Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

56 posts

Flag Post

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?
We could do many many things.
All those factories releasing all those gases in the air, someone has to do something.
There are environmentally safe fuels, and some are still safe, and cheap as-well.
All comes down to the fact that NO government is gonna do anything, and all they want is MONEY.

REMAKE
Does anyone think we can actually get off our lazy butts, stop being greedy and help save the Earth?
Some global warming is caused by humans, and some of the areas where it is getting colder might be, and might not be.
We are destroying our ozone layer.
Holes in the ozone will heat up areas.
Gas prices going up, almost every country in the world is in debt or about to go in debt.
So my point is:
Can we get out of our greed, stop using expensive fuels, stop using pollutant materials, stop throwing trash and waste into the ocean, and find more efficient ways of doing the things we do now?
I mean we aren’t that lazy, are we? YES

Note: If you know anyways I can improve the above remake, please tell me. c:
Sidenote: I didn’t know parts of the Earth are getting colder, I will do my research on this later on. C:

 
Flag Post

What is the AX here, exactly?
And while there are indeed many things we, civilians, can do( Such as, avoiding too many oil-based products ) truth is, chances are, without a huge reform in the whole industrial citizen… It wont make much of a difference.

 
Flag Post

I still missed the bit where global warming was proved to be man made and going to cause imminent extinction (other than in The Day After Tomorrow ofcourse but I don’t think that is a reputable source…)

Sadly I don’t have the time to go searching for real data these days and all quick searches give is biased rubbish. Normally graphs of CO2 levels show a curve that goes almost vertically upward in “near future” though I question just how this will happen when the same doom sayers tell us the very fuels that will cause this will run out shortly…

Though any of this could be the AX: ofcourse, will need to wait for one to be added to know though

 
Flag Post

There, you both happy? :c

 
Flag Post

Well, OK, what do you want us to do, or is this just a thread of unspecific vague demands to ‘do something’?

Plenty of governments are already investing a reasonable amount in renewable energy, but such things take time and currently aren’t capable of meeting our needs due to being either expensive, inefficient or ‘unsafe’ (hi, nuclear).

 
Flag Post

This topic is an abomination, how do I remove it?

 
Flag Post

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Unless you are also solving the broadcast electrical power problem, I don’t see this occuring. You’d wipe out your current in friction over the tens of thousands of miles of cabling necessary to transfer power across the EU that way.

I’m not even going to touch on the infeasability of using photovoltaic as the sole energy source for the entire country.

Originally posted by bmxracer23:

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?

What global warmth?

There is global climate change, yes, but ‘global warmth’ is a myth. Some parts are warming, others are getting colder precisely because those ather parts are warming. Major ocean currents are shifting or shutting down and taking their heat transfer with them.

Weather in many places is becoming more extreme, not necessarilly warmer. We still don’t know what’s going to happen to the world’s weather systems in full; we have neither the computation power nor the necessary approximation algorithms to simulate climate change on a global scale at this present time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Assuming all that is possible, do you think that the Saudi royal family is likely to survive long enough to cash in on it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Unless you are also solving the broadcast electrical power problem, I don’t see this occuring. You’d wipe out your current in friction over the tens of thousands of miles of cabling necessary to transfer power across the EU that way.

I’m not even going to touch on the infeasability of using photovoltaic as the sole energy source for the entire country.

Originally posted by bmxracer23:

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?

What global warmth?

There is global climate change, yes, but ‘global warmth’ is a myth. Some parts are warming, others are getting colder precisely because those ather parts are warming. Major ocean currents are shifting or shutting down and taking their heat transfer with them.

Weather in many places is becoming more extreme, not necessarilly warmer. We still don’t know what’s going to happen to the world’s weather systems in full; we have neither the computation power nor the necessary approximation algorithms to simulate climate change on a global scale at this present time.

We could try to ship high pressure hydrogen tankers (like the oil tankers we have now) or otherwise use pipelines of hydrogen otherwise we would be looking at superconductors to prevent energy loss in long wires.

At any rate the cost of solar panels is falling quickly while their efficiency is growing fast. I heard somewhere (but can’t quite remember where) that in 20 years they will be more cost efficient then coal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Unless you are also solving the broadcast electrical power problem, I don’t see this occuring. You’d wipe out your current in friction over the tens of thousands of miles of cabling necessary to transfer power across the EU that way.

I’m not even going to touch on the infeasability of using photovoltaic as the sole energy source for the entire country.

Originally posted by bmxracer23:

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?

What global warmth?

There is global climate change, yes, but ‘global warmth’ is a myth. Some parts are warming, others are getting colder precisely because those ather parts are warming. Major ocean currents are shifting or shutting down and taking their heat transfer with them.

Weather in many places is becoming more extreme, not necessarilly warmer. We still don’t know what’s going to happen to the world’s weather systems in full; we have neither the computation power nor the necessary approximation algorithms to simulate climate change on a global scale at this present time.

I stand corrected.
Puts top-hat on, my nice jacket, and a bowtie
Well time to go do some time traveling.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Unless you are also solving the broadcast electrical power problem, I don’t see this occuring. You’d wipe out your current in friction over the tens of thousands of miles of cabling necessary to transfer power across the EU that way.

I’m not even going to touch on the infeasability of using photovoltaic as the sole energy source for the entire country.

Originally posted by bmxracer23:

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?

What global warmth?

There is global climate change, yes, but ‘global warmth’ is a myth. Some parts are warming, others are getting colder precisely because those ather parts are warming. Major ocean currents are shifting or shutting down and taking their heat transfer with them.

Weather in many places is becoming more extreme, not necessarilly warmer. We still don’t know what’s going to happen to the world’s weather systems in full; we have neither the computation power nor the necessary approximation algorithms to simulate climate change on a global scale at this present time.

We could try to ship high pressure hydrogen tankers (like the oil tankers we have now) or otherwise use pipelines of hydrogen otherwise we would be looking at superconductors to prevent energy loss in long wires.

At any rate the cost of solar panels is falling quickly while their efficiency is growing fast. I heard somewhere (but can’t quite remember where) that in 20 years they will be more cost efficient then coal.

Sorry to ask, but can you at-least try to find the source of the last piece of info?
It sounds interesting, and my type of thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Unless you are also solving the broadcast electrical power problem, I don’t see this occuring. You’d wipe out your current in friction over the tens of thousands of miles of cabling necessary to transfer power across the EU that way.

I’m not even going to touch on the infeasability of using photovoltaic as the sole energy source for the entire country.

Originally posted by bmxracer23:

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?

What global warmth?

There is global climate change, yes, but ‘global warmth’ is a myth. Some parts are warming, others are getting colder precisely because those ather parts are warming. Major ocean currents are shifting or shutting down and taking their heat transfer with them.

Weather in many places is becoming more extreme, not necessarilly warmer. We still don’t know what’s going to happen to the world’s weather systems in full; we have neither the computation power nor the necessary approximation algorithms to simulate climate change on a global scale at this present time.

A link for you
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-Launches-its-54GW-Renewable-Energy-Program.html

 
Flag Post

“Scientific explanations are what scientist give when they don’t have an explanation.”
Good luck with that.

 
Flag Post

There is a gigantic scientific consensus that not only global warming is happening, as it is most likely mainly due to our behavior. We have to face this problem.
I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject, nor have a very good reason to do so. Why is it that every single peer reviewed research tells us we are causing global warming, yet people just keep deying it? Seriously, the amount of evidence that people should at least reconsider their positions. It’s overwhelming.

Please guys, reconsider your positions. Look ONLY at the facts, and see what truth the facts bear out. Pretty please?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

There is a gigantic scientific consensus that not only global warming is happening, as it is most likely mainly due to our behavior. We have to face this problem.
I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject, nor have a very good reason to do so. Why is it that every single peer reviewed research tells us we are causing global warming, yet people just keep deying it? Seriously, the amount of evidence that people should at least reconsider their positions. It’s overwhelming.

Please guys, reconsider your positions. Look ONLY at the facts, and see what truth the facts bear out. Pretty please?

Firstly, scientifically proven theories AREN’T facts nor truths. 300 years ago, all empirical evidence and mathematical workings were in favor of Newton’s “absolute spacetime”. Now we all heard of relativity which slammed Newton in the face.

But before we go in depth about epistemology… I can tell you that except dd790’s post, nobody here has doubted the truthfulness of global warming. Thanks for the links though.

 
Flag Post
  • Scientific theories cannot be proven. Ever.
  • Global warming (data) is not a theory. The anthropic model (mechanism) is.
  • I never claimed anything was a fact nor unquestionable truth.
  • I never claimed our current science could never be proven wrong – in fact, it was quite the opposite. If you want to doubt it, please come up with some ground-breaking research, or at least study the field in depth. Otherwise, follow the scientific consensus.
  • “Nobody except somebody said X.” Ergo, somebody said X. It was precisely because of dd790’s post that I made mine.
 
Flag Post
I never claimed anything was a fact nor unquestionable truth.

Maybe not overtly, but things like, “I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject, nor have a very good reason to do so.” and “Seriously, the amount of evidence that people should at least reconsider their positions. It’s overwhelming.” and “Look ONLY at the facts, and see what truth the facts bear out.” illustrate you don’t have much tolerance for dissenting views.

I never claimed our current science could never be proven wrong – in fact, it was quite the opposite. If you want to doubt it, please come up with some ground-breaking research, or at least study the field in depth. Otherwise, follow the scientific consensus.

Literally this is the same thing followers of Mann’s hockey stick were saying. And you know what: it was complete bullshit.

Literally this is the same thing followers of the notion in the 70s that there was going to be massive global cooling and the earth was going to turn into an ice cube. And you know what: it was complete bullshit.

Now, global scientists tell me when it’s warmer, that’s a sign of global climate change. They also tell me that when it’s colder, that’s a sign of global climate change. I’m guessing if temperatures remain exactly the same, they will tell me that’s also a sign of global climate change.

I also like how it’s shifted to global climate change when it became common knowledge that global warming was bullshit so they had to adapt the title to maintain the charade.

 
Flag Post

Global warming (data) is not a theory. The anthropic model (mechanism) is.

Besides that data is open to interpretation and statistics is the third kind of lies, global warming is actually an extrapolation of a curve. Yes, the curve may be at an all-time high, but we won’t know if it will drop back down like it did before.

“Nobody except somebody said X.” Ergo, somebody said X. It was precisely because of dd790’s post that I made mine.

Besides that you have used plural nouns in your previous post, namely, people and guys, you are encouraged to define your second person pronouns (aka “you”) by using the “quote post” button or the blockquote function.

 
Flag Post

It also has to do with a well known principle of energy absorption of gasses. Every gas can only absorb light of a few select wavelengths. Now if we look at CO2 it mainly absorbs in the infra red wave lengths. So what happens is that a ray of sunlight falls from the sun onto the earth. Most of it passes because most if it is in the visible wavelengths. Then it hits the earth and heats it up a little. So far everything is normal. But then the heat generates light in the infrared wavelengths which is normally radiated out into space (this is how the earth loses it’s heat). So from the ground a ray of infra red light is shot upwards it hits the atmosphere and because the amount of CO2 has doubled from what it normally is most of it get’s absorbed by the atmosphere. Now what happens is that since it can’t only really radiate out again as infra red it can either go up or down. So half of this goes down again to earth. This is why global warming heats up the earth in general. We know the total amount of CO2 output of humanity and we know that this is upsetting the balance. What is ill understood is the actual consequences of this. Are we expecting rains and floods or droughts in Africa? But the existence of global climate chance is not really in doubt. Unless someone can point out where my explanation goes wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
“Nobody except somebody said X.” Ergo, somebody said X. It was precisely because of dd790’s post that I made mine.

I guess all those years I spent on an honours degree for the very topic really were wasted then, someone on a forum thinks they know it all!

Global warming is a concept invented by governments to justify environment taxes, climate change is a real thing which scientists support the concept of, but don’t claim we cause. It is claimed we are accelerating climate change, but credible scientists don’t claim we are the sole cause.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
“Nobody except somebody said X.” Ergo, somebody said X. It was precisely because of dd790’s post that I made mine.

I guess all those years I spent on an honours degree for the very topic really were wasted then, someone on a forum thinks they know it all!

Global warming is a concept invented by governments to justify environment taxes, climate change is a real thing which scientists support the concept of, but don’t claim we cause. It is claimed we are accelerating climate change, but credible scientists don’t claim we are the sole cause.

Care to give the other cause?
By the way earlier you claimed the CO2 level graphs goes up almost straight virticaly in the near future. Good to know you live in the 18th century


ok to be fair the axist aren’t labeled with 0 on the bottom so it’s not really a 10 fond increase but still a strong increase as around the year 1000 we were at around 280 ppm and around the year 2000 we were close to 330 ppm and by march 2004 we were at 380 ppm. Oh and apperently we are now over 400 ppm http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/?mobile=nc

 
Flag Post
Care to give the other cause?

Climates have changed since the birth of the atmosphere. Climates would change if we burned 100x more carbon. Climates would change if we burned 100x less carbon. Climates would change if we maintain the status quo.

You point out rising carbon and climates changing. Those are two independent variables. If you’re going to claim causation, then you need the climate change to be dependent on the carbon. As it is, there is no knowledge how much, if any, current carbon levels are affecting climates and whether or not its a positive or not (there are some who see a coming ice age and think that the increase in carbon are completely necessary to maintain our way of life).

Oh and apperently we are now over 400 ppm http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/?mobile=nc

That moment someone links to think progress for scientific data. I guess that means I can quote junk science for you since you have fairly low standards for what sources you’re willing to put in play?

 
Flag Post

There is climate change. No debate there.
Why not, uh, improve on our control of the nature to create a far more sustainable environment. If we are to terraform Mars, one day, why not at least prove it here?

For now, we must be patient, but let’s hope our scientists are working hard enough and smart enough: for cries on climate change to be behind us, and the frivolous talk to disappear, so we can finally act instead of talking cheap.

 
Flag Post

@issendorf: What you quoted me saying shows you that I’m not an absolutist. I said you can doubt it if you have a very good reason – dd790 and most climate change deniers DO NOT. I said people should RECONSIDER their positions (not absolutely accept mine). You have to justify your beliefs.
I doubt NASA, World Meteorological Organization, IPCC, Nature, ONU, American Meteorological Society, IPCC, NOAA, GISS, Environmental Protection Agency, UNEP, IEA, NationalGeographic, American Society of Agronomy, UNFCCC, and 99% percent of articles are complete bogus. They could be wrong, as Newton was. But it’s not an amateur layman who is going to prove it wrong – most scientists believe it for a reason.

Climate change (specially caused by humans) is a very complicated subject. It’s not an exact science, which is why I don’t accept it completely (like, for example, evolution). But the data is there, and it tells us something. Hopefully we are interpreting it wrong, otherwise we’ve got a big challenge ahead of us.
^This is how you should deal with the subject, not “OMG THEY R ST00PID SCIENTISTS SUX xP CONSPIRACY!!” – this is not skepticism. It’s stupidity.

Climates have changed since the birth of the atmosphere.

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can’t be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case.

It’s important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It’s worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas, the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called “forcings” because they force changes in the global average temperature.
Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we’ve learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

In summary the past reveals our climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat.

What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional “forcing” is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth’s history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

The Earth’s climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.


I guess all those years I spent on an honours degree for the very topic

Of course you did, sweetie. Am I to believe this after you said “I don’t have time to go searching for real data”? Really? It reminds me of a YouTube commenter that claimed to be an expert at everything, only in different videos. Well, show me the data, bud. I don’t care who you (claim that you) are.

someone on a forum thinks they know it all

I did not claim to have any ‘knowledge’ myself, I just quoted 98% of the scientists and 99.84% of the research. And yet I’m still not advocating for it completely. This is healthy skepticism. I just told you guys to, maybe, reconsider your positions and try to look deeper into the data. :)