Climate Change: the costs of doing nothing
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
Sometimes in history there are better sides. Even when accounting for the victor writing the tale.
And everyone always believes they’re on the better side, even the truly evil people. An understanding of that might result in an ounce of humility(because guess what, you just might be the bad guy) when it come to discussing how terrible all the people are on the other side and how great your side is
Last edited:
I just believe that there is more to Climate Change than the current knee jerk reaction. But anyone who what to open the the conversation alternate theorues and to additional scientific evidence, is branded a Climate Denier.
Knowing what 'additional scientific evidence' you add to the equation…
What else conclusion could they come to besides climate denier.
the earth is not static, it is constantly changing; erosion, volcano, earthquakes, plate tectonics, the axis tilt, one revolution is no exactly 24 hours, the earth orbit around the sun is not exactly 365 days(ie. leap yesr), solar sun spots, the earth's magnetic field. polar inversion, mother nature, its happened before...
its more like Climate Shift.
You must be able to recognize that while all of the things you mentioned are legitimate occurrences with extremely large time scales, that there has also been man-made effect on the climate which has occurred on a much quicker time scale. If you don’t think that man can change the climate and in a quick manner I encourage you to go look at the history of the Aral Sea in Russia since 1960 when the Soviets decided to divert water from there. Carbon Emissions are just environmental detriments on a much more distributed and much larger scale.
100 years of of temperature analysis is a pretty small sample for a planet that is several million year old.
Would it impact your opinion if I let you know that the earth was > 4 billion years old, rather than millions?
How about if scientists have millions of years of data, not 100? The thermometer was invented in the late 1500/early 1600s, so even if we just looked at direct human observations of thermometers you were off by an order of magnitude. Let alone proxy data.
May I suggest that there may be gaps in your knowledge and the subject matter experts know some things you don't?
In the alternative, if you really are up to speed and have data or analysis they missed, go forth and publish. Science depends on disproving theories to advance our knowledge base. A Nobel Prize comes with a healthy check and I bet various industries would be happy to fund the research.
This is why people don't take these discussions very seriously. Additional data doesn't seem to have an impact. Being demonstrably wrong doesn't seem to shake confidence. But, what the hell... lets use the analogy as a learning opportunity.
Yes. I, and every other investor, regularly make major investments in stocks without being fully aware of all of that entity's activity. Dupont, JP Morgan Chase, and Cigna are each over 200 years old. No one is pulling P&L or BS data from the 1800's (or even the 1990s) when evaluating those stocks. Such data is very unlikely to meaningfully impact what the investor is trying to accomplish. If one required perfect to data to reach a conclusion, essentially no conclusion would ever be reached.
Climate data goes back millions of years, covering the period of time we are primarily interested in (the ecosystem that sustains human life). The data illustrates a trend of rising and falling CO2 levels every ~75,000 years or so (from ~180ppm to ~290ppm), which correlates nearly perfectly with a trend of rising and falling temperature, even when corrected for external forces (evidence of volcanic activities, significant impacts, know solar patterns). This trend is observed in detail using direct Co2 measurements going back ~800,000 years. Even if we ignore other data going back millions of years, the correlation is near perfect for 10 cycles, both up and down.
Then, correlating with the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels shot up to levels never seen in the available data. In the last 200 years levels shot up more than the previous 20,000 years combined. Higher and faster than at any time in the last ~million years. As indicated by all other available data, temperature began to rise as CO2 began to rise. We can also observe this affect on Venus, and in laboratory tests, and through modeling. A huge number of disciplines looking at a wide variety of data all reached the same conclusion. There are essentially no outliers to explain.
Is it possible something else explains it? Sure. It's always possible. Gravity might not be 9.8m/s^2, light speed might not be 300,000m/s (yes I rounded)... but unless someone presents compelling evidence to the contrary, it is wise to act on the best available data when experts reach a consensus.
Here, lets try an example:
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
I brush poison ivy plant, I get a rash. I put on cortisone cream, it stops itching. It heals after a month.
That's 10 cycles. Eventually, a consensus is reach that poison ivy causes itching, and the cortisone cream stops it from itching, it will heal after a month or so, and the cycle will repeat if I come in contact with poison ivy again. Basically everyone who studied the mystery itching understands what's going on. But some people will still run into the poison ivy patch and shout "it could be something else!" They don't have another explanation or any data and can't articulate why the consensus is wrong, but they don't like it. So they just keep shouting and trying to get everyone else to run into the poison ivy with them.
Don't be that guy.
/used lunch wisely?
Nice effort, but he refuses to understand it, no matter how simplistic of terms to which you pare down your explanation. He'll continue stating the same arguments till he dies.
Still gyrate between him being a troll and just a blazing pile of idiot. The only reason I even think that is cuz I can't believe somebody could be that bloody f'kin stupid. Proved by his last answer to JesseTU.
this is the problem today. there is no room for a different opinion. its my way or the highway. group think.
This is not opinion, it's fact. But you think it's all opinion. You have no ability to differentiate between fact and opinion. At cause, you are stubborn, and your brain just does not have the ability to distinguish between the two.
Dunning Kruger effect.
no. There are other scientific FACTS that also contribute to GW that just dont fit the narrative, that human progress is the sole source of the problem.
No there are not, and you just can't see that. The only people that would disagree are Shon & Rippen for the most part, and that should tell you something right there.
Lawpoke, TUME, Myself, redskin, aston, watu, Clong, Jesse, cmullins, and a number 📱 of others all agree that climate change is a real issue caused by man. They just have different opinions on what needs to happen to combat it.
Those people span from left to right on political stance. Educated people on this board agree on the fact that climate change has been accelerated massively by human activity since the industrial revolution. There is no logical denial of this scientific fact. It doesn't matter what bs you hear from Alex Jones and the like. That is not science, and most educated people realize that.
Who is Alex Jones?
our approach to cc reminds me of the programming cartoon where the manager tells his team
" you all start writing code. while I go find out what the customer wants"
i agree that climate change is real. I do not subscribe the the assertion that its all humans fault, and the knee jerk reaction to fix it. everyone driving an electric car will not fix the problem.
Just like this board, if you do not totally accept their premise, their response switches from facts and data to personal attacks.
our approach to cc reminds me of the programming cartoon where the manager tells his team
" you all start writing code. while I go find out what the customer wants"
i agree that climate change is real. I do not subscribe the the assertion that its all humans fault, and the knee jerk reaction to fix it. everyone driving an electric car will not fix the problem.
Just like this board, if you do not totally accept their premise, their response switches from facts and data to personal attacks.
Last edited:
Humans knew the Earth was round before the scientific method was a thing.
The scientific method was instrumental in supplanting the earth-centric model of the universe.
The definition of planet was changed by the IAU (science didn't get a conclusion wrong).
But I can assure you that science does get things wrong. That's the entire point of the scientific method, our understandings need to be compared to new ideas and new data and discarded or updated as required. It's hard to admit ones ideas are wrong, so scientists make a living disproving each other. When they all coalesce on a conclusion, it's exceedingly rare for it to be proven wrong.
If you have data or alternate theories that the scientists of Earth have missed, please present it. There are enormous incentives for any scientist (or coal company, oil company, foundry, shipping conglomerate, coastal city, the military, etc.) to disprove the conclusions about climate change. You said you want to stick to facts and data, lets have at it!
lets assume everyone switches to electric cars. what is the impact on the environment to manufacture all those batteries. how do you dispose of the warn out batteries without damaging the environment. seems like electric cars are only eco-friendly when driven.
for the second year in a row, Dallas is having lower than normal temp and more snow.
Global Warming?
Global Warming?
Sea levels are rising faster than predicted: study
New research suggests sea level increases with only a 0.5 degree Celsius temperature change.
thehill.com
They are still licensed for 10+ years. That's plenty of time to get things straightened out. Accounting for flooding that close to the coast might stop it from becoming another Fukushima.
Yes I’m sure the group named Beyond Nuclear had real concerns about the reactor being flooded by sea level rise rather than just flinging a bunch of 
at the wall to shut down a reactor and hoping it would stick
at the wall to shut down a reactor and hoping it would stickNot saying Beyond Nuclear's motives were good. Just saying that might be a real risk and they have 10 years to get it straightened out.Yes I’m sure the group named Beyond Nuclear had real concerns about the reactor being flooded by sea level rise rather than just flinging a bunch of
UN climate report: 'Atlas of human suffering' worse, bigger
A new United Nations report on how climate change harms people and the environment reads like an atlas of human and planetary suffering.
apnews.com
what good is it if we wreck our economy and becone dependent on Russian oil, if places like china and Russia dont .
Last edited:
the gov is going to install nationwide auto charging stations. why? is the gov getting into the charging business? how many gas stations have they ever built.
Is the government in the road business? They’ve certainly subsidized a lot of it’s construction.
