and prices increase, this drives production to increase, and with increasing capability this extends production to previously inaccessible or economically non-viable areas. And yet reserves are finite.

Exponentially increasing consumption of finite reserves. Of course that'll end well.

But let's do some math: assume 100 units of resources. Assume an initial population of 1 (and 1 population consumes 1 resource unit per cycle). Assume a growth rate of 3% per cycle. How many cycles to consume everything? About 155. How many cycles to consume the first 50% of the resource? 145. How many for the second 50%? 10. Now, 3% growth is much greater than the actual rate of global population growth (which is now down to ~1.2% and consistently, if slowly, declining). But compared to global economic growth (the best proxy for resource consumption) it is an underestimate.

tldr: we're fucked.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 10:17 AM
RE: Global climate change
Its worth while looking at the types of people promoting each side of the argument...

Pro Climate Change - made up of scientists, activists, and politicians.

Anti Climate Change - energy companies, non-scientists, and politicians.

Scientists have nothing to gain by advocating man made climate change, neither do activists, only politicians have anything to gain from it.

Conversely, energy companies stand to lose everything if its proven true...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 10:22 AM
RE: Global climate change
FOSSIL FUEL... what the fuck is that?

According to science, oil (and the other shit we extract for energy) are not fossil fuels.

http://principia-scientific.org/14-edito...fable.html

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterio...y-oil.html

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic...iotic.html

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...study-says

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...123032.htm


Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: