Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Greatest Global Warming Thread


42 replies to this topic

#1
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
People who aren't convinced human activity influences climate trends aren't open to being convinced.

Future trends: Same as before, but worse, with continued strife across all divisions - cultural, ethnic, geographic, etc.
  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#2
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

People who aren't convinced human activity influences climate trends aren't open to being convinced.


Really? Convince me. I'm all about logic. Where are the facts that drive a 100 billion dollar project?

I'll totally get on board if someone can correlate CO2 emissions with climate change. Even if one can prove that human behavior affects the climate I'd really be curious to know how they can fix all of these centuries of enrivontmenal abuse with whatever they are trying to do.

Give me the facts. Please.

#3
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
It's straightforward thermodynamics. Every joule of energy extracted from oil, natural gas, and coal has to end up as heat. It has to. That heat will end up in the atmosphere before radiating into space. Of course the general problem is inescapable. Even using renewables won't circumvent thermodynamics. We could switch to renewables tomorrow and that wouldn't prevent the atmospheric heating outcome.

As for CO2 specifically, it's definitely capable of absorbing and reradiating infrared light, which means heat won't escape the atmosphere as rapidly as it would otherwise. I don't know what's so controversial about that.

Skepticism is a good thing, but eventually the weight of evidence has to be accepted. Denial doesn't solve problems.

Maybe climate change can't be solved. Maybe it's too late. But if, as I suspect, that many deniers deny just because accepting the situation would make them feel "sad", then they need to stop thinking emotionally and start thinking rationally. I'm sorry, but it's a complicated situation with a great deal of subtleties and many interacting components in a chaotic system. There's no simple sound bite solution to give you. But if you're too bored by chemistry and physics to discuss the situation with experts then I'd ask that you at least respect the people who have spent decades studying the situation. Would you ignore a cardiologist who warned you of a subtle but dangerous heart defect (maybe one you could deal with, or not) just because you couldn't be bothered to learn some details of anatomy?
  • Odine +1 this

#4
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people think that science is ALWAYS theory and is never irrefutable.
  • pavonis and Odine +1 this

#5
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

It's straightforward thermodynamics. Every joule of energy extracted from oil, natural gas, and coal has to end up as heat. It has to. That heat will end up in the atmosphere before radiating into space. Of course the general problem is inescapable. Even using renewables won't circumvent thermodynamics. We could switch to renewables tomorrow and that wouldn't prevent the atmospheric heating outcome.

 

Well... Tex wins this round.

 

Waste heat is nowhere near enough to move the needle on climate change.



#6
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,999 posts
I know some like to point out when science was "wrong" as evidence it must be wrong about whatever pet issue is at hand. I've seriously heard someone use the argument that because we once thought the sun traveled around the earth, science is faulty and cannot be trusted.

#7
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

It's straightforward thermodynamics. Every joule of energy extracted from oil, natural gas, and coal has to end up as heat. It has to. That heat will end up in the atmosphere before radiating into space. Of course the general problem is inescapable. Even using renewables won't circumvent thermodynamics. We could switch to renewables tomorrow and that wouldn't prevent the atmospheric heating outcome.
As for CO2 specifically, it's definitely capable of absorbing and reradiating infrared light, which means heat won't escape the atmosphere as rapidly as it would otherwise. I don't know what's so controversial about that.
Skepticism is a good thing, but eventually the weight of evidence has to be accepted. Denial doesn't solve problems.
Maybe climate change can't be solved. Maybe it's too late. But if, as I suspect, that many deniers deny just because accepting the situation would make them feel "sad", then they need to stop thinking emotionally and start thinking rationally. I'm sorry, but it's a complicated situation with a great deal of subtleties and many interacting components in a chaotic system. There's no simple sound bite solution to give you. But if you're too bored by chemistry and physics to discuss the situation with experts then I'd ask that you at least respect the people who have spent decades studying the situation. Would you ignore a cardiologist who warned you of a subtle but dangerous heart defect (maybe one you could deal with, or not) just because you couldn't be bothered to learn some details of anatomy?


You've just proved my point. Words like "has to" and "definitely" do not convince me that pollution (which is old news, and a consequence of a growing population) do nothing for me. Where are the hard cold facts? The facts that have led to 100 billion dollars being spent? Is there any proof that pollution is actually killing the planet to the degree that we have to spend that kind of money?

I get the science behind the theory, but I don't see anything conclusive. I also can't see why so many people would buy into this based on it. The whole thing just sounds like another money grab.

It's just not real science, dude. There is something to be examined, for sure, but at this point there's only what acquaints to be circumstantial evidence.

And as I said before, if they ever do conclude that we've totally ****ed the environment how in the do we possibly repair it? Exactly where does 100 billion dollars go? To all the "experts", I would presume.

Think about it man. I'm not a denier, and with proper evidence I'll change my mid, but from what I see the whole concept is utter bull****.
  • pavonis +1 this

#8
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

I know some like to point out when science was "wrong" as evidence it must be wrong about whatever pet issue is at hand. I've seriously heard someone use the argument that because we once thought the sun traveled around the earth, science is faulty and cannot be trusted.


The "science" behind climate is that because the sky is blue we must all be blue.

Certainly true for Clinton types.

Hope you can see th Huma in that.

#9
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

It's straightforward thermodynamics. Every joule of energy extracted from oil, natural gas, and coal has to end up as heat. It has to. That heat will end up in the atmosphere before radiating into space. Of course the general problem is inescapable. Even using renewables won't circumvent thermodynamics. We could switch to renewables tomorrow and that wouldn't prevent the atmospheric heating outcome.

 
Well... Tex wins this round.
 
Waste heat is nowhere near enough to move the needle on climate change.
Of course it is, over the course of a century or more. What timescale would you expect these phenomena to occur over? It would be much easier to discuss this topic if I could get LaTeX code to display the equations on this board. Maybe I should stop posting from my phone, too.

Look, I work hard to understand the situation, and it's irritating to be dismissed by someone with an inferior understanding. Human knowledge is too vast to be able to manage without experts. Why do so many people dismiss expertise?

But what do I know? Why, since I don't agree with 100% of what you say, should I be listened to at all? Nevertheless, I'm happy to listen to and learn from you, when it's clear to me you have greater expertise and experience. Teach me, sensei.

Tex, "has to" is the cold hard fact. Energy moves down gradients. Mass attracts mass - that is gravity. Things have to fall. Energy has to become heat. It's inevitable. That is a cold hard fact. It's not political. Heat is the ultimate waste product. Even clean energy will produce waste heat. I don't get what's controversial about this. It's old, settled science.
  • Jacen123 +1 this

#10
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Still waiting for proof that climate change is man made. I'm sure all of the civilizations buried under the sea would love to see it too.

Oh wait! That was just the natural melting of the glaciers after the end of the last ice age ! My bad.

#11
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

I'm still trying to figure out why so many people think that science is ALWAYS theory and is never irrefutable.


Do us all a favor. Put down the screenplays and read a book.

#12
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I'm still trying to figure out why so many people think that science is ALWAYS theory and is never irrefutable.

Easy. If it isn't refutable, it isn't science. It's religion.

 

And to be clear. I believe in human caused global warming and lots of other things that don't fit in your stereotypes.



#13
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I've noticed a trend over the last few years of some of the green types getting on board with nuclear energy. I would love to see that happen as I think it is the only reasonable way to solve the warming problem with our current technology. The other options don't have the density, are not economically viable, or can't supply the power when it's needed. I hoped to see some discussion of it during the elections, nuclear never came up other than uninformed discussion of nuclear weapons.



#14
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

Jesus.  Now I know why Pong quit.


  • pavonis, Jacen123, Darth Krawlie and 1 other +1 this

#15
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

I'm still trying to figure out why so many people think that science is ALWAYS theory and is never irrefutable.


Do us all a favor. Put down the screenplays and read a book.


You can disagree with my politically all you want. I find your rhetoric frequently maddening, mostly because you're clearly not unintelligent. Razz me, tease me, argue with me-- but don't pretend or imply I'm a ****ing idiot.

I wasn't calling you out specifically, I was talking about the growing war on truth that permeates politics, science, and law in this country. If somebody doesn't like something, or understand it-- it can't possibly be true!

I get what you're asking for, and I get what Pav is saying.

All I can do is point at changes made in the past. In LA, in the 60s, air quality was a threat to human lungs. Into the 80s the water was near toxic. Changes in emission laws, pollution control, and waste initiative have made LA one of the greener cities in the country. We're no Portland, but we can go outside and not die now.

Obviously we can't reverse or stop whatever it is glaciers are doing-- but that's not the only goal of climate change studies. It's also about lessening our carbon footprint and making more immediate changes to the quality of the environment.

My problem is that politicians have made it so there is no middle ground. You either SUPPORT climate change as a thing and want ALL THE MONEY EVER to be thrown at it, or YOU MUST DENY IT and dismantle ALL THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH IT!

There's a middle ground. Spend less money, focus on smaller, local changes. Clean up what we can, lessen emissions, etc.
  • pavonis, Jacen123 and Ms. Spam +1 this

#16
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Look, I work hard to understand the situation, and it's irritating to be dismissed by someone with an inferior understanding. Human knowledge is too vast to be able to manage without experts. Why do so many people dismiss expertise?

 

I dismiss this particular bit because it's not scientific at all.  Yeah, heat is generated, but the amount of waste heat (on a global scale) is minuscule compared to the amount of energy and heat the Earth receives from the sun on a daily basis.  It barely even factors into the equation of climate change.

 

You're claiming to be all about the science and expertise, but this claim betrays an utter lack of understanding of the science behind climate change in the first place.  That would be fine, but you're then putting on airs that the scientific consensus completely agrees with you when it most certainly does not.

 

This, I find, to be common when science is used as a political weapon.  You imply that anyone who doesn't agree with what you say is against science and dismisses experts.  Yet, I make no claim to having more than a rudimentary understanding of the science behind climate change, but I can instantly tell that you only know just enough about the science to misappropriate it.

 

 

 

My problem is that politicians have made it so there is no middle ground. You either SUPPORT climate change as a thing and want ALL THE MONEY EVER to be thrown at it, or YOU MUST DENY IT and dismantle ALL THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH IT!

 

That's closer to where I am.  I don't deny climate change (though I do dismiss some of the doomsday folks).  But I am suspicious of the cost/benefits of many of the solutions being offered.  I tend to believe that the solutions lie more in increased efficiency and technological breakthroughs than they do with draconian cuts.

 

I expect in 100 years we'll find that driverless cars and abolishing the traffic light will end up having a more positive effect than anything.



#17
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
But, Poe, I've not made any political statements, and I'd say you're not sufficiently familiar with me to claim you know my political stance. I would say that when people claim that science is wielded as a "political weapon" they're telling scientists specifically that we're not welcome in political discourse, as if we're not also citizens. Thermodynamics is not a political stance.

#18
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Thermodynamics is not a political stance.

 

But saying that waste heat is causing climate change and then claiming a mantle of "science" most definitely IS taking a political stance.  Even now you are standing there claiming your position to be an unalterable fact when the science itself doesn't back you up.

 

But, by all means, go ahead and find me a scientist or paper willing to claim that waste heat is anything more than a minimal driver of climate change.



#19
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Driver: I was out of line for implying you're not intelligent. You clearly are. I certainly agree that climate change is an issue that's difficult to have a middle ground on, which is what makes me a little odd. I'm non a denier, I'm just a skeptic.

Ender: Thanks for the links. I will read them all.

All: Sorry if I pissed you off. Sometimes i get pissed at the insinuations that I'm just a Hitler loving redneck racist deplorable homophobe xenophobe climate change denier because I'm cool with Trump being prez, and that's when I lash out a bit.
  • Darth Ender +1 this

#20
Darth Ender

Darth Ender

    Member

  • Members
  • 562 posts

Driver: I was out of line for implying you're not intelligent. You clearly are. I certainly agree that climate change is an issue that's difficult to have a middle ground on, which is what makes me a little odd. I'm non a denier, I'm just a skeptic.

Ender: Thanks for the links. I will read them all.

All: Sorry if I pissed you off. Sometimes i get pissed at the insinuations that I'm just a redneck racist deplorable homophobe xenophobe because I'm cool with Trump being prez, and that's when I lash out a bit.

No worries.  I voted Johnson, but I am cool with Trump and prefer him to Clinton.  Not because he is a man or white or whatever reason the identity politicians claim.  But more due to Clinton's policies.  

 

I, like you, and a huge skeptic.  But it isn't just one smoking gun that says "GLOBAL WARMING".  It is tens of thousands of peer reviewed academic journals from dozens of disciplines that point to human generated warming of the planet.  Sure, when you have that many data points, you can go in and find chinks in the armor. A theory is not if X then Y, a theory is an over-arching systematic framework on how something functions that has been arrived at through repeatable and falsifiable experimentation and observation.  



#21
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,608 posts

Thermodynamics is not a political stance.

 
But saying that waste heat is causing climate change and then claiming a mantle of "science" most definitely IS taking a political stance.  Even now you are standing there claiming your position to be an unalterable fact when the science itself doesn't back you up.
 
But, by all means, go ahead and find me a scientist or paper willing to claim that waste heat is anything more than a minimal driver of climate change.

You're debating a scientist who is telling you that. So he doesn't have to go far.

#22
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

Driver: I was out of line for implying you're not intelligent. You clearly are. I certainly agree that climate change is an issue that's difficult to have a middle ground on, which is what makes me a little odd. I'm non a denier, I'm just a skeptic.
Ender: Thanks for the links. I will read them all.
All: Sorry if I pissed you off. Sometimes i get pissed at the insinuations that I'm just a redneck racist deplorable homophobe xenophobe because I'm cool with Trump being prez, and that's when I lash out a bit.

No worries.  I voted Johnson, but I am cool with Trump and prefer him to Clinton.  Not because he is a man or white or whatever reason the identity politicians claim.  But more due to Clinton's policies.  
 
I, like you, and a huge skeptic.  But it isn't just one smoking gun that says "GLOBAL WARMING".  It is tens of thousands of peer reviewed academic journals from dozens of disciplines that point to human generated warming of the planet.  Sure, when you have that many data points, you can go in and find chinks in the armor. A theory is not if X then Y, a theory is an over-arching systematic framework on how something functions that has been arrived at through repeatable and falsifiable experimentation and observation.

I've read a few of them and it's really just more of the same. Industrialzation has led to rising CO2 levels and temperatures are rising so therefore they MUST be connected. They use terms like "unprecedented" and "most likely" but offer no hard facts linking the two.

I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation. I just dont see the evidence. I also wonder where those 100 billion dollars are going to. It just seems strange to me that so many people would buy into this without facts. Especially when you factor in the costs.

As for CO2 emmissions, what can you really do about it without killing off 75% of the population? Reminds me of An Inconvienant Truth, where Gore showed the CO2 spike directly correlated with the population spike.

So ultimately if man made climate change is real, what the **** can we do about it?

#23
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

You're debating a scientist who is telling you that. So he doesn't have to go far.

 

Well, that would make his mistake even worse, wouldn't it?



#24
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Funny how nobody ever talks about failed scientific theories.

https://en.m.wikiped...ntific_theories

#25
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

To make it clear, I'm not saying this is a failed or will fail mainstream scientific theory.  I'm saying that pavonis pretty much went out on his own for what's causing the warming and then claimed "science".  In fact, taking a quick look around the internet, it looks like the scientific community is more interested in debunking the idea that waste heat is causing warming because climate deniers use it as an alternate explanation for warming.





Reply to this topic