Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

The debate is over: The oceans are in hot, hot water

Page 3 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

30 Jan 2019, 2:49 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Yeah, what do NASA climate scientists really know anyway? They must be a bunch of prognosticating liberal shills for Big Climate Paranoia. :lol:


The actual conservative course of action here is to play it safe & invest in energy sources with fewer means of killing us. Unfortunately we don't actually have conservatives in politics anymore, only neo-conservatives.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

30 Jan 2019, 3:16 pm

cberg wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Yeah, what do NASA climate scientists really know anyway? They must be a bunch of prognosticating liberal shills for Big Climate Paranoia. :lol:


The actual conservative course of action here is to play it safe & invest in energy sources with fewer means of killing us. Unfortunately we don't actually have conservatives in politics anymore, only neo-conservatives.


That's what I don't understand--for capitalists, there's so much money to be made in developing renewable energy tech. Coal, oil, and gas giants will just continue hemmoraging money if they don't switch over to renewable energy, but they buck it as long as they can to try to squeeze every last drop out of the earth via dangerous and very dirty methods like fracking. Logically, logistically, it just makes no sense--it seems to come from an emotional place of a refusal to change rather than a logical desire to keep growing their business in a sustainable way into the future. It's nonsensical and shortsighted even in the purest capitalist terms.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

30 Jan 2019, 3:19 pm

Fossil fuel has done a lot in terms of advancing society but it's outmoded now outside of the developing world. China of all places is probably cutting back on coal faster than the U.S. now, partly because Trump decided black lung is just such a patriotic illness.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

30 Jan 2019, 3:33 pm

cberg wrote:
Fossil fuel has done a lot in terms of advancing society but it's outmoded now outside of the developing world. China of all places is probably cutting back on coal faster than the U.S. now, partly because Trump decided black lung is just such a patriotic illness.


It just makes no sense because those are finite resources that are more and more difficult to get out of the ground the more the sources dwindle, meanwhile sunlight and wind and water power are virtually inexhaustible by comparison (as long as there are human beings on earth there will be sun and wind and flowing rivers, and don't even get me started on geothermal energy), yet here we are still trying to eek out every last bit of the finite non-renewables because...well, I don't really know what the rationale is so I can't state it here.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

30 Jan 2019, 3:37 pm

This is not a political problem, it's a geoengineering problem.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

30 Jan 2019, 3:41 pm

cberg wrote:
This is not a political problem, it's a geoengineering problem.


I think there is a political, or at least an emotional/psychological component, to the resistance to develop renewable energy tech. There are lots of engineers in the world who could do the research and development necessary, if companies were willing to pay them more money for that than they are willing to pay for new fracking techniques. If there weren't some psychological lack of foresight going on in those with the money to fund the R&D then it would be happening at a much faster pace, don't you think?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

30 Jan 2019, 4:06 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Is NASA predicting the end of the world in a few years? And NASA isn't infallible based on my serch for "times nasa was wrong".


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

That is what NASA predicts, spelled out very clearly in the link I already provided to their site on climate change science.


That was a rhetorical question used to make a point, as the obvious answer is no.

Oh OK, so what you're saying is there is no evidence from any source that you will be willing to consider as credible, including your own country's climate scientists. Cool cool cool, as my favourite character from Community likes to say.


What I'm saying is that NASA isn't predicting that the world is coming to an end in a few years.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

30 Jan 2019, 4:12 pm

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Is NASA predicting the end of the world in a few years? And NASA isn't infallible based on my serch for "times nasa was wrong".


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

That is what NASA predicts, spelled out very clearly in the link I already provided to their site on climate change science.


That was a rhetorical question used to make a point, as the obvious answer is no.

Oh OK, so what you're saying is there is no evidence from any source that you will be willing to consider as credible, including your own country's climate scientists. Cool cool cool, as my favourite character from Community likes to say.


What I'm saying is that NASA isn't predicting that the world is coming to an end in a few years.


Who is saying that, other than the hysterical liberals in your mind? I don't see any climate scientists saying the world is going to end tomorrow, just that humans are impacting climate change and we are approaching a tipping point at which we won't be able any longer to halt the effects we're having so before we hit that tipping point we should probably be making an effort to lessen the effect we're having by making small incremental changes in our own lives in what we consume and how we consume it. I don't understand why this is so hard to believe when so many scientists who do study this stuff agree on that much.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

30 Jan 2019, 4:29 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Is NASA predicting the end of the world in a few years? And NASA isn't infallible based on my serch for "times nasa was wrong".


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

That is what NASA predicts, spelled out very clearly in the link I already provided to their site on climate change science.


That was a rhetorical question used to make a point, as the obvious answer is no.

Oh OK, so what you're saying is there is no evidence from any source that you will be willing to consider as credible, including your own country's climate scientists. Cool cool cool, as my favourite character from Community likes to say.


What I'm saying is that NASA isn't predicting that the world is coming to an end in a few years.


Who is saying that, other than the hysterical liberals in your mind? I don't see any climate scientists saying the world is going to end tomorrow, just that humans are impacting climate change and we are approaching a tipping point at which we won't be able any longer to halt the effects we're having so before we hit that tipping point we should probably be making an effort to lessen the effect we're having by making small incremental changes in our own lives in what we consume and how we consume it. I don't understand why this is so hard to believe when so many scientists who do study this stuff agree on that much.


There are those who talk about a global climate apocalypse taking place within the next 20-30 years. There was a thread about that not long ago that you were not in. That's what a lot of people are arguing against. It gets taken as denying that climate change exists, when it's really doubting that the situation is that extreme.

As I brought up in another thread, scientists themselves challenge and dispute scientific theories and conclusions all the time. That's not anti-science, it's a part of science.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

30 Jan 2019, 4:38 pm

There is no such thing as infallible science & demanding it until you suffocate from heat exhaustion won't get us anywhere. Satellites are pretty well calibrated though, Hubble was a wake up call to aerospace manufacturers.

Now that the government is temporarily functional, check out science on a sphere:
https://sos.noaa.gov/What_is_SOS/


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

30 Jan 2019, 4:43 pm

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Is NASA predicting the end of the world in a few years? And NASA isn't infallible based on my serch for "times nasa was wrong".


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

That is what NASA predicts, spelled out very clearly in the link I already provided to their site on climate change science.


That was a rhetorical question used to make a point, as the obvious answer is no.

Oh OK, so what you're saying is there is no evidence from any source that you will be willing to consider as credible, including your own country's climate scientists. Cool cool cool, as my favourite character from Community likes to say.


What I'm saying is that NASA isn't predicting that the world is coming to an end in a few years.


Who is saying that, other than the hysterical liberals in your mind? I don't see any climate scientists saying the world is going to end tomorrow, just that humans are impacting climate change and we are approaching a tipping point at which we won't be able any longer to halt the effects we're having so before we hit that tipping point we should probably be making an effort to lessen the effect we're having by making small incremental changes in our own lives in what we consume and how we consume it. I don't understand why this is so hard to believe when so many scientists who do study this stuff agree on that much.


There are those who talk about a global climate apocalypse taking place within the next 20-30 years. There was a thread about that not long ago that you were not in. That's what a lot of people are arguing against. It gets taken as denying that climate change exists, when it's really doubting that the situation is that extreme.

As I brought up in another thread, scientists themselves challenge and dispute scientific theories and conclusions all the time. That's not anti-science, it's a part of science.


So what you're saying is you're carrying on another argument from another thread to me for some reason, even though I am not making the points that the person you were arguing with in another thread I didn't participate in was making. How is that logical, to argue to me against points I never made? If you disagree with that conclusion that an apocalypse is imminent, how about you argue against that point in that thread and not against me since I'm not making that point and I didn't participate in that thread.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

30 Jan 2019, 4:46 pm

cberg wrote:
There is no such thing as infallible science & demanding it until you suffocate from heat exhaustion won't get us anywhere. Satellites are pretty well calibrated though, Hubble was a wake up call to aerospace manufacturers.

Now that the government is temporarily functional, check out science on a sphere:
https://sos.noaa.gov/What_is_SOS/


What's it supposed to be telling me?



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

30 Jan 2019, 4:50 pm

It's timestamped, animated 3D data on the entire world. Ocean currents, jetstream data, seismic events, anything you can plot on a globe is available straight from some very large supercomputers in case you feel like fact-checking or making your own hypothesis regarding the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere or logging of human activities.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

30 Jan 2019, 4:58 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Is NASA predicting the end of the world in a few years? And NASA isn't infallible based on my serch for "times nasa was wrong".


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

That is what NASA predicts, spelled out very clearly in the link I already provided to their site on climate change science.


That was a rhetorical question used to make a point, as the obvious answer is no.

Oh OK, so what you're saying is there is no evidence from any source that you will be willing to consider as credible, including your own country's climate scientists. Cool cool cool, as my favourite character from Community likes to say.


What I'm saying is that NASA isn't predicting that the world is coming to an end in a few years.


Who is saying that, other than the hysterical liberals in your mind? I don't see any climate scientists saying the world is going to end tomorrow, just that humans are impacting climate change and we are approaching a tipping point at which we won't be able any longer to halt the effects we're having so before we hit that tipping point we should probably be making an effort to lessen the effect we're having by making small incremental changes in our own lives in what we consume and how we consume it. I don't understand why this is so hard to believe when so many scientists who do study this stuff agree on that much.


There are those who talk about a global climate apocalypse taking place within the next 20-30 years. There was a thread about that not long ago that you were not in. That's what a lot of people are arguing against. It gets taken as denying that climate change exists, when it's really doubting that the situation is that extreme.

As I brought up in another thread, scientists themselves challenge and dispute scientific theories and conclusions all the time. That's not anti-science, it's a part of science.


So what you're saying is you're carrying on another argument from another thread to me for some reason, even though I am not making the points that the person you were arguing with in another thread I didn't participate in was making. How is that logical, to argue to me against points I never made? If you disagree with that conclusion that an apocalypse is imminent, how about you argue against that point in that thread and not against me since I'm not making that point and I didn't participate in that thread.


There are two schools of thought in the climate change debates that have taken place on WP. Those who are saying that the world is coming to an end in short order and those who are saying it's not that bad. The OP belongs to the former school of thought. I tend to discuss the overall consensus of the general public at large and school A vs school B in matters like this, rather than address people on an individual personal level.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

30 Jan 2019, 5:03 pm

cberg wrote:
It's timestamped, animated 3D data on the entire world. Ocean currents, jetstream data, seismic events, anything you can plot on a globe is available straight from some very large supercomputers in case you feel like fact-checking or making your own hypothesis regarding the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere or logging of human activities.


I see a time lapse that's ruining through all the months over and over while the date remains 2007, but I don't get what that's supposed to be telling me.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

30 Jan 2019, 5:09 pm

Well do some Googling, I'm at work so I can't dig around for data but I know it's a huge project with tons of datasets. There's a hardware installation using 3 or 4 projectors on a spherical screen at NIST, using a bunch of National Center for Atmospheric Research data. We can compute literally anything that happens on this planet.

There are too many climate scientists in my city to ignore. They're not crackpots waving cardboard doomsday signs.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen: