-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I don't 'believe' in global warming. I accept it as a numerical and physical fact in the same way I accept 2+2=4, the earth is an oblate spheroid and the it orbits the sun.... it's not even really a 'theory' (theory being an explanation of physical phenomenon). It's more of a law (a DESCRIPTION of physical observations).
I do 'believe' anyone that rejects global warming is as much of a moron as those that think the earth is flat and space is fake... there's really no difference. 'Belief' being an unfalsifiable statement of opinion
There is Science on both sides of the issue. What is annoying is the absoluteness of believers. But then I think a lot is lost in the discussion on both sides. Is the Earth warming? Undoubtedly. Do the Models understand the complexity of what they try to do? Have they forecasted anything correctly yet? Those are questions on which everyone should be able to agree.
For me, I am becoming more of a believer, if only because a responsible approach to what humans do is the right thing. What soured me on the belief, in the beginning, were the shoddy papers surmising answers from poorly interpreted data and faulty scientific procedures.
I am still able to hear an argument that might prove CO2 isn't a net danger at reasonable levels. But I think constraining CO2 production is worth responsible efforts. That doesn't mean reducing society to stone-age conditions. It means nuclear power for large industrial places and solar/batteries for less power-intensive places.
Lastly, it is my contention that warming if it occurs, for whatever reason, can be dealt with, with engineering and brilliant minds.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yes.... if CO2 is ~280 - 350 we're fine. >350 not fine. >400 very much not fine. >450ppm very very much not fine.
Doubling CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm will create a radiative imbalance of ~3.7w/m^2. There's only one side of that question. Math. Most life on Earth will be in serious jeopardy of that occurs. The only debate is around whether that would be catastrophic or simply a complete disaster. I'd rather not find out which camp is correct....
The majority of scientists do agree - models can change, but almost all are dire without curtailing our CO2 production.
I'd much rather live with the assumption we're doing everything we can to prevent climate change, than be skeptical and have my kids learn we were wrong.
Definitely no need to skimp on energy when you can just store the "heat" from the sun, get another use for it, before releasing it back into the environment. The problem is that releasing stored energy like fossil fuel or even nuclear, is that you are adding even more heat into the environment. It makes sense that we would be warming up the planet, regardless of additional impact of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. Solar, wind, ocean current, and I guess soon to be even rain drops should be our first choice for energy harvesting.
California ISO - Supply
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yeah..... that's really not a problem. The thermal energy added from fools fuel and nuclear is ~3% of the energy we're adding from the altered radiative balance. CO2 @ >400ppm is the problem.
The radiative imbalance caused by the increase in CO2 levels is adding >2E22J/yr to the planet. The best analogy I've read to put this insane amount of energy in context is every person on Earth is running 100 microwave ovens 24/7/365. That's a ridiculous amount of heat.
The total primary energy consumed globally (which includes wind & solar) is <6E20J/yr.
Last edited:
Yeah...except that releasing stored energy from fossil fuel adds more CO2 into the atmosphere, so a double whammy.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Sure.... point is that it's not the energy released it's the radiative imbalance. If it wasn't for the extra CO2 that additional thermal energy would just radiate away.
Assigning any blame to the thermal energy from the use of fools fuel would be like blaming your furnace when you're cold but the front door is open. A bigger furnace might help but so would closing the door....
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I'm opposed to nuclear also. But I attack it based on cost not that it adds too much energy to the climate because I have this weird need to ensure my arguments are solidly grounded in reality
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This is THE ONLY sentence that should be offered to AGW "skeptics."
I'll wager a fair amount of money that not a one understands it.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Apocalypse now
Anger and fear across UK as second storm breaks
Anger and fear across UK as second storm breaks
Apocalypse future
‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050
‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050
Anger and fear across UK as second storm breaks
Anger and fear across UK as second storm breaks
Apocalypse future
‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050
‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The End of Australia as We Know It The End of Australia as We Know It
They are also forcing Australians to imagine an entirely new way of life. When summer is feared. When air filters hum in homes that are bunkers, with kids kept indoors. When birdsong and the rustle of marsupials in the bush give way to an eerie, smoky silence.
“I am standing here a traveler from a new reality, a burning Australia,” Lynette Wallworth, an Australian filmmaker, told a crowd of international executives and politicians in Davos, Switzerland, last month. “What was feared and what was warned is no longer in our future, a topic for debate — it is here.”
“We have seen,” she added, “the unfolding wings of climate change.”
They are also forcing Australians to imagine an entirely new way of life. When summer is feared. When air filters hum in homes that are bunkers, with kids kept indoors. When birdsong and the rustle of marsupials in the bush give way to an eerie, smoky silence.
“I am standing here a traveler from a new reality, a burning Australia,” Lynette Wallworth, an Australian filmmaker, told a crowd of international executives and politicians in Davos, Switzerland, last month. “What was feared and what was warned is no longer in our future, a topic for debate — it is here.”
“We have seen,” she added, “the unfolding wings of climate change.”
for a little example of an alternate movie syndrome, I hope you will hear this guy out. He doesn't need to be right or wrong, he has a compilation of Earth"s pluses and minuses climate-wise.
Just give him a listen, it's fair to disagree with the bias but there is something to know in the presentation.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
What's the cliff notes version? Life is too short to waste it listening to blow-hards attempt to dodge reality to maintain the status quo.
Which does he dispute?
1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Glad to see that Europe is starting to take the climate emergency seriously </s>
As Sea Levels Rise, Scientists Offer a Bold Idea: Dam the North Sea
Stupidity heaped on stupidity.
They're willing to spend $500 billion for a really big dam but not willing to develop renewables or get rid of fossil fuels.
As Sea Levels Rise, Scientists Offer a Bold Idea: Dam the North Sea
Stupidity heaped on stupidity.
They're willing to spend $500 billion for a really big dam but not willing to develop renewables or get rid of fossil fuels.
Similar threads
