Global Climate Change Science News

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 13841
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Forty Two » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:48 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:26 am
On RD forum Seth claimed he did not have health care but never needed it as he had enough money to pay for it. He also said government should pay for nothing everything should be left to individual. Even building roads. Everyone would be responsible for his bit of road. He had really crazy ideas. Everyone would be his own law officer.
He was totally mad.
Good thing he's been gotten rid of. Can't have someone on discussion forum involving topics of politics, news, government ,current events, history, philosophy, law, religion, comedy, jokes, sports, theater, music, arts, entertainment, general serious discussions, general non-serious discussions, and the like, saying things that are rather politically unusual and significantly out of the mainstream of thought. That just ruins the discussions, those pesky differences of opinion.
"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." Friedrich Von Hayek.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 9877
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:56 pm

You have to admit it's a strange idea. How long before I can just grow a steak in the fridge at home? How fast can you grow steak? Can I grow a steak with different flavors?
shut up

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 13841
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Forty Two » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:58 pm

Alan B wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:35 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:01 pm
My position has been for some time that the solution to the causes of climate change is technology and science.
I see. Then the projected extra 3.4 billion population by the end of the century will have no effect?
oh, absolutely - an extra 3.4 billion people will have a significant impact on a lot of things. Heck, just the burping and farting alone will produce about 1 to 2 billion liters of methane into the atmosphere PER DAY (a percentage of the total gas emitted by a human per day).

Cows burp and fart way more than us - they are at 100 to 400 liters of methane per day per cow. Humans burp and fart around 0.5 to 2 liters per day each (and about 10% of that is methane). Cows produce about 1000 times more methane than humans. So, they are a bigger factor.

And methane is about 20x more effective at greenhouse effect than Carbon Dioxide.

That's just the methane from humans - those 3.4 billion humans will also need to live in places, drink the water, travel, drive cars, fly, eat, drink, have clothing and the like. That's a massive amount of activity.

Through ice core analysis, scientists think they can track Roman lead pollution, and human silver smelting, over the centuries. So.... I would never deny that humans have an impact or effect.

What are you on about? Does that mean that technology and science can offer no solution? You want a good solution - there are probably many - but, if we good do away with most fossil fuel use in exchange for the use of nuclear power, and if we can eliminate all cattle ranching and such activiities, wouldn't that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." Friedrich Von Hayek.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 13841
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Forty Two » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:59 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:56 pm
You have to admit it's a strange idea. How long before I can just grow a steak in the fridge at home? How fast can you grow steak? Can I grow a steak with different flavors?
That's the reason I brought it up. Interesting new tech to talk about. I love the idea. The concept is phenomenal. And it is a boon to science - all the things people complain about when it comes to meat - justifiable complaints -- cruelty to animals, unnecessary suffering, greenhouse gasses.... a technolgoiical solution that could both decrease those downsides, AND feed humans on a vast scale.
"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." Friedrich Von Hayek.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 47781
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:47 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:56 pm
You have to admit it's a strange idea. How long before I can just grow a steak in the fridge at home? How fast can you grow steak? Can I grow a steak with different flavors?
I want bbq flavoured steak.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 3692
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The River of Blood
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seabass » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:10 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:40 pm
Seabass wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:36 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:01 pm
My position has been for some time that the solution to the causes of climate change is technology and science.
Sweet mother of god. :fp: :quintuplefacepalm:

What, like reducing our reliance on oil and "beautiful, clean coal" in favor of solar, wind, and various other clean energy sources?
That could be part of the plan, sure. Mainly, though, any thinking person looking at the issue would lean more toward nuclear power as the answer, because the power needs are just too great to be solvable in the near term with solar and wind.

However, one of the bigger greenhouse gas outputs is cattle. That's quite well accepted, and that's one of the reasons why the green movement is giving to have folks become vegetarians or vegans - because if we didn't have the cattle we do, that would be a significant reduction in greenhouse gasses. Do you dispute that?
Of course not.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:40 pm
Seabass wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:36 pm

The cognitive dissonance that you are capable of is truly fucking extraordinary.
You obviously don't know what cognitive dissonance means.
D'oh! That's fair. Well, I know what it means, but I did use it incorrectly. I should have said "logical inconsistency".
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:40 pm
Seabass wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:36 pm

Your actual position is that the solution to climate change is technology and science... that those evil, far-left, socialist, Marxist, communist Democrats have not yet publicly supported.
I was stating my position. I welcome anyone to agree with it, even communists.
But it's obviously not your position. If it were, you wouldn't be a Trump supporter or a Republican.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:40 pm
Seabass wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:36 pm

Blinded by partisanship. Jesus. Reminds me of the time Craig T. Nelson said "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No."
What in the world was partisan? It looks like you're blinded by partisanship, because you can't even look at a post about climate change, which presents a new technological advancement and discusses how that might be a significant impact on the gas emissions without thinking that you or some group you "identify" with has been attacked. You haven't been.
YOU are partisan. If you actually believed the scientific consensus on climate change, you'd vote Democrat or Green, or at the very least, you wouldn't support a scientifically illiterate president who has called climate change a "Chinese hoax". Then, out of nowhere, you state that you have long held the position that the solution to climate change is technology and science. Get the fuck outta here with that shit. Clearly, you hate Democrats and liberals so much that rather than admit that they are better for the planet than your tribe, you stick with the anti-science Republicans and perform all sorts of crazy mental gymnastics to convince yourself and others that a non-climate-denier can support Trump and his party. It's fucking mental.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:40 pm
If you agree that manufacturing meat could be a good way to reduce cattle ranching, and thereby help reduce the emissions caused by that industry, then we agree. Good!
I'm in favor of everything that works.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:40 pm
I also think alternative energy sources are good ideas. My preference is nuclear, because of the megawattage that it can produce in comparison to other choices. Nuclear is among the greenest of energies, without the downsides of solar and wind. Nuclear has its own risk and downsides, of course, but on balance that's my preference.

So, what are the inconsistent thoughts or ideas that you think I have? I'll wait.
a. You claim to hold the position that technology and science will solve climate change.
b. You vote Republican and support the most anti-science president in US history.
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”

User avatar
Woodbutcher
Stray Cat
Stray Cat
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:54 pm
About me: Still crazy after all these years.
Location: Northern Muskeg, The Great White North
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Woodbutcher » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:33 am

Nuclear for back-up, develop alternates, solar, geothermal, hydro, wind, what have you. But place the nuclear generating stations in big cities to make sure safety is utmost. Limit population growth. Soylent green comes to mind. Invest heavily in education. Ship people to Mars and Venus as in "The Marching Morons".
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.-Red Green
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 3692
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The River of Blood
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seabass » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:56 am

Woodbutcher wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:33 am
Ship people to Mars and Venus as in "The Marching Morons".
Can we start with Trump worshippers? :ask:
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 3692
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The River of Blood
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seabass » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:57 am

Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 3692
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The River of Blood
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seabass » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:20 am

More climate alarmism from the Democrat shills over at the the far-left Wired magazine. :cranky:
THE RACE TO UNDERSTAND ANTARCTICA’S MOST TERRIFYING GLACIER

Yet within the small community of people who study ice for a living, Thwaites has long been the subject of dark speculation. If this mysterious glacier were to “go bad”—glaciologist-­speak for the process by which a glacier breaks down into icebergs and eventually collapses into the ocean—it might be more than a scientific curiosity. Indeed, it might be the kind of event that changes the course of civilization.

In December 2008, a Penn State scientist named Sridhar Anandakrishnan and five of his colleagues made the epic journey to Thwaites, two days from McMurdo by plane, tractor, and snowmobile. All glaciers flow, but satellites and airborne radar missions had revealed that something worrisome was happening on Thwaites: The glacier was destabilizing, dumping ever more ice into the sea. On color-coded maps of the region, its flow rate went from stable blue to raise-the-alarms red. As Anandakrishnan puts it, “Thwaites started to pop.”
Meanwhile, the satellite maps kept getting redder and redder. In 2014, Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA, concluded that Thwaites was entering a state of “unstoppable” collapse. Even worse, scientists were starting to think that its demise could trigger a larger catastrophe in West Antarctica, the way a rotting support beam might lead to the toppling not only of a wall but of an entire house. Already, Thwaites’ losses were responsible for about 4 percent of global sea-level rise every year. When the entire glacier went, the seas would likely rise by a few feet; when the glaciers around it did, too, the seas might rise by more than a dozen feet. And when that happened, well, goodbye, Miami; goodbye, Boston.
“If Thwaites behaves itself, and we only get a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 under a high-emissions scenario, a meter is a big deal,” Alley said. It would be painful, but humanity could adapt by building floodgates and sea walls, rethinking patterns of real estate development, and retreating from vulnerable shorelines. But what Thwaites and the glaciers around it have in store could be much more significant. “You have to think in terms of maybe 3 feet, but maybe 10 or 15,” Alley said. Maybe 15 feet. In that scenario, the Jefferson Memorial and Fenway Park would be underwater, and the Googleplex would become an archipelago. Outside the US, the damage would be incalculable. Shanghai, Lagos, Mumbai, Jakarta—all would flood or drown.
“But whether geoengineering works or not—and that’s a separate question—it doesn’t address the effects of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere,” he told me. “And that’s what is raising temperatures, melting glaciers, acidifying the ocean, and changing weather patterns around the earth.”
full article:
https://www.wired.com/story/antarctica- ... ing-point/
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 25511
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Tero » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:01 am

”But CO2 is only 300ppm. It can’t do all that.”
”There is no greenhouse effect.”
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Alan B
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:53 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Alan B » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:44 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:58 pm
What are you on about? Does that mean that technology and science can offer no solution? You want a good solution - there are probably many - but, if we good do away with most fossil fuel use in exchange for the use of nuclear power, and if we can eliminate all cattle ranching and such activiities, wouldn't that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Of course science & technology can maybe offer a solution. But, as yet, there is no guarantee that that will be the case. There is no doubt that there will be amazing technology invented based on science that we have not yet discovered. But that could be just 'whistling in the wind' as far as combating GHG emissions is concerned.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, I assume you mean nuclear fission. That is not a 'clean' energy source. Radioactive waste must be safely stored for up to hundreds of thousands of years. Then there is the de-commissioning of worn-out plants every 50 or so years ( :dunno: ) again with safe storage of dangerous parts for perhaps millennia.

Now, if nuclear fusion comes on line (again, there is no guarantee that it will, although results from Japan look promising), then that could change the whole story with regard to nuclear power.

Of course, eliminating "all cattle ranching and such activities" would reduce GHG. But I assume you realise that 'such activities' must also include rice - a major food source and a major source of methane?

The Human Race is in a situation where it is shitting all over the floor, then 'science & technology' comes along and says:
"Here's a bucket, you can use that."
"What happens when it is full?"
"We will empty it."
"Suppose where you empty it becomes full. What then?"
"Erm..."

While the Human Race continues to reproduce above the Death Rate, any attempts by 'science & technology' to alleviate or combat the harmful products of our activities could well be 'on a hiding to nothing'. A case of diminishing returns.

Figures given here show a factor of about 2.38 more births than deaths for this year...
The reported drop in fertility in Japan is just a drop in the ocean and has no bearing on the overall world population growth - in case someone mentions it.

This is the only planet we have. There is no other planet that we could expand into and continue polluting.
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power - Eric Hoffer.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer proof nor do I have to determine absence of proof because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 10248
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:35 pm

Birth rate should always be connected to consumption.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 19374
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Hermit » Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:04 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:35 pm
Birth rate should always be connected to consumption.
Consumption has decreased by 90% in Europe since almost a quarter of all deaths were due to it in the 1800s. Three main reasons for the reduction are pasteurisation of milk, inoculation and antibiotics. :prof:

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 10248
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:53 am

What I mean the consumption by a first world person of earth's resources compared to that of a third world person.
Any increase in first world birthrate is a far bigger disaster.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests