Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread
  • cockbeard wrote:
    You're throwing a proof at me, not offering me any form of solution for a problem that may or may not exist
    Eh? 

    Well, erm....what? 

    The temperature's going up. 
    This is very likely to be attributable to humans. 
    There are a number of solutions we can implement to stop us doing any more harm, but there's a possibility that it might already be too late, even if we can restructure things sufficiently quickly. Surely, you don't want me to start listing the ways you can be greener?
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    cockbeard wrote:
    Longer term than the bit of space the solar system is traveling through? I doubt that, it takes something like 250million years for the solar system to orbit the milky way, and the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so we've only performed 18 orbits and I think a third of those predate photosynthesis

    Presumably we have data on the temperature of space? I'd be very surprised if none of the satellites whizzing around above us are fitted with a thermometer.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • cockbeard wrote:
    Longer term than the bit of space the solar system is traveling through? I doubt that, it takes something like 250million years for the solar system to orbit the milky way, and the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so we've only performed 18 orbits and I think a third of those predate photosynthesis

    If you want a correlation between two points, the last time was around the period of the Permian extinction event.

    The time before that was end Edicarian.

    But that's just a curiosity.
    .
  • Guyz "Hot Space" is where it is at for 2015. Be assured.
  • Yossarian wrote:
    cockbeard wrote:
    Longer term than the bit of space the solar system is traveling through? I doubt that, it takes something like 250million years for the solar system to orbit the milky way, and the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so we've only performed 18 orbits and I think a third of those predate photosynthesis

    Presumably we have data on the temperature of space? I'd be very surprised if none of the satellites whizzing around above us are fitted with a thermometer.

    Temperature of space is about 3 Kelvin.

    Definitely a candidate for global warming.
    .
  • cockbeard
    Show networks
    Facebook
    ben.usaf
    Twitter
    @cockbeard
    PSN
    c_ckbeard
    Steam
    cockbeard

    Send message
    Hahahaha, really, then maybe hot space is the answer

    @ the extinction "coincidences"
    "I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    This is the problem with the fanaticism.
    There are no other answers right? I mean, how could there be?

    This isn't fanaticism, it's science. There can be other answers if they can be supported by evidence. So far, no other theories can.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • But if local space was 5 Kelvin we'd be 2 Kelvin hotter. Maths.
  • cockbeard
    Show networks
    Facebook
    ben.usaf
    Twitter
    @cockbeard
    PSN
    c_ckbeard
    Steam
    cockbeard

    Send message
    If local space were only 3.1 kelvin we'd be around 3% warmer that's a lot
    "I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
  • I'm calling Poe's Law
    .
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    This is the problem with the fanaticism. There are no other answers right? I mean, how could there be?
    This isn't fanaticism, it's science. There can be other answers if they can be supported by evidence. So far, no other theories can.
      

    ... 


    Lord_Griff wrote:
    But if local space was 5 Kelvin we'd be 2 Kelvin hotter. Maths.

    cockbeard wrote:
    If local space were only 3.1 kelvin we'd be around 3% warmer that's a lot

    See, this is essentially the argument in favour of, inverted...

    Me?

    I did wonder about our elliptical obit around the sun, the variance in distance between our location and the sun at particular points in time (past, present and future), the birthrate exponent, it's impact on farming and, if the globe really is heating up as drastically as suggest, then what happens to the evaporated water...

    Starting points, they are.

    I mean, moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing to do. 
    They're limited, innit? And they stink like shit. There's a health risk there worth addressing.

    Monkey's right, doing all the 'green' ('green'? Wtf?) stuff is very worthwhile...
    Industrialised conservatism, isn't it?...

    But if the 'scientific' community make a better effort to compare the effects of our industrialised Co2 output on climate change, to the points (or at least something like those points) raised in my first paragraph, and then I'll be able to take the majority view more seriously.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • I'm a bit upset about this when I shouldn't be.

    Dyno. It is really up to you to substantiate your contrarian view on climate change. This is the view of almost all climate scientists, the (surely undisputed?) experts in the field:


    - Climate change is happening
    - It is happening very quickly
    - A major reason for the rapidity of change and the severity of change is humans

    Without even going into the potential outcomes, which of these points do you dispute, and on what basis / what alternatives for the observed data do you have?

    It's that simple. Nothing to do with dogma, fanaticism, or bullshit articles in economy magazines. Just simple discussion. Please can you address this before continuing so we can have a constructive discussion?
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif

    You see, I'm still waiting for someone to explain this chart.

    Is the data fake?

    I'd say it's a good starting point to explore both sides of the argument...
    It looks like there's a correlate there. A pattern too possibly...

    There's a steady rise there, but where's the explanation for the fall? Were we planting more trees, or something? And what of the blantant spikes? There will surely be some explanation for those. 

    What's wrong with wanting to know more?
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • The data shows clear, fast warming, and a decade-long hold at the higher temperature.

    What do you want explained exactly?
  • Seems pretty clear to me - Google "Temperature anomaly" and it should be obvious why it being above 0.0 for so long is a bad thing.
  • Whoa, there's 4.2 billion more people now than in 1960. The average human generates 178 watts of energy (8 hours at 80 watts, 14 hours at 116 watts and 2 hours at 1000 watts). So that's like 6.5x10^16 joules per day extra!!!!! The SHC of air is about 1,000 joules/Kg degree(C) and the atmosphere weighs c5.15x10^18 Kg sooooo you know what that means!!!!!
  • I mean there are plenty of scholarly hypotheses that cover the apparent slowing of warming (the high hold of the last decade), none of which unfortunately suggest that "ah it's ok after all". The one with most traction is heat absorption by the ocean, resulting in higher oceanic temperatures with large-scale eco effects

    All of this is easily available information. What is your alternative hypothesis? "We've moved further from the sun"?
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Funkstain wrote:
    I mean there are plenty of scholarly hypotheses that cover the apparent slowing of warming (the high hold of the last decade), none of which unfortunately suggest that "ah it's ok after all". The one with most traction is heat absorption by the ocean, resulting in higher oceanic temperatures with large-scale eco effects

    All of this is easily available information. What is your alternative hypothesis? "We've moved further from the sun"?

    Depends. Do you have a sociologist to put forward that view? If so, Dyno'll probably take it at face value.

    Here: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • the 'scientific' community

    I don't know what those apostrophes are there for. You're talking about a body of professional scientists, educated for circa 6-7 years in their respective fields before they're even allowed in to the club, and then doing the job day in, day out for however many years. You're one bloke who's been typing things into Google for an hour or two. 

    We're all drawing out evidence from Google I presume anyway, a company known for intentionally corrupting its search results, with an opaque formula for producing them and that has given money to and lobbied politicians to deny climate change.
  • Guys, back to "Hot Space", the population increase looks like it can account for a temperature increase of about 1 ten thousands of a degree over the last 40 years, so in that respect it is not sheer weight of humans that doing it.... Phew
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    Depends. Do you have a sociologist to put forward that view? If so, Dyno'll probably take it at face value.

    Keep it up, mate...

    Also glad to see that after a lonely start, I don't appear to be the only one who's a little weary of the fanfare.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Lord_Griff wrote:
    Guys, back to "Hot Space", the population increase looks like it can account for a temperature increase of about 1 ten thousands of a degree over the last 40 years, so in that respect it is not sheer weight of humans that doing it.... Phew

    Do they all drive, Griff?
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • Shit, didn't think about that. My hypothesis was that Earth was like a big room where an orgy was happ'ning and 4.2 billion unwanted guests turn up. I hadn't factored in how those guests got to the fuck party.
  • That's not a constructive response to my questions.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    Depends. Do you have a sociologist to put forward that view? If so, Dyno'll probably take it at face value.

    Keep it up, mate...

    If you're going to reference economists to support your view, you should expect a bit of piss taking.

    No response to the referenced, scholarly article from a respected scientific journal explaining the likely cause of the pause?
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • I quote myself for clarity:
    Funkstain wrote:
    - Climate change is happening 
    - It is happening very quickly
    - A major reason for the rapidity of change and the severity of change is humans

    Without even going into the potential outcomes, which of these points do you dispute, and on what basis / what alternatives for the observed data do you have? It's that simple. Nothing to do with dogma, fanaticism, or bullshit articles in economy magazines. Just simple discussion. Please can you address this before continuing so we can have a constructive discussion?
  • cockbeard
    Show networks
    Facebook
    ben.usaf
    Twitter
    @cockbeard
    PSN
    c_ckbeard
    Steam
    cockbeard

    Send message
    Lord_Griff wrote:
    Whoa, there's 4.2 billion more people now than in 1960. The average human generates 178 watts of energy (8 hours at 80 watts, 14 hours at 116 watts and 2 hours at 1000 watts). So that's like 6.5x10^16 joules per day extra!!!!! The SHC of air is about 1,000 joules/Kg degree(C) and the atmosphere weighs c5.15x10^18 Kg sooooo you know what that means!!!!!

    What are you doing for only two hours a day that is so energetic?
    "I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    Depends. Do you have a sociologist to put forward that view? If so, Dyno'll probably take it at face value.
    Keep it up, mate...
    If you're going to reference economists to support your view, you should expect a bit of piss taking. No response to the referenced, scholarly article from a respected scientific journal explaining the likely cause of the pause?

    Not yet. No.

    Better than just claiming there is an answer though, right?
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Not even close.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • cockbeard
    Show networks
    Facebook
    ben.usaf
    Twitter
    @cockbeard
    PSN
    c_ckbeard
    Steam
    cockbeard

    Send message
    That's right guys, spend energy arguing about it rather than looking at fixes. Damn it guys, think about Mr B, he lives on a tiny island on the edge of the biggest sea mass and a tectonic plate. I hope (and expect) he has a penthouse apartment as when Tokey becomes NuTechVenice he won't need scuba gear to get to his bedroom
    "I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!