climate change

So after being not so active for a few weeks let's start again with something that's controversial within mainstream science.

So climate change, let me first share my views on the matter.

I don't believe that climate change is 100% caused by mankind.  I also don't believe that it's a 100% natural phenomena.  I believe that because off all of the greenhouse gasses¹ we're, at least, speeding global warming (and thus climate change) up.
Of course there is stuff that we can't control, like our distance to the sun, the pitch of the earth's axis (or whatever the FE alternative is), solar activity, ...

(1: greenhouse gasses include, but are not limited to, H₂O, CO₂, CH₄ (natural gas), Freon (used in fridges, as aerosol propellants, ...), etc.)

I don't think that people are debating what the effects of climate change are so i'm not gonna mention it further here but if you'd like to debate it feel free to mention it down bellow. 

I'm gonna keep this short to not bore you guys but there is one last thing i'd like to ask.  If you think that global warming is a scam set up by the chinese or anything that remotely resembles a conspiracy pls make your own thread somewhere else.  I'd like to keep it to science in here.

So do you guys think that climate change is manmade or natural.  And do you think that other factors apart from greenhouse gases play a role in this?

Man-made. According to scientific consensus anyways. But that's not as relevant as it would seem. What really matters is what do we want our climate to be at and can we get there? Or failing that how do we predict where it's going to be and how do we prepare for that.

I read an interview with Bill gates I think. He had an interesting way of looking at it. The next decade we're going to run an experiment where we see what happens when we turn the planets temperature up a degree. Then the decade after we see what happens when we turning up by 5 degrees. Maybe we'll like the results maybe not.

I think we are certainly the icing on the cake of natural cycles. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we cannot burn carbon based fuels laid down over millennia in the space of a couple of centuries without consequence, and that consequence is to make the climate like it was when that fuel was laid down. While a new equilibrium is established there will be a lot of unpredictable weather and an exaggeration of the climate patterns we have.

I think we are certainly the icing on the cake of natural cycles. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we cannot burn carbon based fuels laid down over millennia in the space of a couple of centuries without consequence, and that consequence is to make the climate like it was when that fuel was laid down. While a new equilibrium is established there will be a lot of unpredictable weather and an exaggeration of the climate patterns we have.

I agree with this sentiment.

We should still focus on more clean efficient energy sources, burning carbon will not take us into the future imo.

Man-made. According to scientific consensus anyways.

Scientific consensus is that the climate is changing, not everyone agrees on why.  But yes most say that it's, at least partially, man-made.

But that's not as relevant as it would seem.

Well to find a solution to something you first have to identify the problem haven't you?  If climate change would be 100% manmade we'd have to look for the solution in our way of live.  If it would be 100% natural we'd have to do research into things to alter this.

What really matters is what do we want our climate to be at and can we get there? Or failing that how do we predict where it's going to be and how do we prepare for that.

In my opinion that's only a problem of funding.

I think we are certainly the icing on the cake of natural cycles. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we cannot burn carbon based fuels laid down over millennia in the space of a couple of centuries without consequence, and that consequence is to make the climate like it was when that fuel was laid down. While a new equilibrium is established there will be a lot of unpredictable weather and an exaggeration of the climate patterns we have.

The main question is: will mankind survive this unpredictable climate before the new equilibrium.  And just as important: will mankind be able to live in this new equilibrium?

I'd rather not have to find out the hard way, i like it the way it is.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 25, 2017, 04:15:36 PM

I think we are certainly the icing on the cake of natural cycles. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we cannot burn carbon based fuels laid down over millennia in the space of a couple of centuries without consequence, and that consequence is to make the climate like it was when that fuel was laid down. While a new equilibrium is established there will be a lot of unpredictable weather and an exaggeration of the climate patterns we have.

I agree with this sentiment.

We should still focus on more clean efficient energy sources, burning carbon will not take us into the future imo.

I am hugely sceptical of 'clean' energy sources. I don't think anyone has properly budgeted the energy cost of eg wind turbines and solar panels. By that I mean how much money it cost to manufacture them and how long it takes to repay that cost with the energy produced. Even some hydro schemes rely on false accounting to make them economical, ie pumping water back up to a higher level using cheaper rate 'off-peak' energy.

What is important is the 'more efficient' bit, and even more on actually using less. It's a little like recycled paper or aluminium, where people see an end product that on the face of it has a reduced environmental cost but in reality still has a large transport, energy and manufacturing cost. The real saving of our environment is not using the same amount of a different thing but less of it.

I am skeptical of the whole climate change thing. However, I am a big fan of developing new technologies. To me it seems like the system is messed up. The incentive for the oil companies and governments is to squelch innovation. Any system like that needs re-vamping IMHO.

EDIT: I agree that part of the solution to our energy problem is to use less. Some of that can be achieved through innovation. (ie. LEDs)

I believe the earth has natural cycles of heating and cooling, I also believe we are causing an unnatural amount of heating. I don't know what the answer is to preventing this, but I suspect once enough people starve to death the earth will take care of itself.

I am skeptical of the whole climate change thing. However, I am a big fan of developing new technologies. To me it seems like the system is messed up. The incentive for the oil companies and governments is to squelch innovation. Any system like that needs re-vamping IMHO.

EDIT: I agree that part of the solution to our energy problem is to use less. Some of that can be achieved through innovation. (ie. LEDs)

I agree that innovation is a good thing, but there's massive environmental waste due to the transition.
2 examples..
If you switch all the lighting in your home to LED's, and toss all your incandescents and CFL's into the garbage, and let's be honest that's what most people do, where do all those lights end up? Multiply that by millions.
Flat screen TV's. What happened to all the old bulky CRT TV's everyone used to own? All the old projector flat screens? You can't give those 2 away. Multiply those by millions.
All this stuff ends up in landfills. It's just cheaper to throw it all away than actually do something with it or about it. And therein lies part of our collective problem.
And I'm just talking about the US.

I suspect once enough people starve to death the earth will take care of itself.

The earth will always take care of itself, people or no people.

there's massive environmental waste due to the transition.
2 examples..
If you switch all the lighting in your home to LED's, and toss all your incandescents and CFL's into the garbage, and let's be honest that's what most people do, where do all those lights end up? Multiply that by millions.
Flat screen TV's. What happened to all the old bulky CRT TV's everyone used to own? All the old projector flat screens? You can't give those 2 away. Multiply those by millions.
All this stuff ends up in landfills. It's just cheaper to throw it all away than actually do something with it or about it. And therein lies part of our collective problem.
And I'm just talking about the US.

It's the case for most first world countries, maybe not in the scandinavian countries but they are special.

To everyone who spoke about new technologies:
What do you guys think about nuclear fusion (= the opposite of what nuclear power plants do now)?  Instead of creating radioactive waste from uranium we'd be creating lithium from water, both not radioactive.  (i should prob mention that it does create some nuclear waste but it has a halflife of about a few hundred years, not millions like U and its waist).

Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 03:44:39 PM

But that's not as relevant as it would seem.

Well to find a solution to something you first have to identify the problem haven't you?  If climate change would be 100% manmade we'd have to look for the solution in our way of live.  If it would be 100% natural we'd have to do research into things to alter this.

I phrase it that way because the discussion has a way of almost sounding like a religion.  One where we've sinned against our Earth-mother by polluting.  This has the unfortunate consequence of irritating people that already have a religion, sort of like an idol.  It also restricts the way we look at it.  There's a book called 'Superfreakonomics' where one of the chapters they cover climate change.  One of this researchers came up with a way of controlling the temperature of the planet by way of launching particulate matter to a certain altitude.  A lot of people responded with death threats to this idea.

Quote from: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 05:22:16 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 25, 2017, 04:15:36 PM

I think we are certainly the icing on the cake of natural cycles. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we cannot burn carbon based fuels laid down over millennia in the space of a couple of centuries without consequence, and that consequence is to make the climate like it was when that fuel was laid down. While a new equilibrium is established there will be a lot of unpredictable weather and an exaggeration of the climate patterns we have.

I agree with this sentiment.

We should still focus on more clean efficient energy sources, burning carbon will not take us into the future imo.

I am hugely sceptical of 'clean' energy sources. I don't think anyone has properly budgeted the energy cost of eg wind turbines and solar panels. By that I mean how much money it cost to manufacture them and how long it takes to repay that cost with the energy produced. Even some hydro schemes rely on false accounting to make them economical, ie pumping water back up to a higher level using cheaper rate 'off-peak' energy.

What is important is the 'more efficient' bit, and even more on actually using less. It's a little like recycled paper or aluminium, where people see an end product that on the face of it has a reduced environmental cost but in reality still has a large transport, energy and manufacturing cost. The real saving of our environment is not using the same amount of a different thing but less of it.

Not too sure of wind but I have first hand experience with solar.  It's possible that solar might not be cost effective without government subsidies.  But I doubt it.  The thing is they last pretty much forever.  They degrade a little past a few decades but if you put solar panels on your house then your grandchildren are going to inherit them.

We are stupid in Australia for not having massive solar farms everywhere.

>Mostly desert 45°c extreme UV.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 26, 2017, 09:53:01 AM

I suspect once enough people starve to death the earth will take care of itself.

The earth will always take care of itself, people or no people.

Yes dear, that is why I said it.

Did you just unironically call someone dear?

No, it was totally like rain on your wedding day.

I would have said it figures.

That song will be stuck in my head, I only have myself to blame 

That song will be stuck in my head, I only have myself to blame 

Don't you know it's a crying shame.

MISTAKES WERE MADE.

WTF!  Even Fox News is calling bullshit on Trump's environmental policies.  These are definitely the last days.

One factor of a changing climate no one talks about is our love affair of chopping down trees at a rate of 11+million PER DAY. Most which don't get replanted

Over the decades we have vastly changed the face of the planet through the many billions of trees lost. Ecosystems have been utterly destroyed. Of course this changes climate, like the butterfly effect.

With so much missing we have more carbon in the air and an acidifying ocean.... Imagine our trees as the air filters. Each time you chop one down, you poke a hole in the filter. Poke enough holes and your filter gets less and less good at capturing what you don't want. Our oceans are becoming one big carbon sink.

But by all means, lets blame carbon and make Al Gore our hero despite his house having 20 times higher carbon footprint than the average US household

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

Let our hero get all the 'like minded' politicians to fly their private jets to exotic locations to have a great talk fest about how we should all be reducing our carbon footprint. I guess they never heard of Skype or Facetime or heaven forbid, take a commercial plane that is going their way. We should be taking advantage of the digital era. The trees lost for print like 'junk mail', newspapers, magazines and the worst - political advertising should be done digitally. Jobs lost? Get with the times and move on new industries that come about in this era.

Maybe the public could resonate with the message better if our leaders weren't such blatant hypocrites and set a great example for us to follow. I'm in full support of renewable energies and better energy efficiency myself, but don't appreciate being told I am a big polluter, that climate change is my fault and then see our leaders continue to 'live it up' by taking private planes, approving of huge mining operations that damage prime agricultural land and ocean reefs, stifle investment in renewable energy technology and tax the plebs hard while giving themselves huge pay rises to more than compensate for the 'measures' they take to supposedly combat climate change.

Whether climate change is man made or not, the threat is real. And we have people leading the charge, that are utterly disingenuous in their belief in it and their resolve to fix it. Al Gore got stinking rich from this. It is in his interest to make sure this problem is dragged on for as long as possible. Look at the way he lives and tell me you believe in him...

Yes, there is scientific consensus, that earth is warming and that we are the cause. The important thing though is to understand how this scientific consensus did come about It's not that they just voted for it, it's the data that confirm it.

In the last millions of years earth never warmed 1 full degree in a few decades. (Yes, we know that). It normally takes thousands of years, so there must be something extraordinary going on. Is the sun going nuts? Nope. Any unprecedented volcanic activity? Nope. The only extraordinary thing going on currently are we and our greenhouse gases. This alone - if there would not be much more evidence - makes it astronomically unlikely, that we are not the cause.

Also we know the mechanism behind it and scientist have predicted the current situation decades ago. No, they did not predict an upcoming "ice age" in the 70s.

GW is at least 90% due to human activity. That does not mean, that it is not really close to 100%. We do not know and it is relatively irrelevant.

Estimates are that 1 quarter each of GW is due to
1. Energy production
2. Industry
3.Transportation
4.Agriculture
So shifting to renewable energy is important, but far from enough.

Solar energy is great. It has become so cheap now, that even our villagers can afford it. And once established it is free. No need to buy oil anymore, no burnt down houses. Many upriver villages already run entirely by government sponsored solar roofs.

For countries like England or Norway. GW is most likely beneficial in the short run with increasing agricultural productivity and nicer summers. Southern countries are far worse off.

Countries that are already hot and dry are basically screwed: the Middle east, the Horn of Africa. In all these regions there is already war and in some of them famine. so the socalled "civil wars" may really be wars for resources like water. If this is the case, the wars will not end and will intensify. These areas are in the course of becoming uninhabitable.

Rice producing countries like India or Malaysia may be the next. In the flowering period of rice plants there is a phase where the plant becomes sterile when temperature goes up to more than 35 degrees for only one hour. So a temperature increase of only 1 more degree may already be fatal for us. Since I love my country climate change deniers are the only people I really hate.

Nobody knows how fast temperature will increase in this century, there are just to many uncertain factors. It os like playing roulette with the life of billions of people.

The factor climatologists are worried about the most are the methane clathrates stored in the Siberian permafrost and the seafloor under the Arctic iceshield (both obviously melting). When they are set free (methane is a very potent greenhouse gas) there is not much we can do to prevent a global catastrophe. Something like this probably happened - yes, naturally - at the end of the Permian period and turned the world into a desert.

Is it certain, that this will happen? Maybe not. Is i possible? Sure. Is it likely? How do I know, I only know that the climatologists who think so increase in numbers and they have scaringly good arguments. As I said, we are playing roulette.

Greenhouse gasses has no affect on global warming up. Actually global warming is a lie or temporary. Think the earth is bigger than your estimate. Because the most part of the earth is the other part of antarctica. I think the penguins are not emitting greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas affect to global warming up is a global nonsense.

But there is something problem with Greenhouse gasses in downside of the Doom. These gases Accumulate in the downside of the Doom and maybe this situation causes a problem. But I do not think this situation will cause a serious problem.

As a result, The effect of a person on global warming is "zero".

If warming occurs, the oceans become more volatile and water is reduced. A little more water comes from Antarctica. This water makes cooling effect in the world. The water that evaporates from the oceans equals the amount of ices melted  in the antarctica. As a result, a balance has been established in the world and in any way this balance is not disturbed. See the scene. Coastline has been in the same place for thousands of years.

"Downside of the Doom" is a nice one.

Mechanism of "climate change" is shown at follow shapes:













This is the mechanism of what happens "if global warming occurs". And God created a good system for global freezing.

Ice has more Volume than water. If world start to freeze, the volume of the oceans increases and pushes the icebergs to the out. This makes the climate heater and balance re-occurs.

One factor of a changing climate no one talks about is our love affair of chopping down trees at a rate of 11+million PER DAY. Most which don't get replanted
[...]
But by all means, lets blame carbon
[...]

You, my dear sir, have no clue what you're talking about.

I stopped reading after the last phrase i quoted.  But let me explain you the following:

Trees are made of chains of C₆H₁₂O₆.  Which if you set it afire it breaks down in H₂O and some form of C or CO or CO₂.

@Intikam didn't i say something about what you posted in my first post?

So your saying that the billions of trees lost, the destruction of rainforests has had no effect on climate? Locally or globally? You're none too bright.

Quote from: Shifter on April 19, 2017, 10:54:35 PM

One factor of a changing climate no one talks about is our love affair of chopping down trees at a rate of 11+million PER DAY. Most which don't get replanted
[...]
But by all means, lets blame carbon
[...]

You, my dear sir, have no clue what you're talking about.

I stopped reading after the last phrase i quoted.  But let me explain you the following:

Trees are made of chains of C₆H₁₂O₆.  Which if you set it afire it breaks down in H₂O and some form of C or CO or CO₂.

@Intikam didn't i say something about what you posted in my first post?

I answered the part of:

If you think that global warming is a scam set up by the chinese or anything that remotely resembles a conspiracy pls make your own thread somewhere else.  I'd like to keep it to science in here.

So do you guys think that climate change is manmade or natural.  And do you think that other factors apart from greenhouse gases play a role in this?

I think climate isin't exist.

I have not written anything about this conspiracy theory. This is the technical description of why it can not be exist. This is a lie and this is a technical situation. If anyone is doing this for fraud, it is not mentioned here.

Al Gore makes a shit ton of money on this and has shown through his lifestyle he is unconcerned given his umber massive carbon footprint. Perhaps even if he does believe the climate is changing, he certainly doesn't believe it's man made CO2 emissions. He's happy to peddle that fiction because it makes him so much money

Renewable energy is good because it's clean for our own health and other than infrastructure, it's pretty much free and limitless.