Alfa Romeo 4C Forums banner

61 - 80 of 134 Posts

Registered
Joined
1,259 Posts
The below may confuse you. Full disclaimer: I ordered an electric car (4C will stay of course) and aim to feed it only solar from my own panels.

I've tried to figure what is fact and fiction and basically found that the best I could hope for is to figure out the dynamic of the discussion. I follow some interesting profiles on twitter pro and con and picked up a thing or two. I would like to share what I bumped into, to date. You never know if it brings the discussion here at least up to speed. I did not provide a link for everything I write, because to be honest I have a life. But all of it feel free to google up on.

To start with dynamic. What got me reading were the reactions, when you ask a sincere question on social media in general that gives insight to an inkling of doubt into what is being shouted at you, you are then being shouted at that you are basically an infidel. Full Taliban reactions like that trigger something in me. I'm not exactly a conformist - and since you are here reading this I'm guessing the same for you. So I started digging. I'll make this as short as possible:

- Climate: per definition of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) climate is the average weather over 30 years.
It may not be a lie that the woods are dry. It may even not be a lie that there is a drought. It very likely is true there is climate change. But saying there is a drought due to climate change is therefore a big fat lie. Or at least a severe misunderstanding of what climate is - unless of course there is a 30 year drought - aka you live in or are discussing a desert.
  • Climate scientist: does not exist. There are people with careers and diploma's in thermodynamics, there are geologists, etc. But climate scientist is not something like an MD or even car mechanic. I.e. everyone can call themselves one. Literally...
  • IPCC: If you're not familiar with them have a look at wikipedia et al, but this is the UN sanctioned hub of "climate scientists" that say there is man-made climate change. They were found out to be fraudulent a decade ago ("climategate"). To this day it is possible to become a peer reviewer with them with zero credentials as shown by various journalists and some scientists.
  • "95 / 97 / 100% of climate scientists agree": is therefore turning out to be a total hoax.
  • CO2: is a colorless, odorless gas. The more CO2 in the air the more plant life, as plants need it for their photosynthesis. CO2 is not a pollutant. Therefore CO2 emissions do not soil the environment. I mention this for all those press stories that mix up CO2 with poisonous waste (which is what you get from cadmium mining for batteries, for example).
  • Deniers: I have so far not come across anyone who denies the climate changes.
  • Previous periods of heating: UK used to be a desert, I live 3 hours drive inland in Europe and whale bones have been found around here, what now is Netherlands had a land bridge to Scotland, the UK channel islands were not always islands, Stockholm used to be under meters of ice. Bruges in the middle ages had plants growing that now only grow in the south of France...
  • Temperature: has only been measured since the mid-1800's. Basically in places where people lived and there was some form of civilization and interest. All the temperatures before that are derivative.That is not exactly rock-solid data. But it is the best we have and used for hypothesis. Fair enough.
  • Water is what makes up 70% of our planet. It is said to have a huge impact on climate (duh). Reliable water temperature measurements started a little over 10 years ago. See also the definition of climate.
  • Climate models predict that we are in a 'heating up' of world climate. They base themselves on the not exact super precise data I mentioned. Which again is fine for hypothesis. And indeed the world temperature is going up for the past years. Unless the Chinese scientific community is right because they have models that show we are at a threshold of global cooling. I guess they would say that with all that coal to burn.
  • Urban heat islands. Temperature huts of meteorological institutes that were placed in or next to the countryside are now smack in the middle of town. They are in other words surrounded by heat absorbing concrete. This alone can account for a severe bump in increase of temperature measured worldwide.
  • Hockey stick: this is what the entire thing is about: there is a climate model that shows that man-made CO2 will cause the climate to go into an unstoppable acceleration. This is the graph showing an upward curve like a hockey stick. A couple of things with that:
--> It is a model. It is not reality, not yet and perhaps not ever*. So how are the climate models like the hockey stick, IPCC models comparing to reality? After all did Al Gore not say (a lot of crazy stuff like inventing the internet and) that the artic would be ice free in 10 years... over ten years ago?
They are behaving badly. The actual increase in temperature is nowhere near the increase that was predicted. Which should not be a surprise if you take into account the above.
-- So you would think those models predicting doom are showing a bigger rate of climb than the previous heating up, like the warm period around the middle ages. You would be wrong. The "doom" predictions have the same rate of climb than those of the actual warm periods of the past. (As long as you believe the data in the first place.) The only difference is that they predict the temperature will not taper off but keep climbing.

So -just in case anyone made it this far- what are my thoughts on this?
  • I agree with almost nothing that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth, except for "Evian is Naive spelled backwards" and "We must really think about this insane experiment of pumping our atmosphere full of CO2". Because we only have one earth and you never know*.
  • In my opinion Ayatollah's, Saudi's, Russians and their like would be much better left alone and not handed our hard-earned cash for their oil. I also believe that about 20 years ago western military strategists sat together and came to the same conclusion.
  • It will take some serious inventiveness to make our civilization petroleum free (or at least low) because fuel is not even the half of it. It is literally everywhere. Wind and solar power could not be made without petroleum. And if tomorrow there would be no oil, billions would starve. There would be no logistics, no internet, no light, no nothing. I am very much in favor of starting the conversion now because we are simply too dependent.
  • I am absolutely convinced the hard-edged "green" movement is not about any of this. If it were they would be pro-nuclear because that would currently be the only realistic alternative. I believe their leaders are realistic but not honest, and their followers are honest (if slightly deranged) but not realistic. I am happy to see voters worldwide are ignoring them and the drugged up celebrities that promote them.
But hey it sells ads, right?
 

Registered
Joined
61 Posts
I don't work from the premise that life is beautiful.

99.9% of all life is misery. It's a sick, sad and incomprehensible nightmare for almost every creature that spent time, is spending time, or will spend time on this oddly-placed rock.

Something like .0000000000000001% of life has been enjoyed. The rest? A sick, awful experiment. Pain and suffering none of us can imagine.

Green, blue, red, yellow, violet and the other 'colors of nature' are things that only humans care about -- our ''big blue marble?'' Yeah, it's a signpost in the universe that reads "sick fucking experiment here' --- It's a human-centric view to give a rat's ass about every tenth of a degree and what it means for 'life'. Nature and evolution don't have a conscious or a plan. If this rock becomes a boiling cauldron of only elite bacteria, then so be it.

I don't care if the earth reverts back to a lifeless rock. I don't. Lifeless = no suffering.

How elitist are we that we want trillions of creatures to suffer in all of perpetuity so that some infinitesimally small group of creatures can jerk off to tides and rainbows?

And science might be right in ways about climate change, but politicians weaponize it. No one ever got successful believing that politicians were benevolent. They are sick, strange, unethical and every other disgusting trait that allows them to be 'successful'. They are sick fucks.

The worst thing you can do for the earth (from the selfish human-centric view) is be a politician, a celebrity, a sports star, etc. They can all fuck the hell off.

#peace
If I surmise correctly. This is not mean't to be a "feel good" letter, aimed at "snowflakes", and you are not a part of the "PC" crowd. :D If I am taking this "out if context"
please let me know.
 

Registered
Joined
1,853 Posts
If I surmise correctly. This is not mean't to be a "feel good" letter, aimed at "snowflakes", and you are not a part of the "PC" crowd. :D If I am taking this "out if context"
please let me know.
I am a massive science fan and critical thinker. I am big on physics and astronomy and spend too much time thinking about quantum mechanics. I am quite conservative (free market, etc) on fiscal matters and socially progressive, and kind of libertarian (leave the individual alone).

I can't verbalize everything that is going on in a forum like this, but Greta, celebrities and politicians have coming to the fore are officially a sign that we've reached 'batshit crazy' levels.

Humans solve problems and especially long-term existential ones:
Fertilizer is one (the most under appreciated accomplishment is that we can literally convert air to fertilizer). Billions of lives saved.
Diseases: Billions of lives saved.
Drought and poverty: BILLIONS lifted and we continue to rise.


You don't have to make everything mutually exclusive: We can have climate change and feel challenged to reduce our impact AND have world leaders who use the fear to weaponize it and drive political agendas. You are talking about depraved fucking scum: Politicians. Then, they leverage their power with money, which researchers and scare mongers want.

.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
5,305 Posts
The below may confuse you. Full disclaimer: I ordered an electric car (4C will stay of course) and aim to feed it only solar from my own panels.

I've tried to figure what is fact and fiction and basically found that the best I could hope for is to figure out the dynamic of the discussion. I follow some interesting profiles on twitter pro and con and picked up a thing or two. I would like to share what I bumped into, to date. You never know if it brings the discussion here at least up to speed. I did not provide a link for everything I write, because to be honest I have a life. But all of it feel free to google up on.

To start with dynamic. What got me reading were the reactions, when you ask a sincere question on social media in general that gives insight to an inkling of doubt into what is being shouted at you, you are then being shouted at that you are basically an infidel. Full Taliban reactions like that trigger something in me. I'm not exactly a conformist - and since you are here reading this I'm guessing the same for you. So I started digging. I'll make this as short as possible:

- Climate: per definition of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) climate is the average weather over 30 years.
It may not be a lie that the woods are dry. It may even not be a lie that there is a drought. It very likely is true there is climate change. But saying there is a drought due to climate change is therefore a big fat lie. Or at least a severe misunderstanding of what climate is - unless of course there is a 30 year drought - aka you live in or are discussing a desert.
  • Climate scientist: does not exist. There are people with careers and diploma's in thermodynamics, there are geologists, etc. But climate scientist is not something like an MD or even car mechanic. I.e. everyone can call themselves one. Literally...
  • IPCC: If you're not familiar with them have a look at wikipedia et al, but this is the UN sanctioned hub of "climate scientists" that say there is man-made climate change. They were found out to be fraudulent a decade ago ("climategate"). To this day it is possible to become a peer reviewer with them with zero credentials as shown by various journalists and some scientists.
  • "95 / 97 / 100% of climate scientists agree": is therefore turning out to be a total hoax.
  • CO2: is a colorless, odorless gas. The more CO2 in the air the more plant life, as plants need it for their photosynthesis. CO2 is not a pollutant. Therefore CO2 emissions do not soil the environment. I mention this for all those press stories that mix up CO2 with poisonous waste (which is what you get from cadmium mining for batteries, for example).
  • Deniers: I have so far not come across anyone who denies the climate changes.
  • Previous periods of heating: UK used to be a desert, I live 3 hours drive inland in Europe and whale bones have been found around here, what now is Netherlands had a land bridge to Scotland, the UK channel islands were not always islands, Stockholm used to be under meters of ice. Bruges in the middle ages had plants growing that now only grow in the south of France...
  • Temperature: has only been measured since the mid-1800's. Basically in places where people lived and there was some form of civilization and interest. All the temperatures before that are derivative.That is not exactly rock-solid data. But it is the best we have and used for hypothesis. Fair enough.
  • Water is what makes up 70% of our planet. It is said to have a huge impact on climate (duh). Reliable water temperature measurements started a little over 10 years ago. See also the definition of climate.
  • Climate models predict that we are in a 'heating up' of world climate. They base themselves on the not exact super precise data I mentioned. Which again is fine for hypothesis. And indeed the world temperature is going up for the past years. Unless the Chinese scientific community is right because they have models that show we are at a threshold of global cooling. I guess they would say that with all that coal to burn.
  • Urban heat islands. Temperature huts of meteorological institutes that were placed in or next to the countryside are now smack in the middle of town. They are in other words surrounded by heat absorbing concrete. This alone can account for a severe bump in increase of temperature measured worldwide.
  • Hockey stick: this is what the entire thing is about: there is a climate model that shows that man-made CO2 will cause the climate to go into an unstoppable acceleration. This is the graph showing an upward curve like a hockey stick. A couple of things with that:
--> It is a model. It is not reality, not yet and perhaps not ever*. So how are the climate models like the hockey stick, IPCC models comparing to reality? After all did Al Gore not say (a lot of crazy stuff like inventing the internet and) that the artic would be ice free in 10 years... over ten years ago?
They are behaving badly. The actual increase in temperature is nowhere near the increase that was predicted. Which should not be a surprise if you take into account the above.
-- So you would think those models predicting doom are showing a bigger rate of climb than the previous heating up, like the warm period around the middle ages. You would be wrong. The "doom" predictions have the same rate of climb than those of the actual warm periods of the past. (As long as you believe the data in the first place.) The only difference is that they predict the temperature will not taper off but keep climbing.

So -just in case anyone made it this far- what are my thoughts on this?
  • I agree with almost nothing that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth, except for "Evian is Naive spelled backwards" and "We must really think about this insane experiment of pumping our atmosphere full of CO2". Because we only have one earth and you never know*.
  • In my opinion Ayatollah's, Saudi's, Russians and their like would be much better left alone and not handed our hard-earned cash for their oil. I also believe that about 20 years ago western military strategists sat together and came to the same conclusion.
  • It will take some serious inventiveness to make our civilization petroleum free (or at least low) because fuel is not even the half of it. It is literally everywhere. Wind and solar power could not be made without petroleum. And if tomorrow there would be no oil, billions would starve. There would be no logistics, no internet, no light, no nothing. I am very much in favor of starting the conversion now because we are simply too dependent.
  • I am absolutely convinced the hard-edged "green" movement is not about any of this. If it were they would be pro-nuclear because that would currently be the only realistic alternative. I believe their leaders are realistic but not honest, and their followers are honest (if slightly deranged) but not realistic. I am happy to see voters worldwide are ignoring them and the drugged up celebrities that promote them.
But hey it sells ads, right?
Now Lurr, your sources please. Please read at least some of the site I referenced.

Congrats on the electric car. Let us know what you think of it once you鈥檝e driven it around a bit.

About your reference to CO2. You know the concept of resonant frequency. You have a 4C with a race exhaust and the drone is due to it. The infrared radiation emitted by the Earth (from the solar radiation it has absorbed) causes some molecules to vibrate (heat up) CO2,CH4, even water molecules. There鈥檚 plenty of good info on this and why it鈥檚 CO2 and methane that are the problems. A little greenhouse effect is necessary and good. Too much there may be trouble. The world will not end, but things will get mighty uncomfortable, not so much for you all in Europe, (but if something should change the Gulf Stream, look out) but down here we鈥檝e had record heat and dryness for years now. I suppose we ignore things for another 20 until the thirty years is up. Temps here are trending up, rainfall is trending down. That鈥檚 what is happening. Ocean temps too as well as atmospheric. We need to adapt our habits (god how I dislike the word, lifestyle) to meet the changing conditions, but also trying to slow a possible cause, may be an intelligent option.

There is also the concept of continental drift and plate tectonics that explains why some regions were once submerged and are now above water. the Super Continent, Pangaea in the Triassic made for a much hotter and drier climate in parts. England, Europe and North America were once joined. Water levels were 50 metres above what they are today as well as being a hundred metres lower. As continents move and mountain ranges form and others erode, oceans and seas open up or close, and as the Earth wobbles on it鈥檚 axis, changing the axial tilt, the climate has changed. The point is has taken a long time for these things to happen. If it wasn鈥檛 for the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic you blokes living up in NY and in Europe would be much colder too, so the climate is complex. A combination of landform area, vegetation, topography, latitude on the planet, as well as ocean temps and currents. The thing is C02 is being emitted in larger quantities than ever (in our Geological era), more land in being cleared than ever before so there is less ability for organic earth to absorb it and keep things in check. I鈥檓 thinking as a whole we need to do what we can to help it. To ignore the trends and not take heed of the science doesn鈥檛 appear the most intelligent of options to me.
Now for the contributors...please provide reference articles. No one apart from myself seems to have made any attempt.

Out of interest, as a prediction, after all out fires down here, I鈥檓 thinking there might be some more extremes of temperature. When riding through the burned areas a couple of weeks ago the heat radiated from the charred earth was really noticeable. (The heat was from solar radiation being absorbed and reradiated by the earth, not from fires.) When riding through an area unaffected, it was much cooler. Much like a desert these areas might become hotter during the day and colder at night. With such a large area burned it鈥檒l be interesting to see if this has a noticeable (to the Dept of Meteorology), if short-term, affect on daily temps in the affected areas. This is until the bush regenerates, but we need a bit of rain to help things along, something we haven鈥檛 had much of lately.
Also interesting were, on some days of heavy smoke, temperatures never got to the expected maximum. A little nuclear winter effect?

That the Earth鈥檚 climate has changed over time is in general agreement so I have not referenced it. Similarly, the physics of heat absorption by CO2 and Methane is well understood and beyond dispute.

I鈥檓 well aware of those who treat climate change as a religion and want an immediate stop to industrialisation, damning all who don鈥檛 think or act likewise. There are also the religious zealots on the other side who want no change, no compromise, despite the evidence. Please read at least some the site I referenced. It is reliable. The data presented is not opinion....atmosphere temp trends, ocean temp trends, ocean acidity trends, CO2 conc trends are all there.
 

Registered
Joined
1,259 Posts
Now Lurr, your sources please. Please read at least some of site I referenced.
I'm not going to provide links to everything I wrote, for a couple of reasons. I am not out to form a political party, or ask any donations, or write a book (ie I don't need to convince anyone).
Also I have seen how this works. Links are just places on the internet so when I provide one someone else who disagrees tries to discredit that link. And there we go in perpeteum mobile.
Feel free to look it up though.

About your reference to CO2. You know the concept of resonant frequency. You have a 4C with a race exhaust and the drone is due to it. The infrared radiation emitted by the Earth (from the solar radiation it has absorbed) causes some molecules to vibrate (heat up) CO2,CH4, even water molecules. There鈥檚 plenty of good info on this and why it鈥檚 CO2 and methane that are the problems. A little greenhouse effect is necessary and good. Too much there may be trouble. The world will not end, but things will get mighty uncomfortable, not so much for you all in Europe, (but if something should change the Gulf Stream, look out) but down here we鈥檝e had record heat and dryness for years now. I suppose we ignore things for another 20 until the thirty years is up. Temps here are trending up, rainfall is trending down. That鈥檚 what is happening. Ocean temps too as well as atmospheric.

There is also the concept of continental drift and plate tectonics that explains why some regions were once submerged and are now above water. the Super Continent, Pangaea in the Triassic made for a much hotter and drier climate in parts. England, Europe and North America were once joined. Water levels were 50 metres above what they are today as well as being a hundred metres lower. As continents move and mountain ranges form and others erode, oceans and seas open up or close, and as the Earth wobbles on it鈥檚 axis, changing the axial tilt, the climate has changed. The point is has taken a long time for these things to happen. If it wasn鈥檛 for the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic you blokes living up in NY and in Europe would be much colder too, so the climate is complex. A combination of landform area, vegetation, topography, latitude on the planet, as well as ocean temps and currents. The thing is C02 is being emitted in larger quantities than ever, more land in being cleared than ever before so there is less ability for organic earth to absorb it and keep things in check. I鈥檓 thinking as a whole we need to do what we can to help it. To ignore the trends and not take heed of the science doesn鈥檛 appear the most intelligent of options to me.
Now for the contributors...please provide reference articles. No one apart from myself seems to have made any attempt.

Out of interest, as a prediction, after all out fires down here, I鈥檓 thinking there might be some more extremes of temperature. When riding through the burned areas a couple of weeks ago the heat radiated from the charred earth was really noticeable. (The heat was from solar radiation being absorbed and reradiated by the earth, not from fires.) When riding through an area unaffected, it was much cooler. Much like a desert these areas might become hotter during the day and colder at night. With such a large area burned it鈥檒l be interesting to see if this has a noticeable (to the Dept of Meteorology), if short-term, affect on daily temps in the affected areas. This is until the bush regenerates, but we need a bit of rain to help things along, something we haven鈥檛 had much of lately.
What you write here is part physics (resonant frequency, continental drift, earth wobble), part theory, and part projection based on both. That is fine. But that is not evidence. Evidence is measurements.
You (and not just you of course) are pointing to CO2 is being emitted in larger quantities than ever. You point that as a fact while it is not. It is a theory. I understand how you come to that theory:
- Climate warning as global CO2 levels rise to highest point in millions of years
read this: "The Mauna Loa Observatory, which has measured the parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958, took a reading of 415.26ppm in the air on 11 May 鈥 thought to be the highest concentration since humans evolved." Thought.to.be. - nobody is sure. And what period are we talking about / have measured in the 4.5 billion years of earth history? 1958 to today. Honestly...
- Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2? This is from a website that is there to debunk sceptics. Read this article that is supposed to debunk and see how many times reservations are made. They do not know - which is fine, but let's be clear that is very far from fact. It is theory.

As for CO2 being emitted in larger quantities than "ever" : The Most Important Number in Climate Change
"Climate models have a hard time explaining how the Eocene could be so warm at the poles even with CO2 concentrations much higher than today."
As for the earth becoming less green: NASA Says Earth Is Greener Today Than 20 Years Ago Thanks To China, India
As for the people responsible of "clearing", it ain't global warming: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/07/brazilian-amazon-is-still-burning-who-is-responsible/

I could go on, most of what is put forward in media is based on theory and projection. Either there are honest scientists or journalists and they write what they suggest is theory, or they are lying.
How can I say that? Very simple - the scaremongers made predictions that failed to materialize. Just google what predictions they made and google what is fact.
What you will actually encounter is a "fact check" site like snopes saying "mixture" while admitting yes. it is obviously false.
How weird is that? It seems we reached a point where the obvious can barely be admitted anymore.

Anyway, here is where the rubber meets the road: measurements are not nearly as high as their predictions. I provide a mix of sources on purpose. Compare the graphs and see how the real measurements behave against the worst or even most projection lines.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf (there are later examples showing even wider differences, could not find them straight away, this'll do)

I suppose some will say it is all done with good intentions. Meanwhile people have their thought compass screwed up and are making wrong choices based on wrong data, incomplete models and theoretic notions passed off as fact.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
13,533 Posts
The below may confuse you. Full disclaimer: I ordered an electric car (4C will stay of course) and aim to feed it only solar from my own panels.

I've tried to figure what is fact and fiction and basically found that the best I could hope for is to figure out the dynamic of the discussion. I follow some interesting profiles on twitter pro and con and picked up a thing or two. I would like to share what I bumped into, to date. You never know if it brings the discussion here at least up to speed. I did not provide a link for everything I write, because to be honest I have a life. But all of it feel free to google up on.

To start with dynamic. What got me reading were the reactions, when you ask a sincere question on social media in general that gives insight to an inkling of doubt into what is being shouted at you, you are then being shouted at that you are basically an infidel. Full Taliban reactions like that trigger something in me. I'm not exactly a conformist - and since you are here reading this I'm guessing the same for you. So I started digging. I'll make this as short as possible:

- Climate: per definition of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) climate is the average weather over 30 years.
It may not be a lie that the woods are dry. It may even not be a lie that there is a drought. It very likely is true there is climate change. But saying there is a drought due to climate change is therefore a big fat lie. Or at least a severe misunderstanding of what climate is - unless of course there is a 30 year drought - aka you live in or are discussing a desert.
  • Climate scientist: does not exist. There are people with careers and diploma's in thermodynamics, there are geologists, etc. But climate scientist is not something like an MD or even car mechanic. I.e. everyone can call themselves one. Literally...
  • IPCC: If you're not familiar with them have a look at wikipedia et al, but this is the UN sanctioned hub of "climate scientists" that say there is man-made climate change. They were found out to be fraudulent a decade ago ("climategate"). To this day it is possible to become a peer reviewer with them with zero credentials as shown by various journalists and some scientists.
  • "95 / 97 / 100% of climate scientists agree": is therefore turning out to be a total hoax.
  • CO2: is a colorless, odorless gas. The more CO2 in the air the more plant life, as plants need it for their photosynthesis. CO2 is not a pollutant. Therefore CO2 emissions do not soil the environment. I mention this for all those press stories that mix up CO2 with poisonous waste (which is what you get from cadmium mining for batteries, for example).
  • Deniers: I have so far not come across anyone who denies the climate changes.
  • Previous periods of heating: UK used to be a desert, I live 3 hours drive inland in Europe and whale bones have been found around here, what now is Netherlands had a land bridge to Scotland, the UK channel islands were not always islands, Stockholm used to be under meters of ice. Bruges in the middle ages had plants growing that now only grow in the south of France...
  • Temperature: has only been measured since the mid-1800's. Basically in places where people lived and there was some form of civilization and interest. All the temperatures before that are derivative.That is not exactly rock-solid data. But it is the best we have and used for hypothesis. Fair enough.
  • Water is what makes up 70% of our planet. It is said to have a huge impact on climate (duh). Reliable water temperature measurements started a little over 10 years ago. See also the definition of climate.
  • Climate models predict that we are in a 'heating up' of world climate. They base themselves on the not exact super precise data I mentioned. Which again is fine for hypothesis. And indeed the world temperature is going up for the past years. Unless the Chinese scientific community is right because they have models that show we are at a threshold of global cooling. I guess they would say that with all that coal to burn.
  • Urban heat islands. Temperature huts of meteorological institutes that were placed in or next to the countryside are now smack in the middle of town. They are in other words surrounded by heat absorbing concrete. This alone can account for a severe bump in increase of temperature measured worldwide.
  • Hockey stick: this is what the entire thing is about: there is a climate model that shows that man-made CO2 will cause the climate to go into an unstoppable acceleration. This is the graph showing an upward curve like a hockey stick. A couple of things with that:
--> It is a model. It is not reality, not yet and perhaps not ever*. So how are the climate models like the hockey stick, IPCC models comparing to reality? After all did Al Gore not say (a lot of crazy stuff like inventing the internet and) that the artic would be ice free in 10 years... over ten years ago?
They are behaving badly. The actual increase in temperature is nowhere near the increase that was predicted. Which should not be a surprise if you take into account the above.
-- So you would think those models predicting doom are showing a bigger rate of climb than the previous heating up, like the warm period around the middle ages. You would be wrong. The "doom" predictions have the same rate of climb than those of the actual warm periods of the past. (As long as you believe the data in the first place.) The only difference is that they predict the temperature will not taper off but keep climbing.

So -just in case anyone made it this far- what are my thoughts on this?
  • I agree with almost nothing that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth, except for "Evian is Naive spelled backwards" and "We must really think about this insane experiment of pumping our atmosphere full of CO2". Because we only have one earth and you never know*.
  • In my opinion Ayatollah's, Saudi's, Russians and their like would be much better left alone and not handed our hard-earned cash for their oil. I also believe that about 20 years ago western military strategists sat together and came to the same conclusion.
  • It will take some serious inventiveness to make our civilization petroleum free (or at least low) because fuel is not even the half of it. It is literally everywhere. Wind and solar power could not be made without petroleum. And if tomorrow there would be no oil, billions would starve. There would be no logistics, no internet, no light, no nothing. I am very much in favor of starting the conversion now because we are simply too dependent.
  • I am absolutely convinced the hard-edged "green" movement is not about any of this. If it were they would be pro-nuclear because that would currently be the only realistic alternative. I believe their leaders are realistic but not honest, and their followers are honest (if slightly deranged) but not realistic. I am happy to see voters worldwide are ignoring them and the drugged up celebrities that promote them.
But hey it sells ads, right?
  • CO2: is a colorless, odorless gas. The more CO2 in the air the more plant life, as plants need it for their photosynthesis. CO2 is not a pollutant. Therefore CO2 emissions do not soil the environment. I mention this for all those press stories that mix up CO2 with poisonous waste (which is what you get from cadmium mining for batteries, for example).
As Alfanut mentioned, CO2 is seen as the culprit because it traps heat. The atmosphere warms by solar radiation reflecting off/radiating from the earth. Much of that is lost to space again. CO2 is referred to as a "greenhouse gas" because it holds that heat in much like the glass roof of a greenhouse does.

  • Temperature: has only been measured since the mid-1800's. Basically in places where people lived and there was some form of civilization and interest. All the temperatures before that are derivative.That is not exactly rock-solid data. But it is the best we have and used for hypothesis. Fair enough.
The effects of temperature have been measured over millennia. There is no question that it has always been cyclical. The causes of past events are mostly impossible to determine (except perhaps the effects of the asteroid strike that killed most life on the planet 66 million years ago, perhaps.

  • Hockey stick: this is what the entire thing is about: there is a climate model that shows that man-made CO2 will cause the climate to go into an unstoppable acceleration. This is the graph showing an upward curve like a hockey stick. A couple of things with that:
  • --> It is a model. It is not reality, not yet and perhaps not ever*. So how are the climate models like the hockey stick, IPCC models comparing to reality? After all did Al Gore not say (a lot of crazy stuff like inventing the internet and) that the artic would be ice free in 10 years... over ten years ago?
The "hockey stick" is not just a model.
The last 40 or years are all that matter.
Source for this one is NASA:
104283



Real data on CO2 going to 2010 (it looks even steeper today, but I wanted a graph with population included on it and this was the best that I could find).

104282


My thoughts on this are:
  • Global climate does appear to be changing. This is not just a localized experience, anecdote, or short term trend. Why? I do not know. How much does CO2 have to do with it? More learned people than I have suggested "significantly".
  • Perhaps humans are the only, or primary cause. Perhaps not. We can do very little to change natural causes. Our only lever is human behavior.
  • The graphs above definitely appear to indicate a correlation between global population, the gas mostly blamed for climate change, and planetary warming. If you want to put up non-climate-related graphics such as pollution or extinctions, you will find the same trend.
  • Mankind made it through almost all of its history, through filthy industrialization, world wars, open air nuclear testing and the space race, with fewer than 2 billion people on the globe and virtually no change in temperatures. Now, despite huge inroads in cleaner ways of living, the needle has not moved back. The difference is that there are nearly 4x that many people today.
  • Is there a "critical mass" of humans on the planet. Logically, yes. What is it? Don't have a clue, but I suspect we're there.
  • It seems therefore that, in order to get a handle on this, nearly 8 billion people will need to live as 2 billion. For those who think that people have a chance to change this, it will mean basically each and every one of us reducing the footprint (carbon or otherwise) by 75%. Doubting we will agree to do that any time soon, as we are still fighting wars started millennia ago over grudges and varying interpretations of myths!
  • If we are to do the above, then there are fundamental changes required to economic systems to support it. We can no longer expect economic growth (in fact, there will be a long period of decline across many sectors), so all the existing economic models along with expectations have to go out the window.
  • Doing the above in democracies is impossible - would be political suicide to even try to suggest it!
  • The planet owes China a huge debt. Were it not for their decades-long one-child policy, we would already be pushing 9 billion or more souls in the world.
  • How likely is it that nearly 8 billion people will agree on this (or anything)? It isn't. Doesn't matter if you stick your head in the sand, or if you have fully embraced climate change, I don't see a way out besides the planet solving the issue on its own terms.
  • Climate has nothing to do with weather. Climatologist (yes, there is such a science) have told us that changes from this increase in temperature will range from storms of increasing severity, to drought and desertification, to the movement of arable zones, to increasing sea levels. All of these will have monumental consequences on all mankind (not to mention other species). Starvation, mass migrations, unprecidented refugee crises, and accelerated extinctions are sure to resul. Given human nature, more wars to fight over what's left of the planet, will follow.
In the end, it is not industrialization, farting cattle, or the internal combustion engine that is the enemy of the planet. It's the human infestation.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
13,533 Posts
And to respond to your last, lurrr, there is no doubt that true scientists will couch their work with reservations - we simple DON'T know how this complex system all fits together. We cannot even predict the weather with consistent, decent accuracy more than 36 hours in advance. But we know that things are changing. And there are only a few things which can be done about it. Whether or not they will have any bearing on a positive outcome is purely speculation.

You live in a country where there is ice on the road for part of the year. I ask you this - if you hit a patch with a curve on the road ahead, do you turn the steering wheel in the hopes that you won't crash? After all, there's no way that you can tell if the road or your tires will keep you safe. Or do you deny that the curve exists and just barrel through hoping for the best?
 

Super Moderator
Joined
5,305 Posts
And would the cause of the green in India and China have been from all the trees planted? A single photo at a single time of the year is not evidence. Show photos over the same areas through the seasons over decades and you have evidence. Trends matter and it鈥檚 trending poorly. A photo of Beijing 30 years ago and one of today may be more telling. Ask the people of Japan if they appreciate China鈥檚 atmospheric pollution blowing over.
Science speaks in trends. You may be a smoker. If so, will you for certain get cancer of the lungs, throat, tongue or mouth? Will you die prematurely from a stroke or develop night blindness? No, but your chances increase of any of those things occurring. That鈥檚 the way medical science and climate science work when there are lots of complexities at play.
Ever had an operation?

So ultimately do you believe we should sit back and do nothing as individuals and as nations to try and clean up our planet? And we only have one, there鈥檚 nowhere else to go.

Maybe where people live influence their thinking too. Here in Oz we mostly have a narrow coastal strip along the east coast of our country in which most people live. Get further away and it gets arid very quickly. Most of us cling to this narrow, fragile, coastal strip. It won鈥檛 take much for the desert to advance. Our interior used to be ocean, it was also once covered in forest. Most of it has turned into desert. Yep, the climate has always changed but recent changes have been more rapid. With fires and drought we can see the desert approaching.

It would be nice to get world cooperation in approaching the problem as they did with CFCs and the ozone problem. For some it seems to be a fight of personality. Some people have mentioned Greta. Greta matters not a bit. It鈥檚 the problem that is developing that is the issue, not the personalities. But it seems that disliking Greta is an excuse For some for dismissing climate change and the need to act.
 

Registered
Joined
19 Posts
Stop driving cars,stop wearing leather,stop eating meat,stop heating your house,I can go on and on.the left always contradict them selves.ok I'm waiting for someone to post a bunch of bunch of big words and article on climate change and trump and so on.i like big v8 engines, I love air conditioning, and heating my home,and I love my 4c.you cant have the best of both wworlds.Us humans are viruses we consume and destroy everything we touch.im just trying to have fun with whatever time I have left.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
5,305 Posts
You see, you鈥檝e turned the issue political. You think it鈥檚 an argument between the left and right of politics when it is not. Read at least some from the site I referenced. Some are always quoting the extremes from the counter argument to support their position. Inform yourselves from reliable sources is all I鈥檓 saying. No one sensible is saying give up on those things you mentioned, just use them more sparingly. I love a good steam train too. Glad I can see one once in a while but also glad that the rails run on electricity these days.
 

Registered
Joined
433 Posts
A most disturbing video,a short time back there was a clip of a polar bear running across what used to be snow and ice but this area is now brown earth due to receding ice/ snow.
It has taken eons for polar bears to evolve with their white coats for obvious reasons.
On Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia 50% of the Koala population were killed in the catastrophic fires of last week.
Unprecedented!
Can you link to the polar bear video?
 

Super Moderator
Joined
3,458 Posts
There are so many factors involved in climate change it is extremely hard to predict what the outcome will be. There have been 5 mass extinctions on the earth... at least....the one 65 million years ago that killed off the dinosaurs was the "mildest". One of them killed over 95% of the life on earth....and it is now thought it was caused by an overabundance of bacteria which caused extreme run away global warming....hmmmm.

As an astronomer (trained and certified speaker for JPL) I know about external influences....during the Maunder minimum the "normal" cycle of 11 years for sun spot activity lasted from 1645-1715 without sun spots. That sun spot inactivity is thought to have caused or contributed to the mini ice age that caused glaciers to move South as far as the Southern parts of France.Many populations were dramatically changed or wiped out as a result.

The plates of the earth move and slide under each other moving and shaping entire continents (plate techtonics) over eons. That is what causes earthquakes. Here in Northern Michigan there is a city that at one time was at the equator of the earth and below sea level (Look up Petosky Stones)

I mentioned space weather and the sun. During 1859 a massive solar coronal mass ejection "CME" erupted from the sun and emitted energy in the form of Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) that energized the lines used to carry telegraph messages. This event called the Carrington Event caused sparks to ignite papers on the desks of the teletype operators. Luckily those wires were the only wires at the time....no phones, power lines, cable, etc. Also no satellites, computers, TVs, etc. existed back than. If that CME hapened today it would cause massive power outages, destroy electronic devices, kill satellites, and put most of the world back into the dark ages. Recovery would take massive dollars and labor AND years to recover. Refrigeration....gone, water pumps gone.....pretty dire right.

And less you think there isn't much chance of that happening....while luckily most of those CMEs are rare and even than aim away from the earth....but just about 6 years ago a double CME happened....luckily it was aimed away from the earth....two years later we found out through scientific study that two combined were more powerful than the one of the Carrington Event. We missed that bullet but there is another one out there with our name on it..

Yes we may be able to deal with a CME somewhat....satellites can be aimed away from the sun, computers turned off, transmission lines disconnected.....but we can't avoid a lot of the damage.

Astronomers study to determine how to deal with this type of space weather, but it is not at a point where I would trust it to solve all the potential problems.

Comets and Asteroids are another life ending possibility (remember the dinosaurs).How about super volcanoes such as Yellowstone here in the US in Wyoming? If it erupts it could wipe out a good part of the US.

My point is that there are lots of things that can cause global warming/cooling, lethal impacts to humans and creatures, radiation, etc. The correct response is to study those so they can be predicted, measured, and defended against. That is where real science comes in.....not internet or tabloid science or politics.

The last scary message I have......stretch your arms out to your side to make a big T. If you scale the earths entire history from creation to today.....one finger tip is 4+ billion years ago and your other finger tip on the other side of your body represents today. Now take a nail file and make one swipe across your finger nail. That tiny material you just filed off represents the entire time man has been on this earth.

I look at the global warming issue as simple....there are two choices:
1.Do nothing
2.Do something
If we do nothing we may be ok....or not ok.
If we do something we improve our odds of surviving.
I like the odds of doing something.

So off my soap box....sleep well tonight 馃サ馃ザ
 

Super Moderator
Joined
13,533 Posts
Not everything attributed to climate change is. That is clear.
This, however, is real.

Melting sea ice due to rising temperatures results in the bears not being able to hunt seals. Without that vital food source, they don鈥檛 survive. And the arctic is being affected disproportionately more than the rest of the planet.
 
61 - 80 of 134 Posts
Top