Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Do YOU believe in climate change and global warming?

88 posts, 1989 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 5 (88 records)
sort
21 days ago
+9 / -0
(commenting just based on title, to avoid any confusion)

I really don't get why believe has anything to do with this. Or is "did you check the data, made an opinion, considered the benefits and risks of being wrong both ways, and have opinions on the preferred policies approaches" too complex?

Let me give an alternate view: global warming or not relying on fossil fuels (which are: a) controlled by some states b) limited c) polluting) does not sound like the smartest way forward. I do support anything that will reduce the fossil fuel industry (coal, gas, oil) footprint as I think it will only improve life. Is 2050 best target? For me, this being said by the politicians it's a bit too far. Not sure how are your politicians, but I am used that if they say in N years, it could happen in 4 x N years at least.
+5 / -0
21 days ago
Even if I don't think there is gonna be a global warming where it is around 50°C everywhere (Altho there is certainly a reason Venus is how it is now), I do think something else would erase us, or at least a good amount of life on earth.

In some regions of the world there is something called permafrost. Permafrost is ice that been here for a very long time, and in that ice there is a lot of ugly things we really don't wanna meet.
Imagine if a virus get out of there and makes world fall. Like really. Who think the first pandemical crisis was not enough? Don't worry you're not prepared. It is pretty simple. A deer or something get in contact with the virus, then it mutates to get to us. It will be too late before we even know it.

The scariest thing about that is a little like how we can recycle metal in the game. The more heated it gets, the more it frees gas that accelerate the warming itself. So there is going to be a point where the earth don't need us anymore to warm even more and more, and by that time we wouldn't be here to talk about it from a long time, but it's going to be tough. I wouldn't want to travel to 2500 and see how it is, it's going to be ugly.

I have not yet studied the yearly amount of earth disasters that happens, but I heard that some crops of where I live (France) got destroyed by a cold wave, so I'm not expecting very nice 2020-2030 seasons.
+1 / -0
21 days ago
One of the reasons Venus is how it is now... is being closer to the fkin Sun :D
+1 / -1
21 days ago
quote:

Do YOU believe in climate change and global warming?


No.
+0 / -1


21 days ago
Climate change alarmism is annoying.

Yes, we'll be better off cutting back emissions and millions, possibly hundreds of millions, will die if things continue this way, but even the worst case trajectories by the IPCC don't result in human extinction or the loss of civilization.

imo we should put a suitably high tax on CO2 emissions (and other greenhouse gas emissions) according to how bad the probable damage is going to be and leave it at that. If taxes on gasoline were to linearly increase to $10/litre in the next decade I bet you'll see a lot more electric cars on the road! (yes, I'm aware road transport is only 10% of emissions, it's to illustrate an appropriate tax size)
+0 / -0
21 days ago
Believe? NO!

I UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISM!!!


Now I do happen to have the advantage of having studied physics in general and climate physics in particular, but the required knowledge to understand the greenhouseeffect is highschool level and most of my (14-19 year olf) students are capable of understanding it as well.

There are a lot of things about Global Warming that can/need to be debated and researched better, from the particular effects on certain regions of the world, to the exact nature/danger of tipping points such as the Permafrost or the Ice shields of Greenland and the Westantarctic and of course the required response (i.e. CO2-Tax vs. a cap and trade-system vs. investment in new tech etc.). 10 Years ago I myself was part of a research group studying a particular effect, that contributed to cooling!!! the climate, today the results of that study are part of every up-to-date climate modell.

What is not up for debate, is that

a) The greenhouse effect is real, and that a doubling of the CO2-Concentration leads to a warming effect of around 2°C.
While Climatemodels are constantly being refined and updated those updates are about effects that impact the climate on one or two orders of magnitude less then what CO2(and to some extent CH4) contribute. It is still important to incorporate them, after all the climate is a "complex system" and small changes might have big consequences, but nothing ever added will negate this primary driver of our changing climate.
This is NEITHER NEW KNOWLEDGE NOR DEBATLABLE and anyone I have ever encountered to say otherwise was either clearly not educated on the subject or had a political agenda.
In this view I am not alone, any physicist knowledgable on the subject would agree so much so that the high arbiters of scientific achievements, i.e. the Nobel Commitee for the science prizes(=/= peace prize) this year chose to give the Physics Prize to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselman, who in the 1960s and 70s!!! developed methods show the double CO2 = 2°C as well as methods to clearly show how to distinguish between the natural variability of the climate and the impact of human behaviour.

b) While the climate has always changed it has never done so this quickly. This is important, because while nature can reasonably adapt to changes over the course of thousand or tens of thousads of years, it can not do so withing decades, meaning at our current course we are heading for a mass extinction event.

Now what makes me sad and sometimes angry is that image of green voter/ ecofriendly people as naive. While quite a few of them are, that percentage is about the same as in any other group of humans. But the real naivitee is to think that our economy can go on as it is. The constant more more more of our current type of capitalism ( not advocating for communism here, there are other types of market based system around then what we currently have) is simply not sustainable for more then (maybe) the next few decades.


Ps. Gotta love thejuicemedia

pps. for those fluent in german, this is an Interview with this years Nobellaureate Klaus Hasselmann, listen to the 30-60s starting at 1:20 and remember that the guy knew most of what he found out by 1980!!!

https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video-927783.html




+11 / -0
I'll just remind would-be posters about this part of the CoC.
quote:
7. Avoid inflammatory discussion topics
  • Due to their highly inflammatory nature, political and religious discussions are relegated to the semi-hidden "asylum" section of the forum and the "#off-topic" channel in lobby and Discord. Please avoid bringing them up elsewhere.
  • Note that even in these subforums/channels the other parts of the Code of Conduct still apply. Furthermore, especially contentious or distasteful subjects may be restricted even in these channels on a case by case basis.
I see a trajectory of this thread that degrades into drama. Please remain civil.
+2 / -0
I do not believe the earth will stop warming until enough ice melts so that there is enough water to absorb the greenhouse gases and stabilize the climate. Meanwhile, the earth will lose huge amounts of dry land, people will die, animals will die, and the world-wide standard-of-living will plummet, except for the top 5% or so wealthiest people that will manage to live at an even higher standard.

Life is not fair, has never been fair, and never will be fair. Either life is meaningless or we are not alone.
+0 / -0


21 days ago
quote:
at our current course we are heading for a mass extinction event.

We're already IN a mass extinction event. :(
+4 / -0
21 days ago
Ocean acidification always feels left out :(
+0 / -0
21 days ago
"Climate change alarmism is annoying."
"We're already IN a mass extinction event. :( "

Would really be interested how you define/what constitutes alarmism for you???

You seem accept that there is a real problem here, and surely you dont think that the politicians and the global markets have this well in hand/already done enough. So certainly there is cause for at least a bit of alarm(btw. the only way politicians will ever move against money interest is by kicking and screaming at them enough).
Where is the border between justified concern that is articulated loud and at times maybe a bit over the top and what you perceive as alarmism?
+0 / -0
21 days ago
Climate change is unarguable at this point. The only argument is over what we are going to do about it.

To me the solution is relatively simple: most of the pollution stems from creating electricity and getting from A to B.

Solar power is becoming very cheap and it's not hard to DIY an installation.

The bottleneck is batteries.

We don't have a battery that is cheap, can store a good amount of E and last a long time. Even lead acid, the most proven battery, gets expensive when you want to run an entire house off of it. If battery storage costs half of what it does now people will naturally gravitate to solar installations for all their energy needs.
+0 / -0
21 days ago
"I do not believe the earth will stop warming until enough ice melts so that there is enough water to absorb the greenhouse gases and stabilize the climate. "

This wont happen. First of all the total water surface wont grow that much percentage wise( the pacific is already pretty large). Secondly this already happens, a substantial amount of the extra CO2 we emit is being absorbed right now. Lessens the warming but increases acidification of the oceans (which is why coral reefs are among the first victims of our behaviour they have problems with higher temperatures as well as a lower ph).
On the contratry, melting ice is one of the easier to understand feedback loops. Water absorbs much more energy from sunlight then the reflective surface of ice/snow. Therefore less ice=> more heating=>less ice.
+1 / -0
21 days ago
Have you heard about nuclear fusion? It's a clean source of energy, but requires a highly advanced unstable confining magnetic field. There are multiple test-reactors. If we really invest in it we can have a working net-positive prototype in, say, 10-20 years. Then we can scale it up.

What I said above has been true for the past 40 years. For 40 years the net-positive prototype was 10-20 years away. But they never pulled through, really invested in it. Same goes for tackling climate change, reducing CO2. We could have acted earlier, but we didn't. We're moving goal posts constantly.

The only positive thing is that we are simulteanously developing new techniques and preparing infrastructure. But factually, we are fucked, because we acted too late.

It's not the +1 / +2 degrees that is the problem; it's how you can expect more extreme weather. Potentially we could run into a cascading effect, something something tundras. But we know for sure that devestation will reach developing countries and mass migration will happen.
+3 / -0
21 days ago
Exploring Why This Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Matters

+1 / -0
Yes.

The overwhelming scientific consensus says human activities contribute to climate change and global warming (on average).

- interesting XKCD with the 20k year relative temperature curve
https://xkcd.com/1732/

- miscellaneous info on the NASA website
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Despite the short term warming trend, I don't think there's consensus about where it'll end up in hundreds of thousands of years, though, or how it'll get there. There's historical precedents where it got significantly warmer and still cooled down. On the PETM 55 million years ago, CO2 rose to about 2000 ppm and temperatures got up to about +8ºC relative to current ones for about 200K years, but then over about 100K years it cooled back down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
http://www.xylenepower.com/PETM.htm

also note that we're apparently releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at 10x the rate of the PETM event:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm


and that the sea level at the time was over 50m higher than today:
http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/PETM.pdf (page 4)
+0 / -0
20 days ago
quote:
This wont happen. First of all the total water surface wont grow that much percentage wise( the pacific is already pretty large). Secondly this already happens, a substantial amount of the extra CO2 we emit is being absorbed right now. Lessens the warming but increases acidification of the oceans (which is why coral reefs are among the first victims of our behaviour they have problems with higher temperatures as well as a lower ph).
On the contratry, melting ice is one of the easier to understand feedback loops. Water absorbs much more energy from sunlight then the reflective surface of ice/snow. Therefore less ice=> more heating=>less ice.


I know water covers about 71% of the earth, but I thought that if that increased by say another 15% or so, then it would be able to stabilize the climate. I also thought that water surface reflects more heat than land surface so it would also contribute to reduced heat. I know ice reflects more heat, but obviously greenhouse gases have overwhelmed that mechanism. I do not understand how acidification effects greenhouse gas absorption.

I do not actually believe humans will reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to stabilize the climate. Not only would humans need to implement economically cataclysmic reductions, but also construct massive artificial greenhouse gas absorbers of some kind. Perhaps there is an off chance that humans will mobilize global efforts to the scale humans mobilized global efforts during WW2. Short of that type of all-out war against greenhouse gas, I think humans are in for cataclysmic centuries in the near future.

In short, I do not believe humans will go extinct, but it might be pretty darn close before the climate stabilizes. Also, stabilized might just mean regular catastrophic weather events.

+0 / -0
20 days ago
https://www.ipp.mpg.de/17019/meilensteine (just click english at the top right of the page)

Wendelstein 7-X should be powering up to do 30 min cycles next year. #teamstellarator
+1 / -0
20 days ago
"I know water covers about 71% of the earth, but I thought that if that increased by say another 15% or so, then it would be able to stabilize the climate. I also thought that water surface reflects more heat than land surface so it would also contribute to reduced heat. I know ice reflects more heat, but obviously greenhouse gases have overwhelmed that mechanism. I do not understand how acidification effects greenhouse gas absorption."

You are right about the albedo(percentage of reflexion) of land vs water, though it depends on the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#/media/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg
But im pretty sure the ice surface lost is much bigger then what we would loose to rising sea levels, at least in the short term. In either case that would not be enough to counterbalance the CO2 effects(plus wed pay in the highest price possible, coastal land which is often densely populated). Also the rise in sea level lags decades to millenia behind the actual warming, so even if that effect could help it would be at a time where it is too late.

The acidfication part is easy. You open a bottle of soda and those gas bubbles that come out of the drink thats CO2.
Because CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 (which is Carbonic Acid). This works in both directions as you can observe with any drink (shake a closed soda bottle then wait for a few hours, most of the overpressure will be gone, because the CO2 went back into the water to form carbonic acid). So us increasing CO2 concentration in the air means more CO2 goes into the oceans and therby increases its acidity. In a way that helps with the warming issue, because CO2 in the water doesnt contribute to warming. On the other hand a lower pH is quite a problem for a lot of marine life and so adds another layer of ecodestruction.


Finally as a question to Dyth and you. How is Humanity going extinct or not even a relevant measuring point? Shouldnt the line be drawn much much earlier??
+0 / -0
Page of 5 (88 records)