Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#51
(04-17-2019, 08:50 PM)SilverFang01 Wrote: Denying anthropogenic climate change at this point is like believing in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, that the moon landings were fake or being an anti-vaxxer (at least without the punch on sight felling that anti-vaxxers generate in me).

Anti-vaxxers get their way a bunch of people may die, but this is limited mostly to the immuno-compromised and anti-vaxxers themselves.

Climate change deniers get their way and there is a good chance our civilization collapses

I hate anti-vaxxers, but I hate denialists more.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#52
(04-18-2019, 04:03 AM)Epsilon Wrote:
(04-17-2019, 08:50 PM)SilverFang01 Wrote: Denying anthropogenic climate change at this point is like believing in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, that the moon landings were fake or being an anti-vaxxer (at least without the punch on sight felling that anti-vaxxers generate in me).

Anti-vaxxers get their way a bunch of people may die, but this is limited mostly to the immuno-compromised and anti-vaxxers themselves.

Climate change deniers get their way and there is a good chance our civilization collapses

I hate anti-vaxxers, but I hate denialists more.

Eh.  The world will still exist.  Whether or not society collapses... That depends on a lot of factors really.  But honestly?  I don't really see it because it's not like it's going to be like The Day After Tomorrow or 2012 or some other bullshit.

By comparison, it will be a slow and gradual thing where the coastal areas are slowly and inevitably inundated, and the rest of us get to say:
[Image: giphy.gif]


Yes, it will hurt.  There will probably be a stock market crash when all the petroleum companies have to make insurance claims for the off-chore rigs, as well as the refineries they lost, because most oil refineries are at coastal areas to put them within easy access to the harbor.  That, or major petroleum companies go under, flooding the labor markets with millions of people in all kids of fields and leave huge gaping wounds in our economies.  But things will still go on.  There's refineries far inland like the ones in the DFW metroplex, and most of the Eagle-Ford Shale discovery will survive.  That will be enough to keep things from becoming apocalyptically dire.  I seriously doubt anyone is gonna fire off nukes over this.

MAYBE India and Pakistan.  Though I think the rest of the world will know to stay the hell out of that mess and just let them duke it out.  It'll serve them right for getting all Nuclear Ghandi on each other's asses.


Which is why you see them backpedaling so hard on green energy and carbon-neutral solutions - the investors are smart enough to finally realize that, yes, it's real, and it will mean horrible horrible loses if these coastal- and sea-based operations get washed away in the ever-rising tide.

Too little, too late.  They merely comprise the top 1%.  They matter little in the end.  The only ones that can truly and effectively make change are the 0.01%'ers that own the controlling interests and bankroll the politicians.  And their attitude is that they can take the money, jump in their Lear jets, and fly off to some mountainous country that has no extradition treaties.

And as for the Denialists among the lesser educated among us?  Well, Denialists being what they are, they'll probably claim that it's some globalist left-wing conspiracy where they melted the ice caps with nuclear thermoelectric devices or some other bullshit.

But life for the next twenty or so years afterwards is gonna suck big brass ones.  It will be like life during WWII, with rationing and fear and worry abounding.  Though there will likely be no shortage of work that needs to be done.  Just not enough money to make it happen.
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#53
(04-17-2019, 11:30 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: There were people living on small islands in the Chesapeake. They don’t live there anymore because they didn’t listen to the sheriff when he warned them about the hurricane that was coming. Even after he asked for the contact info of their next of kin.

From 1978 to 2002, I lived in what I now recognize, by comparison with central Pennsyltucky, as the enlightened liberal paradise of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. During that time, I was told of a group of people who held a house party in the face of Hurricane Camille and of warnings to evacuate, and that the house and all its occupants were swept away.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#54
(04-12-2019, 10:49 PM)Rajvik Wrote: And yet the Greenland Glacier is growing again

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...kR0TRc0dhm

Hey. Hey Rajvik. Remember when you posted this bullshit. Remember that.

Hahaha. 

Staggering New Data Show Greenland's Ice Is Melting 6 Times Faster Than in The 1980s

And in case you need a direct link to the study:

Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018

"The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. Greenland has raised sea level by 13.7 mm since 1972, half during the last 8 years."  Big Grin

We're so fucking fucked. 
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#55
[Image: giphy.gif]
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#56
Epsilon, I will just counter with this
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/...y-n2545197

Again,the greens have been selling the end of the world for to long with nothing to show for it
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#57
Raj, some of the things mentioned in there as "whoppers" are facts.

that article Wrote:Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
Wikipedia Wrote:The World Health Organization estimated in 2014 that every year air pollution causes the premature death of some 7 million people worldwide.[2] Studies published in March 2019 indicated that the number may be around 8.8 million.

the article, again Wrote:“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
So seriously, what do we call the clusterfuck in Syria if not a famine?  People couldn't grow food, the politics deteriorated, and half the country up and left.

Like, okay, most of the other statements are way over the top.  But others were massive underestimates.  The total of the article is that it's more interested in owning the libs by cherry-picking sources than engaging any analysis relating to facts.

I mean seriously, I'm sure I could find some great quotes from 1970 about how great the Vietnam War was going by at least two Republicans.  I could write it up to some blog and we could all laugh about how stupid all Republicans are.  But it wouldn't represent fact any more than this article did.

My thesis adviser was working for General Motors' Physics Division back in the 1970s, a job that came with a healthy skepticism of anthropocentric global warming.  But she came around to the consensus view, many years before I knew her.  She also had us read papers from climate change skeptics -- the ones doing real science, anyway.  In fact, she had written some of these type of papers.  But the skeptical papers tend to be very limited in scope, perhaps proposing a negative feedback mechanism, or limited to a region or application.  When looked at with other results, you realized that while it was good science and maybe "things won't be that bad", that the overall change in net radiative forcing needed an urgent response nonetheless.
--∇×v⃑
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#58
(04-24-2019, 09:49 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Epsilon, I will just counter with this
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/...y-n2545197

Again,the greens have been selling the end of the world for to long with nothing to show for it

Epsilon: Post scientific studies proving his point.

Rajvik: Posts blogs "refuting" claims made by not scientists.

Again, Rajvik, why do you hate science? Did it run over your dog?

Also, don't think I didn't see how you changed the topic. The topic was "Is Greenland ice melting faster due to climate change?" and the answer is "Yes." So, you know, you're allowed to admit you are wrong. It's a thing, people do. So Rajvik, were you wrong about Greenland glaciers or not?
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#59
As a side note, why shouldn't we want to switch to renewable energy BEFORE the coal and oil runs out? If nothing else, this means we have power systems and such in play to support the changeover without a potential period of disaster in-between. I've never heard an argument against that besides 'the magic oil fairy will keep bringing us more'
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#60
My argument is not whether or not any one point is true or false, it is that the whole damn cockamamie argument is actually a bullshit attempt at overt control through guilt and threat, ie extortion.

As for power systems, I would love for someone to find that magic pill that will solve everyone's power problems with no dangerous byproducts, I'm just realistic, (and yes, cynical) enough to realize that until that miracle arrives along with the storage capacity and motive tech to make use of it, that oil, coal and natural gas is what we have and we HAVE to use it no matter what the greens say.
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#61
Clean energy has been ready to go for a long time. It keeps getting buried under red tape and fuckwits that claim the sound of wind turbines cause cancer. We need to keep pushing our governments and power companies to stop dragging their feet. Stop trying to hold on to investments in finite industries that have been slowly killing themselves through technological advances anyway, and grab onto the things that will enable them to keep showing a profit in the long run.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#62
Also, nearly every coal, gas and oil burning power plant can be replaced with a nuclear fission plant. It's not popular, sure, and it has a few of its own problems. But it's a mature technology with well understood risks that we can actively manage perfectly well. In fact, on a per kilowatthour basis nuclear fission energy is actually the safest of all known power generation systems, causing the least casualties both directly and indirectly. Orders of magnitude more people die for the same amount of electrical power generated by windmills and solar panels than they do of exposure to radiation produced by nuclear power plants.

Even including the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#63
(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: My argument is not whether or not any one point is true or false, it is that the whole damn cockamamie argument is actually a bullshit attempt at overt control through guilt and threat, ie extortion.

"I don't care if something is true, I only care whether it can be used to advance an agenda I don't like." Well, again, refreshing honestly that.

I mean, yes, there is an attempt at overt control thanks to climate change. Nobody is hiding this. We need to control emissions, that kind of requires control. It's right there. You say this like there is some secret sinister conspiracy to sneak control of emissions into the agenda to... control emissions.

I mean, seriously, if someone told you not to jump off a bridge would you do it just to spite them while shouting "You don't own meeeeeeee...."
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#64
(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: My argument is not whether or not any one point is true or false, it is that the whole damn cockamamie argument is actually a bullshit attempt at overt control through guilt and threat, ie extortion.

Cool, I'm glad you finally admitted your arguments are orthogonal to the facts about climate change. It's a good point too—n

Researchers say world's second-largest emperor penguin colony has been wiped out
--∇×v⃑
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#65
(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: My argument is not whether or not any one point is true or false, it is that the whole damn cockamamie argument is actually a bullshit attempt at overt control through guilt and threat, ie extortion.

Okay, Labster already had a go at you, but  let's unpack all this, a little at a time, without the sarcasm.

(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: My argument is not whether or not any one point is true or false

Well, evidently, it is, because your very next words are:
(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: it is that the whole damn cockamamie argument is actually a bullshit attempt

Bullshit.  Key word here.

Anytime anyone calls bullshit on anything, you're also calling into question the veracity of the argument itself.

And to further back that up, you go on to say:
(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: a bullshit attempt at overt control through guilt and threat, ie extortion.

You're essentially saying that this is a con, a scheme, a conspiracy.

It's not.

This is a warning backed by exhaustively peer reviewed scientific research.  It's not a "This might happen".  It's "This will happen".  And many scientist feel that we're pretty much at the bingo-line - the point of no return where anything we do will not prevent catastrophic effects.

Oh yes.  These effects will be a while in coming.  But it's going to be measured in years.

Not decades.

Years.

I'd honestly wager that between rising sea levels and underlying subsidence that Key West will be gone in just a few years.  Though the more pressing matter will be the rising sea levels and not so much the slow but steady geological subsidence.

On the bright side, places like Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa, Disney World, et al, are all gonna become some very interesting coral reefs within a few decades.  Once all the dust has settled, you know.

Rajvic: I'm gonna give you some honest advice, man.  And really, I do mean this in the kindest way possible and with no political motivations whatsoever:

Get out while you still can.  Sell your property while it's still worth something.  I know that property in Florida goes for a fair bit - it's 19th most expensive in the US with the median average being $165/square ft while.  Meanwhile, Texas is ranked at 23rd most expensive, with the median average being at $125/square ft.  We've got pretty much everything Florida has, including a strong Republican presence, especially on the outskirts of the cities where there's more of the inexpensive wide-open spaces Conservatives favor.

Really, take it into consideration.  This isn't any sort of "Green Agenda" where I'm trying to get you to buy into ecological solutions.  Only that right now, all the evidence is pointing at your property being under water in about ten years.  And then it won't be worth anything.

(04-25-2019, 07:00 AM)Rajvik Wrote: As for power systems, I would love for someone to find that magic pill that will solve everyone's power problems with no dangerous byproducts, I'm just realistic, (and yes, cynical) enough to realize that until that miracle arrives along with the storage capacity and motive tech to make use of it, that oil, coal and natural gas is what we have and we HAVE to use it no matter what the greens say.

We already have everything we need:
Wind
Solar
Hydroelectric
Tidal Energy (That is, the type that uses a dam in a coastal area)
Pumped Hydroelectric Storage (Water pumped to a higher altitude reservoir and allowed to come back down through turbines for surge production)
Geothermal (A lot more useful than some give it credit for)

There are few practical limits for applications.  Some people have had the idea of putting horizontally wind turbines over freeways to capture energy from the slipstream of the vehicles running underneath.  (Personally, I think solar panels would be better, because holy shit does it ever burn your eyes at certain times of the day around here.)

There've also been ideas about wind turbines on buildings in urban areas.  In fact, Houston had one such building...  But either shoddy craftsmanship or poor management caused that one of the turbines kinda self-destructed in an intense wind storm, sending debris down into the streets below.  Thankfully, no one was hurt, but the building's managers felt it best to dismantle the turbines.

Video here of the building when it had the turbines still:



To my knowledge, geothermal works very well in Hawaii and even in Alaska as well.

Normal hydroelectrical generation can also fill surge demands while still preserving a river's geography.  Just create a canal that feeds into a separate reservoir where the flow going in is carefully metered, and then another canal leading from the hydroelectric plant back into the river downstream.  That can easily provide surge demand at a moment's notice while having far less impact on an existing river.  (It can probably even make for a very effective means of flood control - see the storms coming before hand, empty the reservoir, and then let the flood waters fill it back up again.)

Any highland area can take advantage of pumped hydroelectric storage - which is also perfect for surge-demand.

Tidal energy less so, but it works in both directions and there's only a lull of a few hours before they change over to the other direction.

Intense sunlight increases A.C. use, but also generates more power with sufficient numbers of solar farms operating at a good efficiency level.

And this is nothing to say about the ever increasing versatility of solar power.  Some brilliant genius figured out how to recycle carbon dioxide into ethylene and ethanol from a photovoltaic power source, rendering the fuel it produces carbon-neutral.  And someone else had that artificial leaf that produces fuel-grade hydrogen from carbon dioxide.

But Trump doesn't like smart people.  Smart people intimidate him.  So he takes away their funding so they can't work on ideas that are better than his.  Never mind that most coal miners would jump at the chance for government subsidized retraining and assistance at finding other work, because holy fuck coal mining is dangerous work!

(You know that the current method is essentially underground strip mining with special machines that brace the ceilings with hydraulic jacks and slowly crawl their way over, one strip at a time?  Meanwhile, the miners can hear the earth collapsing behind them once the machine has moved on to the next strip.  Holy shit, that'd give me the heebie jeebies!  And this isn't even getting into how horrifically explosive the coal dust is - which requirees them to maintain positive-pressure ventilation at all times.  God forbid any of the ventilation fans fail while people are down there!)
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#66
Cooling is about 5 times less efficient then warming something is, but if you have a warm layer at the top with solar power generation that can take the heat you can take the energy you gather from the sun to run whatever cooling systems you need further down, while solar boilers deliver any warm water needs.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#67
Don’t bother waiting for conservatives to come around on climate change

Like recent discussions have proven, trying to get these people onboard may be a losing proposition.
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#68
Quote:If Fox didn’t like it — and Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels — Fox would kill it. Immediately. End of story. Sad trumpet.

And it wouldn’t be hard. All they would have to do is make up some scary story about how it, whatever “it” is, is socialism, or some variety of Other, and then repeat that story, over and over, for a week or two. Voila: conservatives would turn against ... whatever it is. The green shoots would be crushed.

No climate group(s), on the left or right, can do the same. It’s not that they lack clever messages, carefully tested by the best social scientists. They don’t lack information or ideas or facility with language. They lack power. Power is what it takes to shape public opinion — the power and money to maintain multiple direct channels to voters, blasting a unified message at all times.

I'm rather reminded of The Judgement of Solomon. On one side, you have people who are willing to destroy this country in order to have their way. On the other side, you have the people who are trying to do what they can to save this country.

Except there's no King Solomon here to make his decree that the mother willing to destroy the child just to spite the other one is not fit to be a mother.

Which is fine, I guess. There's still gonna be an America.

But there's gonna be a lot of unhappy Americans.

I wonder who they're gonna blame once the dust starts to settle.
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#69
Whoever they personally disagree with, i mean each side will blame the other for being different BA, you know just as well as i do that THAT is how it works.
i apologize for not responding to earlier posts, life has been hectic recently and i haven't had a chance to visit the articles of the last few posts for an actual read so that i can correctly argue about it. unfortunately tonight is no better.
Wolf wins every fight but the one where he dies, fangs locked around the throat of his opponent. 
Currently writing BROBd

Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#70
(04-28-2019, 09:53 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Whoever they personally disagree with, i mean each side will blame the other for being different BA, you know just as well as i do that THAT is how it works.
i apologize for not responding to earlier posts, life has been hectic recently and i haven't had a chance to visit the articles of the last few posts for an actual read so that i can correctly argue about it. unfortunately tonight is no better.

Rajvik, the ones who seem most prone to that appears to be the Republicans, while the Democrats appear to be atleast willing to consider it might've been them instead.

Unfortunately, 'wasn't me' syndrome is something that's hard enough to deal with normally, never mind when you are dealing with politics.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#71
The article shows one of the perils of media consolidation. As more and more tv and radio stations and newspapers keep being swallowed by single conglomerates like Sinclair, Disney, Comcast... etc. the harder it will be for facts contrary to the conglomerate interests (like climate change) to be disseminated.

More and more it seems that Bubblegum Crisis had it right with regards to the second and third decades of the 21st century.
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#72
Ugh... that's more accurate than I'd like. What did the Polar War get started over again? Something something oil something soviet union, wasn't it? Well, at least it wasn't over spoilers Tongue
--
‎noli esse culus
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#73
(04-26-2019, 04:18 AM)hazard Wrote: Cooling is about 5 times less efficient then warming something is, but if you have a warm layer at the top with solar power generation that can take the heat you can take the energy you gather from the sun to run whatever cooling systems you need further down, while solar boilers deliver any warm water needs.

Only now realized that I wasn't clear about what method should be used for cooling.

This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_air_...on_cooling

Basically?  It's the same thing as those nifty little propane-fired freezers.

Only instead of propane, you're using thermal collector plates inside evacuated tubes (little transparent Dewar bottles with a metal plate inside to collect solar thermal energy without it radiating back outside) to provide the heat that 'fires' the absorption chiller system.  It is so effective that you can use it to build up an 'ice bank' during the daytime hours and use that to cool your home during the night.

And that knocks off at least half the energy spent in air conditioners.  Photovoltaic cells and chemical batteries can easily handle the rest - blower motors and circulation pumps.

These are available.  Now.  For several years, even.  You can buy them in bulk on Alibaba.com.  If used with a comprehensive solar power system?  It's true carbon-neutral air conditioning, none of that swamp cooler BS that only works in deserts.
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#74
Well now, that's interesting. As long as that's reliable (and without moving parts it should be) that sounds like a very effective cooling system, and one that becomes only more effective the hotter it gets.
Reply
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
#75
I seem to recall somebody in this thread mentioning solar irradiance as a possible cause for climate change.

We now have some numbers.

[Image: 1802]
Source: NASA

Is solar irradiance a possible cause for climate change? No. Solar irradiance has been dropping since the late-1950s while temperatures have been rising during the same period.
--
Rob Kelk

"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012


"Don't let anyone think for you; most people can barely think for themselves."
-
Rare Earth, ending credits
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)