Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[rruff]

Bottom line is that if there is a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant right next to each other and you lived downwind from them, the coal power plant is far more likely to kill you than the nuclear power plant.

The bottom line is whether you'd rather live with coal, nuclear plus nuclear waste, or solar, wind, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, etc.

 

[rruff]

my university professor (who helped invent dram back in the day at ibm) said:
back when computers came out, they seemed to be about as useful for the average person as a space station is for an old lady

And they were. Because they were huge and expensive.

That isn't relative at all to the absurdity of "solar freakin roadways!". This is taking a technology that is barely viable in the best of circumstances, and putting it in an environment where it will never be viable. And for no good reason. There is nothing *gained* by putting them in roads, and there are a 1001 reasons not to.

I guess I'm learning why they were able to get so much press and funding.

 

[DinaAngel]

And they were. Because they were huge and expensive.

That isn't relative at all to the absurdity of "solar freakin roadways!". This is taking a technology that is barely viable in the best of circumstances, and putting it in an environment where it will never be viable. And for no good reason. There is nothing *gained* by putting them in roads, and there are a 1001 reasons not to.

I guess I'm learning why they were able to get so much press and funding.

Yeah its for good reasons we use black top. It's a waste product from oil refinerys.
and the whole point of the solar freaking roadways was to use waste product. It's so facepalm

 

[silkstone]

And they were. Because they were huge and expensive.

That isn't relative at all to the absurdity of "solar freakin roadways!". This is taking a technology that is barely viable in the best of circumstances, and putting it in an environment where it will never be viable. And for no good reason. There is nothing *gained* by putting them in roads, and there are a 1001 reasons not to.

I guess I'm learning why they were able to get so much press and funding.

That's the whole point. Even the most absurd ideas can yield positive results.
Hell even if they don't, it's promising that we are still coming up with these ideas. Even if the majority fail, a minority are likely to succeed and revolutionize the industry.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

That's the whole point. Even the most absurd ideas can yield positive results.
Hell even if they don't, it's promising that we are still coming up with these ideas. Even if the majority fail, a minority are likely to succeed and revolutionize the industry.

+1 innovation.

 

[SK-1]

http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml
Peer reviewed.....

Abstract
An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed "substantial confidence" that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting "expert assessment" for models' near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC's reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9 to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is 1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be < 1 K; and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause < 2.2 K global warming to equilibrium. Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even as far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections.

 

[Caring1]

Seeing as this article relates to climate data I thought I would post it here, instead of creating a new thread.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncom...-America-rose-FOUR-INCHES-just-two-years.html
Basically it shows an unprecedented increase in sea levels, that may become part of a future trend.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a climatic phenomenon in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of atmospheric pressure at sea level between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. Through fluctuations in the strength of the Icelandic low and the Azores high, it controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic. It is part of the Arctic oscillation, and varies over time with no particular periodicity

The NAO was discovered in the 1920s by Sir Gilbert Walker. Unlike the El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean, the NAO is a largely atmospheric mode. It is one of the most important manifestations of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic and surrounding humid climates.

Winter index of the NAO based on the difference of normalized sea level pressure (SLP) between Lisbon, Portugal and Stykkisholmur/Reykjavík, Icelandsince 1864, with a five year moving average (black)


Interesting, i reckon.

 

[SK-1]

More interesting is the apparent fact the North Atlantic ocean started in 1860.

 

[DinaAngel]

Just calculate how much ice there's on Greenland and convert ice to water in liters and compare to current ocean volume in liters. Ud be suprised


Some places on Greenland the ice is 4km thick. And all of Greenland is freshwater ice. And freshwater is lighter than saltwater so it would go on top


Greenland might be bare land in 20 years with the insane melting ongoing that goes faster and faster.

I still laugh thinking denmark owns it. I'm looking forward seeing them start building city's When most of denmark will be underwater. Greenland will be not submerged. The sea levels was once 300 meters taller but I think we will see 30 meters globally. Since some water went to the core of earth and dragged under continental plates

 

[DinaAngel]

1 thing that people keep forgetting is that more sea levels will pop vulcanos like pimples or zits.

In example norway some places the terrain goes up by 2 cm per year because of the ice weight from last ice age 10 000 years ago. Also USA is doomed if Yellowstone goes off. literally next ice age would start a year after the vulcano went off. Since north of earth would be covered in ash that reflect 100% light For 8 months if not more. That could become minus 80 Celsius on average to 127 as 127 minus is max for a planet generally without a sun in space

 

[DinaAngel]

Apparently sea levels will vary due to the moon's mass. So 20 meter sea levels globally was incorrect to the current science model. But for all we know it might be 5 meter globally. Biggest impact will be south of equator. In Norway there will be 2 meter max on current model

 

[dorsetknob]

Must be a slow day in Norway for you to keep resurrecting this old thread

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I know its "only" Florida but this is quite good

http://cegis.usgs.gov/video/30m/FloridaSLR.swf

press the play button.

@dorsetknob its a slow day everywhere if you havent got GTA V

 

[Bansaku]

Since the time Earth was able to support life, the average temperature for hundreds of millions of years has been 24'C. At an average temperature of just over 14'C, we are technically still in the end of the last ice age. People freak out when the glaciers melt but ya know what, they aren't supposed to be here. Climate change is very real, been a constant since this planet was formed. To think mankind can play a role in expediting the process is lunacy. Mother Earth just laughs at us.

Waste of time, resources, money, and common sense. CO2 is now the new 'God'; invisible, all around us, and can be brought under control with mere coin. Ya....

 

[FordGT90Concept]

To think mankind can play a role in expediting the process is lunacy.

CFCs put a massive whole in the ozone layer; dams, deforestation, and hunting have killed off numerous species of animals; and the landscape of the planet has forever been altered by mankind (e.g. open pit mines and cities of steel). Even if the human contribution to the atmosphere is small compared to natural processes, it is still undeniably a contribution that wouldn't be there now in the absence of humanity.

If you look outside your nearest window right now, you'll likely see some kind of infrastructure like a road. That wasn't there 1000 years ago. In that time, that road, by itself, may have contributed to climate change depending on the albedo if it. All of the plant life that used to live there was also killed which means less CO2 processed on an annual basis. We also can't forget all the animals and insects that called it home or relied on it for sustenance. The butterfly effect is very applicable here--on a massive scale when you consider how much of the planet humanity has turned into a concrete jungle over the last 100 years.

To declare mankind having no effect on climate is ignorance. If you want a direct example: there was a link a while back that showed that large wind farms affect atmospheric temperature which may lead to changes in weather and thus, climate.

 

[SK-1]

Every person on this planet can fit on the island of Maui. Overpopulation lol. This planet can recover from what ever we can throw at it.

 

[dorsetknob]

Methane is a greenhouse gas
Anyone know how much natural methane humans contribute to the ecosphere each day ?

reason i ask is i just ripped a smelly snorter

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Less than the methane cattle put out...which we eat. They're bonafide farting machines.

 

[MrGenius]

Like any of this really matters. Let me tell you something about the absence of humanity. In the grander scheme of things, there's nothing we could ever do to make any lasting effect on this planet. Humans will go extinct. In a couple million years, all traces of mankind will have vanished from existence. We won't last an entire blink of the cosmic eye. Here today, gone tomorrow. And who cares? Do you think the Earth cares if we live or die? Long after we're gone the Earth will continue to recycle all the landmasses through tectonics. The climate will continue do whatever it will do whether we're here or not. The "environment" in total will eventually be effectively recycled/repurposed/reused beyond what's imaginable to us. Talking about the "environment" like it's something that's possibly sustainable, manageable, or something we can have any long term effect on is a joke. Nature's got it in for all of us, actually, including itself. Everything's on its way out, one way or another, and there's not a thing that can be done about it. Nothing ever stays the same. Things will always become more disordered and chaotic. Entropy always increases, it's the law(of thermodynamics). So the entire Universe eventually goes to shit whether you like it or not. It's all just gonna end up in one big supermassive black hole in the end anyway.

 

[dorsetknob]

Methane and the human effect on global warming

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I posted this pic a few weeks ago on this thread and noone ran with it...cows have got a lot to answer to.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Overall, just over 60 per cent of Americans believe global warming is taking place and nearly half blame humans

Here is a Yale University study as reported by GB press with interactive stuff to click on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...reveals-spread-opinion-climate-change-US.html

 

[dorsetknob]

Unfortunately there is little that the First World Countries can Do about Global warming.
They Can Warn Encourage ect BUT its the Third word Countries in the end that MATTER
My Thoughts and Reasons for that Statement are as follows

ACTION on Global Warming Costs Money and resources
....................................and..............................................................
While the First world Countries have a standard of living that the Second world and especially the THIRD WORLD aspire to They The Second and especially the THIRD WORLD will Industrialise their Infrastructure as cheaply as they can to achieve the same or similer standard of living.
It Does not Matter one carbon unit what the west does if China India Pakistan ect are burning Dirty Coal and Oil to fuel Third world to FUEL ECONOMIC INDUSTRIALIZATION
This Desire for a Western first world standard of living. also DRIVES economic MIGRATION as seen by Europe via Africa and the USA via Central America

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If memory serves, that's only about 7% higher than it was a decade ago. Gallup is probably a better source anyway:

Those numbers closely match Democrat/Independent/Republican figures. Conservatives won't respond to a threat unless it's a barrel pointing in their face; on the other hand, liberals tend to be more open-minded on environmental matters. 2013 data but still makes the point:

And while we're looking at polls, here is a related, recent one:

Oh, and looky there, another poll that specifically looks at political affiliation and how imminent the threat of global warming is.


Morale of the story: those numbers aren't going to change much more. Most people have went to their respective corners and aren't going to leave.