The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
(4 votes)
Results 3,626 to 3,650 of 3678

  1. Post
    ^Yeah they were warm for sure. My old man would use that as the example to show “that it’s got that hot before so what are you worrying about?”. Any reasonable person who knows about statistics (he knows statistics, he’s just not reasonable) will show you that there are outliers beyond the average to both extremes in most datasets. That was a rare extreme, and it’s now not so rare because the average has moved towards the hotter temps.

  2. Post
    I do wish the CO2 charters would stop using Hawaii as an example. Many deniers refer to the fact that it is near a volcanic area, so of course it will be higher.

  3. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I do wish the CO2 charters would stop using Hawaii as an example. Many deniers refer to the fact that it is near a volcanic area, so of course it will be higher.
    Given that they have monitoring stations on those volcanoes, do you think these deniers believe that it can’t be easily subtracted? Also, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.

    Additionally, you can look at C12 to C13 ratios. In this graph we see atmospheric CO2 in black, is carbon isotopic composition in tan. The composition change correlates exactly with humans burning more fossil fuels. We release into the atmosphere a huge increase in the organic CO2 compounds in line with the industrial revolution and beyond. The ratio of isotopes is easily measurable and volcanic eruptions have a different signal to human induced CO2.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	755E6B35-B2A4-4894-A260-E213C139D863.jpeg 
Views:	51 
Size:	227.3 KB 
ID:	227001

  4. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    I was watching a thing about the Great Stink in London. I thought the temperatures were interesting:
    In June 1858 the temperatures in the shade in London averaged 34–36 °C (93–97 °F)—rising to 48 °C (118 °F) in the sun
    Should never really quote temps "in the sun" - its not the actual temperature, its like air temp + radiated heat. Also, the type of thermometer used can show different temps in the sun because they will absorb/reflect the radiated heat differently.

  5. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I do wish the CO2 charters would stop using Hawaii as an example. Many deniers refer to the fact that it is near a volcanic area, so of course it will be higher.
    You can buy CO2 monitoring equipment. My parents in law have one and shows over 400ppm up the Kapiti Coast. They mainly use it to monitor indoor CO2 (which can get quite high, well over 1000ppm at times), which I thought was a little over the top until I listened to this:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/progr...-health-hazard

  6. Post
    Bullion wrote:
    You can buy CO2 monitoring equipment. My parents in law have one and shows over 400ppm up the Kapiti Coast. They mainly use it to monitor indoor CO2 (which can get quite high, well over 1000ppm at times), which I thought was a little over the top until I listened to this:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/progr...-health-hazard
    Yeah, 1000ppm is not that rare, especially if you haven't got decent air circulation.

  7. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Given that they have monitoring stations on those volcanoes, do you think these deniers believe that it can’t be easily subtracted? Also, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.

    Additionally, you can look at C12 to C13 ratios. In this graph we see atmospheric CO2 in black, is carbon isotopic composition in tan. The composition change correlates exactly with humans burning more fossil fuels. We release into the atmosphere a huge increase in the organic CO2 compounds in line with the industrial revolution and beyond. The ratio of isotopes is easily measurable and volcanic eruptions have a different signal to human induced CO2.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	755E6B35-B2A4-4894-A260-E213C139D863.jpeg 
Views:	51 
Size:	227.3 KB 
ID:	227001
    Thanks for that.

    RE: Different isotopes of Carbon. That is what I understood.

    However, they can easily convince their blog readers, who will just accept it.

  8. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    However, they can easily convince their blog readers, who will just accept it.
    The people that are reading their blogs don’t believe the science anyway. There’s no persuading them, it’s not worth trying. It’s like trying to convince a person who still will vote for Trump that it’s a bad idea.

  9. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    believe the science
    I have a problem with the word believe, as it implies science is like a religion which is based on beliefs, as opposed to defining facts. I much prefer to use the words, like know facts or trust scientists, regarding scientific discussion.

  10. Post
    I can tell you that the moon is round, but you might still not believe it.

    You’re using one part of the definition of the word. People who refuse to accept the facts, or won’t believe you when you present them, are usually being wilfully ignorant. It doesn’t mean that the science is a religion.

  11. Post
    The issue with the internet is that it's easy to get sucked into echo chambers. If you aren't particularly well read up on climate change there a number of blogs and YouTube videos that appear to convincingly sow doubt over the facts. And lets be honest, what is an easier belief to come to terms with? That humans are causing a catastrophic shift in climate that could potentially be our undoing, or that it's all a farce and we can just continue on with business-as-usual.

  12. Post
    I can't wait to hear Mike Hosking and Duncan Garner start whining about them damn kids all over again when they strike again on September 27

  13. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    I can tell you that the moon is round, but you might still not believe it.

    You’re using one part of the definition of the word. People who refuse to accept the facts, or won’t believe you when you present them, are usually being wilfully ignorant. It doesn’t mean that the science is a religion.
    Well the moon is in fact egg shaped...

    I would argue around climate change there is an air of faith and religion. If you challenge something you are labelled a denier, a non-believer. In this thread when I pointed out the volcanic heat source thing in the Antarctic that is what happened.

  14. Post
    I like this argument: for those that make a claim, they need to provide the evidence.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	evidence.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	88.9 KB 
ID:	227005

    Generally when I hear about something I need to see evidence before I know it is true. But in the words of Naomi Klein: This changes everything. (BTW: A new book I picked up to read).
    The reason is climate change, including the fact that we have waited too long to address it, and the reality that nothing short of an ecological revolution will now do the job.
    So we are really entering uncharted waters (pun intended) here in more ways than one.

  15. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Well the moon is in fact egg shaped...

    I would argue around climate change there is an air of faith and religion. If you challenge something you are labelled a denier, a non-believer. In this thread when I pointed out the volcanic heat source thing in the Antarctic that is what happened.
    eggs are round

  16. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Well the moon is in fact egg shaped...

    I would argue around climate change there is an air of faith and religion. If you challenge something you are labelled a denier, a non-believer. In this thread when I pointed out the volcanic heat source thing in the Antarctic that is what happened.
    So I just went and checked, and the only person who challenged you was BradC, who, let’s face it, would call you out for whatever you said in almost any thread. You guys fought like little kids for years. Also, you weren’t talking about how the whole of climate change is linked to volcanic hotspots, so I think you’re strawmanning a little here.

  17. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    So I just went and checked, and the only person who challenged you was BradC, who, let’s face it, would call you out for whatever you said in almost any thread. You guys fought like little kids for years. Also, you weren’t talking about how the whole of climate change is linked to volcanic hotspots, so I think you’re strawmanning a little here.
    First off I'm not denying climate change or man made climate change.

    My observation is that a climate change is often attributed to things it sometimes has nothing to do with. If you challenge the claim then you are immediately labelled a denier. iirc I was pointing out some feral claims around that ice sheet melting due to climate change were subsequently linked to the volcanic activity.

    Same thing with the pacific islands. Tuvalu or one of them was screaming climate change murder, when I pointed out their issues had be attributed to the fact they were blowing up their reefs for building material I was jumped on.

    Maybe it was bradc again.

    Gneiss you are rational, but not everyone is. I will point these things out because they often continue to be incorrectly used to further other causes.

  18. Post
    All good man.

    Another thing to remember is that some people will post after seeing or reading something that someone else has attributed (rightly or wrongly) to climate change. You’re right, sometimes it’s incorrect for whatever reason (attention to a cause, funding from a govt. etc).

  19. Post
    Yeah it's probably all going to work out fine

  20. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    My observation is that a climate change is often attributed to things it sometimes has nothing to do with. If you challenge the claim then you are immediately labelled a denier..
    Often your only input is to discredit bogus effects of climate change, voice your skepticism, or simply whinge about environmentalists. It does leave an overall impression that you, at the very least, don't have much concern for the problem. Of course, that might not be true, it's just an impression.

    As to the above quote. If people are unwilling to accept new knowledge it is their loss. Anyone calling you a denier for pointing out verifiable facts is being irrational.

  21. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    Often your only input is to discredit bogus effects of climate change, voice your skepticism, or simply whinge about environmentalists.
    This makes the argument more congruent, it's VERY necessary.

    Without this type of person in our camp (our camp being people who don't deny human caused climate change as one of the biggest issues we face today), our argument(s) is prone to climate change deniers being able to nit pick and discredit our argument as a whole.

    We can't rely on false claims to curb climate change, that'll be picked apart instantly.
    The likes of Vulcan's position ensures our argument and angles are true and logical, and it removes some of the deniers teeth, with regards to them being able to discredit all of our climate change debate on the basis of just a couple of incorrect points.

    And it's like, we have so much proof now, we have so many angles to argue our position on climate change, we need to remove some of our less congruent angles and just focus on the best angles. The people who deny climate change are either very stupid or very cunning, they will jump on any small aspect that has any degree of inaccuracy.

  22. Post
    The issue is that we don't have time to deal with idiots.

    It's not really the sort of thing we can sit around and debate, if people want to deny the planet is rapidly decaying in front of our eyes then that's their problem,best not to worry about them too much and move forward with action.

    Unfortunately many of those 'deniers' are in a position of power and influence and want to keep the money rolling in until the very end.

  23. Post
    I'm curious about water desalination,

    I thought water desalination was a good way to make fresh water, but quite taxing on the environment ?
    As in,
    Climate change + dwindling resource = need for water desalination, but water desalination hurts the environment quite bad and thus causes more climate change?

  24. Post
    BattleCrap wrote:
    I'm curious about water desalination,

    I thought water desalination was a good way to make fresh water, but quite taxing on the environment ?
    As in,
    Climate change + dwindling resource = need for water desalination, but water desalination hurts the environment quite bad and thus causes more climate change?
    It's power hungry and creates a lot of waste brine, which isn't good for the local marine life. Desalination looks like a good technology on paper, but when you consider the volume of water we consume (residential, commercial, and agricultural) the scale is simply impracticable.

    It might be part of a solution, but it is certainly not something we can rely on, especially for agriculture. We are going to need to cut water usage drastically and let the aquifers replenish. No idea how we will do that mind you. Yet another problem we will face in coming decades.

    BattleCrap wrote:
    Without this type of person in our camp (our camp being people who don't deny human caused climate change as one of the biggest issues we face today), our argument(s) is prone to climate change deniers being able to nit pick and discredit our argument as a whole.

    We can't rely on false claims to curb climate change, that'll be picked apart instantly.
    The likes of Vulcan's position ensures our argument and angles are true and logical, and it removes some of the deniers teeth, with regards to them being able to discredit all of our climate change debate on the basis of just a couple of incorrect points.
    Yes, but one doesn't need to only voice scepticism to hold that position. I try to always stick to the facts. I have personal beliefs about climate change, such that it is happening, and will continue to happen, at a much faster pace than we currently believe - but I never present that as fact. There is nothing more damaging to the movement than saying things like "we are all going to go extinct in 10 years".

    I don't know Vulcan's full thoughts on this subject, but I don't think I've ever seen him voice serious concern for the issue or show support for, at least some, climate activism. It leaves an impression, is all.

  25. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    It's power hungry and creates a lot of waste brine, which isn't good for the local marine life. Desalination looks like a good technology on paper, but when you consider the volume of water we consume (residential, commercial, and agricultural) the scale is simply impracticable.

    It might be part of a solution, but it is certainly not something we can rely on, especially for agriculture. We are going to need to cut water usage drastically and let the aquifers replenish. No idea how we will do that mind you. Yet another problem we will face in coming decades.



    Yes, but one doesn't need to only voice scepticism to hold that position. I try to always stick to the facts. I have personal beliefs about climate change, such that it is happening, and will continue to happen, at a much faster pace than we currently believe - but I never present that as fact. There is nothing more damaging to the movement than saying things like "we are all going to go extinct in 10 years".

    I don't know Vulcan's full thoughts on this subject, but I don't think I've ever seen him voice serious concern for the issue or show support for, at least some, climate activism. It leaves an impression, is all.
    The most damaging thing to the movement is inaction. Which is exactly what's happening...

    Saying we're going to go extinct is not a good idea because people will argue that 'well SOME people will survive so therefore...' but really how are you possibly going to change anyones mind? You'll have to wait until Things Go Wrong and even then people will deny it(ie the flooding in the midwest US)