The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
(4 votes)
Results 3,201 to 3,225 of 3439

  1. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    !?!?!?!?

    It is not a belief, that makes it seems like it is a religion, which it is not. It is science, which is analysis and developing hypothesis and scientific theories as to why, when , where and what.
    wat ur saying is 100% right, and from those hypothesis and they would need to collect data, and prove that there is a correlation that is statically significant to show this isnt just happening due to chance or have no direct correlation but have same trend at the time. has this happened already and i didnt hear about it?

    ps. once again, IM ON UR GUYS SIDE

  2. Post
    bombjack wrote:
    has this happened already and i didnt hear about it?
    Yep ... Gniess will have a link.
    bombjack wrote:
    my part but im still trying to see the point of this protest.im still trying to see the point of this protest.
    Because they feel that not enough will be done in the next 10 years and their own futures will be in danger.

  3. Post
    how does the protest fix the problem though. we've already established that 99% of the population (maybe a bit overestimated) are already aware of the problem, and the politicians are doing wat they can for now.. all i said initially was i dont see some kids protesting is going to change anything and i still dont see any reply that says wat they will actually achieve today. i would rather have some guy going over all the evidence once more on media to try convince more people to support the politicians who will make a change. rather than taking up time on our news showing some kids holding up signs their schools who ordered their parents to make for them.


  4. Post
    Oh and a bonus “the climate has always changed, this is just part of a normal cycle, right?” video

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k5_zpjerQFo

  5. Post
    thanks for the links, man watching 1 suggested/related video after another time passes so fast :O

    all the facts in the videos are the ones ive learnt in high school science classes and i still agree.

    but for climate change, i think its more involved than other arguments...

    something like anti vaxxers - there are plenty of studies out there with "n" number of ppl and comparing the proportion of ppl getting autism looking at group 1 with vaccination and group 2 with no vaccination and they can say there is no correlation and that conclusion is statistically significant meaning the only 2 variables they were looking at (vaccination vs no vaccination), while having all/most of the other factors as constant as possible, are the factors that are correlated (in this case there is no correlation). 1 study initially might have set off the antivaxx campaign but all the peer review studies couldnt come up with the same conclusion

    or flat earth argument - i dunno why ppl think the earth is flat when we have the view from space showing the earth is a sphere ^_^;;; but there are scientific arguments with gravity pulling everything towards the center of gravity which will make collection of dust while forming planets will make a sphere etc etc. unless someone can prove something different with how gravity works, its going to be hard to argue against it.

    but when we come to climate change when its multi factorial. its impossible to conduct a study with just 2 variables, there is no formula out there that calculates how much of this is due to humans and how much of it is just the natural cycle, other factors that we know of like the suns activity, our distance to the sun etc, or factors we may not even know of yet. the information i gather seem to suggest there is a trend, the BEST educated GUESS is that its because of human activity and here are some trends or graphs to show some correlation. i dont know if its because i havent done enough research or if theres no information out there but the "evidence" they present us seem to be TRENDS more than anything. but still, i feel the evidence they present us is way more compelling than the climate change deniers arguments so i am on the man made climate change side. i feel its good to listen to both sides rather than just dismissing them and calling them names.

    i dunno why we're even talking about all this though lol! i just dropped in here initially asking ppl what the school kids protest is going to achieve, and i still think this time next week, we would have forgotten all about the protest and the only thing this wouldve achieved is kids missing out on 1 school day for nothing. i really want to see a solution that is actually achievable, and not some "ideal" plan. i think ppl like alexandria ocazio cortez with her naive green new plan etc really hurts the climate change argument and would make ppl move towards anti climate change.

  6. Post
    bombjack wrote:
    but when we come to climate change when its multi factorial. its impossible to conduct a study with just 2 variables, there is no formula out there that calculates how much of this is due to humans and how much of it is just the natural cycle, other factors that we know of like the suns activity, our distance to the sun etc, or factors we may not even know of yet. the information i gather seem to suggest there is a trend, the BEST educated GUESS is that its because of human activity and here are some trends or graphs to show some correlation. i dont know if its because i havent done enough research or if theres no information out there but the "evidence" they present us seem to be TRENDS more than anything. but still, i feel the evidence they present us is way more compelling than the climate change deniers arguments so i am on the man made climate change side. i feel its good to listen to both sides rather than just dismissing them and calling them names.
    Have a read of this little thread and read the links. https://twitter.com/khayhoe/status/1...659865090?s=21

  7. Post
    bradc wrote:
    How do you look in a flax skirt?
    Like a guy in a flax skirt with a shotgun.

  8. Post
    bombjack wrote:
    dont u think theyre doing everything they can right now? climate change is one of the biggest selling points for all politicians right now, they know if they dont please the people, their head is on a chopping board in the next election. its not like they have a solution right now but theyre not using it until they have a school kids protesting it or anything. do u have a plan on how to get negative carbon footprint? i know its possible but it costs too much right now, explain to me wat u think we can be doing right now and who and how we're going to pay for everything..

    i dunno, it just looks to me like a "i did something in the name of xxx but the next day everyone forgot about it to move onto the next thing" kinda thing.
    No I don't believe politicians are doing everything they can right now to stop climate change.

  9. Post
    An article for Vulcan about grid load from EVs

    https://climatecrocks.com/2019/03/14...ready-for-evs/

    Vulcan wrote:
    I doubt we will get the venus effect, maybe gneiss can comment on this but I think we are relatively cool right now compared to earths overall climate range over the past few hundred million years.
    As for Venus-like, no we probably wonít get there as humans will be extinct before we do. Simply put though, if we somehow survive, and continued to add the greenhouse gases that we currently are, and if that didnít stop, then we would get there.

    As for the past, anytime we have icecaps at the poles, it is considered to be a glacial period on earth, so yeah, we are in a cold (relatively) phase currently. We are rapidly getting out of that phase, and more rapidly than has ever occurred before. That is 100% down to us (the human race) being here.

  10. Post
    Interesting read, 3 points though. It's 2019 and they are only just considering the challenge, and second I think the US is a in a far better position than us as they have more diverse energy generation (including nuclear).

    Last point, pointed out is cars sit around unused a lot. Which is far. But cars do not sit around in the same place, and they do not sit for a continuous 21 hour period. They are used and moved intermittently through they day. To achieve their ideal of charging infrastructure would need to more than 1:1, maybe 3:1 or 4:1, which is significant. I also wonder how batteries handle irregular non-full charging?

  11. Post
    Yeah, it wasn’t a solution article, just one that talks about things you have mentioned, so I figured it would be of interest.

    Regarding the idle time, it’s all down to having charge points everywhere. Attached to every parking metre, every spot in the supermarket etc. As for part charging, I understand it’s much like your cellphone in that it’s actually good for them to get all sorts of charging.

  12. Post
    I think that charging everywhere solution will disappear once they get a decent range... if hydrogen cells take over

  13. Post
    The company I used to work for was backing hydrogen as the better option, and had even created a hydrogen filling station in Vienna to get it going a bit. The tech does seem better, but I don’t have much knowledge about it tbh. I guess it will go like the electric cars that first came out in the 80s but then went away. Not until a few companies to dedicate themselves and get the vehicles to market and the filling stations available, will it become a viable option.

  14. Post
    For KiwiTT. NY State trying to get things done by 2030. Bold, but good on them for getting moving.

    New NY Senate Bill S2878B

    "..NY State to become GHG emissions neutral by 2030 by transitioning from a fossil fuel-based economy to one based on 100% clean renewable energy"
    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s2878
    http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...WSEnPolicy.pdf

  15. Post
    Is NZ ready - https://www.thebigq.org/2019/03/13/q...o-carbon-zero/
    EC: Thinking about how jobs can be affected by these things – there are obviously a lot of people who are employed by oil and gas, all of these industries and there is some discussion that introducing renewables into a country will promote a lot of jobs. What is your perspective on that?

    NW: Certainly, in the short term there will be some job losses and some pain for some geographical regions. For example, if the policy causes an industry to disappear it could be quite sometime before those people are employed elsewhere. We have seen that in the past with New Zealand. If we go back to 1997 when New Zealand removed its tariff on automobiles, the automobile assemblies went away virtually overnight. Those people, however, do not stay unemployed forever, perhaps they need to move away geographically, find a job in another industry, and when you think about what is happening over generations, well you don’t get young people going into those jobs as they have been shut down. So with any policy that sort of shuts down or curtails an industry there is going to be some short-term losses.

    Could there be long term gains? Well that depends. Certainly, if you move towards renewable energy then people will get jobs in that industry. If New Zealand became a global leader in renewable energy technology, that could be a new export sector for New Zealand that provides additional jobs that wouldn’t have been there in the absence of the policy. So I think it is about acknowledging the short-term costs that are going to occur to some individuals and some regions of New Zealand and doing the best to mitigate those through things like relocation programs and education and training programs.
    This is typical academic talk.

    What happens in the real world is we develop technology and get it manufactured in another country, like China or India where Labour is cheaper.

    This has been the business model for the last few decades, so that is unlikely to change.
    Last edited by KiwiTT; 17th March 2019 at 11:23 am.

  16. Post
    Italian energy giant ENI to aim for net zero by 2030. Will plant a Forrest 4 times the size of Wales in Africa.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/7c4d944e-...8-96a37d002cd3

  17. Post
    It seems the latest UN report says virtually no progress since 2016. At this rate, I have to wonder why scientists were not more alarmist decades ago. ... oh wait! ... They did in the 1992 science warning.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. Post
    I read a worrying thing in the book Code Red written in 2008 - The Greenland Ireland is rising 4cm a year, because the weight of the ice is reducing due to melting. I can imagine this rate may now be much higher more than 10 years later.

  19. Post
    I see most of Europe has bailed on their 2050 targets, maybe bradc needs to go tell them off.

  20. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I read a worrying thing in the book Code Red written in 2008 - The Greenland Ireland is rising 4cm a year, because the weight of the ice is reducing due to melting. I can imagine this rate may now be much higher more than 10 years later.
    Not sure about 4cm/year, but isostacy is most certainly a thing. My old tectonics professor had pioneered work on it from Canada in the 70’s and 80’s, All of the many thousands of lakes are there representative of the old ‘Laurentide ice sheet’ that covered North America during the last ice age. The whole central and NE of Canada is tilting back upwards because of the ice unloading a few thousand years ago. But it moves more like the speed that glass moves in your window pane. I’ll have to look into that 4cm/year claim, because that would be up with the fastest moving tectonic plates anywhere in the world.
    Name:  5186B0E2-32D9-426E-B38F-85AB6481E2A1.jpeg
Views: 79
Size:  22.1 KB

    -edit-, ok looks like those rates are possible in the initial phases of ice loss due to elastic crust rebound, prior to the mantle flow back under the crust which occurs much slower. (If that’s not too technical).

    Wiki has a good (but quite technical) page on it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
    Last edited by gneiss; 23rd March 2019 at 2:40 pm.

  21. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    I see most of Europe has bailed on their 2050 targets, maybe bradc needs to go tell them off.
    link?

  22. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    link?
    Just google Europe climate goal 2050 decision postponed.

  23. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Just google Europe climate goal 2050 decision postponed.
    To discover that the Washington Post has used a catchy headline to quite misleadingly describe what could otherwise be summed up with "no one said anything about something no one had stated they'd state anything about, right after a meeting that funnily enough was 90% Brexit"?

  24. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    I see most of Europe has bailed on their 2050 targets, maybe bradc needs to go tell them off.
    I'm too busy making childish posts in here. What's needed is a really smart, level headed objective type, so intelligent they're beyond the limitations and blinkered thinking of a University education and peer reviewer study, to set the record straight. That person would also be emotionally unflappable, and beyond taking things personally.