The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As far as geoengineering is concerned, they are playing with an organic system.  You mess around with it in one place and bad things happen someplace else.  This is so fraught with risk, one wonders if they dare.

 

Along these lines here is a report on the oncoming drought.

 

The time to start appropriations and engineering for desalination stations along the coast of California is now.

[hym 358]

Okay, this is news to me. Got a link?

 

I have a few: TED Talk, BBC article, Boston Globe (the most recent and probably up-to-date of them all).

 

Finally, there is a page from Ambri, the company that was developed to commercialize this batteries.  If you look at the part where it talks about the system, it mentions the battery has enough power output for 1MW.  This is important because the utility world moves in 1MW increments, so a 1MW battery can actually be tested in the real world grid environment, and they are looking to do utility testing in Hawaii and the New England area.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Here is an example of how spin in the press can mislead you.  http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761

 

 

The resulting droplets of sulphuric acid that formed on contact with moisture reflected incoming sunlight back out into space, preventing that radiation from warming the surface.

 

Doesn't work with ordinary water.  There is one Oxygen atom short.  H₂O + SO₂ => H₂SO₃ (Sulphurous Acid)  Whereas, Sulphuric Acid (H₂SO₄) needs to acquire an additional Oxygen from somewhere.l  Probably from the Ozone layer or perhaps ambient Hydrogen Peroxide which is what you would get if Ozone were dissolved in water.  The statement is ambiguous at best, and ignorant at worst.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Here's to the city of Boston,

The home of the bean and the cod.

Where the Cabots speak only to Lowells;

And the Lowells speak only to God.

[Duke87 1,070]

What do you think about Obama using geo-engineering to create polar vortexes?

 

Look at the date that article was published. This is not a real story.

 

 

I have a few: TED Talk, BBC article, Boston Globe (the most recent and probably up-to-date of them all).

 

Finally, there is a page from Ambri, the company that was developed to commercialize this batteries.

 

Oh wow. Liquid metal. Well then! Will certainly be a game changer if they can make something out of this.

 

 

 

Here is an example of how spin in the press can mislead you.  http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761

 

 

The resulting droplets of sulphuric acid that formed on contact with moisture reflected incoming sunlight back out into space, preventing that radiation from warming the surface.

 

Doesn't work with ordinary water.  There is one Oxygen atom short.  H₂O + SO₂ => H₂SO₃ (Sulphurous Acid)  Whereas, Sulphuric Acid (H₂SO₄) needs to acquire an additional Oxygen from somewhere.l  Probably from the Ozone layer or perhaps ambient Hydrogen Peroxide which is what you would get if Ozone were dissolved in water.

 

Or just ordinary oxygen:

 

O₂ + 2H₂O + 2SO₂ → 2H₂SO₄

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

<snip>

 

 

Here is an example of how spin in the press can mislead you.  http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761

 

 

The resulting droplets of sulphuric acid that formed on contact with moisture reflected incoming sunlight back out into space, preventing that radiation from warming the surface.

 

Doesn't work with ordinary water.  There is one Oxygen atom short.  H₂O + SO₂ => H₂SO₃ (Sulphurous Acid)  Whereas, Sulphuric Acid (H₂SO₄) needs to acquire an additional Oxygen from somewhere.l  Probably from the Ozone layer or perhaps ambient Hydrogen Peroxide which is what you would get if Ozone were dissolved in water.

 

Or just ordinary oxygen:

 

O₂ + 2H₂O + 2SO₂ → 2H₂SO₄

 

 

Will this work without having things in an excited state?  Doesn't seem like it would work at NTP.  However, there is lots of Ozone in the upper atmosphere to say nothing of the cosmic rays zipping by.

[Duke87 1,070]

Will this work without having things in an excited state?  Doesn't seem like it would work at NTP.  However, there is lots of Ozone in the upper atmosphere to say nothing of the cosmic rays zipping by.

 

That formula is a slight over simplification since really it's a multi step process. But yes, those are the components.

 

Here's one page that explains it.

Here's another that shows an alternate method.

 

(side note: what is it with university professors making webpages in the late 90s and never updating them?)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Softening the blow.

 

Note that these data are for 2009-2010.  128mm = 5.0393701 inches which is getting close to half a foot.

 

NOAA reports the annual rise in mean sea level is 3mm.  This implies that 2010-2014 (5 years) that the rise is 15 mm on the average, but the actuality depends on the coast conformation.  15mm = 0.59055118 inches or somewhat more than half and inch.

 

Doesn't seem like much, but this is what is happening now, and if there is much more of this, some marginal coast lines such as the Florida everglades, New Orleans, and Galveston Island are going to be in real trouble.

[CapTon 592]

Global cooling in the seventies. Global warming in 00's. Climate change in the 10's. Wonder what's next.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Global cooling in the seventies. Global warming in 00's. Climate change in the 10's. Wonder what's next.

It has always been about climate change. Global warming or global cooling are just examples of climate change. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

Most of the eastern US has been engulfed in record cold temperatures:

 

Typical 'Murican conservative:  "So much for global warming, hah!  Take that, Al Bore!"

 

Idiots.  Only thing they can't do is find a way to blame it on their favorite [usually] unrelated scapegoat, fellow idiot Obama.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

People don't understand that the main effect of the earth warming up is more severe weather.  The atmosphere is a heat engine.  The warmer oceans evaporate more moisture into the air, enabling the engine to run "hotter".  Water vapour and sunlight are the fuels, so you were expecting palm trees?  What we are getting is the expected set of Atlantic and Pacific storms that are more severe and increasingly so.

[CapTon 592]

Climate change is natural. Not only can we not change how powerful or effective it is, but we don't contribute to it. Man-made climate change doesn't exist. And major climate change events occur thousands of years apart. We are far from any climate change-related catastrophic event.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It depends on your definition of cat's ass trophy.  As you say, I don't expect a world wide problem will arise, but local phenomena will be blasted out of proportion by the media for no reason other than to sell the news and the advertising that goes with it.

 

However, I am expecting there will be considerable flooding on both coasts of North America as a result of the summer storms in 2015.  We have had ample warning, but what measures have been taken?  Who knows?  I don't think much will happen on the east coast unless the Boston Common is underwater.  Lower Manhattan will probably get drowned again.

 

L.A. the water deprived, will probably get more non-potable water than they anticipate.  Of course everyone will want to point fingers at El Niño, but why not.  El Niño is a Spanish reference to the Baby Jesus, and this will surely be an Act of God as far as the insurers are concerned.

 

Cyclones across the Pacific will be more severe.  Low lying islands in the Philippines may be awash or even washed away.  Preparations there seem to have been better than in the past.

 

In the Indian Ocean, I expect severe flooding in Bangladesh which could easily result in a migration towards higher ground in China and Pakistan which will be, undoubtedly, forcefully resisted.

[CapTon 592]

The east coast of the United States hasn't seen a significant hurricane since Sandy, and that was three years ago. Come to think of it, did a hurricane or tropical storm even roll through last year?

I do agree with you about the media. They have definitely hyped up climate change and have blown its effects completely out of proportion.

[Sabretooth78 808]

We won't do anything about it; it's far more politically expedient and divisive to continue arguing over causes rather than debate what we can do to counter and/or adapt.  Things which don't care about the cause.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

How many deaths and injuries, to say nothing of monetary loss will it take for the sheeple to wake up to the fact the their politicians don't care?

[CapTon 592]

Politicians just care about the dough. If they gave a crap about the people they were representing, the United States wouldn't have a floundering economy and many other issues.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Climate change is natural. Not only can we not change how powerful or effective it is, but we don't contribute to it. Man-made climate change doesn't exist. And major climate change events occur thousands of years apart. We are far from any climate change-related catastrophic event.

No, it is man made in this case, the science on this is as close to absolute as science can get. 

 

And far from any climate change related catastrophic event? Well yeah, if you don't think the imminent draught in California is a catastrophic event. Or the fact that much of the midwest will turn into a infertile desert.

 

Look, even if you think the scientists are wrong (and mind you, that are 97 out of every 100 scientist that you are disagreeing with here) why would it hurt to take action? In the best case scenario, you were right, nothing was about to happen, and our panicking was unnecessary. But it did result in an economy driven by sustainability and powered by virtually infinite energy sources. The air is clean and breathable, and huge swats of nature are saved, resulting in a stop to the loss of biodiversity. Aren't those good things, regardless of climate change?  

[CapTon 592]

 

Climate change is natural. Not only can we not change how powerful or effective it is, but we don't contribute to it. Man-made climate change doesn't exist. And major climate change events occur thousands of years apart. We are far from any climate change-related catastrophic event.

No, it is man made in this case, the science on this is as close to absolute as science can get. 

 

And far from any climate change related catastrophic event? Well yeah, if you don't think the imminent draught in California is a catastrophic event. Or the fact that much of the midwest will turn into a infertile desert.

 

Look, even if you think the scientists are wrong (and mind you, that are 97 out of every 100 scientist that you are disagreeing with here) why would it hurt to take action? In the best case scenario, you were right, nothing was about to happen, and our panicking was unnecessary. But it did result in an economy driven by sustainability and powered by virtually infinite energy sources. The air is clean and breathable, and huge swats of nature are saved, resulting in a stop to the loss of biodiversity. Aren't those good things, regardless of climate change?  

 

If I'm right, and yet we still wasted money, time, and resources on this, that would only increase our debt and worsen our economy. Right now, we need to be focusing on shrinking the debt and ramping our economy back up, not climate change, which we can't necessarily prove is actually happening right now.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you want to fix your economy, you first have to fix your national legislature.  All those returning incumbents form what might be called a "rotten borough" of chair warmers who do as little as possible to stay in their comfy chair.  Congress needs a good shaking as to the two (only two?) parties that are both of the same stripe and of very slight differences except for the party symbols: on is an ass and the other takes so long to produce anything, it isn't worth the wait.

 

Only a voter revolt will fix this, and you are getting your chance next year.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If I'm right, and yet we still wasted money, time, and resources on this, that would only increase our debt and worsen our economy. Right now, we need to be focusing on shrinking the debt and ramping our economy back up, not climate change, which we can't necessarily prove is actually happening right now.

 

How would it worsen the American economy? It would transform the economy, sure, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. America transformed its economy from a industrial production based economy to a service based economy in the past few decades as well. So why invest over and over in what will, inevitably become obsolete industries? Make no mistake, the American economy will be transformed to a greener one at some point, that change will come. The only difference, the only choice America has is whether it will try to lead that change from the front by being the first, or one of the first that does this, or whether it waits until the competition has done this and they have reached a significant economic and competitive advantage over the US. 

 

And that is assuming you are right. But currently we got all the expert saying you are not right. And what if you are wrong. What if 97 out of every 100 experts are indeed right? Suddenly you are no longer wasting money time and resources, but appropriately spending it to prevent or counter the effects of climate change. 

 

Look, if you got 97 doctors telling you you have lung cancer, and only 3 doctors telling you its just a cough (also, those 3 doctors are on the payroll of the cough medicine industry and they never actually finished medical school) would you not decide that maybe you should go to the hospital for treatment against cancer, rather than take cough medicine?  Or do you say that getting cancer treatment is a waste of time and money in the unlikely event those 3 frauds turn out to be right?

 

And yes, we have proven beyond a doubt that climate change is happening. 

 

As for the national debt, that is irrelevant. Investing in a sustainable future does not necessarily mean more debt. 

[CapTon 592]

So you're saying that any scientist that doesn't believe climate change is happening is someone that never finished college and is on payroll? That's a bold assumption. Would love to see you try and back that one up.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

So you're saying that any scientist that doesn't believe climate change is happening is someone that never finished college and is on payroll? That's a bold assumption. Would love to see you try and back that one up.

Now, now, boys.  This is getting a little far fetched.  There is no doubt that climate change is in the works.  It always is, one way or another.  The most obvious changes going on right now are the warming of the oceans and the apparent warm up in the Arctic which is clearly indicated by the Greenland Ice Pack melt, and the migration of Orcas into the warming waters around Alaska's northern coast,  Further evidence is the shore dwelling polar bears who are waiting for the freeze up so they can go out and catch the seals they normally prey on from the ice instead of hanging around garbage dumps of human settlements.

 

One could consider the severity of the cyclonic storms, especially in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as evidence that the seas are warmer and producing more energy by evaporation allowing such increases as we have seen.

 

One should never keep ones head in the place where the sun don't shine.

[Snugies 91]

More and more humans are burning solids (oil, coal) and are converting them into gases.....hmmm me thinks that may mean there's gonna be more gases?

[LexusInfernus 908]

So you're saying that any scientist that doesn't believe climate change is happening is someone that never finished college and is on payroll? That's a bold assumption. Would love to see you try and back that one up.

Gladly

 

here is one

 

Whats this? Entire networks of climate change denying NGO's are paid for by a bunch of millionaires

 

More of them

 

There is even a really good book about some of these 'scientists'

 

It is pretty safe to say that yes, from all the 'scientists' that deny climate change, a disproportionately large, statistically significant number of them are on the payroll of large corporations. This is a well documented fact. As for their actual academic merit, denying human caused climate change is pseudo science at this point. The fact that god knows how many of them commit fraud only proves how worthless their side is. 

 

And some of them really don't know their facts. This guy for example used to have a high ranking office post in the UK dealing with the environment and being an avid climate change denier. Is he a scientist? Nope, he's a bloody manager with an interest in history. So who should we trust, this guy or those 97 actual scientists? 

 

Or what about this guy?

 

And this guy? 

 

I think I've proven my point. Climate change deniers are pseudo scientists, often paid for by large corporations with a vested interest in pretending climate change isn't happening, and often not experts in any relevant fields. 

[Duke87 1,070]

What is with this absolute dichotomy between acceptance and denial? Is it not perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that climate change is a thing while still questioning particular details of it?

[CapTon 592]

I believe in natural climate change. No one will ever convince me that there is something considered human-caused climate change because it simply isn't real.

 

Scientists were saying for decades that because of the warming atmosphere, the sea levels would rise to the point that we'd all be underwater. And yet here we are. Now these scientists have changed their minds and are now saying that we'll be waiting another fifty years for that to happen

 

I'm not trying to offend or insult anyone, but I passionately believe in what I stand for, and no one is ever going to convince me that climate change is caused by humans.

[LexusInfernus 908]

What is with this absolute dichotomy between acceptance and denial? Is it not perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that climate change is a thing while still questioning particular details of it?

The absoluteness stems from the fact that we got overwhelming evidence that suggests humans are behind climate change and only minimal evidence that suggests otherwise. And most of that minimal evidence comes from frauds being paid by big corporations. 

 

On top of that, all it does is give cowardly politicians a chance to look the other way and wait until disaster strikes before they start doing something. And when that happens, humanity can look back and say that we have known about this problem literally for decades, that we saw it coming, that we got plenty of warnings, and we still did nothing. 

 

@CapTon, alright then, prove it. Show me the scientific evidence that supports your position that climate change isn't caused by humans. 

 

EDIT: ehh never mind. This discussion is pointless, lets just leave it before it turns into something nasty. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is some evidence that human waste products are indeed having some effects on the global ecology including the climate.  However, such a large and poorly understood system as the world's ecology cannot be easily changed simply because of the massive inertia.

 

It is pretty well established that no organism can long survive in an environment of its own waste.  Every fermentation vat proclaims this loud and clear when the yeast dies.  It is, perhaps, incumbent on us to clean up our act before all the pollution we have been creating catches up to us.  A few atmospheric disturbances are nothing to what could happen if nature really gets fed up with us as a species.  There have been a few instances of really nasty bacteria around, for example, that are immune to our best efforts to eradicate them.  Anybody for a really serious plague for which we have no immediate cure?  [ :kitty: I mean besides the large corporate outfits, of course. :kitty: ]