Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2017, 05:31 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(09-01-2017 12:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The standard method of measuring climate for weather forecasting in the UK was to place a thermometer in a vented wooden box six feet above grass so the reading reflected air temperature. If you put a thermometer in sunlight or near a reflective surface, it will record a higher temperature.

Nope. This is nonsense.

Scientists actually use four major datasets to study global temperatures. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4. In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) produces a fourth dataset.

Scientists use these major datasets to study global temperatures. As well as measuring the temperature at Earth’s surface, satellites can collect data from the bottom 10km of Earth’s atmospher—known as the lower troposphere.

(09-01-2017 12:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Back when I was a kid, they talked about an impending ice age. Back then there was no internet and technology was not as easy to take to third world countries so it may be that weather recording was done in places where the former British Empire had its influence.

Yes; but... those 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A 24 June 1974 Time magazine article "Another Ice Age?" painted a bleak but misinformed picture. However, those were simply media articles, and not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 shows that few papers predicted global cooling—7 in total. Significantly more papers—42 in total—predicted global warming (ref: Thomas C. Peterson, Sep 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted that the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.


(09-01-2017 12:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The problem is that technology for measuring temperature spread to a lot of hot countries which don't use Western techniques, don't know about them, don't study them and don't even have grass!

Again; not so. You seem to be under the impression that we still measure temperature with dry-bulb thermometers in our back yards LOL. Your comments about countries other than those using "Western" techniques smacks of latent racism—as though the Egyptians or Pakistanis or the Indonesians don't have the necessary technical abilities.

(09-01-2017 12:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If you don't like that for yourself, then stop using the Nazi equivalence on other people because they are older and have a different, and well supported, scientific view.

You do know that as soon as you mention the word "Nazi" you've automatically forfeited the debate?

(09-01-2017 12:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is snowing in the Greek Islands right now with some of the coldest weather in 120 years. No doubt this is the result of global warming.

This would indicate that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SYZ's post
12-02-2017, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2017 05:35 PM by Kaneda.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Okay, this is a serious question; forgive me if this sounds a little too sci-fi for a science forum, but why is nobody is talking about taking pre-emptive action on the Arctic time-bomb that I keep hearing is going to kill us all within the next 20 years? Every climate-change subreddit/thread/podcast I listen to gives at least one mention to how "the reduction of sea-ice gives the risk that gigatons of methane may escape from sub-sea permafrost in the arctic," and how the sudden jump in GHG concentrations will thwart any further attempts to prevent the worst of all possible outcomes.

Now geoengineering, renewable energy, and atmospheric scrubbing have all been pitched as potential mitigation strategies with varying likelihoods of success. But when it comes to targeting the most tangible threat, I've heard zilch. So what I'm really trying to say is, why is no one considering leveraging existing tools to mine/pump methane deposits out of the ground and storing the material away (not unlike nuclear waste) before it gets absorbed into the atmosphere and falls out of our hands?

Granted I probably sound very elementary bringing this up, but I've never heard anyone propose "diffusing" the Arctic time-bomb, so I've never heard why it can't be done. I can kind of get that there are entrenched interests creating the problem by keeping billions of people fossil fuel dependent, but who's benefitting from letting feedbacks run unabated? To me it looks like we're just sitting on our butts while we wait for the arctic to kill us. What's causing the inaction? Again, I'm not a scientist, so forgive my naïveté here; I just haven't seen the "disarm the bomb" strategy discredited yet.

"Men willingly believe what they wish." -Julius Caesar
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kaneda's post
12-02-2017, 09:20 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Hello Kaneda!

Well.. also not being an expert, I can think of some reasons wy people arent'

1) It's not commercially viable enough?

2) If people start messing with it.. It might just erupt/be released from its containment any way (As well as instantly and voilently)

3) An accident in the area might cause massive amounts of local pollution/disruptions.

Just three bad things that might go wrong if people poke the methane deposits.

That being said... if they can be tapped then we get more energy. Convert the methane into C02 (Which we are developing the methods to sequestration)

Just some random thoughts. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
12-02-2017, 11:33 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Kaneda, I always remember this.

"When in doubt, ask."
Confucius.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 11:58 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2017 01:21 AM by Kaneda.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(12-02-2017 09:20 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello Kaneda!

Well.. also not being an expert, I can think of some reasons wy people arent'

1) It's not commercially viable enough?

2) If people start messing with it.. It might just erupt/be released from its containment any way (As well as instantly and voilently)

3) An accident in the area might cause massive amounts of local pollution/disruptions.

Just three bad things that might go wrong if people poke the methane deposits.

That being said... if they can be tapped then we get more energy. Convert the methane into C02 (Which we are developing the methods to sequestration)

To be honest, I never gave much thought to points 2 and 3. I sort of envisioned arctic methane release as an all-or-nothing process, which once it's released would keep feeding back on itself until literally-fucking-everything was dissipated into the atmosphere. And if all the methane was going to be released anyway it would make rational sense to at least try and dredge up as much of the insidious sludge as we could.

Maybe I'm overreaching here. I understand it would be an enormous geological challenge but I'd be really be remiss if no one's weighed the risks against the rewards of doing damage control up north. If there's something to be gained from poking around up there, complications notwithstanding, I'd be all for it. Doing anything at all risky or disruptive would be more impressive to me than simply tinkering at the margins like we've been doing so far.

Edit:

@Banjo - Thanks for the vote of encouragement. I tend to get caught up in questions about where the future's going, but I try to keep things in the realm of possibility.

@Peebothuhul - It just reoccurred to me that the race for untapped energy reserves could become the focal point of a real nasty territorial dispute with the Eastern countries in the near future. This might complicate my Arctic Bomb Squad proposal a little.

"Men willingly believe what they wish." -Julius Caesar
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 09:05 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(27-11-2016 08:00 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I need some help finding videos or short articles about global warming. My father has been brainwashed been swayed by conservative nonsense, and climate denying is the newest thing that he's going on about. Sad

If anyone knows of some YouTube videos or reader-friendly science articles that explain global warming, specifically about ice melt and the impact that this will have on our environment, I would be really appreciative if you could share them here. I tried showing my father the two Vice reports about Greenland and Antarctica, but he refuses to watch them because Bill Maher is the executive producer and therefore the reports are biased (he actually used the word ‘tainted’) Rolleyes

Thank you in advance.

Just tell him to sit in the car out in the sun for a few hours. That should demonstrate the point.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: