Jump to content

Climate change offtopic stuff (split from V13)


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, techyiam said:

And you want to talk about what, electronic, active; you may be in the wrong decade.

Actually, I don’t know if you noticed, but you are talking to KITT here. :ph34r:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Paul g said:

Actually, I don’t know if you noticed, but you are talking to KITT here. :ph34r:

Oh. You mean as in K.I.T.T.

Knight Industries Three Thousand? 

Cool. 🙂 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, techyiam said:

Oh. You mean as in K.I.T.T.

Knight Industries Three Thousand? 

Cool. 🙂 

 

Hey 😋, we don’t take ourselves too serious right now! Don’t know about you, but I enjoy a 40C hot weather in a block of flats without insulation on the building and without AC. There is no such thing as human induced climate change 😁. Haha :efee96588e:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul g said:

Hey 😋, we don’t take ourselves too serious right now! Don’t know about you, but I enjoy a 40C hot weather in a block of flats without insulation on the building and without AC. There is no such thing as human induced climate change 😁. Haha :efee96588e:

Funny you should mention that… the former head of Greenpeace agrees with you, but there’s a heck of a lot of jobs riding on the myth:

 

https://youtu.be/lX1z_6pvM-Q

But I digress…. As we were - follow the lemmings, they seem to be onto something 🤫😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is disturbing how insane this world got. Well the entire world is catching on fire, from California to Siberia, but apparently is OK 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of it human induced, too.

I recall a few years ago the great fire between Sheffield and Manchester up in the moors, all wholly preventable, had they bothered to continue to manage the heather moorland by creating fire breaks, but ‘the clever people’ thought they could do without them, so they stopped them from being made…. Fire breaks are a necessary part of any forest or large area of combustible material - we even build them into our buildings, for the most part.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Freeforester said:

I recall a few years ago the great fire between Sheffield and Manchester up in the moors, all wholly preventable, had they bothered to continue to manage the heather moorland by creating fire breaks, but ‘the clever people’ thought they could do without them, so they stopped them from being made…. Fire breaks are a necessary part of any forest or large area of combustible material - we even build them into our buildings, for the most part.

Didn't even know the moors could even catch fire.

Always remembered It was just rolling hills covered with weeds in the wet and cold. 

What a world we living in today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paul g said:

Well the entire world is catching on fire, from California to Siberia, but apparently is OK

Forest fires are natural and happened way before we existed.

If you prevent forest fires from occurring, you don't get "a forest fire" (which most trees survive without issues), you get a blazing inferno due to accumulation of organic material. It's not caused by global warming, but by bad management over the decades.

Just like with drought in Poland. Rivers are being "regulated" by forcing them into concrete channels, so of course drought follows. Water is meant to soak into the ground, not to travel to the sea ASAP.

People are making $ making things worse. Nothing you can do about it.

Edited by atdlzpae
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • meepmeepmayer changed the title to Climate change offtopic stuff (split from V13)

It's difficult reading the posts here to see whether people actually disagree with the concept of climate change or not. I do agree that there is a lot of bad management of land but I can see evidence of climate change all around me. Unfortunately I think it's going to get a lot worse in the coming years. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the topic of climate change is basically frightening enough that people kind of have a psychological need to deny it. There's really no (honest) debate about the basic science and there never really has been. CO2 concentration (as well as other gasses) creating a greenhouse effect is well established. There was for a time (like maybe in the 80's) a bit of rational hope that the earth had sufficient buffer systems (accelerating foliage growth, rock weathering, etc) that could keep things in balance but it's also been a long time since the jury came in on that: Humans are vastly overpowering any buffer systems with our rate of emissions, as well as our rate of destroying some of these established buffer systems. All the modeling is on basically on track or proving too conservative. (The later probably because of unaccounted methane emmissions which are skyrocketing since fracking gas came in in the U.S. and China). This is reality, but I think it's threatening enough to people contemplating what would have to be done about it that you get a lot of otherwise perfectly humble normal people who would ordinarily understand their limitations suddenly turning into all-world experts that can tell you all the scientists are crooked or stupid it's all caused by (insert whatever weird explanation no actual scientist would give the time of day) and/or is some kind of vast conspiracy.

All of this is understandable though, it's very human. I think it's important to understand that we can still beat it, or at least keep in in a range where the future can still be better than the past. I'm afraid that more and more people are falling into either denial based on fear, or a kind of fatalism. Or just dividing into tribes and screaming at each other. Any of those things are easier than making changes.

Edited by Bupalos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

It's difficult reading the posts here to see whether people actually disagree with the concept of climate change or not

Does that matter? Generally, I think the concept of conservation of natural resources and energy is a good/sound one that most people can get behind. It just makes sense. Waste and inefficiency is not ideal.

A problem starts, IMO, when people try and turn good sentiments and behaviors into a "movement" and making things political.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but at what point in history did things generally tend to get better for the average person by aggressively pushing or conforming to an ideology? I can't think of one (might be laziness speaking), but maybe you can.

Frankly, I don't think any rational person who's opinions are worth listening to disagrees with the fact that the planet's climate can change. It's been much cooler in the times of the woolies and sabertooths (ice-ages) and it's been much hotter in the dinos (pre-historic). I know what you're getting at, but let's not do the purity test thing.

I'll say one more thing though, the delusions of some people who think they're saving the planet by buying a new car. Hilarious.

Also, how many people benefited monetarily from the "green" recycling movement where we all pretended, for decades, that it was conservation and "good for the planet" to put items in different colored containers, route them to a distribution center, route them to a big bunker fuel tanker, then ship them to all the way to China so the vast majority could be put into a landfill, how many, or rather few, in that supply chain got rich or richer off of this collective mass stupidity?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vanturion said:

I'll say one more thing though, the delusions of some people who think they're saving the planet by buying a new car. Hilarious.

 

I hear this. I mean, yes, if you are already getting a new car and go for the least emitting option, that's definitely positive. But there are loads of people who basically throw away their older car to be "green." That isn't green, folks, that's net spending a ton of energy in mining, refining, manufacture, etc... to save a very incremental amount. People rarely do the whole equation.

I work in construction with a sustainable builder, and his clients always want the latest incremental increase in efficiency...basically the gadgets. He always tells them the main reason his houses are more environmentally sound is he builds them nice and tight and builds them to last 200 years whereas the McMansion builders are basically doing disposable houses. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bupalos said:

Humans are vastly overpowering any buffer systems with our rate of emissions, as well as our rate of destroying some of these established buffer systems. All the modeling is on basically on track or proving too conservative.

I might start taking climate change TM more seriously if the actions of the people with the access to the most amount of resources and information matched their dramatic rhetoric.

Former US president Obama, for example, was so threatened by decades of Al Gore's climate prognostications that he infamously went and bought that sprawling Martha's vineyard estate at ~3 to 10 ft sea level.

Also, how many of the so-called elite have given up their private jets in order to set an example for the rest of us, especially and ironically as they attended their elite-exclusive WEF conference in Davos Switzerland featuring climate change and carbon footprints as one of the topics for discussion? And how many are currently selling, or better yet, recycling (land-housing anyone), their enormous, fossil fuel-insatiable yachts?

Oh wait, the yachts got the carbon footprint exemption. Oopsie. Guess it's a crisis for us, but not for them... that's weird, but we're inhabiting the same planet...

Whether or not you quote "believe in climate change" this is obviously an ideological scam. Worse, I'd take it a few steps further in calling it a suicide cult. But that's just me. Suicide being that the highest form of conservation you can achieve in adhering to climate change ideology is not having kids to straight up killing yourself in order to not have emissions.

So, the ideological problem will eventually sort itself out I guess. Kind of sad though. Emissions are a byproduct of human life, I'd say we should just deal with the way that makes the most sense, in a decentralized and distributed fashion. Because the alternative is, rules for thee and not for me made by the hypocritical people who continue to emit the most, and therefore live, in the most destructive and inefficient ways possible.

Edited by Vanturion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

It's difficult reading the posts here to see whether people actually disagree with the concept of climate change or not.

My exact position is:
- Climate change is real and caused by humans.
- It is a problem. Not an "armageddon" problem, we'll survive an increase in temperatures. But the consequences (to humans and nature) are bad enough to take it seriously.
- Politicians who claim to solve it are lining their pockets instead. And often doing the inverse (ex. phasing out nuclear power).

What are politicians planning?
- Phase out meat - only rich will eat meat
- Phase out cars - only rich will drive
- Phase out planes - only rich will fly
- Personal carbon allowances - yay for tyranny
- Phase out nuclear - Germany WTF?
- Push for renewables - expect rolling blackouts in winter

image.jpeg.b477b6b48152b07c82b83d58dd7d5d13.jpeg

It's relevant because WEF is using climate change as an excuse.

What is the real solution?
In my opinion increase the planet's albedo. Create artificial clouds to reflect sunlight.
We can't stop CO2 and methane. And even if we could stop it completely RIGHT NOW, the damage is already done.

Thunderf00t did a nice video about it. But as always, nobody "in charge" even considers artificial clouds an option. It's a repeat of Covid - the solution to Covid was vitamin D and no government was recommending it.

4 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

I can see evidence of climate change all around me

The average global temperature increased by about 0.3°C since 2000, which definitely isn't enough for me to see any change.
There were hot summers in 1990's and there are cold winters now.

What evidence do you see "all around you"? I'm genuinely curious, as "all around me" I see none - all the evidence I see is in data.

Edited by atdlzpae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vanturion said:

I might start taking climate change TM more seriously if the actions of the people with the access to the most amount of resources and information matched their dramatic rhetoric.

I remember reading a book called 6 degrees about 15 years ago. It gave a simple description of what to expect with each small change to the planets temperature. We're already experiencing many of the predications forecast for the 1 degree increase. Things like coral reefs dying off, low lying island nations becoming uninhabitable, large rockfalls in the Alpine regions as the permafrost melts.

In Washington state the forecast climate changes might not hit you so hard but the forecast predicts water shortages across most of the southern half of the USA and the return of the dustbowl - those people aren't going to be heading south. I suspect at that point you'll start to take things a bit more seriously.  

32 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

What evidence do you see "all around you"? I'm genuinely curious, as "all around me" I see none - all evidence I see is in data.

Simple things like reading the temperature outside, the temperature records started here in the UK in 1884 but the 10 hottest years have all been in the last 20 years. Last week in London (where I live) the temperature reached 40C (104F) which again is the highest temperature for the UK. We're told these temperatures are likely to become the new norm. I'm currently in Chamonix (a town in the Alps), there's a huge glacier that makes it way down the mountain towards the town. That glacier has been retreating by 40 meters every year. If you take the tourist train to view the glacier you find that you now have to hike to get to the glacier. A lot of the climbing routes are also shut at the moment because the "permafrost" is melting and large boulders are falling from the mountain and endangering climbers 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mike_bike_kite said:

Last week in London (where I live) the temperature reached 40C (104F) which again is the highest temperature for the UK.
I'm currently in Chamonix (a town in the Alps), there's a huge glacier that makes it way down the mountain towards the town. That glacier has been retreating by 40 meters every year.

Yeah, that's an interesting anecdote. Almost 2°C higher than the previous record.
Glaciers and polar caps are extremely obvious to show global warming.

Quote

The average annual temperature was about 8.1 °C in the years after 1951 and about 9.1 °C in the last years before 2021. So in less than 71 years it has increased by about 0.9 °C. This trend only applies to the selected 3 weather stations in the United Kingdom.

According to this website the average increase in UK is 0.9°C in the last 71 years. I wouldn't be able to see a trend that slow.

 

As a sad consolation... It may soon be viable to ship cargo through Arctic Ocean, cutting shipping times from China to Europe in half.

Edited by atdlzpae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

I suspect at that point you'll start to take things a bit more seriously.

No, I will not, but I'll tell you why besides the reasons I just mentioned.

1. I'd like anyone reading this to take a moment, just one moment and think about all the rigamarole, the badgering, the predictions and declarations of doom from global cooling, then global warming, now climate change, and whatever other slogans and labels the loyal adherents of ScienceTM have thrown over and over again at us over the course of our lives to convince us of the absolute horrific effect of human beings living in a civilization.

OK. Now, look at this beautiful graph from climate.gov:

188539821_GlobalTempover500myears.png.96bca0238e92c320ed9e40d34def2ffa.png

Hell, you can read the actual source article for some much-needed (IMO) perspective too.

Now riddle me this: how many gas-guzzling 3-quarter ton pickups did those god-damned prehistoric lizards have to drive around to get a 15 degree C increase over today's estimated global temp, not just once, but over and over and over again in the course of 500 million years???

Now, I'm no climate scientist, but I do know the definition of a woman..., but methinks the climate has a little a lot more to do with the weather and subsequent emissions on and from the Sun then it has to do with how many cows are grazing in Iowa, how many trips to Tahiti, or how many MPGs your neighbors Escalade gets. But no, forget all that, we're all going to die and be underwater in 10 years or whatever because human activity is bad for Mother Gaia etc, etc.

At some point, I would think more people would be asking the question, are they f***ing with me? And then, more importantly, WHY.

2. BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT DAMNED GREENHOUSE GAS, CO2?

Smarter men than I have summed this up better than I:

Quote

The confusion over CO2 is that it absorbs heat slightly faster than other greenhouse gases in the temperature range at the Earth’s surface, but it doesn’t get any hotter. I.E. once it reaches equilibrium temperature it radiates as much heat out as it absorbs. See Page 14 of this paper. Emissivity (which is the gas property in question) is on both sides of the equation at equilibrium. There is no trapping of heat.

Also, a garden greenhouse does not even work on the basis of radiant asymmetry so the name itself is a misnomer.

CO2 constitutes less than 0.5% of Earth’s atmosphere [it's actually 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere as of 2018]. Barely detectable, there’s just about enough of it around to keep plants growing. It is non-polluting and the “greenest” gas we have.

Mars atmosphere on the other hand is 95% CO2. Let that sink in for a moment. 95%. Yet it can lose 90 degrees of temperature from the surface overnight. It is atmospheric pressure and density that traps heat (heat capacity), not CO2 and radiative asymmetry. If CO2 was heating the planet due to such an effect (radiative asymmetry), we’d have fried to a crisp long ago.

That paper that was linked, it's pretty dense in Heat Transfer theory and comparing and contrasting planetary heat transfer models. I'd suggest at least reading the conclusion on Page 52.

So in other words, they're lying about CO2 as a greenhouse gas. More fantastic grand lies, it's become par for the course. Think about the implications too as many governments are aggressively pushing carbon credits and other utter nonsense. It's too bad it pays so well to lie and obfuscate reality for reasons of power, prestige, and research money. What a world, eh?

But hey, what I'm saying is ultimately good news. What a load off eh? Those extra cheeseburgers aren't going to "kill" us all (well unless you're overeating of course as a huge, pun intended, number of people tend to do these days). So really, I bring good news, we can all stop worrying so much, at least about global cooling no global warming no climate change anyway because it, quite literally, is out of our control.

8 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

In Washington state the forecast climate changes might not hit you so hard but the forecast predicts water shortages across most of the southern half of the USA and the return of the dustbowl - those people aren't going to be heading south.

As for people running out of water and depleting aquifers and messing with river diversions, dams, etc. Yeah, bad land management and pollution are always going to be an issue. Don't build or buy your house in a low-land and perhaps don't buy real estate in New Orleans. Still sound advice decades later.

Edited by Vanturion
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Now riddle me this: how many gas-guzzling 3-quarter ton pickups did those god-damned prehistoric lizards have to drive around to get a 15 degree C increase over today's estimated global temp, not just once, but over and over and over again in the course of 500 million years???

Now, I'm no climate scientist, but I do know the definition of a woman..., but methinks the climate has a little a lot more to do with the weather and subsequent emissions on and from the Sun then it has to do with how many cows are grazing in Iowa, how many trips to Tahiti, or how many MPGs your neighbors Escalade gets. But no, forget all that, we're all going to die and be underwater in 10 years or whatever because human activity is bad for Mother Gaia etc, etc.

At some point, I would think more people would be asking the question, are they f***ing with me? And then, more importantly, WHY.

You're oversimplifying waaay too much. The composition of the atmosphere over the millions of years was constantly changing. Hell, even atmospheric pressure is changing all the time.

Dynamics of mean surface atmospheric pressure during the Cenozoic Era... |  Download Scientific Diagram

For example during Paleocene-Eocene Theoretical Maximum the atmosphere was 80% thicker than today. So no wonder it was hot.
The problem is with the rate of change. Historically such changes in temperatures happened over the span of millions of years. Now we're on track to do it in a few hundred. For comparison Homo Sapiens exists for like 0.5mln.

Humans will survive, we have the technology. But quite a lot of other species will die.

17 hours ago, Vanturion said:

I might start taking climate change TM more seriously if the actions of the people with the access to the most amount of resources and information matched their dramatic rhetoric.

@mike_bike_kite Even though I disagree with Vanturion how big of a problem climate change is, I agree with him on this point.
Politicians & ultra wealthy don't want to solve the problem.

image.jpeg.d35210bed82476d713e22b0f0331b3aa.jpeg

image.jpeg.68eb12912e53db03c60596648a4b5f7f.jpeg

When someone owns or charters yachts, they are lying to you about climate change.
You will travel by bicycle, while they fly private jets.

But hey, Bill Gates' yacht is "ecological" - it runs on hydrogen. So I guess it's ok. :D

The main point is: I refuse to listen to hypocrites.

Edited by atdlzpae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vanturion said:

OK. Now, look at this beautiful graph from climate.gov:

The chart you gave is certainly true and nearly all scientists agree with what's shown but, if you look at the bottom axis, the time line is in millions of years. Even the sharpest change in temperature on that graph is happening over 10's of millions of years. The same type of change is happening at the moment but all this is forecast to complete in the next 200 years. I know we're only talking about a few degrees but the ice age happened when the Earth was 4C cooler and it's predicted that human life (at least as we know it) will end if the temp goes up by 6C. I find it interesting that you're happy to believe in this science report but choose to ignore the vast swathe of reports saying that climate change is happening, and it's happening now. 

5 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Don't build or buy your house in a low-land and perhaps don't buy real estate in New Orleans.

I suspect anywhere in Florida or the Gulf of Mexico would be a very unwise choice. NYC is also predicted to be underwater by the end of the century as are SF, Miami, Boston and Vancouver. The whole east coast is also a worry as the intensity of hurricanes will increase. Obviously the Caribbean isn't a great place to invest in either. Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado should also be avoided due to effects of the oncoming water shortages. It wouldn't be so bad if America actually planned for the future but what happened with Katrina and Texas recently shows it doesn't. You might be alright though in WA. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3r4x3huqj1e61.jpg

The estimates are that all ice caps melting would increase the sea levels by around 60m.
Not an armageddon, but a ton of people would have to relocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atdlzpae said:

You're oversimplifying waaay too much. The composition of the atmosphere over the millions of years was constantly changing. Hell, even atmospheric pressure is changing all the time.

Of course, I don't dispute that atmospheric density or pressure has and can change. I think you're missing the point though, the entire point of that example #1 was to show just how much the planet's climate has changed without the input of human beings.

Absolutely, the Earth was much more geothermally active with much higher rates of volcanic activity too at times, all we have to do is stroll through most National Parks in the US to get a sense of just how much rapid change can occur due to nature. That said, without the erroneous CO2 "greenhouse" effect, how exactly are human beings causing climate change?

The entire premise of human-induced climate change requires belief in higher quantities of CO2 enabling a thermal sink effect via radiative absorption. In reality, there is no such effect. But there sure are a lot of people who want to pretend otherwise for reasons.

1 hour ago, atdlzpae said:

The problem is with the rate of change. Historically such changes in temperatures happened over the span of millions of years. Now we're on track to do it in a few hundred.

Even if things are the climate is changing faster than ever before (which I don't buy for a second considering the rampant trends to pollute and manipulate data in academia), the graph I linked shows very rapid changes to the estimated global avg temp, geologically speaking, again without the input of human beings.

I think it's some parts hubris and some parts repeated exposure to apocalyptic media that Hollywood loves to churn out that contributes to influence people into accepting this narrative of human-induced climate change.

Also I never said that climate change isn't a big deal either, it totally is. It is just that it is an issue of celestial bodies, not of human bodies.

1 hour ago, atdlzpae said:

Humans will survive, we have the technology. But quite a lot of other species will die.

Everything else we're in agreement on. I tend to agree with "the experts" on the mass extinction of biodiversity we're currently in the midst of due to human activity. That one is pretty straightforward and a pretty tragic consequence of the success, in the Darwinian sense, of our species.

...

Total aside, isn't it funny how Bill Gates, the guy credited for making computers and computing accessible to the masses, associates with and probably helps fund the very people who want to control and limit our access to the economic activity we require to exist in civilization by putting up digital, permission-based gates. Specifically, digital currency, which would then use the very network of computing he is credited with helping build out to then give full control to central authorities to gate lock or limit people to their own finances for non-compliance to arbitrary decree. This kind of totalitarianism is what I worry about today, much less about climate change which we cannot effect.

Edited by Vanturion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

The same type of change is happening at the moment but all this is forecast to complete in the next 200 years.

536087169_TIMEglobalcoolingglobalwarming.jpg.0000f89e16aac607e83cc9123cdcb2f5.jpg

Oh what a difference 40 years makes. I learned not to worry about what is forecast some time ago. I just wished more people out there would wise up to the game.

Speaking of the game, here's another fun link from someone who compiled a bunch of press articles in what appears to be 2019 detailing that "Insert Your Location" is Warming Faster Than Everywhere Else.

It's funny how access to information through the net tends to expose how stupid the narratives fed to the public are.

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

I suspect anywhere in Florida or the Gulf of Mexico

You remember that whole ordeal with the Corexit in 2010 that they used to hide the deepwater oil "spills" off the Gulf of Mexico and subsequently increase the chances of cancer to anyone who depended on the local fishing ecosystem for sustenance? I still remember that. "We" haven't gotten any smarter since then, using worse pollution to hide the pollution and then never talking about it again.

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

It wouldn't be so bad if America actually planned for the future but what happened with Katrina and Texas recently shows it doesn't.

I can agree with you there. People, in general, generally don't plan or calculate risk for mitigation purposes very well. Like the Corexit example above, stupid tends to compound with even more stupid.

For myself, I wouldn't want to move to a place with questionable projections on access to clean, fresh water. But people do all the time. Then they expect a bailout for poor planning. That said, even Washington state has its existential risks.

Quote

The geological record reveals that "great earthquakes" (those with moment magnitude 8 or higher) occur in the Cascadia subduction zone about every 500 years on average, often accompanied by tsunamis. There is evidence of at least 13 events at intervals from about 300 to 900 years with an average of 570–590 years.[15] Previous earthquakes are estimated to have been in 1310 AD, 810 AD, 400 AD, 170 BC and 600 BC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vanturion said:

The entire premise of human-induced climate change requires belief in higher quantities of CO2 enabling a thermal sink effect via radiative absorption. In reality, there is no such effect. But there sure are a lot of people who want to pretend otherwise for reasons.

There is an absorption effect. Unlike nitrogen and oxygen, CO2 is visible on infrared cameras.

 

2 hours ago, Vanturion said:

I think it's some parts hubris and some parts repeated exposure to apocalyptic media that Hollywood loves to churn out that contributes to influence people into accepting this narrative of human-induced climate change.

I think it's hubris to think that we (the dominant species) aren't advanced/widespread enough to have such effect. I agree it's not gonna be catastrophic - it's all a slow, gradual change.

 

2 hours ago, Vanturion said:

which I don't buy for a second considering the rampant trends to pollute and manipulate data in academia

I definitely saw a ton of awful science regarding Covid. I wouldn't be surprised if climate science is similar.
As I'm not deep into the topic, I can only say FU to the politicians who want to ban meat and cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

There is an absorption effect. Unlike nitrogen and oxygen, CO2 is visible on infrared cameras.

Sure, I should have been more explicit with my words there in dismissing its irrelevance to the planet's climate though. That was lazy and bad wording on my part.

Again, I'll refer to the conclusion of the paper I linked earlier as it is much easier to digest than the mathematical comparisons and heat transfer equations contained within:

Quote

The greenhouse effect is based on two fallacies. The first is that greenhouse gases can radiate more energy back to the surface than they do to space. That contravene’s Kirchoff’s Law, and with it the Law of Conservation of Energy. The second is the supposition that the temperature in the troposphere is determined by radiative heat transfer to and from the atmosphere gases. Whilst it is true that radiation is the dominant means by which heat is transported from the surface (on the Earth, but not on Venus), it does not dictate the temperature distribution.

In every IPCC report to date, thermal power balance is referred to as an ‘energy balance’, and this assumed equivalence of energy and power appears to pervade the entire climate science literature. This is more than a matter of mere semantics. The temperature distribution in the troposphere is determined by the energy balance, which is the thermodynamic state of the gas, and has nothing to do with the actual heat fluxes involved.

Quite apart from the invalid reasoning, the greenhouse effect is an ad hoc theory, contrived to account for the high temperature of Venus. In contrast, we have started with the Laws of Thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer, deduced the theory from them, made predictions and confirmed those predictions with observations. The greenhouse effect theory is fundamentally bad science from a philosophical perspective alone.

In other words, "greenhouse" gases are not responsible for the heating and cooling of the Earth, that is on other factors. Therefore, any supposition that human activity causing small variations in the amount of "greenhouse gases" (Earth's atmosphere .041% CO2 by volume) being responsible for climate change is bunk as the entire premise relies upon this effect.

2 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

I definitely saw a ton of awful science regarding Covid. I wouldn't be surprised if climate science is similar.
As I'm not deep into the topic, I can only say FU to the politicians who want to ban meat and cars.

We're living, after all, in an empire of lies. Should it be any surprise that one of the foundational beliefs our ruling class has been setting up in the minds of the public for decades to bring about a New World Order TM (that's not my words mind you, this being directly from the horse's mouth WEF) is about the climate? I mean, just look at all of the effort (41 failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions in the last 50 years with links) the media has spent over the years on climate doom. Why?

Isn't it funny that if you impress upon the minds of all people who tend to be conscientious and empathetic to others, that their very existence is an affront, a stain, a pollution upon the pristine clean planet, and then all those peoples with these empathetic tendencies tend to stop reproducing to help save the environment. Well. Then guess who's left after a few generations. It doesn't take long.

As I was saying earlier, what we're dealing with is suicide cult level ideology and some very aggressive and deranged people "at the top" who deliberately promote this stuff. You already know them, they're in the club and we're not.

I would think that this kind of information would be a mental load off on people to realize we really aren't all that significant in the celestial scale of things, that mother nature can and does giveth and taketh away with zero regard for our collective inclinations. There are plenty of things human beings can and do destroy existing at this level of civilization, but the affecting global temperature isn't one of them, mass temperature changes has happened and will continue to happen based on completely external factors to human beings.

I say that, but then again there's always the possibility of a mass nuclear event I suppose.

Edited by Vanturion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 2:38 PM, Vanturion said:

I would think that this kind of information would be a mental load off on people to realize we really aren't all that significant in the celestial scale of things, that mother nature can and does giveth and taketh away with zero regard for our collective inclinations. There are plenty of things human beings can and do destroy existing at this level of civilization, but the affecting global temperature isn't one of them, mass temperature changes has happened and will continue to happen based on completely external factors to human beings.
 

My contention is that it is in fact "a mental load off" to "realize" the fossil fuel industry's "truth" that you're offering in your perspective here. That's why it works, and works wonders. That's why it's so attractive to so many people and why they adopt this stance of denial of obvious scientific fact and consensus. That's why so many people with no background in the field suddenly become such enthusiastic armchair scientists, complete with obscure papers they can explain the monumental significance of.

The greenhouse effect is absolutely a physically proven phenomena. The non-human climate change that we know has happened in the past (due to the work of geologists and scientists) happened primarily through this effect. There are times in the geologic record where it's effect enhanced life and times when it snuffed it out almost completely. And there is no valid accepted scientific reason humans digging up and burning the stored carbon of millions and millions of years of natural weathering and sequestration within a geologic blink of an eye would not drastically (in geologic terms) change the climate and result in mass extinctions, very possibly including humans.

Many people need to believe there is some such reason we're not really at such risk, because the prospects that we as a fossil fuel addicted civilization are going to stop short of massive catastrophe looks so hopeless to many. So we go casting about trying to explain how it's all a giant conspiracy on the part of literally tens of thousands of people who actually study these forces and this geologic history to... I don't even know what. I don't know what the vague conspiracy is really supposed to be. "Control people." "Make themselves rich and powerful." Meanwhile strolling right past the here-and-now reality that the fossil fuel industry and it's subsidiaries (which in a way include and reach into maybe the majority of economic activity in developed nations) is existentially interested in creating the exact kind of fundamentally simplistic and comforting narrative they've got you pitching here. Strolling right past the here-and-now fact that the fossil fuel interest which has so concentrates wealth and power for such a long time now IS the evil empire you're looking for. One almost all of us are dependent upon for our lifestyles and in many cases livelihoods.

Of course I would love it if this happy tale that, civilizationally speaking, our addiction was really not such a big deal, just some motivated lies that somehow have all the thousands and thousands of experts either fooled or consciously involved in the largest conspiracy in human history. As you say, that would be a mental load off. We really wouldn't have to change a thing in our own lives. It's no wonder that's so tempting.

 

Edited by Bupalos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...