• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Global warming?

global warming climate change emissions co2

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 19 June 2015 - 11:54 PM


I was a little hesitant to post this, but I think I’ve been agnostic on this point for too long. I know this debate’s been discussed ad nauseam, but I’m still unsure about what’s the most valid position. As I understand it, the debate really hinges on whether climate change is anthropogenic. Proponents of global warming claim that today’s climate change is unprecedented, whereas others claim that the earth’s weather behaves cyclically and that precedents do indeed exist. Obviously these can’t both be true. When I try to do research, however, I keep getting inconsistent information. Finding a simple, unbiased article seems impossible. 

 

If somebody could please refer me to some good articles I’d really appreciate it.


  • Informative x 1

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 June 2015 - 01:12 AM

Try this:  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


  • Agree x 3
  • Disagree x 1

#3 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 20 June 2015 - 08:40 AM

It's weird that we need a debate on whether or not we are bumming the planet up. We clearly are doing something, here is a pic of a normal days air-traffic above Europe. That kind of thing is obviously going to have an effect.

The interesting thing is what will happen, unless our development is halted by a solar-storm or a nuclear war I have a gut feeling that technology might win out. In a century our descendants may well be busy taking the Solar system apart for constituent matter to build Matrioska brains and Dyson-spheres and this kind of thing will be as relevant to them as where exactly cave-men buried their crap is relevant to us.

I recently read Flood by Stephen Baxter, in that book some kind of climate disturbance caused an underwater reservoir the size of the Arctic ocean to empty it's content. But I don't think it will be that bad.

Attached Files


  • Agree x 2
  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 June 2015 - 01:51 PM

I cannot imagine a better starting point than the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis":

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/


Edited by platypus, 20 June 2015 - 01:52 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#5 N.T.M.

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 21 June 2015 - 12:28 AM

It's weird that we need a debate on whether or not we are bumming the planet up. We clearly are doing something, here is a pic of a normal days air-traffic above Europe. That kind of thing is obviously going to have an effect.

The interesting thing is what will happen, unless our development is halted by a solar-storm or a nuclear war I have a gut feeling that technology might win out. In a century our descendants may well be busy taking the Solar system apart for constituent matter to build Matrioska brains and Dyson-spheres and this kind of thing will be as relevant to them as where exactly cave-men buried their crap is relevant to us.

I recently read Flood by Stephen Baxter, in that book some kind of climate disturbance caused an underwater reservoir the size of the Arctic ocean to empty it's content. But I don't think it will be that bad.

 

I know it's intuitive to attribute people for the climate change. CO2 has risen sharply over the past century. I don't think anybody's arguing over that point. The question, though, is whether it's causal or if the increased emissions just happen to coincide with a natural cycle. I'm leaning toward the former, but that's why I'm posting here. I'm not sure. 

 

I'm going to go over those two links once I get more time later tonight. And thank you to the two who posted them.



#6 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 02 August 2015 - 06:44 AM

To answer one of your questions, yes the earth has a history of warming and cooling cycles.  However, this current trend is entirely unnatural, it's out of "sync" and worse, it's happening way too fast on a geologic time scale.  One pithy century in deep time is so tiny that you cannot say "blink of an eye" because the upper eyelid wouldn't even have enough time to cross halfway over the eye before time was up.  

 

The speed of the change is what is the big problem for our planets flora and fauna, this quick pace in the alteration of their environments is what is really causing ecosystems to erode and collapse.  It's the same with gradual pollution; seems a long time to us, but to nature this is very quick and ecosystems have trouble coping.

 

 

 

 

  It's not normal and it's not okay.  This nonsense that it's not people that's causing it is just more anti-intellectualism.  We as a culture seem to love our conspiracies and love to be suspicious of any major institution (which includes the scientific community). 

 

But honestly, we can't stop it now.  That doesn't mean we can say "fuck it" and keep doing what we're doing, because we can still make it worse, but we can't undo what we've already done.

 


Edited by Duchykins, 02 August 2015 - 06:52 AM.

  • Good Point x 2

#7 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 02 August 2015 - 08:55 AM

This website is easy to read and comprehensive: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

 



#8 N.T.M.

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 04 August 2015 - 06:03 PM

To answer one of your questions, yes the earth has a history of warming and cooling cycles.  However, this current trend is entirely unnatural, it's out of "sync" and worse, it's happening way too fast on a geologic time scale.  One pithy century in deep time is so tiny that you cannot say "blink of an eye" because the upper eyelid wouldn't even have enough time to cross halfway over the eye before time was up.  

 

The speed of the change is what is the big problem for our planets flora and fauna, this quick pace in the alteration of their environments is what is really causing ecosystems to erode and collapse.  It's the same with gradual pollution; seems a long time to us, but to nature this is very quick and ecosystems have trouble coping.

 

 

 

 

  It's not normal and it's not okay.  This nonsense that it's not people that's causing it is just more anti-intellectualism.  We as a culture seem to love our conspiracies and love to be suspicious of any major institution (which includes the scientific community). 

 

But honestly, we can't stop it now.  That doesn't mean we can say "fuck it" and keep doing what we're doing, because we can still make it worse, but we can't undo what we've already done.

 

Yeah, this is pretty much the conclusion that my reading has led me to. The cultural penchant for conspiracies is an interesting point, too. Definitely something I've noticed.



#9 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 04 August 2015 - 06:17 PM

:cool:

 

Robert A. Freitas Jr., “Diamond Trees (Tropostats):  A Molecular Manufacturing Based System for Compositional Atmospheric Homeostasis,” IMM Report 43, 10 February 2010

Abstract. The future technology of molecular manufacturing will enable long-term sequestration
of atmospheric carbon in solid diamond products, along with sequestration of lesser masses of
numerous air pollutants, yielding pristine air worldwide ~30 years after implementation. A
global population of 143 x 10^9 20-kg “diamond trees” or tropostats, generating 28.6 TW of
thermally non-polluting solar power and covering ~0.1% of the planetary surface, can create and
actively maintain compositional atmospheric homeostasis as a key step toward achieving
comprehensive human control of Earth’s climate.

http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep043.pdf



#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 August 2015 - 01:42 AM

 

Robert A. Freitas Jr., “Diamond Trees (Tropostats):  A Molecular Manufacturing Based System for Compositional Atmospheric Homeostasis,” IMM Report 43, 10 February 2010

 

Abstract. The future technology of molecular manufacturing will enable long-term sequestration
of atmospheric carbon in solid diamond products, along with sequestration of lesser masses of
numerous air pollutants, yielding pristine air worldwide ~30 years after implementation. A
global population of 143 x 10^9 20-kg “diamond trees” or tropostats, generating 28.6 TW of
thermally non-polluting solar power and covering ~0.1% of the planetary surface, can create and
actively maintain compositional atmospheric homeostasis as a key step toward achieving
comprehensive human control of Earth’s climate.

 

This relies on technology that doesn't exist yet, and might never exist.  It would be phenomenally expensive to implement, were it ever possible; far more expensive than the simple solution of phasing out coal in favor of natural gas and renewables.  If you consider the value of the improvements in human, animal, and plant health from the elimination of coal pollution, the cost of phasing it out is probably negative.  In other words, phasing out coal is probably a net economic win for society.  Just not for the coal companies and their Charlie McCarthys in Congress.
 


  • Good Point x 1

#11 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 06 August 2015 - 07:44 AM

I know, hence the weird smiley-face. I'm a bit of a dreamer.



#12 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 13 August 2015 - 07:42 PM

The toughest part about reducing our impact on the environment/planet is that the focus of governments around the world is to promote "economic growth" (in the mold of 20th century industrialization). What did the Obama administration do when the financial crisis of 2008 hit? Borrowed money to prop up the housing market and build more "infrastructure" - which is horrible for the environment. All of the welfare programs around the world are rather ponzi-ish and rely upon new bodies/workers to support the exploding numbers of pensioners/retirees. It is all built upon the thought that the population will keep on expending forever. It is stupid. I am unsure how to turn the "stupid train" around. 



#13 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 14 August 2015 - 11:52 AM

At least, developing countries like China and India are quickly incrementing their number of nuclear power plants.



#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 August 2015 - 12:57 PM

The toughest part about reducing our impact on the environment/planet is that the focus of governments around the world is to promote "economic growth" (in the mold of 20th century industrialization). What did the Obama administration do when the financial crisis of 2008 hit? Borrowed money to prop up the housing market and build more "infrastructure" - which is horrible for the environment. All of the welfare programs around the world are rather ponzi-ish and rely upon new bodies/workers to support the exploding numbers of pensioners/retirees. It is all built upon the thought that the population will keep on expending forever. It is stupid. I am unsure how to turn the "stupid train" around. 

 

It takes a wealthy country to clean up the environment.  Needy countries have to get by on the cheap, and it's a lot cheaper to flood the sky with toxic pollutants than it is to clean them up.  If we hadn't stimulated the economy when it needed it, there would be a lot more people unemployed and we would be poorer.  That would have a lot of negative consequences for people.  China is a poorer country than us, and they can't afford (or don't want to spend the money on) the pollution controls that would clean up Beijing air, or regulations that would prevent a Tianjin warehouse from blowing up.



#15 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 14 August 2015 - 09:22 PM

 

The toughest part about reducing our impact on the environment/planet is that the focus of governments around the world is to promote "economic growth" (in the mold of 20th century industrialization). What did the Obama administration do when the financial crisis of 2008 hit? Borrowed money to prop up the housing market and build more "infrastructure" - which is horrible for the environment. All of the welfare programs around the world are rather ponzi-ish and rely upon new bodies/workers to support the exploding numbers of pensioners/retirees. It is all built upon the thought that the population will keep on expending forever. It is stupid. I am unsure how to turn the "stupid train" around. 

 

It takes a wealthy country to clean up the environment.  Needy countries have to get by on the cheap, and it's a lot cheaper to flood the sky with toxic pollutants than it is to clean them up.  If we hadn't stimulated the economy when it needed it, there would be a lot more people unemployed and we would be poorer.  That would have a lot of negative consequences for people.  China is a poorer country than us, and they can't afford (or don't want to spend the money on) the pollution controls that would clean up Beijing air, or regulations that would prevent a Tianjin warehouse from blowing up.

 

 

Point taken. I would just expound upon the point of being "poorer". There is a big difference between being poorer and not being able to afford 100 pairs of shoes, a new I-phone every six months, a 3rd car, boat, ATV, and a McMansion that is waaaay bigger than a 3-4 person family needs vs. starving, sick, and homeless.

 

IMO, after the 2008 crash, Americans could have, and should have downsized, and the environment would have benefited immensely, no one would have starved. Americans complained about losing their McMansions, and politicians acted as if it was the end of the world and delivered "stimulus". People care more about their gadgets than the environment. Politicians care more about votes than the environment. So the pollution continues.


  • Good Point x 1

#16 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,027 posts
  • 51
  • Location:Austria

Posted 15 August 2015 - 02:31 PM

Yes, thats all insane. I remember when Bush introduced his "America first" policy, like america was somewhere else and had nothing to do with the rest of the planet.

This year we had the highest temperatures ever meassured in Austria, three weeks with days over 30°C, something which happend for one or two days 20 years in the past, if ever.

I had to buy an AC a couple of years ago, but what will those poor people do who live in countries which are allready hot today?

We will have climate refugees very soon, which will also include those who will lose their home because of rising sealevels.

 

I hope we will be able to use Tritium Power Plants, until Fusion becomes a reality.

But until then we have to stop the emission of greenhouse gases before we rise the temperature  and create levels of steam which will drive the climate over the cliff and kill of a significant part of earths lifeforms.

 



#17 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 15 August 2015 - 11:02 PM

I hope we will be able to use Tritium Power Plants, until Fusion becomes a reality.

 

Huh?  What are tritium power plants?



#18 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,027 posts
  • 51
  • Location:Austria

Posted 16 August 2015 - 01:57 AM

Oh sorry, Iam a Moron!

It was very late and instead of writing Thorium, I wrote Tritium for some reason (possibly because, lately, I was thinking about the benefits and dangers of buying one of these little tritium keychain lights).



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#19 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 17 August 2015 - 10:42 PM

Ahhh, ok. It seems that uranium is currently too cheap to fund thorium reactors research, at least for private funding.


Edited by Antonio2014, 17 August 2015 - 10:48 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: global warming, climate change, emissions, co2

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users